Christ found in Isaiah 7:14

In Isaiah seven we have a direct word form the Lord to Ahaz, then king of Judah, also descendant of the line of David. It is his Ahaz’s unbelief that strikes the tone for the context in his refusal to trust God and look to as well as fear Assyria. Therefore the Lord declares that He will give a sign in order to clearly show that God reigns and is not slack in caring for His chosen people, even in their unbelief. The question regarding Isaiah 7:14 is whether it is a prophecy referring strictly to Ahaz’s time, or it is a prophecy referring solely to Christ. Or, is it a combination in that the prophecy was partially fulfilled in Ahaz’s time and finally, or fully, fulfilled with Christ. These options will each be briefly considered and then shown why fulfillment of Isa. 7:14 was strictly a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Immanuel, God with us.

We can quickly conclude, simply relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon New Testament writers that this prophecy is not strictly contained to Ahaz’s time. Matt. 1:22 clearly states that all this took place to fulfill what was spoken about in Isa. 7:14. The scriptures being inerrant and inspired by God (2 Peter 3:16), it is therefore logical to conclude that Isa. 7 was in fact a prophecy from God spoken through the prophet Isaiah finding fulfillment in Christ. To deny fulfillment in Christ would be to deny the authority of the New Testament as scripture.

So then the question now becomes one of perspective. When Isaiah was proclaiming this prophecy, was it intended for fulfillment solely in Christ or was is partially fulfilled with Ahaz’s immediate lineage, Hezekiah, and later fulfilled with Christ? Many commentators contend that Isaiah was predicting the birth of a boy named Immanuel in Ahaz’s time citing both the Hebrew ‘almah’ and the Greek in Matt 1, pleroo[i]. Discussion on the word almah hinges on whether it strictly means virgin or can it be interpreted as young woman. If it means young woman and not virgin then the implication could be that vs. 14 is partially confined to Ahaz’s situation making Isaiah not fully aware of the fulfillment Christ would give to his prophecy but causing Isaiah’s eyes to be veiled in a sense to the final fulfillment of vs. 14[ii]. Thus allowing the prophet only to perceive the immediate time frame of God’s words and cast his eyes to the young woman Abijah bath-Zechariah[iii].

The view then that vs. 14 finds its fulfillment in only Christ I think best fits the context of this section in Isaiah. The word almah may refer to a virgin and most likely does in this context supposing that Immanuel is really God Himself, or so the name implies. If this is true, then the birth of El, that is God, must be of a miraculous nature in keeping with Isaiah’s promise of a sign[iv]. But what then of vs. 15 and 16 if Christ is the restricted means of fulfillment? Christ as God is not restricted to temporal limitations but is very capable of transcending time through His eternality and therefore being apart of, in a real way, a time period before He has come to Earth as a physical person[v]. The fulfillment of vs. 14-16 can still be attributed to Christ in that His eternal presence in Israel’s history, though veiled, satisfies the need for an immediate fulfillment. This also lends to reading Matt 1:22 as a natural and comfortable understanding of what the Spirit through both Isaiah and Matthew was pointing to, Jesus Christ.

The hope that a Messiah, God Himself, would be given as promise of hope, even in light of the total destruction and annihilation of Israel due to her unbelief, and that those who through faith submitted to this future hope would be saved, this may be reason enough for the prophecy to be given such a long time before it ever became fulfilled. Regardless of Ahaz and his poor accountability before the Lord, God was still giving hope for a Messiah that could save and redeem.

---

[i] Beyer, Brian. Encountering the Book of Isaiah. Pg 74. The Greek word Pleroo is described here as having both the understanding of fulfillment but also the understanding of a secondary fulfillment, or “a filling full fulfillment.” If this is the case than Matt 1:22 is evidence that Isa. 7:14 should be understood as being fulfilled both then and in Christ.

 

[ii] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 142-145.

 

[iii] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 141. Keil and Delitzsch point out that this conjecture is very probable in that historically, the majority of believing Israel put their hopes in Hezekiah as the Messiah, but in light of chapter 9 of Isaiah, proclaiming that Immanuel will be “God in corporeal self-manifestation, and therefore a ‘wonder’ as being a superhuman person,(pg 143 of Keil)” coupled with the actual account of Hezekiah still awaiting the day of the Messiah, than it is safe to conclude that Isa 7:14 is not looking immediately in time for fulfillment but ultimately in Christ, the real God-Man.

 

[iv] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 143.

 

[v] Keil & Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Pg 147. “When Isaiah speaks of Immanuel as eating thickened milk and honey, like all who survived the Assyrian troubles in the Holy Land; he evidently looks upon and sees the childhood of Immanuel as connected with the time of the Assyrian calamities. And it was in such a perspective combination of events lying far apart, that the complex character of prophecy consisted. For the things which the prophet saw in combination were essentially connected, even though chronologically separated. When he spoke of the son of the virgin as growing up in the midst of the Assyrian oppressions; this also was true, that Jesus was really born at a time when the Holy Land, deprived of its previous abundance, was under the dominion of the imperial power, and in a condition whose primary cause was to be traced to the unbelief of Ahaz. Moreover, He who became flesh in the fullness of time did really lead an ideal life in the Old Testament History. He was in the midst of it in a pre-existent presence, moving on towards the covenant goal. The fact that the house and nation of David did not perish in the Assyrian calamities, was actually to be attributed, as chapter 8 presupposes, to His real though not His bodily presence. In this way the apparent discrepancy between the prophecy and the history of the fulfillment may be solved.”

Hebrews. A Letter of Undefined Boundaries

What an intimidating book to begin to study, but I know there is so much there that I have to wrap my heart around that it is essential to dive in.  As I look at the layout of the book there seem to be certain themes that show the core message of what’s really going on and I borrow from Dr. Powers in saying that this message shows that the superiority of the Person and work of Christ to things of Judaism demands persevering obedience in faith to the heavenly call despite suffering in order to experience the full blessings of the rest available in Christ as well as to avoid the judgment of God’s discipline. Whew, thats a mouthful, but none the less seems to be accurate.

When one looks at the outline of Hebrews in light of its message there arises an application that truly can’t be missed and is what I think the author of the letter wanted to portray, namely that the Christian life is is a life lived properly only when the believer is focused on and satisfied in Christ.  Let me show you from the book itself to make my point clear.

The book is written to believers and as such the author breaks up his letter into a series of teachings and then immediate warnings derived from the teachings.  If you see chapter 1:1-14 is teaching, namely that the Son is superior to angles and then immediately in 2:1-4 you have the warning to not drift away.  In Heb 2:5-18 the author teaches about the Son’s identification with man and his provision for them, and then he quickly gives his warning in chapter 3:7-4:13.  This pattern continues through out the book with about 5 serious warnings overall.  Each warning the author gives is so extreme that you can not help but ask, is he really talking to believers here?  Well he is, but there is a very unique factor with each of his warnings.  They are not defined.

With each warning the author gives, he says beware, don’t drift away(Heb 2:1-4), don’t fail to enter God’s rest(3:7-4:13), don’t fall away(5:11-6:20), don’t continue in willful sin(10:19-39), don’t fall short or refuse him (12:14-19).  But he does not  give a specific set of rules or a clear boundary line as to when each warning becomes a warning to late, where there is a clear line that the believer should not pass.  Instead the author continually points to Christ.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” Hebrews 12:1-3

Why does he do this? Remember that the point of the whole letter is to show the superiority of Christ to that of a legalistic Judaism (the reason the author wants to do this is because his audience is believed to be 2nd or 3rd generation Jewish Christians who in the face of persecution may be tempted to return to Judaism in order to escape suffering.) and the superiority comes in the power and grace of Christ.  He never gives a clear boundary line or rules that say don’t do this or else you will fall away because he knows that is contrary to the heart of faith.  Faith looks to Christ, as he so elegantly shows us in chapter 11, and does not look to rules saying,” look at me God, look how close I am to the edge…but I haven’t crossed it yet! I’m still following your rules, Lord!”  That was the heart of Judaism which lead to a hard heart, a cold walk, and a non existent relationship with the Father.  Rather Christ, and the author of Hebrews, calls us to look to and rest in Him, continually focusing our attention and satisfaction in the One who is the giver of life, the sustainer and the redeemer.  It was not rules that saved, it was not boundary lines, but Christ and Christ alone.  Keep then focused on Him and worry not about setting up a fence around your life.

