Commentary:
Latest comments
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- shiert on Re-enchanting Christianity - Dave Tomlinson (a review)
- shiert on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- richard on The emergent church may only exist because we get sick of dealing with people
- richard on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- joeAnne on NT Wright is seriously wrong, part 2: does all history depend on interpretation?
- joeAnne on The Rainbow Community and the Emerging Church
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
- Jacob on Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency
Other recent posts
- Andrew: Postmodern Europe and the lordship of Christ : 'What does it mean to proclaim that "Jesus is Lord" in the midst of the extreme pluralism that defines postmodern
- adhunt: Get Rid of the Meta-Narrative!....and pick up ours instead? : One critique to emerge from the voice of "Post-modernity" is the destruction of the meta-narrative. I like the ecclesiology, the
- rogermugs: The emergent church may only exist because we get sick of dealing with people (1): Back when I was in High School someone hung a sign up in a classroom which stated, "Mean people suck." Later the word 'mean' was
- jack.kooyman: Jack Kooyman : user's biography
- Jacob: Global Warming and Competing Visions of Human Agency (10): The debate surrounding global warming is primarily a struggle over competing visions of human agency. Are humans
- bibledude.net: Dan King : user's biography
andrewperriman.com
User login
Creative commons
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
Re: They will call his name Immanuel
The exegesis is fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Andrew’s exposition of Isaiah finishes at 8:9-10. It should continue - the theme of the birth of a ‘child’ and ‘son’ laid down in Isaiah 7:14 is resumed in Isaiah 9, “for to us a child is born, to us a son is given,” (9:6). The echoes of the very words of Isaiah 7:14 indicate that the Immanuel context continues into Isaiah 9. In other words, in listening to Matthew’s meaning in quoting Isaiah 7:14, we should listen to the whole context, not part of it.
The ‘son’ to be born is not only a king reigning on David’s throne (9:7), thus fulfilling the expectations of a restoration of David’s kingdom, but also “Mighty God, Everlasting Father,” (9:6). This restoration of David’s kingdom goes beyond what might be expected of a purely temporal and national restoration - “Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”
This is purely to point out what most observers find to be true in the NT - that Jesus is presented as both God and man (albeit God veiled in flesh), and that what was found to be true of him in the light of his history on earth, as presented in the gospels, and subsequent heavenly history which impacted the earth, as presented in Acts and the letters, was not different at his birth.
Jesus’s coming, and his birth, had both a local, historically contextualised signficance, and a universal significance. There were both individual and corporate ramifications. This was recognised in the prophets, and confirmed by the apostles, who brought this interpretation through their teaching and applied it with manifestations of power through the Spirit.
I argue that it is impossible at any level to separate the birth accounts from such a wider, universal significance, and that it is a false dichotomy to set a historically contextualised interpretation against a wider, more universal interpretation. The one is contained in the other. There are some fair criticisms which may be made of traditional, orthodox theological viewpoints, and even contemporary evangelical theology, but this is not one of them.
Re: They will call his name Immanuel
Peter, the reflection on Isaiah 9:6 may be valid in a broader sense - though oddly the verse is nowhere quoted in the New Testament (see below). But it seems doubtful to me that the child of 9:6 is the same as the child of 7:14, so I would hold to the more limited interpretation of Matthew’s reference to Immanuel. These are my reasons.
i) Matthew makes no allusion to the ‘to us a child is born’ passage though he is clearly interested in kingship themes at this point and goes on to tell the story of the magi’s search for the king of the Jews. He does quote Isaiah 9:1-2 to explain Jesus’ move to Capernaum, and perhaps he then viewed Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God as a fulfilment of Isaiah 9:6 (Matt. 4:12-17). But this is doubtful and in any case does not allow us to read an incarnational argument back into the Christmas story.
ii) The birth of the child Immanuel is explicitly a ‘sign’, which makes it unlikely that he was also the glorious ruler of 9:6.
iii) Another son is born in Isaiah 8:3 (and given a prophetically significant name) as a ‘sign’ that ‘the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria’, which certainly relativizes the significance and status of Immanuel in Isaiah’s narrative.
iv) Isaiah says in 8:18: ‘Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.’ I’m not sure whether this should be taken to mean that the child Immanuel was Isaiah’s son, but it at least underlines the limited significance of these children. They are signs, not actors.
v) The two children belong to different historical situations. The child Immanuel is born around the time of the Assyrian invasion of Galilee and Transjordan (732) - the ‘former time’ (9:1). The ruler of 9:6 will re-establish the Davidic throne in the Northern Kingdom in the ‘latter time’ (9:1). It would be very difficult to argue that Isaiah imagined them to be the same person.
A final note on Isaiah 9:6, which may explain the New Testament’s lack of interest in it…. The LXX diverges somewhat from the Hebrew text, completely lacking the identification with YHWH:
Re: They will call his name Immanuel
Births, conceptions, children, sons - they’re breeding like rabbits!
There is a more direct allusion to Isaiah 7:14 in 9:6 than in some of the other sons/children accounts - the double reference to ‘child’ and ‘son’. Also, Isaiah 9 is juxtaposed to 7 & 8, with all the various references to children and sons being born. Coincidence?
The historical and geographical disjunction of Isaiah 7 & 8 with 9 need have no bearing on its thematic and eschatological connection, and Isaiah’s explicit placing of the ‘former time’ as set against ‘the future time’ in 9:1 suggests connection rather than disjunction. The train of thought in the prophecy which was relevant to the former time leads Isaiah to contemplate its significance for the latter time.
The omission of YHWH from the LXX text is an interesting observation, but it could be argued both ways. Maybe the LXX translators found it too shocking to identify YHWH with a human king, and changed the references accordingly. I don’t think the apostolic church had the same view of the inerrancy of the scriptures which is held by some today, which came from a different view perhaps of the inspiration of the scriptures. Their use of the LXX would not, in other words invalidate the Hebrew version of Isaiah 9:6.
In the broader sweep of the NT, of which Matthew is a part, the very word Immanuel describes exactly how Jesus came to be seen, albeit more in retrospect than at the time, by his disciples in his life on earth (eg John 1:14). The sending of the Spirit was a further and continuing expression of the life of Jesus with his followers (John 14:23). The word captures the heartbeat of how God had intended that his people should be distinct from other nations - by having his presence among them, and what Israel longed for - the return of YHWH to the temple.
But I guess here is where historical criticism meet canon criticism; the former has a tendency towards atomisation and a certain disconnection of one part of scripture from another; the latter assumes and looks for harmony and corroboration of scripture between its various parts. I have a feeling that both should be allowed to shed light on each other, but that neither can profitably be dismissed.
Anyway Andrew, it’s interesting to bat these thoughts about.
Re: They will call his name Immanuel
I’m personally startled at the suggestion that prior to Mary, a previous virgin became with child, and gave birth to a son.
I believe the misunderstanding here is the assumption that Isaiah’s virin birth sign was given to Ahaz to increase his faith that YHWH would see him through the short term crisis (and would therefore need to have occurred very quickly). A sign of this type (short term faith building sign) was offered, but Ahaz refused it stating that he won’t put YHWH to the test.
So instead, a sign is given to the house of David. Not only will they survive the current crises, but within 13? years of a virgin birth- to occur an undisclosed number of years in the future, the lands of the two kings they dread will be laid waste.