Total Pageviews

Friday, December 7, 2012

Prophecy 8 "More fullness"

The Greek word pleroo (sounds like play + rue) means to fill up. There is a sense of pouring into a container until it is overflowing. It is often translated as fulfill which is certainly not wrong, but it misses the nuances of a broader and deeper sense of fullness. Perhaps we should spell it Full-Fill! And Matthew does not always use this term when referencing the prophets. Two more examples from Matthew 2:

The Magi come to Herod seeking the newborn King. Herod is in a tizzy and confers with the learned men of Judah. They identify Bethlehem as the likely place for the birth. In Matthew 2:5 we read: "For so it was written by the prophet: "And you , Bethlehem, land of Judah, by no means are you least among the princes of Judah; for from you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." Where is the verse found? The closest we can come up with is Micah 5:1 (Hebrew original) or 5:2 (Greek original). [the Greek OT was popular in the time of Jesus and the preferred Bible of the early church, for obvious language reasons and contemporary Bible translations sometimes choose one or the other, hence different numbering].
Here is what Micah says, " But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Juda, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days." A closer reading than we might normally do reveals several minor changes and one rather major one. Judah replaces Ephrathah (which would serve to clarify the Judean ancestory) and clans replaces princes/rulers (but both words have a common Hebrew root). The biggie is Matthew says Bethlehem is not least whereas the original says the opposite. There is no reference at all to shepherding the people (that is found in 2 Sam 5:2; where the tribes of Israel tell David  "The Lord said to you: 'it is you shall shepherd my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel.'")

The point of the "fulfillment" (although the word is not used, it is implied) is clear. The birthplace of Jesus is connected to the promise of a Messiah, the holy descendent of David who will rule Judah. The exact details are not so neat and tidy. How then do we understand it? First of all, in ancient times everyone did not have Bibles. Some texts were memorized. Sometimes a collection of exerpts were gathered. This process could have led to a combination of verses like we see above. Maybe Mt was working from memory and inadvertently added the 'not' or he felt compelled to out of respect--in both cases because calling Jesus' birthplace 'the least' is not in keeping with Who Jesus is! Maybe a collection of Messianic texts included this one, which was changed in the gathering process. Maybe Mt is using a story source written by someone else and the changes were there (though Mt is not uncomfortable changing the wording of his Gospel source, Mark's original, from time to time. For example, he changes Kingdom of God to Kingdom of Heaven throughout, probably out of respect for the Divine Name.) We do not know the why or how of the process. We only know it was chagned.

There is more fluidity with Biblical texts than we realize. I certainly have had many troubles over the years coming to grips with it. But once one sees it and knows, it is hard to pretend otherwise. The scientific, mechanistic approach does not work. But if we let the ancient texts speak in their ancient ways, what we hear is a connection of the Jesus story to King David. And the hope of the Jews, a Messiah, is connected to the birth of Jesus. If this is expressed through an ancient process of thought and writing which differs from ours, well, that is life! And in the end, it is about the message. The message is the truth they seek to convey. And it is the truth that sets us free!

The next instance is Mt 1:15. Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus leave for Egypt to escape King Herod, who massacred the children under two trying to kill the newborn King. After Herod dies the holy family rerturns. We are told this "pleroo what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Israel I have called my son." The reference is not given, only a generic prophet, but we have found the text in Hosea 11:1. What we read there will more deeply inform our reading ot Mt 1:15. Hosea says, "When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I call my son. (v2 The more I called them , the farther they went from me. saacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.) Hosea's original refers to God's faithfulness (He goes on that He taught Ephraim to walk, He encompassed him in arms of love, fostered and fed him. But Israel failed to recognize God was savior and turned, so another exile into Egypt with Assyria as master is coming.) Hosea is warning the people that doom (Assyria) will fall upon her. The reference to Egypt is a double reference, referring to the first Exodus and an impending escape to Egypt by those fleeing the invading armies of Assyria.

Hosea is making no predictions about Messiah. He is literally calling the people (Israel=Ephraim) His Son whom He rescued from slavery in the Exodus. This is contrasted to their disobedience. So what does fulfill mean here? Clearly, that in Jesus, the true Son, Israel's destiny is recapitulated and redeemed. As Israel went into Egypt and came out, so does Jesus. However!!!! Jesus will be faithful (unlike Israel) and He will recognize the Father and will be obedient (even to death on a cross). So what Jesus fully-fills is the destiny and identity of Israel. He will be what the people of God should  have been but weren't (a tradition of abject failure fully embraced and lived out by the church today!!!). It is not about predictions, it is about identity. Jesus fills up the empty places in salvation history. He makes the old story new by taking the place of the people who failed in days gone by and in taking their place acts righteously.

Such a reading may be different from what we are used to, but it is certainly truer to the texts. And I think it is richer and wider and deeper as well. I think, in the end, we are better off seeing what is there and hearing God speak....

No comments:

Post a Comment