Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23

the_zeeba · 09-26-2008, 10:58 PM

Isa 7:14-16 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

This was prophesied in 734 B.C. to Ahaz, king of the southern kingdom. At the time of this prophecy, the southern kingdom was threatened with war by Syria and the northern kingdom. The prophecy does not seem to be very complicated. Isaiah tells Ahaz that a virgin will give birth (a miracle in and of itself) and that by the time the child grows to the age of accountability (“knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good”) the two kings that are threatening Ahaz will be vanquished. The sign of the virgin conceiving is the sign of God’s deliverance. God sent Isaiah to Ahaz to strengthen his faith in God and to show him that God was in control of the situation.

The difficulty with this passage then comes in Matthew.

Matt 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

There is a debate over the meaning of the word translated ‘virgin’ in 7:14. The word may refer to either an actual virgin or it could refer to a young woman. The presence of a definite article before the word is indicative of Isaiah referring to a particular woman. There is not an English word that holds the same range of meaning as the word translated ‘virgin.’ John D. W. Watts says, “The one [semantic implication] implies the spotless candidate for marriage. The other implies a type of available sexual partner not condoned by Yahwistic norms or the Law. He common meaning signifies one who is sexually mature. It is difficult to find a word in English that is capable of the same range of meaning. “Virgin” is too narrow, while “young woman” is too broad.” (Watts, Isaiah; pg. 99)

Matthew very clearly understands this prophecy (a quote from Isaiah) to find its fulfillment in Christ. But is Isaiah referring to Christ without saying so? Or is he prophesying a child born in his own time to give Ahaz comfort? There are three general views how people harmonize these two passages.

EXCLUSIVELY HISTORICAL

Taking the prophecy in verse 14 as historical, there is no direct reference to Jesus. The ‘virgin’ would be a woman in Ahaz’s court (or someone who would have been known to him) to have given birth to a son. Those who hold to this view usually see the woman as Isaiah’s wife or Ahaz’s wife. One measure of support for this view is that the LXX translation is read as “and you shall call his name Immanuel,” indicating that Ahaz himself would name the prophesied child. Other scholars say that no child in particular is referenced since a number of children over the next few months would be named Immanuel.

In this view, the word ‘virgin’ is more likely to be understood as a ‘young woman who is of the age to be married.’ In this case the conception is seen as natural instead of supernatural. The problem with this is that the word translated ‘virgin’ is not used of a married woman in all of the Old Testament (Oswalt, Isaiah; pg. 210).

Isaiah immediately continues talking to Ahaz after this prophecy and in 9:6 describes the child in greater detail. The descriptions, such as ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father’ indicate the deity of the child. No child born in Isaiah’s day could have these descriptions written of him.

EXCLUSIVELY MESSIANIC

In this view, the virgin referred to is Mary, and the son is Jesus. In this case, the birth of Jesus has no direct influence on Ahaz’s situation.

There are two problems with this view. How does this prophecy apply to Ahaz if in its entirety the prophecy is Messianic? How does the birth of Christ serve as a sign or an indication of the fall of kings centuries before? Proponents of this view see Isaiah saying that the kings would be destroyed by the time the child grew to the age of accountability if the event happened to take place at that time. The fact that it does not is not supposed to matter to Ahaz and his court. The prophecy itself that God will, at some point, miraculously cause a virgin to conceive and give birth gave Ahaz and his kingdom assurance that they would be delivered.

DOUBLE FULLFILMENT

Combining the two approaches, some people see the prophecy in Isaiah and Matthews understanding of it as double fulfillment of the prophecy. There is initial fulfillment (a child being born shortly after the prophecy is made) and a subsequent fulfillment (birth of Jesus). Those who take this view explain it in two ways.

