One of the side effects of the late vocations classes I’m taking (currently on the Old Testament), is that after each session I return with wonderful kernels of ideas from which to expand a (hopefully) interesting essay based on the discussions we have in class. Last week one of the books we read was Isaiah.
Isaiah 7 … and particularly Isaiah 7:14 has been a lighting rod for messianic interpretations.
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
This verse and the surrounding few verses, Christians have traditionally taken as a sign-point identifying the virginity of the Theotokos. Much modern commentary focuses on defending the use of the word virgin. The Masoretic text (MT), which is the primary source for the Western canon (apparently) uses a term which is more ordinarily translated as young or unmarried girl … not virgin. The LXX text however both originates much earlier, might have used a separate strand of source text than the MT, and unambiguously uses a Greek term which translates as virgin. However, that isn’t the core problem. For even if you either buy the somewhat contorted arguments for translating the MT term “virgin” or just use the LXX itself as your base text there remains a problem (of course if you’re going to use the LXX here, then you’ve a problem explaining why you’ve decided to dropped half a dozen or more books from the canon … additionally one of the oldest complete extant LXX copies the Codex Alexandrinus also contains first and second Clement in the New Testament).
What I’ve always been taught is that hermeneutically speaking “proof texting” or taking verses in isolation removed from the context of the surrounding text is looked upon as a bad or poor hemerneutical method. That is to say, a thing not to do. Yet this is exactly what seems to be occurring here. For when you take the whole text of Isaiah 7 in context then interpreting Isaiah as talking about anything outside of the context of the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom is unwarranted. Isaiah throughout is highly poetic and there are direct references to current and near future events by the prophet … and in Isaiah’s context the near future was not by any means six or seven centuries in the future, i.e., Jesus birth. Therefore the popular (in the West) hermeneutical method the “historical/critical” method would indicate, I suspect, that this is not about the Messiah but about Assyria. Isaiah’s contemporaries would not have interpreted chapter 7 as being about an event centuries in the future and apparently there are few records of who pre-first century Jewish rabbinic interpretation would have viewed this chapter.
Yet universally the early patristic theologians located this verse as one of the clear prophetic verses predicting Jesus birth and role as Messiah and they weren’t “proof-texting” or misusuing a hermenuetical method. What they were doing was using a different hermeneutic. One of the dominant hermeneutics of late antiquity was to use the typological and or allegorical methods to interpret Scripture. These verses are important indications of the Theotokos and the Messiah not due to their interpretation as prophecy but because of their resonance with and their similarity to those parts of Jesus life and birth. There was a fevered and fervent effort using the allegorical/typological methods throughout the early centuries following Jesus resurrection plumbing Scripture for all the places and ways Christ and those around him could be found pre-figured or type-ically located in the Old Testament. A simple example of this is Jonah in the belly of the whale for three days is seen as a type (or allegorical allusion) to Christ’s being in Death/Hades for three days prior to his Resurrection.
But there is a problem for the modern western (protestant?) Christian who has decided the typological/allegorical hermeneutic is to be abandoned. For it seems if you do so, you need to abandon Isaiah 7 as a prophecy which points to Christ. Yet, noting that modern translators of texts such as the ESV, which primarily use the MT documents for their basis use the less proper translation term “virgin” over “unmarried/young girl” in this case. Why? Because they are Christian and the traditional Christian interpretation of this text is that it is in fact pointing to Christ and the Nativity. Yet that does violence to a consistent hermeneutical method.
