Abraham and the everlasting nature of the Land.
Genesis 17:1-8,19 "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him."
Some people question that the physical land promised to Abraham will literally be given to him, and that he will own it forever. Some have even tried to make the word "everlasting" mean something other than forever and ever, because they deny that God will actually and literally give Abraham and his seed the land in the future.
My answer to this question is that God is going to give the actual land promised to the physical seed of Abraham and they shall be placed in it forever. Forever like the eternal life we have in Christ Jesus. This does NOT negate the truth that we Gentiles are the spiritual seed of Abraham, through Jesus Christ, and that we will also inherit the spiritual promises. As God keeps His covenant physically, faithful and true as He is, He will also keep the spiritual part. If He is faithless in ONE part, how could He be faithful in another?
I. The covenant made with Abraham.
- Genesis 12 records God’s special call to Abram. We must remember that he was a direct descendant of Adam through Noah’s son, Shem. There was NO need of calling out a special nation previous to the founding of nations, the division of languages, and the division of the physical land. After all this had happened, it was God’s time to call out a man to be the beginning of a nation that would witness for Him. Abram was that man.
- God promised to make of Abram a great nation, vs.2. God promised to bless Abram and make his name great, vs. 2 and to bless him. Other nations would be blessed or cursed, depending on their treatment of Abram, vs. 3. And in Abram, "all families of the earth" were to be blessed, vs. 3.
- When Abram entered the land of Canaan, God appeared to him and promised the LAND to his seed (descendants), vs. 7, and Abram built an altar there to the Lord and called upon His name, vs. 8.
- After his experiences in Egypt, Abram returned to the very location where he had build the altar, between Bethel and Hai, where he had called on the name of the Lord, Gen. 13:1-4.
- Abram demonstrated his love to the Lord and to Lot by letting the latter decide which part of the land he wanted.
- God explained how much land he was giving to Abram, 13:14-18, and another altar was built in Hebron. It was a renewal of God’s promise to him that he and his seed would inherit the land.
- Genesis 14 shows Abram being blessed by God’s special priest, Melchizedek, king of Salem. Abram showed he wanted only what GOD would give him, not earthly kings, since, after all, the whole earth belonged to Him, vs. 22-24.
- Genesis 15, God encourages Abram and promises a numerous seed, out of his own bowels.
- This is a promise of the birth of Isaac.
- This also is a promise of the multitudes that would believe in the true seed, Jesus Christ of the stock of Abraham, and thus all nations of the earth would be blessed.
- Again, the LAND is promised to Abram and confirmed. Vs.7-21.
- This is distinctly called a covenant in vs. 18. It includes the land from the river of Egypt all the way up to the Euphrates River.
- The future enslavement and deliverance of Israel was prophesied, vs. 13-16; Also Abram’s death was prophesied, vs. 15.
- Then comes the story of Hagar and Ishmael in Chapter 16, to which Paul alluded in Gal. 4 where he compares the two covenants of law and grace. Hagar represents the law covenant and Sarah the grace covenant, which is Jerusalem above, the "mother of us all." It is important to consider that Isaac was the child of promise, and Ishmael the child of bondage.
- Gen. 17 shows the covenant renewed. I do not believe that this is a different or a separate covenant, but rather a reaffirmation of God to Abram of the terms of the original covenant.
- Abraham is promised that he will be multiplied exceedingly, vs. 2.
- He is promised to be a father of many nations, vs. 4, 5.
- His name was changed from Abram to Abraham. vs. 5.
- He was to be very fruitful. Nations and kings would come from him, vs. 6.
- The covenant was established by God between Himself and Abraham and Abraham’s seed forever, vs. 7
- The LAND was involved as an everlasting possession of Abraham and his seed, vs. 8
- Abraham’s God is to be the God of his seed. vs. 7-9.
- The sign of the covenant was circumcision, vs. 10-14. All the males were to be circumcised, even those of their slaves. The uncircumcised males were to be destroyed because it was a breach of the covenant. Again it was said that the covenant was for everlasting, vs. 13-14.
- This everlasting covenant was continued through Isaac, the son of promise, vs. 19, 21.
- Gen. 18 tells the story of how Sarah was told she was to be a mother, and her reaction. She laughed, and then out of fear denied that she laughed. As Abraham was going with the men who brought that message from God, the Lord said that Abraham would be a great and mighty nation, and that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him, vs. 11-18. This is another confirmation of the same covenant.
