Theological Truth from the Book of Habakkuk (in Kachin)

Myihtoi Habaku gaw shi a mungdan kata hta tara rap rai ai lam n nga ai hta sha n ga, tinang hta n gun grau ja ai, gum shem ai Babylon masha ni e matut zingri dip sha wa na lam (1:5-11) hpe chye ai shaloi, K.K hpe ning nga tsun jahtau nu ai:

N hkru n hkra ai hpe n yu hkra, myit magaw ai lam n mada hkra, san seng ai myi tu ai wa e, nang hpa majaw hkalem hkalau ai wa hpe a mada nga ai hte, tara n lang ai wa gaw, shi hta grau ding hpring ai wa hpe jahtum kau… (nga yang) nang hpa majaw atsin sha yu nga n ta?(1:13, 14b). Yehowa e, nang n madat ya ai, ngai gaten du hkra hpyi jahtau na rai ta? (1:1).

K.K Yehowa hpe ning ngu ga san ni hte pawt lai wa sai myihtoi Habaku hpang jahtum tsun ai kraw dung nsen gaw:

“Shing rai, lakum hpun gaw pu n pu, Tsabyi ru gaw asi n si, Tsanlun hpun gaw kaman sha tu, Yi hkauna mung nai mam n pru; Sagu lawng hta sagu hpung kata. Dumsu lawng hta dumsu n pra, ti mung, Ngai gaw Yehowa hta kabu gara nga na nngai; Ngai hpe hkye hkrang la ai Karai Kasang hta sharawng awng nga na nngai.” (3:17).

Hpa majaw Habaku ning ngu ai ga hpe lu tsun ai rai ta? Habaku gaw lani mi K.K Yehowa a tara rap ra ai lam shi a mungdan hte shi a myu masha ni lapran dik tup wa na re hpe tup hkrak kam sham ai majaw re. Tinang a n re ai sut gan mahkawng da nna, tinang a ntsa e ru hka shalaw (2:6) nga ai, “tinang tsip hpe matsaw ntsang de tsip da nna, ru tsang ai lata na lawt lu hkra, tinang a nta matu n tara ai amyat sha” (2:9) nga ai hte “asai jahkaw ai hte, kahtawng de ai wa, myit magaw ai hte, mare (mungdan) shangang” (2:12) nga ai Babylon hkawm hkam wa hte shi a asuya up hkang masa ni hpe K.K lani mi teng sha dingnye jaw je yang na lam Habaku gaw K.K kaw nna mungga na la nu ai. Dai majaw Yehowa K.K Habaku hpe shadum ai gaw: ding hpring ai wa chyawm gaw, shi a kam sham ai hte hkrung nga lu na ra ai (2:4) nga ai re. Ndai tengman ai mungga hpe na la lu ai hte dai hpe kam sham nga ai majaw Habaku gaw lahta na hte maren K.K hpe shakawn lu nga ai re.

Ndai mungga gaw dai ni anhte yawng hpe matut shadum let n gun jaw nga ai hpe galoi mung myit dum n gun la let kam sham myit hte asak hkrung nga ga law. 

Book Review:

Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007).

The book is divided into two major parts. In first part, the authors set out their case for this book and then in the second part, they critically and analytically respond to the critics of Penal Substitution. Why do they need to write this book in defense of Penal substitution? They are aware that Christian fundamental doctrines have been constantly attacked by others. But in this case, it is strange and disturbing because “some of the more recent critics of penal substitution regard themselves evangelicals, and claim to be committed to the authority of Scripture”(p.25). And they also recognize that this criticism is not just confined to academic books and journals, it has become popular in Christian books and magazines, which creates confusion and alarm among Christians. The most pressing reason for them to write this book is “that the misconceived criticisms of penal substitution show no sign of abating, and the resulting confusion within the Christian community seems to be increasing rather than decreasing” (31).

Therefore, before they refute against the claims of the critics, they first lay the biblical foundations of penal substitution; theological framework, the pastoral importance and historical pedigree of penal substitution. In so doing, the authors convincingly bring together in this particular book “a detailed examination of the key biblical passages, a consideration of the important theological and doctrinal issues, and a comprehensive survey of the teaching of the Christian church through the ages” (30). They comprehensively argue for that “God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punished and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin” (21). In arguing this concept, the authors exegete many biblical texts and the most fascinating thing is the way they laid out Old Testament passages, which we would normally think in other way, in support for penal substitution. For example, they present two distinct acts of salvation from Exodus 11-12; first, by means of the judgment of God there is a salvation from the tyranny of the Egyptians. Second, by means of the Passover sacrifice there is a salvation from the judgment of God. The tenth plague is distinct from the other nine: it is conditional in the sense the Israelites are not automatically spared from death. The “blood” of a lamb must be shed. So the lamb becomes a substitute for the firstborn son, dying in his place. Here the Israelites were to be delivered not from Pharaoh, but from the judgment of the Lord. This is what they call “unambiguous affirmation of penal substitution” (36).

And they persuasively incorporate all the biblical foundations on penal substitution into the big picture of theological framework such as doctrine of God: Trinity; creation, sin and redemption. For example, they argue that God is not composed of different ‘parts’ of attributes “as though he could be dismantled somehow into separate component. We cannot speak of God’s love as though it were a ‘part’ of God, separate from his holiness…(so) penal substitution preserves the truth that justice is firmly rooted in the character of God,” (138) in his Holiness.

The historical survey that shows how this doctrine has been present and preserved from Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) to the recent the Evangelical Alliance’s reaffirmation of this doctrine in 2006 clearly refutes against critics’ ‘late-development’ (specifically after reformation) theory of penal substitution. So they claim that “it is time to lay it to rest for good” (164).

            In part two, the authors engage with “the work of recent critics” (206) especially Stuart Murray Williams, Joel B. Green and Baker’s Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, and the writings of Alan Mann and Steve Chalke, and forcefully yet thoughtfully answer all the critics’ claims. Critics have variety of claims that penal substitution is not taught in the Bible or it is not significant and some thought that this doctrine unfortunately becomes a source of division between believers (ch.7). After careful presentation of how the Bible clearly teaches about penal substitution, they conclude that it lies at the heart of the gospel. And there are “some issues on which division is both necessary and inevitable…(yet) it is possible (and desirable) for Christians to retain unity in the gospel if they differ on” issues such as church leadership or even speaking in tongues! Thus they boldly claim “if those who impugn penal substitution refuse to reconsider their position, there comes a time when we have no alternative but to part company” (217). This statement shows their commitment to the authority and testimony of the Bible. 

            In addition, they answer thoughtfully the Critics’ claims that this doctrine is the product of our culture (ch.8); it encourages the myth of redemptive violence, and as a result it turns out to be “cosmic child abuse!” (ch.9); it undermines God’s true forgiveness and thus it implies universal salvation (ch.10); it is contrary to the character of God (ch.11) and it has negative implications for the Christian practical life.

            I agree with the authors that if we profess to be evangelicals we need to think seriously on whose work we heavily rely on when we criticize the penal substitution. It is clear that Chalke and Alan Mann rely heavily on the work of Walter Wink, who also criticizes penal substitution as an instance of ‘the myth of redemptive violence.’ Wink again in turn depends on the work of Rene Girard, whose “work is thoroughly unbiblical at key points” (236). Again since Wink claims surprisingly that the apostle Paul was “unable” to understand correctly the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death and that “Christianity has suffered from this confusion ever since,” (237-8) it indirectly suggests that he does not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible. Thus, relying heavily on such a so-called “theologian” and criticize the biblical truth on penal substation, the Critics are self-contradicting to what they have professed in regard to their faith.

            On the other hand, in the process of refuting against Critics’ claim of universalism, the authors vigorously and thoroughly defend the doctrine of particular redemption (pp.268-278), which might be disturbing to some. They are also aware this fact that the section “has become a rather lengthy defense of particular redemption in a book supposed to be about penal substitution!” (278). However, they defend themselves again that “in theology every piece of the jigsaw is ultimately connected to everything else” in order to avoid like the Critics who have put these pieces in the wrong place.

            And it is also thrilling to see the authors’ label as “the vague objection” on the criticism deployed by some with a reputation for theological expertise. According to them, the objection is rather “a naked exercise of power” (326). To the objections of people such as Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, they label as “the emotional objection” deployed in “forceful langue in the absence of a reasoned argument, rather than as a climax to it” (326). In appendix of the book, the authors conclude the book with a warning about ill-thought illustrations in regard to penal substitution, such as illustrations which deny active and consenting involvement of the Father and the Son; which portrays conflict between God’s law and God’s will, and so on.

            All things considered, this book is one of the most comprehensive treatments available of the doctrine of penal substitution with clear and understandable writing style for all. The authors have comprehensively argued that penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture; it is a central Christian doctrine throughout history; and they have also showed serious pastoral consequences if we neglect this doctrine. And they have also answered comprehensively to the objections raised against it. As a matter of fact, we need to refute against those objections because we do not enjoy encountering with “other gospels,” and finally one day if those who criticize this biblical doctrine “would turn from them and embrace the glorious truth that our Lord Jesus Christ ‘bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness’ (1 Pet. 2:24)” (328), then we would surely be rejoice more.   

The Components of Human Being

Regarding the components of human being, some hold “substance dualism” or holistic dualism. This view sees a person as a bipartitle unity of an immaterial, undying soul/spirit and a body/dying material. On the other hand, some are of the view that human is composed of three essential elements, so it is called trichotomism. Based on 1 Thessalonians 5:23, they hold that human being is consisting three discrete parts- (1) a physical body (passions); (2) a rational soul (reason, emotion, will), and (3) an immortal spirit that can relate to God. So a parson consists of two immaterial substances and one material substance.

Yet one question must be asked: do the terms such as soul, spirit, and heart yield separate meaning that can dichotomize one from another? Or do they speak the meaning referring to the same reality, but used interchangeably? Careful word study of the usage in the bible gives warrant to the latter question. Why? The biblical words such as “soul” “spirit” “heart” “body” and “flesh” are used interchangeably, referring to the same reality.

O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water (Ps. 63:1). Here Psalmist use “soul” and “flesh” in poetic parallelism refer to the same reality.

Therefore I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul (Job 7:11, cf. Isa.26:9) here the words are also used in parallelism referring to the same reality.

When we compare John 12:27 with 13:21, and Hebrew 12:23 with Revelation 6:9, the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably. And the followings are the texts in which the term soul, spirit and heart are used as quasi-synonyms:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12).

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (Deut. 6:5).

In addition, the terms “heart” and “flesh” are also used as quasi-synonyms: My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever (Ps. 73:26). 

All things considered, the biblical usage nevertheless allows us to identify soul and spirit with the person’s inner life, and body with the outward, material vessel. Soul and spirit appears to be two aspects of human’s inner nature. Here are biblical-theological conclusions concerning the constitution of the human being.

1.      Functional Aspect: the Bible see human being functionally a unified whole. So the terms such as spirit, soul, heart and body are used to denote the entire person. The “soul” can be seen the self who thinks, wills and feels; and “spirit” that communicates God, thus, executes moral judgments. And the word “body” usually means the material instrument through which soul/spirit functions.

2.      Relational Aspect: we cannot dichotomize the components of human beings. Soul, spirit, heart and body are the best seen as the entire person engaging and interacting with one another as well as other human beings.

3.      Ethical Aspect: it is wrong to assume that our body is evil substance whereas the soul alone is to be considered good. The body is not a prison for the soul. Both human body and soul are substantially good.

4.      Essential Aspect: essentially human being is a complex unity. It is unity in complexity that includes material body and inner immaterial soul/spirit or heart. We can assume this view as holistic dualism. It is in fact clear that we can distinguish (but not polarize or dichotomize) material and immaterial components of human being. Daniel 7:15 reads, “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body” [KJV]. And Matthew 10: 20 clearly distinguish body and soul: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” “Thus, soul/spirit and body are substances, each with distinguishing qualities.”

The Bible clearly teaches that our material body will decay, but immaterial soul/spirit is being renewed by the indwelling Spirit. In this present time, Christ’s redemption touches inner transformation. At His second coming, the dead will be raised and there will be total transformation of material body (Rom. 8:10, 23 and 2 Cor. 4:16). Moreover, the doctrine of intermediate state clearly supports the concept of dualistic dualism (Matt. 17:3; Lk. 16:19-31, 2 Cor. 5:1-9, Ph. 1:22-24; 2Peter 1:13-15; Rev. 6:9-11 and 20:4). “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus clearly indicates intermediate state for the soul/spirit in heaven. And Paul also asserts that in death believers’ immaterial soul/spirit will depart from the body to be with Christ (2 Cor. 5:1-8).

All things considered, it is clear that we cannot and should not dichotomize body from the soul/spirit vise visa. There is unity in human being in which the immaterial soul/spirit resides in the body and acts through as its instrument. The body acts out what soul/spirit wills, desires and directs. There is mutually conditioned reality in our human being. The soul/spirit acts on the body and the body acts on the soul/spirit. However, we will not fathom how soul/spirit and body interact, just as we cannot comprehend how God, who is Spirit, interact with material universe; yet we are experiencing in our daily life. Thus, it is also complex. Finally I want to quote what Lewis and Demarest have to say about components of our body:

The whole person is a complex unity composed of two distinct entities, soul and body, intimately interacting with one another. Neither of them is the whole person, yet either part can stand figuratively for the whole person. While they are alive the two natures (physical and spiritual) are neither divided nor confused. A whole person has attributes of spirit and attributes of body. Although body and spirit are separate entities ontologically, in this life they are intricately united. For metaphysical purposes… a human being is composed of an interacting dichotomy of spirit and body.

Who is King of Babylon in Isaiah 14: Satan (Lucifer) or Human King?

This is the taunt song against Babylon’s king. The downfall was bad news for the Babylonians and Israelites who sought help from Babylon king. But it was good news for the people who were oppressed. In the first part Isaiah describes a wonderful work that the LORD would do among his people in that day. God would bring them back to the land again, and foreigners would stay with them peacefully (14:1-2). On that day, the Israelites would sing taunt against its former oppressor. In this song, one can see that the sovereign LORD installed rulers and also had the power to remove them (14:5). Finally the Babylon would become as weak as other nations (14:10-11). King, like the morning star (at least in his own eyes) now would be thrust down to the depths of Sheol. It highlights the extreme humiliation of the deposed monarch (14:12-17) (Bayer, Encountering the Book of Isaiah, 100).

Then, to whom does the expression “King of Babylon” refer (14:3)? Is this a reference to human Babylon king or Satan? Some argue for both. McKenna is of the view that Morning Star or Lucifer can be identified “as the person of evil and iniquity whom the king of Babylon symbolizes and the protagonist of God in the final battle of the ages.” So verse 12 “may be duly interpreted as a realistic insight into Satan’s original fall from heaven and a symbolic representation of the heights from which the king of Babylon fell” (McKenna, Isaiah 1-39, 179). If the general context of the whole bible and transcendental aspect of the prophecy are considered, I personally agree to what MeKenna has stated. Yet on the other hand, as far as the immediate context of this text is concerned it mainly talks about human king and his pride, which leads him into his downfall. There are four reasons:

1.      Many scholars find comparison between this text and Canaanite myths. Yet very interestingly there is no single myth can be said to be the prototype for this text. All the challenges are by another god. In this text, the battle is not between gods, rather between Creator and creatures. The human king, the creature, who represents the Babylon king, gradually develops his pride to be like not just other gods but like the Most High (the title for God [Gen. 14:19-20]) (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 319-321).

