Immanuel: "God With Us" - Part 5 - Paul

Our opening hymn this morning is "Christ Is Made the Sure Foundation", sung to the haunting tune by Henry Purcell. You may find the words and listen to musical accompaniment as you sing at this web site: http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh559.sht

Immanuel: "God With Us"
Its Theological Treatment in Paul’s Writings

If you had asked Paul what the term Immanuel "God with Us" meant to him, he would have told you that

1. God was "with" us fallen human beings in the person of Jesus, who emptied himself of his divine privileges and independence and assumed the nature of a servant in order to be obedient to his Father's will and take the place of sinful humans and receive on our behalf God's judgment on sin.
2. But—he would add—that is not all that "God with Us" means to believers after the resurrection: God the Holy Spirit together with the risen and exalted Jesus resides in believer's bodies, making them the temple of God, and empowering them to holy living.
   

In keeping with this twofold understanding of Paul's point of view, let us subdivide our study this morning into (1) Paul's remarks about the Incarnation of God the Son in Jesus, and (2) the indwelling of Christ by the Holy Spirit in believers together with the advantages this gives us.

Part One: The Incarnation of God in Jesus

Direct Statements about the Son's Preexistence and the Incarnation

Of the gospel writers, only John directly makes statements about the preexistence of God the Son and his incarnation in Jesus.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-2, 14 NIV)

But Paul in Philippians chapter 2 either quotes an already existing Christian hymn on the subject, or composed one himself, when he writes in verses 5-8

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:5-8 NIV)

Depending on your Bible translation, you may have a different wording: instead of the NIV's "being in very nature" you may have "though he was in the form of God" (NRSV, ESV). Here is the ESV's version:

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8 ESV)

The Greek word rendered "form" (morphē) implies an inner as well as an outer character, hence the NIV's translation "nature" is not too free: in fact it gets at the essence and avoids the suggestion that English "form" gives of an external form.

Even if this hymn is not Paul's own composition, he would never have quoted it—almost like he quotes Old Testament scripture—if he didn't agree with it fully. So we can say that Paul's view of "God with Us" in the birth of Jesus was that God the Son (John's Logos) existed eternally in the divine nature (morphē) and on fully equal terms with God the Father, but that he willingly gave up for a time this privileged existence in equality with God in order to accept the limitations of life as a human servant of God.

This is what is meant by the phrase "he made himself nothing", which the RSV, NRSV, NASB and Holman Bible, following the KJV and ASV translate as "he emptied himself." It is this Greek verb (kenoō) to which we owe the theological name of this act by God the Son: kenōsis. Some theologians used this literal rendering "emptied himself" to justify their claim that in becoming human in Jesus, God the Son lost his divine powers. It is true that during his earthly ministry Jesus admitted that only God the Father knew the time of the Second Coming.

““No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36 NIV)

We also assume that as a human child Jesus had to acquire skills—learn to walk and talk, read and write, do carpentry, etc. Hence, Jesus was not omniscient as a human, in the strict sense of that word. But however you may choose to explain it—Jesus possessed divine powers that were his not as a gift from God but by right as God.

In any event, the point of the phrase "made himself nothing" (Greek ekenōsen "emptied himself")) is not to account for Jesus' supposed human limitations in knowledge and power, but to express the sacrifice made by God the Son in forgoing continuing his pre-human existence as God with all its privileges and with no suffering involved, in order to suffer as a human to redeem a lost human race. The downward movement expressed in verses Philippians 2:5-8 is not a movement of degradation but of humble service.

Some modern translations render “servant” as “slave.” Now it is true that Greek doulos can have that meaning. But that does not seem to be the intended meaning here. A slave has no choice but to obey. Jesus was first and foremost God’s servant. And his obedience was not obligated, but freely and voluntarily given.

Instead, the "servant" metaphor is intended to recall the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 53—even though the Greek word used in LXX is the synonym pais. So in spite of the conclusion drawn by some interpreters, through comparing the picture of Jesus girded with a towel to wash his disciples' feet (John 13), the "nature of a servant" referred to in Philippians 2 is one who primarily serves God by accomplishing the task that God sent him to do. This is so beautifully expressed in Hebrews 10:5-7

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘… I have come to do your will, O God’.””

The New Testament author of Hebrews 10:5-7 is quoting a passage in Psalms 40:6-8

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. 7 Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—it is written about me in the scroll. 8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”

The author of this psalm expresses his desire to serve Yahweh his whole life long, using an imagery taken from the law of Moses about a slave who may refuse liberation at the end of a period of indentured service in order to continue a life-long slave in exchange for retaining the wife his master procured for him while he was a slave (see Ex 21:6; Dt 15:17). As the author of Hebrews uses it, the verse has a beautiful application to Jesus, because it shows that not animal sacrifices availed to purge our sins, but Jesus' own perfect obedience in the body that God prepared for him.

Son of God, son of Dav id, Christ,
As God's servant, taking the very nature of a servant (of God), Jesus was Immanuel, "God with Us," in that he acted for God—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—to be "with" us in saving us from our sins. As a servant in the sense of that word in Isaiah 53, he represented God acting to save us. Just as David and the Davidic kings, as servants of Yahweh, represented Yahweh by executing his will among their subjects.

Part Two: Jesus' Titles According to Paul

According to Paul, how was God with us in the earthly life of Jesus, and how is he even more with us in Jesus exalted to the right hand of God?

Unlike the gospel writers, Saint Paul's letters did not re-tell stories of the deeds of Jesus or quote his claims. But as we have seen, like the gospel writers, Paul had definite convictions as to who Jesus was. One the ways he expressed these views was by statements like the one we have studied in Philippians 2. But he also used various titles and metaphors to describe him. In many ways, these are just as powerful and expressive as the hymn in Philippians 2. We will consider them in three categories: those that express his relationship (1) to God, (2) to humanity, and (3) to the Church. First …

1. Jesus in relation to God

Son (of God)

The first of these titles describes him in relation to God the Father. It is the title "Son of God". An equivalent phrase often used by Paul is simply "his Son", referring to God.
A representative passage in which Paul uses the term is Romans 1:1-4 (Question 1).
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Matthew 28:19 gives a baptismal formula to be used in making disciples of all nations. They are to be baptized "in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". It has often been observed that this is one name, not three. But it has provided the Church with a convenient nomenclature for our Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Trinitarian references also occur in Paul: “Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father”” (Galatians 4:6 NIV).

Yet though all three Persons of the godhead are equal and in essential oneness, the term "Son" in the title God the Son, identifies him primarily not with the Spirit, but with the Father. For the world "son" is a term of relationship that requires a point of reference in a parent. Accordingly, although Paul clearly regarded all three Divine Persons as "God', he tends to use the term "God" in his letters for the Father (see in Galatians 4:6, parallel to John's use in John 3:16), and the term "the Lord" for the Son. A fairly typical example is found in the opening verses of Romans (1:7), where he writes:

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here in Romans 1:1-4, as in the Philippians 2 hymn, Paul references both the divine and human natures of Jesus. The movement in Philippians 2 was exalted preexistent state to humble service to glorious exaltation. Here it is human nature as "son of David" that has an intended mission to rule, followed by a revealing of the divine Sonship in the resurrection. The two views do not contradict, but they enrich each other.

Notice that Jesus was "son of David" in his human nature which began at the miraculous virginal conception in the womb of Mary of Nazareth. Paul stresses that "according to the flesh [his human nature] Jesus was son of David, but as to the title Son of God he was "declared" to be such by his resurrection. The resurrection was God's official statement that Jesus was his Son and the one through whom he would judge the world (see also Acts 17:31— “because [God] has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed [same Greek word as "declared" in Romans 1], and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead”” (NRSV). The passage does not mean that Jesus only became God at his resurrection. But by the resurrection it became clear to all with eyes to see that this "son of David" was "Son of God" in a much more profound sense than that term was used for the Davidic kings.

Notice also that in v. 4 the full name with titles is given as: "Jesus Christ our Lord". Jesus is his human name—Y'shua, but it has a meaning: announcing his conception and future birth to Joseph, the angel Gabriel said: “you are to give him the name Jesus [Y'shua], because he will save his people from their sins.”” (Matthew 1:21 NIV) .

"Christ" is of course merely a transliteration of the Greek word khristos "the Anointed One", which is the Greek translation of Hebrew-Aramaic Messiah. Hence, Y'shua is the Messiah promised in OT scriptures. And finally he is "our Lord." "Lord" is the translation of Greek kyrios, which in the NT has a whole host of implications.

At the very least, and most conservative, it means "master" or "owner" of servants/slaves, or even "sir" as a form of polite address. We are Jesus' servants, and he is our master.

At the most, this may be a reference to the use of Greek kyrios in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT to render the Divine Name Yahweh. But since there is no evidence that the name Yahweh was ever modified by a possessive pronoun ("our Yahweh"), the first interpretation—reflecting Hebrew ădōnēy-nû "our Lord" which is used of God in Neh 8:10; 10:29; Psa 8:1, 9; 135:5; 147:5 —is more likely. Paul is not here stressing Jesus deity, which elsewhere he certainly does. Here he simply wants the Roman believers to know that they share with him faith and obedience in one Master, Y'shua the Messiah and Savior.

2. Jesus in relation to Humanity

The Second/Last Adam

But "Son of God" and "Christ" by no means exhaust the titles and metaphors Paul uses for Jesus.In Romans chapter 5 and 1 Corinthians chapter 15 he regards Jesus as the Second (or the Last) Adam. this is a particularly rich theological statement, that Paul spins out in some detail. In Romans he writes:

Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-28 NIV)

“So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written:“The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:42-49 NIV)

Just as through his disobedience to God's command Adam brought death and alientation from God upon all those who were descended from him by being in him genetically, so through his perfect obedience which included becoming "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," Jesus the Second/Last Adam destroyed death and alienation for all those who by faith are "in Christ"—to use Paul's favorite term for Christians. So for Paul every human is "in Adam", but only believers are "in Christ". "In Adam" all die, but all those "in Christ" will be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22), both spiritually and even physically in the bodily resurrection that awaits us at the end of time.

It has often been noted that Paul and the other NT writers consider Jesus the "Second Adam." But what is less widely known is that these same NT writers extend the Second Adam metaphor to all believers. For Adam was the first in the line of sons of God. Luke calls him that in the genealogy of Jesus: "Adam, the son of God." And by faith all believers become "sons of God" (Galatians 3:26). And Paul—for whom the present, groaning creation is due to the sin of the First Adam—waits eagerly for its freedom at the revealing of—not just Jesus, the Son of God, but—the sons of God, that is to say, the glorification of all believers (Romans 8:14, 19).

Paul also writes that believers are a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), which literally means more than just that God has made us over in Christ, but that we constitute a new Genesis 2 product, we are all "Second Adam"s. A second way that this theme shows itself is in the fact that Paul calls us all "sons of God." In the OT Adam was the "son of God," and Davidic kings were also allowed this title. But otherwise it was used—only in the plural—for angels.