The word translated ‘virgin’ does not necessarily mean someone who is a virgin (as I showed when talking about the historical view). But neither does it necessarily mean a virgin. There is a more specific word for virgin Isaiah could have used if he had wanted to stress the virginity of the woman. One reason why he may not have is that he was referring to both a woman ‘of marrying age’ (a woman in Ahaz’s time to give birth to a child) and also a ‘virgin’ (Mary who gave birth to Christ).

SENSUS PLENIOR

One way is to see the prophecy in Isaiah as involving a sensus plenior, or having more than one meaning. The meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy includes both the child that was born in 8th century B.C. as well as Jesus Christ, while Isaiah only mentions one.

The main issue with this view is that those who hold to it have to understand Isaiah as having two completely different meanings through one prophecy. The woman in the prophecy was not a virgin (Ahaz’s time) and was a virgin (Mary). The univocal nature of language depends on words having one meaning at any given time.

TYPOLOGY

People who see the prophecy this way say Matthew viewed the child born in Isaiah’s time and Christ to have a type-antitype relationship. This view requires a partial fulfillment (in Isaiah’s day) and a subsequent foreshadowed realization in the birth of Christ. This is further seen as Isaiah continues his prophecy.

Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

This is seen as the same child Isaiah prophesied in 7:14. If this is the case, Isaiah has to at least in part be prophesying the Messiah coming to the world.

CONCLUSION

The threat to the southern kingdom was twofold. The first and most obvious was the threat to the physical kingdom of Ahaz. The people were going to be killed or enslaved and the kingdom ravaged by the armies from the other kingdoms. The other threat was more subtle. The Davidic line of kings was about to be cut. Since the Messiah was to come from the Davidic line, this was cause for some concern. The prophecy from Isaiah addressed both of these threats.

Verse 14 of the prophecy was to reassure Ahaz that the Davidic line would not be completely severed. Isaiah speaks of the Davidic line in verse 13. Isaiah prophesied and Matthew understood that the Davidic line was to be saved, even though Ahaz was facing the threat of war.

In the following verses Isaiah is reassuring Ahaz and his current situation. If a child were to be born at that time, the kingdoms threatening with war would be destroyed by the time the child came to the age of accountability. There is discussion whether the age of accountability would be age of moral accountability (2-3 years) or legal accountability (12-13). In either case, the prophecy holds true. Two to three years after this time the kings of the northern kingdom and Syria both died. Twelve to thirteen years after the prophecy both the northern kingdom and Syria were attacked and overtaken by Assyria.

Isaiah gave a message of hope to those in Ahaz’s kingdom. Matthew, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, correctly saw the prophecy by Isaiah as a promise to deliver not only Ahaz’s kingdom, but the Davidic line and finding its fulfillment of that in the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

TommyStrand · 10-03-2008, 04:54 AM

Looking forward to the continuation =)

the_zeeba · 10-03-2008, 06:02 AM

lol sorry. I finished the paper, Ill finish the post later today if i can.

Ruzan · 10-03-2008, 06:33 AM

Yes, do post the rest of your work here, that was some amazing stuff.

the_zeeba · 10-03-2008, 07:07 AM

lol the paper was 4 or 5 pages. ill condense it a bit when I post

also, ill try to post each view fairly not just biased towards my view (i tried to do that in my paper, but had to have a conclusion lol).

the_zeeba · 10-03-2008, 11:34 AM

k so i updated OP with the rest of the info. I felt like it needed some of the info in the conclusion, so i kept it in. im too lazy to reword it lol. so take it for wat its worth. hope its at least interesting.

This is a tough passage and many good men differ on their understanding of it. Im not saying my understanding is right. Its simply the one I see to be the simplest. without having to deal with things like senus plenior and double fulfillment.

edit: and theres some things that I assumed the teacher knew about that arent explained in the paper, so if you have any questions, post em and ill try to answer lol

09-26-2008, 10:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
the_zeeba Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 119 My Photos: (1)	Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23 Isa 7:14-16 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. This was prophesied in 734 B.C. to Ahaz, king of the southern kingdom. At the time of this prophecy, the southern kingdom was threatened with war by Syria and the northern kingdom. The prophecy does not seem to be very complicated. Isaiah tells Ahaz that a virgin will give birth (a miracle in and of itself) and that by the time the child grows to the age of accountability (“knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good”) the two kings that are threatening Ahaz will be vanquished. The sign of the virgin conceiving is the sign of God’s deliverance. God sent Isaiah to Ahaz to strengthen his faith in God and to show him that God was in control of the situation. The difficulty with this passage then comes in Matthew. Matt 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). There is a debate over the meaning of the word translated ‘virgin’ in 7:14. The word may refer to either an actual virgin or it could refer to a young woman. The presence of a definite article before the word is indicative of Isaiah referring to a particular woman. There is not an English word that holds the same range of meaning as the word translated ‘virgin.’ John D. W. Watts says, “The one [semantic implication] implies the spotless candidate for marriage. The other implies a type of available sexual partner not condoned by Yahwistic norms or the Law. He common meaning signifies one who is sexually mature. It is difficult to find a word in English that is capable of the same range of meaning. “Virgin” is too narrow, while “young woman” is too broad.” (Watts, Isaiah; pg. 99) Matthew very clearly understands this prophecy (a quote from Isaiah) to find its fulfillment in Christ. But is Isaiah referring to Christ without saying so? Or is he prophesying a child born in his own time to give Ahaz comfort? There are three general views how people harmonize these two passages. EXCLUSIVELY HISTORICAL Taking the prophecy in verse 14 as historical, there is no direct reference to Jesus. The ‘virgin’ would be a woman in Ahaz’s court (or someone who would have been known to him) to have given birth to a son. Those who hold to this view usually see the woman as Isaiah’s wife or Ahaz’s wife. One measure of support for this view is that the LXX translation is read as “and you shall call his name Immanuel,” indicating that Ahaz himself would name the prophesied child. Other scholars say that no child in particular is referenced since a number of children over the next few months would be named Immanuel. In this view, the word ‘virgin’ is more likely to be understood as a ‘young woman who is of the age to be married.’ In this case the conception is seen as natural instead of supernatural. The problem with this is that the word translated ‘virgin’ is not used of a married woman in all of the Old Testament (Oswalt, Isaiah; pg. 210). Isaiah immediately continues talking to Ahaz after this prophecy and in 9:6 describes the child in greater detail. The descriptions, such as ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father’ indicate the deity of the child. No child born in Isaiah’s day could have these descriptions written of him. EXCLUSIVELY MESSIANIC In this view, the virgin referred to is Mary, and the son is Jesus. In this case, the birth of Jesus has no direct influence on Ahaz’s situation. There are two problems with this view. How does this prophecy apply to Ahaz if in its entirety the prophecy is Messianic? How does the birth of Christ serve as a sign or an indication of the fall of kings centuries before? Proponents of this view see Isaiah saying that the kings would be destroyed by the time the child grew to the age of accountability if the event happened to take place at that time. The fact that it does not is not supposed to matter to Ahaz and his court. The prophecy itself that God will, at some point, miraculously cause a virgin to conceive and give birth gave Ahaz and his kingdom assurance that they would be delivered. DOUBLE FULLFILMENT Combining the two approaches, some people see the prophecy in Isaiah and Matthews understanding of it as double fulfillment of the prophecy. There is initial fulfillment (a child being born shortly after the prophecy is made) and a subsequent fulfillment (birth of Jesus). Those who take this view explain it in two ways. The word translated ‘virgin’ does not necessarily mean someone who is a virgin (as I showed when talking about the historical view). But neither does it necessarily mean a virgin. There is a more specific word for virgin Isaiah could have used if he had wanted to stress the virginity of the woman. One reason why he may not have is that he was referring to both a woman ‘of marrying age’ (a woman in Ahaz’s time to give birth to a child) and also a ‘virgin’ (Mary who gave birth to Christ). SENSUS PLENIOR One way is to see the prophecy in Isaiah as involving a sensus plenior, or having more than one meaning. The meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy includes both the child that was born in 8th century B.C. as well as Jesus Christ, while Isaiah only mentions one. The main issue with this view is that those who hold to it have to understand Isaiah as having two completely different meanings through one prophecy. The woman in the prophecy was not a virgin (Ahaz’s time) and was a virgin (Mary). The univocal nature of language depends on words having one meaning at any given time. TYPOLOGY People who see the prophecy this way say Matthew viewed the child born in Isaiah’s time and Christ to have a type-antitype relationship. This view requires a partial fulfillment (in Isaiah’s day) and a subsequent foreshadowed realization in the birth of Christ. This is further seen as Isaiah continues his prophecy. Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This is seen as the same child Isaiah prophesied in 7:14. If this is the case, Isaiah has to at least in part be prophesying the Messiah coming to the world. CONCLUSION The threat to the southern kingdom was twofold. The first and most obvious was the threat to the physical kingdom of Ahaz. The people were going to be killed or enslaved and the kingdom ravaged by the armies from the other kingdoms. The other threat was more subtle. The Davidic line of kings was about to be cut. Since the Messiah was to come from the Davidic line, this was cause for some concern. The prophecy from Isaiah addressed both of these threats. Verse 14 of the prophecy was to reassure Ahaz that the Davidic line would not be completely severed. Isaiah speaks of the Davidic line in verse 13. Isaiah prophesied and Matthew understood that the Davidic line was to be saved, even though Ahaz was facing the threat of war. In the following verses Isaiah is reassuring Ahaz and his current situation. If a child were to be born at that time, the kingdoms threatening with war would be destroyed by the time the child came to the age of accountability. There is discussion whether the age of accountability would be age of moral accountability (2-3 years) or legal accountability (12-13). In either case, the prophecy holds true. Two to three years after this time the kings of the northern kingdom and Syria both died. Twelve to thirteen years after the prophecy both the northern kingdom and Syria were attacked and overtaken by Assyria. Isaiah gave a message of hope to those in Ahaz’s kingdom. Matthew, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, correctly saw the prophecy by Isaiah as a promise to deliver not only Ahaz’s kingdom, but the Davidic line and finding its fulfillment of that in the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Last edited by the_zeeba; 10-03-2008 at 11:31 AM.

