tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post8206362270535009240..comments2024-03-01T00:32:54.623-08:00Comments on McGahey's McMusings: Why a Virginal Conception? A Response to Doug Wilson (Part 1)James McGaheyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10989740777303666667noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-75420237369747433782013-12-24T10:31:51.105-08:002013-12-24T10:31:51.105-08:00Thanks for your work on this. I look forward to pa...Thanks for your work on this. I look forward to part 2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-26442569769104321922013-12-23T12:35:35.604-08:002013-12-23T12:35:35.604-08:004. Overstated case on almah culturally: Is there ...4. Overstated case on almah culturally: Is there a case in the OT where “young woman of marriageable age” is not a virgin? Culturally/contextually almah carries the connotation of virgin in a Patriarchal society where said age may be as young as 12. If a woman is marriageable it is implied that she is a virgin, otherwise, who would marry her? <br /><br />5. Overstated case of almah linguistically: The claim that betulah is some how more technical of a word for virgin then almah does not do justice to the available OT and historical evidence. Sometimes betulah is used and still requires clarification that the women is a virgin. Genesis 24:16 describes her as a Betulah and then adds “whom no man had known.” Why clarify it if it is some supposed technical word? Interestingly, almah is used just a few verses later in 24:43 without any need to clarify that she is a virgin. Depending on your rendering of Joel 1:8, betulah there would mean a young women who has been married (i.e. NOT a virgin), “mourn like a betulah in sackcloth, grieving for the husband of her youth.” Cyrus Gordon argues that the cognate term of almah in Ugaritic is used describe a virgin goddess with similar construction as Isaiah 7:14 (so “Almah in Isaiah 7:14, JBR 21 (1953): 106). I think this is a stronger line of evidence then appealing to the LXX since it is the earliest witness of the parallel word used in a cognate language. <br /> <br />6. Understated need for a sign: God told Ahaz to ask for a sign “deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (7:11). Something truly supernatural, extraordinary, & amazing. Yet when he refuses, we are supposed to believe that God then delivered him a humdrum, natural, normal, “sign” of a women giving birth to a child? Is God the wizard behind the curtain? Promising something fantastic but delivering a man in a suit pulling levers? Or, far more likely, did God give the house of David a supernatural sign that they could not even wrap their heads around, something truly deeper than Sheol and higher than heaven. Something they had never heard of, dreamed of, imagined, or conceived. A pure virgin would suddenly become pregnant and bear a son carrying the divine name Immanuel, a sure sign of God keeping his covenant promise. And in fact, far from being irrelevant because it is sooo far in the future, that’s just the point, the farther away it is the MORE SURE Judah can be that they wills survive to see this sign come to fruition. <br /><br />Just my gut reaction, I’m open to more research, prayer, and thinking on the matter. Thanks for getting me going! We still talk about your class and the impact you made on us. Are you teaching somewhere?<br /><br />Corey<br />Pastor Corey J. McLaughlinhttp://sheffieldchapel.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1781025358855188363.post-1221370597072263732013-12-23T12:33:51.657-08:002013-12-23T12:33:51.657-08:00From your student Corey J. McLaughlin (check out s...From your student Corey J. McLaughlin (check out sheffieldchapel.org "about" page to see the growing fam...we have TWINS now!)<br /><br />1. Thank you for your challenging and insightful words here. So refreshing to read a thinking blog! <br /><br />2. Mathew’s use of the OT: Typology is certainly a legitimate interpretation and one that I think fits better than double fulfillment or sensus plenoir but maybe we gave away too much ground here back in the 19th century to liberal scholars pressing for an answer to the supposed historical contradiction in Isaiah 7. Matthew is very plain in saying, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” (1:22). A claim he makes 15 or so times. He began his Gospel with a genealogy for a reason, to link Jesus to the OT as the most complete fulfillment. He follows the royal line of Judah (important for the context of Isaiah 7) and then continues on citing four fulfilled prophecies up to chapter 2:23. I do think it can carry a larger semantic range than 1:1 predicative prophecy and certainly seems to emphasize the idea of completion or end goal. Hence Christ is the fulfillment of the Law & Prophets (Matt. 5:17) which rabbi Paul rightly understands to mean that he is the “end of the law” (Rom. 10:4). Even the Hosea passage which is typically relegated to typology or analogical correspondence seems more intentional on Matthew’s part than we first allow. Christ is the completion of Israel’s redemption from sin only partially realized in Israel’s historical return from Egypt but fully realized in Christ the truer Son escaping Egypt and bringing salvation with Him. I would argue that Matthew’s fulfillment language is stronger than mere typology when we really take the time to drill down on his understanding of the deeper context and putting the texts he uses in their full OT redemptive historical context.<br /> <br />3. Liberals claim Matthew didn’t know Hebrew and didn’t understand the OT context of Isaiah 7, but what if, we give Matthew the benefit of the doubt and say he was a pretty smart fella and maybe WE are the ones that missed something here. Isaiah 7 isn’t just about Ahaz as everyone claims, but also collectively about “the house of David” (7:2). If Assyria steam rolls over Judah what will happen to the promise that God gave in 2 Samuel 7 to always keep a man on the throne of David? What will happen furthermore to the messianic line, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of Jesse? This conflict has the potential of altering redemptive history. So, God gives two prophecies not one. Something we may not have seen immediately if Matthew did not call our attention to it. <br /><br />Isaiah 7:13 is addressed to the “house of David” followed by the use of plural “you” forms ending in v 15 and is intended as a future prophecy for a promised ruler/messiah named Immanuel. A second prophecy in vv 16-17 plays off from the previous language but this one is for Ahaz in particular and meant as a more immediate answer to the threat (note that v 16 “you” is singular indicating a change in audience). In the second prophecy Isaiah refers to a “boy” or a “lad” which could be the son God commanded that he bring with him (whose significance is never really explained, Shear-jashub in 7:3), or even more likely Maher-shalal-hash-baz in the next chapter in 8:3-4. In the context then, Immanuel in 7 at first appears supernaturally special but that line of reasoning is only confirmed when we read of Immanuel’s titles in chapter 9 as “mighty God” etc. Taking Isaiah on his own terms and using 8-9 as the interpretive key to 7:14 leads us to the conclusion of a virgin born divine messiah. This is Gary Smith’s argument in the NAC (google books p. 212-216, also note 282) along with some translation changes to the Hebrew in 16-17 for further support. <br /> <br />Continued...<br />Pastor Corey J. McLaughlinhttp://sheffieldchapel.org/about-us/our-pastor/noreply@blogger.com