New Testament Uses of Old Testament Texts

Introduction

How much do you know about the nature of references made by New Testament authors to Old Testament scripture? It turns out that there is an entire academic field centered on the study of this subject. And, there seems to be at least two conflicting views among scholars of these New Testament (NT) citations of Old Testament (OT) texts.

The first view holds that the NT citer knew the context of the OT reference perfectly and either appropriated its original meaning, or in other cases appropriated a larger spiritual perspective of the original context. Typically these latter cases aren’t complete inventions by the NT author but rather rely on hints in the text surrounding the OT passage that the OT author was aware of a more ‘cosmic’ context, in addition to his local one. This is the view of most traditional scholars in their attempt to preserve the view that God effectively authored both OT and NT passages, and that He wouldn’t have inspired a connection by an NT author unless there was one. This view is interested in promoting the integrity of the Bible as a holistic product of God.

The second view, held by a group of modern scholars, holds that the NT citers of OT texts would have had such an intimate familiarity with those texts from a lifetime of study, that they had no compunction in citing them whether their context had anything to do with the author’s — so-called “assimilated use“. The idea is that if the familiar OT words (alone) fit the NT writer’s context, that was sufficient — the words alone testified to the applicability of the scripture. Furthermore, it was good enough to claim prophetic fulfillment even if the two contexts, at least superficially, looked to have no contextual relationship.

This is the view I had until researching this paper[i]. Now I’m more cautious. Below, we’ll look at a few NT-OT references that some critics have complained seemingly have no contextual similarity, but on a closer, more detailed inspection, do, at least to the extent of justifying the NT author’s reference based on his in-depth knowledge of his own scriptures.

Then we’ll look at one that I have been skeptical that its author (in this case Paul) had a valid rationale for his citation, and look for some reasons he did.

Contextual Relationships between Seemingly Unrelated NT and OT Passages

The specific OT passage references or allusions from NT passages typically have one of three characters: 1) they have only a defined, local, original context, or 2) they have both a local context and certain textual hints at a larger, future fulfillment, some of which are quite expansive and well-developed, or 3) they appear to have no local context – only cosmic. Each of these types is used to substantiate specific NT references.

For Unto Us a Child Is Born

Mt 1:22-23 claims this:

[22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

[23] “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and they shall call his name Immanuel”

(which means, God with us).

The question is this: Is the author of Matthew inappropriately coopting Isaiah’s story of the son to be born to him by replacing it with a prophecy of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth?

Isaiah’s situation (in the referenced verse: Is 7:14) is this. He’s told Syria (King Rezin) and Israel (King Pekah) have committed together to invade Judah, whose King is Ahaz. He has been informed by God that Jerusalem is to be eventually doomed, but that in the meantime, he is to counsel Judah’s King informing him that the impending attack from the north will not happen.

It’s at this point that God informs Isaiah that “Ephraim” (Israel) will be undone within 65 years, and asks Ahaz to name a sign that God will give him to confirm the prophecy as a signal of the demise of the northern aggressors. Ahaz demurs. So God says, in so many words, “OK. Here’s the sign I’ll give you.” And then is quoted Is 7:14:

[14] Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

It’s at this point in the discussion of the two views of this prophecy that the views diverge. The traditionalists focus on the “virgin” character of the Hebrew term 5959. עַלְמָה `almāh. In Isaiah’s time, the word meant a young, unmarried woman. For cultural reasons, every `almāh was assumed to be sexually virgin. But the primary characteristics of `almāh were ‘young’ and ‘unmarried’.

So Isaiah “goes into the prophetess” (the “virgin”) and a son is born. They, at God’s direction, name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which means something like “swift the booty; fast the plunder”. This son is never named or addressed as ‘Immanuel’. We’re left to wonder who the Immanuel was that God prophesied in 7:14. (This would be a simpler problem if God had not initially directed that Isaiah was to ‘call his name Immanuel’[ii]: if, in other words, the child was simply to be a ‘sign of Immanuel’.)

Then God tells Isaiah: (Is 8:4)

[4] for before the boy knows how to cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.”

So Isaiah (and God, apparently) want us to know that this boy, Isaiah’s son who is presented as a sign that “God is with us”, is the harbinger of the demise of the northern invading forces of Syria and Israel.

So why does the author of Matthew appropriate this story? Well, superficially we see that he attests that the boy shall be known as “Immanuel” – God with us, which Jesus most certainly was. Second, the story was that Mary the mother of Jesus was a “virgin” (3933. παρθένος parthénos; the Greek term close to identical with the Hebrew `almāh – “virgin, maiden”, but somewhat more evocative of sexual virginity) in the western, sexual meaning of the word, and so fit the narrative that Isaiah related. But we should ask: What else was going on with Isaiah that we should know about?

