Isaiah 7:14

[Maeght]

I did glance at it, but it looked quite complicated. My last post but one quoted Gill on why Immanuel can't be a son of Ahaz.

Gill would need to debate that with the scholar who wrote the article I read.

[Spud]

Congratulations Spud - that is certainly in the top ten of examples of mindless theobollocks.

Thank you Gordon. Message edited.

[Gordon]

Thank you Gordon. Message edited.

Unless they had IVF back then, 'pregnant virgin' seems like an oxymoron. Your edit achieved nothing.

[jeremyp]

Yes, but if there was premarital sexual activity, it's odd that the text doesn't mention it.

No it isn't.

Given that Isaiah offered Ahaz a miraculous sign, it would be reasonable to interpret the pregnancy as miraculous.

No, he offered a sign. No need for any miracles. He's just saying "your enemies will be gone by a certain time".

[jeremyp]

Gill says this timescale is made using shear jashub, Isaiah's son who he has with him.  Her being a pregnant virgin would be a sign that the prophecy about Rezin and Pekah is from God. child has a divine origin.
Even if the fulfillment happens a long time in the future, shows that the Davidic dynasty will continue until the Messiah is born, so Ahaz doesn't need to worry because his descendents will continue.I did glance at it, but it looked quite complicated. My last post but one quoted Gill on why Immanuel can't be a son of Ahaz.

The problem you are having is because this is not a Messianic prophecy. Nobody thought it was until Matthew trawled through the Septuagint looking for stuff that might be related to virgin births. There's no indication that Isaiah 7:14 was about anything except current events at the time of Ahaz. There's no Jewish tradition that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth.

This is just another example of Christians retconning the Old Testament.

[Spud]

No it isn't.

If she had got pregnant the usual way she would not be called an almah.

No, he offered a sign. No need for any miracles. He's just saying "your enemies will be gone by a certain time".

<<Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11“Ask a sign of the Lord yourf God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13And heg said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold...>>

If this sign consisted only of a woman giving birth and naming him God is with us, it wouldn't be very convincing. Barnes says,

<<Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled. As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was able to deliver the land, the word here denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected "only" by Yahweh.>>

I don't quite understand how this was a sign to Ahaz if it didn't happen until later, but I think Barnes is right.

[Maeght]

Have you read the Wikipedia page yet?

[jeremyp]

If she had got pregnant the usual way she would not be called an almah.

Yes she would. "Almah" means "young woman".

<<Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11“Ask a sign of the Lord yourf God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13And heg said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold...>>

If this sign consisted only of a woman giving birth and naming him God is with us, it wouldn't be very convincing. Barnes says,

<<Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled. As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was able to deliver the land, the word here denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected "only" by Yahweh.>>

I don't quite understand how this was a sign to Ahaz if it didn't happen until later, but I think Barnes is right.

It was a sign for Ahaz. Even if it was a miraculous birth it is not a messianic prophecy.

[Spud]

Yes she would. "Almah" means "young woman".

But all other examples refer to unmarried young women. The English word 'virgin' can refer either to the state of being a virgin (applicable to men also) or it can refer more generally to a young woman who has not yet married, as in the parable of the ten virgins. This type is more commonly known as a maiden, and is designated a virgin because she hasn't yet married.
A woman who was pregnant by a man would more likely be called an ishshah in Hebrew. An example is Genesis 36:20 where Tamar is referred to as a woman (ishshah), having slept with Judah. The reason for Tamar's pregnancy is also explained, as she is not married. That suggests that there would be some comment in Isaiah 7, had the almah conceived naturally.
So Isaiah 7 does actually seem to be talking about a miraculous conception, unless it means, the virgin will conceive: then it could mean either a natural or miraculous conception. That would be one way in which the prophecy could have a dual fulfillment.

[Spud]

It was a sign for Ahaz. Even if it was a miraculous birth it is not a messianic prophecy.

This raises the question of whether Immanuel is the son born in Isaiah 9, who is the Messiah. The thought seems to flow from the son being about to be born in chapter 7, to actually born in 8 and 9, then reigning as king in chapter 11.
That Ahaz did not witness this sign may be due to his initial refusal to ask for it.

[jeremyp]

But all other examples refer to unmarried young women.

No they don't. In any case Isaiah used "Bethulah" when he specifically wanted to infer virginity.

