The Aaron Papers www.the-aaron-papers.net
YESHUA-MESSIAH
OF THE BIBLE--Part One
-Includes some interfaith dialogue-
My
friends
I
am offering this study to my Jewish and Muslim friends on another web
site. Please pray with me for their understanding of God's Word?
Aaron
-YESHUA-MESSIAH-
Isa.55: "1Ho,
every one of you that thirsts,
come to the waters, and he that has no money; come, buy and eat; yes,
come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2Why
do you spend money for that which is not bread? And why do you labor for
that which satisfies not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat that which
is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3Incline
your ear and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live: and I will make
an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. 4Behold,
I have given him [Yeshua-Messiah] for a witness to the peoples, a leader
and commander to the peoples.
5Behold,
you shall call a nation that you know not; and a nation that knew not you
shall run unto you, because of Jehovah your God, and for the Holy One of
Israel; [Yeshua-Messiah] for he has glorified you."
John 1: "1In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God [‘elohiym—Ref.Gen.1:1]. 2The same was in the beginning
with God. 3All things were made through him; and without him
was not anything made that has been made. 4In him was life; and
the life was the light of men.
5And
the light shined in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There
came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came
for a witness, that he might
bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8He
was not the light, but came that
he might bear witness of the light. [Ref.Mal.4:4-6; Lu.1:13-17; Mat.11:14;
Mat.17:10-13; Mk.9:11-13]
9There
was the true light [Yeshua-Messiah], even
the light which lights every man, coming into the world. [Ref.Jn.8:12;
9:5]
10He was
in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him
not.
11He
came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
12But as
many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God,
even to them that believe on his name: 13who were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God. [Ref.Rom.8:]
14And
the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory
as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."
[Ref.Jn.17]
Amen. [RASV-1901]
I
would also like to add this preparatory comment: This obvious Christian
understanding can be advanced only when we receive the Old and New
Testaments as the true living Word of God: Understanding that all
Scripture is in fact "God breathed". WE OBSERVE HOW ONLY THE
BIBLE ITSELF CAN INTERPRET, EXPLAIN, AND CONFIRM THE BIBLE. Therefore,
the observations presented here are all taken from the Holy Scriptures
themselves, as the positive proof of God’s perfect plan of redemption in
the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant—the continuum of His universal
reconciliation.
-THE
BIRTH OF JESUS-
The
prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus is clearly revealed in both the Old
and New Testaments (It was not a mystery):
The prophecy - The predicted
event is pictured.
Isa.7:14--The Lord Himself will give
you a sign, a virgin [almah-lass, damsel, or maiden] shall conceive, and
bear a Son and shall call His name Immanuel.
The prophecy - The predicted
event pictured, is confirmed.
Mat.1:23--Behold, the virgin [parthenos-maiden,
or unmarried daughter] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son
and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is being interpreted
God with us.
Though
some Jewish scholars would argue that the word which is being defined here
from Isaiah as a virgin, could be defined as a maiden, or a young
unmarried woman. I am not sure that I can see the real legitimacy of their
complaint over this definition. I believe that it was assumed in the
Jewish tradition that a maiden or young unmarried woman was
in fact still a virgin. This also reveals the continued rejection
of Yeshua-Messiah by most of the Jewish religious leaders—even to this
very day.
So
to address the question on the meaning of "virgin/ or young woman
[maiden—‘almah/ parthenos]. As I stated, I believe it was not only
assumed in the Jewish tradition that a young unmarried woman was a virgin,
it was required. Consequently, we see that Joseph, being a just man, was
prepared to handle this obvious problem privately. Which is the reason
that the angel came to Joseph in a dream—telling him that even though
his espoused was with child, that he was still to take her to be his wife
[woman—‘ishshah/ gune]. And I must repeat that I continue to fail to
see the legitimacy of this argument.
Then
concerning the definition of Immanuel—even though others might differ,
it is also clear that the Christian Church has accepted Matthew’s plain
definition of "His name Immanuel, which is being interpreted God with
us".
How this prophecy was to be
fulfilled.
Lu.1:30,31,34, and 35--And the angel said unto her,
Fear not, Mary: For behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring
forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS... And Mary said unto the
angel, How shall this be, since I have not known a man? And the angel
answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the
power of the Most High shall overshadow you: Wherefore also That which is
to be born shall be called Holy, the Son of God.
Important
points that God gives us in this passage:
Jesus is the virgin born Son
of Mary.
Jesus is proclaimed to be the
Holy Son of God.
The proclamations of the Angel
Gabriel and Elizabeth:
Lu.1:28; 1:42; and 1:31-- Hail, (Mary) endued with
grace; the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is
the fruit of thy womb. JESUS.
Lu.1:46-51a--Mary said: My soul does
magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour. For He has
looked upon the low estate of His handmaid: For behold, from henceforth,
all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is Mighty has done me
great things; and Holy is His Name. And His mercy is upon generations and
generations, on them that fear Him. He has shown <A>
strength with His Holy Arm.
In
addition to the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus - the Holy Son of
God, God also introduces His Holy Arm - Jesus.
*** <A> = The
Arm of Jehovah - Jesus.
These
Scriptures are also clear examples of how the Bible interprets the Bible.
Scriptural conformation of scriptural principles and facts.
