Dual fulfillment of prophecy

[ALAYMAN]

Do you believe some Bible prophecy has potential to be fulfilled in a near as well as far sense? For instance, does Isaiah 7:14 have the potential for having fulfillment in some initial applicable sense for Ahaz AND completed in Christ (Matt 1:23)?

 

[abcaines]

Do you believe some Bible prophecy has potential to be fulfilled in a near as well as far sense? For instance, does Isaiah 7:14 have the potential for having fulfillment in some initial applicable sense for Ahaz AND completed in Christ (Matt 1:23)?

I've heard such speculation on this prophecy. Again, God can do anything He wants. Ahaz was putting up a fake piety when God gave him the prophesy.

We tend to isolate verse 14 but the verses leading up to the prophecy provide valuable context of the situation. Basically, God was exasperated with Ahaz and the house of David. We do well to keep this in mind when reading this passage.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've heard such speculation on this prophecy. Again, God can do anything He wants. Ahaz was putting up a fake piety when God gave him the prophesy.

We tend to isolate verse 14 but the verses leading up to the prophecy provide valuable context of the situation. Basically, God was exasperated with Ahaz and the house of David. We do well to keep this in mind when reading this passage.

Totally agree with your sentiments about context being key. So when we talk about the total context, for those who would say that it is a dual prophecy fulfillment, what’s the sign for Ahaz (v14) since the sure explanation of a virgin being born was not the sign for Ahaz, but Mary, fulfilled in Christ (Matt 1:23). Given that certainty, what *was* the sign for Ahaz and how was it fulfilled?

 

[abcaines]

Given that certainty, what *was* the sign for Ahaz and how was it fulfilled?

You're always asking tough questions...

TBH, I have heard teaching on the subject but I can't remember for the life of me what the conclusion is. I vaguely remember hearing of the possibility of a young maiden in Ahaz's time giving a miraculous birth but I don't want to say much for fear of gross misrepresentation of what was taught.

If I hear the teaching again, (I believe it is online) I will post a link to it. I think I know where to find it.

Until then, I rely on God's sovereignty and His ability to make good on what He said in such a way as to hold anyone who hears the prophecy accountable.

 

[Ransom]

For instance, does Isaiah 7:14 have the potential for having fulfillment in some initial applicable sense for Ahaz AND completed in Christ (Matt 1:23)?

Well, if Matthew says the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, no further debate need be had. That isn't to say that Matthew's declaration is necessarily the one intended by Isaiah, which was the threat of war against Jerusalem by the kings of Syria and Israel (14:1-2). But frequently, when Matthew declares a prophecy fulfilled, he is reading it typologically.

Compare, for example, Matt. 2:23: "He went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene." The prophets said no such thing in the Old Testament. Matthew is referring to Judges 13:5:

Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.​

Now being a Nazarene and a Nazirite are two entirely different and unrelated things, and there's no etymological connection between them. What Matthew is saying is that Samson is a type of Christ. You can see even a little of that in this one verse, where it says, "he shall begin to save Israel." Jesus is like Samson in that he is the strong man who plunders the enemy and saves his people.

Back to Isaiah. In Isaiah 7, Jerusalem is under threat. Isaiah gives Ahaz a sign: a child who won't even be old enough to know right from wrong before the threat goes away. Move on to chapter 8, where Isaiah's wife herself has a child, and God promises that Israel and Syria will be laid waste before he's old enough to talk.

The son's symbolic name is "Immanuel."Matthew interprets him, again, as a type of Christ, for whom "God with us" is literally true.

 

[Ekklesian]

Consider also the flight to Egypt.

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. - Matthew 2:13-15​

​

A prima facia reading of the prophecy is concerning the nation of Israel.

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. - Hosea 11:1​

​

Cross reference Galatians 3:16 where the same equivalence is made.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.​

 

[ALAYMAN]

I really appreciate the substantive contributions from all so far. I will return to this later this evening to add my own thoughts but for now….

how could the word “virgin”, hermeneutically speaking, be legitimately interpreted in a dual sense as any person but Christ? That’s a rhetorical question of course, so if it could only apply to the Messiah, in what sense could the child that was promised to Ahaz have been a referent and sign pointing to a virgin?

 

[abcaines]

how could the word “virgin”, hermeneutically speaking, be legitimately interpreted in a dual sense as any person but Christ? That’s a rhetorical question of course, so if it could only apply to the Messiah, in what sense could the child that was promised to Ahaz have been a referent and sign pointing to a virgin?

Therein lies the rub. That is the issue that I keep hanging up on. In fact, that is exactly why I've held to the traditional take on this verse.

 

[Ekklesian]

Therein lies the rub. That is the issue that I keep hanging up on. In fact, that is exactly why I've held to the traditional take on this verse.

There is also the fact that it was given as a sign. How does one see a virgin conceive?

 

[abcaines]

There is also the fact that it was given as a sign. How does one see a virgin conceive?