The Image of God

Related to the concept of Jesus as the Second/Last Adam is that of the perfect Image of God.

“The first man [Adam] was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:47-49 ESV)

In this verse Paul doesn't say believers bear the image of the "man in heaven" now, but that "we shall … bear" it. Is that image of Jesus in heaven the same as the image of God given to the First Adam restored? We do not know. It is tempting to say so, since the theme of the "image of God" given to Adam and borne successively by all humans is so prominent a theme in the Old Testament.

However, because the Second Adam is more than just an unfallen version of the First, but something much greater, his image is also much grander and more glorious than that borne by Adam unfallen. So it is that Paul can write elsewhere of the exalted Jesus as —not just possessing, but being—the glorious image of God:

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV)

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

As a result, Paul can exhort believers, who by faith have been baptized into Christ, and are now "in Christ," to put on that same pure and true image of God that is Christ's:

“But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Ephesians 4:20-24 ESV)

“In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” (Colossians 3:6-10 ESV)

3. Jesus in relation to the Church

Head of the Body

Another of Paul's favorite metaphors for the relationship between Christ and the Church involves the image of a human body. In that image Christ is the head and believers are members of his body. It is not certain that ancients understood that all direction came to the body's members from the brain. But it is likely that that is the import of what Paul writes here. Furthermore, the imagery draws upon the picture in the Book of Daniel of the great image in the dream God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, where it is explained to him by Daniel that the head of gold on the statue represented himself and his kingdom, and the rest of the body those kingdoms that would follow—Persians, Greeks and Romans—that would be inferior to him (made of silver, iron and clay). The Hebrew word for "head" rōsh always implies "chief" or "ruler" as well as "first (in time)". So Paul writes of Christ:

Eph. 1:22 And [God] put all things under [Christ's] feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,

Eph. 4:15 … [by] speaking the truth in love, we [believers] are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

Eph. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. [Notice how here Paul plays on the meaning "first" embedded in Hebrew rōsh. Notice too that he makes it quite explicit that by "head" he means preeminence and rule.]

Col. 2:19 [Christ is] the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. [Here he elaborates what he meant in Ephesians "and is himself its Savior".]

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” (1 Corinthians 12:27 NIV)

Bridegroom of the Bride

Another metaphor, which Jesus himself used of himself in relationship to the citizens of God's kingdom, is the Bridegroom and the Bride. According to Jesus, the final eschatological Kingdom of God would consist of a great wedding feast with joy, singing, dancing and feasting. Paul seized upon this known metaphor to make an ancillary point. When he wrote to the Corinthian believers:

“I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” (2Corinthians 11:2 ESV)

it was to remind them that, since by faith they have become the fiancées of Jesus, they are now his bride and must remain faithful to him. In the OT idolatrous Israel was described as committing spiritual adultery. Paul warns the Corinthians that dallying with sin of any kind was spiritual adultery against Christ the Bridegroom.

Resident in the Temple of God

The final metaphor we shall consider this morning has no clear OT antecedant. It is true that Israel viewed God as their Rock and salvation. But nowhere do we find the image of Israel, God's people, as a temple that he inhabited. Instead, God's OT temple was the physical structure on Mt. Zion.

Jesus did use a similar image, when he said to Peter: "You are Peter [petros, a little stone], and upon this rock [petra, a large stone, meaning either himself or faith in him] I will build my church" (Matt. 16).

Peter himself uses the imagery in his first epistle.

“As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”” (1Peter 2:4-6 NIV)

But Paul develops it in ways unique to his pastoral and teaching ministry.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but there is here a twofold manner in which Paul says we are the temple in which God dwells. First, he says that individually our bodies are temples in which God dwells, so that we should live pure and holy lives. This is the emphasis of the Corinthians references.

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NIV)

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20 NIV)

“What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” “Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.” (2 Corinthians 6:15-7:1 NIV)

But secondly—as Peter’s mention also stresses—we are corporately a single temple in which God dwells. This is the emphasis of Paul’s later letter to the Ephesians.

“Consequently, you [Gentiles] are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people [believing Israel] and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple [eis naon hagion] in the Lord [en kyriō]. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling of God [eis katoikētērion tou theou] in (his) Spirit [en pneumati].” (Ephesians 2:19-22 NIV).

Here the “whole building composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, from all over the world, is “joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord [Jesus].” We as members of the worldwide Church of Jesus—in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas—are “being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit”. That the entire Triune God lives in this temple of his holy people is made clar by the three terms “God [the Father], Lord [Jesus], and Spirit.

Here the pastoral thrust of Paul—his “application,” if you will—is not for individual purity of body and mind, but of solidarity in the worldwide Church. Do you consider your closest association to be with this worldwide brotherhood of believers? How do you show it? With your prayers, with your e-mails of encouragement to overseas believers, with gifts to needy Christian communities and individuals? Just how much of a worldwide fellowship with others who make up the temple of God do you have?

And how much do you know about the needs of other fellowships in DuPage County? Do you every pray for other churches and their ministries, or just for College Church?

This is the rich texture of Paul’s concept of Immanuel: God With Us. He is with us in Jesus’ birth, ministry, death and resurrection. He is with us in the new birth, the gifts of the Spirit, and above all in the presence of the Triune God living in us individually—demanding purity and holy living—and corporately—requiring a family spirit of mutual helpfulness around the world among those who share our faith.

Immanuel: God With Us - Part 4 - Gospels

Immanuel

"God with Us"
in the Old and New Testaments

A College Church Foundations Course
Autumn 2008

Week Four

"Theological Treatment of the Unique Incarnation in the Gospels"

Immanuel as our Theme

The theme of this course is "Immanuel: God with Us in the OT and NT". To follow all the back and future lessons online in blog form, click on this word.

When we define each of the three components of the title Immanuel, there is specificity in the first—"God" is not just any god, but the God of Creation and the God of Israel, Yahweh. But with the second and third components there is a certain ambiguity that in a way is quite helpful. For it fits the various ways in which we see this happening in both testaments. In the OT the "us" is Israel, God's covenant people, and God showed himself to be "with" Israel:

1. through promises to Abraham partially fulfilled in the exodus and the founding of the nation Israel,
2. through the exodus itself as liberation from Egyptian bondage,
3. through the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai,
4. through the conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and
5. through the institution of Davidic kingship and the Dynastic Covenant given to David in 2 Samuel 7.

But we saw last week that God still promised a much deeper realization of the "God with us" commitment in the future, in connection with Isaiah's prediction (7:14 ) of the virginal conception of a "son" whose symbolic "name" would be Immanuel, "God with us." This virgin-born Immanuel would be "with" an "us" that was first of all Israel ("he will save his people from their sins" [Matthew 1:21]; "to the Jew first" [Romans 1:16; 2:9-10]) and subsequently all peoples ("make disciples of all nations" [Matthew 28:19]).

Now that we have arrived at the lesson dealing with the unique incarnation of God—the unique and true action of God literally taking on flesh in Jesus—we need to guard against a premature collapsing of the idea of "God with us" in Jesus to the birth event itself, as marvelous as that was. Only Matthew and Luke give birth narratives. John gives a powerful prologue in which the pre-existence of the Son is described and a very clear statement is made of this member of the triune godhead "becoming flesh" (John 1:14). Although Mark undoubtedly also believed in the birth miracle, he chooses to say nothing about it. For him, and probably also for the other three gospel writers, Jesus being Yahweh incarnate showed itself in many ways other than in the events surrounding his birth, ways that should not be overshadowed by the birth narratives.

What were some of these other ways in which gospel writers conveyed the truth that in Jesus God took on flesh? Does Mark—and for that matter, also Matthew, Luke and John—convey this truth in more indirect ways? Do the very actions of Jesus reveal that he is the God-Man? And—also of great importance—how is the Deity portrayed in ways that he could be recognized as the same God who made Israel his firstborn son and cared for this people like a father throughout the Old Testament.

A claim made indirectly through allusions to the familiar content of the OT was every bit as clear and emphatic to Jesus' listeners as a prosaic statement "I am God." And a conclusion that you draw as a hearer—a puzzle that you solve on your own from reading scripture—makes a much deeper impression on you than if you were simply told "the answer." ("Aha! So what you're saying is that you're the messiah!") This was why Jesus so often taught with questions instead of statements. He wanted his hearers to come up with the correct answer themselves through reflection.

You may have noticed that I did not title this week's class "The Unique Incarnation in the Gospels," but "The Theological Treatment of the Unique Incarnation in the Gospels". We aren't just interested in the assertion that God took human form in Jesus, but what significance of that fact we are supposed to draw from the gospels. Why was the incarnation necessary? And how did it manifest itself to achieve God's ends in the life and ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

In other words, we are not just interested in what the Twelve saw and heard from Jesus, but the significance of those actions and words that the Holy Spirit conveyed to them after the resurrection. In fact, John tells us that this is precisely what happened (John 2:18-22):

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

Jesus as the God-Man in the Gospels

We all know that such reflections on the significance of Jesus being the God-Man exist in the rest of the New Testament (the preaching in Acts, the argument of Paul's letters and the Book of Hebrews come to mind). We will focus on those in the next two weeks.

But we don't usually think of the gospel narratives as being interested in anything more than simply telling us what happened. Nothing could be further from the truth. The gospels were composed after Paul wrote his letters and by men who were just as interested in theology and able to think in theological terms as Paul was.

Of course, they faithfully record what historically Jesus said and did. I do not agree with those liberals who believe the early church and the gospel writers distorted or added anything extraneous to what Jesus actually said or did. But it is clear, even if we limit the consideration to the sequence in which a particular gospel-writer places events in Jesus' life, that he has an interpretation in mind that the Holy Spirit gave to him.

So we will find in the four gospels not only the assertion that Jesus was God as well as Man, but an exploration of the ramifications of this fact. What did he do, say or experience differently because he was both God and Man, not just a God-empowered or God-inspired man? What in his life showed that both his deity was real? I am not convinced, as some are, that the gospels are already engaged in countering the view of later Gnostics and Docetists that Jesus was true God but his humanity was only illusory. So we will leave that issue aside.

Jesus as Yahweh Incarnate

A second question we are interested in is what in his behavior, his words, his actions not only showed he possessed unique divine power—but also the very same concerns that Yahweh, the God of Israel, regularly showed in the Old Testament? Concerns that go beyond what ordinary prophets and holy men reflected.

For the point of the gospel writers, as well as the point of Jesus' own claims about himself, was not just that he was "God" in a generic sense, not even "the one God and Creator," but that he was Israel's God, Yahweh, in indissoluble union with a human man born from a Jewish woman in the line of David. For we saw last week that in addition to his title Immanuel, which contains ʾel the more generic Hebrew word for "god", the messiah also had the title "Yahweh ṣidqēnu "Yahweh, our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6; 33:16). The messiah was to be the incarnation of Yahweh, the God of the entire Old Testament scriptures: the God of creation, of the Flood, of the patriarchs, of the exodus, of the conquest of the land, of the Davidic kings and of the prophets of Israel.

