Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures

Dan Phillips is known for his writing on the Pyromaniacs blog and has served as a teacher, pastor, seminar speaker, newspaper columnist and radio talk show host. I have often enjoyed his fresh insights into the Scriptures, the fruit of his firm grasp of the original languages.
Just recently, he taught two sessions at the 2011 Ashford Bible Conference in my homeland of England. His theme was “Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures.”
I am sure that if you enjoy rich and in depth Bible teaching, you will be very much blessed by watching the two videos below.

I’d been very anxious in my preparations… poring over reams of volumes and articles on Messianic prophecy, as well as reviewing the Scriptures themselves. How to approach it? How even to touch such a massive, vital topic, over which my betters have labored for millennia with such varying results and degrees of success?
Through it all, my fundamental driving conviction came from passages such as John 5:39-40, 45-47:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life…. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
You could say this is a subsection of my overall conviction, based on passages such as Hebrews 1:1-2, that the Bible is not a secret codebook. It is a communication, from God, to His people, commencing (always) with the original authors and hearers.
These and other passages give me the very strong impression that our Lord believed that the OT, in and of itself, bore witness to Him so directly and overwhelmingly that to reject that witness is to damn oneself. Never does He say anything even approaching, “You know, boys, I can’t really blame you for not recognizing Me. Nobody could! The OT is a book of impenetrable mystery. In fact, nobody could fairly be expected to see Me in it. But just you wait: after Pentecost, the Spirit will help My guys read Me into it. Then we’ll have a whole different ballgame.”
Rather, in saying that Moses himself would condemn His rejectors, He is clearly asserting that Moses knowingly wrote of Him. Not wrote-of-something-else-that-later-was-deflected-to-Him, but of Him, Jesus.
So my challenge was multifold:
1.How to read the Scripture as it should be read; which is the same as saying…
2.How to read the Scripture as Jesus read it.
3.How to show that the Scripture in its entirety pointed to Him.
4.How to set this forth intelligibly in two sessions of finite length.
5.How to do all this freshly, persuasively, accessibly, helpfully, and memorably.
Whether or not I succeeded, God is judge, and you can judge for yourself. But trying was a joy and an education.
In the first talk, I introduce the entire subject of Messiah and of Messianic prophecy, and endeavor to show (in one talk!) how the whole OT points to Jesus Christ. My dear wife says I talked too fast, and I’m sure she’s right. My excuse is that I had a truckload to say, and leaned on the fact that folks could (if they wished) listen to the recording or watch the video. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
In keeping with my conviction, I approached the session not by expounding NT passages that talk about Messianic prophecy, but by going straight to the OT text itself, literally beginning at the beginning.

The second talk was really a continuation of the first, and a specific demonstration of ways in which one particular book (Genesis) points to Christ.

Sola Scriptura – By the Scriptures Alone (2)

Continued from Part 1 here:
The issue of Sola Scriptura was an issue regarding the question of authority. Specifically, “is God’s authority invested in a book or in an Institution (the Church)?”
The Protestant Reformers believed in Sola Scriptura (the Scriptures Alone), and would declare the Roman Church to believe and practice Sola Ecclesia (by the Church Alone), for quite simply, what the Roman Catholic Church says to be true, is true because the Church speaks with infallibility and cannot possibly be wrong.
The response of the Roman Catholic Church was to remind the Reformers that the Church would not even have had the Bible except that Church councils actually defined what the Bible actually was. The reasoning went like this: if the Church is the Institution that declares the Bible to be the Bible, does not that indicate that the Church would have at least the same authority as the Bible, or even more?
RECIPIMUS
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin responded to this by reminding Rome that the key word the Church used, when it did define the Bible, was the Latin word “Recipimus,” which means “we receive.” The Church declared “we receive these books as sacred Scripture.”

In the New Testament, we are told, “as many as received Him (Christ) to them He gave the authority to be called the children of God.” (John 1:12)
But think about that in the concept of when someone receives Christ as Lord and Savior; they are certainly NOT giving any authority to Jesus. Jesus possesses all authority in heaven and earth, for He is Lord, whether or not a person acknowledges Him as such.
When the Church said, “Recipimus,” she was humbly acknowledging her submission to the authority of the Bible.
Dr. James White in his book “The Roman Catholic Controversy” has provided a very helpful synopsis of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura by outlining both what it is, and what it is not.

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
1. First and foremost, sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
2. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
3. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
4. Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola Scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola Scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
6. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS
1. The doctrine of sola Scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
3. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication, is not binding upon the Christian.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, a key statement of the faith fought for in the Reformation, states:
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (1:4)
It goes on to say: We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1:5)
The very heart of the doctrine of sola Scriptura is then laid out in the next two paragraphs:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1:6)
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (1:7)
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545-1563
Of course, just because the Reformation swept through Europe did not mean that the Roman Catholic Church disbanded. Instead, Rome engaged in a rigorous Counter Reformation. She took seriously the criticism of the moral scandals, and in reality there was a widespread moral reform in the Church. However an Ecumenical Council, which was the Roman Catholic Church’s official theological response to the Protestant Reformation, convened. This was called “The Council of Trent” and took place over an eighteen year period between 1545 and 1563. During this time, many issues were discussed in detail, not the least of which was the issue of justification by faith alone. Rome placed its anathema (curse) on the doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), and on any who preached it.
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
But before the Roman Catholic Church even discussed justification (during the 6th session), the issue of authority was addressed in the 4th session. It was made very clear that there are two sources of authority in the world, namely Scripture and Tradition.
The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained a very high view of Scripture. Rome believes the Bible is the Word of God. However, it affirms that in addition to the Bible there is another infallible source called Tradition.
The inevitable question then becomes, “what if there appears to be a conflict between what the Scripture teaches and what the Tradition of the Church is?”
Luther, for example, saw a huge conflict between the Tradition of the Church and what the Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans concerning justification.
Rome believes that it is the function of the Church to give both the Bible and its infallible interpretation to the world. Therefore when Luther denied the tradition, in their minds, he was also denying the Bible, because Rome was convinced that the Tradition and the Bible agree.
BY WHAT STANDARD?
I’ve labored the dispute of the Reformers with Rome in the 16th Century for the simple reason that the issues raised then are exactly the same in our day. Today we are faced with the exact same questions: What is the authority? What is the standard? What is the absolute authority?
The word “authority” can be defined as “the right to impose obligation.” When legitimate authority speaks, it has every right to say such things as “you must,” “you should” or “you ought.”
Of course, when we hear these words, we often respond with the question, “says who?” or “why should I?” In other words, we ask, “by what authority, or by what standard do you try to direct me or hold me responsible?”
I hope you can see that this is not a vague, abstract and merely theological question. It touches everything relating to the life of the Church.

Sola Scriptura – By the Scriptures Alone (1)

“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” – Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379 A.D.)
“We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such a confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and the church.” – Chicago Statement of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy
“In the empire of the church, the ruler is God’s Word.” – Martin Luther – Works, Vol. 41, p. 134.
“I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way. I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.” – Martin Luther
“Since the church is Christ’s Kingdom, and he reigns by his Word alone, will it not be clear to any man that those are lying words by which the Kingdom of Christ is imagined to exist apart from his scepter (that is, his most holy Word)?” – John Calvin, Institutes
“Let the pastors boldly dare all things by the word of God. . . Let them constrain all the power, glory, and excellence of the world to give place to and to obey the divine majesty of this word. Let them enjoin everyone by it, from the highest to the lowest. Let them edify the body of Christ. Let them devastate Satan’s reign. Let them pasture the sheep, kill the wolves, instruct and exhort the rebellious. Let them bind and loose thunder and lightning, if necessary, but let them do all according to the word of God.” – John Calvin, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, p. xii
“…have you not read what was spoken to you by God…” – Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:31)
There has been an unprecedented crisis in the Church in the last two hundred years as to the question “Can we trust the Scriptures?” There has been a wholesale loss of the sense of authority.
To understand the issues involved in our day, I am convinced that we need to know something about the 16th Century Protestant Reformation. The central issue was Justification by faith alone (Latin: sola fide). Yet often overlooked is another controversy which was equally as serious for the life of the Church.
The material issue of the Reformation was the debate over justification by faith alone. The formal issue (the structure in which the whole debate ensued) was the issue of final authority – who or what speaks for God?

