messages concerning
the laws of interpretation
message
1:
THE LAW OF THE CONTEXT OF QUOTATIONS
with an examination of Matthew 1:23
and Other Passages Relating
to the Birth of Messiah
*
"The context, which is the 'environment' of
a sentence, must of necessity
have a profound impression upon the thought of a given sentence." |
No one lives to
himself, neither does he die to himself. We are part of all we meet,
according to Tennyson. Everything that comes in contact with us has a
certain amount of influence upon us, even though it may be infinitesimally
small. Environment is certainly one of the prime factors in determining the
conduct and the life of each individual. From these
general observations, we can see that the context, which is the
"environment" of a sentence, must of necessity have a profound impression
upon the thought of a given sentence. Just as, in order to understand a
person, we must know his antecedents and his environment, so must we know
that which lies back behind the thought and the environment or setting in
which it is placed.
I. THE STATEMENT OF THE LAW OF THE CONTEXT OF
QUOTATIONS
A thought is first expressed by one of the prophets, for
instance, in a certain section in which he is developing a specific theme. A
later prophet, or a New Testament writer, lifts that quotation from its
context and put it into another one and weaves it into his thoughts. This
process I might compare to the gardener who plants seeds in a bed which
spring forth into plants. Then some of the plants are taken out of the bed
and are placed in an entirely different environment where they grow to
maturity. Quotations found in the New Testament, taken from the Old, are
like these plants that were sown in the original bed, but are taken up and
transplanted to another environment. We want to see the original environment
and likewise the final surroundings of these quotations.
Each quotation has a very definite meaning in the original context. Thus one
must study the entire connection of any quotation in the original setting,
in order to get its full import. When this quotation is removed and is put
over into a New Testament environment, the entire context of the New
Testament must be sought and the bearing of the quotation upon the thought
of the New Testament writer must be studied. When this is done, sometimes it
is found that that to which the quotation from the Old Testament is applied
in the New fills out the entire picture as it is presented in the original quotation. In other instances it is not the
complete fulfillment, but is only a partial or a limited accomplishment of
the original prediction. Moreover, it may be the literal fulfillment plus a
typical signification. Or it may be the literal fulfillment plus an
application to a similar circumstance. Then again it may be the literal
fulfillment plus a summation of a given situation. These various phases of
the truth will develop as we proceed with the study. These statements being
true, one can see how very important it is to study both the original
context and the one into which the quotation is transplanted, in order to
get the full scriptural picture of a given prediction. A failure to comply
with this principle has led to endless confusion and difficulty.
II. AN EXAMINATION OF SOME EXAMPLES OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF THE LAW OF THE CONTEXT OF QUOTATIONS
*
Matthew 1:23
For a first example of this principle let us look in the New
Testament. In Matthew 1:23 we have these words:
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And
they shall call his name Immanuel; which is being interpreted, God with us.
Matthew took this quotation from the Septuagint translation of the Old
Testament and not from the original Hebrew. It seems that from a careful
reading of Matthew, chapter 1, the angel who appeared to Joseph is the one
quoting this passage from Isaiah 7:14; for immediately following it, Matthew
tells us that Joseph arose from his sleep. This statement implies that the
quotation was given by the angel.
When we turn to Isaiah, chapter 7, we see that the Lord made an offer
through the prophet to young King Ahaz to perform a miracle in order to
strengthen his faith. The young king was to designate the place where the
miracle was to occur - whether in the heavens above or in the deep, that is,
in the sea beneath. Ahaz did not care for spiritual things. He chose rather
to go on in his own way. Thus he rejected the offer by a pious dodge. When
he thus treated sacred matters lightly, Isaiah turned from him and addressed
the entire house of David. Not only to those living in his day, but to
succeeding generations he spoke and promised that the Lord would give them a
sign which would be that a virgin should conceive and bear a Son and should
call his name Immanuel. From the trend of the thought in Isaiah, chapter 7,
it is very evident that the sign offered Ahaz was a supernatural wonder. It
is equally clear that the sign to the house of David should likewise be of
super-human origin. In keeping with this thought the promise is made that
the virgin - some definite specific
virgin known to the prophet and his auditors - would conceive and would bear
a Son who would be God with us. Clearly
then the Son promised in this passage could be none other than one who was
miraculously conceived and born of a virgin, and who would be God in human
form.
But immediately following Isaiah 7:14 are verses 15-17 in which is found the
promise of another child, concerning whom nothing miraculous is spoken. He
was to be born in the very near future from the standpoint of the prophet.
Before he would know to refuse the evil and choose the good the two lands
whose kings Ahaz feared would be brought to desolation. Thus it is clear
that the child mentioned in verses 15-17 was entirely different from the one
foretold in verse 14. When we are willing to take the language at what it
says, we cannot avoid this conclusion. There is therefore the blending of
prophecies concerning two children: one the Messiah of Israel, and the other
a child born by natural generation. The blending of two predictions is of
frequent occurrence throughout the prophetic word. This phenomena therefore
is not strange to those who are familiar with the prophecies. When we turn
now to Matthew, chapter 1, we see that the Evangelist quotes the angel as
explaining to Joseph Mary's condition at the time. To Joseph's amazement
Mary, to whom he was at that time betrothed, had become an expectant mother.
This fact shocked Joseph. He decided that he would put her away privately
and not make a public example out of her. In order to forestall such action,
the angel came and explained that she was the one of whom the prophet Isaiah
had foretold and that her child had been miraculously conceived and would be
Immanuel, which means God is with us. In the light of these facts it is
clear that the prophecy spoken by Isaiah was to be taken literally, at its
face value; for so did the angel understand it and expound it to Joseph.
The virgin birth was essential to our salvation. Man, in the person of Adam,
the representative of the race, lost everything when he partook of the
forbidden fruit. Thus in our representative we lost our birthright. By the
transgression of one man sin entered the world. Christ, the second Adam, who
according to this prediction enters the world by miraculous conception and
virgin birth, championed the cause of man and won back for him his
birthright from Satan. He, as a man, fought the battle and won the victory,
conquering the Devil, who had the power of death, and brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel. It was as man that the Messiah won
the victory and obtained all - and more than we lost in Adam.
From the Old Testament it was clear that the Messiah would be a man, the Son
of Abraham, the Son of David. In order to be a man, He had to be born as
other men are born. In regard to such a birth there were three
possibilities: human parents, a new creation, and the substitution of the
divine operation instead of a human father. If He had human parents, He
would simply be like other men, having the fallen nature. If He were a being
created, He would not be a man belonging to our race. Hence, under God's
moral government, He could not champion man's cause. The only other
possibility would be that of the substitution of the divine operation for a
human father. By this method the taint of sin would be excluded, for it is
inconceivable that, with the divine operation in the matter of the virgin
birth, the taint or element of sin would be possible. Thus, according to
reason, the miraculous conception by the divine operation and the virgin
birth of the Messiah is the only possibility for the redemption of the human
race. Such is the explanation given by the angel. The inspired Apostle's
quoting the angel's word puts the divine seal of approval upon the account.
There is perfect harmony between the prophecy in its original connection and
in the account of the birth of Jesus in the New Testament, which was the
complete fulfillment of the prediction. The prediction threw light upon the
fulfillment and the fulfillment upon the original prophecy.
*
Matthew 2:6
The next quotation which I wish to note is the one appearing
in Matthew 2:6 which is taken from Micah 5:2.
1. Now shalt thou gather thyself in
troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us; they
shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. 2. But
thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands
of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler
in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. 3.
Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she who travaileth
hath brought forth: then the residue of his brethren shall return unto
the children of Israel. ~ Micah 5:1-3 ~ |
In verse 1 the prophet addresses one whom he calls
O daughter of troops and tells her to
gather her forces together against us,
the Jewish people. Then he foretells that the besieging forces will smite
the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. This language shows that
Israel, at the time here foreseen, does not have a king. The siege is
against the city where this judge of Israel is. This information immediately
shows that the siege is against the capitol city of the Jews, Jerusalem. In
contrast with Jerusalem is the little town of Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which is
small to be numbered among the thousands of Judah. Yet she is very important
because of the fact that the one who is to be ruler in Israel is to come
forth from there unto God. This one has had a pre-existence prior to His
coming forth from Bethlehem, for it is said concerning Him that His
goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
This passage shows that the one of whom the prophet is speaking has had an
existence prior to His going forth from Bethlehem. In fact, He has been
active from historic times throughout the past prior to His coming to
Bethlehem.
Following this prediction is the warning: Therefore
will he give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought
forth: then the residue of his brethren shall return unto the children of
Israel. This verse is a conclusion drawn from data that has just
preceded - the facts which we have just noted; namely, the siege of
Jerusalem. Evidently there is some connection between the siege of Jerusalem
and the birth in Bethlehem of this future ruler of Israel. Because of a
certain connection existing between these two events, God gives them up
until the time that she who travaileth hath brought
forth ... God gives up Jerusalem with her children until she who
travails brings forth. Who is the one travailing and bringing forth? In the
light of the context it can be Jerusalem only who brings forth the new
Israel; for immediately it is explained that then
the residue of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.
The rest of the brethren of Judah will return to this tribe when she who
travails brings forth. From other passages we know that the twelve tribes of
Israel will be united and will constitute one nation, when the Jews
acknowledge their national sin and accept Jesus as their Messiah. These
three verses show us that God brings the daughter of troops against
Jerusalem to besiege the people. He gives His Chosen People up until
Jerusalem finally travails in the time of Jacob's trouble and the new Israel
is born. But this siege against the capital of the Hebrews and the giving of
them up until the time of the Tribulation is due to their relation to this
one who is born in Bethlehem. The connection isn't given here but is to be
supplied from other passages that deal with the same subject. When we
examine these in the light of other passages, we see that this one who is
born in Bethlehem is none other than the Messiah. The ancient synagogue
recognized this fact and thus interpreted this passage as a prediction
concerning His birth. When He thus comes to His people, the leaders do not
understand who He is and do not recognize Him. They reject Him and clamor
for His execution, which is carried out by the Romans. Finally, forty years
after that fateful event, Rome, the daughter of troops, brings her forces
against the Jewish nation. Jerusalem falls in A.D. 70. The Hebrews are
scattered throughout the world and they remain the people of the wandering
feet until the time that Jerusalem travails again with child, the new
Israel. At that time the Hebrew people will see the mistake of the centuries
in their rejecting the Messiah. In true contrition they will acknowledge
their national sin, will plead for Him to return, which thing He will do.
Then all Israel will be reunited. Thus the residue of Judah's brethren will
return to Him. Messiah will mount the throne of David and will establish a
reign of righteousness, peace, and justice upon the earth. According to
verse 4, Messiah shall stand, and shall feed his
flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his
God: and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the
earth. Such is the original context of the second quotation given
in Matthew.
Now let us look at it as it appears in Matthew. When the wise men came from
the East and inquired where was the child who is born "King of the Jews,"
Herod inquired of the scribes where the expected King was to be born. Their
reply was that, according to Micah's prophecy, He was to be born in
Bethlehem of Judaea. Thus they quoted Micah 5:2 and interpreted this passage
literally. Herod wanted to know the place where He was to be born. The
prophecy stated that it would be in Bethlehem of Judah.
This prophecy was interpreted literally. Messiah, who is to be Israel's
future Ruler, was, according to plan and schedule, to be born in Bethlehem
of Judah. Thus we see from Matthew's use of this passage that the prophecy
was fulfilled literally. Both the original prediction and its application in
the New Testament confirm one another.
