The Incarnation

I'm going to go ahead and get started. I have some stuff I want to get covered before we run out of time.

I'm going to go ahead and start. We will be starting a new book next week.

I technically could have started it today, but after I saw the way the Sundays were going to be falling for Sunday school and things like that,

I thought, well, how many opportunities do you get to prepare a lesson for Christmas Sunday?

I decided I would postpone starting our next book for one more week and do something more topical for today, something a little bit more festive, if you will, if I could put it in those terms.

What I'd like to cover today is obviously a part of the whole reason for celebrating.

The funny thing about this time of year, you can celebrate and discuss and celebrate the fact, the reality of the birth of Jesus without necessarily having

Christmas as we know it. And that's kind of the key word or phrase there as we know it.

Obviously, when you understand the true meaning of Christmas, then that kind of changes things a little bit.

But as the world does it, as the world celebrates it, you can give or take all of that and still have the miracle, the virgin birth and what that meant to all of us.

But what you can't have is you cannot have Christmas without the birth.

You can't have Christmas without the incarnation. And that specifically is going to be what our topic is today.

We're going to take a very abbreviated look at this wonderful reality and some of the implications that it carries, though we would need far more time to get into all of the details that it carries with it.

But the incarnation, that's what we're going to be talking about today and covering a few things related to it.

We're going to start in a spot that makes sense, a pretty obvious place.

And that is John chapter one, verse 14. I'm just going to read this verse to kind of kick us off and then we'll be going to a few other places as we move through this.

So John chapter one, verse 14 says, of course, this is 14 verses into the most marvelous prologue

I think probably ever written. The first 17, 18 verses of John.

Obviously, starting with one, one in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God. And it goes from there. It's just absolutely magnificent. You get to verse 14, though, and we have the key, the key verse, the key passage for this idea, this reality that is and that was the incarnation.

And it says in verse 14, and the word Jesus was made flesh and he dwelt among us and we beheld his glory.

And the glory is of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth.

And this right here is kind of where it's at as far as one of the foundational truths of our

Christian faith. So what I want to do is this morning, take the opportunity to talk a little bit about this particular aspect.

Now, the funny thing about it is, and I was listening to some discussions recently on this topic, and it's funny because it's very true.

But can you possibly think of just about anything absurd than that particular claim that we make as a part of our faith?

That being that the creator of the universe entered into his own creation.

Now, when I say absurd, of course, I'm talking strictly from the viewpoint of the world. Let me see what you guys think about that as we talk through this and whether or not you agree.

If there's any other assertion that we could make kind of in being foundational truths that make up the

Christian faith. Are there any there that sound more absurd than the claim that, again, the creator of this vast universe.

You know, I think at the moment it's estimated that there's roughly 150 billion galaxies out there, and we're finding more every year, it seems.

And within every one of those galaxies, you have approximately 150 billion stars within each of those.

Just innumerable vast numbers of celestial bodies out there, the vastness of the universe, totally incomprehensible to the human mind.

And here we are, we sit here this time of year, and we claim that the one who created all of that, not only entered into it, but he entered into it living a life of kind of general obscurity in a place with little significance within the

Roman Empire at that point in history. He never wrote any books while he was alive on Earth.

Again, I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the world looking in. We know, obviously, being the word, he wrote the ultimate book.

But literally taking pen to paper during his earthly ministry while he was alive and walking on the

Earth, he didn't write any books, which according to just about anyone in academia these days, if you haven't done that, then who are you to talk or give your opinion on anything?

That is the way we claim that that is the way in which the creator of this universe entered in, that the actual the

God, not a God, not a derivative of God, but God himself actually entered in human flesh.

Nothing could sound crazier to the naturalistic mind, to the materialist, to the secularist.

The secularist may even bite to some degree when they are kind of surveying the historical aspect of the gospel narratives and what we find in the

Bible. They may bite to some degree. They may grant us that Jesus was, in fact, a very significant figure in history.

They may even say that he changed the world for the better. They may even go as far as to say it could be plausible that he was such a significant figure.

He may have even been sent by God himself, a great prophet.

