158 - Christ: Fully Human [B]

Hebrews Lesson 158  May 7, 2009

^NKJ Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Okay, before we get started in Hebrews 10, I want to give you a little report on my trip last week (quick trip) to Washington D.C. for the AIPAC Conference. AIPAC is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. This was started back in the 1950's and has continued up to the present. It is a registered lobby. It's not affiliated with any political party. It is truly bipartisan so at all their events they have an equal number of Democrats and an equal number of Republicans. They emphasize the one thing that everybody has in common is a desire to protect the nation Israel and to make sure that any laws or policies that are established by the United States are in support of Israel. They have this national policy conference every year at this time (in the spring) in Washington D.C. It ultimately is geared to informing the members of quite a few things that are going on politically, things that are going on in Israel. 

They usually have key politicians from Israel there. Tzippy Livni spoke Sunday night. Shimon Peres spoke Monday morning. I left right after church on Sunday so I missed all of the speakers Sunday. Then Netanyahu spoke via satellite on Monday night. There were a number of other politicians, congressmen, former congressmen, various other officials in the U. S. government that spoke at various plenary sessions during the day. 

It was held in the Washington Convention Center, which is an enormous place. It's a big rectangle. It's longer inside than the Washington Monument is tall. You stand at one end; you can't see the speaker in the middle.  If you're sitting at one of the tables on the end, you can see that there is somebody there, but barely. So all around the room there are huge wide-screen projections screens up on the wall which unless you are sitting right in front of the speaker actually gives you a better view of the speaker.

The emphasis is on preparing, informing everybody about current events and policies, laws that are being proposed. Then on Tuesday afternoon, or starting late morning they go to meet with their congressional representatives and senators to lobby them for various pieces of legislation that happen to be up before Congress. That was an education.

Monday morning I went to the first plenary session with Peres and then after that there was a session where everybody went to a room. So all the Texans were in one room; and everybody from California in another room and New York. You sat according to your congressional district and then they talked about some pieces of legislation that needed to be emphasized and they were training everybody in what they needed to do to present their case for these pieces of legislation to their congressmen and senators. That was an education. I'd never been to anything like that before. So that was helpful. I'll come back to that, one of the key pieces of legislation they were emphasizing in a minute. 

Then in the afternoon I went to a session that was basically how the Palestinians miss every opportunity to settle the problem. It was a history of the Arab-Israeli problem from 1946 up to the present. There were a few things I learned there even though I've taught and read a lot on that. There are always a few things that you learn that you didn't quite understand.

I think I came away with a better understanding of the two-state solution than I had before. The two-state solution as it was emphasized by Netanyahu is based on Israel's security that first and foremost the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah have to recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel, their right to exist and if there is a settlement then all previous problems or disagreements have to be forgotten and never brought up again. And they're not going to go to the table unless they have that. They're not just going to opt for a two-state solution. 

The problem is we have politicians on both sides of the aisle who have been in the executive office over the last 30 years who see settling the problem in the Middle East as the great political coup and great political feather in their hat. So it seems that they will push Israel to make a decision that really isn't in their best interest simply so the American politicians can feel good about this even though Israel has offered more than they ever should as they did in the late 90's. Still the Palestinians won't accept it which shows that they want everything. They don't want just a little bit. If they don't get 100% of the land, they don't want any of it; they don't want any settlement. 

The thing we're going to have to watch is that we have too many politicians here that will talk about supporting Israel and they put up a good talk.  They know how to say the right thing and they know just the right phrases to use, but then behind the scenes they're putting pressure on different groups in Israel to give up this or give up that and to not press for their security. They know they can't get anywhere with Hamas and Hezbollah. They're not going to get them to back off of any of their claims. They can't get them to recognize the state of Israel. They've been trying for 60+ years to get the Arabs to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist and they won't budge at all. And, they're not going to budge. So the only people who seem willing to talk and budge and compromise are the Israelis. So the West typically pressures them to give up more and more hoping that something will happen. We have to watch that. That was the first session in the afternoon.

The second session in the afternoon was titled "Understanding Our Evangelical Christian Allies."  That was an enjoyable session. 

There were two others I thought about going to because they focused more on the military defense issues. I had originally signed up for it and I decided, "Okay, I'm going to go to that."

They had four panel members. One was a lady by the name of Susan Michaels who is the Washington Director of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem. This was a Christian organization that established an embassy in Jerusalem in the early 80's (late 70's, early 80's) after Israel had declared Jerusalem to be their capital. All of these embassies that had been there (when it was under the control of Jordan earlier) left. They weren't going to have an embassy in Jerusalem, so they established this International Christian Embassy there. 

