Sermon Tone Analysis

Old Testament

Psalm 51:11

51:11 Do not reject me!

Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me!

Isaiah 63:10

63:10 But they rebelled and offended his holy Spirit,

so he turned into an enemy

and fought against them.

Isaiah 63:11

63:11 His people remembered the ancient times.

Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea,

along with the shepherd of his flock?

Where is the one who placed his holy Spirit among them,

(d) ‘Jesus = God’ is too powerful as a christological statement to be carried in an account which is centrally focussed on the irregular incorporation of Jesus into the Davidic line.

(e) Similarly, ‘Jesus = God’ in a context as Jewish as this and at such an early stage in the narrative is so overwhelming that it does not fit well with the way in which christological perspective is allowed, at least to some extent, to cumulate throughout the narrative

With a second reading of the Gospel the readers will notice the similarity to 2:15*: the Son is mentioned in both quotations; the readers are being prepared for the claim that the virgin’s son is the Son of God.58 Thus for Matthew this verse is not merely an explanatory footnote to the genealogy; it also suggests new christological themes that will be developed in the Gospel.

Since Immanuel is neither a name of Jesus nor a common title, this naming is unusual.

Since the Greek-speaking readers of the Gospel must also know what this word means, the translation gives “Immanuel” additional emphasis.

Allusions to “God-with-us” run through the entire Gospel (e.g., 17:17*; 18:20*; 26:29*).59

Above all, with the last verse of his Gospel (“I am with you always until the end of the world,” 28:20*)

Although he did not identify Jesus with God, he probably implied that for him Jesus is the form in which God will be present with his people and later with all nations.

Thus the quotation has been reinterpreted on the basis of the LXX text that, in contrast to Aquila and Theodotion (νεᾶνις), reads παρθένος.

The meaning of this unusual LXX translation is unclear.

Most of the time Heb.

עַלְמָה is translated with νεᾶνις; παρθένος usually corresponds to בְּתֹולָה.

He is interested rather in the idea of obedience: the righteous Joseph also fulfills the prediction of Isa 7:14* in that Mary will give birth to a son as a virgin.

The occurrence of ὑπὸ κυρίου, “by the Lord,” here and in 2:15 may emphasize the divine sonship of Jesus (despite the lack of the title “Son of God”), as Pesch (“Das Weihnachtsevangelium [Lk 2, 1–21],” in Zur Theologie) and Gundry (Matthew) correctly argue.

Two things in particular were responsible for the later perception of this secondary level of meaning: the name given to the child, “Emmanuel” (עִמָּנוּ אֵל, lit.

“God with us”; cf.

Isa 8:8, 10), and the surrounding passages, which speak of the dawn of the promised golden age with the judgment of the wicked and the blessing of the righteous (e.g.

Isa 2:2–4; 9:2–7; 11:1–16).

This was the ultimate sense in which God’s presence was to be manifested in Israel.

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.

Accordingly, probably sometime in the third century B.C. the Greek translators of Isa 7:14 apparently regarded the passage as having a deeper meaning, as yet unrealized.

In agreement with this interpretation, they chose to translate the Hebrew word עַלְמָה, ʿalmâ; (which means “young woman,” who may or may not be a virgin), with the Greek word παρθένος (specifically “virgin”) rather than νεᾶνις (“young woman,” used by the later Jewish translations of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus) in order to stress the supernatural associations brought to mind by the identity and work of this son.

The quotation and the translation of the Hebrew name underline the fact that in Jesus none less than God came right where we are.

And at the end of this Gospel there is the promise that Jesus will be with his people to the end of the age (28:20)—God with us indeed.

An understanding of prophetic foreshortening of time (the Old Testament prophets often predicted in one and the same context various events that would take place in entirely different future eras), multiple fulfillment of prophecy (partial fulfillments often preceded and foreshadowed later complete fulfillments), and Matthew’s use of typology, along with a careful reading of the larger context of the Isaiah quote (7:1–9:7), offers a mediating and more convincing alternative.

The reference in Isa 7:15–16 to the short period of time in the promised child’s life before the kings Ahaz dreads are destroyed seems to require at least a partial fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah’s day.

Nevertheless, the LXX translation of ʿalmah as parthenos (both words often though not always mean “virgin,” though the Greek term is less equivocal) shows that some Jews already two hundred years before Christ favored an interpretation in which this immediate fulfillment was not seen as exhausting Isaiah’s prophecy.

Further exegetical clues in Isaiah support the LXX’s interpretation.

Isaiah 8:4, 8 seems to equate Immanuel with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, but Isa 7:11; 8:18 suggests that this child will be a “sign,” a term that regularly in Scripture refers to a more remarkable event than the simple birth of a child to a normally impregnated woman.

By the time one reaches Isa 9:6, the prophet is speaking of a child, naturally taken as still referring to Immanuel, who is the “Mighty God.”

In no sense can this prophecy be taken as less than messianic or as fulfilled in a merely human figure.

So 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.

Notwithstanding the extensive discussion his reference to a “virgin” has triggered, Matthew’s own focus lies elsewhere.

The passage climaxes by claiming this child to be “Immanuel,” meaning God with us.

Verse 21 introduces the key Matthean theme of God’s presence with his people, which is emphasized again at the end of his Gospel in 28:18–20.

The church in every age should recognize here a clear affirmation of Jesus’ deity and cling tightly to this doctrine as crucial for our salvation.

At the same time, Matthew wants to emphasize that Jesus, as God, is “with us”; deity is immanent.

Several considerations lead to the conclusion that these are still the words of the angel spoken to Joseph, all except the clause which translates “Immanuel.”

If Matthew were here writing an observation of his own he would be interrupting the narrative and should have written these two verses after v. 25, where they would have been in place

The LXX translated ‘almah ἡ παρθένος, “the virgin.”

Zahn reports that since the time of Jerome it has been noted that in all the Old Testament passages where ‘almah occurs it is always used for “virgin,” and that also in Isa.

54:4 ‘alumim, coupled as it is with ‘almanuth (widowhood), means only maidenhood.

Moreover, the Hebrew, the LXX, and Matthew have the article.

The sign is not that a virgin, some young woman, shall conceive in a natural way, but “the virgin,” the specific virgin to whom also Micah 5:3 refers.

“It is the virgin, whom the Spirit of prophecy reveals to the prophet, and who, although he cannot name her, stands before his soul as one chosen for extraordinary things.

How exalted she appears to him is indicated by her giving the name to her son, and this the name Immanuel.”

Delitzsch (see his fine comment on this passage).

The force of this comment is perceived when we compare Isa.

8:8; 9:5, 6; 11:1–10.

No married woman conceiving in the ordinary manner, and no girl allowing herself to be seduced, could give birth to a son as great as the one Isaiah describes in these passages.

Isaiah’s sign was that the virgin would conceive and bear a son whom she would rightfully call Immanuel, namely the Immanuel described by Isaiah himself: to be born, Isa.

7:14; actually born, Isa.

9:6; in his glorious reign, Isa.

11.

The fulfillment of this promised sign is the incarnation and virgin conception and birth of God’s own Son, who by this wondrous birth became “Immanuel,” “With us God.” Matthew adds the Greek translation: Μεθʼ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός, not so much because his Jewish readers would not understand “Immanuel” but in order to have them all and any others dwell on the full significance of this name.

The same angel told Mary that her virgin-born son would be called “the Son of God,” Luke 1:35.

“He is God in bodily presentation, therefore a miracle in the form of a superhuman person.

We would not dare to say this, because it transcends the Old Testament plane of knowledge, but the prophet himself says so, Isa.

9:6; 10:21; his statement is as clear as possible, we dare not darken it in the interest of a preconceived construction of history.

The incarnation is, indeed, a veiled mystery in the Old Testament, but the veil is not so dense that it admits of no rays striking through.

(32) The child’s greatness (cf.

1:15) is to be seen in the lofty title that will be assigned to him; the passive form (κληθήσεται) indicates, as often, divine action (Jeremias, Theology, I, 9–14).

But the title is more than a name; it indicates the true being of the person so called.

The title is equivalent to the more common ‘Son of God’.

ὁ ὕψιστος is a title for God found frequently in the LXX, where it is equivalent to ʾēl ʾelyôn (Gn.

14:8), and in Jewish literature (AP II, 850), from whence it was taken over in the NT (1:35, 76; 6:35; 8:28 par.

Mk. 5:7; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Heb.

7:13 see

the Hebrew equivalent occurs half a dozen times in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 4:22f.; et al.).

The phrase ‘son(s) of the Most High’ is found in Est.

16:16 LXX; Ps. 82:6 (81:6); Dn. 3:93 LXX (παῖδες); Sir.

4:10; and the singular form ‘son of the Most High’ has now been attested in Aramaic in 4Q 243 (4Q ps Dan Aa) 2:1 (J. A. Fitzmyer,

E. Schweizer (TDNT VIII, 376f., 381f.)

thinks that in the present verse we have a Lucan formulation, intended to contrast Jesus with John who is merely the ‘prophet of the Most High’ (1:76).

In fact, there is reason to suppose that more than a merely adoptive relationship is being set forth.

The mention of divine sonship before Davidic messiahship suggests that the latter is grounded in the former and should be interpreted in terms of it.

The clear allusion to Is. 7:14 in v. 31 also suggests that something more than adoption is in mind.

Clearly Luke himself intended 35 to be an elucidation of v. 32 in view of the common use of ὑψίστου.

In christological content vs. 32 and 35 stand close together; the concept of divine sonship, stemming from OT royal ideology, has undergone a transformation of meaning.

The use of ὕψιστος may well be Lucan in view of the usage elsewhere, and it may be that he has adopted this term to avoid a possible misunderstanding of ‘Son of God’ in terms of pagan concepts or to give a contrast with 1:76.

The child will be called, i.e. shall be (as in 1:32) ἅγιος, ‘holy’ (4:34 par.

Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; 1 Jn.

2:20; Rev. 3:7; cf.

Jn. 10:36).

Here the sense is ‘divine’ (Ps.

89:5, 7) or ‘Gottgehörig’ (Grundmann, 58), rather than that the first-born is holy to Yahweh (2:23; Ex. 13:12), or that the child, like Samson, is dedicated to God (Jdg.

13:7 v. 1.), or that the child is free from the slur of illegitimacy (cf.

perhaps 1 Cor.

7:14)

ἐπισκιάζω is ‘to cover’ (9:34 par.