The Old Testament and Christianity

Some of my thoughts here in an interview on the Overthinking Christian blog. My thanks to Paul Moldovan for asking me to participate.

Here's a taste:

Many Christians have the view that the OT focuses on God’s wrath while the NT on God’s love. What, if anything, is wrong with such a picture?

Ed: Well, let’s see, what would the evidence for such a view be, i.e., that the OT is more concerned with wrath and the NT more concerned with love? It’s not too hard to imagine how people who hold this view would support it. There are a lot of pretty specific laws in the OT, 613 of them according to the traditional Jewish reckoning, and some of these laws have pretty severe punishments attached to them—such as, “Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death” (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). God seems concerned in the OT about stuff like what people eat (Lev 11; Deut 14), and whether or not they wear clothes made of multiple materials (Lev 19:19; Deut 21:11). And, of course, he commands the genocide of the Canaanites (Deut 7:2; 20:16–18) and Amalekites (1 Sam 15:3). On the other hand, the New Testament presents a Jesus who is all about love (Mark 12:28:–34) and acceptance (Mark 2:13–17; Luke 7:36–50; 14:21; 19:9–10), against the hypocritical Pharisees who like to exclude people from God’s love (Matt 23:13). In the Old Testament, God is jealous (Exod 34:14); in the New Testament, God is love (1 John 4:7).
This is a caricature. 

Read the rest here.

'Egypt' and Matt. 2:15

I was reading through ch. 3 of Wright's big book on Paul when I came across this sentence. It has to do with the second half of Wisdom of Solomon, which concerns a retelling of the exodus narrative.

'Egypt' in the story stands not only, we may assume, for the pagan Egypt of the writer's own day, always capable of launching another pogrom against its Jewish inhabitants, but for any great power which oppresses and enslaves God's people. (p. 242)

This reminded me of Matt. 2:15, where I think something very similar is going on. Egypt is not 'Egypt'; rather, Judah is 'Egypt.' Judah is the "great power which oppresses and enslaves God's people." I've posted on this before, though I'm not sure the point is generally recognized.

Χριστός in the Old Testament

The Greek translations (LXX) of the (proto-)canonical Hebrew scriptures use the word χριστός 41 times. For your convenience, I list them here. Beware that the verse numbering will be that of the LXX, which will come into play especially in the psalms, where most of the psalms in the LXX are numbered one less than their counterparts in English Bibles.

Lev. 4:14, 16; 6:15; 21:10, 12

1Sam. 2:10, 35; 12:3, 5; 16:6; 24:7 (2x), 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23

2Sam. 1:14, 16; 2:5; 19:22; 22:51; 23:1

1Chron. 16:22

2Chron. 6:42; 22:7

Psa. 2:2; 17:51; 19:7; 27:8; 83:10; 88:39, 52; 104:15; 131:10, 17

Amos 4:13

Hab. 3:13

Isa. 45:1

Lam. 4:20

Dan. 9:26

How many of these are quoted in the NT?

Psa 2:2 in Acts 4:25-26

(24) When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, (25) it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.' (NRSV)

And that's it.

[This is according to the index of quotations in the UBS GNT (4th ed.). I have not checked for allusions.]

I don't know about you, but I find it somewhat surprising that for all the christological interpretations in the NT, only one NT passage quotes an OT passage that actually uses the term 'Christ'. I would have assumed there would be a little more of this, especially quotations of some of the psalms that use the word.

For an earlier post on a similar theme, see here.

The Messiah in the Old Testament

Several posts on this blog recently have assumed that some passages in the OT look forward to a Messiah, that is a future Davidic king. This idea of a Messiah in the OT has a long history in Christianity, and one may say it has a long history of abuse. Christians often like to see Jesus everywhere in the OT. I don't mind seeing Jesus everywhere, if in doing so I'm following the example of Paul (as articulated by someone like Richard Hays), but I do want to understand what meaning these same passages might have had for the ancient Israelites, who would not have wanted to look for Jesus in every verse.

I have just finished reading an essay by J.J.M. Roberts on this topic, and I thought it would be helpful to summarize here some of the things he says. The essay is titled, "The Old Testament's Contribution to Messianic Expectations," and it is reprinted in Roberts' collection, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Eisenbrauns, 2002), 376-89.

First, the word messiah (מָשִׁיחַ) cannot serve as a guide to the messianic passages in the OT, because its 39 appearances in the HB never look forward to a future Davidic king. It mostly refers to a contemporary Israelite or Judaean king, sometimes to priests or prophets, and once to the Persian king Cyrus (Isa. 45:1). Note that Roberts agrees with the majority of scholars (but not the majority of Christian tradition) in interpreting the two appearances of 'messiah' in Dan. 9:25-26 in terms of Jewish figures before the first century.

