Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Myshalom777 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 02/04/2005 16:33:25 GMT Daylight Time,  peterkirk AT qaya.org 
writes:

>...  The sign is for  the whole house of David, not 
>primarily for the  king in that house at that  particular  time.
> 
>Mark  Eddy
>  
>

Possibly, but there is then a logical  problem in taking this as the 
virgin birth of the Messiah. For the Messiah  is supposed to be the 
representative in his own time of the House of David  - and this is 
certainly how the NT authors understood him. 


Hello Peter,
 
I don't agree with you that NT authors understood Jesus in as circumscribed  
a manner as you suggest -- the Messiah is the representative of the House of  
David --and also much more according to NT authors. I could refer you (at 
least)  to Hebrews, and 1 & 2 Peter in that regard. 
 
There should be another post coming to list which is Bishop NT Wright's  take 
on the Mattean appropriation of the Isaianic passage. He takes the  canonical 
and theological approach to this passage which i think is absolutely  
necessary.
 
Celal Berker
_www.eefc.co.uk_ (http://www.eefc.co.uk/) 
_www.fiec.org.uk_ (http://www.fiec.org.uk/) 
_www.hristiyan.net_ (http://www.hristiyan.net)