Does the NT Quote the OT Out Of

Context?
STEVE MOYISE

The use of the OT in the NT presents a particular challenge to upholders of

the inspiration of Scripture. In pre-critical times, itwas easy to accept that the
meaning of an OT passage was the meaning assigned to it by the NT author.
Indeed the author of 2 Peter attempts to espouse a theory about it:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is
a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came
by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from
God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).
Thus in Peter's Pentecost sermon, Luke tells us that after quoting Ps. 16,
Peter argued that David was not talking about himself but 'Being therefore
a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he
would set one of his descendents upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of
the resurrection of the Christ' (Acts 2:30-31a). In John's Gospel, the author
sees the rejection of Jesus as a fulfilment of the words of Isaiah: 'He has
blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their
eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them' Uohn 12:40
quoting Isa. 6:10). If it is asked how the author knows that the words of Isa.
6:10 refers to the rejection of Christ, it is because Isaiah 'saw his glory and
spoke of him' Uohn 12:41). Indeed, according to Luke 24:44, Jesus is the
subject of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.
However, with the advent of modern biblical criticism, this view has
come under increasing attack. The adoption of the historical-critical method
led to the idea thattexts must be interpreted in the light of their own age, not
of the views of a later period. For example, whilst it may be true that the
parables of Jesus are relevant to every age, we simply cannot go along with
Origen that the two coins given to the innkeeper in the parable of the Good
Samaritan are the sacraments of baptism and eucharist or Al,lgustine's view
that the animal which takes him to the inn means belief in the Incarnation.!
Chilton says:
Once Jesus was seen primarily as a person within the Trinity, his
sayings were regarded not so much as those of a historical figure as
words which needed to be explained within the Trinitarian faith. 2

1 A convenient summary of these 'allegOrical' views can be found in C. H. Dodd, Parables

of the Kingdom, Fount, Glasgow 1978 and A. M. Hunter, Interpreting The Parables, SCM,
London 1960.
2 B. Chilton, The Kingdom of God, SPCK, London 1984, p 4.
133
 Anvil Vol. 11, No. 2, 1994 STEVE MOYISE Does the NT Quote the aT Out a/Context?
In contrast, historical criticism insisted" that Jesus' words should be heart' . Far from declaring that all are sinful and guilty before God, the Psalm
interpreted ~ the light of idea.s current in the first century, not creeds presupposes a division of humanity into the wicked and the righteous. The
formulated m the fourth and fifth. Of course, there were differences of wicked person 'plots mischief while on his bed' (v 4), 'mischief and deceit'
opinion about how terms like 'Messiah' or 'Son of man' would have been comes out of his mouth (v 3) and he imagines his 'iniquity cannot be found
understood in the first century but there was wide agreement that the out' (v 2). In contrast, the author belongs to those whose refuge is in God (v
original meaning should take priority over later interpretations or applica- 7), who feast on the abundance of his house and drink from the river of his
tions. As Bauckham says: delights (v 8). To say that these accusations apply to all people undermines
No exceptions must be allowed to the principle that the historic the whole standpoint of the psalmist. As Edgar says:
meaning of the text must be a meaning which readers at that time The verses Paul adduces in Rom. 3 to prove the universality of sin do
could perceive.3 not, in their original contexts, refer to all men, but in most cases to the
However, this becomes problematic when applied to the use of the OT in wicked, the enemies of Israel. 4
the NT, for there are two contexts to consider. If we are to do justice to the OT Thus the wide-spread adoption of the historical-critical method" and the
context, we must insist on interpreting the words in terms of ideas current consequent view that texts should be interpret~d in the light of their own age
~ that age. For example, if we put out of our minds the NTuse of the passage, proves problematic to those OT texts that also appear in the NT.
