Evangelicalism and Old Testament Messianic Prophecy

Abstract

A major plank in the Evangelical apologetics platform (especially for the Jewish witness) has always been the predictive prophecy about Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. The number of these prophecies or “predictions” varies widely among Conservative–Evangelical sources. A brief survey of claims about the number of Christ-related Old Testament (OT) prophecies ranges from 50–400+. Regardless, the assertion of direct, intentional Old Testament prophetic pronouncement about Jesus has been a non-negotiable mainstay of Evangelical thought and theology since its beginning. However, today, those who align with the Evangelical movement in general, would disagree on technical grounds with the traditional way that Messianic prophecy has been explained hermeneutically or exegetically. Progressive Evangelicals, however, generally are concerned with the interpretation or exegesis of biblical passages in their grammatical–historical–cultural contexts. The focus is on texts rather than traditions. An irony is that traditional and untraditional Evangelicals who favor contextual exegesis in principle are still very divided when it comes to explaining how the NT used the OT, especially in relation to Messianic prophetic texts. This article describes the problem and illustrates it with examples of how some older and newer Evangelicals disagree when commenting on OT Messianic prophetic passages.

1. Introduction

A major plank in the Evangelical apologetics platform (especially for the Jewish witness) has always been the predictive prophecy about Jesus in the Hebrew Bible (HB)—not only its mere existence, but a multitude of examples. Jesus said, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39b; NIV), but neither he nor others in the New Testament (NT) explained how many times or how they did so. The number of these prophecies or “predictions” varies widely among Conservative–Evangelical sources. Often these are not academic, but this is irrelevant to some, mostly fundamentalist, Evangelicals.1 A brief survey of claims about the number of Christ-related Old Testament (OT) prophecies ranges from 50–400+.2 The number calculated is affected by whether these are defined as direct predictions or indirect prophecies (e.g., typologies, midrash, et al.). Also, the authors employ different hermeneutical approaches to what is meant by a “Messianic” text. Regardless, the assertion of direct, intentional Old Testament (OT) prophetic pronouncements about Jesus has been a non-negotiable mainstay of Evangelical thought and theology since its beginning. However, today, those (including myself) who align with the Evangelical movement in general would disagree on technical grounds with the traditional way HB/OT Messianic prophecy has been explained hermeneutically or exegetically.3 Whether or not someone qualifies as a “true Evangelical” or “biblical” or “theologically correct” (in practice, in current conservative/fundamentalist church culture) depends on their alignment with numerous traditional interpretations; yet (problematically) not only just foundational, historic doctrines (like biblical inspiration or Jesus’ deity), but increasingly special interest interpretations (or misinterpretations) of texts out of context and/or based only on the English translation, especially the 1611 KJV and its revisions.

Progressive Evangelicals, however, are concerned with the interpretation or exegesis of biblical passages in their grammatical–historical–cultural contexts. The focus is on texts rather than traditions. There is openness to the possibility or probability that some past Christian understandings and uses of OT (especially) and NT texts were incorrect or insufficient.4 At the same time, traditional Evangelical scholars were often at the forefront of pioneering and defending the foundational necessity of exegesis or contextual hermeneutics or the grammatical–historical interpretation (GHI) of Scripture. Today, some more progressive Evangelicals also adhere to contextual exegesis, yet find their research rejected by Evangelical conservatives.5 Others like Young and Kaiser defend contextual exegesis vigorously, yet ignore the Jewish hermeneutical cultural context and fall back on supernatural predictions about Jesus as the Messiah to explain texts like Isaiah 7:14 (see, e.g., Kaiser 1995; Young 1965).

An irony is that traditional and untraditional Evangelicals who favor contextual exegesis in principle are still very divided when it comes to explaining how the NT used the OT, especially in relation to Messianic prophetic texts. What follows will describe the problem and then illustrate it with examples of how some older and newer Evangelicals disagree when commenting on OT Messianic prophetic passages.

2. Grammatical–Historical Interpretation and Hermeneutics

In today’s trends towards intercultural hermeneutics (as Evangelicals are evangelizing non-Western lands like Africa and Asia), much attention is being given to “African” or “Asian” hermeneutics, as opposed to what has been seen as a mistake: the imposition of grammatical–historical hermeneutics, which is supposedly a Western bias. Instead, we need to let other 2nd- or 3rd-world people make their own translations and use their own cultural eyes and methods to read and interpret God’s Word. In an article on Intercultural hermeneutics, L. Caldwell argued:

The truth, however, is that the idea of one preferred universal approach to hermeneutics grew out of the colonialization efforts of European and American missionary movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. During these two centuries these global North missionaries brought their preferred grammatical-historical approach to Bible interpretation with them as they carried out their missionary activities among the culture of the global South.