God told Isaiah that the northern coalition of Israel and Syria would come to nothing before the child/sign “knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is 7:15; and later [Is 8:4] “before the boy knows how to cry ‘My Mother’ or ‘My Father’) placing him as a young child when the coalition is dissolved. We know that was 732 BC.

Now we have to believe that the author of Matthew also knew this local fulfillment of this “sign”, and when it happened. What, in the author of Matthew’s mind, justifies this appropriation?

Davidsonⁱ points out that the entire portion of Isaiah 7-12 scholars refer to as the “Volume of Immanuel”, and that it presents a larger, more cosmic context of ‘Immanuel’. Notice that the “sign” born to Isaiah and his almāh prophetess was not named ‘Immanuel’, as was prophesied (Is 7:14). Instead, at the boy’s birth, God instructs Isaiah to “call his name ‘Maher-shalal-hash-baz’” (is 8:3). “Immanuel” is mentioned again in Is 8:8, in a prophecy about the coming Assyrian invasion of Judah. The gist of the prophecy is that invading Assyrians, characterized as a river overflowing its banks, will sweep through Judah but rise only “to the neck” level, meaning Jerusalem will survive.

In this context, God remains with the Jews in Jerusalem, and they are protected – Immanuel. But why address the prophecy of Assyria sweeping into Israel/Judah to ‘Immanuel’ (‘O, Immanuel’)? It’s almost as if the Messianic Immanuel is being assured of Jerusalem’s survival.

The end of Is 8 continues in the context of Isaiah’s time and place with a prophecy culminating in “distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish” (Is 8:22).

However, Is 9 ushers in an apparently completely different context, one that is unmistakably forward-looking, as indicated by its first verse:.

[9:1] But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.

This verse refers to making the area of Galilee and the region just east of it (both disdained by the southern Jews for being polluted by intermarriage with non-Jews) “glorious”, calling it “Galilee of the nations” (referring to its mixed blood). The author of Matthew intimately knew Jesus’ ministry, largely in the Galilee and just across the Jordan River. He can be forgiven for equating Jesus’ mission there with the LORD making it glorious.

Finally, Isaiah erupts with what is a prophecy outside of the context of his time of Syria, Israel and Assyria (Is 9:6-7).

[6] For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given;

and the government shall be upon his shoulder,

and his name shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

[7] Of the increase of his government and of peace

there will be no end,

on the throne of David and over his kingdom,

to establish it and to uphold it

with justice and with righteousness

from this time forth and forevermore.

The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

This child has nothing in common with our previous “sign” child. This one isn’t called ‘Immanuel’, but rather ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ This particular string of appellations excludes such potential future candidates as Hezekiah or his Great-Grandson Josiah. True, ‘the government’ was upon both of their shoulders and they both sat ‘on the throne of David and over his kingdom…to uphold it’. But neither was addressed as “God” or “Father”. And neither was a ‘Prince of Peace’. In fact, both were mired in the wars of their day.

Following these verses, the prophetic narrative returns to admonitions about the cause of the coming Assyrian calamity, and the remnant that will be left in the land. That is, until chapter 11.

In Isaiah 11 we have the famous, traditionally Messianic chapter featuring its signature verse: ‘There shall come forth a branch from the stump of Jesse…’. We’re quite sure this is Messianic because of the poem it contains describing a redeemed Creation, one in which:

[9] They shall not hurt or destroy

in all my holy mountain;

for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea.

This context is certainly not local, nor fixed in Isaiah’s day of the expulsion of Israel (Ephraim) by Assyria and the destruction of Judah (except for Jerusalem). It describes a cosmic transformation of humanity in which ‘the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD’.

Now, despite the fact we see no direct correlation between Isaiah’s son who was supposed to have been named ‘Immanuel’, and the Messianic child of Is 9 (above), I think Isaiah’s entire narrative, containing as it does these Messianic allusions, would have captured the author of Matthew’s attention and led him to appropriate Is 7:14 as descriptive of Jesus’ advent, though it clearly had a well-defined local context. (Even the non-Messianic local contexts in Isaiah’s ‘Volume of Immanuel’ were examples of God acting – sometimes as ‘God with us’ in His role as protector/savior, and sometimes as the One disciplining Israel.)

‘He Shall Be Called a Nazarene’

The author of Matthew says, speaking of Jesus (Mt 2:23):

[23] And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.

Those that complain about the author’s appropriation of the OT are confused about a technical, translation issue.

The prophets don’t prophecy about a coming ‘Nazarene’. ‘Nazarites’ are described in Num 6. Instead, Isaiah prophecies in a verse we looked at previously, (Is 11:1):

[11:1] There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,

and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

The Hebrew word here translated ‘branch’ is:

5342. נֵצֶר nēṣer: A masculine noun referring to a branch. It indicates literally a shoot, a branch of a plant but is used figuratively of the Lord’s servant, the Branch, who will rule in the messianic kingdom.

This word is represented in a transliteration to English as neser’. It’s transliterated root is ‘nsr’ (meaning to grow).

The problem arises in that the Greek letter zeta (‘z’) is used to transliterate both the Hebrew letter zayin (‘z’) and sade (‘s’). The Hebrew for the town name ‘Nazareth’ comes from the Hebrew root nsr (not nzr). Neser, the branch, is the term referred to in “the Prophets” in Is 11:1, not ‘nezer’. So what we end up with is: Messiah, the ‘Branch’ (neser) grows up (nsr) in the town of the Branch (na saret).

Matthew’s author knew a fulfilled prophecy when he saw one, and this was one. We only end up with “Nazarene” because of the Greek conflation of the Hebrew z and s into their one letter zeta (‘z’), and our English translations’ perpetuation of this error of “z”eta.

OT Prediction of the Resurrection

Psalm 16, a Psalm of David, in v10 (ESV) says this:

[10] For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,

or let your holy one see corruption.

Both Peter (Acts 2:29-33) and Paul (Acts 13:30-37) cite Psalm 16 claiming the Psalmist as foreseeing Christ’s resurrection. (John 20:9 also contains an allusion to this verse.) Many modern scholars reject this claim, and cite these verses as misappropriations out of the Psalmist’s local, Davidic context. Let’s first review what they say: Peter —

[29] “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. [30] Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, [31] he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. [33] Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Paul — Acts 13:30-37

[30] But God raised him from the dead, [31] and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. [32] And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, [33] this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in Psalm 2:33-36:

“‘You are my Son,

today I have begotten you.’

[34] And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way,

“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’

[35] Therefore he says also in another psalm,

“‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’

[36] For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption, [37] but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.

God will not let His “holy one see corruption”. Paul and Peter point out that this can’t be David. Everybody knows where David’s tomb is; he was put there; and he did see corruption there. And let’s give David a little credit here as the Psalmist: he knew he was full of sin, that he had taken another man’s wife and caused him to be killed. Everybody who heard this Psalm knew it too. So he surely isn’t going to claim holiness for himself. This is definitely someone else, some ‘holy one’.

The term here rendered “holy one” is:

חָסִיד ḥāsiyḏ: An adjective meaning kind, benevolent, merciful, pious. The word carries the essential idea of the faithful kindness and piety that springs from mercy. It is used of the Lord twice: once to convey His holiness in the sense that His works are beyond reproach (Ps 145:17); and once to declare His tender mercy (Je 3:12). Other occurrences of this word usually refer to those who reflect the character of God in their actions or personality. The word denotes those who share a personal relationship with the Lord (1Sa 2:9;Ps 4:3 [4]; 97:10; 116:15); the state of one who fully trusts in God (Ps 86:2); and those who manifest the goodness or mercy of God in their conduct (2Sa 22:26;Ps 12:1,2;Mi 7:2). More importantly, though, it signifies the nature of those who are specifically set apart by God to be the examples and mediators of His goodness and fidelity. Priests (Dt 33:8); prophets (Ps 89:19 [20]); and the Messiah (Ps 16:10) all bear this “holy” mark and function

Since David leaves the “holy one’s” identity unspecified and unresolved, Peter and Paul are completely justified in citing this verse as pointing to Christ, particularly in view of His singularly unique resurrection from the dead.

The Seed of Abraham

In Gal 3:16 Paul says this:

[16] Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ.

Once again there are scholars objecting to Paul’s interpretation of Genesis here. They claim that his identification of a singular “offspring”/”seed” is unsubstantiated. They do seem to have a minor point. Here is the Genesis 22 verse in question:

[17] I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,

The word rendered “offspring”/”seed” here is: 2233. זֶרַע zera`: A masculine noun meaning sowing, seed, descendants, offspring, children, and posterity.

As far as I have been able to determine, this noun can be taken as singular or plural depending on its context. In v17a, above, the writer no doubt meant the plural form as he’s talking about the “stars of heaven”, a clearly plural construction.

