What does it mean for Scripture to be fulfilled?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘The Salvation of the Lord’ (2001).

You raise a question about a matter of interpretations that is relevant to your studies in Isaiah: that sometimes it is difficult to understand how the New Testament can say that such and such an Old Testament Scripture was fulfilled in such and such an event, because when one looks back to the passage that the New Testament quotes, the facts as given in the Old Testament seem not to bear relationship with the matter quoted in the New. So, let me take some of the examples that are normally and usually quoted.

Out of Egypt I called my Son

We start with Hosea 11:1.

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

The straightforward reading of that verse in Hosea shows that it was not a prediction. This is a reference to something that happened centuries before in history, when Israel was a child, that is, nationally a child. God says, 'Then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt', through Moses and the Passover, of course. Seeing this was a record of an historical event, and didn't begin to be a prediction, how can Matthew say (as he does in fact say) in his nativity stories, that that Scripture was fulfilled? The portion in Matthew is in chapter 2.

Now when [the wise men] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.' (Matthew 2:13–15)

The problem is this. How can the New Testament say that the verse from Hosea, which was never a prediction but referred to an historical event in the past, was fulfilled when the angel told Joseph and Mary to take the child Jesus to Egypt, and eventually indicated that the time was come for them to bring him back out of Egypt? That raises the question, therefore, as to what the New Testament means by the term 'fulfil'. We easily comprehend the term if it is the fulfilment of a prediction, but the New Testament uses the term fulfil, not just of predictions being fulfilled, but of other things that are fulfilled in a somewhat different sense.

Until it is fulfilled in the kingdom

To show that is so, let me quote you now the Gospel by Luke, and the words of our Lord as he sat down at the Last Supper with his apostles.

And he said to them, 'I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' (Luke 22:15–16)

Once more, the Passover was not a prediction. The yearly Passover in Israel was the memorial of a historic act that had taken place more than one thousand years ago, when God delivered the Israelites from the power of Pharaoh. It was a historic event that was celebrated annually thereafter in the Passover. It was not a prediction. So, in what sense can our Lord say that the Passover is going to be 'fulfilled'?

There I suggest to you for your consideration the idea that the verb 'fulfil' in the New Testament is used, not merely of fulfilling prediction; it is used of events in the Old Testament that displayed certain basic principles, and those principles were later put into action at a much higher level. They were thus brought to their fill, thus was there meaning filled up. In other words, the redemption of Israel out of Egypt originally was brought about by the slaying of the Passover lamb that protected Israel from the destroying angel. Redemption by blood, therefore, was the principle used on that occasion. But that same principle of redemption by the blood of the Passover lamb was to be put into operation at a far higher level when our Lord Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice to God on our behalf. 'We are redeemed,' says Peter, 'by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb' (see 1 Peter 1:18–19). By that simile, Peter is drawing our attention to the similarity of principle behind the original Exodus redemption by the blood of a lamb, and the principle at work in sacrifice in our Lord's sacrifice in which we are redeemed by the blood of Christ as of a lamb.

I myself would use the phrase (not all use it of course) that Exodus was a prototype of the sacrifice of Christ. Here is an analogy to explain what I mean by that term. When I was a boy I used to run out of school when aeroplanes flew over. You can tell how old I am. They were funny looking machines, generally biplanes held together with brown paper and a little spit and elastic, but they managed to fly because they incorporated some basic notion of aeronautics, particularly the idea of the aileron, to split the air into the thinner and the thicker underneath that gives lift to the wings. They were, therefore, prototypes of the Boeing 747 that flies at thirty-five thousand feet, because though that is a much more sophisticated aircraft, yet it embodies, still, some of those basic principles of aeronautics. So, those early models were prototypes of the more advanced planes that would come. So were many things in the Old Testament prototypes of the coming great reality.

Concerning Abraham's faith

Let me look at another usage of the New Testament of the verb 'fulfil', this time in James 2.

Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'—and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:20–23)

A number of interesting points arise. The statement in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham believed the Lord and it was counted to him for righteousness, was surely a statement of fact. It wasn't a statement of promise, and it certainly wasn't a prediction. God was not saying, 'Abraham, I predict that, having believed as you have, one of these days you will be justified.' It wasn't a prediction; it was a statement of fact. Abraham believed the Lord, and it was there and then counted to him for righteousness. If it was a statement of fact and not a prediction, how can James say that that statement in Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled by Abraham's works, when he offered up his son on Mount Moriah?

To explain what he means by 'fulfilled' will take us a moment or two. It rests, of course, on our perception of what Abraham was being tested about when God commanded him to offer his son Isaac upon the altar and, in offering his son, he was justified by his works.

Sometimes, inadequate explanations are given of justification by works. I was brought up with such an inadequate explanation. It sounded good; however, it wasn't true. The explanation was that we are 'justified by faith before God; and we are justified by our works before men'. That sounded very good, but it is not quite true, as you see in Abraham's case. When Abraham was justified by his works there weren't any other men around about the place to see it, not even Sarah. And on the positive side, when Abraham offered his son Isaac, and reached for the knife and was going to plunge it into Isaac, the angel of the Lord restrained him and said, 'Do not harm the lad, for now I know that you fear me' (see Genesis 22:12). It is not a question of the Philistines knowing, or Sarah knowing, or anybody else knowing; it was a question of the angel of the Lord knowing: 'Now I know.'

It is useless to argue, 'But God knew in advance, surely?'

Well, surely he did. There are different kinds of knowledge, however. I know, as I sit here, that it is mightily freezing cold in the Antarctic. I know it because I've read it in books. And with what little arithmetic I have (I can count up to ten, at least), I could, I suppose, work it out mathematically that it must be freezing cold at the Antarctic. That is one kind of knowledge. I don't know by having experienced it as a reality. God knew that I was going, one day, to exist. He foresaw it. I'm glad he wasn't content with that and said, 'I know Gooding is going to exist, so we won't go on with the project of actually having him exist.' No, he insisted on knowing it by experience. And God insists that we show him our faith by our works.

So, in what way did Abraham show his faith, and justify himself before God by showing that his faith was genuine? Hebrews 11 explains what was happening when Abraham offered his son Isaac upon the altar. There he was, with Isaac, of whom it was said, 'In you, and in your seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed' (see Hebrews 11:17–18; Genesis 22:18). This is Abraham, who had received the promise that was vested in Isaac by God's own terminology (namely, 'In you, and in your seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed'). Here he was, says Hebrews, offering that son Isaac on the altar.

Think what that must have meant for Abraham. Years ago, he had complained to God that God richly blessed him with much wealth, but he hadn't got a son to inherit it. And God had said, 'I'll give you a son.' And Abraham believed the Lord that he was going to have a son, and it was counted to him for righteousness (see Hebrews 15:1–6). God didn't immediately give him the son, and in the interval Abraham's faith wobbled considerably, and he tried to use Hagar, you remember, and so forth, but God wouldn't accept Ishmael. And, at long last, Isaac was born, and now he had the son, and in him were all the promises. When God comes to Abraham and says, 'Abraham, would you please give me your son,' what was God saying? I think God was saying, 'Abraham, your faith for the future, that in you and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, where is your faith for that located exactly? Is it in me, or in Isaac?'

And Abraham said, 'Oh, Lord, in you of course.'

'And not in Isaac?'

'Well, Lord, in you anyway.'

God says, 'Perhaps we'll make that clear, shall we, Abraham. You give Isaac to me.' Well, if Abraham did that, then all his hope for the future was in God only, and he would be left with nothing but God. He had no hope of having another son. What Abraham was demonstrating by offering Isaac to God on the altar was that his faith was in God. That was the nature of the test. It was not, 'Abraham, if you are really a believer, I ask you to give a bigger, heftier amount to your favourite charity this year than you did last.'

