Author: Stein, Valerie A Anti-cultic theology in Christian biblical interpretation xi, 161 p. Publisher: Frankfurt am Main ; New York : Peter Lang, 2007. Series: Studies in Biblical Literature ; 97

Uitti, Roger W.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 33Issue 1 In Honour or Dr. Erwin Buck Article 2211-1-2008Anti-cultic theology in Christian biblicalinterpretation: a study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and itsreceptionRoger W. UittiFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationUitti, Roger W. (2008) "Anti-cultic theology in Christian biblical interpretation: a study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and its reception ," Consensus:Vol. 33 : Iss. 1 , Article 22.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol33/iss1/22that that ancient texts like Isaiah might well have a meaning to and ofthemselves, even though we moderns may not all find such meaningsvery meaningful. I wonder whether most readers of this monographmight conclude that what has become meaningful to so many pastand present Christians in the Isaianic text is a jarring injustice, if notan outright affront, to the book of Isaiah. But read this provocative,intriguing, and far-reaching book to judge the matter for yourself. Iassure you that you will not be the same person on the last page youwere when on page one.Roger W. UittiProfessor of Old Testament emeritusLutheran Theological Seminary, SaskatoonAnti-Cultic Theology in Christian Biblical Interpretation:A Study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and Its ReceptionValerie A. SteinStudies in Biblical Literature 97. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2007161 pages, $62.95 SoftcoverThis monograph is a revision of a 2004 Harvard dissertation that wassupervised by professors Paul Hanson, Jon Levenson, and FrançoisBovon. While open to both possibilities, the author elects to translatethe opening Hebrew expression ‘e-zeh within Is 66:1b in terms oflocation rather than quality: “Where is the house you would build forme? Where is my resting place?” Stein argues that the Templeenvisioned in Is 66:1-4 is not some future eschatological structure norsome more distant edifice (Mt. Gerizim, Elephantine, Babylon,Herod’s Jerusalem temple) but the post-exilic Second Templecompleted under Zerubbabel in 516/5 BCE.Stein’s specific interest in this study, however, is to documenthow Patristic and later exegetes of the Reformation (in particular,Martin Luther) interpreted Is 66:1-4. These forenamed theologianstypically heard Is 66:1-4 as basically anti-cultic, as part of theirbroader agenda pitting Christianity over against Judaism as well asagainst other contemporary groups judged to be wayward orheretical. Stein holds that this perspective grew out of their vitalBook Reviews 141Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2008Christian emphasis on justification by faith, a perspective that bydefinition must oppose all perceived expressions of religiousritualism and works-righteousness. Stein herself views Is 66:1-4 inactuality as not against the Jerusalem temple or cult per se but againstthe growing syncretistic and apostate practices present at the time.Accordingly, she views the anti-cultic interpretation of Is 66:1-4 asinterpretation unjustly imposed from the outside on an originallymore positive text.Following a brief introduction presenting her translation of andhistorical perspective on Is 66:1-4, Stein documents how Acts 7 andnumerous Patristic works (especially the Epistle of Barnabas andJustin Martyr) employed Is 66:1-4 to attack Jews and Judaism of theday, or when not doing that, to bombard others such as Marcionites,Gnostics, Monarchians, and Arians, in the struggle over how todefine God’s being and personhood properly. Indeed, the book ofIsaiah figured very prominently as a foundational resource in earlyChristianity for such purposes, being cited in the NT and Patristicfathers second only to the book of Psalms. In order of appearance andimportance, Is 66:1-2 in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 led the way, withStephen’s words thereafter being interpreted either in an anti-culticway or as proclaiming God’s transcendence over anything made byhuman hands. In the end, Stein concludes that Is 66:1 mostly likelydid function in Acts 7 as a proof-text for the condemnation of theJerusalem temple cult. Still she contends that, while Stephen’s speechwas anti-temple, it was not anti-Jewish.It is in the third chapter of her study that Stein details how Lutherused Is 66:1-4 also to condemn, but this time to castigate a sizablenumber of contemporary opposition groups: Jews, Enthusiasts,Antinomians, radical Reformers, and Roman Catholics. Lutherhimself as an OT professor (in today’s terms) lectured a number oftimes on Isaiah between 1527 and 1544. In his subsequentpublications, Luther cites or alludes to Is 66:1-4 at least 38 times, notincluding his commentary on Is 66. In point of fact, Is 66:1-2 comesout as one of the top twenty verses of Isaiah most quoted by Lutherin all his writings.In her final two chapters Stein observes that the Protestant anti-cultic theology is still much alive in the modern era and therefore inneed of revisitation for bias and prejudice. The doctrine ofjustification by faith by nature seems to invite either anti-Semitic or142 Consensushttp://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol33/iss1/22anti-ritualistic