Where shall we begin? How about at the beginnings of the four gospels? Authors often tip their hands in the opening words of their texts as to what they want to show and how. I asked you this week:

1. How do the openings of three gospels (Mat. 1:1; Mk. 1:1; Jn 1:1-5, 9-14, 17-18) differ in what they claim concerning Jesus? AND 2. Why do you think Luke makes no claim concerning Jesus in the opening verses of his gospel? How do we know that Luke presents Jesus as God in the flesh (see Lk 1:30-37 ; 4:12, 34, 41; 5:21; 12:8; 18:19; 22:69-70)?

Since most NT scholars today think Mark was written first, let's start with him. How does he begin his gospel? First, he calls his composition a "gospel." None of the other three use this term in their opening lines. Literally, the word means "good news", but it has theological freight, even in Jesus' days. In the pagan Roman world, there were compositions recording the birth of Roman emperors, that were called "good news." So even though Mark has no birth narrative, his use of this term may imply his view that Jesus was born to be king of Israel.

Secondly, it is "good news" about Jesus (Hebrew Y'shua), who was the messiah ("anointed one", Greek khristos). So although Mark doesn't cite fulfilled prophecy as much as Matthew does, he clearly states his belief at the outset that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.

Finally, some of the earliest manuscripts include "the Son of God," which can be taken several ways. It could emphasize the deity of Jesus, or it could be another way of saying he was the messiah promised to David in 2 Samuel 7, whom God said "will be to me a son, and I will be to him as a father." Most Christians would affirm both ideas here. There is nothing in any of the four gospels to suggest that their writers did not believe in the full deity of Jesus.

How about Matthew?  Like Mark, he calls Jesus khristos "the anointed one," the messiah, who has dual sonship: son of David, son of Abraham. Matthew's opening words may describe only the material in the first chapter, depending on how you understand the words "the book (biblos) of the genealogy." Does Matthew consider the genealogy that follows to be a "book" in itself? Or is he characterizing his entire composition by the opening genealogy? That is, the royal descent of Jesus colors and sets the theme of all that follows? I am inclined to the second view. And if so, then the placing of this genealogy at the very start is intended to guide how we read all that follows. As the genealogy is a royal one, going back to David and beyond that to Abraham, the preeminent ancestor of Israel, Jesus is to be seen in what follows as the ultimate Israelite (the true Abraham) and as Israel's preeminent ruler (the true David).

3. Where in the four gospels do we find the clearest statement of God becoming flesh in Jesus? (Clue: It’s in the assigned readings above!) How is it implicit in what some of the other gospels say?

John's "opening" (John 1:1-5, 9-14, 17-18 ) is the longest of all, comprising a virtual hymn to the preexistent "Word" (the Logos), which is his term for the Second Person of the Trinity. Only once in this hymn does he use the word "son" to describe Jesus, but not to relate him to David or Abraham, but as "the special son (Greek monogenēs) from the Father" (v. 14). John's presentation of the implications of Jesus' identity with Yahweh, the God of Israel, is not as subtle as in the other three gospels. The lyricism of his writing makes it hard to follow his train of thought in this long hymn. But it is crystal clear that he affirms preexistence for the divine side of Jesus. He uses the language of the opening verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1—"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth— to show the eternity of the Word and his identity with Yahweh, the God of Israel and the Creator of all that exists. What he says about the activities of the preexistent Word he will also say about the activities of Jesus later in his narratives.

Luke gives his statement about the nature of the Jesus, not in an opening verse, but in the annunciation and birth narratives in his first two chapters. There it is declared by Gabriel independently to Joseph and Mary, by Spirit-ispired songs of Mary and Elisabeth and Simeon, and by the angel chorus from the skies over Bethlehem.

When it comes to the details of the Gospel-writers' claims about Jesus as the Coming Promised One, they tend to compare him with the same three OT characters that we have used in the past three weeks: Adam, Moses and David.

Jesus as the Second Adam

4. The gospel writers do not use Paul’s term “the Second Adam” of Jesus. But in what ways do you see them comparing him to Adam (not explicitly, but implicitly)? Use your memory of the content of any of the gospels. For example, in the temptation scene of Mark 1:12-13 (very concise) and Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 (both much fuller). Or in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38).

Let's take the Luke 3:38 passage first, as it is the simplest—at least on the surface. In Luke's genealogy of Jesus the chain stretches all the way back to Adam, who is called "the son of God." This may seem to you rather meaningless, since each one of us can assume that our ancestral lines go through Noah back to Adam! But there is more afoot here than meets the eye.Notice how the end of Luke's genealogy of Jesus, which ends with the word "Adam, the son of God" leads directly into his narrative of Jesus' temptation by Satan in chapter 4.

Luke's point can only be understood against the backdrop of Paul's "Second Adam" motif, which he probably knew from having been Paul's traveling companion. Jesus is no different from me in being physically a son of Adam, but he is unique in being the fulfillment of that status of "son of God" that had originally been conferred on Adam. The First Adam failed to fulfill it, but the Second Adam succeeded. That is why Luke writes in this genealogy what otherwise would be not only self-evident, but trivial.

Now let's look at the temptation narrative. It is relevant, because the First Adam was tempted by Eve, as she was tempted by the serpent, and both succumbed. But Jesus as the Second Adam, the Messiah, was "tested in all points as we, yet without sinning," as the author to Hebrews (4:15 ) puts it.

But there is also the business that Mark adds, which also links this event to Adam. Mark says that during the 40-day period Jesus "was with the wild animals" (Mark 1:13). Again, this remark cannot be there just to paint a vivid picture of desert life. One recent commentator tried to use it to portray Jesus as the "green" friend of nature, a point utterly foreign to the mentality of the gospel writers. No —  we must see it as showing his ability—also promised to Adam—to "rule over the birds, fish, and wild animals" (Gen 1:26). The rule over the fish is also illustrated several times in the miraculous catches of fish on the Lake of Galilee (John 21:3-7). A preview of this ability of the Second Adam was given in the Book of Daniel, where Daniel is thrown into a den of hungry lions, but God causes them not to kill him (Daniel 6). Some even think that outside the garden of Eden, the pre-fall world was populated by wild animals that killed much as they do today, and that it was part of the mandate God gave to Adam to control and domesticate them.¹ If so, then Christ's control of wild animals in Mark's version of the temptation in the desert would be part of his image as the successful Second Adam who overcomes temptation and then fulfills his Adamic mandate with regard to ruling over the wild animals. I tell you this only because it is interesting. For this theory faces serious objections which we cannot go into here.

Jesus as the Second Moses

In our second week—"Immanuel: God with Us in the Exodus and the Davidic Kingship"—we saw that a major advance in God's being "with" his people in the OT was in the deliverance from Egyptian slavery and the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. It isn't surprising therefore that Jesus is presented in the gospels as a Second and Greater Moses.

Modern theologians have argued that the Moses image is expressed in numerous parts of the gospels. But it will suffice us today to focus on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) as commentary on and enlargement of the laws of Sinai.

Jesus begins his commentary of God's law given at Mt. Sinai in Matt. 5:17-20 with these significant words:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

This shows that, despite the many occasions when his opponents accused him of breaking the Sabbath laws, Jesus was a staunch upholder of the laws God gave to Israel on Mt. Sinai. His program was not to break them, but fulfill them completely.

Yet, when we read further in Matthew 5 we see a repeated pattern of sayings that show Jesus considered himself authorized by God to give a definitive interpretation to these laws. The first way in which this impresses us is in the formula "you have heard that it has been said … but I say to you" (Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44), where Jesus "raised the bar" on what it meant to obey the laws of God. Forbidden was not just murder but hatred, not only adultery but lust, not only breaking oaths but not taking them at all, not just loving the neighbor but also the enemy.

Some of the formulations in the "you have heard" category represent rabbinic interpretations and enlargements of the law of Sinai. They are analogous to other places in the ministry of Jesus where he explicitly corrected the rabbinic interpretations and abuses that arose from this. An example of that is the discourse about the Qorban laws (Mark 7:7-13)—Hebrew qorban means "something given to God." 

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

In other cases in Matthew 5 Jesus was not specifically correcting current rabbinic interpretations, but was merely showing the full God-intended force of the original commandments. In doing this he acted as the God-authorized interpreter of the laws of Sinai.

But it is also clear that Jesus showed that he was authorized to even modify the laws given at Sinai. The clearest examples concern the laws about clean and unclean foods:

“When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”” (Mark 7:17-23 NRSV).

Matthew tells us what the cumulative effect of this commentary on the law of Moses was upon the listeners:

“Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29 NRSV).

Jesus as the Second David

We saw in the second and third weeks that the term "son of David" in the OT—and even the term "David" in predictions of the future kingdom of God—was equivalent to a "Second David," the ultimate fulfillment of what David was meant to be, but never actually succeeded in being. (Just as the Second Adam, and Second Moses realized what the first ones never did.) So we are not surprised to see the crowds of Jesus disciples hailing him as "son of David." This meant much more than just a recognition of his genealogy. It was a messianic title with a particular emphasis.

We saw when we studied the Dynastic Covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, that the king was to be related to Yahweh-God as a son to his father; so that God would both love and protect and care for him as his son and never disown him—never cast him out of his family, but would discipline him as a father does a son (v. 12-16). This same Father-Son relationship of the Davidic king to God is reflected in Psalm 2:7, which was also a messianic psalm finding its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5).

In its Old Testament context the term "Son of God" was not so much a title as a metaphor. We never read of its being used as an address to the Davidic king by his subjects. Nor did it have any overtones of deity, as it did in Egypt of the Pharaohs. Egyptian kings, as well as some Babylonian ones were considered divine even during their lifetimes. Hittite kings were considered to "become" divine only upon their deaths, in the sense that they became recipients of corporate worship and sacrifices. None of these things were true of Israelite kings.

But with Jesus, "Son of God" has become more than a metaphor, it is a title. This is the way Mark uses it in the opening words of his gospel (Mark 1:1), and Peter used it in his confession in Matthew 16.

"Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ [= the Messiah], the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (ESV).

It is indicator of Jesus' status as God's king in the Davidic line. But it goes much deeper than that. In its reference to Jesus' identity "Son of God" clearly expresses a divine origin. Even without this title, Jesus and the NT writers clearly claimed his deity. As Larry Hurtado argues so persuasively in his book Lord Jesus Christ,² it is not just what is said about Jesus that shows his claim to deity, but what he did—actions that only God could do. So let us turn to an examination of some of these things.

Jesus Acting as God

5. How was God's power exercised in Jesus' actions and words to benefit needy and suffering people? and to judge evil? Benefit:

• healing the sick: (1) giving sight to the blind: The miraculous healing of a blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-25); (2) deaf mute: (Matt. 9, 12, 15; Mark 7 and 9);
  
• feeding the hungry multitudes (Mark 6:30-44)
  
• Jesus' words to John the Baptist (Luke 7:20-23) sum it all up:
  

When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'" At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."