2.      Young also has a firm view that this text portrays the end of a tyrannical reign. He states, “the Babylonian king had desired to be above God, and so fell from heaven. He falls to Sheol, and his power is done away. Not so Satan. His fall was against God, but he continues yet his tyrannical acts against God’s people. ‘His doom is sure’ for Christ has died, but not until the final judgment will he be confined to the lake of fire” (Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 441).

3.      Day Star, Son of the Morning likely reflects helel ben-sahar, which refers to the planet Venus. Helel probably comes from the root meaning “bright” so logically applies to the brightest star, Venus (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 321). Interestingly, the odd movements of Venus in the night sky, observed by the prophet, seem uniquely suited for adaptation to the event of ascent, descent, and death (Tull, Isaiah 1-39, 281-282). In verse 15, the word  $a “but, nevertheless” with a return to second person singular verbs mark the beginning of this new paragraph. So the topic is human king, not the morning star. It means the king of Babylon will end up in the same place as the morning star. He will go to Sheol or pitch (see. Ezek. 26:20; 32:18-24) (G. V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, NAC, 316). 

4.      In verses 16-20, we can see the future reality that mainly if not only “human” or “human” king can face. The first one is that he will be utterly humiliated and shamed by what will happen; the people on earth will be astonished to see fallen great king! (vv.16-17). The second is his disgraceful burial (vv.18-19). There will be no royal tomb for he will be considered “rejected, loathed branch.” The final one will involve being rejected by his people and family (vv.20-21). Even if a king fell in battle to shame, his own people will rise up and defend his honor and support him as hero. But this evil king will not receive any recognition, not even from his own offspring. (G. V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, 317-18). 

Isaiah's Vision and Commission (Isaiah 6 and Jesus)

the death of king Uzziah prepares the way for Isaiah to see God’s vision. He saw the seraphim with six wings praising “Holy, Holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” The function of threefold holy (the tri-agion) suggests “the strongest form of the superlative in Hebrew” which indicates God as the most holy and godly of all the gods (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 181). God’s holiness leads to self-despair of Isaiah. He began to aware of his uncleanness, which reflects the condition of the nation as a whole. Isaiah did not ask for mercy. But God showed his mercy. His lip was cleansed, his guilt is taken away and his sin atoned for. This grace finally makes possible to recognize the possibility of service to God. Isaiah voluntarily accepts God’s commission. He is commissioned to be God’s instrument for hiding the truth from an unreceptive people. Verses 9-10 we see human’s outer faculties (hearing/seeing) and inner faculties (understanding/discerning). All of them are incapable and unreceptive to the truth. In verse 10 one can observe “rounded structure” (heart-ears-eyes; eyes-ears-heart), which emphasizes total inability to comprehend. To such kind of people he is commissioned to preach and warn. How long? God replied he must continue until the cities are desolate (v.11) and the people have gone into exile (v.12).

Isaiah 6:9-10 is quoted by Matthew 13:14-16. Why would Jesus quote this text?  In Matthew 13, when Jesus talks about the parable of the Sower, he finishes his parable with this statement: “He who has ears, let him here.”Then the disciples asked him why he spoke to them in parables. Jesus answered: he spoke to them with parable because “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear (Mt.13:13).”It implies that the people’s own unbelief is the cause of their spiritual blindness (to discern the secrets of the kingdom of God).  And Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9,10 and declares its fulfillment in his own people (Mt. 13:14-15).

And John also states that people could not believe because “He (God) has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn and I would hear them” (John 12:40; quoted from Isaiah 6:10). This statement conveys the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy and stress “the sovereign plan of God in his judicial hardening of Israel.” (The McArthur Study Bible, “John 12:40” 1569). Jesus also affirms that Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke on him. Who is “him?” we can assume that John is trying to assert that Jesus is God’s glory. Isaiah saw his (God’s) glory namely Christ. So “him” refers to God’s glory that is Jesus Christ. And Jesus again states that even though many authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it so that they would not be put out of the synagogue because they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God (vv.42-43). Jesus is saying that some eyes and hearts are opened up and believed in him, but less courageous and for the love of praise from men, they failed to grasp “the powerful new birth that could make them children of God and enable them to enter the messianic kingdom” (Carson, The Gospel According to John, 450-1). 

Biographies of the Four Kings of Isaiah 1:1

The Four Kings of Isaiah 1:1 in the Book of Kings and Chronicles.

·         1. Uzziah (Ahaziah): He was only 16 year old when he became king. He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD; he sought always to God as he was instructed by Zechariah; and God made him prosper. He overcame the Philistines and built cities in the territory of Philistines. Surrounding nations paid tribute to him and his fame spread even to the boarder of Egypt and he became very strong. He built many towers in Jerusalem. And for he loved the soil, he had farmers and vinedressers in the hills and in the fertile lands. Moreover, he had an army of 307500, well fit for war against any nation, well equipped with army shields, spears, helmets, coats of mail, bow and stones for slinging, and even engines to shoot arrows and great stones (2Chron. 26:1-15).  However, when he grew proud, he attempted to take the role of the priest as he prepared to burn incense on the altar of incense. Regardless of the priest Azariah’s warning, He angrily burnt incense, which was forbidden in the Levitical code (Num. 3:10; 18:7). As a result, immediately God’s judgment came upon him: he was leprous in his forehead! He lived in a separate house throughout his life. When he died he was buried in the burial field that belonged to the kings, and people would say to him, “He is a leper.” (2Chron. 26:16-23; 2kgs.15:1-7). It was that very year that the Prophet Isaiah received the vision of God (cf. Isaiah 6:1ff).

