Romans 9
The Messiah: God Incarnate
We’re in Romans
9 and we’re going to look tonight at a major doctrine in verses 4 and 5 related
to the deity of Christ. This is one of about five key verses that clearly and
profoundly state the deity of Christ in the New Testament. We’ve gone through a
series of background studies in the last few weeks to this chapter because
often it’s important to understand issues before you get into a section. It
helps you to understand and think about what you’re reading in relation to
those particular issues.
If you’re
reading an article in an editorial in a journal or you’re going to watch, let’s
say, a documentary and you don’t know it’s controversial, you don’t know the
background on the different sides, it’s very easy to miss a lot of what’s said.
If you take time to become educated on the issues before you watch the film or
read the book, then what you’re watching has a lot more significance for you.
You can watch it with discernment. The same thing is true when you’re reading
Scripture. A lot of people pick up the Bible to read it but they really have no
framework. There’s no instruction, no comprehension of what the issues are.
Unfortunately
they start with the first book. If it’s a New Testament they’ll start with
Matthew and there’s this long genealogy in chapter one. They’ll start in
Genesis and there are long genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10 and 11 and
they don’t really understand what this all about. They decide it means nothing
so they set the Bible down.
There needs to
be guidance and direction and that is why pastors and Bible teachers are
provided for church. But not all Bible teachers and pastors are cut from the
same cloth. Not too many really know and understand the Bible. Even training
and formal seminary training does not guarantee they’ll know very much. I’ve
certainly seen men who haven’t had much Bible training fall by the wayside and
get diverted into strange paths but I’ve also seen that with men with formal
training. I’ve seen it more with those who don’t have training because they
don’t know much about the issues. Some are somewhat slavishly dependent on
someone else and they never learn to develop any level of critical thinking
skills on their own. That’s important for all of us.
Everyone starts
off in life becoming somewhat dependent on the people who guide them. They take
every opinion that mentor has as if it’s handed down from Mount Sinai. Then as
we grow and mature in understanding any time we read articles or books written
by other people and learn other things, it helps us to be able to
self-critique. That’s how we grow in our knowledge and understanding of
anything.
Romans 9-11 are
critical chapters today. Whether you realize it or not you are living and are
players in one of the great conflicts of the angelic conflict. That is the
battle over Israel and the role of ethnic Jews in history. That plays a part as
I pointed out in the whole trajectory of anti-Semitism because part of the role
and part of the objective and strategy of Satan since he lost at the cross is
to try to prevent God from able to fulfill his promises to the Jewish people.
So in much of Christian history, sadly, church historians got off track in the
early part of the church age and bought into an allegorical form of interpretation
and later they used, in the early Reformation, a historicist form of
interpretation.
That means they
thought they could see from the things going on in history the fulfillment of
history in their lifetime. They misidentified a lot of things and caused a lot
of problems just as allegory did. It wasn’t until the post-post Reformation
period, so to speak, the late 1500’s to the 1600’s that this whole issue of
literal hermeneutics or literal interpretation began to be consistently
developed and applied to every Scripture. It has taken many centuries for that
to work itself out in a lot of areas and it’s very important.
Last week I
mentioned I was reading a book by a man named Robert O. Smith. His book is More Desired than
Our Own Salvation: The Roots of Christian Zionism. He’s a co-moderator of a
forum on the Palestinian issue in the World Council of Churches and he
definitely and specifically states that he is out to defend the view that
Christian Zionism is the polar opposite of Jewish Zionism and is very
dangerous. He’s brilliant and that always makes him more dangerous. He’s done
an incredible amount of research, which means it’s a wealth of good
information. You have to watch for all those little points where he slides his
post-modern interpretive framework in. He uses words like “well that’s the
construction of that view or history” or “we need to recognize how they
constructed the narrative”. The term “construction” and “narrative” are
buzzwords for modernism.
Every group has
their own “narrative”. They say there’s no meta-narrative that’s absolute. We
would say that the Bible gives us an absolute meta-narrative from God and that
is what we use to inform us of everything. In post-modernism there’s no
absolute objective narrative. You can’t know truth. There are no absolutes. Of
course, that’s the core problem. When you make a statement like that you’re
uttering an absolute. You’re saying, “There are no absolutes.” Is that an
absolute? Yes. We have one absolute so that negates that basic assumption.
Nevertheless this is what governs a lot of history and his agenda, like the
agenda of many others, is to discredit Bible-believing evangelicals who support
Israel.