6. How was God's power over inanimate things active in Jesus' actions?

• Turning water into wine (John 2:1-11)
• multiplying loaves and fishes (Mark 6:35-43)
• stilling the storm: "he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!' And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, 'Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?' And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?'" (Mark 4:35-41)

7. How was God's power over Satan shown?

• healings;
• exorcisms: (for example, in the synagogue of Capernaum. There he began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching. He taught them like one who had authority. He did not talk like the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue cried out. He was controlled by an evil spirit. He said,) "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are. You are the Holy One of God!" Mark 1:23-27; 
• driving the demon-possessed swine into Lake of Galilee: 
• victory over the tempter;

8. How was God's power over life and death shown?

• raising the dead daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:40-55)
• and Lazarus (John 11).
  

Do the actions of Jesus that required supernatural, divine power—i.e., his miracles—always serve the particular concerns of Yahweh, the God of Israel? Give examples: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" John 10:10-11.

Summary and Conclusion

The four canonical gospels present the miracle of God becoming Man in a wide variety of ways. Some of these ways are shared by all four. All four acclaim Jesus as the "Son of God" and "the Christ [Messiah]". All four use his words of wisdom and authority to link him to Moses and to Solomon. And all four report his power over nature, over Satan, and over sickness and death as effects of the Fall to show him to be the God of Creation and of Israel. There can be no doubt that those who knew Jesus best were enabled by the Holy Spirit to understand clearly who he really was: God's Immanuel. We should celebrate this thrilling fact not just at Christmas time—although we should certainly do so then—but every day of our lives. The God of Creation and of ancient Israel has redeemed us and lives in us to do the same kind of miracles of guidance and deliverance that he did for Israel in the exodus and the desert wanderings, and the same kind of miracles of healing and teaching that he did when Jesus walked the roads of Galilee. This is our God, and he is with us. Hallelujah!

Endnotes

1 See 1. L. E. Wilkinson, 'Immanuel and the purpose of creation', Doing theology for the people of God : studies in honor of J.I. Packer (ed. D. M. Lewis, A. E. McGrath and J. I. Packer; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996) 245-61.

2 1. L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).

Immanuel: God With Us - Part 3 - Prophecies

"Prophecies of a Unique Incarnation"

Introduction: Living in Hope

In all ages, God has intended his people to live in hope. Adam and Eve lived in hope of the "seed of the woman." Noah lived in hope of a new and righteous world after the flood. Abraham lived in hope of the fulfillment of God's promises to him. Moses lived in hope of his people's living in the Promised Land that he himself was not permitted to enter. David lived in hope of the fulfillment of God's promise to him of a permanent descendant ruling over Israel (2 Sam. 7). Even after the Cross and Pentecost, we Christians live in hope of the return of Jesus. The earliest believers regularly prayed the corporate prayer marana tha "Come quickly, Our Lord" (1 Cor. 16:22). Only with Jesus' return and the establishment of God's eternal kingdom in a New Heavens and a New Earth will we no longer live in hope, but in complete fulfillment.

This week we want to investigate what hopes guided the Israelites during the periods of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the exile, and the return to Zion under Ezra and Nehemiah.

By using the word "hopes" instead of "prophecies" I do not mean to convey the idea of wishful thinking. ("I hope I get a raise this year"). In biblical terms "hope" never means that. It means living in view of and in anticipation of what is promised and certain. In Hebrew it is ha-tiqvah. In NT terms (Hebrews 11) it is "faith."

A Comprehensive Hope

Much has been written and preached about "messianic prophecy." I don't object to that term, but I think it encourages us to think too narrowly about what scripture tells us that Israel heard from God and hoped for. What I see in OT scripture is the promise of a perfect kingdom vastly superior even to what Israel was intended to be and never achieved, and headed by a king like David but exceeding him in meeting God's standard and ideal of kingship. An ideal kingdom and an ideal king, all based upon the picture of the kingdom and the king for which God's laws were given to Israel through Moses. Nevertheless, in today's class we will focus on the prophecies of the Coming One who will usher in and rule over that kingdom by first suffering for humanity's sins caused by Adam's fall.

How is the messiah pictured?

Jews in Jesus' day called this person the messiah—Hebrew mĕšîaḥ, Greek christos—both meaning "the one whom God has anointed." This term was used very sparingly in the OT of this one future king. Normally, the word "anointed" designated the king of Israel, in particular David. It is true that God commanded the Israelites to anoint other figures. The high priest Aaron was anointed, as were the articles of the tabernacle furniture. This was to set them apart from profane use for the exclusive service of God. Elijah was once commanded to anoint Elisha to be his successor as prophet. But clearly the figure normally associated with being anointed was the Davidic king, and this is presumably how the word came to be reserved for the coming ruler, whom we call the messiah. BUT most of the prophecies of this coming one in the OT do not use the term at all.

How does one know if a passage of the OT is a prophecy of the messiah?

The surest way is to see if it is claimed for Jesus in the NT. But traditionally Christians have claimed many more than those explicitly quoted in the NT. 

What makes it so difficult to identify messianic prophecies is the fact that what in many cases began as predictions of historical kings and prophets who were ideal embodiments of God's will and purpose had a logical application to the messiah. If the messiah was to be the perfect king, prophet and Melchizedekian priest, then what was promised about ideal kings, prophets and priests, but never fully realized in Israel's history, could rightly be expected of the messiah.

Looking at a Selection of Prophecies, Most Likely to Be Messianic

1. Which of the assigned passages appears to you to relate to the birth of the Messiah? Micah 5:2; Isa. 7:14

Micah 5:2 is actually quoted by Matthew (2:6) as a prediction of the messiah's birth in Bethlehem. Usually the NT authors quote the OT from the Septuagint, the ancient translation into Greek. but here Matthew quotes the Jewish Bible scholars advising Herod as not following the LXX at all. In fact their rendering is even rather free from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. If you use two identical Bible versions and open them side by side to Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:6, you can see what I mean.

Yet this rendering quoted by Matthew does not falsify Micah's text: it merely hits the high points. Someone is to "come forth from Bethlehem" (that is, to be born there) who is to become God's ruler. 

Herod's Jewish advisers—quoted here by Matthew—do not quote the second half of Micah 5:2. His "origin(s)" (NRSV, NIV; ESV "coming forth") are "from ancient times" (Hebrew ʿôlām). The KJV translated that last part as "from everlasting," which would fit the deity of the messiah well. But Hebrew ʿôlām is not quite so definite, as witness the various evangelical Bible translations as "from ancient times". What is meant by his "origin" being in "ancient times"? This could be a hint at his pre-existing his human birth, which would point to his deity. But another possibility is that it refers to the origin of his kingly line in the time of David. After all, Micah prophesied throughout the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, roughly 735–700 BC, three centuries after the time of David (around 1000 BC), which to him would be "ancient times."

Isaiah 7:14  is also quoted by Matthew (1:23) as a prediction of Mary's virginal conception of Jesus: not the place of the messiah's birth but the manner of his conception. This prediction is taken out of its original context, which was a "sign" given to King Ahaz, to reassure him that two threatening kings—of Israel and of Syria—would not succeed in conquering him, but would perish (see especially verse 16, where before the child Immanuel is old enough to distinguish good from evil the Assyrian army acting for God would conquer both kings). Matthew's use is confined to two points: (1) the child will be conceived and born by a woman who was a virgin at the time, and (2) he will be called Immanuel, a name never given to Jesus, but which encapsulates his nature as "God with Us". 

The name Immanuel, so far as we know, was never actually given to any Israelite newborn—not even to Jesus. It is a symbolic name, not a real one. It represents his nature as the embodiment of the promise to Ahaz. If Judah would hold out against these two kings for just the few years until the child reached the age of discretion, the truth that God was "with" them to protect them would be fulfilled by the Assyrian armies overwhelming Syria and Israel.

2. Which of the assigned passages appears to you to relate to the messiah's kingship? 2 Sam. 7:11-16

2 Samuel 7 records God's promise and covenant with David. The "son" who would rule after David and from whom God would never remove his love and commitment was—in the first instance—the immediate son of David, Solomon as well as his successors. This is indicated by God's warning that he will chastise such a descendant at the hands of human opponents.

“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,” (2 Samuel 7:14 ESV)

These "sons" of David would be imperfect fulfillments of the intended figure. The messiah would not be. For this reason, in the centuries after David and continuing into the lifetime of Jesus, the messiah was preeminently thought of as "the son of David" (see Matt. 12:23; 21:9; 22:42). 

Matt. 12:23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

Matt. 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Hosanna in the highest!”

Matt. 21:15 But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.

Matt. 22:42 “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”   “The son of David,” they replied.

In fact, in the OT prophets the messianic "son of David" is sometimes referred to simply as "David"¹ or as "the shoot of Jesse." In the prophetic picture there is a merging of the figure of David with that of his messiah "son."

3. Which of the assigned passages appears to you to relate to the messiah's deity? Isa. 9:6-7; Micah 5:2

We have seen how the end of Micah 5:2 might be understood as a statement of the messiah's existence long before he was born. But we have also seen that the words can be interpreted as referring to the beginning of the messiah's kingly line in ancient times with David.

Isaiah 9:6, on the other hand, does seem to predict a divine messiah. In 9:1-5 the setting of this verse is the end of the sufferings of Israel at the hands of foreign armies and conquerors. Two reasons are given for this: (1) verses 4 and 5 each begin with "for" (because)—God has "broken the yoke" of servitude that the foreign nations had laid upon his people and burned in fire the equipment of the attacking armies, and (2) a child is born to Israel.

Isaiah doesn't say that this child will be the agent for breaking the yoke of foreign rule, but that he will rule on the throne of David and that his kingdom's growth and prosperity/peace will be endless. He will establish that kingdom and uphold it forever. In these dual roles he mirrors God himself who promised to do just this in 2 Samuel 7. 

But who is this mysterious ruler? Like Immanuel, he is given a symbolic—not a literal—name. It is actually a kind of titulary consisting of many titles, and we find it in v. 6. As early as the LXX this "name" was badly misunderstood. The LXX translates it as follows: "A messenger of great counsel am I. For I will bring peace to the rulers, peace and health to him." We won't go into how they may have come up with this strange translation from the Hebrew text.

• Wonderful (miraculous) Counselor stresses his divine wisdom.
• Mighty God (or "El the Mighty Hero") stresses his deity.
• Everlasting Father ("Father of Eternity") stresses his lordship over time and history.
• Prince of Peace (ruler bringing prosperity and peace) stresses his role in inaugurating God's final era of righteousness and peace.
• This, you will agree, is quite a picture of the coming messiah.

4. Which of the assigned passages appears to you to relate to his priestly role? To his sacrificial death? Psa. 110; Isa. 53; [Psa. 22]

Jesus himself did not claim to be a priest, but the author of the Book of Hebrews invokes the promise to the Davidic king given in Psalm 110 "you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Psa 110:4; Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17) to call Jesus "our great high priest" (Hebrews 4:14); see also Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15. But by qualifying this priesthood as Melchizedekian—Judahite and not Aaronic, Hebrews makes clear that the messiah was never conceived of or predicted to be a priest of the type that Aaron or his descendents were. 

