Thanks for admitting that Christian scholars themselves are growing and more disenchanted with the "literal prediction" manner that they have been characterizing Isaiah 7:14 for centuries. That would hardly be the case if squeezing Jesus out of that passage were as justifiable as you argue herein.Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."67 This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth.
If spiritually alive people are growing tired of associating Jesus with that verse, you cannot rationally expect spiritually dead people to associate Jesus with it, or to give two shits about learning enough about hermenuetics so as to reply to Christian apologists who treat Isaiah 7:14 the way obstinate jailhouse lawyers for the ACLU treat the U.S. Constitution.
I have good reason to accept the views of some Christian scholars that the book of Isaiah went through an editing process lasting longer than 100 years after the prophet Isaiah died, before the text reached the canonical shape. I therefore have every good reason to believe that the reason Isaiah seems to speak of a distant future of Israel is because editors took his words and "shaped" them toward that end, and that whether and to what extent the real Isaiah every orally spoke the things credited to him in that book, is forever beyond confirmation. Your apologetic trifling will convince nobody except other fundamentalists who blindly presume the book of Isaiah is inerrant. However, you still fail to show that Isaiah in ch. 7 was intended for his prophecy about the boy to relate to events 700 years into the future from himself. The way you try to get around the obvious historical fulfillment of the prophecy, means you have less in common with honesty and more in common with jailhouse lawyers who get paid to pretend that words are really that elastic.
No, that's why the timing of the boy's birth, not the mother's pregnancy, is considered the "sign" in Isaiah 7:15.To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally?
Thus putting the burden of proof on those who would insist on 'double-fulfillment' or other fundie tactic designed to avoid dealing seriously with Isaiah's immediate context.Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?Arguments against a messianic interpretation of the text appeal to three major pieces of evidence. First, the historical setting of Isaiah 7 seems to demand Isaiah's sign relate to the current circumstances. Isaiah 7 opens discussing how Ephraim and Aram are placing political and military pressure upon the southern kingdom (vv. 1-2).68 The discussion of the sign responds to that situation (vv. 3-14). This suggests it deals with something in the present and not future.
"Seems"?Second, the wording of the sign implies this. Isaiah relates Immanuel's birth with the collapse of the kings of Ephraim and Aram (v. 15). That seems to say the sign relates to the current crisis.69
But if the average skeptic has a life outside of just sitting around all day googling for bible scholars who comment on this bullshit, they have perfect rational warrant to view Isaiah 7 and 8 as fatally ambiguous due to how much bible scholars disagree with each other about every detail therein. . Joseph Jensen Joseph Jensen Associate Professor, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, sums it up nicely in the Anchor Bible Dictionary:Third, later development of the sign in Isaiah seems to support this interpretation. In the very next chapter, Isaiah describes the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in terms quite similar to [the] birth Immanuel (Isa. 8:4; cf. Isa. 7:16). Maher-shalal-hash-baz explicitly deals with the current situation of Ephraim and Aram (Isa. 8:4-8). That appears to confirm Isaiah intended the sign be fulfilled int he current time. Immanuel is a sign of the enemy's destruction and thereby Judah's deliverance.70These arguments are admittedly compelling and make it seem that this is simply all the text discusses. However, several factors show there may be more involved.
As already indicated, many aspects of these verses are disputed. For example,
Immanuel is said to be a royal child (H. Gressmann, E. Hammershaimb, A. S. Herbert, E. J. Kissane, J. Lindblom, J. L. McKenzie, S. Mowinckel, H.-P. Müller, H. Ringgren, J. J. Scullion, B. Vawter, W. Vischer, H. Wildberger, G. E. Wright),
specifically Hezekiah (Hammershaimb, Kissane, Lindblom, O. Procksch, Wildberger),
or Isaiah’s son (R. E. Clements, N. Gottwald, T. Lescow, J. J. Stamm, H. M. Wolf),
or any child conceived at this time (B. Duhm, G. Fohrer, G. B. Gray, O. Kaiser, L. Koehler, W. McKane, K. Marti, J. Mauchline), with “the young woman” being explained accordingly;
he is the new Israel (L. G. Rignell); and
some authors emphasize the difficulty of relating Immanuel to Isaiah’s historical context in order to favor a more strictly messianic interpretation (T. E. Bird, J. Coppens, F. Delitzsch, J. Fischer, Gressmann, H. Junker, M. McNamara, F. L. Moriarity).
Immanuel is said to be a favorable sign of salvation (S. Blank, Hammershaimb, Marti, Rignell, Scullion);
he is purely a sign of disaster (K. Budde, H. W. Hertzberg, R. Kilian, Lescow);
he is a double-edged sign (Fischer, Gressmann, Junker, Kaiser, Vischer, H. W. Wolff).
Immanuel’s food (“curds and honey”) is ideal and luxurious food of abundance (Gray, Hammershaimb, Lindblom, Rignell, Scullion, J. Skinner, Wildberger, Wolff);
his food is the nomad fare available in a land that has been devastated (Budde, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Duhm, Fischer, Fohrer, Herbert, Hertzberg, Kaiser, Kilian, McNamara, Marti, Mauchline, Stamm).
Immanuel’s coming to knowledge in v 15 is a temporal expression (“when he learns to reject . . . ,” “by the time he learns . . .”—G. W. Buchanan, T. F. Cheyne, Duhm, Fohrer, Herbert, Hertzberg, Kaiser, Lindblom, McNamara, Marti, Mauchline [following ], Rignell, Skinner, Stamm);
it expresses finality (“so that he may learn to reject . . .”—Budde, F. Dreyfus, P. G. Duncker, Junker, McKane, Mauchline [following MT], Müller, Scullion, Wildberger, Wolff).
The age at which a child learns to reject evil and choose good means the age at which he can distinguish pleasant from unpleasant (usually set at 2 or 3 years—Clements, Duhm, Fohrer, Herbert, Kilian, Lescow, Lindblom, McKane, Marti, Mauchline, Skinner, Stamm);
it means the age of moral discernment (often set at around 20 years—Budde, Buchanan, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Fischer [at age 3!], Herzberg, Kaiser, McNamara, Rignell, Scullion, Wolff);
it means the age of sexual awareness or maturity (around age 13—R. Gordis, L. F. Hartman, B. Reike).
Although most commentators agree that v 17 foretells devastation, there are some who take it as a prediction of future blessedness (Lindblom, Hammershaimb, McKane, Scullion).
Some authors question the authenticity of certain words, phrases, or even verses of the passage; in fact, some of the positions listed above require the rejection of parts of the text.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
The larger context of Isaiah does not bear that strongly on the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14. Pretending that the apparent purpose of the entire "book" must be read into one of its specific statements is dangerous territory. The larger purpose of Matthew is to evangelize the Gentiles (28:19-20), but that hardly requires us to read Gentile-implications into everything Matthew recorded Jesus saying. The apparent purpose of Jeremiah is to condemn his own people for their idolatry, that hardly means we must read a condemnation of the Jews into every last thing he said.Like other prophets, Isaiah's mentality in this text does not merely focus on the present but the future:The context of Isaiah 7 shows Isaiah's redemptive historical awareness. Isaiah 7 is not the first chapter of the book. The previous chapters have set up important concepts and issues Isaiah 7 addresses. This revolves around how God will send Israel into exile because of their sin (5:26-30) but will reverse this in the end with a glorious kingdom (2:1-4; 4:2-6). Isaiah's call reiterates this paradigm. His job is to proclaim Israel's condemnation (Isa. 6:8-12) so that in the end, they will be made holy (Isa. 6:13).71 Isaiah's mission is one that connects present with the eschatological. Isaiah 7 is not in a vacuum. Its context suggests the present situation discussed relates to something greater.
I'm sorry, but you are not opening the door to the possibility that Isaiah 7:14 might mean something greater than its immediate context suggests, by pretending that we have to read some of Isaiah's overall purpose into whatever specific story he relates, such as the one in 7:14.
Your references to earlier chapters in Isaiah do not even bear out what you are trying to do, for in those cases the apparent intent that the historical reality be related to the eschaton is at least arguable, but nothing in the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14 expresses or implies the connection of his Ahaz-prophecy, to anything in the future.
Worst of all, you pretend as if there's been no editing of Isaiah's words at 7:14 since the day they were first written down, a source critical judgment not shared by any other source critic. You also don't even know how long of a period it was between what Isaiah allegedly spoke orally, and when these were transferred to written stories, yet you pretend as if there's just no doubting that the written words correspond perfectly to the oral original. Sorry but you are just a bit more happy about the honesty and reliability of OT authors, than most biblical scholars are, for example, Christian scholar J.D. Watts:
The commentary will be looking at the Vision of Isaiah as a work of literature presented to a literate people. Although it certainly is the end product of a tradition, we will contend that the process was not automatic. Tradition provided the composers of the Vision with material for their book. But they, not tradition, determined the use to which the material was put and the interpretation it received. The commentary will show that this interpretation m many instances runs counter to the conventional thought of their day and of other biblical literature dealing with those events. It may well be that the Isaiah tradition itself ran counter to the conventional concepts and was thus congenial to the writers. But they, not it, produced the final result.
