Bride Of Yahweh: An Exegesis of Isaiah 54

A. Outline and Structural Analysis

54:1-10—The Fecundity of the Barren Wife.

         1-3: Call for Jerusalem to rejoice and promise of renewed fertility.

         4-8: Reunion of Yahweh with His bride.

         9-10: Comparison to the covenant with Noah.

54: 11-17—The Security of the Afflicted City.

         11-14: The rebuilding of Jerusalem.

         15-17: Yahweh’s protection of the city.

            The structure of Isaiah 54 would seem to suggest two major sections, vv. 1-10 and vv.11-17. Blenkinsopp divides the chapter into three main sections: vv. 1-8, vv. 9-10, and vv. 11-17a, with v. 17b as a concluding statement summarizing the whole (360-361). His basis for doing so, is that “the only clear markers in the text itself…are the references to who is speaking” in verses 6, 8, 10, and 17. There are, however, a few problems with the ratio for this division. First, if the basis of the division is based on who is speaking, why not add another division after verse 6, which Blenkinsopp skips over? Second, in his translation, he skips over the יהוה אמר at the end of verse 1, which would further complicate his division based on references to the speaker. Finally, the references to the speaker do not seem to be the only basis for dividing the text. One could make a plausible argument for dividing the text based on the addressee marked out in verses 1 and 11. Blenkinsopp points out that BHS and 1QIsa^a also divide the text in the way I have suggested and it seems to be the preferred one based on the context of the chapter (360). Whybray, Westermann, North, and Sawyer also make the same division (though not necessarily for the same reason as myself). Thus, the assessment of Watts that “form-critical analysis has agreed on dividing the chapter into four sections: vv 1-3, 4-6, 7-10, and 11-17” is a striking one (236).

Ambrosiaster And Sola Fide

It has recently been brought to my attention that some Protestants are under the impression that the Church Father commonly called Ambrosiaster (due to his works having been mistaken for Ambrose’s up until the seventeenth century) was a proto-Lutheran in that they claim he taught the doctrine of salvation by Faith Alone (Sola Fide). 

Now, did Ambrosiaster use the phrase, Sola Fide? Sure. Did he mean by the phrase, Sola Fide, what Martin Luther and these Protestants mean by Sola Fide? I would argue in the negative.
 

I think the best place to show this would be to examine the verse in Scripture that Luther based his whole doctrine around—Romans 3:28:

“For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart

from the works of law.”

Luther took this verse and argued that what Paul is saying here is that man is justified (saved) by Faith alone and not at all by any kind of works (including good works, which includes upholding the Moral Law, i.e. the Ten Commandments, and upholding Christ’s commandments in the Sermon on the Mount. More will be said on this later).  I would argue that Ambrosiaster understands Paul correctly and Luther does not.

Ambrosiaster was a master of the Old Testament and the Jewish Laws. He had a keen insight on how the New Testament fulfills the Old, which enabled him to be an exegete of Paul that rivals the likes of Chrysostom, Augustine, and the Tyconius the Donatist. So if we want to understand how Ambrosiaster interprets Paul, we must look at the context of what Paul is saying here in and around Romans 3:28.

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

“Paul is the most luminous personality in the history of primitive Christianity, and yet opinions differ widely as to his true significance. Only a few years ago we had a leading Protestant theologian asserting that Paul’s rabbinical theology led him to corrupt the Christian religion. Others, conversely, have called him the real founder of that religion. But in the opinion of the great majority of those who have studied him, the true view is that he was the one who understood the Master and continued his work. This opinion is borne out by the facts…As we cannot want to be wiser than history, which knows him only as Christ’s missionary, and as his own words clearly attest what his aims were and what he was, we regard him as Christ’s disciple, as the apostle who not only worked harder but also accomplished more than all the rest put together.”

-Adolf Von Harnack, What Is Christianity?

Same-Sex "Marriage" And Proposition 8

With the activist judge Walker’s overruling of Prop. 8 in California, the debate over the definition of “marriage” once again rages on. Yet, the same reason that women cannot be priests is the reason why same sex couples cannot be married. St. Paul touches on this in Ephesians 5 when he discusses the roles of a husband and wife in relation to each other. He concludes by quoting Genesis 2:24:

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."  

He then adds:

“This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

So how does what St. Paul says here in Ephesians 5 exclude women from the priesthood and same sex couples from marriage? Because St. Paul informs us that the mystery of marriage refers to Christ and the Church. This means that the imagery of Christ in relation to the Church is not modeled on the human institution of marriage, but vice versa! From all eternity it was in the will of God that Christ, the Bridegroom, should be united to His Bride, the Church. From all eternity there was intended a complementarity of the masculine with the feminine. This eternal nuptial between Christ and His Bride is what marriage is modeled upon. Therefore, any talk of marriage being between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is nonsense. There is no complementarity between two of the same sex, so no matter what one wishes to call it, it will never be a marriage.