However, in v17b, we see that the author is writing about a singular person as the “offspring”/”seed” based on the third-person masculine singular pronoun portion of the Hebrew term for “(of) his enemies”. (You will find English translations that render this pronoun part of this term “their”. Those are incorrect.) Logically, then, the “offspring”/”seed” being discussed in v17.b is a singular seed – one person.

So no, Paul wasn’t misappropriating God’s promise to Abraham.

Children of the Living God

There’s one other (to me puzzling) reference, this time by Paul, of Hosea in Romans 9:25-26. I have thought of this reference as at best an allegory by Paul. Let’s see if there’s more to it than that.

First, let’s set the context of Hosea’s narrative. Hosea writes of the time period between Uzziah and Ahaz, before the Assyrian invasion and expulsion of Israel (approximately 758BC – 725BC). Hosea’s job is to alert Israel to their impending demise, and, as it turns out, experience his own life as a kind of metaphor for God’s experience with apostate Israel.

God starts Hosea’s prophecy by instructing him to marry a whore (like God is married to the whore Israel) and have children. God tells him to name the first Jezreel because that is the place where He is going to “break the bow of Israel” (assumedly at the future invasion of the Assyrians). The next child He says to name “No Mercy” because He will not have mercy on Israel. The next He instructs Hosea to call “Not My People” since God is divorcing Himself from Israel saying “you are not my people, and I am not your God”.

But then, quite inexplicably, immediately after the narrative of Hosea’s children and their names, He says this (Hosea 1:10):

[10] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God.”

Paul is going to make use of this seemingly inexplicable verse in his citation.

Next, the LORD enters into a diatribe against Israel in Hosea 2 before He abruptly switches His message to one of a reconciliation between He and the people of Israel – that He will once again become their husband. Here He concludes the chapter with this: Hosea 2:23[23] and I will sow her for myself in the land.

And I will have mercy on No Mercy,

and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’;

and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’”

The remainder of Hosea’s book (chapters 3-14) is a continuous indictment of Israel, with some warnings to Judah, culminating with a final appeal by God to return to Him and be healed.

So what does Paul make of this? In Romans 9 Paul continues to make the case that “not all Israel is Israel”, and that God can choose who He pleases to be His people, including Gentiles. Here is his citation (Rom 9:25-26):

[25] As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’

and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”

[26] “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’

there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

So here Paul coopts Hosea’s condemnation of Israel, and offer of their redemption, and applies it to Gentiles, among them those in the Roman church to which he is writing.

So on one level (the literary-historical) this cooption of Hosea by Paul is an utter corruption. God in Hosea was never talking about Gentiles.

But on another level – that of the domain of faithfulness to God – Paul’s citing of Hosea is perfectly legitimate. In Hosea, the focus of unfaithfulness was the group “Israel”. In Paul, the focus of unfaithfulness was “the Jews”, in their rejection of their Christ. In Hosea, God incongruously and out of nowhere declares:

And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God.”

How could Paul not be attracted to this dichotomy, given his experience in Gentile ministry? Paul cites Hosea 1:10 to point out to his Jewish readers that God can choose Gentiles into His family if He wants to, just as He could have welcomed back his apostate children, Israel, had they returned (in faith) to Him[iii]. His is the will that counts in establishing, and disestablishing, His covenants with His people. (Je 18:8-10)

Takeaways

OT references by NT authors can look at first blush as if they have little or no common contextual foundation. I’m beginning to learn that if that’s my conclusion, I need to do some more study to find out what I may be missing. Readers arriving at that judgment should humbly acknowledge that those NT authors were far more versed in their (OT) scriptures than 99.9% of us are. So our initial reaction, rather than judging their applicability, should be to assume that the NT author was justified in his reference and to put it on our list for further study.

[i] A resource that was extremely useful in exposing the deeper contextual relationships between select NT and OT passages is: Davidson, Richard M, New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Journal of the Adventist Society. 5/1 (1994):14-39

[ii] It’s entirely possible that we don’t understand the semantic of ‘name’ in Biblical Hebrew (8034. שֵׁם šēm: A masculine noun meaning a name, fame. It is what specifically identifies a person or anything). It might not be a unique identifier, as with we moderns, but rather a description of a significant characteristic of the one ‘named’.

[iii] It occurs to me that Hosea 1:10 is so out of place, so incongruous in the flow of Hosea, that we have to consider the possibility that it was included in Hosea so that Paul could cite and apply it 800 years later.