If the primary purpose of Prophets is to reveal God's will, to condemn our sins (especially false worship and injustice) and to provide warnings of judgment (when we sin) and provide words of hope (to the faithful who suffer and to those under the rod of wrath), then the next question is what part does the predictive play in their message? And what about Messiah Jesus, is He foretold in their words?
As we have discussed in the last ten posts, Jesus fully-fills-up the words of the ancient texts. NT writers frequently take the words of the OT (usually taken out of context) to connect the Jesus story with the OT story of salvation. As I hope is clear, this connecting is not to show a prediction is fulfilled, rather it is to show the saving power of God in the humanity of Jesus. He takes up all our lives (past, present, future) and in Him the fullness of God is present.
Yet there are places where an "ideal" King or "model" savior echoes in the texts of SS. Once more the multivalence is evident (this king may be Hezekiah, for example). But Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of our aspirations for the True Ruler. So the holy longing of the prophets really does point beyond to the greater horizon encompassed by Jesus the Messiah. And in every age, the prophet's and our own, there are false rulers and anti-Messiahs (anti-Christ) who align with the dark forces of fallen man, fallen nature and the demonic. Such people and institutions are pseudo-gods, demanding our worship and wealth, doling out largesse as they see fit. And always demanding that we take on some outward sign of comformity to their agenda and cause. Be it big business or labor, sports or recreational groups, social, or even church, communities there is always a proclivity to make the finite and limited into something more than it is. To turn a sacrament (in and through) into an idol (worship the thing). I pledge allegiance to the flag and at times the powers behind the flag set themselves up as superior to God and His Christ. And that is life on a fallen earth, populated with folks who don't get it much of the time. And no corner of our world is safe from this.
In prophetic literature, one popular theme is "The Day of the Lord." This is a designation of the time when the Creator God will save His creatures, when the God of Heaven comes to rule on earth. It is the day for which Israel longed, deliverance from her foes and glorification by her God. Yet, the prophets twisted this concept on its head. That exact phrase occurs two dozen times in the Bible, about half in prophets.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=day+of+the+Lord&t=NKJV
Is 13 is an oracle against Babylon, the nation which overwelmed and destroyed God's people. We know that this invasion was called God's judgment on His people. Yet the sin of Babylon was also great and Isaiah saw this oracle "...wail for the day of the Lord is near; it will come like destruction from the Almigty...every human heart will melt...pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman....See the day of the Lord comes cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising , and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil....therefore I will make the heaven tremble and the earth will be shaken out of its place."
Obviously, there is much judgment here, but the judgment is against Israel's enemies. Notice too the use of the "dark sun and stars" image. This refers to a time of judgment long ago, Babylon did fall after all. The use of the image, which is adopted and magnified in apocalyptic, is just that, an image. It reveals with a word picture the depth and power and meaning of what takes place. Remember, the heavens are the divine realm in ancient times. The powers rule from there! [see also Joel, "the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood"]
As I said, however, the prophets turn this on its head. Amos 5:18 ("woe to you who desire the day of the Lord. For what good is the day of the Lord for you? It is darkness and not light") makes clear that some will be surprised that they are on the wrong side of God's day. Much like Jesus' parables on the judgment, people who think they are "in" end up "out" and vice-versa.
What apocalyptic writers do is convey a similar prophet message (judgment for and judgment against; wrath and hope) to a people. Their audiences are usually on the wrong end of oppression, often times under severe persecution. The imagery of the prophets (sun darkened) is intensified and the actors are identified in symbols and images. Babylon, for example, later becomes a symbol of Rome, or any nation state set against the God of Israel, the God and Father of Jesus Christ. There are also symbolic animals (eagles, monsters, lambs/rams) which can be applied to myriad individuals or groups. But the key is understanding that it is based in prophecy, and prophecy is not about a secret message to be decoded to foretell the future. It is clear as this: repent, believe, turn from sin, turn from the wrath to come.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Prophecy 10: Jesus comes to fulfill
The limited stories about Jesus the baby/child are found only in Mathew and Luke. There purpose is much more than biographical tidbits from the early life of the Savior. They are chock full of theological images and references which convey the full meaning of this Man. And the primary referent is the OT, because that is where God's plan for salvation is spelled out.
The typical Gospel proclamation about Jesus (we assume in earliest church preaching) begins with John the Baptist appearing, preaching and baptizing. He understood himself to be calling the Jews to repent before the Day of the Lord. He was influenced by the same apocalyptic understanding which we present in Judah the centuries surrounding his life. John looked expectantly for the kingdom to burst into the world. So he called people to repent, to be washed of their sins, and to lead a reformed life. John was confused by Jesus, Who did not act exactly how He expected. For example, when Jesus came to be baptized, Matthew says, John was reluctant, claiming roles should be reversed. But Jesus said that it was proper to "fulfill all righteousness." The idea of fully-filling is present here, but in a different context. I think it may help us to broaden our understanding of what fully-filling the Sacred Scriptures (SS) means.
Although Matthew does not say it, the temptation sequence is also a fully-filling of SS. Like ancient Israel Jesus is in the desert. One temptation, for bread, recalls the Israelites complaint in the desert for bread (manna). We also see echoes of Adam and Eve, who were tempted and failed. Israel's greatest sin, worshipping other gods, is also on display as Jesus rejects worldly power offered to Him if He worshipped the Satan. The use of the Bible is found throughout the debate/testing and Jesus' skill with SS is evident. We note that the story ends with Jesus being ministered to by angels, just like Satan's quote from Psalms indicates God has promised. Here is fulfillment and more fulfillment.
After the baptism and temptation, Jesus returns to Galilee (Mt 4:12-16). Located far north of Jerusalem, it is a remnant of the old nation of Israel and probably was inhabited by Zebulon and Naphtali in tribal times. When Assyrian conquered the area it brought in foreigners to stamp out the Jewish identity, hence the name "Galilee of the Gentiles." [The Assyrian province was known as Meggido, associated with har megido where we get the apocalyptic battle of Armageddon.] Isaiah's oracle of hope (Is 8&9) concerning the land over run by Assyria is seen in new light with the beginning of Jesus' minsitry here. This is such a wonderful example of the fulfillment of Scripture. Jesus is the fullness of that hope realized.
This is why, in Matthew 5:17ff Jesus says He has not come to abolish/destroy/overthrow the Law and prophets but to fulfill them. This includes almost all of what we call the Old Testament includes the Torah (first five books), our historical books and our written prophets (major and minor). We do not tend to think of Samuel or Kings as prophetic literature, but they are included as such in the Jewish Bible. This broadens our understanding of the word "prophecy" and helps illustrate why fully-fillling up the SS is Jesus' vocation. He is the summation, the purpose and souce, He is the ultimate meaning of all Bible revelation. In particular, His death and resurrection is the completion of the OT story. In Him all the stories make sense. The death of the first born (See Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, see the last plague of Pharaoh and Egypt) and the Jewish sacrificial system and Temple both find their fullest meaning in Jesus (He is the Lamb). The hopes and dreams of Israel and for Israel are realized in the fulfillmenf to King David's Promise (in what God promised to him and in what he could have become if he had been the kind of righteous king he should have been). And, somewhat ironically, as Jesus fulfills all He also creates new hopes and promises, hopes and promises which wait to be fulfilled in The Great Day. So we pray, Come Lord Jesus! and we hope it is not long to wait.
The typical Gospel proclamation about Jesus (we assume in earliest church preaching) begins with John the Baptist appearing, preaching and baptizing. He understood himself to be calling the Jews to repent before the Day of the Lord. He was influenced by the same apocalyptic understanding which we present in Judah the centuries surrounding his life. John looked expectantly for the kingdom to burst into the world. So he called people to repent, to be washed of their sins, and to lead a reformed life. John was confused by Jesus, Who did not act exactly how He expected. For example, when Jesus came to be baptized, Matthew says, John was reluctant, claiming roles should be reversed. But Jesus said that it was proper to "fulfill all righteousness." The idea of fully-filling is present here, but in a different context. I think it may help us to broaden our understanding of what fully-filling the Sacred Scriptures (SS) means.
Although Matthew does not say it, the temptation sequence is also a fully-filling of SS. Like ancient Israel Jesus is in the desert. One temptation, for bread, recalls the Israelites complaint in the desert for bread (manna). We also see echoes of Adam and Eve, who were tempted and failed. Israel's greatest sin, worshipping other gods, is also on display as Jesus rejects worldly power offered to Him if He worshipped the Satan. The use of the Bible is found throughout the debate/testing and Jesus' skill with SS is evident. We note that the story ends with Jesus being ministered to by angels, just like Satan's quote from Psalms indicates God has promised. Here is fulfillment and more fulfillment.
After the baptism and temptation, Jesus returns to Galilee (Mt 4:12-16). Located far north of Jerusalem, it is a remnant of the old nation of Israel and probably was inhabited by Zebulon and Naphtali in tribal times. When Assyrian conquered the area it brought in foreigners to stamp out the Jewish identity, hence the name "Galilee of the Gentiles." [The Assyrian province was known as Meggido, associated with har megido where we get the apocalyptic battle of Armageddon.] Isaiah's oracle of hope (Is 8&9) concerning the land over run by Assyria is seen in new light with the beginning of Jesus' minsitry here. This is such a wonderful example of the fulfillment of Scripture. Jesus is the fullness of that hope realized.
This is why, in Matthew 5:17ff Jesus says He has not come to abolish/destroy/overthrow the Law and prophets but to fulfill them. This includes almost all of what we call the Old Testament includes the Torah (first five books), our historical books and our written prophets (major and minor). We do not tend to think of Samuel or Kings as prophetic literature, but they are included as such in the Jewish Bible. This broadens our understanding of the word "prophecy" and helps illustrate why fully-fillling up the SS is Jesus' vocation. He is the summation, the purpose and souce, He is the ultimate meaning of all Bible revelation. In particular, His death and resurrection is the completion of the OT story. In Him all the stories make sense. The death of the first born (See Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, see the last plague of Pharaoh and Egypt) and the Jewish sacrificial system and Temple both find their fullest meaning in Jesus (He is the Lamb). The hopes and dreams of Israel and for Israel are realized in the fulfillmenf to King David's Promise (in what God promised to him and in what he could have become if he had been the kind of righteous king he should have been). And, somewhat ironically, as Jesus fulfills all He also creates new hopes and promises, hopes and promises which wait to be fulfilled in The Great Day. So we pray, Come Lord Jesus! and we hope it is not long to wait.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Prophecy 9: Dead Babies
(continuing at Matthew 2:16) Herod, we are told, is furious when he finds out that the magi from the East have escaped undetected from his land. Now he must figure out where in Bethlehem the newborn threat to the throne abides...
A few details which might be of interest. [Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah" or a standard biblical commentary.] As we all know, a number of babies never make it to birth. It seems that about 1/3 of children died by age 6 and less than 20% made it through their twenties. The town of Nazareth is thought to have roughly 1,000. Based on expected birthrate in the neighborhood of thirty or so one can assume there were roughly two dozen baby boys available to Herod's sword.
One reasonable question is why would King Herod not know where the Magi had gone. We know the King is very distressed by the news so it seems that it would be a simple matter for him to get the information he needs. A village of this size is certainly large enough for some anonymity, but it is hardly large enough, nor would the magi be moving quick enough, to avoid detection. This is not clandestine Seals Ops in a major metropolitan Amereican city! Rather, it is an open and public visitation within the confines of a large village. Why did Herod not send someone with or have someone trail the magi from behind? The text does not address this, so we are left to speculate. Perhaps it is God's hand at work to deceive Herod and protect Jesus. Maybe the king's arrogance exceeded his paranoia. Most scholars offer the possibility that the birth narrative is a midrash of sorts. In such a case it is not simply scientific history. In other words, it is about Truth not facts.
[A review of other Jewish writings at this time shoes a tendency to expand on OT narratives with additonal stories about the figures involved, for example, Abraham and Moses, in numerous works (e.g. Josephus). Such stories serve as supplements which broaden our understanding of the figures involved. This is a common feature of all cultures. As a child I knew George Washington chopped down the cherry tree because he could not tell a lie. Legendary stories are almost always a layer of every "popular" historical narrative circulating among people.] [ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-25.html ]
Matthew clearly is illustrating a parallel to the Moses story. The revelation of God here would be this: understand the Jesus story in light of Moses. Jesus, the New Moses, is the fully-filled-ment of the Moses story. Jesus is the true lawgiver and messenger of God. This is expressed in a culturally accepted mode of communication. In Ancient Jewish writing, like all ancient writings, there are different rules and accepted methods of telling the story.
If the latter is the case, then some of our questions are not relevant. Trying to make sense of the story remains the goal, but the "making sense" is not seeking to figure out what happened, rather it is seeing through the story to hear the message about Jesus, Moses and fully-filled OT stories.
Jesus is in Egypt, the babies left behind are massacred by the crazed king. Herod fails in his attempt to destroy Jesus. We also know God rescued Jesus from human agents bent on His destruction. Such delieverance is for our benefit.
[One disturbing feature of the story is the massacre. Even if it is only 20 babies (and not the hundreds I assumed) it is still twenty or so babies murdered. Twenty or so mothers and fathers destitute and heart broken. Twenty families and untold friends of families horrified. And the question bubbles up, why? Why would God save the Jesus but not them? I have wrestled with such questions elsewhere in this blog, but suffice to say this is a rescue intervention story. In such a story, the point is how someone (in this case the Holy Family) escapes the clutches of death. We do well to recall this is literature and as such, like all literature, intends to tell a story. It is as much about raising questions as it is answering. It calls us to think, why does God do this for this particular child? It never answers the other question, why not save others. In a world where everyon dies eventually and especially in their world where so few lived to early adulthood, the question is not important.]
The events, as unfolded by Matthew are identified as "full-filling" Jeremiah. Note, however, the absence of the term 'in order to.' There is no hint of divine causality as we saw in previous texts which we looked at earlier. Rather, we are told the words of Jeremiah are "full-filled." First of all, the words in Jeremiah 31 are an introduction to a longer prophecy. What Matthew quotes is the sad part, but immediately after that is a more upbeat message. The messge Jeremiah declares from God tells Rachel "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your work, they shall come back from the land of the enemy; there is hope for the future, your children shall come back to their country." It is a propehcy of hope in the face of the loss and destruction of the invasion of Judah and the forced exile of her people.
This was no OT prediction that babies would be slaughtered, rather it is a connection of this slaughter to the OT story of God's people. It connects the time of Jesus to the time of the second exile. And it also connects the story of Moses (delivered from the fate of other babies who were to be slaughtered at Pharaoh's command) to the beginning of Jesus.
The last "fulfillment" for today is Mt 2:23. We are told that Jesus goes to Nazareth to fulfill what was spoken by the prophets: "He will be called a Nazorean." Note that no prophet name is given (like Jeremiah above). There is a reason for this. There is no verse which makes such a declaration in the OT. John Chrysostom (lived between 350-400), the great archbishop and preacher, said that Matthew was quoting a text long lost to Christian and Jew (because it was not accepted as scripture). Others think Matthew had a secondary text from which he is quoting, hence the vagueness. A third option, Brown offers the possibility that it is cobbled together Isaiah 4:3 ("Whoever is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy") and Judges 16:17 (Samson said "for I have been a nazirite to God from my mother's womb"). The word Nazarene, while meaning from Nazareth, is also open to two other philological nuances. Recall, the Hebrew love of puns and play on word. Two other near-sounding terms Nazir (one consecrated and made holy by a vow) and Neser (a branch, a Mesianic image in Isaiah 11:1 "a shoot will go forth from the root of Jesse, and from his roots a branch") may well be alluded to here. Once again, not the way we prefer to do etymology, but it is the way that they did it. For my illustration it is even more important. It demonstrates fulfillment not of a particular verse (or promise/prediction) but a fulfillment of a non-specific referent. Yet, the general reference, with a multitude of nuances and meanings, is in fact true to Jesus' identity.
The story of Jesus, as told by Matthew, begins by creating intentional connecting points between Jesus and the story of salvation. The connection between Genesis' Joseph and Mt's Joseph (dreams) and Exodus' Moses and Jesus (birth situation) help us see that Jesus can only be known in and through the OT story. And fulfillment, much more than a realization of a freestanding prediction, is a taking up of the OT story--the whole OT story. Until we come to grips with that, our consideration of the prophets and the prohetic will have more in common with the National Inquirer's year end predictions than it does with the Divine promise and plan of the Bible.
A few details which might be of interest. [Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah" or a standard biblical commentary.] As we all know, a number of babies never make it to birth. It seems that about 1/3 of children died by age 6 and less than 20% made it through their twenties. The town of Nazareth is thought to have roughly 1,000. Based on expected birthrate in the neighborhood of thirty or so one can assume there were roughly two dozen baby boys available to Herod's sword.
One reasonable question is why would King Herod not know where the Magi had gone. We know the King is very distressed by the news so it seems that it would be a simple matter for him to get the information he needs. A village of this size is certainly large enough for some anonymity, but it is hardly large enough, nor would the magi be moving quick enough, to avoid detection. This is not clandestine Seals Ops in a major metropolitan Amereican city! Rather, it is an open and public visitation within the confines of a large village. Why did Herod not send someone with or have someone trail the magi from behind? The text does not address this, so we are left to speculate. Perhaps it is God's hand at work to deceive Herod and protect Jesus. Maybe the king's arrogance exceeded his paranoia. Most scholars offer the possibility that the birth narrative is a midrash of sorts. In such a case it is not simply scientific history. In other words, it is about Truth not facts.
[A review of other Jewish writings at this time shoes a tendency to expand on OT narratives with additonal stories about the figures involved, for example, Abraham and Moses, in numerous works (e.g. Josephus). Such stories serve as supplements which broaden our understanding of the figures involved. This is a common feature of all cultures. As a child I knew George Washington chopped down the cherry tree because he could not tell a lie. Legendary stories are almost always a layer of every "popular" historical narrative circulating among people.] [ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-25.html ]
Matthew clearly is illustrating a parallel to the Moses story. The revelation of God here would be this: understand the Jesus story in light of Moses. Jesus, the New Moses, is the fully-filled-ment of the Moses story. Jesus is the true lawgiver and messenger of God. This is expressed in a culturally accepted mode of communication. In Ancient Jewish writing, like all ancient writings, there are different rules and accepted methods of telling the story.
If the latter is the case, then some of our questions are not relevant. Trying to make sense of the story remains the goal, but the "making sense" is not seeking to figure out what happened, rather it is seeing through the story to hear the message about Jesus, Moses and fully-filled OT stories.
Jesus is in Egypt, the babies left behind are massacred by the crazed king. Herod fails in his attempt to destroy Jesus. We also know God rescued Jesus from human agents bent on His destruction. Such delieverance is for our benefit.
[One disturbing feature of the story is the massacre. Even if it is only 20 babies (and not the hundreds I assumed) it is still twenty or so babies murdered. Twenty or so mothers and fathers destitute and heart broken. Twenty families and untold friends of families horrified. And the question bubbles up, why? Why would God save the Jesus but not them? I have wrestled with such questions elsewhere in this blog, but suffice to say this is a rescue intervention story. In such a story, the point is how someone (in this case the Holy Family) escapes the clutches of death. We do well to recall this is literature and as such, like all literature, intends to tell a story. It is as much about raising questions as it is answering. It calls us to think, why does God do this for this particular child? It never answers the other question, why not save others. In a world where everyon dies eventually and especially in their world where so few lived to early adulthood, the question is not important.]
The events, as unfolded by Matthew are identified as "full-filling" Jeremiah. Note, however, the absence of the term 'in order to.' There is no hint of divine causality as we saw in previous texts which we looked at earlier. Rather, we are told the words of Jeremiah are "full-filled." First of all, the words in Jeremiah 31 are an introduction to a longer prophecy. What Matthew quotes is the sad part, but immediately after that is a more upbeat message. The messge Jeremiah declares from God tells Rachel "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your work, they shall come back from the land of the enemy; there is hope for the future, your children shall come back to their country." It is a propehcy of hope in the face of the loss and destruction of the invasion of Judah and the forced exile of her people.
This was no OT prediction that babies would be slaughtered, rather it is a connection of this slaughter to the OT story of God's people. It connects the time of Jesus to the time of the second exile. And it also connects the story of Moses (delivered from the fate of other babies who were to be slaughtered at Pharaoh's command) to the beginning of Jesus.
The last "fulfillment" for today is Mt 2:23. We are told that Jesus goes to Nazareth to fulfill what was spoken by the prophets: "He will be called a Nazorean." Note that no prophet name is given (like Jeremiah above). There is a reason for this. There is no verse which makes such a declaration in the OT. John Chrysostom (lived between 350-400), the great archbishop and preacher, said that Matthew was quoting a text long lost to Christian and Jew (because it was not accepted as scripture). Others think Matthew had a secondary text from which he is quoting, hence the vagueness. A third option, Brown offers the possibility that it is cobbled together Isaiah 4:3 ("Whoever is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy") and Judges 16:17 (Samson said "for I have been a nazirite to God from my mother's womb"). The word Nazarene, while meaning from Nazareth, is also open to two other philological nuances. Recall, the Hebrew love of puns and play on word. Two other near-sounding terms Nazir (one consecrated and made holy by a vow) and Neser (a branch, a Mesianic image in Isaiah 11:1 "a shoot will go forth from the root of Jesse, and from his roots a branch") may well be alluded to here. Once again, not the way we prefer to do etymology, but it is the way that they did it. For my illustration it is even more important. It demonstrates fulfillment not of a particular verse (or promise/prediction) but a fulfillment of a non-specific referent. Yet, the general reference, with a multitude of nuances and meanings, is in fact true to Jesus' identity.
The story of Jesus, as told by Matthew, begins by creating intentional connecting points between Jesus and the story of salvation. The connection between Genesis' Joseph and Mt's Joseph (dreams) and Exodus' Moses and Jesus (birth situation) help us see that Jesus can only be known in and through the OT story. And fulfillment, much more than a realization of a freestanding prediction, is a taking up of the OT story--the whole OT story. Until we come to grips with that, our consideration of the prophets and the prohetic will have more in common with the National Inquirer's year end predictions than it does with the Divine promise and plan of the Bible.
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....
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....
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Prophecy: Virgin and Child 3 conclusion
I want to finish up "the virgin will be with child" but before I do look what my friend the Messianic Jew Derek Leman sent me in the e-mail today! You will note we have taken a very similar trek. Perhaps his slant will flesh mine out more?
http://www.derekleman.com/musings/2012/11/26/what-isaiah-714-really-means/
Please note this is the third installment on this text and each one builds on the previous one.
Isaiah, accompanied by his son with a symbolic name (a remnant will return), confronts the king of Judah. He tells him there is no need for worry and fear. The threats of the nations surrounding Judah will come to naught. God says that they (Aram and Ephraim) will fall, but he warns, the king to be strong in faith in order to be strong. Then the Lord speaks to the King: "Ask for a sign, deep as Hades or high as Heaven!" To the Divine offer King Ahaz is disdainful, "I will not ask." He claims that he does not want to tempt the Lord, but it is the Lord Who has made the request. God's response is frustration. "Isn't it enough to weary men, must the king now weary God?" And what follows is the full promise, not just one verse....
"The Lord will give you (i.e. King Ahaz) this sign: the maiden is (the Hebrew is in the present tense, so a pregnant woman is there) with child, and will (future tense) bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall be living on curds and honey by the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread will be deserted."
The pregnant woman and baby is a sign that "Immanuel", God is with us. This is the message of Isaiah to the king. It is the message to us. This is a fundamental message of the OT, God is the One Who is with His people for salvation. God is faithful to His covenant, even when His people sin.
It continues with God's threat to of judgment on the enemies of Israel.
Isaiah 7:14 does not sound at all like a prediction about a future Messiah hundreds of years later. If anything, it is a Messiah (annointed King) who will be born in a matter of months (which would make the unborn baby the crown prince). This birth is a sign of God's abiding presence with Judah (His saving presence).
There is much debate about who the young woman is. She may be Isaiah's wife (as with the other son's symbolic name), the wife of the king (as above), or some young woman standing in the court (whom Isaiah saw and used as an illustration). Her identity is uncertain to us, but no doubt Isaiah and Ahaz were very clear. The promise is also simple and direct. Before the child reaches the age of decision making, i.e., when the child can choose between good and bad, at the time when he eats curds and honey (food after weaning?) God's judgment will have fallen upon Ephraim (also called Israel or Samaria) and Syria (Damascus) who conspire against Judah.
The prophecy is about the future, but it is the immediate future, set in the life time of a fetus become a young child. And the time frame is not uncertain at all. Read all of Isaiah 7 and you will see there is nothing which leads one to assume it is disconnected with Ahaz and his problems. This is reinforced even more by the next chapter. In Isaiah 8 the prophet and his wife have another son, this one called Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and "before the child knows how to call father or mother by name" Damascus and Samaria will be ruined (by Assyria). This is exactly what happened, so the 'prediction' came true, however it was fulfilled in the time period Isaiah gave, namely within a couple of years.
So.... what on earth did Matthew mean? Why did he quote Isaiah in reference to the birth of Jesus? In a sense I explained it earlier in my discussion of the word pleroo. Jesus FILLS UP the deepest meaning of the OT, so Jesus fills up each text. Jesus is the archetype, the model, the image. He is the true which all others imitate but only partially. If the birth of the baby in Ahaz's court is a sign of God's salvation, then Mary and Jesus and His birth is the perfect, complete fullness of the sign. The first birth, in Isaiah's time, is a type of the Final Birth of Messiah. This is what Matthew means. Jesus's birth is The sign of God among us. Jesus is the salvation of God and the wrath of God. In Jesus the judgment is final and complete. Choose, King Ahaz (now you and me). Choose and live... or choose and die. The judgment is final.
When we grasp the truth we are obedient to God. We serve God; He does not serve us. Too often we make the text say what we want it to say. Like Ahaz, we dress it up in pious language ("I do not want to tempt God") but if God is True (and He is) then we can never fear truth. We must hear the prophets' voice. Only then can we fully understand what it means as applied to Jesus.
I invite you to read Isaiah 6-8 and ponder what you read. Then, see the story anew in Jesus. See the old story as taken up in the life and death of Jesus. Understand that the whole OT is found, perfectly summed up and Fulfilled in Jesus. Understand why the OT is Scripture, sacred revelation of God to us. Understand and give glory! Understand the Old Testament so you can understand Jesus and the New Testament.
http://www.derekleman.com/musings/2012/11/26/what-isaiah-714-really-means/
Please note this is the third installment on this text and each one builds on the previous one.
Isaiah, accompanied by his son with a symbolic name (a remnant will return), confronts the king of Judah. He tells him there is no need for worry and fear. The threats of the nations surrounding Judah will come to naught. God says that they (Aram and Ephraim) will fall, but he warns, the king to be strong in faith in order to be strong. Then the Lord speaks to the King: "Ask for a sign, deep as Hades or high as Heaven!" To the Divine offer King Ahaz is disdainful, "I will not ask." He claims that he does not want to tempt the Lord, but it is the Lord Who has made the request. God's response is frustration. "Isn't it enough to weary men, must the king now weary God?" And what follows is the full promise, not just one verse....
"The Lord will give you (i.e. King Ahaz) this sign: the maiden is (the Hebrew is in the present tense, so a pregnant woman is there) with child, and will (future tense) bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall be living on curds and honey by the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread will be deserted."
The pregnant woman and baby is a sign that "Immanuel", God is with us. This is the message of Isaiah to the king. It is the message to us. This is a fundamental message of the OT, God is the One Who is with His people for salvation. God is faithful to His covenant, even when His people sin.
It continues with God's threat to of judgment on the enemies of Israel.