But there's no way that they're going to grant any wiggle room in regard to coming out and agreeing that the creator, that God himself, again, not just a great prophet, not just another deity, but God himself, came to our tiny speck of a planet in one of the nondescript galaxies among 150 billion others with nothing more than just an average star within its system.

And yet in doing so, he impacted not only the earth, not only the solar system, but the entire universe that encompasses all of those billions of galaxies and innumerable stars within it.

And as a baby, no less. It would be one thing if he entered in some glorified kind of way.

But as a baby in swaddling clothes, again, that is just taking it too far.

It doesn't make any sense. It's, again, probably arguably the most absurd claim that a

Christian could make as a foundational truth for their faith from the viewpoint of the secularists, of the world, of the materialist mind.

And yet when we obey and we go out and we start proclaiming the incarnate son and the fact that he is the one

God in the flesh that died, rose again. And when we do that, we do it the way that God tells us to do it.

We can see just how potent it really is. We can actually see lives being transformed and lives being saved from, as Brother Rocky put it, every lesser

Lord. And so it may seem totally absurd from the viewpoint of the world, but the impact that proclaiming that message makes is unparalleled.

And we know that. We know that from not only our own personal experiences, but from history, from church history, as well as the biblical stories throughout the

New Testament as well. Now, again, throughout church history, there may not be any other truth that's been more attacked to such a degree as the incarnation, at least as it's biblically defined.

There are a few other definitions of it that are heretical. In fact, Dad was kind of teasing a few of those just last week, talking about the protognostics that Paul was up against at the time he was writing

Colossians. But as it's biblically defined, there's most likely not any other truth that has been attacked more throughout church history than the incarnation.

No other doctrine most likely has any more misinterpretations or, again, heresies attached to it than the

Trinity, and by extension of that, the deity of Christ. Of course, all of that hinges upon the incarnation, that being

God with us. And so that is attacked and has been attacked for 2000 years.

And it makes total sense because, again, our very faith hinges upon it, and it was one of the greatest revelations that God has ever provided His people.

It was when He did this, it was when He took on flesh and entered into His own creation.

Now, with the incarnation, what exactly did happen? Because if it's been misinterpreted, if it's been misdefined, if there's all these heresies that surround it, you know, how do you start kind of looking at it?

And how do you start biblically defining it? Well, just to kind of get it started, again, not that we have nearly enough time to go all in, but essentially what we have is we have the second person of the

Trinity, which was something that would have been very difficult for the Old Testament mind to understand if it was even possible.

Now, I realize that with the New Testament revelation that we have, we can look at the

Old Testament and we can see countless references to what we now understand to be the Trinity. But, I mean,

Dad and I have talked about this a couple of times as well. You think about the creation story and the phraseology that Moses used in creating man in our image.

How does that work? How could it be in the plural if in Deuteronomy Moses is saying the

God of Israel is one God? And so you had the very dedicated monotheism of the

Old Testament. But then you get to the New Testament, and we see that the reality of the

Godhead is a single God. But, you know, as we put it, subsisting in three persons, three distinct persons that are operating in time with us in different ways, and that it's possible for them to operate in time with us in different ways because of the

Trinity. So the incarnation, it's the second person of that Trinity, the eternal Word of God in John 1 that we just looked at a couple of minutes ago, taking on human flesh, as it said in John 1 .14,

in a human nature in such a way as to retain

His divine nature simultaneously. He takes on human nature.

If you go look at some of the books back in Brother Rocky's library back there and in Dad's library at home, it's what theologians refer to as the hypostatic union, which means that there is a singular person.

It's Jesus of Nazareth. But within this one person, there are two complete natures, a complete human nature, a complete nature of deity.

And you've got to be careful to some degree. You don't necessarily want to put it in terms of percentages.

It's not like He's 100 % human, 100 % God. Because if you put it in those terms and you start giving percentages here and there and quantities, or you start trying to quantify it in our terms, then there may be some misstepping, even if it's not intended.

But He was, in fact, fully man, fully God at the same time. It's not like God was putting on a man suit and you see a man on the outside and on the inside.

It's fully both simultaneously. He's fully

God. He's fully man at the same time. Now, sometimes you'll hear arguments from Unitarians, Muslims, Muslim apologists and Mormons, perhaps.