·         2. Jotham: Uzziah’s son Jotham was 25 years old when he became king over Judah. Like his father he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD except he did not enter the temple of the LORD, and did not remove the high places. He built the upper gate of the Temple, and did many buildings to it. He built cities, forts and towers on the hill country of Judah. He also fought against Ammonites and overcame them; and in turn they paid 100 talents of silver, 10000 cors of wheat and 10,000 of barley. He became very mighty because he ordered his ways before the LORD his God. He reigned Judah for 16 years, and was buried in the city of David and his son Ahaz succeeded him. (2Chron. 27:1-9; 2Kgs. 15:32-38). One of his failure is not removing the high places, where people still scarified and made offerings on those high places (2Kgs. 15:35). During this time, Isaiah continued to minister and made prophecy that reflect this very fact; people making many offerings to God in those high places (cf. Isaiah 1:11) [MacArthur Study Bible, Isaiah, 619].

·         3. Ahaz: He was 20 years old when he began to reign. He did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD. He even made metal images for the Baals, and even burned his sons as an offering according to the despicable practices of the nations. He sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. Therefore, God used the king of Syria to defeat him and take captive a great number of his people into Damascus. Pekah, the king of Israel, killed 120,000 from Judah in one day. In addition, Edomites had again invaded and defeated him and carried many captives. And the Philistines had made raids on the cities of Judah. These all happened to Judah because her king Ahaz made Judah act sinfully before the LORD. However, in the time of his distress he became yet more faithless to the LORD, for he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus that had defeated him. And He cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God and, he shut up the doors of the Temple. He made himself alters in every corner of Jerusalem. In every city of Judah he made high places to make offerings to other gods, which provoked God’s anger. Finally he died and was buried in the city, in Jerusalem, for the people did not bring him into the tombs of the kings of Israel (2Chron. 28:1-27; 2Kgs. 16:1-20). When Syrian king Rezin and Pekah, king of Israel tried to overthrow him, Isaiah was summoned to meet king Ahaz and encourage him to have faith in God, and wait for the sign of Immanuel (Isaiah 7).

·         Hezekiah  : He ruled Judah for 29 years. He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. He did what was right before the LORD, and was considered the godliest and faithful king among kings of Judah. He kept the commandment that the LORD commanded Moses and he prospered (2Kgs. 18:1-8). First, he cleansed the Temple, and even all the utensils for offering the King Ahaz had discarded; and re-consecrated the Levites. And he restored long lost Temple worship, wherein he commissioned priests and Levites to make sacrifices to the LORD. Only in one day, 70 bulls, 100 rams and 200 lambs were sacrificed to the LORD as a burnt offering (2 Chron. 29:1-36).  For the first time, since the division of the kingdom 215 years earlier (notes on MacArthur Study Bible, Isaiah, 622),   Hezekiah restored the Passover, wherein remnants from the northern 10 tribes and people in Judah celebrated together jubilantly. And he supported and re-endorsed priestly office and service (2Chron. 30, 31). Later, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. Hezekiah paid tribute to him, but did not satisfy him and he sent his messengers to mock Hezekiah and demand complete surrender. Then Hezekiah fortified the city and trusted God alone, and finally God delivered Jerusalem (2 Chron. 32; 2Kgs. 18:17-24; 19). Moreover, God heard Hezekiah’s sincere prayer when he was sick at the point of death, and prolonged his life. At that time, Babylonian king Merodach-baladan sent envoys with letters and a present to him. And he welcomed and showed them everything in his treasure house. Because of this act, the prophet predicted that everything would be carried to Babylon (2Kgs. 20).

When Sennacherib began to attack Judah, King Hezekiah desperately sought help from the prophet Isaiah. And Isaiah assured God’s protection and together they prayed, and God delivered Judah (2kgs. 19; 2Chron. 32:20-23; Is. 37).  And Isaiah also played a very important role when Hezekiah was seek and recovered. During his reign, Isaiah predicted the Babylonian captivity that would happen a century later.  

God clearly manifested the covenantal promises, especially Mosaic covenant (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28) in the life and time of each king. For example, when King Hezekiah brought the people into covenantal standard, God saved them from Assyria (2 Chron. 30-31); cf. Lev. 26:44). Above all, God promised the righteous seed, Immanuel, a Child to the king Ahaz (Isa. 7, 9). This is the promise, which is finally fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. 

Who Is The Servant in Isaiah?

A Composite Picture of the Servant

In chapter 42:1-7, we see that the Servant is the One who is specially chosen and upheld by God; who is in possession of God’s Spirit; perfectly obedient; gentle and devoted to bringing justice to the nations. He would be the embodiment of a new covenant which he would convey to all people; he would be the light to the nations; he would restore the sight and release those imprisoned in the darkness of sin. This is how he was called for. This is the Call of the Servant.

In chapter 49:1-7, we can see the birth and enlarged commission of the Servant. The servant would be born from human, and he sensed he had been called before he was born and named by God (v.1). His work would primarily be achieved through his spoken word. His mouth would be like a sharp sword (v.2). Yet he describes his discouragement due to the failure of his work, but he would not feel doubt of defeated; he rather affirms confident in his God (v.4). His primary commission is to bring Israel back to God; yet he also affirms God’s enlarged commission to be a light to the nations; to bring spiritual salvation (v.6b). And he would be despised by one nation yet gentile kings and princes would worship him (v.7) (Lindsey, The Servant Songs, 62-73).

