{"id":1290,"date":"2011-03-11T16:18:57","date_gmt":"2011-03-11T22:18:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/2011\/03\/11\/does-isaiah-7-prefigure-isaiah-9\/"},"modified":"2011-03-11T16:18:57","modified_gmt":"2011-03-11T22:18:57","slug":"does-isaiah-7-prefigure-isaiah-9","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/2011\/03\/11\/does-isaiah-7-prefigure-isaiah-9\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Isaiah 7 Prefigure Isaiah 9?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Some evangelical scholars believe that the child &#8220;Immanuel&#8221; predicted in Isaiah 7 is a foreshadowing of a &#8220;greater&#8221; child who is predicted in Isaiah 9 (&#8220;Unto us a child is born\u2026).&#160; Is this possible?&#160; <em>Maybe<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>I must first applaud those who hold to this view because they are trying to find <em>textual evidence<\/em> for their conclusion that the Isaiah 7 prediction foreshadowed (though didn&#8217;t technically <em>fulfill<\/em>) the birth of Jesus.&#160; Having textual support should seem like a no-brainer for scholars, but there are too many who <em>deny <\/em>Matthew&#8217;s statement that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy but because of their Christian commitment argue <em>without evidence<\/em> that the Isaiah 7 child was a <em>prefigurement<\/em> of Jesus.&#160; <\/p>\n<p>Here is one example from an evangelical scholar who believes this though he gives no evidence for this view from the text.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Matthew . . . applied Isaiah&#8217;s ancient prophecy of Immanuel&#8217;s birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:22\u201323). The first Immanuel was a reminder to the people of God&#8217;s presence and a guarantee of a greater child to come who would manifest God&#8217;s presence in an even greater way. The second Immanuel is &#8216;God with us &#8216; in a heightened and infinitely superior sense. He &#8216;fulfills &#8216; Isaiah&#8217;s Immanuel prophecy by bringing the typology intended by God to realization and by filling out or completing the pattern designed by God.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>You can imagine what a Jewish scholar would say to this: what is your basis for concluding that the first Immanuel is a <em>guarantee of a greater child<\/em>?&#160; What evidence can you provide that there is &#8220;typology intended by God&#8221; in Isaiah 7?&#160; I agree with my Jewish friends: there is no such evidence.&#160; They have a conclusion that they cannot support.&#160; They only hold to this view because they are forced into it because they must believe that Matthew was somehow correct (&#8220;inspiration&#8221; becomes a &#8220;get-out-of-jail-free&#8221; card).<\/p>\n<p>There is, however, a better way, and that is the point of this post.&#160; Some scholars claim that there is evidence in the text because the Isaiah 7 child prefigures (or foreshadows, or is a type of) the child predicted in Isaiah 9.&#160; This is much better, because now we have textual evidence.&#160; Isaiah predicts two children and one was born in the 8th century (Isaiah 7) as a token of a greater child born sometime in the future (Isaiah 9).&#160; There are clear similarities between the two children: both are born in times of distress, both are royal children, and both have names indicating God&#8217;s presence (Immanuel, Mighty God).&#160; I personally think that the similarities between these two children are best explained because they are the same child, but for the purpose of this discussion, let&#8217;s assume they are similar but different.<\/p>\n<p>Now we have a first child who might be viewed as a guarantee of a greater child.&#160; Now we have a first child who can be seen as a type on the basis of the presence of the antitype.&#160; If I excluded all other evidence from Isaiah (which to me strongly argues against this view), I could be happy with this proposal.<\/p>\n<p>At least until I open the New Testament.&#160; Matthew simply does not allow this possibility to stand.&#160; Matthew <em>does not say<\/em> &#8220;All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: &#8220;Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.&#8221;&#160; That is what he <em>should have said<\/em> if the Isaiah 7 child prefigured the Isaiah 9 child.&#160; But that&#8217;s not what he said.&#160; Instead, he botched it, because he claimed that the prophecy of the <em>first<\/em> child was fulfilled.&#160; Jesus was the <em>first<\/em> child predicted by Isaiah.&#160; Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, &#8220;The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>That means that if Isaiah 7 prefigures Isaiah 9, then Jesus is the type and we should be waiting for a greater antitype.&#160; You cannot argue that Jesus (Isaiah 7) is a type of himself (Isaiah 9).<\/p>\n<p>My previous posts about this passage can be found <a href=\"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/2010\/12\/29\/curds-and-honey\/\">here<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/2009\/01\/15\/the-glorious-hope-of-isaiah-6-immanuel\/\">here<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/2009\/01\/17\/the-glorious-hope-of-isaiah-6-bonus-immanuel-objections\/\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Some evangelical scholars believe that the child &#8220;Immanuel&#8221; predicted in Isaiah 7 is a foreshadowing of a &#8220;greater&#8221; child who is predicted in Isaiah 9 (&#8220;Unto us a child is born\u2026).&#160; Is this possible?&#160; Maybe. I must first applaud those who hold to this view because they are trying to find textual evidence for their\u2026 <span class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/2011\/03\/11\/does-isaiah-7-prefigure-isaiah-9\/\">Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-isaiah"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1290"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1290\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/toddbolen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}