Andrew T. Abernethy, William R. Osborne, and Paul D. Wegner, eds. The Prophets and the Apostolic Witness: Reading Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel as Christian Scripture

This volume is the culmination of conversations and paper presentations presented at annual academic society meetings over four years. Andrew T. Abernethy states that these meetings aimed to address the issue of reading prophetic literature from a Christian perspective (p. 1). Abernethy delves into the general issues related to this topic in the book’s introductory chapter before explaining how the volume has been structured. In superb pedagogic form, Abernethy lays out questions that every professor who teaches through the prophetic literature is sure to be asked. Upon reading through these questions, I began to envision several ways this volume might be useful for an advanced undergraduate course in prophetic literature.The book is divided into three sections with five parts each. The three sections revolve around the three Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (in this order). The five parts address five topics about each Major Prophet: (1) How did the apostles read the respective prophetic book as Christian Scripture, (2) What limits should modern interpreters employ in emulating the apostles’ exegetical method(s), (3) How should modern interpreters exegete the Major Prophets in a fashion similar to the method(s) of the apostles, (4) How has the respective prophetic book been interpreted as Christian Scripture since the time of the apostles, and (5) How should preachers proclaim the Major Prophets in light of the modern sermonic format.Each part contains an essay written by a different contributor. They were instructed to stay “in a given lane” so that “readers can become better alert to the contours within [their given] interpretation” (p. 3). To create a sense of commonality among the diversity of approaches, each contributor included an analysis of a famous passage located within their respective Major Prophet. For Isaiah, the first of the “Servant Songs” (Isa 42:1–4) was selected. Because this passage is cited in Matt 12:17–21, many of the contributors in this first section (Nicholas G. Piotrowski, Paul D. Wegner, and Abernethy) provide some comment on this intertextual connection. The other contributors prefer to place their focus elsewhere. In his essay, Mark Gignillait highlights how Bervard Childs’s arguments for a “‘family resemblance’ in the Christian interpretive tradition” (p. 73) relate to the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. This section concludes with a full sermon by John N. Oswalt, arguing that the first Servant Song is about God’s Messiah restoring God’s “order”—his preferred translation of the Hebrew term mišpāṭ—to the world (p. 94).The Jeremiah section revolves around the New Covenant passage found in Jer 31:31–34. Dana Harris begins this section by providing a substantive overview of how the New Covenant passage is used within the book of Hebrews. The other contributors in this section do not spend as much time on this connection. While briefly commenting on Hebrews’s usage of Jer 31:31–34 (p. 137), Gary E. Yates focuses his article on how the New Covenant passage relates to the restoration of the nation of Israel. The rest of the contributors (Lissa M. Wary Beal, Andrew G. Shead, and Philip Graham Ryken) argue that the New Covenant passage is already inherently Christian. As Beal states, modern Christian readers who encounter Jer 31:31–34 “might be startled at how Lukan it sounds” (p. 143).Ezek 37:1–14 was selected as the focal passage for the last section. This section of the book reverses the general order of the earlier articles. Because Isa 42:1–4 and Jer 31:31–34 are provided with explicit citations in certain New Testament passages, many of the contributors use the context of these citations to develop their theories for how modern exegetes should engage in Christian readings of the Major Prophets. The New Testament authors do not cite Ezek 37:1–14, so some of the contributors (Alicia R. Jackson and Iain M. Duguid) begin with other allusions (such as Ezek 2:9–10 in Rev 5:1) before dealing with the focal passage. Other contributors (John W. Hilber, William R. Osborne, and Daniel I. Block) tackle the Dry Bones passage head on in light of particular assumptions. One worth highlighting is Hilber’s dependence on a relevance theory communication model (pp. 230–31).In all, this volume accomplishes the goal of demonstrating how various biblical scholars can engage in dialogue with one another in a way that is often unified despite the diversity of opinions. Still, there are several ways in which this volume could have been improved. I will highlight one that could easily be extended to other volumes with the same goal. Some contributors often point out the importance of understanding the literary boundaries of their specific passage. This seems natural to any exegetical method. But, upon establishing these boundaries, the contributors would then enter into the wilderness of intertextuality so that they were sure to arrive at slightly different conclusions.For example, Piotrowski reads Isa 42:1–4 in light of Isa 11:10, Ezek 34, and various Davidic overtones. Wegner reads this same passage in light of Isa 40–48, emphasizing King Cyrus. Abernethy then reads this same passage in light of Isa 41:8–9 and chapters 49 through 53, so he sees Isa 42:1–4 as referencing the nation of Israel while being reconceptualized as an individual servant later. Lastly, Oswalt rereads this passage in light of Isa 40–55, leading him to identify this servant as an individual Messianic figure. While I applaud the contributors in the volume for focusing on a specific passage, I would have also enjoyed seeing them apply their arguments consistently by weighing the same intertextual evidence. These might be the parameters outlined in a future volume.