By Craig A. Smith
The preacher reads aloud the Old Testament lesson from Isaiah 7:1-17. Immediately the congregation is faced a host of strange names and events. It appears that two obscure kings named Rezin, King of Aram, and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel are marching up to Jerusalem to fight King Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, the King of Judah. Ahaz is worried and afraid. To alleviate his fear Isaiah comes to Ahaz with a threefold word from God: “be careful, keep calm, don’t be afraid and don’t lose heart.”
Isaiah couples this with a prophecy predicting that the plans of Rezin and Pekah will not succeed and warning that he must stand firm in his faith, not trusting in his own strength or devices. If these promises were not enough, Isaiah grants Ahaz the privilege to ask for a sign to assure him that his kingdom will not fall to Kings Rezin and Pekah. Strangely Ahaz refuses. So God gives him a sign anyway stating that “the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and she will call him Immanuel.”
Advertisement
Nothing miraculous, simply the birth of a child indicating the time at which the Kings of Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At this point the congregation is probably slightly bemused wondering who these people are? Why wouldn’t Ahaz take the opportunity to ask for a sign? Why give a future birth as a sign? Who is this virgin? Why call him Immanuel?
Then the preacher reads out the New Testament lesson from Matthew 1:18-25, which includes the key Isaiah text “the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and she will call him Immanuel.” He states that he will be focusing his sermon on the New Testament text and in particular this verse. The Old Testament text is disregarded, apart from the throw-away comment that “Matt. 1:23 is a fulfilment of Is. 7:1-17.”
Now the congregation is really confused as they try to figure out how the birth of Jesus could be related to, let alone fulfil, the story in Isaiah 7 about some feuding kings. So does this preacher really mean to say that the purpose of the sign of a baby boy born of a virgin in Isaiah is only pointing forward to the birth of Jesus? Is the story in Isa. 7:1-17 written for our sake 2,600 years later? Surely Isa. 7:14 has significance for the original audience to whom Isaiah is writing, does it not? If Isaiah 7 is indeed God’s inspired word then certainly this text, understood in its original context, must have a message for the present reader too?
This problem is largely related to some preachers’ understanding of prophecy and because these preachers view the Old Testament only through a Christocentric lens. The result is that they fail to preach an Old Testament text, which is quoted in the New Testament , from an Old Testament perspective and thereby too quickly move to a New Testament perspective and miss so many jewels buried in the original context. The aim of this article is to correct our view of prophecy with respect to Old Testament texts that are quoted in the New Testament , to show what types texts are so misused and to present some reasons for preaching these texts from an Old Testament perspective as well.