Here is your chance to talk about whatever you want to talk about. Speak your mind in the comments section. Or maybe suggest a topic you would like me to cover in a future post. It’s open mic.
September 18, 2008
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- September 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm
- Category :
- Odds & Ends
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Thinking to Believe
%d
September 20, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I do have a question:
What is your view on sin and humanity? Specifically, when do we become sinners? Are we born guilty of sin, with a sin nature, or with a propensity towards sin that becomes guilt when we inevitably violate a standard of the law?
Additionally, I did a study on the word “sarx,” and compared Christ’s nature to man’s nature. If Christ was tempted in all ways like we are, but was without sin, could he have sinned? And, if he couldn’t have sinned, could he have truly been tempted?
LikeLike
September 21, 2008 at 11:46 am
Maybe you could in the future discuss the controversy surrounding Isaiah 7:14 and whether or not it really predicts the Virgin Birth. Did Matthew reinterpret the Isaiah passage? Was it a double fulfillment? Or did Isaiah always intend it to be taken as a long-range prophecy of the Messiah’s supernatural birth?. I’d be interested in your thoughts, Jason.
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 11:35 am
Maybe I will do a post on that in the future. For your sake, however, let me briefly address it here. Most of what we have called Messianic prophecies, in their original context, are clearly not prophetic of the Messiah. In contest, Isaiah 7:14 was prophetic, but not of the Messiah. It had a fulfillment in Isaiah’s day. But the early church, re-reading the OT in light of Christ, saw it in a new way that typified Christ. As Craig Blomberg wrote, “When the Gospel writers use typology, then, they are often not claiming to be interpreting the meaning of the Old Testament passages cited but rather showing how contemporary events are falling into a pattern so reminiscent of what God did in the past that they can explain the present only in terms of God’s acting again.”
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 11:48 am
Brad,
My position is that we are born sinners with a sin nature (a la Adam, Romans 5), which is itself a propensity to sin. So we are sinners before we commit any personal sins.
As for Christ’s temptations, see my article on this topic here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/temptationofchrist.htm
Jason
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm
so, if we’re born sinners, are you agreeing with calvinists in saying that we sin because we’re sinners; we’re not sinners because we sin?
specifically, are we born guilty?
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Yes, I agree that we are born sinners. I don’t see any other way to interpret Romans 5. In Adam, all sinned. Even Arminians hold to this. The only position I know of that does not hold to this is Pelagianism (a 4th century heresy). Pelagius held that people were born innocent, and did not become sinners until they engaged in a conscious rebellious act against God.
Jason
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I might be a heretic.
We’re not guilty until we commit an act in violation of the law. Because of the strictness of the law, we’re incapable of living sinless. Therefore, we all become sinners by our sins of commission or omission.
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I would like to agree with you. But how do you go about interpreting Romans 5, then?
Jason
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Jason,
Thanks for answering my question about Isaiah 7:14. I was, I confess, a little surprised by your answer. I’m sure you know a lot more than me, so go easy on me here :), but my opinion is that Isaiah 7:14 is a literal prophecy of Christ’s birth and that it has no other application apart from that. Of course, you are quite correct that there are many typological prophecies in the OT which, in their original context, were not intending to speak of the Messiah but that what happened was that these prophecies were reintepreted by the NT authors and applied to Christ. One example of this would, of course, be Hosea 11:1 which was not, as some of the more sensationalist prophecy writers wrongly claim, quoted by Matthew because he thought it literally predicted that the Messiah would come out of Egypt. Rather, it was quoted because he wanted show that Jesus fulfilled it typolgically. So when the Gospel writers say that Jesus “fulfilled” such and such a prophecy, they do not always mean that He fulfilled it literally. Another example would be Jeremiah 31:15 which was not a literal prophecy of the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem and nor was it even a typological one but, rather, it was an example of what the late David L. Cooper called ‘literal plus application’ When Matthew quoted this prophecy in chapter 2:17-18 of his Gospel and said that the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem “fulfilled” Jeremiah’s prophecy, he was not speaking of a literal fulfillment nor a typological one but, rather, he was quoting it as an application because of one point of similarity – the point of similarity being that just as Jeremiah was saying that Jewish women would weep for their sons (the ones taken captive to Babylon), the Jewish women of Jesus’s day would also weep for their sons when Herod killed them. You probably know all this stuff already Jason, but for anyone else reading this who doesn’t, it is further explained by Arnold Fruchtenbaum at http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=2 where he states that Matthew’s way of quoting from the OT was perfectly in keeping with Jewish practices of the day where they understood that Scripture had a four-fold meaning. Anyway, my point is that we cannot know from the NT alone whether Matthew understood Isaiah 7:14 as being literally fulfiled with Jesus or whether he saw it as typological prophecy or even as an example of ‘literal plus application.’ We can only tell from reading the relevant OT passages themselves. I personally believe that Isaiah 7:14 was a literal prophecy and would say that the child named Immanuel would be Jesus whereas the child spoken of in verses 15-16 would be Shearjashub who was mentioned back in verse 3.
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 9:22 am
you’re agreeing that I’m a heretic? 😉
regarding romans 5, i’m still attempting to fully understand the entire thing. this entire discussion is a process for me (up until about a year ago, i actually held the calvinist view, that we were born unrighteous and condemned, but i couldn’t balance that with the notion of an age of accountability. i cited psalm 51 (behold, i was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me), but have come to understand that as a lyrical device to demonstrate his total sinfulness.
but as i read romans 5, i think paul is writing for parity, demonstrating jesus as the second adam, and the way that their lives affect the entirety of humanity. i don’t necessarily think (and i could be wrong, i’m still learning) that paul is saying we become condemned by adam’s sin; we are condemned by our transgression of the law (James 2:10, Galatians 5:3, Romans 7:9). in fact, going back to Romans 7, it seems that without the law, we’re not dead by sin – sin makes us dead by condemning us. (again, i could be misreading this)
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 11:49 am
Brad,
5:15 says many died through one man’s trespass. That tells me that Adam’s sin affected everyone. If everyone is born innocent like Adam was, then his sin would not affect anyone else.
Likewise, 5:18 says as one trespass led to condemnation for all men…. And 5:19 that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. That tells me the whole human race became sinners as a result of Adam’s sin.
Of course, we are also sinners because of our own individual sins. It seems to me that the way to reconcile the age of accountability (a doctrine not taught in Scripture, but one I believe to be true nonetheless) with original sin is that children are sinners because of their relationship to Adam, but God does not punish them since they did not commit any sins of their own. In other words, we are sinners by nature because of Adam, but God only condemns us for our own personal sins.
I would suggest you read the following blog post:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/a-short-defense-of-imputation-or-am-i-really-condemned-for-the-sin-of-another/
I found it to be a helpful summary of the issue.
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 11:56 am
many died … i think that adequately is explained with the idea that death entered in. prior to adam’s sin, no one knew death.
i’ll look at it. i’m still going ’round and ’round on this issue.
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm
That may be a reference to physical death, but how did “the many” die as a result of Adam’s sin if Adam’s sin does not affect his progeny? Adam’s progeny should be born immortal, and only be condemned to death once they commit their first conscious sin.
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm
James,
I can see you are versed in the OT’s use of the NT. It is difficult at times to figure out how they are using it, but in this case, I would argue that Isaiah 7:14 has a clear, undeniable fulfillment in Isaiah’s day.
Look at the context. King Ahaz of Judah was worried because King Pekah of Israel had aligned himself with Syria, making Israel a mighty force that could defeat Judah. To calm King Ahaz’s fears, God sent Isaiah to him to assure him that Judah is safe from the enemy coalition. God tells Ahaz to ask Him for a sign that would confirm this. Ahaz did not wish to test God, so Isaiah had to tell him the Lord’s sign. What was that sign? In the words of Isaiah: “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel. He will eat sour milk and honey, which will help him know how to reject evil and choose what is right. Here is why this will be so: Before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right, the land whose two kings you fear will be desolate. The LORD will bring on you, your people, and your father’s family a time unlike any since Ephraim departed from Judah – the king of Assyria!”
As you can see, it was absolutely critical for the prophesied child to be born in Ahaz’s day. The enemy had to be destroyed before this child was able to discern the difference between good and evil. If this prophecy only pertained to the Messiah, God’s sign would be falsified. Of course, it is possible that this is a double-prophecy, with an immediate and distant fulfillment. The name of the child, Immanuel, may indicate this, since no ordinary human child could be “God with us.” But then again, children were often named names they could not possibly fulfill. Jesus was named Jesus because His name means “YHWH saves,” but Jesus was a very common name (Joshua) among Hebrew boys.
Here is some other interesting information I got from the NET Bible’s notes. In verse 14 the Hebrew uses the article, signifying that Isaiah was pointing to a woman present in the court of the king. It is quite possible that this is the prophetess women Isaiah has sex with in 8:3, who gives birth to Mahershalalhashbaz, and that lil’ Maher is the child prophesied in 7:14. Interestingly, the whole “before the child is able to do X” theme we saw in chapter 7 is also spoken of lil’ Maher as well. God says before the child is able to say mother and father Israel and Syria will be destroyed.
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jason,
I don’t want to go off topic here, for I am enjoying the debate between you and Brad, but I noticed that you both believe in infant salvation. I personally have not decided one way or another on whether the doctrine is true or not, but I was just wondering why you believe in infant salvation?
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Jason, you said:
“In verse 14 the Hebrew uses the article, signifying that Isaiah was pointing to a woman present in the court of the king. It is quite possible that this is the prophetess women Isaiah has sex with in 8:3, who gives birth to Mahershalalhashbaz, and that lil’ Maher is the child prophesied in 7:14. Interestingly, the whole “before the child is able to do X” theme we saw in chapter 7 is also spoken of lil’ Maher as well. God says before the child is able to say mother and father Israel and Syria will be destroyed.”
On the issue of the use of the definite article in Isaiah, I would refer you to the following comment given by the Hebrew Christian scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum [sorry to keep citing him :)]:
“According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, when finding the use of a definite article (the), the reader should should look for a reference in the immediate previous context. Having followed the passage from chapter 7:1, there has been no mention of any woman. Having failed with the immediate conetext, the second rule is the “principle of previous reference,” something which has been dealt with much earlier and is common knowledge among the people. Where in Jewish Scripture or tradition is there any concept of “the virgin giving birth to a son”? The only possible reference is to Genesis 3:15. Contrary to the biblical norm, the Messiah would be reckoned after the Seed of the Woman. Why? Because He would have no human father; His would be a virgin conception and birth.”
You’re correct that when you say that the whole “before the child is able to do X” theme we saw in chapter 7 is also spoken of Mahershalalhashbaz as well. However, I don’t think this forces one to conclude that child of Isaiah 7:15-16 is the same as the chid of Isaiah 8:3. As I said in my earlier post, I think Shearjashub is the child of verses 15-16 (why else was Isaiah commanded to take him?). When we get to Isaiah 8, Isaiah has had another child by that point and he repeats similar words in order to again emphasise that the defeat of the House of David’s enemies (obviously the threat in chapter 7 was from Syria and Israel, whereas in chapter 8 it is from Assyria) is not too far away. I may be wrong, but one reason I would not see Mahershalalhashbaz as being “Immanuel” is because Isaiah 8:8 seems to show that Immanuel actually owns the land, something which would seem to indicate that the child is eihter God or king (or both). Mahershalalhashbaz was obviously never king. An excellent article which may explain all this better than I can is http://www.tmtestimony.org.uk/library/2000_12.htm.
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Brad,
I think Jason could probably explain all this better than I can, but on the issue of whether we are born as sinners, I think you only have to look at Job 14:4. Also, although it may be possible to interpret this in a different way, I’d also throw in Ephesians 2:3 which says that we “were by NATURE the children of wrath, even as others.” Finally, when we look at passages which say that “all” humans are sinners (Psalm 143:2; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Proverbs 20:9; 1st Kings 8:46; Romans 3:19;), we have to keep in mind that the Scriptures seem to regard babies in the womb as being “fully human” and, therefore, this would show that they were regarded as sinners even though they’d committed no sins of their own at that point.
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Brad,
Another verse you might want to look at is Psalm 58:3 whic .
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Oops, that last post didn’t come out right. What I meant to say was that verse in Psalm 58 also seems to show that we a born as sinners; although, again, it may be possible to interpret it in a different way too.
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 7:05 am
The issue of being born with sin seems a moot point if we’re born with a corrupt nature. In other words, children don’t need to be schooled in the art of sinful behavior, it comes naturally. However, it’s when a child reaches a level of maturity and comes to understand concepts of morality and transgression of moral law that their endemic nature to sin is confronted and the war ensues. Paul exemplified this war in Romans 7.
If we’re born into corruption (the Adamic nature) and lived long enough to know to refuse the evil and choose the good, odds are we’ve dabbled in sin. So like I said, it seems a moot point unless we’re talking about children or mentally handicapped. In that case, it seems to me that the revelation of conscience, creation and the Word (both living and written) require a degree of reasoning capacity not available to the infirmed or infant.
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 10:16 am
James,
I believe in infant salvation because I do not think a just God would condemn a human being for doing wrong when they do not yet recognize the difference between right and wrong, and do not have the cognitive capacities to recognize the existence of God, and their need for a Savior.
I find some justification for the idea in the Exodus story, in which God condemned all the adults to die in the wilderness, but the children would be allowed to enter the promised land because they were not old enough to be conscious participators in the sins of their parents. I do not pretend that this is speaking about eternal salvation, but I think the principle holds for eternal salvation as well.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 10:45 am
James,
Hebrew was not my strong point in seminary, so I won’t try to offer a counter-grammatical argument against what Fruchtenbaum said concerning the article. But it seems to me that this could not possibly be a hard and fast rule. Languages typically do not function that way, and besides, even if that is what we would expect, language is full of oddities. To illustrate why I don’t think we have to have a woman mentioned previously to think Isaiah was speaking of a woman present, let’s consider another grammatical feature of this passage. In 7:13 the verb translated “listen” or “hear” is second person plural, indicating that Isaiah was speaking to a group of people, not just Ahaz (most likely the royal court). And yet the preceding context never introduces anyone else present other than Ahaz. No one would say that since we cannot identify the presence of anyone else other than Ahaz in the preceding context to which the second personal plural grammatical form coincides, that therefore there was no one present except for Ahaz. So why think this is the case for the woman? If Isaiah wanted to point to a woman present, he would have done so with the article. Granted, it may not be the case that the woman he was speaking of was present in the court, but it seems likely just on logical grounds alone. After all, if Ahaz did not know who the woman was who would have the child, how could he know when Israel and Syria would be destroyed? The sign would be meaningless. Is it possible that Isaiah revealed the identity of the woman sometime later? I suppose so, but it makes more sense if the woman was revealed right then.
While we’ve spent a great deal of mental effort on this point, the fact of the matter is that it is just an interesting side point. It does not affect whether this prophecy still had an immediate fulfillment. I could completely agree with you that the woman was not present, but that would not change anything about the necessity of an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah’s day.
As for Fruchtenbaum trying to find a previous reference in Gen 3:15, that is absurd. This is an abuse of systematic theology. I’ve never read the guy before, but if this is an example of his hermeneutical methods, I’m not sure I ever will read him. One must interpret Isaiah 7:14 in light of Isaiah, just as the original audience would have. If Isaiah intended to reference Gen 3:15 he could have done so. He didn’t.
I would also disagree that Isaiah actually meant to say that a bonafide virgin would conceive. The Hebrew word alma simply means young woman. It corresponds to the equivalent Hebrew word for young man. Even in the cognate languages it means young woman. It’s true that at times it was used more specifically to refer to a virgin, but the context should make that clear. It’s also true that most young women by definition would be virgins, because if they weren’t, they would be stoned! But that doesn’t mean that Isaiah is thinking that a woman would give birth to a child without having sex. Surely, even the translators of the LXX did not think this when they translated alma as parthenos (?), which specifically means virgin. They would have understood him to mean that she would have been a virgin prior to becoming impregnated, not that she would become pregnant without engaging in sexual intercourse. That is why I see this verse as being typological. Jesus fulfilled the typology of this fulfilled prophecy in a way that even exceeded the original prophecy. Originally, a once-virgin had sex and conceived a child for a sign to Ahaz, but in the case of Christ, his mother actually remained a virgin even after the conception.
As for your last paragraph about whether it is even possible for lil’ Maher to be Immanuel of chapter 7, the NET Bible study note is instructive:
“The appearance of the name Immanuel (“God is with us”) is ironic at this point, for God is present with his people in judgment. Immanuel is addressed here as if he has already been born and will see the judgment occur. This makes excellent sense if his birth has just been recorded. There are several reasons for considering Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz one and the same. 8:3 is a birth account which could easily be understood as recording the fulfillment of the birth prophecy of 7:14. The presence of a formal record/witnesses (8:1-2) suggests a sign function for the child (cf. 7:14). As in 7:14-16, the removal of Judah’s enemies would take place before the child reached a specified age (cf. 8:4). Both 7:17-25 and 8:7-8 speak of an Assyrian invasion of Judah which would follow the defeat of Israel/Syria. The major objection to this view is the fact that different names appear, but such a phenomenon is not without parallel in the OT (cf. Gen 35:18). The name Immanuel may emphasize the basic fact of God’s presence, while the name Maher focuses on the specific nature of God’s involvement. In 7:14 the mother is viewed as naming the child, while in 8:3 Isaiah is instructed to give the child’s name, but one might again point to Gen 35:18 for a precedent. The sign child’s age appears to be different in 8:4 than in 7:15-16, but 7:15-16 pertains to the judgment on Judah, as well as the defeat of Israel/Syria (cf. vv. 17-25), while 8:4 deals only with the downfall of Israel/Syria. Some argue that the suffixed form “your land” in 8:8 points to a royal referent (a child of Ahaz or the Messiah), but usage elsewhere shows that the phrase does not need to be so restricted. While the suffix can refer to the king of a land (cf. Num 20:17; 21:22; Deut 2:27; Judg 11:17, 19; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 11:22; Isa 14:20), it can also refer to one who is a native of a particular land (cf. Gen 12:1; 32:9; Jonah 1:8). (See also the use of “his land” in Isa 13:14 [where the suffix refers to a native of a land] and 37:7 [where it refers to a king].)”
But again, let me emphasize, that whether lil’ Maher was the fulfillment of 7:14 or not is not important to the argument. It may be that Isaiah never records who the child was, but the fact still remains that for the sign to be meaningful to Ahaz, a child had to be born in Ahaz’s day. At best this is a double-fulfillment prophecy. It cannot be a Messianic-only prophecy.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 10:55 am
Dale,
I think you are correct. If we are born with a corrupt nature, whether or not we are born being guilty of Adam’s sin is a moot point. The larger issue is whether we are born neutral in regards to sin. I don’t see any way to interpret Scripture this way. Scripture seems clear that we come into the world with a bent toward evil (I have two kids so I know this to be true!), and we are like this because of Adam.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 11:50 am
Jason,
C. Michael Patton makes a compelling argument for the case of Adam’s sin being imputed to us via the strong corollary of Romans 5. In essence, everything Adam did Christ did. So therefore, according the Patton’s argument, Christ’s righteousness being imputed to all humanity has both veracity and validity and is efficacious exactly because Adam’s sin was similarly imputed to all humanity. Of course he does distinguish between personal sins (i.e. the sins we individually engage in as a result of our fallen nature) and Adam’s original sin that we inherit by virtue of being born humans.
Additionally, Patton makes the case, based on grammar, that Romans 5:12’s “because all sinned” specifically intends to mean all humanity sinned in Adam’s sin.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with Patton (I rather enjoy P&P), it seems to me there are two complications I’d like to hear from you on. First, I’m not skilled in Greek grammar so I my be shooting in the dark here, but if the concept of imputing Adam’s sin hinges upon correctly understanding the phrase “because all sinned” to refer specifically to Adam’s sin rather than on our own sins based on the aorist tense (past tense), why does it necessarily refer to Adam? Can the aorist tense not refer to the individual sins committed by each person Paul addressed (and by extension everyone with the capacity to read Romans)? Does it follow that simply because the aorist tense is in use, the referent must be Adam? Everyone reading Romans would have already exercised their inherent ability to sin (it goes without saying!).
Second, is it possible that Patton may be filtering his interpretation of Romans 5 (original sin) through the lens of Evangelical soteriology? Let me explain. While Patton’s argument based on Romans 5 is compelling, it seems to hinge on the imputation factor. In other words, Patton bases his positive argument for the imputation of Adam’s sin to all humanity on the case that Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to all humanity (or words to that affect) because Paul made that corollary so strong. But his argument rests not so much on the strong corollary but on the understanding that we as individuals play no vital role in our own salvation.
He says that since we don’t have anything to do with salvation (the imputation of Christ’s righteousness), we must not have had anything to do with the sin we’re condemned with (the imputation of Adam’s original sin). But the fact that we must be born again, that we must repent and be baptized, that (ironically) we must get out of Adam and be united with Christ (at baptism – Romans 6) means we do in fact have a vital role in our own salvation. Evangelical soteriology says that by merely acknowledging the sacrifice of the cross and accepting it on the basis of faith we’re saved. Pentecostal soteriology says we must obey the Gospel and the command to repent and be baptized thereby exercising our faith in the sacrifice of the cross.
The extension of the corollary in Patton’s argument to impute Adam’s original sin seems to me to rests on his view of salvation.
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm
All,
I think that this is a great discussion. One point would make is this: we must separate the discussion of infant salvation & age of accountability from the discussion of the nature of human sin. Sure they’re related, but the former can NOT drive the latter. The Scripture is quite clear on the issue of human sin (I agree with Jason, which agrees with the traditional view) and has little to no discussion of infant salvation & age of accountability. I have witnessed others get hung up on the question of the age of accountability and end up adopting a position contra clear Scripture on sin in order to hold to their view of the age of accountability.
There are a couple of other ways to think about human sin and the age of accountability issue:
1) when in fact the two may go together just fine! (a view of infant salvation and the traditional view of human sin).
2) arguing for humans born innocently does NOT really solve the issue of the age of accountability! Is a 2-year old sinning when they knowingly disobey daddy? Are they accountable? I haven’t met a two year old yet that’s not already a good little sinner. In other words, most children that I’ve observed are sinning long before what we’d normally assign as the age of accountability. Will these terrible toddlers go to hell if they die in their cribs? To take a weak position on human sin in order to hurdle the age of accountability issue doesn’t solve much, in my opinion, it creates more problems, and I believe, more dead, unsaved babies.
3) All salvation is by the choice and grace of God. No one, including infants, are saved by their good works. If infants are saved because they are ignorant and no yet accountable then it is by the grace and mercy of an understanding, loving Father God, not their innocence.
Let my main point be clear: when Scripture makes clear and direct propositional statements of truth, they should be the control points of the discussion, not any other peripheral concerns.
Grace and Peace,
Chad
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Jason,
I see that you, like me, believe that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the OT.
Do you believe that the OT fulfillment of Isa 7:14 involved a virgin birth? If not, mustn’t you conclude that the NT “virgin birth” prophecy was a mistranslation of Hebrew to Greek, and the NT virgin birth story was an attempt to have Jesus fufill a prophecy that didn’t actually exist? Given that the earliest gospel doesn’t contain a virgin birth narrative, and that virgin births of gods is a pagan tradition, do you think that Jesus’s virgin birth is not historical?
Arthur
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I don’t have my Greek tools with me right now, but the aorist tense is the undefined tense. Although, in the indicative mood it ususally refers to a past event. The aorist tense does not tell you anything about the referent, but the kind of event it is. In this case, it is a past event. I think there is little doubt that “all sinned” refers to us, not Adam. The question is what constitutes the sins of all. Is it their own personal sins, or the sin of Adam? Contextually, it seems to be Adam. Paul said Adam introduced sin into the world, and hence death. This death passed to all people because all sinned. He doesn’t say because “all sin” (present tense), and thus there is no reason to think he is making a general statement about the universal nature of sin. He seems to be causally relating our sin to Adam’s. The relative clause preceding the word “sin” supports this. It either has a causal force “so death spread to all people because all sinned [in Adam]”, or it should be translated “so death spread to all people, in whom [Adam] all sinned. Either way, the connection of our sin to Adam seems clear.
As for whether Patton filtered Romans 5 through the lens of Evangelical soteriology, I’m sure he did. But if you are defining Evangelical soteriology as the doctrine of imputation, and grace without works, I think this is the correct filter. But I’m not sure how this would change the interpretation of the chapter.
I would not consider the fact that we need to repent and be baptized to mean that we have a role in our salvation. Surely, we must respond to what God has done, but our salvation is entirely accomplished by God Himself. We cannot add anything to His work.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Chad,
I couldn’t agree more.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Jason, you said:
“I believe in infant salvation because I do not think a just God would condemn a human being for doing wrong when they do not yet recognize the difference between right and wrong, and do not have the cognitive capacities to recognize the existence of God, and their need for a Savior.”
I think that is a fair point. As I said previously, I have not decided one way or another whether infant salvation is true. I think the only bibilical passage which may speak to this issue directly would be 2nd Samuel 12:23, and I woud lean to saying that it is more likely than not that it is talking positively about infant salvation although, admittedly, it could be read another way too which is why I’m unsure on the issue. We know, of course, from Ephesians 2:1 that all are dead in trespasses and sin and that the only way to change that fact is to be born again (John 3:3). Therefore, on that basis, and also because John 3:36 say failure to believe equals Hell (note that this passage is not talking about an “active rejection” of the Gospel but, rather, it says condemnation comes from simply a failure to believe), it could be argued that chidren too young to be capable of belief go to Hell. Now, a person who DOES believe in infant salvation would respond to that last point by pointing out that God is perfectly fair and just in His dealings with mankind and thus, it’s obvious that He would give all humans equal oppurtunity to be saved. Therefore, although it’d be fair for God allow, say, a 50-year-old to go to Hell, it’d be unfair for Him to allow children to go there because they simply have not had any oppurtunities to saved. I think that’s a pretty strong argument for infant salvation but it may not be full-proof. Opponents of infant salvation could respond by pointing that God does of course know the future and therefore, in the case of a child who dies, God would’ve known whether or not the child would have accepted the Gospel had he lived to, say, 50-years of age. In other words, maybe it’s the case that all kids who die would’ve grown up to become unbelievers and would’ve die as such. Therefore, maybe its the case that all kids who die go Hell and that one of the reasons God lets them die at that early age is because He foreknew that they’d never believe anyway. Alternatively, you could argue it in the complete opposite direction. It could be that every kid who dies would’ve gone on to grow up and accept the Gospel and, therefore, on that basis, we could argue with as much validity that all kids go to heaven. Hope that makes sense.
Jason also said, “I find some justification for the idea in the Exodus story, in which God condemned all the adults to die in the wilderness, but the children would be allowed to enter the promised land because they were not old enough to be conscious participators in the sins of their parents. I do not pretend that this is speaking about eternal salvation, but I think the principle holds for eternal salvation as well.”
Again that’s a good point, and yes I think it’s possible that the same principle holds true for eternal salvation. I have heard some use this passage to teach that the age of accountability is 20 because the story teaches that all those of that age were spared. I’m not sure what you think about that Jason, but I think they may be stretching it slighty because we know from the Mosaic Law that children below the age of 20 were certainly held accountable for sins and could even be executed. Also, an earlier poster mentioned that he thinks Romans 7:9 may teach infant salvation. Again, I’d be interested in your view of that passage, Jason, but my understanding is that most scholars believe that Paul was speaking about his pre-Christian days when he said, “And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” and that he was referring to the fact that he didn’t understand the true meaning of the law and did not recognise his unsaved state at that point.
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Arthur,
Not exactly. I agree that it had an immediate fulfillment. But I don’t necessarily agree that it had no other fulfillment. I am split between seeing it as a mere typological fulfillment in Christ, and seeing it as a double-fulfillment prophecy. If the question is whether Isaiah meant it, or understood it as a Messianic prophecy, I would say no.
No, I don’t think the LXX translators mistranslated it. They saw the young woman as being a virgin because young women typically were virgins, but like I said, surely they did not think that she would remain a virgin when she conceived. That was an insight of Matthew, inspired by the Spirit.
So I don’t see this as a Messianic-only prophecy, but it could be both an immediate and Messianic prophecy. Or maybe it is just a typological fulfillment. On the one hand, it appears that almost all OT “prophecies” about the Messiah are typological, rather than truly prophetic. The problem I have with that conclusion is that Jesus spent a considerable amount of time during His post-resurrection appearances showing His disciples all the places that spoke of Him in the OT. So it seems that Jesus saw some of these passages as actually speaking of Him in their original context. It may be that even He saw them as speaking of Him only typologically, but if that is the case, why did He chide others for not understanding the things that were written of Him?
I do think Jesus’ virgin birth is historical. I don’t think it is relevant that Mark did not include the virgin birth. He didn’t include a birth narrative at all. Does that mean he believes Jesus wasn’t born? As for pagans having virgin birth stories, if you consider people emerging from rocks, and gods coming in the form of a man and having sexual intercourse with human women virgin births, then my hat goes off to you for creative comparisons, but I don’t consider those parallel at all. That’s why the old history of religion school has largely abandoned claiming that Christianity has its roots in pagan mythologies.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm
James,
I actually don’t think 2 Sam 2:23 is a good reference for the issue of infant salvation. It seems clear to me that David’s point was that death is irreversible. While David would go to the grave with his son, his son would not return back from the grave to be with David. That’s why he prefaced his statement by saying, “Why should I fast? Am I able to bring him back?” Nothing in the context leads me to believe that David was talking in terms of eternity.
You are right, it can be argued that babies go to hell, and some do. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not address the question. But given the centrality of faith, and the fact that babies cannot exercise faith, it seems hard to believe God would hold them accountable.
The idea that God judges infants based on what they would have done had they lived is attractive, but it is problematic. On this view, God would be judging people for what they would have done, not what they actually did. Nothing in Scritpure leads me to think that God judges us for what we might have done if circumstances were different. After all, if this were the standard, then maybe Hitler will be in heaven, because if he had not killed himself he would have converted to Christianity 20 years later.
No, I don’t think the age is 20. I don’t think there is any set age. Catholics teach it is 12. I think this is way too old. Kids as young as 3 know the difference between good and evil. A friend of mine recalls being four years old and feeling conviction for his sin. He repented, and was filled with the Spirit.
I think it is a stretch to take Romans 7:9 as supportive of infant salvation, but I can see how it is done. Paul’s point seems to be that there are some sins that we would not commit had the law not told us they were wrong. It’s the old “don’t touch, wet paint” kind of thing. We wouldn’t even want to touch it had there not been a sign saying not to.
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I didn’t intend to imply that repentance and baptism adds anything to God’s work but simply that we are involved. Our response to unmerited favor constitutes involvement on our part. I am commanded to repent and be baptized so that my sins may be remitted – that constitutes involvement; a vital role on my part. My point was that the strength of Patton’s argument seems to rest on the logical outworking of the corollary of Romans 5, which is that if we are not involved in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness we must not have any involvement in the imputation of Adam’s sin.
But as I understand our union with Christ, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by virtue of that union. Here, let me quote you.
“His righteousness and life are not rightfully ours, just as our sins are not rightfully His, yet God imputes His righteousness and life to us as though they were truly ours, and imputes our sin to Christ as though it was truly His. All of this transpires by virtue of our union with Christ. Apart from this union we would necessarily be bound by the power of sin.”
And as already stated, we are involved and play a vital role in repentance and baptism. Again, quoting you, “It is by virtue of our union with Christ in baptism of the water and Spirit that we have had the power of sin’s rule over us broken..”
How then, when considering the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, do I not conclude that I have a vital role to play and that this conclusion necessarily excludes the perverted notion of righteousness through works of the flesh?
And if I do in fact have a role, it seems to me that the corollary breaks down when attempting to make the case that Adam’s sin is imputed to me.
By the way, which aspect of Adamic sin does Romans 5 teach we inherit? Is it the fallen Adamic nature we inherit by virtue of being born a child of Adam in which death spreads to all men because we all sin as a result of that fallen nature? Or does Romans 5 teach that we inherit Adam’s specific sin in which death passed to all men because all sinned? It seems to me that it ought to be one or the other but both is a stretch.
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Jason,
I think I’ll make this my last post on the “Isaiah 7:14- Virgin Birth” issue because I know that most of you here are discussing another topic at present and I wouldn’t want to distract you all from that. I apologise in advance for the length of this post. Anyhow, back in ‘post 16’ I quoted from the Hebrew scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s book ‘Messianic Christology’ in which made a comment about the use of the definite article in Isaiah 7:14. In ‘post 22’ you responded to this by arguing that although Hebrew was not your strong point, you believed that the “rule” Fruchtenbaum cited “could not possibly be a hard and fast rule.” You then said, “Languages typically do not function that way, and besides, even if that is what we would expect, language is full of oddities.” I personally know next to nothing about Hebrew so I can’t really respond to your argument accept to say that Fruchtenbaum, in my opinion, knows his stuff, and that I’ll have to email him (something I do regularly) to ask him about the points you made. Now, contra Fruchtenbaum’s grammatical argument, I was reading an article written by Glenn Miller on http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html about the issue of Isaiah 7:14 a couple of years ago. In the article, he quotes the famed Hebrew expert Gesenius as saying the following about the use of the definite article:
“Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used.”
Miller then states, “The import for our passage is that ‘the virgin’ is SOMEONE ‘unknown’ to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah’s wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz’ royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz…a ‘floating’ referent, as it were… The prophecy is given to not just Ahaz, but to ‘the house of David’–the ‘you’ in v.14 is plural, and Ahaz is addressed as a representative of the line (whereas in 7.1-9, the phase ‘house of David’ is described as ‘Ahaz and his people’–v.2). The point here is that the message is addressed to a historically-larger group (i.e. the dynasty and lineage of David) than a simple ‘local’ fulfillment would suggest.”
Again, I don’t know enough Hebrew to know whether that’s a valid argument or not, but I just thought I’d quote it in case you were unaware of its existence. Jason, you also said, “I would also disagree that Isaiah actually meant to say that a bonafide virgin would conceive. The Hebrew word alma simply means young woman. It corresponds to the equivalent Hebrew word for young man. Even in the cognate languages it means young woman. It’s true that at times it was used more specifically to refer to a virgin, but the context should make that clear. It’s also true that most young women by definition would be virgins, because if they weren’t, they would be stoned! But that doesn’t mean that Isaiah is thinking that a woman would give birth to a child without having sex. Surely, even the translators of the LXX did not think this when they translated alma as parthenos (?), which specifically means virgin. They would have understood him to mean that she would have been a virgin prior to becoming impregnated, not that she would become pregnant without engaging in sexual intercourse.”
In relation to your comment about whether the LXX translators would’ve understood Isaiah to have been prophesying a supernatrual virgin birth, I think that it’s impossible for any of us to really know what they thought. I understand from reading the writings of the NT scholar Ben Witherington and also from my contacts with Arnold Fruchtenbaum that the early rabbis did indeed understand Isaiah to be simply predicting a natural birth. In other words, just as you said, they simply saw Isaiah to be saying that a virgin would conceive and give birth in an entirely natural way. However, these are later rabbinic interpertations, and we simply have no records of any interpretations prior to the time of Christ. Therefore, the Septuagint writers and the Jews even prior to that time may have seen it as referring to a supernatural birth or they may not have. We just don’t know. On the issue of the meaning of ‘almah’ and also congate languages and their relationship to ‘almah’, all I can do is refer you to Miller’s article I cited above where he touches on this. Also, as I understand it, the word ‘bethulah’ is used to refer to a non-virgin in Joel 1:8 and, unlike almah, it is sometimes followed by the qualifying phrase “‘neither had any man known her” (Genesis 24:16). Again, Miller discusses this in his article, and I’d lean upon his understanding although I’m of course open to correction.
Finally, on the issue of whether Isaiah 7:14 is a “double-fulfillment” or a “Messianic-only” prophecy, I’ll point out that I don’t actually believe there is such a a thing as “double-fulfillment.” For those reading this who don’t already know, the Law of Double Fulfillment states that some passages can have both a near and far fulfillment. In relation to Isaiah 7:14, the “near” fulfillment would be a child born in Isaiah’s day, and the “far” fulfillment would be the birth of Jesus. I personally think there is a better principle and that would the be what some call the “Law of Double reference.” This law observes the fact that often a passage or block of Scripture is speaking of two different persons or two different events that are separted by a long period of time. In the passage itself they are blended into one picture, and the time gap between the two persons or two events is not presented by the text itself. The fact that a gap of time exists is known only because of other scriptures. A good example of this is OT passages which deal with the 1st and 2nd Comings of Jesus. Often these two events are blended into one picture with no indication that there is a gap of time between the two comings. A good example of this is Zech 9:9-10, where verse 9 speaks of the 1st coming whereas verse 10 deals with the 2nd. The two comings are blended into one picture with no indication that there is a separation of time between them. The same is true of Isaiah 11:1-5. Verses 1-2 speak of the 1st Coming, while verses 3-5 speak of the 2nd Coming. Again, there is no indication of a gap of time between the two, and the fact that there really is a gap can only be known from other passages. Thus, Isaiah 7:13-17 is better understood if we view it as being a “double reference.” Verse 13-14 refers only to the birth of Jesus. These verses are addressed to the House of David in general, as is shown by the use of plural pronouns in the Hebrew original of verses 13-14. Verses 15-17 refer to a child being born in Ahaz’s day, as can be seen by the shift to singular pronouns in the Hebrew original. The child would be Shear-jashub of verse 3 (why else was Isaiah commanded to take the boy?). So, to reiterate, in verses 9-12 the singluar “you” is used because God is addressing Ahaz alone. Ahaz then rejects the sign in verse 12, and God decides to then give a long-range prophecy/sign to the House of David, which is shown by the use of the plural “you” in the Hebrew text of verse 13-14. God is promising that the House of David cannot be deposed of until the birth of a virgin-born son. Then, in verses 15-16, God gives a sign to Ahaz alone, as is shown by the switch back to the singular pronoun (you) in the Hebrew. The sign to Ahaz is that the kings of Israel and Syria will be defeated before Shear-jashub reaches moral maturity. I know Jason might say that Isaiah 7 is not comparable to passages like Zech 9:9-10 or Isaiah 11:1-5, but that is my understanding of Scripture at this point of my studies and, again, I base most of this on what Miller and Fruchtenbaum have wrote.
LikeLike
September 24, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I did say that my previous post would be my last on the issue of Isaiah 7:14 and whether it prophesised a Virgin Birth or not, but I’ll just get in one more for the sake of clarification. In my last post I spoke about the ‘Law of Double Reference’ vs the ‘Law of Double Fulfillment.’ I know from reading numerous scholars that sometimes people often confuse the two and that they often speak of a passage as being an example of “Double Reference” when in fact what they mean is “Double Fulfillment.” I hope I’ve explained my understanding of the two terms properly in order that we don’t misunderstand eachother.
Another point I want to make to Jason specifcally is that I have read a lot of your articles (not all, but I’m getting there) and I agree with almost everthing you say. Isaiah 7:14 is just one of those areas where I’d have to cordially disagree with you. Who knows, I may come around to your position, or even it could be that you change your view and come around to mine :). I know there are some Christians out there who are of the opinion that anyone who refuses to believe that Isaiah 7:14 is anything other than a literal prophecy of the Virgin Birth must be some kind of heretic, but I certainly DO NOT go along with such a silly position and recognise that the OT contains many typological prophecies and that it’s very possible that Isaiah 7:14 may be one of them. If it turns out that it is not a Messianic-only prophecy, then I’d fall back on understandiing it as a typological fulfillment rather than a double fulfillment.
LikeLike
September 25, 2008 at 2:57 am
Jason,
Back in ‘post 21’ you said, “I do not think a just God would condemn a human being for doing wrong when they do not yet recognize the difference between right and wrong, and do not have the cognitive capacities to recognize the existence of God, and their need for a Savior.” Then, in ‘post 31,’ you commented that kids as young as 3 know the difference between right and wrong and you also cited the example of a friend of yours who repented at age 4. Personally the first time I remember knowing right from wrong was at maybe 3. Although, at that point, I do not think I would’ve understood the Gospel (not that it mattered, for I was never presented with it at that age). Now, this may have only been true for me, but I don’t think it is a big stretch to presume it would be the case that the age at which one becomes aware of the difference between right and wrong might be different from the age at which one is first able to comprehend the Gospel and his need for a saviour. Therefore, what I’m asking is this: At what point do you believe a child becomes illegible for Hell? Is it when they become aware of the difference between right and wrong? Or is it when they recognise their need for a saviour and attain the ability to understand such a concept?. Also, I don’t want to change the subject, but I’d also like to ask whether or not you beleive adults who die witout ever hearing the Gospel go to Hell? (my personal belief is that they do) Obviously, whether you want to answer that question now or whether you want to cover that in a future post or not is completely up to you. Both options are fine with me.
Jason, back in ‘post 31’ you also said:
“I actually don’t think 2 Sam 2:23 is a good reference for the issue of infant salvation. It seems clear to me that David’s point was that death is irreversible. While David would go to the grave with his son, his son would not return back from the grave to be with David. That’s why he prefaced his statement by saying, “Why should I fast? Am I able to bring him back?” Nothing in the context leads me to believe that David was talking in terms of eternity.”
Yeah, you may be right there with your above comment. I have seen people interpret 2nd Sam 2:23 in a number of different ways. Obviously when David says, “Why should I fast? Am I able to bring him back?” he is saying this because he knows that his son is now dead for good and that there is no longer any point in him continuing his agonising prayer to God. He follows this with the words “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” which, I think, could legitimately be interepreted to mean that he’d end up in the grave with his son, but I wouldn’t deny that David has the “hereafter” on his mind at this point, and therefore it’s possible that he’s saying his soul would go to the same place as his son’s (obviously, in the OT, believers would go to Sheol upon death, whereas in the NT they go straight to heaven). But, again, maybe your view makes a bit more sense. For what it’s worth, when I asked Arnold Fruchtenbaum about this passage, his response was, “Actually, all the verse is saying is that the child will not come back alive to David, but David will pass on to death to join the child and all that means is that both of them will end up in Sheol or Hades without specifying that both will be in the same category.”
LikeLike
September 25, 2008 at 9:37 am
If Christ is the second Adam, then how come we’re automatically damned by Adam’s sin, but not automatically redeemed by Christ’s obedience?
LikeLike
September 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Brad,
I wonder the same thing. In fact that has somewhat been my point so far. The argument from C. Michael Patton on the blog post from Parchment & Pen makes the connection between the imputation of Adam’s sin with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It’s as though he’s saying that one is automatic so the other is as well. Like you, I don’t see that. Especially in light of the fact that, as I argued above, we are at least nominally involved in the process of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us by virtue of our union with Christ. And if that is the case, so the corollary goes, we must then have a nominal involvement with the process of Adam’s transgression being imputed to us (which would be the instances when we personally engage in sinful activity as a outworking of the inherited fallen nature).
It seems to me that although we bear the burden or consequence of Adam’s sin – just as we may benefit from the righteous act of Christ – nevertheless in each case the burden or benefit isn’t automatic.
As I see it, the fact alone that “all sinned” from v12 relates to a past event doesn’t require that Adam’s sin is imputed to me. It is a historical reality that anyone capable of comprehending the corollary Paul is drawing in Romans 5 has already sinned – that is a past event.
LikeLike
September 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Brad,
I’ve enjoyed reading all the discussion, but if i may chime in.
That is why Jesus said you must be born again. The old nature must die and be buried and you must be filled with the Spirit of the 2nd Adam.
LikeLike
September 25, 2008 at 8:25 pm
cs –
My question isn’t if we can all be redeemed by Christ’s obedience; my question is why aren’t we automatically redeemed? Since, according to the general consensus (I’m still not convinced), we’re inherently sinners because of Adam’s sin, then shouldn’t we be inherently righteous by the second Adam?
I also take credit for sparking one of the most active discussions on this blog. Jason, I deserve a nickel.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 12:52 am
Brad,
Correct me if I’m misunderstanding your argument, but I think maybe you’re pressing Paul’s analogy too far. Paul’s point in Romans 5, I think, is merely that both Christ’s actions and Adam’s actions had worldwide effects. What Paul believes is that whilst the whole world became sinners through one man’s (Adam) actions, the whole world now has an oppurtunity for salvation and redemption because of what one man (Jesus) did. Obviously Paul does not use the words “oppurtunity to be saved” in Rom 5, but it’s self evident from his other writings that he believed that salvation does not come to all humanity just because Jesus died for all humanity but, rather, he understood (and taught in 1st Cor 15:1-4) that individual humans have to accept what Jesus did for them on the cross. Obviously Paul makes a similar point in 1st Corinthians 15:20-22 where he compares the worldwide effects of Adam’s sin to the worldwide effects of Christ’s resurrection. Again, correct me if I’ve misunderstood your argument.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 1:47 am
On the issue of Paul’s comparison of Jesus to Adam, I was just reading something by Leon Morris which may be of interest. It can be found at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r1w8EyL9qFIC&pg=PA190&dq=leon+morris+romans+5&lr=&sig=ACfU3U12TaYYrLWfhfK5dIeAJSPeRQCG2g#PPA227,M1 (scroll down to pp. 227-242).
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 5:49 am
All,
I think the way to understand the issue of original sin is simple, 1) all people are sinners from birth; 2) this is a result of Adam’s fall; and 3) thus we sin because we are sinners. This is very clear in Scripture and I could list the Scriptures but I think you know them. Whether one likes the doctrine, or is comfortable with it, is a different issue. However, when it comes to culpability, or accountability: we will not be judged for Adam’s sins or the sins of others but for our own sinful actions (thoughts, intentions, deeds, words, etc.) that demonstrate we are indeed sinners and worthy of God’s righteous judgment.
Personally, I think the Bible’s doctrine of sin and its effects on humanity is very strong, and thus very, very offensive to modern sensibilities. Humans are not only sinners, they also love to sin, and enjoy recruiting others in their sin (Romans 1, Titus 3:3), and in their rebellion, are in fact the enemies of God, whom they, in sin, view as the great killjoy in the sky wishing to keep them from their sin and threatening to judge them for it.
This is what makes salvation so incredible and amazing! This is why God’s love is so undeserved and His grace so great. Salvation requires regeneration because there is nothing in man that would reach out for God except God change the man.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 6:12 am
On Romans 5:
I think the answer to Brad’s question (if all are condemned in Adam, why are aren’t all automatically redeemed in Christ) is in Romans 5, and the rest of the book:
1. Christ is the second Adam, or new Adam, that is clear from the contrast. He is the New Man in whom life and redemption are in found.