Isaiah 7:14 does not sound at all like a prediction about a future Messiah hundreds of years later. If anything, it is a Messiah (annointed King) who will be born in a matter of months (which would make the unborn baby the crown prince). This birth is a sign of God's abiding presence with Judah (His saving presence).
There is much debate about who the young woman is. She may be Isaiah's wife (as with the other son's symbolic name), the wife of the king (as above), or some young woman standing in the court (whom Isaiah saw and used as an illustration). Her identity is uncertain to us, but no doubt Isaiah and Ahaz were very clear. The promise is also simple and direct. Before the child reaches the age of decision making, i.e., when the child can choose between good and bad, at the time when he eats curds and honey (food after weaning?) God's judgment will have fallen upon Ephraim (also called Israel or Samaria) and Syria (Damascus) who conspire against Judah.
The prophecy is about the future, but it is the immediate future, set in the life time of a fetus become a young child. And the time frame is not uncertain at all. Read all of Isaiah 7 and you will see there is nothing which leads one to assume it is disconnected with Ahaz and his problems. This is reinforced even more by the next chapter. In Isaiah 8 the prophet and his wife have another son, this one called Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and "before the child knows how to call father or mother by name" Damascus and Samaria will be ruined (by Assyria). This is exactly what happened, so the 'prediction' came true, however it was fulfilled in the time period Isaiah gave, namely within a couple of years.
So.... what on earth did Matthew mean? Why did he quote Isaiah in reference to the birth of Jesus? In a sense I explained it earlier in my discussion of the word pleroo. Jesus FILLS UP the deepest meaning of the OT, so Jesus fills up each text. Jesus is the archetype, the model, the image. He is the true which all others imitate but only partially. If the birth of the baby in Ahaz's court is a sign of God's salvation, then Mary and Jesus and His birth is the perfect, complete fullness of the sign. The first birth, in Isaiah's time, is a type of the Final Birth of Messiah. This is what Matthew means. Jesus's birth is The sign of God among us. Jesus is the salvation of God and the wrath of God. In Jesus the judgment is final and complete. Choose, King Ahaz (now you and me). Choose and live... or choose and die. The judgment is final.
When we grasp the truth we are obedient to God. We serve God; He does not serve us. Too often we make the text say what we want it to say. Like Ahaz, we dress it up in pious language ("I do not want to tempt God") but if God is True (and He is) then we can never fear truth. We must hear the prophets' voice. Only then can we fully understand what it means as applied to Jesus.
I invite you to read Isaiah 6-8 and ponder what you read. Then, see the story anew in Jesus. See the old story as taken up in the life and death of Jesus. Understand that the whole OT is found, perfectly summed up and Fulfilled in Jesus. Understand why the OT is Scripture, sacred revelation of God to us. Understand and give glory! Understand the Old Testament so you can understand Jesus and the New Testament.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Prophecy 6: Virgin & Child 2
You need to read the previous post to make sense of this one.
Matthew 1:23
And the Virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son.
The Greek literally says "the virign shall have a belly" which is an expression for pregnant. The key word is parthenos, which is virgin. This literally means someone who has not had sexual experiences. In a broader sense, it means a young woman of marriagable age, a maiden. Obviously, in those days, promiscuity and pre-marital sex were not acceptable. To be an unmarried, young woman would automatically mean that one was a virgin.
Matthew says that this has been spoken through the prophet. It takes little research to uncover his proposed source: Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah is written in Hebrew. He uses the Hebrew word, almah, which literally means young woman. Now, as I said above, in this culture the expectation was a young woman would be virginal. However, it is not primarilly a designation of one's sexual status. The term is used seven times in the OT and is translated into English both as maiden and as virgin.
What is interesting to me is this verse is not a Messianic prophecy and the idea of a pregnant young woman, which is the original context, does not imply anything miraculous at all. It seems to be the case that Matthew is working backward. He starts with the historical event (Mary's virginal pregnancy) and works back to an OT verse which triggers a connection for him (the Isaiah quote; though it may be he knew it in Greek because the Greek translation was widely in use). This is significant for apologetic reasons. Here are a couple.
1. If there was a clear expectation that the Messiah was to be born of a Virign, then the proponents of Jesus as Messiah would have had to make such a claim. From a neutral view point, the claim would have less weight because it might have been a "forgery" or "made up" as a proof. However, if no such expectation existed, there would seem to be little reason to make it up and therefore, it is more likely to be true. The Gospel writer would have no motivation to make this up if it did not happen, but would have plenty of motivation to make sense of it if it happened. I believe the latter is the case.
2. In the NT, there are only two places where the virginity of Mary is spoken about, the two "Christmas" stories found in Luke and Matthew. Only Matthew makes mention of fulfilling SS (which we have seen is typical of Matthew, not the others). If there had been a widely accepted belief that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin, one certainly would think that Paul and other NT letters would make reference to it. As it is, there is none. [Although there is the odd, "son of Mary" reference in Mark 6:3. One would expect Son of Joseph. The reference to Mary alone may indicate something unusual was afoot. And in John the Jews tell Jesus that they are not the children of fornication, once again, perhaps, a veiled insult at Jesus and His rumored illegitimate birth.] Something happened to lead detractors of Jesus to claim his parentage was at question. This seems to point to the fact that his conception and birth was not normal. The birth sequence never enters the public disputes about Jesus. No detractors claim, "The Messiah must be born of a virgin, so how were you conceived?"
This raises the question, did Isaiah have the virgin Mary in mind in his prophecy. I think the answer to that is unquestionably "no." I base that on a simple reading of Isaiah chapter 7. http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+7/
I am not going to copy it all here, I suggest you get a Bible out and read it (work alert!!!!)