polemics. In a great many ecclesial circles there seemsto persist a predilection for prophetic and Deuteronomistic contentover Priestly material. Historical/post-critical reading within much ofProtestantism today continues to enjoy a degree of subtle animositytoward certain forms of worship. If the original point of Is 66:1ff. wasto contrast the divine with human nature, not cultic with spiritualworship, there is need to rethink much of past Trito-Isaianicinterpretation. In addition, the author rightly observes, Jewish-Christian relations would greatly benefit when one group strives tounderstand the other on the other’s own terms rather than its own.Christians would then realize that First Covenanters do notunderstand their obedience to Torah as an effort in works-righteousness but as a joyous response to a relationship already givenand created for them by YHWH; Jews would then realize thatChristians believe that since the Messiah has now come, that there isno need to live in the covenantal past but in the “mystery” longhidden but now revealed (Eph 2:1-3:12; Col 1:25-29; Gal 3:6-14).In fairness, in a study of this kind, rather than just criticizeChristian exegesis of Is 66:1-4 over against Jews, one might havebeen given more balance, i.e., to have received some assessment ofJewish exegesis of Is 66:1-4 over time, as well as that of Is 56-66 asa whole, over against Christian interpretation. One thus might havebeen given some assessment of W.A.M. Beuken’s claim that Is 66:1-4 was never interpreted as an anti-cultic text in Jewish tradition, or beintroduced to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the second Edom passage(Is 63:1-6) as predicting the destruction of Christianity.The work is very readable, clear, and direct. Yet the monographdoes exhibit some tell-tale signs of the price paid for speeding topublication, as there are ample stylistic inconsistencies: the word“scripture” is/is not capitalized a couple of times, even on the samepage (71); the word nhk is printed incorrectly for nkh (13); “namely,”is sometimes and sometimes not followed by a comma; there is alsorampant punctuation inconsistency over whether or not quotationmarks should follow or proceed a period or a comma. These arematters that might drive a former editor nuts, but apparently not apromising, young scholar.As a further aside, there is a minor shortcoming in that within herwhole discussion of Acts 7 Stein never even brings up the idea thatStephen might have been a Samaritan, as his recital of OT narrativeBook Reviews 143Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2008events follows the detail of the Samaritan Pentateuch, not that of theGreek Septuagint or Hebrew MT. Such an observation would havestrengthened her anti-temple argument. For a discussion of thepossible Samaritan connection, see Johannes Munck, The Acts of theApostles, Anchor Bible 31, Appendix V, “Stephen’s SamaritanBackground” (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967) 285-300. This is awork cited by Stein in her dissertation bibliography but apparentlynot read to the full.Likewise, with reference to her examination of the thrust ofLuther’s exegesis of the OT one might object to Stein’s use of theadjectives “Christological” and “Christocentric” almostinterchangeably. In fairness to Luther there was a uniqueness to hisapproach. As H. Bornkamm points out in his book, Luther and theOld Testament, which Stein also cites as having utilized in herdissertation bibliography, Luther’s uniqueness lay not in his use ofallegory, typology, senseless literalness, nor even salvation history,but in his idea that “whenever God turned his face toward men, be itever so veiled,” there “was the face of Christ” (Bornkamm, pp. 247-260). In the Postscript to this book, Bornkamm adds that, while muchof Luther’s Christological exegesis might be suspect today, hisChristocentric understanding remains intrinsic to Christian exegesis.Indeed, one should add that if we do not support some retrospectiveChristocentric exegesis of the OT as legitimate and vital to ourenterprise and proclamation we may all just as well leave ourchurches for the local synagogue.In her publication Stein shows her dissertational wisdom indelimiting the subject and material investigated. Too oftendissertations attempt to accomplish too much or cut too wide a swath.Yet, despite the limited textual scope undertaken and permitted by herdegree-granting institution (only four Isaianic verses!), the work is aneye-opening contribution to both Protestant-Catholic and Jewish-Christian relations. Her choice of subject and interest reveals theauthor’s own Lutheran background and conscience. Valerie Stein iscurrently an assistant professor of religion at the University ofEvansville in Indiana.Roger W. UittiProfessor of Old Testament emeritusLutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon144 Consensushttp://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol33/iss1/22

Anti-cultic theology in Christian biblical interpretation: a study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and its reception

Scholars Commons

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&amp;context=consensus

Anti-cultic theology in Christian biblical interpretation: a study of Isaiah 66:1-4 and its reception

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons