Making Sense of Ancient Readers

I just finished a review of Jonathan D. H. Norton's excellent monograph, Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yahad for the upcoming edition of the Stone-Campbell Journal. I found the book an exemplary monograph, razor-sharp in its focus, judicious in exegetical decisions, cautious about conclusions and a truly original, creative argument. I also found it extremely difficult to write a review of a PhD dissertation for a broader audience, but a good exercise nonetheless. 

I will post the review here when it is released, but for now I want to highlight the main argument, which  I consider quite convincing. The primary question Norton is seeks to answer is: was Paul aware of different textual traditions?  One of his key points is that the debate has been based on anachronistic approaches to textual plurality. The organization of manuscripts into “text-types” is a modern tool used to classify and organize “major textual lineages of transmission,” but these categories “do not correspond to any ancient copy” (41). Norton thinks that the high degree of textual fluidity in the first century, the existence of variant copies in the same location, and the genre of “rewritten Bible” all suggest that ancients were well aware of the “multivalent” character of copies while distinguishing “between copies [. . .] and the abstract body of the work itself” (44). Thus, ancients were aware of textual plurality, but they did not conceive of it in modern terms.

The dominant argument against Paul’s awareness of textual plurality has come from Dietrich-Alex Koch and Christopher Stanley who employ what Norton calls the “suitability argument” (47-48, cf. 153-61). This argument assumes that Paul’s citations were chosen to support his arguments and that some citations would have been more effective had he cited a variant reading (examples: Rom 9.25 [Hos 2.1^LXX]; Rom 11.26 [Isa 59.20]; 1 Cor 3.19 [Job 5.13]; 1 Cor 14.21 [Isa 28.11]; 1 Cor 15.54 [Isa 25.8]). From these instances, which Norton thinks “rarely support” the suitability argument, “Koch and Stanley generalize [. . .] that Paul always cited his sources uncritically” (47). In opposition, Norton argues, “In some cases citations play more than a purely rhetorical role. The citation is indispensable to Paul’s logic, that is, Paul’s appeal to the passage logically structures his argument and one could not remove such a citation without disrupting the coherence of the argument” (47).

Not only are some texts crucial to Paul's logic, but Norton questions the way Paul's citations have been evaluated. Typically, Paul's citations are compared based on their lexcial similarity to Old Testament text forms (Old Greek, Masoretic Text, Aquila, Theodotian, Symmachus, etc.). Instead of basing comparison on lexical similarities, however, Norton astutely suggests comparisons should be based on “semantic criterion.” 

The basis of Norton’s argument is twofold. First, it has been shown, most definitively by Christopher Stanley, that ancient writers “frequently altered the wording of their sources for rhetorical, stylistic and theological purposes” (51). Thus, lexical changes are not necessarily an indicator of Paul's source, but might simply reflect his alterations. Second, different text forms of a given passage can convey the same meaning in distinct lexical forms, making them virtually the same in the view of an ancient reader. 

Norton highlights a couple of examples to make his point about the need to move away from lexical critiera for measuring textual variation. The first is Genesis 2.24, cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.16. It reads in the LXX, “The two will be one flesh” while the MT reads “they will be one flesh.” The lexical difference (addition of “the two” in the LXX) does not alter the meaning of the text in the slightest. Conversely, it is also often the case that distinct text forms of the same passage convey “completely different senses” (51). Here Norton contrasts the “sense contours” of Habakkuk 2.16 evidenced variously as, “You will be sated with shame instead of glory. Drink, you yourself, and be circumcised/stagger” (Hab 2.16 [MT]/1QpHab. 11.8-9). In these variant forms, the meaning of the text is changed. Norton's point, and it is a crucial one, is that discerning ancients’ awareness of textual forms should focus on semantic criterion, what he calls “sense contours,” rather than the modern text-critical concentration on lexical criterion.


In thinking about how ancient readers handled texts the precise wording becomes less significant than the "sense" of the text . . . 

What might this indicate about how textual criticism ought to be practiced?

Is it now crucial to analyze not only the forms of the text that Paul cites, but also the forms he doesn't? What might that tell us about his approach to these texts?

tolle lege

Exciting Fall

It’s the fall again, my favorite time of year. As a sports fan fall is exciting because football is available for mass consumption every weekend at every level, from high school boys to professional athletes. Fall is a fantastic season because of the colors, smells and temperatures. Summer heat gives way to breezy sweat-shirt weather.  The rich green leaves yield to bright yellows, brilliant reds and explosive oranges. The scent of burning charcoal briquettes wafts from tailgates and backyards. The reason I love fall most is the beginning of a new academic year. New students are beginning the journey. Seasoned students are starting the routine again. It’s just a wonderful time to be studying.

