Have you ever wondered how the apostles could pluck texts from Old Testament contexts and apply them to the events of their own time — more specifically, to Jesus? We know they were inspired to do so by God, but by what accepted rule of interpretation could New Testament writers apply historical texts to developments and issues that were taking place in their time, hundreds of years later?
The Apostle Paul’s answer is that “all these things [in Jewish history] were written unto us as examples (types)…” (1 Corinthians 10:11) Typology, the study of figurative, prophetic pictures of Christ in Old Testament times, is less frequently known these nowadays, perhaps because many Christians are more interested in the “substance” of the New Testament than the “shadow” of the Old Testament.
Those of us brought up spiritually on such “types” as the Brass Serpent on the Pole and the Rock struck by Moses learned much from them. Those “shadows” cast interesting forms and shapes of things that were to come.
But how was it that Matthew could apply Isaiah 7:14 (“a virgin shall conceive”) to Mary, the mother of Jesus? The “virgin” of Isaiah’s time was a pure young woman who would conceive and bring forth a child that would be young in age when the Syrians ceased their oppression of God’s people. It was a short-term prophecy.
The Hebrew word used by the prophet for “virgin” was “almah”, which does not define a virgin who would conceive miraculously, but a young woman who would be a virgin at the time of natural conception. Matthew uses the Greek word “parthenos” to describe the virgin Mary’s conception (Matthew 1:23). It has a different meaning from “almah” in that it refers to a virgin who conceives not naturally but supernaturally, not naturally.
But by what rule of interpretation was Matthew justified in applying Isaiah’s text to Mary’s conception? Moreover, how could he write that, by her conception and the birth of her son Jesus, was Isaiah’s prophecy “fulfilled”? Had it not been fulfilled already, historically?
Jews state that Isaiah’s prophecy referred to the conception, by natural means, of Hezekiah, who, after King David, would be Judah’s most godly ruler, and therefore “God with Us” (Isaiah 9:6). It would be during Hezekiah’s rule that the Assyrians would besiege Jerusalem, only to find (through the loss of 185 000 soldiers) that God was indeed “with” His people!
I leave intricate discussions on this subject to those among us who are more qualified. My focus is on reconciling the application of Old Testament texts to the New Testament. If we are to convince Jewish people that we are correct in doing so, we need to explain to them the scriptural principle New Testament used to declare that Jewish texts were “fulfilled” in the person and deeds of Jesus Christ.
If we take the view that the history of the Hebrew people was merely a ‘stage’ prepared for the drama in which Jesus Christ would play the only role that really mattered, we are in effect saying that was the only intrinsic value of their history. Moreover, by inference we are saying that the joys and sorrows of their ancestors had only such value as we view as useful, notwithstanding their sufferings and their overall faithfulness to God.
This is the Imperial View, which is the unwitting view of every Christian who reads more into Paul’s use of the word “shadow” than that apostle intended. Paul was simply distinguishing the “substance” of Christ from those who foreshadowed him in Old Testament times. We have only to think of the imperialism of great empires down through history to realize how demeaning the Imperial View is to the people now known worldwide as Jews.
Thank God that there’s another, much better word, one that describes what the Christian view ought to be – and it is not Imperial but Empirical. Empirical. Empirical has no relation to Imperial except that they are similar. Empirical means: “to arrive at a conclusion by proof or experience, rather than by theory.” Pentecostals are empirical, in that they realize the truths of Scripture by experiencing them spiritually and not just holding to them through creeds or confessions.
Not that we underestimate the importance of truth for truth’s sake, i.e., truth in the abstract. Scripture is truth whether or not it is experienced. We know that certain portions are true in our own experience, not just as abstract concepts but as concrete realities.
How else to be witnesses for Christ in the world when only those so qualified were the apostles, who had observed Jesus from the time of his baptism till his ascension? We cannot be eyewitnesses as they were, but we can bear witness to the truth of the gospel in our own experience. This is what I mean by the Empirical View.
The Empirical view of the Old Testament does not regard the history of the Hebrew people as having no intrinsic value other than as a ‘mine’ for prophecies that were realized in the person and works of Jesus Christ. While it views the virgin of Isaiah 7:14 as a “type” of Mary, it also views her as an historical person in her own right.
More than that, it sees her child as a “sign” to the people of her time, as were the other “sign” children spoken of by the prophet (Isaiah 8:18). She and her child fulfilled the prophecy historically. The Imperial View is that the “virgin” of Isaiah 7:14 was merely a “type” of the Virgin Mary. But she was more than that to the Jews oppressed by the Syrians; to them, the virgin’s conception would have special meaning, and her baby Immanuel would be a “sign” that God was indeed “with” them!
The “sound [that] has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world” is the preaching of the gospel message (Romans 10:18). But Psalm 19:4 refers to the movements of the planets through the heavens. Do the planets move only as a “type” of the preaching of the gospel worldwide? Of course not! But Paul’s Empirical view is that they aptly illustrate the apostles’ preaching.
I hope that when next you are reading the Old Testament, you will view the people of that era as not just “types” but as real people who lived and loved as we do, and who faced the issues of their day and coped with them as best they could, through their faith in the One True God.
Let’s thank God for Isaiah’s natural virgin and her “sign” child, while also seeing them as prophetic figures in the history of the Hebrew people, whose lives portrayed truths far greater than they knew. Down with the Imperial View that diminishes or even dismisses them! Up with the Empirical View that enhances their lives in a far greater fulfilment! Viva the Empirical Revolution of Old Testament lives that were prophetic types and shadows of the life of Jesus the Messiah!