Isaiah 7:14 and the "Virgin Birth"

[BenjaminDaVinci]

14 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

So this passage has been quoted in Matthew in an attempt to support the virgin birth of Jesus. Now, people have tackled this semantically by pointing to the fact that the word “virgin” here is best translated “young woman”, and that’s correct: it’s the most natural translation.

But that’s not the issue.

Ahaz and Israel are in trouble since the armies of Judah are coming after them, so God recognises this and tells Ahaz to ask for a sign (v10, 11). Ahaz doesn’t want to ask for a sign because he doesn’t want to put God to the test (v12). So Isaiah does it for him and the sign is that a young woman/virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, who’s name is to be Immanuel (v14).

The issue here is basically this: the armies of Judah are coming after Ahaz/Israel, Ahaz needs help but doesn’t want to ask God for help or reassurance, and so Isaiah asks instead for reassurance and the sign that God will be with Israel against Judah is the sign (the pregnancy) of this young woman in verse 14, hence “Immanuel”, meaning “God with us”. But this child is born in chapter 8 (8:1-4) and “Immanuel” is then referred to since this birth entails that th Assyrians and their allies don’t attack Jerusalem (8:8-10). Isaiah then confirms this witness that it was a sign from God by affirming that his children are these “signs” and “object lessons” sent from God (8:18).

So my question is this: how does anybody account for this given that it’s not a prophecy about Jesus but about the son of Isaiah and his prophetess, namely, Immanuel?

 

[ReaderT]

While the Hebrew is ambiguous when translating the Hebrew word עלמה ("a young maiden”) , the Greek Septuagint (which predates the Masoretic Hebrew text by at least 400 years) says παρθένος (parthenos) which explicitly means “virgin”. Jesus and the New Testament Jews would have had access to the Septuagint and I believe it’s the version Jesus quotes from in the NT

 

[BenjaminDaVinci]

I don’t agree that Jesus would’ve only used the LXX, but that’s not the issue at play here. It’s specifically the context in Isaiah 7-8. What would you make of it?

 

[goout]

14 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

It also helps to broaden your concept of prophesy from that of “predicting the future facts” to the broader/fuller sense of prophesy. And I wish I had a little more time at the moment. But prophesy is not merely to predict the future events.

 

[Wesrock]

Types and typology.

Jesus is the archetype and ultimate fulfillment for these various Bibical promises which were prefigured in the Old Testament.

 

[Wesrock]

BenjaminDaVinci:

14 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

It also helps to broaden your concept of prophesy from that of “predicting the future facts” to the broader/fuller sense of prophesy. And I wish I had a little more time at the moment. But prophesy is not merely to predict the future events.

Yes, the type of prophecy you may read in the fantasy genre is not what’s going on with most Biblical interpretation.

 

[BenjaminDaVinci]

What’s the basis for saying that typology constitutes part of prophecy?

 

[ReaderT]

What’s the basis for saying that typology constitutes part of prophecy?

It’s actually a long-established mode of Biblical interpretation that’s been around for literally 2,000 years (for example Eusebius was talking about it in The History of the Church around 320 A.D.)

 

[BenjaminDaVinci]

I mean what’s the basis for saying that it’s a form of prophecy specifically within Judaism at the time of Christ and before then?

 

[Wesrock]

I mean what’s the basis for saying that it’s a form of prophecy specifically within Judaism at the time of Christ and before then?

That the Christian movement started in Jewish communities is in itself support that there existed Jews in the first century who approached Scripture in this way.

 

[Wesrock]

While not robust explanation of ancient exergetical methods, we do see some typological exegesis in the Pauline epistles.

Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1 Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1 Peter draws out a typology between the Flood and baptism.

1 Pet 3:20-21 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[BenjaminDaVinci]

I’m asking specifically for a consistent approach to passages like Isaiah 7-8 that look at it in a typological sense outside of the group of Hellenized Jews we call Christians. I’m not looking for a specific group of Hellenized Jews (Christians) who did this, since that wouldn’t actually help your position. Someone could look at and be like “ah well, they just innovated here and made up a distinctly different approach to exegesis in order to try and justify their position”.

 

[John_Martin]

I don’t agree that Jesus would’ve only used the LXX, but that’s not the issue at play here. It’s specifically the context in Isaiah 7-8. What would you make of it?

Jesus would have had the same mentality about meaning as the translators of the septuagint, he would not have had 21st century American skepticism.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m asking specifically for a consistent approach to passages like Isaiah 7-8 that look at it in a typological sense outside of the group of Hellenized Jews we call Christians. I’m not looking for a specific group of Hellenized Jews (Christians) who did this, since that wouldn’t actually help your position. Someone could look at and be like “ah well, they just innovated here and made up a distinctly different approach to exegesis in order to try and justify their position”.

That counter claim would only also be doctrinal, no? Do they have anything else? Paul himself was highly educated and also applied it to Jesus.

 

[ReaderT]

I mean what’s the basis for saying that it’s a form of prophecy specifically within Judaism at the time of Christ and before then?