2. The free gift is said to be for those who receive it:
“For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:17, ESV)
3. The contrast in Romans 5:12-20 is for effect to demonstrate the effects/results of Christ’s work with the effects/results of the Fall and it the comprehensive nature of the “all” in reference to man is true in this way: all have been made sinners via Adam, and all can receive grace, justification, righteousness, and life in Christ. That’s true.
4. However, the Romans 5:12-20 is not stating that all will indeed receive this life in Christ. That is to go beyond Paul’s clear statement and stretch the analogy.
5. Taken in context of the whole book of Romans, it is MANIFESTLY CLEAR that Paul does not hold that all are automatically redeemed. Salvation is only in Christ and that by faith that confesses, trusts, and obeys (1:16-17, 5:1-11, 10:5-17). In other words, there are no sinners sinning who are redeemed and just don’t know it… Salvation is only in Christ and Paul emphatically holds that and thus the Adam vs. Christ contrast can’t be stretched to say anything more than Paul actually says.
6. We know manifestly that all are not automatically redeemed. I wasn’t, you weren’t, and I don’t know anyone who was. Again, there is no one running around saved but doesn’t know it, otherwise there would be little need for Paul’s missionary mandate in Romans 10.
7. There is a difference between how we are made sinners and how we are made righteous. We are sinners by birth and righteous by new birth.
Some thoughts.
In Christ,
Chad
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 6:17 am
Good points on Romans 5, Chad.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 6:24 am
All,
I want to re-iterate my point from post 25:
“Let my main point be clear: when Scripture makes clear and direct propositional statements of truth [particular those that are repeated and emphasized, basically thems of Scripture], they should be the control points of the discussion, not any other peripheral concerns.”
As a model for doing theology I sometimes like to think of a pin board where you pushes pins in and wrap threads or wire to make a shape. The clear truths of Scripture are what I like to call control points that guide discussion and the doing of theology. It’s the kind of clear, repeated, emphatic, theme of Scripture that allows you to drive a stake in the sand and say: “whatever else we don’t know, this we do know.” I believe that the doctrine of original sin is one of those.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 6:26 am
Brad hasn’t been around long enough on the blog to be familiar with some of the massive dialogues we had (such as on praying for the lost, whew, that was a doozy) in the “early” days of Jason’s blog. However, he has generated a great discussion, the length of which we’ve not seen in many moons. Thanks Brad!
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 8:38 am
All,
Let me be clear that I understand the efficacious nature of both Christ and Adam’s actions; and I’m sure Brad does as well. But the analogy seems to be pushed by those advocating a view of original sin in which Adam’s specific sin is imputed to mankind in like manner as Christ’s righteousness. This why Brad’s rhetorical question is striking such a strong cord.
Going back to the larger issue Jason referred to in #23: Are we born neutral in regards to sin.
Adam’s disobedience brought about consequences which are both physical & spiritual death and a corrupt nature. In contrast, Christ’s obedience brought life. We understand the simplicity of that corollary. But does Romans 5 explicate the distinction between what we actually inherit from Adam when we’re born? Is it 1) his sin, 2) the consequences of his sin, or 3) a fallen nature? I say 2 & 3 but I’m not so convinced of 1.
Chad makes the point in #43 that we “all have been made sinners in Adam”. While I agree with the point, the question is: Are we made sinners because Adam’s specific sin has been imputed to us or are we made sinners because we’ve inherited Adam’s fallen nature? In either case we suffer the consequences of sin but are we neutral with regards to Adam’s original specific sin?
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 11:44 am
Wow! I can’t keep up with the dialogue. I’ve read everything everyone said, but I cannot chime in on everything.
Brad,
I’ll send you your nickel in the mail!
Dale,
I don’t think the Adam-Christ comparison is exactly equivalent. While every human was affected by Adam’s sin, and is represented by Adam, not every human was affected by Christ’s sacrificial death, and is not represented by Christ. We are born sinners and naturally have Adam as our rep through natural birth; we become righteous and have Jesus as our rep through spiritual birth and faith. While one is automatic, the other is not. I agree with James that Paul’s point of comparison is to show how each man affects humankind (in opposing ways I might add).
In regards to “all sinned” in Romans 5, Paul is not making a present tense gnomic statement that all (of us) sin, but referring to a past event. And in context, he is speaking of Adam’s historic act of disobedience. The two are connected contextually and grammatically. The point seems to be that in Adam, all sinned. Whether that is referring to us being guilty of his particular sin, or being affected by his one sin, I cannot say. I don’t think there is any question that the Bible teaches we are affected by his sin, but I am not decided on whether we are guilty of his sin (although I lean in that direction). This is simply an issue I have not given much attention to.
Jason
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 11:53 am
Chad,
My original question, and what spurred the ensuing discussion, is this:
The Greek word for our flesh nature is sarx. There are multiple passages that refer to Jesus having a sarx and/or coming in the sarx. Also, instances such as “the lust of the flesh – sarx” and “all that is in the world is … the lust of the flesh – sarx” make me lean towards a position that Christ shared a nature with the rest of humanity. (see Phil 2:5-11, perhaps? I could be misreading or abusing this passage.)
I have a friend, a good, smart, thoughtful, educated friend with his master’s degree in divinity, who agrees with my view, but I’m trying to gain further understanding and find a consensus.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 12:05 pm
RE: Our role in salvation (post 32 by Dale)
My analogy that I use with all new converts is that of a bank account – the money is there, but there’s a way to go about getting the money. The grace is available to whosoever will, but there’s a way that one must enter in to receive it.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Brad,
Sarx does not mean flesh nature. It can have that connotation in some contexts, but that is not the meaning of the word per se.
I would agree that Christ had a human nature, but several NT authors are clear that he shared in our identity in every way EXCEPT for sin.
Jason
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm
c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
1) without any suggestion of depravity
2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
from BLB –
Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for sarx (Strong’s 4561)”. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2008. 26 Sep 2008.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 3:03 pm
James,
Do you notice how what Gesenius said about the article conflicts with what Fruchtenbaum says? Fruch says the article indicates that the person in view has been referred to earlier. Ges says it is simply used to denote a person present in the mind of the speaker, primarily (but not EXCLUSIVELY, which is a point that should not be overlooked in the discussion of grammatical “rules”) one who is not yet known. So which is it? Is the person known (Fruch) or not yet known (Ges)? Like I said, in my experience, languages rarely function with such hard-fast grammatical rules. My study of Greek has taught me that semantics are broadly construed by language. There is often no one semantic relation for any given grammatical or syntactical feature of a language. Context is key.
I might also add that even if Ges is right here (rather than Fruch), and Isaiah was referring to someone who was not yet known, and thus not in the court, that would not mean that the woman would remain unknown for centuries! She might have been revealed three month’s later. But even this is just the small fish in the frying pan. The big fish is the fact that if this had no immediate fulfillment in Isaiah’s day, then the sign was absolutely meaningless!! The whole purpose of God giving Ahaz this sign was to confirm for Ahaz that God would destroy Israel rather than Israel destroying Judah. If God never actually made good on this sign in Ahaz’s day, then God lied, because the sign was meant to confirm this to Ahaz.
As for speaking to the house of David, this is not to be understood in some futuristic sense. Surely Ahaz’s family was present in the court, and they constitute the house of David.
You pointed out that we have no pre-Christian Jewish writings regarding how they understood “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. That may be. I don’t know. But I don’t think the absence of evidence either way means we should think anyone thought Isaiah meant a woman would give conceive a child without sexual intercourse, yet alone that this was the general expectation. There would be no reason to think God would perform such a miracle, especially given the context of the verse. There is nothing said about this child’s conception that can be construed as miraculous. It appears to be a normal conception, and a normal child. Only a post-Christian understanding would read it differently.
As for the double fulfillment vs. double reference issue, I don’t have a stake in the debate. But it seems to me that if Isaiah 7:14 applied both in Isaiah’s day and to Christ, it would have to be a double fulfillment. Why? Because it was prophetic of two events: one in the near, and one in the far. This is different from something like Hosea 11:1 which was not prophetic in the original context, and thus is more akin to the double “reference” label.
I don’t think the shift between 1st person and second person plural verbs should be taken to be a distinction between present and future. It is more reasonable to see Isaiah addressing the king in particular at times, as well as all those present at others. Obviously the focal point was the king, but the address was made to the broader audience. Only if such a scenario was not possible would I possibly resort to the present-future distinction. Then again, we would have to have the use of imperfect verbs, and I’m not even sure they appear here.
I recently purchased the massive tomb “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. I have yet to crack it open, but this discussion gives me good reason to. I’d be interested to hear what Blomberg thinks of Matthew’s use of Isaiah. I just recently (past year or so) started to try to tackle this problem of the NT’s use of the OT, so none of my views are dried in stone yet, so I’m open to some molding!
Jason
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Brad,
RE: Our role in salvation #50
Can’t agree more. Pentecostals are often accused of adding to God’s work of salvation by insisting that obedience to the Gospel is a necessity. I don’t agree with that criticism. Allow me to fall back on a familiar analogy: If I’ve fallen overboard and someone tosses me a life saver, does my act of latching onto it in some way constitute the very activity of providing it? The act of providing the life saver is one of mercy, my act of grabbing it is one of desperation.
BTW, really enjoying the conversation.
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Jason, you said, “Do you notice how what Gesenius said about the article conflicts with what Fruchtenbaum says? Fruch says the article indicates that the person in view has been referred to earlier. Ges says it is simply used to denote a person present in the mind of the speaker, primarily (but not EXCLUSIVELY, which is a point that should not be overlooked in the discussion of grammatical “rules”) one who is not yet known. So which is it?”