They're not really Unitarian, but Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, things of that sort, they may make arguments such as, well,

God couldn't have taken on the fullness of human nature because being anything that is not

God is by definition imperfect, which is a really interesting argument, especially given a little bit of what, again, we're getting into in the history of Colossians with the beginning of the

Gnostic movement, the idea of this dualistic viewpoint, worldview, spiritual is good, physical is evil, no exceptions, that kind of thing.

All of these ideas, all these types of arguments will stem from those types of heretical ideas.

But if you think about it, you think about that argument, what are they doing? They are assuming, number one, that God is like us in order to make a claim such as, well,

God could not have entered into the flesh completely. He could not have taken on human flesh and human nature completely because anything that's not

God is by definition imperfect. Well, that is built upon the assumption that God is like us, that He does things like us, which, of course, is very presumptuous, as we all know.

But it assumes that God couldn't create a perfect human nature, which would be a very bold claim to say that it is without, that God is outside of the bounds of being able to create a perfect human nature.

Of course, He could do that, and He did do that because that is what

He did in the person of Jesus Christ when the Incarnation took place.

Now, what makes some people stumble on this whole idea is how we perceive the nature of being human.

And you can kind of, if you're thinking about it just from a purely philosophical viewpoint, you can see why all these heresies came to be in the first place, because we think of ourselves.

We think of how bad we are, how we war with our flesh constantly, and we think, how could

Jesus, how could God have taken on flesh the way that we know it? And you start there, and you can go down a long line of perfect logic that gets you to a very dangerous place.

The one thing that you could kind of, you know, one starting point is to understand that, well, number one, forget the assumption that God couldn't create a perfect human nature.

So reverse that and start on that assumption. God absolutely could create a perfect human nature.

But another thing to consider is the idea that, you know, being a finite being, having finite properties as a human, finitude is not necessarily equal to sin.

Okay, so sin, if you think about the fact that God created Adam sinless, that he had no sin in him at the moment of creation, yet Adam was still a finite being at that particular moment as well.

Relative to God, to his creator, the fact that Adam was finite in certain aspects wasn't the necessary ingredient for the sin that would later come into play.

The sin aspect is a moral issue. It's a moral problem.

We often blame our sin on the fact that we are humans. Well, that sounds great at the surface level until you realize, at what point are we going to stop being humans?

Because Paul tells us in Philippians that when Jesus is coming back in the clouds, that the saints that are currently with him will be reunited with their bodies.

They will be glorified, but they will still be human. Humanity will continue into the millennial kingdom, and there's no reason to believe humanity won't continue well into the age and age beyond that for who knows how long.

And so, again, you can't necessarily attach the sin to the humanity because it's not the humanity that causes the sin per se.

It's, again, a moral issue that began in the Garden of Eden that goes a little bit beyond just nature in and of itself.

It's not necessarily connected to our humanity as God designed it, as he created

Adam in the garden. Now, we can start to understand that God, who obviously is an infinite being, made himself, the second person of the

Trinity, made himself for a time, and that's kind of the key phrase there, for our sakes in order to accomplish things that had to be accomplished in a human body.

Why? Well, it's because of the sin that did take place in the garden, sin that had to be paid for.

It had to be paid for by the human race because that is, from the human viewpoint, who initiated the fall and who brought sin into what otherwise was

God's perfect creation and diluted the human race through that sin. And so, when

Jesus entered into flesh, for a particular time, for our sakes, he took on a finite human body in certain regards, which we'll dig into here in just a second.

And, again, if you start with the assumption that he can, in fact, create a perfect human nature and a perfect human body, which he did, you can start to grasp that a little bit.

Now, I'm not going to come out and say that if something is truly unique, such as Jesus, such as the

Trinity, the Godhead, if something is truly unique, which they are, I think we'd all agree they are, by definition, there's nothing that compares to those things.

If they're truly unique, you can't compare anything else to them. So it's really hard for us to put these realities, these truths, in our language sometimes, but you can start to understand it to some degree, as much as we can, when you think about it in these terms and start to break it down a little bit.

If you assume that he can, in fact, create a perfect human nature and body, then you can gather that, yes, he, being an infinite being, can enter into that space and time, human body and human flesh, to accomplish certain things, which is what we're going to be looking at momentarily as well.