- In chapter 22 verse 2 it is interesting to note that Isaac was considered the only son of Abraham. This was not literally so, for he had a son by Hagar, even Ishmael. But only through Isaac was the royal and messianic line to be established, and it was to Isaac that God confirmed the Abrahamic covenant. God tested Abraham’s faith and steadfastness by ordering him to offer up Isaac, but God Himself provided a lamb to die in Isaac’s place. This is a clear reference to Jesus, the Lamb of God, and His sacrificial death for us, in our place. Here, in verses 16 to 18, once again God confirms His covenant with Abraham and his seed.
- "In blessing I will bless thee," vs. 17.
- "In multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore," vs. 17.
- "And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies," vs. 17. This involves the land, without a doubt. Also the seed is a clear reference to Jesus Christ.
- And in verse 18, "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
- Chapter 26 shows the confirmation of the same Abrahamic covenant with Isaac, vs. 3-4.
- This has a distinct promise that Isaac’s seed would receive all those countries, and in that seed, all the nations would be blessed. Again, this seed is none other than Jesus Christ, and through HIM, all the nations are and will be blessed.
- Psalm 2 shows Jesus is the true King of Kings, and that GOD gave him the nations as his inheritance and possession, vs. 7-8. Verse 9 is quoted in Rev. 2:27 about Christ and those of us who are of Him. It is also a distinct reference to the millennial kingdom of Jesus that is yet in the future. It involves the LAND that shall be given to Abraham and his seed forever.
- Jesus Christ has NOT yet taken possession of His inheritance which is the earth. He will. And those who have the faith of Abraham also will reign with him, but not now in this life. The second coming of Jesus to earth is necessary for the fulfilling of all those promises to give the land to His people. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Do the meek inherit it now? Do they wear a crown now, or carry a cross now?
- Heb. 11:30-40 teaches that all the Old Testament saints died without receiving the inheritance of the land, but that since God cannot lie, they WILL. But they will not receive it without US. And we don’t have it yet. But we will at the resurrection, the blessed and holy first resurrection, when Jesus comes for His own.
II. Israel will return and be re-gathered to the land of Canaan.
- Micah 2:12 "I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel." Although Micah is directly referring to the return of the remnant after Assyria carried away all of north Israel and made Samaria a heap, it is also a prophecy or principle that can have a double fulfillment. It can apply also to the future gathering of Israel back into her land.
- Isaiah 11:10-12 "And IN THAT DAY there shall be a root of Jesse (Jesus), which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek (which we are doing now in the times of the Gentiles): and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that the Lord shall set his hand again the SECOND TIME to recover the remnant of his people...and he shall set up an ensign for the NATIONS, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS of the EARTH."
- This is unmistakably future. "In that day" refers to the day described in verses 1-9, when the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. The first time after this prophecy was made, was when the Jews would return from Babylon. But Isaiah speaks of the SECOND TIME. This is the future re-gathering of Israel. These things certainly did not happen at the return of the tribes from Babylon! Isaiah prophesied BEFORE the Babylonian captivity. He refers to a future, second recovery from the isles of the sea and all the countries of the world. This is fulfillment of what God promised in Deut. 30:3-5. "Then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shall possess it..." Even if Israel be scattered to the end of heaven, God will gather them and bring them back. This was dependent, however, upon their repentance.
III. Jerusalem will one day be free of strangers (foreigners) or gentiles.
- Joel 3:15-17 "The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; (not a bellowing preacher from the pulpit!); and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more."
- When has this EVER taken place? Jesus said: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Luke 21:24. Was this fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD? No, for the times of the Gentiles were not yet fulfilled. The fact is, Jerusalem is still partly possessed by Israel’s enemies. It is full of strangers, both tourists and residents.
- This is also mentioned in Rev. 11:2, "and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." In this book of symbolism, here is a definite figure. In another place it is said to be 1,260 days, and in another it is a time, times and a half of a time. Why is this same amount of time mentioned three different ways? By days, by months and by years? This is to show us that it IS literal and not to be "spiritualized" away. It has not happened yet. When has Jerusalem ever been totally free of foreigners? That is their problem right now. Muslims, Catholics and the nations want to internationalize it and this may occur. But will God's promise to free Jerusalem totally and forever of Gentiles yet be fulfilled? How can it be "spiritually fulfilled" NOW, if this is now the time of the Gentiles? Isn't it AFTER the times of the Gentiles that Jerusalem shall be free of them? After being trodden down 42 months, or three and a half years? We find that figure over in Revelation also! Why do you suppose people try to prove that the book of Revelation was written BEFORE 70 AD? Because they believe that Jerusalem’s destruction at that time was the fulfillment of that prophecy. There is absolutely no proof that Revelation was written before Jerusalem fell. Early Christian writers place it after 70 AD. John prophesied of a future 42 months when Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles. It is future, not history.
- Since Jesus and John both prophesy that Jerusalem is overrun by Gentiles until after the 42 months or 1,260 days or three and a half years is finished, then it is evident that God’s prophecy that the Gentiles will all be removed is yet in the future.
- .It also is evident that Daniel’s seventieth week was not fulfilled at Jesus’ death or three and a half years afterward, but it is still to be fulfilled in the future.
IV. Jerusalem is forever.
- Joel 3:20-21 "But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the Lord dwelleth in Zion." Here is a prophecy that Jerusalem will not be destroyed. It also speaks of her future cleansing.
- Israel will be cleansed only when she repents and mourns the ONE that was pierced. Zechariah 12:9-14 "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart." This scripture speaks of the literal return of Jesus when every eye shall see Him. This is future, not history.
- This same promise was quoted in Rev. 1:7, and was written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 D.C.! Jesus is YET to return, and when He does, He will find a repentant nation (remnant) of Israel. Jerusalem shall be trodden down during the times of the Gentiles, but will survive and go into the millennium.
- This truth is seen also in Matthew 23:38 compared with 24:30. God’s house of worship, the temple in Jerusalem, was deserted by Christ and he will not return until the repentance and mourning of Israel. When the repentance takes place, "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other," Matt. 24:30-31.
- This is exactly what Peter preached to the leaders of Israel in Acts 3:19-21. 26. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive (or retain, keep) until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." This clearly teaches that the return of Jesus Christ to the earth hinges upon or is dependent upon the repentance and regeneration of a remnant of Israel.
- When Jesus returns, He will cleanse the land and consecrate the city of Jerusalem. The "city of peace" will become just that, for the first time in her history. Is not this the city Abraham looked for? "By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles (tents) with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb. 11:9-10. This is also seen in Heb. 13:14 "For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." It is STILL future for us today. We belong to that city, hence we "are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," as far as our spiritual position before God is concerned. But it is STILL heavenly, and future. It is like the kingdom of God which is YET to come, for we pray for it to come, but there is a sense in which we can say, "wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, etc." Heb. 12:28. By faith it IS ours. But we have NOT possessed it yet. We WILL possess it at the same time the Old Testament saints possess it, Heb. 11:39-40.
- The return from Egypt in Moses’ day was symbolic of the later return from Babylon; the return from Babylon was symbolic of a future return from ALL nations. The OT prophets looked forward to the return of the tribes carried off into Babylon. This future return is a type of the complete fulfillment when a united Israel will return from all nations.
- Jer. 23:7 mentions their return from Egypt, but verse 8 refers to ALL countries where they were to be driven out and then come back. The "second time" as Isaiah said, refers to the time AFTER the one when they came from Babylon. The first was from one country. The future return will be from all countries.
- Deut. 30:1-6 says they would be scattered because of their sins, but would be gathered from all nations and then given a new heart.
- Isa. 43:5-7 says that God will bring the Jews back "from far" and from all directions, that is, "from the ends of the earth." This is not the return from Babylon.
- Jer. 29:10-14 teaches that Israel would certainly be taken to Babylon and remain there 70 years but would return. This prophecy is what caused Daniel to get excited about the fulfilling of those years and looked forward to the return of Israel to her land. They had no king. Would God at that time restore the crown to David's seed? Daniel was told there were 70 sevens yet in the future for that. Verse 11 promises peace and not evil at the END, "an expected end" which means there would be hope at the latter end. Daniel was told he would have to wait for the fulfillment. He will receive it only at his resurrection. That was HIS hope, and it is ours. Also Israel's repentance and receiving a new heart was promised, vs. 12-14 but Israel did NOT repent when Jesus came to them the first time. They rejected Him. But they WILL call on the Lord and seek Him, and find Him. THEN they will be "gathered from all the nations."
- Jer. 31:8-9 shows that the Jews will come from all countries, weeping and repenting. Verse 15 was fulfilled in Matt. 2:18 with the slaughter of the children. God tells them to stop weeping in verse 16 because one day "there is hope in thy end" and they will be rewarded and come again from the land of their enemy into their own border, vs. 17.
- Ezekiel 37:15-28 declares that God will unite Judah and Israel one day, and gather them from all places they have gone, and then they will have one King, one Shepherd, and that David will be their Prince forever. God will make an everlasting covenant of peace with them, and his sanctuary will be in their midst forever. THEN the heathen (Gentiles) shall know that God sanctifies Israel and that He is God. This promise has never been fulfilled. It will be when King David, Shepherd David and Prince David returns. That is, when Jesus Christ unites Israel and gathers them from all over the earth and places His dwelling place among them.
- Micah 4:7 prophesies that the nation of Israel that was cast off will become a strong nation and the "Lord shall reign over them in Zion from henceforth, even for ever." This has NEVER happened. After the Babylonian captivity there has never been peace in Jerusalem, nor has Jehovah God ruled over them in Zion. He will one day when the times of the gentiles are fulfilled. This does NOT deny that we Gentiles are the spiritual seed of Abraham through Jesus Christ. We are included in the promise. But this does NOT replace the literal promises to the physical seed of Abraham, both Judah and Israel.
- Hosea 3:3-5 declares that Israel will be a long time without king, priest, sacrifice, etc. This is a present reality. The Lord God is NOT called their "Ishi" today. When their True King and High Priest appeared, Jesus Christ, they rejected Him and asked that His blood be on their hands and the hands of their children. They were scattered among all the nations. The name "Jew" has become a byword. But has God forgotten all those promises to restore them if they will repent? Of course not! Will He ignore His own promises to Israel just because He has allowed us Gentiles to be grafted into His chosen people in our time? No! One day "shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord, and David their King; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the LATTER DAYS." Now we know this has NOT happened yet. Hosea said it will be in the latter days. I believe Israel will be brought back in repentance to God and will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Rev. 1:7 says "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Part of this is a quote from Zechariah 12:10 which deals with the destruction of Israel’s enemies that come against Jerusalem, and deals with Israel’s national mourning, tribe by tribe and family by family, over the one they crucified, Jesus Christ!
- Ezekiel’s prophecy of the dry bones is significant. Ezekiel 37:1-14. The bones represent the nation of Israel cut off from God, or dead. God brings the bones together, puts sinews and flesh on them, but they still lack life. This is the condition of Zionist Israel today. It lacks the Spirit of God. They will only receive this when they return to God in repentance and then they will be placed in their land with God’s approval.
- Ezekiel’s prophecy of the uniting of the two sticks is also significant. Ezekiel 37:15-28. Joseph and Ephraim are not united now. God will bring them together as one nation from all nations and give them their land and King David, Jesus Christ, will be King and Shepherd over them. God will make an everlasting covenant of peace with them and will dwell among them. He will be their God and they shall be His people.
- Ezekiel’s prophecy in chapter 36 explains in detail how that Israel will repent and be brought back into fellowship with their God as well as brought back from all nations of the earth. God will give them a new heart, forgive their sins, consecrate them and bless them. God said, "For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do they. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people and I will be your God." Eze. 36:24-28. The verses to follow speak distinctly about the LAND that shall be restored and become "like the garden of Eden." This is not to be spiritualized, but received as a literal promise of God to fulfill His promise to give the land to the heirs of the promise.
Ps 122:6 "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee."
Author: Steve Montgomery
A Short Study by Steve Montgomery
Caixa Postal 278
19900-000 Ourinhos, S.P.
Brazil
Source: www.obreiroaprovado.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FEEDING SHEEP OR AMUSING GOATS?
An evil resides in the professed camp of the Lord so gross in its imprudence that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate evil for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the CChrist speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." That is clear enough. So it would have been if He has added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to Him. Then again, "He gave some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, for the work of the ministry." Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.
Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? "Ye are the salt," not sugar candy-something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the dead bury their dead." He was in awful earnestness!
Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into His mission, He would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear Him say, "Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!" Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel amusement. Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, "Lord grant Thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are." If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They "turned the world upside down." That is the difference! Lord, clear the Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and bring us back to apostolic methods.
Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to affect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy-laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.
A Message by C. H. Spurgeon That Speaks To Us Today
Source: www.obreiroaprovado.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pastor Forrest Keener
Open your Bibles if you will, please, to the book of Hebrews, to chapter number four and verse number thirteen. Holding that place in your Bibles, turn also to I Peter chapter number one and verse eighteen. In Hebrews chapter four and verse thirteen the Scripture says, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” I Peter 1:18 says, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,”. I have companion text this morning Hebrews 4:15, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” And then I Peter 1:19,20, “But with the precious blood of Christ,” – talking about our redemption – “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” – and I want you to consider those two verses and just try to keep them in your mind.
As Bro. Smith spoke last night, and then as Bro. Laurence Justice followed him, I thought this and I even remarked this to these brethren last night in going out: if you took the necessary, logical implications of their messages to the necessary conclusion – I meant what that implies if you follow it to its conclusion – this message would be absolutely unnecessary. No one who followed those truths to their end could doubt the impeccability of Christ. Nonetheless, it is a subject that is well worth our consideration. I am persuaded you do not make Christians by preaching Christianity; you make Christians by preaching Christ. Christians grow, though we ought to teach them the principles of Godly living. You understand that. But the mystery of Godliness is not Godliness on our part, but it is Godliness in the person of Jesus Christ and we grow as Christians by learning more about Jesus, as the theme of this conference says. And all of the other things that we should be taught and are taught have no meaning until beholding the Lamb of God we are changed into His image. And so it is important. These things are not just doctrinal squabbles or fine points at all; they are necessary truths for our growth in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now the English definition of impeccable is to be clean, complete, consummate, faultless, or flawless. You probably know that you really cannot build a doctrine without knowing the meaning of the words in the Scripture. But, you can never rightly build a doctrine only by the definition of the words. The words don’t mean anything – and I don’t care if it’s Greek or Hebrew or English or whatever – the words have no definite meaning outside of the syntax in which they’re placed, that is the construction of the sentences. And so, when we talk about the impeccability of Christ, we’re going beyond just the character in the sense of the question, was He complete? Was He flawless? But we’re talking about, could He have sinned? Now this may sound like it’s something that is academic. But the fact of the matter is that as we look at this, the discussion is the hypothetical ability of Christ. Not many people would say that Christ ever sinned. Now I did have a man one time who said Christ committed His first sin when He was twelve years old when He did not follow His parents away from Jerusalem. Dumber than a box of rocks, obviously. But not very many people will claim that He did in fact sin or that He was even likely to sin, but hypothetically they say He could and so the claim of my subject today is that it was absolutely, unquestionably, impossible for Christ to have sinned. So you know what I’m talking about. We know where we’re coming from.
Now, what are the reasons that are stated by those who claim peccability? The arguments that I have heard have been very human and they say this: there would be no glory in His sinlessness. In other words, they argue His sinlessness, but that’s not what impeccability is. That’s not what the Biblical doctrine of the impeccability of Christ is. It goes beyond that and states that He did not have the ability. And they say, “But if He didn’t have the ability to, there would be no glory in His sinlessness.” That is to say that He struggled against all of the sins that we struggle against and He won the battle. Praise God! We have salvation in Him because He struggled and won. That is basically the argument. They will also say He was tempted in all points like as we are tempted and if they experienced temptation and think about it, they realize that the – now follow me carefully and don’t get ahead of me – the ability to be tempted not only implies, but proves that within us there is flaw. And that’s accurate. It’s not complete, but it’s accurate – to that point. And so they will argue that. Not only that, they will argue that without the ability to sin, on other words if He didn’t have the ability to sin, there would really be no temptation and that He would not be able to sympathize with our infirmities as the Bible indicates that He does. They’ll also say that if He had no ability to sin, that He did not really have a human nature, because with the human nature goes the ability to sin. Bro. Justice very clearly, and also Bro. Smith, both of them, really approached that issue last night of the first Adam and the last Adam. We often say the second Adam; I believe the Bible says the last Adam. But makes no difference. The differentiation, or the line that is drawn there by Paul is that we are not talking about the fallen nature of Adam when we talk about Christ becoming flesh. But they do not see that.
Now there are dozens more of these and may I be fair and say that there are some men who are to some extent Bible students who do in fact claim the peccability of Christ. I believe they are absolutely, utterly wrong and it is my opinion that the reason that they have that opinion is that they have read too many books before they read their Bibles; and that what they have done is picked up a book written by somebody influenced by men, such as Bro. Justice mentioned last night, who really doubt the deity of Christ but who are well-educated and have the skill of doing a good job in writing a book; and they absorb that error before they get to what the Bible teaches. From that point forward they read their Bible with a skewed mind. I don’t mean to be unkind, but I believe that’s accurate.
Now let’s look at some problems quickly with the hypothetical idea of their peccability. In other words, they say hypothetically Christ could have sinned. And somebody will say, “Well, what are we doing with hypothetical issues?” Well, in essence, this is a hypothetical issue and examination I think is proper because in almost every case, the argument is not that Christ did sin, but that He hypothetically, or that He could have sinned. So that becomes hypothetical within itself.
Now, let me say this: any sin on the part of Jesus Christ – think about this; this is just logical, but there’s nothing wrong with logic – any sin on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ would have necessarily violated hundreds of prophecies. Therefore the Scriptures would have been broken and the Lord said the Scripture cannot be broken, cannot be broken. Think of the prophecies that would not have been fulfilled if the Lord Jesus Christ had sinned. I’m talking about the problem with the hypothesis that these people put before us. Not only that – this is not double talk, but follow me – if the act were possible, that is any act of sin, if it were possible, then necessarily the event or the eventuality of it would be possible. Now listen: in which case, not only would the work of our salvation not have been finished – and it is not finished until Calvary – but it would have been undetermined; it would have been uncertain. You follow what I’m trying to … Had it been possible for the Lord to have sinned, the certainty of the salvation of all of the elect would have remained in question and in balance until He had indeed become victorious over the temptations that lay before Him. In other words, it would say that salvation was not only unaccomplished until the cross, but salvation was uncertain until the cross. Is that not accurate? The conclusion is inescapable as far as I can see. Not only that, you go through the Old Testament … well, for instance: thousands of spotless lambs were killed. What difference did it make if they were spotless or not? A dead sheep’s a dead sheep! Huh? No, no! The Lord gave definite direction that this had to be a lamb of the first year, a male without spot and without blemish. Why? Was it because that’s the only kind of lamb that could take away the sins of the children of Israel? No lamb took away their sins. It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins! Why did they have to be that way? Because they were a type, or a figure, of the Lord Jesus Christ. Had there been sin in Him, all of those types, every one of them without question, would have failed. Now that’s hypothetical. I understand. But the discussion is essentially hypothetical.
I think in order to be sure that we cover this issue we need to take a moment to deal with the usages of the word ‘tempted’. Because temptation is a big issue here. He was tempted in all points like as we are tempted (Hebrews 4:15). This great high priest touched with the feeling of our infirmities was tempted in all points like as He was tempted. And I think that there’s a problem here, not in us defining the word rightly, but in us understanding temptation itself. What is temptation? It has been suggested by some that the word here that is translated ‘temptation’ should be translated ‘testing’. It will do no more for you than giving strychnine a new name; call it ‘potato soup’, it’ll still do the same thing. Changing that word won’t do one thing for you, because the fact of the matter is that the word means to test one’s faith or their virtue or their character by enticement to sin. That’s what it’s dealing with.
Now the fact is that temptation is necessarily objective and subjective. You follow what I’m talking about. To make this as simple as I know how: the Devil goes forth to tempt men and he holds before them enticements to do evil. But those enticements to do good or evil, whatever they are, have no effect at all without relationship to what is within that man. You follow what I’m talking about? The nature of the man is going to be the thing that will determine whether something is tempting to him or not. For instance, someone will refer to food and they say, “Boy, that is tempting!” But it’s not tempting to everybody. I like spinach; some people don’t like spinach. I love broccoli; my older brother didn’t like broccoli. But I like broccoli; some people are not tempted by broccoli. I like broccoli; I like it better with a lot of cheese on it. You know what I mean? But other people are not tempted by it. In other words, our nature makes a difference. You know, there are people who have been turned over to a reprobate mind. If you don’t like this, it’s free. But there are people who have been turned over to a reprobate mind and they are tempted by issues of homosexuality. On the other hand, I am so revolted, I can become violent and hurt somebody at the mere suggestion of it. When I was a young man, twenty years old, a man sat down in a theatre beside me and started fooling around with me and I knew the guy, had no idea he was a queer. He followed me to this place and sat down and I turned to him and I said, “If you ever put a hand on me again I’ll kill you.” And he got up and left, which was a good idea. See, not everybody feels that way. You see, I have a nature within me that is very repelled by that. Whereas I might be tempted by a woman, I could never be tempted by a man.
Now the issue of temptation is not only objective, but subjective. The Devil goes forth objectively trying to tempt, but he can only attempt, or bring them into subjection to himself, as there is a nature within to submit to that. Do you follow what I’m saying to you?
The Lord Jesus Christ said, “Satan cometh and findeth nothing in me.” Can you say that? I can’t say that. Brother, when Satan comes, I need to pray! Because he can find all kinds of weaknesses and flaws in me. But not in the Lord Jesus Christ. You see, when it says, “He was tempted in all points like we are tempted”, it means that all of these things that Satan holds before us, he held before the Lord Jesus Christ. But! There is that fallen nature within us that was not in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And that brings me to my last and I think the most important point. I might give you back some time, you believe that don’t you. Said, “I don’t believe a word of it.” Then I’ll be through on time. But I think that the great issue here lies in the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, almost anyone who wants to argue for the peccability of Christ will say, “Certainly we do not believe that Christ could have sinned in His divine nature. But it was His human nature that could have sinned.” That is their argument. Incarnation, Brother – and he knows this; I think he even taught us this last night – was not the laying aside of His immutable deity. Now I want to say that again: the incarnation of Jesus Christ was in no sense the laying aside of His immutable deity. We need to be careful in our study – I believe this with all of my heart; if they’re soteriological issues, if they’re prophetic issues, no matter what they are – to be sure that we try to rightly relate them to the person of God.
For instance, the person that goes around saying, “God looked out into the future and saw who was going to be saved.” Please sober up, my friend! God does not look out into the future. He is omnipresent, He is everywhere all the time. Nor does He learn anything by observation – “saw who was going to be” and made a decision? If they would get acquainted with God they will understand. And when we look at the deity of Christ, or when we look at the nature of God, we must understand that one of the great attributes of God is immutability! He not only does not change, He cannot change, for He must either change for the better, which would imply that He was imperfect before the change; or He must change for the worse, which would imply that He was inferior to the former position after the change. He has to be immutable by the very nature of God.
Now, if that be true, then when He was incarnated, it is utterly impossible for us to hypothesize that He might have laid aside any attribute of His deity at all. Only if it is possible for Jehovah to die – and this is not a hyperbole – only if it is possible for Jehovah to die can He change as far as His deity is concerned. Now, someone will say, “But you’ve made no point there, because we’re not talking about His person as God, but we’re talking about His person as a man.” But let’s get to that a little bit.
Now I certainly am not an expert by any means on dealing with the hypostatic union of Christ and sometimes we joke about it as if it were something since it’s beyond us to reason it out we just won’t talk about it, but it is a fact. It is a Bible truth. In this man that we call Jesus Christ – “God with us”, “Jehovah with us”; that’s what His name really means. In this “Jehovah with us”, there was a union in the nature of Jesus Christ as a man and the nature of Jesus Christ as God; there was a union that we cannot see, that we cannot handle, that we cannot touch, that we cannot analyze, that we cannot define; but it is necessarily there. But it is inconceivable and it is unbiblical that the human nature could in any sense violate the divine nature. It could not in any sense conceivably alter the divine nature because divinity is immutable. Can’t be; it’s not possible. So as we look at this, we look for instance at I Timothy 3:16 and I think this has already been read a couple of times: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness.” How are we going to learn about God? “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, …”. Who is this talking about? It’s not just talking about some kind of a conception or a manifestation of God! It’s talking about a Person! Jesus Christ. And I don’t have time to get into all of the steps that would go through there. “Received up into glory” – I get to preach on that later on – that’s a wonderful subject and it’s more than just the miracle of Him going up into the air I’ll tell you for sure. Much more than that.
But the fact of the matter is that as we look at this we understand that it goes beyond our ability to analyze, to fully define, to fully understand and yet we know that there was a union there. The Apostle Paul said, “I with my mind serve the law of God but with the flesh I serve the law of sin.” In some sense, Paul was saying, “I have a split personality.” I don’t use those terms too frequently – hear people talking about that today and the psychologists try to make all kinds of foolishness out of that. But you often hear honest people say, “part of me wants to do this, part of me wants to do this.” Have you ever felt like that? You know why? ‘Cause you are the offspring of Adam. But not so with Christ. He was not. And He was not a split personality. I don’t have time to prove all of this, but there was never one moment in the life of Christ when part of Him wanted to do one thing and part of Him another. Ever. Though he was man, though He was God, there was no conflict within Him. You will find one thing in Scripture – look for it, find it, show it to me; and I’ll apologize to you. But you won’t find one thing in Scripture that ever finds Him in consternation saying, “I don’t know what to do. I’d like to do this, but I’d like to do …”. You don’t find that in Him. There is a unity. It is the hypostatical union that goes beyond my understanding. He was God manifest in the flesh.”
