How the accounts of Jesus’ childhood fit together: 6 things to know and share

joseph-maryBoth Matthew and Luke contain accounts of Jesus’ infancy.

But they don’t describe all the same events.

As a result, some have even accused Matthew and Luke of contradicting each other.

What’s the true story? Why did they record different events? And can the two be fit together?

Here are 6 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Why don’t the Gospels all record the same events as each other?

Because there was too much information to fit into a single book about Jesus.

John notes this specifically, and humorously, at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25).

In the ancient world, they didn’t have the printing technology needed to make large books, and so there was pressure to keep each single book short by modern standards.

This meant each Evangelist had to leave many things out.

There was also more than one way to approach telling the story of Jesus, to benefit different audiences, and so each Evangelist takes a somewhat different approach, and that affects his selection of which stories and sayings to include in his Gospel.

 

2) What approaches do Matthew and Luke take in their accounts of Jesus’ childhood?

The accounts of Jesus’ childhood are known as “infancy narratives.”

Although both have many points in common (e.g., Jesus was born of a Virgin named Mary, his foster father was Joseph, he was born in Bethlehem, the family later moved to Nazareth, etc.), it’s clear that Matthew and Luke are emphasizing different aspects of Jesus and the people around him.

Matthew keeps his account short, he focuses on Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, and he emphasizes Jesus kingly role (descent through Solomon in the genealogy, seen as a threat by King Herod, visited by foreign dignitaries, etc.).

Luke devotes much more space to the events, he focuses on Jesus mother, Mary, and he does not emphasize Jesus’ kingship as much (e.g., he records him being visited by humble shepherds).

 

3) Can we track the movements of the Holy Family (and the others in the narratives) by bringing together Matthew and Luke’s accounts?

Yes. The texts give us enough indications of time and sequence to do this, as follows:

1. Gabriel appears to Zecharaiah in Jerusalem to announce the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-22).

2. At the end of his term of service, Zechariah returns to his home in the hill country of Judea and his wife, Elizabeth, becomes pregnant (Luke 1:23-25; cf. 39).

3. In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the fifth month but before the end of the sixth month), Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth to announce the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38).

4. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and stays for three months before returning to Nazareth (Luke 1:39-56). This appears to happen in the ninth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the eighth month but before the end of the ninth month).

5. In the tenth month of her pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the ninth month but before the end of a tenth month), Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist and, eight days later, John is circumcised and named (Luke 1:57-80; note that the ancient Israelites reckoned pregnancy as lasting ten months, not nine; cf. Wisdom 7:2; technically, a pregnancy lasted 9.6 months on the Jewish calendar, but the ancients rounded all fractions up; by comparison, a pregnancy is typically 9.3 months on a modern calendar, but we round this fraction down instead of up).

6. Some time between event 3 and event 7, Joseph is informed that Mary is pregnant and he plans to divorce her quietly. However, an angel appears to him in a dream and tells him to go ahead and continue the marriage (Matthew 1:18-23). Most likely, this event occurred after Mary returned from her visit to Elizabeth. Joseph likely would have waited to deal with the divorce question until Mary’s pregnancy was confirmed, either by it beginning to show or by Mary reaching the point of “quickening” (when the unborn child was large and strong enough for the mother to feel it kicking in the womb). In the absence of pregnancy tests, the ancients used these as proof that a woman was pregnant. These points would have been reached around or shortly after the time Mary remained with Elizabeth. In fact, they may have motivated her return home so that she, also, could go into seclusion for the remainder of her pregnancy.

7. Joseph and Mary then begin cohabiting (Matthew 1:24). This would have been in Nazareth, per Luke’s account.

8. Because of the enrollment announced by Caesar Augustus, the Holy Family is forced to travel to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5), despite Mary’s pregnancy (which was at this point in the second or third trimester). If this was a tax enrollment, the journey was likely required because Joseph owned property there (cf. Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 3:62-63). While there, they likely stayed with relatives, but there were so many that there was no room in the main part of the house, and so they stayed in the part (likely a grotto) where the animals were kept. Animals were often kept in the homes of the people who owned them at this time.

9. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7, Matthew 1:24a).

10. That same night, shepherds visited them (Luke 2:8-20).

11. About this time, an unusual star is observed by the magi in their eastern homeland (cf. Matthew 2:2, 16).

12. Eight days after the birth, Jesus was circumcised and named (Luke 2:21, Matthew 1:24b).

13. Forty days after the birth, Jesus was presented at the temple in Jerusalem, and the Holy Family encountered Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:22-38; more here; cf. Leviticus 12:1-8).

13. It is possible that, shortly after this, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth (cf. Luke 2:39-40). If so, they later returned to Bethlehem for reasons we will see in a moment. If they did return to Nazareth at this point, they likely returned to Bethlehem multiple times in the next 1-2 years, because they observed the three annual pilgrimage feasts that Jews were required to make each year (cf. Luke 2:41; Exodus 23:14-17). These required to go to Jerusalem, and they likely stayed with relatives in Bethlehem on these occasions, since Bethlehem is just 6 miles from Jerusalem.

It is also possible that they did not return to Nazareth at this time but stayed in Bethlehem for a period of as much as two years (cf. Matthew 2:16). The likely seems the more probable, for reasons we shall see. If they did stay in Bethlehem instead of returning to Nazareth, they probably continued to live with relatives. It is possible that they acquired their own house, but it was much more common in ancient Israel than it is today to have an extended family living under the same roof, especially among the poor (cf. Luke 2:24 with Leviticus 12:8).

14. Between one and two years after the birth (cf. Matthew 2:16), the magi appear in Jerusalem and ask Herod the Great where the newborn king of the Jews is to be found. They are directed to Bethlehem, and they travel there by night. They note that the star is now in the southern sky (the direction of Bethlehem from Jerusalem), and when they arrive they note that, from their perspective, the same star is above the house in a providential coincidence. They then enter the house, see the child Jesus with Mary, pay him homage, and offer gifts (Matthew 2:1-11).

This encounter could have occurred anywhere between one and two years after Jesus’ birth, given the tendency of the ancients to round up all fractions and the desire on Herod’s part to make sure he would eliminate Jesus (he would not want to have cut it close and missed the baby by a few days or months, so he would have at least rounded up and may have even padded the amount of time the magi told him).

15. The magi are warned in a dream (that night or very quickly after) to return to their country by a different route, which they then do (Matthew 2:12).

16. After they leave, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, which the Holy Family then does (Matthew. 2:13-15).

17. Some time shortly afterward, Herod realizes that the magi are not coming back and flies into a rage. He orders all the boys two years old and under who are in Bethlehem to be killed (Matthew 2:16-18). This is entirely in keeping with what we know about Herod, particularly in the latter portion of his reign. He had several of his own sons killed when he perceived them as threats, and Caesar Augustus reportedly quipped that it would be better to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son (the joke being that, as a Jew, Herod couldn’t eat pork, so his pig would be safe; more here).

18. Herod the Great dies (this likely happened in 1 B.C. not 4 B.C.), and his sons assume full authority over the different parts of his kingdom (they likely had partial authority as co-rulers for a few years prior, as was common in the ancient world). This leaves Herod Archelaus in control of Judea.

19. In Egypt, Joseph is informed in a dream that Herod the Great is dead, and he is told to return to Israel. He and the Holy Family do so (Matthew 2:19-21).

20. Once back in Israel, Joseph is informed that Herod Archelaus is ruling in Judea in place of his father. Knowing Archelaus’s reputation, Joseph is afraid to settle in Judea (Matthew 2:22a). Joseph’s impression is confirmed by the historical record. Archelaus was a terrible ruler who was eventually removed from power by the Romans, who replaced him with a governor in A.D. 6. This is why Judea is ruled by a governor (Pontius Pilate) during Jesus’ adult ministry, rather than by one of Herod’s sons.