Chan continues:
The names of the people in the story do not express or imply that what happened to them is some type of prediction of the future, unless you contend that the writer is employing fiction.The immediate context exhibits this very perspective. Isaiah meets Ahaz with his son, Shear-Jashub, whose name means "the remnant will return" (7:3).
Matthew's quotes of Jesus also weren't about merely the present, but the gospel to be given to future Gentile followers. That hardly means that we read a Gentile-presupposition into everything Matthew says.72 The language is used earlier in Isaiah (cf. 1:26, 27; 4:3) showing the situation in Isaiah 7 is not just about the present but God's greater agenda of exile and restoration.
No, it only shows he was addressing the present generation listening to his voice. The burden is on you to show that "house of David" was Isaiah's way of addressing people who were not yet born.73 Likewise, Isaiah's use of the "house of David" evidences Isaiah believed the current situation was a threat not only to Ahaz but the entire Davidic dynasty (7:2).
74 Interestingly enough, the threat against the Davidic dynasty is the immediate context and concern of the sign (7:13). Again, the immediate context of Isaiah 7 does not merely describe a historical situation but one situated in a larger plan. Isaiah is not just speaking to the present situation
Once again, you have failed to make your case that because Isaiah elsewhere deals with the eschaton, surely he must be doing so in 7:14. You also need to prioritize how Ahaz likely understood the prophecy, over what you think is going on with Isaiah's literary concerns. Even if Isaiah took his conversation with Ahaz and transferred it to story-form and added eschatological details, so what? That would just mean Isaiah is expanding what happened and pretending it has more significance than it originally did.
Sorry, Mr. Jailhouse lawyer, but I see no difference between "purpose" and "reason". If you think I'm wrong, check a thesaurus, see what synonyms are available for "purpose". No better term was ever invented to characterize sophists like Christian apologists, than "doublespeak".The grammar of the sign indicates this. As discussed, some have interpreted Isaiah 7:14-15 to say the child is a sign that the northern kingdom and Aram will be defeated. The language makes mention of the present situation for sure. However, that is not precisely what Isaiah says. Notice, the wording states the son will eat curds and honey (v. 15) because (כִּי) before the child is old enough to choose between good and evil, the kings' lands will be desolate (v. 16). Technically, the resolution of the conflict with Ephraim and Aram is not the content or purpose of the sign but rather the reason the sign occurs the way it does.
75 It answers the question "why does Immanuel eat curds and honey, the food of poverty?" (cf. 7:22), as opposed to "what is the significance of Isaiah's sign?"
Because the sign would be fulfilled at a time when poverty was plaguing Ahaz' kingdom, another rope anchoring Isaiah's words to the 7th century b.c.
Hence, to say Immanuel is a sign for Israel's present deliverance is not grammatically correct. Rather, the present circumstances will cause the tragic circumstances surrounding Immanuel's birth and childhood. Again, the present connect with the future.76
That can be fixed by noting that Isaiah's child in question probably wouldn't die immediately after Ahaz's enemies fled. He would likely grow up past the days of Ahaz. That's as far into the future as the text requires. Pretending that Isaiah was intending to address people who wouldn't be born until 700 years later is total bullshit.
Isaiah ties "immanuel's" significance to a feared invasion from the Assyrians:Understanding this helps make sense of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8. As discussed, some scholars parallel Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immanuel. Indeed, in Isaiah 8:4, Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies the upcoming desolation of Ephraim and Aram as predicted in Isaiah 7:16. That is the child's prophetic purpose. However, we just observed such desolation is not the purpose of the sign of Immanuel. In Isaiah 7:16, the desolation of those kingdoms explains why Immanuel will be born in poverty and not what Immanuel is all about.
7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.Isaiah is obviously saying that an attack from the present King of Assyria would occur soon (i.e., "about to", v. 7). By contrast, there is no Assyrian anything going on 700 years later when Jesus was born as Assyria fell not later than 500 b.c. Isaiah's speaking to Immanuel was not some bizarre prophetic utterance, he was more than likely speaking to an actual boy, if the text can be trusted to convey what Isaiah really said.
8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:7-8 NAU)
Then compare what Isaiah 7 says about Immanual, with what Isaiah 8 says about Maher-shalal-hash-baz:Accordingly, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel do not share the same purpose.
14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.Isaiah 7 associates Immanual's life with Assyria's attack on Isaiah's present-generation jews (v. 18), an attack that God "whistle's' for (v. 18), and then in 8:10, God is bringing the king of Assyrian upon the Jewish people.
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
17 "The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria."
18 In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isa. 7:14-18 NAU)
5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.
9 "Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered.
10 "Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us." (Isa. 8:5-10 NAU)
Indeed, the circumstances in the life of Maher-shalal-hash-baz are said to precede an imminent invasion by the king of Assyria, just like the circumstances in the life of "Immanual" were said to:
3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;Chan continues:
4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." (Isa. 8:3-4 NAU)
No, there is no "Messiah" in Isaiah 7 or 8, unless you mean a temporary messiah living before 600 b.c.They relate, but are not the same sign. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the sign that the harsh circumstances surrounding the Messiah's birth will take place.
The time of the birth of the boy was given in Isaiah 8:Maher-shalal-hash-baz is near the prophecy that confirms one in the more distant future (Immanuel's birth in exile). Kidner's observation (reiterated by Motyer) sums this up nicely:The sign of Immanuel . . . although it concerned ultimate events, did imply a pledge for the immediate future in that however soon Immanuel were born, the present threat would have passed before he would even be aware of it. But the time of his birth was undisclosed; hence the new sign is given to deal only with the contemporary scence.77
3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." (Isa. 8:3-4 NAU)
18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isa. 8:18 NAU)
Your efforts to squeeze Jesus into a context he clearly doesn't belong, are laughable.
But if you read the context, you will find that they are one and same kid:The rest of Isaiah 8 further supports that Immanuel is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah's wife does not name the child contrary to what is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Isa. 8:3; Luke 1:31).
3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;That passage twice associates the boy with an Assyrian invasion, once in v. 3-4, and again in v. 7-8. Why Isaiah provides two names for the boy is anybody's guess, but it cannot be denied that it is one boy signifying one Assyrian invasion.
4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:3-8 NAU)
Correct, and the enemy in context, is the King of Assyria. See v. 7.Isaiah also records how Immanuel will ultimately triumph over Judah's enemies and end exile (Isa. 8:10).
Based upon this, Immanuel seems to be different than Maher-shalal-hash-baz. After all, the latter never delivers Judah from its enemies. Thus, Isaiah differentiates Immanuel from Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
Dream on. Your God is a stupid mother fucker if this is his idea of predicting events that wouldn't occur until 700 years after Isaiah and his generation die.
Gee, religious fanatics never contradict themselves, do they? No sir, the bible is the inerrant word of God.Isaiah 8 also affirms the logic we observed in Isaiah 7:14-16. It describes how the Assyrian invasion will desolate Aram and Ephraim. However, it also discusses how the invasion will flood Judah, the "land of Immanuel" (8:5-8). If Immanuel is a sign that Israel's enemies will be destroyed resulting in Judah's salvation, why does Isaiah 8 state the opposite result occurs?
Instead, the description in Isaiah 8 fits with what I have suggested above. Isaiah 7 prophesies Immanuel would live in poverty because of the present circumstances. Isaiah 8 states the desolation of the Judah's enemies would lead to Judah's own desolation and so Immanuel will be born in exilic conditions.
And you want us to believe that although your god could have been a bit clearer about predicting Jesus, in his infinite wisdom he thought it best to couch "predictions" in past tense fortune-cookie language? FUCK YOU.
Ahaz.The rest of Isaiah 8-11 reinforces a messianic perspective to Isaiah 7:14. At the end of Isaiah 8, the prophet describes how Israel and its king will collapse in darkness (8:21-22).
All biblical prophets had the authority of God on their shoulders. you haven't narrowed this to Jesus.78 However, from that darkness a light will come (9:1-2 [Heb., 8:23-9:1]) based upon the birth of a child (v. 6 [Heb., v. 5]) who bears the authority of God upon his shoulders.
A thing that Jesus failed spectacularly in. He was killed in 33 a.d., and no demonstrable evidence outside the dreams of biblical authors has expressed or implied that Jesus continued to rule over the Davidic dynasty for 2,000 years after he died.This messianic individual in Isaiah 9:6 (Heb., v. 5) corresponds with Isaiah 7:14.79 Both record the birth and naming of a child associated with God's presence ("God with us" versus "Mighty God"). Both discuss how a child is born in exile and trial. Both texts ensure the security of the Davidic dynasty by virtue of the child's birth.
