ErichMatthewJanzen wrote:Hi, Bro. Eric,
I agree that Isaiah 7:14 is an important verse in the discussion, and I do believe that it is a prophecy of Yeshua per Matthew 1:22-23. Matthew quotes this verse directly as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in the immediate context of talking about Yeshua’s birth.
No doubt, this prophecy definitely refers to the sign given to the man Ahaz back during the time of the Old Covenant, but if we believe Matthew 1:22-23, Isaiah 7:14 must have a dual fulfillment.
For example, notice the prophecies of Psalm 69:25 and 109:7-8. The immediate context has the Psalmist dealing with his personal enemies [Ps. 69:22-25; 109:1-8]. However, Yahweh’s inspired word places another fulfillment on these prophecies in Acts 1:16-20. Seeing that I believe the book of Acts, just like I believe Psalms, these prophecies must have a dual fulfillment.
Therefore, I believe Isaiah 7:14, but I also believe Matthew 1:22-23. This means I must not only accept the immediate fulfillment during the life of Ahaz, but also the second fulfillment concerning Yeshua being born of a sexually pure virgin [Matthew 1:20-25].
Yom Tov,
Matthew Janzen
I see I'm going to have to dissect the context of Yeshayahu to clarify my point.
I realize you believe this brother. The question is, why? The only reason you have the "dual fulfillment" idea in your mind is BECAUSE of what is written in Matthew. I believe this is an added story to give pagan credibility to Messiah's gospel in the culture in which it was written.
Of course, the author of the Gospel of Matthew had a vested interest in the nascent church and wanted to ground the new Christian mythos in Yudean prophecy whenever possible. Almost all scholars agree this "Matthew" was not the apostle but rather a Greek-speaking Christian living in or near Antioch of Syria, who wrote about A.D. 90, about two generations after the crucifixion. Very likely, he was familiar with only the Septuagint version of Yeshayahu. (That Matthew wrote the first gospel was a tradition started by Bishop Papias of Hieropolos in the second century.)
If Matthew hadn't written this, there would be no reason whatsoever to link it.
The case with Acts and Psalms is totally different. We have NUMEROUS Scriptures that link Messianic prophecy to King David. By lineage, by King-ship, by son-ship, by circumstances, etc,. And some of these connections are made by the mouth of YHWH Himself! We also have the historical understanding of the priesthood that connects David and Messiah.
Also, what was written in the Psalms was a "current event" not a prophecy. In other words, David (presumably the author) was writing of things "current" in His life, not foretelling events. His life circumstances WERE the prophetic message. So there is no "dual fulfillment" from Psalms to Acts. Only one.
YHWH has done this with the lives and circumstance of many prophets. Moshe, Hosea, Yonah, Daniel, and Iyov, for example. The very lives of these men were prophetic messages, confirmed by the mouth of YHWH. So it is with David. There was nothing said or done by YHWH or Yeshyahu that connects to the story in Mattiyahu.
Let's examine this idea of "dual fulfillment".
Matthew obviously knows that the actual name of the son of God is Yeshua, because he said so, so he apparently doesn't believe the son of God's actual name is also Emmanuel, as well as Yeshua.
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Yeshua, because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what YHWH had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."
Matthew said that the birth of Yeshua fulfilled this prophecy. How could the prophecy have been fulfilled unless key aspects of the prophecy happened as predicted?
Yeshayahu - No virgin (the sex-less kind. It means "young woman")
Matthew - Sexless virgin
Yeshayahu - Name is Immanuel
Matthew - Name is Yeshua
Maybe Mattiyahu had good intentions and only meant to parallel the "god with us" part and not the "virgin" aspect (at least not the sexless aspect) that has been distorted over time. I don't know, but distorted they are.
Was there anyone in Yeshayahu 7 that was born without a biological father? No. The context in Yeshayahu is about an impending war, and YHWH's promise of victory through the sign of the birth of a son; a sign that "God was with them". Not literally, but in battle. It has nothing to do with a woman being a "virgin" in the sense of "without sexual contact" with a man. The son was born with a mother AND father. Yeshayahu has nothing to do with the son in particular. After the birth, the life of the son is inconsequential. The child he spoke of was already conceived (the word "harah" is past tense, not future tense, and means "conceived") and the child, which would soon be born, would be a sign--a good omen--to a king about to engage in battle.
Note also the striking parallel between verses 7:16 and 8:4 . Here is Yeshayahu prophesying almost identically about both children. The more closely you look, the more difficult to deny that these two are identical. You can hardly blame evangelicals for seeing a special significance in the name Immanu'el, Hebrew for "God with us," but such language and imagery was right at home in the world of old Yudean nomenclature, where every other proper name seemed a reminder of God's presence. Thus we have Yeshayahu, which means "God's help"; Michael , "Like unto God"; Yisrael," "Striving with God"; Elihu, "He is my God"; AdoniYah , "Yahweh Lord"; and a host of others.
What we do not have, in reference to Messiah and a "virgin birth", is any true prophetic connection. We don't have any historical connection of a virgin birth in the understanding of religious Yudean antiquity. We don't have any connection of a virgin birth to Messiah in any of the writings closest to His lifetime. Most of these stories cropped up much later. As important as this connection is supposed to be, shouldn't it have been a part of historical record much sooner?
In any case, I would be more apt to believe that the birth of Hezekiyah, the righteous son of Ahaz in Yeshayahu, chapter 9 was more a prophetic link to Messiah than the child in chapter 7.
In conclusion, even if chapter 7 is a link to Messiah, the "virgin" aspect of it can still be disproved and attributed to the pagan ideas contemporary to the writing.
Sorry if my post is too long.. It's hard man!
]. The reason for this is that in Isaiah 8:8-10 we find that Immanuel was to be understood in a prophetic sense as a secondary name, rather than the primary name for the child. This holds true in both fulfillments. Immanuel is the secondary, prophetic name for both Mahershalalhashbaz and Yeshua. With the birth of both children the people of Israel would have "Elohim with them" in a very mighty way.
