Skip to content
The Upper Register

Matthew's Use of Isa 42:1-4 in Matt 12:17-21

Isa 42:1-4 MT Isa 42:1-4 LXX Matt 12:18-21
ֵ֤הֵ֤ן עַבְדִּי֙ אֶתְמׇךְ־בּ֔וֹ בְּחִירִ֖י רָצְתָ֣ה נַפְשִׁ֑י נָתַ֤תִּי רוּחִי֙ עָלָ֔יו מִשְׁפָּ֖ט לַגּוֹיִ֥ם יוֹצִֽיא 1 Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου, ἀντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου ἔδωκα τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐξοίσει 18 Ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα
ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ
לֹ֥א יִצְעַ֖ק וְלֹ֣א יִשָּׂ֑א וְלֹא־יַשְׁמִ֥יעַ בַּח֖וּץ קוֹלֽוֹ 2 οὐ κεκράξεται οὐδὲ ἀνήσει οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἔξω ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ 19 οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει οὐδὲ ἀκούσει τις ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ
קָנֶ֤ה רָצוּץ֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁבּ֔וֹר וּפִשְׁתָּ֥ה כֵהָ֖ה לֹ֣א יְכַבֶּ֑נָּה לֶאֱמֶ֖ת יוֹצִ֥יא מִשְׁפָּֽט 3 κάλαμον τεθλασμένον οὐ συντρίψει
καὶ λίνον καπνιζόμενον οὐ σβέσει
ἀλλὰ εἰς ἀλήθειαν ἐξοίσει κρίσιν		 20 κάλαμον συντετριμμένον οὐ κατεάξει καὶ λίνον τυφόμενον οὐ σβέσει
לֹ֤א יִכְהֶה֙ וְלֹ֣א יָר֔וּץ עַד־יָשִׂ֥ים בָּאָ֖רֶץ מִשְׁפָּ֑ט וּלְתוֹרָת֖וֹ אִיִּ֥ים יְיַחֵֽלוּ 4 ἀναλάμψει καὶ οὐ θραυσθήσεται
ἕως ἂν θῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κρίσιν
καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν		 ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν 21 καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

Although it is clear that Matt 12:17-21 involves a quotation taken from Isa 42:1-4, the textual basis of Matthew’s quotation is difficult to determine. Matthew’s wording has points of contact with both the MT and the LXX, but differs in a surprisingly large number of ways from both. The question, then, is how to explain the text-form of Matthew’s quotation. Scholars have proposed a number of theories, but most think that Matthew made his own independent translation/interpretation from the Hebrew, perhaps with some input from the LXX and/or an Aramaic targum.1 Those who opt for this approach then argue that the changes reflect Matthew’s broader narrative and theological concerns.2

However, I am attracted to the theory that, while a few of the changes reflect Matthew’s editorial agenda, the bulk of the quotation comes from an early revision of the LXX. 3 This approach has the advantage of isolating more clearly just what can be traced to Matthew’s hand. My proposal is that, to the revised LXX before him, Matthew made two theologically significant changes: one in v. 18 (ὃν ᾑρέτισα ὁ ἀγαπητός μου), and one in v. 20 (ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν).4 Aside from these two changes, most of the differences between Matthew and the LXX are best explained as coming from a preexisting revision of the LXX that was intended to bring it into greater conformity with the Hebrew as well as to make various stylistic improvements to the Greek.5 These revisions include, most notably, the deletion of the LXX’s Ιακωβ and Ισραηλ, interpretive insertions which probably had no textual basis in any Hebrew Vorlage.6 Most of the remaining revisions are merely alternative Greek translational equivalents made for stylistic reasons – εὐδόκησεν, θήσω, ἀπαγγελεῖ, ἐρίσει, κραυγάσει, ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις, συντετριμμένον, κατεάξει, τυφόμενον, etc. 7 Aside from ἐρίσει (where the LXX has κεκράξεται), it is difficult to see what would have prompted Matthew to make these minor stylistic changes since they lack a clear redactional purpose. Thus these changes are best attributed to the reviser of the LXX who preceded Matthew. Even ἐρίσει (for יִצְעַ֖ק) was probably already present in the revision of the LXX, since it is unlikely that a reviser would have been happy with οὐ κεκράξεται οὐδὲ κραυγάσει due to the stylistic problem of using similar verbs in close proximity, thus forcing him to come up with another word for κεκράξεται. It is significant, I think, that the final clause, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν (“and in his name shall the Gentiles hope”) is retained unchanged from the LXX, specifically retaining “his name” instead of changing it to conform more closely to the Hebrew, which has “his law” (תוֹרָת֖וֹ). It is more likely that Matthew quoted from a revision of LXX Isaiah, than that Matthew made a fresh translation from the Hebrew that happens to agree with the LXX against the MT.

The two changes that I do assign to Matthew, by contrast, are part of his shaping of Isa 42:1-4 to tighten the links with his broader Christological and narrative framework. By means of the first change (replacing ἐκλεκτός with ἀγαπητός),8 he brings out the Christological point that Jesus is God’s “beloved” Servant, thus referring back to Jesus’ baptism (3:17) and preparing for the transfiguration (17:5), where the voice from heaven also quotes Isa 42:1. By means of the second change, he shows that though the Son/Servant is now retiring and meek, he will in the end “drive justice on to victory” (ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν), thus hinting at the climax of the story (Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection). “The striking ἐκβάλῃ in Mt is much more forceful than יָשִׂ֥ים or θῇ and is introduced in anticipation of the following εἰς νῖκος, which suggests a contest or struggle in which the opponents of the Servant are routed.”9 Various theories have been proposed to explain εἰς νῖκος, but in my view, it is best regarded as Matthew’s attempt, along with ἐκβάλλω, to heighten the forcefulness of the statement.

Note that if my theory is correct, Matthew’s editorial handiwork is limited to the beginning and the end of the quotation, and leaves untouched the central correspondence between the behavior of Jesus and the Messianic expectation contained in Scripture, which for Matthew rests primarily on Isa 42:2 (“He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets”). Thus, Matthew’s Jesus fulfills the role of the Isaianic Ebed Yahweh by withdrawing from the scene of conflict and by charging those whom he healed not to make him known (vv. 15-16). The reason Matthew quotes Isa 42:1-4, rather than v. 2 alone, is that he wants to place this retiring quality of Jesus within his larger Christological and narrative framework. He sees it as a temporary limitation which is part of Jesus’ divine calling and which will ultimately be reversed when he achieves victory over his opponents in the subsequent drama. And as v. 3 makes clear (“a crushed reed he will not break,” etc.), Jesus’ Servant role is on behalf of others – to bring God’s justice to the downtrodden and the marginalized.

Endnotes

Section titled “Endnotes”

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. E.g., W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991); John Grindel, “Matthew 12,18-21,” CBQ 29 (1967): 110-15; Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (SuppNovT 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967); Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993). Krister Stendahl goes even further and attributes the quotation to “Matthew’s school” which created it out of a patchwork of readings gleaned from various sources. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew: And Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20; Lund: Gleerup, 1954). ↩

  2. E.g., Richard Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel (SNTSMS 123; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002). ↩

  3. Maarten J. J. Menken argues this in depth in Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL 173; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University, 2004). Beaton acknowledges it as a justifiable option (pp. 119-20). ↩

  4. E.g., בְּחִירִ means ἐκλεκτός (as the LXX rightly has it), not ἀγαπητός, so it is unlikely that a reviser of the LXX would have changed the former to the latter. ↩

  5. The discovery of the Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets at Nahal Hever in 1952 has led scholars to believe that the LXX underwent revision as early as the 1 st century BC. Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder; Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum II/I; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 182-3. ↩

  6. Such additions are consistent with the translation technique of the Greek translator of LXX Isaiah. ↩

  7. Note that most of these are verbs. This suggests the presence of scribal revision activity, since it leaves the LXX’s basic syntactical structure intact (for the most part). ↩

  8. But Matthew retains the sense of בְּחִירִ with ὃν ᾑρέτισα. Beaton, 126-7. ↩

  9. Gundry, 114. ↩