2015: Most Read Posts

It has been a great year, for which I am thankful. I have learned much, and wrote more (which sounds like a bad ratio). I want to extend a warm, heartfelt thank you to my readers (both of you). I hope this coming year is filled with God's fullest blessing, which often comes from the unexpected, at least that has been my experience.

2016 has a lot in store. I am not far from finishing up the biggest writing project I have ever undertaken, for which I am very excited. I will keep you informed, I promise.

I have not done anything like this in the past, but I thought some of you may enjoy seeing the 10 most popular posts from 2015 out of the 64 I posted. Here they are in order from the last to first.

Happy New Year and Shalom!

10. Good Thoughts on the Church and Functionality

9. Translational Interpretation 

8. Joshua 10:12-15 and Mesopotamian Celestial Omen Texts

7. Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part VII - The Development of Incarnation Theology

6. Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part III - Historical Background Continued and Terminology, Definition and Development of Dogma tied.

5. Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part II - Historical Background

4. Immanuel - Our God Is With Us - Part 4, The Hopeless Echad Argument and John Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis One" - Review tied.

3. Immanuel - Our God Is With Us - Part 1

2. How A Nicene Bishop Stole Saturnalia

1. Skip Moen on the Trinity

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part VII - The Development of Incarnation Theology

This is the seventh and final installment of a series on Isaiah 7:14. 

“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 7:14 (Cf. Matt 1:23)

There is no question that in the line “God being with us”, lies incarnation theology. The problem arises when we affix to that incarnation theology a much later developed incarnation christology that focuses on a pre-existent deity taking on “human cloths." Rather than Jesus being born of or from Mary as the text says, being created by the Spirit of God in her, he is thought (as demonstrated in later creeds) to have come through her or that he came into her.[1] This metaphysical concept is foreign not only to the tradition of the Hebrews and their scripture, but also to the NT. N.T. Wright describes: 

“Part of the problem here…lies in the confusion that still occurs about the meaning of Messiahship. To say that Jesus is ‘the Christ’ is, in first-century terms, to say first and foremost that he is Israel’s Messiah, not to say that he is the incarnate Logos, the second person of the Trinity, the only-begotten son of the father. Even the phrase ‘son of god’, during Jesus’ ministry and in very early Christianity, does not mean what it came to mean in later theology…”[2] 

and 

“‘Son of God’ in the first century was first and foremost a title for Israel, and then for the true Messiah… which to begin with certainly didn't imply any doctrine of incarnation...‘Son of God’ didn't get the full meaning that it now has within Christianity until much later...We may therefore safely say that, for the New Testament writers, the virginal conception of Jesus was not a way of asserting that he was, as it were, genetically divine on one side and genetically human on the other. That is a gross category mistake.”[3]

Thus, one of the defining characteristics of this view on the incarnation is that Jesus personally pre-existed his birth (as a divine, quasi-divine or often thought, the logos).

“In the first sense, an incarnational theology is one that affirms God’s involvement in human life. Thus in acting within human history (as depicted throughout the Hebrew Scriptures) God is present with us in the flow of time. The basic thought here is that human life and history are important to God, who is at all times ‘Immanuel’, God with us. In this first sense all versions of Christianity are incarnational; and so also are Judaism, Islam and Sikhism...This first and most general sense of incarnational thought is not in question here. A Christian theology can be incarnational in the sense of declaring not only that God is always involved in human life, but also that in the life of Jesus God was involved in a particular and specially powerful and effective way. In other words, Jesus was not just an ordinary man, but one who’s relationship to God as a universal significance.”[4]

It is the ecclesiastical incarnation christology defined at the Chalcedonian Council that

“the assent to belief in the ‘incarnation’ becomes at the same time assent to the substance language of physis, hypostasis, and ousia.”[5]

Basically, for Jesus to fit the developing philosophical and Hellenistic eisegetical method of defining “God”, Jesus had to be redefined. Did they see a human or not, and what was the relationship between his divine and human selves? Was he (as the monophysites had it) “only one divine person”? How was he to be explained? In order to have an orthodox opinion of this matter, the Chalcedonian creed was of necessity, since there was no uniform opinion prior.

“As is well known, christology began quite modestly ‘from below’, from the perspective of the Jewish disciples of Jesus: not with lofty metaphysical speculations but with the questions ‘who is this?’ and ‘can any good come out of Nazareth?’ If we wanted to judge Christians of the pre-Nicene period after the event, in the light of the Council of Nicaea, then not only the Jewish Christians would be heretics but also almost all the Greek church fathers (at least in essence), since as a matter of course they taught a subordination of the ‘Son’ to the ‘Father’ which according to the later criterion of the definition of ‘sameness of substance’ (homoousia) was regarded by the Council of Nicaea as heretical. In the light of this we can hardly avoid the question: if one wants to make just the Council of Nicaea the criterion instead of the New Testament, was anyone at all orthodox in the early church of the first centuries?... [The exaltation of a human Messiah as Son of God] was suppressed by an incarnation christology beginning above (Logos christology), which ontologically intensified the lines of the Gospel of John or the individual statements about pre-existence and mediation at creation in the hymns in Colossians and Hebrews: the pre-existence and incarnation of the Son of God whose emptying and humiliation are the presupposition for his later exaltation to God. We can also say that in Old Testament terms, for the ‘ascending christology’, divine Sonship means an election and assumption as Son (exaltation, baptism, birth). It is now supplemented or even replaced by a ‘descending’ christology. For this christology, divine Sonship means an essential begetting of a higher kind-always to be described more precisely in Hellenistic terms and notions. Indeed, think of all that has been read into the New Testament a legitimated as apostolic!...Had people kept to the New Testament, they would have spared themselves the notorious difficulties which now arose over the relationship of the three persons ‘in’ God, all the speculations over the numbers one and three.”[6]

The idea of God present and dealing with the world through an anointed or appointed means is presented in passages such as:

Acts (10:38, 40, 42-43),

“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the powerful holy spirit…God raised him on the third day and he was revealed. He commanded us to proclaim to the people and to confirm by our testimony that he is the one appointed by God as judge of those living and dead. All the prophets testify that forgiveness of sins is received through his name by all who believe in him.”

Acts 17:30-31

“…those epochs of ignorance God overlooked (for judgment). Now he [God] commands all men everywhere to repent, because he [God] has established a day in which he [God] is going to judge the world by a righteous standard, by the man [messiah] whom he [God] appointed. He [God] furnished everyone with trustworthy evidence for this coming event by raising him [messiah] from the dead.” 

