The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture

by Brevard S. Childs

A key emphasis of Brevard Childs's distinguished career has been his effort to show not only that the canon of Scripture comprises both Old and New Testaments but also that the concept of "canon" includes the way the Christian church continues to wrestle in every age with the meaning of its sacred texts. In this new volume Childs uses the book of Isaiah as a case study in the church's long, evolving history to understand its Scriptures.

In each chapter Childs focuses on a different Christian age, using the work of key figures to illustrate the church's changing views of Isaiah. After looking at the translation of the Septuagint, Childs examines commentaries and tractates from the patristic, Reformation, and modern periods. His review shows that despite an enormous diversity in time, culture, nationality, and audience, these works nevertheless display a "family resemblence" in their theological understandings of this central Old Testament text. It also reveals how the church struggled to adapt to changing social and historical conditions, often by correcting or refining traditional methodologies, while at the same time maintaining a theological stance measured by faithfulness to Jesus Christ. In an important final chapter Childs draws out some implications his work for modern debates about the role of Scripture in church life and ecumenical endeavors.

Genres: Theology, Old Testament

344 pages, Hardcover

First published October 4, 2004

About the author

Brevard Springs Childs was Professor of Old Testament at Yale University from 1958 until 1999 (and Sterling Professor after 1992), and one of the most influential biblical scholars of the 20th century. Childs is particularly noted for pioneering canonical criticism, a way of interpreting the Bible that focuses on the text of the biblical canon itself as a finished product. In fact, Childs disliked the term, believing his work to represent an entirely new departure, replacing the entire historical-critical method. Childs set out his canonical approach in his Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and applied it in Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979). This latter book has been described as "one of the most discussed books of the 1980s".