Hebrews not only qualifies the messiah's priesthood as Melchizedekian, but in Hebrews 5:5 links it to the David kingship, saying it was given by the one who called the Davidic king "my son" in Psalm 2. The messiah's priesthood is the kind of priesthood that only the Davidic royal messiah could exercise, not that of the descendants of Aaron.

Since the publication of the Dead Sea scrolls there has been quite a bit of controversy as to whether some Jews in the time of Jesus already believed that the messiah would suffer and die. It has not been proved that they did, but if so, that is no problem for the veracity of the NT, which does not claim that no one anticipated this. What was totally unanticipated was the Jesus was that messiah. And if some Jews believed the messiah would die, no one anticipated that he would be delivered up to death by his own people's leadership, nor that he would die the ignominious death of crucifixion.

Two of the passages I assigned to you for study—Psa. 110, and Isaiah 53—predicted that the messiah would have a priestly role and that he would die for the sins of his people. A third which I did not assign—Psalm 22—describes that death in remarkable detail and was actually quoted from our Savior's own lips as he hung on the cross" "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?"

But the most striking OT prediction which found its fulfillment in Jesus does not use the normal terms associated with messianic prophecy. The figure is not called prophet, priest or king. He is simply called "my servant" (Hebrew ʿavdî). I refer to Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12. Biblical scholars refer to the figure as the Suffering Servant. 

That term "servant of the LORD" could just as easily refer to Job, who is also proudly referred to by God himself as "my servant Job," and whom we all remember suffered excruciatingly, both physically with the loss of his children and possessions and mentally-emotionally by the rebuke of his wife who told him to "curse God and die" and his so-called "friends" who preached to him incessantly that he was suffering because of his own sins.

But Job's suffering—although undeserved, and therefore bringing him exaltation and praise from God in the end for his faith and honesty in the midst of it all—was not on behalf of others and for their sins. The "servant" in Isaiah 52 and 53 suffers in the place of others (vv. 5, 6, 8), makes intercession for them (vv. 11-12), and brings them forgiveness.

If this is the messiah, why is the term "my servant" particularly appropriate? It is important to note that David and each of his successors, whom we have seen were true types of the messianic king, were also called "servant of the LORD (i.e., Yahweh)". This was the model of Israelite kingship. And since 2 Samuel models the messiah on Israelite kingship, viewed in the ideal, he will also legitimately be called "my servant." In fact, in the sermons of the apostles recorded in Acts, the exalted Jesus is often referred to as God's "servant" (Greek pais in Acts 3:13, 26; 4:25, 27, 30). In prayer to God, the disciples in Acts 4:27 and 30 refer to Jesus as "your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed." The British scholar Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus [2003], p. 190) sums up the significance of this title used of Jesus in the NT: 

"I contend that … these applications of [Greek] pais to Jesus carry a specifically Israel-oriented and royal-messianic connotation".

The song of the "Servant of Yahweh" actually begins in 52:13ff. It begins with a statement of the Servant's success (13). He will "act wisely (yaskîl, 13). He will be exalted threefold:  "See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted" (yarûm wĕnissāʾ wĕgāvah mĕʾōd, 13). 

In v. 14 the NIV and ESV give the impression that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations as a priest might consecrate or purify them. But the NRSV is right to render this verb "startle". Verses 13 and 14 are a pair, as their introductory conjunctions "just as … so" indicate. The point is that, although the Servant's appearance startles those who see him in a way that they expect nothing of him, after he has accomplished his mission he will leave everyone—Israel as well as the nations—dumbfounded with admiration. From a NT point of view that either happens when individual Gentiles are impressed by the gospel message, or will happen when Jesus returns in glory.

Chapter 53 proper commences what can only be called a lament of repentant Israel. "Who (of us) believed what we heard? To which of us was the arm of the Lord revealed?" These are rhetorical questions, because Isaiah's point is that none of them understood that the messiah was to come in humility and be thought a sinner who deserved to die.

Verse 3 summarizes the tragic misapprehension of Israel: "He was despised and rejected … and we esteemed him not." Like Job's three "friends", Israel would misjudge Jesus, consider him a blasphemer and a Sabbath-breaker, one whose fate on a Roman cross was a punishment from God himself. 

Verses 4-6 are the "Holy of Holies" of this beautiful prophecy. Here the prophet, speaking for a future repentant nation of Israel, expresses their horrified discovery of the true nature of what happened on the Cross, what a popular Christian songwriter called "the great exchange"—"he was wounded for our transgressions" and "Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all." 

The Servant's death in this manner was no accident, no horrible unforeseen tragedy to be deeply regretted. It was planned by God himself: verse 10 says "Yet it was Yahweh's will to crush him and cause him to suffer … and to make his life/soul a guilt-offering".

And, as amazing as it may seem, this prophecy even predicts the resurrection of the Servant—although admittedly indirectly. In verses 10b and 11 we read: "he will see his offspring and prolong his days" and "after the suffering of his soul he will see the light (of life) and be satisfied". The more recent (correct) translation of that last phrase is due to the better text preserved in the LXX and the Dead Sea Hebrew manuscripts. 

There is also a prediction of Gentile inclusion. Up to this point the beneficiaries are understood to be Isaiah's people, Israel. But in 11b and 12 the "many" spoken of are in contrast to Israel, and refers to the nations. He will "bear their iniquities" is in contrast to "our iniquities" in 4-6 and the "transgression of my people" in v. 8.

5. Which of the assigned passages appears to you to relate to his being the source of forgiveness and righteousness to believers? Jer. 23:6; 33:16

In Jeremiah 23:5-6 and 33:15-16 we read:

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: Yahweh ṣidqēnū, The LORD Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:5-6 NIV).

Like Immanuel, and the fourfold titulary of Isaiah 9:6, this "name" is actually a statement about the coming King who is the "righteous branch" from David's trunk. But although it makes a statement about him, it need not be read as a sentence, as the NRSV does "the Lord is our righteousness," but can with NIV, ESV and others, be taken as a title: "Yahweh, our Righteousness." 

In the Gospel of John, Jesus claimed the divine name Yahweh in its meaning explained to Moses (Exodus 3:13-15), when he said "before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58-59). And he is the source of our righteousness.

Summary

Did these messianic hopes actually play an important role in the lives of OT saints? Were they in some sense nourishment for their hopes and their faith? We get only fleeting glimpses of this in the OT. But it is likely that their major effect was felt in the Babylonian captivity and the return to Zion under Ezra and Nehemiah. It is no coincidence that during the exile they were without a real functioning king of their own (as opposed to the Babylonian or Persian kings), and that after the return their only king was Zerubbabel, who is titled only as a "prince." When physical and contemporary political kingship was lacking, the hope for the eschatological kingdom and its king was more keenly felt. 

The prophecies of Isaiah—not just Isaiah 53—are replete with messianic visions. As Christians we are familiar with the Christmas prophecies (Isa. 7:14 Immanuel born of virgin, Isa. 9:6-7 his name will be Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace). But there are also the descriptions of the perfect kingdom of righteousness and peace and the messiah's rule over his people like the perfect shepherd.

All of these prophecies were God's way of encouraging his people, suffering not only under foreign invasions, but under the godless and inept rule of the later pre-exilic monarchs of David's line. I like to think that the similar hope we have of the Second Coming of Jesus can encourage you and me, as we live in a world replete with dangers from without and within. We do not trust in human rulers. We trust in the Lord who will some day establish his eternal reign of justice and peace over the New Earth, with the only human worthy to rule, the God-Man Jesus of Nazareth.

1 “I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. … My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes.” (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24)

Immanuel: "God With Us" - Part 2 - Israel

"INCARNATION AND ISRAEL"

I said at the beginning of our first class that we would see how God was not just "treading water" during the long time between the fall of Adam and Eve and the birth of Jesus. His goal was to redeem fallen humans and restore the bright and clear image of God that they originally represented.

Some Christians have the mistaken view that the great investment that God made in the Jewish people—beginning with Abraham and continuing through Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the centuries of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah—was a big failure, and that with Jesus and the Church he just declared the whole enterprise a waste and started over with a clean slate.

If so, why did God do it in the first place? Do we not believe that God knows the future as well as the past and present? If so, there is no wasted effort with God.

You may not wish to describe the fall of Adam and Eve as a "failure" or "defeat" for God. I understand. But surely on the surface it appears that way. The human beings he created on the 6th day as the managers of his creation—in his very "image" almost like his own son and daughter—did not believe his warning, did not obey his command, and preferred the lie of the serpent (Satan) to his truthful words. They rejected God.

Nevertheless, God chose not to simply destroy them and start over. Instead, he chose to begin a very long process in history, which intended to roll back the apparent control of humanity and the earth enjoyed by Satan. I use the word "apparent," because like you I believe firmly in God's omnipotence. He is always in control. But also like you I believe we must not water down the words of scripture, which describes Satan as being "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4), and which contrasts God's control of believers with that of the whole rest of the world: “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19). Jesus himself said that by means of his death and resurrection he "cast out" (ekballō John 12:31) and "judged" (krinō John 12:31 and 16:11) the "prince/ruler (archōn) of this world" (see also John 14:30).

God was doing much more than just revealing more about himself in this process: he was also taking measures that affected Satan's apparent control over humanity and the earth.

Do you remember how in the opening of the Book of Job (1:8-12; 2:3-6) Satan asked God's permission to test Job's faithfulness and devotion? God gave him permission to do so. Evil exists in this world at the permission of God. God can allow it to increase or can curb it at his will. When seen in terms of certain short periods of history or in certain parts of the globe, Satan's power and influence may appear to ebb and flow over time. But seen in the wide panorama of the Bible's view of history we can see stages in the advance of God's program to roll it back and ultimately eliminate it at Christ's Second Coming.

The biggest changes occurred in connection with the First Coming of Christ and the formation of the Church at Pentecost. We will document them in more detail in future weeks. But briefly they included believers for the first time in history enjoying (1) a new birth and a new nature ("new creation")—Nicodemus who was well-versed in the Old Testament knew nothing about it), (2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit accompanied by his many ministries to us, (Jesus said to his disciples that the HS "dwells [now] with you and will be in you", John 14:17) and (3) the assurance not only of forgiveness of sins and being in God's presence when we die, but the future resurrection of our bodies and reigning with Christ in a New Heavens and Earth. These new developments clearly constituted much more than an enlarged revelation.

What in this class we are adding to the consideration are much smaller but no less significant advances during the OT period, leading up to the First Coming of Christ: ways in which God increased the equipping of his saints to do battle with Satan and to witness in the surrounding world.

Certainly, the saints of God—and even the world around them—were better off and better equipped after the giving of the law at Sinai and by the founding of the nation of Israel. The net effect upon the surrounding pagan nations was to see in Israel's institutions and system of justice the wise, just, righteous and merciful character of Israel's God, who claimed to be the only God and the Creator. That indeed was increased revelation.

