The Gospel of Matthew actually begins with a genealogy. It records Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph all the way back to Abraham. Most people, I assume, probably skip over those verses—all those “begats” get rather redundant. Besides, who cares? Why did Matthew put it in there anyway? Let’s just get to the story we all know and love: the birth narrative, complete with Gabriel’s announcement to Joseph, the wise men from the east, and Herod’s dastardly attempt to kill the baby Jesus. That’s the Christmas story (or at least part of it…the other part being in Luke—of course, most of us just conflate the two into one big crèche-filled scene).
Now, we pretty much know the story: Joseph is engaged to Mary, but finds out she’s pregnant. He knows he’s not the one who got her pregnant, so he plans to end the engagement quietly. Then an angel appears to Joseph and encourages him to marry Mary anyway, because “the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit,” and that child would be named “Jesus” because he would save people from their sins. It’s at that point that Matthew then points out that this was to “fulfill” what Isaiah said back in Isaiah 7:14: “Look, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel.” Matthew then points out that Emmanuel means “God with us.”
After that, we have the scene with the wise men coming from the east. They first stop in Jerusalem, and unwittingly alert Herod that a new king has been born. And when Herod finds out that it was in Bethlehem, he tells the wise men to send word back to him if they find the child. They do, but then are warned in a dream not to tell Herod; and when Herod finds out they went back east without telling him, he sends some soldiers to Bethlehem to kill all the male children two years and younger. Joseph though has been told by an angel in a dream to take his family and flee to Egypt until Herod is dead. When Herod dies a few years later, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus back to Nazareth where Jesus grows up.
Like I said, we generally know that story. We skip over the genealogy, and then get to familiar territory. But do we really understand what the story is about? Again, I think this is a case where we are so familiar with the story, we have actually blinded ourselves from seeing what it really is about. We generally tend to reduce the story to a few soundbites: the virgin birth, the census that gets them to Bethlehem (that’s from Luke), the wise men and the star, the shepherds (Luke again), and Herod being a bad guy. It makes for a great crèche, and a very cute children’s play at church…and we pretty much leave it at that.
But I’m pretty sure that Matthew wrote his first two chapters other reasons that reasons for a crèche and a children’s play. And, like I hinted at in the first post in this series, I don’t think his primary goal was to somehow “prove” that (A) Jesus was born of a virgin, and (B) that therefore Jesus is God. Now, don’t get me wrong, both Matthew and Luke do say she was a virgin, and both (as well as everything else in the New Testament) do proclaim that Jesus is God in the flesh. I just think Matthew’s reasons for writing his first two chapter are different than what we traditionally assumed. (Whew…that’s a 600-word introduction!)
Matthew’s Genealogy
In order to understand Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 7:14, not only do we need to consider the original context of Isaiah 7:14 (as I did in the previous post), we also need to consider Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 in the context of Matthew’s infancy narrative. And part of that context is the genealogy that we often ignore.
Here’s the point of that genealogy in brief. There are three things to take away from it: (A) Jesus is a child of Abraham—he’s a Jew; (B) Jesus is in the royal line of David—he’s the Jewish Messiah; and (C) four women are mentioned in the genealogy: Tamar (1:3), Rahab (1:5), Ruth (1:5), and Bathsheba (1:6). Why does Matthew mention these four women? It’s quite simple: all four women were associated with Gentiles (Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth certainly were Gentiles, and Bathsheba was married to one—Uriah the Hittite); and all four were associated with, let us say, some questionable sexual behavior. So why would Matthew go out of his way to point these four women out?
Again, it’s simple if you think about it. If you were a Jew living in Nazareth, and that local girl Mary got pregnant before she was officially married to Joseph, would you buy the “O, I’ve never had sex, I’m still a virgin” argument? I’m thinking no, you wouldn’t. The fact is, even though we don’t even question the virginity of Mary, I can guarantee you everyone back then certainly did—you probably would too, if you were there at the time. Therefore, to be blunt, Mary probably didn’t have a good reputation, and Jesus probably grew up being considered a bastard. Give that obvious stigma, Matthew goes out of his way to mention Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Why? Because these four women, even though they had all done something sexually questionable, nevertheless were all held in high regard within Judaism—it was understood: God works through the lowly and marginalized. This tends to be God’s modus operandi—and Matthew wants to remind us that this questionable conception of Jesus is just the God of Israel doing His thing.
But there’s one more thing: all four women are associated with Gentiles. Therefore, Matthew’s overall point is that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who will bring salvation, not just to Jews, but also to Gentiles. Yes, all that is from Matthew’s genealogy. I’m betting you’re not going to skip over biblical genealogies so quickly now!
Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 7:14
With that set out, we finally come to the scene in question, where Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. So why does Matthew quote Isaiah 7:14 and claim it is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy? Well, he’s not saying that Isaiah made a prediction 750 years earlier that was finally coming true. And he’s not trying to make a biological argument that “God got Mary pregnant.” Even though both he and Luke do affirm that Mary was a virgin, that fact isn’t Matthew’s focus.
Indeed, that fact isn’t the focus of any New Testament writer anywhere else in the New Testament. It’s interesting to realize that the virgin birth story gets absolutely no air-time anywhere in the New Testament outside of Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives. And, as shocking as it may sound, absolutely no theological significance is given to the virgin birth anywhere in the New Testament. Matthew and Luke mention it, leave the reader to say, “Huh…that’s interesting and odd,” and then just drop it.
But then what is Matthew emphasizing? Well, if you know your Old Testament story, you would (as most Jews would) immediately recognize that Matthew is referencing the story of Ahaz, Isaiah, the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, and the birth of Hezekiah. And you’d also know how that initial prophecy back at that time came true during Hezekiah’s reign, when Sennacherib invaded Judah. And I think you’d be able to put two and two together:
Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy about the birth of a Davidic king, born during a time of crisis for God’s people, and who would grow up during a time of oppression of God’s people. And it was a prophecy that God would not only be with His people (“God with us”) during those times of oppression and suffering, but that He would also save His people from that oppression and suffering through the faithfulness of that Davidic king. That’s the story Matthew is referring to by that quote of Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, Matthew is essentially saying to his readers, “You know that story of Hezekiah, and how God brought salvation to His people because of Hezekiah’s faithfulness? Well, Jesus is like that…BUT BIGGER!”
Jesus was not simply a Jewish Messiah who would save the Jews from Gentile oppression, like Hezekiah did. Jesus was the savior of the whole world, who would save both Jews and Gentiles from the real oppression of sin and evil itself.
Jesus is Hezekiah 2.0, but on a much bigger scale.
That is why it is so necessary to understand the Old Testament story, and to understand how New Testament writers like Matthew are using the Old Testament. They’re not claiming these verses are centuries-old predictions. They’re telling the story of Jesus in the language and against the backdrop of the Old Testament story: Jesus is like Hezekiah, but bigger; Jesus is like Moses, but bigger; Jesus is like Joshua, but bigger; Jesus is like Israel itself, but bigger. That is how Jesus is the fulfillment of so many Old Testament stories and prophecies.
But There’s One More Thing…Let’s Get All Roman!
So, Matthew was all about emphasizing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who would bring salvation to both Jews and Gentiles…that’s why he mentions the wise men. And as well, Jesus was the true king of the Jews, not Herod…that’s why Matthew tells us about Herod.
But there’s one more thing I think you’ll find amazing. In case you didn’t know, within Judaism there was never a belief that the messiah would be born of a virgin. It simply wasn’t part of their messianic expectations. That’s why Matthew’s account of a virgin birth is so odd. The only virgin birth stories in the Greek world concerned Greek mythological heroes, like Perseus and Romulus, and rulers, like Alexander, and Augustus. And I can guarantee you that Matthew was not trying to equate Jesus with figures from Greek mythology.
So why would Matthew include this story of the virgin birth, especially if he doesn’t elaborate in it at all? Yes, hopefully now you see the connection he makes to Hezekiah, but still, taking about a virgin birth in the Roman world can bring a lot of confusion, right? Well, yes it could, but let’s consider something else.
In order to understand why Matthew included the story of the virgin birth, we need to look at the end of Matthew, namely Matthew 27:54. After witnessing the events of Jesus’ crucifixion, the Roman centurion stated “Truly, this was God’s Son.” That’s a very unusual confession coming from a Roman centurion. Why? Because in the Roman world, the “son of a god” was none other than Caesar himself. That’s a big deal. For what we need to realize is that in addition to his messianic claims that Jesus was the long-awaited Davidic Messiah and Son of God, Matthew is also claiming that Jesus is greater than even Caesar. Both with the virgin birth story, as well as with the confession of the centurion, Matthew is making the claim that Jesus, not Caesar, is “the Son of God.” Both scenes serve as direct challenges to the claims of Caesar.