The fulfillment of the
predicted birth of our Lord: A prophetic picture of the event.
Isa.9:6 and 7—For unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His
shoulders, and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and of the increase of His government
and of peace there shall be no end. <B>
Upon the throne of David, and upon His Kingdom, to establish it, and to
uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even forever.
The Zeal of Jehovah of Hosts will perform this.
*** Note: Zech.4:6b—Not by might, nor by power,
but by My Spirit says Jehovah of Hosts. [The
Zeal of Jehovah = The Holy Spirit]!
The event itself is confirmed.
Lu.2:11—For there is born to you
this day in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. [Yeshua-Messiah]
Lu.1:32 and 33--He shall be great, and shall
be called the Son of the Most High: And the Lord God shall give unto Him <B>
the throne of His father David: And He shall reign over the house of Jacob
forever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end.
** The house of JACOB
is the house of ISRAEL; also CONTAINING GOD’S INVISIBLE ISRAEL.
*** <B> = Jesus,
presently positioned on David's throne: The fulfillment of God's
promise to David.
The
declaration of Isa.9:7 and Lu.1:32 and 33 is very clear and to the point:
Jesus was to receive the throne and kingdom of David--and that, this
Kingdom was to be an endless Kingdom. Jesus would uphold this
Kingdom with justice and with righteousness. These same Scriptures also
tell us that the Zeal of Jehovah, which is His own Holy Spirit, would
perform all of these things.
Simeon declares the identity
and the purpose of the Lord Jesus.
Lu.2:25-32--And behold, there was a man
in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and
devout, looking for the Consolation of Israel: And the Holy Spirit was
upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should
not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ (Anointed/Messiah).
And he came in the Spirit into the temple: And when the parents brought
the Child Jesus, that they might do concerning Him, after the custom of
the law: Then he (Simeon) received Him into his arms, and blessed God, and
said: Now let Your servant depart, Lord, according to Your Word, in peace,
for my eyes have seen YOUR SALVATION, [Ref.Isa.52:10] which You
have prepared before the face of all peoples: A LIGHT OF REVELATION
TO THE GENTILES, [Ref.Isa.49:6] and THE GLORY OF YOUR PEOPLE
ISRAEL.
It
must be remembered that the Old Covenant was still in full-effect at the
time of this revelation.
Simeon
declared: Jesus, the fulfillment of God's promises:
(1)
Jesus was the Consolation (Comforter) of Israel.
(2)
Jesus was the Salvation of God unto all peoples.
(3)
Jesus was the Light of the Gentiles.
(4)
Jesus was the Glory of Israel.
(5)
Jesus was the Salvation of our God unto the end of the earth.
The declaration of the kingdom
of David is again brought into view.
Mk.11:9 and 10--And they that went before,
and that followed, cried, Hosanna, Blessed is He that comes in the name of
the Lord: Blessed is the kingdom that (has) come,
<B> the kingdom of our father
David: Hosanna in the highest.
This
Scripture is clearly speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ, who did come in
the name of the Lord. The children of Israel were also rejoicing in the
kingdom of David, because that Kingdom had come unto them as well. They
were blessing the Son of David. [Ref.Mat.1:1]
Mat.21:15--But when the chief priests
and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children
that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to
<B> the Son of David, they were
moved with indignation.
I
cannot believe that the children of Israel were rejoicing in something
that would not come unto them for thousands of years. Referring of course
to the Kingdom of God; to the kingdom of David; to the Kingdom of the Son
of His love; the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. We might also inquire
into why these religious leaders were moved with indignation.
More prophecy is given in
Zech.9:9, which concern Jesus:
<C> Rejoice greatly, O Daughter
of Zion. Behold, your King (will) come unto you: He is just, and having
salvation; Lowly, and riding upon an ass, even the foal of an ass.
And the fulfillment of this
prophecy is seen in Mat.21:4 and 5:
<C> Tell the Daughters of Zion,
behold, your King comes unto you, meek, and riding upon an ass, upon a
colt of the foal of an ass.
<C> Jn.12:13b--Hosanna:
Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.
[Ref. Mat.27:37; Jn.18:37]
<C> Jn.1:49--Nathanael
answered Him: Rabbi, You are the Son of God, You are King of Israel.
*** <C> = Jesus
- the King of Israel.
<C> Jn.18:37--(Jesus
tells us) To this end have I been born...
Jesus
did come in fulfillment of the promised King, and Jesus now sits as
reigning King at the Father's right hand in heaven. And when Jesus returns
as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, He will come to tread the
winepress of the wrath of God Almighty. [Ref. Rev.17:14; 19:16]
Jn.7:42--Have not the Scriptures said
that Christ (would) come of the
<B>
seed of David, from Bethlehem,
the village where David was?
Lu.1:68 and 69--(For) God has wrought
redemption for His people and has
<B>raised up a Horn of Salvation
unto us in the house of His servant David.
Mic.5:2--But you, Bethlehem
Ephrathah, which are little to be among the thousands of Judah. Out of you
shall One come forth unto Me that is to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings
forth are from of old, from everlasting. [Ref.Jn.1:)
And this prophetic Scripture
is confirmed in Mat.2:6--
And
you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are in no way least among the princes of
Judah. For out of you shall come forth a Ruler, who shall be Shepherd of
My people Israel.