Second, some passages that have usually been interpreted throughout Christian history as involving a messianic hope actually probably did not originally carry this meaning but were rather written as a reflection on the contemporary monarch. Into this class, Roberts places Psalm 2, Psalm 110, and Isa. 8:23b-9:6 (Hezekiah).

Third, Roberts does identify some texts that "do in fact envision a future ruler not yet on the scene" (p. 381). These texts begin to appear in 8th-cent. documents. Roberts imagines that "the political disasters of the late eighth century, including the destruction of the northern kingdom and the deportation of a significant portion of the population of the southern kingdom, produced widespread longing for the unity, strength, and justice of the idealized united monarchy of the past" (p. 381). And so we have the legitimately messianic texts (without the word 'messiah') in Isa. 11; 32:1-8; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11-12; Mic. 5:1-5; Zech 9:1-10. This hope is also found later in Jeremiah (23:5-8; 30:9; 33:14-26) and Ezekiel (17:22-24; 34:23-24; 37:15-28).

While Zech. 3-4 has contemporary figures in view (Zerubabbel and Joshua), the linking of royal and priestly figures here (reflecting the earlier Jer. 33:14-26) probably became an inspiration for later conceptions of a priestly Messiah either alongside the Davidic Messiah (Qumran) or identical to him (Christianity).

One more thing worth mentioning from this essay. There is nothing in the OT that indicates that the coming Davidic king would himself rule forever. Rather, what seems to be in view in these passages of hope for a Messiah is the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty, which would function like any dynasty, with sons replacing fathers on the throne. Hardly any other meaning can be gotten out of Jer. 33:22, where God promises to "multiply the seed of David," that is, give him a long line of descent, which would be valuable only if death still comes even to the Davidic king. This assumes, of course, that the Israelites did not consider the coming king to be the Second Person of the Trinity. That seems like a reasonable assumption!

Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 4)

We have finally arrived at the verse that started all this off in our series on Matthew's use of scripture at the beginning of his Gospel. Through looking at the quotations in Matthew 2, we have learned that the evangelist does not always use scripture in a straightforward, prediction-fulfillment way as we would expect, even when he uses the word "fulfill". Matthew's use of this word is complex, but its appearances especially in chapter 2 of his Gospel would not lead us to think that it signals the fulfillment of a direct messianic prediction from the OT, and indeed its appearance might make us think the exact opposite, especially when compared with its non-appearance in Matt. 2:5-6.

So, when we see that Matthew's first explicit quotation of scripture in his Gospel, the virginal conception of Jesus is said to "fulfill" Isa. 7:14, we know to be cautious before we conclude that Matthew viewed Isa. 7:14 as a direct messianic prediction. Here's the Isaiah passage with its context:

Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." (Isa. 7:10-16; NASB)

There are two terrible aspects of the translation of the crucial v. 14--(a) virgin, and (b) will be with child. Both of these obscure the point that Isaiah is making to Ahaz. For the evidence and arguments, see the commentaries. The message that Isaiah wants to present to Ahaz is that the Syro-Ephraimite War (see also 1Kings 16) that has distressed Judah (over which Ahaz is king) will soon be over. How soon? It'll take as long as it takes a baby to be born and grow to the point of eating solid food. It's a message of comfort to Ahaz, and it would be "fulfilled" in the days of Ahaz. It does not look forward seven centuries to Jesus.

The translation of v. 14 should be something along the lines of: "Behold, the young woman is pregnant and she'll bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Why will she call his name Immanuel? Because his birth will signal that God is again caring for his people Judah by ridding them of this threat of war; his birth will signal that "God is with us."

Does Matthew know all of this? I think so. When Luke talks about the virginal conception of Jesus in Luke 1, he does not quote Isa. 7:14. Indeed, this is the only quotation of this verse in the NT. That means that it was not common to apply this verse to Jesus. Nor was it common to see this verse as awaiting fulfillment in the Messiah. Isa. 7:14 is never cited in Second Temple Jewish literature or rabbinic literature as applying to the Messiah. It was always viewed as a simple prophecy for the eighth century BCE. This is exactly like Hos. 11:1 and Jer. 31:15, which we have already seen Matthew knowingly apply to Jesus, in full awareness that their original contexts had nothing to do with a coming Messiah.

