Post by Peter Kirk[Celal] 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.
[Peter] I have a lot of respect for Tom Wright and would be interested in what
Post by Peter Kirkhe has to say about this.
Hello Peter,
Here it is :
...........
The nature of Matthew's reliance on Isaiah 7:14 has been a matter of
contention almost from the moment it was written. Our earliest example
of an anti-Jewish apology (Justin Martyr, in the mid second century) is
already aware that the issue is a matter of longstanding controversy.
Modern critical scholarship has generally been dismissive of Matthew's
connection of the prophecy with a virginal conception, and seen the
appropriation of the text as an act of unwarranted exegetical
opportunism. In the face of such objections, modern evangelicals (unlike
their early
predacessors) have been increasingly inclined to retreat to a more
reticent reading of the text, one that deemphasizes the nature of
"virginity" as a critical motif, and relies more on the less
controversial element of the sacred name Immanuel. Although there is
surely some merit in this emphasis (the name is certainly important to
Matthew's purposes as well), there is still a sense of resignation and
defeat in such an attitude. Either we need to entrench into a purely
mechanistic view of supernatural insight-- i.e., that Isaiah didn't know
what he was talking about at the time, and Matthew is justified in
reading it "out of context" on the basis of divine wisdom-- or else we
are left with the suspicion that the whole notion of a virginal
conception might have been raised on the unstable foundation of a house
of cards. I am going to propose that we can understand this text in a
more wholistic way that largely vindicates Matthew's usage, without it
coming at the cost of compromising the integrity of Isaiah's context.
Rather than carelessly plucking a verse out of disposable narrative,
Matthew is quite intentionally invoking a broad palatte of Isaianic
themes in a way that (by the standard of his era, at least) is
thoughtful and responsible.
Before addressing this passage, however, I want to step back and think a
little more generally about the nature of prophetic fulfillment in the
Old Testament. I propose that there is a discernable pattern that
controls the way that oracular prophecy (i.e., messages about "the
future" the promise a favorable resolution given during tumultuous
period of personal or national history) is partly contingent upon
validation by the faith of its hearers. In Isaiah 7:9, we see
articulated a principle that arises again and again in the history of
Israel: "If you do not believe, then you will not endure." This
conditionality stands somewhat in tension with the irrevocability of
God's promises. On the one hand, God makes a guarantee to Abraham that
seems to establish a covenant in perpetuity. On the other hand, we have
numerous instances of God demanding faith from the descendants of
Abraham, as an ongoing criterion for divine favor. Many instances of
biographical drama in the Hebrew scriptures emerge from this tension.
As an archetypical example, consider the behavior of Moses at Meribah
(Num 20:8-13). Moses is commanded to repeat the miracle he performed 40
years earlier, bringing forth a spring of water from a rock, but this
time God requests that he accomplish this by speaking to it. Instead,
Moses strikes the rock twice with his staff, an intensification of the
original command in Exodus 17 that seems to embody the faithlessness and
grumbling of Israel as a whole. Moses and Aaron as chastised for their
lack of belief, and on this basis are denied the right to lead Israel
into Canaan-- this duty passes to the second generation leaders, Joshua
and Caleb. (Moses is allowed to view the covenant land, but not
permitted to enter.)
The following sequence of promise and fulfillment can be generalized
from this example: First, a revelation comes from God that describes or
at least sketches the expected outcome of trust and faithful obedience.
Second, the recipients respond by subtly twisting the obligation placed
upon them, attempting to accomplish the promised outcome in a way that
deviates from divine standards. Third, God identifies the act of
faithlessness, and appends an amendation to the original prophecy that
amounts to a punishment, a "harder path" than the one that would have
been obtained with greater faith. Fourth, the original prophecy is
accomplished according to an altered mechanism or a delayed time frame,
reasserting the faithfulness of God. I'll call this overall pattern a
"transformed/deferred fulfillment". The basic idea is that God makes a
promise, a human attempt is made to complete the promise in a way that
God considers displeasing, and then the full completion is reassigned to
a different person or a later time period that better expresses the fact
that the entire situation is under God's control-- that divine promises
are sufficiently powerful that they cannot be thwarted even by human
faithlessness. In effect, God uses human weakness to set up a divine
reversal, in which strength is brought out of weakness: "not by might,
not by power, but by the Spirit of God."