Jesus tells us in Jn.10:14-16--I am the good Shepherd, I
know My own and My own know Me... I lay down My life for the sheep.
Another sheep I have, which are not of this fold; Them also I must
bring, and they also shall hear My voice, and they shall become ONE
FLOCK, ONE SHEPHERD.
The
above Scripture demands a state of total unity in the Kingdom of the Lord
Jesus Christ; the Kingdom of the Son of His love.
Jn.1:41--He found first his brother
Simon, and said unto him: We
have
found the
<D> Messiah: (Which is
interpreted, the Christ/Anointed)
Jn.4:25 and 26--The woman said unto Him
(Jesus): I know that
<D> Messiah (will) come, He that
is called Christ: When He has come, He will declare unto us all things.
Jesus said unto her: I that speak unto you, Am He.
*** <D> = Jesus
- the promised Messiah (the Christ / the Anointed).
<A> Additional
Scriptures on the Arm of Jehovah - Jesus.
Isa.63:4b and 5--(The year of the redeemed is
come) And I looked, and there was none to help, and I wondered that there
was none to uphold:
<A> Therefore, My own Arm
brought salvation unto Me.
Isa.52:10--(For) Jehovah has made bare
<A>
His Holy Arm in the eyes of all the
nations, and all the ends of the earth have seen the Salvation of our God.
Ps.98:1--Oh sing unto Jehovah a new
song, for He has done marvelous things. His Right Hand, and
<A> His Holy Arm have
worked salvation for Him.
Isa.51:5 and 9--My Righteousness is near, My
Salvation has gone forth, and
<A> on My Arm shall they
trust.
Isa.53:1-6—"1Who has
believed our report? and to whom has
<A> the arm of Jehovah
been revealed? [Ref.Jn.12:38] 2For he grew up before him as a
tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he has no form nor
comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire
him. 3He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief: as one from whom men hide their face; he was
despised and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows; [Ref.Mat.8:17] yet we did esteem him stricken,
punished of God, and afflicted. [Ref.Jn.19:7] 5But he was
wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;
[Ref.1Cor.15:3; Heb.9:28; Rom.4:25] the chastisement of our peace was upon
him; [Ref.1Pe.2:23-24] and with his stripes we are healed. 6All
we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
and Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
There
is no doubt that Isa.53 is revealing the suffering Saviour. And there is
no doubt that the Arm of Jehovah represents Jesus. This is another example
of allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible: Allowing the Scriptures
their clarity and compatibility.
Isa.11:1--And there shall come forth a
Shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a Branch out of his Root shall bear
fruit.
From Jeremiah 23:5-6 we are
told: Behold the days come, says
Jehovah, <B> that I will
raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as <C>
king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the
land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and
this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness.
[Ref.Acts.17:31]
Isa.11:10--And it shall come to pass in
that day, that the Root of Jesse (Yeshua-Messiah) that stands for a sign
of the people (visible Israel), unto Him shall the nations (the Gentiles)
seek, and His resting place shall be glory (Heaven).
And we see the fulfillment of
Isa.11:10 in Rom.15:12—
And
again Isaiah says: There shall be a Root of Jesse, and He that arises to
rule over the nations, on Him shall the nations hope.
God's
prophetic view toward His universal reconciliation is clearly evident in
these passages. The door of salvation is now opened to all.
[Ref.Mat.4:12-16; Isa.9:1-2; Deut.32:43; Ps.117:1-2]
Zech.3:8b-10--(For) they are men that are
a sign: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. For,
behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; upon one stone are seven
eyes [Ref.Rev.5:6]: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, says
Jehovah of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
In that day, says Jehovah of hosts, shall you invite every man his
neighbor under the vine and under the fig tree.
Isa.28:16--Therefore, this, says the
Lord Jehovah: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a Stone, a Tried
Stone, a precious Corner-Stone of sure foundation, he that believes shall
not be put to shame.
These same facts are confirmed
in 1Pe.2:6--Because
it is contained in Scripture: Behold, I lay in Zion a Chief Corner Stone,
Elect, Precious: And he that believes on Him shall not be put to shame.
A
prayer—Most Holy God, gracefully bless the truth of Your Word to our
minds and hearts. -AMEN-
From
Isk 3-3-02 #5
Dear
Aaron,
You
wrote:
"Those
who would argue, that the Church age is not found in the Old Testament,
have certainly discounted some very clear Scriptural revelation. Isa.61:1
and 2a--...the year of Jehovah's favor. Then
the fulfillment ..in Lu.4:18 and 19--... the acceptable year
of the Lord. (Jesus said this was fulfilled.) I believe that "the
year of Jehovah's favor" is in fact this dispensation of God's
unfavored grace towards all peoples, tribes, tongues, and Nations; the
Church age."
Can
I comment on this, from the perspective of my Christian understanding (as
I see it at present):
Remember that Jesus was a Jew, and was speaking in the synagogue, on the Sabbath. It's important to consider what Jesus meant by saying that this was fulfilled, and how or why the listeners responded in the way they did. For me the 'year of the Lord' is the apocalyptic consummation of human history, when God will bring his direct rule to earth, and favour those who were faithful to him. Jesus said that this was fulfilled, yes it had started to be fulfilled, and Jesus would have fulfilled it completely for the Jews (remember Jesus did not read the whole of this passage from Isaiah, he left off the last part) had the Jews as a whole accepted him as Messiah. I believe that this is what Luke was trying to communicate, that Jesus made a sincere and genuine offer to the Jews as a nation, to bring in the Kingdom, through them, but that after they had rejected him, he had to seek other means to do this. The church is the agency through which God will do this now, (without neglecting certain promises to his first people). The church is the fulfillment of the mentioned prophecies, both in the sense that through the Church/through Christ we can experience God's power to transform our lives and hearts, but also in the eschatological sense, that the Church will play a specific role in God's Kingdom on earth in future.
