by VorJack
One of the most common arguments used to support Christianity is the “argument from prophecy.” Jesus, we are told, fulfilled numerous prophecies laid down in the Hebrew Testament. There are a number of responses, but let’s look at it from the perspective of history: what did the authors of the Gospels and their contemporaries think they were doing?
Cryptic Interpretations
Pullquote: It makes no sense in this context for Isaiah to be referring to a fulfillment that won’t happen until centuries later.
Let’s look at the most famous prophetic fulfillment: Isaiah 7:14, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.” (RSV)
Let’s ignore the wording for a moment (young woman? Virgin? ). Focus on the context: Isaiah is delivering this sign to Ahaz, king of Judah, as he faces an alliance amongst his foes that could conceivably destroy Judah. It makes no sense in this context for Isaiah to be referring to a fulfillment that won’t happen until centuries later. So the surface meaning cannot be referring to Jesus.
But there might be a meaning under the surface. The ancient Jews often found hidden or cryptic meanings of texts buried underneath the apparent meaning. Through study and perhaps with the guidance of God, a scholar might discover one of these hidden meanings. After all, hadn’t God inspired the writing of scripture? And couldn’t he have placed messages within for later generations?
One of the few times we see this idea clearly stated comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls in a work now called the Commentary on Habakkuk:
”And God told Habakkuk to write down the things that will happen to the last generation, but the consummation of time He did not make known to him….The interpretation of [Hab 2:2] concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the secrets of his servants the prophets.” (1QpHab 7:1-5, quoted in Nickelsburg, Reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the First Century)
So God gave certain knowledge to Habakkuk, who wrote it down for his own generation. But in fact the information was intended from a much later generation living in the end times.
Prophecy and Interpretation
Pullquote: If the interpreter is arguing for a hidden meaning, he has to give up on arguing for the most obvious meaning of the text.
Of course, we can see the problem with this right off: the author of the Commentary was not living in the end times, no matter what he might of thought. This highlights a problem with this method of biblical interpretation.
Let’s look at Isaiah reference again, and how the author of the Gospel according to Matthew uses it. As near as anyone can tell, Matthew is following the unwritten rules of interpretation when he says that Isaiah 7:14 has a hidden meaning about Jesus. Even his use of the Greek translation of Isaiah is acceptable, since there’s a certain amount of fluidity in the 1st century approach to scripture.
But his interpretation is also inherently subjective. Possibly Isaiah 7:14 indicates a virgin birth, but perhaps not. Perhaps it refers to Jesus, but perhaps not. If the interpreter is arguing for a hidden meaning, he has to give up on arguing for the most obvious meaning of the text.
Which is why no one has ever set down with the Bible and strung together an accurate prediction of the future. The attempts of modern apocalyptics like Hal Lindsey would be comical if so many people didn’t take them seriously.
Instead, most interpreters work in reverse: they start with a preconception (the Messiah is Jesus/Simeon bar Kochba/Sabbatai Sevi, we are living in the end times, etc.) and find as many biblical passages as possible that they can bend to suit. The result is a collection of subjective interpretations that all square with the interpreter’s preconception.
Ancient Prophecy and Old Jokes
Pullquote: If you don’t already accept the interpreter’s preconception, then the whole argument looks like a string of assumptions and assertions.
The problem comes in when the discussion expands to include those who don’t share the interpreter’s assumptions. The interpretations of the early Christian movement were no more or less persuasive than the interpretations found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you don’t already accept the interpreter’s preconception, then the whole argument looks like a string of assumptions and assertions.
The problem becomes particularly tricky when speaking about a messiah figure, because there were quite a number of different conceptions of what such a figure would be like. Davidic king, Levitic priest, a new Moses figure, Daniel’s “Son of Man” figure, Enoch’s reinterpretation of this figure, and so forth. There is some indication that the Quamran community, who probably produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, expected there to be two messiahs: a Davidic king to free the country and a Levitic priest who would set the Temple to rights.
I’ll leave it there for now. In my next post, I’ll look at the way interpretation played a role in the writing of new holy works. Until then, I’ll leave you with this joke:
Two Rabbis were arguing. One was disturbed by the fact that the tradition of wearing a yarmulke/kippah was not found in the scriptures. The second said, “On the contrary, take a look at Genesis so-and-so.”
The first checked the reference, and read the line, “And so Abraham went out from there.” Confused, he turned back to the second Rabbi and said, “I’m sorry, I just don’t see it.”
The second Rabbi replied, “Well, would Abraham go out without his yarmulke?”
In other words, if you’re willing to read your interpretation back into the text, then you’ll always find what you’re looking for.
As a Christian, I spent two years studying little but Bible prophecy. I wandered all around; from Premillenialist, Pre-Tribulationist Dispensationist to Amillenialist; and finally landed on Historical Premillenialist, Post-Tribulationist. It was more than a little disconcerting to have to admit that all of the various eschatological schemes had elements that couldn’t be reconciled with Scripture. My “solution” was that all would make sense as events unfolded. Of course, the more parsimonious answer is that it’s all bunk.
