As you can probably guess, this Institute receives a number of Theological questions. Recently, I ran across the following question and  decided it merited a public response.

“I was recently asked about the the Isaiah verse that Matthew quotes. I’m being told it was a mistranslation. I tried to tell the person that he needed to read it all in context. He said I can’t call for context amongst all the books then ignore the context in which the book of Isaiah was written.”

Interesting discussion. The quote in question is from Matthew 1:22 & 23:

“So the Lord’s promise came true, just as the prophet had said, ‘A virgin will have a baby boy, and he will be called Immanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’”

Matthew here is quoting from Isaiah chapter 7.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.  For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.”

The Lord is giving the people of Israel a “sign” as a pledge that He will deliver them; In the time it takes a young women to conceive and her child to grow to the age of accountability, Israel shall be delivered from her enemies. That is the straight forward meaning.

We can read the fulfillment in Isaiah, chapter 8, verses 3 and 4.

“And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz; for before the boy knows how to cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.””

So why did Matthew apply this fulfilled prophecy to Jesus? Did he hear about Jesus’ virgin birth and go searching for a some verse justify it? Does the verse in Isaiah actually refer to a “virgin” or just a young woman? Can we justify both the near fulfillment and Matthew’s application of this verse to Jesus? The only way to solve this is to look at the text itself.

In context, the word used by Isaiah (almah) merely means “young maiden of marrying age”. The word “betulah” means “virgin”. Of course, it was expected that a young maiden be a virgin before marriage … but that is only implied.  So, “almah”, in context, could either mean young maiden or virgin (or both). Since we know the context and have Isaiah’s writings, we could make a determination ourselves. However, I think consulting pre-Christian, Jewish interpretations would appear less biased on our part.

Long before Christ’s time here on earth, the Greeks decided it was in their best interest to understand those rebellious Jews. Perhaps if they understood why they rebelled, they’d be able to better rule them. So, the rulers asked that a Greek translation of the Jewish holy book, the Old Testament, be made. It was called the LXX (the 70), as legend says that 70 elders were involved in the translation process.

Now we have an unbiased translation into a more literal language. Looking at the verses in question, we turn to Isaiah and find that the phrase (ha’almah) was translated into Greek as “the virgin”. This means that decades before Christ was born, Jewish scholars decided that “virgin” was correct in context. It wasn’t until after Christ’s time that some Jews sought to change the meaning to “young woman” (not necessarily a virgin). Before and during Christ’s time, there is strong evidence to believe that few Jewish scholars doubted the translation in the LXX.

So why did the Jewish scholars translate the phrase “ha’almah” as “the virgin”? The word “almah” is only used 10 times in the entire Old Testament; That isn’t a large number of times. In 6 of the 10 cases, the LXX translators chose the Greek word for “virgin”: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8 and Proverbs 30:19. In no case is the word ever translated as “young woman” or anything other than an unmarried maiden of marrying age (which implies virginity). So to an ancient Jew, the idea that this could not mean a virgin young maiden was out of the question.

That said, I believe something clever is going on here; I believe that God’s choice of the word “almah” was not an accident. In the near fulfillment, Isaiah married a “young maiden” and a child was born. However, since young Jewish maidens were expected to be virgins until marriage, the word can also be properly translated “virgin”.  So God used the word “almah” knowing that the dual meaning of the verse could be applied to both prophecies.

But wait! How did I come up with this concept of a “dual” fulfillment or a “dual” meaning? Looking at Isaiah 14, we see God humiliating Babylon and its arrogance. But then, starting in verse 12, we see this:

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’“

Either the king of Babylon made some wild, inhuman claims of becoming God, or this section is referring someone else. Even in Jesus’ day, Jewish scholars agreed that this passage was about Satan, the spiritual power behind Babylon. So this section refers both to the king of Babylon and to Satan at the same time. Wow! God is clever.

So, in Isaiah we see God predicting a natural birth (as a sign), at the same time, predicting the birth of Jesus the Messiah.

We often receive questions as the Institute. Most of the time we merely respond to the question without posting in to the site. After some thought, I’ve decided to posted some of our email correspondence on the site. Maybe someone else has the same question. Maybe our answer will help.

To that end, let’s begin with a question about the Sabbath day.

“Do you believe in keeping a day unto the Lord set apart from work to honor and worship the Lord and hear his word in fellowship with other believers every week? Or don’t you think this is necessary?”

Excellent question. Here at the Institute, we definitely believe in setting apart a day to worship the Lord and spend time in fellowship. As the author of Hebrews encourages us:

“And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” – Hebrews 10:24,25

That said, there are some who believe in honoring a specific day: the Old Testament “Sabbath” observance given to the Hebrews. According to scripture, however, the sabbath rest was fulfilled in Christ; He is our Sabbath rest, that we may rest from the constant struggle to meet the requirements of the law.

“For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed. Now we who have believed enter that rest …” – Hebrews 4:2,3a

Now, some may disagree, saying that the Sabbath day was never specifically abolished by God (as the dietary laws were). Following scripture, we find our answer in the words of the Apostle Paul:

“One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” – Romans 14:5

So if some wish to honor the Sabbath day, they honor God in their hearts. If others do not wish to do so, they honor God on a different day. Either way, God is honored. As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 14:6:

“He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.”

Because of our increasingly complex world, however, sometimes the local church must adapt to circumstances, customs or cultural differences. For example, many Churches have Saturday night services aimed at college age students. This keeps them from the temptation of going out and getting drunk and also provides them with fellowship that lasts well beyond the end of the service. Also, in some places where Christianity is outlawed, meeting on Sunday would attract the local authorities. Meeting on another day is safer and allows more freedom in worship.

So, although we meet on Sunday’s to worship and hear the Word of God, neither you nor we are obligated to meet on the day. As long as we set aside time for fellowship and worship, God is honored in it. God is pleased whether we worship at night, hiding from the authorities in secret, worship loudly on Saturday night with modern praise, or worship openly and traditionally on Sunday morning. In all, let God receive the glory.

When speaking to atheist, especially those heavily indoctrinated, many traditional concepts of truth are simply beyond their world view’s understanding. In response, here is a strongly worded, yet poignant statement:

“Have you ever attempted to find, or better yet, examine any of the philosophical positions you take? I’d be willing to bet you just followed the pack, went with whatever was the most fun and somehow ended up believing a philosophy about life that “made the most sense”.

I’d be willing to bet that any philosophy of life would make sense to you if it allowed you to do whatever you wanted, crushed your enemies and recreated the world so that you would not be personally inconvenienced nor be expected to take on too much responsibility.”

Dr. William Lane Craig gave a wonderful speech on education at the beginning of 2010.  He claimed that academia in general had given up on the concept of “right” and “wrong”. I would agree and add that, instead of “right” and “wrong”, they have invented a series boogie men called “causes” to placate our moral senses and fill the void that God once occupied.  With the sole exception of the philosophy departments, which are being marginalized as unnecessary vestiges of our vain search for truth, any concept of “absolute” truth has become meaningless in much of academia in the western world.

Although this view point is self refuting and incoherent, the indoctrination of our secularized education system is only reinforced by the constant drone coming from the popular media.  This alone is what keeps such a ridiculous view alive.  As a result, few, if any, students bother to question their own assumptions and are, instead, self shackled slaves to popular culture and popular views of morality.  Claiming to be free, they are slaves to a philosophy that, if examined, collapsed at the slightest touch under the weight of its own self-refutation.

William Lane Craig quoting from Professor Micheal Blume on why our education system is failing:

“… if this belief [all truth is relative] is put to the test, one can count on the students’ reaction; They will be uncomprehending that anyone should regard the proposition [that there is no absolute truth] as not self evident astonishes them. As though he were calling into question two plus two equals four. These are things you don’t think about.

The danger they have been taught to fear is not error … but intolerance.

Relativism is necessary to openness. And this is the virtue, the only virtue, that all primary education has dedicated itself to inculcating for the last 50 years. Openness, and the relativism that makes is plausible, is the great insight of our times.

The study of history and culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past. Men always thought they were right and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism.

The point is not to correct the mistakes [of the past] and really be right, rather, it is not to think you are right at all.

Since there is no absolute truth, since everything is relative, the purpose of an education is not to learn truth or master the facts, but rather simply to acquire a skill so that you can go out and obtain wealth, power and fame. Truth has become irrelevant.”

Here is the original video from Dr. William Lane Craig:

Here’s is my favorite quote from Dr. Craig in this video:

“… nor does a commitment to truth make you intolerant as Blume’s students thought. The traditional understanding of tolerance is that while I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it. The problem is that the understanding of tolerance in our politically correct society has now changed.

Today, tolerance means, ‘I dare not disagree with what you say lest I be branded bigoted and intolerant for daring to do so. But this new definition of tolerance is logically incoherent if you think about it.

Think about it. If you tolerate a view, then the very concept of tolerance presupposed that you think the tolerated view is not true. Otherwise you wouldn’t tolerate it; You would agree with it. You can only tolerate a view that you regard as false. So the very concept of tolerance entail a commitment to truth …

The correct basis or tolerance is not relativism … but love.”

Recently, the Institute received the following comment

“You are wasting gullible people’s money by investing in the spread of your religion. Please use those donations to help people physically and not spiritually.”

Like similar comments we have received, it appears to be from a temporary email address; Even I use temporary email addresses when signing up for services I’m unsure of. Since a similar vein of comments have been flowing into other ministries, I assume it is the latest “fad” in anti-Christian argumentation. For that reason, I felt the need to make my response. Here it is in full:

Thanks for the comment. We appreciate all feedback whether negative or positive.

First of all, you overestimate how much the institute takes in. We basically fund everything ourselves. Even the classes we offer lose money. Our goal has never been about making money and it never will; We volunteer our time and pay our own way. We give away the teaching resources for free and they are being used by schools worldwide (literally) to raise up a generation of godly leaders. The small gifts we receive a few times a year merely alleviate the costs of minor expenses like hosting.

That said, your statement seems to infer that people don’t need “spiritual” help. Shall we help pay the rent of struggling people but not give them hope for better days? Shall we comfort the sick and dying with mere meals until they pass fearfully into the eternal unknown? How unkind and selfish. That is only doing half the mission given to us by God. The Church is supposed to bring both food and comfort to the home-bound elderly, the widows and orphans. If the church merely does one, only meeting physical or only meeting spiritual needs, it is only doing half of its mission. People are not merely machines that consume and are happy; People are also spiritual beings.

In addition, religions do not exist to bring happiness, equality and contentment to the earth; That is a side-effect of good doctrine that comes from the mind of an all knowing, all good God. In general, religions exist to bring man closer to God (or the equivalent depending on the religion). Religions usually describe the nature of the relationship between God (or the gods, the universe, etc) and man. In the case of Christianity, the God of the Bible has told us of the relationship we have.

Unlike so many false religions invented by man, Christianity is not about “do this” and “don’t do that” no matter what the popular media portrays. Christianity is about God offering us salvation for free apart from our actions. In Christianity, it is God who replaces our selfish, self-destructive spirit with His own; Once His Spirit dwells in us, we change from the inside. We live by love because we want to not because we have to.  As we all know, enforcing a set of religious rules without a change on the inside does not produce contentment, equality or freedom; Neither Mormonism, Islam or Catholicism can make anything like this claim. However, Biblical Christianity, as seen in communities from Communist China to Central Africa to South America does.

So the Institute will continue on its mission of teaching Christians how to defend their faith and refute the claims of those who disagree. In this way, unbelievers can experience the change that comes from accepting the salvation Jesus gave us and believers can spend less time arguing and more time helping those in need. We seem to be succeeding, not because we are anything special, but because God is causing it to happen. Glory to God.

We are not insulted nor offended by your question. Unlike other large monotheistic religions, Christianity welcomes the questions of both skeptics and doubters; That doesn’t mean we enjoy abuse or trolling (which we will probably ignore) but that does mean we are willing to answer any honest question … and even some less than honest ones.

Once again, thanks for your comment.

While I do not believe the discussion of evolution is incumbent to the question of the existence of God, for the purposes of this blog we will consider the two as connected. Recently on some atheist forums there has been a question concerning a better angle to take when discussing evolution with creationists. Instead of the tired question, “do you believe in evolution?” it has been suggested that “do you understand evolution?” is preferable. I agree that the syntax on the first question is horrible. There are several different types of belief and there is something like nine acceptable definitions of the evolution. But then, does the second question fare better?

From an epistemological standpoint alone the question fails because the answer to any epistemological question is contingent upon basic ontology; or that, understanding of a thing does not add or detract to its efficacy or existence in the world. For example, suppose a gun fell from a plane in the midst of a pre-industrial village. If the villagers managed to understand the device or not, its efficacious existence is contingent on neither their comprehension of the device or not.

Since knowledge of a thing does not aid in that things existence, what else should we consider about this second question? From a semantic standpoint, the second question “begs the question.” What I mean is, those who ask such a thing are obviously presupposing the answer. Or that, anyone who asks the question is essentially saying, “You disagree with evolution because you do not understand it. If you did understand it your belief concerning a creator would change.” This is worth examination.

My previously mentioned “translation” seems to be the driving intent of the question. The epistemological problem, the motives and question begging aside there is still a myriad of problems with this question. I wish to focus on two primary problems (which really is one criticism in two parts), one the ineffectiveness of full acceptance and the nature of “believing/understanding in evolution.”

What I mean by “the full acceptance” problem is, suppose that someone fully accepted every tenant of Darwinian evolution, would this result in atheism necessarily? In no way! Evolution is not a relatively new concept, there are Greek texts referring to various aspects of evolution. Darwin simply applied scientific methodology, terminology, and observation to pre-existing evolutionary thought. He was an Avant-garde in many senses, but by no means as the creator of the concept. However, these concepts were readily available and welcomed by atheism because until this date there was no real intellectual justification for atheism. While there were various philosophical arguments questioning the goodness or intent of God, the arguments for God vastly outweighed the arguments against Him. But with Darwinian evolution, it was a chance for the atheist to, in her mind, be truly intellectually justified in denying God’s existence.

Darwinian evolution seems to be the intellectual rallying cry of atheists but this is misguided. Darwin himself was not an atheist. One would think that if the creator of a school of thought does not reach the supposed necessary conclusion that is purported by other followers, one would not be justified in concluding the result is unnecessary—if Darwin was not an atheist, Darwinian evolution does not necessarily mean that God does not exist.

Further, not only does Darwinian evolution not necessitate atheism, but it is theoretically possible (and there are instances of it) of someone holding both to Darwinian evolution and being a theist (or even a Christian). While it seems most atheists or Christians are neither satisfied with this middle ground approach (both see it as an unjustified compromise) its existence is nonetheless proof that full acceptance does not necessarily entail atheism.

My second criticism concerning fundamental problems with the idea of “belief/understanding of evolution” is within the same vein of my first criticism. While the belief or understanding of evolution does not necessary point one toward atheism, I believe this can be taken to a further degree and maintain that by its very nature, evolution is merely advocated not because of its intellectual preeminence, but merely because it presents a possible alternative to God. A famous quotation by Arthur Keith renowned evolutionary scientist claims, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” There have been some questions as to the validity of this quotation but it is hardly an outlier belief. D.M.S Watson, a zoologist said, “the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” The previous two examples are somewhat dated, but this line of thinking is by no means limited to yesterday, Harvard Biology professor George Walls said, “I choose however to believe that which is impossible (Darwinian Evolution) rather than accept the unthinkable – special creation.”

While the question of Darwinian evolution really has very little to do with the question of God, even if it did its efficacy is not contingent upon comprehension, acceptance, and in no way necessitates atheism. At best it is a hope of intellectually justification for atheism, and this justification seems to be clung to not because of its intellectual prowess but because of the unwanted alternative, special creation.

Dr. Fernandes continues speaking on the effects of Evolution and the Enlightenment. Following Darwin’s and his cousin Dalton’s philosophy, Dr. Fernandes shows how many of the ideas he was led to believe are anti-American and human rights. Inescapable, the conclusions he draws from merely taking Atheistic Evolution to its logical conclusion are startling: Eugenics, Racism and Hatred.

Speaking on the effects of Evolution and the Enlightenment, Dr. Fernandes starts with the principles embraced by the founding fathers of the United States, and examines how their decisions about which “rights” we have were influenced by Christianity. This leads to a look at the transformation of Charles Darwin’s philosophy from Christian to Atheist. The effects are followed to their logical conclusion in today’s morality.

Taken from Matthew chapter 13, Dr Fernandes speaks on sharing the Salvation of Jesus with non believers, how different people react and what can happen in the hearts of those who hear the message.

Dr. Phil Fernandes teaches on The Reformation and resulting 5 Solas. Using these, he attempts to clearly and simply explain what is and what is not part of Salvation (i.e. what is essential to the believer). Much of this is spend on the differences between the Catholic and Protestant views of salvation.