From
Aaron 3-5
Re.
Post#5
Dear
Isk, You said—" For me the 'year of the Lord' is the apocalyptic
consummation of human history, when God will bring his direct rule to
earth, and favour those who were faithful to him."
As
I have studied eschatology throughout the years, I have always seen this
interpretation that you are giving here as somewhat speculative. When we
consider God’s reconciliation as a whole, and the Abrahamic Covenant as
being the eschatological fullness of that reconciliation, your
interpretative approach would seem to be somewhat deficient from that
perspective. From my viewpoint, any eschatology that does not take into
account the primary role of the Abrahamic Covenant, would be only a series
of speculations—deficient of the necessary Scriptural compatibility that
formulates God’s truths. Only the Bible can interpret the Bible.
Isk,
if you feel compelled to have further discussions on eschatology, I
believe that we should find ourselves a different forum.
The
LORD is our Rock, our
Fortress, and our Deliverer. Amen.
Aaron
From
3-5 #8
Ok,
let's go back to first sources.
How did the Jews of first century B.C.E. understand the Isa.61:1 and 2a term "the year of Jehovah's favor"/"the year of the Lord", and other references to 'the great and terrible day of the Lord'???
From
Aaron
Hello
Isk,
Peace
Your
question—how did the first century Jews understand Isa.61:1-2? I really
do not know with any certainty. Probably not much different from the
understanding of God’s peoples today. I believe it is commonly accepted
that Isa.61:2 is written parenthetically. That is, Isa:61:2a—"the
year of Jehovah’s favor", which is then followed by
Isa.61:2b—"the day of vengeance of our God". These are
interpreted as two distinctly different dispensations of God. The
first—"the year of Jehovah’s favor" has a protracted
duration [it has now lasted for nearly two thousand years], and is
designed to bring God’s matchless grace to his whole creation. Then
second—"the day of vengeance of our God" will have a
protracted duration as well, and is designed to bring God’s judgments
and wrath to His whole creation. Consequently, Isa.61:1-2 would start with
this dispensation of grace, and go on to the end of time.
Does
this help?
God
bless His peoples.
Aaron
From
Isk 3-6 #10
Brother
Aaron,
With
all due respect, may I respond thuswise:
You
wrote: "...Probably not much different from the understanding of
God’s peoples today.."
Which I suppose means that you did not consider the matter from that angle before, and did not specifically research that aspect. I didn't also, a great deal, only a little bit of reading - not an exact knowledge, by any means; but that's beside the point. What I really wanted to say was that your interpretation is therefore possibly equally as 'speculative' as mine.....
From
Aasim
Peace
to all,
Aaron,
I
am curious about a couple of items in your above postings.
The
discertation begins with the birth of Jesus. It quotes the following
passage from Isaiah:
Isa.7:14--The
Lord Himself will give you a sign, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son
and shall call His name Immanuel.
Now,
here is where my curiosity is peaked. The Hebrew context uses the word woman
and the Greek uses virgin. Can these be said to
have the same meaning? The Hebrew looks much different:
Isa.7:14--The
Lord Himself will give you a sign, a woman shall
conceive, and bear a Son and shall call His name Immanuel.
As
you say, only the Bible can argue the Bible. But what do we do when the
translations cannot be accurately discerned? To me, woman does not
necessarily mean virgin.
There
are also arguements as to the meaning of Immanuel. Could Immanuel mean
that the prophet would be proof of God's favor and His presence among his
people; the prophet would mearly be a Messanger. For me, the Prophethood
of Muhammad(saw) is a proof of Allah(swt) being "with us." It
does not in the least mean that we should believe Muhammad to be God.
Also,
if we consider the name Immanuel to literally mean "God among
us" as the Christian would support (deification of Jesus), why did/do
the Jews not agree with this. As I understand, the Messiah the Jews await
is not expected to be God.
In
my studies of the OT and NT, the writers of the Gospels and the letters of
Paul seem to contradict the prophecies of the OT. The events of Isaiah
took place among the Hebrews, not the Greeks. I support the argument that
"virgin" is a Greek additive and was not part of the original
prophecy.
Of
course, I am speaking from a Muslim perspective. But even when I was a
Jesuit, I had my doubts. A prophecy is like a poem: very open to
interpretation. It is difficult to know what true message is contained in
them, as the entire truth is hidden, and only Allah(swt) is all knowing.
It
is easy to interject the word "virgin": voila, your
interpretation of the prophecy works! But if you stick to the original
"woman", the argument is a bit more cumbersome. It is all a
matter of perspective. A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim can read the same
passage from the OT or NT and have very different ideas about what was
just read. If the OT and NT are truely the word of God, then they (OT/NT)
belong to us all and are open to scrutiny and praise by all.
Muslims
are often asked, "If you do not believe in the Bible, then why do you
use it to prove your point?"
The
answer: Our belief or perspective of and in the OT and NT is different
from Christians. Our debate concerns the matter of perspectives and
translations. Christians believe the above passages to be proof of the
divinity of Jesus, whereas the Muslims see none of this in the passages.
At
first, I was mildly offended by this post, as it would appear to discount
Jewish and Muslim belief. But when I looked at it from a matter of
perspective I was able to put my thoughts to words.
The
passages in your post prove to you one idea and belief. Yet in the same
passages, I as a Muslim see a completely different ideas and beliefs. Make
sense? I hope so.
in
faith,
Aasim
From
Isk #12
Christian
believe in the Messiah-ship and Divinity of Jesus (as with all major
Christian doctrines), is based on more than just Isa.7:14. It's only by
reading ALL the references that a full picture and understanding can be
arrived at. A Bible concordance is an invaluable tool in finding all the
verses which contain a specific word or topical reference. Should you be
interested to follow that up.
Whether the word used was 'young woman' or 'virgin' or 'maiden' or what ever, the important point is that the birth of a specific male child was foretold more than 600 years beforehand.
From
Rick 3-7 #13
Good
morning Aasim and Aaron,
I
hope you don't mind if I interject something here. As you are well aware
from your Christian background, Aasim, if you put three Christians in a
room, you will get four opinions of what a particular passage means. I'd
like to give my particular understanding of what you brought up, but Isk
and Aaron (and others) may disagree with me.
You
wrote,
Isa.7:14--The
Lord Himself will give you a sign, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son
and shall call His name Immanuel.
Now,
here is where my curiosity is peaked. The Hebrew context uses the word woman
and
the Greek uses virgin.
Can
these be said to have the same meaning? The Hebrew looks much different:
Isa.7:14--The
Lord Himself will give you a sign, a woman
shall conceive, and bear a Son and shall call His name Immanuel.
As
you say, only the Bible can argue the Bible. But what do we do when the
translations cannot be accurately discerned? To me, woman does not
necessarily mean virgin.
You
are right that the Hebrew word here (alma) means a young woman. I believe
that there was at the time a more technical word for virgin that was not
used. The Septuagint translation used the Greek word for virgin, as you
mentioned. Nobody knows why the Jewish translators used the Greek word
"parthenos," but it is significant (at least to me) that they
did.
To
the original Jewish listeners, Isaiah 7:10-17 was addressed to King Ahaz,
and the context of the fulfillment of the prophecy was in the reign of
King Ahaz. The point being that probably when Isaiah uttered these words
he was saying that Ahaz would have a son that would serve as a pledge that
God was remaining faithful to his covenant with David. The name
"Emmanuel" (God with us) was not literally to be the name of the
child, but rather symbolic that the birth of a son to Ahaz indicated that
God was with them and would remain faithful to his covenant with David.
To
my knowledge, the Jews did not understand this prophecy to have any
significance beyond the circumstances surrounding the reign of Ahaz, but I
may be wrong. At the time of the birth of Jesus, the Jews did not have the
belief that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, nor did they believe
that the title "Emmanuel" indicated a physical incarnation of
God. The fact that God remained faithful to his covenant with David was
evidence that "God was with them." Nothing more or less.
If
this is true, then it is quite clear that Matthew, when quoting this verse
to refer to the birth of Jesus, was starting with the event and working
back to the prophecy rather than the other way around. If the early church
was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand Isaiah 7:14 in that
way, then I have no problem with it. Many, many Old Testament prophecies
had a "dual" fulfillment - fulfillment in an immediate context
and an eschatological fulfillment at a later date.
You
wrote, "Also, if we consider the name Immanuel to literally mean
"God among us" as the Christian would support (deification of
Jesus), why did/do the Jews not agree with this. As I understand, the
Messiah the Jews await is not expected to be God."
I
addressed this above, but you are right that the Jews are not expecting an
incarnation. The incarnation is a unique teaching of the Christian faith.
However, to understand what is meant by "incarnation" you have
to have a clear understading of the Logos - the 2nd person of the Trinity.
It can be argued that the Logos of God was manifesting himself throughout
the history of Israel, culminating in the final, clear revelation of the
incarnation. But that's too much to handle here!
You
wrote, "In my studies of the OT and NT, the writers of the
Gospels and the letters of Paul seem to contradict the prophecies of the
OT."
Is
it really a contradiction or is it a case of dual fulfillment? Could you
give some examples?
You
wrote, "But even when I was a Jesuit, I had my doubts."
You
were a Jesuit. Fascinating!
You
wrote, "It is easy to interject the word "virgin":
voila, your interpretation of the prophecy works! But if you stick to the
original "woman", the argument is a bit more cumbersome. It is
all a matter of perspective."
Again,
you are right. It is all
a matter of perspective. The common understanding of prophecy, even among
Christians, is that prophecy is the foretelling of future events. However,
in the case of Isaiah 7:14 and the early Christian's understanding of it,
I think it is a case of the Holy Spirit enabling them to say, "Ah-ha!
Now I understand what God was doing/saying." At least to me, this
doesn't negate the power of the prophecy, but rather it demonstrates the
unity of God's plan from all creation. But I guess that is a matter of
perspective!
You
wrote, "Christians believe the above passages to be proof of the
divinity of Jesus, whereas the Muslims see none of this in the
passages."
As
Isk mentioned, this isn't the sole reason why we believe in the deity of
Christ, though it does support it. Interestingly, the apostle Paul never
mentions the virgin birth, and it only appears in two of the four gospels.
Neither is it just a "miracle," which is what Muslims believe,
isn't it? Nor was it a necessity so that Jesus could be born without
"original sin." (Couldn't he have inherited a sin nature from
Mary? Is a sin nature something that is transmitted genetically through
the male?) Rather, my personal opinion is that Jesus was born of a virgin
as a sign of God's grace. God took the initiative to come to us.
The will, work, or desire of humanity had nothing to do with it. As you
may be aware from your Jesuit background, early Christians often talked of
"the virgin womb and the virgin tomb." Both were intrinsically
linked to one another. God comes to us - not us to God. God
gives us undeserved grace - not us earning our own salvation. God breaks
out of the tomb earning for us eternal life. The virgin birth is just one
more evidence in favor of the grace of God - a God who loves us so much
that he was willing to "get his hands dirty" by coming to us,
assuming our sinful nature, and through his life, death, and resurrection
liberating us from the curse of sin and death.
Warmly
in Christ,
Rick
From
Aasim
Peace
to all,
Rick
and Isk,
Thank
you for sharing you insights on the Isaiah passage.
I
am by no means a biblical scholar, but I do have many curiosities about
the history between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Perhaps in
time, I will grow to have a deeper understanding of them both.
I
think I should have better phrased my words when mentioning
"contradictions". What I often mean by this is more a
contradiction of opinions rather than scripture. In other words, ones
opinion of a certain passage from scripture may contradict the meaning of
another scripture. As Isk pointed out, the entire volume of the OT and NT
(and the Quran) need to be taken as a whole. But before they can be
embraced as a whole, there are many questions and mysteries to be solved.
Rick,
you are absolutely correct when you described a group of Christians
sitting together and having different opinions on scripture. Little has
changed in this regard since my becomming a Muslim: even Muslim dissagree
on certain aspects of scripture, Biblical and Quranic.
I
think each religion has it's own bond. Jews are bound together through the
Torah and the Prophets, Christians are bound together through Jesus(pbuh),
and Muslims are bound together through Tawhid (Oneness of Allah).
I
believe that all the Prophets were without sin and each carried a message
that was pertenant to their time and place. Of course, as a Muslim, I see
Muhammad(saw) as a universal Prophet, the final Messanger of God. But this
view in no way diminishes the importance of the words uttered by Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them). Islam strives for a clear
understanding of all the Messages and to unite them under one God.
I
think Islam as a whole has greater differences with Paul rather than
Jesus(pbuh). When a Muslim critic offers words against the writings of
Paul, many see this as an attack against Jesus(pbuh), when in the Muslim's
mind, it is the opposite: we are trying to protect and preserve the
Prophethood of Jesus(pbuh).
When
I, as a Muslim, read the Gospels (yes I still read them!), I have a whole
new appreciation for their meaning. Now, when I look at the Gospels from a
perspective of Tawhid, the words of Jesus(pbuh) take on a different
meaning and the words of Paul become more difficult to digest. To me, this
is a clear sign of my complete seperation from Christianity, but it does
not mean I have abandoned my belief in Jesus(pbuh) as a Prophet. In my
mind and in my heart, Jesus(pbuh) has an equal seat among the Prophets.
But the word equal has a very important meaning. I do not
see Jesus(pbuh) as being superior to any other Prophet. I believe that
after their death, all Prophets were exalted before Allah(swt).
Islam
accepts Jesus(pbuh) as the Messiah of the Jews. What I am trying to learn
more about is why the Jews of the past and present do not accept
Jesus(pbuh) as Messiah from a scriptural perspective. Was it because he
challenged the priests of the Temple? Or did he fail to fullfill any of
the prophecies?
Inshalla
(God willing), one day I will have a son or daughter. They will be borne
into Islam and its customs and will live as a Muslim. But if the day comes
that they question their din (religion), then I would like to be there to
give them answers. And if they have questions about Judaism or
Christianity, I would like to be informed enough to give a clear and
honest perspective of each religion. I do not want to sow hatred or
ignorance in the hearts of my children. I want to give them an
understanding and a respect for the other faiths. I cannot force anyone to
believe in the Message of the Prophet(saw) and the Quran, but I can help
to lead them to understanding, just as we here in this community help each
other to better understand our three traditions and our faith in God.
in
faith,
Aasim
From
Isk #15
Dear
Rick,
I
liked your answer, and your connection of the Isaiah 7 passage with King
Ahaz.
You
wrote: "the birth of a son to Ahaz indicated that God was with them
and would remain faithful to his covenant with David."
I
have wondered about that aspect of it myself. However, can I ask as
follows, was Ahaz actually of the House of David (I think he was from a
different dynasty)? And was the son born that of the king, or rather, that
of the prophet? There are other surrounding verses which mention that
Isaiah himself had a son, symbolising the faithfulness of God, and in some
respects, symbolising, or prefiguring, that Son to be born (later).
We
may say that there are as many opinions as Christians, or is it just that
they are emphasising different aspects of the scripture, in its multi-layed
meanings?