Now, another aspect, just to kind of tease the idea a little bit of the necessity of the

Incarnation, why he had to take on a finite human being for a time, for our sakes, is he had to.

He had to be fully human. He had to have a fully human body, so that he could be tempted in all categories, which he was, so that he could live a perfect life, so that he was able to bleed and die and present the perfect sacrifice for our sins that was needed because of the sin.

Perpetuation could not have happened had Jesus not entered into flesh and taken on this human body that was limited to some degree in space and time during his earthly ministry, so that he could be that perfect sacrifice, totally fulfill the laws of Moses, and totally fulfill all of the prophecies that were put forth throughout the

Old Testament, so that we didn't have to because we couldn't. Go to Philippians 2 for a second.

This will be one of the main passages we look at, although we have a few that we need to cover, and I need to pick up the pace to some degree if we're going to get through this material.

Philippians 2, we'll go ahead and start in verse 5, and we're going to take a look at exactly what exactly did

Jesus do to get to the point as we just described, to accomplish the things that we just described?

How could he do that? How could an infinite being do that exactly?

The Apostle Paul clears it up for us in Philippians 2, starting in verse 5. It says,

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, and this is very important, every detail here is extremely important, who being in the form of God, there is a testament to Jesus' innate deity right there, not a derivative of God, but God himself being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God?

If you want to use logic for a second, you can't be anything less than God, in other words, a derivative deity, and yet be equal with God simultaneously.

And this is, of course, one of the biggest issues with Jehovah's Witnesses, with Mormons, with any Unitarian sect, is that it always assumes

Unitarianism, that there can only be one God, there can only be one being of God, and yet when

Paul here says it's not robbery for Jesus to be equal with God, that is only possible if you share the same essence, if you share the same divine nature and the same deity.

And Paul tells us clearly that that is exactly how Jesus viewed himself. He thought robbery to be equal with God.

In verse 7, which is such a significant verse, but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in likeness of men.

Now notice the similarities in wording here that Paul uses.

In verse 6 he says, being in the form of God, and then in verse 7 he says he made himself of no reputation, took on the form of a servant.

Again, we have a testament here both to his deity as well as to the fullness of his human nature, which was absolutely necessary in order to make the perfect sacrifice he would make at the end of his life.

But he made himself of no reputation. And then verse 8, in being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on the cross.

Now, this particular passage is not only one of the most significant in the entire Bible, but it's also a very abused passage in the usage of, again, notable heresies that involve

Jesus' incarnation. Because the literal translation of that phrase, made himself of no reputation, the word, the

Greek word used there means to empty, to empty oneself. And so, you know, if you take a microscope and you zoom in on that singular word, and you look at that, even for people who did believe that Jesus at one point was the eternal son, they'll look at this and they'll say, you see, he emptied himself, he emptied himself of his divinity, that he emptied himself of his divine nature, and he did so in full.

So you can see how if you're taking just singular words or singular verses totally out of context, there's a whole new set of heresy over here that now arise, because people will use this as a proof text that Jesus was not fully

God. At the same time, he was fully man, and so on and so forth. It's an abused passage, which is devastating, but that's how the devil works, of course.

We can understand this in a very plain biblical sense by simply acknowledging what exactly happened in verse 7.

What did happen in verse 7 was done of himself. This was something that was not some outside force.

It was done to Jesus, but rather it was completely voluntary. It was a completely voluntary action, something that Christ did himself to himself.

So that's the first key when you get to 7 there is, okay, he emptied himself.

That's the literal language that the apostle Paul used. What could he have meant by that?

Well, the first key is to note that this was a completely voluntary action. In addition to that, though, it's very important to note

Paul's usage of this particular Greek term. It's the Greek word keneo. Again, it literally means to empty.

Anytime Paul uses this particular Greek phrase, Greek word, it's always used in a metaphorical sense, which, of course, is exactly what's happening here as well.

I'll explain in more detail in a second. Let me turn to a quick passage. I think it's 1 Corinthians 1 .17.

I wanted to give you all one other example of Paul using this word. He says, That's the exact same

Greek word. And you have to ask, okay, is Paul saying that the cross of Christ is literally being emptied?

versus the gospel that I preach? Well, obviously, that's not the case.

He's using the term metaphorically to explain, look, if you do not accept and hear my gospel, the cross of Christ means nothing to you.

And that is true to them as an individual person, but does that mean that the effects wholesale of the cross were emptied because of their lack of faith?

And there's other examples as well. Romans 4 .14, he uses keneo there in a metaphorical sense.

Now, I love what the KJV translators did in this particular passage. They did an unbelievable job because what

Paul is not saying clearly is that Jesus at any point ceased to be

God. He did not cease to be or stopped being equal with God in any way either.

But rather, what he did was he voluntarily laid aside some of his unique privileges as the second person of the

Trinity that were his from eternity past all the way to this point. The way the

KJV translated it is beautiful. He made himself of no reputation. They didn't choose the literal translation, but it's because they were using the context to determine the translation.

He made himself of no reputation. He laid aside some of his very unique privileges that he had.

For example, with the sole exception of the Mount of Transfiguration, which, of course, was witnessed by a very small group of people.

What was it, Peter and John? Was James there too, I think? Three of his disciples. With the sole exception of the

Mount of Transfiguration, the rest of the world only saw the form that he took in obedience and service that Paul is talking about in Philippians here, that being the form of a humble servant.

That's all that the world saw. They didn't get to witness the glory that those three apostles did at the

Mount of Transfiguration. Why? Because Jesus veiled his glory during his earthly ministry.

That same unattractive person that Isaiah described centuries earlier in Isaiah 53, that was the person that the world saw.

And so that in and of itself, as you can imagine, was Jesus laying aside quite a few of his privileges because he had to endure that in his humanity.

He had to endure the humble aspect of his humanity that he took on voluntarily throughout his entire life.

And so that's what Paul is talking about in Philippians 2 -7. He made himself of no reputation.

But notice one last thing in our Philippians passage here before we move on. Just as Jesus first had the form of God and eternity passed again, and we already kind of looked at this, he later took the form of a slave in the

Incarnation. And he did that just for us. He did that so that he could accomplish what needed to be accomplished on our behalf.

He humbled himself. He voluntarily made himself of no reputation so that he could then make possible what we're about to read next.

So that was kind of the introduction that took more than half our time. But let's turn to Isaiah chapter 9 for a second and start looking at some of these passages that, of course, are so beautiful and applicable, not only to this topic but at this time of year as well.

And we're going to start in Isaiah 9, although we still have a couple of places to go.

I'm going to be really pushing the time here. It says,

They dwell in the land of the shadow of death. Upon them hath the light shined.

Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy.

They joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

For thou hast spoken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, is in the day of Midian.

For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise in garments rolled in blood, but this shall be the burning and the fuel of fire.

This is the context leading up to what we're about to read, which you see on every Christmas card in every home throughout the year.

For unto us a child is born. Now, I'm going to stop there for just a minute. The context leading up to that verse is very, very interesting.

I'm going to stop early at this verse for a reason. I want us to first kind of hone in on, let's just say, the humanness of Jesus for a second.

Because remember, he has two complete natures. And I believe

I can say this biblically, in that one does not supersede the other. And again, it was by necessity.

In other words, he was God completely, but he was man completely as well. So let's hone in on that for just a second, because I believe that this verse in the

Old Testament, this prophecy, speaks to it. The fact that he was, well, in fact, born into this world, physically born, as was ordained,

I'm sorry, as was the ordained mode of the Incarnation. We see this here in the first phrase of Isaiah 9 -6.

Again, we talk about the Incarnation, that's one thing. Another aspect of it is the way in which it was ordained, and that being that he would be born as a child.

Not, I mean, you could whip up some crazy idea, of the

Incarnation being, you know, what you would think of a God taking on flesh would be just an epic, cataclysmic event of deity entering into the atmosphere, and this resplendent light of everyone just like, what is happening?

That's how the human mind would work up some idea of the Incarnation. But rather, prophesied some 700 years before it actually happened, we are told the mode, the ordained mode in which the

Incarnation will take place, was, unto us a child is born. What's fascinating about that opening phrase, is that it seems to be highlighting a very specific thing.

