Scripture Filling Out Scripture

Most printed Bibles come with a lot of footnotes.

If you look down at the bottom of the page, you'll find notes giving alternate translations of certain words or phrases. You'll find notes that mention that some passages aren't found in certain ancient manuscripts. And, perhaps most commonly, you'll find notes that provide a reference to another verse, namely when the present passage is quoting or referencing another.

Do you ever actually go look up the reference in those footnotes? I normally don't, to be honest. But recently I read the book Justification by N.T. Wright (which is an interesting book that deserves its own post, which I probably won't write). In the book, Wright (influenced by the work of Richard B. Hayes) points out that when the apostle Paul quotes the Old Testament in his letters (which is does often), he would have had the entire context of the original passage. In seeing how these quotations fit into the New Testament, then, it is helpful for the interpreter to go back to the Old Testament and see how the context there colors the way the quotation is being used.

I think this is a good point. After all, Paul wouldn't have conceived of Scripture as a collection of disjointed fragments (the way we often do because of modern versification). So when, for example, he throws in the quotation "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" in Romans 4, he may have had the entirety of Genesis 15 in the back of his mind, which ought to influence the way Romans 4 is understood even today.

I began wondering if this would be true for the other writers of the New Testament, and I think it is. Recently I have been reading the gospel of Matthew in the mornings. If you have read Matthew much at all, you know that it is full of Old Testament quotations and allusions. But how is Matthew using the Old Testament? Is he using it simply to say, "Look, here's an Old Testament prophecy about Jesus, and here's how he fulfills it, so you know he's really the Messiah!" Or do the contexts of the passages Matthew references shed light on a more well-rounded understanding of Jesus and his ministry?

A few examples from just the first few chapters of the gospel show that the latter is the case, I think. First, in Matthew 2:16-18, Matthew tells of Herod ordering that all the male children in Bethlehem under two years of age be killed after he hears of the supposed birth of a new king. Matthew then quotes Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more."

At first glance, it may seem that this quotation simply shows that it was prophesied that something bad would happen to the children of Israel. But if you go back to Jeremiah 31, you get a fuller picture. The passage speaks of the restoration of Israel. "Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel!" (Jer. 31:5). "For the Lord has ransomed Jacob and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him" (Jer. 31:11). It's a passage about celebrating the realization of God's plan for Israel. And right in the middle of this, you find the verse Matthew references, about Rachel weeping for her children. Then, right after this, you find this:

Thus says the Lord: "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, declares the Lord, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future, declares the Lord, and your children shall come back to their own country."

So what's going on here? Yes, Israel is suffering. But that suffering, in the end, leads to deliverance and rejoicing. The weeping will end. And maybe that's why Matthew quotes this passage. Yes, when Herod slaughtered the children of Bethlehem, the people suffered. And yet, deliverance was at hand, namely in that child that had been smuggled to Egypt. In fact, deliverance would perhaps come through suffering. Matthew 2, then, more than a simple "prophecy-and-fulfillment." It's a theological statement about the nature of this child that had been born. Deliverance was coming in Jesus.

For a second example, you could look at Matthew 4:12-17. Here Jesus goes to Galilee and begins to preach "int eh territory of Zebulun and Naphtali." Matthew quotes a couple verses from Isaiah 9: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles--the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling int he region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned."

Is this just a simple prophecy that the Messiah would preach in Galilee? Perhaps, but it could be something bigger than that. Isaiah 9 is very much a kingdom-centered passage. While Matthew only quotes the first two verses, just a little farther down the page you find this:

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. 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 and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. (Isa. 9:6-7)

 Isaiah 9 (from which Matthew takes the words about Zebulun and Naphtali) is about God's reign being exercised through this child to be born. It's a kingdom passage. And, if you look at Matthew 4, you see that it too is a kingdom passage. What is it that Jesus is preaching in Galilee? "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17). He then begins to call disciples to follow him. (Gathering a people to himself? Sounds like a very kingly thing to do). He also travels throughout Galilee, "teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people." Finally, Jesus gets up on a mountain and delivers what you might call a "Kingdom Manifesto" (Matt. 5-7).

The kingdom theme present in Isaiah 9 may also explain why Matthew structures the account of Jesus' temptations the way he does in 4:1-11. Both Matthew and Luke include this account, though they present the three temptations in a different order. In Luke, the order is: (1) stone to bread, (2) worshipping Satan and gaining the kingdoms of the world, and (3) throwing himself off the temple. For Matthew, however, the order is: (1) stone to bread, (2) throwing himself off the temple, and (3) worshipping Satan and gaining the kingdoms of the world.

Why the difference? Maybe Matthew purposely put Satan's offer of the kingdoms of the world last, as this leads directly into 4:12-17. Jesus refuses Satan's methods for kingship, but he is stilling bringing the kingdom. (He is, after all, the Prince of Peace, with the government on his shoulders, who sits on David's throne, right Isaiah?) He preaches the nearness of the true kingdom, calls followers to himself as he begins to constitute the people of that kingdom, and heals the sick as a sign of the kingdom's coming.

It seems, then, that Matthew's use of Isaiah 9:1-2 is about more than the fact the Messiah would preach in Galilee. It's a rather profound statement that the king had come. His kingdom isn't by Satan's methods, but rather God's. And again, the context of the Old Testament fills all of this out.

If you're anything like me, it's easy to skip over those pesky footnotes. But I'm learning to go back and look them up, because I believe that will help me get into the mind of the New Testament author just a little bit more. I would encourage you to try it out as well!