Luke 1:67-70

“Then his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied: Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, because He has visited and provided redemption for His people. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, just as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets in ancient times;”

Luke 7:16

“A sense of reverential awe swept over everyone, and they glorified God saying: ‘A great prophet has come on the scene among us’ and ‘God has visited his people.’”

These passages are just a few of the many that could be cited, where God has “visited”, “tabernacled”, “dwelt” or “come among” his people in and through Jesus the Messiah. The Messiah was filled with the “presence” of God (Isaiah 61:1, Matt 11:5, Luke 4: 18, 7:22). In the same way that God’s presence filled the tabernacle and the temples, it did not make the fabric tent and poles nor the blocks of stone “the God of Israel”. The tent and buildings were not God, rather God’s presence and glory filled and rested upon them. That is why the author of 1 Pe. 2:5-6 says,

“Moreover, you, yourselves[we us], as living stones are being constructed into a spiritual structure [temple], a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices suitable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore, this text is included in Scripture: Observe this: I am positioning a stone in Zion, A select, first-rate keystone. And the one who believes in him will never be ashamed.”

This passage is about Jesus being the “chief cornerstone”. Paul states,

“God was in Christ [not was Christ] reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). 

To the Colossians it was said,

“Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ. For in Him [Messiah] the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily…”

The spirit of God is the fullness of God. God is spirit. Anyone with whom the “spirit” of God dwells has the “fullness of God” (Col. 2:8-9).

It also needs to be remembered that the Hebrews are strict monotheists. They believe in one God as revealed in the ages past (as revealed to the Fathers and prophets - Luke 1:67). They adhere to the Sh’ma, as Jesus himself taught (Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:30), where there is no sense of a humanoid half-God-half-man figure present. There is no homoiousian, homoousios or hypostatic union taught anywhere in the Scriptures. If God incarnate glasses are worn, it is God incarnate that will be seen, even if it means distorting the text and context. If play-dough is shoved through a triangular tube, it will come out the other end triangular.

The starting point of any exegetical inquiry should begin with what the OT clearly reveals instead of making assumptions based on anachronistic readings of the NT. Not for reasons of one being inferior to the other, but on the grounds that the NT assumes its audience has a familiarity with the OT; the NT is built on the foundation laid in the OT, and therefore does not try and redefine its content, including the revelation of the God of Israel. It begins with the premise that its readers already believe in the God of Israel as defined by the Hebrew Scriptures and seeks to show why Jesus, Yeshua of Nazareth, the promised coming one is “he”. Professor Anthony Buzzard put it,

“There is not a word in the New Testament about any such revolutionary changes in the definition of God. There is nothing in the recorded ministry of Paul which points to a new definition of who the God of Israel and thus of Christians is. I am alarmed at the hostility encountered by anyone questioning the dogma of the triune God. Instead of the Protestant principle of free and independent inquiry, there reigns a frightening atmosphere of anger and indignation that anyone might suggest that Jesus was not a Trinitarian. Have we forgotten that our Savior was a Jew?”[7]

In many ways, “God is with us” is a good way to describe the whole story of the Scriptures. God is fixing this broken world, and is with his people to do so. Eden, a place where intimacy with God was known, has been inaugurated through the New Creation done in and through the Messiah, Jesus, although the eschatological fullness of restoration on a renewed earth has yet to take its final shape.

“God, you would say, has already begun that ultimate, final world of new creation; by baptism and faith you have left behind the old order of sin and death, and by God’s spirit within you, you have God’s own resurrection power to enable you, even in the present, to resist sin and live as a fully human being at last; you must therefore live, in the present, as far as possible like you will live in the future.”[8]

The statement of covenantal promise:

“I will be their God and they will be my people”[9]

is echoed in the final statement of Revelation,

“The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all” (Rev. 22:21).

Immanuel, God is still with and for his people. There is much hope, so live like it.

____________________________

End Notes:
[1] “the earliest and best manuscripts agree in introducing the passage with the words: ‘The beginning (γένεσις) [genesis] of Jesus Christ happened in this way’…Matthew began his Gospel by detailing the ‘book of the γένεσις’ [genesis, beginning] of Jesus Christ (i.e., his genealogical lineage; 1:1), making it somewhat more likely that he would here (v. 18) continue with a description of the γένεσις [genesis] itself. And so the majority of textual scholars agree that γέννησις [gennesis] represents a textual corruption, created perhaps out of deference to the following account of Jesus’ birth. At the same time, something more profound may be occurring here. Both γένεσις [genesis] and γέννησις [gennesis] can mean ‘birth,’ so that either one could be appropriate in the context. But unlike the corrupted reading, γένεσις [genesis] can also mean ‘creation,’ ‘beginning,’ and ‘origination.’ When one now asks why scribes might take umbrage at Matthew’s description of the ‘genesis’ of Jesus Christ, the answer immediately suggests itself: the original text could well be taken to imply that this is the moment in which Jesus Christ comes into being. In point of fact, there is nothing in Matthew’s narrative, either here or elsewhere throughout the Gospel, to suggest that he knew or subscribed to the notion that Christ had existed prior to his birth.” Bart D.Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2011), 88-89.

[2] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (Fortress Press, 2003), 24.
[3] N.T. Wright, Who was Jesus (William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 79.
[4] John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age, 2nd ed. (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2006), 9f.

[5] Ibid.,10
[6] Hans Küng, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future (Continuum Publishing Co., 1994), 103, 173.
[7] Anthony F. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, A Call to return to the Creed of Jesus (Morrow, GA.: Restoration Fellowship, 2007), 9.

[8] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture, Engaging Contemporary Issues (HarperOne, 2014), 95.
[9] Gen. 17:8; Jer. 24:7; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek. 37:23, 27; Zec. 8:8.

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part VI - A Biblical Truth, Not Abstract Metaphysics

This is the sixth installment of a series on Isaiah 7:14. 

