We showed a video at church on Sunday. I think it was fantastic. Here's the 'original' version. (sound takes a few seconds to work)
Click here to get the version we showed at church
Friday, 30 November 2007
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Matthew 1: The Sign of Immanuel
Matthew is often accused of taking OT texts out of their contexts and applying them as a proof-texts to Christ. The sign of Immanuel is one of the most famous examples. This has been a lightning rod of criticism .... the battle has usually been fought over whether or not this can be a proof text for the virgin birth. Unbelievers have said that Christians have distorted Isaiah's original prophecy.
Many evangelicals concede on the virgin birth motif, saying that the Isaianic prophecy was actually about a young woman who would concieve naturally. They instead argue that the heart of the Immanuel prophecy is immanent judgment and deliverance. Some argue that the 'virgin' in Isaiah 7 is the wife of the prophet Isaiah; others that the virgin is the remnant of Israel.
This has puzzled me - how is the birth of Jesus a fulfilment of a speedy delieverance? and (more importantly) how is the sign of Immanuel a negative sign against King Ahaz? (If you don't know what I am talking about stop now and read Isaiah 7)
After reading the strongest possible statements of the liberal Christian position, I think there is a better way forward ... the following interpretation also liberates Matthew from the charge of misusing the text. In fact his interpretation takes the prophet Isaiah more seriously than liberal Christians do (which is not surprising).
I think that the Immanuel prophecy is first and foremost a condemnation of Ahaz and the line of David - saying that God will establish a new king - indeed a new kingship. Just like he told of the destruction of the temple before establishing the new temple; condemning the sacrificial system so that the fulfillment could arrive etc... The old kingship could not save - God would bring about a new kingship. From the line of David and yet not from the line of David.
Again read Isaiah 7.
1. Judah is in danger. The key to Isaiah 7 is that King Ahaz disobeys God and is punished with the sign of Immanuel. For the people of God the sign of Immanuel is positive; for the king it is terrible news.
2. Ahaz is like Herod - jealous of a new Messiah. It is this child AND NOT Ahaz that will be 'God with Us'. It was common for kings to live in fear of Messianic prophecies are implicit condemnations of the current kingship. Ahaz would not be the future / hope of Israel - a child would be.
3. The child will be born to a young woman (or virgin) and therefore no glory will go to Ahaz himself!
4. The context of the sign of Immanuel is the house of David. Immanuel is broadened out as a sign and condemnation against the whole house of David. It was not through it's male line - that the hope of the world would come.
5. The virginal nature of the birth actually makes the most sense - since God will make a new start.
6. The child in Isaiah 7:14 is the child in Isaiah 9. The child is not born - to the house of David but 'unto us'. He is 'given' to the people. The government shall be upon his shoulders.
7. The context of Matthew 1 is the house of David. Joseph is in the house of David. He truly becomes Jesus' father by taking him into his house; by naming him etc...
8. Therefore - Jesus is the real descendant of David and yet Jesus is a sign against the house of David. He is a new start. Every other king was born the in the captial city, Jerusalem. Not so with Christ. He has to be born back in Bethlehem. God started all over again - with a new David.
9. Jesus was not just one more Davidic king; he was a new start - superior to them all.
Here's the tension ... someone from within the line of David would dethrone the line of David. One who is provides hope to the world cuts of the aspirations of a rebellious line of human beings.
Many evangelicals concede on the virgin birth motif, saying that the Isaianic prophecy was actually about a young woman who would concieve naturally. They instead argue that the heart of the Immanuel prophecy is immanent judgment and deliverance. Some argue that the 'virgin' in Isaiah 7 is the wife of the prophet Isaiah; others that the virgin is the remnant of Israel.
This has puzzled me - how is the birth of Jesus a fulfilment of a speedy delieverance? and (more importantly) how is the sign of Immanuel a negative sign against King Ahaz? (If you don't know what I am talking about stop now and read Isaiah 7)
After reading the strongest possible statements of the liberal Christian position, I think there is a better way forward ... the following interpretation also liberates Matthew from the charge of misusing the text. In fact his interpretation takes the prophet Isaiah more seriously than liberal Christians do (which is not surprising).