Actually, that was the point I was trying to make :). I was actually admitting that Gesenius was contradicting Fruchtenbaum, which is why I prefaced my citation of Gesenius with the words, “contra Fruchtenbaum’s grammatical argument….”. Was I using the wrong terminology there? If so, what I meant was that in contrast and in opposition to what Frucht said about the definite article, Gesenius had a completely different view and, therefore, it is possible that Frucht’s argument is wrong (although Gesenius was still arguing for a different understanding than you were). Sorry for the confusion there.
As to whether Isaiah was simply predicting a normal birth or a supernatural one, I’m not totally sure that we can deduce anything from the word ‘almah’ if taken on its own. I think you have to take into account v. 11 where God says, “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; MAKE IT AS DEEP AS SHEOL OR HIGH AS HEAVEN.” This verse would seem to show that the sign of v. 14 was supernatural in nature, although I guess it could be argued that all this verse states is that God was willing to do something supernatural if needed be, but not that he necessarily went through with it in the end. I also think you can’t isolate Isaiah 7:14 from chapter 9 which, I presumed you’d agree, talks about the birth and rulership of someone who is more than human (the term “mighty God” is used of Jehovah Himself in Isaiah 10). Taking the two together seems to force one to conclude the birth would be non-natural. If this understanding is correct, then since we know there was no supernatural birth in the days of Isaiah, we can conclude that the sign was given to future members of the House of David, not members of the House of David living back then. On the issue of whether the “House of David” in verse 13 was a reference to members of the house living in Isaiah’s time or whether it refers to a future House of David, I think something which MAY speak to your point (unless I’ve misread Miller’s point) is this piece in Glenn Miller’s article, where he says:
“The prophecy is given to not just Ahaz, but to ‘the house of David’–the ‘you’ in v.14 is plural, and Ahaz is addressed as a representative of the line (whereas in 7.1-9, the phase ‘house of David’ is described as ‘Ahaz and his people’–v.2). The point here is that the message is addressed to a historically-larger group (i.e. the dynasty and lineage of David) than a simple ‘local’ fulfillment would suggest.
The sign was NOT an encouraging sign at all, but rather a sign of judgment. Verses 17-25 picture a devastated future–not deliverance from enemies!:
1. v17: the king of Assyria will bring a time unlike any other!
2. v18: the ‘stinging bees’ from Assyria will take over all the places of the land
3. v20: Assyria would shame the nation by shaving all their body hair (c.f. II Sam 10)
4. v21-22: the developed agricultural society would be reduced to a more pastoral economy
5. v23-25: the land will become wild again–briers and wild animals will necessitate bow and arrow again.
The sign itself was NOT a ‘historical present’ kind of sign, but a ‘future confirmation’ sign, like that of Exodus 3:12–“And God said, ‘I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.'”. That it was to occur ‘beyond’ the present was obvious from the indications that the child would come AFTER the destruction of 17-25. The child would experience the destruction of the Davidic monarchy before coming of age. (Indeed, even the message in 6.9-13 seems to imply that the judgments fall on Judah as well.)
The upshot of all this is this: In response to Ahaz’ failure to exercise his royalty in line with Davidic mandates of loyalty and trust, God will step in to provide a TRUE Davidic king, Immanuel. This king will appear AFTER the consequences of the failure of Ahaz and family have manifested themselves in history, with the invasion of Assyria extending even to Judah (but stopping short of Jerusalem–cf. 8.8c). This Immanuel-child will appear with a ‘larger than life’ birth (to an unknown virgin) and manifest a ‘larger than life’ set of abilities/responsibilities, and function as a sign to the entire House of David, that God is active in delivering his people (in spite of Ahaz’ unbelief).”
As I said previously, I believe the sign of Immanuel is a long-range sign given to the House of David, whereas there was a different sign given to Ahaz in verse 15-16, which was that the kings of Israel and Syria would be defeated before Shear-jashub reached the age of moral maturity. So, the child of v. 14 is different from the child of verse 15-16. Again, going back to verse 3, Isaiah is commanded to take his child with him (a dangerous thing to do) to meet Ahaz, and I think that the only thing that explains this action is that Isaiah’s son was to be a visible sign to Ahaz that his enemies would be defeated shortly. But, as you said yourself Jason, my view are not set in stone and I’m certainly open to change.
Finally, in regards to your comment on Hosea 11:1, yes it would not be a double fulfillment – at least not according to my understanding of the way the terminology is used. A double fulfillment would be something like Zech 9:9 being fulfilled twice. In other words, it would be short-range prophecy about a human leader of Zechariah’s day riding a donkey and, at the same time, it would also a long-range prophecy about the Messiah riding a donkey (obvioiusly, history tells us it was literal prophecy of Jesus alone). Hosea 11:1 would just be a typoloigcal fulfillment in that it was never originally a prophecy about an individual coming out of Egypt but, rather, it was simply referring to the historical removal of the nation from Egypt. It wasn’t even a prophecy to begin with, whereas Zech 9:9 and Isaiah 7:14 were. I have to say that it is sometimes difficult to know which category to put certain prophecies in, and sometimes terms like “double fulfillment” or “double reference” don’t adequately cover all bases. Double reference is different from the former in that it says that one prophecy (such as Zech 9:9 or Isaiah 7:14) cannot have two fulfillments, but the rule simply observes the fact that often a passage or a block of Scripture is speaking of two different persons or two different events which are separated by a long period of time. In the passage itself they are blended into one picture, and the time gap between the two persons or two events is not presented by the text itself. The fact that a gap of time exists is known because of other Scriptures (Isa. 61:1-2 cf. Luke 4:18-21; Micah 5:2-4, Zech 9:9-10, Isa 7:14-16, amongst many others).
LikeLike
September 26, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Brad,
It is, of course, agreed that Jesus Christ and humans share a nature – human nature. Human nature does not equate sinful nature. Adam had a human nature that was without sin, but become corrupted by his sin and thus passed on to his progeny. Christ had a human nature but not a sinful one.
On the understanding of the Gr. “sarx”, I am no scholar, but Jason is surely right to say that the precise meaning of this term is contextual and that while it can connote “sin nature” it does not always do so. The term “flesh” is one that has been greatly abused in reading Scripture and the term cannot be turned into a technical term with exact meaning throughout Scripture. One can see this by inspecting a handful of verses using the term (1 Co. 15:39, 2 Co. 12:7, Gal. 4:14, Rom. 1:3, 1 Co. 10:18, Rom. 3:20, 1 Co. 1:16, Gal. 5:16-17, etc.). “Sarx” is a word Paul uses a lot and he uses it different from other writers of the NT and his own usage depends on the context.
A great tool for understanding the word in each context would be a commentary or an article from an in-depth dictionary such as the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
Btw, the position of your friend on the term “sarx” that you alluded to, what exactly is the position?
Joyfully Yours,
Chad
LikeLike
September 27, 2008 at 4:58 am
Brad,
Others have pretty much covered many of the points I was planning to make on the meaning of the word “sarx” in earlier posts, so I may just repeating (albeit in a slightly different way) what they’ve already said. Anyway, it’s obvious that words – no matter what language they are in – sometimes have shades of meaning. In the OT the Hebrew word “nephesh” (soul) is used on occasions to speak of the immaterial part of man, whereas at other times it’s used to speak of the whole person. The same is true in the NT with the terms “flesh” and also “flesh and blood.” In Hebrews 2:14, the author speaks of Christ taking on “flesh and blood, which clearly refers to that fact that He took on physical flesh at the incarnation. But, in 1st Cor 15, Paul uses “flesh and blood” not as an anatomical description but, rather, as James Holding of tektonics.org rightly points out, Paul is there using “a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature.” Holding notes that expression was used in pre-Christian Jewish apocryphal works to denote the same thing, and Paul would’ve been familiar with this. The context also shows this to be the case, for Paul’s exact words are “flesh and blood IS not able…” The use of the singular “is” reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect. If Paul was speaking of physical flesh, he would’ve used the plural “are” instead of the singular “is,” for flesh and blood are obviously two things not one. As william Lane Craig points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is “Paul’s elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought.” Thus, as has been pointed out, context tells us whether “sarx” refers to physical flesh or the flesh/sin nature. I see passages which teach Jesus took on human flesh, but not a flesh nature. As Chad rightly said, “Human nature does not equate sinful nature. Adam had a human nature that was without sin, but become corrupted by his sin and thus passed on to his progeny. Christ had a human nature but not a sinful one.” To be sure, the physical body is a tool or vehicle for sin (Rom 6:12-19; 13:14; Galatians 5), but that is not the same as saying it is in and of itself sinful. Obviously, at the resurrection, we will receive a physical body of flesh, but it is sinless because the fleshly nature is gone at that point. Again, context tells us in what way Paul was using the word “sarx.” So, in Romans 7:5, when he says “we were in the flesh” he’s clearly referring to the fleshly nature, and no-one would assume he’s referring to the human body. Context again determines meaning. Paul uses “sarx” in a number of different ways throughout the book of Romans.
I was just wondering – and maybe Jason is qualified to answer – what do you think of the argument put forth by some scholars which says that the flesh or sin-nature is also called the “old man” by Paul?. Some say that the word flesh emphasises the sin-nature itself, whereas the term old man emphasises the origin of the sin-nature, Adam’s original sin. In other words, they say the term old man refers to the origin of the flesh (I also note that Paul’s comparison of the old man to the new man is somewhat similar to his comparison in Rom 5 between the first Adam and the last Adam)
LikeLike
September 28, 2008 at 7:54 pm
James,
I just finished reading what Blomberg had to say in COTOTITNT. He agrees with me that Isaiah 7:14 had a fulfillment in Isaiah’s day. Of less importance, he is also persuaded that lil’ Maher is the prophesied child. As further evidence of this he cites Isaiah 8:18 in which Isaiah says his children are signs for Israel. Given what had just been said about a child being a sign in 7:14, I think this is pretty important.
