NT Use of the OT

In dealing with the OT, NT scholars face a particularly particular issue particular to NT studies, namely, the NT use of the OT. It does seem strange and seemingly unsightly to read some of the text of the NT, wherein it cites or quotes the OT. The manner in which the authors of the NT were inspired to use the OT is, unfortunately, not so clear. Some give credence for such interpretations and applications of the OT to NT situations as by divine inspiration. Others purport that such applications are clear fulfillment of the OT text, which is (according to the NT and/or the scholar thereof) prophecy foretelling the NT incident or situation, whether verbatim or by some sort of parallelistic echoey allusion. Thus, by weaving together Old and New, scholars of the NT present an image of the authoritative text of the NT, steeped as it is in the OT, as well as the continuity between Old and New.

No doubt such a reading of the Bible is not illegitimate. Its legitimacy may lie in the supposition that God by his Spirit ordained the use of the OT text in the NT writing, such that he by his Spirit guided the authors of the NT to write as they did. This is what the Church in orthodoxy believes and professes. I do believe that such a view might be rather valid, though I wonder if another view might be just as valid, namely, that the authors of the text of the NT were as human as the authors of the OT. More than likely, the human authors of the OT had in mind a particular meaning of the text they wrote, which God might have been able to extend to some further, hidden future meaning. For though God might be the ultimate author of the whole Bible, it seems to so indicate is like the use of the ancient dues ex machina to secure the authority of the truth of the biblical text. If the text be true, let truth stand on its own, and let God be found therein. However much God is in the details of the scripting of the Scriptures, the marks of the human authors, which are also rather apparent, ought not be ignored or glossed over.

A common verse of the NT that quotes the OT is Matthew 1:22-23, which states, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (KJV). The OT verse that the author here is citing is Isaiah 7:14, which states, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (KJV). All seems well and good, until you read Isaiah 7:15-16, which states that before the son of Isaiah 7:14 knows the difference between good and evil, the kings of Syria and Israel, who had come against the land of Judah, against Jerusalem, and against King Ahaz, will be destroyed by the king of Assyria. What this means is that Isaiah 7:14 is to be fulfilled by what is stated in verses 15 and 16, which we might find fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3-4, which states that Isaiah went to the prophetess, who conceived and bore a son, and, before the son would be able to say “Dada” or “Mama,” the kings of Syria and Israel would be ransacked by the king of Assyria.

The question, then, seems to be whether the verse in Matthew is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. If Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in the beginning of Isaiah 8, how can the author of Matthew claim that Mary pregnant with Jesus fulfills Isaiah 7:14? This seems to call for understanding; it seems that while Isaiah was speaking of his day and age, his contemporary time, his words had multiple fulfillments, multiple instantiations: one being the child his wife, the prophetess, bore as recorded in Isaiah 8:3; another being the child Mary would bear, as recorded in Matthew 1:18. While the Prophet Isaiah had only in mind one particular idea or instance, God seemingly had at least one other–or, at the very least, the author of Matthew did.

To see this, we must read not only Isaiah 7 and 8, but all the way through Isaiah 12, as Isaiah 7-12 is a whole unit, wherein the son of Isaiah is a fulfillment of the prophecies he writes therein–but not exactly. For the son of Isaiah is not so great as to be “The mighty God” or “The everlasting Father” or even the one to reign “upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom…for ever” (Isaiah 9:6b-7, KJV). All throughout Isaiah 7-12, we see multiple foreshadowings of a Davidic king who redeems Israel from her oppressors and sin, and who draws even Gentiles to the Kingdom of Israel in Jerusalem, establishing worldwide peace, even among the animals. Now, the author of Matthew, as most NT writers, was not merely quoting one single, solitary verse to make a point; rather, the author was citing said verse in order to draw to mind the whole of the passage (that is, all of Isaiah 7-12) into the mind of the reader.

Still, we must ask: did Jesus in Mary’s womb truly fulfill the OT verse/passage of Isaiah 7-12?

That seems to hinge on the word for “virgin.”

In the LXX, the verse of Isaiah 7:14 literally says, “Behold, the παρθένος in womb will receive and will bear a son, and they will call the name of him Emmanuel.” In the Hebrew text, Isaiah 7:14 says literally, “Behold, הָעַלְמָ֗ה shall become pregnant and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.” In the Greek NT, the verse of Matthew 1:23, literally reads, “Behold, the παρθένος in womb will hold and will bear a son, and they will call the name of him Emmanuel, which is being translated, With us God.”

Notice the similarly between the verse in the Greek NT and the LXX: it seems to indicate that the author of Matthew used the LXX when referencing the OT, rather than the Hebrew text. This is likely because the LXX was used by nearly all of the authors of the NT rather than the Hebrew text. This may have been due to the familiarity that readers of the NT would have had with the LXX or to the Hellenization of society within the Roman Empire.