10-03-2008, 04:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
TommyStrand Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Sandnes, Norway Posts: 151 My Photos: (0)	Re: Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23 Looking forward to the continuation =)

10-03-2008, 06:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
the_zeeba Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 119 My Photos: (1)	Re: Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23 lol sorry. I finished the paper, Ill finish the post later today if i can. __________________ evidence cannot create faith; it can only confirm it

10-03-2008, 06:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ruzan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 106 My Photos: (1)	Re: Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23 Yes, do post the rest of your work here, that was some amazing stuff. __________________ "In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps." Proverbs 16:9

10-03-2008, 07:07 AM	#5 (permalink)
the_zeeba Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 119 My Photos: (1)	Re: Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23 lol the paper was 4 or 5 pages. ill condense it a bit when I post also, ill try to post each view fairly not just biased towards my view (i tried to do that in my paper, but had to have a conclusion lol). __________________ evidence cannot create faith; it can only confirm it

10-03-2008, 11:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
the_zeeba Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 119 My Photos: (1)	Re: Harmonizing Isaiah 7:14-16 and Matthew 1:22-23 k so i updated OP with the rest of the info. I felt like it needed some of the info in the conclusion, so i kept it in. im too lazy to reword it lol. so take it for wat its worth. hope its at least interesting. This is a tough passage and many good men differ on their understanding of it. Im not saying my understanding is right. Its simply the one I see to be the simplest. without having to deal with things like senus plenior and double fulfillment. edit: and theres some things that I assumed the teacher knew about that arent explained in the paper, so if you have any questions, post em and ill try to answer lol __________________ evidence cannot create faith; it can only confirm it