(Caldwell 2024, pp. 347–64)

But it is the more progressive Evangelicals, especially in missions, that call for intercultural hermeneutics. I commend a sensitivity for Bible translation and interpretation that does not seek to educate non-Western people through Western presuppositions, paradigms, and practices. However, a terminological problem is involved. A hermeneutic is an interpretive strategy, but people speak about different kinds of hermeneutical approaches with different objectives in mind. A grammatical–historical interpretation (GHI) has the goal of reproducing what a communicator meant by the words used and how they were used in communicating to an audience in a particular situation, time, and setting (historically and culturally). Much of this is accomplished intuitively in real time because people in the same culture using the same language usually understand the communicator’s subject and setting, along with current idioms and allusions. Understanding an ancient text by moderns is more complicated because the very different linguistic and social bridges must be researched, built, and crossed. This has always involved a GHI by necessity and universally.

Caldwell is right to complain about the imposition of narrow culturally bound interpretations on other cultures. A GHI is foundational to clear and correct communication and the interpretation of what a text says and does not say. Misunderstanding this is the Achilles heel of Caldwell’s argument. Communication in all languages (to be understood accurately as intended, as much as that can be resurrected) requires that the audience know how the language works (grammar) and receive the words as used in the immediate social and cultural context (history). To the degree these are or not understood, is the degree that the meaning is understood or not. So, a GHI is unavoidable. But other hermeneutics exist and are important; they just have different objectives other than contextual exegesis. When Christians encounter “feminist”, “ecological”, “same sex/gender”, “Western”, or “Eastern” hermeneutics, they are dealing with specialized issues or strategies that call for sensitivity to how various Bible readers encounter or receive the biblical texts. But they are not a GHI per se, although they may use a GHI to some degree in addition to asking how the Bible is applicable to topics about which the biblical world was unaware and did not seek to address. With Scripture, we have the double-duty of translation into another (receptor) language and then finding how best to put the same idea across in the translation tongue. Any mistake in the initial translation/interpretation of the source language will be magnified in the transfer to another language. The interpreter/translator has both to handle the source language accurately (contextually and grammatically) and to transfer that meaning to a translation/interpretation in another language, which may function very differently.

A GHI or exegesis is how we best approach and approximate an accurate understanding of what a biblical text was meant to communicate specifically to a certain audience at a certain time and in a certain place. This is the literary–grammatical, historical, and cultural sense in a text and time, which should not be a meaning the audience reads anachronistically back into the text in relation to its current concerns. At the same time, we admit that recovering fully this intended sense from the speaker/author is always limited by the skill of the interpreters and their knowledge of the historical–cultural contexts. There is still much we do not know about biblical languages and biblical times. However, this is the best route where we must recover what the authors meant by what they said. It is at the root of clear communication in all cultures. Beyond this, all people groups, N. American, Western, Eastern, European, minority or majority world, African, southern or northern hemisphere, et al., have cultural traits that are distinct. This naturally is their hermeneutic: how they read and identify with and apply, interact with, or react to various Scriptural passages. This is where it is essential to respect cultural differences. They are not about reproducing the original intended meaning of the author/speaker, but about reactions to a biblical text that are tribal-, cultural-, and generational-specific principles. This is not exegesis, but if it is too far from what the text teaches then it is not representative of what the biblical text communicated historically. Even those missionaries who taught the GHI to people in the majority world at times had biblical beliefs far removed from how the text should have been understood or how it should have been used because they might teach traditions that may be more cultural than exegetical and perform the GHI very sloppily. What a biblical text contextually conveyed and conveys is not rightly subservient to any reader’s or interpreter’s culture. The missionaries’ mistake was not teaching the GHI, but often making their culture superior to that of their target group’s culture. Each culture should strive to produce indigenous scholars to create the most accurate as possible interpretive translations of the Bible and commentary that explains the text in its ancient context and language with appropriate applications to their respective nations or cultures.

Not only Asians or Africans, etc., struggle with English or other foreign translations and commentary. English-speaking Christians also struggle with the many conflicting English translations and interpretations from preachers and teachers. Whether your first language is English or an African, European, or Asian, etc., tongue, everyone is at the disadvantage of not being a native user of the ancient biblical languages of classical Hebrew and Aramaic (OT) or Greek (NT; and LXX). The colonial powers have (until recently) failed at providing excellent translations and commentary that make appropriate (or any) use of the ancient Near-East and 1st-century CE cultural/historical contextual data. The clarion call is for worldwide sensitivity (in every culture and continent) to exegesis (=GHI), which allows the biblical texts to speak in their own contexts (linguistic, literary, social, etc.) to derive the best translations and interpretations that reflect, not the readers’ world, but what the ancient author meant to say by the words he used in Hebrew or Greek to his immediate audience.

3. GHI and the Evangelical Interpretation of OT Prophecy

With all this in mind, we now turn to a specific focus on how past and present Evangelicals (as well as just those of the current generation) differ over the OT Messianic prophecy. This revolves around the GHI, an interpretive approach both generations share (but not exclusively), and which traditional Evangelicals would not say moderns or progressives have imposed or use inappropriately. Of course, neither newness nor oldness is a guarantee of more accuracy. An interpretation (both a translation and commentary) is always human, so subject to subjectivity and factual slips. The New Evangelicals must beware of blindly following every new trend, but their justification is in the willingness to make necessary changes when contextual exegesis supports a new view as a valid option.

Being an Evangelical should be based on commitment to Jesus’ Evangel (Good News) and not to a myriad of traditional and fundamentalist views for the sake of tradition (so-called “truth”). Evangelicals are increasingly (although they remain committed to the Evangel) finding that older explanations of certain interpretive issues bear rethinking, but in the light of biblical research. One such area is the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament. Older Evangelicals will argue that when, e.g., Matthew used Hosea 11:1 as “proof” that Jesus is the promised Messiah/Christ, he was telling his audience what Hosea really meant (despite its contradiction with Hosea’s immediate context). A progressive Evangelical will counter that, in context, Hosea’s “son” is Israel not the “Messiah”, especially Jesus directly. The old-school Evangelical will counter that Matthew trumps Hosea’s context and gives the reader God’s meaning, which a person of faith (like Matthew or any Christian) should see. But what happened to the basic rule of communication in which context determines meaning? When asked why the Jews never could or can see Jesus in Hosea 11, the traditional Evangelicals will usually say that the Jews are blinded by God for His own purposes. But then why are they still held accountable? Regardless, progressive Evangelicals will explain that there is no conflict between Hosea meaning Israel as God’s “son” and Matthew meaning Jesus because Hosea was not making a conscious, direct predictive prophecy about Jesus or the Messiah.6 Yet Matthew (as a converted Jew evangelizing a Jewish audience) was using a standard 1st-century Jewish hermeneutical principle that his target audience intuitively understood. He was not giving a contextual exegesis of Hosea 11:1; rather, he was making an out-of-context spiritual or theological application, pointing to a parallel between Israel as God’s son and Jesus as God’s Son. But this is more than a mere technicality in interpretive science between older and newer Evangelicals. When I was a PhD student and shared this interpretational strategy with a conservative/fundamentalist Baptist acquaintance, he responded by saying this was evidence I was not really a Christian, not that I was incorrect for reasons he could spell out academically. Many years later (today), I still encounter similar resistance (although not questioning my faith) and rejection off-hand from traditional Evangelicals (even with PhDs) of the idea that the OT Messianic prophecy is not usually predictive and futuristic, but immediately prophetic for the prophet’s intention and his audience’s understanding. What follows are selected examples taken from the Hebrew Bible to provide evidence for why Evangelicals such as myself (for good exegetical reasons) disagree with past (non-contextual) interpretations of OT Messianic texts.

4. Can a Scholar Believe the Virgin Birth?

An article by a Jewish scholar appeared in 1988 in Bible Review in which the argument was made that no valid scholar could take the Virgin Birth of Jesus seriously, based on an interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, since a scholar respects context as crucial to the meaning of a text and, on close inspection, the larger context of this verse makes it clear that Isaiah was not talking about Jesus, but a Jewish infant of the 8th-century BCE (Barrett 1988). If so, then it was concluded that Matthew was reading the passage out of context and cherry-picking details (like using the Greek OT translation’s παρθένος for “virgin” and not following the Hebrew text with עַלְמָה meaning “maiden”). Evangelicals and other conservative “Bible believers” generally are appalled at such a view because it opposes a fundamental and famous Messianic prediction about Jesus as well as his virgin-birth and the miraculous nature of biblical prophecy. Yet even an Evangelical like myself, trained in biblical exegesis or contextual interpretation, must admit the Jewish author makes some very valid points about Isaiah’s line of thought. Both the Jewish author and most, or all, of his traditional Evangelical opponents assume that Matthew is being an exegete of Isaiah, making a contextual interpretation. This assumption requires Isaiah to be speaking consciously and directly about Jesus and predicting a future virgin birth. Barrett’s point is that “Isaiah is simply not talking about what Matthew says Isaiah is talking about, but rather about an event in Isaiah’s own time” (Barrett 1988).

What he means (and he is correct) is that Isaiah “firmly ties the prediction of Emmanuel’s birth to the threatened invasion by saying: ‘For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted’ (Isaiah 7:16)” (Barrett 1988). How can Isaiah place the Emmanuel child in the time of famine created by the Assyrian invasion (7:15–17) and simultaneously or alternatively predict his virgin birth 500+ years later? Logically and textually, he must have meant one or the other. If we read both this passage and its use by Matthew literally and historically, then one of them is (or both are) in error. Evangelicals have traditionally and typically solved this by claiming “double fulfillment”. Isaiah’s text means two different things simultaneously! But this is easy to say and impossible to prove (apart from adopting a presupposition that the Old Testament authors often spoke using double entendre).

However, a historically verifiable Jewish hermeneutic employed by Matthew is the likely solution (which, surprisingly, the Jewish author of the article fails to suggest, but which Evangelical interpreters routinely resist). If we understand that Matthew was not giving a grammatical–historical interpretation of Isaiah, rather making a spiritual or analogical application (which was more popular in the 1st-century CE in Palestine among Jewish rabbis, using Hillel’s rules and partial to midrash and pesher interpretations),7 then it makes sense that Isaiah’s prophecy about a child named “God with us” (as an encouragement during an invasion by a foreign army) could be used figuratively by Matthew to show that Jesus’ birth is a re-enactment of Israel’s experience, indicating the Messiah, and with the added reality of a virgin birth (which Matthew describes in detail in addition to citing Isa. 7:14).8

5. Current Illustration

5.1. The Voice Bible and “Jesus the Anointed”

A recent and relevant illustration of Evangelical fundamentalism still alive and kicking is when The Voice, New Testament (Bible version) chose to translate Χριστοῦ as “Liberator” or “Anointed One” rather than the traditional “Christ” (e.g., Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:4) (see (The Voice 2008, vol. 2, p. 100)). Conservative/fundamentalist Evangelicals were outraged. Attention-grabbing and misleading headlines appeared like “The name Jesus Christ does not appear in The Voice” (see (USA Today 2012)), or others with something like “new Bible version takes Christ out of the Bible”. Similar anxiety was felt also over missing English words like “angel”.9 The irony here is that opposition was and is based on charging the translation with failing to accurately translate, which meant not “literally” translating and following a word-for-word translation methodology. Some evangelicals have adapted to “thought-for-thought” (or dynamic equivalent) translations like the New International Version (NIV).10 The King James Version (KJV; 1611 original) and its more modernized English-language editions remain the favorite or exclusive Bible for the most conservative Evangelical Christians, despite all the advances to date in linguistics related to biblical languages and translation which are relied upon by those producing Bible (especially New Testament) translations for a multitude of different cultures and languages around the world.11 One may recall when the publisher of the NIV attempted to market the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) based on gender sensitivity (e.g., using gender-neutral words like “people” instead of “men”, when the group in question likely combined men and women). The book was a failure as to sales and was pulled off the market. It appears that numerous Evangelicals have remained tied to literalism as a guarantee of truth;12 yet they do not speak their own language by the same rigid rules or by using words with meanings no longer active. When they today say “conversation”, they mean “talking”; but in KJV English it means “walking” (i.e., how one acts, not articulates). People often are curious about so many versions published in one language like English. One reason is different translation methods (literal, paraphrase, dynamic equivalent, et al.), but another is the need for the receptor or target language to be updated over time to keep up with changes in word usage and communication style. Consequently, the KJV is anachronistic even if accurate in its day and fails to take advantage of any new scholarly and widely accepted data that call for a change in how a Greek or Hebrew word or OT or NT passage should be understood. With words like “angel”, it and others are not really translations at all. “Angel” is merely an English transliteration of the Greek angelos, meaning “messenger”. The Hebrew word for “messenger” is mal’akh, which literalists in this case do not transliterate, but translate as “angel” (since the long-standing use of “angel” has led to its adoption into the English language as “spirit being with wings”, based more on medieval paintings than Scripture). In the Bible, the words for “messenger” are used for humans and seemingly supernatural agents. A more correct translation and interpretation would distinguish between human and heavenly messengers.13 But tradition is stubborn. Thankfully, today, more Evangelicals are emerging who insist that traditions must stand the test of biblical scholarship rather than time.14 As for “Christ” in the New Testament, again we have a transliteration of (not always upper-case) xristos/Xristos, meaning “anoint; anointed”). For the 1st-century audience, Jesus was called “anointed” (as the Old Testament spoke about various “anointed” people, such as a priest, prophet, or king, or a future leader, using Hebrew meshiach, “anointed”). In this sense, numerous people in the OT were “messiahs” (since English “M/messiah” is derived as a transliteration of meshiach). Even Cyrus the Persian king was called “My messiah” by God (Isa. 45:1).15 In biblical times, “anointed ones” or “messiahs” were frequent,16 but one was a unique “Anointed One” prophesied in the OT and revealed as Jesus “the Messiah/Anointed One” in the NT. So, it may be untraditional, but “A/anointed” as a translation, rather than “C/christ” (or “M/messiah”) as a transliteration, is more accurate. David Capes (a lead scholar with The Voice project) explained (sadly),

[“Anointed”] is a more accurate translation for modern American readers… many people, even those who’ve gone to church for years, don’t realize that the word “Christ” is a title. They think that Jesus is his first name and Christ is his last name.17

Translation is supposed to be the science and art of transferring the same meaning from a source language to a target language. How that is carried out depends on the languages involved and should respect how the meaning (and interpretation) of the original text is influenced by its contexts (literary, social, cultural, historical, and grammatical, as much as they are known by the translator). Advances in knowledge about these areas is a major reason why translations need to change over time, and commentary (and likely theology as well) with them. Flexibility is a trait less seen in older rather than newer Evangelicals.18

5.2. NT Use of the OT in Evangelical Debate

5.2.1. Hosea 11:1

This well-known messianic prophecy about God’s servant was mentioned briefly in passing already. We now will look at this interpretive controversy among traditional and progressive Evangelicals in more detail. Matthew 2:13–15a says that, after the visitation of the Magi (2:7–12), a messenger from God19 instructed Joseph to take the mother and child to Egypt and wait for further instructions (2:13). They went and stayed in Egypt until after Herod’s death (vv. 14–15a), which Matthew claimed fulfilled what God “spoke” (not predicted) through Hosea, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (v. 15b).

Matthew reported for his Jewish audience that Hosea’s words (in what we call 11:1b) had meaning connected to Jesus’ return from Egypt.20 Some traditional Evangelicals21 explain this phenomenon as a conscious, predictive prophecy about Jesus.22 A literal translation and interpretation have historically characterized Evangelicals. But even going back to a commentary in 1871, Hosea’s comments about Israel (as God’s son) were viewed as applied to Jesus by Matthew, and “typically and primarily referring to Israel, antitypically and fully to Messiah” (Jamieson et al. 1871, para. 15315). However, Matthew’s 1st-century Jewish audience would not have heard it this way exactly. To convince his Jewish audience, he would have tapped into a contemporary Jewish hermeneutical practice (presumably, or he would have been ignored). This assertion remains a sore spot for some contemporary conservative Evangelicals.23 Whether they literally view Hosea as making a direct prediction, or view Matthew as making Jesus an antitype to Israel’s type, they expect Hosea’s text to contain some actual built-in reference to Jesus as God’s son, even if this is only in God’s mind as Hosea speaks the inspired words. I have experienced a kind of emotional excommunication more than once (from fellow Evangelicals) when I have explained that Hosea 11:1 exegetically and contextually is only about ancient Israel, and that Matthew’s out-of-context use is legitimized by his application and spiritual interpretation of Hosea’s words about Jesus for a 1st-century Jewish audience which was familiar with the current and very popular analogical hermeneutical practices of the rabbis, such as midrash and pesher techniques. However, most Jews still rejected and continue to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah for personal, social, and/or theological reasons, despite Matthew’s argument being familiar hermeneutically.

When Hosea quoted God as saying, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1), the “son” is unmistakably Israel in the historical and immediate literary contexts. Matthew only cited the last half of verse 1 (so clearly out of context). Hosea goes on to explain that this “child” (na‘ar not “son”ben), although loved as shown by his rescue from slavery in Egypt, remained idolatrous no matter how much God kept calling (11:2). If the child of 11:1 is Jesus, then Jesus is also the idolater in 11:2. There is no reason for Hosea’s Jewish audience then or later to interpret this child as any other than Israel. Longenecker noted:

The context of the statement “out of Egypt I called my son” in Hosea 11 clearly indicates that the prophet was using “my son” as a collective term for the nation Israel—which as a “child” was dearly loved by God, but as time went on drifted away from God into idolatry.

(Longenecker 1999, p. 128)

Matthew (in the 1st-century CE hermeneutical climate of Judaism) could say that Jesus fulfilled the words “My child called out of Egypt”, not because “my child” had a double meaning, but because Jesus re-enacted, re-lived, or paralleled this particular Israelite event (he also returned to Canaan from Egypt), but not what Israel did as an idolator in 11:2–12. Matthew was not suggesting that the “child” was a Messianic prediction (as we use the term). He was making use of the interpretive principle known as corporate solidarity and was “rereading his Old Testament from an eschatologically realized and messianic perspective” (Longenecker 1999, p. 128). We could say this “child” is a foreshadowing or type of the Messiah. However, this could not be said until Jesus’ ministry and Hosea were read in retrospect. Butterworth explained, Hosea’s statement is not primarily a prophecy about Jesus, but an interpretation of a historical event. But the parallels with Jesus are very striking: God preserved Israel (Jacob and his household) from famine by giving them a place in Egypt. From there he brought them out to fulfil his purposes (Butterworth 1994).

5.2.2. Isaiah 7:14

This verse is probably the most significant and selected text for Evangelical apologetics related to the Old Testament predictive prophecy about Jesus as the anticipated Messiah. Evan a scholar like E. J. Young (in his Isaiah commentary, beloved by traditional Evangelicals) describes the “sign” promised directly to Ahaz in v. 14 as “the birth of a wonderous Child” (Young 1965, p. 283). But how could a child born in the 1st-century CE be a sign to King Ahaz in the 8th-century BCE? It is possible if a child born in his lifetime was a type of the Messiah. Ahaz, as Young explains, did reject the sign. The usual conservative Evangelical take on this text is that Isaiah’s meaning was that a distant future child would be born to a virgin, which should have been understood by those in the prophet’s presence as he spoke (see, e.g., (as above and in the Sources below), (Young 1965; Kaiser 1995).

However, this reasoning is moot when the immediate text and context are considered.24 The debate is often centered on the translation/interpretation of the woman to birth this child, “the ‘almah (הָעַלְמָ֗ה)”. For traditional Evangelicals, this must mean “virgin” or a powerful apologetic is lost and Jesus may not be divine. But if we understand Isaiah’s historical and textual contexts, and Matthew’s hermeneutical context, then these beliefs still stand even if we translate ‘almah as “maiden”. But, current Evangelicals are divided over NRSV’s “young woman” as exegetically correct or as liberal anti-supernaturalism (Cf., e.g., Heiser 2009; Oakes 2022). So, what about these contexts?