But you don't know how much went on in Isaiah's life between what he says in ch. 7 and what he says in ch. 8. You might be seeing contextual inferences that were conjured up by the way Isaiah's post-exilic editors chose to put his ramblings together.With such parallels, Isaiah arguably equates his prophecy in 7:14 with the messianic figure in 9:6 (Heb., 9:5). This reinforces a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.
And don't forget Isaiah 8:18, where Isaiah explains that it is his own kids (plural) who are for signs to Israel.
At the time the deliverer of Isaiah 11 does his stuff, will also be the day when the wolf lies down with the lamb (metaphor for utopia actually achieved):Isaiah 11 also reiterates this. That chapter introduces a child-deliverer (Isa. 11:2) whose dominion is at the culmination of history (11:9-12).80 With that, Isaiah 11 repeats the same pattern of a royal child born who secures ultimate deliverance and reign.
6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. (Isa. 11:6 NAU)But before, during, and after Jesus' life, the only time the lamb laid down with the wolf is if the lamb was inside the wolf. You lose.
More correctly, the evangelistic hopeful way that his post-exilic editors threw his shit together.The similarities and pattern argue that Isaiah tied all of these texts together.
Isaiah shows how the Son born of a virgin in exile (Isa. 7:14) is the Son/Child who will conquer the exile (9:6 [Heb., v. 5]) and ultimately restore the world (11:1-12). Again, later texts reinforce Isaiah 7:14 is not just about the present but the future.
A future that was known to Isaiah's later editors.These factors illustrate what we have observed in this chapter. Isaiah did know complex theological concepts like the Messiah. His writing develops that idea (Isa. 9:6 [Heb., v. 5]; 11:2) which clarifies the nature of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah also did not strictly write about his current situation but had in mind how the present relates to the future.
Hence, he talks about how the current crisis relates to the sign of the ultimate deliverance and security for the Davidic dynasty (Immanuel). He writes with greater complexity than we might originally anticipate.
Or most people simply aren't as familiar with sophistry and illusion as jailhouse lawyers are.
Translation: "forget how the words of Isaiah were cobbled together over hundreds of years, seeing it the way inerrantists see it causes all sorts of entertaining theology to come bursting out."One factor remains. Intertextuality not only helps us to see Isaiah's directionality but also his theological depth.
No thanks, I prefer to see the problems of Isaiah's authorship and sources solved before I start dogmatizing about what he meant. I was only arguing herein under YOUR assumptions that one person is responsible for the text. God only knows to what degree editors of centuries after Isaiah changed the material that later became his ch. 7 and ch. 8.This relates to the sign itself, the virgin birth. One might ask how the sign of a young woman (rightly assumed to be a virgin) giving birth participates in Isaiah's theological agenda.81 Scholars have consistently wondered about this reality.82 Intertextuality can aid in this discussion.
The phrase "conceive and give birth" (יֹלֶ֣דֶ + הָרָה֙) is actually a formula reiterated in the canon. The formula applies to individuals including Eve (Gen. 4:1), Hagar (16:11), Sarah (21:2), Jochebed (Ex. 2:2), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:5), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:20).83 Ruth is a close parallel (4:10).84 The births are often miraculous because God overcomes barrenness (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:20) or provides protection from harm (Gen. 16:11). Accordingly, the sons born are important individuals in God's plan.
Precisely what the gospel authors would have known in first century Judaism. Telling stories about Jesus being born of a virgin puts him on par with other important people in the OT. How convenient.
So significant that his virgin-birth status is nowhere attested in the NT except Matthew and Luke, despite your contention that such status strongly argues for his importance. I'd say the NT authors did not agree on whether Jesus was born of a virgin. Otherwise, they wouldn't neglect it any more than Protestant evangelicals neglect John 1:1.The significance of the virgin birth seems to be an argument of lesser to greater. A virgin birth exceeds any other miraculous births. Consequently, the virgin-born Son is the most significant individual in redemptive history.
Then it cannot be Jesus, since Jesus died in disgrace in 33 a.d. and didn't "restore" jack shit.He surpasses Isaac, Moses, Samson, or Samuel. In the context of Isaiah 7:14, the birth of this ultimate individual secures the Davidic dynasty and the restoration of a remnant (cf. Shear-Jashub, 7:3).
Jesus did not end any exile.He will be born in exile to end it.