This fall I embark on my newest and most challenging research project yet – my thesis. For the sake of what I hope this project will become, I will only say that it concerns Paul’s use of the OT in Romans, and it’s not focused on Romans 1-4 or 9-11. Intrigued? I hope so.

An important part of producing a good thesis is having helpful readers to provide advice, critique and encouragement at appropriate times. Despite the untimely loss of my primary advisor in Dr. Robert Lowery to a lengthy battle with cancer, I am thankful to have Dr. Anthony Le Donne as my primary reader. Anthony is an accomplished scholar who specializes in Jesus studies and Second Temple Judaism. His PhD dissertation, published as The Historiographical Jesus, focused on social memory and historiography applied to historical Jesus studies, which he wrote under James Dunn and John M. G. Barclay at Durham. His more recent book, Historical Jesus: What we can know and how we can know it?, is a popular-level account of what social memory can teach us about Jesus. Needless to say, Anthony is an accomplished scholar.

Anthony also happens to be an incredibly generous person. He has been an invaluable guide in navigating this research project already. After challenging me to produce a “history of interpretation” on my passage, Anthony encouraged me to do an inductive study of Romans and write a paper articulating how my passage fits and functions in Romans. I’m in the middle of this project now and it has been an extremely helpful exercise. Even if the entirety of the final product does not end up in my thesis it has been crucial to solidify my own thoughts.

My second reader, who just recently agreed, is Dr. Mark Reasoner. I do not know Dr. Reasoner personally, and had only passing familiarity with his work until he agreed to participate in this project. Dr. Reasoner wrote his dissertation The Strong and the Weak on Rom 14.1-15.13 under H. D. Betz at University of Chicago and it was published in the prestigious Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series through Cambridge. His most recent book, Romans in Full Circle provides a history of interpretation on some major texts in Romans. I am excited for our first face-to-face meeting in October.

I am beyond grateful to have these two fine scholars interested in my project. I only pray that my collected work, offered for their critique would be acceptable. Perhaps by God’s will we might be refreshed together in Paul’s master epistle and God’s grace.

Resurrection in Romans

Could someone be so presumptuous to suggest that the masterpiece of Romans has been misunderstood? J. R. Daniel Kirk is precisely that presumptuous in his debut book, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. He argues that for too long, scholars have been asking the wrong questions and thus arriving at ill formed conclusions about Paul’s master epistle. Chiefly, Kirk considers the way in which Romans is read as a theological abstraction thoroughly problematic. Instead of reading Romans looking for definitions and doctrines, the standard approach to Romans in a post-reformation context, Kirk is concerned to describe “God’s identity” which is inseparable from his covenant obligations to Israel.

Thesis:

It is refreshing that Kirk’s rereading is not based on ideological criticism, so popular nowadays, but rather on a close reading of the text. Analyzing Romans through the lens of a theme found in every major section of the text he identifies what he sees as the “hermeneutical key” to the book – the resurrection of Jesus. So, his thesis reads, “In Romans, the resurrection of Jesus becomes Paul’s key for demonstrating that the promises contained in the Scriptures have been fulfilled in the Christ event.” Thus, “Resurrection is the most pervasive theme of the letter and it functions throughout as a hermeneutical key for reinterpreting the Scriptures and stories of Israel” (8).

Reading resurrection as the key to Romans addresses three major concerns of the letter. First, Kirk contends that it is because of the resurrection that Paul can read scripture the way he does. It has long been recognized that Paul’s use of the OT is especially pervasive in Romans and, in Kirk’s view; it is the resurrection that provides the lens through which Paul is reading the OT. Second, it is because of the resurrection that Paul can contend Gentiles are now included among the people of God. Third, Kirk wants to read Romans as concerned with theodicy. How can God be faithful to his covenant if the majority of Israel does not believe? Kirk suggests, “Resurrection simultaneously provides the means for vindicating humanity and for vindicating God” (11). It is in resurrection that God can vindicate the righteous and thereby vindicate himself as just. Kirk’s argument about resurrection, then, provides the key to Paul’s hermeneutic, Gentile mission, and theodicy.

Summary:

Kirk is exactly right to find resurrection as a thread running throughout Romans (Rom 1.4, 16-17; 4.16-23; 5.9-10, 15-21; 6.1-23; 7.1-6; 8.1-39; 10.1-13; 11.13-15; 13.8-14; 14.1-12; and 15.12). Before analyzing each text, however, he provides a very succinct second chapter (pgs 14-32) on resurrection in Second Temple Judaism. He focuses on Daniel and 2 Maccabees and compares 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Apocryphon of Ezekiel, and even Josephus. Following George W.E. Nickelsburg’s Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, Kirk analyzes the literature by asking what function resurrection serves in the various stories of God’s interaction with humanity. He sees resurrection serving four purposes: [1] justice for the oppressed, [2] “motivation for righteous behavior”; [3] “restoration of creation”; and [4] “the restoration of Israel” (15).

Next, he turns to analyzing the texts in Romans were resurrection shows up. In chapter three Kirk shows that resurrection frames the letter in two structurally significant passages (Rom 1.1-7; 15.12). As he looks as how Paul describes Jesus’ resurrection, Kirk most helpfully points out, “The resurrection of Jesus, and of Jesus alone, exacerbates the theodicy problem that resurrection is intended to solve: is the God of Israel not capable of delivering his people and rewarding them for their faithfulness?” This, then, is why Paul turns to the scriptures of Israel to explain how it is that God is still just in raising the Messiah alone. This sets the stage for Paul’s overwhelmingly Christological readings of the OT. In Kirk’s mind, Paul is from the outset (Hab 2.4 in Rom 1.17) setting the course of “resurrection hermeneutics,” which  “will lie at the heart of defending God’s fidelity to the promises contained in Scripture and will do so by demonstrating that the people of God consists of both Jew and Gentile living out the obedience of faith” (55).

Chapter four of Unlocking Romans turns to Romans 4. Here, Kirk sees Paul rereading the Abraham narrative through the lens of Jesus’ resurrection. Rather than the readings of Abraham as Torah obedient, Paul reads him as a “type for God’s faithful people” (64) based on his belief in the God who raises the dead. So the “kind of faith” that “has tied both Jews and Gentiles to Abraham’s paternity” is “resurrection faith” (66). Therefore, the people of God are defined, not by Torah, but “by participating in the progeny raised up through God’s resurrection power” (83).

Chapter five, focused on Romans 5.9-10, argues that Paul “rework[s] every major function” that resurrection performed in Second Temple Judaism (85). Justification is not a future declaration that occurs based on Torah obedience, but a present reality vindicated by the resurrection of Jesus and those who participate in him. I think Kirk is correct, but his argument would have been much stronger if he had expanded his comparative analysis beyond 4 Ezra and included other Second Temple texts.

Chapter six provides an overview of Romans 5.12-8.11 by addressing the role of the Law. Kirk returns to the law in chapter eight (focused on Romans 10.6-13). In chapter six he argues that even though Paul cites scripture much less in 5.12-8.11, he is still very much focused on rereading Israel’s story through his resurrection hermeneutic. This is a very important, yet often overlooked, observation. Interestingly, sin/death is portrayed as a reigning power (Rom 5.13-14) to which the law has become aligned. This is a stark contrast to other Second Temple theologies. For example, in Psalms of Solomon 14.1-2 obedience to the law aligns one with God. To explain the role of the law, Kirk uses the metaphor of a vicegerent unwillingly put into the service of king Sin’s desires (81). The “I” of Rom 7.7-25 is “Adam” the man of the age of sin (cf. Rom 5.13ff.). Following E. P. Sanders Kirk finds Paul’s understanding of the law is not based on anything inherently problematic in the law itself, but rather retrospectively shaped by the resurrection of Jesus.

Before returning to the role of the law, Kirk follows Paul for an extended look at eschatological hope embodied in one of the most beautiful passages in all Scripture (Rom 8.12-39). Scholars have found echoes of numerous OT stories and themes in Romans 8, including Adam and creation, Abraham, the exodus, Davidic kingship, return from exile, and eschatological consummation. Kirk shows how Paul has all these themes in view (to varying degrees) but that each of them is reshaped by the resurrection of Jesus. So, “Whatever eschatological vision Paul may have had to work with in his Jewish toolbox, his own rendering of the story is profoundly resurrection-christological” (137).

Chapter 8 focuses on Romans 10.6-13 and returns to the question of the Law’s role. In fact, it seems to me that Kirk is allowing this later passage to shape how he reads Rom 5.12-8.11. In Kirk’s view, Romans 10 makes resurrection the quintessential “act of God” which must therefore define the faith of Israel as God’s people. This is relevant to Torah, because the resurrection displaces Torah’s role in most other Second Temple Jewish theologies. Paul’s use of Deut 30.12-13 in Rom 10.6-9 is particularly interesting because of the way Paul revises the text in an acceptable way to Jewish ears to support a radically different perspective than other Second Temple interpreters (167-168). Again, Kirk finds Paul reading scripture through the lens of the resurrection.

Chapter 9 is provocatively titled, “Resurrection and the Future of Israel” and focuses on Rom 11.15. Though there are numerous exegetical and theological questions in Rom 11, Kirk observes “the main contours [of the argument] are clear enough”: [1] “the current situation of Israelite disbelief and Gentile acceptance of the gospel is part of God’s mysterious plan of blessing the Gentiles by means of ethnic Israel” and [2] “the current disbelief of ethnic Israel is not permanent” (181). Israel’s hope as God’s chosen people is reshaped by Paul’s resurrection hermeneutic. Kirk is adamant that this Israel-as-resurrected interpretation, however, is not an argument for an eschatological ingathering of ethnic Israel (190). Thus Kirk provides an interesting argument for the salvation of Israel without foraying into a wild system as to how that might happen.

Chapter 10 turns to the how resurrection informs Paul’s ethical exhortations in Rom 13.8-14; 14.1-9. One of the great strengths of Kirk’s thesis is that resurrection, unlike justification, runs through every major section of Romans. Since the resurrection has become the cornerstone of God’s justice, ethical thought must also undergo a rereading via resurrection hermeneutics. There could have been much more here in regard to how Paul allows resurrection to reshape his ethics, but most of the chapter was spent arguing that Paul is in fact referring to resurrection despite other interpretations.

Kirk’s last chapter provides a summary conclusion that focuses on some contemporary applications of Paul’s resurrection hermeneutic. Not surprisingly, this chapter focuses on how Paul reads scripture, engages in a Gentile mission, and responds to the theological problem of evil (theodicy). It is a very clearly written chapter that ought to be required reading for undergraduates. It shows how resurrection shapes Paul’s thought in Romans and its implications today. Kirk opposes reading Romans looking only for soteriology, disdains how ethnic and even theological divisions have separated the church, and contends for an “already/not yet” apocalyptic eschatology to shape a humble response to the problem of evil. This chapter takes a decidedly more preachy tone, but it serves well an attempt to give some application to the argument.

Evaluation:

Unlocking Romans is a revision of Kirk’s doctoral dissertation “Resurrection in Romans: Reinterpreting Romans the Stories of Israel in Light of the Christ Event,” which was overseen by the master of NT use of the OT, Richard B. Hays. In many ways Kirk follows Hays’ impressive work on Paul’s use of the OT (Echoes of Scripture and Conversion of the Imagination) while still offering his own contribution by focusing on resurrection. I do wonder what the intended audience was for this book. Citations of German and French articles and commentaries makes me think the audience is primarily academic, but then why not include more material from the dissertation? Most undergraduate students would probably find Kirk’s book difficult reading, so I am at a bit of a loss as to who I would recommend this book to other than those keenly interested in Pauline theology. I think it deserves recommendation but non-specialists will probably have a difficult time.

I am always impressed when an argument unfolds that helps a reader see something in the text that was always there. I finished this book and thought, “Well of course it’s about resurrection!” But then, I began to reflect on how often Romans is preached and taught without recognition of resurrection’s significance in Paul’s thought. I am thankful for J. R. Daniel Kirk for showing us what was always there but we had lost the eyes to see through centuries of looking for soteriology.

The phrase “resurrection hermeneutic” is quite helpful and I thought Kirk could have exploited it more than he did. Perhaps, it could be modified into “Christological resurrection hermeneutic” but then it becomes quite a mouthful. Regardless, the concept is very helpful for understanding Paul. I wonder how this might be applied to Paul’s other letters and to see if the shoe fits? Overall, I found Kirk’s book to be a fascinating reading of Paul that is correct in identifying resurrection as crucial to Paul’s thought and argument in Romans.

Despite, the many strengths of this book I still have numerous questions and some disagreements. Throughout his book, Kirk disparages Francis Watson’s reading of Paul’s hermeneutic (pg 45 footnote 58; pg 47 footnote 66; pg 48; pg 99 footnote 6; pg 209 footnote 3). Watson suggests that Paul’s is not imposing his readings on the OT, but rather finding two dissonant voices in the OT and siding with one against the other (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith). Kirk is thoroughly dissatisfied with Watson’s reading because he sees Paul only able to read the OT the way he does after the resurrection. I think both Watson and Kirk are correct. Paul’s hermeneutic was radically reshaped by the resurrection. But, as Watson argues, Paul would have to justify that hermeneutic by reading the OT. He would not have been comfortable imposing his theology on the text nor would he have been convincing to those whom he wrote if he had done so. I think Kirk points this direction when he cites Richard Hays describing “the circularity of Paul’s hermeneutic” (pg 174 footnote 43). Paul reread the OT in light of the resurrection, but he did not consider that rereading an imposition.

I have other unanswered questions. If the law is displaced by resurrection and placed alongside the age of sin and death, what is its enduring value for Christians? Why does Paul appeal to it so strongly? Is it just the vestigial remains of his once very Jewish faith that has been transformed in the wake of resurrection? I know that Kirk does not want to read Paul as something other than a Jew, but how would his rereading have sounded to other Jewish ears? How could he justify his reading from the text itself if in fact it was so radically reshaped by the resurrection? As a whole, I think Paul’s understanding of the law required much more attention. As a prime example, Romans 7.7-25 received only a page of comment (124). So, “resurrection hermeneutics” still has some explaining to do when it comes to the law.

I repeatedly found myself saying, “Yes, resurrection, but where is the Holy Spirit?” I think this relates to Paul’s view of the law as well. What role does the Holy Spirit play in displacing the Torah? How does the resurrection reshape Paul’s theology of the Spirit? It’s not that Kirk ignored the Holy Spirit, I just think it merits more consideration especially in Romans 8. How does the Holy Spirit figure in “resurrection hermeneutics”?

These questions were prodded by a penetrating study of Romans. Unlocking Romans is a fine example of closely reading Paul’s master epistle and show us something that we should have seen all along.

Exciting New Book

I was surfing around Amazon.com the other day, a dangerous activity for my wallet, and I came across a book I knew I had to purchase. Steve Moyise, a recognized expert in the field of NT use of the OT, has just published (July, 2010) a book on Paul's use of the OT-- Paul and Scripture: Studying the new Testament Use of the Old Testament.

I received the book in the mail and immediately cracked it open. The introduction is lucid and concise. The whole book is only 125 pages. There are eight chapters:

(1) Paul's use of creation accounts with particular reference to Adam.

(2) Paul's use of the Abraham narratives for defining faith and identification with God's people.

(3) Paul's use of Moses tradition.

(4) Paul's use of the law and the seemingly contradictory ways he writes about and uses it.

(5) Paul's use of the prophets for the inclusion of Gentiles.

(6) Paul's use of the prophets for life in the Christian community.

(7) Paul's use of the Psalms.

(8) A Survey of modern approaches to Paul's use of the OT categorized as: intertextual, narrative and rhetorical.

I'm excited to tackle the book in the next few days and plan to post a review shortly afterward. However, with school starting this week good blogging intentions sometimes fall by the wayside. Either way, I would encourage anyone who is interested to pick up this book. It will likely prove a notable introduction to the field of NT use of the OT and Paul's theology as a whole.

For more on Moyise check out Nijay Gupta's interview with Moyise concerning his earlier introduction to the NT use of the OT --- Evoking Scripture.

Studying Paul’s Citation Practice

Unfortunately it seems that Christopher Stanley's fine work Paul and the Language of Scripture has gone relatively unnoticed in the world of NT academics. An ATLAS search for book reviews yields only six results and only three of those results are from major journals (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of Theological Studies, and Evangelical Quarterly). Despite the general lack of response, Stanley's work appears in numerous bibliographies and has much to commend it. I recently became aware of the book through a bibliographic reference while studying Paul's use of the OT and decided I needed to give it a read. I'm not only glad to have read it, but I had difficulty putting it down – which is something to be said for a book that was originally a PhD dissertation.

First published in 1992 in the SNTS monograph series, Paul and the Language of Scripture (PLS) is an adaptation of Christopher Stanley's PhD. dissertation at Duke University under D. Moody Smith. Smith is now the George Washington Ivey Professor Emeritus of NT at Duke and distinguished scholar of Johannine literature. Filled with untranslated Hebrew, Greek and German the book is certainly identifiable as a PhD. dissertation in NT studies. However, it is also well written lucidly argued and relatively easy to follow. His argument is so fascinating that I've already taken 14 pages of notes and I'm not finished taking notes on the second half!

Stanley seeks to establish two points beyond doubt. First, he argues that "Paul actively adapted the wording of his biblical quotations to communicate his own understanding of the passage in question and to obviate other possible readings of the same text." To establish this point he develops a rigorous methodology for identifying, classifying and analyzing Paul's citations of the OT. Second, Stanley suggests that, "In offering such 'interpretive readings' of the biblical text, Paul was working consciously but unreflectively within the accepted literary conventions of his day" (29). This second thesis is established by analysis of both Greco-Roman and Jewish citation patterns in the first century. Though I might contest some of Stanley's arguments, it seems to me that he has well-proven these two theses.

The book consists of nine chapters in three parts. Part one focuses on bringing much needed clarity to a difficult issue and determining a methodologically sound approach to Paul's citations of the OT. The first part has two chapters that provide a very helpful overview of the methodological issues. Part two, consisting of four chapters, focuses on identifying the source(s) of Paul's quotations (chap 3) and then analyzing his use of the sources (chapters 4‒6). Identifying Paul's sources is an important but often overlooked step in the whole discussion of Paul's use of the OT. To make an anachronistic, but I think still helpful comparison, it is crucial to know which text a preacher is using while preaching. It would be unfair to evaluate a preacher's "use of the text" while looking at the KJV when the preacher was using the NIV. Similarly, one cannot evaluate Paul's use of the OT based on the Masoretic Text (MT) or even the LXX when Paul was most likely using a Greek translation of a Hebrew text that predates the MT and has affinities with a textual tradition not dominate in the LXX tradition. This is of course a difficult task since there aren't copies of "Paul's Bible" lying around. So, Stanley suggests a nuanced method for reconstructing the source Paul used so as to identify his adaptations. After establishing an admittedly minimalistic methodology (56) Stanley launches into his analysis of Paul's use of the text (chapters 4-5) then offers his summary conclusions (chapter 6).

Part three of PLS (chapters 7‒8) focuses on comparing Paul's use of scripture with surrounding literature. In chapter seven, Stanley analyzes Greco-Roman citations of Homer's work (the "Bible" of the Greeks) and compares it with Paul's use of the OT. In chapter eight, Paul is placed alongside other Jewish writers and their citation practice. In the end, Stanley concludes that Paul fits nicely with both Greco-Roman and Jewish citation practices.

There is much to be learned from Stanley especially as it relates to methodology, but let me highlight one of the arguments I found particularly interesting. The issue of Paul's written source is hotly debated. Some have suggested early Christian "testimonia" like what has been found at Qumran (4QTestimonia) while others have advocated the position that Paul quoted from memory. While appreciating but critiquing these arguments Stanley suggests that Paul's citations came from a written source – his own notes. Note taking was, as Stanley cogently argues, widely practiced in Greco-Roman culture and established as regular practice by Paul's day (see pages 73-79). This argument does not leave out the possibility that Paul may have on occasion quoted from memory, particularly more well-known passages (79), but that his usual practice was a written source probably compiled as he wrote.

For anyone interested in Paul's use of the OT this book is a "must-read." If nothing else, it will bring clarity to the host of complex and exciting questions that must be asked in order to appreciate what Paul is doing and how he went about incorporating the OT into his writing.

Child of Promise and Child of Judgment

In an effort to further articulate how the New Testament authors use the OT, I'll be highlighting a number of examples from different New Testament authors. The format I'm using is a comparative chart followed by commentary. In the far left column I've placed my translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). In the middle column I've placed the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT abbreviated by the Latin numerals for "seventy" (LXX) based on a legend about the seventy translators who produced it. It is widely recognized the LXX was the Bible of the early Church and my comparisons will show the NT authors often follow the LXX, though in many cases they seem aware of the MT. There are lots of questions surrounding the textual issues of how the NT uses the OT, but my goal is primarily interpretive. In the far right column I've placed my translation of the NT text. I include the quotation formulas (i.e. "to fulfill what was said" or "as it is written") because I think they are often part of how the NT writers want to use the OT text.

After the comparative chart I've placed commentary. The commentary breaks down into three parts. In part one I discuss the textual issues. Is the NT writer following the LXX or the MT? How closely? What changes are evident? What might these changes signify? I'll admittedly spend less time on these issues than they deserve, but only because they've been rehearsed by those more capable than me in numerous journal articles commentaries and in the very helpful tool‒ Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. In part two, I'll do a brief overview of the OT passage in its original context. More could be said here as well, but the goal is to get a picture of the main point of the passage not capture every interpretive nuance. In part three, I'll look at what the NT author is doing with the passage. I'll answer what context the NT author is placing the OT passage in and then try to answer what the NT writer seems to be "doing."

My goal is to articulate what a NT writer, in this case Matthew, thought he was doing when he quoted the OT. A question I plan to pursue later his how well his audience would have picked up on his interpretive intentions and how much it matters, but I don't have time for that here. To dive right in I've compared Matthew's use of Isaiah 7.14 in Matthew 2:23 which upon even a surface comparative reading is quite problematic for those who suggest the NT writers are doing historical-grammatical exegesis (i.e. Walter Kaiser Jr.).

Isaiah 7.14; 8.8, 10		Matthew 1.22-23
MT (BHS)	LXX	NT
[7.14] Therefore, the lord himself will give to you a sign‒ Behold, the young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. [8.8] "Immanuel." [8.10] "For God is with us."	[7.14] On account of this the Lord himself will give to you a sign‒ Behold, the virgin will be pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. [8.8] "God is with us." [8.10] "Because the Lord God is with us."	[22] So this all happened in order that the word by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled saying, "Behold the virgin will be pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel, Which means, "God with us."