Martin Luther had two debates with the leading Roman Catholic theologians of his day (Martin Ek and Cardinal Cajerton). As Ek and Cajerton debated the subject of justification, they pointed out that Luther’s views differed significantly from the official position of the Church. For the Roman Catholic Church, both the former Church councils and the Papal declarations were binding upon all those in the Church. These men were able to demonstrate that Luther was in disagreement with both Church Councils and the Pope himself.
Martin Luther was perceived by many as being the most arrogant and pompous individual imaginable. They could not understand how one man could do as Luther was doing. They would say to Luther, “Who do you think you are that you would presume to know more than the Church Councils or the Holy Father in Rome?”
In these debates, Luther was asked if he stood against Pope and Councils.
Luther admitted that indeed he did. In his opinion, Church Councils could err as well the Pope himself. Of course, this was hugely disturbing and even considered blasphemous. Luther was quickly likened to the Bohemian John Hus, who had made similar statements to Luther’s around a hundred years earlier, and was burnt at the stake as a heretic.
Complete uproar ensued. Luther was excommunicated with a price put on his head. Finally, in 1521, an attempt was made for one final resolution.
Officials and princes of both Church and State met at an Imperial Diet convened in the town of Worms in Germany, in the presence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles. Luther was summoned, after being given a safe passage of conduct, which meant that he was able to travel to and from Worms without the fear of being arrested or killed. His inquisitor demanded an answer: “I ask you, Martin, answer candidly and without horns – do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?”
Luther surprised everyone by asking for time to think about his answer. He was given 24 hours, and then he was to appear again to be faced with the same question.
As anticipated, after the assembly convened again, it did not take long at all for the same question to be presented to Martin Luther.
Luther responded, “Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture, or by evident reason, I will not and cannot recant; for my conscience is held captive by the word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
Notice especially the words, “My conscience is held captive by the word of God.” For Luther, God’s words were binding and had an authority far beyond the respected words of Church leaders or even Popes.
Luther left the Diet of Worms, riding off into the night. On his way home he was kidnapped by his own people (because they feared that the Church would do so themselves in order to kill him) and then transferred him to the Wartburg Castle where he translated the Bible into German, the vernacular of the people. The Reformation sparked by Luther swept most of the countries of Europe.
SOLA SCRIPTURA – BY THE SCRIPTURES ALONE
At Worms, the second slogan of the Reformation became established because of Luther’s defiance of all other ecclesiastical authority in the light of the Scriptures. That slogan was “Sola Scriptura,” which was the Latin phrase meaning “by the Scriptures Alone.”
What is “by the Scriptures alone?” Luther was saying that the ONLY written source in this world that had the level of authority to bind the conscience of a person is the Bible itself.
Luther had enormous respect for the insight, wisdom and collective teaching of the great theologians of the past, and that the Creeds and Confessions of the Faith were not at all to be despised. He knew that it would be unspeakably arrogant to create theology without any reference whatsoever to the guidance of the great teachers God had set in the Church. Yet, Luther and the other Reformers believed that no written document of men, no confession of faith, no creedal statement and no Council declaration had the authority to bind the conscience. The only person with such authority is God Himself, and only the word of God carries that authority.
As John MacArthur wrote, “Sola Scriptura, the formal principle of the Reformation, is essential to genuine Christianity. Yet this doctrine is under attack like never before. Christians who want to defend their faith must have a basic knowledge of this doctrine, know how to support it with Scripture proofs, and be able to discern the enemy’s attacks against it.”
This belief in the authority of Scripture alone to bind the conscience, as Dr. James White states, “does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ.”