Ground zero for
understanding God’s whole issue of God’s plan for Israel and the distinction
between Israel and the Church is this passage, Romans 9-11. Now we started off
with Paul’s very personal statement here, “I am telling the truth in Christ, I
am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit…” He’s saying
these things to reinforce that this is his personal conviction and his personal
view and that he has great sorrow in verse 2 and “continual sorrow in my
heart.” He is definitely hurt and harmed by the Jewish rejection of the gospel
message that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah prophesied and promised from the
Old Testament.
Paul has been
at the heart of this particular battle and is one of a long list among
Christian leaders who have been libeled and maligned. Those even in the Jewish community,
and in most cases in the Gentile community who have rejected Christianity have
distorted his positions. There is a passage in Acts 21 which describes part of
the attack upon him. This is when he is on the way to Jerusalem and he receives
a warning that there are many there who are going to be opposed to him. In
verse 19 of Acts 21 we read, “And when he had greeted them [leaders of the
church in Jerusalem] he began to relate one by one the things which God had
done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they
glorified the Lord and they said to him, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands
there are who have believed and they are all zealous for the Law.’ ”
Now that last
phrase is very important because in the Jerusalem they are zealous for the Law
but not as a way of salvation or of sanctification. This is their tradition.
It’s their history. This is who they are as ethnic Jews. This is why they still
worship in the Temple. It’s not because they were adding that to what Christ
did but what Christ had done on the Cross made the sacrifices so much more
meaningful for them. The Temple still stood and they were still under the
Abrahamic covenant so this was important to them and they’re in this transition
period.
That’s one of
the things that hasn’t always been emphasized in church history. It’s usually
that when we read, “they were zealous for the Law” there’s this knee-jerk wrong
reaction saying, “Oh, they were legalists.” No. This is a positive statement by
James and the leaders of the Jerusalem church affirming how many Jews had
become regenerate Christians believing in Jesus as the Messiah. They had
believed and they were zealous for the Law because they believe it’s still
good.
Paul said in
Romans 7 that the Law is still good and righteous and holy. He didn’t say the
Law is evil and nasty and you should ignore it. He just says it’s not there for
your justification or for your sanctification. Then they go on to say in verse
21, “And they have been told about you…” This is the propaganda machine, the
big lie against Christianity that’s generating the slander against Paul. “And
they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the
Gentiles to forsake Moses.” Did Paul teach that? Not at all. Saying they ought
not to circumcise their children.” No, he did not tell them that. They were
still under the Abrahamic covenant.
Circumcision
was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant and it’s still in effect today for the
Jews. Just because they are in Christ doesn’t negate who they are as
descendants of Abraham and if that covenant is still in effect, and we believe
it is, then that’s why we believe it’s important for Christians to support
Israel. Circumcision is still in effect in relation to that but it doesn’t do
anything for you to make you more savable, a better Christian, or it doesn’t
make you spiritual. It’s just a sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
So the big lie
said that what Paul did was to tell them to forsake Moses, that they should not
circumcise their children, nor “should they walk according to their customs.”
Notice that’s an important word there. In understanding cultural differences,
there are definite cultural differences. There are ways in which different
cultures worship. There are ways in which different cultures do things and it
is neither right nor wrong. That’s how groups in Africa conduct their worship
services. It has nothing to do with a Biblical absolute. If you’re in a Chinese
church, if you’re in a Hispanic church, often they do things differently. Some
things may be right. Some things may be wrong, but generally speaking they are
just cultural distinctives.
This is one of
the things that were going on in the early church. Sometimes it takes place
today in Messianic Christian congregations where their whole structure is much
more like the synagogue than the church, but only because that’s their
background. It doesn’t have anything to do with a Biblical absolute. So there’s
nothing in Scripture that says you start church at a certain time, you sing two
hymns, you pray, take up the offering, have the sermon, and then close in
prayer. That’s not handed down from Mount Sinai, the Mount of Olives, or the
Throne of God. That is just the cultural way in which English background
American churches have developed their order of service. Paul was not going
after their culture. He was not attacking their customs. This became a major
issue and Paul has been much maligned.
Let’s go back
to Romans 9. So Paul has great sorrow because he has borne the brunt of this
rejection and this hostility. We’ve traced this in our study in Acts on Tuesday
nights where he’s gone to places like Pisidia, Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and
Lystra where crowds develop and where he is basically run out of town, in some
places arrested, and other places like Philippi he’s beaten with rods. He’s
thrown in jail. He’s run out of town. They chase him to the next town like they
do in Thessalonica. These crowds persecute him.