That's a good thing to do, but this was a bigger test. When Abraham said his faith was in God, was that really true? Now when after some years of, as I say, somewhat wobbly behaviour, that original Scripture that said 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness' was put to the test as to where his faith was for the future, Abraham rose to the occasion. He showed his faith was actually and really and genuinely in God, and God only.

In that sense, the original Scripture: 'he believed God' was fulfilled at the highest level of possible demonstration. That, surely, is what James means. It wasn't that Genesis 15 was a prediction; it was that the principle involved in Genesis 15:6 of faith in God was now demonstrated at the highest possible level. His faith was in God and nothing else.

Therefore, it is a somewhat different meaning of the verb 'to fulfil' than maybe we who think of it simply as the fulfilling of a prediction, are accustomed to.

Rachel weeping for her children

Now, let's take another case that has raised a lot of theological eyebrows. This is, again, from Matthew 2, and concerns the slaying of the innocents by Herod when he slew all the little children in Bethlehem under the age of two.

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.' (Matthew 2:17–18)

That is from Jeremiah. Let's keep our thumb in Matthew but turn now to Jeremiah 31:15.

Thus says the LORD: 'A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.' Thus says the LORD: 'Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, declares the LORD, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future, declares the LORD, and your children shall come back to their own country. (Jeremiah 31:15–17)

Notice some things about the passage in Jeremiah. 'A voice is heard in Ramah, . . . Rachel is weeping'. As you notice, it is not an individual woman called Rachel doing the weeping. Rachel stands for Israel, Jacob's favourite wife, buried down in that part of the world (near Bethlehem), but she stands for the nation, as you might talk about 'Mother Russia weeping for her sons'. So Mother Rachel is weeping for her children. She, the ancestress of the Israelites, who is buried in that part of the world. What was she weeping for her children for? Well, presumably at this stage in Jeremiah, it is because a lot of them had been taken away from Zion by their enemies, and gone into captivity. So, Mother Rachel is weeping for her lost citizens, and she is comforted by the thought that there is hope at the latter end, 'your children, your citizens shall come again'. And as Jeremiah had seen, many of the children, so-called, had gone down to Egypt to escape the Babylonians. Now Rachel is being promised that 'your children, that is, your citizens, shall come again, so don't weep'.

If you turn therefore to Matthew, here is a situation where the Messiah himself has been born. He was born in Bethlehem, not far off from where Rachel was buried. If you like, you could say he is one of Mother Rachel's children, but a very special one of course, for he is the Messiah. And now because of the hostility against him in the land of Israel itself, he has been obliged to be taken by his parents down to Egypt. And a voice is heard in Ramah. That is Mother Rachel mourning because of the loss, not only of the infants in Bethlehem, but of the Messiah. If they knew of it they would have grieved even more, wouldn't they? Statistically, people estimate that not more than about twenty children would have perished, the size of Bethlehem being what it was at the time. There weren't great massacres of hundreds of children. It was a small little place, and the number of children under two years of age might not have exceeded twenty or so in the whole village.

You had an impostor on the throne, so to speak. Herod was there in the very nation, to persecute the Messiah. And for the sake of persecuting the Messiah and trying to kill him, he was having the children in Bethlehem all massacred as well; and Mother Rachel would weep at the loss of her children. And now you consider one of the children that Herod's hostility did not manage to kill but drove his family to take him away to escape and go down to Egypt. Yes, if that were the end of it, Mother Rachel would have great occasion to weep. But Matthew is reminding her that she needn't weep too much, because her children shall return. That was the message to Mother Rachel in Jeremiah's time. And you see the thing now fulfilled that the Messiah as a child, having to flee out of the country from the face of the impostor Herod, shall return under God's good promise, and did return and was brought back from Egypt. The situation therefore was not lost.

There is a parallel, therefore, between the two events. What Jeremiah said wasn't a prediction. I don't think Matthew was claiming it was a prediction. It is, once more, the similarity of the principle involved in the Old Testament situation, and between that similarity and this New Testament situation.