But how does Ephesians 5 exclude women from the priesthood? Precisely because a priest acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. Christ as a person on earth was/is a man. And as Christ is married to His Bride, the Church, so too, a man who is ordained as a priest has the Church for His Bride (consequently, this is also an argument for the celibate priesthood, since Christ was not a polygamist, neither should a priest be by having two wives; earthly and heavenly). Now if a woman were to be a priest, there would be two feminine elements instead of the complementarity of masculine and feminine. As explained above, this cannot happen.

Manuscript Evidence And The Pauline Authorship Of Hebrews

“Opening our modern edition of the New Testament, we find that Hebrews occupies the leaves between Philemon and James, that is between the thirteenth Pauline and the first Catholic Epistle. Does this collocation separate it from the Corpus Paulinum? Manuscript evidence shows that it does not. In the oldest uncials (S A B C) it follows second Thessalonians and precedes the Pastorals. This is also the position which it occupies in most MSS of the Bohairic Version and in the commentary of St. Ephraem… In the archetype or predecessors of Codex B, it stood between Galatians and Ephesians, as the series of sectional numbers on the margin of that Codex shows. In the Sahidic Version, it even preceded Galatians. The Syriac Versions, the later Greek MSS and the Latin MSS assign Hebrews the order to which we are accustomed, namely, fourteenth place at the end of the Paulines. That it earlier found a place tenth after the nine Letters to the Seven Churches, or after the four great Epistles, or within these in the fourth place is a strong testimony of its ascription to St. Paul. Still more eloquent is the order of the Chester-Beatty papyrus Codex of the early third century. Here Hebrews comes immediately after Romans.”

-William Leonard, Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Righteousness Of God

“The problem of the proper interpretation of dikaiosyne theou in Romans has been one of the hotly debated issues in New Testament studies over the past generation, but rare is the critic who even considers the possibility of interpreting Paul’s ‘righteousness of God’ language against the background of the LXX. Learned scholars have argued bitterly whether dikaiosyne theou was a technical term in Jewish apocalyptic thought, as attested especially in the Qumran texts, or whether it was a new creation of Paul’s theological genius, without ever observing that the very Old Testament texts quoted by Paul in Romans 3 already introduce the idea of God’s righteousness. This remarkable oversight illustrates the power of hermeneutical conventions in shaping a community’s reading of its canonical texts. The Reformation theme of justification by faith has so obsessed generations of readers (Protestant readers, at least) that they have set Law and gospel in simplistic antithesis, ignoring the internal signs of coherence in Rom. 3:1-26; consequently, they have failed to see that Paul’s argument is primarily an argument about theodicy, not about soteriology. The driving question in Romans is not ‘How can I find a gracious God?’ but ‘How can we trust in this allegedly gracious God if he abandons his promises to Israel?’ Christian caricatures of the Old Testament have made it difficult for belated generations of Gentile readers to grasp Paul’s passion for asserting the continuity of his gospel with the message of the Law and the Prophets. By following the echoes of Psalm 143, however, we can rediscover the scriptural idea of God’s saving justice at the foundation of Paul’s argument in Romans.

That is why Paul insists (Rom. 3:31) that his gospel does not annihilate the Law but establishes it. How so? First of all, Paul’s proclamation presents the righteousness of God not as some unheard-of soteriological novelty but as the manifestation of a truth attested by Scripture from the first. When he says that his message confirms the Law, he refers not to the specific commandments of the Pentateuch but to the witness of Scripture, read as a narrative about God’s gracious election of a people. That is why the Abraham story becomes for Paul the crucial test case. If he can show, as he sets out to do in Romans 4, that the story of Abraham supports his reading of God’s Gentile-embracing grace, then he will have demonstrated, to his own satisfaction at least, the unity of gospel and Law.”

-Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul

God Is Known By His Works

"Concerning the question: What is God? not one of the masters who have ever been has succeeded in giving an explanation, for it is beyond all thought and intelligence. And yet someone who zealously and diligently seeks for some kind of knowledge of God will attain it, although in a very remote way... This is how some virtuous pagan masters sought him in former times, especially the wise man, Aristotle. He examined the course of nature..., sought passionately and thus found. From nature he deduced that that there must necessarily be a unique monarch, lord over all creatures, and this is what we call God...God's being is such a spiritual substance that mortal eye is unable to contemplate it as it is, but it can be seen in its works. As Saint Paul says: creatures are a mirror reflecting God (Rom 1:20). Let us stop here for a moment...: look above and around you, how immense and lofty is the heaven in its swift course, with what nobility has its Lord adorned it with its seven planets and how decorative it is by reason of its innumerable host of stars! When the sun shines gaily in a cloudless sky during the summer, what fruit, what good things it brings to the earth! How beautifully green are the meadows, how smiling the flowers, how the sweet song of little birds resounds in forest and field, and all the animals that went into hiding during the hard winter now hasten happily outside. How both young and old among men express their joy with the joy that brings such happiness to them. O loving God, if you are so worthy of being loved in your creatures, how beautiful and worthy of being loved you must be in yourself!"

-Blessed Henry Suso, Dominican Life, ch. 50