As a follow-up to last week’s post on the metaphor of the bruised reed in Is 42:1-4 and Matt 12:15-21, here is an article I wrote for Desiring God. Here is a taste:
The metaphor seems self-evident. “Bruised reeds are people who are broken and needy, people worn out and tired and exhausted with life’s circumstances, people neglected by the world, but accepted by Jesus.” We casually toss the phrase out like a trump-suit ace impervious to counter-play. No need to explain; just assert: “Jesus never broke a bruised reed.”
But have you considered why the reed doesn’t get broken? Look at the text carefully, and you might find you’ve become a little too familiar with this biblical phrase and perhaps have missed a profound point. In fact, hastily assuming the “what” may have obscured your insight into the “why”…
We rightly marvel at Jesus’s deep compassion. We rightly delight in his commitment to the down-and-out of society, and we rightly long to imitate his works of service and provision. We rightly praise the one who brought hope and healing to those who had none.
But is the point of the bruised reed image Jesus’s compassion? Should we identify weak, lowly, or otherwise hurting people as the “bruised reeds” who weren’t — and thus shouldn’t be — “broken”? Interpreting the metaphor this way is often assumed rather than argued, but perhaps we’ve grown too familiar with it and should take another look.
I appreciate what you’re doing with this focus on the context. It is much needed. For too long many people have read just a verse or two without considering the wider context. But, in your effort to be focused on context, you have, I believe, fallen into two problems. The first is, that while there is a major problem with people under-contextualizing, there is also a problem with over-contextualizing. I won’t get into the details of that because of space, but it’s something to consider. But the second problem I see deals with this article on the “bruised reed.” The problem here is thinking that your interpretation is the only viable one. I believe you’ve missed it here. I think you take on this text is a viable interpretation, but not the best. Scholars like, R. C. Sproul, D. A. Carson and Grant Osborne take the traditional view. That doesn’t make it right just because they hold to it, but it should give one pause. You may read their work and conclude that you interpretation is best. But, even if that is the case, I believe you must at least acknowledge that the traditional view is a viable interpretation of the text. I enjoy your articles. They are helpful. I can tell you are a thinking person who has devoted a lot of effort and thought to your work. Thanks for your insights!
Thanks for your comments, Richard, which are both kind and thoughtful. I agree that this is worthy of further thought.
On your first point of over-contextualization, I confess I don’t know what you mean. I have typically heard that term in reference to someone who quickly makes the text fit into our moment of history without first understanding the circumstances to which it was written. I don’t think that’s what you mean, and I understand you didn’t have space to get into it. But I’m not sure how we could ever make *too much* use of the literary context to get at the author’s intentions in a passage.
On your second issue, I agree it would be problematic to insist on only one viable interpretation if the text were unclear or inconclusive. And I’m certainly not eager to find myself in a different seat than the respectable teachers you listed.
However, I have yet to find a cogent *argument* in favor of what you call the traditional interpretation. If you can point me to a place where Sproul, Carson, or Osborne argues from the text (and doesn’t merely assert or assume) an interpretation of the bruised reed as a suffering individual, I would be delighted to see it. I believe Sibbes makes no such argument in his pastorally magnificent work. Nor have I found such an argument in a modern work, either.
I find that people tend to *assume* (and not carefully interpret their way to) this “traditional” reading, and I believe the text’s context at least raises questions as to whether we’ve become so familiar with that reading that we’re failing to observe the text itself.
Thanks again for reading and for being willing to speak up!
Peter, thank you for responding to my comments. With regard to detailed exegesis from the scholars I mentioned, they do not go into the meaning of the bruised reed in great detail, though they do deal briefly with it in the context of Matthew. They all seem to be very through interpreters, so I believer that if the traditional interpretation was the least bit questionable they would have given more details. Their commentaries are very long already.
However, there is a resource that deals with this text in greater detail. The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson gives detailed exegesis of all the uses of Old Testament texts in the New Testament. Craig L. Blomberg does the Matthew commentary.
He deals with Matthew 12:15-21 on pages 42-44. For each passage he looks at the NT context, OT context, Use in Jewish Sources, Textual background, Hermeneutic Employed and Theological Use. He quotes a Targum on Isaiah 42:1-4 that reads, “The poor who are like the bruised reed he will not break, and the needy who are like the dimly burning wick he will not quench.”
In each of the other sections he shows that the interpretation that the bruised reed and smoldering wick are people that the Messiah has compassion on as the earmark of his ministry. Blomberg states that this view fits well into the theological purpose of Matthew’s gospel. In the Hermeneutic Employed section he states, “The bruised reed and smoldering wick of Isa. 42:3 refer initially to the weakened Judeans, but more implicated and ironically to Egypt and Babylon in Isiah’s larger context of assuring Israel of their ultimate consolation (H.C.P. Kim 1999).” In the final section on Theological Use he adds, “He does not wrangle or quarrel or continue useless strife. He seeks to avoid self-advertisement and to quiet the enthusiasm that his healing inevitable create. He has compassion upon all, especially the ‘bruised reed’ or the ‘smoldering wick’. And he brings salvation to the Gentiles.”
It seems clear to me from Blomberg’s work that the traditional view is “traditional” because it best fits the context. I have never seen the interpretation you suggest, though that does not mean it is not correct. There are many texts that people typically take out of context, but this is not one of them. As I said in my previous comment, I believe that you are a through and thoughtful interpreter and I very much enjoy your biblical expositions. I followed you through Exodus and was greatly blessed, but here I must respectfully part company. I look forward to many other good and deep biblically grounded articles form you in the future. Thanks for the good work!
Thank you for sharing those sources. There is much here worth considering.