NT scholars generally investigate the topic of “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament” rather than Old Testament scholars. However, as a matter of method, they use the consensus positions of Old Testament scholars to tell them what the OT text means and they assume that the NT writer holds the same set of opinions. This methodological presumption is adopted silently and seldom do you come across the question: Into what historical context did a NT writer place Isaiah or this or that Psalm? The reason for such a presumption lies in the fact that this question is difficult to answer. NT writers do not typically mention the historical context of a psalm. For example, Luke does not overtly advertise the view that Psalm 110 has its origins in the rebellion of Absalom or Adonijah or that it is a psalm written for a ritual connected with the coronation of the Davidic king.
It might be thought that this question cannot be answered; however, there are two lines of argument that can establish historical context. The first line is to adopt, as a controlling framework, the approach to the OT evident in Second Temple Judaism. Thus the ascriptions of authorship, the principle of inspiration, and the harmonizing method of interpretation, should be adopted by the scholar if he is to have a chance of securing Luke or Paul’s interpretation of scripture.
The second line of argument is typological. Here the principle is that since typology relates two historical circumstances in terms of details, (one OT and one NT), we can reverse the typology and consider what the NT situation tells us about the OT context. For example, in the case of Pss 110:1, in order for Luke to use this text of Christ, the original text must be about the son of David rather than David (i.e. Solomon). Further, in order for the psalm to prove that Jesus is in heaven sitting by the hand of Yahweh, it must reflect a situation in which David is alive and Solomon is not on the throne in Jerusalem but about to become the king. In short, in order for Luke’s secondary application of the psalm to work, the primary application can be inferred to be what we have stated—the impending coronation of Solomon.
Instead of arguing in this manner, NT commentators will ascribe to Luke the view that the psalm is purely eschatological—it is just about the future messiah and has no reference to Solomon. However, OT commentators are more likely to see in the psalm a reference to the coronation of the Davidic king and the speaker as someone other than David. A typical gloss would be that the “prophet” says of the Davidic king, “Yahweh said to my lord, ‘Sit thou on my right hand’…”. These two consensus readings by NT and OT scholar alike suffer from two different kinds of mistake. The NT scholar supposes that the psalmist (who can be David) would be inspired to compose a psalm about the messiah hundreds of years hence without regard to his own situation. This makes the psalm irrelevant to the needs of the moment and it ignores the particular allusions in the psalm to Israel and Judah (e.g. v. 7). The OT scholar, however, in seeking a local scenario in which to situate the psalm ignores the evidence of its interpretation by first century readers such as Luke (or Paul, or the other gospel writers). The OT scholar is likely instead to bring pre-exilic data to bear on the interpretation of the psalm—perhaps information about coronation rituals from Mesopotamia and how they involve decrees about the king by the god.
Instead of going to OT commentaries for our interpretation of the OT, we ought to follow the examples of the NT writers in their interpretation. Thus, if we are seeking to interpret Psalm 110, we can surmise its background by seeing how it is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. Alongside this study of the use of the psalm in the NT, we can consider how it is used by other Second Temple writers, and “write up” a “compare and contrast” essay. In this way we develop our understanding of the distinctiveness of the NT writer’s approach to the OT.
Our two lines of argument do not apply across the board, but they are generally applicable when NT writers quote the Prophets. It is in these writings that historical context is more likely to be obscure. Isaiah 40-66 is a case in point. OT scholars read these chapters against the background of the end of the Babylonian exile and the period after the exile. If they are conservative scholars, they regard Isaiah of Jerusalem as the author and affirm that he was inspired to write about the end of the exile and the times thereafter 150 years or so before the events. Is this way of reading supported by any NT writer? Such writers quote from and allude to Isaiah 40-66 in many instances, but do any of these instances give away their historical reading of Isaiah? The short answer is that there is nothing explicit in the NT documents that gives away the NT writer’s reading of any primary historical application of Isaiah 40-66.
OT scholars typically aver that Isaiah 40-66 is difficult to contextualize, especially Isaiah 56-66. The exact exilic and post-exilic history that gave rise to the oracles is disputed. As a result, it is argued that the lack of historical information in the oracles is an indication that they should be read in an eschatological way—about the end-times. NT scholars are comfortable with this line of argument and presume that the NT writers use Isaiah in an eschatological way without regard to any original application. Accordingly, there is an absence of discussion in NT studies about the historical origins of these oracles. However, the fact that NT scholars are not asking what Luke or Paul thought about the historical origins of, say, Isaiah 61, does not mean that the question cannot be raised. There is a comic irony here in that OT scholars endlessly discuss the historical origins of these oracles (this is their livelihood) and NT scholars pay no attention to such theories. They just presume that NT writers placed their origins in relation to the exile or the post-exilic history of the nation and were only concerned with their eschatological meaning. Other Second Temple writings use Isaiah 40-66 in an eschatological way. But is eschatology the only approach? Are NT scholars failing to see the typological basis for the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament?
As a worked example of the issue, we can here pose the question: Did Luke read Isaiah 61 in relation to the exile, after the exile, or in relation to the nation’s history before the exile? We do not need to consider any particular historical context; we can restrict our attention to the question of the three periods—pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic. These three periods share the single detail of “the exile” (obviously) and scholars read the restoration oracles of Isaiah 40-66 against the backdrop of the exile and (by and large) exclude any pre-exilic application.
We can assume for our purposes the general characterization of these oracles as “restoration oracles”. If we assume that they are about the restoration of the nation after the exile, this immediately creates a dissonance with their NT usage. Luke is a case in point. He sets out from the beginning of his gospel the fact that Israel is not going to be restored: he warns of a wrath to come, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the people. Why would he then use Isaiah’s oracles of restoration if they came from a time after the Jews have been scattered to Babylon and were now being restored in the land?
NT scholars address this difficulty by sidelining Israel. They make Isaiah’s oracles of restoration apply to the church as the remnant of Israel; the church is now the kingdom of God and the restored Israel of Isaiah. Luke, they say, is revising Isaiah. This approach does not really work as an interpretation of Isaiah because Isaiah’s focus is nationalistic—Israel and a remnant are the focus of the oracles. The return of Israel to the land in modern times is “non-scholarly” evidence that interpretations of Isaiah that sideline Israel are mistaken. If we claim that Luke or Paul or another NT writer is sidelining the nationalistic implications of the Abrahamic Promises or the Prophets, such a claim is given the lie by the return of Israel.
We cannot therefore assume that NT writers regard the church as the “restored Israel” of Isaiah. We cannot assume that NT writer’s thought that Isaiah’s oracles addressed the situation after the exile; rather we should assume that NT writers read them in the light of the forthcoming Babylonian exile—they saw this as a “type” of the forthcoming Roman scattering. In short, when the NT writers use these prophecies for their own times, they show how such prophecies come from a similar age in the nation’s past. NT writers apply these prophecies to their “apostolic” age and this age is the “last days” of the Jewish commonwealth prior to a forthcoming scattering. Similarly, Isaiah’s oracles of restoration were delivered against the backdrop of a forthcoming Babylonian “scattering”. They relate to the restoration of Judah under Hezekiah after 701, but such a restoration nevertheless took place against the backdrop of Isaiah’s prediction that the royal house would be taken captive to Babylon.[1]
Our argument is that NT writers use Isaiah 40-66 in a “pre-exilic” way and that therefore they read these oracles in relation to Hezekiah. We can tell their reading was pre-exilic because they applied Isaiah’s oracles to their own day, which was just prior to the Roman “exile”[2] of the nation. We can infer this because they had a high view of Scripture and an understanding of typology. They are therefore not claiming that Isaiah’s prophecies of restoration are fulfilled in the church rather they expect the reader to understand that just as Hezekiah’s restoration foundered so too will the “restoration” of the apostles. The time for the restoration of Israel was always set for a period beyond apostolic times. The model for understanding the “restoration” of John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles is therefore proleptic—it is a type of the restoration to come, a demonstration of the kingdom of God—an invitation to the kingdom.
Our conclusion therefore is that NT writers quote and allude to the Old Testament in a context sensitive way. They have an historical understanding of the Prophets but this is only betrayed in their typological use of their oracles. The NT scholar’s eschatological approach is not incorrect but it fails to take into account the typological dimension of prophetic usage by NT writers. This kind of interpretation is separately undertaken but seldom related as a control upon eschatological readings.
[1] Isaiah’s oracles in 40-66 are not overall chronologically arranged.
[2] We might ask: do the NT writers expect a long exile like the Babylonian Exile, or a short scattering and dispersion to the four corners like the Assyrian deportations of 701.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One