david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (05/10/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Re: Virgin Birth per duke!nlt Message-ID: <1535@aecom.UUCP> Date: 7 May 85 14:35:51 GMT > Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I > have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity > of the Hebrew "almah." There is no ambiguity, it very clearly doesn't mean virgin. Also, the verse is more properly translated: ...and behold the girl *is* pregnant and *is* birthing a son, and she will call him 'immunuel.[Yeshaiah 7:14] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I believe that it misleading to take the NT account of the Virgin Birth too literally; it is included in Matthew and Luke, but not in the earlier and later sources, and it's included as a theological figure; what this figure means is made clear in the introduction to John, which does not mention that Virgin Birth, but which refers figuratively to the children of God: "These are they who believe in his Name (God's Name said to be given to Christ, John17.6ff) -- who were not begotten by blood (racially), nor by carnal desire (physically), nor by man's willing it, but by God." Similarly, the Virgin Birth underscores that Jesus was born of God. On the other hand, the confusion arises, not because Isaiah is not describing a birth, but because it is not clear what prophetic figure motivates his account. The pre-Christian rabbis of the 70 themselves translated the word as Greek 'virgin', and surely they knew their contemporary tradition better than we. Their version is what the Gospel writers were familiar with, so they may have borrowed the traditional figure associated with this translation 'virgin' -- the Messiah and the sons of God were to be born of Israel, the undefiled beloved (virgin) of God, Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The prophet later says (v. 17) "Ephraim will remove from upon Yehudah (or Judea, read either way) the king of Ashur." Jesus lived well after the Ashur Empire, he was facing the Romans. Also, note it says that a member of the tribe of Ephraim, not Yehudah (Judah) will be doing this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Traditionally, prophetic allusions are taken somewhat out of context. We must try to appreciate the motivation of the NT author in recalling this figure. I suppose that it may not be the same as yours. Besides, in pursuing this figure of Isaiah, would you want to say that Jesus was of Judah or of Ephraim? He might resemble both figuratively, but in different aspects. What you really observe is an ambiguity, if not inconsistency, in the expectations about the Messiah. Is he to be the Son of David, therefore out of Judah? If so, then you might want to say that this text of Isaiah is not prophetic of the Messiah, since I suppose that you would have that 'Immanuel' is out of Ephraim. But who knows. There might be two expections. On the other hand, there may still be one Messiah, with aspects of both figures: a Son of David who overcomes the enemy through 'Immanuel'. My point is I personally would not take the prophets, or the Gospel writers, so literally. In any case, you may have your expectation of the Messiah, and I might have another; But no matter, it may be that there is the one: which we might, for example, liken to the two dual attributes of God -- first, His Justice, then His Mercy. So there are two names here as well. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And while we are under the subject of tribes... The king of Yisrael (Israel) is supposed to be from the tribe of Judah (Yehudah), a claim the begining of Matthew supports (1:1-6). After tracing his geniology to King Dovid (David) through Joseph, it then says that he was not a decendent of Joseph, but of Gd (sorry I can not quote, I don't own an NT). A decendant of Gd would have no male line to any of the tribes, nevr mind Yehudah. How can Jesus claim to be of the House of David? -- Micha Berger 2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406 NY, NY 10033 (212) 781-0756 {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, there are two geneologies for Jesus given in the Gospels, in Matthew and Luke. As it is, these are for the lineage of Joseph, and are very apparently inconsistent (although there are unconvincing attempts to rationalize this. Again, I should add that these 'geneologies' do not occur in the oldest sources, Paul and Mark, or the latest of John, even as they do not mention the Virgin Birth. So you are concerned with Matthew and Luke, which you would take literally, as do some Christians. By the way did you notice the very illustrious quality of the geneologies? How physically credible is this? Perhaps these are what the Gospel writers would like to say are Jesus' spiritual ancestors. You may recall that Matthew has John the Baptist say, "Do not pride yourself on the claim 'Abraham is our father', for I tell you that God can raise up children to Abraham from these very stones." Also, in John, Jesus distinguishes the sons of the faith of Abraham, from those physically descended, as they all were. My point is what I said before, the Gospel writers use figures of speech for spiritual realities which will not make sense if taken literally: these things are written to emphasize that Jesus was begotten of God, through a spiritual lineage which is ancient, and not simply born of human conception and lineage. After all, which is more important -- that he is the son of the carpenter Joseph, said to be a descendent of David, or that he is spiritually the descendent of David? If he did intend to fulfill the spirit of the Law, then it is not also surprising that he did intend to fulfill the spirit of the Prophets. As I have said before in other places, no one of the apostles or Gospel writers believed that Jesus was the Messiah because of these things -- they believed because of what Paul emphasizes -- they were confronted with the reality of Christ after Jesus' death. (If you have not read what I said about what this means, I have said that it means that Jesus was given the Very Name of the Lord as a seal of his authority, so that one who is so called by God understands that he has been called to be a Christian. In the Gospels, it is figuratively described as the transfiguration, but the encounter of Paul on the road to Damascus is more literal, which encounter was, as he says, with the 'risen or glorified Christ'.) With this in mind, we may reconsider what Jesus said about the scripture, attributed to David, "The Lord said unto my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool'." He asked how it can be said, therefore, that the Messiah is to be the Son of David. His point is that the spirit of the Messiah is eternal; and the key to the verse is that he is said to sit at the right hand of Lord. But the Gospel writers say that upon his death, Jesus was raised up as Christ, to the right hand (of the Power) of God. We may say, on their behalf, that the authority of Christ is that of the Power of God, which is in His Name, or self-revelation. Similarly, in John, Jesus identifies his pre-existent or eternal glory with that which appeared to Isaiah. (Implicitly, the Gospel writer is identifying the eternal spirit of Christ, revealed in Jesus, with the Glorious Name which was revealed to the Isaiah and David.) For what it is worth, Jesus is also said to be born in the City of David, Bethlehem, but to ride upon the colt of an ass into the Citadel of David, Jerusalem, in order to fulfill these messianic prophecies. But it occurs to me, that if the Lord is said to ride upon the clouds of heaven, then perhaps we Christians are that stubborn colt of an ass. Of course, this is yet another figure of speech, I suppose, which you might want to understand literally. But no matter, nearly two thousand years ago now, the fate of the Earth became involved with the startling revelation of Christ, and as if the pronouncement of the Lord were like the flash of lightning on the dark horizon of the human racial consciousness, the hundred generations have resounded like the thunder that Christ has come. You have asked about whether Jesus was begotten of man or of God, or whether he was 'Immanuel', God-with-us, and have tried to suggest why these things are said about him. David Harwood