- -, B-Hebrew, [], Sat, 02 Apr 2005 Tom Wright: 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 stablished 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)
Vertaling Bijbel, Kanttekeningen SV, [], En zie, gij zult [35]bevrucht worden, en een Zoon baren, en zult Zijn naam heten [36]JEZUS. 35. Of, in het lichaam ontvangen. 36. Dat is, Zaligmaker, gelijk de engel verklaart, Matth.1:21.