They have a different theological position. I really haven't heard this term before. I've read some of their stuff since I've been back, and they're not exactly fond of dispensationalists even though they are very Zionist and have some good material on their website on the history of Zionism and Christian Zionism. But, they call themselves covenentalists; not covenant theology, but covenentalists because they believe in the future fulfillment of the historic covenants to Israel. So, they're not into a covenant theology-replacement theology, but in terms of eschatology they're what I always heard was called historical pre-millennialism which means that it's not a dispensational pre-millennialism. It's called historic pre-millennialism because they want to say this was the view of the early church, and they didn't really have a defined view on dispensations. 

When she spoke on time she said something about dispensationalists and my thought was, "Well, you don't understand dispensationalism." But other than that comment I was impressed by her answers.

The second man whose name I don't remember was pastor of a Baptist church in Tennessee and he is a member of the AIPAC organization in Atlanta and on the board in Atlanta. And, he's also in John Hagee's group. They call it CUPI – The Christians United for the Protection of Israel. These Jews are extremely impressed with Hagee and his organization and what it is doing; very much so and very positive.

Then a third individual that was on the panel was an evangelical Christian who's a former congressman by the name of Randy Tate I believe who is from Washington State, now has his own lobby organization in the D. C. area.

Then there was a Jewish fellow (and I can't remember his name) who was a young man (well, in his 30's) who was the moderator.  He was not a Christian, but he asked the hard questions. 

In recent month I've become aware that there is a huge assault from the liberal left against to try to drive a wedge between the evangelicals and the Jews. The disinformation and misinformation and just downright bordering on slanderous stuff that is coming out of that side has struck home because - some of you are familiar there was a group of people who were making a documentary who went with us to Israel a couple of years ago. They listened too much to some of this. That really becomes a theme in the final form of that documentary. It doesn't make us look very good because that's their orientation. But this is a big battle and there are position papers on the International Christian Embassy website - ICEJ.org I believe. There are numerous position papers going back to 2001-2002 dealing with this issue. 

The two basic myths are- the only reason those evangelicals want to help Israel is because they want to proselytize you. If you let them in or ally yourselves with them, then they are only after one thing. That is to proselytize you. They are just self-serving. The second reason is because they're trying to get all these Jews back into Israel so that Jesus will come back. Neither of which is true. 

The moderator brought up both of those questions to ask the panel and both Susan Michaels and the Baptist pastor answered the questions very well.  I was ready to stand up during the Q&A and make a few comments, but after they got through I didn't need to add anything. They made it clear that they don't know and I don't know any evangelical Christian who believes we can speed up the timing of Jesus' return by getting any Jews back to the land any faster. That's just not a motivation. 

They both made it very clear that there are two basic reasons that evangelicals support Israel. Number 1 is (and this has been demonstrated in survey after survey after survey over the last 30 or 40 years) because we believe they are our allies as a democratic state in the Middle East. They are our only ally there and therefore we need to support them. 

The number 2 reason is Genesis 12:3.

^NKJ Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

As Susan Michaels made the point, she said, "That's the hidden agenda. We just want blessing." That brought out a lot of chuckles and laughs.

So after at the end of their session (They went through a lot of stuff) they had a Q&A; and there were about 5 or 6 people at each of the two microphones. There were about 200 people in the room that came to hear this so there were 4 or 5 people at each microphone and half of them were rabbis. 

They were going to the microphone to turn to address all of their fellow Jews that were there, saying: "You don't have anything to worry about these evangelicals. They love you."

One rabbi said, "I have never been so blessed. You really want to get blessing? You just go speak at some evangelical church, and they will treat you like royalty. They love you just because you're Jewish, and that's it!"

And another rabbi spoke about the fact he had John Hagee speak at his synagogue – a synagogue of about 5,000 in downtown Los Angeles. And also another rabbi spoke of having been involved in three different events with CUPI and how they were just tremendous and how much they appreciated all the evangelicals and their support. So that was good to hear. It was an extremely encouraging and positive meeting. 

Then afterwards a lot of people (more so than I've seen at any other workshop) went forward to ask questions of the panelists. I went up there because I wanted to find out who a couple of these people were. One guy, a Jewish man from France (with a heavy French accent), was asking Susan Michaels something. She briefly answered it. Then somebody else distracted her. Then I started giving him an answer and started explaining the parallel development of Christian Zionism and Jewish Zionism in the 19^th century. The next I realized I was giving a lecture to about 20 people. 

And they had never heard the real Christian side of this and the history of it going back into the 16^th century and the fact that many of the original theologians who were returning to a more literal view of Israel in Scripture in England in the 1600's were martyred because they were pro-Israel and pro-Semitic. They were burned at the stake because of that. The very first British writer-theologian-pastor to write - he wrote about a 1,000 page commentary. He had 1 ½ page on the Jews and they burned him at the stake for it because he believed in a literal Israel. So Christian Zionism has a rich heritage and so we that was a good opportunity to be there. 

Then I was there also with a friend of mine from Houston who is on the board here. 

He grabbed me when I was up there because he's personal friend with the moderator of the group and said, "You know we've got to have Robby here next year speaking at this thing. He needs to be on the panel." 

So I'm just along for the ride of this. I don't know where this is headed, but I think it's something personally that I think is worth being involved in with because of its relationship to Israel.

The main piece of legislation that they're emphasizing is a bill that you can read about on the AIPAC website. There's a lot of information in there, but it has to do with trying to deal with this guy (picture of Ahmadinejad) and his problems. The Iranians are getting extremely close to having enriched uranium. In fact in a worst case scenario by this time next year they will have produced enough uranium to produce a bomb. It may be a little later. I saw it on the news today, but I didn't have time to watch it or hear the report that there's a senate report that says that the Iranians are a lot closer to having bomb grade uranium than they had thought before. So this is something we definitely need to be concerned about. 

We're not the only ones. Most of the Sunni nations - remember Iran is Shiite - do not want a Shiite nation having nuclear weapons. So I've been told and I've heard this from many people for the last 6 months that if Israel attacks Iran that the other Arab nations will turn their backs and act as if it didn't happen because they don't want Iran getting nuclear weapons either. 

Of course Ahmadinejad is just crazy. He has said in a speech in October of 2005, "God willing we will soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." 

The supreme leader of the Iranian mullahs is Al-Khomeini.  He said on December 15, 2000, "Iran's stand has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon. (That's Israel) We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." 

Here's a map of the range of their ballistic missiles.  As you can see, Iran can launch missiles to hit Europe, hit Russia, hit Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, India, China, Kazakhstan. So they can carry - they have the ability to carry a nuclear weapon into any of these areas. 

Now what's been proposed in both bipartisan sponsorship in both the House and the Senate – the House was just up last week- is Dick Durban who is a Democrat from Illinois and John Kyl who is a Republican from Arizona cosponsored this legislation. There is also - the House has sponsored it and it's designed to not only to shut down the importation of all refined gas into Iran. Apparently they have to import 40% of their refined petroleum and diesel. Today they pump 40% less oil than they did 30 years ago. So they had to start rationing gas 2 years ago which caused many riots and there's tremendous amount instability of that. 

This attempt to shut down any importation of gas there is - you've got very strong language and it's designed to tell other nations that you can do business with the U.S. or you can do business with Iran; but if you do business with Iran you won't do business with us. If you sell them refined gas, we won't do any business with you. So that was the focal point of their lobbying effort. 

So that gives you and idea and I think that it's a- you can go to their website and you can watch a number of the men who spoke at the plenary sessions and get some idea of that. I think it's a good thing to be aware of to at least be going to their website. Personally it's a good source of a lot of information as to what is going on in the Middle East.

Now open your Bibles to Hebrews 10. Actually we won't be there very long at all. At the end of Hebrews 10:10 we see the emphasis as we do in the last three verses in the 10^th chapter on the body of Christ. All through this last part of Hebrews, this last section in verses 8, 9, and 10, there's this emphasis on the body.

Verse 10 says:

^NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will

That is His will to submit to the will of God

we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

That relates back to verse 5 which is a quote from the Old Testament from Psalm 40:6.

^NKJ Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.

Why is there this emphasis on the body of Jesus? It is because it's emphasizing His humanity. Let's see where the writer is going to so we understand why I'm going to make a little offshoot this evening before we get going.

Look at verse 11.

