Today marks an expected rabbit trail off our rabbit trail. I'm going to try to introduce you to one of the most complicated subjects in all of biblical study-- the way the NT uses the OT. And then next week, we will inch our way back closer to the rabbit trail I'd planned on taking.
When we read the NT, we find regular mentions of the OT. On almost every page, we read direct quotations of OT verses. We hear about OT stories, and events, and people. And we maybe also notice less obvious allusions to the OT. We read something, and feel like it's echoing the OT in some way. There are many links between the OT and the NT, and the question is, what is the relationship between them?
Most Christians work with a really simple understanding of how the NT uses the OT. They tend to hold to five assumptions:
(1) That the OT often "predicts" something that happens in the NT. It "foretells" what God will do later. So, for example, Micah 5 predicts that a ruler will be born in Bethlehem. Joel 2 predicts the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit comes upon all people. Ezekiel 37:24-28 predicts that God will send another David to be king over God's people, who will be their prince forever. So when we read the OT, what we often find we are looking for, is places where the OT "predicts" the NT, and where the NT "fulfills" the OT.
(2) That the connections we find between the OT are direct.
(3) That the connections are straightforward.
(4) That the connections are exclusive (I'm pretty sure this language about "exclusive and exhaustive" is from H.G.M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme). One OT passage has one future reference, and one NT meaning. It doesn't really have anything to do with the OT. It has only one thing to do with the NT.
(5) That the connections are exhaustive. One OT passage is completely fulfilled by one NT event.
My guess is that many of you have sensed that there are problems with these assumptions. There's some part of you that's figured out along the way that things are a bit more complicated. But you haven't known what do with this sense, and when you find yourself feeling nervous, and uncomfortable, and uncertain, again, my guess is that you tend to squash those feelings because you can feel it turning into something that shakes your faith. And I would say, it's not actually shaking your faith in God. What it's shaking, is your understanding of the Bible, and Christianity. And that's an unpleasant, unsettling thing.
Now, there's one passage in particular where I think many of you have felt this, and I'm scared to even tackle it.
But I've put on my brave hat this morning, and we're going to just go for it. Let's turn to Isaiah 7. It's a story about a scared Israelite king named Ahaz. Ahaz lives under the shadow of the Assyrian empire, which is on the verge of becoming the world's first superpower. A bunch of little kings are banding together to try to stand as one against Assyria, and King Ahaz is in the way. Normally today, in that situation, we'd expect a shadowy three letter government organization to lead a coup against Israel to fix that problem and install a new puppet king. But back in the old days, you'd show up on that king's doorstep with a threat: either join us, or get conquered, and replaced.
So that's happening, and God sends the prophet Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that God has his back. That's our story, in a nutshell. So let's just read it, and as I read, ask yourself, "When will these events happen?" I'll read for now through verse 17 (NRSV updated no reason).
7 In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem but could not conquer it. 2 When the house of David heard that Aram had allied itself with Ephraim, the heart of Ahaz[a] and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub,[b] at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field, 4 and say to him: Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Aram—with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah—has plotted evil against you, saying, 6 ‘Let us go up against Judah and terrify it[c] and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel king in it’; 7 therefore thus says the Lord GOD:
It shall not stand,
and it shall not come to pass.
8 For the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
(Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered, no longer a people.)
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
If you do not stand firm in faith,
you shall not stand at all.”
Isaiah Gives Ahaz the Sign of Immanuel
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.”
Ahaz in our story, has already made the decision that he will respond to this threat by turning to Egypt for help (Isaiah 30). And so he has no interest in trusting in God. So Ahaz sounds pious here, but there's a falseness to that.
Isaiah then continues, verse 13:
13 Then Isaiah[d] said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.[e] 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
18 On that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the clefts of the rocks and on all the thornbushes and on all the watering holes.[f]
20 On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.
So God is determined to protect King Ahaz, and his people, from these two kings. God offers to give Ahaz a sign to help him trust, because trusting God is a tricky, scary thing. When Ahaz refuses, God gives him something else-- a sign that won't help him trust, but will let him know after the fact that Ahaz messed up, and that he should've trusted God. Isaiah points to a woman in the room who is pregnant. He says, "LOOK! The young woman is with child. She is just about to have a son (it's a participle; Christo van der Mere notes that here the participle describes imminent action; see Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 20.3.3.3, which cites Genesis 19:13, 20:3 as examples of the participle describing an immediately future event; "we are about to destroy;" "you are about to die"). She will name him "Immanuel," which is a little ambiguous, actually. But it can mean "God with us." And before that boy knows right from wrong, he will be eating food symbolizing prosperity-- curds and honey.
But there's a catch, starting in verse 17. Because Ahaz refused to trust, God will send the big bad king of Assyria against Israel, and that king will wipe out most of Israel.
Now let's hop down to Isaiah 8:5-10 [edited the NRSV updated to show it's the same Hebrew in verse 10; "Immanuel":
5 The LORD spoke to me again: 6 “Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently and melt in fear before[c] Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood and, pouring over, will reach up to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.
9 Take notice,[d] you peoples, and be dismayed;
listen, all you far countries;
gird yourselves and be dismayed![e]
10 Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught;
speak a word, but it will not stand,
for "Immanuel" [God is with us].”
The catch with this phrase "Immanuel," is that the first word "im" can mean "with," but it can mean "against" (DBL #6, citing 1 Samuel 17:19).
And so this child Immanuel will be a sign to Israel, but an ambiguous sign at best. First, Ahaz will get to see what it looks like when God is "with" us. Then, Ahaz will get to see what it looks like when God is "against" us.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clines, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, on "im" meaning "against":
6. of conflict, dispute, with, against, followed by noun or suffix in ref. to noun, Y. Gn 32:29; Dt 9:7, 24; 31:27; Jb 9:3, 14; 14:3; 16:21; 23:7; 40:2; 2 C 13:12; 14:10; 20:6; Si 4:25; 4Qap PsB 7610 (?[??]), Benjamin Jg 20:20, Hagrites 1 C 5:10, 19, Israel(ites) Ex 17:8; Dt 20:12=11QT 628; Dt 20:20; Jos 9:2; 11:5; Jg 11:4, 5, 20, 25; 20:14; 1 S 13:5; 1 K 20:26; Mc 6:2; 2 C 11:1, Jews Ne 13:25, Judah Ho 12:3, Kittim 4QMa 11.219 (???[???]), Leshem Jos 19:47, Libnah Jos 10:29, Philistine(s) 1 S 17:19, 32, 33; 2 S 21:18?1 C 20:4; 2 S 21:19, ??? people Mc 6:2, ????? nation Jl 4:2, ????????? kingdom 4QTan? 1.12, ?????? house 1 K 12:21; 2 C 22:8, ????? army 1QH 1835.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And when this sign with the young woman take place? Within just a few years, for sure. The woman is already pregnant. She's just about to give birth. And kids learn pretty early on to know the difference between right and wrong.
Now let's turn to Matthew 1 (NRSV updated no reason). [Matthew quotes the Greek version of Isaiah, which even conservative scholars like Motyer and Blomberg admit has one kind of big difference in meaning, but I'm going to ignore that problem, and not try to tackle everything]:
18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah[j] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to divorce her quietly. 20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 “Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”
which means, “God is with us.”
So Matthew says that Jesus is the "fulfillment" of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy. It's through Jesus, that God will be with us.
What does Matthew mean, when he says that Jesus fulfills this? Is the OT passage predicting Jesus' birth? Is there a direct, straightforward, exclusive, exhaustive connection?
Or is there something far more complicated, and maybe in the end, incredibly profound, about this connection between Old and New?
The Greek word that Matthew uses, pleroo, that we translate "fulfill," also has the sense of just "to fill." Like, you'd fill a glass with water. A journal article I read this week spent a lot of time on that, and he argued that what Jesus does in Matthew, is "fills up" the OT. Brandon D. Crowe, "Fulfillment in Matthew as Eschatological Reversal," Westminster Theological Journal (2013): 111-27. [I'm assuming that anything written in WTJ, by a professor of NT at Westminster, is considered evangelical-friendly, and a broadly acceptable Christian perspective.]
Let's turn to Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV no reason):
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
When Jesus says in Matthew 5 that he didn't come to destroy the law-- the Mosaic covenant-- but to "fill it up," or "fulfill" it, he's pointing to inadequacies in both the Mosaic covenant, and in the way it was interpreted, in the first century. The covenant itself was inadequate in some ways, because it didn't full express what God wanted because of the people's hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8). God made the covenant requirements realistic, and in some ways kind of low, because He knew that his people were stubborn and rebellious. But Jesus then goes on to "fulfill" the demands of the Mosaic covenant, by describing what it was that God actually wanted. I should probably say that a second time, because it's easy to miss this. Jesus doesn't fulfill the law by dying on the cross and rising from the grave. Jesus fulfills the law by describing what God actually wants, and raising the bar of expectations. Jesus then goes on in Matthew 5-6 to unpack this.
