Christ does not replace or erase the history of the Old Testament. He brings it to its fullness. The historical fulfillments demonstrate God's faithfulness in their own time and also bear witness to the greater fulfillment accomplished in Jesus Christ.
What makes something a prophecy? Is it simply the knowledge, prediction, or promise of future events? It is easy to imagine a fortune teller laying out future events in your life or warning you of some specific danger. Biblical prophecy, especially in the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, often works quite differently. The biblical prophets certainly proclaim future events, but they do so in a way that neither they nor their hearers always fully grasp. Prophets also interpret events that have already happened or are presently unfolding. In these cases, prophecy gives divine meaning to historical events. That meaning may shape the future, call people to repentance, create faith, or strengthen trust in God's promises, even though the events themselves belong to the past.
Likewise, the immediate fulfillment of one prophecy may itself foreshadow a greater fulfillment yet to come. This is a recurring theme throughout the four Gospels. The evangelists present the person and work of Jesus Christ, from his birth to his resurrection, with continual reference to the history of God's people in the Old Testament prefiguring the life and work of Christ. In many cases, the New Testament authors present Christ as fulfilling prophecies that had already been partially fulfilled centuries earlier. The history of Israel itself becomes a sign and testimony of the greater work God would accomplish in Christ.
The complexity of prophecy between the Old and New Testaments is often simplified by both apologists and theologians when preaching or teaching. At times, this simplification has also affected how certain English translations render passages to emphasize their connection to the New Testament. Critics have seized upon this fact, arguing that common English translations are dogmatically revisionist and that the Gospel writers themselves reconstructed prophecies that never actually existed in the Old Testament.
One passage that frequently receives this criticism is Isaiah 7:14. Consider two respected and widely used English translations. The NRSV reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." The ESV reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Here we see two primary differences. First, the NRSV translates the Hebrew as "young woman," while the ESV translates it as "virgin." Second, the NRSV says "is with child," whereas the ESV says "shall conceive."
The criticism is that the ESV and similar translations may be attempting to force a connection between Isaiah's prophecy and the Virgin Mary. According to this view, the Old Testament is subtly rewritten so that Christians perceive a direct prophecy of Christ where none originally existed. Strictly speaking, the NRSV gives the more conservative rendering of the Hebrew word ha'almah, which ordinarily refers to a young or unmarried woman. Yet the ESV's rendering of "virgin" is not an outright mistranslation since even the Greek translation of the Old Testament in use during the life of Christ, the Septuagint, is parthenos, meaning virgin. The ESV is also consistent in translating related Hebrew terms as "virgin" in non-prophetic passages such as Genesis 24:43 and Psalm 68:25.
The more significant difference lies in the rendering of the participle and adjective describing the woman's condition. Grammatically, Isaiah describes a woman who is already pregnant and bearing a child. The ESV selectively renders these expressions with future language, "shall conceive," but elsewhere similar constructions are translated "has conceived" or "is pregnant." Even this, however, is not evidence of some wildly unfaithful translation. Isaiah's prophecy is indeed describing a young pregnant woman contemporary with King Ahaz. Yet the prophecy's primary focus is not the woman's present condition but the child who is to be born. The sign ultimately concerns a future birth.
Critics rightly point out that Ahaz received this prophecy in the eighth century BC concerning events within his own lifetime. The child named Immanuel was part of Ahaz's historical context, and the prophecy promised that before the child reached maturity, the northern kingdom of Israel would fall. That prophecy was fulfilled. The destruction of the northern kingdom stood as a sign of God's sovereignty over the nations and his faithfulness to accomplish what he had spoken. Translations such as the ESV do not erase this immediate historical fulfillment. The remainder of Isaiah, together with the historical books of Scripture, plainly records these events even in translations like the ESV. The larger issue raised by critics, however, is not really one of translation. Rather, it concerns the way the New Testament itself understands the Old Testament.
Matthew writes: "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel'" (Matt. 1:22-23). Was Matthew ignorant that Isaiah originally spoke these words to Ahaz? Was he unaware that Ahaz had been dead for centuries? Of course not. Matthew's claim is that Isaiah's prophecy belonged to God's larger plan of salvation from the very beginning. The immediate needs of Israel were real and historically fulfilled, yet they also pointed beyond themselves to God's final work in Christ. The history of Israel was never merely about the national interests of one people. It was the unfolding history through which God would bring salvation to the whole world.
This is how the New Testament consistently reads the Old Testament. Christianity does not treat the Old Testament as a collection of isolated historical or spiritual writings. Rather, it understands the whole of Israel's history as bearing witness to Christ. The lives of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and the nation itself demonstrate God's faithfulness to his immediate promises while simultaneously foreshadowing their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Christ himself teaches his disciples to read Scripture this way. In Luke 24:44, he declares, "Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Likewise, in John 5:39 he says, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me."
Christians, therefore, should neither ignore nor remain ignorant of the immediate historical meanings and fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy. Faithful translations should strive for linguistic accuracy and historical precision. Christians need neither the precise word “virgin” or the future tense “will conceive" in order for this prophecy to speak about Christ. At the same time, critics often exaggerate these textual questions in order to cast doubt on Christianity itself. Isaiah 7 is a prime example. The debate is rarely about whether Ahaz received a contemporary prophecy. Christians have never denied that he did. The real disagreement is whether that historical fulfillment also served as a divinely intended foreshadowing of Christ.
From the earliest days of the Church, Christians have answered yes. Christ does not replace or erase the history of the Old Testament. He brings it to its fullness. The historical fulfillments demonstrate God's faithfulness in their own time and also bear witness to the greater fulfillment accomplished in Jesus Christ. The same God who acted in the lives of the patriarchs, kings, and prophets now acts definitively in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of his Son. The Old Testament is therefore not undone by Christ, but completed in him.
.jpg?width=36&height=36&name=MRubinstein%20(1).jpg){kind=small}