Just as in those other instances, so also here Matthew sees a typological fulfillment of the OT passage. What has happened in the life of Jesus is parallel in some significant ways with what happened earlier in the history of Israel. Just as in the eighth century BCE a child was born who signaled God's love for his people, who signaled God's presence with his people, so also now a child has been born that "fulfills" this as well. That is, I think it is this name "Immanuel", maybe even more than the word "virgin", that drew Matthew to this passage as possibly helpful in his presentation of Jesus' early years.

I wouldn't deny, though, that the word "virgin" itself played a part. Levine thought it was mainly this word: "When, 200 years later [200 years after the Greek translation of Isaiah], the author of Matthew’s gospel read Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, he saw a prediction of a virginal conception." I assume that Matthew saw this translation "virgin" in the Greek of Isaiah (parthenos, for the Hebrew word almah) as fortuitous for his own purposes.

But it should be noted that Matthew typically does not rely on a Greek translation in his Gospel. Richard Longenecker (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. [Eerdmans, 1999]) surveys the evidence, and it is rather striking. Whereas Jesus in the Gospels typically relies on a Septuagintal form (Longenecker 45), Matthew typically does not in his editorial comments, as here (Longenecker 48, 120-21). In fact, in looking at this exact quotation, Longenecker notes how difficult it is to classify even Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 as "Septuagintal" (pp. 127-28). Certainly, Matthew's quotation of Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15 departs from the LXX and would make no sense if he had used that text. Longenecker (121) points out other passages in Matthew (4:15-16; 8:17; 27:9) where this also holds true. So, while I wouldn't doubt that Matthew saw a Greek translation of Isa. 7:14 and that that helps to explain why he uses the word parthenos in his quotation of that verse, I do doubt that Matthew came upon Isa. 7:14 for the first time as suggestive of Jesus through the Greek translation. It was, after all, not Matthew's habit to rely on a Greek translation.

Did Matthew misunderstand Isa. 7:14? It looks like that at first-blush, but a closer examination of Matthew's use of scripture at the beginning of his Gospel I think points to a more sophisticated, complex, nuanced use of scripture on his part. At the end of the day, I think Matthew did realize that he was applying a new meaning to Isa. 7:14, that it was not originally a prediction of a far-future Messiah. 

I hope that helps as a partial explanation for what Matthew is doing with scripture in his first couple of chapters. While I'll probably return to Matthew's use of scripture at some point, and probably also to Isa. 7:14, I'm going to go ahead and consider this series closed.

"Fulffillment" in Matthew

In my last post, I made a big deal about when Matthew uses this word "fulfill" (πληρόω). I now feel the need to be a little more systematic in my analysis, so here goes.

I'll just be focusing on the verb πληρόω here, and not any cognate nouns or verbs, though those surely should be taken into account to get a full picture.

The verb πληρόω appears 198x in the Greek Bible (LXX with apocrypha + NT). A typical use:

God blessed them saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill (πληρόω) the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." (Gen. 1:22; NASB) 

The verb appears 86x in the NT:

• Matthew: 16x--1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35, 48; 21:4; 23:32; 26:54, 56; 27:9
• Mark: 2x--1:15; 14:49
• Luke: 9x--1:20; 2:40; 3:5; 4:21; 7:1; 9:31; 21:24; 22:16; 24:44
• John: 15x--3:29; 7:8; 12:3, 38; 13:18; 15:11, 25; 16:6, 24; 17:12, 13; 18:9, 32; 19:24, 36
• Acts: 16x--1:16; 2:2, 28; 3:18; 5:3, 28; 7:23, 30; 9:23; 12:25; 13:25, 27, 52; 14:25; 19:21; 24:27
• Romans: 6x--1:29; 8:4; 13:8; 15:13, 14, 19
• 2Corinthians: 2x--7:4; 10:6
• Galatians: 1x--5:14
• Ephesians: 4x--1:23; 3:19; 4:10; 5:18
• Philippians: 4x--1:11; 2:2; 4:18, 19
• Colossians: 4x--1:9, 25; 2:10; 4:17
• 2Thessalonians: 1x--1:11
• 2Timothy: 1x--1:4
• James: 1x--2:23
• 1John: 1x--1:4
• 2John: 1x--v. 12
• Revelation: 2x--3:2; 6:11

The following list contains the occurrences of the word, outside Matthew, when it carries the meaning "fulfillment of scripture," a quite infrequent usage. Verse citations in parentheses indicate that the reference to fulfillment does not cite a particular verse that is fulfilled, but more generally speaks of fulfillment of prophetic oracles.