It can ~ar.dly be doubted that I~a. 7:14 refers to a contemporary ofIsaiah. The
promIse m vv 7-9, that the nations who are presently threatening Jerusalem Possible solutions
will be destroyed, is ratified by a sign:
One way out of this dilemma would be to say that God is the true author of
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a Sign. Behold a young scripture and was therefore able to reveal to the NT author the meaning that
woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. he put into the OT text. Thus Hendriksen declares that it was the same Holy
The words are familiar to us from Matthew's infancy story (1:23) but we Spirit who inspired Genesis as inspired Paul to write Gal. 3:16. Nevertheless,
are probably less familiar with the words that follow Isaiah's famous text: Hendriksen feels called upon to defend Paul's exegesis and says:
For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, God's promise to Abraham, in its richest, spiritual meaning, was to be
the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted (Isa. fulfilled in connection with one - and not more than one - definite
7:16). person, Christ, the true seed... and had it been otherwise, that is, had
It is clear from these words that Isaiah expects a young woman to become the promised blessings been dispersed indiscriminately among an
pregnant and promises that before the child is weaned, the danger will have indefinite aggregate of individuals, such plurality would have been
p~ssed. It ~akes utter nonsense of the story to suppose that Isaiah had in definitely indicated.s
mmd the bIrth of Jesus some 700 years hence. Yet if we read Matthew's By using terms like 'dispersed indiscriminately' and 'indefihite aggre-
account of the birth of Jesus, we are specifically told that 'this was to fulfil gate of individuals', Hendriksen hopes to persuade his readers that every-
what the Lord had spoken by the prophet' (Matt. 1:22). thing is as it should be. Unfortunately, his argument is flawed by the simple
Or.take Pa':ll's argument in Gal. 3:16, that the promise given to Abraham facfthat the word 'seed' (RSV 'offspring'), both in Hebrew and Greek, is a
and,his off~pr~g refers uniquely ~o Christ, since 'offspring' is singular and collective term and rarely found in the plural. It would be as strange for a
not offsprmgs (plural). Now beSIdes the fact that 'offspring' (seed) is here Hebrew writer to use the plural as it would for an English speaker to say, 'this
used as a collective term, it is clear from the Genesis passage that a multitude promise is for you and your offsprings'. Further, we have already seen how
is meant, for Abraham is first asked if he can 'number the stars', and is then the OT presupposes a multitude by using such phrases as 'number the stars'.
told ':;0shall YO~Ir descendents b.e'.(Gen. 15:5). Further, the promise is also Thus positing God as the author of both the OT text and the NT interpreta-
tion does not automatically solve the problem. Whether our question is
used m Stephen s speech, where It IS elaborated by saying that they will be
'aliez:ts in a l~nd be~on9~g t'? others' (Acts 7:6). How then can Paul say that about the true meaning oh text or the meaning that God intended (presum-
the smgular offsprmg Implies only one person and that person is Christ? In ably the same thing), we are still left with a discrepancy between the
the OT context, it is clear that a multitude is meant. " meaning required by the OT context and that given to it by a NT author.
Or :ake the verses Paul uses in Rom. 3: 10-18 to show that all human beings A second solution would be to set NT exegesis in its contemporary
are guIlty before God. One of the accusations is that 'there is no fear of God context. Just as we recognize that the NT does not use the language of the
before their eyes' but in the original Psalm, this is not talking about Creeds (e.g. nature and substance) to describe Christ but terms drawn from
everybody but the wicked. The phrase comes from the second half of Ps 36:1, its own age, so also its methods of exegesis. For example, in the Dead Sea
the first half of which reads, 'Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his
4 S. L. Edgar, 'Respect for Context in Quotations from the O.T:, New Testament Studies 9
(1962-63), p 56. '
3 R. Bauckham, The Bible in Politics, SPCK, London 1989, p 17. 5 W. Hendriksen, Ga/atians, Banner of Truth, London 1968, p 137.
" 134 135
 Anvil Vol. 11, No. 2, 1994 STEVE MOYISE Does the NT Quote the OT Out Of Context?