There was a study done on children’s playgrounds, and what the study showed was that those playgrounds that were built with a fence surrounding the property, the children would be scattered throughout the play area and a large number of kids would actually be concentrated near or on the fence.  But when those playgrounds without a fence were observed, studies showed that all the kids clumped together in the center of the play area and around the play set, that they found their safety and comfort close together and around a familiar object.  This is so true of human nature, that so often we see just how far we can go with out hitting a fence or just how close we can get to the edge, morally, with out falling off ….we all fall off sooner or later.

Our unknown author has kept his boundaries and warnings undefined with rules knowing that once they’re put in place they become a snare for man, they become his burden and curse and lead not to life but to condemnation.  These undefined boundaries are meant to point us to Him who did not fall, who did not stumble in any way, but was the perfect spotless Lamb, able to give life through His death and become a propitiation(Heb 2:17) on our behalf. “let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.”

Sermon on 2 Corinthians 5:21

I haven’t heard it yet and probably will cringe at hearing my own voice, but if you would like to hear it, the sermon I preached last Sunday (Jan 20th) is posted on the Trinity Community Church website.  It’s on 2 Corinthians 5:21 and our Justification in Christ alone by Faith alone.

Alter Calls: A Denial of Gods Work in Salvation

Where to start? Never with man!  This weekend I am embarking on a retreat with my church’s youth to upstate New York, taking about 50 teenagers to get away, have fun and focus on our Lord.  I am hopeful and excited to spend this weekend with them with the hopes of God doing a miraculous work in their hearts, either bringing them closer in relationship to Him or infact giving them new life altogether.  I am always in prayer for this, before each Bible study, Sunday night youth group, or Sunday School and don’t particulary think that me taking them away this weekend allows God to give life more than any other time, but still I am hopeful. 

   Regardless, there is always a concern I have in taking my kids to this retreat.  There is a preacher on the second day that gives a sermon to all the kids that have come for the weekend (there are other churches there as well) and he always ends with an alter call after a highly emotional driven message.  I’ve never heard a sermon where I walk away saying “Yes, what a wonderful God, worthy to be praised!” or “How I am in need of repenatnce, what wonderful grace Christ has offered!”  I do leave thinking, “I wish there was more Bible.”  And after most of the kids are in tears, the Preacher invites them to the front of the chapel in order to repent, give their lives and pray. 

    Now I am not saying that God is not in the business of using this in order to bring home His own.  God very well could be doing a work in the hearts of various souls there.  What I am nervous about is the false hope he may be giving to those present and the results that usually come from these type of instances.  What is at the foundation of the alter call is the presupposition that the sinner has the ability to bring about regeneration.  That being born again is a matter of someone making a decision for Christ.  That their actual physical action of going up front is them deciding for Christ and that they are therefore now born again.  It is this that disturbs me, that it is in counter distinction with scripture and is really a unique practice (the alter call) not familiar to the majority of the Church’s history. 

“1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.“(John 3:1-8)

Terry Chrisope in a book review of Ian Muuray’s Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring
of American Evangelicalism, 1750-1858, (One of my favorite books to date…I know, I have too many favoritre books.) gives a good account of the issue at hand.  read what he says here.

     “The first and perhaps most fundamental issue to be raised by this book is that of the theology of conversion. Prior to approximately 1830 a Calvinistic conception of human inability and the necessity for the operation of divine grace prevailed among American Protestants except for the Methodists. A corresponding understanding of revival as a sovereign outpouring of divine power accompanied this view. After 1830 the Methodist theology of conversion (known as Arminianism or semi-pelagianism) became gradually but widely accepted. This view sees conversion as dependent on the response of the autonomous human will rather than being the result of the special work of the Holy Spirit. This theology was associated with a new view of revivals, one which saw them as the product of the human means used to promote them. This revised understanding of conversion and revival had no more energetic proponent than Charles G. Finney, whose views came to prevail among American evangelical Protestants…….

Certainly at the center of all these questions, is an issue with which it will be extremely difficult for many [modern churches] to deal objectively and scripturally. It is the issue of the altar call or invitation system (which is not synonymous with inviting people to come to Christ). Murray argues that the use of this device, calling on hearers to respond with some kind of physical movement, such as coming forward in a service, reflects a theology which replaces divine grace with a human ability which is strong enough to respond to God and the demands of the gospel. The older, Calvinistic theology denies any such ability, thus leaving the hearer shut up to divine grace as the only answer to his needs – a grace which must bestow a believing heart as well as forgiveness of sins. The new theology posits full human ability to respond any time one wills to do so; the only thing needed is the presentation to the hearer of the proper motivation to encourage and secure his response. With this view arose the direct appeal to “do something” physical which is embodied in the altar call.

But a great danger is involved here. It is the danger that a physical movement (coming forward) will be confused with a spiritual act (believing on Christ), thus potentially deceiving those who respond with the called-for physical movement. Sadly, such confusion is found too often within [modern Churches] today.

The great difficulty is, of course, that the invitation system has become so institutionalized in [American church] life that many people-laymen as well as pastors and preachers cannot conceive of evangelism taking place in any other way. Indeed, questioning biblical propriety of the altar call would be viewed by many as an assault on evangelism.  And certainly it is the case that the altar call is the means by which evangelists and pastors count converts and by which churches count new members and gauge the effectiveness of preachers. Many people, therefore, will feel threatened by the suggestion that the invitation system as it is commonly practiced is the outgrowth of bad theology. And yet, a careful perusal of the history presented by Murray indicates that this is precisely the case. The altar call was the central innovation of revivalism, the practical and symbolic embodiment of its theology. Its elimination may be the first necessary step toward the recovery of genuine revival.”

Now again, I do not mean to say that God can not do His sovereign work at this weekends coming retreat, by all means I pray for it, I do not want to foster cynicism and a disgust for what they will hear that may be used by God to turn their dead hearts into living flesh.  But I do go with a watchful (and prayeful) eye and do plan to continually present a true offer of the Gospel to those who will hear me, including the teaching of their total depravity and all.  Ultimately, I will have more time with my kids than the preacher ever will, so for this, again, I look forward to our trip.  I mean, where else do you get to see kids intertubing down snow filled slopes ending in an onslaught of icing, sprite and pudding being thrown at them or donuts being launched 50 feet in the air with a tiny 7th grade girl, usually quiet and secluded, being cheered on by friends to catch the donut in her braces filled mouth?  Lets pray that God uses those donuts (and His Word being preached) to knock spiritual life in their souls!

Charles Simeon and Expository Preaching

The study, art and practice of preaching, Bible preaching, has been a major focus of mine with in the past couple of months. I just read through D. Martyn Lloyd Jones Preaching and Preachers, and exactly as was promised to me before I read it, I came away from that book deeply in love with the art of biblical preaching. As I was walking out of school today, I saw someone had left me some papers in my school mailbox. It turned out to be two essays on Preaching. I immediately recognized them from a book my pastor is reading entitled Preach the Word: Essays on Expository Preaching, and they were two essays; first from J.I. Packer and the second from Peter Jensen, who, by the way, I just had the honor of hearing him preach at Capitol Hill Baptist Church about a month ago.

I just finished reading Packer’s essay entitled Expository Preaching: Charles Simeon and Ourselves, and I can not keep from writing about it. First and foremost, this book needs to be picked up just to read the essays contained in it. I haven’t had a chance to get it yet for myself, but just from these two essays alone, I think it’s safe to assume the rest are just as good. J.I. Packer has done an excellent job in making the reader completely forget that Packer wrote it. You are immediately drawn into the life of Charles Simeon, who has quickly become one of by favorite historical figures to read about.

