Isaiah and Ahaz
The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. Isaiah 7:14-16
What if Ahaz (king of Judah) had believed Isaiah’s word from God that God was with him? Isaiah gave Ahaz a timeline for the future of the kings of Israel and of Aram. A young woman/virgin would conceive, give birth to a son who would be named “God with us”. That boy would reach the age of knowledge of right and wrong, probably twelve years. By that time the neighboring kings of Israel and Aram, who Ahaz feared, would no longer be a threat. But, only if Ahaz believed God was with “us” [and not trust in a military alliance with Assyria]. Read verses 17 and following to discover the terrible things that would happen if Ahaz did not listen to the word from God.
What happened: Ahaz made an alliance with Assyria and traveled there. He liked the altar he saw there and had one made to use in Jerusalem—he may have been required by the treaty to erect an altar for Assyrian gods. Israel became a dependent of Assyria. During the time it took the young woman’s son to reach twelve, the kings threatening Ahaz and Judah were defeated and, one of them, Israel, ceased to exist as a nation.
What would have happened if Ahaz had trusted in “God with us”?
Five hundred years later
“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 This all happened so that what did the Lord through the prophet speak would be fulfilled: 23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will name him immanuel,” which means “God with us.” Mt. 1:20-23 (NET) [Emphasis from NET]
Was the angel was reminding Joseph of Isaiah’s word to Ahaz (Joseph’s ancestor) of the importance of trusting “God with us”? (I am not dealing in this essay with the questions of the nature of Jesus’ birth and the incarnation.) Then we might conclude that part of the message was that Joseph’s trust in God (Immanuel) was essential in the days to come. Challenges included social disapproval due to Mary’s pregnancy, immigration to Egypt under the threat of death, and a son would be born into a world hostile to the message of “God with us.”
Warning about power politics
For Isaiah, “Immanuel” meant trusting God, rather than turning to military alliances (violence). Joseph was in Bethlehem because of the Roman occupation of his country. The occupation came in part because of a choice of violence over trusting God. The freedom fighters of a century and a half before Joseph, the Maccabees, decided that only by violent revolt against Syria and a military alliance with Rome could the people of God practice their religion as they should. Their contemporary, compiler of the Daniel experiences, opposed that call to violence. The Daniel writer called for faithful living like Daniel and friends, teaching wisdom, and trusting the visions of God’s control of history. The “chief priests and rulers” of Joseph’s time were part of the ruling class that gained power after the successful revolt against the Seleucid (Syrian) government. The Jewish leaders had chosen violence as a way to protect the temple and their way of worship. After the Hebrews gained their independence, the Romans used the treaty with them as a pretext to take over Judah. Some of the chief priests and legal experts maintained their alliance with Rome for personal economic advantage as well as to protect their religious freedom.
During Jesus ministry, the legal experts or “chief priests and rulers” were frequent opponents of Jesus. At the time of Jesus’ torture and execution, we know that the chief priests worked with the Romans to seek the death of Jesus – Immanuel. Did the angel bring a word of warning to Joseph because they, like Ahaz, had made accommodations with the superpower of the day, rather than trusting Immanuel?
What if the Persian astronomers had continued to look for the star they had seen in the East and gone directly to Bethlehem, rather than to Jerusalem? Although Bethlehem was only five miles from Jerusalem, it is possible to plot a path from “the East” directly to Bethlehem. One could conclude that they gave in to popular notions of kingship and went Jerusalem because it was the center of political and military power. If the Persian astronomers had continued to seek the star’s guidance, would the deaths of the boy children around Bethlehem have been avoided? The “chief priests and keepers of the law” were more concerned with maintaining their alliance with Herod than seeking “God with us”. Could the astronomers have refrained from telling Jesus’ location to Herod? What did Joseph learn from the Persian astronomers that prepared him to quickly respond to the Spirit’s warning to leave Bethlehem ahead of Herod’s search?
A dark shadow extends from Ahaz, through the Maccabees and their descendants, the “chief priests and rulers” of Joseph’s time and to Herod. It continues through Caiaphas and his allies who were willing to allow the Romans to kill Jesus to protect the place of the ruling classes in Palestine. We are compelled to ask whether it extends to “collateral damage” of drone strikes and assassinations by order of governments ostensibly seeking peace, freedom and order. Does it extend to the displacement of Palestinian Arabs and Syrian Arab Christians from land owned by their families for many generations? The question must be asked even if we acknowledge some moral distance between Herod’s massacre of Judean boys and drone strikes.
Consider, then, the line, connecting Isaiah’s understanding of Immanuel with the wisdom teachers in Daniel-who anticipate shining like stars if death came (Dan. 12:3)-rather than doing violence. The line extends to the angel’s challenge to Joseph to trust Immanuel and to the angel’s message of peace at Jesus’ birth. The line extends to and beyond Jesus’s weeping over Jerusalem: “If only they knew what made for peace.” *
For Joseph, the “Immanuel” message was a warning of difficulties leading to violence, but also the assurance that God was with him. But he was encouraged to be faithful. Today many people of God argue that goodness/justice/freedom of worship can only continue through ultimate reliance on military solutions (although some acknowledge the need for development and diplomacy). Christians want to use political power to protect, ensure and enforce Christian practices on society. The consequences of this choice in Isaiah’s time, in Joseph’s time, and Jesus’ time should challenge us to reexamine these texts for guidance today. The answer begins with our willingness to hear the Isaiah and the angel’s message, Immanuel: God with us.
*[Isaiah, the Daniel editor and the gospel writers see faithful covenant living as an essential base for trusting Immanuel. I hope I have not obscured that base by focusing on the issue of political/military alliances and the reliance on violence versus trust in God.]
[revised blog reposted from November 2017]