But now listen and get this as a basic principle: true deity cannot be compromised. Now I’m not saying that if it is compromised it ceases to be true deity. There’s a difference. I’m saying if it is true deity it cannot be compromised. It is infallible. It is immutable. It understands all eventualities. It controls every thing. You see, I make decisions that re mistakes and sometimes I have decisions that I’m not sure about; and I have decisions where I want to do something, but sometimes I’m afraid to do it. You know why? ‘Cause there’s so many things out there I can’t control. But that’s not true with God. There’s so many things out there I don’t know, but that’s not true with God. There are so many things within me that I am uncertain of, but that’s not true with God. You ever do anything you have to apologize for? God never does. You see, the very nature of God forbids this whole idea that they bring forth of the possibility of Christ having sinned. He was not the offspring of Adam. Bro. Justice did a good job on this last night, dealing with the way that He was conceived in the womb of Mary. And I’m not a scientist. I’ve heard a lot of this stuff and I’m amazed sometimes at some of the things that people buy into, you know. M.R.D. Honral wrote this article about the chemistry of the blood and people across the country bought into that and bought into…And I was always embarrassed when I heard some of my good friends get up and promote that idea. And I want to tell you something: it’s so far beyond our understanding; and the statements that he made there, they were not even made from a medical standpoint, can’t be proven from a medical standpoint. But the fact of the matter is that this is beyond us. He was not the offspring of Adam; He was the last Adam. Look at I Corinthians 15:45: “And so it is written: the first Adam was made a living soul” – He was made a living soul – “the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Now there’s a difference in “living” and “quickening”. For instance, I am a living soul. But I am not a quickening anything because “quickening” means that they have the ability or involved in the giving of life. Not a “quickened” spirit – see that would be like a living soul – not a “quickened” spirit, but a “quickening” spirit. A totally different species. He is the last Adam, He is God, He is made in the likeness of God even in His humanity. Time will not allow me to get into that and I shouldn’t; it’s another subject. But let me go on to something else. Adam – now listen carefully – being a creature was absolutely dependent upon the grace of God to maintain His holiness. I’m always embarrassed when I hear a Baptist preacher get up and say, “Adam was created innocent.” Obviously he was and so were all of the trees in the garden and all of the dogs and kitty-cats and the birds and every thing like that. What does the fact that Adam was created innocent have to do with anything? They say Adam sinned because God created him with the ability to make a choice. That’s like saying cats climb trees because they have four legs. Mules have four legs, too, but they don’t climb trees. It’s a stupid argument. It’s unreasonable logic. Adam was created positively holy. How could Adam lose that holiness? Help me out a little bit: did he fall by sinning? Or sin by falling because he fell? Now, I know the answer to that because the Bible gives me the answer, but without the Bible I couldn’t give you an answer. The Bible says he by transgression fell. But how in the world did an unfallen man transgress? Of if you turn it around the other way, how could he have fallen without sinning? In other words, you cannot describe the origin of sin. Unless you say this: that God created Adam for the purpose of bringing forth an elect people who would be saved by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand that that goes into the area of lapsirianism and I understand that that would probably put me in the school of a supralapsirian and I don’t give a flip one way or the other – I think we’re thinking all the way outside of our ability to reason when we even talk about it – so if I’m wrong about that it doesn’t even make me nervous.
But I believe that God withheld grace from Adam in order to glorify Himself through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. And I think the Bible will bear that out if I had time to develop it; the Bible will bear that out. The fact of the matter is that, as we look at this, Adam had a fall that was decreed by God – doesn’t mean Adam was not in violation; no justification in that for him – but the fall was decreed by God. Now if you don’t believe that, well you don’t really understand what God is about. Because the decree of God includes every eventuality that ever comes to pass. Adam fell because it was decreed; why would God decree the fall? Because God in so doing shows us that we are totally dependent upon the grace of God for our livelihood, for everything. I mean, you’d fall from grace after you got to Heaven if it were not for the grace of God. If there were not the nature of grace there would be no such thing as eternal security.
Now listen: Adam became a sinner by sinning; you do not become a sinner by sinning. Adam did, you do not. You sin because you’re a sinner. Now if you take that principle – that you sin because you’re a sinner; you do what you do because you are what you are – how could Christ have sinned unless He’s a sinner? You follow what I’m saying to you. In other words, the very nature of Christ not being a sinner shows us that He could not have sinned. Jesus Christ could not have sinned because He was not the offspring of Adam; He was the offspring of the Godhead. Hear His words to His mother in Cana: “What have I to do with thee, woman?” You ever wondered what that means? Well I don’t know; just let you figure it out and tell me; so you fellas help me out. But I think it has to do with this. Now I don’t have time to say anything else about that and besides, it doesn’t need to be said.
Grasp in your mind – I’m coming to a close – grasp in your mind the nature of Christ: Who He was, what He was, what God is; and you will necessarily reject the idea of any hypothetical peccability of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the Lamb without spot and blemish. He was that holy thing conceived in the womb of Mary outside of any effect and influence of Adam in his fallen state. The idea Bro. Justice mentioned last night, the foolish idea that Mary was born without sin or came to the time of the delivery without sin, garbage. She was a sinner; He was her Savior. And only sinners need Saviours. So the idea is utterly foolish. But the fact of the matter is that as you look at this you’ll understand that Who Christ was absolutely, unquestionably necessitates the conclusion of absolute impeccability. Thank you for your time.
Transcribed 10/2006 Joy Ellaina Gardner
Autor: Pastor Forrest Keener
Fonte: www.obreiroaprovado.com
