The Emmanuel Prophecy - Term Paper Example

The Emmanuel Prophecy and Introduction Since time immemorial, there have been endless heated arguments and debates, both secular and Spiritual pertaining fulfilment of different prophesies. Different people have different ideologies, perceptions, conclusions and opinions with regards to different scriptures in the Bible. To this effect, much secular and spiritual articles and books have been written and published from as early as the 1800’s.1One such scripture that attracts contradicting and differing opinions is Isaiah 7: 14-162, which has also been quoted by Matthew as having been fulfilled in verse 23 of Matthew chapter 1. Isaiah writes that “therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Emmanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose the two kings you dread will be forsaken.”3 In Matthew, Matthew 1:23, all this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”, which means God with us. Different interpreters and scholars have expressed different interpretations, opinions and ideas regarding the two scriptures. Was Jesus the child who was being referred to by prophet Isaiah? Was Isaiah referring to Mary (the mother of Jesus) when he wrote about the virgin in the scripture? Was this a case of double fulfilment, strict fulfilment or parallel fulfilment? This work embarks on criticising and also demonstrating on how Matthew uses Isaiah 7 in his gospel on the prophecy of Emmanuel. Who was the child? Different views have been written regarding who the child that Isaiah referred to was. Was this fulfilment that Matthew records a typological pattern or was it a direct fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy? Much controversy and debates with regards to who the child was has been going on for ages in the church history.4 To answer this, it is wise to look at the events that had preceded Isaiah’s prophecy. The Northern kingdom (the Ephraim tribe) and the Syrians had confederated against king Ahaz. This had worried the king so much and he was really distressed. Isaiah visited the king as the Lord had instructed him, to assure him that he need not be afraid as both enemies would eventually lose their impetus.5 The Lord wanted to promise Ahaz that the plans of his enemies would not come to pass. To prove this, the Lord went ahead to instruct Isaiah that Ahaz should even ask for a sign. Ahaz, however, refused to do this as he thought it would appear as though he was tempting the Lord, a sanctimonious facade according to some interpreters. Nevertheless, Isaiah went ahead and gave the sign regardless of the king’s consent. It was at this point that Isaiah uttered the words in Isaiah 7: 14-16.6 Part if this prophecy is what Matthew quotes as having come true. Some interpreters argue that Isaiah did not mean that the child would be born with the woman having had no sexual intercourse.7 They argue that the use of the word virgin is ambiguous, and if we are to take it that this verse was referring to Jesus (who was conceived by Mary, who had no sexual intercourse), then it should have been well explained to mitigate the differences emanating from the ambiguousness of using the word virgin. The interpreters, therefore, suggest that the child being referred to was Maher-Shallal-Hashbaz, Isaiah’s second son whom he would have after marrying the prophetess.8 It was also a foreshadow of the length of time that it would take Isaiah to marry the prophetess he intended to marry, for her to conceive and bear a child and the time it would take for the born child to grow up and differentiate wrong from right.9 It is important to note that the bible does not mention about the mother of Isaiah’s first son, whether she was already dead or alive. This whole process of Isaiah’s second son being conceived, born and even maturing was an indicator of the Lords presence and favour over Judah. They also continue to suggest that the prophecy meant that king Ahaz and his people would be able to witness the salvation and deliverance of his nation, even though the process would be gradual and take place over a period of time.10 The process of the son’s conception, birth and maturity represented the gradual process of deliverance. Immanuel Questions and opinions are raised over the title “Immanuel”. Could Isaiah’s son have been the Immanuel, or was this title ascribed to Jesus Christ as Matthew notes? The term Immanuel means God with us, yet other interpreters say that it means the same as God is with us.11 The reason as to why some of the people say that this name could also have been used to refer to Isaiah’s second son was due to the fact that the Lord had promised to deliver Judah from its enemies. If this is taken to be true, the explanation behind it lies on the fact that Isaiah’s second male child was born after the prophecy, and during his birth and maturity, this was the period when God would show his love and fight for the people he loved.12 This child, therefore, could