But the effect of these events on the believing Israelites themselves was much more than just additional knowledge about God: it was a vastly expanded capacity to experience, worship, serve, and testify to God through corporate worship in sacrifice and song at tabernacle and temple, through festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) commemorating God's redemptive acts for the nation, and through laws and prophecy focused upon righteous living in community. These things "means of grace" were simply not available to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph. Their sacrifices were either individual or at best family, not national. And they had no laws or religious festivals.

These innovations came because God was turning up the pressure on Satan and evil. Because these resources cannot equal what we have today in Christ should not lead us to minimize their importance and effect in their era! A rich spiritual life was possible for—and enjoyed by—many in ancient Israel. We have seen only the tip of the iceberg in Dan Block's sermons about Naomi, Boaz and Ruth.

The Birth of a Nation & Its Institutions

In our first session we omitted considering the key figure of Abraham and the nature of the promises made to him.

These were solemn promises, covenantal promises. As such, they were enforced by an oath taken by God. Usually treaties and covenants were concluded with oaths by both sides. Each king involved swore by his own nation's gods to abide by the treaty's terms. Within the Bible itself you can see examples in the oaths of Laban and Jacob at Mizpeh (at the heap of stones called Hebrew gal ʿēd and Aramaic yĕgar sahădûtā: Gen 31:44-54) and in the Sinai covenant between God and the nation of Israel (Exodus 19:3-8). But in the case of Abraham, it was only God who took the oath (cf. Gen. 24:7; 26:3; Josh. 1:6; also dramatized by God passing between the sacrificial cuts of meat in Gen. 15:8-21). Abraham had already shown himself faithful to believe all that God said to him and do all that God commanded him. But it was God's intention to stress to Abraham the certainty of the fulfillment of what he was promising. Thus, the oath.

In God's covenant with Abraham and his seed, renewed to his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, to make his offspring a great nation and to give to them the land in which Abraham was living at the time as a resident alien (i.e., not a landholder). The first part of this twofold promise was fulfilled in the exodus, the giving of the law at Sinai, and the desert wanderings. The second part began to be fulfilled under Joshua, although the borders promised to Abraham were not actually attained until the reign of King David.

In the interval between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob went from being the extended family of the twelve sons of Jacob to a populous people in slavery in Egypt. Since they were not a self-ruling unit, we can't yet call them a "nation." But by the time that the Book of Exodus ends, they have become a nation under the direct rule of God through a chosen mediator named Moses.

As was the case in the Genesis narratives, God continued to project his "image" in his Creation in three ways: (1) through spectacular direct actions (creation, flood, exodus [Passover, Red Sea], Sinai, conquest of the Promised Land), (2) through further direct revelation of his Word (Mosaic law, Prophets, wisdom literature), and (3) through both the corporate life of Israel (law, temple worship, sacrifices, festivals) and the conspicuous lives of individual saints who showed the image of God (Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah).

In the miraculous exodus event, God chose to reveal himself in a unique way to the world.

Like Adam and Eve, like Noah and Abraham, the newborn nation of Israel "imaged" God to the fallen world in a way that single individuals never could. In the national institutions of Israel and in her corporate life she exhibited the character of God and his saving and judging intentions to a fallen world in a unique and powerful manner.

Let us look at the individual ways.

But before we commence, let me backtrack a bit to explain the key role in our thinking played by the Hebrew name "Immanel" = "God (is) with us". As Christians we rightly see this fulfilled ultimately in Jesus. He epitomized the truth of this name. If the word "us" in this name refers to all humanity—only one possibility—Jesus was both (1) God on our side (a perfectly normal interpretation of the word "with"), and (2) God living among us as a mortal man (another perfectly normal interpretation of "with"). As applied to Jesus, it attests among other things his deity: he was "true God," as the creed affirms.

But when we back up seven centuries to the time of Isaiah, did God expect the people Isaiah addressed to understand the word "us" in this way? Surely there was a purpose for the prophecy in Isaiah's day. I think we would have to admit that "us" in Isaiah's context was "Israel." The royal figure born of a virgin would be a sign that God was on Israel's side: to defend and care for her, as well as to prosper every aspect of her individual and communal life.

This is surely the force of God's being "with" his people (Hebrew preposition ʿim as in Immanuel) throughout the Bible. When at Kadesh-barnea, Israel refused God's command to attack the Promised Land from the south, after he had promised to "be with them" in battle [promised through the words of Joshua and Caleb in Numbers 14:8-9], he warned them of the consequences. When in fear they then "repented" too late, and set out on their own to do what he first asked them to do, Moses warned them:

“Do not go up, for Yahweh is not with you; do not let yourselves be struck down before your enemies. For the Amalekites and the Canaanites will confront you there, and you shall fall by the sword; because you have turned back from following Yahweh, [he] will not be with you”” (Numbers 14:42-43 NRSV).
And that is exactly what happened.

The same is true for God being with individuals. In Genesis 21:22f, the Philistine king Abimelech acknowledges to Abraham "God is with you in everything you do." In the Book of Ruth, the Bethlehemite land-owner Boaz greets his harvesters in the field with the words (Ruth 2:4) "May Yahweh be with you", and they reply "May Yahweh bless you." The different wording of their reply cannot mask the obvious identical force of the prayer/wish. — God abandoned Saul, when he consistently disobeyed God's commands, and was "with" David.

What we are seeking to trace in these weeks is the way in which God expanded the methods and manners in which he could be "with" his people ("Immanuel: God with us"), empowering them in work and witness—with believing Israel in the OT, with believing Jews and Gentiles in the NT.

The Exodus: God Imaged as Redeemer-Deliverer

Question 1. How was God "with” believing Israel in his dramatic miraculous acts in Egypt and the Wilderness? And how can we apply the same principle to show how he is "with" believers today? Reflect on any ONE of the miracles, and tell us how it illustrates this to you?

There is no denying the fact that, in addition to being a real event in history, the exodus event served in OT times, as well as today, as a typology. The historical Egyptian king, whose name—significantly—is not given, represents something on a cosmic and a moral scale. He is the archetypical opponent of God's redemptive plan. Not quite a figure of Satan himself, but very close to it.

Even in the very period of Moses we learn from incidental passages in the narratives that the nations surrounding Israel were drawing conclusions about God from what happened to Israel in Egypt and the subsequent desert wanderings.

For example, Rahab's words to the two Israelite spies in Joshua 2: “I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that dread of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear before you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. As soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no courage left in any of us because of you. Yahweh your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below” (Joshua 2:9-12).

Moses himself uses as a basis for his pleading with God not to abandon sinful Israel in the deserts the negative effect that would have on God's reputation among the nations. As Numbers 14:15-19 makes clear, the "greatness" and the "power" of the LORD, which was to impress the nations, lay not just in judgment, but in forgiveness of the repentant, and in faithfulness to his vows and promises. In the Wilderness years, helped by Moses' prayers of intercession, the nation of Israel was imaging to the world the righteous and merciful character of God as that image of God had been seen also in Adam and Noah.

1. Plagues, Death of Firstborn, Red Sea, Sinai, Pillars of smoke and fire [God as righteous]
2. Deliverances from Egyptians and Amalekites [righteous]
3. Provision of Water, Manna and Quails [caring for needs, answering prayer]
4. Judgment for Idolatry with Gold Calf [righteous]
5. Repeated granting of forgiveness [merciful]

Even in her sins and repentance, Israel fleshed out the "God with Us" concept early in her national life. God is only with his own. Israel was God's firstborn son. When our children were growing up, I never disciplined another man's son while he was in our yard, but I did discipline my own when they disobeyed me. The privilege of sonship brings with it the certainty of correction.

The institution of the Tabernacle was in order for God to be "with" Israel, literally in their very midst, as they encamped during the journey to the Promised Land.

The Word of God at Mt. Sinai: God Imaged in Justice and Mercy

Question 4: How did the codification in writing of God's verbal communication in the Hebrew scriptures—especially the law, the prophets, the wisdom literature, and the psalms—enable him to be "with us" in a particularly vivid and effective way? What advantages did this form of conveying truth have over the previous three forms? Name ONE way in which you try to internalize God's Word for daily living?

As Adam was God's "son" and his "image" in the created world, so now the new nation of Israel was God's "son" (Exodus 4:22) and his "image" to the world. In a way, the Promised Land as portrayed to the Israelites in the Wilderness was a new Garden of Eden, flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:13). And just as God gave to Adam his command and his instructions how to carry out his mandate to fill the earth and subdue it, so now at Sinai God gave his commandments and his instructions how to fill the Promised Land and subdue it.

The commandment and the instructions given to Adam in the garden are nowhere called a "covenant." But God made covenants (Hebrew bĕrît) with Noah and Abraham, and here at Sinai he made one with Israel. The terms of this covenant involve expressing in the national life of the people God's holiness, his justice, and his merciful forgiveness.

• Holiness by means of the purity laws and the limited accessibility to the Ark which symbolized the physical presence of a holy God among his people (Immanuel).
• Justice by means of obeying and punishing infractions of his laws concerning righteous behavior.
• Merciful forgiveness by means of the provisions in the sacrificial system for rites signifying repentance and atonement.

This clearly goes far beyond how God was "imaged" by Adam, Noah, or Abraham. And it presented a foretaste of the eschatological End-Time earthly kingdom of God in its vast superiority to the life and constitution of any of the nations surrounding Israel. Moses expressed it well, when he said:

“See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:5-8 NIV)

When the apostle Paul was asked what advantage ancient Israel had over the other peoples, he singled out both the scriptures (Romans 3:1-2), and then "the adoption as [God's] son; … the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 … the patriarchs, and … the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" (Rom. 9:4-5).

The Emergence of a Holy Kingship

Question 3: How was he "with" his people in the individual faithful saints of the OT? Select one of those mentioned in the assigned texts as an example. What did you learn from ONE example that helps you in your walk as a believer?

If any of you chose David as the OT saint whose example helped you most (question 3), he represents a further institution through which God mediated his presence and holy power in ancient Israel. Kingship—both God's (Psalms 5, 10, 24, 29) and that of the Davidic line (Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21)—figures very prominently in the Psalms. Many would say that it is one of the dominant themes of the Psalter.

Many Bible scholars assume that—since Israel's request for a king in the days of Samuel (1 Sam. 8:4-9) was denounced by God, saying "they have rejected me from ruling over them" (verse 7)—a human king was not in God's original ideal plan for Israel. Yet several factors show this to be untrue.

• Adam himself is treated as a king who imaged the God whose viceroy he was (Gen. 1:28 "rule over (rādâ bĕ …) the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground").
• The promises to Abraham include the statement that "kings will come forth from you" (Gen. 17:6).
• The predictions included in the final words of the patriarch Jacob include designating the tribe of Judah as possessing the "scepter" (shēveṭ) and "ruler's staff" (mĕḥôqēq, Gen. 49:10).
• And Moses in Deuteronomy already lays down rules for future Israelite kings with regard to the Torah (Deut. 17:18-19).

It may have been God's will to delay the beginning of human kingship until Israel was ready for it, but it was certainly always his intention to inaugurate it. What was objectionable about the request given to Samuel was that they wanted "a king like those nations around us" (1 Sam. 8:5, 20). The kind of king they wanted was influenced by the pagan pattern of that day, a pattern that Samuel delineated in verses 10-18, a selfish, greedy, grasping kingship, unconcerned with the welfare of the governed. Unfortunately, Israelite kings in later times became just such kings. But this was not God's ideal or standard.

The Davidic Line, and the Dynastic Covenant

Israel's first king, Saul, even though God chose him for Samuel to anoint (1 Sam. 9:15-17), was a perfect example of the truth that good intentions in a political leader do not translate into success unless he has the wisdom, judgment and determination to obey God instead of what appears to be the best human wisdom. Saul repeatedly let his reason justify disobedience to direct commands from God. As such Saul typifies what an Israelite king should not be.

David, on the other hand, also deliberately disobeyed God and heartlessly the innocent husband of the woman he had committed adultery with! But—because unlike Saul, who at times resorted to witchcraft, David never compromised with Canaanite witchcraft or idolatry—David typified what an Israelite king should be: he had no other God but Yahweh. Later Davidic kings compromised with polytheism, which made David the paragon: the "man after God's own heart", meaning the man whom God picked out.

And just as God rewarded Abraham's faithful and sacrificial obedience in Genesis 22 with a great promise, so in 2 Samuel 7, God rewarded David's faithfulness with a remarkable Dynastic Covenant. By the terms of this covenant, God promised that David's descendants who sat on the throne would prosper as they obeyed God and would suffer discipline when they did not, and that his royal line would never end.

Read 2 Sam. 7:1-17. Terms of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7)

• Personal fame (“a name” v. 9)
• Victory over enemies; freedom from attack and outside oppression (10-11)
• An unending dynasty of kings (11-16)
• Father-son relationship to each king (14)
• Disciplining for disobedience (14)
• Never giving up on Davidic kings (15-16)

Exile and Return as Integral in the Dynastic Covenant

In v. 14 God promises to discipline or punish future Davidic kings when they prove disobedient, using "the rod of men." (bĕšēveṭ ʾănāšîm). This is in full harmony with the promise to relate to each king as a father does to a son. "Spare the rod, and spoil the child" is in mind here ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him" Prov. 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15). And indeed during the centuries that followed, when Israel's disobedience reached intolerable levels, God promised to bring upon them the armies of Assyria, which he called "the rod of my anger" (šēveṭ ʾappî Isa. 10:5).

The theme of exile as God's discipline on a disobedient Israel and return as the consequence, since he would never give up on Israel, is integral to the Book of Deuteronomy (see 28:36-37, 64-68). Exile and return are not mentioned specifically in the Dynastic Covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7. But they are implied, inasmuch as fates of king and people were inextricably bound together. The subsequent history of Israel and Judah in the books of Kings and Chronicles offer abundant evidence that kings could lead the people into idolatry, sin and judgment, as they also could lead them to repentance, cleansing of the land from idolatry, and blessing. Exile is also clearly alluded to in the phrase "I will punish him with the rod of men" in 2 Samuel 7:14.

But because God pledged himself never to ultimately reject the Davidic line of kings, so every warning of exile —from Deuteronomy 28 to the Latter Prophets—was accompanied by a promise of returning repentant people from exile (Hosea 11 and 14; Joel 3; Amos 9; Micah 4-5 and 7; Zephaniah 3; and Zechariah 8, 13 and 14). There was never to be an exile that was final. There was never envisaged a Davidic king ruling over anyone other than God's people Israel. To use Paul's image in Romans 11:11-24, Jewish branches might be broken off of their olive tree for a time because of unbelief, and Gentile branches grafted in. But the prospect remains of Jewish branches being grafted back into their own stock and Gentile ones broken off (Romans 11:21-24).

In the promise to David God is imaged as determined to bless those who love and obey him. In Israel's repeated experiences of exile and return, he is imaged as the loving Father who disciplines and restores a son. The promise to David was anticipated by the promises to Abraham and Noah. But the exile and return experiences of Israel are unprecedented in previous history. They represent a new way in which God "incarnated" and "imaged" himself in the world.

In exiling Israel from their land in AD 70, an exile that physically has lasted until this past century, and which spiritually continues as long as Jesus is not recognized as their Messiah, God and Savior, God exposed them to many sufferings. But as in ancient times, he holds anyone who inflicts suffering upon them accountable to himself. So he has held accountable and has punished any group—professing Christian or not—that proposed to annihilate these so-called "Christ killers." Even as unbelieving, Israel has a special place in the heart of God, just as it did in the heart of the Apostle Paul (Romans 9:1-4; 10:1).

How does God advance his being "with us" through the covenant to David and his descendants? We must first define who the "us" is! If "us" is Davidic kings and Israelites, as in the first analysis the text says, it means that God committed himself to these kings and this people as never previously, and did so by a formal treaty or covenant and solemn promises that he cannot break, because he always keeps his word.

If the Davidic king is seen as the final and ultimate one, Jesus of Nazareth, whose reign spiritually began at the cross and empty tomb over Jews and Gentiles who believe in him, and physically and literally will occur at his second coming, when he will rule upon a New Earth, then it means that God is "with" an "us" defined by the believing community which he redeemed by his sacrifice. He is "with" that community both in the sense of being "on our side", standing with us and defending us from Satan and the just deserts of our sins, and in the sense of being "in" us by the Holy Spirit, to reveal God's truth, convict of sin, reassure of forgiveness and salvation, mark us as sons of God, and empower our witness.

Jesus is the ultimate "son" of David, who inherited David's throne. And as a Davidic king, he relates to God as son to Father. but in Jesus' case the sonship is also ontological: he is the true Son of God and God the Son.

Closing Prayer

• thank you for your son our Savior Jesus

• thank you for guidance and learning today and the opportunity to worship you within the family of believers

• help us to know how to use the lessons of your passover salvation and the giving of your law

• help us to understand that Jesus is our king, just as David was the king you gave to Israel

• give us discipline to keep opur daily appointments with you for prayer and meditation on your Word

• give us alertness to the needs around us

Immanuel: God With Us - Part 1 - Creation

Welcome and Introduction

Hi, folks! After a lengthy hiatus during which this blog was inactive, we are reactivating it with a new, eight-part series on what I have titled "Immanuel: God with Us in the Old and New Testaments." We will explore how—beginning already at the creation of humans recorded in Genesis 1-2 our Creator-God was taking measures to be "with" his creation. We know that God transcends his creation. Obviously, he would have to in order to have created it in the first place. He is not locked into the universe, but is its author. Yet, because his nature is to love and care for what he creates, he has always sought to be intimately involved. This is at least part of what the preposition "with" means in the phrase "God [is] with us."

After the first humans—Adam and Eve—disobeyed him, preferring the lie of a tempter, and thus brought upon themselves and the rest of creation disastrous consequences, God's efforts to be "with" his fallen creatures continued—yes, even increased.

We will be exploring the concept of God's inserting himself into his creation in order to redeem it, reclaim it, and bring it from a fallen state to a glorious one. This applies first of all to humans, who were the source of the Fall, but secondarily to the entire creation. I first thought of titling the class "Incarnation", since the main way in which God inserted himself was in human flesh—first Adam and Eve, then the OT saints and their leaders, and finally in Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. But I subsequently decided that the name Immanuel in Isaiah's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14) would be just as good, since the name literally means "God with Us." Of course, ultimately this means God in us, since this is how he chose to be on our side as Redeemer and Friend.

So let's get started. How did God—even before the first sin—insert himself in his new creation?

The First Humans as Image-Bearers
Before the Fall, when the first humans were created, they were created "in (or perhaps better as) the image of God." The Hebrew preposition bĕ translated "in" can occasionally have the meaning "as". God created the first human being "as his image."

But what is the “image of God”? What does Scripture mean by the statement that God made the first humans “as/in his image”?

First of all, we need to see how two aspects of the term "image of God" combine to give us a satisfactory understanding of how God used the term in the Bible. Humans are God's image in (a) nature, and (b) function.

Both aspects are significant. Usually we focus entirely on the "nature." We ask: "In what ways do humans resemble God in their makeup?" The answers tend to involve how we differ from animals in possessing rational and moral faculties, which enable us to relate to God.
This is certainly true, but what about the functional aspect? What if this verse should be interpreted as saying that God created Adam and Eve as his image, i.e., as his representatives, to be his authorized surrogates, extending his rule?

We benefit here from some background as to how images of gods and humans functioned in the ancient world of the Bible.

An important insight is also gained from the ancient Egyptian concept of the king (i.e., pharaoh) as the living "image" of a god. The pharaoh Tut-ʿankh-amun's name means literally "living image of (the god) Amun." Amun ruled in and through Tut-ʿankh-amun. In a sense Tut was the god Amun in his rule over his Egyptian subjects. They were to obey the king just as they would obey the god Amun. And the king's actions would mirror to them what Amun himself was like: powerful, wise, just, and compassionate.

As Christians we may well ask if any human king can perfectly mirror the power, wisdom, justice, and compassion of the true God. But remember: we are dealing here with a pagan parallel. And even within the biblical picture, the original idea arose in the Garden of Eden, before humans fell into sin. Mirroring God's character and performing some of his functions in relationship to the creation was not such a reach then.

But another factor needs to be considered. An "image" was by nature a copy or replica. Visual depictions of ancient kings and gods—statues and reliefs—were not perfect likenesses ("photographs"). They were not portraits in the modern sense: they were merely representative. Similarly humans created as images of God mirror him only representatively. Only Jesus mirrors the Creator God perfectly.

Divine and royal images in the ancient Near East were surrogates that allowed persons―usually ones with authority―to multiply their presence (i.e., “clone” themselves). Images of kings at borders. Images of gods in temples and in public places. Images of worshipers placed in temples. To take but one illustrative example: the images of a king erected in various locations both (1) reminded onlookers who it was who ruled them, and what that ruler was like, and (2) by the respect or disrespect that they showed to the images allowed them to demonstrate their respect for the one depicted.

Although God is omnipresent—always present everywhere, the Bible also speaks of his visible or audible presence. Adam and Eve talked with him in the garden "in the cool of the day." Moses saw his visible presence in the burning bush and in the glory cloud. Some localized glory inhabited the tabernacle and the Holy of Holies in Solomon's temple. The very phrase "Immanuel", "God with us," implies some special relationship of God to people and places that transcends our idea of God's omnipresence.

So God has chosen to allow human beings to be one of the ways in which his kingship is seen and perceived in the midst of his creation.

This is what is meant by Psalm 8, which we have yet to consider. How does that begin, and what does it mean? Psalm 8 is a commentary on Genesis 1:26-30 and intends to explain what is meant by humans being God's image (Hebrew ṣelem and dĕmût). The explanation focuses on exalted status ("only a little lower than God"), dominion (crowned like a king), and having all things under righteous control ("under his feet" is a term that refers to royal control). Hebrews 2:6-8 comments further on Psalm 8, by pointing out that the fulfillment of Man's role as image of God lies in Jesus, who as the Second Adam perfectly realizes in his life, death, resurrection, and second coming the full meaning of Adamic "imaging" of God's rule over creation.