King Ahaz is all upset. His kingdom is being threatened by an invading army. Isaiah and one of his sons (Shear-jashub= "a remnant will return") go to meet him. Note, the son's name is a prophetic declaration. In chapter 8 another son with a meaningful name [Name him Maher-Shalal-hash-baz, for before the child knows how to call his father of mother by name the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried off."] Take note of the time reference, it is also present in Chapter 7 where we talk about Emmanuel. The fact is symbolic names of children are all over this section of Isaiah. Pay heed and attention to that.
The troubled king is aware of the threats made against him and his kingdom. But, Isaiah says, do not worry for God has declared it shall not happen. Then Isaiah offers the king a sign, which the king refuses. God offers, man declines; this is disobedience and disrespect. What Isaiah then offers the king is a promise. We will look at that tomorrow and see its connection to Jesus.
Matthew 1:23
And the Virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son.
The Greek literally says "the virign shall have a belly" which is an expression for pregnant. The key word is parthenos, which is virgin. This literally means someone who has not had sexual experiences. In a broader sense, it means a young woman of marriagable age, a maiden. Obviously, in those days, promiscuity and pre-marital sex were not acceptable. To be an unmarried, young woman would automatically mean that one was a virgin.
Matthew says that this has been spoken through the prophet. It takes little research to uncover his proposed source: Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah is written in Hebrew. He uses the Hebrew word, almah, which literally means young woman. Now, as I said above, in this culture the expectation was a young woman would be virginal. However, it is not primarilly a designation of one's sexual status. The term is used seven times in the OT and is translated into English both as maiden and as virgin.
What is interesting to me is this verse is not a Messianic prophecy and the idea of a pregnant young woman, which is the original context, does not imply anything miraculous at all. It seems to be the case that Matthew is working backward. He starts with the historical event (Mary's virginal pregnancy) and works back to an OT verse which triggers a connection for him (the Isaiah quote; though it may be he knew it in Greek because the Greek translation was widely in use). This is significant for apologetic reasons. Here are a couple.
1. If there was a clear expectation that the Messiah was to be born of a Virign, then the proponents of Jesus as Messiah would have had to make such a claim. From a neutral view point, the claim would have less weight because it might have been a "forgery" or "made up" as a proof. However, if no such expectation existed, there would seem to be little reason to make it up and therefore, it is more likely to be true. The Gospel writer would have no motivation to make this up if it did not happen, but would have plenty of motivation to make sense of it if it happened. I believe the latter is the case.
2. In the NT, there are only two places where the virginity of Mary is spoken about, the two "Christmas" stories found in Luke and Matthew. Only Matthew makes mention of fulfilling SS (which we have seen is typical of Matthew, not the others). If there had been a widely accepted belief that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin, one certainly would think that Paul and other NT letters would make reference to it. As it is, there is none. [Although there is the odd, "son of Mary" reference in Mark 6:3. One would expect Son of Joseph. The reference to Mary alone may indicate something unusual was afoot. And in John the Jews tell Jesus that they are not the children of fornication, once again, perhaps, a veiled insult at Jesus and His rumored illegitimate birth.] Something happened to lead detractors of Jesus to claim his parentage was at question. This seems to point to the fact that his conception and birth was not normal. The birth sequence never enters the public disputes about Jesus. No detractors claim, "The Messiah must be born of a virgin, so how were you conceived?"
This raises the question, did Isaiah have the virgin Mary in mind in his prophecy. I think the answer to that is unquestionably "no." I base that on a simple reading of Isaiah chapter 7. http://www.esvbible.org/Isaiah+7/
I am not going to copy it all here, I suggest you get a Bible out and read it (work alert!!!!)
King Ahaz is all upset. His kingdom is being threatened by an invading army. Isaiah and one of his sons (Shear-jashub= "a remnant will return") go to meet him. Note, the son's name is a prophetic declaration. In chapter 8 another son with a meaningful name [Name him Maher-Shalal-hash-baz, for before the child knows how to call his father of mother by name the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried off."] Take note of the time reference, it is also present in Chapter 7 where we talk about Emmanuel. The fact is symbolic names of children are all over this section of Isaiah. Pay heed and attention to that.
The troubled king is aware of the threats made against him and his kingdom. But, Isaiah says, do not worry for God has declared it shall not happen. Then Isaiah offers the king a sign, which the king refuses. God offers, man declines; this is disobedience and disrespect. What Isaiah then offers the king is a promise. We will look at that tomorrow and see its connection to Jesus.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Prophecy 5: And the Virgin will be with child
The "pop" understanding of prophecy is that long ago (and I mean long ago) a group of men sat around predicting future events. These predictions concerned God's promise to send the Messiah (i.e. Jesus) and the list of predictions was very obvious. In fact, when Jesus came, this line of thinking goes, the Jews should have immediately recognized Him and crowned Him as King.
I doubt that many holding this "pop" view have thought through to details much. If pushed on what they thought took place they would probably be prone to saying things like, "I don't know, I guess the prophets just said stuff that God told them about when Jesus comes and the predictions were written in the Bible." Remember, the typical Christian rarely reads the Bible. Those that do frequently focus solely on the New Testament. And when someone reads, their assumptions always impact 'how' they read. I know from personal experience. We tend to skip over or ignore parts that do not fit into our presumptions. We tend to make things fit our preconceived views. We tend to do this often times unaware that we are doing it.
Most of us see the fulfillment of Scripture as being "a prediction finally happening." And if we read backwards we find this in the NT and assume it is true (which it is, that is NOT what I am meditating on here). However, it is rare that anyone back tracks to see the original quotation and see it in full context. That is why we continue to think that it is all about a list of predictions, we really do not look at what it actually says. So, as an advocate of Bible reading I want to do just that!!!
Matthew 2:21-23 "...She [Mary] is to have a son, and you are to name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins." All this happened to fulfill what the Lord has said through the prophet" 'The Virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son and they shall call him Emmanuel," a name which means 'God is with us.'"
The first tip off on how to read this is that the quote claims something that the prior verse negates. His name is Jesus, not Emmanuel. I do not know anyone who is troubled by this, mainly because we "get it." He is called Emmanuel is not a literally called (like a name) but called in the sense of when people explain Who Jesus is, He is God-with-us. (Commonly called incarnation). And His name and its meaning explain how God is with us. As the one who saves. Jesus (Joshua in Hebrew) comes from the root which means YHWH + Saves. (Many biblical names are also words. Much like names today, Joy, Hope, or Bill also have other meanings)
The key question is this. What does fulfill mean? And is 'fulfill' the best English word to translate the Greek?[info can be accessed here for the studious types
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4137&t=NKJV]
The first meaning of the Greek word pleroo is "to fill up, to fill to overflowing, to render complete, to make complete totally." There is a sense, too, in which it means, therefore, to accomplish and to fill an earlier promise. But we need to see the word as meaning, primarilly, that in Jesus the Story of God reaches its fullness. In Jesus, the story of Israel finds its completion and truest depth of meaning. Who is Jesus? He is God-with-us, but He is also The New Adam, the Perfection (fullness) of Humanity, and the complete person! So when we read the story of Jesus He fulfills the Scriptures because the Scriptures contain the story of God, the plan of God, the "dream" of God for His people. It also contains the story of God's people, the story of the beginning of humanity and the end of humanity. In Jesus those stories find their perfect expression. So Jesus fulfills Scripture.
Lastly (today) the word 'pleroo (= fill up') occurs many times in the NT, 95 total. But Mark uses it 3x (and only the last two refer to filling up/fulfilling SS [Sacred Scripture] and each is a generic reference to the Cross of Jesus). Luke uses it more, ten times, but only three times in the expression filling up/fulfilling SS (two of them from Mark). However, when we come to Matthew it is a different story. (John has 13 uses) Matthew uses the word seventeen (17) times. More importantly, twelve times he has some version of "this fills up/fulfills the SS/prophets." And in one other use, we have the key to reading the word in Matthew. Jesus says (Mt 5:17) "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill/fillup." Matthew is tipping his hand, and we do well to pay attention.
So if we are open to reading the Scripture from this perspective, we have much to discover. More later!
I doubt that many holding this "pop" view have thought through to details much. If pushed on what they thought took place they would probably be prone to saying things like, "I don't know, I guess the prophets just said stuff that God told them about when Jesus comes and the predictions were written in the Bible." Remember, the typical Christian rarely reads the Bible. Those that do frequently focus solely on the New Testament. And when someone reads, their assumptions always impact 'how' they read. I know from personal experience. We tend to skip over or ignore parts that do not fit into our presumptions. We tend to make things fit our preconceived views. We tend to do this often times unaware that we are doing it.
Most of us see the fulfillment of Scripture as being "a prediction finally happening." And if we read backwards we find this in the NT and assume it is true (which it is, that is NOT what I am meditating on here). However, it is rare that anyone back tracks to see the original quotation and see it in full context. That is why we continue to think that it is all about a list of predictions, we really do not look at what it actually says. So, as an advocate of Bible reading I want to do just that!!!
Matthew 2:21-23 "...She [Mary] is to have a son, and you are to name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins." All this happened to fulfill what the Lord has said through the prophet" 'The Virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son and they shall call him Emmanuel," a name which means 'God is with us.'"
The first tip off on how to read this is that the quote claims something that the prior verse negates. His name is Jesus, not Emmanuel. I do not know anyone who is troubled by this, mainly because we "get it." He is called Emmanuel is not a literally called (like a name) but called in the sense of when people explain Who Jesus is, He is God-with-us. (Commonly called incarnation). And His name and its meaning explain how God is with us. As the one who saves. Jesus (Joshua in Hebrew) comes from the root which means YHWH + Saves. (Many biblical names are also words. Much like names today, Joy, Hope, or Bill also have other meanings)
The key question is this. What does fulfill mean? And is 'fulfill' the best English word to translate the Greek?[info can be accessed here for the studious types
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4137&t=NKJV]
The first meaning of the Greek word pleroo is "to fill up, to fill to overflowing, to render complete, to make complete totally." There is a sense, too, in which it means, therefore, to accomplish and to fill an earlier promise. But we need to see the word as meaning, primarilly, that in Jesus the Story of God reaches its fullness. In Jesus, the story of Israel finds its completion and truest depth of meaning. Who is Jesus? He is God-with-us, but He is also The New Adam, the Perfection (fullness) of Humanity, and the complete person! So when we read the story of Jesus He fulfills the Scriptures because the Scriptures contain the story of God, the plan of God, the "dream" of God for His people. It also contains the story of God's people, the story of the beginning of humanity and the end of humanity. In Jesus those stories find their perfect expression. So Jesus fulfills Scripture.
Lastly (today) the word 'pleroo (= fill up') occurs many times in the NT, 95 total. But Mark uses it 3x (and only the last two refer to filling up/fulfilling SS [Sacred Scripture] and each is a generic reference to the Cross of Jesus). Luke uses it more, ten times, but only three times in the expression filling up/fulfilling SS (two of them from Mark). However, when we come to Matthew it is a different story. (John has 13 uses) Matthew uses the word seventeen (17) times. More importantly, twelve times he has some version of "this fills up/fulfills the SS/prophets." And in one other use, we have the key to reading the word in Matthew. Jesus says (Mt 5:17) "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill/fillup." Matthew is tipping his hand, and we do well to pay attention.
So if we are open to reading the Scripture from this perspective, we have much to discover. More later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)