First, the virgin birth (whatever is said about Isaiah 7:14) is firmly established by Matthew before he cited the verse. For him, there is no question that Jesus is “the Christ [Χριστοῦ]”, “anointed one”; Matt. 1:18a. His mother is pregnant (via the holy spirit)25 while only betrothed, and before she and Joseph had any sexual union (v. 18b). Joseph was ready to file for divorce (v. 19) but was stopped by an ἄγγελος κυρίου “Lord sent messenger” (v. 19), who informed him that (1) her conception was from the holy spirit (v. 20), that (2) she would bear a son (which is a prediction), and (3) he is to name him Jesus (OT Joshua; “deliverer”) because (4) he will deliver his people from their sins (v. 21).

Then Matthew informed his audience that all this happened as a “fulfilment” (πληρωθῇ) or “completion” of what the Lord spoke through Isaiah, and then quoted (what we call) Isaiah 7:14 with the added translation of the name עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל as μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, “with us the God”. Matthew must have known (and knew his contemporary Jewish teachers knew) that the context of this verse in Isaiah 7 did not allow Jesus to be whom Isaiah specifically had in mind. So, his understanding of how Jesus fulfilled it is reasonably related to Matthew’s Jewish hermeneutical environment. When we look close at the immediate context of this Immanuel child in Isaiah 7:14, we notice that immediately (v. 15) Isaiah explains that whoever this child is, he will have a diet of curds and honey (typically a diet during a famine) by the time he reaches an age of moral accountability.26 Also, by that time, Samaria (i.e., the “land of the two kings he dreads”) will be wasted (v. 16). What is said here was described earlier when Yahweh told Isaiah to meet Ahaz and tell him not to fear the two “burning stubs of firewood” (Samaria/Israel/Ephraim and Aram/Syria) who were plotting Judah’s ruin (7:3–6) because Judah refused to align with them against Assyria. Then Ahaz learns that this united front against him will fail and within 65 years, Ephraim/Israel will fall (vv. 7–8), so he must stand firm (v. 9). After that, Ahaz was allowed to make any request to God (vv. 10–11), but he declined hypocritically (v. 12); so, Isaiah chastised him and his house for testing God’s patience (v. 13), which leads to the famous Immanuel prophecy (not just v. 14 but vv. 14–17).

In verses 14–17, the prophet pronounces that a sign will be given when an ‘almah (girl old enough to be married) gives birth to a son and names him Immanuel (v. 14; here is the miraculous prediction; how otherwise did Isaiah know the child would be male and have this name?).27 And if Isaiah meant to pronounce a virgin birth, why did he not use the technical Hebrew word for “virgin” (betulah)?28 The arguments about ‘almah never meaning a married woman is limited to its OT uses mostly,29 but in the context, her “virginity” as a “young woman [‘almah]” is assumed (while not guaranteed) or is “[b]y implication in Hebrew culture”.30 In the positive context of Isaiah 7, it simply means “sexually mature young woman” as a suitable candidate for marriage (Witherington 2017, p. 77). Parthenos (“virgin”) was at times (e.g., Joel 1:8) used for a married woman. This reminds us that words (even ‘almah) have a variety of uses and cannot be limited to one “root”, basic, or “only” meaning.

This boy will eat food related to a famine (see n. 26) by the time he is morally accountable since Ephraim/Samaria/Israel will have been devastated (vv. 15–16) by the Assyrians (v. 17). Isaiah places the child he has in mind in Judah when the Assyrians conquer (721 BCE) the Northern Kingdom, Israel. Isaiah contextually was not talking about Jesus and his virgin birth during Herod’s rule. So, how could Matthew legitimately claim that Jesus’ birth “fulfilled” Isaiah’s text?

Traditional Evangelicals took the route of ignoring the context and claiming that Isaiah either used language with multiple meanings or had the virgin birth of Jesus in mind as a prediction despite what is said in the other verses (which of course did not exist when these texts were first written). More progressive Evangelicals recognize these issues and respect contextual exegesis as determinative for meaning. They also accept the virgin birth as factual, but use Matthew’s discussion as biblical evidence, leaving Isaiah’s prophecy historically connected to Ahaz’s time; however, also understanding that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 was not literal or exegetical, but rather in line with the application’s or spiritual hermeneutical world (midrashic or pesher, et al.) of 1st-century Judaism. Matthew’s Jewish audience, for the most part, would have recognized this. The Church failed to recognize it until the OT prophecy was understood to be more complex than a simple prediction and later repetition.