“Form of prophecy specifically within Judaism at the time of Christ” - like Wesrock said, Paul himself (who was as devout a Jew as you could get: “circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews … a Pharisee” -Philippians 3:5) understood that the OT contained typological prophecies, and talked about them mostly in Hebrews (an epistle written to other devout Jews). One example coming to mind:

(Hebrews 13:11-12) The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

 

[Gorgias]

So my question is this: how does anybody account for this given that it’s not a prophecy about Jesus but about the son of Isaiah and his prophetess, namely, Immanuel?

Simple. Prophecy is multivalent: it applies not only to a situation in the time of the prophecy, but can apply to later situations, as well. St Cyril of Alexandria has this to say on the interpretation of prophecies:

The word of the holy prophets is always difficult to surmise. It is filled with hidden meanings and is pregnant with announcements of divine mysteries. . . . Those who want to expound these subtle matters must be diligent, I believe, to work in a logical way to thoroughly examine all of the symbols in the text to gain spiritual insight. First, the interpreter must determine the historical meaning and then interpret the spiritual meaning, in order for readers to derive benefit from every part of the text. The exposition must be clearly seen to be complete in every way.

(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah, Introduction, in McKinion, Isaiah 1-39, as quoted in Pitre’s A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament.)

 

[BenjaminDaVinci]

Simple. Prophecy is multivalent: it applies not only to a situation in the time of the prophecy, but can apply to later situations, as well. St Cyril of Alexandria has this to say on the interpretation of prophecies:

This is the very issue I have though. I’m not aware of any instances outside of the early Christian group (the first Hellenized Jewish Christians) where people exegete the Bible in such a way so as to have typological or double-fulfillment. And I also don’t think that it’s very useful at all since a whole raft of religions could become true at that point - it’s arbitrary it seems.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not aware of any instances outside of the early Christian group (the first Hellenized Jewish Christians) where people exegete the Bible in such a way so as to have typological or double-fulfillment.

No, that’s not true. I don’t have any examples on hand at the moment, but if you’ve done any readings into midrashic literature, you’ll see that they’re replete with exactly this kind of approach. Appreciating multiple readings is part of the Jewish tradition which Christianity inherits. After all, when the first Christians began interpreting OT prophecy in light of Jesus, the retort from Jewish scholars wasn’t “hey! you can’t do that with prophecy!”, but rather “hey! your interpretation is incorrect!”

a whole raft of religions could become true at that point

How so? We’re not arguing that “anything goes”, just that there are multiple levels of meaning in Scripture!

 

[Bithynian]

Hellenized Jewish Christians

I do want to caution that it’s important not to conflate these two distinct communities. Some Hellenised Jews comprised early Christians (probably a large proportion in the first century or so), but they were, on the whole, a distinct and legitimate representation of the diverse spectrum of Jewish theology in the late Hellenistic period (i.e. 3rd century BC to 3rd century AD).

I find that there’s a tendency in some scholarship to assume that Hellenistic Judaism was entirely unrepresentative of broader Jewish theology and so were not ‘real Jews’, with the implication being that only Judaean Judaism was indicative of ‘real Jews’ and that Christians (due to the influence of Hellenistic Judaism) could not lay claim to any particular thread of theological continuity with ‘real Jews’. To be very fair, I think this argument was largely articulated as an impassioned defence against the historic accusation by Christians that Rabbinic Judaism was a medieval ‘innovation’ and that their adherents were not ‘real Jews’.

I think scholarship has, by far and large, nuanced and tempered its representation of Judaism in antiquity: it was likely far more diverse than often thought, with Hellenistic Judaism and proto-Rabbinic Judaism amongst the many distinct strains of legitimate Jewish theological traditions. Philo is a good example of a later Hellenistic Jewish theologian, and in his De Opificio Mundi he writes of the typological and allegorical semantic strata of Genesis’ creation account.

 

[ReaderT]

(Part 1 of 2)

And I also don’t think that it’s very useful at all since a whole raft of religions could become true at that point - it’s arbitrary it seems.

When one sees the avalanche of correlations, it’s hard to ignore Christ - it’s almost as if the OT is shouting “Jesus Christ”:

• Abraham (father/patriarch) sacrificing his son
• The Paschal Lamb slain for sins
• The recurring theme of holy things inside a man-made / earthly vessel = The Lord inside the womb of the human Mary
  – Righteous Noah in the Ark
  – The “Word of God” (Ten Commandments) in the human-constructed ark
  – The Bread from Heaven (manna) in the manmade / “earthen” jar
• Manna bread that came down from heaven to feed God’s people = Jesus (Eucharist) coming down from Heaven to feed God’s people
• Jeremiah 11:18 “I was like a gentle lamb led to slaughter … Against me they devised schemes, saying, ‘Let us cast the tree [the cross] upon His bread [the Body of Christ - communion bread]’”
• The recurring trope of “bread, wine” and oil throughout the OT:
  – The mysterious king Melchizedek who offers Abraham “bread and wine” (communion)
  – Proverbs 9: God’s Wisdom offers “bread” and “mixed wine” (communion)
  – Psalm 23 (“You prepare a table before me … anoint my head with oil … my cup overflows”)
  – Ecclesiastes 9:7-8 (“Eat your bread with enjoyment … drink your wine … let oil be poured upon your head.”)
  – Psalm 104:15 (Wine - oil - bread)