God's Spoken Word as His Image
The first way, then, that God mirrored himself—imaged himself—in his creation was through the creation of the first humans. The second way is equally important. God communicated his will and therefore his character verbally. If we think at all about God's word as playing a role in the beginning—before the first sin, we usually think of his creative words, such as "Let there be light!" But God's verbal communications played other roles even before the Fall and the need for redemptive communication. One such role was instructive.

In the Garden of Eden we are told that God regularly came to Adam and Eve. On one such occasion it was “in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8-19). We should probably assume that this was representative of many such meetings. We aren't told if God assumed a visible form in these meetings, but we are told that he spoke with the humans. He spoke, and they listened and replied. Communication took place. Dialog took place. Questions and answers. Learning.

The Genesis account doesn't tell us all that God communicated to the first humans in the garden. It only tells us of one command: not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which stood in the midst of the garden. But there must have been many such instructions given to this couple, who were serving as God’s management in the garden, which was a microcosm of the Earth.

Some scholars think that agriculture only began after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, and their son Cain began to cultivate the ground which the Lord had cursed. But this is an unwarranted assumption. Even in the unfallen state of the Earth, a "garden" or grove required agricultural work. We are told that God put them in the garden "to work it and take care of it" (Gen. 2:15). Working a grove of fruit trees necessarily involved controlling it. In these evening talks, God probably instructed Adam and Eve in how to weed, prune, harvest, and perhaps even plant seeds to grow new trees and fruit-bearing plants. Created animals needed food; so it is obvious that Adam and Eve encouraged grazing, and other forms of consuming plants and fruit by the animals. As anyone who has grown up on a farm, this was a full-time job. But it taught Adam and Eve the Creator's love for his entire creation. In microcosm it also allowed them to imitate their Creator's care for the entire globe. Cain learned his trade from his parents.

And just as caring for sheep gave David natural training for leading God's flock Israel, so also tending God's garden gave Adam experiences he could have eventually used in spiritual leadership: warning Eve against listening to serpents, refereeing quarrels and disputes between his two sons, implementing harmony and cooperation in the family of God. For we must not assume that, if there had been no sin, there would never have been populating of the globe through Adam and Eve.

The first humans learned from these conversations with God. With each expansion of their knowledge, they were getting better at being God’s image in his created world. God’s word as his image was increasing the accuracy and effectiveness of God’s human representatives as his image.

This continues to be the case long after the Fall. The verbal description of God’s nature and his will are vastly superior to a human-like piece of sculpture. Thus, when Moses once asked to see God's “glory” (Exodus 33-34), that is, his glorious visual appearance, the response was to give him nothing visible to see, but a recitation of terms describing God's glorious attributes: his justice, mercy and grace.

Ancient Israel alone in the ancient world worshiped their God without lifeless representations in humanlike form: statues, statuettes, reliefs on stone, painted pictures of God. Instead they used God's verbal communications to convey to themselves his essential character. For them, God's Word was his image. A visual depiction in human form was not only inadequate, it was misleading and inferior—in fact, demeaning! It diverted the mind from what was essential about God—his character, power and love—to what was irrelevant—his physical appearance.

This is why it is good that the apostles never described what Jesus looked like physically. This was deliberate on their part, since they knew he was God in human form, and the Torah prohibits any visual depiction of God.

But what effect did the sin of the first humans have on their status as the image of God? Did it invalidate this role of humans? The immediate effect of the first sin upon the humans and their world is expressed in God's clothing Adam and Eve's nakedness and then by the so-called "curses" uttered by God.  The “curses” are directed to three parties:

• The serpent (vv. 14-15)—enmity with the woman's "seed"
• Eve (v. 16)―pain in childbearing [her name Ḥavva is related to the Hebrew word for "life" ḥayyîm], competition with husband for dominance (identical Hebrew wording in God's words to Cain in Gen 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”)
• Adam (vv. 17-19)―frustration in extracting a living from cultivating the soil [name ʾadam "soil"] — also figurative for difficulty in making fallen nature do what you know to be right.

Although the saints of ancient Israel knew from Genesis 3 that the world they lived in was Paradise Lost, and the prophets promised in the future Kingdom a restoration of that peaceful and harmonious world (Isaiah 11 and 65), so that they might have already agreed with the writer to the Hebrews’ words “now we do not yet see all things put under his feet”,  they still saw some sense in all humans bearing the image of God (Cain and Abel) and in a continuing mandate to rule God’s creation (Psalm 8).  And this same understanding gives application in these same two areas for believers in the era of the Church. In his open letter to Jewish believers, the apostle James says that humans are still in the image of God ("With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness [homoiōsis)]" James 3:9). And, as we have mentioned earlier, Psalm 8 assumes that Man continued after the first sin to function as God's image.

After the Fall of Adam and Eve, the created universe suffered the consequences of their sin, and no longer functioned in the perfect harmony it once had. To use Paul's words in Romans 8, humans and the created world “became subject to vanity” (mataiotēs Rom. 8:20). In Paul's vocabulary this meant not only that the senseless minds of fallen humans became darkened (Rom. 1:21), so that they no longer perceived the One True God in the created world, but also that the created world itself fell into a self-destructive mode.

Despite what you may hear on the news about humans causing environmental catastrophes, all of the natural disasters in the long history of the Earth are the direct result of how God changed the Earth after the first humans' sin. They are consequences of the original sin, but not the direct result of current sins in particular. We should be clear about this, and biblical.

At this point God had two choices:

• He could destroy everything and possibly start over, or
• he could engage in a long process of rolling back the apparent victory of Satan, reclaiming the allegiance of humans and restoring the glory of his fallen creation. 

 According to the Bible, he chose the second course. That long process began immediately after the first sin.

In this age-long war of God against Satanic Powers he took seven major steps leading to the final triumph:

Among the direct interventions by God I would include the following:
1.    the expulsion from the Garden of Eden,
2.    the universal Flood and the saving of Noah,
3.    the call of Abraham and the promises made to him,
4.    Israel's deliverance from Egypt and the giving of the first Scripture,
5.    the Son of God becoming human,
6.    the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the world mission of the Church, and
7.    the Second Coming of the Son of God and the Resurrection of the Dead to inaugurate his eternal kingdom with a New Heavens and a New Earth.

These are all unilateral works of God himself.  During the period of history inaugurated by each of these steps believing humans participated on a tactical level in the struggle against Satan. In all cases the primary way in which they participated was by faith, i.e., by believing God. See Hebrews 11. The second basic way in which they participated was by obeying God. “Trust and obey, for there's no other way.”

But flowing out of the attitude and posture of faith and obedience, there were different and age-specific ways in which believers worked on God's side. Adam, Noah, and Abraham showed their faith and obedience in different ways than Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, and Paul.

The primary way in which believers today advance God's kingdom is through learning the Word, prayer, and witnessing in word and deed. The latter as we function as "salt and light." It would be appropriate if this morning you and I reflect upon the extent to which we are practicing these "means of grace."

Do you pursue a regular, daily quiet time of Bible reading? Not just to fill your head with new facts, but to gain new insights as to how you can live and witness? A read-the-Bible-through-in-a-year program might help you to know how to start. And don’t overlook the value of memorizing Bible verses.

Do you spend regular time alone in prayer each day, with a list of specific needs to pray for—both in your own life and in the lives of your friends and fellow believers? Are you using prayer requests circulated in your church or adult community of believers?

Are there specific non-Christians whom you know (family members, neighbors, associates) that you pray for each day by name and circumstances? Praying for them inevitably leads to authentic witnessing to them, because you know your concern is genuine by your investment of time and energy in the closet.  If you have lacks in any of these areas, will you take steps today to rectify them?

God's Promises are also His Image: 
those to Noah (fulfilled) and Abraham (anticipated)

Noah
In the life of Noah God continued his two-pronged "imaging" of himself: (1) in the character and conduct of Noah mirroring Adam's pre-fall obedience, and (2) in the giving of new verbal revelation in the form of warnings of the coming judgment by flood.

God's intervention with the universal flood was a one-time revelation. The rainbow-covenant assured that it would never be repeated. But 2 Peter assures us that the present universe will be dissolved by fire, and beyond that will be a re-born New Heavens and New Earth.
The promise (i.e., warning) to Noah of the coming flood was fulfilled before his very eyes. His obedience in building the ark was a sign of his faith in that word of God before he saw its fulfillment.

Second Temple Judaism transmitted a tradition that Noah was also a "preacher of righteousness" (dikaiosunēs kērux) and this tradition was echoed in the NT book of 2 Peter (2:5). And Hebrews 11 also adds:

“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” (Hebrews 11:7 ESV)

In his twin role of verbalizing God's warnings of judgment and acting out that warning through his building of the ark, Noah qualifies as the first prophet of God in recorded human history, but also enlarges the twin "imaging" or "incarnational" roles of Adam by witnessing to God's word verbally and pragmatically.

Abraham

The call of Abraham and the promises to him anticipate the emergence of the nation Israel, which we will take up next week. Accordingly, we will delay that one aspect of Abraham's relationship to God for our next session. But we cannot ignore in this session Abraham's role in further extending the Adamic and Noahic paradigms of God's "incarnating" or "imaging" of himself.

Adam imaged God as ruler of the creation, and showed his (initial) faithfulness as God's vice-regent by carefully listening to God's spoken instructions and carrying them out.
Noah imaged God as judge, and showed his faithfulness by verbally warning others of coming judgment and by taking public and visible action to save himself and his family—all according to God's explicit commands. As you read the biblical description of the construction of the ark, you cannot help but be struct with the verbal repetition used by Moses to emphasize how carefully and meticulously Noah followed his instructions.
Hebrews 11:7 tells us "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." Noah was then both a compassionate prophet, warning and pleading, and a stern judge when the warnings went unheeded.

In a real sense, by believing and obeying God's words to him, Noah controlled both nature (the Flood) and history (a new beginning of the human race), and thus imaged God as Lord of Creation and Lord of History. As in Adam, so in Noah, God was there as Immanuel.
Abraham imaged God as promise-keeper. From the NT standpoint we tend to think of Abraham as primarily exemplifying justification (i.e., righteousness) by faith. But we must remember that Paul who stresses this aspect, needed to do so in order to clarify this crucial doctrine in the earliest church. It by no means exhausts the role of Abraham in salvation history.

Abraham lived by faith in a much broader sense than simple "righteousness before God." He fulfilled the meaning of that key phrase from Habakkuk in the same sense that Habakkuk meant it: he survived by patient waiting on God to fulfill his promises.

Do you see how incremental the "incarnating" or "imaging" of God is in the biblical history? What begins seminally in Adam blossoms in Noah and Abraham. And in the coming sessions we will see how it continues to do so—through Moses, David, the Prophets, and Jesus. The goal—in the Greek term is eschaton—is the complete incarnating of God in his redeemed and glorified creation. Using the phrase of Paul, "that God may be all [and] in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).