The Ethiopian eunuch had been reading the book of Isaiah when Philip ran to his chariot. The question the Ethiopian asked him was: “Who is the prophet speaking about: himself or someone else?”
This question is often asked of Old Testament prophecies, and the answer is that many prophetic promises to the Jewish people were fulfilled in the birth, ministry and death of Jesus Christ. This does not mean that the prophecies were not fulfilled in Jewish history.
For example, Isaiah’s prophecy that a virgin (Hebrew “almah”: “young woman”) would give birth to a “sign child” was fulfilled not many years after the prophet spoke it. How then could Matthew, many centuries later, write that this same prophetic promise was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus through Mary the virgin? (Matthew 1:22, 23)
The answer is that Matthew had an empirical view of the prophecy, seeing it as having been fulfilled in Mary’s experience. But as a Jew he would not have denied its historical fulfilment in the natural — and also spiritually significant — birth of the “sign child” spoken of in the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.
Jews believe this prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Hezekiah, Judah’s greatest king. Historically, that might well have been the case. But seeing it as fulfilled in a far greater context, Matthew extrapolates it from Jewish history and applies it to the birth of Jesus.
Philip “preached Jesus” from Isaiah to the Ethiopian eunuch, and in so doing emphasized the scriptural principle that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit (essence) of prophecy”(Revelation 19:10).
So, when a prophecy is seen to be greater than its historical context, the fulfilment of it should be sought in a future, yet equally real context, and Jesus, the Son of David, and the King of the Jews, will be at its very heart. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)
The apostle Peter used this primary application principle when expounding to his people King David’s prophecy that God would not “leave his soul in hell (the grave), neither allow His holy one to see corruption (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).
Peter told his audience that David had spoken as a prophet, and that, given that he was “dead and buried” and that “his tomb is with us to this day”. David’s prophecy was of the Lord Jesus, whom God raised from the dead before his body decomposed.
This gives special meaning to the oft-quoted end of the psalm — “at your right hand are pleasures for evermore”. Jesus has now enjoyed these pleasures for 2,000 years, among them the pleasure of seeing hundreds of millions become the sons of God through his self-sacrifice on the Cross, his resurrection from the tomb, and his ascension to his Father’s right hand). Glory!
The writer of the book of Hebrews is even bolder in his application of this prophetic principle in his statement that if Joshua had given [the children of Israel] rest, God would not later have spoken of a remaining “rest”. His conclusion that “there remains therefore a rest for God’s people” — one in which they could cease from self-effort and by faith accept the salvation available to them in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:1-11).
“Bolder” because it is written that God did give “rest” to Israel (Joshua 23:1). But the historical “rest” can in no way be compared to the greater “rest” — a cessation from dead works of religious effort. That “rest” was theirs and this greater “rest” is ours through trust, in Christ’s finished work.
To sum up: we can view the prophetic history of the Jewish people from an imperialist viewpoint, which is arrogant, or we can see it as more fully realized in Jesus Christ and experienced not only in the lives of the apostles but also in our own lives. This is not the imperial view, which minimizes biblical Jewish history, but the empirical view, which recognizes that history, while enjoying the greater fulfilment of many prophecies in Jesus Christ, the Messiah.