“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 7:14 (Cf. Matt 1:23)

With everything already examined in mind, a closer look at name and Immanuel is in order. It is of great importance to note that in the world of the Hebrews, name denotes reputation, what an individual represents. Author, writer and teacher Skip Moen summarized it this way:

“Names have power. Names designate essence. ‘In the name of’ carries the same authority as though the one named spoke the words. In this case, the divine name is a summary of the divine being. Therefore, when John says our sins are forgiven through His name, he does not mean that the phonetic expression of the name is some magical formula. He means that the name implies the full personality behind it. We are forgiven because of whom Yeshua is, not because His name is pronounced in a certain way. This is essentially the same idea that is contained in the use of YHWH as a name in the Tanakh. The divine name is who YHWH is. It is not just a collection of arbitrary consonants.”[1]

God being “with” his people is also an important element to stress. The way that God is with his people varies. When Isaiah spoke to Ahaz,

“Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us” (Isa. 8:10)

he was quoting a phrase with which the Hebrews were already well acquainted. He was reminding the present generation in their current distress that God was with his people. The statement was an affirmation that God was for his people in the present and provided hope for the future. For example, starting with Abraham:

“God is with you [Abraham] in all that you do” (21:22); 

“Sojourn in this land and I will be with you [Isaac]...Do not fear, for I am with you, I will bless you” (Gen. 26:3, 24);

“I am with you [Jacob] and will keep you wherever you go…return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you” (28:15; 31:3);

“The LORD was with Joseph.... The LORD was with him…God will be with you” (39:2, 21, 23; 48:21);

“I will be with you [Moses]…God will be with you…My Presence shall go with you” (Exo. 3:12; 18:19; 33:14);

“Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you [Joshua]” (Jos. 1:5);

“Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him” (1 Sam. 3:19);

“I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite…the LORD is with him [David]…Saul was afraid of David, for the LORD was with him…David became greater and greater, for the LORD God of hosts was with him” (1 Sam 16:18; 18:12; 2 Sam 5:10).

Even to the whole of Israel God is said to be “with you”:

‘‘These forty years the LORD your God has been with you; you have not lacked a thing’” Deut. 2:7; 

"May the LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers; may he not leave us or forsake us” (1 Kings 8:57, said by Solomon);

"The LORD of hosts is with us; The God of Jacob is our stronghold.” Psa. 46:7

Even in the pages of the NT we find the reaffirmation of the model portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures:

“Rabbi, we know that ... no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him” (John 3:2);

“He who sent me is with me” (8:29);

“I am not alone because the Father is with me.” (16:23)

Just because extensive details are not given relating to a child by the name Immanuel, does not mean it didn’t happen (cf. 8:8-10). The obvious must also be pointed out, that Jesus’ name was not Immanuel (in English prose), nor was his name (in English understanding) wonderful, counselor or the above, rather, his name is Yeshua. This does not mean that who he was did not signify the same promise of salvation that the original “Immanuel” sign did. Those things have to do with character and depictions of a certain reality.

It has been traditionally argued that because the Matthean author quotes Isaiah 7 in the infancy narrative, 

“Immanuel, which translated means, ‘God with us’”

he must intend to hint at the incarnation, meaning this Jesus is God in the flesh. Catholic priest, scholar and theologian Hans Küng raises the question:

“Do Christian theologians do justice to the Hebrew Bible when they heighten the divine inspiration of the Bible and regard it as a book of deep Christian mysteries which they attempt to unveil with the help of the allegorical, symbolic method, so that they even think that they can discover a Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit in the ‘Old Testament’”?[2]

In this case (at the time of Isaiah), the reality is that their enemies were closing in, God was there in their trouble, Ahaz rejected it with an appearance of godliness. Can we see any similarities to Jesus’ day?[3]

Names can play a substantial role in perpetuating misunderstanding or enlightening their character. In the scriptures, many names contain the simple ancient Semitic world for God, el. For example: Israel (Yisra-El) means contender with God (El).

Of course Immanuel (Immanu El) means, “with us is our God.”
Elijah’s (El Yah) name literally means “Yahweh is God” but nobody says the prophet was really Yahweh.
Ezekiel (Yehezki El) means “strengthened by God.”
Bithiah means “daughter of Yahweh” but nobody argues that she must be the sister of Jesus (1 Chron. 4:18, KJV).
Eliab’s name means “my God is my Father” no one argues that Eliab is the Messiah.
Joel’s (Yo El) name means “Yahweh God” and Elihu means “my God himself.”
Eli means “my God.”
Ithiel means “God is with me”, and no one is contending on these premises that he is God manifested in the flesh.

That a name contains Yah(weh) or el, does not indicate divinity, rather aspects of God’s character being revealed or working through that individual.

“Israelite prophets could give names to individuals in accord with a specific message that they were trying to communicate. In the same way that Hosea named his three children to correspond with his message, so Isaiah noted, ‘I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs’: Shear-jashub, meaning ‘a remnant will return’; Maher-shalal-hash-baz, meaning ‘swift is the booty, speedy is the prey’; and Immanuel, meaning ‘God is with us.’”[4]

God was with his people in and through the Messiah. Even the last verse in Matthew (the book which begins alluding to God being with his people via a child of promise) verifies this understanding with a literary recapitulation,

“I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (28:20).

Matthew’s message was, “even as God was with our fathers, so he will be with us.” Isaiah did not make a “virgin birth” the emphasis of any narrative, but rather on the sign of the birth of a child. The sign of Immanuel meant that God was once again with his people to bring salvation.

Reverend Moses Stuart wrote in a letter defending the doctrine of Jesus’ deity:

“To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine in question [incarnation, deity of Jesus] is a fallacious argument; although many Trinitarians have urged it. Jerusalem is called ‘Jehovah our Righteousness.’ Is Jerusalem therefore divine?”[5]

After Ahaz, Hezekiah (Ahaz’ son, king of Judah), found himself in a similar situation as his father. In 2 Chronicles it states,

“Be strong and courageous, do not fear or be dismayed because of the king of Assyria nor because of all the horde that is with him; for the one with us is greater than the one with him. With him is only an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God [immanu YHWH eloheinu] to help us and to fight our battles.” (2 Chron. 32:7-8; cf. 1 John 4:4).

____________________________

End Notes:

[1] Skip Moen, “The First Letter of John in Light of Revelation 13:8,” Hebrew Word Study – Skip Moen, www.skipmoen.com: http://skipmoen.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/john-1-revelation-13.pdf (Dec, 11, 2013), 4.

