Funny things happen when reading Isaiah if (a) you are a Christian and (b) you have a theological education in a mainline Protestant tradition.
(a) As a Christian, there is a whole lot of Isaiah, like the series of oracles to the nations (see chapters 13 and following), that just seems like hard slogging. The references are clearly to ancient issues in ancient times and in ancient places.
(b) As someone with a theological education, I know that, if I look up a few things about those times and places, what God said to them through the prophet will take on meaning. I will learn about God’s character and priorities, and this will be useful. The poetry will speak to me in rich and powerful ways–if I do a bit of work.
But then, I come across passages like Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
(a) Because I am a Christian, I think of Jesus. It happens even if I read a more mainline Protestant translation:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. (NRSV)
I think of Jesus for a number of reasons. Not least of these is the Gospel of Matthew (1:22-23):
All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel’,
which means, ‘God is with us.’ (NRSV)
If the NIV and the NRSV quibble about Hebrew term in Isaiah, the Evangelist has no doubt at all. And for the vast majority of Christians down through the ages Matthew settles the question.
(b) Because I have a theological education, I am prompted to read Isaiah 7:14 in context– at least the context of its paragraph. Take a look at Isaiah 7:10-17 (NRSV). I’ve shortened it up a bit for clarity:
Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. . . . Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. . . . For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.’
Trained in the tools of historical criticism my eagle eye notices that the words I hear as a reference to Jesus were spoken to an earthly king about a child who would be a sign about political events in that king’s times.
O my. Does (b) trump (a)? Has the historical meaning of the text taken away the theological reference so precious to me as a Christian?
No. I am a Christian above all.
Then does (a) trump (b)? Does being a Christian mean that I close my mind to the facts of history?
No. I am a Christian above all, so I want to love God with all my mind, as well as heart, soul, and strength.
Here is the deal: (a) adds to (b). I see some things as an educated person. Being a Christian I see more.
Of course I know, as a Christian and a scholar, that Isaiah lived in and spoke to the culture and events of his day. But as a Christian I see that the events of the people of God before the coming of Jesus had more meaning than they could be aware of.
People, events, and promises in ancient Israel were real and true in their own context. But God is true and consistent. Those past events could not exhaust the meaning of what God said through the prophet, so the words echo forward and become truer still. They are like shadows and images of things that became bright and clear with the coming of Jesus.
Neither side negates the other. In Isaiah’s time a child was a sign that God was with the people of Judah. In Jesus we find a more literal fulfilment of the same prophetic word. In Jesus, God himself really is with us.
I’d love to hear from you in the comments: What have you found the most moving of Isaiah’s promises?
————
If you read this far I hope you’ll scroll down a bit further and subscribe for email updates!
I found the juxtaposition of (a) and (b) very interesting. St. Vladimir’s, since the days of Fr. Alexander Schmemann, has been very anti historical criticism, and instead has tended towards Evagrius of Pontus’ famous saying: “The one who prays is a theologian; the one who is a theologian, prays.”
Thus for me, (b) would be: because I have a theological education, I see Christ throughout all of Isaiah!
Mainline Protestant seminaries, on the other hand, tend to be either in the post-enlightenment mode of historical criticism or reacting to it with more recent interpretive approaches.
David Steinmetz of Duke sounded a winsome call in another direction years ago with an essay on “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis.”
Great stuff!
I was able to find a full copy of that article on the ATLA Religion Database, so I’ll give it a read.
The mainline Protestant seminary tradition – in the modern context – is an interesting phenomenon. Many of Christianity’s major tenants are dependent on *how* it is one approaches the text (allegory, typology, historical criticism, etc.). Once one moves away from the approaches that formed historic Christianity, how does one then continue to uphold traditional Christian doctrines that were dependent on those previous methodologies? It seems your post is moving in a direction of trying to answer that question.
I tremble to say it to an Orthodox priest, but you might really enjoy reading John Calvin. He has a rich doctrinal engagement with Scripture in his theology (both Institutes and Commentaries) and a hermeneutic traditional in many ways (a great admirer of Chrysostom) and informed by the Renaissance. In the 16th century there was no problem drawing on Scripture for the major tenets. Things have gotten a bit more dicey since the Enlightenment.