What do we find when we look closely at the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14? The text is שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל ‏ הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה. Literally, “Look at that pregnant young woman; she is birthing a son, and she will call his name Immanu El”. This indicates that the woman Isaiah has in mind is standing in sight of those present in Ahaz’ house. The word for “young woman” is definite, so it is “the/that one”. The word “pregnant” is an adjective, so there is no sense of “will be pregnant”. She already is pregnant and pointed to by Isaiah. “Give birth” is a participle, so it can express immediacy (“she is about to give birth”, which is not 600 years later). The child will be a boy, so this is what Isaiah predicts in addition to what his name will be. If, as some think, the woman is Isaiah’s wife, then he has natural knowledge of the name to be used. But it would demand a supernatural revelation from God for him to know the gender. Then the following verses place this child in the 8th-century BCE. All this being the case, Isaiah could not have used ‘almah meaning “virgin” if indeed Isaiah announced, “Look at that pregnant ‘almah” (7:14b). The child was a sign to those present as other children had been. His name (meaning “God with us”) would be an encouragement during the coming time of oppression (Assyrian defeat and destruction, described in 7:18–25).31

In the larger context, Isaiah explained “Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion” (8:18; NIV). Other children than Immanuel were signs. When he first went to meet Ahaz (7:3), he took along his son Shear-Jashub (“A remnant will return”). He later shared how he and his wife (“the prophetess”; 8:3) birth another son named Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (meaning “Hurry to the Spoil”), whose name was ordered by God to be written on a scroll (8:1–3). And by the time he reached an age of moral accountability, Damascus would be plundered by the Assyrian army (8:4). Chapter 8 ends with the recognition that nothing can stop the Assyrian advances, but still imm-anu-el, “with us is God!” or “Oh, [be] with us God!” (8:5–10). Three different children are named in the larger context whose names were signs to the people of God’s presence despite disaster and deportation.

The application of Isa 7:14 to Jesus was probably considered by Matthew to be a case of the literal fulfillment of an explicit messianic prophecy (to use our more refined distinctions of today). The Greek παρθένος was undoubtedly commonly equated with the Hebrew עלמה in the synagogues of Judaism through the influence of the LXX. Whether it be judged legitimately or not, the association of the two words for two centuries or so must certainly have counted for something theologically. Furthermore, Isa 7:14 may well have been one of those passages identified by Jesus as being significant for his own person and ministry, thereby clarifying the enigmatic in an Immanuel passage and explicating the intended sensus plenior for his followers.

On the other hand, it may be that Matthew considered Isa 7:14 more a typological statement, which found its antitype in the Messiah Jesus, than a direct messianic prophecy, as we would understand a direct messianic prophecy. Distinctions of this sort, however, were probably not consciously present in the Evangelist’s mind. His purpose was to lay stress on the fulfillment of God’s redemptive activity in the person of Jesus Christ, whether that be later analyzed as “direct” or “typological”. And in so doing, he used a pesher treatment of the passage in both its text form and its application.32

5.2.3. Genesis 5:21–24

One final and emerging example, in passing, is the matter of Enoch’s “translation” by God in Genesis 5:24. A traditional interpretation is that Enoch was so righteous and God was so anxious to have him in Heaven that God transported him alive from Earth to His presence. The author of Hebrews in the New Testament followed this interpretation as found in the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint or LXX): καὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο, ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός, translated by (NETS [2007] 2014) as “And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him”. But the Hebrew text only says, “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away” (NIV). The word for “God [’elohim]” (as usual) is plural, but also the first in v. 24a is definite, so could be translated “the God [or ‘gods’]” (as also in v. 22). The second use in v. 24b is anarthrous (“[a] G/god”) as a subject of a 3ms verb (so cannot be “gods”), and the context could imply “the God/gods” as the sense intended for v. 24b.

The question (since LXX is a human interpretation) is if the LXX reading is exegetically accurate for the meaning intended by the author of the original text in Hebrew (as opposed to a fanciful application). As the Hebrew text stands, it could be interpreted to say that Enoch had walked with the God (v. 22; ha-’elohim), but later walked with the gods (v. 24a; ha-’elohim). In other words, he turned to idol worship. Therefore, God (’elohim) “took” (=took [his life]?). Anarthrous ’elohim here could contextually be a variant for “[the] God”. However, the contrast with ha-’elohim could be intentional and distinguish Elohim (“God”) from “the-gods”. “Away” is not in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text says, “he was no more because ’elohim took him”, while the Greek says, “he could not be found because God removed him”. The point is that an exegesis of these verses in the HB is not necessarily consistent with the LXX interpretation. For traditional Evangelicals the interpretation in Hebrews (11:5) is authoritative for the meaning in Genesis 5. But the author of Hebrews 11:5 based his thoughts on the non-authoritative interpretation of the LXX.33

Genesis 5:24 (Greek OT).	Hebrews 11:5 (Greek NT)	Genesis 5:24 (Hebrew OT)
καὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ενωχ τῷ θεῷ καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο, ὅτι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός.	Πίστει Ἑνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο διότι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός. πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως μεμαρτύρηται εὐαρεστηκέναι τῷ θεῷ·	וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ חֲנ֖וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וְאֵינֶ֕נּוּ כִּֽי־לָקַ֥ח אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹהִֽים׃
And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him. (NETS [2007] 2014)	By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. (NIV)	Then Enoch walked with ha-’elohim and he was no more because ’elohim took him.