In the Roman world, it was clear who Caesar Augustus was. He was known as “the savior of the world” who was “born of a virgin,” who “wiped away sins,” and whose birthday was described as, “the birthday of the god who has been for the whole world the beginning of good news.” Yes, you read that right: if you lived at the time, all those phrases would have been identified with Caesar Augustus. Think of it this way: If I wrote, “Jesus is the true ‘father of our country,’ not…” you would end that sentence with “George Washington,” because in America, we all associate that phrase “the father of our country” with George Washington. Now, we know that he is not literally the father of the country, but it is a title we give to him to honor him as probably the most important “founding father.” In the same way, although Augustus was call “the son of a god” and “born of a virgin,” everyone knew who his parents were. The titles were metaphorical, and since it was Augustus who ushered in a whole new era of peace to the Roman world, these designations served as titles to honor Caesar Augustus, and emphasized his political authority and power.
Therefore, when you read through Matthew from beginning to end, you can imagine how the claims of Jesus being “the savior of the world,” and “being born of a virgin,” would have been understood in the first century Roman Empire. Therefore, Matthew’s depiction of Jesus is doing two things: not only does it serve as a challenge to Herod claims of kingship, it also serves as a challenge to the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus himself: Jesus is the true King of the Jews, not Herod; and Jesus is the true Savior of the World who was born of a virgin, not Caesar.
In Conclusion
That’s quite a lot of material I just laid out there. It’s a lot to chew on. Hopefully now, though, you can understand Matthew’s infancy narrative a bit more clearly, when read against the backdrop of the original context of Isaiah 7:14 and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, and also when considered against the backdrop of the Roman understanding of Caesar Augustus. What is Matthew saying about Jesus? It’s Jesus, not Herod; it’s Jesus, not Caesar.
Therefore, while not denying the virgin birth, we need to be okay with the fact that Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 is not an attempt to explain how Jesus became the Son of God, but rather, simply the fact that he is….the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah, and the Savior of the World.
Great series! You’ve definitely turned my thinking around on these passages. One question though: If the traditional evangelical Christian interpretation of Isaiah as prophecy of Christ is indeed a misapprehension, where did the messianic expectation come from? People are clearly expecting a traditional Jewish messiah by the time the New Testament rolls around, so where did that tradition come from? Was it an entirely extra-biblical idea that randomly coalesced around that time, only to be fulfilled by Jesus anyway in the same way he “fulfilled” various Gentile traditions in addition to the Hebrew ones?
Well, from the very beginning, it is obvious that Christianity has viewed Jesus as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. The question centers around, “What does Matthew mean by ‘fulfillment’? I don’t think he means it in a “it’s a 700 year old prediction” sense, though. He sees Jesus as the fulfillment and consummation of the entire story of Israel: God chose the descendants of Abraham, the people of Israel, to be the means through which He would bring salvation to the world. Therefore, everything in the Old Testament is moving in that direction. So when Jesus comes, the New Testament writers have the entire corpus of the Old Testament to draw parallels to Christ. In his infancy narrative alone, Matthew alludes to Isaiah 7:14, to Jeremiah, to Hosea 11:1, and a few others. I just don’t think he wants us to see these as “predictions” of Jesus, as he wants us to understand Jesus in light of those passages: they had an original context, and that original context informs our understanding of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament story.
As Christianity spread to the Gentile world, and as the Gospel came to Gentiles who were not rooted so much in Old Testament scriptures, I think that’s where the emphasis on “prediction alone” came to predominate. But originally, I think the New Testament writers saw the events in the Old Testament as essentially a microcosm of God’s greater salvation plan that came about in Christ, along the lines of how the writers of Hebrews argues that the earthly Temple and practices were “patterns” of the greater realities Christ’s work in Heaven.
But why did the people in Jesus’ time, and why do Jews still today, expect a messiah at all?
It goes back to God’s covenant with Abraham: through Abraham would come a people (i.e. the Jews), and through that people would come the Savior of the world. The “messianic hope” of the Jews in Jesus’ days was that the messiah would be a political ruler who would raise Israel to the top nation, and therefore, “bless all nations” through his political rule. The early Christians said, “The messiah has come, but the Kingdom of God looks a lot different than what we expected. The messiah rules through suffering, and forgiving those who oppress him; he conquers death by submitting to it, and defeating it from the inside out.”
That’s why the Jews of Jesus’ day rejected him: he wasn’t the kind of messiah they were looking for or wanted. But then, his earliest followers were, in fact, Jews, who came to see their entire history and their scriptures in a different light, in light of what they experienced with Jesus himself: his teaching, his suffering, his death, and ultimately his resurrection. Simply put, if a resurrected Jesus said, “I conquered death, this is how you need to understand the scriptures…in light of what I’ve just done,” you’re going to probably say, “The man has conquered death…I’m going to listen to him!”
Thank you for this series, Joel, and for so many other series on your blog where you’ve opened my eyes to scripture and given me a fresh excitement for the bible! I really appreciate your writing.