The Hebrew words that are being used here, when it said, the Hebrew words behind our text, it says, unto us a child is born, they are the exact words that you would expect to see in any other

Old Testament passage, that's dealing with natural, physical birth, of any other human baby.

In other words, it's the Hebrew language that would be used to describe the natural process of birth, anywhere else in the

Old Testament, anywhere else where the Hebrew is being used. So that's interesting to note.

So remember what we discussed a few minutes ago, kind of in our introduction, regarding Jesus' two natures.

He was fully God, and fully man. The first phrase of Isaiah 9 -6 here,

I believe is a direct reference to the fullness of his human nature. The reality that he was, in fact, fully human, as a result of his

Incarnation. The reality of his natural birth into this world is a great testament to that fullness of his humanity.

Of course, Isaiah 9 -6, it's just one of the quintessential, quote -unquote,

Christmas verses. And we are going to return back to Isaiah 9 -6 here in just a minute, because we haven't finished the verse yet.

But first, I want you guys to go back a couple of chapters to Isaiah chapter 7, and let's look at one other descriptive passage describing the beginning of the

Incarnation. Of course, that being the birth of Jesus. Isaiah chapter 7, let's start at verse 10.

And here we will see one of the names of Jesus that is so wonderful and, of course, applicable to this study being used here.

It says, Isaiah 7 -10, Moreover, the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God. Ask it either in the depth or in the height above.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now,

O house of David. Is it a small thing for you to weary men? But will ye weary my

God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name

Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou have forest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Again, the context around this verse that we see on just about any Christmas card is completely different than what our minds may think of when we consider the use of the name

Emmanuel for the first time. If you were ever given the opportunity as a person to kind of plan out the incarnation, the creator of the universe, yourself, never in the wildest dreams of any person, any mere mortal, would they plan it this way.

What does he say? He says, I'm going to give you a sign. And the sign is going to be the incarnation. But then he goes on to describe the incarnation as a baby being born of a virgin, which of course that is miraculous.

We'll get back to that in a second. But a baby, nonetheless, and like I said a second ago, it's not how we would plan it, but that's exactly how he would plan it.

Or how he did plan it, sorry. Now unfortunately, we normally only quote one little bitty section of that amazing passage, leaving out the context that we just read regarding King Ahas.

Interestingly, and this is very important, I want you guys to pay attention to this because the liberal scholars out there will attack this particular passage and say that it's actually not messianic at all.

And you say, how on earth do they get that? Well, again, interestingly, a lot of people will argue against this being messianic by saying something along the lines of, well this has nothing to do with Jesus because it's talking about a boy that will be born roughly nine months into the future of King Ahas by a young girl, not necessarily a true virgin.

And that the kings that Ahas dreads will no longer be a threat to him.

If you read a little bit longer, maybe verse 18 or something, it starts to describe a little bit more about King Ahas' concerns.

And that's the argument they'll use. And the whole thing about it not necessarily being a true virgin, but just a reference to a young girl, is because the

Hebrew term, as we know, Hebrew can be a little bit more ambiguous sometimes. And in many cases it's used just to describe more of the age of a girl, not necessarily her true virginity.

And so what do you do with that? What do you do with that argument? Well, obviously this is about King Ahas and his immediate future.

This is not actually talking about Jesus, the incarnate God of the universe.

Well, one place you can go, and this is a very, very useful tool.

We talk about it. Dad has talked about it for years. In Bible study, it's very useful.

And that is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint, again, is the

Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures. The term that's used in this verse when it's talking about the virgin, the term that's used for virgin here is, like Dad always says, the

Greek is like math. The Hebrew is a little more ambiguous, and you have the liberal scholars attacking this passage because of that.

Then you go look at what the ancient Greek translators, the ancient Greek scholars, that went in reverence and translated the scriptures of the

Old Testament into Greek, which was the very scriptures, translations that Jesus and the apostles themselves used.

So we know it was a pretty solid translation. The term that they used in translating this, virgin, is connected with the way virginity was used—

I'm sorry, the way virginity was viewed within Greek religions and worship in ancient times.