^NKJ Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

^NKJ Hebrews 10:12 But this Man,

Notice – "this man", emphasis on His humanity all through this section

after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

^NKJ Hebrews 10:13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

So we're going to shift gears here from talking about His role as a priest both at the cross and at the right hand of the Father and the emphasis on His humanity and the work He did on the cross which has been the emphasis chapter 8, His priesthood chapter 9 having to do with the sacrifices in the Old Testament orientation as well as the first part of chapter 10 to what He is doing presently at the right hand of the Father. This is what the writer of Hebrews has alluded to many times already – the emphasis on the present session of Christ at the right hand of the Father and why that is important for the believer's life (his spiritual life) today in the Church Age understanding that role with the Son seated at the right hand of God. 

So when I'm preparing in transition from the emphasis in verses 1 through 10 to the next section, we want to look at what the Bible teaches about the humanity of Christ because that's the emphasis. 

When we look at the throne room of God today, there is a man, a human being that is seated at the right hand throne of God. That is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, who took on humanity, became flesh and dwelt among us - John says in John 1. The emphasis there is on the fact at right hand of the Father as our High Priest He is overseeing what's happening in the church, the development of the church which is His body building His church through the Church Age in preparation for their future role as the bride of Christ and those who will reign with Him in the Millennial Kingdom.  So in preparation for that we have to understand the emphasis all through the Old Testament on the humanity of Christ. 

It's important to understand this because you never know what kind of question you're going to be asked - like I was asked at 11:30 pm last Wednesday night (which is a great time to get a question like this) is – why does God make such a big deal about Israel in the Bible? So I answered that. It's pretty much what I'm covering tonight except we'll do it in a little more detail. But people don't understand this. This is really important to understand and trace this flow through the Old Testament. 

Genesis 3 is where we have the fall of man. Adam sins. He is the representative of the human race and in his sin, and because of his sin all of his descendents will die spiritually and come under that same penalty. Adam's sin didn't just affect him; it affects all of his descendents. But Eve's sin would have only affected her. We don't know what would have happened then and we can't get involved in a lot of hypothetical what-if history. But Adam was the designated leader and his was the sin that caused the fall of the human race. It is in Adam that all die, not in Eve that all die. So it's important to understand the role of the man in the fall. 

But the woman has a unique role and place in the plan of redemption because it is through the woman (according to Genesis 3:15) that the Redeemer is going to come. So we have this statement made in Genesis 3:15 when God has come to speak to Adam and Eve and recognize and expose the fact that they have sinned. Things have changed and they're spiritually dead.

Now he begins to outline in verse 14 the consequences of that sin. In verse 14 and 15 he addresses the serpent. 

^NKJ Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

Now the key word in this passage is seed. That is a word that has to be traced through the Old Testament because that shows what God is doing in preparing for the redemption of the human race.

So He begins by saying:

^NKJ Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity

That word means hostility or antagonism or hatred. There is a state of war that exists between you, the serpent which we know from Revelation 9 is the devil, Satan, the red dragon of Revelation 12. He is the archenemy of God and every believer. There is a state of war that exists between the devil and the woman.

And between your seed and her Seed;

That is the seed of the serpent and her seed. 

Now what strikes you as being a little odd here is the use of that word seed. It's not the first time the word has appeared in Genesis. It occurred in a botanical context back in Genesis 1 when it talks about how the plants will propagate themselves in terms of their own seed. But here is the first time it's used in reference to human beings. The word is used 224 times in the Old Testament, usually for plants and fruits, but it's also used in a number of contexts for the male semen in a procreation context or for the line of descent or descendents. 

Now the odd thing is that here it speaks of the seed of the woman. Now in basic procreation biology, the male produces the seed and the female produces the egg. As soon as you read "the seed of the woman", there ought to be at least one raised eyebrow: what's that all about because that's not how it normally works. That's an odd phrase and should get our attention. There is a vague and veiled allusion here to of course the virgin birth that the woman will give birth without need of male involvement. So it's going to come through the seed of the woman. That speaks of this perpetual conflict, state of war between Satan and the seed. We see that specifically in Revelation – our studies of Revelation 12 - the age's long war between Satan and Israel. 

Then we have the promise:

He shall bruise your head

He being the seed of the woman.

And you shall bruise His heel."

That is understood to be a fatal wound. The word there that is used for bruise is the Hebrew word shuph which means to bruise or to crush. I like the use of the word crush because that is a lot more visual and relates the fact that this is a fatal wound. 

It's interesting how you have the bruising on the head is seen as fatal because it's a head wound; and the bruising on the heel is seen as something different even though the same word is used. It does have a range of meanings. You could translate the first use as "crushed" and the second one as "bruised" which would also bring out the difference that the first event is very strong and powerful and using the word crush is very visual as well.  Bruising him on the heel shows that it's not quite as violent and quite as final. 