I may have to put Calvin on my reading list. This is little known, but we did have a Calvinistic Ecumenical Patriarch in the 16th/17th century – Cyril Lucaris.
Yes, a fascinating character. The Calvinism thing didn’t go well for him. I was fascinated to learn that after dying as a martyr he was sainted!
The question that would be interesting to probe was what parts of Reformed theology he was drawn to. There is a whole lot of common ground to be found, as well as many points of difference, between Calvin’s theology and Orthodoxy. But Cyril Lucaris came on the scene after Calvin’s death, and to my eye the tradition evolved a good bit. And it is varied in its positions. So an embrace of many points of Reformed theology could easily exclude certain positions held rigidly later that contrast with Orthodoxy.
I finished Steinmetz’s article, and I thought it was brilliant! He does a very good job of explaining the various levels of scripture, and following them up with examples. I’m grateful you recommended it.
The only thing I would have added to it is a discussion of what the hermeneutical key is for the various senses of scripture. I think Fr. John Behr (in his book: The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death [Crestwood: SVS Press, 2006]) does a good job of showing that the key is the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and it’s only from this perspective that one can look back and say, “Oh, yeah, I guess all of Scripture was about Christ after all!”
Great that you found and read it! You might enjoy some of the essays in his “Taking the Long View,” especially the extraordinary “Miss Marple Reads the Bible.”
Just wanted to tell you that Pastor Tim Polley, a former student of yours, taught a class at our church on your book, Kneeling with Giants. I’m so glad I took the class. I learned so much from your book. I have incorporated the Jesus Prayer in my daily prayers and also have read and studied all the Psalms because of your chapter on John Calvin. I ordered cd by Sons of Korah and sing the Psalms in my car. Psalm One, the tree psalm, is really beautiful by music. Pastor Tim, as of next week, is the new minister at First Christian Church in Carrollton, Ky. He spoke highly of you in our class.
Thank you so much, Charlotte!
I am really glad you found my book helpful. It means a ton that you let me know.
Please keep in touch — which is easy if you subscribe here on my blog.
Please give my greetings to Tim when you see him!
Blessings
Gary
So I am tackling this topic with an Isaiah of Advent group next week. I have been trying to present Isaiah from the more historical context. What struck me about this particular piece was your comment that a child was a sign from God that God was with them!
New Life, New Beginnings!
What keeps coming back to me over and over again as I sit with this reading is that this is the first “official” conversation Isaiah has with king Ahaz after Isaiah accepts his call. One of the last things we read in Chapter 6 is Here I Am Lord, Send me….
Send me to go tell Ahaz that his son will be the kind of person Ahaz is not?? Thats a tall order. Thats what has been hanging around with me!
Kind of scary, isn’t it? Tell God you are willing and he says “Okay!”
Thanks for sharing the post with your crew.
I think every parent has had a hint of that sense that a child is a sign that God is with them… till those bad parenting moments where “with” seems to change to “against”!
But here it is not just any child. It seems a very particular promised child with symbolic meaning. Isaiah was keen on that theme, as seen in the way he named his kids. (Pity poor Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in junior high… “Hey here comes Speed-Plunder-Haste-Spoil–Spoiler Alert! Spoiler Alert!”)
Gary–
Great subject matter for this season of the year!
I would like to suggest a few good, recent titles on the OT in the NT that would be good reads for anyone interested in pursuing the subject:
_Seeing the Word_ by Markus Bockmuehl
_Reading Scripture with the Church_ by A.K.M. Adam, Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Francis Watson
and _Reading Backwards_ the latest offering of Richard B. Hays on the subject
Also, on the subject of Isaiah _The Theology of the Book of Isaiah_ is a new gem from John Goldingay (This one in particular might make a great study for a church group as well and definitely good sermon fodder for a series on Isaiah–maybe next Advent?)
Grace and peace,
Tracee
Thanks Tracee! Great to hear from you.