The author of Hebrews did not follow the so-called inspired Hebrew text (1500 BCE?), but the inspiring, imaginative interpretation by a translator in the 3rd-century BCE. It is very possible, if not probable, that the author of Hebrews was not exegeting Genesis 5:24 contextually, but following the popular “out-of-context” and more spiritual and application-based use of OT texts in 2nd-Temple and 1st-century Jewish hermeneutics. Jewish commentary about Genesis 5:24, at times, interpreted Enoch as sinful.34 Traditional and more progressive Evangelicals today are divided strongly over this kind of interpretation that (for progressives) depends on Jewish hermeneutical practices, but for traditionalists (although these are located in biblical times when the NT was composed), depends on taking the author of Hebrews literally, at face value, to explain Genesis 5:24 as God’s prize rather than punishment (as contextually it can and has been read).

6. Conclusions

What has happened in modern times is that traditional Evangelicals have been so tied to a directly predictive hermeneutic for the OT prophecy (e.g., Isaiah 7:14 explicitly projecting Jesus’ virgin birth) that even otherwise good scholars have found creative ways to support the Hebrew text as meaning a virgin (meaning Mary, mother of Jesus) would have a son (Jesus), and then find more creative means to make the surrounding verses comply with this interpretation. Translating ‘almah as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 became a litmus test for orthodoxy. RSV, NRSV, and others were and are condemned as liberal and worse for supposedly removing the supernatural predictive prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 by translating ‘almah as “young woman”. One pastor even burned a copy of the RSV (Metzger 2001). Although his commentary on Isaiah is part of an Evangelical academic series, Oswalt skips over the critical textual issues of 7:14 when the passage is covered (Oswalt 1986), and one of the introductory essays is on the “significance of prediction”, where he complains about interpreters who “deny… specific predictions”, (Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 46–47). Edward Hinson, on the faculty of the fundamentalist Evangelical Liberty University, in an article entitled, “Development of the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14”, wrote:

In the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, three basic positions have been historically taken by commentators: (1) that the reference is only, to an immediate event, of the prophet’s own day; (2) that it refers only to the Messiah; (3) that it refers to both. The first position has been generally held by those who have denied the unity of the book’s structure and supernaturalness of the content.35 … From the time of the reformers most evangelicals have held the second, viewpoint…. However, during the middle of the nineteenth century, especially after the publication of Duhm’s work, the concept of immediate contemporary fulfillment of all of Isaiah’s prophecies became widespread. Unable to stem the rising flood of opinion, many conservatives retreated to a dual-fulfillment position, especially on this particular passage (Ellison n.d.). Thus, the position of the reformers, who saw fulfillment only in Christ, was abandoned. This influence affected the interpretation of the entire Immanuel passage, which came to be viewed by many as merely symbolic (Hinson 1969; Davidson n.d.).

Hinson added: “It may be noted from this chart that as the non-messianic interpretation gained impetus in Germany and began to influence writers in England and the United States during the last of the nineteenth century, conservative writers of the early twentieth century began to adopt a position earlier advocated by Barnes and Keith.36 At the same time there was a noticeable drop in commentaries advocating a strictly messianic fulfillment” (Hinson 1969, p. 22). Hinson opposes Evangelicals who adhere to a “dual fulfillment” hermeneutic, as well as liberal and neo-orthodox critical scholars who interpret Isaiah 7:14 only historically and contextually. The former is semantically and contextually flawed,37 and the latter has the better contextual–exegetical argument against his “single-fulfillment” approach, but he has nothing to say about Jewish hermeneutics of the 1st-century. Traditional and Neo-Evangelicals are at a stalemate. But the repeated appeal that ‘almah means “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 (because it implies “virgin” (e.g., ‘Got Questions 2016’)) should no longer suffice as an acceptable exegesis for even the most conservative Evangelicals.

Granted, often critical scholars (yet also some current scholars who identify, to some degree, with the Evangelical movement) do find a literal “prediction” technically inaccurate to describe how Scripture functions when an OT passage is viewed as “fulfilled” by an NT event or person. This is because it is increasingly clear that the connection between some or most OT prophecies and their NT applications is more indirect than direct (as when Hosea called idolatrous Israel God’s child or son, and later Matthew, a Jewish convert, saw a hermeneutical correspondence between Israel and Jesus in that both returned from Egypt, which underlined the corporate solidarity between Jesus and Israel, supporting his Messiahship. The fulfilment is not a “prediction”, as described in the past, but a “completion” related to different kinds of correspondences found in Jewish hermeneutical practices of the 1st-century CE (with which the NT authors and their audiences were familiar as most, initially, were Jewish). It makes sense that they would evangelize fellow Jews with OT interpretations based on familiar and already trusted Jewish hermeneutical principles to demonstrate that Jesus is the expected Messiah. The evangelical understanding of how the NT used the OT has and is still progressing from a time when the Jewish hermeneutical context of the 1st-century was absent or avoided as a contextual interpretive tool, to the present time when it is gradually being acknowledged and accepted more widely as an unavoidable exegetical component for NT translation and interpretation.