In 2nd
Corinthians he lists many of the things that went on. Many times he’s in
prison, he’s jailed, he’s shipwrecked three times [we only know of one of these
from Acts], all of these things happened. A lot of it is directed from the
Jewish community to Paul and it breaks his heart because he understands that
above all things God sent His son Christ Jesus to His people and His people
rejected Him. That’s John 1:11. John 1:12 contrasts it, a well-known verse that
says, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become
children of God, even to those who believe in His name.”
So we see this
emphasis of God first to the Jew. That was Paul’s first methodology, to take
the gospel first to the Jewish community and then to the Gentiles. So it has
broken his heart to watch the rejection of the Promise of God, the Messiah, and
all the blessing that would come with it by his Jewish brethren. So he then
states in a somewhat hyperbolic manner how seriously he takes this. He says,
“For I could wish that I, myself, were accursed from Christ for the sake of my
brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh…” This word translated accursed is
the word anathema, the same word
that he uses over in Galatians 1:7 when he talks about if anyone preaches
another gospel, that is, a gospel of a different kind, let them be accursed.
Let them come under the judgment and condemnation of God.
So he says, “I
wish I, myself, were accursed…” This is not just an idiomatic statement. He is
making a statement that is on the border of saying, “I would give up my personal
salvation if my countrymen would only turn to the gospel and accept Jesus as
their Messiah.” He says, “I wish I could be accursed from Christ—apo tou christou in the Greek. apo
is the preposition of separation, similar to its synonym ek and it has to do with severing or
separating someone from something so he says, “I wish I were anathema separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren.”
Here he’s
talking about ethnic Israel. The point I made a couple of weeks ago is that in
this chapter we’re talking about God’s plan for ethnic Israel. That includes
national Israel but it’s a broader term because not all of the Jews returned to
the land and make up the nation, even in the first century. Much more than
two-thirds of the Jews were not living in the historic Jewish homeland. They
were already into deep diaspora, which began first in 722 B.C. with the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of
Israel by the Assyrians and then in 586 B.C. when the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed
the Southern Kingdom. Here’s he’s stating very strongly that he wished he could
be accursed in place of his brethren.
This is the
same preposition we use when we talk about “Christ died for the ungodly.” He
died in their place. Paul is using that same preposition for substitution. Then
he says again, “my countrymen”. The brethren are defined as “my countrymen
according to the flesh.” Now this type of expression of grief in relation to
Jewish apostasy toward God is very similar to that we find among the prophets
in the Old Testament. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel mention that two-thirds of the
Jews living at the time of the destruction of the temple in 586 were killed. He
says one-third and then later, one-third again and that’s a combined
two-thirds. This is important because in Zechariah it talks about two-thirds of
the Jews are going to be killed in the great tribulation, clearly a different
context after the return of the exile. So here we’re going to have the same
kind of thing expressed by Paul.
The reason I make
this point is that in communicating with and reading issues related to Jews and
Christians, one of the things that gets brought up is, “You Christians are
really anti-Semitic because you just want Jesus to come back because so many
Jews are going to be killed during the tribulation.” We need to be able to
answer that by saying that, “That’s not a uniquely Christian belief. That
actually comes out of an Old Testament prophecy. In fact the Old Testament
prophets are usually not read by Jews at all so they’re very ignorant of the
prophetic portion of the Old Testament. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel,
Zachariah are all passages that make very harsh statements of condemnation
against their fellow Jews because of their apostasy toward God.
Apostasy means
to fall away from the truth of the Scripture and their idolatry. Because of
that they come under condemnation and this is expressly stated as to why the
Northern Kingdom was defeated by the Assyrians and the Southern Kingdom was
defeated by the Babylonians.
Jeremiah 4:19
says, “My soul, my soul! I am in anguish! Oh, my heart!” He just cries out in
pain. The whole book of Lamentations is like this but I just picked a couple of
examples out of Jeremiah who wrote Lamentations as well. “My heart is pounding in
me. I cannot be silent because you have heard O my soul, the sound of the
trumpet, the alarm of war.” So he is expressing his deep distress of grief
because the Jewish people in his generation had rejected God. Jeremiah 14:17,
“You will say this word to them, let my eyes flow down with tears night and
day, and let them not cease, for the virgin daughter of my people has been
crushed with a mighty blow, with a sorely infected wound.”
Then Daniel,
after he’s counted up the time and realizes the seventy years of exile are near
the end, says in Daniel 9:3, “I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him
by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes.” This is no
different from the kind of sorrow and grief that Paul is expressing. Paul puts himself
in the same place as the Old Testament prophets. Isaiah 35:10 as well as 51:11
mirror each other. “And the ransomed of the Lord will return…” This is the
future plan of God, after they have been taken out of the land under
discipline, they shall return and “come to Zion with singing and with
everlasting joy upon their heads. They will find gladness and joy and sorrow
and sighing will flee away.” It’s the promise that though there is a temporary
discipline on Israel there is a future restoration of the nation, which has not
occurred yet. It’s not this restoration that’s going on now. This is just a
prelude to the one that is spoken of by the prophets because that’s a worldwide
restoration where they have returned in acceptance of the Messiah.
Now we turn to
Romans 9:4 where Paul identifies his people. Verse 4 continues the sentence
that he’s speaking about his brethren, his countrymen according to the flesh
and then Israelites, which makes it very clear they are the descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “To whom belong adoption as sons, and the glory and
the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the
promises.” These are all presents to the Jewish people. In verse 5 he says,
“Whose are the fathers, [the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] and from
whom is the Christ [Messiah] according to the flesh, who is over all. God
blessed forever. Amen.”
Jesus is the
name of His humanity. It is from the Hebrew word Yeshua. Joshua is from the same verb. It
means to save or to deliver. Jesus, as Gabriel announced to Mary, came to save
his people from their sins so he was to be called Jesus. His title is the
Messiah. In the Hebrew that’s Mashiach and in the Greek it’s
christos. That refers to
his title as his role in history. The affirmation of his deity is expressed
through the addition of the word Lord that is simply to identify that He is
considered to be God. So here we have this statement that in verses 4 and 5,
that the Israelites still possess the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the
giving of the Law, the service of God.
Now in terms of
the adoption this goes back to God’s rescue and deliverance of Israel from
slavery in Egypt. In Exodus 4:22 God says, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” In
Exodus 19:6 this is an expansion on 4:22 talking about the role of Israel, He
says, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the
words you shall speak to the children of Israel.” Jeremiah 31:9 uses that same
verbiage from Exodus 4:22 that “I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my
firstborn.” Hosea 11:1 says, “When Israel was a child I loved him and out of
Egypt I called My son.” This emphasizes the adoption.
Israel, as a
nation, was adopted by God and had a unique role to play among all of the nations.
They are to be a kingdom of priests, not just to have a tribe of priests but
the nation of Israel is to the rest of the world what the Levites were to the
other eleven tribes of Israel. The nation is to be a kingdom of priests. Then
we look at the phrase “the glory” in Romans 9:4. This is often the way in which
you had a circumlocution, which just means another way of saying it, a
reference to God’s personal presence in the tabernacle and later in the temple.
In Exodus 16:10
we read, “Now it came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the
sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory
of the Lord appeared in the cloud.” We often refer to this as the shekinah
glory. The word shekinah does not
appear in the Old Testament. The verb form shakan does, which means to dwell. The shekinah
actually refers to the dwelling presence of God. Shakan is also the word that is used for
the tabernacle, the dwelling place of God, and it comes across in Greek as skene and it actually
has cognates in a number of other languages including Russian. All of these
other languages that use this word have the same meaning that is a dwelling
place. Exodus 24:17 says, “And to the eyes of the sons
of Israel the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on
the mountain top.” So the glory here is always a reference to the dwelling
presence of God, and it relates to the service of God, which took place in the
tabernacle and later in the temple.
The next word
we have in Romans 9 verse 4 is diatheke
or the covenants. That’s plural, more than one covenants. So let’s have a
little review here for everyone on the covenants. There are eight Biblical
covenants. There are also two theological covenants that have been developed by
what is covenant theology but they don’t really have anything to do with the
Bible because they are never mentioned in the Bible. They are theological
extrapolations that are not based on the text. They’re called the covenant of
works and the covenants of grace. The other day as I was leaving from church on
Sunday I turned on KHCB. Usually at
noon I hear one of the Baptist preachers but some covenant theologian was on
last Sunday and he was giving an explanation of the covenant of works and the
covenant of grace. I listened to him to find out what he was saying, but those
aren’t Biblical covenants. Those are theological constructs that were developed
in Reform Theology.
There are eight
Biblical covenants and they are divided between the Gentile covenants and the
Jewish covenants. The Gentile covenants all relate to one another. They grow
out of the original creation covenant, which has often been called the Edenic
Covenant because this is the agreement that God made with Adam in the Garden of
Eden before there was ever any sin. This is embedded in Genesis 1:27-28 and
says that God was creating man in His image and likeness to rule over the face
of the earth, to rule over the beasts of the field, and the birds of the sky,
and the fish of the sea. This covenant was broken at the fall. Now it’s never
called a covenant in Scripture but later on in Hosea there’s a passage that
talks about how all mankind broke the covenant with God.
Israel has
broken the covenant with God just like Adam broke the covenant with God. That’s
a clear indication that {whether it’s mankind or Adam there’s a lot of debate
over how to translate that but doesn’t really matter in this debate} because
mankind in Adam broke a covenant which means that even though Genesis 1 never
mentions the word covenant Hosea tells us that Adam’s sin was a breach of a
covenant. So that breaks the covenant. We’ve studied this is in the past.
After Adam and
Eve sinned God announces various consequences of their disobedience. That
redefines the issues of the covenant because each of the things God says in
relation to the serpent, to the woman, and to the man has something to do with
modifying the commandments that God had originally issued to Adam, the woman,
and to the animals as being subservient to man in Genesis 1.
The flood comes
and again because it’s a different environment and different circumstances,
there’s another modification of the covenant. The Noahic covenant is very
similar and has similar verbiage, similar mandates, “man is to go forth, multiply,
and fill the earth”. It is clearly spoken of as a covenant and we’re still
under the Noahic covenant. The sign of the covenant with Noah is the rainbow.
As long as we see a rainbow we’re to remember that God has promised that He
will not ever again destroy the earth by flood. He will destroy it by fire but
He won’t destroy it by flood. It also includes within the Noahic covenant, the
mandate that whenever a human being sheds the blood of another human being,
which means murder, that it is the responsibility of man to take the life of
the murderer. So God Himself handed down the mandate to believers and
unbelievers.
It is a
creation ordinance for all human beings to execute certain forms of criminals. When
the Supreme Court of the land comes in and says we shouldn’t execute murderers
or do it in ways that delay it for fifteen, twenty, or thirty years, this is a
violation of God’s covenant. It’s the covenant we should be reminded of
whenever we see the rainbow. This is God’s mandate. The same thing is true when
it comes to eating meat. In the Noahic covenant, God says that we should now
eat meat. Before that, man was vegetarian, but after the flood man was to eat
meat.
Many people
have different reasons for limiting their intake of red meat but if you come up
with any sort of philosophical or theological rationale for it, it violates the
covenant. You may have health issues, digestive issues, whatever it might be to
cause you not to eat very much meat, but if you come up with any kind of
universal principle that vegetarianism is in and of itself superior to any
other form of dietary philosophy, then you’re just dead wrong. You’re in
violation of God. All of these are in the Noahic covenant so when you see a
rainbow, you should go out and eat a steak and rejoice in the fact that
murderers should be executed and God is not going to flood us out again. There
may be local floods but no universal flood.
Then there are
the Jewish covenants. The Jewish covenants are all grounded in the first one,
which is the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis, which emphasizes God’s promises of
a certain piece of real estate in the Middle East known as Israel as the
possession of the Jewish people for eternity. It’s an eternal covenant. It says
that there would be a seed or descendants that would be more numerous than the
stars of heaven or the sands of the seashore and that they would be a blessing
to all people. The land promise is expanded on in the real estate covenant in
Deuteronomy 30 and the seed promise in the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 and
the blessing promise expanded in the New covenant in Jeremiah 31 to 33.
Now there’s one
temporary Jewish covenant in Exodus 20–40 known as the Law. It was
designed to be temporary. It was not permanent but the other covenants are all
eternal. We’ve studied that the three elements of the Abrahamic covenant are
land, seed, and blessing. The land promise is developed in Deuteronomy 30 and
it’s very clear when God says, “This is a covenant other than the one I gave at
Horeb/Sinai” which was the Mosaic Law. In this covenant God binds Himself,
makes this unilateral agreement to give the land to Israel in perpetuity. It is
theirs forever. Now they don’t get to enjoy it unless they’re obedient but it’s
still there. Even when they’re out of the land in the Old Testament they can
come back to it because it’s still theirs. Whether they’re gone seventy years,
seven hundred years or fourteen or eighteen hundred years, that land is still
theirs.
