Formal Debate Peanut Gallery: Does Matthew take Isaiah 7:14 out of context

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Formal Debate is located here:
Formal Debate --"Does Matthew take Isaiah 7:14 out of context?"

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

First post is up:

Formal Debate --"Does Matthew take Isaiah 7:14 out of context?"

 

[essentialsaltes]

I appreciate Tree of Life setting out the historical context so clearly, but as for the argument...

"A virgin will conceive and bear the child Immanuel - God Is With Us (Isaiah 7:14). Before the child comes to maturity the Syro-Ephramite crisis will dissolve (Isaiah 7:15-16)."

This certainly does not apply to Jesus.

"... And the child will be a Davidic king"

This certainly does not apply to Jesus. Even to try to stretch this point, it just doesn't apply in the given context of having to deal with the Assyrians.

"Matthew understands Jesus to be the fulfillment of this promise."

Tree of Life's own argument seems pretty close to asserting that Matthew was legitimately mistaken about the prophecy.

Whether Matthew was sincere in taking the prophecy out of context does not affect whether it is taken out of context, i.e. the topic of the debate.

 

[Tree of Life]

I appreciate Tree of Life setting out the historical context so clearly, but as for the argument...

"A virgin will conceive and bear the child Immanuel - God Is With Us (Isaiah 7:14). Before the child comes to maturity the Syro-Ephramite crisis will dissolve (Isaiah 7:15-16)."

This certainly does not apply to Jesus.

"... And the child will be a Davidic king"

This certainly does not apply to Jesus. Even to try to stretch this point, it just doesn't apply in the given context of having to deal with the Assyrians.

"Matthew understands Jesus to be the fulfillment of this promise."

Tree of Life's own argument seems pretty close to asserting that Matthew was legitimately mistaken about the prophecy.

Whether Matthew was sincere in taking the prophecy out of context does not affect whether it is taken out of context, i.e. the topic of the debate.

Thanks for raising these issues. I assume Nihilist Virus will raise these or similar issues and so I'll be sure to address them.

 

[Tree of Life]

The debate has now concluded (I've posted my concluding post - it should be up any time). I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The debate has now concluded (I've posted my concluding post - it should be up any time). I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts!

Thanks for the debate. I'm not sure if I said more than enough or if I could have done better.

Anyway, I'm a little confused on something you said near the end.:

"If read this way, this would mean that God is able to fulfill his promises to David and raise up a Davidic king even if the line of David should be snuffed out. This word is given as a further assurance that God will deliver Ahaz from the crisis."

If God is saying that he will make good on his promise whether or not the line of David is snuffed out, how is that "further assurance" that God will deliver Ahaz? It seems to indicate the exact opposite. It seems to be saying that Ahaz is expendable.

 

[Cuddles333]

Isaiah 'changes up' so much that if one is a novice at the Old Testament they will not be able to detect when he is referring to a future occurrence. He does this a number of times in the chapters 7-9.
For instance, in 7:14-16 he is referring to the child of his and the prophetess. Yes, the child was a sign that 'God was with them' (Immanuel). Then in 8:9-15 Isaiah jumps to the far future featuring another child (Immanuel) in 8:10 who will be a sanctuary to both Israel and Jerusalem. He was to be a stone to strike and a stone to stumble over for both.

 

[Docskeptic]

New here. Saw this thread and it looks interesting. I support the position that Matthew took Isaiah 7:14 out of context. Nihilist Virus covered the salient points well. I would like to add in support that Matthew has a habit of taking OT quotes out of context.

For example, Matt. 2:14, 15 says, "So (Joseph) got up, took the child (Jesus) and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”"

However, the full quote from Hosea 11:1-2 is as follows, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals."

How can this portion refer to Jesus? Hosea 11:2 would positively preclude him from being the person referred to in Matt. 2:15. If Hosea was misquoted, why not Isaiah?

 

[Tinker Grey]

New here. Saw this thread and it looks interesting. I support the position that Matthew took Isaiah 7:14 out of context. Nihilist Virus covered the salient points well. I would like to add in support that Matthew has a habit of taking OT quotes out of context.

For example, Matt. 2:14, 15 says, "So (Joseph) got up, took the child (Jesus) and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”"

However, the full quote from Hosea 11:1-2 is as follows, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals."

How can this portion refer to Jesus? Hosea 11:2 would positively preclude him from being the person referred to in Matt. 2:15. If Hosea was misquoted, why not Isaiah?

Hose 11:1-2 is my favorite example of Matthew's blatant quote mining. Not only could not the complete thought be about Jesus, but how would anyone read those verses and conclude that it was a prophecy at all? It's merely a complaint about Israel's behavior.

 

[Docskeptic]

As I said Matthew has a habit of misquoting the OT. Here's another example I posted elsewhere:

In Mathew 27:9-10, speaking of Judas' suicide, he says, "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

This "prophecy" actually occurs in Zechariah, not Jeremiah. In Zechariah 11:12-13, we read, "I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord."

The prophecy in Zechariah actually deals with God becoming tired of his flock and giving them over to be destoyed. It has nothing to do with the Messiah and yet Matthew plucks it out of context and applies it to Jesus because it happens to mention 30 pieces of silver.

Doc

 

[God's Child]

We are closing this as the debate ended back in July and the thread has run its coarse. Thank you for participating and sharing your thoughts on this debate. Have a great day.