The Greek in the Septuagint translated this word with the Greek word tereo which means to watch or to guard. I find that to be kind of an odd use of that particular word. When Jerome translated this into the Vulgate into Latin, he recognized the nuances here and he translated the first word with the Latin word contereri meaning to crush and he translated the second word with insidari which means to lie in wait, to ambush, to set up a trap. That's not a strict translation. But he picks up the idea there that the seed of the woman would crush and destroy the serpent; but the serpent is the one who's lying in wait in the weeds waiting to strike at the heel of the person walking by, not realizing that the serpent is there. So Jerome caught the thrust of that in the Vulgate. 

But the emphasis for our purpose in looking at this is the emphasis that this is the seed of the woman. The Savior has to be true humanity. It can't just be God showing up on the scene and doing something. It can't be an apparition. It has to be someone who is truly human, nothing else. It can't be tainted by angelic blood or anything - (not angelic blood but angelic whatever they have, DNA) or distortion of Genesis 6 problem with the sons of god.  It can't be tainted that way. It can't destroy the human gene pool or dilute the human gene pool.  It has to be true humanity. 

Now we see this emphasis on the seed as it comes across in subsequent passages in Genesis.  For example there's a covenant in Genesis 9 with Noah and his seed. God promises to Abraham"

^NKJ Genesis 28:13 And behold, the LORD stood above it and said: "I am the LORD God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants.

^NKJ Genesis 28:14 "Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

It's always in the singular. It's a collective noun indicating all those descendents. We translate it "descendants" with an "s" the plural; but in the original it's a singular noun – the seed. It views them as a collective whole.

Have we heard that concept before, during the last week? It's what I've been teaching Sunday morning with looking at Israel in Romans 9 to 11 as that collective whole, that singular unity of Israel as Israel and not as individuals - the idea of a corporate entity there. That's what's included in this concept of seed.

^NKJ Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.

Genesis 12:3, God said to Abraham:

^NKJ Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

So this continues the idea of the seed into the subsequent generation. The seed from Adam to Abraham could literally come from anyone in the human race. But after the judgment of the flood after the judgment at the Tower of Babel, God decides He is going to limit things a little bit. Instead of working with a massive humanity, which seems to constantly be in rebellion, He is going to choose one individual; and He's going to work through that individual and his descendents. And God chose Abraham, elected him in full consciousness of all the ways the Jews would fail down through history and disobey Him and the fact that they would be hardheaded ad stubborn and stiff-necked and rebellious.

 Yet God knew that through them and their ethnic characteristics God would be able to teach and illustrate things about His grace that He couldn't do with anybody else. So there are reasons let's say that God chose Abraham. We don't know what they all were. We don't need to know what they all were. But it also helps us to understand the whole concept of election - that it's a corporate election and that God is working through that corporate entity. 

I think there is a parallel between the corporate entity of Israel and the corporate entity of the church. In Israel you are born into it physically; but you're not really Israel Paul says in Romans 9 - you're not true Israel (Israel of Israel) unless you are regenerate, unless you believe the Old Testament promises of a coming Messiah and in the New Testament unless you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and Jesus is the Christ the Messiah, Jeshua Hamashia (Jesus the Messiah ,the Son of God). That is what makes you a true Jew and only those who are Israel of Israel will receive the fulfillment of the promises and the covenants. 

In the church we enter into becoming a true member of the church the same way, by trusting in God's saving promise by believing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That puts us into this corporate elect group, this choice group that God has set aside for specific purposes. So Genesis 12:3 defines Abraham as the one through whom this blessing is going to pass.  Then in Genesis 22:18 we see that this is going to go through Isaac.

^NKJ Genesis 22:18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

This is still talking about Abraham in relation to Isaac who he has just obediently taken to sacrifice and God provided the substitute.  God reaffirmed the covenant there in Genesis 22. 

This is picked up by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:16.

^NKJ Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

He does not say, "and to seeds" referring to many, but rather to one. 

And Paul says that is a singular ultimately focused on Jesus Christ. That's the seed, the seed of the woman, the seed promised to Abraham. Paul says this is the Lord Jesus Christ. Now as you go through Genesis you start with Adam, then Noah. Then it's narrowed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When you get down to Genesis 49:10, it's narrowed to Judah of Jacob's 12 sons. It is through Judah that the Messiah will come within the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

In Genesis 49:10 we read:

^NKJ Genesis 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.

 Now there's some debate over how to translate this particular verse; and it hinges on some extremely intricate issues in Hebrew. I'm not sure I've resolved all of them yet. The view that most of us have heard is that Shiloh should be translated as a proper name and that this is a title for Jesus. However, there is another position and that is that this Hebrew word is not a proper name, but it is a possessive pronoun meaning "whose it is." There is a parallel in this phrase found in Ezekiel 21:25-27 and if that's the meaning then it would be translated "until He whose it is", the one whose right it is to rule – "until He whose right it is comes and to Him shall be the obedience of the people." So it emphasizes that royalty comes through Judah. This of course goes to the royalty that eventually comes in the house of David. Again, it's true humanity all the way through these passages. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 gives us another insight into the nature of the Messiah. In these verses the focus is "raise up for you":

^NKJ Deuteronomy 18:15 " The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

Moses is speaking.  He says:

^NKJ Deuteronomy 18:15 " The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

…emphasizing a human being, not someone distinct, some other race or divine apparition like the angel of the Lord.  So verses 15 down through 19 describe this.

I'm going to skip ahead here for the sake of time and look at 1 Chronicles 17:10f focusing on the Davidic Covenant parallel to 2 Samuel 7:14f. 

^NKJ 1 Chronicles 17:10 "since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. Also I will subdue all your enemies. Furthermore I tell you that the LORD will build you a house.

…indicating a dynasty for David.

¹¹ "And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed

 ¹⁴ "And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever." '

It's translated descendents, but it's seed. Trace that word through the Old Testament. One of your seed after you who will be after your sons…

after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.

 ¹² "He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever.

Obviously that can't talk about Solomon because Solomon's a human and doesn't live forever. Its alluding to someone greater than Solomon that's further described in verse 14.

^NKJ 1 Chronicles 17:14 "And I will establish him in My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever." ' "

So down through the Davidic Covenant we have the narrowing of this focus on a human, fully human descendent, who will rule over Israel forever. His dynasty (It's a Davidic dynasty.) His throne and His kingdom are going to be established forever. 

But there is something unique about this promised king, this promised deliverer. This comes out in the next two passages that I want us to talk about.  That's Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6. I want you to turn in your Bibles to Isaiah 7. This is such a great prophecy. There's no wonder this is one of the favorite prophecies that have often been quoted, cited, and gone to show who Jesus is, and the uniqueness of His person and the uniqueness of His birth. It is a well-known and familiar verse.

^NKJ Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Now some of you are old enough to remember the controversy that splattered all over Christianity back in the 1950's. For others of you that's ancient history. But in the 1950's there was a new translation that came out that was in the sort of stream of the history of the King James Version (English translation) called the Revised Standard Version. They put in charge of the Revised Standard Version several committees; but most of the translators were of a liberal protestant persuasion theologically. You can't separate your theological presuppositions from how you translate the text. I couldn't; nobody can. The issue is just to be honest about it and make it clear. Do the best that you can in terms of doing a translation. But their presuppositions came out because in liberalism there is a rejection of supernaturalism. God hasn't really entered into human history at all. So there was a rejection of miracles, a rejection of the virgin birth, a rejection of the substitutionary atonement, rejection of the infallibility of Scripture, rejection of a literal Second Coming of Christ. That makes up the essence of what came out of the 19^th century European universities and seminaries. 

So when they translated Isaiah 7:14, they didn't use the word virgin. They used the words, young woman. And the conservative fundamentalists - just barely had evangelicals then - hit the roof because this was distorting Scripture. The debate was over the meaning of the Hebrew word that is translated virgin in this passage. 

There are two different words that could be used for virgin in different contexts, neither one which strictly meant virgin. But it could. But it wasn't hard and fast.  One is the Hebrew word bethulah and the other is the Hebrew word almah.  But the context makes it clear what the word should mean. Of course this was very clear to the Jewish rabbis who translated the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) two centuries before Jesus. They translated it with parthanos in the Greek indicating a virgin because they understood that's what the context meant. 

So I want you to look at this for a minute. I want to talk about the context a minute. The Southern Kingdom of Judah is being threatened by the unholy alliance of the king in Samaria and the Syrians. (No, this wasn't yesterday morning's paper. This was 3,000 years ago.  We still have the people living in Samaria wanting to ally themselves with the Syrians and attack the Jews) So Ahaz who was the king of Judah is threatened by this massive military alliance of Rezin the King of Syria and Pekah the King of Israel. These individuals are introduced in the first verse. This alliance of Rezin and Pekah brings them against Jerusalem and they want to destroy Jerusalem. So he's sort of bottled up and the people are scared to death. The focal point of this attack is to destroy the house of David, the Davidic line in Jerusalem so that the Northern Kingdom can take power and control over all the Jews. 