In Chapter 50:4-11, we see the Feeling and Commitment of the Servant. He submits to the plan of God, and he voluntarily suffers at the hands of men; and by his rejection and suffering he has learned to comfort the weary (vv.4-6). He also expresses his commitment and confident that God who has disciplined him would vindicate him one day (vv.7-8). And God exhorts the people to obey servant voice and walk by faith and call unbelievers, who walk in the darkness, to trust in the LORD, and his servant (Lindsey, The Servant Songs, 80-95).

In Chapter 52:13-53:12, we see the Work of the Servant. he would be successful in his mission. But first, he would be disfigured to the astonishment of onlookers. He would be despised and rejected because of his humble origins and his appearance. And he would suffer; his suffering would be vicarious and redemptive for our transgressions. He would be silent like a sheep during the abuse of his trial, and finally died. His suffering and death was the plan of God. He was to be a sin offering. Many would be justified before God through the Servant’s work. The servant would share his achievement with his followers. Yet this victory would only come through the fact that the Servant was willing to suffer and die (Smith, The Major Prophet, 150).

Who is this Servant? Israel or Individual? I conclude that this Servant is unique individual. Why? 1. In 48:8-9 Israel is called “servant.” Here is a fresh introduction of the servant again. So it suggests that this Servant differs from the Israel. This Servant would accomplish the task for which the nation Israel was responsible but unqualified: the task of bringing the light to the Gentiles and establishing a justice in the world (42:18-22) (Lindsey, The Servant Songs, 39).

            2. The term, “my servant, Israel” in 49:3. “It is important to note that the term Israel  used not so much as a name as it is a parallel term to servant. It is as though the LORD had said, ‘You are my Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’ Thus it is the function, not the identity, of Israel that is emphasized.” This Servant is an Individual who functions as Israel (Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, NICOT, 291).  3. There is also a contrast between nation servant and the individual Servant. The nation servant has to be admonished to trust God (40:27-31; 41:8-10, 14-16; 42:18-19), is sinful and has been punished for her sins (40:1-2; 42:22-25; 43:22-28; 47:6; 50:1; 54:4-8), complains bitterly (40:27; 49:14; 50:1-2), and is the recipient, not the agent, of salvation. However, the individual Servant shows total trust in God (50:7-9), is innocent and suffers for the sins of others (50:5-6; 53:4-6, 9), suffers patiently (53:7); and performs the work on behalf of the nation Israel (49:5-6) (Lindsey, 39). Thus, the individual Servant is the true Servant of God.  4. The prophecy of the individual Servant is literally fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. (A) Jesus establishes a just order on all the earth (Isa. 42:1, 4; Matt. 12:1-21; Jude 14-15; Rev. 20:4-6). (B) Jesus was rejected by Israel (Isa. 49:7; 53:1-3; cf. Matt. 23:37-39). (C) Jesus brought the light of salvation to the Gentiles (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; cf. John 8:12, Matt. 15:21-28; Acts 28:25-28; Rom. 11:11-25; 2 Cor. 4:4-6; Eph. 3:6-8). (D) Jesus was never defeated, discouraged or doubt God during the period of rejection by the nation (Isa. 42:4; 49:4; 50:4-9; cf. Matt. 11:25-26; John 16:33). (E) Jesus suffered vicariously for the sins of Jews and Gentiles (Isa. 52:15; 53:6; cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:13-16; 1 Pet. 2:24). (F) Jesus suffered innocently (Isa. 50:8-9; 53:9; cf. 1 Pet.2:24). Jesus suffered silently, in submissive obedience to God’s will (Isa. 53:7,10; cf. Matt. 27:12, 14; John 4:34). (G) Jesus died as a substitutionary sacrifice and was exalted through resurrection and glorification before God (Isa. 52:13-14; 53:10-12; cf. Matt. 27:50; Luke 24:36-39; Acts 1:3; 2:33-34; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 1:3; 2:9; 12:2) (Lindsey, The Servant Songs, 142-143). 

Theology of Isaiah 53

Theology of Isaiah 53

Theology of Isaiah portrays the startling and unexpected truth. “The power of God’s arm is not the power to crush the enemy (sin), but the power, when the enemy has crushed the Servant, to give back love and mercy. The Servant takes on himself the sin of Israel and of the world, and, like the scapegoat (Lev. 16:22), bears (nasa; cf. 53:4) those sins away from us.” Some who deny any substitutionary element in the Servant’s admit that the Servant suffers undeservedly because of human sin. This undeserved suffering is a revelation of the delivering arm of the LORD; his ability to restore his people to fellowship with himself. It is substitutionary atonement theology, a concept familiar to the Jews through the language of the entire sacrificial system (Oswalt, Isaiah 40-46). Who is this Servant sent by Yahweh, the LORD?

From the revelation of God in the incarnate Son, it is apparent that the Servant is none other than Jesus the Messiah. This is all about Christology: the person and work of Jesus Christ. The portions of the prophetic word are literally fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The following chart is taken from Beyer’s Encountering the Book of Isaiah, 212.

Verse	The Servant’s Description	Fulfillment in Jesus Christ
52:13	Raised, lifted up, exalted	God exalted him and  will exalt him fully at the second coming (Phil.2:9-11)
52:14	Appearance disfigured	Received beating at his trial (Mt. 26:67)
52:15	Sprinkled many nations	Sprinkling of his blood brings forgiveness (1 Peter 1:2)
53:3	Despised and rejected	Many rejected him, especially the leaders (Jn. 11:47-50)
53:4-6	Suffered for our sin; stricken by God	Died for our sin according to God’s plan (1 Cor. 15:3)
53:7	Silent before oppressors	Silent before accusers at his trial (Mk. 14:60-61)
53:8	Killed for his people’s sin	Died for our sin (2 Cor. 5:14-15)
53:9	Assigned a grave with the wicked and rich, but did no wrong	Crucified between two robbers, buried in a rich council member’s tomb (Mk.15:27-28, 43-46)
53:10	Lord’s will to crush him; he will see his offspring	God prepared him as an offering for sin (Rom 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21)
53:12	Receives great reward because he poured out his life	Receives great reward because he poured out his life (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:3-4)

VanGemeren sees that the portion of the prophetic word points to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Messiah is the wisdom (52:13; 53:9; Jer. 23:5), the glory (52:13), and the kingdom of God (v.15). The kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world. So the kings and nations were astonished at his kinship (53:1-2). He was exalted only after he had been rejected by this world (vv.3-4), and suffered for the sake of others (vv.4-6). His vicarious suffering was in total obedience to the Father (v.7). He died because of His father’s will (v.10). Through his obedience to the Father until his death, the new community (the “many”) will be justified and glorified (v.11), and finally Jesus, the Servant obtained the power, the glory and dominion (v.12) (VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 280). 

So..What are the Lord's Supper and Baptism any way?

The Lord's Supper

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The Lord’s Supper is directly instituted by the command and example of Jesus Christ Himself on the night before His death. This is also one of the two ordinances to be observed by the church. Then what is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper? The meaning can be derived from two important Biblical teachings. First, it is to observe “in remembrance of Christ Jesus” (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25). What do we remember of Chirst? We remember His sacrificial, redemptive death; His saving presence in Spirit and His future coming. His life is given as “ransom” for many (Mk.10:45). Mark 14:24-25 states, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many. 14:25 I tell you the truth, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Thus, when we partake the Lord’s Supper we remember his sacrificial death for many and we also hope for his second coming-the day when Jesus will drink it new in the coming kingdom of God.

Again Jesus says, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever” (John 6:53-57). When we take the bread and wine, which signify His flesh and blood, we are participating Christ’s saving present in His Spirit.

Second, the meaning of the Lord’s Supper is further heightened by the unity and fellowship of believers. “Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). As we eat and drink from One true flesh and blood, we are bound in unity and friendship with one another.

How is Christ present in the Lord’s Supper? The Roman Catholic view of “Transubstantiation” asserts that the bread and wine actually or literally become the body and blood of Christ. This view fails to recognize the symbolic nature of Jesus’ statement (such as I am the true vine, I am the door). The Lutheran are of the view that the body of Christ is present “in, with, and under” the Lord’s Supper. The other protestant churches hold a symbolic and spiritual presence of Christ. This is the view based on sound Biblical teaching. Matthew 18:20 says, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” If Christ is present in the midst of the believers who worship him, we can surely assume that Christ will present in a special way in the Lord’s Supper. It is not literal presence of the body and blood of Christ; it is rather symbolic or representative presence in the Lord’s Supper. And we cannot also deny the genuine spiritual presence and spiritual blessings in the Lord’s Supper. Yet in personal level, the effect of this genuine spiritual presence and blessings is conditioned on personal faith and commitment.

The Participants in the Lord’s Supper: the first qualification will be “genuine faith and commitment” in Christ. Second, the believers need “self-examination.” 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 warns, “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.” Every believer should examine whether they have right relationship with Christ and have character that reflects the character of the Lord Jesus whom we meet and represent in this Supper.

Therefore, we should view the Lord’s Supper as the commemoration or the remembrance and proclamation of Christ redemptive death and His saving presence until He comes again in the future. And the bread and wine are only symbolic or representative of the flesh and blood of Christ; nevertheless, the Lord Supper is actual communion with risen Christ, which we express practically in the love and fellowship with fellow believers.

Baptism

Christian baptism is baptism by immersion (Acts 8:36-39). It is genuine testimony of a believer showing that he/she has faith in crucified and risen Christ—crucifying his/her sin and resurrection to a new life in Him (Rom. 6:1-11). The Greek word baptizo means “to plunge, dip, immerse” something in water. Therefore, baptism by immersion signifies our union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4). Again Paul states, “You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). When one is going down into the river, it signifies a state of dying into sin, and coming up out of the water signifies a state of being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.

Acts 2:41-42 states, “So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added. They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Therefore, baptism is also a sign of fellowship and identification with the visible Body of Christ, the Church.

Who then is qualified to be baptized? Any one, even infant? From Biblical perspective, it is only genuine believer who, from his/her clear conscience, confesses faith in Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:41 states, “Those who received his word were baptized.” Again Acts 8:12 reads, “When they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Therefore, only those who received God’s Word, thus, trusted and believe in Christ’s redemptive work for salvation, were baptized.