also be named Immanuel, which some interpreters conclude that it was supposed to mean God is with us, which means the same as God with us. The interpreters argue that Isaiah could have used the name Immanuel figuratively or in a metaphorical manner to depict that the birth of the child meant that the Lord was with them. Isaiah also speaks of himself and his children as being the signs and wonders from the Lord of hosts, proving that God was with them.13 However, the issue of Isaiah’s son being the child he who was prophesied about can be questioned. This is because in Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah spoke of another child. He said “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”.14 This description, certainly, does not match Isaiah’s son, and this shows that the child who was being referred to was Jesus Christ. Scholars who refute the explanation of the child as having been Isaiah’s son agree that the child was Jesus, and the fact that his birth and life fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy leaves no doubts that he was the one being referred to.15 He was born of a virgin, was named Immanuel as the angel had prophesied and was also called the Prince of Peace, the wonderful counsellor and the other titles that were prophesied.16 Other critics to this prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 try to argue that since this description does not describe Isaiah’s son, it is a complicated case of a picture intertwined with another picture, or a seed placed inside another seed. They argue that one of the seed was reaped during Isaiah’s time whereas the other one was harvested during the time of Jesus. To explain this, it is said that Maher-Shalal-Hashabaz was the virgins son (it was anticipated that his mother was a virgin by the time of the prophecy), and thus his conception, birth and growing up was an indicator of the deliverance that the Lord had for Judah against her enemies. This was the first fulfilment of the prophecy. Secondly, the other harvesting happened when Jesus was born. He was born of a virgin (literally speaking). An analysis of the words of the angel, the reactions of Joseph and Mary and the records that Mary had not known any man in her life prove that Jesus was born of a virgin, of a woman (Mary) who conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. This was an indication of the spiritual deliverance that the Lord had brought to the world, and it was also an indicator of the destruction of the kingdom of the enemy, creating way for the reign of Gods kingdom, which would be established through the prince of peace.17 This can, therefore, be taken to have been a dual prophecy. However, other scholars also argue that Matthew only quoted verse 14 of Isaiah’s prophecy, and thus people should not go beyond the verse just to create differing opinions.18 Partial of strict fulfillment? The interpretations of the verse in Matthew about the birth of Jesus as fulfilling the prophecy from Isaiah also draws a lot of opinions and views about the use of the term “fulfil”. Some interpreters say that what Matthew quoted and wrote in Matthew was not in effect to what Isaiah had prophesied. The interpreters say that by this assumption (which emanates from unclear understanding of the word fulfil), many people end up distorting and changing the original meaning and nature of Isaiah’s prophecy.19 Having been used approximately 90 times in the New Testament, the word fulfil is generally summed up to mean complete or full. There are many instances where predictions have been made in one scripture, and have been recorded as “fulfilled” in another scripture. The use of the word fulfil in Matthew has raised many views and opinions. The interpreters categorize the use of fulfilment into two cases, a case of strict fulfilment and a case of parallel fulfilment. Where does the scriptures in this work fall? This part of this work shall discuss all the cases and give examples in each category, and thereafter make a conclusive choice on where the scriptures fall. In explaining this, the interpreters say that at times, an old testament prophet may speak or prophesy about a gone or present principle or issues, which may hold (be true) by the time its spoken. The prophecy might also not need something to happen in the future for it to be termed as fulfilled. If a writer in the New Testament mentions or quotes the prophet from the Old Testament, he is simply borrowing or taking a phrase or even sentence/words from the words spoken by the Old Testament prophet. 