I think that the Immanuel prophecy is first and foremost a condemnation of Ahaz and the line of David - saying that God will establish a new king - indeed a new kingship. Just like he told of the destruction of the temple before establishing the new temple; condemning the sacrificial system so that the fulfillment could arrive etc... The old kingship could not save - God would bring about a new kingship. From the line of David and yet not from the line of David.
Again read Isaiah 7.
1. Judah is in danger. The key to Isaiah 7 is that King Ahaz disobeys God and is punished with the sign of Immanuel. For the people of God the sign of Immanuel is positive; for the king it is terrible news.
2. Ahaz is like Herod - jealous of a new Messiah. It is this child AND NOT Ahaz that will be 'God with Us'. It was common for kings to live in fear of Messianic prophecies are implicit condemnations of the current kingship. Ahaz would not be the future / hope of Israel - a child would be.
3. The child will be born to a young woman (or virgin) and therefore no glory will go to Ahaz himself!
4. The context of the sign of Immanuel is the house of David. Immanuel is broadened out as a sign and condemnation against the whole house of David. It was not through it's male line - that the hope of the world would come.
5. The virginal nature of the birth actually makes the most sense - since God will make a new start.
6. The child in Isaiah 7:14 is the child in Isaiah 9. The child is not born - to the house of David but 'unto us'. He is 'given' to the people. The government shall be upon his shoulders.
7. The context of Matthew 1 is the house of David. Joseph is in the house of David. He truly becomes Jesus' father by taking him into his house; by naming him etc...
8. Therefore - Jesus is the real descendant of David and yet Jesus is a sign against the house of David. He is a new start. Every other king was born the in the captial city, Jerusalem. Not so with Christ. He has to be born back in Bethlehem. God started all over again - with a new David.
9. Jesus was not just one more Davidic king; he was a new start - superior to them all.
Here's the tension ... someone from within the line of David would dethrone the line of David. One who is provides hope to the world cuts of the aspirations of a rebellious line of human beings.
Matthew 1: The multiple genealogies of Jesus Christ
On first sights, one of the strangest phenomena in the Bible is the the multiple genealogies of Jesus. Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3 have quite different lists of Jesus' ancestors. Matthew moves from Abraham to Joseph, whereas Luke moves from Joseph back to Adam. Matthew traces Joseph through David's son Solomon whereas Luke traces Joseph through David's son Nathan. This seems to be a major contradiction. Here are three thing to bear in mind.
1. Genealogies are very complicated. Try tracing your own genealogy back 28 generations. Which lines would you go with?
2. Genealogies are also complicated by name variants - since many in the Hebrew world has two or more names.
3. Genealogies are complicated by adoption. Whose parents do you go for if someone is
4. Genealogies are not a record of DNA. They are records of both DNA and legal ancestry. We know it is not DNA because in Matthew and Luke's gospel it is said that Joseph was the father of Jesus and in the Luke's gospel it is said God was the father of Adam. With high premature mortality rates, particularly amongst the royal line, there are probably many adoptions. You have to make choices at every point. Do I go back to the DNA line or parents of the legal line? For instance in Luke's genealogy - Joseph is Jesus' adopted father, perhaps Heli is Mary's father ... perhaps he has moved back to the 'DNA' line?
In conclusion ... I have been thinking about the genealogies of Jesus ... here are my thoughts ...
1. In actual fact there could be even more genealogies of Jesus. I could probably write up a third variety if I had more information.
2. It is astounding how important Joseph's line seems to be - even though he was not connected to Jesus biologically. This shows that the legal has more significance than the biological.
3. If Luke's genealogy is through Mary's father's line - then perhaps Jesus is related to David on both his mother and father's side.
4. Both genealogical trees seem to trace Jesus as also coming through Zerubbabel. His significance in the Biblical story is immense and is probably source for a whole entry of its own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)