Paul in Galatians 3:27 says, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” This statement suggests that baptism is outward sign of Christian inward regeneration. Everyone who has regenerated must show genuine evidence that he/she has begun true Christian life. This fact cannot be true to infants, who cannot confess genuine faith in Christ and show any sign or evidence of regeneration.

What then will be the effect of Christian baptism? Is it just symbolizing a spiritual born-again state of a believer, thus, no spiritual benefit? No! Or is it a “means of grace” thus, it is necessary for individual salvation? Absolutely Not! It is indeed outward “symbol” of spiritual rebirth. But it does not nullify possible spiritual benefit to the believers. Here I will directly quotes Wayne Grudem as he says, “there is the blessing of God’s favor that comes with all obedience, as well as the joy that comes through public profession of one’s faith, and the reassurance of having a clear physical picture of dying and rising with Christ and of washing away sins. Certainly the Lord gave us baptism to strengthen and encourage our faith.” 

In addition, baptism is also not a “means of grace.” We are not baptized because it is necessary for our salvation. We are justified, thus, saved by faith alone through grace. If we still need “baptism” to be saved, it would be a similar heresy that circumcision was necessary for salvation, which Paul strongly opposed (Gal.5:1-12). Thus, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Yet it is necessary if we determine that we will believe, obey and follow Christ. 

What will our world look like in the end? (Two Models)

First I will briefly compare characteristics of the Spiritual Vision Model and New Creation Model in a table.

Characteristics of Spiritual Vision Model	New Creation Model
More emphasize on Spiritual salvation aspect	Both spiritual and physical (holistic)
Eternal destination is other-worldly	Eternal destination is new, renovated earth
Physical things are more or less evil	There is also “good” aspect in physical things
Next life: radical discontinuity between the present and the future state of life	Continuity between the present and the future life except sin, curse and death.
The nature of next life: just mental activities such as contemplating God	Physical activities such as eating, drinking, celebrating: always active for the glory of God
Eternal life: no political, social and cultural matters	New Earth: there will be political, social and cultural realities.
The Earth: basically evil and beyond restoration.	The Earth: the result of God’s good creation: still hope for future glorious restoration.

The two different characteristics of models will definitely shape one’s world view, especially our Christian world view. More importantly, we must have a right model that is grounded on sound Biblical teaching so that we may understand God’s purposes in the world more fully and properly. When we examine these two models, we find out that Spiritual Vision Model is mixed with part of truth from the Bible and mainly with Greek philosophy especially that of Plato. Thus it is often labeled as “Christoplatonism.” Basically this model draws foundational belief from Greek philosophical teaching that matter is evil and spirit is good. Spirit is identified with mind and intellect. With this foundational mindset, this model teaches this earth is basically evil and beyond restoration, so our eternal or final state is somewhere outside the world- strange spiritual realm, where there will just be spiritual contemplation and inactivity. As a result, this model presents a very detached view of eternal state from this world. And that eternal state is also very boring and unearthly existence.

Moreover, the spiritual model eventually leads someone to reject Biblically sound doctrine of “premillennialism.” One will reject Biblical teaching of future earthly kingdom of the Messiah. The presentation of earthly kingdom in Revelation 20:1-10 is viewed spiritually that it is fulfilled spiritually through the institutional church of the present age. In reality, the Biblical teachings clearly support the characteristics of New Creation Model, which emphasizes both future spiritual and physical aspect of this world.

Genesis 1:10; 31 clearly states that the creation of the earth is “good” and “very good.” Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God intended for mankind to subdue and rule over the earth. And the blessings of God directly given to Abraham are affected toward the whole earth (Gen. 12:1-3). When God gave blessings to the people of Israel, the blessings are both spiritual and physical. There is no dichotomy between spiritual and material (Deut. 30:1-10). Psalm 72:19: “may the whole earth be filled with His glory.” And Isaiah 11 also depicts the unusual future peace on this earth. Isaiah 11: 6-7: peace between wild bests and human and wild beast. This is reversal of the curse! This is the Messianic eschatological fulfillment on this earth. And Ezekiel 47:1-9 portrays the future earthly kingdom on this earth.

Isaiah 65:17-25 states, “For look, I am ready to create new heavens and a new earth! The former ones will not be remembered; no one will think about them anymore. But be happy and rejoice forevermore over what I am about to create! For look, I am ready to create Jerusalem to be a source of joy, and her people to be a source of happiness…. They will build houses and live in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build a house only to have another live in it, or plant a vineyard only to have another eat its fruit, for my people will live as long as trees, and my chosen ones will enjoy to the fullest what they have produced…^. A wolf and a lamb will graze together; a lion, like an ox, will eat straw, and a snake’s food will be dirt. They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain.” The prophet Isaiah tells us that future new earth will be with house, agricultural and work. It is not just a state of spirit.

Matthew 5:5 says “Blessed are the gentle for they shall inherit the earth.” Matthew 6:10 also says “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Matthew 19:28: Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed…” Acts 3:19-21 reads “This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets.” And according to Romans 8:18-25 the earthly nature will be freed from the curse. Colossians 1:15-20 states, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him…. and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” And finally Revelation 21-22 tells us new heaven and new earth with the presence of physical nations.

All things considered, wrestling with the characteristics of the two models is not just religious gibberish that only scholars care about. It is important philosophical foundation that governs our Christian world view. Thus, it is necessary to hold the right model, for that, I am personally convinced that the New Creation Model is the most Biblically and theological sound model to hold.