20 The writer just takes the phrases from the past and places them in a totally different context, a different historical time. This might mean that one is a fulfilment of another whereas the two may be totally unrelated. To further expound on this, the interpreters argue that even if these ideas seem to have a connection, they might be totally unrelated, and they might both be addressing very different issues. It appears as though the writer in the New Testament says that since Prophet X, in the circumstances that were prevalent in that day said such and such a thing, since our present circumstances seem to correlate, we can also say the same thing. They argue that these events, though they appear related, they happened at different times and thus they talk about totally unrelated things and hence the meanings are totally unrelated. However, other scholars argue that though the birth and the reference in Matthew as having been a fulfilment of Isaiah remains controversial, one can still depict that the fulfilment was referring to the birth of Jesus. 21 In strict fulfilment, there are short range events that are referred to ahead by the time the prophecy is made. In parallel fulfilment, the event in context (for example one in a New Testament) may be termed by many as fulfilment of an old time prophecy, but people should note that this fulfilment and the old time prophecy are two different events, and hence are not related.22 Examples of strict fulfilment The interpreters who take this approach give several examples to show that Matthew was not referring to the prophecy in Isaiah when Jesus Christ was born. A good example of a strict fulfilment is found in Matthew 4:14 and Isaiah 9:1-2. Isaiah 9: 1-2 records, “But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish. In the former time, he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in the darkness have seen a great light; and those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them have light shined.23 Matthew 4: 14-16 records that “that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled. The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles- the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death, light has dawned.”24 After the temptations of Jesus and after John the Baptist had been imprisoned, Matthew records that Jesus moved to live in Capernaum. Consulting a map, Galilee has the Sea of Galilee and Jordan River on the east, and Mediterranean Sea located on the western side. It is inclusive of regions which years past were inhabited by the tribes in Isaiah’s prophecy. These towns that Matthew talks about in the verses match a perfect and related description of what Isaiah had described in the verses quoted above. In addition, Jesus is evidently the light that Isaiah talked about in his prophecy, and in Matthew, the records clearly depict this. The prediction from the prophecy in Isaiah was for the future, and it happened about 700 years later.25 This is a perfect example of a strict fulfilment. Another example that can be seen is in Matthew 8: 16-17, and it is a strict fulfilment of the foretold forecast in Hosea 11:1. Fulfilment as parallel. This particular type of fulfilment can be seen from Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2: 16-18. Jeremiah 31: 15 records “Thus says the Lord: a voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachael weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not.26 Matthew 2:16-18 records that “Then Herod, when he saw he has been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all children in Bethlehem and in all region who were two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then prophet Jeremiah discussed the issue of fulfilment when he lamented, “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachael weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more”.27 Joseph and Benjamin were sons to Rachael, and Joseph was Ephraim’s father. The tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh lived in the northern part of Jerusalem. Here, Manasseh’s kingdom occupied a great part of Israel. To the northern of Jerusalem was Benjamin’s kingdom, and Ramah was just a few miles from here.28 By this time of Jeremiah, the Assyrians had conquered Israel, and the Baylonians were in the meantime conquering and seizing Judah. According to some interpreters, Ramah was where most of the deportations and exiles from Babylon happened, and thus Rachael was most likely weeping and lamenting for her fallen children and descendants. Scholars and interpreters argue that what Matthew wrote was parallel fulfilment, and that quoting the wailing and weeping of Rachael was just but imagery which represented the mothers who were weeping in Bethlehem by the time Matthew recorded the verses29. Another example that has been suggested by interpreters is Hosea 11:1 and what is recorded in Matthew 2:15. Strictly fulfilled prophecy From the two types of fulfilment provided, the scriptures in question can evidently be taken to be an example of strict fulfilment. The prophecy that Isaiah made came to be when Matthew talked about the birth of Jesus as being a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah. From the above broad description and discussion, it is obvious that there are many differing opinions about the interpretation of the scripture in Matthew. Is it a fulfilment of what Isaiah had prophesied? Different approaches have been adopted by different interpreters to support their side of the opinion. However, it is evident that the prophecy in Isaiah was being fulfilled by the scripture in Matthew. It was a demonstration of how the Lord fulfils his promises, and He brings His words to pass.30 People read just one part of the scripture and then use them to raise controversial opinions. The key to avoiding this is to carefully read the bible, and to unite different scriptures to draw a conclusive meaning and interpretation. It is not wise for one to add their own words to what is written in God’s word since this will lead to God’s judgment. Conclusion Different people have different views about the explanation of the two scriptures. Some take that it was a case of double fulfilment, where it can be taken to have meant the birth of Isaiah’s son and also to have meant the birth of Jesus Christ. Other interpreters take it that Matthew’s words give an expansion to the words of Isaiah. Or is it a typological relationship as some scholars suggest? They refer to it as type-antitype relationship, where Isaiah’s words were a reflection and a foreshadowing of what was to happen in the future (Birth of Jesus).31 It is hard to convince a person to believe something else contrary to what they believe. The explanations about Isaiah’s prophecy are as Matthew puts and reflects it, that he was foreshadowing the birth of Jesus. This is the explanation that holds to many people. All people have their own beliefs, and one should hold on to what they believe about the scriptures. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one will always be on the light regarding the interpretation of scriptures.32 Even with the ever growing discussions and controversial debates regarding the interrelationship of the two scriptures, the importance of the advice that one should not read just one portion of the bible and base his or her interpretation on it dearly holds. The wise thing to do is to read different verses of the bible and draw a clear relationship between them. The word virgin, for example, has been used countless times in the bible, and in all the cases, the word referred to a chaste and pure woman who had never had sexual intercourse. The argument that the verse in Isaiah did not depict a virgin in the sense of being pure, chaste and having had no sexual intercourse is not right. 33 In addition, as seen above, many scholars are frantically trying to prove that the scripture in Matthew was not a fulfilment of the scripture in Isaiah 7. Reading the accompanying events and circumstances prove that Jesus was the son to be born, born through the mysterious virgin birth and to bring hope and deliverance to the world. The messianic birth, the characteristics of the child to be born was all a fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah. With his guidance, it becomes easier to avoid the many war of words and exchanges with regards to the interpretation of scriptures. In addition, one should know and hinder to what the bible says about false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:22 records that when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him”. In addition, Ezekiel 33: 33 further reinforces this by recording that “When this comes, and it will! - then they will know that a prophet has been among them’. The scripture warns about false prophets who would mislead people, who would speak contemptuously, without having heard from the Lord.34 One should therefore not be influenced by what people say about scriptures but rather, they should pray to the Holy Spirit for his guidance with regards to scripture interpretation. References Brian, Dennert. “A note on use of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23 through the interpretation of the Septuagint”. Trinity Journal 30.1 (2009): 95-104. Carter Warren, “Evoking Isaiah: Matterian soteriology and an intertextual reading of Isaiah 7-9 and Matthew 1: 23 & 4: 15-16”. Journal of Biblical Literature 119.3 (2000): 503-520. Feinberg, Chris. The virgin birth and Isaiah 7:14. Available at http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/msj22c.pdf, accessed 4th March 2014. Gary, Smith. Isaiah 1-39. London: B & H Publishing Group, 2007. Haile, Tim. Christ and Isaiah 7:15. Biblebanner.com. Available at http://www.biblebanner.com/ga_art/deity/isa715.htm, accessed 3rd February 2014. Leigh, Ronald. “Fulfill”, Matthew 1: 22 and Isaiah 7:14. Available at http://ronleigh.com/bible/fulfill/index.htmfulfill, accessed 4th March 2014. Menken, Maarten, “The textual form of the quotation from Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23”. Journal of Biblical Literature 120.3 (2001): 145-160. Motyer, Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah. New York: Intervarsity Press, 1993. New International Version. Stein, Robert. A basic guide to interpreting the bible: playing by the rules. Oxford: Baker Books, 2011. Read More