So, for example, the law-- the Mosaic covenant-- said "Don't murder" (Matthew 5:21), but what God really wanted was a covenant people who avoid doing that, AND who would bite their tongues when angry (Matthew 5:22), and who would forgive (Matthew 6:12), and who would seek to be reconciled, when they wronged each other (Matthew 5:24). The Mosaic covenant said "Don't commit adultery," but what God really wanted was for his people to keep their eyes on their own spouses, and desire only their own spouses, and stay married to their first spouses except in rare situations (Matthew 19).
In his teaching, Jesus "fills up" the OT by explaining what God actually wanted, and by raising the bar to that level.
This idea of "filling up" carries over to the stories of Israel in the OT. Israel consistently, reliably, did the wrong thing. They did half, or a third, of what they should've. And Jesus "fills up" the story of Israel by being the faithful, loyal Israel that God always wanted. Jesus reenacts the story of Israel, but from a posture of obedience.
So let's turn to another example, just a little bit farther in Jesus' story. Matthew 2:13-15 (NRSV updated no reason):
13 Now after they (the magicians) had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 Then Joseph[h] got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”
So Joseph going to Egypt, "fills up," or "fulfills," a prophecy. When we check the margin of our Bible, we find out that this prophecy is in Hosea 11, so let's turn there (NRSV updated no reason):
When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 The more I[a] called them,
the more they went from me;[b]
they kept sacrificing to the Baals
and offering incense to idols.
3 Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk;
I took them up in my[c] arms,
but they did not know that I healed them.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness,
with bands of love.
I was to them like those
who lift infants to their cheeks.[d]
I bent down to them and fed them.
5 They shall return to the land of Egypt,
and Assyria shall be their king,
because they have refused to return to me.
6 The sword rages in their cities;
it consumes their oracle priests
and devours because of their schemes.
7 My people are bent on turning away from me.
To the Most High they call,
but he does not raise them up at all.[e]
This passage is about the story of the nation of Israel. In verse 1, God reminds his people, the nation, of their story. God calls Israel his son, who He brought out of Egypt. They responded, verse 2, by turning to other gods. Verse 3-4, God says that He was the one who raised Ephraim-- the Northern kingdom-- from childhood, who healed them, who fed them. But no matter how kind God was to them, and how much love He showed them, his people refused to return to him. And so, verse 5, God says that his people will return to Egypt. Because they refused to turn to Him, He will return them to Egypt.
None of this is a messianic prediction. Nothing in this directly, exclusively, exhaustively, points to Jesus.
What, then, is Matthew doing? How does Joseph and Jesus going "to" Egypt, fill up Hosea 11, which talks about Israel coming "out of" Egypt?
I think what Matthew is saying, is that Joseph, with Jesus, "fills up" what was lacking in Israel's story. Joseph obeys the angel of the Lord; he does what God wants (and I'm not trying to ignore Mary, but Joseph gets the focus here; he's who is called, and he's who gets credit for obeying). And the arc of Jesus' story, and Joseph's story, then, reenacts the story of Israel. Jesus, Joseph and Mary go to down Egypt, like Abraham, and like Israel at the time of Joseph. And Jesus and Joseph come out of Egypt, like Israel, but they do so in constant obedience to God's commands. When God calls them (Hosea 11:2), they obey.
Matthew sets up his gospel in a way that highlights lots of connections like this between Israel and Jesus. He draws attention to them, by reminding us of Israel's story at every point using this "filling" language. I won't walk through every single one, but the summary then goes like this:
Jesus went down to Egypt, like the patriarchs. He came out of Egypt, like Israel (Joshua 24:5; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15), but he came obediently, without the idols (Joshua 24:15). Jesus passed through the waters, getting baptized, as Israel passed through the Red Sea. When God said, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased," those words form a contrast with Israel, who was the son who struggled to do the right thing (Hosea 11:1-4). Jesus entered into the wilderness (Matthew 4), spending 40 days there, as Israel spent 40 years. But Jesus was faithful in the wilderness, handling the testing the right way. The covenant God established with Israel at the edge of the wilderness, just outside of the promised land (Deuteronomy), Jesus "fills up" by explaining what God actually wants.
So Jesus "fills up" Israel's story, by following the same paths as Israel, but reversing, or undoing, all of the times when Israel failed. And Jesus "fills up" the Mosaic covenant, by pointing to what God actually desires from his people.
All of this, I think, helps us understand what Matthew is teaching, when he says that the birth of Jesus "fills up" the Immanuel sign first given to King Ahaz.
The story of King Ahaz in Isaiah 7 we read is another example of where Israel fell short. Ahaz trusted in Egypt (Isaiah 30). Ahaz refused to accept a sign from Isaiah, and so God gave him a sign about Immanuel instead. But this sign was a dark, ugly sign. That son, Immanuel, is a reminder of Isaiah's prediction that Assyria would settle like bees and flies all over the land. Assyria would be like a flood, reaching up to the neck, threatening to drown the nation. And all because Ahaz refused to give God even a chance to show that God could be trusted to protect him.
In Matthew, Jesus being called Immanuel signals to us that God is giving his people a second chance. Immanuel becomes a sign of hope, instead of a sign of mostly judgment. God once more, in Jesus, will live with his people. God will save his people from their sins.
And what we see is that Jesus' dad, Joseph, responds to this sign the right way. He isn't like Ahaz (Isaiah 7; he is like Hezekiah; Isaiah 36-39). Joseph wakes up from the dream, and he obeys the angel of the Lord. He starts off scared, like Ahaz. But he chooses to not give in to that fear, and to trust God instead. He does what's scary, and he takes Mary as his wife.
And so we have this sense, at the very start of the gospel according to Matthew, that this time everything is working out a million times better. Jesus and Joseph "fill up" everything lacking in Ahaz's story, and Israel's story.
So Jesus is not the first baby boy named Immanuel in the Bible. He's the second. And Jesus, as the second Immanuel, reverses one of the very low points of Israel's history-- when a son of David refused to even God a chance to prove himself, and when Israel was entirely captured, except for the city of Jerusalem.
All of this, I would suggest, is how we ought to understand the relationship between Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1. Is Isaiah 7 a direct, straightforward, exclusive, exhaustive prediction of the Jesus? Not at all. This isn't a prediction, at all. Jesus is the second Immanuel, who reverses the first Immanuel.
And if we read Matthew front to back, again, we will find lots of examples of this. This idea of reversal, of Jesus filling in the gaps in Israel's story and in the law, helps us understand large chunks of his gospel.
Now, this doesn't explain everything in Matthew. And it certainly doesn't explain all of the ways the NT uses the OT. But I just want to give you a chance this morning to do three things:
(1) get used to the idea that everything is more complicated than you thought, when it comes to the relationship between the OT and NT.
(2) become a little open-minded about how we should understand the connections between Old and New.
(3) Mentally throw out any ideas you might have that focus on "prediction" as being the key interpretive lens for understanding the OT.
There are clear predictions in the OT, that are straightforwardly "fulfilled" in the NT-- God predicts that there would a messiah, from the line of David, from Bethlehem, who would be a shepherd over his people, who would teach them, who would be a second Moses. But many of the NT references to the OT are far less straightforward than that.
Now, let me read you one last passage this morning, that I think points us to a choice that Matthew knows each one of his readers has to make. There's a scholarly consensus that Matthew's readers are ethnically Jewish, and that they came out of Judaism. There's also a consensus that Matthew is one of the later gospels written, and that it reflects a tension that developed between Christianity, and Judaism. First century Jewish Christians found themselves, eventually, having to make a choice between Jesus and Judaism. Between the church, and synagogue. And the question everyone faced, was what you choose. So, Matthew 23:23-39 (NRSV updated no reason):
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and of the plate,[e] so that the outside also may become clean.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of uncleanness. 28 So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, 30 and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32 "Fill up," [same Greek word]
then, the measure of your ancestors. 33 You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the judgment of hell?[f] 34 For this reason I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35 so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation.
The Lament over Jerusalem
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you, desolate.[g] 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”
If Jesus "fills up" what was lacking in Israel's story, then what the scribes and the Pharisees do, verse 32, is "fill up" what was lacking in Israel's sin. They fill it up the wrong way.
And so one of the big picture things that Matthew is encouraging his Jewish readers to do (apparently, this is new to me), is to choose Jesus, rather than the synagogue. When you look back over your history, and you see your ancestors' constant failure, and rebellion, and refusal to do what God wanted, you can then think about Jesus, and how he "fills up" everything that's lacking in your own story. Jesus obeyed where your ancestors didn't. Every low spot that marks fear, and a refusal to turn, Jesus "fills up." Jesus "fills up" the past, and he blazes a better path forward.
And so, you can choose to align yourself with the dead end offered by the Pharisees and scribes. You can follow the people who have filled up what was lacking in Israel's guilt. That's one option. Or, you can follow Jesus, the one who will be with you wherever you go (Matthew 28:20), who offers you life in God's kingdom.
[Could end with a really unique altar call? One way to think about the good news about Jesus, is that Jesus fills up everything lacking in each of us.]