Scrolls, the words of Hab. 2:2 ('Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets, Rabbinic works and so this is to be expected.
so he may run who reads it') is taken by the Qumran author to refer to the There is, however, a difficulty with this view. If the NT authors used
community's teacher: methods of exegesis that are now considered questionable, what does that
Interpreted, this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God do to the status of the conclusions reached by such methods? Is it possible
made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the to accept the results of NT exegesis whilst denying the validity of the
Prophets. methods used to obtain them? This appears to be the position ofLongenecker,
DE;?spite thE;? fact that Habakkuk was told (according to the text) to make who says:
the v~slOn p:am, the a~thor of the con:rnentary thinks that its true meaning It is my contention that... Christians today are committed to the
remamed hidden until God revealed It to the community's teacher. Further apostolic faith and doctrine of the NT,but not necessarily to the
o~, the well kn~wn words ofHab. 2:4, 'the righteous shall live by faith', is apostolic exegetical practices as detailed for us in the NT.... We can
gIVen the meanmg: appreciate something of how appropriate such methods were for the
Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House conveyance of the gospel.... But let us admit that we cannot possibly
of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgement reproduce the revelatory stance of pesher interpretation, nor the
because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of atomistic manipulations of midrash, nor the circumstantial or ad
Righteousness. hominem thrusts of a particular polemic of that day - nor should we
It is unlikely tha t 'faith in the Teacher of Righteousness' means the same try.7
thing as 'faith in Christ' but the parallel is nevertheless striking. The authors Longenecker is to be commended for articulating the difficulty but few
of the Dead Sea Scrolls interpreted the Scriptures in the light of their will find his solution credible. If Paul (or Jesus?) used 'atomistic manipula-
concerns, just as the NT authors did in the light of Christ and the emergence tions' to arrive at his conclusions, it is hard to see why such conclusions
of the Church. Grollenberg says: should continue to command respect. A building is only as strong as its
As already becomes clear in Matthew's prologue, the first Christians foundations. If we cannot accept the validity of the methods used, then the
were not concerned with what the authors of the ancient text had conclusions are left hanging in mid-air. Of course there will be cases when
wanted to say. That is something that we moderns ask about. They the conclusions commend themselves on other grounds. For example, we
inferred .the m~aning of the ancient textfrom the events brought about might agree with Paul that we all fail to show a proper respect (fear) for God
by God m whIch they themselves were involved.6 even though the psalm was only referring to the wicked. However, in such
To give a further example, John assures the Church at Philadelphia that cases, we should be aware that we are not adopting the position on the basis
the Jews who are persecuting them will one day' come and bow down before of the proof-text but on other grounds (experience of human nature, for
your feet' .u~ev. 3:9). The allusion !s to Isa. 49:23; 60:14, but in the original example). .
reference, It IS not the Jews who wIll come and bow down but the Gentiles
who will prostrate themselves before the Jews! Thus not only has John take~ Intertextuality - a restatement of the problem
the words out of context, he has actually turned them against the very people One of the weaknesses of the views so far expressed is that they seek to
for whom they were written. It is not difficult to suggest why. In John's answer a problem which has been formulated without reference to literary
opinion, the Christian Church has become the people of God, so that questions. This is the more surprising since the study of how texts relate to
whoeverpersecutes the Church is persecuting God's people andis therefore their subtexts has been on the agenda of literary critics since the sixties. A
a~ er:emy of God. Thi~ being so, texts that speak of God's people being major impetus to this was an article in 1967 by Julia Kristeva,8 who first
vm~lcated can .be apph~d to the Church, even if the enemies happen to be coined the term 'intertextua/ite', though literary critics have always been
JewIs~. The pomt to notice, however, is that such an exegesis presupposes interested in how texts relate to their subtexts. In order to give a brief account
the eXIstence of the Church and would have been quite impOSSible before of it, we must start with the general observation that alluding to a past work
then. sets up a link or correspondence between the two contexts. The reader is
Thus a pos~ible answer to our dilemma would be to freely admitthat the asked to follow the current text whilst being mindful of a previous context.
NT authors dId take texts out of context but to defend it as understandable This inevitably leads to a tension since context is vital for meaning. As
given the age in which they lived. Just as we can hardly expect the NT Michael Worten and Judith Still state in their introductory essay on
authors to know about modern medicine or the abolition of slavery, neither Intertextuality: 'every quotation distorts and redefines the 'primary' utter-
should we criticize them for lacking the historical consciousness that so
marks our age. Numerous studies have shown that the methods of exegesis 7 R. N. Longenecker, "'Who is the prophet talking about?" Some Reflections on the New
used by the NT authors can be paralleled in the Qumran literature and later Testament's use of the Old', Themeiios, Oct/Nov, 1987, p 8.
8 J. Kristeva, 'Word, dialogue and novel', now in T. Moi, ed., The Kristeva Reader, Oxford
1986.
6 L Grollenberg, Unexpected Messiah, SeM, London 1988, p 7. 9 M. Worten & J. Still, eds, IntertextualitJj: theories and practices, MUP, Manchester 1990, p 11.
136 137
 Anvil Vo!. 11, No. 2, 1994 STEVE MOYISE Does the NT Quote the aT Out Of Context?
ance by relocating it within another linguistic and cultural context.'9 subtext as coming from a golden age which is now over. All tha~ can be done
On the other hand, the quoted text does not accept this 'relocation' is to rewrite the sub text 'as though no other form of celebration could be
without a fight (so to speak) but reminds the reader that it once belonged to worthy of its dignity:I3 .
a different context. A dynamic is thereby established where the new affects The early Chdstians certainly treated the aT as a great authonty but there
the old and the old affects the new. As H. Davidson says of T. S. Eliot's The is very little in the NT that would correspond to this category. Thus even the
Wasteland: 'the work alluded to reflects upon the pr_esent context even as the ten commandments are quoted with a degree of ~eedom. In Ma!t. 19:18f.,
present context absorbs and changes the allusion:lO Jesus mentions killing, adultery, stealing, false testimony, honounng father
The Significance of this for our study is two-fold. Firstly, it gives a rather and mother and loving one's neighbour. In Luke's account (18:20), we have
different perspective to the observation that some of the aT quotations are adultery, killing, stealing, false testimony and honouring fathe: and mother
taken out of context. As Worten and Still observe, all quotations are out of whilst Mark 10:19 speaks of killing, adultery, stealing, false testimony, fraud
context in the sense that they have been relocated 'within another linguistic and honouring father and mother. As well as appearing in a different order
and cultural context'. Now since context is essential for meaning, there is in from Exod. 20:12ff. or Deut. 5:16ff., Matthew includes loving one's neigh-
fact no possibility that a quotation can bear the same meaning in a new bour (Lev. 19:18) and Mark has a command about fraud. Thus even the ten
composition as it did in the old. The actual words might be the same but all commandments do not appear to be 'beyond alteration ... whose greatness
the factors that affect interpretation have changed. For example, in response can never be adequately reproduced'.
to a question about the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28ff.), Jesus quotes Greene's second category is called 'eclectic'. This is whe~e the aut~or
Deut. 6:4 ('love the Lord your God') and Lev. 19:18 ('love your neighbour as draws on a wide range of sources, seemin&ly at random, :WIthout laymg
yourself'). On one level, Jesus is simply directing the enquirer to two aT special emphasis on anyone of them. At Its weakest, this can be mere
texts that answer his question. However, Christians down the ages have plagiarism but in skilled hands, the author has access to a 'vocabulary of a
found tremendous significance in the bringing together of these two com- second and higher power, a second keyboard of richer harmonies' .14 Greene
mands as a summary of the Law. By placing them in such close juxtaposition, says:
the reader /hearer is asked to interpret each in the light of the other. Love for The art of poetry finds its materials everywhere, mate~ials bearing
God must not be interpreted as turning away from one's fellow human with them the aura of their original contexts, charged WIth an evoca-
beings nor vice versa. The new context has a significant effect on the tive power implanted by the poet or the convention from which they
interpretation. are taken. IS
The second point is that the presence of a quotation or allusion means that For example, it is clear than many of the NT authors are aw?re of the
the clues that enable interpretation to take place are coming from two parallels between God's act ofliberationin the Exodus and that which comes
separate sources. Like a radio dial that is incorrectly tuned, the listener hears through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Each of them, howev~r,
several 'voices' simultaneously and may have to choose which to concen- expresses this in a different way. In Matthew, we are told that the holy family
trate on. The effect of the radio dial is usually annoyance but if an author has journeyed to Egypt and that their departure was a fulfilmen~ o! the ,":,ords
consciously chosen a particular quotation, we can expect the interaction to 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' (Matt. 2:15). Now It IS a SlffiVle
be more productive. Thus the question concerning the presence of aT observation that these words, in their original context, do not refer to ChrISt:
quotations in the NT is not whether or not the author has respected the When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
context but in what ways do the two contexts interact? Continuing the The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept
'sound waves' metaphor, has the author chosen a quotation which leads to sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols (Hos. 11:1-2).
'harmonies' or does it simply produce 'interference'?
The reference is clearly to Israel and the Exodus and few would wish to
Intertextuality - towards a solution apply 11:2 to Christ! Nevertheless, there is far more involved than M?tthew
taking a verse out of context with no interest in the original meanmg (as
In his study of Renaissance poetry, Thomas Greene ll uses four categories to Grollenberg asserts). By using these words, he gains access to a 'vocabulary
describe the relation between a poet's work and its predecessors. of a second and higher power'. The words are highly charged. They speak
His first category is called 'reproductive' or 'sacramental'. It is when a of deliverance, calling, and adoptio~ ~d hence set a c~mte~t for the reader
poet imitates a previous work with such precision that it is virtually a copy. to interpret the life of Christ. The pomt IS not argued didactically bu~ when
The original is treated as a sacred object, 'beyond alteration... whose great- we go on to read of Herod's decree to kill the young (2:16), Jes~s g?u:g up
ness can never be adequately reproduced'.I2 The author perceives the the mountain (5:1), his transfigured face (17:2) and the words This IS my
10 H. Davidson, T. S. Eliot and Hermeneutics, Lousiana 1985, p 117.
11 T. Greene, Th(Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry, yup, Yale 1982, 13 Ibid.
pp 16-19,37-53. 14 Ibid., P 39.
12 Ibid., P 38. 15 Ibid.
138 139
Anvil Vol. 11, No. 2, 1994 STEVE MOYISE Does the NT Quote the aT Out Of Context?
beloved son' (17:5), the 'voices' are becoming a veritable chorus. By quota- them to remain faithful. On the other hand, modern theology would find it
tion and allusion, Matthew makes his point with a 'keyboard of richer appealing to findJ ohnre-interpreting the divine glory in the light of the cross
harmonies' . of Christ. As it stands, death and eternity are placed side by side and
The third category is 'heuristic'. This is where the new work seeks to mutually illuminate one another.
define itself through the rewriting or modernising of a past text. In so doing,
the poem becomes a sort of 'rite de passage' between a 'specified past and an Conclusion
emergent present' .16 It establishes a distance between new and old, not to Ever since the rise of historical study, scholars have been aware that the
leave the reader in an hermeneutical chasm but to make way for an act of meaning assigned to a text in. the NT is frequently different from any
resolution. The new is not a pale imitation of the old but its true successor. meaning that it could have had in its own time. This has often led to a
Greene says: polarisation of views, some insisting that the NT interpretation is the 'true'
Heuristic imitations come to us advertising their derivation from the meaning of the text (to the chagrin of OT scholars), others seeing it as an
sub texts they carry with them, but having done that, they proceed to arbitrary distortion. A more appreciative version of the latter is to recognise
distance themselves from the sub texts and force us to recognise the that the exegesis belongs to its own period and was considered valid at the
poetic distance traversed. 17 time. However, this then raises a problem concerning the results of such
Heuristic imitation is a good description of those discursive passages exegesis. How can we continue to respect such conclusions if we cannot
where the author argues for a particular interpretation of Scripture. The fact endorse the methods used to produce them?