Textual Issues:

Much ink has been spilled over this verse. Textually, there are only a couple of features of significant debate. Matthew follows the Septuagint exactly adding only an interpretive gloss on the name Immanuel, which though often overlooked but indicated in my chart, is clearly drawn from later in Isaiah's prophecy (8.8, 10). Both the LXX and Matthew have two interesting differences from the MT. The first, and most significant, is the translation "virgin" parthenos for "young woman" 'al^emâ. There is a lot of debate about this difference since "young woman" does not necessarily imply virginity but simply a woman of marriageable age. The typical Hebrew word for "virgin" is b^etūlâ. The question is why did the LXX translators use parthenos rather than the Greek word neanis appearing elsewhere as the LXX for the Hebrew 'al^emâ (Exod 2.8; Ps 67.26; Song 1.3; 6.8)? There is nothing in the context of Isaiah that would seem to imply this woman is a virgin, but the LXX translators use parthenos. It should be pointed out that in Genesis 24.43 parthenos translates 'al^emâ and contextually the woman, Rebekah, was in fact a virgin. It is difficult to draw much in the way of a conclusion because of the scarcity of the word 'al^emâ in the OT. Suffice it to say Isaiah did not mean virgin but the LXX translators may have meant "virgin."

The second issue is the aspect of the verb for the birth. The MT text has a Qal participle translated "is giving birth" while the LXX and NT have the future indicative "will give birth." The Hebrew text emphasizes the process is happening where as the Greek places the birth in the future. This is not a drastic difference, but it does seem to imply that the Hebrew is indicating a more immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's words.

Context in Isaiah:

Ahaz, the king of Judah, was terrified to learn that Syria and Israel were mounting an attack against Judah (Isa 7.1‒2). In response, Isaiah was sent to reassure Ahaz to trust that God would not allow these renegade kingdoms to overtake Judah (Isa 7.4‒9). To reassure Ahaz Isaiah said, "Ask for a sign of the Lord your God, let it be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven" (Isa 7.10). Unfortunately, Ahaz out of fear but in the guise of piety refuses to ask for a sign (cf. Num 14.22; Deut 6.16). In a response of judgment, Ahaz is promised the child "Immanuel" from a young girl (Isa 7.14-17). Before the child is old enough to discern right and wrong, Syria and Israel will be deserted by the power of Assyria. The child, then, would seem to be none other than Maher-shala-hash-baz‒ Isaiah's unborn son (Isa 8.1-3). Or it is possible this is a separate child to be named Immanuel and will serve the same symbolic purpose as the later born child. Either way, this "Immanuel" child is intended to serve as a sign of God's trustworthy presence as well as judgment upon Ahaz who is not established in faith, and thus will not be established at all (7.9). 
Fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy is tricky. On the one hand, the sign must surely have had a referent that would have made sense as a sign to Ahaz (Isa 7.14, 17ff.; 8.8; 9.1). Yet, it is clear that the gathering of Israel and unprecedented importance is attached to the promised child (Isa 9.1-7; 10.20-23; 11.1-16). John Walton observes three problems with arguing that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz or even a separate child to serve as a sign to Ahaz. First, Isaiah prompts Ahaz to ask for a remarkable sign, but there is nothing particularly unusual about the birth of a child. Second, the use of the rare Hebrew word "young woman" (occurs only 7x in the OT: Gen 24.43; Exod 2.8; Ps 68.25[26]; Prov 30.19; Song 1.3; 6.8; Isa 7.14), complicated by the LXX translation "virgin" parthenos, suggests that this might be more remarkable than Shear-Jashub or Maher-shalal-hash-baz (7.3; 8.3). Third, the choice of the name Immanuel is lofty and does not seem to fit the specific historical situation like Isaiah's other sons' names. These complications are not convincing to suggest that the child is not Maher-shala-hash-baz, the position that Walton ends up taking.

The judgment theme of the "Immanuel" prophecy is too often overlooked. The overarching context of Isaiah 1‒6 concerns God's judgment on a wayward people. Isaiah 6 especially focuses on Isaiah's role as the prophet who will be ignored and thus proclaim judgment. The phrase "God with us" or its variations can imply protection (Ps 46.7, 11), salvation (Ps 48.8, 12), divine support (2 Sam 7.3), success in battle (2 Chron 13.12; 32.8; Judg 6.13-14), God's military support in taking possession of the land (Num 14.9; 32.32) or Yahweh's presence as a result of repentance and obedience (Amos 5.14; Zeph 3.15). It is Yahweh's presence that sets Israel apart as God's people (Exod 33.16; 1 Kgs 8.57). Still, God's presence does not always serve these positive functions and contextually Isaiah 7:14 would seem to be very antithesis to this support because Ahaz has been neither repentant nor obedient.