The question at hand, however, is how to interpret or translate the term that in English is “virgin.” The term in Greek, both in the LXX and the NT is παρθένος (or parthenos) and in the Hebrew text is הָעַלְמָ֗ה (or ha almah). The term parthenos carries with it the implication of maidenhood, chastity, or virginity, as does almah: presumably a young unmarried woman of the ancient world was taken to be a virgin also. Not that there was not promiscuity in the ancient world, as indeed there were decrees, commands, and exhortations against promiscuity, even among the young. Furthermore, some scholars assert that there were the temple priestesses of a young age, sold into temple prostitution for various reasons, the main of which was likely to support a family, starving for both food and status.

The maiden or young woman of the text of Scripture, then, bearing Emmanuel, the one who is “God with us,” would likely have been a pure and chaste girl, though perhaps not so much a virgin–not because of promiscuity, but because of marriage, by which she would have been without virginity.

It seems that “virgin” is not necessitated by the OT text of Isaiah 7:14 or the whole context of Isaiah 7-12; it seems, however, that the author of Matthew 1:23 extends the meaning of the terms parthenos/almah to require a reading of such as “virgin.” Thus, by reading back into Isaiah 7:14 through the lens of Matthew 1:23, we see that, though the Prophet Isaiah saw (only) a young maiden giving birth to a son, Emmanuel, the author of Matthew has reinterpreted and redefined the term and the verse of Isaiah 7:14 to mean “virgin,” thereby also reinterpreting and redefining the whole passage of Isaiah 7-12. The author of Matthew is not taking the text of Isaiah 7:14 to mean what it meant in Isaiah’s day and age, but to take it to mean what it meant to the author of Matthew in the day and age in which the Gospel of Matthew was written.

Then, we have two meanings, both of which are valid, insofar as we read each or either text, though we can only read back into Isaiah 7:14 the meaning of Matthew 1:23, not the other way around, because Isaiah came before Matthew, and the author of Matthew is reinvesting a latent meaning into Isaiah. The author of Matthew is using the text of Isaiah 7:14 and its whole context of chapters 7-12 to make the point that it looks a lot like Jesus’ birth, which is different from the one of the son of the maiden mentioned in Isaiah 7:14–because the birth of Jesus was due to an immaculate, divine conception, whereas the birth of the Emmanuel of Isaiah 7:14 was not.

Intertestamental Intertextual Dialectics

This leads us to explore the topic of intertestamental intertextual dialectics, wherein we study the differences and contrasts between texts of the OT and the NT, not seeking to harmonize them per se, while also seeking to establish each one in its own right as fixed and true in the context in which it stands. For instance, with Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, we might see that the verse in Isaiah is not about divine immaculate conception, whereas Matthew is, and that Matthew appropriates and reinvests meaning into Isaiah with what has occurred down the line in the time in which Matthew was written. Thus, we uphold the integrity of both texts as distinct and individual as well as true and valid as they are in their context, but we also see that they contrast nicely one with another, demonstrating that though Isaiah likely saw none of what Matthew writes, the texts can stand in juxtaposition, complementing while also contrasting one another. There is no need to force a meaning that isn’t plainly there.

While we may read back into the OT a meaning that is put forth in the NT, we ought not forget that the OT does not bear this meaning independent of the NT. If progressive revelation stands, then we should not fault the OT or readers thereof for not seeing what the NT sees in the OT, precisely because the revelation of the NT is after the revelation of the OT. Additionally, we uphold the integrity of the OT by not forcing it to mean something it does not, independent of the NT. The two testaments are distinct, sometimes divided and sometimes united. While one may wish to harmonize the testaments so as to smooth over texts compared with a gloss that is so befitting, such only serves to diminish the integrity of the original meaning of each texts as well as the intertextual relationship obtaining between the texts. For inasmuch as one might enjoy the OT as the NT, that one need not diminish the integrity of the one for the enjoyment of the other: we need not build up doctrines whereby to establish a text in its meaning by destroying other texts in their meaning: indeed, we may hold both texts in distinction and even contradistinction or contradiction one to another because each is locked in its time, its day and age.

Progressive revelation may demonstrate the extended meaning of a given text of, say, the OT, as reinvested with meaning anew by the NT, but then that is not the meaning of the OT but of the NT use of the OT. Thus, we do not diminish one text or hold one over and against another; rather, we simply assert that each is established in its own right upon its own merit.

The appropriation of the OT by NT authors is largely due to the fact that the NT authors were steeped in the OT. The way in which the authors of the NT made sense of their first-century world was by reinterpreting and reapplying the OT to their contemporary context. It large measure it was a rather metaphorical endeavor, applying by means of metaphor and comparison/contrast the OT to the context of the first century and within the text of the NT. Thus, when the author of Matthew wrote Matthew 1:23 and alludes to Isaiah 7:14 as well as the context of Isaiah 7-12, the Matthean author is drawing upon that which the author knew, namely, the text of the OT, and applying it by means of metaphorical appropriation to the present-day context of the first century. By reinvesting meaning into the OT, the NT authors are not thereby playing fast and loose with the OT, but drawing out a new meaning of the OT, which, of course, produced the NT.

Thus, the NT use of the OT is a matter of intertestamental intertextual dialectics at its core, for the NT authors made use of the OT by comparing and contrasting the experience of Jesus with the text of the OT, drawing out new meaning and applications thereof within the first-century context.