Birth Narratives

[Guest]

Hi, Rick_C,

Please pardon me for interjecting on a few points here....

I've presented typology in an apologetic sense to unbelievers when they've expressed an interest. (I'm sure you have too). Isaiah 53 is used often in apologetics . . . hmmmmmm . . . .

May I speculate that said unbelievers were not sufficiently literate in the Hebrew bible or in hermeneutics to think critically about the issue? By introducing such an apologetic at an early stage, one is courting fallout once their audience develops enough literacy to notice the weakness of the apologetic. So the strategy is potentially short-sighted.

A most important thing is to recognize what typology does and does not accomplish. It can illustrate thematic parallels and it can serve a poetic/artistic function. It cannot demonstrate prediction. This is why referring to texts as "double-prophecies" is perilous, when the context of a prophecy actually does not support a second direct reference to Jesus.

In Matthew's historical setting I wonder if he might have seen his quoting Is. 7:14 as "an apologetic" in any sense? We know he was trying to persuade his readers who were Jewish, according to tradition. Was/is Matthew doing Inspired-Apologetics, if i may coin the phrase?

Matthew's apologetic strategy may have been quite effective in his milieu, seeing as many of his contemporaries used similar methods of interpretation. Although some modern thinkers would take issue with his thought-processes, many of Matthew's contemporaries would not. And it is quite likely that Matthew himself found typological observation to be convincing.

The question of inspiration is intriguing. Matthew's writing is directed to a certain audience in a certain time and place. Might God inspire a messenger to use relatively weak reeds for circumstantial advantage? Perhaps. But then again, it would not be at all surprising for a well-intentioned witness to point out things that were meaningful to his mind, without that necessarily reflecting the mind of God. Matthew does not claim to be an inspired document - that claim has been externally imposed upon it by the church. As such, we might entertain the possibility that Matthew was partially, yet not meticulously inspired. In any case, Matthew is valuable as a historical witness - if not an infallible one.

I realize that this may seem cold comfort to many Christians, but let us transcend emotional reaction for a moment. We handle many hundreds of life-or-death decisions, on a daily basis, based upon less-than-perfect evidence. Why is it necessary that the witness to particular historical events must be infallible? Christians must acknowledge the practical limitations of their text: it is written in languages that no man living speaks, using words that in some cases not even experts know the definition of, engaging historical and cultural contexts that we are imperfectly knowledgable about. If God were not directly available to us in prayer, then he would seem a poor caregiver. But proper relationship with God is not dependent upon the perfection of a book, especially in points of narrative detail or incidental observation.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

The question of inspiration is intriguing. Matthew's writing is directed to a certain audience in a certain time and place. Might God inspire a messenger to use relatively weak reeds for circumstantial advantage? Perhaps. But then again, it would not be at all surprising for a well-intentioned witness to point out things that were meaningful to his mind, without that necessarily reflecting the mind of God. Matthew does not claim to be an inspired document - that claim has been externally imposed upon it by the church. As such, we might entertain the possibility that Matthew was partially, yet not meticulously inspired. In any case, Matthew is valuable as a historical witness - if not an infallible one.


The main issue with Matthew IMO is not so much whether he was inspired or infallible but whether he told the truth or not. He traveled with Jesus for 3 1/2 years , he was an eye witness to Jesus and his miracles yet i feel he did'nt exagerate and tried hard to report accurately. One of the things that impresses me with all the gospels is that none of the writers claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the tomb. This would be a very difficult thing to resist making up for a liar.

[Guest]

Greetings Emmett,

Quote (I said):
I've presented typology in an apologetic sense to unbelievers when they've expressed an interest. (I'm sure you have too). Isaiah 53 is used often in apologetics . . . hmmmmmm . . . .

(you replied):
May I speculate that said unbelievers were not sufficiently literate in the Hebrew bible or in hermeneutics to think critically about the issue? By introducing such an apologetic at an early stage, one is courting fallout once their audience develops enough literacy to notice the weakness of the apologetic. So the strategy is potentially short-sighted.

A bit about my strategy with apologetics: I don't often use the standard arguments that many if not most Evangelicals use (in philosphical terms I'm a "moderate fideist"). For example, I don't point to OT prophecies about Christ and then go to the NT to "prove" their fulfillment. To me, one has to be a Christian or at least have some definate kind of confidence in the Bible for these OT prophecies and their NT fulfillment to be believable (my moderate fideism showing thru). To put this another way; just because a NT author thought an OT prophecy was fulfilled by Christ means that the author believed this. But it doesn't prove it to be so (unless a person already has some kind of faith in the Bible and/or God), imo.

Strange though it may sound, I've "taught hermeneutics" to unbelievers in an apologetic way. In one thread @ Beliefnet that was very long and detailed I presented 1 Enoch and offered exegesis of sections of it and Matthew 24, showing the links (or parallels) between the two. Non-Christians (of the new age and modern-day-gnostic types) were extremely interested in this and asked all kinds of questions! I don't know if any of them became Christians but I had them reading 1 Enoch and the NT. I recall one guy saying, "Wow, Rick, this is very interesting! I'm going to read the Gospels again"....

As a moderate fideist I don't place a high emphasis on "rational proofs" of God or of Christ. The rational capacity is useful and used, obviously, lol. But to me "only God can prove God," imo (aka, the witness of the Holy Spirit).

A most important thing is to recognize what typology does and does not accomplish. It can illustrate thematic parallels and it can serve a poetic/artistic function. It cannot demonstrate prediction. This is why referring to texts as "double-prophecies" is perilous, when the context of a prophecy actually does not support a second direct reference to Jesus.

Here, we disagree. I'm in agreement with Hamilton (above) on the two kinds of fullfilment of prophecy: 1) predictive and, 2) typological. In this view Is 7:14 was originally 1) predictive (of Isaiah's son) and, 2) typological (about Christ) as quoted in Matt 1:23, imo. I haven't used the label "double-prophecy" for a long time. But in the meaning of these two fulfillments, I suppose I can. In the future to avoid confusion, I won't say "double-prophecy" unless I explain them: the two kinds.

Your other comments about "Matthew's apologetics" (if that, indeed, was what he was doing?) are interesting.

Thanx,
Rick

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response!

The main issue with Matthew IMO is not so much whether he was inspired or infallible but whether he told the truth or not. He traveled with Jesus for 3 1/2 years , he was an eye witness to Jesus and his miracles yet i feel he did'nt exagerate and tried hard to report accurately.

The gospel titled "Matthew" does not actually claim to be written by an eyewitness, nor does it claim to be written by a particular individual. It is not a given that documents in the bible bear an original title, as opposed to a traditional one.

Even honest eyewitnesses can yield testimony that is not wholly indicative of the truth, as any policeman or litigator can attest. Personal bias in perspective and the pliability of memory can enter into the equation, despite one's best intentions and efforts. A responsible investigator will strive to be sensitive and gauge where a witness may be less than fully reliable. Of course, this usually will not result in the entirety of the witness' testimony being rejected.

One of the things that impresses me with all the gospels is that none of the writers claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the tomb. This would be a very difficult thing to resist making up for a liar.

You make an interesting point. Of course, if early tradition in the church established that no one had actually seen Jesus rise from the tomb, then it might seem too big an innovation for a savvy liar to get away with. But in any case there is a difference between a liar and a less-than-perfectly-reliable witness.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

Thank you for your response, and for clarifying your approach to apologetics.

As a moderate fideist I don't place a high emphasis on "rational proofs" of God or of Christ. The rational capacity is useful and used, obviously, lol. But to me "only God can prove God," imo (aka, the witness of the Holy Spirit).

I place high importance on the imprimatur of God's holy spirit. God's direct availability to people is an essential (and criminally neglected) truth. Still, I do value rational coherence and critique.

I'm in agreement with Hamilton (above) on the two kinds of fullfilment of prophecy: 1) predictive and, 2) typological. In this view Is 7:14 was originally 1) predictive (of Isaiah's son) and, 2) typological (about Christ) as quoted in Matt 1:23, imo. I haven't used the label "double-prophecy" for a long time. But in the meaning of these two fulfillments, I suppose I can. In the future to avoid confusion, I won't say "double-prophecy" unless I explain them: the two kinds.

A good thing about this thread is that I've been brought to review my perspective on typology.

Recognizing that "prophecy" is popularly construed in our culture as predictive activity, perhaps "resonance" would a preferable way of getting at the relationship between prophecy and (putative) antitype than "fulfillment"?

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Greetings, Emmett,

A good thing about this thread is that I've been brought to review my perspective on typology.

Yes, me too.

Recognizing that "prophecy" is popularly construed in our culture as predictive activity, perhaps "resonance" would a preferable way of getting at the relationship between prophecy and (putative) antitype than "fulfillment"?

Agreed. "Prophecy" tends to be seen as merely "prediction-event".

once again from the Hamilton link:

"[According to the NT authors]...typological fulfillment in the life of Jesus refers to the fullest expression of a significant pattern of events. Thus, typological interpretation sees in biblical narratives a divinely intended pattern of events. Events that take place at later points in salvation history correspond to these and intensify their significance."

There is a certain resonance in antitypes. I pondered "reverberation" but these seem vague. From Hamiltion's description I'm thinking "integral correspondence"?
(I wish I knew Latin)!

from your post to Paidion last Tuesday:

When read in context, the prophecy in Isaiah is dealing with an imminent military threat to the kingdom. Yes, young women are conceiving pretty much every day. The point of the sign was not to establish a miraculous timeline, but rather to indicate that in short order (by the time the child, so imminently conceived, reached a certain stage in its young maturation) the military concern would be over and done with...

The text doesn't say if, at the time of prediction (Is 7:14), Isaiah had yet met or was was betrothed (technically, married) to the prophetess who bore his child (Is 8:3).

The sign hinged upon the interval of time, not upon the remarkability of the conception. Elsewise, the kingdom would have had to have waited several centuries for its fulfillment - and that would have been relatively less comfort to the prophet's putative audience: "Don't worry, because in seven hundred years that military threat won't exist anymore!"

According to Is 8:3 the virgin conceived immediately or in very short order. All conceptions and births of healthy children in ancient Jewish culture were seen as "from the Lord" and in this sense, miraculous, considering the high rate of miscarriage and infant mortality.

I see no reason to make a distinction between the interval of time and the child's conception, birth and growth as the prophecy is inclusive of all of these events with their various timing; the child and the time(s) are inherent in it.

The birth of Jesus in the NT signifies the event in salvation-history. This might be best summarized by Paul: "But when the fullness of the times had come, God sent His Son" (Ga 4:4a). I don't want to go into the virginal conception at this point. But Matthew's use of Is 7:14 shows he did have the temporal aspect [integral correspondence] in mind, imo. Any first century Jew would have immediately recognized and understood this.

Thanx, Emmett,
Rick

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

Thank you for your reply.

There is a certain resonance in antitypes. I pondered "reverberation" but these seem vague. From Hamiltion's description I'm thinking "integral correspondence"?

Perhaps I can appreciate your desire for a more vigorous term here. For my taste, "resonance" is a more cautious/reserved term, and more comfortable for my wariness toward typology.

The text doesn't say if, at the time of prediction (Is 7:14), Isaiah had yet met or was was betrothed (technically, married) to the prophetess who bore his child (Is 8:3).

The specific timeline may have been more or less clear to Isaiah's audience, depending upon what manner of allusion they gleaned from his prophecy. The diction ['alma, vs. bethulah] may suggest that the young woman in question was not unbetrothed. Regardless, the implicit thrust of the prophecy was imminence.

All conceptions and births of healthy children in ancient Jewish culture were seen as "from the Lord" and in this sense, miraculous, considering the high rate of miscarriage and infant mortality.

I see no reason to make a distinction between the interval of time and the child's conception, birth and growth as the prophecy is inclusive of all of these events with their various timing; the child and the time(s) are inherent in it.

A worthwhile point. Even still, I would withhold from attributing too much of a "miraculous" aura to the child-bearing. The Jews were a pastoral people; they bred a lot of livestock, and they also had numerous children. Certainly they saw God's hand in the fertility of the land and of its creatures. But even though childbirth was not merely routine, I am not sure that it was so extraordinary as to merit the epithet "miraculous." This was not a disruption of the usual order; it was perhaps an act of God, but not a "mighty act" of God, so to speak.

In any case, the point of the sign was neither the conception nor the childbirth nor the childhood, but the interval of time which that cycle marked.

The birth of Jesus in the NT signifies the event in salvation-history. This might be best summarized by Paul: "But when the fullness of the times had come, God sent His Son" (Ga 4:4a). I don't want to go into the virginal conception at this point. But Matthew's use of Is 7:14 shows he did have the temporal aspect [integral correspondence] in mind, imo. Any first century Jew would have immediately recognized and understood this.

The correspondence is at best loose. The deliverance of Judah was to transpire before the child grew to know the difference between right and wrong. The salvation-history assigned to Jesus does not follow such a timeline.

Neither does the child in Isaiah play any major role in the people's deliverance; he is merely a harbinger. Would there not have been better springboards for typology than this one, if not for Matthew's anxiety to deal with Jesus' embarrassing birth? The "virgin" being with child is likely the key to this reference, bolstered by the (somewhat loose) similarity in the significance to the boys' naming.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Would there not have been better springboards for typology than this one, if not for Matthew's anxiety to deal with Jesus' embarrassing birth?

Emmet, I re-read this sentence twelve times and I still don't understand what you're saying. Can you please elaborate on Matthew's anxiety to deal with Jesus' embarrassing birth?

[Guest]

Emmet,

I just realized I've been misspelling your name.......sorry.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

Quote:
Would there not have been better springboards for typology than this one, if not for Matthew's anxiety to deal with Jesus' embarrassing birth?

Emmet, I re-read this sentence twelve times and I still don't understand what you're saying. Can you please elaborate on Matthew's anxiety to deal with Jesus' embarrassing birth?

I apologize - I often have to work and revise to achieve clarity in my writing.

The two major points:

(1) Wouldn't there have been other selections from the Hebrew bible that would have been stronger candidates for Matthew trying to make a typological interpretation? The "Out of Egypt..." selection, for example, is a much stronger springboard for typological interpretation than this selection from Isaiah; it affords a closer parallel.

(2) Matthew's discussion of the birth of Jesus engages the social difficulty surrounding its circumstances. In fact, the first chapter of the gospel is laden with apologetic to offset this potential embarrassment. Not only do we have the overt defense of Joseph's righteous character and the heavenly imprimatur in the angelic visitation, but we have the relatively subtle theme in the genealogy, where Matthew highlights four women in the royal lineage who were either potentially or undeniably tainted by departure from sexual propriety. Matthew's concern for this issue is easily understandable, and it seems the likely basis for resorting to a text that is a relatively less strong springboard for typological interpretation.

Thank you for asking for clarification. I imagine this isn't the only time I'll need to take a better run at making a point .

Shalom,
Emmet