'Zactly

 

[Ransom]

how could the word “virgin”, hermeneutically speaking, be legitimately interpreted in a dual sense as any person but Christ? That’s a rhetorical question of course, so if it could only apply to the Messiah, in what sense could the child that was promised to Ahaz have been a referent and sign pointing to a virgin?

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 isn't the ordinary one for "virgin" (betulah), but almah, which denotes a young, marriageable woman, without respect to her virginity. Neither the prophecy of chapter 7 nor its fulfillment in chapter 8 require a virgin birth: the child, not the mother, is the sign.

The Septuagint, on the other hand, translates almah as parthenos--which is the ordinary Greek word for a virgin. Matthew cites the LXX, and he does so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Mary herself is said to be a virgin (parthenos) twice (Luke 1:27), and she herself also declares that she has not been with a man (1:34).

So that ought to settle the matter.

The controversy over the translation of Isa. 7:14 in translations such as the RSV or NRSV ("young woman") comes down to hermeneutics: is it better to translate it literally, or in accordance with its New Testament antitype? The former seemingly creates a denial of the virgin birth, an unwarranted accusation given what the Gospels say explicitly. The latter agrees explicitly with the Gospels, but disagrees with its own context: "I [Isaiah] made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son" (Isa. 8:3).

 

[FSSL]

Perfect explanation, Ransom

Unfortunately, IFBs have criticized the RSV when it is in fact more literal in Isaiah.

 

[Ekklesian]

Matthew cites the LXX, and he does so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Thereby certifying the understanding of the LXX translators in respect to this passage, and giving witness that the idea of virginity was present in the prophecy, as a young marriageable woman would by definition be a virgin, unless widowhood is somehow in view.

The controversy over the translation of Isa. 7:14 in translations such as the RSV or NRSV ("young woman") comes down to hermeneutics:

What, exactly, was the Spirit telling them, unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into? 1 Peter 1:12

Isaac, the promised seed, was born of a woman barren all her life and past the age. Samuel, who prepared the way for the house of David, was born of a woman barren in her youth. John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the true Promised Seed, was born of a woman who was barren from her youth and well-stricken in years, and the Promised Seed, of Whom it was said in the beginning, would be the seed of the woman, had a truly miraculous birth. A train of miraculous births in the preparation of the advent of Christ culminates in a truly miraculous birth. (<--I'm not doing justice to this idea.)

And that is the sign of His deity. But it's not a sign for unbelievers. It is a sign for the eyes of faith only.

All that to say that Matthew wasn't cherry-picking the prophecies. I'm not saying that Ransom was saying he was. But it could look like that is what Matthew was doing, if the notion that what Matthew could see was not really in the prophecy to begin with gets its foot in the door.

[apologies for all the edits. I'm at work and typing furiously between calls and spotting stuff. I think I'm done now.]

 

[abcaines]

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 isn't the ordinary one for "virgin" (betulah), but almah, which denotes a young, marriageable woman, without respect to her virginity. Neither the prophecy of chapter 7 nor its fulfillment in chapter 8 require a virgin birth: the child, not the mother, is the sign.

The Septuagint, on the other hand, translates almah as parthenos--which is the ordinary Greek word for a virgin. Matthew cites the LXX, and he does so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Mary herself is said to be a virgin (parthenos) twice (Luke 1:27), and she herself also declares that she has not been with a man (1:34).

So that ought to settle the matter.

The controversy over the translation of Isa. 7:14 in translations such as the RSV or NRSV ("young woman") comes down to hermeneutics: is it better to translate it literally, or in accordance with its New Testament antitype? The former seemingly creates a denial of the virgin birth, an unwarranted accusation given what the Gospels say explicitly. The latter agrees explicitly with the Gospels, but disagrees with its own context: "I [Isaiah] made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son" (Isa. 8:3).

Ok... This sheds a lot of light on things.

I am currently reading through the historical books... Just started Ezra... After which, I plan to launch a study of Isaiah....

 

[Ransom]

Isaac, the promised seed, was born of a woman barren all her life and past the age.... A train of miraculous births in the preparation of the advent of Christ culminates in a truly miraculous birth.

Well ... yes.

However, the question in the OP was whether a prophetic passage like Luke 7:14 can have both a "near" and "far" fulfillment. I said yes, and summarized both. What you have done is merely to affirm the far fulfillment.

Perhaps you could interpret Isaiah 7:14 for us in light of its historic context. What specific circumstance was Isaiah addressing that had Ahaz so worried? What is Isaiah telling him is going to happen?

All that to say that Matthew wasn't cherry-picking the prophecies. I'm not saying that Ransom was saying he was.

Indeed not.

But it could look like that is what Matthew was doing, if the notion that what Matthew could see was not really in the prophecy to begin with gets its foot in the door.

Then let's go back to Matt. 2:23, which is a much clearer case of Matthew seeing what was "not really in the prophecy to begin with." Judges 13:5 is an angelic annunciation of the birth and destiny of Samson. That is beyond dispute. And Matthew also sees it finding fulfillment in the relocation of the Holy Family to Nazareth. That, also, is beyond dispute.

Which tells us:

1. Matthew does see something in these passages (Isa. 7:14 and Judg. 13:5) beyond their immediate or "literal" fulfillment.

2. He does so under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

3. There's nothing that says that when Matthew declares a typological fulfillement of these passages, he is rejecting their literal meaning. Therefore, neither do we.

4. That should, as I said earlier, settle the matter.

 

[Ekklesian]

Perhaps you could interpret Isaiah 7:14 for us in light of its historic context. What specific circumstance was Isaiah addressing that had Ahaz so worried? What is Isaiah telling him is going to happen?

I wasn't saying that there could be no immediate historical meaning. Yours is the first where I had seen that Isaiah's son was taken to be that. So I'll have to read up on it. I had read otherwise (I believe), but this was a while ago.

I had concluded that because of the feigned piety of Ahaz , God gave him a sign in the spirit in which Christ spoke to the unbelieving generation in His day in parables. Here's a sign. If your heart is gross, your ears are dull, and your eyes are closed, too bad for you, but Blessed are those to whom it is given to see it.

If Isaiah's son was the sign to Ahaz, it seems to me to be a very weak sign. Behold, I'm going to make love to my wife again, and have another son. (Where's the power in that?) Before he grows up, the Lord will accomplish what He said He would do through me. A prophecy, yes. But a sign?

I'm not trying to be snarky. That's how I'm thinking. Like I said, I will read up on it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I wasn't saying that there could be no immediate historical meaning. Yours is the first where I had seen that Isaiah's son was taken to be that. So I'll have to read up on it. I had read otherwise (I believe), but this was a while ago.

I had concluded that because of the feigned piety of Ahaz , God gave him a sign in the spirit in which Christ spoke to the unbelieving generation in His day in parables. Here's a sign. If your heart is gross, your ears are dull, and your eyes are closed, too bad for you, but Blessed are those to whom it is given to see it.

If Isaiah's son was the sign to Ahaz, it seems to me to be a very weak sign. Behold, I'm going to make love to my wife again, and have another son. (Where's the power in that?) Before he grows up, the Lord will accomplish what He said He would do through me. A prophecy, yes. But a sign?

I'm not trying to be snarky. That's how I'm thinking. Like I said, I will read up on it.

This post of yours might be one of the few times on the forum where I think our mind is in the same place.

From my limited understanding in studying this out, the notion that the immediate fulfillment had some connection to a "virgin" could only be understood in the context of almah, as Ransom said denoting a young, marriageable woman, without respect to her virginity. But this understanding of Isaiah's wife is also not a fair representation of his wife, as she had already had a son mentioned in Isaiah 7, the first was Shear-Jashub (v3). So when this prophecy (v14) was spoken Isaiah's wife wasn't marriage material, she was already married. She wasn't a virgin in any sense, as she already had a child. So the question remains, what was the sign (in some significant sense of a Biblical sign of a "virgin") that indicated that the fulfillment of God's/Isaiah's prophecy had come to fruition in the immediate audience of Ahaz and the house of David? Almah, in the ordinary or extraordinary sense of the usage(s) does not seem to fit with Isaiah's wife.

Edit: I just now read Ransom's amendment to his earlier post where he said "The controversy over the translation of Isa. 7:14 in translations such as the RSV or NRSV ("young woman") comes down to hermeneutics: is it better to translate it literally, or in accordance with its New Testament antitype? The former seemingly creates a denial of the virgin birth, an unwarranted accusation given what the Gospels say explicitly. The latter agrees explicitly with the Gospels, but disagrees with its own context: "I [Isaiah] made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son" (Isa. 8:3)."

Given this interpretive framework Ransom, how do *you* resolve the issue of the O.T. using the language of "virgin" in regard to Isaiah's wife?

 

[ALAYMAN]

This article does a decent job of giving broader context for the near and far fulfillment, and their explanation (which leaves me still sayin' "not so fast", lol) is at least an effort at reconciliation of "virgin" in relation to Isaiah's wife (and subsequent progeny)...

"The Hebrew translated “went to” is a euphemism in the Old Testament that usually means the first time that a husband and wife come together for marital relationships. Because of this, some scholars think that Isaiah’s first wife may have passed away and he married a prophetess who bore him another child. Thus, Isaiah 7:14 might refer to this child."

 

[abcaines]

This article does a decent job of giving broader context for the near and far fulfillment, and their explanation (which leaves me still sayin' "not so fast", lol) is at least an effort at reconciliation of "virgin" in relation to Isaiah's wife (and subsequent progeny)...

This author's conclusions seem okay... I'm definitely not qualified to deeply critique, but next time she cooks leftover salmon and potatoes, I want to be there!

 

[ALAYMAN]

This author's conclusions seem okay... I'm definitely not qualified to deeply critique, but next time she cooks leftover salmon and potatoes, I want to be there!

Haha, only a (former)fundy would focus on the author's gender!