The English word 'virgin' can refer either to the state of being a virgin (applicable to men also) or it can refer more generally to a young woman who has not yet married

I've never heard it used in the latter sense, except, of course, in olden days virginity was probably just assumed for an unmarried woman.

, as in the parable of the ten virgins.

Which was first written down in Greek and therefore not relevant to a discussion of Hebrew.

 

This type is more commonly known as a maiden, and is designated a virgin because she hasn't yet married.

I still don't accept your second alleged meaning.

A woman who was pregnant by a man would more likely be called an ishshah in Hebrew. An example is Genesis 36:20 where Tamar is referred to as a woman (ishshah), having slept with Judah. The reason for Tamar's pregnancy is also explained, as she is not married. That suggests that there would be some comment in Isaiah 7, had the almah conceived naturally.

Do you understand that Isaiah and Genesis were written by different people at different times? It's very dangerous to infer meaning of the one from the other, especially as Isaiah had the word "Bethulah" available if he wanted to explicitly say "virgin".

So Isaiah 7 does actually seem to be talking about a miraculous conception,

No. It really doesn't. And even if it did, it is not a Messianic prophecy and it is not about Jesus.

[jeremyp]

This raises the question of whether Immanuel is the son born in Isaiah 9, who is the Messiah. The thought seems to flow from the son being about to be born in chapter 7, to actually born in 8 and 9, then reigning as king in chapter 11.
That Ahaz did not witness this sign may be due to his initial refusal to ask for it.

Only if you are desperate for your religion not to be built on lies.

[Spud]

Only if you are desperate for your religion not to be built on lies.

You've said Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah. Do you think Isaiah 9:6-7 is? If so, why do you think the two passages are not referring to the same child?

[jeremyp]

You've said Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah.

Because it clearly isn't.

Do you think Isaiah 9:6-7 is? If so, why do you think the two passages are not referring to the same child?

There's no suggestion that they are the same child.

[Dicky Underpants]

You've said Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah. Do you think Isaiah 9:6-7 is? If so, why do you think the two passages are not referring to the same child?

The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.

[jeremyp]

The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.

It can also be pointed out that the second prophecy wasn't fulfilled by Jesus.

[Spud]

The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.

The land of Judah was described as Immanuel's land in Isaiah 8, indicating that he is it's Lord and king.
The Jews recognized that Hezekiah was not the Messiah, pointing out that when God delivered him, he didn't sing songs of praise as David had done. He showed the Babylonians the treasures in the temple and consequently was told his sons would be taken to Babylon because of that.
He was a figure of the Messiah. He didn't measure up to the names given to the child in Isaiah 9:7.
Regarding the centuries of time that elapsed before the birth of Christ, the prophet Zechariah, after the return from Exile, was still waiting for the righteous branch promised in Isaiah 11.

[Spud]

Because it clearly isn't.There's no suggestion that they are the same child.

In Isaiah's mind they are. He is about to be born (7:14), then born (9:6).

[Dicky Underpants]

The land of Judah was described as Immanuel's land in Isaiah 8, indicating that he is it's Lord and king.
The Jews recognized that Hezekiah was not the Messiah, pointing out that when God delivered him, he didn't sing songs of praise as David had done. He showed the Babylonians the treasures in the temple and consequently was told his sons would be taken to Babylon because of that.
He was a figure of the Messiah. He didn't measure up to the names given to the child in Isaiah 9:7.
..........................

Regarding the incidence of Messianic texts, this from Wiki: Messiah in Judaism -

Religious views on whether Hebrew Bible passages refer to a Messiah may vary among scholars of ancient Israel, looking at their meaning in their original contexts and among rabbinical scholars.[24] The reading of messianic attestations in passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel is anachronistic because messianism developed later than these texts.[24][13] According to James C. VanderKam, there are no Jewish texts before the 2nd century BCE that mention a messianic leader, though some terms point in this direction. Some terms, such as the servant songs in the Book of Isaiah, were later interpreted as such.

Isaiah certainly refers to Cyrus the Great as a messiah, but he does not fulfil the criteria which you stipulate. And of course, two messiahs appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls, one warlike, one priestly.

[Maeght]

And of course, Messiah doesn't equal Son of God.

[jeremyp]

The word "messiah" means "anointed one". It's a reference to the Israelite practice of anointing their kings with oil. Anybody who became king and was anointed can be called a messiah. David was one. King Charles is one as was his mother.