[2] Hans Küng, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future, (Continuum Publishing Co., 1994), 168.
[3] It is prudent to remember the fact that the Gospel narratives were written long after the fact, and are reflections of an earlier time.
[4] Bruce Metzger, The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible (Oxford University Press, 2001), 107.
[5] Moses Stuart, Letters to the Rev. WM. E. Channing, 3rd ed. (Flag and Gould, 1819), 115.

The next segment will examine the doctrinal developments that gave rise to Orthodox Incarnation Theology.

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part V - Matthean Application

This is the fifth installment of a series on Isaiah 7:14. 

“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 7:14 (Cf. Matt 1:23)

Matthean Application.

This begs the question, “how does Isaiah's Immanuel relate to the birth of Jesus according to Matthew”? While there are no writings per se detailing the messiah being born of a “virgin”, the concept of a chaste, pure, virgin Israel metaphorically as the wife of her husband (the God of Israel) bearing him “children” is present within the prophets.[1] It must be stated emphatically that the virgin birth of Jesus is verified by Matthew and Luke and not reliant on Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah; Luke claims a virgin conception and birth without quoting Isaiah once.

“The motif of virginal conception has been borrowed neither from paganism nor from pre-Christian Judaism…The only place where a Jewish tradition of virgin birth could be claimed is in relation to Isa 7:14. The MT with its use of עלמה, ˓almâ (“young woman”), is not sufficient to establish a virginal conception tradition, עלמה is quite consonant with virginity and may even normally create a presumption of virginity, but the focus of the word is not there... After the event of Jesus’ conception, a special significance for Isa 7:14 in light of the event is quite understandable, but the text is quite inadequate to “create” the event.” [2]

Joseph took Mary as wife after she was pregnant with the child that began in her womb as a result of the spirit of God, and she participated in no “marital relations” (cf. 1:25) until Jesus was born. Mary was a virgin at her conception.

“While difficulties no doubt remain, there seems to be no adequate basis for abandoning the essential historicity of the tradition of a virginal conception of Jesus.” [3]

It is of significance that Matthew uses the Septuagint rendering of Isa. 7:14, although many debate the implications. [4] Speaking on Isaiah 7:14 N.T. Wright notes:

“numerous learned articles have been produced to show that the Hebrew word in question doesn't necessarily mean ‘virgin’ in our sense, and that Matthew simply misunderstood the passage. That conclusion has been waved around wildly by those who want to deny Jesus' virginal conception, but actually it is an irrelevant issue. The fact that Luke has a birth narrative, quite different from Matthew's, in which shows Jesus is described as having been conceived without a human father, indicates...that the belief was quite widespread in the early church. It wasn't a matter of Matthew making it up on the basis of a misreading of Isaiah.”[5]

It is also of substantial significance that the oracle (in 7:14) begins this way in 7:13,

“Listen now, O house of David…” 

Under the direction of the angelic messenger, Joseph was addressed as “Joseph, son of David, (v. 20).[6] The sign of Immanuel was firstly to the house of David in Isaiah, and the Matthean writer keeps it within its contextual sphere. Once again it is heard, 

“attention House of David, the Lord is giving you a sign…he will save his people from their sins.”

The summary of the Isaiah “Immanuel theme” is that the nations will devise schemes, and though enemies may plan to destroy, even in the darkest of times, God is with us. What is also clear in Matthew’s use of 7:14, is that he intends the name Immanuel symbolically, not literally. Joseph was instructed to name the child Yeshua, not Immanuel, and that name is never referenced again in relationship to Jesus.

The Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 was not directly announcing a future time when a virgin would give birth to a son, rather that God’s sign of salvation was among or “with” them. What Immanuel was in Isaiah’s context is what Jesus became in his. What Immanuel signified was not merely a phonetic name but a picture of salvation through a prophetic sign. Matthew ties the salvific sign of Judah and Israel’s well known history to the sign of another child of promise, in another time of uncertainty and oppression. Meaning, by the sign of this child, deliverance was once again among them. The writer of Luke, through the words of Simeon seems to have a similar take, 

“Listen, this child is destined to cause the fall and the rising of many in Israel, for a sign, which will be spoken against” (Lk. 2:34).

It is often assumed though a “vertical” reading of the text that the Matthean writer presupposes a pre-existent and incarnational event where the “son of God” (or more traditionally perhaps “God the Son”) comes from Heaven[7] (in the literal sense of “leaving his throne”) into Mary. Thus when examining or teaching from this text, traditionally it is taught that way. There is no reasoning or indication within this text itself to draw such a conclusion, let Matthew speak on its own. In order to be honest with the author’s intention, the pre-existing divine logos cannot be presupposed or overlaid on every christological text in the NT (infancy or otherwise).
___________________________
End notes:
[1] Revelation 12 is a recapitulation of Sinai speaking of the “woman” (Israel) that bears a son. God had taken Israel to be His bride: Ezekiel 16:4-7 - God came upon this young one who had been abandoned. He took her in and cared for her. Hosea 11:4 – He spent much time raising her, then he courted her himself. Ezekiel 16:8 – He gave his covenant promise to take her in marriage (Sinai being a symbolic wedding ceremony) 23:4 – They had children. 16:32 - She was unfaithful with other lovers (deities) through which she had borne “strange sons” (Hosea 5:7). Mary plays out what Israel was metaphorically pictured to be, “virgin Israel”, while her son Jesus, was the ultimate depiction of “servant Israel” with whom God would covenant (cf. 2 Kings 19:21; Isa 37:22; Lam 1:15; 2:13 Ezek 16:32, Hosea 2, Isaiah 49:18, 50:1, 54:5, Jeremiah 2:2; 3:14; 18:13; 31:4, 21; Amos 5:2;31:32, Revelation 21:2, 9).
[2] J. Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 1:1-9, 61 vols. (Dallas, TX.: Word Inc., 2002), 35A:28.[3] Ibid.
[4] It is possible that the Matthean narrative references Isaiah 7:14 as a result of the LXX understanding in the future tense (will conceive and bear) along with it portraying a futuristic virgin (in the sense of not having been with a man). This however is not upheld by the context of the Hebrew text, nor does it fit in the context of the Immanuel theme, seeing that the sign was not contingent on the sexual status of the young woman, but rather the presence of the child. Furthermore, there was a child in Isaiah 7-8 born to a young woman as a sign to Ahaz, Greek or Hebrew matters not in knowing this was the case. To interpret this event (birth) as a miraculous conception, it cannot be interpreted “virgin” in a strict sexual status in Matthew’s recitation, but not “virgin” the same way for Isaiah’s context. In other words, was the Immanuel in the 8th B.C.E. century a virgin birth in the same way the 1st century Immanuel? Or rather is there an alternative intention for the Matthean writer’s quotation of Isaiah? Perhaps the Matthean author was more interested in the “child” and what he represented, keeping in sync with the Isaiah theme more so than the “virgin”.
[5] Wright, N.T., Who was Jesus (1992), William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, pg. 77f
[6] Luke has it, “he was of the house and family of David” Luke 2:4
[7] In the years of doctrinal development that led to what Christians would eventually believe about “heaven”, it is assumed from that evolution that the word “heaven” includes within its definition a dwelling place for “dead saints.” Heaven was a word used by the Jews as a replacement of God’s name (e.g. Luke 15 prodigal saying, “Father, I have sinned against heaven [aka. God] and in your sight”. If you compare the parallel passages from the synoptic gospels, you will find the kingdom of God and Heaven used interchangeably (see Matt 19:23-24). There is no sense of “going to heaven” in the use of “heaven” or kingdom of heaven. That “Jesus came from heaven” does not communicate another type of existence “somewhere else” but rather communicates that he came from God. John the Baptist also “came from God”, “there was a man sent from God whose name was John”.