21. Being warned in a dream, Joseph relocates the family to its previous home in Nazareth, which, being in Galilee, is outside of Archelaus’s territory (Matthew 2:22b-23; this is likely the same relocation referred to in Luke 2:39).

22. The family continues to make the annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and when Jesus is twelve, at Passover, Jesus remains behind and his parents find him in the temple three days later (Luke 2:41-52).

So there you have it: an integration of Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives.

 

4) Why is it likely that the move from Bethlehem to Nazareth that mentioned in Luke 2:39 the same as the one mentioned in Matthew 2:22?

There are a few reasons. Before looking at them, we should set aside an impression that we—as modern readers—are likely to be misled by.

In modern biographies, we expect much more complete accounts than the ancients did. This is because of the longer lengths of books today. Our books are simply able to contain more information, and so modern authors are expected to include it.

This wasn’t nearly as easy for ancient authors, and so ancient audiences expected them to omit more and to focus more on the highlights.

Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the family later went to Nazareth, where he was raised. Those were the most important points about his infancy.

Whether they went directly from Bethlehem to Nazareth or whether they had a detour somewhere else was a matter of lesser importance that one Evangelist might choose to include where another might not.

Biblical authors were allowed to proceed from one event that they chose to incorporate to another, with or without mentioning how much time elapsed between them.

Indeed, they were allowed to arrange material in sequences other than chronology (e.g., they were allowed to arrange it by topic, since this was in an age before chronology was anywhere near as strict as it is today).

All Luke says is that the Holy Family moved to Nazareth “when [i.e., after] they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord.”

That’s true, regardless of how long after these actions they remained in Bethlehem or whether they went anywhere else before going to Nazareth.

 

5) Why, specifically, isn’t it likely that they were in Bethlehem for a pilgrimage when the magi appeared?

One reason is that the odds of the magi appearing while the Holy Family happened to be on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is quite low.

The Old Testament laws regarding pilgrimage did not require people to be there for extended periods of time, and it would be unlikely for foreign visitors to show up during one of these periods.

Another reason is that the text may envision Joseph contemplating the idea relocating the family from Egypt to Bethlehem (or, at any rate, into Judea) until he learns that Archelaus is ruling over Judea.

This is more explainable if the Holy Family had been living in Bethlehem of Judea on an extended basis than if it had only been visiting Bethlehem for a few days.

 

6) How did the Holy Family’s moves likely proceed?

Initially, the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary in Nazareth, after which she visited the hill country of Judea for a time, before returning to Nazareth.

After an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, the two began cohabiting in Nazareth.

Then, both travelled to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.

They then remained in Bethlehem for between one and two years. Why is not discussed. It may have been initially motivated by a number of factors:

  • A desire to avoid a long trip so soon after the birth
  • A desire to stay in the area so that Jesus could be presented at the temple at forty days (otherwise three long trips would be needed; one to Nazareth, one back for the presentation, and then back to Nazareth again)
  • The availability of help in caring for the baby by kinfolk in Bethlehem

While staying there, business opportunities then likely arose for Joseph in the area, and they either fell into or consciously decided on a longer-term relocation to Bethlehem.

They may have even decided to stay in Bethlehem precisely because of the prophesy that the Messiah would be from there. They may initially have planned to give Jesus an upbringing in Bethlehem in fulfillment of this prophecy.

Such was not necessary, however, and after the appearance of the magi, they fled to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod the Great.

Upon returning to Israel, they learned that Archelaus was ruling over Judea. Understanding the danger this posed, and Joseph being warned in a dream, the Holy Family decided to relocate to their prior home in Nazareth.

Is the Church the New Israel & more!

microphoneJimmy appears on Catholic Answers Live in this episode of the podcast and answers these questions:

  • Why does the book of Baruch not appear in some early lists of the Old Testament canon?
  • Are we sinning if we don’t have a different disposition when praying to Mary and the saints than when praying to God?
  • Did St. Jerome write anything concerning Tobit being inspired, given the question of the Sadducees in Matthew?
  • Would it be appropriate or even mandatory for the Blessed Sacrament to be removed from the Tabernacle if someone is going to speak in a church?
  • How has the Church changed its evaluation of the writings of St. Faustina Kowalska?
  • Is it better to serve the poor by giving them money or making sandwiches and passing them out?
  • How to explain to an ex-Catholic (now Protestant) why they shouldn’t receive Communion in the Catholic Church? Also, how to explain why Transubstantiation does not occur in Protestant services?
  • What is the official Church teaching regarding the idea that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a lost source known as Q?
  • Is the Church the New Israel?

(Original Airdate: December 9, 2013)

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE EPISODE.

Or use the player below at JimmyAkin.com . . .

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

What are celibacy, chastity, and continence? 9 things to know and share

clerical collarThere is a great deal of confusion about what celibacy, chastity, and continence are.

Each one of these concepts is subject to common misunderstandings, but the differences between them are easy to sort out.

A reader from the Asian country of Myanmar writes:

Please, may I ask your help to explain the similarities and differences between celibacy and chastity, especially in the context of consecrated life, among diocesan clergy, and in married life.

I’d be happy to help! I’ll also throw in the related concept of continence.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Formal vs. Informal Speech

People often think that celibacy means not having sex, or having a commitment to not have sex.

This understanding is so common that you will find dictionary definitions for celibacy like “abstention from sexual intercourse.”

People often have the same idea about chastity, and so you can find dictionary definitions for chastity like “the state of not having sex with anyone : the quality or state of being chaste.”

These are informal ways of speaking that use these words the way they are popularly understood.

In this piece, though, we are going to look at what these terms mean when they are being used in a formal, Catholic context.

 

2) What is continence?

Continence refers to what people think celibacy and chastity refer to—that is, not having sex.

The term also has other meanings, but in a formal, Catholic context, it means not using the sexual faculty.

That includes not just ordinary, regular sexual acts, but all sexual acts. If you are refraining from any and all sexual acts, you are being continent.

It comes from the Latin word continentia, which means “a holding back.” By the late 1300s, this had come to mean refraining from sex.

More recently (in the 20th century), it has come to refer from holding back other bodily functions as well.

 

3) What is celibacy?

Celibacy is the state of not being married.

People associate it with the priesthood because, in the Latin rite of the Church, the norm is for priests to be unmarried—to be celibate.

However, properly speaking, anyone who is unmarried can also be said to be celibate.

It comes from the Latin word caelibatus, which simply means “the state of being unmarried.”

 

4) What is chastity?

KEEP READING.

Did Pope Francis Endorse Breast Feeding in the Sistine Chapel? 5 things to know and share

pope-francis-baptizes-a-babyThe Interwebz are ablaze with the story that Pope Francis encouraged breastfeeding—and in the Sistine Chapel of all places!

What did he say? And what did he mean?

Here are 5 things to know and share . . .

 

1) When did Pope Francis make his remarks?

It was Sunday, January 12, the commemoration of the Baptism of the Lord.

He was in the Sistine Chapel, where he baptized 32 babies.

It is customary for Popes to perform baptisms on this day.

We’ve talked about that before.

He took the occasion to give a brief homily.

It’s online in Italian here, but the full English translation is not up yet.

 

2) What did he say?

According to a Vatican Radio story:

The Holy Father concluded his homily with a special word of affection for the newly baptized children.

“Today the choir sings,” he said, “but the most beautiful choir is [the choir] of children” making noise.

He continued, “Some are crying, because they are uncomfortable, or because they are hungry. If they are hungry, mothers, give them something to eat… they are the central figures, the protagonists [of this celebration].”

