How is the birth of a child to a virgin a sign to King Ahaz, since before that time came he would die (Is 7.14ff).
Isaiah 7.14 onwards is one of the great prophecies of the Old Testament and speaks so clearly of the deity, purity and majesty of the Person of the Messiah to come. It is a sign that goes beyond the circumstances and life of Ahaz and reaches on through time to its fulfilment in the birth of Christ. The degenerate king was not a true son of Abraham. He refused to choose a sign, so God Himself gave one. Such a king would have no share or part in the future blessings of Israel. This sign would be "in the depth" (v.11) for it would speak of Immanuel condescending to become man and to go down into the depths of woe at Calvary. In the same verse it would be also "in the height", for Immanuel would be equal with God and ascend to the heights of heaven in His exaltation.
You ask how it can be a sign to Ahaz seeing he would die? Notice the sign was not only a message to Ahaz, but it was a sign to the house of David (v.13). David died years before Ahaz, but their death does not in any way hinder the prophecies concerning the Lord Jesus Christ being fulfilled. Sadly, Ahaz did not believe in the message of the sign. Both David and Ahaz died, but the message of the prophecies given them still had relevance. The same is true of the prophecies of Zechariah the young priest-prophet. His prophecies live on and will certainly be fulfilled. Without going outside the book of Isaiah we are told that in millennial times an altar will be erected in Egypt (19.19). It will be for a sign to Egypt and Israel. Both the sign of the past in Israel and the sign of the future will bear witness and testimony to the faithfulness and mercy of God. Such a sign mentioned by the prophet Isaiah surely had a message to Isaiah himself, even though he would have to wait until the reign of Christ commences when he himself will have a part to play in the coming Kingdom. Ahaz, because of sin and unbelief, will not be in the Kingdom, but Isaiah the prophet will.
John J Stubbs
Does the fact that there are many antichrists (1 Jn 2.18) indicate that the Lord will come soon?
John addresses himself to "Little children"; this is a translation of a word meaning "young children, infants just born" - these have newly come into the family of God. "It is the last time (or hour)"; the expression is clearly not intended to be a literal chronological assertion; nevertheless, it is a term denoting the time immediately preceding the return of the Lord Jesus for His own. His coming to the air (1 Thess 4.17) is always regarded as an event that is imminent, so we hear the words of the Lord Himself: "Behold, I come quickly" (Rev 22.7,12), and James tells us, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (James 5.8).
Although some of John's readers were young in the faith, they had been taught that a personal Antichrist would come: "as ye have heard that antichrist shall come". The term "antichrist" is used in the New Testament only by John in his First and Second Epistles; the prefix "anti" may mean either "instead of" or "against" so the personal Antichrist not only endeavours to take the place of Christ but is antagonistic to Him.
John places the future coming of the Antichrist as a parallel reality to the existence of many antichrists at the time of writing: "even now there are many antichrists". As John contemplates the appearing of "many antichrists" in his own day, he realises the characteristics of the end time are already present, "whereby we know that it is the last time (or hour)". Clearly the characteristics of the end time were already manifesting themselves before the close of the apostolic era.
The presence of many antichrists demands that believers know the identifying marks of these men. So John poses a rhetorical question, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" (1 Jn 2.22). There is a clear denial of the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus. Of such a person John declares, "He is antichrist", not the personal Antichrist but nevertheless the embodiment of the spirit of antichrist. The clause is added, "that denieth the Father and the Son". This designation, "the Son" occurs for the first time in this epistle. The two designations "the Christ" and "the Son" relate to the one Person. To deny the Son is to deny the Father; this is clearly an attack on the deity of Christ. We are left in no doubt, "It is the last time (hour)".
David E West
