A concise, memorable way to begin a case for a traditional Christian view of Jesus' childhood is to focus on geography. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He was raised in Nazareth. He chose to live in Nazareth for a while as an adult. He then moved to Capernaum. During his public ministry, he became closely associated with Galilee more broadly. Since then, he's become highly influential among the Gentile nations. That series of events lines up well with the geography of Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 9:1. (It's also a significant fulfillment of other passages referring to a Jewish messianic figure who will become highly influential among the Gentiles. For discussions of the significance of the reference to Gentiles in Isaiah 9:1 and references to influence over the Gentile world elsewhere in Isaiah, see here and here.) Jesus' living in Nazareth and Capernaum as an adult and his giving so much attention to the region of Galilee in general during his public ministry were things he could have done by normal means without significant difficulty. They were prophecy fulfillments he had a lot of control over by natural means rather than having little or no control. Still, his deciding to do those things provides evidence that he viewed himself as the figure of Isaiah 9:1-7. That's significant in light of what the passage says about that figure's Davidic ancestry, Messiahship, and deity. And being born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth from so young an age and becoming so influential among the Gentiles weren't things he had that sort of control over.
I've argued elsewhere that Micah 5:2 is referring to a birthplace. But it could be objected that the other four geographical regions aren't given that sort of narrow context (their role isn't described as specifically as a birthplace) and that the reference to Gentiles in Isaiah 9:1 isn't a reference to a geographical region. There is some ambiguity in Isaiah 9:1, which weakens its evidential significance. But it would be absurd to claim that the weakening of significance is equivalent to an elimination of significance. Even without being told that the figure in question would live in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, for example, we know that where a person lives is a highly prominent aspect of an individual's life, which is why Jesus was often called Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus merely had a disciple who had lived in Zebulun and Naphtali rather than having lived there himself, for example, Jesus' alignment with the passage would be less significant. Or if Jesus had only visited each region once, instead of living in each, the fulfillment would be less substantial. And though the passage refers to Galilee's association with Gentiles rather than mentioning Gentile nations, see my posts linked earlier (here and here) for some discussion of the likely connection between Isaiah 9:1 and references to the Gentile nations elsewhere. It's probable that chapter 9 is alluding to that theme elsewhere in Isaiah about how the Gentile nations would follow this messianic figure. You could leave out the Gentile nations and only appeal to four geographical regions in Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 9:1 (or less than four, if you want), but I'd include all five. While Isaiah 9:1's ambiguity does lessen the evidential force of Jesus' fulfillment of the passage, there's still some force to it. One way to illustrate that fact is by asking how well other figures have lined up with the passage. I don't know of anybody else who's lined up nearly as well as Jesus has, and when Micah 5:2 is added, the discrepancy grows even larger.
There's some evidential value in the orderliness of these passages as well. As I mentioned above, the evidence suggests that Micah 5:2 is referring to a birthplace, so it would come first chronologically. And Isaiah 9:1 lines up well with the chronology of Jesus' public ministry and the results of it. Zebulun is mentioned before Naphtali, which is the order in which Jesus lived in those locations, and he became prominently associated with Galilee more broadly and the Gentile nations in that order. One way to think of the orderliness is to begin with Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, then move to his living in Nazareth, then his living in Capernaum, then his influence over Galilee as a whole, then his influence over the Gentile world. As with the regions mentioned in these passages, the orderliness of them isn't maximally evidential. There are some ambiguities. But there's some degree of orderliness that has some evidential significance.
Non-Christians will often grant Jesus' association with three of the five regions in question (Nazareth, Galilee, the Gentile nations). See here, for example, regarding how often the early opponents of Christianity referred to Jesus as either a Galilean or a Nazarene in particular. And many modern non-Christians (e.g., Bart Ehrman) will acknowledge Jesus' ties to Nazareth and Galilee. His major influence on the Gentile world is highly obvious and supported by abundant evidence in the modern world, so I wouldn't expect much opposition to the fact that Jesus has been highly influential among the Gentiles. Bethlehem will be the most controversial of the locations in these passages, but I've argued, in a post linked above, for the probability of Jesus' birth there. His residence in Capernaum might be disputed by a non-Christian, but it's affirmed by multiple first-century sources, and I don't know of any significant reason to doubt it.
You could remember these points by thinking of the five geographical regions involved in the order I mentioned above: Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Galilee, the Gentile nations. Click on each one for a post discussing the relevant evidence. And you can find more posts with relevant material by searching our archives.
But why consider what I've outlined here a Christmas argument? How is Jesus' residence in Capernaum as an adult or his influence over the Gentile world in later years, for example, relevant to Christmas? Jesus' childhood and adulthood are often intertwined. I've written about how passages in Isaiah traditionally associated with Easter also addresses the Messiah's childhood. Similarly, though Isaiah 9 has traditionally been considered a Christmas passage, it also addresses the Messiah's adulthood. Because of the connections within and among these passages, evidence for the fulfillment of something in a messianic figure's adulthood increases the likelihood of fulfillment of the childhood material and vice versa. And Jesus' childhood foreshadows his adulthood in some ways. See my post here about the significance of Jesus' living in Nazareth as a child. And think of how the visit of the magi foreshadows Jesus' later influence on the Gentile world. Isaiah 9:1 was fulfilled primarily after Jesus' childhood, but his childhood is relevant for the reasons I've just mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment