The other day, I was at the library of a Seminary when I overheard one of the students describing their report. (Probably a dissertation, but I didn’t ask) He stated that the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of the virgin birth was actually a prophecy of King Hezekiah, that the language was simply figurative and hyperbole of the virgin birth. While the name Emmanuel was symbolic of Hezekiah bringing the Law back like Jesus would. Let’s look at the text.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

First we notice, that Matthew says that the virgin birth previously described was the fulfillment of the prophecy. Specifically the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. It is not word for word because Matthew was either using an ancient Greek translation or was translating the text himself into Greek. ( the gospel of Matthew was written in Greek while Isaiah was a Hebrew document.

The seminarian’s argument is that gospels were not concerned with interpreting Isaiah, but using the passage for another purpose.

I agree that it is possible for the New Testament to quote a passage and not intend to interpret it’s meaning, but use it as an illustration or application.

However as we just noted Matthew intend the account of the virgin birth fulfilled or completed the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.

Isa 7:10-25 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

As we look at this passage the sign that God introduces is an interruption in the prophecy. Ahaz even refused to ask for it. Yet God intended specifically to give this prophetic sign. A virgin born son who is considered God with us.

The Seminarian did not go to the length refusing the virgin translation of Isaiah 7:14. However, many do and he may. The usual usage of the Hebrew word “Almah” is that of a virgin. It always refers to a young woman at the age prior to marriage, which is either a virgin or fornicator.

It is impossible to claim Hezekiah was virgin born since his father was Ahaz. And Ahaz raised his children up pagan taking his son through the fire. Not exactly virgin born, nor God with us. If his birth were illegitimate, then why would he know that God was with us?

The context of the prophecy points to times of great wealth for Israel and poverty for their enemies. Those times did not come then, and has not come until recently. The sign of the Messiah’s Virgin Birth is a sign that God and not the pretender Kings would reign. Ahaz was faithless, he depended on the pagan nations instead of the power of God. Yet God would reign spite of him. Herod was much the same way, He was faithless and depended on pagan Rome, yet God gave him the sign of Christ virgin birth. Ahaz did not even want to here this sign. Herod did not even want to allow this sign to exist. Because they would both have to submit to the Sovereign law of God and give up their own power. Which they did not even want to do for Yahweh.

Basically his issue was what was the meaning of the text. An Author can only have one meaning. So how could a prophet like Isaiah know anything about Jesus? And if he did not know about Jesus, why would he even be concerned with him? If he did not, then there is no way that he could have prophesied about Him. Besides since the prophets did no everything many of them probably did not know everything about Jesus.

The problem with this line of thought is that the prophets were not allowed to make the Bible their way.

They could not add or take away words.

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

They could not give their interpretation of the prophecy on the prophecy itself.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Private) 2398 idios {id'-ee-os}

of uncertain affinity;; adj

AV - his own 48, their own 13, privately 8, apart 7, your own 6, his 5, own 5, not tr 1, misc 20; 113

1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self

interpretation)1955 epilusis {ep-il'-oo-sis}

from 1956; TDNT - 4:337,543; n f

AV - interpretation 1; 1

1) a loosening, unloosing 2) metaph. Interpretation

If there was such looseness in the prophecies then we should not discount our local televangelist prophets even if their prophecies are not literally fulfilled.

The prophet simply communicates God’s Will. He then asked me if I was arguing for Mechanical Dictation. Mechanical dictation states that a prophet has nothing to do but write and if this were the case why is the Bible written in ways that author would like to write? Why isn’t it a bunch of straightforward commands as oppose to parables? Besides that would make it to where we would not be allowed to translate the Bible. Because God only inspired the Bible using Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Well, I believe the Bible has different genres and figures of speech. But I knew he inspired every single word. Then as I had got done with the conversation, it finally occurred to me. Guess how many major advocates are there of mechanical dictation? None! (Except possibly Muslims or perhaps followers of Peter Ruckman)

So then what was this idea? A scarecrow! (A scarecrow argument is an argument in which you do not represent the opponent, but make up a caricature of the argument and then tear it down) The way of inspiration I believe in then is verbal inspiration. When the author writes out the message, for instance in a historical narrative, God delivers the revelation in a way the author would most like to communicate it, but remember that God preplanned the words.

Exo 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

Exo 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

The subject called hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) is very seductive and dangerous. Because, if you take theology you are more prepared for the professors personal opinion. But you can more easily interpret Biblical hermeneutics as a hard science.

However you have to know how God inspired the Bible before you can properly interpret it completely.

You may notice that there is circular reasoning there in interpretation and theology. But you have to have faith in Jesus and a heart of obedience before you can truly hear his words. If you can accept His word then you can understand his word.

What we need a little less interpreting and whole lot more listening.

Why is it that I could take an hour or two out of my time to exegete this passage and understand it’s meaning. While my seminary friend has possibly taking several days if not weeks studying the same passage to come up with such an awkward interpretation?

Now let me say this I believe this fellow was entirely, well educated. I also think that if you saw him speaking with yours truly, you would see that he would appear much more likely to be intelligent and professional than I. He was well dress and well groomed. I on the other hand was unshaved wearing an “Addicted to Jesus” T-shirt that was big and worn out, because I was on the way to clean out some abandoned buildings. He spoke very articulately and was very well spoken. Even trying, I simply could not have spoken as articulately in conversation.

However, he had some bad presuppositions that were indoctrinated in him which confused the way the text works. (I have an idea of the professors responsible but I will not deal with them by name.) But at the end of the day, paper is colored blind and we must test ideas outside of appearance.

You see, he will go to school and listen with awe to a “conservative” professor. The professor will give very eloquent speeches indoctrinating them with a doctrine he learned from a “liberal” professor at another Seminary who had got that idea from an anti-Christian professor who hates “fundamentalism”. The “conservative” professor espoused biblical truth more, but the liberal teachings that he actually does teach will be asserted more dogmatically than if the student went to a “liberal” professor.

This brings me to the issue, which we must face. Sometimes Seminaries are as much trouble as they are worth. How many multitudes of churches have taken their hopeful future pastors to become ready ministers, only get an apostate in return? They walk around being filled with worldly pride and a giant magnet on their back that attracts false teachings to their back.

I am not saying that a minister does not need to be educated and qualified. But does a Seminary education really say that he is either educated or qualified? I am not necessarily going to say that we shouldn’t go to Seminaries. Yet we need to seriously re-evaluate its position. I’ve seen plenty who either went apostate, warped a church or got kicked out for arrogant upheavals. We must remember what Paul said,

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church and not the Seminary is the ultimate storehouse of truth, it us who guards the bible, not man made institutions.

Seminaries are many times placed as authorities over churches. This not simply over the line but is a smack in the face of anyone who would hold the autonomy of the local church. Now there are many hard workers at many Seminaries both as students and professors. Their place should be seen as a place for research but never one of authority. If we can not have that balance then we will lose our churches every time.