Ever since the civil war that separated the Northern Kingdom of Israel from the Southern Kingdom of Judah, there have been various times of civil war between the north and the south. 

So the Southern Kingdom has a Davidic descendent on the throne. That goes back to the Davidic Covenant. So this is one of the ways in which the dragon Satan was attacking the house of David to try to prevent the coming of the Messiah in history. So as the Syrians and the armies of the Northern Kingdom assemble around Jerusalem, Ahaz is scared to death and the Lord says to Isaiah who is the court prophet holding the office of prophet at the time:

^NKJ Isaiah 7:3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-Jashub your son,

Now Shear-Jashub is his young son. He's not very old yet. He might have been as young as 3 or 4 years of age. He's very young, and it's important to notice that God instructs Isaiah to go with his son. He's not there alone.

at the end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller's Field,

^NKJ Isaiah 7:4 "and say to him: 'Take heed, and be quiet; do not fear or be fainthearted for these two stubs of smoking firebrands,

Not a politically correct way to refer to your enemies because they are jut stubs of smoking firebrands.

for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and the son of Remaliah.

⁵ 'Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah have plotted evil against you, saying,

 ⁶ "Let us go up against Judah and trouble it, and let us make a gap in its wall for ourselves, and set a king over them, the son of Tabel" --

Skip down to verse 7. 

^NKJ Isaiah 7:7 'thus says the Lord GOD: "It shall not stand, Nor shall it come to pass.

They can plot all they want to. They can have better military technology. They can come up with nuclear weapons if they wanted to. (I'm just trying to connect it to the present time) God is not ever going to let another nation destroy Israel. I have no doubt that if Iran gets nuclear weapons that they will try to use them on Israel, but they won't. Number one if you made Israel a nuclear waste dump, you would kill a tremendous number of Moslems and you would wipe out the Dome of the Rock and you would just make all your little Moslem neighbors mad at you. 

Number 2, if Israel became a nuclear waste dump; then prophecy couldn't be fulfilled. It's just not going to happen. So there is nothing there to cause us anything to fear, to worry about in relation to Iran attacking Israel. Now if Iran wants to attack Europe or Russia or somebody else, that's a different story. Nobody is going to be successful no matter what their military technology, what their military strength is in attacking the Southern Kingdom in the ancient world or modern Israel in the present world. 

So God is going to give him a sign. He tells Ahaz through Isaiah:

^NKJ Isaiah 7:7 'thus says the Lord GOD: "It shall not stand, Nor shall it come to pass.

⁸ For the head of Syria is Damascus, And the head of Damascus is Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim

The Northern Kingdom 

will be broken,

That's what happened when the Syrians wiped it (the Northern Kingdom) out in 722 BC. 

So that it will not be a people.

⁹ The head of Ephraim is Samaria, And the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If you will not believe, Surely you shall not be established." '

So God is saying He's not going to allow them to be successful.

¹⁰ Moreover the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,

 ¹¹ "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above."

This is God speaking to Ahaz. "Ask for a sign to confirm the message that I've just given you empirical verification." It's not just some mystical message. 

But Ahaz in his false humility in verse 12 says:

^NKJ Isaiah 7:12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"

Wait a minute. The Lord just said to do it. So by not asking for it you're insulting God and disobeying Him.

Then verse 13. 

^NKJ Isaiah 7:13 Then he said,

Now I've got a New King James. It has he as a lower case. It isn't the Lord talking; this is Isaiah talking in verse 13. So you have to make sure you understand who's speaking. He's speaking the word of the Lord. 

"Hear now, O house of David!

Who's he talking to, Ahaz or the collective corporate descendents of David? That's who he's talking to. He's talking to the dynasty. He's not talking to Ahaz as an individual. He's talking to the dynasty and there is a shift in the pronouns here. He quit saying you singular Ahaz. He now starts saying y'all the house of David. And that is very important to understand the interpretation of the prophecy here. 

O house of David!

That's the problem. The house of David is under assault from the enemies. They want to wipe it out. God said through Isaiah:

Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?