As a life long non-believer I’m interested in how you viewed similar claims from other religious texts as to why they were the “one and only truth”. As a generalisation this seems to come down different standards apply to your own holy text compared to others i.e. faith comes in to place.
When I was a Christian, I did a fair amount of handwaving. In other words, I just dismissed ANY other religious claim as “lies from the Devil.” Then, I did more fanwanking, by saying these were all (including Christianity) attempts to make sense of the world around them–but that they may all have been divinely inspired/influenced. Now? Bunk.
Did you “secretly” know that was what you were doing or did you just consider it as obvious as it was true?
Are you kidding? I didn’t deal with that kind of thing. I didn’t have to.
Not kidding at all … just wondering
Well, I do sorta remember coming across the “prophecy” of Joseph Smith that purported to predict the American Civil War. It was easy to dismiss for the same kind of reasons I dismiss biblical prophecy anymore. For instance, it wasn’t right in all the particulars. I chose not to apply that kind of reasoning to the Bible.
Thanks … this answer ties in with my general observations of how double standards are appiled depending on who’s holy text it is.
There are two types of prophecy, false and self-fulfilling.
Also if you make enough vague prophecies, some are bound to fit an interpretation of the prophecy!
Yeah, “vague” is the third kind of prophecy.
There is also the retroactive prophecy which is how the bible code stuff work.
I think it could be noted that the safest prophecy one could ever make would be along the lines of “sometime, somewhere, a woman will have a child”
no shit, really? yeah, really going out on a limb there, buddy
“Someone will read this”
And, if my prophesy does turn out to be false, no-one will ever know about it…
The Law of Fives is never wrong!
An important consideration was omitted in the above article. In Hebraic culture, name meanings are very significant and this is the first time the name Immanuel (means God with us) is mentioned in scripture. It is mentioned again in the next chapter of Isaiah (8:8) and most notably in Matthews gospel in 1:23 where the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream (a vision) declaring that this is the Messiah that Mary is pregnant with by the Holy Spirit and is the long awaited One (Messiah, Immanuel) who will “save His people from their sins”.
So this name Immanuel is clearly linked to Christ in the NT. One can also see Isaiah 9:6&7 which also refers to Christ (Immanuel). All the best.
Yeah, because nobody could possibly read an ancient “prophecy” and then lie about having a dream that fits it, could they?
Or making up a story that fits the “prophecy” that you’ve cobbled together by misreading a bad translation of the Pentateuch. Once “Matthew” decided that Scripture said that Jesus’s mom had to be a virgin (despite the fact that even if the bit of verse he read was supposed to be prophecy, it doesn’t actually say that) he had to come up with a reason why Joseph wouldn’t have followed the Law and done what he was supposed to. Angelic visitation fits the bill. It’s only a problem if you think that “Matthew”‘s intention in altering and expanding on Mark’s Gospel was to record history, rather than to fit his story of Jesus to a particular theological agenda. It seems pretty clear that at least part of Matthew’s theological agenda was to justify the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah as much as he possibly could. So he finds every possibly prophecy of the Jewish Messiah he can in the OT (including some he hallucinates into the text and some he gets because he’s reading a Greek translation instead of a Hebrew one) and makes sure his narrative hits each of these points.
Jer…you’ve trodded hard and long down the path of cynicism (there can’t be any pure motives, everyone has an “agenda”, etc). But the only “agenda” is the Father’s Love. He has no selfish, manipulative “agenda”, you are his agenda.
The evidence of Haiti suggests otherwise.
Actually, Jesus warned in Matthew 24 of “many earthquakes in many places”.
And verily I say unto you, there will be tornadoes in many places. People will kill other people, and there will be strife among nations.
Oh, well, that makes it all right then.
BTW, if you think Matthew – as well as any other religious text in history – doesn’t has a theological agenda, you’re very naĂŻve.
TRJ, oh yes, Love has a mighty agenda indeed. Just not the kind you imagine.
Hm, let me try that again:
If you think Matthew – as well as any other religious text throughout history – doesn’t have a theological agenda, you’re very naïve.
No, John. You said:
“But the only “agenda” is the Father’s Love.”
And I replied:
“The evidence of Haiti suggests otherwise.”
You can’t answer a rebuttal by pretending it pertains to a completely different point – that just isn’t how debate works.
> “TRJ, oh yes, Love has a mighty agenda indeed. Just not the kind you imagine.”
Well, maybe if the whole genocide-hellfire-condoned rape-infanticide-slavery issue was toned down a bit, that agenda of love would come better across. I’m getting mixed messages.
Custy, to be fair, it was me who sidetracked John, so that two issues were mixed up in the same sub-thread.
Hmmm…
John C’s point seems to boil down thusly:
I can tell you I love you, then kill you, but only if I warn you I am going to kill you first.
Nice.
That’s love! ;-)
Matthew’s using “Immanuel” would have had some weight if he never knew of the Isaiah reference at all – that would have been an interesting coincidence. But since he referenced the original, he is sort of begging the question by he himself linking the two together.
The Bible is not a mere “book” in the way that books are books. Hence, its a mystery to many. The same Author (the Holy Spirit) that penned Isaiah also penned Matthew, and so on, and so on…
Btw…I was just thinking about you earlier today Cello, and how lovely that instrument can be, too few appreciate it’s beauty. I have a CD of a woman playing the cello to Hildegard Von Bingen’s music from the 1100′s, its beautiful. Good to hear from you again.
All the best
If there is a “holy spirit” he/she/it is a terrible author and needs to go back to high school to learn how to write something that is a) understandable and b) not a sadistic sack of useless dribble, misogyny and myth.
So what about the Koran then? was not that dictated by an Angel. and if it wasn’t exactly how can you tell that one was not and the other was.
Having explained that what about the Vedas and the Tripitaka?
Are they not inspired teachings as well? Of curse they give a very different story of pretty well everything. At least the Buddha seemed to have a much more pragmatic view of moral codes, (no calls to stone anyone who doesn’t follow the eightfold path).
Arie, its simple, because the spirit of Truth (Himself) lives within me and so testifies to what is “of” Him and what isn’t. JC saying “my sheep hear (know) my voice and the voice of a stranger they will not hear”.
As always, the most reliable source of information is “invisible friends.”
Is anyone else thinking about the movie “Aliens”?
I was thinking that John C needs an exorcist :-p
“Hence, its [sic] a mystery to many. ”
It’s only a mystery to those who don’t understand or haven’t yet figured out that the Bible is full of deceptive nonsense.
Excuse me. Allow me to read the cited passage:
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
“Look, the virgin shall conceive and
bear a son,
and they shall name him
Emmanuel,”
which means, “God is with us.” When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
(Matt. 1:18-25)
O.K. Now that we have put it in context, it is quite obvious what Matthew is saying. He is quoting Isaiah 7:14. In fact, Matthew quotes Isaiah quite a few times. How is it even remotely surprising that Matthew (being a Jew) could read Hebrew scripture and interpret it to fit his story of Jesus. As has been pointed out, all Isaiah actually said was that a child would be born to a young woman named Emmanuel (or Immanuel), and that when this child knew right from wrong, a bunch of odd metaphorical things would happen. These events are clearly not literal and open to just about any interpretation. None of them seem to particularly support the birth of Jesus.
Furthermore, Jesus is never called Emmanuel. Ever. The only time the name appears in the Bible is in Isaiah 7:14 and in Matthew quoting (and translating to Greek) that verse in Matthew 1:23.
Most importantly, you are ignoring the context of the prophecy. God was promising Ahaz that things would improve when this child grew up for him. Presumably, this promise was intended to be fulfilled during Ahaz’s lifetime. This is no small inaccuracy. I don’t see how you can claim this is a prophecy of Jesus’ birth when Jesus was born hundreds of years later.
Now, you might claim later passages about the “suffering servant” to be evidence that Isaiah was prophesying Jesus’ birth. Admittedly, some of the descriptions do suit Jesus pretty well, although equally many of them are referring to Israel as a whole. That is, there is supposed to be an analogy between a particular servant and the nation of Israel. But Jesus didn’t come for Israel, he came for the whole world, and he didn’t suffer along with the world, he suffered on behalf of the world. Furthermore, these passages were not written by first Isaiah, but by second Isaiah (deutero-Isaiah), so they can’t belong to the same prophecy.
Fundamentally, there is no justification for believing this is a fulfilled prophecy except that you already assume it to be a priori.
So, you’re saying that the angel prophesies that Mary and Joseph will call their baby “Emmanuel”.
Seems kind of odd to bring that up to support how awesomely accurate biblical prophesy is, don’t you think?
Somehow, I keep thinking of one Agnes Nutter…
The person who taught me the real meaning of “nice” :-)
As for the straightforward literal interpretation of OT prophecies fulfilled in the NT, Thomas Paine did a fine job of running all those down over 200 years ago The Age of Reason.
Pingback: More Problems of Prophecy | Unreasonable Faith
Pretrib Rapture Trivia
Who’s the “Protector of the Principality of Pretribulatia”?
Edward Irving? John Darby? C. I. Scofield? Tim LaHaye? Someone else?
Media figure Joe Ortiz knows the answer. It’s in his “End Times Passover” blog. The one dated Dec. 29, 2009.
If you’re Calvinist, you’re predestined to see his blog. If you’re Arminian, you can choose to see it.
If you find out you already knew the answer before seeing Joe’s blog, you have a chance to win the grand prize which includes:
Sixty pounds of plaster for each family member.
An umbrella stand made from a stuffed python.
And 3000 yards of used dental floss.
Whew. What you miss if you’re not computer savvy!