(Mark 14:49;) Luke 4:21; (24:44;) John 12:38; 13:18; 15:25; (17:12;) 19:24; 36; Acts 1:16; 13:27; (Romans 13:8;) Galatians 5:14; James 2:23

Aside from Matthew's usage of the term, that of John is the most demanding of attention, which perhaps we will give it at some later time. But clearly the most pronounced usage of the verb πληρόω with the meaning "fulfillment of scripture" is in Matthew. Of the 16 appearances of the verb in that Gospel, only three do not carry this meaning (3:15; 13:48; 23:32).

The passages where it does appear in Matthew with the meaning "fulfillment of scripture" include three general references (like those in parentheses in the list two paragraphs up).

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (5:17)

How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way? (26:54)

But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets. Then all the disciples left him and fled. (26:56)

There are ten appearances of πληρόω in Matthew in the sense of "fulfillment of scripture" with an actual verse citation. Four of these (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23) we have already looked at, or will look at, in our series on the Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2. The other six are these:

This [i.e., Jesus' settlement in Galilee, specifically Capernaum] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond he Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles--the people who were sitting in darkness saw a great light, and those who were sitting in the land and shadow of death, upon them a light dawned." (4:14-16; quoting Isa. 9:1-2)

This [i.e., Jesus' healing] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases." (8:17; quoting Isa. 53:4)

This [i.e., Jesus' healing and warning to tell no one] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: Behold my servant whom I have chosen; my beloved in whom my soul is well-pleased; I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the gentiles. He will not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. A battered reed he will not break off, and a smoldering wick he will not put out, until he leads justice to victory. And in his name the gentiles will hope." (12:17-21; quoting Isa 42:1-3)

This [i.e., Jesus' parables] was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world." (13:35; quoting Psa. 78:2)

This [i.e., preparations for the Triumphal Entry] took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold your king is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden." (21:4-5; quoting Zech. 9:9)

Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the Potter's Field, as the Lord directed me." (27:9-10; quoting Zech. 11:12-13)

This post has collected the data. Later I will offer some analysis.

Explicit Quotaitons of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 3)

Back from the SECSOR (see here, and follow the links back), I am ready to resume my discussion of Matthew's explicit use of scripture in his first two chapters. Our examination is taking a reverse course, starting at the end of chapter two and going backwards toward chapter one. We have dealt with Matt. 2:23 and 2:17-18 (here) and Matt. 2:15 (here).

We are now ready for Matt. 2:5-6. When the Magi arrive in Jerusalem and ask Herod where the new king was, Herod assembled the "chief priests and scribes" to ask what had been predicted about the birthplace of the Messiah.

They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." (Matt. 2:5-6; NASB)

The quotation is from Micah 5:2. There are several interesting features of Matthew's use of this quotation:

First, this quotation does not appear as an editorial comment (i.e., Matthew himself didn't quote the passage) but as something said by one of the characters in the story being told by Matthew. This distinguishes this quotation from the others we have seen, all of which are interpretations of the story by the editor. In other words, for the other quotations we have examined, Matthew himself interprets Jesus' life--whether his descent into Egypt (2:15), or the slaughter of the innocents (2:17-18), or Jesus' move to Nazareth (2:23)--in terms of Israel's scripture, but in none of these cases does Matthew imply that Jews in the time of Jesus would have likewise interpreted Jesus' life, or that they were looking for some sort of fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 or Jer. 31:15. But, in this case, that is the point. Matthew represents the Jerusalem priests and scribes as themselves saying that Mic. 5:2 would be fulfilled in the life of the Messiah. That sets this quotation apart and suggests that we should see it as unique in this context.

Second, the quotation itself does not exactly match the text from which it is taken. Micah 5:2 actually says that Bethlehem is "too little to be among the clans of Judah." (This is not a LXX vs. MT issue; both texts of Mic. 5:2 highlight Bethlehem's small size.) The change from "too little" to "by no means least" seems to be a homiletical adaptation emphasizing that though Bethlehem is small, this particular promise of its generating Israel's ruler makes it "by no means least." Since Matthew places this small change in the mouth of the Jerusalem priests and scribes, he apparently thinks it is not an unusual interpretation.

Third, we notice that the word 'fulfill' (πληρόω) is not used in this instance. It was used in Matt. 2:15, 2:17, and 2:23, and each time we noticed that the passage cited by Matthew as being 'fulfilled' in the life of Jesus actually had nothing to do with the Messiah in its own historical context. Here, this verb is not used. Now, that may be because of the different way this quotation is presented--in the mouth of some of the characters of the story, characters who have not yet met Jesus, and so could not comment on whether this prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. But the non-use of 'fulfillment' language here may also point to a more nuanced meaning for 'fulfill' than we are accustomed to thinking about (see below).

Fourth, the passage quoted--Micah 5:2--actually is a messianic passage in its own historical context. That partly explains why Matthew can have the Jerusalem priests and scribes quote the passage in reference to the Messiah: anyone reading Micah 5:2 would recognize that it concerned the future anointed ('messiah') king. Even if the word 'messiah' does not appear in Micah 5, nor 'David' nor 'king', the reference to a ruler from Bethlehem--the hometown of David (1Sam. 16)--clearly implies that this ruler would be from David's line, and therefore he would be a Davidic king, which is what the Messiah is (see 2 Sam. 7:12-16).

This post has begun to address some of the questions I raised at the end of the first post in this series. We'll need to assess at the end of the series whether Matthew typically uses the LXX or a Hebrew textual form. But, as for the word 'fulfill', we have seen a strange phenomenon. For those OT passages that are not originally concerned with messianic prediction, Matthew says that they are 'fulfilled' in the life of Jesus. For this one passage that is originally concerned with a future king (messiah), that term does not appear in Matthew's narrative. As we continue this series in the next post with the final (actually, first) quotation of scripture in these chapters, we will want to notice whether Matthew uses the word 'fulfill', and what implications that might have for what he thinks about the relationship between Isa. 7:14 and the life of Jesus.

Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 2): Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15

We are continuing our look at the way that Matthew uses scripture in his first two chapters. We started at the end of chapter 2 and are working our way backwards toward the quotation of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23. Last time, we looked at Matt. 2:23 and 2:17-18.

The next previous ("next previous"? Is that oxymoronic? Well, you know what I mean) explicit quotation is in Matt. 2:15. I'll quote the whole paragraph.

Now when they [i.e., the Magi] had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him." So Joseph got up and took the child and his mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (2:13-15; NASB; I have not always retained capitalization)

The quotation is from Hosea 11:1. Let me cite that passage, with the subsequent verses.

(1)When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called my son.
(2) The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.
(3) Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in my arms;
But they did not know that I healed them.
(4) I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,
And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;
And I bent down and fed them.
(5) They will not return to the land of Egypt;
But Assyria--he will be their king
Because they refused to return to me.
(6) The sword will whirl against their cities,
And will demolish their gate bars
And consume them because of their counsels.
(7) So my people are bent on turning from me.
Though they call them to the one on high,
None at all exalts him.
(8) How can I give you up, O Ephraim?
How can I surrender you, O Israel?

The passage continues with assurances that, in fact, God will not do what he had just said that he would do, that is, send Israel into exile to Assyria (cf. v. 5). It's a beautiful passage, and written only a couple decades before Assyria actually did come in and destroy Israel (722 BCE) and take many of its inhabitants into exile.

Now, one time I read Hos. 11:1 in a congregation and asked what it was talking about? The answer came quickly--it's a messianic prediction! This Christian had been trained to read Hos. 11:1 through (a poor understanding of) Matt. 2:15. Well, I submit to you that Matthew's audience had not been trained to so read Hos. 11:1, and Matthew then could not have relied on the assumption that his audience would read Hos. 11:1 in that way. So, imagine that you've never read Matthew (as Matthew's first audience had never read Matthew); now, what is Hos. 11:1 about? Is it a messianic prophecy? Does it have any connection to the Messiah at all? What is it predicting?

A casual reading of the passage (without reference to Matthew) should reveal that it has nothing to do with the Messiah and that it isn't even a prediction. It is a statement about the past, about how God rescued Israel from Egypt. It is a historical statement about the exodus--"Out of Egypt I called my son [= Israel]." It is a beautiful passage in its own right, and I have little doubt that Matthew's audience would have been familiar with it (assuming they were educated Jews).

So, what in the world is Matthew doing with it? We saw last time that his use of Jer. 31:15 was in no way a straightforward prediction-fulfillment type of thing. Matthew is using scripture in a manner much more subtle and sophisticated. Just like with Jer. 31:15, so now with Hos. 11:1, Matthew cites scripture as fulfilled in the life of Jesus in the sense that the things Israel experienced are now being recapitulated in this child, so that the history of Israel is being summed up in his own experience. He does not mean that Hos. 11:1 directly prophesied this particular event in the life of Jesus; he means that what has happened to Jesus is typologically similar to what happened to Israel.

How do we know that Matthew used scripture in this complex fashion, rather than the much simpler explanation that he merely misinterpreted Hos. 11:1 and thought that it actually was a prediction of the Messiah (the son of God)? I think there is a way to be very certain about this point.

Notice that the event that Matthew says was a fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 is the descent of the holy family into Egypt. If Matthew had been looking for a literal fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 as if it were a prediction of something, the logical place to insert his quotation of it would be after Matt. 2:21, when "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother [out of Egypt], and came into the land of Israel." Instead, Matthew says that when Joseph took his new wife and child out of Israel, that fulfills what Hosea said about God's son coming out of Egypt. In other words, Matthew typologically equates Israel with Egypt (Israel = Egypt). Why does he do this?

Let's look for the parallels between Israel and Egypt that Matthew wants us to see. A child is born who would become the savior of his people (Moses, Jesus). The life of this child is under threat from a wicked king (Pharaoh, Herod). The wicked king ensures that Jewish male children are killed. There may be other parallels, but these are the ones that pop out to me. So, in response to this situation, God rescues his 'son' (whether Israel or Jesus) from the hand of the wicked king, brings him out of that evil land, and into a place of safety. Only this time, the evil land is Israel itself, and the place of safety is actually Egypt. [A similar comparison between Israel and Egypt seems to happen in Rev. 11:8--"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified."]

So, does Matthew misinterpret Hos. 11:1? I wouldn't call it that. Certainly, he has not offered an exegetical analysis of the passage that would be acceptable in most seminary classrooms, but he wasn't trying to do that, either. He has creatively re-used Hos. 11:1 in order to add significance to his narrative about Jesus. When the incongruity between the quotation and its supposed fulfillment are realized, Matthew's readers gain more insight into who Jesus is and what he has come to do.

We're not done yet, but you'll have to wait till next time for Matt. 2:5-6 and then Matt. 1:22-23.

Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 1)

This post is a continuation of yeterday's comments on how Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14. Here, I want to look at the way Matthew relies on other scriptural passages at the beginning of his Gospel as a window into what he might be doing with the 'virgin' and child of Isa. 7. (Of course, for Isaiah, the woman is not a virgin--see previous post.)

Let me note that hardly any thought presented here is original with me. I think I first encountered these ideas in a well-articulated way in Christopher J. H. Wright's book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament (IVP, 1992; Amazon). I highly recommend this book as a good, reasonable, simple, and theologically thoughtful explanation of all kinds of issues related to the relationship between the Testaments and, indeed, what Jesus thought he was doing. (While you're at Amazon, you might as well pick up another book, as well. Rest assured, I will not make any money off of either of these books.)

I'll begin at the end of Matt. 2 and work my way backwards. The very last verse of Matt. 2 contains the last of four explicit scriptural quotations in the chapter.

and [Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus] came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matt. 2:23; NASB)

The odd thing about this quotation is that it does not correspond to any statement made in the Hebrew Bible (or LXX, for that matter). I don't have time to delve into the reception history of this verse--no matter how much I'd like to; after all, that's what I do: I'm a history-of-interpretations guy--but I will say it has given interpreters fits for millenia. One ancient (and modern) interpretation relates it to Isa. 11:1 where we read a future descendant of Jesse (David's daddy, and thus we are reading a messianic passage) who will be a 'branch' (Hebrew: netzer). Well, maybe.

Jerome pointed out (he may not have been the first to do so) that the wording of the citation in Matthew references prophets, plural, in distinction to the other references in these chapters (cf. 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17, all speaking of 'prophet,' singular). Jerome thought that this might indicate that Matthew is not referring to any particular passage from a particular prophet, but that he is consolidating the message of the prophets as a whole, and part of that message is that the coming savior would be called a Nazarene. Apparently, Nazareth was not thought to be that great of a town; not the hometown you want if you're planning on being anything significant in life (cf. John 1:46). And so, the message here would be that the prophets in general indicated that the coming savior would be "from the wrong side of the tracks."

The truth is, we don't know exactly what Matthew is doing in 2:23, but we do know that he's not using scripture in a straightforward, prediction-fulfillment kind of way.

Going backwards in Matt. 2, we next come to vv. 17-18. This is in response to King Herod's slaughtering of the innocents, killing all the male babies in Bethlehem two-years-old and under.

Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." (Matt. 2:17-18)

This is a quotation from Jer. 31:15. Now, look at the context within Jeremiah. This verse comes in the middle of a block of chapters called "The Book of Consolation" (Jer. 30-33) promising restoration for Israel and Judah (cf. 30:3). Israel and Judah needed to be restored because they had both experienced exile (Israel by the Assyrians; Judah by the Babylonians), and so in these chapters Jeremiah speaks of their experience of exile and the future hope that they both have. This means that the weeping that Rachel is doing in Jer. 31:15 relates to these experiences, specifically, exile. When the Babylonians came into Judah and killed people and took others away from their homeland to live in Babylon, at that time Rachel was weeping for her children. Not only is there no messianic prediction here, but there is no prediction whatsoever in this particular verse. In the context there is a prediction of restoration, but the specific verse quoted by Matthew has nothing to do with the future, only with the past. Rachel is weeping because of the exile already experienced even in Jeremiah's day.

So, what is Matthew doing with this verse? Does he think there's a prediction in it? Does he think it's about the Messiah? Has he completely ignored the context? Interpreters often say as much, but Richard Hays has taught me (through his books, especially this one) to hesitate to attribute to the biblical authors the insensitivity to context that modern untrained readers often exhibit. That is, Hays has taught me to look for a more-nuanced interpretation of scripture in the New Testament, especially when the interpretation looks weird.

I think that Matthew surely must have understood that Jer. 31:15 was not a prediction of a future time, had nothing to do with the Messiah. Furthermore, I think he understood that his use of this verse in reference to events surrounding Jesus would in no way serve as proof for any Jew that Jesus was the Messiah. A Jew could simply respond, "No, that's not what Jeremiah's talking about, not even close." Jer. 31:15 was not intended to be a messianic prediction, and was not received as such. Jews at the time of Matthew did not look for the fulfillment of Jer. 31:15 as one of the signs that the Messiah was coming. I think Matthew knew all of this.

But, I also think that Matthew understood the context of Jer. 31:15 as about restoration, and he saw that restoration could come only after weeping. He understood that this was true in the history of his own people, who had experienced exile first, and then restoration under Zerubbabel and others (see the book of Ezra). But, the restoration had not been all they had hoped for, had not resulted in the reunification of Israel and Judah (as predicted in Jer. 30:3, etc.), had not returned them to an independent kingdom as in David's days. But, Matthew also knows that one has now been born who would accomplish these things, in a manner of speaking. And just as before with the exile first and then restoration, so also here, weeping precedes joy.

That is, similar to what we saw earlier in Matt. 2:23, Matthew uses Jer. 31:15 not as a straightforward prediction-fulfillment. He knows that Jer. 31:15 has its own context unrelated to the Messiah. But he wants to show his readers that events surrounding the birth of this Christ-child re-enact in some ways Israel's own story, that what has happened in the past is now being repeated, that the history of Israel is somehow being summed up in this child. (You are probably hearing echoes of N.T. Wright.)

Again, the length of this post is getting unwieldy, so I'll have to continue next time. But you can already see where I'm going. Rules of thumb: consider the context of the OT passage, and consider how the NT author uses that context to his advantage. Also, in Matt. 1-2, specifically, look at that word "fulfill". The places that it appears is rather odd. And, finally, is Matthew using a text of scripture closer to the Hebrew or to the Greek? These are some of the issues we will explore next time, when we look at Matt. 2:15, and then 2:5-6, and finally get to 1:22-23.

The 'Virgin' of Isa. 7:14 and of Matt. 1:23

In the latest Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2012), Amy-Jill Levine (Jewish NT prof. at Vanderbilt) has an article on "What Jews (and Christians too) Should Know about the New Testament" (available free online at the moment). It's a good article, as one would expect from Levine. She places in historical context certain NT ideas that have caused antagonism (to say the least) between Jews and Christians: (a) the not infrequent accusation in the NT that the Jews have killed the Christ and/or the prophets (cf. 1 Thess 2:15; Matt. 27:25; John 8:44; etc.); (b) the idea that the man Jesus was connected to God in such a way that he himself could be considered divine and thus be worshiped; and (c) the often strange (to modern ears/eyes) interpretations of scripture to be found in the NT.

About the first two of her points, I have only praise for Levine. Whereas some scholars involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue seem to approach their task as if meaningful dialogue can happen only if "the other guy" first recognizes that his own religious traditions are stupid, bigoted, and condemnable (I'll refrain from citing anyone), Levine reads with sympathy and openness the scriptures of those with whom she fundamentally disagrees. When this is more common, true dialogue and understanding will be more common, as well.

But about her third point, I have some concerns--not from the standpoint that she's obfuscating Jewish-Christian dialogue, but just plain ole' exegetical concerns. Let me quote her. At the beginning of her third section, entitled "To fulfill what was said by the prophet...," she writes:

Some Jewish readers will reject Christian claims that the Scriptures of Israel (the Church’s “Old Testament”) predict the life of Jesus. Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 as stating that “the virgin will conceive and bear a son,” but Jewish readers may respond: “Isaiah doesn’t mention a ‘virgin’ but a ‘young woman,’ and he’s not talking about something to take place centuries later, but about a current political issue.” The problem here is one of translation. Isaiah, writing in Hebrew around 700 B.C.E., uses a pregnant young woman as a visual illustration for King Ahaz. To paraphrase Isaiah’s comment: “Look at that pregnant young woman. By the time her baby is old enough for solid food, your international problems will dissipate.”

When Isaiah’s prophecies were translated into Greek (the Septuagint), probably in the second century B.C.E., the Hebrew for “young woman,” almah, was rendered as parthenos, which we know today from the Parthenon in Athens (or the replica in Nashville!), the temple of the goddess Athena. At the time, parthenos meant “young woman,” but it could mean virgin also. In the Greek translation of Genesis 34:3, the prince Shechem, after having sexual relations with Jacob’s daughter Dinah, uses the term parthenos to describe her. 

When, 200 years later, the author of Matthew’s gospel read Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, he saw a prediction of a virginal conception. That is a legitimate reading. Jews, however, reading their Scriptures in Hebrew, see no virginal conception. 

By applying Isaiah’s prophecy to his own time, Matthew is reading his Scripture in good first-century Jewish fashion. 

Levine goes on to note ancient Jewish interpretations outside the NT that we would also consider far-fetched, and so again a proper understanding of the contemporary Jewish world would help us to understand what the NT writers are doing. Yes, but...

I don't think her explanation of what Matthew is doing captures precisely his reading of Isaiah. Specifically, this sentence gives me pause: "When, 200 years later, the author of Matthew's gospel read Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, he saw a prediction of a virginal conception." Levine seems to be saying that Matthew--like any good first-century Jew--took this verse out of context, thus misinterpreting it (though Levine herself calls this reading "legitimate"), because he thought it was predicting a virginal conception when actually, unbeknownst to Matthew, it had a meaning for Isaiah's own day.

Several things about this understanding of Matthew 1:23 seem dubious to me. But let me first say, for the benefit of any Christian readers out there who haven't run across this idea before, that Levine's reading of Isa. 7:14 finds little disagreement from me. That is, she is surely correct that Isaiah was talking not about a "virgin" but about a "young woman" (thus agreeing with the Hebrew, and even the Greek, as Levine points out), and not one who would become pregnant in the future, but who was pregnant right at the time Isaiah was speaking. (Unfortunately, English translations, usually arising from conservative Christian groups, have translated Isa. 7:14 in keeping with their faulty understanding of Matt. 1:23 and thus have butchered the text, turning the woman into a virgin and inserting a future tense ["will conceive"] when none exists in the Hebrew text, which says that she "is pregnant".)

Indeed, I like very much Levine's paraphrase: "Look at that pregnant young woman. By the time her baby is old enough for solid food, your international problems will dissipate." I think that is exactly the point Isaiah was trying to get across to Ahaz, as will be clear by reading the entirety of Isaiah 7. There is just one problem with the wording here--it leaves out the crucial bit of information that the child would be called "Immanuel." I call this information "crucial" because this name for the child certainly stimulated Matthew's thinking and prompted him to connect this child of Isa. 7 to the the only child--in Matthew's mind--who could truly wear the name. It is the name "Immanuel" as much as the presence of the word "parthenos" that explains the appearance of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1.

Now, to Matt. 1:23, and unfortunately this post is already somewhat lengthy, so I'm going to need to return to this subject later for a fuller explanation. But let me just say briefly: if we didn't have any other passages in which Matthew quotes something in Jesus' life as a fulfillment of previous scripture, then we would probably have to read Matt. 1:23 in the way Levine does here. But we do have other quotations of scripture in Matthew, and they must be explained as well. In a later post I will look at the quotations of scripture in Matthew ch. 2 and explain why I think these help us to understand what Matthew is doing in ch. 1.

But let me go ahead and give you the conclusion. Instead of Levine's explanation, quoted above, for Matthew's use of Isaiah, I would rather put it this way: "When, 200 years later, the author of Matthew's gospel read Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, he saw an opportunity to clarify an aspect of Jesus' life as a fulfillment [or a 'filling-up' or a 'working-out' or a typological example] of something that happened previously in Israel's history."