It was with this “awareness of being the transmitters of faith” that Pope Francis continued on to the ceremony of Baptism.

 

3) Wait. He didn’t mention breastfeeding. Is this story being distorted?

KEEP READING.

What did the Gospel writers know?

four-gospelsSome biblical scholars are too quick to say that, because a particular Gospel doesn’t include a given story or saying of Jesus, the Evangelist who wrote it must not have known about it.

Really?

What would cause a person to think this?

 

The Infodump Hypothesis

One thing that might motivate such a view is the idea that the Gospels represent total infodumps of everything that a particular Evangelist knew about Jesus.

But if that were the case then they wouldn’t ready the way that they do.

They hang together as narratives and display too much literary artistry for that.

If they were frantic attempts to record everything the author knew about Jesus, there would be too many stray, half-formed things that don’t fit into their literary structures.

They also would be much longer than they are.

 

TMI

There would have simply been Too Much Information about Jesus for the Evangelists to put in the Gospels.

They had to make choices.

This would particularly be the case if Matthew and John were, indeed, eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry. They would have known lots about Jesus—far more than could be fit into a small book like a Gospel. Such authors would be forced to omit things they know about Jesus.

Even non-eyewitness authors (like Luke and, at least for the most part, Mark) were in contact with eyewitnesses and had access to lots of information about him.

The oral preaching of Jesus that preceded the writing of the Gospels was extensive, and the original eyewitnesses were still there and able to be implored: “Tell me more about Jesus!”

It is inescapable that the Evangelists would have known things about Jesus, either from their own experience of his ministry, from speaking with eyewitnesses, or from information that was in common circulation about him, that they did not put in the Gospels.

 

The Agrapha of Jesus

We even have examples of what may be authentic sayings of Jesus that weren’t recorded in the Gospels. They are known as “agrapha” (Greek, “unwritten ones”), and they are for the most part found in the writings of the Church Fathers, who attributed them to Jesus despite their not being in the Gospels.

KEEP READING.

The Aramaic Apocalypse and the Anunciation

4q246-manuscriptThere is a document in the Dead Sea Scrolls known as the Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246).

You can read the full (surviving) text here, along with some commentary.

The parts that I would like to call attention to are these:

He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the Son of the Most High, like a shooting star [Col. 2, Line 1].

Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and their paths will be righteous [Col. 2, Line 5]

Any of that sound familiar?

How about:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end” [Luke 1:31-33]

It’s no surprise, then, that many scholars view the Aramaic Apocalypse as referring to a messianic figure.

An additional piece of evidence is that it compares the Son of God/Son of the Most High to a shooting star. The symbol of a star was also connected with the Messiah.

The interesting thing to me is that it’s another illustration about how ideas found in Christianity (such as the identification of the Messiah with the Son of God) were already found elsewhere in first century Palestinian Judaism.

They may not have understood that the Messiah would be the Son of God in the same sense that Christians came to, but the linkage was already there.

Internal Struggles Common to All

There is a famous (among philosphers) passage in Plato where there is a particularly good illustration of the kind of struggles we often fight with ourselves–the same kind we read about in the New Testament in passages like “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” and St. Paul’s description of his internal struggles in Romans 7:13-25.

I wanted to keep track of the passage in Plato for use in the future, because it shows that these struggles are common to all humans, even the pagan Greeks.

I hadn’t read it since grad school, so I looked it up where it is.

It’s found in Book 4 of The Republic, where Socrates is talking with Glaucon, where we read:

SOCRATES: Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard, and in which I put faith. The story is, that Leontius, the son of Aglaion, coming up one day from the Piraeus, under the north wall on the outside, observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution. He felt a desire to see them, and also a dread and abhorrence of them; for a time he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length the desire got the better of him; and forcing them open, he ran up to the dead bodies, saying [to his eyes], “Look, ye wretches, take your fill of the fair sight.”