The land of Judah was described as Immanuel's land in Isaiah 8, indicating that he is it's Lord and king.

Jesus was never king of Judah. In fact, it did not exist as a geopolitical entity when he was alive.

The Jews recognized that Hezekiah was not the Messiah, pointing out that when God delivered him, he didn't sing songs of praise as David had done. He showed the Babylonians the treasures in the temple and consequently was told his sons would be taken to Babylon because of that.
He was a figure of the Messiah. He didn't measure up to the names given to the child in Isaiah 9:7.

Neither did Jesus.

[Spud]

The first prophecy is centred on Ahaz, the second is interpreted by Jews to mean King Hezekiah. They appear to refer to completely different time-periods, and there is certainly nothing to link them apart from being prophecies relating to the birth of children, the second one certainly appearing to have extraordinary characteristics. The first Isaiah certainly seems more concerned with events and conditions immediately present or in the not so distant future. One wonders what Jews were to make of a prophecy whose fulfilment was to occur - what? more than 500 years later.

Some Jewish teachers said that Is. 9:6-7 can't be about Hezekiah.

If the first prophecy does refer to a virgin who is currently pregnant, then that would be a miraculous sign, which would link it with the 'extraordinary characteristics' of the child in 9:6-7.

(The usage in Song of Solomon 6:8, which I think talks about the women of the king's harem "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins, wa·‘ă·lā·mō·wṯ, without number" seems to point to a definition of almah as a woman who has not yet slept with a man).

I came across in an old study bible a note that I wrote (not sure where I got it from), to the effect that Immanuel in 7:15 lives on milk and honey, which represents the remnant learning not to sin. They live in poverty until they know to reject the evil and choose the good. This ties in with 7:21-22, "In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, 22and because of the abundance of milk that they give, he will eat curds, for everyone who is left in the land will eat curds and honey."

I also found the following in Meyer's commentary on Matthew 1:23

"With greater weight and clearness Kahnis (Dogmatik, I. p. 345 f.) remarks: The Virgin and Immanuel are definite but ideal persons. The latter is the Israel of the future according to its ideal side; the Virgin, the Israel of the present and of the past according to its ideal side, in accordance with which its vocation is, by virtue of the Spirit of God, to give birth to the holy seed; this Israel will one day come to its true realization in a virgin, who will be the mother of the Messiah."

[Spud]

Regarding the incidence of Messianic texts, this from Wiki: Messiah in Judaism -

I've been watching the talks by Jews for Judaism on Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14. They are interesting, especially the one on chapter 9. He shows how Messianic passages were originally referring to events that took place at the time. They have been fulfilled in a more literal sense according to the NT.
The best example might be Isaiah 35:5-6. The blind and lame, deaf and mute are all healed by Jesus, and he did these miracles as signs that he is the anointed king. He is also the anointed high priest (same word, Messiah, in the Pentateuch) who fulfilled the sacrificial system.

[Maeght]

I've been watching the talks by Jews for Judaism on Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14. They are interesting, especially the one on chapter 9. He shows how Messianic passages were originally referring to events that took place at the time. They have been fulfilled in a more literal sense according to the NT.
The best example might be Isaiah 35:5-6. The blind and lame, deaf and mute are all healed by Jesus, and he did these miracles as signs that he is the anointed king. He is also the anointed high priest (same word, Messiah, in the Pentateuch) who fulfilled the sacrificial system.

According to the NT .....

[jeremyp]

I've been watching the talks by Jews for Judaism on Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14. They are interesting, especially the one on chapter 9. He shows how Messianic passages were originally referring to events that took place at the time.

So no Messianic prophecies then.

They have been fulfilled in a more literal sense according to the NT.

Not really. Look at any of these "prophecies" and you often find evidence of mistranslation or strained interpretation. At the very least, you can't eliminate the possibility that Christians cherry picked them in retrospect.

The best example might be Isaiah 35:5-6.

Cherry picked.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
    and the ears of the deaf unstopped;
6 then the lame shall leap like a deer,
    and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.
For waters shall break forth in the wilderness,
    and streams in the desert;
7 the burning sand shall become a pool,
    and the thirsty ground springs of water;
the haunt of jackals shall become a swamp,[a]
    the grass shall become reeds and rushes.

Can you explain from the gospels where the miracle of the watered desert occurred?

In any case, it's possible - probable even - that the gospel authors read that and decided to give Jesus some miracle working.