that he feels the need to state his position in relation to the OT is itself This article has sought to further the discussion by drawing on literary
significant, though he usually has a specific resolution in mind. For example, theories of intertextuality. Such theories make it clear that a quotation will
in Rom. 4, Paul quotes Gen. 15:6 and Ps. 32:1-2 and then proceeds to always mean something different in its new setting because it has been
interrogate the text with questions like 'Is this blessing pronounced only 'relocated'. This being so, the question to ask is not whether a given
upon the circumcised ... ?' (Rom. 4:9); 'How then was it reckoned to him?' quotation has been taken out of context but what is the effect of such a
(Rom. 4:10). In this way, Paul urges the reader to accept his interpretation of quotation on a reading of the text? For example, the most obvious challenge
the texts, even though the epistle of James shows that Gen. 15:6 can be used to the reader of Matthew's infancy story is the discrepancy between the
to make a different point Gas. 2:23f.). names of the child:
Lastly, Greene speaks of 'dialectical imitation'. This is when the poem she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save
engages the precursor in such a way that neither is able to absorb or master his people from their sins (1:21).
the other. In exposing the vulnerability of the subtext, it exposes itself to All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
'potential aggression'. IS As an example, he quotes Erasmus's In Praise of 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be
Folly, which draws repeatedly on Lucian but in the last hymn, 'introduces called Emman-u-el' (which means, God with us) (1:22f.).
values totally incompatible with Lucian and ancient comedy.'19 Matthew's introductory formula ('this took place to fulfil') leads the
The effect is to create'a kind of struggle between texts and between eras reader to expect either a text that says' and his name shall be called Jesus' or
which cannot easily be resolved.'2o In other words, 'anachronism becomes one about saving people from their sins. In the event, the text quoted is Isa.
a dynamic source of artistic power.'21 As an example in the NT, consider the 7:1~, where the child is called 'Emman-u-el' and is to be a sign of imminent
words of the risen Christ in Rev. 1:18: 'Fear not, I am the first and the last, and deliverance. The use of the word 'virgin' (following the LXX) chimes in with
the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore .... ' the earlier reference that the conception was 'before they came together'
The title 'first and last' is usually traced to either Isa. 44:6 or 48:12 and is (Matt. 1:18) but the difference in names shows that the interaction is more
a statement of the eternity of God. Here, however, it is placed next to a complex. Indeed, it is unclear which of the statements in Matt. 1:21 is being
statement concerning Christ's death and resurrection. No help is offered as fulfilled? If it is the first, the birth of a son, then the quotation from Isa. 7:14
to whether we should read the statement of eternity in the light of the death enriches this bare statement by reminding the reader of an earlier son, one
and resurrection or the death and resurrection in the light of God's eternity. promised by God in Isaiah's time, as a sign of political deliverance.
One could argue tha t John is assuring his readers tha t their crucified founder On the other hand, if it is the name of Jesus that is the focus of fulfilment,
is none other than the eternal 'first and the last' and that this would help then the reader must 'puzzle out' the relationship between 'Jesus' and
'Einman-u-el'. In this respect, it may be significant that the best manuscripts
16 Ibid., P 41. of Matthew use the third person ('they shall call his name')22 rather than the
17 Ibid., P 40. second person ('you shall call his name'). The implication of this may be that
18 Ibid., P 45.
19 Ibid. 22 RSV renders with a passive 'his name shall be called', which leaves open the possibility
20 Ibid. that it may refer to his parents (and hence be equivalent to 'you shall call') or. to other
21 Ibid., P 46. unspecified persons.
141
140
 Anvil Vol. 11, No. 2, 1994 STEVE MOYISE Does the NT Quote the aT Out a/Context?
it is not the naming of the child by the parents that is in view but the fact that recently been challenged and by way of defense, some have sought to prove
later generations will come to see that 'God was in Christ', as Matthew thatIsa. 7:14 really does prophesy a 'virgin birth'. The issue turns on whether
clearly has. the Hebrew word 'almah (R5V 'young woman') also implies virginity, as in
A similar complexity is involved in a reading of Gal. 3:16. On its own, it the LXX.23 We will not reproduce the detailed arguments here but merely
might be thought that Paul is involved in a linguistic 'sleight of hand', but note the inherent difficulties with this line of defense. For example, we have
that is to miss his conclusion in 3:29: 'And if you are Christ's, then you are already seen that the context of Isa. 7:14 concerns the political threat in the
Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise: eighth century BCE, which God promised (according to the text) will vanish
It is in fact vital for Paul's argument that 'offspring' can refer both to a before the son is old enough to know right from wrong. Now if Isaiah is
multitude (Christians) and to an individual (Christ). His argument is akin to speaking of a 'virgin birth', then either the promise associated with this son
the shape of an hour glass. Abraham's 'offspring' is moving from being was not kept or there was a 'virgin birth' in the eighth century!
defined by physical descent to the criteria of faith in Christ. What allows Paul Secondly, if Matthew believed that the Messiah had to be born of a virgin
to make this move is his belief that Christ was supremely Abraham's (though there is no evidence that anyone else did), this does not automati-
'offspring' (the centre ofthe hour glass) and thatthose who are 'in Christ' are cally add to the evidence for the 'virgin birth'. In fact, critics would argue that
therefore heirs of the promise. Thus the attempt to try and show that the if Matthew was convinced that the Messiah had to be born of a virgin, then
original meaning of 'offspring' is singular is to miss the point completely. he would assume this was true of Jesus, whether he had any evidence for it
Paul's argument depends on the fact that it can mean both and he provoca- or not. In the light of this, those who wish to defend the 'virgin birth' might
tively challenges the reader to think this through by means of the 'linguistic do better to admit that Isa.7: 14, in its original context, did not mean this. The
land-mine' planted in 3:16. implication would thenbe that Matthew was drawn to Isa. 7:14 because he
Thus even in texts which advertise their dependence with words like believed in the 'virgin birth' on other grounds, though we can only guess
'fulfilment', the actual reality is far more complex. The reader is asked to what they might have been.
listen to a number of voices, which are themselves interacting with one In conclusion, literary studies can offer much in terms of how texts affect
another. Indeed, one might suggest that this is precisely how texts' get under readers but they cannot settle historical questions. For that, there is no
our skin' and become part of us. Just as we find ourselves humming tunes alternative but to search for historical evidence.
(even ones we do not like!), so the Scriptures can come alive for us with songs
new and old. As the author of Hebrews put it, 'the word of God is living and Dr Steve Moyise is Director of Studies of St Albans Ministerial Training
active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul Scheme
and spirit, of jOints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions
of the heart' (4:12). This is presumably a consequence of 'inspiration' but on
a human level, some of the things mentioned in this article help us to see how
this comes about. For example, words are used which recall a previous
context and so come to us, in Greene's words, 'charged with an evocative
power'; or when texts are juxtaposed so that their mutual interaction
becomes both a 'puzzle to ponder' and a 'dynamic source of artistic power'.
It has been the purpose of this article to show that this is a far more
productive way of looking at how the NT authors used the OT, than
traditional studies which focus on whether the text has been taken out of
context or not.
It is appropriate to finish by saying something about the limitations of the
methods proposed in this article. Literary studies, such as those used here,
can help us to understand how texts influence 'readers and how readers
influence texts. For example, they can help us to see the dynamics created by
Matthew's linking of Jesus' birth with Isa. 7:14. They could also go on to
describe the role the 'virgin birth' plays (or does not play) in the rest of the
Gospel and how this affects the reader's growing appreciation.of Jesus.
What they cannot do, however, is pronounce on historical questions, such as
whether the 'virgin birth' really happened? It would appear that Matthew
believed in it and probably also Luke (3:23), though we do not know on what 23 It should be noted that it is by no means certain that the LXX implies a virgin birth. It may
basis they came to this belief. As in the early Church, the doctrine has mean that she who is now a virgin will soon conceive (having got married) and bear a son
(so W. D. Davies & D, A11ison, Matthew 1-7, T & T Clark, ICC, Edinburgh 1988, P 214).
142 143