That applies
today. That’s a Biblical argument that every Bible-believing Christian should
affirm. No Bible-believing Christian should ever take the side of the
Palestinians in terms of the major argument. They don’t have a right to the
land biblically. Now there are other arguments that need to be developed
because there are a lot of people who really don’t care about history or the
Bible. The historical argument is that Jews have always lived in the land
throughout all of the last three thousand years. Most were removed but there
have been steady, stable Jewish populations within the Promised Land since the
destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. They were
never totally, completely removed from the land. The land is theirs.
They started to
return in numbers by the end of the 19th century so that now it’s
almost reached a point where it’s just below half of the Jews in the world live
in Israel. It hasn’t quite reached the halfway point yet but it’s very, very
close. So this land is theirs, historically and Biblically. Legally, it was
granted to the Jewish people as a national homeland by the League of Nations
when they affirmed the San Remo Resolutions, which were an addendum to the
Treaty of Paris at the end of World War I. This was agreed to by 55 member
nations of the League of Nations and when the U.N. came into power to replace the League of Nations,
part of the U.N. charter was
that they were to uphold and enforce all treaties that were signed under the
auspices of the League of Nations. They rapidly ignored and forgot San Remo. So
the U.N. is in
violation of international law and the PLO and the Hamas are all in violation of international
law.
Most people in
the world are willingly ignorant of international law and just ignore it. We
claim to be people who are law-abiding and law affirming and a people who live
by the law and yet we ignore the law when it’s convenient. That is a major
travesty. The Davidic covenant is stated in 2 Samuel 7 when God promises that
the Messiah will come through the line of David, a royal line. He will become
the King of Israel. Then the New covenant is a promise related to spiritual
blessing for the Jewish people when they accept the Messiah, Jesus, as theirs
and this goes into effect when the Messiah comes to establish His future
Kingdom. So those are the basic covenants.
The Davidic
covenant promises an eternal house, an eternal kingdom, and an eternal throne
to the line of David. That culminated in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So then in Romans 9:5 we have another statement related to the covenants and
the giving of the Law, which took place in Mount Sinai and then the service of
the temple, which relates back to the statement that we read earlier in verse
4. That took place in the temple and in the service of the priesthood in the
tabernacle and in the temple.
Lastly, the
phrase, the promises relates to these promises that were given in the
covenants, the covenants that God made to Abraham, that the land would belong
to his descendants forever. The Jewish people are then further defined in verse
5 as “Of whom are the fathers [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] and from whom the Yeshua
[Jesus, in the Greek]. That reflects the Hebrew term, the Messiah, Mashiach.
“From whom according to the flesh.” I’ve retranslated this verse. The New King
James reads, “Of whom are the fathers, according to the flesh, Christ came…”
“Came” is in italics because there’s no verb for “come” here. A literal
translation following the word order and the verbiage of the Greek would be “Of
whom are the fathers and from whom the Messiah according to the flesh…” It’s
emphasizing that the Messiah came according to His humanity, which came from
Jewish ethnic stock.
And then we
have this statement that, “The Messiah is over all and the eternally blessed
God.” Actually the way this reads in the Greek is “the one who is over all, the
blessed God, eternal.” The adjectives come after the noun so that would be
accurately translated, “the eternally blessed God.” This is a very clear
statement that the Messiah, Christ, is God. A lot of people don’t realize how
many so-called Bible scholars today are really antagonistic to the Bible. A lot
of times you’ll watch these shows on television about the Bible on the history
channel, the Discovery channel, and some of the other channels and they quote a
lot of so-called Bible scholars but they don’t believe in anything the Bible
said. They’re always reconstructing the Biblical narrative. They often have
people on there who aren’t even really sure if anyone named Jesus actually
lived in spite of the evidence.
There’s a lot
of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived and walked upon the earth but if you
listen to these extreme liberal theologians what they claim is that these
things called the gospels were really written one, two, or even three hundred
years after the time of Christ. Now that was a view that was floated back in
the 19th century and it gained ground and people still repeat it but
modern scholarship doesn’t agree with that. In fact, there are a number of
liberals and non-Christians, who just on the basis of historical evidence and
archeology recognize that the gospels are what they claim to be. They were
written within thirty or forty years of Christ’s death, and the events
described in the New Testament took place historically.
There was a man
by the name of A. T. Robinson who published a book called Honest to God back in the early 1960s.
He was one of the first to promote the so-called death of God theology. In another
book he wrote on the New Testament he stated that all of the books in the New
Testament were written before 60 A.D. That is
earlier than most traditional Bible scholars would put them. But he says
they’re from an earlier time.
There’s a
deceased professor of New Testament at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem named
David Flusser who is Jewish and he has written several books on the life of
Christ. Although they are many things I disagree with him about he clearly
states the gospels are accurate, historical records of the life of Jesus of
Nazareth. You just can’t let people get away with saying, “Oh, you know those
Gospels weren’t written when they claim to have been written. They were just
legends that were written down many hundreds of years later.” Anyone who says
that is just someone who’s repeating something they’ve heard or they have an
anti-Bible agenda but they don’t know the facts. They may not believe the facts
and there are many people who don’t believe the facts but there are many, objective
anti-Christian scholars who do affirm that the New Testament was written in the
1st century. They just don’t want to believe it.
So the gospels
were written very early and as a part of the claim of the gospels it’s that
Jesus claimed to be God and was God. It’s not something that later church
theologians imposed upon Jesus. In fact, if we go back and we look at the Old
Testament that the prediction from the Old Testament was that the Messiah would
not only be human would also be God. I think it’s important to have at your
command from the Old Testament to be able to show that the expectation from the
prophets of the Old Testament was that when the Messiah came, He was not just a
man; He was the God-man. Now we see that in the Old Testament you have two streams
of prophecy. One predicts a divine Messiah and another predicts a human Messiah
and these two streams of prophecy come together in the person of Jesus of
Nazareth.
The Old
Testament clearly articulates a position of a human and a divine Messiah. Let
me walk you through two or three of these important passages. Let’s look first
and foremost at Isaiah 7:14. This is showing that the expectation of the Old
Testament was that the Messiah, who is Jesus, would be fully God. There are two
issues that go on in this verse. One is whether this is really a Messianic
prophecy. There are some evangelical scholars today that say it’s not, that
it’s actually a prophecy that was fulfilled by Isaiah’s son, and it was just
applied to Jesus later on. Now I don’t believe that because they haven’t paid
enough attention to their Hebrew text or they’d know it wasn’t accurate.
The other issue
is the meaning of this word that’s translated “virgin”. Is it really talking about
a virgin or is it just talking about a young lady? That got a lot of attention
back in the 1950’s when the Revised Standard translation was first published.
They didn’t translate Isaiah 7:14 as “a virgin will be with child.” They
translated it “a young woman will be with child.” All of the evangelicals who
got that version threw their RSV in the trash
and it caused a great stink. Some of you might remember that. Many evangelicals
for decades wouldn’t touch an RSV because it
reflected this apostasy.
Let’s look at
this passage. The context here has to be understood. It is at a time when Ahaz,
the king of Judah,
which is the Southern Kingdom, was at war with the Northern Kingdom. The king
of the Northern Kingdom was aligning himself with Syria and other traditional
enemies with Israel. We read in the first verse, “Now it came about in the days
of Ahaz, the son of Jothan, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the
king of Aram [Syria] and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel went up to
Jerusalem to wage war against it.”
Now why is it
that the Northern Kingdom is in alliance with the Syrians? Just think about
today. This would be like everybody in the northern part of Israel saying they
are going to ally themselves with Assad and attack Jerusalem. Why in the world
would they do that? Well, they wanted to do that because the king in Jerusalem
was a descendant of David and they wanted to destroy the house of David. They
wanted to put a puppet king on the throne in Judah to do what they wanted them to
do. They were hostile to the house of David.
This is very
important to understand, that this is about maintaining a ruler from David on
the throne. Remember what the Davidic covenant said? God promised an eternal
throne, an eternal dynasty, and an eternal house to David. So all of the kings
on the throne of Judah were descendants of David. Now the king that’s there is
Ahaz. The king in the north is Pekah. Verse 2 says, “When it was reported to
the house of David…” You ought to underline that in your Bible. That’s what
we’re talking about here. Not Ahaz, per se, but that Ahaz is the living
representative of the house of David. “The Arameans [Syria’s forces] have
camped in Ephraim…” Ephraim was originally one of Joseph’s sons but it’s one of
the tribes and Ephraim is often used as another name for the Northern Kingdom
of Israel. So what they’re saying is that Syria’s forces are deployed in the
Northern Kingdom.
How far away was
that? The Northern Kingdom was like downtown would be to us here. See how close
we are. The border wasn’t that far from Jerusalem. It was only ten or twelve
miles away so this is an immediate, hostile threat. Serious forces are deployed
that close so “the heart of the people shook as the trees of the forest shake
with the wind.” Now you’ve been here during a hurricane and you’ve watched the
trees as they’re blown. That’s means they’re shaking in their boots, to put it
in a modern American idiom. They’re scared to death. In the midst of chaos, the
only certainty we have is the Word of God.
“Then the Lord
says to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz.” Have a little meeting with the king.
“And take Shear-jashub, your son with you. Meet at the end of the conduit
[aqua-duct] from the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field.” All this
detail tells us this isn’t just some nice little story. It’s talking about a
specific incident, at a specific location. It’s like saying that you’re to meet
someone at the intersection of Bunker Hill and I-10. It’s a specific,
well-known location. Verse 4 says, “And say to him, Take care and be calm [be
quiet]…” I’ve always loved that. God says to shut up and be quiet. “Do not fear
or be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering [smoking]
firebrands…”
Now what’s a
firebrand? A firebrand is like a torch. A torch has to flame up but when the
torch is going out all that’s left is glowing embers. It’s on its way to being
dead, useless, and irrelevant. So he calls them just smoking firebrands.
They’ve already exerted all their power. They’re nothing to be afraid of.
They’re just about out of gas, just about burned out. “On account of the fierce
anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you.”
See, because they’ve plotted evil against the house of David, then God’s going to
take care of them.
In verse 6, the
Syrians and the Northern Kingdom say, “Let us go up against Judah and terrorize
it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel
as king in the midst of it.” See they want to set their own king up. They want
to destroy the house of David. This is all about the house of David and the
ability of God to fulfill the promise of God to David to always have a son of
David on the throne.
So this is how
God responds in verse 7, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘It shall not stand nor shall
it come to pass. For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is
Rezin.” In other words the capital of Syria is Damascus and the chief power is
Damascus, [which by the way still is the capital]. Within 65 years Ephraim will
be shattered, so that it is no longer a people [722 A.D. they were destroyed by
the invasion from Assyria] anymore.’” God is going to wipe that nation off the
face of the earth.
Then He says,
“And the head of Samaria is Remaliah. If you will not believe you surely shall
not last [be established].” That’s his point to Ahaz. You need to believe this.
Then we come to the prophecy itself, verse 10, “Then the Lord spoke again to
Ahaz saying, Ask a sign for yourself.” Ahaz is not asking for a sign like the
Pharisees did later on out of their arrogance. God tells him to ask for a sign.
He says it’s okay. But Ahaz gets a little self-righteous. He says he won’t ask
or test the Lord. Well God just told him to ask for a sign so that’s real
arrogance to refuse. God is going to get a little irritated with him. The word
“sign” here does not necessarily mean something miraculous. It means something
that will signify the truth and demonstrate the truth of the prophecy that is
about to be made.
Isaiah then in
verse 13 says, “Here now, O house of David! [He’s speaking for the Lord] Is it
too slight a thing for you [plural] to try the patience of men, that you will
try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you
[plural] a sign.” You won’t ask for one but God’s going to give you one anyway.
Now pay attention to this. In verse 13 the house of David refers to a group of
people and the word “you” is plural. This is important. Then in verse 14, he
says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you [the house of David] a sign.”
The sign’s important because what God’s going to show is that the house of
David isn’t going to be snuffed out like the Northern Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim
or Syria. He says, “Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and call
His name Immanuel.”
This verse is
always cited at Christmas in relation to the virgin conception and the virgin
birth but what I’m pointing here that’s important is the name Immanuel. It
means God with Us. El is the Hebrew word for God. Im at the beginning is the preposition “with”. Anu is the
first person plural “us”. It means “God with us.” This is a clear indication
that the One who is going to descend from the house of David [his humanity] is
going to be fully God—God with us.
We’re about out
of time. I want to review this briefly next time and I want to talk about this
issue of the virgin. We’ll talk about that and then we’ll move through the
other four or five verses related to the deity of Christ. This is so important!
Why do we believe that Jesus is God? Because the Bible says so. It said so many
times in the Old Testament and it reaffirms it many times in the New Testament.
But the deity of the Messiah—notice I didn’t say the deity of
Jesus—is an Old Testament prophecy. We believe that Jesus is the Messiah
because He fulfilled many other prophecies. Therefore, based on the Old
Testament prophecies, we believe Jesus is fully God. Now we believe he’s fully
God because of many other reasons given in the New Testament as well as the way
He lived and the things He did but the foundation isn’t a New Testament
invention. It came out of the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Jewish
prophets predicted a divine-human Messiah.