"See Ahaz, you're representing the house of David right now, but your arrogance is wearying. I asked you to give me a sign and you sit there in your pseudo humility and say you're not going to give me a sign. 

^NKJ Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:

You – plural; not you Ahaz, you the house of David.

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Ha almah. It's understood which virgin he's talking about. We know he's talking about a virgin because of the way the word almah is used in various passages in the Old Testament. It is clearly distinct from other Hebrews words that are used to refer to a young woman. When the other word bethulah is used it usually means a virgin but of any age. But there are a couple of times when bethulah does not mean a virgin. For example in Joel 1:8 it's used of a young widow who had been married but had lost her husband. So of course she is not a virgin. Since the word behtulah does not always mean a virgin, it often has a secondary explanatory clause to make sure you understand that in the context it'talking about a virgin. But almah is used in 6 other passages in the New Testament. In none of those passages is it used of a married woman. It's always used of an unmarried woman. 

When you recognize the fact that it's no great sign or miracle for a non-virgin to conceive and give birth (and this is supposed to be a miraculous sign), then you have to understand that it must be talking about a virgin. Otherwise if it's not talking about a virgin, it's just an everyday event.  So it should be translated virgin.

^NKJ Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son,

So it's a normal human birth; in the birth aspect it's normal, not in the conception aspect because it is a virgin conception. But the 9-month development in the womb and then the birth are normal.

and shall call His name Immanuel.

…which means God with us. So at this point it becomes clearer. It has already been made clear but it becomes even clearer that we're dealing with God in the flesh and incarnation. 

Now Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8, 9, and 11, all fit together in the context. In Isaiah 7 Immanuel is to be born, future tense. In chapter 9 Immanuel is born and we read about this in Isaiah 9:6-7.

^NKJ Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,

…which literally means Father of Eternity. It's not calling the Messiah the Father. The Hebrew reads Father of Eternity meaning He has eternity as a characteristic.

Prince of Peace.

^NKJ Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

So it connects it to the Davidic promise. He's going to establish the kingdom as a genuine human. Isaiah 7 announces the virgin conception and birth as a sign. Isaiah 9 Immanuel is born. He's called all of these titles. Then in chapter 11 Immanuel is pictured as reigning and ruling. So these chapters at the heart of the prophecy of Isaiah emphasize the future career of Immanuel. 

So the point in all this is that once again it's emphasized that this is a human. Then when we get into the New Testament at the time of His birth, there are numerous passages that emphasize the fact that He has a true body. Now I can go through a lot of passages, but I just want to point out a couple of them. 

^NKJ Matthew 26:12 "For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial.

This is when the woman comes in and she pours perfume on His body to prepare Him to anoint Him for burial. But it's on His body. It's a genuine human body with human functions as seen in various passages that talk about Jesus eating even after the resurrection in a resurrection body. 

He goes down to the Sea of Galilee.Peter and the guys are out there fishing because they got tired of waiting for Him. He has a little episode where they've been fishing all night and haven't caught anything so He says:

^NKJ John 21:6 And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.

There is a weird refractory thing that I've just learned about that happens in the Sea of Galilee where if you're at the right tangle you can see fish under the water. The light has got to be right; but it was well-known. 

Jesus was standing there says, "There the fish are."

They brought in more than they could handle. They come in and He cooks breakfast for them and they eat. And He eats - even in his resurrection body. He has a physical human body. He dies physically when He dies on the cross for our sins. He's circumcised, Luke 2:21. He even in resurrection body, they can touch Him and they can feel him. They can feel the nail prints. 

 Johns says this in 1 John 1:

^NKJ 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life --

He was real. So that's the emphasis on His physical body.

^NKJ John 2:21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

So when we get into Hebrews there's this emphasis on His body, His humanity. He had to die as our substitute so He had to be true humanity. That body that He had was perfectly designed by God to reveal God Himself through the flesh. 

So we end in verse 10:

^NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It is through the body of Jesus Christ that we have a complete salvation. But it is that resurrection body that is going to go with Him through the heavens in the ascension to the right hand of the Father and sit at the right hand of the Father in the present session.  That becomes the focus in the rest of the chapter, which sets the stage for one of the strongest warning sections in the epistle of the Hebrews. All the warning sections as I've pointed out are designed to stimulate us and to motivate us to live in obedience to the Lord and to grow spiritually in preparation for the future; and that if we don't there will be spiritual consequences both in time and in eternity. 

So we'll come back next time and start up in verse 11 as we go into next part of chapter 10.

Illustrations