There are several other clean examples of the same basic cycle. Abraham,
promised that he will become the father of a great nation, attempts to
have a son by taking one of his servants as a concubine; this son (and
his
mother) fall into disfavor and are driven out into the desert, and the
promise passes to another son who comes according to a more improbable
birth. Jacob's ascendence over his brother Esau is anticipated by the
message given to Rebekah during her pregnancy; after Jacob is born,
however, he conspires with his mother to steal his brother's birthright,
and is driven into exile to work as a servant for his uncle (and becomes
the victim of deception himself), before his fortunes are restored by a
new set of blessings directly from God. David is promised the throne of
Israel; however, he resorts to hiding under the protection of the
Philistines (and working as a guerrilla mercenary), earning him a
reputation for violence that appears to have been connected to God's
decision to reassign the privilege of constructing the temple to Solomon
(who requests of God to be renowned for wisdom rather than power). In
each case, the flaw consists of trying to bring about the promised
outcome in a way that places faith some place other than in the
sovereignty of God. The punishment is then a personal one, rebuking the
faithlessness of the individual, but preserving God's promise in a
transformed way that not only continues to guarantee the fulfillment of
God's greater purpose, but actually reinforces the recognition of a
divine power at work.
Now I'm going to argue that this pattern is present in Isaiah 7-9, and
that it helps us to understand the reason why Matthew finds this entire
prophetic cycle (and not merely one verse extracted from it) to be of
messianic significance. First, let's review the chronology. The kings of
Aram and Israel (who have formed an alliance to counterbalance the
growing influence of Assyria) are threatening Judah. God reveals to
Isaiah that the outcome of the situation is not really in doubt; both of
these nations are on the edge of destruction, and their fury is about to
burn out. King Ahaz is offered a supernatural sign, something that will
reinforce his faith in the authority of God; Ahaz refuses the offer, and
instead makes diplomatic overtures to the King of Assyria to rescue him,
including a bribe of various treasures plundered from the temple. During
the reign of Ahaz' son Hezekiah, the wrath of Assyria turns on Judah,
and the countryside is ravaged by the armies of Sennacharib until God
repels them. Hezekiah is given the same offer of a sign (this time in
response to anxiety about his physical health), and this time God is
merciful enough to give him a multiple choice quiz! Hezekiah asks for
the "harder" sign (making a shadow go backwards), and God seems pleased
enough by this that Hezekiah is provided with a long and prosperous
reign.
Interweaving the historical events of 2 Kings with the prophetic
messages of Isaiah 7-9 is an uncertain exercise of chronology, but it
appears likely that the transition from chapter 7 (the message to Ahaz)
to chapter 8 (the symbolic sign of Isaiah's son) is triggered by Ahaz'
decision to seek assistance from Assyria. The message of chapter 7 is
given to Ahaz. In chapter 8, Ahaz is out of the picture, and Isaiah is
using Uriah and Zechariah as "witnesses" to the prophecy of this
chapter, suggesting he had lost the king's ear. The prophecy of chapter
8 is mostly identitical to that of chapter 7, but with the expanded
description of a judgment that falls on "both houses of Isael" (8:14).
The entire message seems to be directed toward a community (8:16) that
will hold these prophecies as a written record in perpetuity. What seems
to have happened here is an example of "striking the rock". Ahaz has
received a message he find favorable, and has now gone about bringing it
into reality in a way that demonstrates "impatience" and a disrespect
for the holy things of God. This is basically the same flaw as Moses,
despite Ahaz' rather worse reputation. So God alters the terms of the
promise in a way that brings grief to the kingdom of Ahaz, while still
maintaining the overall guarantee of Israel's ultimate deliverance. The
child born to Isaiah is not given the comforting name of "Immanuel", but
only a name that suggests destruction and desolation. The word given to
Ahaz is still true, but instead of being the salvation of Judah, it is a
harbinger of greater violence and warfare that will reduce Jerusalem to
an island in a raging river. In effect, the prophecy has been split, and
the "restorational" half of it has been deferred. Isaiah's words will
need to be bound up and preserved through an era of "gloom", when Israel
will be inclined to curse God and curse their own king (8:21).
At this point, things turn interesting. Isaiah again prophesies the
birth of a son, this time one who will permanently restore the fortunes
of Israel. His names are clearly those of a divinely established ruler;
he is the true Immanuel, a "Joshua" to supercede the "Moses" of Israel's
current regime. Most remarkably, he seems to be emerging from the
kingdom of Israel, not Judah! In effect, God is overturning
expectations. Rather than a ruler from the household of Ahaz in
Jerusalem, the true king will be from the doomed lands of the northern
tribes. (He cannot, I would argue, be Hezekiah-- as most early
anti-Christian polemics by Jewish commentators
argued-- since Hezekiah was already born at the time of this prophecy,
and the final compiler of Isaiah clearly understood that Hezekiah's
kingdom would itself fall to Babylon.) Instead of simply vindicating
Judah at the expense of Israel, God is involved in a project that will
ultimately reconcile the divided kingdom (see also 11:13). The motif of
"birth" is used deliberately in Isaiah as a way of expressing the
difficulty of this project. In Isaiah 37:3, Hezekiah compares his reform
program, threatened by the incursions of Assyria, to the trials of a
childbirth: "children have come to birth, and there is no strength to
deliver." The songs announcing the return of Israel from the diaspora
(24-25) reinforce the same imagery. Israel is wracked by labor pains
(26:17), but ultimately can give birth only to wind (26:18). As a
result, Israel is bound under exile
(26:20) until YHWH himself steps forth as her champion (26:21-27:1). The
primary focus of Isaiah is on a picture of restoration that is large
enough to encompass not only Jerusalem and the house of Ahaz, but all of
the scattered tribes. And the failure of Judah to accomplish this alone
is part of God's greater design.
Based on a broader appreciation of the birth motif in Israel's history,
Matthew's allusion begins to make more sense. The intention of Isaiah
was always broader than the "sign" of a specific child born to impress
Ahaz. Instead, this was, from the very beginning, an appeal to the
"high" and "deep" intentions of God to bring hope unexpectedly out of a
state of universal despair. In this respect, Matthew is not constrained
to fight over the definitions of a single word in a single verse; he can
appeal to an entire tradition of "childbirth as national redemption"
literarature. Isaiah 7:14 may use an ambiguous word for "maiden", but
there are plenty of other texts available for clarification of the
intent. Jerusalem is frequently presented as a "virgin (bethulah)
daughter", as an expression of the (idealized) pure state to which God
intends her to aspire. Isaiah 37:22, the prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah,
depicts Jerusalem as a virgin who mocks the power of Assyria with
promises that God's judgment is imminent. (The parallels to the Lucan
Magnificat are hard to overlook!) Jeremiah 31 (where Matthew appeals for
his passage about "Rachel weaping for her children") twice identifies
Jerusalem as a virgin; this text, like Isaiah's, is notable in that it
mixes imagery from both kingdoms, Ephraim/Samaria and Judah/Zion.
It seems plausible that in addition to the explicit citation of Isaiah
7:14, Matthew may be intending a larger set of Isaianic allusions.
First, the visitation of the Magi (a Matthean exclusive!) speaks about
treasures being brought by "rulers" from the East, and given to the
infant Jesus as tribute in acknowledgment of his coming reign. This
would have been recognized by early Christians as a deliberate inversion
of the plunder taken by Assyria in Isaiah 8. For example, Tertullian
could write with a direct citation of Isaiah 8, at the end of the second
century, that "the Magi themselves, on recognizing him, honored him with
gifts and adored him on bended knee as Lord and King.... Accordingly,
they became 'the spoils of Samaria', that is, of [the figurative kingdom
of] idolatry-- by believing, namely, on Christ." This event in Matthew
effectively "unworks" the desecration of the temple of YHWH under Ahaz,
where the temple implements were given over for use by pagan nations.
Second, there is a definite possibility that Herod is being invoked as a
"type" of Ahaz. Like Ahaz, his notorious sin consisted of putting some
of his own sons to death. Herod functions in Matthew's text as a
pretender to Israel's throne, one who places his confidence in wealth,
power, and foreign alliances. Third, Matthew takes special note of the
fact that Jesus is counted as a member of the northern kingdom of
Israel: "called a Nazarene." Regardless of which OT passage Matthew
actually thinks he's citing, there is little doubt that the general
intent is quite similar to that of Isaiah 9:1. The Messiah, unexpectely,
is regarded as a native of "Galillee of the Gentiles", about as far from
the seat of the Davidic throne as one could imagine. This is consistent
with a number of (often
sly) affirmations of God's love for the maginalized people of the
northern tribes (including even the Samaritans) that are scattered
throughout the New Testament. Even the reference to Jesus being called
"out of Egypt" has a certain precedent in the text of Isaiah, with 11:16
noting that the restoration of the exilic diaspora will be "just as it
was for Israel, in the day they came up out of the land of Egypt."
All of this, I think is part of Matthew's studied recognition of the
central themes of Isaiah's prophetic arc. God's project is expansive. It
involves a full reconciliation. It emerges out of weakness, and makes a
mockery of the proud. It defies human expectations. As the prophecy of
Isaiah to Hezekiah suggests, it is the sort of redemption that will
allow a virgin to laugh at a haughty king behind his back. And that, I
think, is precisely the story that Matthew understands that he is in the
process of reporting.(NT Wright)
============
Celal Berker