Now, our study this morning is
the second in a series of lectures on the critical issue of the
doctrine commonly called limited atonement or, better, particular
redemption or definite atonement. In the introductory lecture two
weeks ago, I attempted to do three things. Number one, to
state clearly the issue before us, and I did so by first of
all giving some negatives and then some positives. We're not
discussing the inherent sufficiency of the work of Christ, the ultimate
application of the work of Christ. We're not discussing whether
there's a sincere offer made of the benefits of Christ's death
to all men who come within the compass of the gospel. or whether
or not there are manifold fruits accruing to all men from the
death of Christ. But the precise issue is this.
Did Christ die for all men indiscriminately and distributively? Or did he
die for a certain number of men particularly and exclusively? Or more simply, for whom did
Christ die? placing upon that word die the
full implication of its biblical significance. Then, secondly,
I tried to describe the approach by which we would address ourselves
to the subject, first of all as to attitude and then method.
We do not come with arrogance, but I trust with humility, recognizing
we tread in an area where good and godly men have differed,
men who have loved the grace of God and have had a deep appreciation
for God's grace in Christ Then our method is not the atomistic,
taking up texts, but the holistic approach, seeking to come at
the doctrine of the extent of God's intention in the death
of his Son with reference to the larger biblical and theological
categories in which that doctrine comes to us. And I want to read
again that quote that I gave you from Hugh Martin, not to
fill up time, but because I'd like it to filter down in. Hugh
Martin, speaking of this very subject, says it is extremely
injudicious, unwise, and impolitic, sort of a synonym he's using,
two words, for defenders of the faith to discuss any scriptural
doctrine and particularly to profess to do so fully and exhaustively
outside of the greater category in which the doctrine properly
and natively belongs. By so doing they place it in
a position of unnecessary danger and assign to themselves a greater
difficulty in defending it than scripture assigns to them. They
rob it of the illustration and they rob it of the protection
which the higher or larger category affords. And then he goes on
to enlarge upon that principle. And I hope that something of
the wisdom of what Hugh Martin is saying will become more and
more apparent as we continue in this series of studies. So
much then for those two things. I tried to state clearly the
issue, describe the approach, and then at the conclusion of
the lecture I outlined the specific manner of our approach. And I
suggested that the death of Christ as a sacrifice or expiation as
a propitiation, as a work of reconciliation, as a work of
redemption, ought never to be considered, if we're trying to
come to a comprehensive view of that death, apart from these
larger spheres of consideration. What he did upon the cross, he
did in fulfillment of his priestly function, he did as one who stood
in a peculiar relationship with his people, he did within the
framework of the covenant of redemption and so the work of
the cross must be seen in relationship to all of these moving outwardly
it must be seen as the fruit and within the context of these
moving from the outer circles to the inner well so much for
that brief review now we come to consider this morning the
death of Christ upon the cross in relationship to the covenant
of redemption Now, first of all, I want to define our terms, and
then secondly, we shall consider a justification for considering
the work of Christ within this framework, and then thirdly,
I hope to expound the concept from the Scriptures, and then
last of all, to draw some practical applications. So there are four
lines of thought under this broad consideration, the death of Christ
in relationship to the covenant of redemption. First of all,
then, a definition of terms. Few things are of greater importance
in theological discussion than is the precise definition of
terms. For want of this, there is much
confusion, wrong impressions, and oftentimes imprecision of
thought and unnecessary debate. You see, words are the vehicles
of thought. If the words are not precise,
the thought will be blurred. Now never forget that in any
kind of discussion, in any kind of opportunity that you have
to preach or to teach, words are the tools of communication.
And anyone concerned with accurate communication must be a student
of words all his days. If your dictionary is not almost
as well worn out as your Bible, you are not concerned with accuracy
of communication. Your dictionary and your Bible
ought to be your constant companions. So, at the very outset, we must
define precisely our terms. Now, the term covenant of redemption
is not a biblical term, as are such terms as sacrifice, redemption,
reconciliation, propitiation, etc. But, as you've often been
reminded, neither is the word trinity a biblical term, or,
to relate to the Sunday morning messages, two natures of Christ. That's not a biblical term. But
these terms, though not biblical in themselves, are essential
if we are to express the fruit of our collating of biblical
data. God gives us a fact here, and
a fact here, and a fact here, and when we seek to put them
together, the fruit of that collation of biblical data has to be expressed
in some kind of a verbal symbol. So when we take the fact that
there is one God, The fact that Jesus Christ is recognized as
God, the Father is recognized as God, the Spirit is recognized
as God. We put all those together and
we say the Bible contains a doctrine of Trinity in unity. One God
in three persons, three persons who compose the one God. Well, this is what we're dealing
with when we come to the term covenant of redemption. the scriptures
set before us certain facts relative to the work of Christ which when
we put them all together force upon us a concept that has been
expressed in the history of theological thought in this term the covenant
of redemption Mr. Fisher called it a pre-temporal
inter-trinitarian agreement I think that was his fancy title and
that's well and good and I don't say that with tongue-in-cheek,
but you won't often find pre-temporal inter-trinitarian agreement in
theological books. You'll come across the term Covenant
of Redemption, or some of its synonyms, and I want to give
you some of its synonyms. The Council of Redemption, that's
a synonym of Covenant of Redemption. Sometimes you'll come across
the term the Council of Peace, based upon perhaps an inaccurate
exegesis of Zechariah 6.13. I said perhaps, I'm not sure. I've read on both sides of the
subject and I feel it's pretty much a toss-up. Or, some will
use the broader term covenant of grace, including in it what
we are calling the covenant of redemption. And then you have
the term that was used in this class last spring, the inter-Trinitarian
agreement or arrangement. Now all those are synonyms, so
we're talking about one and the same thing. And perhaps I ought
to say just a word that for our usage, something of the relationship
of this term to its sister term, Covenant of Grace. Some of you
were not here when Bob dealt with this in his lectures, right
at the threshold of those lectures last year. When we speak of the
Covenant of Redemption, we're talking about something that
has to do with the Godhead. It's an inter-Trinitarian arrangement
in which man is not included except in the divine purpose,
whereas the Covenant of Grace, we are thinking of that as the
historical transcript, the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption
in redemptive history. So, Covenant of Grace for us
is something that is not essentially different from this, as though
we're talking about two different commodities, but it is helpful,
I think, for accuracy of thought to separate the two, though some
theologians argue for including them all together under the general
term covenant of grace. Has that helped to at least put
the terminology in focus? All right, then, in the second
place, I toyed with whether I should use the word justification, because
that sounds defensive. But I want to use it, though
I hope I'm not defensive. The justification for considering
the work of Christ within such a framework. Now is this just
a logical or philosophical notion imposed upon the data of scripture? Is it really an attempt to handle
the doctrine of the death of Christ in a scriptural manner?
Now let me suggest that there are certain passages which indicate
that the death of Christ is inextricably identified with covenantal arrangements
and that we ought never to think in depth of the death of Christ
apart from those covenantal arrangements within which the death of Christ
is presented to us. Turn please to Isaiah chapter
42. Isaiah 42 is one of these great
Servant of Jehovah passages. As some of you are well aware,
this is one of the great messianic themes of the prophet Isaiah,
the theme of the Servant of Jehovah. It's that very theme that introduces
the great passage in chapter 53 concerning the sufferings
of the servant of Jehovah Isaiah 42 behold my servant whom I uphold
my chosen in whom my soul delighted certainly you can't read that
without thinking of the language of the New Testament this is
my son my beloved in whom I am well pleased I have put my spirit
upon him He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will
not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the
street. A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning
wick will he not quench. He will bring forth justice in
truth. He will not fail nor be discouraged
till he hath set justice in the earth, and the isle shall wait
for his law. Here is this sweeping statement
concerning the manner in which the servant will carry out his
mission. and then the absolute certainty of the success of that
mission. Then further, verse 5, Thus saith
the Lord God, he that created the heavens, and stretched them
forth, he that spread abroad the earth, and that which cometh
out of it, he that giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit
to them that walk therein. I the Lord have called thee in
righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee,
and will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of
the Gentiles. to open the blind eyes, to bring
out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness
out of the prison house. Now, without attempting a definitive
exposition of the significance of this phrase, I will give thee
a covenant of the people, one thing is clear, that the work
of Christ and the biblical concept of covenant are so identified
that Christ himself is called in this passage a covenant of
the people as well as a light of the Gentiles so that when
we think of the servant of Jehovah and the total spectrum of his
work and mission ultimately resulting in bringing blessing to the Gentiles
in the isles coming under the canopy of that blessing that
work is so bound up with covenantal arrangements that God can say
I have given thee for a covenant of the people And then a passage
which will be brought to our remembrance tomorrow, God willing,
as we meet together at the table of the Lord, Matthew chapter
26, verses 26 to 28. And as they were eating, Jesus
took bread, and blessed, and breaketh. And he gave to his
disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took
a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all
of it. for this is my blood of the covenant
which is poured out for many unto remission of sins." Now
what does the text tell us? Well, it tells us as surely as
that blood will ultimately result in the remission of the sins
of many, it does so only within the framework of covenantal arrangements. It is the blood of the covenant. And it's only as the blood of
the covenant that it will be efficacious to bring remission
of sins to many. So for any who would say a contemplation
of the death of Christ in terms of covenantal arrangements is
the imposition of philosophy and theological abstraction upon
the simplicity of the message of the Bible would have a terrible
problem with this passage. Our Lord intends, and this thing
of course is picked up in 1 Corinthians 11, that as oft as we come to
that simple supper of remembrance, there should be something of
the remembrance of the covenantal structure within which that blood
was poured out for many. And then, of course, perhaps
the classic text showing that a consideration of the death
of Christ in reference to covenantal arrangements is essential is
Hebrews chapter 13 and verse 20. Hebrews chapter 13. The writer
to the Hebrews, which Mr. Fisher is convinced is the Apostle
Paul, and he has good company for that, in the person of the
mighty John Owen, He would pronounce blessing upon
the people of God. Verse 20 of Hebrews 13, Now the
God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great shepherd
of the sheep with the blood of an eternal covenant, even our
Lord Jesus make you perfect in every good thing to do His will,
working in us that which is well pleasing in His sight through
Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. I'm not going
to go into the exegesis of the passage. There's a linguistic
problem. Is it that he brought again from
the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of the
eternal covenant? Are we to see that with reference
to his bringing him again from the dead? Or does it have another
connection of thought? Well, that's irrelevant to our
concern. At this point, we have but one concern, and the concern
is this, that the blood of that great shepherd of the sheep is
blood which is inextricably bound up with an eternal covenant. And that we must not think of
the efficacy of that blood, the purpose for which it was shed,
the objects for which it was shed, divorced from the covenantal
arrangements within which that blood was indeed shed. Now these texts should satisfy
every inquirer after truth that the approach we are taking is
one which is not imposed upon the simplicity of the biblical
doctrine of the death of Christ by theologians. It is an approach
that is imposed upon us by the data of scripture. Now, am I
saying that a person cannot be saved or have a love to Christ
crucified if he is ignorant of the covenant of redemption? Well,
if that's so, then most of us would have to change the date
of our salvation. at least as we understand when
we were brought out of death into life. No, we are not saying
and not asserting that a person cannot have a saving embrace
of Christ crucified unless he is knowledgeable in the covenant
of redemption. But what I am saying is that
if we are coming to grips with something of a comprehensive
consideration of the death of Christ, Any such consideration
is woefully inadequate if it does not come to grips at the
outset with the biblical doctrine concerning the covenant of redemption.
And to the extent that those of us who are teachers of others
isolate the death of Christ from this covenant of redemption within
which that death occurred and within which the benefits of
that death accrue to men, even to the islands waiting for his
love. We rob that death of its richness
and we rob the people of God of the consolations that ought
to be theirs when they understand the death of their Savior within
the framework of the covenant of redemption. And Hugh Martin,
as so many of those Scottish divines, brings this note through
that these are not abstractions, and he talks about the noble
sons and daughters of Scotland, who at one time were so thoroughly
grounded in this doctrine that it was their comfort and consolation,
and he's bemoaning the fact that the Free Church was sending forth
a generation of preachers who had been too influenced by German
schools of theology and had no appreciation, and he knew that
it was going to result in the impoverishment of the people
who sat under their ministries. I commend you this book on the
Atonement. It's a combination of Hodges'
treatment and Hugh Martin's, and the section by Hugh Martin,
the first 23 pages, is worth the price of that book six times
over. And I mean that sincerely, it's tremendously rich stuff.
Well, so much then for a justification of this approach, overlaid upon
a definition of terms, now we come to expound the concept. Let me begin by saying that the
religion of the Bible is decidedly and pervasively Trinitarian. That is, the God revealed as
the proper object of our love and our devotion and our obedience
is set before us as the God who exists and works as one God,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now that's a long statement.
Let me go back over it. I don't expect you to take it
down verbatim, but I hope you catch the thrust of it. The religion
of the Bible, now notice I said the religion, I didn't say just
the concepts of the Bible, the religion of the Bible, is decidedly,
that is, it's not just an oblique thing, it's not just something
that is there to be found if you really look, it's decidedly
and pervasively, not just New Testament, decidedly and pervasively
Trinitarian, that is, The God who is revealed in the Bible
as the proper object of love, devotion and obedience is set
before us as the one true and living God who exists and works
as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now I'm fully aware that the
full revelation of what we call the doctrine of the Trinity had
to await that point in redemptive history when what we call the
second person of the Godhead became man. It took the incarnation
to bring to full light the doctrine of the Trinity. But John 1.1 is a clear statement
to the fact that the actings of the Godhead as one in three
and three in one are of eternal reality. In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, literally towards God. There was this face-to-face relationship. May I say it reverently? There
was personal intercommunion, and the Word was God. and from
the full manifestation of the doctrine of the Trinity we can
then look back with New Testament glasses and see things we could
never see with the unaided eye if we were in the Old Testament
as it unfolded and we can see those hints at the doctrine of
the Trinity and the whole rich teaching concerning the angel
of Jehovah the pluralism of some of those passages we put New
Testament glasses on and we are able to read things that those
without those glasses perhaps could not read standing at that
point in time. But the point that I'm making
is we must never think that the doctrine of the Trinity as revealed
and made definitive in the point of redemptive history that we
call the fullness of the times in any way blurs the reality
of the existence and actings of the Trinity from all eternity. God always has been the Three
in One and the One in Three, so that all of His actings and
motions of mind and purpose have been the actings and motions
of God in Trinity. Now you see that has all kinds
of practical implications, not the least of which is the element
of the personality of God, the person of God, the overtones
of that which make God something other than abstract thought and
power and will. That in the Godhead there was
this face-to-face relationship between the persons of the Godhead
beholding, communing, what terms can we use other than the terms
of John 1 and the word was towards God and the word was God. Now, having said that the religion
of the Bible is decidedly and pervasively Trinitarian, let
me go on to say in the next place, within this one God There is
perfect unity of mind, of will, and of purpose. The design and
purpose of one person is the reflection
of the design and purpose of the entire Godhead. And when
certain things are attributed more frequently to one person
of the Godhead, we must never think of it in terms of one person
had to secure the consent of the other persons of the Godhead.
We might launch a project and try to get ten people to agree
with us and three do immediately and the others we give them a
bill of goods and we persuade them and we finally get them
to come on. We must never think that way. If the scriptures show
that certain things are attributed more to the activity of the Father,
it is of the Father of the triune Godhead. The Godhead in which
there is but one mind in which there is but one will. Hear,
O Israel, the Lord our God is one. Or in the language of Job
23, 13, He is of one mind, and who can turn Him? You say, where
in the world have we gotten from the cross and the covenant of
redemption? We're going to theology proper. No, I'm moving somewhere. Hang in there with me, all right?
Now, it is just this God who has revealed that the plan to
create, to permit sin, and to save a people was no afterthought
in the mind of God. All of this proceeds out of eternal
design and purpose. Three texts of Scripture. 2 Timothy 1 and verse 9. 2 Timothy
1 and verse 9. who saved us and called us with
a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to
His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus
before times eternal. Paul says something has happened
in our life history. We have been saved. We have been
called. And again, we're not going into
a precise exegesis of what that calling is. Is that the effectual
calling shared by all men? Or is it the special calling
into special occupation in the Kingdom of Christ? Well, in either
case, it's something that happened in the life history of Paul the
Apostle and Timothy, his beloved child. verse one of Titus chapter
one now he says these things that have happened to us in the
course of our own life history of God's redemption impinging
upon our own humanity in space and time was not based upon something
which we did that elicited such gracious dealings but this was
but a transcript in our life history of that which God purposed
in His grace in Christ Jesus before time's eternal. You see,
he says, all that we've received in time is but a transcript of
what was conceived in eternity. You got it? What we received
in time is that which was conceived in eternity. Titus chapter 1. and verse 2. We can back up to
verse 1. Paul, a servant of God and an
apostle of Christ Jesus, according to the faith of God's elect and
the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, in
hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before
times eternal. And we have the same phrase in
the original. who cannot lie promised before
times eternal but in his own seasons manifested his word in
the message wherein I was entrusted you see what he's saying what
has happened in life history the manifestation was but a transcript
in time and human history of that which God purposed in eternity
and then the well-known text in Ephesians chapter 1 And I
introduce it here because of an additional aspect. Ephesians
1, the apostle is giving this great eulogy. He's theologizing
by eulogizing. Some of you who were with us
for the expositions of this chapter a number of years ago remember
how we made a constant point of that. Here's a man who in
his eulogizing theologizes. His praise and worship is bristling
with lofty theological thought. But the contemplation of such
thoughts did not leave him cold and detached. They caused his
heart to burn. So his theologizing led to his
eulogizing, and his eulogizing gave vent in theologizing, and
that's true Christianity. But I'm not to re-preach that
passage. I'm to direct your attention to something that has to do with
the lecture this morning. Blessed be the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenlies in Christ. even as He chose us in
Him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be
holy and without blemish before Him, in love having predestinated
us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, etc. And here we have the emphasis
again, that as the Apostle contemplates all of the blessings that have
been marked out for the people of God, he says that the reservoir
of those blessings is Christ, and they become ours because
we are in Christ. And he traces them all back to
their fountainhead, and he focuses then upon this act of divine
selectivity, which though it was before the world, was with
reference to Christ. More of that when we come to
this next week, God willing. But the point for now is to notice
how he underscores this principle that what has come to him of
redemptive blessings in time is but the outflowing of what
was purposed in Christ in eternity. Now, the question is this. In
that eternal design and purpose of God to save a people, when
grace was purposed and life was promised, 2 Timothy 1.9, Titus
1.2, when grace was promised, purpose, I'm sorry, and life
was promised, was it a purpose and promise with bare sovereignty
in unity, acting on behalf of the people? Or does the word
indicate that there was an interpersonal transaction between the various
members of the Godhead with respect to this purpose and this design?
You see the question we're zeroing in on. We've established that
what we receive in time of redemptive benefits was conceived in eternity. Now the question is, Was it a
conception of God in unity acting in sheer sovereignty? Or was
it a purpose and a design of God acting in Trinity with reference
to the salvation of a people? In other words, is the eternal
purpose and plan with reference to saving a people decided Trinitarian
activity? Remember my opening assertion?
The religion of the Bible is decidedly and pervasively Trinitarian. Now, where does the Bible allow
us to trace that religion back to? That's bad English, but you
get what I'm driving at. When we ask, where does this
religion of the Bible come from, and we press it back and back
and back, the Bible says we can trace it back no further than
that activity of God in which He said, is to leave Christ in
eternity. Grace was purposed and life was
promised in Christ. Now when we trace it back there
and we say, now God, when that was purposed and when it was
planned and when it was promised, Was it God in unity, acting,
as it were, with the dominant note of unilateral sovereignty?
Or was it God in Trinity? Well, someone says that's impudent
to even ask the question. Yes, it would be, unless there
are certain data in Scripture that actually lead us both to
ask and to answer that question. And the reason, the concept,
the covenant of redemption has come into theological language
is that careful students of the word of God have seen in scripture
data which have forced upon them this concept that God's purpose
to grant grace and salvation was indeed a purpose framed by
the interaction of the various members of the triune Godhead
so that God's design for our salvation has all the richness
of the interpersonal Trinitarian climate that makes its present
possession so rich, and we see it traced all the way back to
its original conception in the mind and heart of God. And points like that, brethren,
that's when I wish I could say, close the class, I want to go
pray. Isn't that what makes our present salvation so rich? It's
God in Trinity who's laid hold of us in time. The Father, into
whose presence I come, through the Son in the power of the Spirit.
As old, as Pastor Blaise used to say, it takes the whole Trinity
to save one's sin. Some of us can remember him saying
that. Well, that's what makes our present
salvation so rich. Oh, my brethren, how much richer
it becomes when we realize from the very beginning of its conception
it has been Trinitarian salvation. Well, what is the data? What are some of the elements
of that data which have forced this upon people? Consider then,
first of all, passages in which Christ speaks of a specific assignment
of responsibility, and then we'll look secondly at passages in
which specific promises are made to the Son if He fulfills those
assigned responsibilities. Some of this material was given
in a different form by Mr. Fisher. A number of you were
not here. Those of you who were, if there's any aspect of theological
truth we want you to be well grounded in, it's the doctrine
of the covenant, so this repetition will not hurt you and just might
do you some good. All right? Passages in which
Christ speaks of a specific assignment of responsibility. Turn please
to the Gospel according to John. John chapter 6. John chapter 6, verses 38, well let's back up to verse 37. All that which the Father giveth
me shall come unto me. Now I think from an exegetical
standpoint, being honest with the linguistic forms, particularly
the tenses of the verb, that Professor Murray's exposition
of this is unassailable, that this verse 37 does not refer
primarily to a donation of the Father to the Son of a people
in eternity, but rather something that occurred in the life history
of our Lord, and I'll not go into the reasons for that, but
I do believe it's an unassailable exegesis of the passage. All
that which the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. Now what's the
rationale behind that? Christ has made an assertion,
all who are his by donation of the Father shall come. And when
they do come, and then he just piles up negatives, I will in
no wise cast him out. And you don't feel the force
of those negatives in the English translation. powerful statement,
under no circumstances will they ever be cast out. Why? Why? Well, the Lord's going to answer
that, for, for, here's the rationale behind it, for, I am come down
from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that
sent me. Well, how does Christ's inflexible
commitment to do the will of the Father justify the statement
that none who come to Him will ever be cast out? Well, He's
going to answer that. And this is the will of him that
sent me, that of all that which he hath given me, I should lose
nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this
is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the
Son, and believeth in him, should have eternal life, and I will
raise him up at the last If you see what grows out of this passage
or what is reflected in this passage, it was a self-consciousness
on the part of our Lord that His coming down from heaven was
in fulfillment of a clearly designed and previously framed mission. I'm not denying anything of what
we've asserted Sunday mornings concerning the human mind of
our Lord, which received progressively unfoldings of the will of the
Father in the study of Scripture. But certainly our Lord is referring
here to that consciousness of his divine mind in which his
mission was clearly and patently before him before he ever became
incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary. I am come down from
heaven not to do mine own will. What is that will? I came down
on a mission that would involve nothing less than saving all
who would be the Father's donation to me. In John chapter 10 we
have a similar emphasis. John chapter 10 verses 17 through
19. Therefore doth the Father love
me, having spoken of his role and function as the Good Shepherd.
Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life,
that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me,
but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,
I have power to take it again. And what lies behind it? This
commandment received I from my Father. And as you've also known,
if you've been with us Sunday mornings, when our Lord uses
that phrase, my Father, it is pregnant with the overtones of
His identity as God the Son. This commandment have I received
of my Father. Now, precisely when did He receive
that commandment? Well, that's a question that
is not settled in this particular passage, but I think by inference,
and particularly by the light thrown upon it from John 17,
we can answer that question. Turn please to John 17, verses
1 through 4. These things spake Jesus, and
lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is
come. Glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee, even as
thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou
hast given him he should give eternal life. And this is life
eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God, and
him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. I glorified thee
on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given
me to do. And now, Father, glorify thou
me. with thine own self, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was." Now the point
for our study this morning is to notice that in the accomplishment
of His work in space and time in human history, that work that
is now to culminate in the bloodletting of the cross, our Lord in this
passage indicates that he never was totally cut off from that
awareness of what was his prior to the incarnation. And as we'll
see in the next division of thought, it's almost as though he's saying,
Father, here are the terms of the arrangement by which I came
to earth and accomplished a specific task. Now I have kept my end
of that inter-trinitarian commitment, Father. I now plead with you
to fulfill that which you have committed yourself to do, to
glorify Me. But the point from verse 5 is
this. He is conscious here on earth
of that pre-incarnate glory that was His before the world was. And so we are taken right back
into the womb of eternity. And Christ on the very eve of
laying down His life to die, is in his own mind and thought
accomplishing the work which brings within its orbit the very
compass of eternity. And that's the point that we're
trying to establish, you see. That this work upon the cross
exists in the framework of a covenant of redemption which takes us
back into eternity and the bringing of those two things into intimate
relationship. is here demonstrated by the words
of our Lord. You have it further in verse
24. Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me
be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory which thou
hast given me, for thou lovest me before the foundation of the
world. Now do you see the interpersonal
relationships of the various members of the Trinity? Thou
lovest me before the foundation of the world. You see, we're
not dealing with a Unitarian God. We're dealing with the Trinitarian
God. And one of the members of that
Godhead speaks of a love that He was conscious of receiving.
There was this reciprocation of affection between the Father
and Son before the Incarnation. And the Lord now longs for a
return to that state that He had prior to the incarnation
wonder of wonders that as the fruit of his incarnation we will
share in something of that which the old writers called the beatific
vision. Now you see the perspective of
our Lord? It's a work accomplished in time which has dimensions
which stretch back not only before the incarnation but before the
world began which is simply an idiom for describing eternity. Now let me quote from Hugh Martin, touching on this very point. I'll find it here, page 15. No scheme whatever that should
be true to the leading contents of Scripture concerning the work
of the incarnate Redeemer can we possibly avoid coming to the
conclusion that he acts according to a covenant with the Father. Now here's the statement, the
classic statement, whatever Christ did, he designed to do. And whatever he designed to do,
he designed because he had been designated to it. What he did,
he designed. What he designed was that to
which he was designated. He had been sanctified and sealed
and sent into the world. He continually averred in this
view that he did nothing of himself. He was acting by commission,
and that not merely in general, but by commission reaching every
detail of speech and action alike. He did, quote, the works of his
father, end quote. He spake, quote, his father's
words. Whatsoever he spake, whatsoever
he did, it was as the father had given him commandment. He
had been designated, therefore, by no isolated decree, by no
individual or separate oracle, but by regular, full, complete
covenant. Under no category or instrument
other than that of a compact, a covenant, is it possible to
bring all the fullness, circumstance, detail, history, order, and fruit
of His work. We are simply shot up to the
theory of an everlasting covenant. Now, the point that Mr. Martin
makes, and that this Mr. Martin is making, is that those
passages which speak of a specific assignment of responsibility
to Christ, with tentacles that reach back into eternity, those
are revealed concepts. We have been looking at specific
passages in the Word of God. Now, what are we to make of those?
The answer of those who share our theological perspective is
we must conceive of that assignment of responsibility and that willing
acceptance of responsibility with tap roots in eternity under
the framework of something that we call an inter-trinitarian
arrangement, that we call a covenant. Whatever term we used, it must
somehow express the fact that the taproots of our salvation
are the activity of Trinity in unity and unity in Trinity that
there is this gracious interpersonal commitment to the salvation of
the people that will ultimately be procured by the bloodletting
of the Son of God. And then the second category
of passages are those in which specific promises are made to
the Son if he fulfills his assigned responsibility. Let me give you
but several of them. First of all, there is the pledge
that the Father would prepare a true humanity for the Son.
Psalm 40 and verse 6 quoted in Hebrews 10 and verse 5. Psalm
40 and verse 6. Sacrifice and offering thou hast
no delight in, mine ears hast thou opened burnt offering and
sin offering hast thou not required, then said I, lo, I am come, in
the roll of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will,
O my God." Now, turning over to Hebrews chapter 10, we have
one of the most vivid descriptions of the commitment of the various
persons of the Godhead with reference to the salvation of men, establishing
in the early part of this chapter that the law, that economy under
Moses with its ritual of sacrifice and intercession and all the
rest, was just a shadow of the realities. Just a shadow. The realities were always in
Christ. The Old Covenant is just a shadow.
Don't think of it the other way around. They were substantial
in what we now have as a reflection. No, no. They were the reflection.
They were the shadow. The eternal realities will always
existed. Christ is the Lamb slain from
the foundation of the world. And every bleeding Lamb upon
a Jewish altar was just a shadow of the true Lamb. You see? He
was always the substance. These were always shadows. Always
shadows. Ever shadows. now having established
that they could not bring perfection because they were but shadows
the reality had to come verse 5 wherefore when he cometh into
the world he saith and now this language is put in the very mouth
of Christ and notice the adverb of time when he cometh into the
world he saith not having been here and looking back upon an
unfolding of his mission. No, no, no, no, no. When he cometh
into the world, he said. This was self-conscious entrance
upon humanity. When he cometh into the world,
he said, Sacrifice an offering thou wouldst not, but a body
didst thou prepare for me. The Son speaks to the Father.
Thou hast prepared a body for in whole burned offerings and
sacrifice for sin thou hast no pleasure then said I, lo I come
in the role of the book it is written of me to do thy will
O God and then he goes on to show that it's in that very offering
up of himself and the emphasis here even upon his body that
our salvation is procured now the point that we're making is
this there seems to be an overtone of reciprocal promises Father,
I will give myself to death if thou wilt prepare the body in
which I must live and ultimately die. The Father would not only
prepare a true humanity for the Son, but he would wonderfully
uphold him in his work. And we go back to that Isaiah
42 passage. Behold my servant whom I uphold,
my chosen in whom my soul delighteth. If the Son will commit Himself
to the task of incarnation, humiliation, issuing in the death upon the
cross, the Father will uphold Him in that task. For remember,
it is the Son who becomes true man. And as the God-man, that
humanity needs to be upheld by divine sustenance and strength. And the Father fulfills this
promise. The Father would not only prepare
a true humanity, commit himself to uphold him in his work, that
the Father would reward his obedience with personal glory and with
saving success. Personal glory and saving success. We turn over to Isaiah 53 and
we see the promise both of personal glory and of saving success. Verse 13 of Isaiah 52, Behold,
my servant shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted
up, and shall be very high. There is the pledge of personal
glory. but it will be personal glory
through the valley of humiliation and so we're introduced immediately
in verse fourteen like as many as were astonished at thee his
visage was so marred more than man in his form more than the
son of man and on into the fifty-third chapter where we have this graphic
description of his death bruised and and afflicted by the Father
himself, smitten of God, Jehovah laying upon him, the iniquity
of us all. And now verse 10, Yet it pleased
the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt
make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he
shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper
in his hand. He shall see of the travail of
his soul, and shall be satisfied. By the knowledge of himself shall
my righteous servant justify many, and he shall bear their
iniquities. Here is the pledge of saving
success. We have a similar pledge in Psalm
2. a psalm that is oft quoted in
the New Testament, one of the most frequently quoted psalms
in the New Testament. And we are taken, as it were,
right back into the inter-Trinitarian conversation, if we may use such
language without being irreverent. Psalm 2. Here is the combined
determination of the great ones of the earth to cast off Jehovah's
yoke, And he that sits in the heaven laughs. He says in verse
6, Yet if I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion, I will
tell of the decree. God says, I'll even take you
back into the councils of deity that produce the enthronement
of my son in power and majesty against all the strivings of
men. What a thing for God to say,
I'll tell of the decree that results in this. You see, people
say, oh, decrees and all that. That's just a mishmash of theologians.
No, it isn't. It's my loving God saying, I'll
tell him the decree. And what is it? Jehovah said
unto me, Thou art my Son. This day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou
shalt break them with a rod of iron. Thou shalt dash them in
pieces like a potter's vessel. And here the Father makes promise
to the Son, Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost part of the earth for thy possession. Now do you see why the writer
to Hebrews could say, Who for the joy that was set before him
endured the cross? Because the Father had made solemn
pledges to the Son. in the Son, in the confidence
and the fulfillment of those pledges, that He should ultimately
be brought to personal glory and saving success, who for the
joy that was set before Him. And I discovered a verse this
week. I didn't discover it. It's been there. I've read it
many times. But look at Luke 22.29. Another
indication. that our Lord was conscious that
the Father had made promises to Him, that if He would be true
to His responsibilities and surety of His people, ultimate personal
glory and saving success would come. Luke 22 and verse 29. Verse 28, But ye are they that
have continued with me in my temptations, and I appoint unto
you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me." And that
word, appoint, is an interesting word. It's the word used in Acts
chapter 3, verse 25, Hebrews 8, 10, and 10, 10, in which the
marginal reading is rightly given in our ASV, this is the covenant
that I will covenant with them after those days, saith the Lord.
It's a word that in its middle voice bristles with covenantal
overtones. Is our Lord saying, And I covenant
unto you a kingdom, even as my Father covenanted unto me." In
other words, that appointment that the Father had made of a
kingdom was an appointment within the framework of covenant fidelity. There is no uncertainty as to
the issue of our Lord's suffering and so confident is He that He
says, I have a kingdom that I will share with you because my Father
is true to His pledge. I can be true to my pledge, and
you've suffered with me now, you'll share in my glory in the
world to come." Well then, what do we do with these passages?
These scriptural statements that on the one hand point to this
concept of Christ assuming specific responsibilities for the redemption
of his people, And on the other hand, the Father committing Himself
to give rewards of personal glory and success, we could look at
Philippians 2, we could go back to John 15, but time will not
permit it. I say, and I just echo others,
this is not original, the only way to bring them together is
to conceive of a pre-Temple arrangement within the mind and will of the
Triune God. an arrangement in which the Father
expressing the mind of the Godhead sets His love upon a certain
number of humanity Christ expressing again the love of the Godhead
never think of it as just the love of the second person as
the Father's choice is the expression of the will of the Godhead So
the love that would assume the liabilities and responsibilities
of a people is the love of the Godhead, but particularly expressed
in Christ's willingness to assume all the liabilities and responsibilities
of a just salvation and the Holy Spirit. And often He is omitted. People talk of an inter-Trinitarian
arrangement or a covenant of redemption that involves the
Triune God. But though the exegetical materials
are not as profuse, there is certainly a strong case for the
whole unfolding of what Christ does, that the Spirit as well
consents with the mind and love of the Godhead. to be the instrument
by whom the Father's upholding would actually be effective in
the Son. For remember, it is in the power
of the Spirit that He performs His miracles, is sustained and
carried on in His task, and it is in the language of Hebrews
through the eternal Spirit that He offers Himself up unto God
without spot. Hebrews 9 and verse 14. And so
the Father, Son, and Spirit consent to fulfill the divine purpose
in the salvation of a people. And all that our Lord Jesus Christ
effects upon the cross is in fulfillment of the terms of that
eternal, pre-temporal covenant of redemption in which the triune
God, thinking, willing, acting in perfect unity, is committed
to the salvation of a people. I had hoped I would have time
to read from Dabney, but I don't. The time has just taken wings
and flown. But on page 431 and 432, he has
an excellent summary of the concept of the covenant of redemption.
And in Gary Long's little book, Definite Atonement, page 11 is
an excellent statement. But I do want, in closing, to
say a few things by way of application. The first application is this.
If the work of Christ in time is but the transcript of the
terms of the eternal covenant of redemption, it should be obvious
that the terms of that covenant have a great bearing upon the
intent of God in the work of His Son. If everything that He
does in time is a transcript of what was designed in purpose
and mutually agreed upon in eternity. It is theological suicide to
say that the covenant of redemption in no way determines the question
for whom did Christ die. No aspect of that death is found
outside the covenant of redemption. And therefore every scripture
that gives us some indication of the terms the people envisioned
within, the ultimate designs of the covenant of redemption
brings direct light upon the question, for whom did Christ
die? If then we see that particularism,
certainty and efficacy are the dominant realities of the covenant,
then most certainly they must be the dominant realities of
the outworking of the covenant in the death of Christ. And as
we shall see subsequently, particularism, certainty and efficacy are indeed
the dominant notes. It is no narrowness of heart
that would restrict the extent of the atonement in order to
sacrifice souls upon the altar of human logic. That's what people
say about some of us who believe in death and in atonement. They
say that you have a narrowness of heart that would restrict
the extent of the atonement in order to sacrifice souls upon
the altar of human logic. I answer and say, we will not
allow the glory of the triune God acting in perfect harmony
with reference to the certain salvation of a multitude of sinners
to be obscured by a specious handling a half a dozen or so
texts of scripture, while ignoring or failing to come to grips with
the dominant vein of biblical revelation called the covenant
of redemption. No, no. Ours is not a narrowness
that says Christ died for a specific people. Ours, I trust, is that
breadth of heart that sees the glory of the covenant of redemption
and Christ's work within that framework. Now, it has great
pastoral implications. And time will not permit to go
into a lot of them. I'll just mention one. If all
Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
what does this say to the people of God? Well, as Hugh Martin
says, when you raise a generation of people who can say in the
language of David, and I read now from 2 Samuel 23 and verse
5, 2 Samuel 23, 5 Verily my house is not so with
God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered
in all things insure. For this is all my salvation
and all my desire, although he maketh it not to grow. He hath
made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered, and in all things ensure
this is all my salvation and all my desire. And when I see,
as we shall develop next week, that within that covenant of
redemption God, the Father, Son, and the Spirit are committing
themselves to the salvation of a distinct people, logically
God's choice must precede this covenant. Christ commits Himself
to be sure for a specific people. And when I realize that every
blessing of grace that I have tasted has come to me as the
fruit of that covenant commitment, then the certainty with which
I can plead with God for the fulfillment of all His designs
in me is a certainty undergirded by the knowledge of covenant
fidelity. You talk about making men out
of boys. when the people of God have in
their spiritual bloodstream. This is what made those old covenanters,
the word covenant there was used with reference to a different
covenant, but this is what caused little teenage girls to go to
the stake, to be tied at piers at low tide and to drown slowly
and not refuse and not bend to the pressure to deny the Lord
Jesus. It was a knowledge of this grand truth that became
the fortress and the buttress against all the powers of hell,
because they knew that their salvation was not held by the
tenuous strings of their own present level of love or faith
or anything else, but they were hedged in by the impregnable
wall of the covenant of redemption. Hallelujah. Blessed be God for
such a Savior. Let's pray. O our God, who are we that such mercy should
ever be showered upon us? O God, Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, we worship you this morning. We bless you that long before
the first created thing had substance, We were in your mind and upon
your heart. We praise you, Lord Jesus, for
your willingness to assume in eternity and to pledge to answer
all of the demands of the law against us. We thank you for your willingness
in time to take that body prepared by the Father. We bless you,
Holy Spirit, for conceiving that life in the womb of the virgin,
for imparting to the Lord Jesus that sinless humanity by your
own mighty power in conjunction with the seed of the woman. O Lord, such mysteries baffle
us, and yet we cannot help but bless you. And we confess this
morning that we long to press more deeply into the great mysteries
of redemption. Oh, flood our hearts with a new
appreciation of all that you are to us as the God committed
to our salvation from eternity. Oh, we bless you that we are
hedged in by that impregnable wall of the covenant of redemption. Yea, we to the end shall endure,
as sure as the earnest is given, more happy, but not more secure,
the glorified spirits in heaven. O God, we bless you this morning,
and we pray that in the midst of all of the Christ dishonoring,
man-glorifying preaching and teaching, that you would again
inflame the hearts of men to preach with power once more a
salvation flowing out of that blessed and eternal covenant
of redemption. Hear our prayer and seal the
word to our hearts, for your glory and our profit we pray. Amen.