Matthew 1:22-23
Some hold that verse 22 is not Matthew speaking, but a continuation of what the angel speaks. However, that view is not well accepted. Most hold that Matthew interjects an amplification of prophecy. The Holy Spirit guided him to interject these words. The quotation interrupts the story, but at the same time it is central to the story. The Holy Spirit often does this throughout Matthew’s Gospel (2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9; cp. 26:56). The Spirit’s purpose is to have Matthew show the Jews that the event fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
Matthew had a high view of Scripture. To him it was the Word of God, not simply a man’s word or tradition. He declares it was “spoken by the Lord.” The prepositions Matthew uses are important. He uses the word hupo (by) to denote the ultimate agent. Next, he used the word dia (by or through) to indicate intermediate agent through which God spoke. Thus, the Lord spoke “through the prophet.” We dare not compromise this view of Divine Inspiration. The Word is “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Matthew is careful to distinguish the source from the intermediate agent through whom He gave the prophecy. God is the source. It comes from Him through the instrument of His choice. In this case, it was the prophet Isaiah. Matthew is affirming the divine nature of the Old Testament, and the doctrine of the inspiration and revelation of the Word of God.
Matthew clearly declares that Jesus is the fulfillment of what God spoke through Isaiah. This is the first of a quotation formula that is distinctive of Matthew (2:15, 17. 23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 17:9-10; 26:54, 56). The birth of Christ is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew quotes. It is the prophecy of the Virgin Birth. The Virgin birth is defined as “the conception of Christ…without a human father and thus contrary to the course of nature. It was not the opening of Mary’s womb, as in the case of Elizabeth, but the activating of it apart from a human male being, and after the conception took place the course of pregnancy and birth was normal.” (Charles Ryrie, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 41-42.)
No doctrine has been attacked with more vehemence. The liberal claims that Isaiah never intended the prophecy to refer to the virgin birth, that it is a perversion by Matthew. Therefore as faithful students we must examine the Word and ask: Did Matthew misinterpret Isaiah? The clear answer is NO for the following reasons:
Ÿ The Hebrew word almah and its use in the Old Testament. It is universally agreed that the Hebrew word almah, means no less than a young woman of marriageable age. The question is, does it mean or include the idea of virginity? Niessen shows that the etymology of the Hebrew word shows “no etymological evidence” to the claim that the word can “refer to a young married woman or an unmarried woman who has had intercourse.” (Richard Niessen, “The Virginity of the ‘Almah’ in Isaiah 7:14,” BIB-SAC, April 1980, 135). He goes on to show virginity can be seen in every passage in which the word refers to a young woman in Scripture. Even the liberal G.B Gray admits it means a young women, above the age of childhood and sexual immaturity and that “it is naturally in actual usage applied to women who were as a matter of fact certainly (Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8), or probably virgins.” (G.B. Gray, A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK ISAIAH, 126-127.)
Ÿ Matthew quotes the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (LXX) which uses the Greek word parthenos, a word that unquestionably means virgin. It is interesting that the Jews when they made a Greek translation of their Bible they chose this Greek word over another word (veavis, meaning young women) that could have been used. This indicates that the Jews themselves saw the passage as speaking of the coming Messiah. Matthew’s intended meaning of virgin cannot be questioned, for it is the standard meaning of the Greek word, and the context supports that meaning (1:18, 20, 25).
Ÿ Isaiah 7:14 looks beyond any immediate or partial fulfillment. Alexander tells us that, “as to the form of the expression, it will only be necessary further to remark that “harah’ (shall conceive) is not a verb or participle, but a famine adjective, signifying that the object is described as present to the Prophets view.” (J.A. Alexander, THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH, 1:172.) The indication is that the prophet was looking forward to the fulfillment, and expressing it as a present reality. It is clear that a normal conception could not satisfy the technical meaning of the verse. The prophecy is address to the house of David, and “you” is plural, not singular. This was to be a NATIONAL sign, not a personal one. This speaks to the future and indicates this passage is Messianic, since it is national in scope. This does not omit the possible partial fulfillment or a foreshadowing of it in the time of the prophet. Many have concluded, “it is best to see a partial, proleptic fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in his time, with the complete and more glorious fulfillment in Jesus’ own birth.” (Craig L. Blomberg, NAC: MATTHEW, 60.) However, there is no unity in who partially fulfilled the passage—Ahaz’s wife or Isaiah’s. While the definite article suggests a particular woman, the context does not identify the women. The only particular woman that we can identify is Mary.
Ÿ The Jews saw a deeper meaning to the Isaiah text than some immediate partial fulfillment. They came to identify the fulfillment with one who was coming who would be the true “Emmanuel,” who would bring in the golden age of judgment and righteousness. Hagner notes, “The promised son of Isa. 7:14 thus became readily identifiable as that son of David who would bring the expected kingdom of security, righteousness, and justice.” (Hagner, WBC: MATTHEW, 1:20.) Thus, Matthew is using the Jews own view of the passage, and saying, this has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s birth.
Ÿ A rule of interpretation is to choose the clear over the obscure. Matthew and the LXX leaves no doubt that Isaiah is speaking of the virgin birth of the Messiah. This is seen by the use of the Greek word parthenos, which is the restrictive word for virgin. It can only mean virgin and nothing else. He also used the article to show that one particular virgin is in mind: Mary. She is “the” virgin. What may have been obscure or unclear in Isaiah is clear in Matthew. The birth of Jesus is the only one with the credentials to fulfill the prophecy. He is the only one with the divine-human nature fulfilling the prophecy of “God with us.” He is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15).
Ÿ The distortion of Isaiah 7:14 is a denial of the integrity of the Scriptures. Douglas Connelly notes: “Those who reject the virgin conception because it seems embarrassing in our scientific age have thrown away their confidence in the Bible as the truth of God.” (Douglas Connelly, MARY: WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS 39.) Both Matthew and Isaiah was directed by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21).
No comments:
Post a Comment