Ancient Greek religion and worship. Obviously, a lot of that was pagan, but the point is the language that's being used here is being pulled from that.

And it means virgin in the most technical, medical sense.

It's a very, very specific Greek term. And what's amazing about it is not only was that term used here in Isaiah in the

Septuagint to describe the virginity of this girl, its true technical virginity, but it's the exact same term that Luke used in the

Gospel of Luke to describe Mary's true virginity. And Luke was not only an expert in classical

Greek, but he was a physician. Luke was a doctor. And this was the term that he used to describe

Mary's virginity. It was a technical, medical case of true virginity.

And the reason that it's so important to hone in on it is because it's one of the biggest pieces to the

Incarnation, the way it took place. And, of course, an important apologetic as well. When you have the liberals attacking the

Old Testament prophecies, you know, it's just talking about a young girl doesn't necessarily mean she's a virgin.

That's not the case at all. The Septuagint translators didn't think so, and neither did Luke. And, of course, the rest of the

New Testament testifies to that as well. But in addition to knowing that, and, of course, that is a really important detail, we have to also realize that there was a near prophecy that was fulfilled in the days of King Ahaz.

So, just like in our study of Zephaniah, just like in Malachi, just like what

Jesus did in Matthew 24, Isaiah here is giving us both a near prophecy and a far prophecy.

The near prophecy being what King Ahaz was concerned about. And it said before this sign is given, what's the sign?

A baby, the name Emmanuel, being born of a virgin. Before that sign is given, the

Lord will bring upon thee and upon thy people and upon thy father's house days that have not come from the days that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the king of Assyria.

He's going to remove the kings that were troublesome to Ahaz before the sign is given. Well, that was true.

There was a near prophecy fulfilled in King Ahaz's lifetime. But that does not negate the far prophecy that we're given here, as well as any other prophecy as well, of the virgin birth of Emmanuel.

It's very, very important. It's yet another example of how important it is to remember that particular interpretational tool because of how frequently that prophetic style is used in giving a near and a far simultaneously.

Now let's go back to Isaiah 9 for a second and let's finish the verse. A child is born, the beginning of verse 6.

But let's continue. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.

And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the

Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and the peace there shall be no end. Upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever the zeal of the

Lord of hosts will perform this. Now we paused at the very beginning of verse 6 previously to kind of consider the possibility of that phrase a child is born being a direct reference to Christ's full humanity.

But as we see immediately following is the phrase unto us a son is given. Now the

Hebrew term from which we get the word given here, what it means is to have something granted or to have something delivered.

It's the same word that we see in verses all throughout the Old Testament like Genesis 12, 7 is one example where it says and the

Lord appeared unto Abram and said unto thy seed I will give this land. That's the same phrase or term that's used in saying that a son is given.

Now in the Hebrew, and this is important, I'm rushing here because I'm already past time but I'd love to get this complete today.

In the Hebrew there is a poetic literary form that's used a lot.

It's used very often where there's an idea or a phrase that they're wanting to express and kind of emphasize.

The phrase will be said twice but in different words. So the exact same idea is being presented but in different wording back to back.

And it happens often. It kind of colors in the idea a little bit. So we could be seeing an example of that right here where it says for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.

Could be an example of that. But I do believe that there's actually some distinction being made here between the two opening phrases.

One in reference again to Jesus' humanity via his physical birth. Remember the Hebrew terms being used in that first phrase are exactly the way any other natural process of birth would be described in the

Old Testament. So via his childbirth, his physical birth, it's a reference to his humanity.

And the other in reference to his deity in being given by the Father. A son is given by God himself.

Now, so you could say okay, sounds nice but it's probably just the whole

Hebrew poetic thing. And it could be. I'm not saying definitively that it's not that. But it seems even more evident that it could be a reference to his two natures as we continue through the verse.

Because as we begin going through it, we begin seeing the many names of the Lord. All of which of course signify his very character.

As well as the continuation into the promises of the divinic kingdom. The millennial kingdom.

His kingly rule on the earth someday in the future. All of these are the divine rights that he has as the son.

As the eternal son. And so as you kind of continue throughout the passage, it seems that you could make that distinction.

A child is born, his humanity. A son is given, his deity. Yes, he was born a man.

But he was given as a son. And a son that had rightful claim to all of what verses 6 -7 hold within them.

All of those names. Now, the name everlasting father is particularly interesting. I'll wrap it up here.

Now, we know that Jesus isn't the father. And yet he's given the name everlasting father here in this sequence of events.

This sequence of names and prerogatives and rights given to him. And this is a proof text, quote -unquote, for the oneness movement right there.

But it certainly doesn't need to be if you look at it. Because the Hebrew phrase that is used here, the most literal translation of it is father of eternity.

And if you look at that Hebrew phrase, it is almost exclusively used throughout the

Old Testament in the context of God as creator. Now, if you think about that, if you think about father of everlasting used in the context of God the creator, in other words, perhaps you could think of it as he's the father of eternity whose handiwork brought forth the universe, birthed the universe out of nothing.

In that sense, he's the father of eternity. If you parallel that, the usage of that name in the context of creator, and then you go over to Colossians, and you can go there if you want.

We'll read it really quick. Chapter 1, and these are some verses that Dad will be getting to imminently in his study, which

I'm excited about. Colossians 1, starting in verse 12, listen to this description of Jesus.

Giving thanks to the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints and like, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear

Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. And pay close attention to what's said here.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers.

All things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

So, we know in Colossians that Jesus, and in John 1, that Jesus is the creator of all things.

When you consider the context of that name of Father of Eternity, Father from Eternity, or of Eternity, being used in the context of the creator of the universe, it makes perfect sense that this was the name given to Jesus in the passage of Isaiah that we just read there.

Again, Father of Eternity, he is the one that created the universe. But not only is he that, he's also the mighty

God. These are other names given in this passage, El Gabor. He is the Prince of Peace, but he is also

Emmanuel, the one who entered into his own creation in the form of a slave, taking on flesh so that he could fulfill the requirements of a perfect sacrifice.

So, let's end with this really quick, and I'll be done. I know I went over time, which I always try to avoid doing, but this is topical, so I wanted to finish it while I had the opportunity.

Turn to Luke chapter 1, and we will end by reading just a couple verses. I'm not even planning on reading any commentary here.

It's just going to wrap up this idea of the Incarnation, and the unbelievable, miraculous, and just absolute uniqueness in which

God ordained for that to happen. It wasn't an Incarnation via some deity coming into the sky from space with resplendent light, blinding everybody, and confusing everybody.

It wasn't some cataclysmic event. Rather, it was described in Luke chapter 1, and started verse 76.

It says, And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the highest. For thou shalt go before the face of the—

And by the way, this is John the Baptist's dad talking about John the Baptist for just a second, describing what his job is going to be.

Thou, child, John the Baptist, shalt be called the prophet of the highest. For thou shalt go before the face of the

Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our

God, whereby the Dayspring—one of my favorite names of Jesus— whereby the Dayspring from on high hath visited us—that's the

Incarnation— to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Now skip over to chapter 2, start in verse 6. It says, And so it was that while they were there, the days were accomplished, that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Skip down to verse 11, it says, For unto you is born this day the city of David, a

Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you, ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on the earth peace, goodwill toward men. And finally, verse 16,

And they came with haste, and found Mary, Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. The most unlikely, absurd, crazy claim that we could ever make is the claim we make in saying that the creator of the universe entered into his creation in this fashion.

It's absolutely incomprehensible to the secular mind. And yet, as I said in the introduction, when we go out there and we proclaim this, boldly, as insane and foolish as it sounds to the world, it has the power to absolutely transform lives, as we have seen, and as we know is true.

And that's exactly what we need to do. Sorry, I hit the wire with my Bible. So I'll end it there.

Sorry it took so long, Dad. But I will pray and dismiss real quick, and then we'll go into our next service.

Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this wonderful day. Thank you for blessing us, giving us the opportunity to come and worship, and to learn about you, discuss your word, and dive into the truth you have provided to us, and your perfect revelation as we get insights into exactly your plan of redemption throughout history.

And of course, one of the greatest moments of all of that was, in fact, the incarnation, the moment of our

Savior's birth. We thank you for that. We thank you for the time we get to spend together. And we ask you to be with us for the rest of the day.