GLAUCON: I have heard the story myself, he said.

SOCRATES: The moral of the tale is, that anger at times goes to war with desire, as though they were two distinct things [SOURCE].

You can see why this is such a vivid illustration–both wanting and not wanting to look at dead bodies.

Creepy!

But exactly the kind of thing that we all find ourselves faced with on occasion.

Why was Jesus baptized?

BaptismOfJesusThis Sunday, the Church celebrates the baptism of Jesus Christ.

It’s an event that is recorded in all four gospels, so we know it’s important.

But there’s a question that has puzzled Christians all down through the ages.

It even puzzled John the Baptist, who performed the baptism.

Why was Jesus baptized?

 

The Problem

We all know what baptism does.

According to the Catechism:

The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes:

  • forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins,
  • birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

By this very fact the person baptized is

  • incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and
  • made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ [CCC 1279].

 

So, as you can see, it’s quite clear why Jesus would need to be baptized. He . . . hey, wait!

Jesus didn’t need to achieve any of those things!

Why, then, was he baptized?

Why did he insist on it, even when John the Baptist resisted?

 

The Answer

Here’s a short video to explain . . .

(Click here to watch the video on YouTube.)

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

How Is Mary’s Question Different?

annunciation-midIn Luke 1, the Angel Gabriel appears twice.

First, he appears to Zechariah the priest, to tell him that he will be the father of John the Baptist.

Then, a few verses later, he appears to the Virgin Mary to tell her that she will be the mother of Jesus Christ.

Both Zechariah and Mary ask questions of the angel–but with very different results.

Zechariah is rendered mute and unable to speak until John the Baptist is circumcised!

Mary . . . isn’t.

So, what’s the difference?

They both asked questions about the seemingly impossible pregnancies that Gabriel had come to announce?

Why is Zechariah treated so differently?

Is God just playing favorites with Mary?

Or is there a subtle difference between their questions and the attitudes which the questions reveal?

That’s what I take a look at in this podcast and video.

 

 

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.

By the way, don’t forget to subscribe to my YouTube channel so that you’ll get a shiny new email whenever I post a video!
OR . . .

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE EPISODE.

Or use the player below at JimmyAkin.com . . .

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He had a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

4th Sunday of Advent: 10 things to know and share

dream_of_joseph_champaigneThis Sunday the readings include the famous prophecy of Immanuel.

They proclaim God’s supremacy and our call to holiness.

They review the basics of the gospel message.

And they record the birth of Jesus and how it came about.

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What does the first reading say?

The first reading is Isaiah 7:10-14. (You can read it here.)

In this reading the prophet Isaiah confronts Ahaz, the king of Judea. He demands that Ahaz name a sign to show that the Lord will protect his kingdom. The sign can be as “high as heaven” or “as deep as sh’ol” (Hebrew, “the grave,” “the underworld”; pronounced “sh’OL”).

Ahaz, however, refuses to name a sign, saying, “I will not put the Lord to the test.”

Isaiah then declares:

Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also?

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.

 

2) What does this mean?

At the time the prophecy was given, the southern kingdom of Judah was demoralized by news that the northern kingdom of Israel was in league with Syria.

Under God’s inspiration, Isaiah wanted to strengthen the courage of the Judean king, Ahaz. He therefore offered him a sign from God to prove that he would defend the kingdom of Judea.

Ahaz, however, refused to name a sign—on the pretext that one should not “test the Lord” (Deut. 6:16).

While it is true, as a general rule, that one should not put the Lord to the test, this rule is suspended if the Lord himself invites you to do so.

As a result, Isaiah—an established prophet of the Lord—rebukes Ahaz and declares that he is not only wearing out the patience of men but is also wearing out the patience of God by refusing to name a sign.

He then declares that the Lord himself will name a sign, and gives the famous prophecy of “Immanuel.”

 

3) What does the prophecy of “Immanuel” mean?

KEEP READING.