Blomberg sees this as a double-fulfillment prophecy.
He confirms what you said about there being no extant pre-Christian Jewish interpretations of Is 7:14.
I haven’t read any of the comments posted this weekend yet, so I’ll respond to those tomorrow. I’m short on time today.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2008 at 10:17 pm
James,
I see. I must have missed “contra.” So we both see the same thing.
As for the sign, I don’t think it has to be supernatural, though it surely could be. But when you read the account, there is nothing about what is described that comes off as supernatural. In fact, the sign is not the birth of the child per se, but the age of the child. The child would not yet be able to discern good from evil before Israel and Syria would be defeated. The purpose of the sign was to show how soon God would defeat Ahaz’s enemies. There didn’t need to be anything supernatural occur for a child to be born.
I do think Isaiah 9:6 is prophetic of the Messiah, but a good case is made by scholars that it would not have been understood in such a fashion to Isaiah’s readers. Ascribing such language to a king was not unheard of in the Ancient Near East. Even if they would have understood it as referring to a future divine Messiah, I don’t see how we can connect 7:14 with 9:6, and then insist that the former must be interpreted in light of the latter.
I am a fan of Miller, but I don’t think he gave any evidence for interpreting the plural “you” as referring prophetically to future kings in the line of David, rather than to the descendents of David that were surely present in the royal court. And yes, Miller is right that God went on to tell of the even more distant future when he foretold the rise of Assyria, but that is not what the sign was about. 7:16 is clear about the point of the sign: it was to show when Israel and Syria would be defeated. That’s all.
I just don’t see any contextual basis for thinking the child of 7:14 is different than the child in 7:15-16. There is nothing in the context to suggest two different children.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2008 at 10:17 pm
James,
I’m not aware of the flesh/old man debate. I’ve always understood “flesh” to refer to our sinful nature, and “old man” to refer to our unregenerate self (including the behavior patterns characterized by those living unregenerate. I don’t see how we can understand “old man” to refer to the sinful nature itself (even its origin), because Paul says we have put off the old man, and yet clearly we have not put off our sinful nature. Also, Paul speaks of the old man as a thing, not as a person or historical event.
Jason
LikeLike
October 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Jason, you said:
“As for the sign, I don’t think it has to be supernatural, though it surely could be. But when you read the account, there is nothing about what is described that comes off as supernatural. In fact, the sign is not the birth of the child per se, but the age of the child. The child would not yet be able to discern good from evil before Israel and Syria would be defeated. The purpose of the sign was to show how soon God would defeat Ahaz’s enemies. There didn’t need to be anything supernatural occur for a child to be born.”
I guess whether you interpret the sign to be supernatural or not hinges on whether you believe the child of verse 14 is the same as the one in verses 15-16. If it is the same boy, then yes the sign refers not to the manner of his birth but, rather, to the age of the child, for verses 15-16 state that Israel and Syria will be defeated before he reaches a certain age. Thus it wouldn’t need to be supernatural in any way. But, as I say in earlier posts, I believe that this passage involves a “double reference,” just as Zechariah 9:9-10 (amongst others) does. Therefore, I see the child of verse 14 as Jesus and that His birth is given as a sign to a future House of David, whereas the child of verses 15-16 is a different child (Shear-jashub of v. 3) who was given as a (non-supernatural) sign to Ahaz. If verse 14 refers to a far-future birth, then we’d have to take it as supernatural birth because a mere natural birth would not serve as any sort of sign to a future House of David. If that’s correct, then we’d have to interpret the word “Immanuel” as literally meaning that “God would be with us in the person of a baby supernaturally born to a virgin.” We could then link that with Isa 9 which talks about a son being born who is “Mighty God.”
You also said, “I do think Isaiah 9:6 is prophetic of the Messiah, but a good case is made by scholars that it would not have been understood in such a fashion to Isaiah’s readers. Ascribing such language to a king was not unheard of in the Ancient Near East.”
I have heard it said that similar language to what Isaiah used was applied to mere human kings in the ANE. I haven’t really researched that area a lot myself, though, so I’m not sure how valid their arguments are. I presume these scholars would say that when Isaiah says the child would be the “mighty God” and “everlasting father” (some say a better translation from the Hebrew would be “author of eternity”), he was simply using hyperbole. Like yourself, I do believe it’s speaking of the Messiah. Firstly, we know from the NT that God really did become man and, therefore, it’d be a bit strange if the OT didn’t directly make reference to the fact that the Messiah was God Himself (obviously there are other OT passages which teach such a thing, but they are less clear than Isa 9:6); secondly, Isa 9:7 talks about how His government of peace and His reign upon the throne will last forever. This obviously fits in with Isaiah’s other prophecies concerning the Messianic kingdom of peace and clearly no-one would assume that a mere human leader would bring this about (or would they?). 1st Chronicles 17:14 later emphasises the same point as Isa 9:6, too.
Anyhow, thanks for your responses, Jason. I have enjoyed the debate. Some of the points you have raised have really made me think, so I’ll go away a do a bit more research on this issue.
LikeLike
October 1, 2008 at 10:16 am
Jason,
I hadn’t actually heard of Beale and Carson’s book until you mentioned it a few days ago. I might get that book in the future because it’d be interesting to see how all the different contributors view the issue of how the NT quotes from the OT (that said, I have done an awful of lot reading on the net about this issue over the last couple of years, so I have a pretty good idea about how a wide variety of scholars view this issue). I see from the description given on Amazon.co.uk that the book is about a million pages long :), but that shouldn’t be a problem, for I am the sort of person who, once starting a book, simply has to read the entire thing in one day (I managed that with one of Fruchtenbaum’s books which is almost as long as COTOTITNT!).
Interestingly, on Sunday I did a little search on the internet and found an article written back in 2002 by Blomberg (http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/mattclb.htm#27). In it he deals with Isaiah 7:14 and, as you say, he accepts the double fulfillment view and, yes, he believes the child prophesised was lil’ Maher. From what you’ve said, it seems the view he held then about Isaiah 7:14 is pretty much the same as the one he holds now. I’ve never read any of Blomberg’s books before, but I have heard a lot of good things about the man. I’d probably agree with most of what Blomberg says about the Bible, but this area of how the NT quotes the OT is one of those small points of disagreement we’d have (judging from the article I read). For anyone else out there, a good article I found on Sunday which summarises the numerous different views that today’s scholarship has about the issue of how the NT quotes the OT is http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj13d.pdf (BTW, this article touches upon Blomberg’s view).
LikeLike
October 2, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Jason,
Are you aware of Barack Obama’s efforts to kill the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? It was the one instance where Obama actually took a stand and didn’t vote “present.” He was the only state senator to speak out against the bill on the floor. His comments on the floor are absolutely chilling. Basically, he says that newborn infants do not all have constitutional rights, only those born nine months after conception. Preemies, in his view, are not infants but mere “fetuses” and have no rights if the doctor subjectively decides that the “fetus” is “previable.” It’s particularly chilling coming from an attorney and former law professor, as he should certainly know that anybody born or naturalized in the US is a citizen and has constitutional rights.
LikeLike
October 3, 2008 at 11:25 am
Arthur,
I have only followed the issue casually. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that Obama refused to protect infants born alive after a failed abortion attempt. Apparently he thinks the woman has a right to a dead baby, rather than simply to “rid” herself of the child.
What I have found hard to follow are the multiple excuses Obama has given for his votes, as compared against the facts of the legislative history. But it seems to me that his excuses have been confounded by the facts every time.
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2008 at 4:02 pm
James,
Even if one understands Is 7:14 as a double reference prophecy because of the NT data, the fact remains that in its original context, and for its immediate fulfillment, no miraculous conception or birth was necessary. The sign was not miraculous. The only miracle involved may be Isaiah’s ability to tell Ahaz who the woman was who would birth this child (as we discussed before, there may be grammatical evidence suggesting he did so while in the king’s court).
As for thinking the child of 7:14 is different from the child of 7:15-16, this strikes me as odd since there is nothing in the context to suggest this. That interpretation seems ad hoc to me. I don’t see how it’s required by the double reference principle either. Verses 14-16 could be about the child born in Isaiah’s day, and verse 14 could have applicability to a future child born of a virgin as well.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2008 at 6:50 am
Jason,
What’s happened to IBS? Are you guys being hacked? I noticed that links to some of the articles were being redirected to a site in Portuguese, other articles are completely corrupted. What gives?
LikeLike
October 27, 2008 at 12:24 am
I don’t know what’s going on. The last time I was able to access it, it reflected the way the site appeared at least a year or two ago. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get in contact with the webmaster, so I’m at a loss of what to do at this point. I’m web-tech illiterate.
LikeLike
October 27, 2008 at 4:23 am
Yeah, I use the resource on IBS practically on a daily basis. Whenever it gets back up and running (Lord willing), I’ll be sure and back up all the articles.
Just so you know, I really appreciate all the hard work you guys put into IBS.
BTW, have you ever heard of Kingdom Eschatology?
LikeLike
October 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm
That’s great to hear, Dale. Hopefully it will be back to normal soon.
Kingdom eschatology sounds familiar, but I can’t recall any specifics.
Jason
LikeLike