Accordingly, I concur with your explanation of the birth narrative of Jesus showing that it was God who planned and desired this, for the purpose of His reconciliation with man. I concur that that is the fundamental concept of Christianity, that God has sought out us; Christ died for us, even before we turned to Him. Most Christians could testify to that experience in their lives, that God was drawing them to himself, using circumstances &c, even before they called out to Him, or sought Him.
From
Peregrin #17
Every other case in the
Tanach in which "almah" is used (there are seven instances, I
believe), there is no question we are dealing with a virtuous young
unmarried lady. The almahs of the Tenach are never demonstrated as being
anything other than an unmarried virgin who is of marriageable age.
That is most likely why the Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuiagent used the Greek word "parthenos". It wasn't an accident that they did.
From
Rick 3-8 #18
Good
morning Isk,
You
asked, "was Ahaz actually of the House of David (I think he
was from a different dynasty)?"
Isaiah
was a prophet to Judah, so I double checked on Ahaz. He was a king of
Judah, so I assume in the line of David. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You
asked, "And was the son born that of the king, or rather,
that of the prophet?"
Most
of what I have read has said that it is unclear. The point was that the
birth of this child to Isaiah or Ahaz would be a sign of God's presence
with Israel and his faithfulness to his covenant with David.
You
asked, "We may say that there are as many opinions as
Christians, or is it just that they are emphasising different aspects of
the scripture, in its multi-layed meanings?"
IMO,
a little of each.
Warmly
in Christ,
Rick
From
Aaron #19
Aasim,
Greetings
and peace.
By
your response, I fully understand that you do not accept the
interpretations of the Christian tradition. So my contention here in this
paper was to present the obvious Scriptural evidence for that tradition.
This
question on the meaning of "virgin/ or young woman
[maiden—‘almah/parthenos] was addressed in my earlier comments. As I
stated, I believe it was not only assumed in the Jewish tradition that a
young unmarried woman was a virgin, it was required. Consequently, we see
that Joseph, being a just man, was prepared to handle this obvious problem
privately. Which is the reason that the angel came to Joseph in a
dream—telling him that even though his espoused was with child, that he
was still to take her to be his wife [woman—‘ishshah/ gune]. And I
must repeat that I continue to fail to see the legitimacy of this
argument.
You
then had a question about the definition of "Immanuel". I
believe that the confirmed interpretation of "Immanuel"
[Ref.Isa.7:14; Mat.1:23] is principally derived from Gen.1:1 [‘elohiym]
and the gospel of John, chapter one’s description of Yeshua-Messiah. I
also believe that this paper has presented additional supportive Scripture
concerning God’s promise to not only reside with us, but to reside/ or
dwell within us. [Ref.Jn.14:23; 1Jn.4:13]
As
for the last part of your question—"Also,
if we consider the name Immanuel to literally mean "God among
us" as the Christian would support (deification of Jesus), why did/do
the Jews not agree with this. As I understand, the Messiah the Jews await
is not expected to be God."
Might
I suggest that you read my post#5 on "Salvation is of the Jews".
It goes into great detail concerning God’s continuous dealings with His
first peoples Israel.
Aasim,
whenever you decide to criticize the Holy Scriptures, it would be nice if
you supplied some detailed examples of that criticism. But I would suppose
that if any of us were to interpret the Scriptures for ourselves, they
will surely say exactly what we want them to say.
But
fortunately, the Bible is not so easily superceded by any
humankind—concocted ideas.
God
has given us this principle for interpreting His Holy Word—Whatever
truth that we are given to understand from the Holy Bible, must be
confirmed directly or indirectly by this same Holy Bible. Then using this
principle, I fail to see how the passages that were presented in this
paper would be open to any private interpretation. Only the Scriptures can
interpret the Scriptures.
As
an example, if God says something is thus or so in the Old Testament, and
then repeats the same thing in detail in the New Testament, what is there
to argue about? Consequently, if we find that we are arguing against
God’s Word, are we not arguing with God? I think that we might be
straining at the preverbal gnat. [Ref.Mat.23:24]
Aasin,
I hope that you know that I mean no offense. But concerning your differing
view of the Old Testament and the New Testament, what you sight as "Our
debate concerns the matter of perspectives and translations"
is really nothing less than the Muslim’s stated opinion on their
refutation of the Christian tradition. Now anyone can say that the
other’s religious view is wrong. But then we also know that very little
is accomplished by doing that.
I
am convinced that the truths of these passages that have been presented in
this paper, do not, in any way shape or form, depend on anyone’s
acceptance. These Scriptural principles are true, first, because they are
clearly stated in God’s Holy Word, and then second, because they are
clearly confirmed in God’s Holy Word as well. [Ref.2Cor.13:1; Mat.18:16;
Deut.19:15]
I
guess I could understand how this paper would "mildly
offended" and "would
appear to discount Jewish and Muslim belief", but only when one considers these notes by themselves—separate from
the rest of the Bible [Old Testament and New Testament].
So
as we seek the truths of God, we must never loose sight of the commonality
that we all have in the Abrahamic Covenant. And I would submit this to
you, that all of these passages that have been presented in this paper,
are necessary parts for the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to
father Abraham.
Though
you may not literally believe the New Testament, nevertheless, we must
carefully consider these words from Jesus—"56Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad."