There are other indicators that God being with Israel is not just roses and success. The shift from "your God" (Isa 7.10) to "my God" (Isa 7.13) points to an increased distance not a comforting divine presence. There is also a consistent picture in the OT of God's presence among his people meaning judgment. Consider just a few examples: exodus judgment in the wilderness (Num 14, 16), the ark and judgment for unfaithfulness (1 Sam 4.3-5, 10-11, 18, 20-22; cf. Mal 3.11), Isaiah's own experience in the temple implies judgment is a sign of God's presence not his absence (Isa 6.1, 9-12; cf. Mal 3.1-5; 4.1-6). Yahweh's exaltation is a repeated theme in Isa 1‒6 but his exaltation is over proud and disobedient Judah (Isa 2.9-14, 17; 5.11-17; cf. 1.21-26, 28, 31; 3.12-15; 6.1; 12.4). Yahweh's presence as judgment fits with the covenant language of Isaiah, echoing the OT, that highlight's Israel's failure. Violation of the covenant, however, implies that Israel has a unique covenant relationship with Yahweh (cf. Jer 25.29; Ezek 9.6; Amos 3.2). This same theme is carried over into the NT as well (1 Pet 4.17; cf. James 3.1). God being "with Israel" means not only that he loves and protects her but also that she falls under God's judgment first and foremost.

In its original context, Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy intended to be fulfilled in Isaiah's day with drastic implications for God's people. This child would serve as a symbol of both God's miraculous salvation and his judgment on those who fail to give ear to his words. In spite of Ahaz's failures God would bring salvation from the coalition rising against Judah, but Israel still stood under God's judgment for consistently failing to trust him.

Context in Matthew:

Before Matthew's gospel even gets started it looks as though the purposes of God might be thwarted. Mary, the pregnant virgin, faces shame of divorce from her soon-to-be husband (Mt 1.18‒19). Yet God intervenes through an angel to instruct Joseph to take Mary as his wife because the child is "from the Holy Spirit" (1.20). The angel also instructs Joseph that the child will be named "Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (1.21). Matthew then adds an interpretive gloss from scripture to indicate that the whole ordeal‒ Mary's Immaculate Conception, Joseph's decision for divorce, the visit from the angel and the name Jesus‒is a fulfillment of scripture.

This interpretive gloss is the first of his twelve fulfillment formulas (Mt 1.22-23; cf. 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4; 26.54, 56; 27.9). Ten of these formulas are identified with specific OT texts by Matthew (Mt 1.22-23; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9). Here Matthew simply describes this OT text as "the word of the Lord through the prophet," but Matthew has no problem identifying the specific prophet he is quoting especially when it comes to Isaiah (Mt 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; cf. 3.3; textual variant in 13.35 as well). Further significance is attached to this formula by making this a word "from God" added to the fulfillment formula only twice (Mt 1.22, 2.15). Both fulfillments summarize angelic appearances in Joseph's dreams. This word from God, via divine messenger (an angel of the Lord) and ancient prophet makes the text especially important. Furthermore, the fact that this quotation is the first of the fulfillment texts suggests that it is programmatic for Matthew.

It is somewhat odd, and not often pointed out, that "Immanuel" is a name, but Jesus has already been given a name. "Jesus" is connected with the Hebrew word yāša meaning "to save" which apparently requires no explanation (cf. Philo Names 121‒122; Note that in Isaiah salvation is connected with the end of exile: Isa 40.2; 43.25; 59.2). "Immanuel," in contrast, requires interpretation‒ "God with us" (1.23b). This interpretation comes not from Isaiah 7:14, but Isaiah 8.8 and 10. Matthew, then, seems to be aware of the broader context of Isaiah 7‒9 and is putting this passage next to the birth narrative to make a theological comparison that will serve a programmatic function in his gospel. Jesus will not only save people from their sins but will serve as a sign of God's judging presence. Rejecting him is tantamount to rejecting Yahweh, but following him brings salvation.

This passage cannot adequately be described as a prophetic fulfillment. Isaiah never intended this verse to refer to the Messiah. No one before Matthew ever connected this text with the Messiah. Matthew is himself not trying to "prove" the virgin birth from scripture because such an argument would have been completely unconvincing to anyone who actually read Isaiah. Instead, Matthew is describing Jesus' identity by using an OT text for the birth of a child who would be a sign of both salvation and judgment.