The next segment will investigate the Hebrew use of "names" and the name Immanuel.

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part IV - Exegetical Details

This is the fourth installment of the series on Isaiah 7

Exegetical details.

Without getting overly technical, there are a few different thoughts for reading this passage.

 “This is the most vexing question of all. Three basic approaches have been suggested: the non-fulfillment view, which asserts that the almâ and Immanuel were people living in Ahaz’ time only; the one-fulfillment view, which understands Isa. 7:14 as only a prediction of the virgin birth of Christ; and the double-fulfillment view, which sees a near fulfillment in the days of Ahaz and a remote fulfillment in the NT period. The first theory is unsatisfactory because of its refusal to take Mt. 1:23 seriously, and the second is unsatisfactory because it fails to do justice to the context of which Isa. 7:14 is an integral part. Only the third, which provides contemporary fulfillment as a sign to Ahaz and fulfillment centuries later as a sign to the ‘house of David’ as a whole, is worthy of our consideration here.”[1]

In 7:14 (the text in question), virgin (Hebrew almah עַלְמָה) means young woman or maiden but does not strictly imply her sexual status.[2] The word for “virgin” as we understand (not having been with a man) is bethulah (בְּתוּלָה), such as in Gen 24:16. The NIV and KJV translate this passage as “virgin”, but where did they acquire this idea?

When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek (LXX – Septuagint, around 250 B.C.) they translated the “young woman” (almah) to “virgin” (Greek parthenos). This word (parthenos) means virgin in the same way that the Hebrew word bethulah means virgin. In a study on this subject, Dr. Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary noted: 

“Two problems prevent most Christians who read Isaiah 7:14 and most pastors who preach from this text from arriving at a proper understanding of this oracle. The first problem is that most Christians who interpret Isaiah 7:14 fail to study the passage within its historical context. When reading Isaiah 7:14, most Christians go from Isaiah 7:14 directly to Matthew 1:22-23 without stopping to consider the events narrated in 2 Kings 16 or how the text is related to what is said in Isaiah chapter 8. In all my years in the ministry, I have never heard a sermon on Isaiah 7:14 linked to what Isaiah said in chapter 8…The second problem is the problem of language. Most Christians and most pastors do not know Hebrew and Greek. For this reason, they are forced to read Isaiah 7:14 from a Bible translated into English. In most evangelical circles, that Bible will be the King James Bible (KJV) or the New International Bible (NIV)…In Exodus 2:8, where the Hebrew text uses the word 'almah, the Septuagint translates the word ‘almah as neanis, ‘young woman’ and not a ‘virgin.’ In Exodus 2:8 the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word ‘almah as “young woman” is correct, but its translation of the word ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, ‘virgin,’ is not correct. The translation of the word ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos in the Septuagint raises an important issue: why did the translators of the Septuagint use the word parthenos, ‘virgin’ and not the word neanis, ‘young woman’ to translate the Hebrew ‘almah?”[3]

It is possible that when this was told to Ahaz, this woman was a virgin, shortly thereafter to become married and bear a son. It is also possible that this was Isaiah’s son (because of 8:3 and 18).

“This larger context makes it probable that Immanuel was a son of Isaiah. However, because Isaiah laconically says that Immanuel will be born to “the young woman” (Isa. 7:14), some suggest that the mother is someone other than Isaiah’s wife, whom he refers to elsewhere as “the prophetess” (Isa. 8.3). Some propose that the mother is a queen (a wife of king Ahaz, to whom Isaiah is speaking), an unidentified bystander to whom Isaiah points, or a cult figure. The traditional Christian interpretation that “the young woman” is an intentional reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus does not do justice to the immediate prophecy, which required fulfillment in the eighth century BCE.”[4]

“Numerous suggestions have been made concerning the contemporary identification of Immanuel, the two most popular being a son of Ahaz or a son of Isaiah. The former, however, flounders in a sea of difficulties both theological and chronological. Arguments favoring the latter proposal are much stronger. We begin by noting that many have observed the similarity of form between Isa. 7:10–17 and 8:1–4. So similar are they that Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz may be two names for the same child, the former given by his mother, the latter by his father. Just as Shear-jashub (7:3), the name of Isaiah’s other son, has a double significance (‘a remnant will return’ and ‘only a remnant will return’), so also Immanuel (‘God is with us’) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (‘the plunder hastens, the prey speeds’) represent salvation and judgment respectively. Alternate names are common in both the OT (cf. Isa. 62:4; Jer. 20:3; and esp Ruth 1:20) and the NT. The interplay between promise and threat in Isa. 7–8 corresponds to the alternation between Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz in the same section…The term ‘sign,’ referring to Immanuel in Isa. 7:14, is echoed in the summary statement of 8:18 where Isaiah refers to himself and his children as signs and portents in Israel. All the contextual evidence indicates that Immanuel is to be regarded as one of Isaiah’s sons.”[5]

The investigation naturally has to include the words “is with child” (hārāh weyōledet bēn). The word harah means pregnant (e.g. Gen 16:11, 38:24). It is very straight-forward. The word weyōledet is a Hebrew qal participle feminine singular verb. There is no present tense in Hebrew as we are accustomed in English. Instead, it uses verbal action to express its meaning in relation to time. Thus the action word weyōledet can be translated “is bringing forth”, “is bearing” or “is giving birth to” a “son”.[6] The JPS Tanakh (1985) renders the text,

“Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.”

Again from Professor Mariottini: 

“What Isaiah is saying to king Ahaz is that the young woman is already pregnant and will give birth to a son. The reality of the woman’s pregnancy is clearly expressed in the NRSV: ‘Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son’ (Isaiah 7:14). It is also expressed in the NET Bible: ‘Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son’ (Isaiah 7:14 NET). In the Hebrew text, the event being announced is present and not future. If the Hebrew indicates that the woman is already pregnant, why do the NIV and the KJV say that the event will be in the future?: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son’ (Isaiah 7:14 NIV). The answer again is found in the Septuagint. In the Septuagint the verb is a future tense, indicating that the pregnancy will occur in the future. Although the Greek text does not say how long in the future the birth will occur, the future pregnancy of the woman contradicts the message of Isaiah who proclaimed that the young woman was already pregnant when he confronted Ahaz and gave him God’s message.”[7]

In the Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa) the word is almah, and is translated, 

“Therefore the LORD himself will give y[ou a sign. Loo]k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel.”[8]

The reason for addressing this is that the “sign” includes the information that the child will become old enough to eat solid food and then the northern threat will be removed, i.e. the Syrian-Israel alliance. Judah however, will be presented with a more substantial threat than the current one. We have to first read this passage in its historical setting before we read it in a prophetic one (relating to Jesus).

“The Christian tradition identified the ‘almah’ with the virgin mother Mary, and Immanuel with Jesus (Math. 1:20ff). The medieval Jewish commentator David Kimhi (on Isaiah 7:14) comments that the sign was to strengthen Ahaz’s conviction in the truth of the prophet’s message. This would imply that the sign be contemporary with Ahaz and not a symbol for a future occurrence. The birth of Immanuel therefore could not take place, as Christianity has it, in the distant future after the period of Isaiah.”[9] 

“The woman” (in the text) seems to be a person known by Ahaz and Isaiah himself. Additionally, the child’s life fits with events of the next few years. The sign or pledge mentioned in Is. 7:14 is inextricably bound up with the name given in conjunction with it, “Immanuel”, with us is God. How do we know he is with us? The sign or pledge he promised is here, or has come to fruition. This is also how it connects to Jesus, the promised one (think back to Abraham, and the promise made by God).

_____________________________

End Notes:

[1] G. W. Bromiley, “Immanuel,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 2:807.
[2] Almah is a rare noun (used 7x in Hebrew Bible) and signifies a young woman, a girl, or an unmarried maiden (Gen. 24:43; Exo. 2:8; Isa. 7:14; Ps. 68:26; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8). The focus of almah is on youth, not virginity. But the spiritual and moral ethics in Hebrew culture assumed that young unmarried girls had no sexual experience. It was assumed that an almah was a virgin. An almah can be a bethulah.
[3] Claude Mariottini, “The Virgin Shall Conceive: A Study of Isaiah 7:14” Studies on Isaiah 7:14, Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament: www.claudemariottini.com (January 13, 2014).
[4] Samuel A. Meier and Bruce M. Metzger, “Immanuel,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1993), 300.
[5] G. W. Bromiley, “Immanuel,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 2:807.
[6] It must be pointed out as well that the verb qara't (“call") is also perfect (thus reading “she has called”).
[7] Claude Mariottini, “The Virgin Shall Conceive: A Study of Isaiah 7:14” Studies on Isaiah 7:14, Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament: www.claudemariottini.com (January 13, 2014).
[8] Martin G. Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (Harper One, 2002), 281.
[9] Harold Louis Ginsberg, “Immanuel,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 2d ed., 22 vols. (Thomas Gale, 2007), 9:738.

The next segment will deal with the Matthean application.

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part III - Historical Background Continued

This is the third installment of the series on Isaiah 7:14. 

“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 7:14 (Cf. Matt. 1:23)

Continued Historical Background.

It is within this historical framework that the story, prophecy and sign of Immanuel occur. The parallel events are recorded in 2 Kings.[1] Isaiah 7 informs,

“Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram [Syria] and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up [2] to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it. When it was reported to the house of David, saying, ‘The Arameans have camped in Ephraim [3],’ his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind.”

In 2 Kings we read,

“Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to wage war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.”

In order to understand the implications of the word from God to Isaiah (the man of God), the events must be read alongside the oracle. It is mentioned immediately that Ahaz became king when he was 20, and was not a good king (cf. 2 Kings 16:2-4) as David, but rather committed abominations in the sight of the God of Israel. The text describes

“the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind”,

which means that they were terrified about a war with the northern kingdom coalition.[4] It was at this time, when their enemies were on the doorstep that God sends his messenger Isaiah (who was known by the community at this time to be a proven prophet for the God of Israel)

“Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field” (Isa. 7:3).

God gives Isaiah a message to the king and his subjects (Jerusalem and all Judea) of hope:

“‘Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands [i.e. those spent or burnt forces], on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah [Pekah, king of Israel]. 'Because Aram, with Ephraim [northern kingdom, Israel] and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying, ‘Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,’ thus says the Lord GOD: ‘It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass’” (Isa. 7:4-7).

God was assuring Ahaz that he had no reason to fear, Jerusalem would be protected and he should not lose heart because of what the northern coalition was plotting.

“within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people” (Isa. 7:8).

The only thing Ahaz had to do was believe,

“If you will not believe, you surely shall not last” (Isa. 7:9).

Ahaz had to believe in God’s salvation (lit. that God would “save” them), that God would be “with” him and his people (not abandon them). Ahaz chose not to believe in God. This part of the story is not described in Isaiah, but 2 Kings (16:7-8),

“Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, ‘I am your servant and your son; come up and deliver me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are rising up against me.’ Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king's house, and sent a present to the king of Assyria.”

In his separation from the God of Israel, even upon God’s promise, Ahaz was more willing to place himself under the tribute and mercy of Assyrian rule to deliver him from his adversaries. By placing himself and his people as an Assyrian vassals (which his northern brethren were trying to demolish), he was creating a covenant relationship[5] that would lead to terrible consequences down the road, although their immediate needs of protection and military defenses against the north were met through the gifts sent. Even after his refusal to accept God’s words through Isaiah (for protection), Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel extends another message and offer through Isaiah,

“Then the LORD [Yahweh] spoke again to Ahaz, saying, ‘Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.’ But Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!' Then Isaiah said: ‘Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also?’ Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted” (Isa. 7:10-16).