[Ref.Jn.8:56]
Then
finally, the differences that you sight are not limited to the three major
religions, but these same differences are present in all of their
sub-parts as well.
Aasim,
I believe that our biggest differences are simply the result of the
separateness of our own individual traditions.
Hab.2:20
But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before
him. Amen.
Aaron
From
Aasim 3-10 #20
Peace
to all,
My
points are not to refute the Christian tradition, per say. My point is
that Scripture can be discussed or debated from many vantage points.
When
in University, I took a class called: Gospels and New Testament as
Literature. The aim of the class was to look at the Gospels and NT from a
literary and non-religious perspective. Talk about blowing the mind! There
were some Christian students who were so infuriated they dropped the class
and actually drew up a petition to have the class removed from the
curriculum. However, those same students were among the most zealous in
the Quran as Literature course!
What
I learned from those classes is that the Old Testament, New Testament and
Quran are not owned by any one religious group.
Their contents are for the whole of humanity. And since the Scriptures are
open to all of humanity then it is natural that we will each have our own
perspectives concerning their contents. Of course, Jews follow the OT and
Christians follow the NT and Muslims follow the Quran. But does this mean
that I do not have a right to read the NT as a Muslim and draw my own
conclusions? Certainly not.
I
was a Jesuit Novice in my early youth (20-22). During that time, my eyes
were opened to many things. I discovered that Christians are sometimes the
least knowledgeable of the NT. I once witnessed a friendly debate between
a Muslim scholar and a Jesuit Scholastic. The Muslim knew the NT inside
out! and almost word for word! But here is the real kicker, the Muslim
scholar could also quote Christian doctrine and theology and even went so
far to politely correct the Jesuit on his theological understandings. At
that moment, I saw the Jesuit (a Christian) loose ownership and authority
when considering Scripture and realised that anybody
could harvest its riches, even a Muslim. At that moment I lost a great
part of my youthful naivete. I realised that the message of God was for
everybody and no one could claim ownership upon it except for Him. This is
probably when my journey to Islam began.
in
faith,
Aasim
From
Aasim 3-10 #21
Aaron,
I
have a question.
Above,
you stated:
"Now
anyone can say that the other’s religious view is wrong. But then we
also know that very little is accomplished by doing that. "
Yet
you also stated:
"I
am convinced that the truths of these passages that have been presented in
this paper, do not, in any way shape or form, depend on anyone’s
acceptance. These Scriptural principles are true, first, because they are
clearly stated in God’s Holy Word, and then second, because they are
clearly confirmed in God’s Holy Word as well."
Correct
me if I am wrong, but is this not a refutation of the Islamic position?
Since you believe the contents of the article to be irrefutable, then you
are also saying that the Muslim perspective is wrong and in a serious
sense also saying that Islam is wrong?
So
does this make your statements contradictory or double-speak? Does the
second statement contradict the first?
You
may think you are being benign and subtle with statements like:
"...is
really nothing less than the Muslim’s stated opinion on their refutation
of the Christian tradition"
However,
it is painfully clear what your position is. To criticise another for what
you also do is called...? You can drop the charade. There is nothing wrong
with taking a stand, but don't try to be inconspicuous or hypocritical
about it. We can all be ourselves here without trying to make others look
bad. Try it. See if it works for you.
in
faith,
Aasim
From
Aaron 3-12 #22
Ref.#21
Aasim,
Peace.
If
I have offended you or anyone else, I am truly sorry.
My
point was that God’s Holy Word irrefutably stands alone. I am saying
that the Bible says what it says, and whether I like it or not, that is
precisely the way it is. If we do not allow the Holy Bible to interpret
the Holy Bible, then we end up with many confused private interpretations.
But
if the sighted Scriptures in this paper are not correct, then Christianity
would be found wanting.
I
am not an expert on the details of the Islam faith, nor do I pretend to
be. So I am not quite sure how and why these passages would make the
"Muslim
perspective" wrong. I am
reasonably sure that I have not questioned the Muslim faith directly. So
then, are you saying that I am questioning the Muslim faith indirectly?
When
I made the statement—"...is really nothing less than the
Muslim’s stated opinion on their refutation of the Christian
tradition", it was not intended to be "benign and
subtle". When any one religion tells another religion that their
understanding is in question, that is a "refutation" of that
religion. This "refutation of the Christian tradition"
is what I perceived.
You
wrote—"However,
it is painfully clear what your position is. To criticize another for what
you also do is called...? You can drop the charade. There is nothing wrong
with taking a stand, but don't try to be inconspicuous or hypocritical
about it. We can all be ourselves here without trying to make others look
bad. Try it. See if it works for you."
Aasim,
exactly what is this "position" that you think I have? Since I
have been on this web site, I have never tried to disguise my position.
All anyone needs to do is to read my posts for them to know my position.
My posts from the first have been very conspicuous, and I do not believe
that I have ever altered my course. Then the last thing that I would ever
want to do, is to I try to make other people look bad.
Let
God’s peace abide in our hearts.
Aaron
From
Aaron 3-28 #23 of 23
Aasim,
Peace.
You
asked some interesting questions that I have tried to answer, so I would
greatly appreciate more dialogue with you. If I am offending anyone, since
that is not my intent, I definitely need to understand how I am offending.
And I do thank you for your kind help in this matter.
God’s
grace is near us.
Aaron
End