Charles Simeon, born in 1759, lived a life of servitude to his Lord Jesus Christ that is marked by genuine humility, perseverance in the face of constant persecution, and perhaps most notably, his ability to preach the Bible honestly, powerfully, and effectively. What was so important to Simeon though, was that the Bible be preached in an expository manner. Packer eases the reader in to the nitty gritty with this statement:

“Our own constant suspicion, I think, is that our own preaching contains too much of man and not enough of God. [Does this not sound exactly like the definition of preaching constant topical sermons to you, it does to me?] We have an uneasy feeling that the hungry sheep who look up are not really being fed. It is not that we are not trying to break the bread of life to them; it is just that, despite ourselves, our sermons turn out dull and flat and trite and tedious and, in the event, not very nourishing. We are tempted (naturally) to soothe ourselves with the thought that the day of preaching is past, or that zealous visiting or organizing makes sufficient amends for ineffectiveness in the pulpit; but then we re-read 1 Cor. ii. 4— “my speech and my preaching was . . . in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”—and we are made uneasy again, and the conclusion is forced upon us once more that something is missing in our ministry. This, surely, is the real reason why we Evangelicals today are so fascinated by the subject of expository preaching: because we want to know how we can regain the lost authority and unction which made Evangelical preaching mighty in days past to humble sinners and built up the Church. When we ask: what is expository preaching? our question really means: how can we learn to preach God’s Word “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”? What is the secret of the preaching that achieves what our own sermons are failing to achieve?”

For Simeon, preaching a text was not finding a certain text in which you could use Sunday to make a point that has been consuming you or the church’s mind. A preachers job is not to find texts in order to substantiate a certain theological camp and make certain your parishioners are of like mind, no, the point of the sermon was “precisely exposition, bringing out of the texts what God had put in them.”

Expository sermons must be preached from the text, it must have a doctrinal substructure, they will always, if honest to the biblical text, be theocentric in perspective, and always, the sermon must be preached with power; believe it to preach it, don’t preach it to believe it. The Bible was meant to be openly and somberly explored in such a way that the meaning God meant for it to have could clearly come through to its hearers.

“The text chosen should so shape the sermon “that no other text in the Bible will suit the discourse” and nothing foreign to the text must be allowed to intrude. For the prime secret of freedom and authority in preaching, as Simeon was well aware, is the knowledge that what you are saying is exactly what your text says, so that your words have a proper claim to be received as the Word of God.”

Lastly, Packer ends with a most serious and ever so real challenge to todays preachers, a challenge Simeon both met and exemplified, and that is of course personal holiness. The sermon, the preaching, is only so good as the man himself. An effective sermon can only truly come from the heart of a man who has been so influenced and changed by the Gospel and Christ himself. His heart must long for, search for, and see God ever before any words can be spoken for others to search and see God. Packer says this.

“Simeon himself is our example here. The feature of his preaching which most constantly impressed his hearers was the fact that he was, as they said, “in earnest”; and that reflected his own overwhelming sense of sin, and of the wonder of the grace that had saved him; and that in turn bore witness to the closeness of his daily fellowship and walk with his God. As he gave time to sermon preparation, so he gave time to seeking God’s face. “The quality of his preaching,” writes the Bishop of Bradford, “was but a reflection of the quality of the man himself. And there can be little doubt that the man himself was largely made in the early morning hours which he devoted to private prayer and the devotional study of the Scriptures. It was his custom to rise at 4 a.m., light his own fire, and then devote the first four hours of the day to communion with God. Such costly self-discipline made the preacher. That was primary. The making of the sermon was secondary and derivative.” That was primary. If our question is: where is the Lord God of Charles Simeon? we now have our answer. As so often with God’s answers, it takes the form of a counter-question: where are the preachers who seek after the Lord God as Simeon did? This, surely, is the final word, if not of Simeon, at least from God through Simeon, to us who would preach the gospel of Christ in the power of God’s Spirit today. God help us to hear it, and to heed it.”

Thanks be to God for giving us men like Charles Simeon to whom we may look to as encouragement and mentors.