Within this promise given to Ahaz were the following signs:

1) the young woman is with child;

2) the child will be called Immanuel;

3) before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

The entirety of the oracle was directed to the house of David, the people who were under real threat. The sign of Immanuel was for them, and in order for it to be true (the word or oracle of God), it had to come to pass in their time. We find that this indeed was the case in 2 Kings (15:29):

“In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon and Abel-beth-maacah and Janoah and Kedesh and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria.” (cf. 16:9)

The northern kingdom and Syrian alliance was no more. The threat against Judah and Ahaz was destroyed by Assyria, thus fulfilling the sign of Immanuel. Most commentators agree that Ahaz’ refusal to test God was done so under a false pretense of piety. It is relatively certain that the sign given Ahaz was this “son” Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, who is said to be a sign, pledge or promise in 8:3,18.

____________________________

End Notes:
[1] These events are also recorded in 2 Chron. 28.
[2] This is not a geographical or topographical inaccuracy, regardless of direction (north or south) Jerusalem, because of reverence and the hill upon which it sits (Moriah) is always spoken of as an ascent.
[3] Ephraim is the largest tribe of the northern kingdom which is also called Israel. Therefore Samaria (the capitol), Israel and Ephraim are synonymous terms. In the same way the southern kingdom is called Judah or Jerusalem. It is not unlike people in United States calling the leadership of the nation “Washington."
[4] Also called Ephraim i.e. the Syro-Ephraimite War.
[5] In the Ancient Near East, the words “I am your servant and your son” was a combination of the two words “servant” and “son”, both words having a describing attribute of the role being placed into subjection. These words placed special emphasis on the totality of belonging to the superior party in the covenant relationship. One was affirming his subordination and subservience to the other.

The next segment will deal with some exegetical details concerning Isa. 7:14.

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part II - Historical Background

This is the second installment of a series on Isaiah 7:14. 

“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 7:14 (Cf. Matt 1:23)

Historical Background.

In order to follow this next segment, a familiarity with Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 would be helpful. The author of the Gospel of Matthew was a Jew writing in the latter half of the first century A.D. He used the Hebrew Scriptures[1] (Old Testament), often quoting passages he interpreted as involving in some way the one he believed to be the anointed of God, the Messiah, Jesus. As always, it is of vital importance to understand the context of this passage, without it, the impact it made will be lost. It appears as though the writer of Matthew saw 7:14 as a far off prophecy concerning “the Messiah” and not just a messiah. But what was it he saw as pertaining to the birth of Jesus? Comparably, there sometimes seems to be a duality in other prophecies as well.[2]

The historical background is key for understanding the relevant “sign” in this passage of Isaiah. These words of Isaiah take place during the reign of perhaps one the most aggressive kings to ever rule Assyria, Tiglath-pileser III. His dominion began in the 8th century B.C.E (745). This was approximately 741 years before Jesus' birth. This king - like many of his predecessors and contemporaries - had the desire to extend his empire. His objective stretched from modern day Egypt to the Persian Gulf; he wanted complete domination of the Middle East (some things never change). Thus, the context of Isaiah 7 happens during the Syro-Ephraimite war. Israel, as a natural highway between the north and the south was literally at the center of the conflict. So in order for Tiglath-pileser to bring about his plan of world dominance, he needed to bring Israel under subjection for need of the natural highway by the sea that she was. At this time, Israel was not Israel as thought of today, but rather only the northern territory, with Samaria as her capital. Judah was the autonomous southern nation, under the rule of different kings and Jerusalem as her capital.

Like other ancient governments, Assyria had a system of governors set over specific regions to carry out the needs and desires of Assyria (e.g. militarily – food, slaves, soldiers etc.). In the provinces set-up/conquered by Assyria, each person became a citizen of Assyria. So whenever Assyria by nature of conquest added a territory and formed its governing body, the citizens of that region became Assyrian and had to pay tribute to their new lords. Assyria was quite ruthless in their tactics of enforcement, revolution was not tolerated. Pain, suffering, death and deportation were among the penalties for revolting against the state.

Will Durant wrote,

“To avoid these recurrent rebellions Tiglath-Pileser III established the characteristic Assyrian policy of deporting conquered populations to alien habitats, where, mingling with the natives, they might lose their unity and identity, and have less opportunity to rebel.”[3]

This was a phenomenon well-known to other regions of that world who were not yet occupied territories, and therefore fostered within them a strong fear. Israel - the northern kingdom- had for many years been in a subordinate relationship, keeping tensions at bay by paying an annual tribute and in a sense subjecting themselves to Assyrian kings as militarily dominant.

In 746 B.C.E., Zechariah became king of Israel (the north), due to the death of his father Jehu. According to 2 Kings 15, he ruled for only six months (15:8-10). He was assassinated in 745 B.C.E. (the same year Tiglath pileser III became king) by Shallum. Shallum however, lasted for only one month (15:13-15), most likely because of distaste for Assyrian rule. He was murdered the same year (745) by Menahem (15:14), who took the northern throne with the aid of Tiglath pileser (15:19), who then in turn imposed a 1000 silver talent tribute for the rebellion, resulting in 60,000 of Israel’s wealthiest residents having to give up 50 silver shekels in order to maintain their “freedom” (15:20).

In 738 B.C.E, Pekahiah took the throne upon his father’s (Menahem) death. He maintained the vassal relationship with Assyria, but as was often the case, discontentment with the overlord was brewing and many revolutionaries were ready to be free of the Assyrian yoke. In 737 B.C.E., Pekah, the leader of a revolution to rid the kingdom of Israel of Assyrian tyranny along with the support of any who were advocates of cooperating with Syria, assassinated Pekahiah and assumed the throne.

It was then that Rezin, king of Syria along with Pekah, the newly installed king of Israel, prepared for war against Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria by forming an alliance to oppose him. In order to muster as much military might as possible, Israel (under the newly formed leadership of Pekah, king the northern kingdom) and Syria (Rezin) turned to the southern kingdom (Judah) with her kings Jotham (740-735) and his son Ahaz (735-715). Judah (the southern kingdom) refused to partake and was subsequently invaded by the Pekah-Rezin (Israel-Syria/Syro-Ephraimite) coalition with hopes that upon defeat, Tabael (cf. Isa. 7:6)- who was friendly to their cause - would be placed in control and aid in the alliance against Assyria.

---

[1] He quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
[2] Example: Hos. 11:1 was relevant in its contemporary time, but also contained reference to what NT authors (Matt. 2:15) saw as prophecy fulfilled in Jesus. In context (of Hosea 11), it is obvious that God had called his “son”, Israel, out of Egypt (Exodus 4:22-23). The Matthean author does not make mention of this passage blindly or in an unjustifiable out-of-context use, he is far more sophisticated than that. Matthew (and other gospels) makes it clear that Jesus undeniably is the prophet like Moses from Deut. 18. The details given (even numbers) of how Jesus did almost exactly as Moses did, even down to the way he divided the people to feed them (which is also something Moses did in the wilderness), are to take the reader back to the Torah in subtle ways. Most of what he did and said comes directly out of the imagery well-known in the Hebrew Scriptures. We have (in general) failed to recognize it or make the connections because we don’t know our “Old Testament” or the ancient theology present within it. As the “new Moses” and ultimate representative of Israel, Jesus relives many of the same experiences described in the Torah that happened to Israel (God’s first-born: "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son” Ex. 4:22): Jesus survives a gruesome infanticide by a wicked king, has compassion on the people, divides them in groups of hundreds and fifties, in the wilderness alone for 40 days (Israel 40 years), instructed people on a mountain, climbs a mountain with only his closest companions and has visions of glory and light, chooses twelve disciples (12 tribes), offers himself in the peoples stead among many other nuances. In this knowledge it should not be surprising that Matthew makes Jesus appear as the ultimate son who is a firstborn, as he does with Mary as the ultimate “virgin Israel”.
[3]Will Durrant, Story of Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), 270.

The next segment will continue with more historical details.

Immanuel - Our God is With Us - Part I

This is the first installment of a series pertaining to Isaiah 7:14.

“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 7:14 (Cf. Matt 1:23)

Isaiah 7:14 is a passage often used during Advent. We hear songs and sermons about the creator of the universe coming to earth in kenotic fashion and robing himself in human clothes.

“The eternal Son of God, Jesus, actually became a baby. God became an embryo. Deity in diapers!”[1] 

Christians attempt to maintain vigilance in apotheosizing the romanticism of such an act amid the cultural roar of commercialism. The Christian traditions in varying forms have used the same general passages and interpretations for ages, which act for some as an argument against any who insinuate the text and/or context may actually communicate otherwise. But could a text, such as Isaiah 7:14 have another meaning, less popular than the interpretation with which so many are familiar?

If in fact Isaiah’s oracle was only a far out prophecy concerning what much later commentators and apologists would come to see as pertaining to a miraculous messianic conception, and the God of Israel incarnating himself as a human, why don’t any other Hebraic writings mention the “prophetic virgin” who would deliver a son to save all Israel? Why was it not mentioned in the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, DSS, Targums, Mishnah or other writings? If this was a major point to be understood about the coming one, the messiah, shouldn’t there have at least been a brief mention of it somewhere? This is not to say that the Matthean tradition did not have reasoning for including the symbolic sign of Immanuel, nor does it mean there is no typological precedent present in Isaiah, but what that precedent is may not be what has been the traditional focus.

There are many today who hold the Scriptures in high esteem, as God’s message for man. But what seems to have gone unnoticed is that while an attitude of honor may be present, use of the Scripture outside of original intent is to do it great injustice. It is often made to say something it was never intended to communicate and/or something the original hearers would have not known, whether it be a later idea, development or even revelation. In order for solid exegesis that is true to the text and the intention of the writer, what must continually be guarded against is the use of passages outside of their proper context. For instance, to eisegete a later developed Christology (high or low) into a text (such as Isa. 7:14) is to miss the intention of the passage. This is of utmost importance for not only misuse of the text, but also finding the proper meaning when New Testament (hereafter NT) authors quote from a particular passage.
The passage being discussed at present is no exception. In speaking of this travesty Gerald Schroeder remarked:

“When passages of the Bible are quoted out of context, or read in translation, whether that translation is the twenty-two-hundred-year-old Greek Septuagint or a modern English version of the original Hebrew, nuances are often lost. Meanings of words are actually changed to fit within the grammar of the “newer” language.”[2]

In any given biblical book, it is not just that language and culture need to be translated, but also any modern reading or context outside of the one for which it was originally intended must be discarded or the original meaning can possibly be distorted. This is not to say prophecies are not relevant to a time future from when they were written, but to get any author’s message, his world must be entered. For example, Ps. 110:1 is the most quoted text in the NT pertaining to who Jesus is, and it is very evident (from the lips of Jesus himself) what the prophetic origins of that specific passage imply. Of course this does not nullify or propose that Ps. 110:1 had no significance at the time in which it was given, but it is clear that the greatest realization of this passage did not come to fruition until many years later. This is the nature of prophecy.

John Walton, in the introduction to his book The Lost World of Genesis One, which deals with understanding Genesis as an ancient book, prepares the reader by emphasizing and illustrating the importance of reading an ancient book as an ancient book: 

“The minute anyone (professional or amateur) attempts to translate the culture, we run the risk of making the text communicate something it never intended. Rather than translating the culture, then, we need to try to enter the culture. When people want to study the Bible seriously, one of the steps they take is to learn the language. As I teach language students, I am still always faced with the challenge of persuading them that they will not succeed simply by learning enough of the language to engage in translation. Truly learning the language requires leaving English behind, entering the world of the text and understanding the language in its Hebrew context without creating English words in their minds. They must understand the Hebrew as Hebrew text. This is the same with culture. We must make every attempt to set our English categories aside, to leave our cultural ideas behind, and try our best (as limited as the attempt might be) to understand the material in its cultural context without translating it.”[3] 

In the next post, the passage and its historical context will begin to be discussed.

---

[1] Greg Laurie, Start: The Bible for New Believers, New Testament Edition (Thomas Nelson Inc., 2010), 1051.

[2] Schroeder, Gerald L., God According to God, A Physicist Proves We’ve Been Wrong About God All Along (Harper Collins, 2009), 11.

[3] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, (IVP Academic, 2009), 9.