Reviews

[Chandler Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible and careful study of the history of interpretation on the Messianic themes of Isaiah. Many Christians are familiar with the Messianic texts in the book of Isaiah—specifically, the prophecies in Isaiah 7 and 53. Yet, few Christians consider the original context of Isaiah’s Messianic passages, or how these texts point to Christ. In The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture, Old Testament scholar Brevard Childs demonstrates his vast knowledge of historical biblical interpretation and historical theology as he provides a systematic study of key Christian figures and their Christocentric interpretations of Isaiah. Childs states his purposes explicitly in the preface of his book: “My purpose in writing this book is not immediately to offer yet another approach to the Bible. Rather, I have chosen to trace through the centuries the different ways in which great Christian theologians have struggled to understand the book of Isaiah as the church’s sacred scripture, that is, as a vehicle for communicating the Christian gospel” (xi). Childs clearly and helpfully defines the notion of the Bible as Christian Scripture as he also limits the scope of his work to the book of Isaiah (xi). Childs’s work, then, is not a general Old Testament theology in which he traces the Christocentric themes through the storyline of the Old Testament, nor is the book a mere hermeneutical textbook. Childs’s book is an exhaustive treatment of the history of the Christian interpretation of Isaiah, and Childs concludes each chapter with a wealth of primary and secondary sources on historical interpretations of Isaiah to show the works that have shaped and influenced his writing.
​Readers will appreciate Child’s clarity throughout his book as he also explains his thesis in a straightforward manner: “there are discernable characteristic features that constitute and identify a family resemblance within the Christian exegesis of the Old Testament” (300). Childs book is a descriptive study as he explores the complexities and nuances of historical biblical study and informs the reader of similar and distinct approaches to Christocentric interpretation of the Old Testament. The reader may notice that certain figures of church history such as Anselm are absent from Childs’s study as he focuses on this family of interpretive work in Isaiah. He does not argue that all Christians utilized the same interpretive methods and principles in their readings of Isaiah. Rather, Childs selects certain biblical scholars that develop and expand an interpretive tradition of Isaiah.
​Childs does not divide the chapters of the book into sections or parts. Still, Childs begins his work by studying the New Testament writers’ and churches’ interpretation of Isaiah, then he focuses on theologians and biblical scholars who belong to the pivotal periods of church history: Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern periods. Childs dedicates much space to patristic interpretation as he focuses on people such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome, and Theodoret of Cyrus. What family resemblances does Childs notice in the early church’s work on Isaiah? Acknowledging the distinction made between the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of biblical interpretation, Childs attempts to close the gap that scholars often posit between these interpretive methods: “Particularly misleading in reference to the Antiochenes has been the contrast between the spiritual concerns of the Alexandrians and the historical concerns of the Antiochenes. Recent scholarship…has therefore focused on the ‘spiritual’ exegesis of Scripture in the school of the Antiochenes” (130). According to Childs, both Antiochene and Alexandrian interpreters demonstrated interest in the spiritual sense of Isaiah and the rest of the Old Testament.
​Childs provides a limited examination of medieval biblical interpreters. He focuses exclusively on the work of Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Lyra. Childs notes an interpretive lineage from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to Nicholas (168–169) as Nicholas “inherited a concern for scripture’s figurative senses” (178). The reader notices the family resemblance that exists in the tradition of the historic church as Aquinas and Nicholas of Lyra desired to retrieve the spiritual meaning from the text when they read Isaiah—similar to the practice of the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools in the Patristic period, but Nicholas followed Augustine in the careful utilization of spiritual exegesis (169).
​Childs also gives limited attention to the Reformation period as he writes on Martin Luther’s and John Calvin’s understandings and uses of the literal and spiritual sense of the texts in Isaiah. After his study of these reformers, Childs no longer devotes chapters to individuals and their work on Isaiah, but he explores the overall centuries of the Modern period as well as Postmodern hermeneutics in the remaining chapters of his book. From the Reformation to the Modern period, Childs highlights the interpretive resemblances of Luther, Calvin, Johannes Coecceius, Joseph Knabenbauer, George Adam Smith, and additional biblical scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth century to the “ancient Christian tradition” and its interpretive practice (189). Before his analysis of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, Childs concludes his survey of the historical interpretation of Isaiah with a reflection on the interpretive bond that unites the surveyed figures and periods: “Smith's work reflects many of the same theological concerns of previous generations: careful attention to the literal sense of the text, intense wrestling with the theological content of the Old Testament, a profound commitment to the New Testament's understanding of the one divine purpose brought to fulfillment in Jesus Christ” (287). Christians and historical theologians may be tempted to view the Modern period as an abandonment allegorical interpretation of Scripture, but Childs asserts that the church’s exegetical tradition has always demonstrated great interest in the functions of and relationship between the literal and spiritual sense of the text. In the final chapter of his book, Childs recognizes the difficulty of accomplishing the goal and thesis of his work before summarizing the content and implications of his historical study (291–292).
​A major strength of Child’s scholarship is his clear and successful argumentation for his thesis as he expounds upon each major interpreter’s interest in the spiritual sense of the texts in Isaiah. Because Childs emphasizes the same interpretive themes through the many scholars of church history, the reader never has to question the components of the family resemblance in Child’s selected exegetical tradition. Childs does qualify his thesis in the last chapter of the book: “in light of the enormous cultural and historical diversities that have emerged in every period of the church’s life, it would seem easier to say where the agreement does not lie” (299). Childs does not overstate his thesis by flattening the theological and interpretive distinctives of the historic church. Childs is also careful to refer to the similar interpretive methods of the Christian tradition as resemblances rather than identical traits, for Childs points out the disagreements over biblical interpretation that existed between Origen and Luther (64). While Childs calls attention to such disagreements in the figures he surveys, he also reveals the overlapping interpretive interests that guided all of the biblical scholars (see p. 287).
​An additional strength of The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture is Childs’s desire to introduce the reader to the life and theological work of the key characters and periods of church history. At the beginning of each chapter, Childs begins with a brief biography on each person, and these biographical notes give the reader a holistic understanding of the figures, rather than a limited understanding of the historical characters’ biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, the inclusion of biographical sections in each chapter does not mean that Childs is writing an introductory work or that his book is for a lay audience. Childs has written an academic work for students interested in the study of Isaiah, and the history of biblical interpretation. Readers who do not have prior training in biblical interpretation or historical theology may experience difficulty following Childs’s survey.
​Because Childs delivers a clear and substantial argument in his book, there are no notable weaknesses in his book. He describes the interpretive views of each figure in a fair and robust manner. However, the reader may feel perplexed by the absence of a chapter or focus on Augustine’s interpretive work during the Patristic period. Childs does not provide a reason for not including a chapter on Augustine’s work. Childs does believe that the theologian belongs to the exegetical family that Childs describes in his book (169). Perhaps Childs does not write a chapter on Augustine because Augustine did not write on the specific texts of Isaiah, but the reader who is unfamiliar with the extent of Augustine’s exegetical work may only speculate on this point. Still, the omission of a chapter on Augustine does not affect the argument of Childs’s book, so the lack of focus on Augustine is not a significant weakness.
​In conclusion, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture is a helpful guide to the historic church’s understanding of the Old Testament and how the Hebrew Bible pointed to Christ. After reading this book, readers will have a foundation for studying the interpretive practices of the church and reading the primary sources that Childs showcases in his book. Childs’s study may excite the student to revisit the primary sources of the church’s interpretive history to discover and take note of the exegetical similarities of biblical scholars. Students of the Old Testament and of church history will benefit from reading Child’s work.
​

[Johnny · Rating 5 out of 5]

The work of Brevard S. Childs seems both prolific and amazing to me. Childs’ work offers the advantage of both respect for the Hebrew Bible as a holistic compilation threaded together from many layers using overlapping criteria and a less-judgmental perspective on New Testament use of the Hebrew Bible than many critical scholars. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture is a natural outgrowth of such concern and offers not only a thorough itinerary through the history of interpretation of Isaiah, but a helpful critical perspective, as well.

Childs’ guided tour of this issue begins with the early church fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Aquinas, and Nicholas of Lyra) and transitions to two major Reformers (Luther and Calvin) before more rapidly summarizing 17th/18th century interpreters (Hugo Grotius and Abraham Calov (two opposites), Reformed theologians Johannes Cocceius and Campegius Vitringa (opposite approaches despite the latter being a pupil of the former), Bishop Robert Lowth whose groundbreaking work on the poetry in the Bible is a landmark, and often-overlooked Catholic scholar, Augustin Calmet) and closing with 19th/20th century interpreters (Gesenius, Ewald, reactionary conservative scholars Hengstenberg and his pupil, J.A. Alexander, Catholic interpreter Joseph Knabenbauer, moderate scholars J. C. K. von Hofmann and the prolific Franz Delitzsch, English scholars T. K. Cheyne and A. B. Davidson, turn-of-the-century scholars Driver, Skinner, and George Adam Smith) before turning to postmodern interpretation (focusing on the creative interpretation of Walter Brueggemann) and attempting to create some summary conclusions based on this peregrination of Isaianic interpretation. In short, it is a lengthy, useful, thought-provoking work that I needed to take in short bursts to allow for reflection between discussions of the work and significance of each interpreter. I am sure that, by the end of his exhaustive effort, Childs was extremely glad he had restricted his concern to the interpretation of one book rather than that of the entire Hebrew Bible.

Carefully, elegantly, and without judgment, Childs examines the interplay between a literal (linguistically, philologically, and historical) interpretation and a figurative interpretation (sometimes, called a “spiritual” or “theological” interpretation by the interpreters) from the fourfold medieval approach (handled differently by individuals, but always there in either foreground or background) of literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogic. Childs does not find sympathy, for example, with Justin Martyr for this early exegete is still in touch with rabbinic traditions but allowed his Christian triumphalism (supersessionism) to devolve into anti-Jewish sentiment (Location 503). As Childs remarks in his comments on Origen, though, “Of course, in actual practice forms of figurative interpretation continued to be practiced by the Reformers (e.g. homiletical, liturgical, and typological) even when they stressed the primacy of the literal sense.” (Location 889) In continuing that thought, we see where there is some sense of the figurative in modern interpretation (in line with Raymond Brown’s concept of the sensus plenior and, despite rejections of the term “allegory,” many interpreters are unafraid to invoke “typology.” (Location 904) In this regard, I was extremely appreciative of Child’s succinct description of Franz Delitzsch’s approach (which, in turn, explained to me why his commentaries are well-regarded by thinking conservatives): “As a confessional Christian theologian, Delitzsch strongly opposed the wooden, even rationalistic, understanding of prophecy as mere prediction and as the supernatural fulfillment of contingent events. Likewise, he was highly critical of the radical skepticism of many of the newer critics.” (Locations 3772-3773).

Although my approach to interpreting scripture is not congruent with any of these interpreters (though I read and consider as well as overlapping with most in some ways), there were some observations I particularly enjoyed as I read Childs’ summaries and evaluations. With Nicholas of Lystra’s concern that “Scripture surpasses all other writing because its subject is God and its knowledge is given by divine revelation….”, I appreciated Childs’ note: “Nicholas elaborates on this theme by suggesting four excellencies: singular eminence, general content, visible excellence, and saving efficacy.” (Location 2339) Indeed, as much as I like reading Irenaeus’ writings against heresy, I also find myself concerned about his allegorical method of scriptural interpretation in which “…every detail of the Old Testament is referred to Christ.” (Location 666) Fortunately, Childs recognizes this problem but points out that, prior to his discussions of the prophets, the church father offered some very faithful “literal” readings and, even when interpreting the prophets, used a Heilsgeschichte or salvation-history approach to the unity of interpretation (Location 705).

Childs also points out how Jerome was fervently against uprooting Old Testament texts from their historical roots, but still opted for a variety of terms for interpreting the “spiritual” senses of scriptural meaning: “…mystical, anagogic, tropological, allegorical.” (Location 1295), as well as many believing he moved rather arbitrarily into the “allegorical.” (Locations 1294, 1348). Later, we see Cyril of Alexandria critiqued for not even clarifying what he means by “literal” when Childs writes: “Nowhere does Cyril offer a simple and fully consistent interpretation of his understanding of the literal sense.” (Location 1537) Admittedly, though, Cyril generally restricted his use of the literal to those objects or events which could be perceived by human senses (Location 1541). Still, such approaches seemed to have heavily influenced the exegesis of Aquinas using the idea of sign (signum) and reality (res)

Before dealing with Clement of Alexandria’s approach to biblical interpretation, Childs takes a brief excursus to consider the influence of Greek philosophy on Clement’s understanding of faith. Childs observes that Clement often uses a reference to Isaiah 7:9 “If you will not believe, you will not understand.” Then, he summarizes Clement’s position as: In faith the Christian believer gains a power of rational judgment that needs to be cultivated in order to reach clarity of understanding. It is essential in probing into divine revelation and in attaining a scientific knowledge of truth and the nature of things.” (Location 812) Even more succinctly, we could say that, for Clement, “Faith is the needed mode of letting the mind respond to the self-evidence of the real through a rational approach.” (Location 816) Surprisingly, for someone with such rational presuppositions, Clement seems less concerned with what the biblical text says and more with the symbolic interpretations to be wrung from it (Location 833).

Prior to reading this volume, my awareness of Eusebius of Caesarea was tied strictly to his work as a church historian. In the work under discussion, I came to appreciate what Childs delineated as two themes in the work of this church father: 1) the church’s claim to be the legitimate heir to the Hebrew Bible as sacred scripture and 2) the consistency between the testaments as to God’s blessing moving outward from the Jews and the “New Israel” to all of the nations (Location 1064). Childs briefly recounts Jerome’s acceptance of working from the Hebrew text as the proper approach to exegesis before getting to Jerome’s approach to Isaiah (the subject of this book, of course). I don’t think there is a more perfect example of Jerome’s approach than the Latin phrase from the preface to Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah: non tam propheta, quam evangelista (“not so much a prophet, as an evangelist”—Location 1273).

I was also surprised to discover in this volume something of the sophistication in John Chrysostom’s interpretation (which I had considered merely stirring sermons in the past) where the silver-tongued orator was quite aware that “…the oracles of Isaiah were spoken at different times to different audiences and only subsequently joined together to form a complete book.” (Location 1463). Although such awareness is standard in our post-critical interpretive environment, this seems decidedly prescient or aware in the pre-critical world.

Another useful discussion, though not primarily about the eponymous theologian/interpreter of the chapter’s subject, Theodoret of Cyrus as influenced by Theodore of Mopsuestia, was the helpful summary of the Antiochene school’s methodology citing the work of Alberto Vaccari. Vaccari delineated four facets of the Antiochene approach: 1) presupposition of historical reality within the text, 2) a future reality linked to the historical reality, 3) the future is a superior realization of the original, and 4) the prophet used the historical reality to communicate the greater future event using exaggeration and metaphor (Locations 1792-1801). Of course, as with many of these earlier commentators from this school, there are differences as to whether the prophet saw or intended the future fulfillment per se (Location 1804). Where many interpreters allowed Christological interpretations to dominate, Theodore restricted Christological typology to four Psalms (2, 8, 45, 100—as sufficiently quoted/supported in the New Testament) and interpreted most Psalms in the context of historical Israel (Location 1831) while Theodoret opened interpretation to more than one context (Location 1910). His key term seems to be “external sense.” (Locations 1906-1910)

Although the chapters on Luther and Calvin were insightful, they broke little new ground for me. I did appreciate the recapitulation of Calvin’s concept of “accommodation,” a useful approach to both revelation in general and scripture in particular (Locations 2962-2970). If one thinks of “accommodating” the divine (person, revelation, scripture, and theological analogy) as self-limiting for the purpose of human understanding, that is essentially what one needs to know. This allows, in Calvin’s approach, for the biblical writer to compose to the best of his/her understanding and still have layers of meaning that may have been beyond the grasp of the author. In addition, “Calvin also used this concept to restrict the attempt to speculate on details of the biblical account that only serve to distract the reader from the truth of the biblical account concerning God's activity.” (Locations 2965-2966).

It isn’t until the latter chapters that Childs deals with the wave of British theologians in the 18th-19th centuries. This was useful to me because it gave me clarity on A. B. Davidson’s distinction between pure exegesis and preaching and helped me to understand the appeal of George Adam Smith in my own studies (I sought out and purchased used copies of both his two-volume commentary on the Book of the Twelve and his two-volume commentary on Isaiah because I was so impressed.). According to Childs, G. A. Smith allowed his theological and ethical concerns to flow right out of his philological work, historical research, literary analysis, and (even) his 19th century legacy of philosophical speculation (“Even when handling details of historical torical issues, he does not end his discussion as if it were merely talk about history, but carefully interweaves history, geography, and philology with the implications for theology, ethics, and doctrine.” (Locations 3969-3970)).

Childs’ perception of 21st century, post-modern Walter Brueggemann is very different from mine. I suppose my reading of Brueggemann still fits under the rubric of inspiration. Perhaps, because Brueggemann deals with the text as a Hebrew text prior to moving into intertextual, intercultural, literary speculation and ethical application, Childs is more aware of a dichotomy between the testaments in Brueggemann’s work than I have been. I suppose one could say that my reading of Brueggemann is an imaginative reconstruction of his work, much as he and his allies perceive the interpretation of the scripture text.

One can simply assert that Childs’ The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture is an intensely useful survey of how Christian exegetes have struggled with the interpretive hinge between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament for a little over two millennia. I learned about interpreters with which I hadn’t (to my shame) become acquainted and I gained additional insights and perspectives on scholars which I had used in research and preaching without, possibly, understanding their appeal and why I was sometimes cautious in approaching the boundaries of their limitations. To be honest, I wish I had been able to read this volume when I was first beginning my first magisterial degree, but I am delighted to add it to my arsenal (especially with all of those lush bibliographies at the end of each chapter) even in my post-doctoral years.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brevard Childs has a reputation for restoring sanity to Old Testament studies.  For a while, the confessing church was on her heels in the onslought of documentary theses and higher criticism.  Based on The Struggle, Childs has traveled a similar road to mine.  I've puzzled over the congruence of Old Testament prophesy to New Testament citations as well as some of the liberties Paul takes with his quotations.  Childs reviews the history of how Isaiah has been interpreted, and then he offers some thoughts on how we should reckon with Isaiah vis-a-vis Christianity.  Recommended to any of the faithful seeking understanding.  

[Caleb Rolling · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not just a book on the history of the interpretation of Isaiah; this is a brilliant demonstration of what it is to do Christian biblical interpretation.

This is, I think, a major work in Childs’ corpus and is a must-read for understanding the posture he spent his career articulating and demonstrating.

[Ben Torno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frustrating. Skimmed the last couple of chapters.