*
Matthew 2:15
A third quotation given in the New Testament from the Old is
found in Matthew 2:15: Out of Egypt did I call my
son. This passage is found in Hosea 11:1. An examination of the
original context shows that the prophet was speaking of Israel and her
coming forth out of Egyptian bondage. Israel was in the literal Egypt and
literally came out of Egyptian bondage under the leadership of Moses. About
this interpretation there can be no doubt. When the wise men departed from
Bethlehem, they went directly to their own home and did not return to tell
Herod anything about the Christ Child. Knowing what Herod would do, the Lord
warned Joseph to take the child and Mary the mother, to flee to Egypt, and
to remain there until He would tell them when to come back to the land of
Israel. Joseph followed the instructions implicitly. When Herod was dead,
the Lord instructed him to bring the mother and the child out of Egypt and
to return to Palestine. This thing they literally did. Matthew said that the
Holy Family resided in Egypt and came forth, returning to the land of
Israel, and thus fulfilled this prophecy. But as we have seen, this prophecy
applied to Israel literally and to the Exodus under Moses. Just as Israel's
coming out of Egypt was literal, so was the coming of the Holy Family
literal. But since Israel is called God's first-born and so Jesus was God's
First-Born, there was a typical relationship between Israel and the Messiah.
Thus we see the literal meaning of the prophecy plus the typical
signification. Because of Israel's being typical of the Messiah, this
passage was thus properly and legitimately applied to Him.
*
Matthew 2:18
In Matthew 2:18 we have a quotation taken from Jeremiah
31:15: Thus saith Jehovah: A voice is heard in
Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she
refuseth to be comforted for her children, because they are not.
An examination of this passage in the original context shows that these
words were spoken concerning the mothers of Israel who wept when their sons,
at the conclusion of the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar went forth
into Babylonian captivity. There was literal weeping by real women
concerning the fate that had overtaken their sons. An examination of the
original context shows that this is the significance of the words.
When Herod saw that he had been mocked by the wise men, he issued a decree
that all children under two years of age should be destroyed. He issued this
edict in order that he might be certain that the Christ Child was slain.
When this decree was executed, naturally the mothers of Bethlehem whose
children had been slain wept for their children. In the original passage
there were actual mothers weeping literally for their children. In the
application that is made of this passage to the mothers of Bethlehem the
whole situation is literal. But did Jeremiah, in speaking these words, look
forward and see these mothers in Bethlehem weeping? This is doubtful. Why
then, did Matthew quote this passage and apply it to the case under
discussion? The original subjects concerning whom the prophecy was uttered
and those to whom it was applied were all literally in a similar position.
The cases were parallel in that they were literal and were similar. Thus
Matthew interprets this passage literally and makes an application to an
analogous case. We see that the prophecy had literal fulfillment plus an
application. This is a legitimate use of Scripture.
*
Matthew 2:23
In Matthew 2:23 we are told that Mary and Joseph brought
Jesus and settled in Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which had been
spoken through the prophets that He should be called a Nazarene. One will
look in vain for such a definite, specific passage of Scripture saying that
the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. A Nazarene is an inhabitant of
Nazareth. In the first century Nazareth had a very bad name. When Nathaniel
was told that Jesus was of Nazareth, he asked this question:
Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?
(John 1:46). The word, Nazarene, in the days of Jesus was a term of
reproach. Since there is no specific passage of Scripture which says that
Messiah would be called a Nazarene, and since there are many passages which
say that He would be hated, despised, and looked down upon, it is very clear
that the statement of the Evangelist that He should be called a Nazarene is
his way of giving us the gist of those prophecies that tell about the
hostile attitude that the people would take toward Messiah. The Old
Testament predictions say that men will literally hate the Messiah, and that
He will be a reproach and will be despised. All of these ideas are expressed
by the word, Nazarene. Thus we see that this is a literal fulfillment of
these predictions, but it is also a summation of the teachings of the
prophets on this point.
From this short survey of quotations from the Old Testament we can see how
very important it is that we examine the contexts of every quotation thus
cited in order that we may determine the correct interpretation. *
Links to studies in the "Rules of Interpretation" series may found in our
Library. *
Return to Home Page
|