If, on the other hand to avoid this one was to grant validity to allegorical/typological methods then it seems you also have to allow its use elsewhere. Recently on a number of Evangelical/Protestant blogs discussion resurfaced regarding the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos (Mary), i.e., that she remained virgin after the birth of Christ. The claim was made there that “there is no Scriptural support” for that belief and all support for that is just tradition unsupported by Scripture (a thing rejected by most Protestants), yet the early Church using the type/allegorical methods of interpretation found Scriptural support for the perpetual virginity throughout via this hermeneutic. Here are two quick examples of that. One example of that “type” is that the passage of Israel out of Egypt is seen as a type of Christ’s birth (Israel passing out of Egypt toward Canaan with the concomitant allegorical associations of Egypt as sin and so on). The sea then is the Thetokos and the parting of the Sea in this case is the Nativity … and the water’s restoration after is the return of her virginity. A second example would be the burning bush. The bush with God’s voice is an example of the incarnation and the unconsumed bush is Mary, who gave God flesh yet was unchanged by the presence of God, i.e., her virginity/purity remaining is the bush being unconsumed. This is just two of the many instances of allegorical instances in which Mary’s virginity (and continued virginity) can be found in the Old Testament.
December 7th, 2009 | 9:43 pm | #1
I disagree that accepted the LXX text over the Masoretic necessarily entails accepting all books within the LXX document as canonical. Yes, if you accept the LXX as more accurate, it does lend extra weight to the validity of, say, Clement. However, this is by no means logically required. I personally am of the opinion that the LXX may very well be the more accurate of the two; but I also believe that the disputed books were not universally accepted among the Jews.
December 7th, 2009 | 10:22 pm | #2
Excellent point about the abandonment of allegorical/typological interpretations of Scripture by Evangelicals- we have too often over-corrected in our attempts to avoid falling into methods of Scripture interpretation that are “too Catholic.”
And I particularly appreicate your comments on the Isaiah 7 passage, taking the verse out of context robs is a horrendous violation of the text, but leaving it in context without some kind of typological interpretation renders it meaningless beyond the Israel/Assyria issue.
On the other hand, I think reading the virgin/young woman phrase (which, from the context, is clearly intended to show that God will save his people despite their rebellion in a way in which he will get all the glory and credit) to mean “Mary was perpetually a virgin” is forcing too much into the text and getting away from the point of the passage.
But then again, I’m an Evangelical, so I would think something like that :)
December 7th, 2009 | 10:31 pm | #3
That’s true about the loss of typology. I was taught in church to interpret everything as a direct prophecy rather than reading it typologically, and this caused me to be very confused about many things when I actually started looking at the Bible verses on my own time.
December 8th, 2009 | 4:19 am | #4
We could also open up the Ephesians 4 can-of-worms quoting the Psalms. Same head-scratching with that passage.
While I could possibly see the Isaiah 7 passage supporting Mary’s (initial, if not perpetual) virginity, I couldn’t find much connection with the other examples mentioned. I’d be willing to look into it, though.
What does catch my interest, though, is what typological interpretation implies about inerrancy of Scripture. If [God through] Isaiah had chosen to speak of the Assyria in a way that had not made any mention of a maiden giving birth, then what would that mean? Plenary inspiration (which I believe in) is a necessary axiom for typological interpretation, it seems to me.
December 8th, 2009 | 8:29 am | #5
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Craig L. Adams, Keith McIlwain. Keith McIlwain said: Isaiah 7, Nativity, and the Theotokos http://bit.ly/7sBjAK (RT @craigadams49) #rethinkchurch [...]
December 8th, 2009 | 9:25 am | #6
Matthew (and other biblical authors) does not appear to use the historical-grammatical approach I was taught in Bible college. Matthew 1:23 takes Isaiah 7:14 as referring to a virgin. There is another kind of hermeneutic at work here.
December 8th, 2009 | 10:10 am | #7
I think this is a great post. I have heard much of what you have written here in different contexts, and I really like how you have tied it all together! I heard a rabbi interviewed who argued about whether that word really means virgin. And he used his interpretation as evidence that Christians were wrong in their interpretation of this verse as one of the prophecies of Christ’s birth.
I would love to read any essay you write about your class discussions. I would love to participate in the late vocations class. I have heard wonderful things about it. However, we do not have one set up in my state yet. In addition, I do not consider myself a mature enough Orthodox Christian for such a class at this point. I have only been an Orthodox Christian for about two years, and I am still working my way through the Old Testament though I have read the New Testament quite a bit. I hope in a few years to be ready for such a class. I have heard the time commitment is immense, but that the class is very rewarding.
Please continue to post about the class. I find this very interesting.
December 8th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #8
Coyle,
You misunderstand. I wasn’t claiming Isaiah 7:14 implies “Mary was perpetually a virgin” but that the hermenuetic that must be used to interpret 7:14 as about the Nativity of Jesus used elsewhere demonstrate that.
Gary,
December 8th, 2009 | 7:03 pm | #9
The problem with typology is one of limits. I don’t think any Christian, Protestant or otherwise would reject it completely. After all, your example of Jonah in the whale as a type of Christ in the tomb is a pretty safe one, since Christ himself used it. However, the fact that typology is a legitimate hermeneutical tool doesn’t mean that every type someone can come up with is legitimate. Calling the “restoration” of the Red Sea after its parting a type indicating Mary’s perpetual virginity seems to be a bridge too far. It’s an interesting argument though, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the work of some of the fathers who wrote about it.
As for the “disputed books” in the LXX, I think they were rejected by the Jews during the period during or right after Christ. During his lifetime, the only books accepted by the whole of Judaism were the Pentatuch (Sadducees rejected the rest), but by the time of Josephus, he was willing to write that there were 22 books in the Jewish canon (some of the OT books were lumped together) in a way that suggested there was little dispute over the matter. Of course, that merely begs the question, should Christians care which books Judaism accepts? After all, they aren’t too fond of Matthew either…
December 8th, 2009 | 10:04 pm | #10
“But there is a problem for the modern western (protestant?) Christian who has decided the typological/allegorical hermeneutic is to be abandoned. For it seems if you do so, you need to abandon Isaiah 7 as a prophecy which points to Christ. Yet, noting that modern translators of texts such as the ESV, which primarily use the MT documents for their basis use the less proper translation term “virgin” over “unmarried/young girl” in this case. Why? Because they are Christian and the traditional Christian interpretation of this text is that it is in fact pointing to Christ and the Nativity. Yet that does violence to a consistent hermeneutical method.”
Huh? No one, no Catholic, no Evangelical no Eastern Orthodox, no anyone is using a hermeutic to interpret Isaiah 7:14.
They’re reading Matthew.
So here’s the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 using the grammatical/historical method.
In Matthew 1:23, Matthew says “Behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel”
There. No allegorical/typological hermeneutic necessary. Just Matthew.
Did he really say that? Yes. Did the people he spoke to understand “virgin” when he said “virgin”. Yes.
Your larger point may be valid, it may not, but Isaiah 7:14 as a prophesy about Christ birth…well that’s not your starting point.
December 13th, 2009 | 12:28 am | #11
Some thoughts on your examples of the early church’s typology:
Analysis of literary structure here is crucial. A trinity of the heptamerous Creation Week, the heptamerous Festivals (Lev. 23) and the heptamerous Egypt to Canaan pattern underlies and structures the Bible at many levels.
Based on this (I believe irrefutable) factor, these two examples are unsupported by a “systematic” typology.
The Red Sea gives birth to the Firstfruits (Moses, Christ) BUT THEN the Jordan gives birth to the rest of the family. Head then body. Circumcision of head, then baptism of body.
The holy fire of the burning bush is about marital faithfulness, not virginity. Harlotry is strange fire on the Altar of Adam.
Moses’ exodus and return follows the Tabernacle pattern, which is in turn based on the Creation week. The Lampstand/governing lights/Pentecost is at the centre. Thus, the burning bush is all about sex and harvest. It is the threshing-floor, the wilderness of testing. It is Eve FULL of stars (princes).
The Joseph narrative has three cycles. Each follows the Festivals pattern. In the first one, his first dream comes at Firstfruits (sheaves) and his second dream comes at Pentecost (sun, moon and stars). It is all about brothers, with Joseph as head. There is no virginity here whatsoever.
This is where a “systematic” typology is crucial. It is the method whereby we can verify or reject such drive-by typology.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact