Now that which I propose to give
to you this morning is the applicatory section of the previous lecture
and since three weeks have passed from the last lecture until now
let me seek to recreate something of the mental and spiritual climate
of the preceding lecture and I hope to do this in the form
of a review that will take us about maybe five minutes and
then we'll move on into the application of what was covered. I remind
you of the issue before us namely the question for whom did Christ
die and the simplest formulation of that question and the most
accurate that I've ever encountered is the one that asks the question
did Christ die for all men indiscriminately and distributively or for some
men specifically and exclusively now if you want terminology that
accurately captures the question at hand I believe that little
couplet is perhaps the most helpful linguistic tool. The question
before us is this. Did Jesus Christ die for all
men indiscriminately and distributively, or did he die for some men specifically
and exclusively? The approach to this question
is not the proof-text method, our approach, but the holistic
method. And I don't know why, but in
the dictionary you'll find that holistic can be spelled with
the W or without it. H-O-L-I-S-T-I-C or W-H-O-L-I-S-T-I-C,
whatever else it is in there. Don't try to spell whole without
the W. People will think you're ignorant,
but you can spell holistic with or without the W. And I looked
it up in the dictionary to make sure I was using the right word,
and it is the right word. The dictionary definition is,
the view that an organic, integrated whole has a reality independent
of and greater than the sum of its parts. The holistic approach
is an approach that asserts that an organic, integrated whole
has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its
parts. So we're approaching the subject
of the atonement of Christ, particularly the extent of the atonement,
by considering the larger categories of biblical truth which exist
of themselves but also exist in an organic relationship to
the work that he accomplished upon the cross. Ultimately we
shall consider that work as a work of sacrifice, a work of propitiation,
a work of reconciliation, a work of redemption. But it must be
considered as a work of him who is our High Priest. The work of one who effected
this work in a peculiar relationship to his people and who did all
of this within a larger framework of the Covenant of Redemption. Now we've thus far considered
the biblical evidence for the Covenant of Redemption and its
relationship to the design of the Atonement. We saw that particularity,
a specific people given to the Son in this inter-Trinitarian
arrangement, that specific, a definitive group of people were given to
the son that he might assume all of their debts and liabilities
and if the work of the cross, and we saw exegetical materials
that indicate this, if the work of the cross is one aspect of
the covenant responsibilities of the second person of the Godhead,
then it is wrong to divorce any consideration of the work of
the cross from its larger category, namely the covenant of redemption. Then in the last lecture, we
considered the work of the cross in the light of the biblical
doctrine of union with Christ, or Christ's peculiar relationship
to his people. We saw that this was a logical
necessity, and more importantly, an exegetical necessity, and
then we looked at the nature of this relationship of Christ
to his people, and I suggested that it was a two-fold relationship,
a legal or a federal relationship, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and
then that it was a vital or a mystical union, Ephesians 1, 4, Romans
6, and Ephesians chapter 2. Well, so much for that brief
overview. Now we come to the application
of this truth. And I would suggest that an understanding
of the death of Christ in relationship to the doctrine of union with
Christ oozes with implications both theologically, experimentally,
and ministerially. And those are the three categories
under which I would collate the materials this morning. First
of all then, the implications of the doctrine of union with
Christ as it relates to the work of the cross, the implications
of this theologically. And under this first major heading,
I have a couple of subheadings, no I have three subheadings.
First of all, our theological perception of the efficacy of
the atonement is to some degree bound up with our appreciation
of the atonement and its reference to the doctrine of union with
Christ. When we behold the cross of Christ,
what are we beholding? Is it a bloodletting and a curse
bearing for all men indiscriminately, securing release from sin and
death for none with certainty? Or is it a bloodletting and a
curse bearing on the behalf of and in the room instead of a
specific people to whom he was united in legal and mystical
bonds? Well, if the latter is true,
then it forms the basis of the efficacy, the triumph, and the
glory of the cross. The cry of our Lord, It is finished,
is a triumphant declaration that a real redemption has been effected. If the former position is true,
the cry, it is finished, is in a sense interpreted, I am finished. Now not ultimately, in the minds
of many, but if the logic of the thing is pressed, that's
what the cry must be. If the doctrine we've been expounding
Namely, that the cross of Christ, the work accomplished, was the
work of one who stood in the position of a legal and federal
head of his people, in some way vitally and mystically joined
to them. If that is a true biblical doctrine,
then we see that salvation is a matter of debt to Christ and
wholly of grace to us. That God the Father cannot God
the Father cannot withhold any influence necessary in the universe
to give to Jesus Christ that which he legally and rightfully
procured in his death upon the cross. If Christ only died somehow in
some vague and indistinct way for all men distributively and
indiscriminately then you can have an atonement that in some
way or other has some kind of influence after all in securing
the salvation of some people but there is no sense in which
the concept of debt to Christ enters whereas if Christ actually
assumed the legal obligations the liabilities of his people
in his real legal sense is if you become surety for another
person as legally binding as when you co-sign for a debt if
Jesus Christ was actually constituted the federal head of his people
so that what he did in his life culminating upon his activity
upon the cross is legally accepted before God then you see the salvation
of those whose debt was cancelled upon the cross is a moral and
legal obligation upon the Godhead and therefore the effect of what
he did is infallibly certain. He shall see of the travail of
his soul and he shall be satisfied. And so the first theological
implication then of the doctrine of the cross when viewed in the
light of the truth of union with Christ is that its certainty,
its efficacy comes into very strong prominence. But then secondly,
the interrelatedness of divine revelation is secured. When we
view the cross of Christ in the light of the doctrine of union
with Christ, the second theological implication is the interrelatedness
of divine revelation is secured. Not only the efficacy, and certainty
of the atonement, but the interrelatedness of revelation. If it is true,
as Professor Murray has stated, that union with Christ is really
the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation, not only
in its application, but also in its once-for-all accomplishment
in the finished work of Christ, If it is indeed true that the
whole process of salvation has its origin in one phase of union
with Christ, and salvation has in view the realization of other
phases of union with Christ, if those two statements are true,
and if this statement is true, quoting from Murray, that union
with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation,
end quote, Then can you see what happens when you view the central
saving act in salvation divorced from the substructure on which
it is built? Is union with Christ the central
truth of the whole doctrine of salvation? I believe that has
been established by Professor Murray in his chapter on union
with Christ. We just looked at union with Christ in relationship
to the cross. But every phase of our salvation
derives its locus from this matter of union with Christ. In fact,
as I was meditating on this, I came up with a statement that
I want to try out on you, and I think it's true. What the covenants
of God are to the history of redemption, that is, they are
the structural framework, isn't that what we've been seeing?
The structure of the Old Testament history of redemption are God's
covenantal dealings. The covenants of God are to the
history of redemption, that is their structural framework. Union
with Christ is to the orbit of redemptive design, procurement
and application. That is its governing framework.
What the covenants are to the history of redemption. Union
with Christ is to the orbit of redemptive design, procurement
and application. Design, we were chosen, how?
In Christ, Ephesians 1.4. Procurement, we are redeemed
by the objective acts of Christ performed in this federal relationship
with his people. He died, we died in him. He was
buried, we were buried with him. And then when we come into the
orbit of redemption applied, we are created anew, how? Ephesians
2.10. In union with Christ Jesus. So what the covenants are to
the history of redemption, the structural framework, union with
Christ is to the orbit of redemptive design, procurement and application. It is the framework within which
the whole salvation is both planned, procured and actually accomplished
in the life history of the redeemed. Now if that's so, Can you see
the tragedy then of wrenching the central redemptive act out
of that orbit? Nothing but disjuncture, fragmentation
and confusion results. And I'm sad to say that for years
my thinking about the cross, though thank God there were elements
of saving attachment to Christ crucified, my thinking was filled
with confusion, fragmentation, a bifurcation is a word that
keeps coming to me, because I could not see the interrelatedness
of divine revelation, because I was not seeing this doctrine
of union with Christ. And so much of the confused theology
in our day is just a reflection of talk and thought about the
cross divorced from the doctrine of union with Christ. And then
third theological implication is understanding the cross in this
way helps to give an adequate defense of the doctrine of the
atonement. We have a responsibility, all saints do, to contend earnestly
for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 3. We are
to be followers of the apostle Paul in this respect. Among others,
he was set for the defense as well as the proclamation of the
gospel. The book of Philippians. Well,
how are we then to give an able polemic defending the cross of
Christ from the accusations of injustice? It is not just for
an innocent to take the place of the guilty. It is against
the interest of holiness to have everything done for us and to
say that our salvation rests solely upon the doings of another.
Well, how do we defend that? I say there is no sure defense
but the doctrine of union with Christ. because in the light of this
doctrine the innocent did not suffer for the guilty the innocent
himself became guilty and suffered as the guilty one 2nd Corinthians
chapter 5 he who knew no sin was what? made sin for us Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse
for us Galatians 3 verse 13 so when people say by no amount
of legal juggling can you have an innocent person bear the guilt
of the guilty we say by the arrangement of God Such a federal, legal,
mystical union was established between Christ and his people
that he is actually regarded as the guilty one. And at this
point I want to share a little tidbit from Hugh Martin's book,
The Shadow of Calvary, that just about blew my mind when I read
it. He said, if you ever noticed how in the gospel records there
is this two-fold strand of emphasis from the moment of Christ's arraignment
or the moment of his capture in the garden when they came
with swords and staves to take hold of him and took him to Pilate
and Herod and back to Pilate and the rest there is this two-fold
strand there is on the one hand the constant and at times almost
mysterious declaration of his innocence and at the same time
the constant affirmation of his guiltiness from the garden of
Gethsemane until he's laid in Joseph's tomb his outward appearance
if you had only come to Jerusalem say from Jakarta or you'd come
from New York or Rome or somewhere else and you came to Jerusalem
and came into the town just at the time that Jesus Christ was
being dragged by the soldiers to the place of trial what would
you have seen? in every outward form you would
have seen what? a guilty criminal From the moment
of his arraignment to the moment of his crucifixion when he bowed
his head, you would have seen nothing but a guilty criminal.
But if you had been close enough to listen to what was being said,
what would you have heard? You would have heard, first of
all, a bunch of false witnesses having little caucuses saying,
what in the world can we find to get on this guy? And then
all the witnesses come forward and you say, none of them agree,
this looks like a put-up job, this guy may be innocent. Then
you see this strange sight of a woman, blanched white, coming
out and whispering into the ear of her husband, and if you were
close enough to hear you would have heard, have nothing to do
with this what? Just man. Then you'd see a man
wash his hands saying, innocent, I find no fault in him. Then
you'd hear a soldier saying, surely this was what? A common
criminal? No. Surely this was the Son of God. You see what the Holy Spirit
has captured for us? Two things. In his external appearance,
everything says he's a guilty criminal while at the same time everything
is declaring he's innocent and Hugh Martin's point is that God
was doing in the external world giving an object lesson of what
was going on in the internal spiritual world that he was in
a very real sense a criminal before the bar of God because
he was being charged with the sins of his people In his position,
totally guilty, but in his person, totally innocent. He was never
more loved of the Father than when he hung upon the cross and
carried his obedience to its culmination. Isn't that a tremendous
thought? And it's biblical. It's not fanciful, it's biblical.
He spared not his own son. Now what makes sense in all of
that? I say nothing but this doctrine
of Christ's union with his people. So literally one with them in
the legal reckoning of God that he becomes the guilty one. If that's not so, then he was
getting false information in his soul when he cried out, my
God, my God, why hast thou Now was he playing games or was there
real abandonment felt in the soul of the Son of God? It's no legal fiction. This was
no mere juggling of the record books. He was constituted sin
for us. Say, I don't understand it. I
don't either. But there is no rationale for the cross or for
the deliverance of the guilty apart from this doctrine that
Christ is truly one with his people. and we are able then
to give a defense of the doctrine of the cross when we say no this
is no legal fiction Christ is so identified with his people
that his guilt becomes theirs and wonder of wonders I mean
their guilt becomes his and all of his virtue and innocence and
righteousness becomes theirs and so we have a basis then to
defend the doctrine of the cross from those who say, on the one
hand, it's unjust, and then others who say, well, to teach that
people are saved solely by the doings of another is to undermine
all morality. If you take away the idea that
a man must do in order to be accepted with God, no, no, you're
back to the doctrine of union with Christ. Because, Justice
Shirley, as union with Christ is the orbit of salvation's procurement,
it is the orbit of salvation's application. and when that salvation
is applied and God's going to bring a sinner out here in time
to share in his own conscience and in his own heart the virtue
of Christ's death he does so by bringing him into a vital
union with Christ through the Holy Spirit which gives him a
new heart and in that heart is placed love for the one who died
and now a man does not to gain merit a man does because he has
freely received the merit of Jesus Christ. Now, any of these
lines could be traced out. I just want to be suggestive
in my lecture this morning to show that when we assert that
we must never do any deep thought about the cross of Christ, divorced
from this corollary doctrine of union with Christ, we're dealing
with things that have profound and far-reaching theological
implications. Now at this point, let me give
a word of caution before we move to the second broad area. I'm
aware that the great quest of philosophers is that of seeking
to find the unifying principle, the one among the many. That's
the great problem of every philosopher, and he thinks, I think I've got
the one, and then when he's convinced he does, then he bends all the
facts to his theory. And we must beware of that in
our study of the scriptures. But you see, we have not, on
the basis of philosophy, found a unifying principle and imposed
it upon the biblical data. we've gone to the biblical materials
and seen that there is a unifying principle for all of the redemptive
activities of Jesus Christ, and that unifying principle is His
relationship to His people. All right? Now then, and I could
quote here, but in the interest of time I won't, but there's
some tremendous quotes both in Hugh Martin and in Pink. Let
me just give you the shorter quote from Hugh Martin. Speaking
to this very subject, he says, the keynote of federal theology
as we take it is union with Christ. Though it took shape as a formal
scheme of doctrine or exposition later than the days of Calvin,
it is virtually, through the predominance and ruling power
in the Institutes, the idea of union with Christ that is the
leading thought in Calvin's theology, far more so than even all of
the five celebrated points. And if this is true, if the heart
and soul of this theology is found in the union and communion
of Christ and his people, then it is so full of vital power
that it will adopt into its service all fresh forms of literary effort
and all valid products of literary culture. And he goes on to say,
I'm not carrying on a polemic, he says, for time-worn phrases. He says, the thing so big that
every generation will come to its feet. and try to serve the
biblical concept by coming up with fresh statement and fresh
terminology but the reality is there that the whole of our salvation
grows out of this blessed, this wonderful union that Christ has
assumed with his people. Well, we hurry on then by way
of application to the second broad area that I'm calling the
experimental implications of considering the doctrine of the
cross in relationship to the doctrine of union with Christ.
Now what do I mean by experimental? Now that's a word you ought all
to be fully aware of as to its meaning in theological discussion. And I was surprised that even
the first definition in the dictionary, the latest dictionary I have,
it says this, experimental, based on experience rather than on
theory or authority. based on experience rather than
theory or authority now the word experimental when used in older
writers it would be parallel to the matter of we would use
the word today experiential or devotional in other words we
are thinking of truth not in its abstraction in terms of philosophical
or theological statement but truth in its application to life
and to experience When people talk of certain man being an
experimental divine, what do they mean by that? Well, they
don't mean that he was a man who was half God and did experiments
in a laboratory. Now that's the meaning the average
20th century American would put on it. Well, divine is the old
word for theologian. Experimental meant he was a theologian
who wasn't just banding about ideas, he was always taking ideas
and pinching you where you live. That's why we call John Owen
the experimental divine par excellence. he stands head and shoulders
above most divines because no matter how high he went or no
matter how deep he went in grappling with truth he was always bringing
it back to impinge upon the heart, upon the life, upon the conscience
and by God's grace that's what we're trying feebly to do here
that under God every man would be an experimental theologian
You've got to have your noose straight. You've got to think
straight. You can think straight without walking straight, but
you can't walk straight for long if you don't think straight.
Truth alone begets godliness. Now you can have truth without
its companion, but you can't have godliness without truth.
But we don't want to stop, so we're moving now from the theological
implications to the experimental implications. And this is what
the Word of God was given for. The Bible was not given to fill
our head with wonderful notions. All scripture is God-breathed
and what? Profitable for teaching, reproof,
correction, instruction in righteousness. Or more simply stated, Titus
1.1, I love this phrase, Paul says, the truth which is according
to godliness. truth which accords with godliness. So to consider any theological
truth in its experimental application is a biblical necessity. Let me give you just two lines
of thought here and then we'll perhaps have a time of discussion
on some further ones. But let me suggest that some
understanding, and I'm choosing my words carefully, some understanding
of the cross of Christ, it is designed that Jesus died for
a specific people, infallibly to secure specific ends on their
behalf. An understanding of that in relationship
to this doctrine of union with Christ will have as its first
experimental fruit that of concocting a wonderful salve, S-A-L-V-E,
for troubled consciences. You see, many theological distinctions
seem very unnecessary and inconsequential until you get into the orbit
of the problem which that particular theological issue is meant to
solve. You say, run that by again. I
don't think I can. I got lost halfway through stating
it myself. Many theological distinctions
seem very inconsequential. We question, well why be concerned?
Until you enter the orbit of that concern to which that point
of theology addresses itself. Now when a man begins to get
concerned with that issue to which the cross addresses itself,
and what is that issue? How can a man be just with God? When a man begins to take seriously
that he is answerable to the God of the universe, before whom
all things are naked and open, who is perfectly just as well
as perfectly holy, who will by no means clear the guilty, who
sent Adam out of the garden for one sin, who brought the whole
human race under condemnation for one sin. If I begin to take
those facts seriously and then I ask the question, how shall
I ever appear before that God? And then someone says, well,
Jesus did something on the cross. What did he do? Well, he died
for all men. What do you mean he died for all men? He died
as much for Judas as for me? My Bible says that Judas went
to his own place. You mean Jesus did something
to resolve the problem of sin and he did it as much for Judas
as he did for Peter? Peter's in heaven and Judas is
in hell. Well, what did he do? Did he die in such a way as to
absolve every claim of the law against Judas? No, no, no, no,
no, no. He died to make possible that
all the claims of the law against Judas might be removed if Judas
would believe. Oh, well, what did he do for
Peter? Well, he did the same thing he
did for Judas. The difference is Peter believed it and cashed
in on it. Oh, then what you're saying is
then that on the cross he did not actually satisfy the demands
of divine justice. For if he did, then Judas is
illegally in hell. His payment's being exacted twice. Once in the person of his substitute,
once in himself. God's getting double payment.
If he did it with Judas, why may he not do it with me? How can I know? How can I face
the judgment with some rest of conscience that every last claim
against me in terms of my breaches of the law and thought and word
and deed times innumerable throughout my life history? How can I have
a salve for my troubled conscience that will not fail me? Ah, when
we begin then to look at such passages as Galatians 2.20 in
the light of this doctrine, the Son of God who loved me and gave
himself up for me. There is no condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus. For what the law could not do,
and that it was weak through the law, through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh. You mean something was done there,
that has such a vital relationship to me here, that this becomes
mine? My guilt becomes his. You see
what I'm driving at? The salve for a troubled conscience
is the knowledge that I am so united to Christ in the reckoning
of God that God can no more exact of me the payment for one sin
than he can put his son back upon the cross and exact it from
him. That's it. You talk about having a salve
for a wounded conscience. That's it. That's it. And so Paul can argue as he does
in Romans 8.32. He that spared not his own son,
but delivered him up for us all. And in the context, the us all
are those who are described in verse 28 and then on into 29. Those who are the called according
to his purpose. Those whom he foreknew. Those
whom he predestinated to be made like his son. And then calling
again is brought in. He says if he delivered him up
for us, How shall we not with Him also freely give us all things? In the language of Romans 5,
if we were saved by His death, if we were reconciled to God
by the death of His Son, it doesn't say if reconciliation was made
possible, it says if we were reconciled to God by the death
of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, we shall be
saved by His light. In other words, the certainty
of salvation rests down upon the certain accomplishment of
Christ's work upon the cross. Romans 1, 1 John 1, 9 used to
bother me. In the early years of my Christian
life, for many years I used it. Where would I be without 1 John
1, 9? Where would you be? Time and time again I had to
come before God and say, Lord, here's your promise. If we confess
our sins, he is faithful. Now I could understand that,
but that next word used to bother me. He is faithful and righteous
to forgive. And that used to bother me. I
say, how did righteousness enter into my forgiveness? Righteousness
says, damn him, he sinned again. And if not damn him, at least
spank him good in the light of all his privileges. Righteous
to forgive. Do you plead righteousness when
you come seeking mercy from God? I don't say, Lord, give me what
I deserve. And yet, we can do that. He is faithful and righteous
to forgive. Why? What forms the righteous
basis of that forgiveness? That Christ actually bore my
sins by virtue of that union. that he sustained to me upon
the cross. Here we come back again to the legal obligations
to Jesus Christ. The legal obligations to Jesus
Christ on behalf of his people. You talk about having a salve
for a wounded conscience. There's the salve. But at the
experimental level, this doctrine will not only provide a salve
for a troubled conscience, it founds a foundation for future
expectation. Most of you men are too young
to think seriously about death, and that's not wrong. I think
it's psychologically impossible for a young man to think too
often about death, too frequently, because, or unless God puts him
in circumstances where he's been chronically ill and death has
come by very, very frequently. And so I'm not trying to make
you morbid. But there's something about passing that 40th birthday
and you realize if I have my 3 score and 10 plus my extra
10, half of it's gone. And I tell you, that hits you.
And you feel it right down here. It's gone. Gone. And I'll tell
you when you feel it, most of you have the buffer of one or
two generations who still are waiting to go into the grave
before you. You've got a living grandmother and a living mother. When all the grandparents die,
And then your parents start dying, you know you're coming up in
the ranks. It's like being in a bloody battle during the Civil
War. And they'd line up, and one wave of soldiers would come,
and they'd line up. You can imagine what it would
be like in some of those bloody battles out there in Gettysburg. And
you knew you were in the fourth rank, well you didn't, you know,
there was apprehension, but that's not so bad. But one, the first
rank of your buddies goes, and then the second, you say, hey,
there's only two between us. And then there's only one, and
the next thing you know your commanding officer is calling
you up. Well, I face that now. In the past few years, I had
grandparents with great longevity. They lived into their 90s, both
grandmothers did, but they're gone. Now there's just my dad
and my mom and my wife's real mother, and we've seen two stepfathers
go. didn't long before I'm going
to be up there in those ranks and you start facing death in
the eye and you say now look I want to take seriously that
somebody's going to walk over a plot of ground with a little
plaque in it that's got my name on it and my bones and my rotting
flesh are going to be there now as I face death and the grave
and I believe the Bible that beyond death and the grave is
judgment how can I do all of that and not be totally unstrung
what is the ground of confidence But that's not the end of me.
Well I tell you when you start looking death square in the eye
that way you need something more than some vague general notions
that you know Christ is somehow going to take care of all of
that. That doesn't satisfy me. I want something more than that. And
you know what doctrine? You know what doctrine becomes
the buttress to your soul? It's this very doctrine I'm talking
about. Listen to what my Bible says. Those that sleep how? In Jesus. will God bring with
Him. Now what sleeps? Not the soul.
The body sleeping in the grave. But in that grave, it's still
in union with Christ. When that truth first came home
to me, I'd like to blow my fuses. What can give me confidence?
Well, when the soul departs the body, the union with Christ is
not dissolved. My union with Christ is going
to abide the radical dissolution of soul and body. them that sleep in Jesus will
God bring with him. The dead in Christ, I should
use that term, and those that sleep in union with Christ, God
will bring with him. The wonderful fact that just
as surely as my soul is in an indissoluble union with Christ,
as is my body, because He has come to inhabit it by the Spirit.
And I don't understand it, but my Bible says, if the Spirit
of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that
raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your
mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. You mean in
some way the Holy Spirit still inhabits that dead carcass? Apparently. I don't understand it. He's the
bond of that union. Yes, but the body decays. I know
all the problems. But they must not be big problems
to God if He tells me my union with Christ is not dissolved
by death and the grave. It's not. That union is not dissolved. And therefore every benefit that
he purchased for me must come to me by debt. The father owes
to the son that rotting body coming out of the tomb and joining
the glorified spirit and forever being with the Lord. The father
owes that to his son and he's going to give it to him. By man
came death. by man came also the resurrection
from the dead, each in his own order, Christ the firstfruits,
then they that are Christ's at his coming." That's enough to
make you shout, isn't it? That's the glory. And people
say, well, I'm just a humble Christian, I don't want to get
my friends, listen, God has revealed these things for our edification.
And at the experimental level, to think of the benefits purchased
at the cross in the light of the doctrine of union with Christ
is not only to provide a salve for a troubled conscience, but
the foundation for future expectations. Let me quote from Professor Murray
again. It is union with Christ now in the virtue of his death
and the power of his resurrection that certifies to the believer
the reality of his election in Christ before the foundation
of the world. That's looking backward. He has
the seal of an eternal inheritance because it is in Christ that
he is sealed with the Spirit. And then of course it is this
union with Christ that gives him confidence of the future.
Apart from union with Christ we cannot view past, present
or future with anything but dismay and Christless dread. By union
with Christ the whole complexion of time and eternity is changed
and the people of God may rejoice with joy unspeakable and full
of glory. Well then, in the third place,
this doctrine of union with Christ as it relates to the cross of
Christ not only has theological implications, experimental implications,
but it has ministerial implications. Now the first is very obvious.
If we have a biblical view of the ministry, the ministry is
a continual extension of the apostolic statement, that which
we have seen and heard declare we unto you. True preaching is
in many ways the overflow of a man's own dealings with God. Explained and expounded in biblical
terms and on the basis of biblical categories. He's not just up
there giving his testimony. But any true view of the ministry
will never divorce the minister's own dealings with God. And I'll
use a word that's been so prostituted because the world has taken it,
and I don't use it publicly, but as I told Mr. Fisher yesterday,
it's such a good word. The word intercourse. A man's
intercourse with God, his communion with God, his dealings with God,
form the subsoil out of which a living ministry is always have
found. You just can't separate them.
So to the extent then that I as a teacher of others, be I a father,
husband, teacher of a Sunday school class, or one put in that
awesome office of a teaching elder, you see the implications
of this doctrine ministerially will be found here. That as I
feed upon the reality and the glory of this truth, that it
was in union with His people that Christ died, then as I lead
the people of God in prayer, as I lead my family in prayer,
as I instruct my family, my wife, my children, my people in the
flock of God, to the extent that this truth has gripped me and
becomes more and more clear in my own mind, then there's going
to be the overflow of that and the absorption of that by my
people. You see? So it has great implications.
We might say ministerially at the indirect level, but now directly
I want to give two things. It will give symmetry to our
teaching. You know what symmetry is? We
say when something is asymmetrical, we mean the form is out of joint. Symmetry is everything fits,
it's in due proportion. back when I was a kid and used
to lift weights and look at the bodybuilders magazines one of
the terms you'd find that so-and-so was noted for his symmetrical
proportions you might get some guy that he became a bicep nut
and he just worked eight hours a day and he had these big 20-inch
gobby arms but then he had these little skinny calves and these
undeveloped lats or pecs or anything else but someone else he worked
on all this but there was symmetry everything fit together nicely
all right Well, this is what I mean when I say it will give
symmetry to our teaching. When we see that the orbit of
all of God's redemptive activity, both in design, procurement,
and application, is union with Christ, chosen in Christ, redeemed
in Christ, created anew in Christ, sanctified in Christ, and in
the last day glorified in Christ. When we understand something
of that, then you see all the lines that draw or go out from
the cross and irridate, as it were, to the whole of God's revelation. There will be a beautiful symmetry
in our teaching because we understand this coordinating aspect of biblical
doctrine, not understand it, but have some appreciation for
that aspect of doctrine. And no part then will be greater
than the whole, and no part is appreciated until seen in relationship
to the whole. Why have we refused to come to
the all passages and say let's let the whole issue stand or
fall? We say no, the cross of Jesus Christ is in a sense a
part of this larger whole, this orbit of union with Christ within
which Christ does his work upon the cross. and therefore when
we see something of the whole then we'll appreciate each of
the distinct parts in relationship to the whole but we will never
we will never have a view of any of the parts that negates
or cancels or becomes greater than the whole and so that's
what I mean by symmetry and due proportion in our teaching and
then it will form the basis of intelligent understanding in
the midst of our people. It's a wonderful thing to have
a well-instructed congregation. To have a well-instructed congregation
is to have a stable congregation. Ephesians chapter 4, you be no
more children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. When
I go off in pastor's conferences, which I don't do much anymore,
not because I'm not invited or don't feel it's a necessary ministry,
there's just too much to do here. But often brethren come to me
very distraught and say brother what are you doing with the heroes
and the charismatics in your church? I say we don't have any.
Oh you don't? Man we're split right down the
middle. What do you do with the crusade? What do you do with
it? I say we don't have the problem. They don't have the problem.
And sometimes they look at me as if to say you're just bragging
you're an egoist. No I say I'm being true we don't
have the problem. And I'm convinced one of the reasons lies right
here. One of them. Now the ultimate reason is the
grace and goodness of God. But God works by means. One of
the means he uses is when a people have an intelligent understanding
of some fundamental concepts such as these, You get excited about this and
you don't need to have somebody lay hands on you and get you
to speak in tongues. This is enough to make you shout
intelligently for a long time. Isn't it? I mean you don't need
to wait for some shiver to make you feel good. No, no, no, no. You just meditate on the thing
like this and then with the mind inflamed with truth and the tongue
articulating intelligent words of praise, you can bless God.
And then you're not shaken, you see, when you find a verse that,
oh boy, what does this mean? Over here, it seems to teach
that, you see, you're not shaken by the universe. It says, look,
as in Adam all die, so in Christ all be made alive. That's what
it says. And the believer will say, that's exactly what it says.
And the God who ordained that the whole human race should be
constituted in a federal union with Adam. also ordained that
the new humanity, the elect of God chosen in him, should be
constituted as federally one with him, and as certainly as
all who were included in the first all died, all who were
included in the second all shall live. Now I'll give you another
verse, sir. What, some intelligent understanding?
Is that just for theologians? No. That the people of God be
no more children tossed to and fro and carried about by every
wind of doctrine. And this grand doctrine of union,
the union of Christ with his people, particularly as it relates
to the work of his cross becomes the basis of wonderful stability
among the people of God. I'll give you a little incident
from Hugh Martin and then I'll be done and we can have any questions
for a few minutes if we need to. Hugh Martin is pleading that
people reconsider the doctrine of Christ's atonement in relationship
to this larger category of union with Christ says, there are not
many congregations of the church that if questioned on the subject
would as yet feel themselves driven to give an answer analogous
to what Paul once got from certain disciples at Ephesus. We have
not so much as heard whether there be any covenant of grace.
We've not so much as heard whether there be a doctrine of union
with Christ. On the contrary, the pious eldership The patriarchal
piety of the church generally are familiar with the doctrine
of the covenants and are not insensible of the great extent
to which their own vitality and vigor are bound up with the intelligent
appreciation of it. when he wrote back in the late
1800s. We venture to say that in very many districts of the
church, our probationers, that is the young men who are candidates
for the ministry and younger ministers, could not take a course
more fitted to commend them to the love, esteem, and gratitude
of our pious people than just to expound to them, to use a
well-remembered phrase of Dr. Cunningham's, quote, the provisions
and arrangements of the covenants of grace. He's saying to the
younger ministers, look, some old saints out there in the boondocks
and they feed upon this wonderful truth. It's a stable bulwark
to their souls. instead of taking up with German
novelties, and this is one of the things that Hugh Martin was
fighting, some of the younger men in the Free Church of Scotland
had gone off to Germany and picked up some of the German rationalism,
were toying with that which became blatant liberalism in a very
short time, and as a prophet seeing this, he's calling upon
the men, come back to this, to what end? for the stability,
the nourishment, the edification of your people. He goes on to
say, if this teaching should fall into neglect, there is reason
to fear that the materials of pulpit instruction will be destitute
of that compactness and connection. apart from which conscious advancement
in knowledge on the part of the people is impossible. The topics
handled will be disjointed and isolated. Progressive instruction
will cease to be realized and perhaps cease to be aimed at.
The next step will be it will cease to be desired. You see
he's speaking with a pastor's heart. and then goes on to give
the exhortation, and I would say, brethren, if you are ever
put in that awesome place, as a father instructing your children,
a shepherd instructing a flock, you can do few things better
in the interest of their intelligent understanding of the word of
God than to teach the doctrine of the cross of Christ in this
larger category of Christ's union with his people. So then there
will be, I trust, these other holy fruits that flow from it
as we've tried to articulate them in the previous part of
the lecture. I see why I didn't try to stick that on at the end
of the last lecture. It would have just been too hasty,
and I'm convinced there's much here that I need to exhort my
own mind to further investigation and contemplation. And frankly,
I'm jealous of you men. Here I am, almost 43 years of
age, and it's only been in about the past five to six years that
I ever knew there was such a thing as Christ's union with His people.
Now that's a tragedy. To be all those years in grace
and in the ministry and not to know. Oh, I had some vague notion
that somehow in one way or another Christ and I were related. But
that was the extent of it. You'd ask me to describe it,
to define it, to give some intelligent biblical articulation of it.
And few things have had a more profound influence upon my own
soul and my own appreciation of my Savior than the knowledge
of the intimacy of the relationship that he sustains to me, both
legally, vitally, mystically, any other word you choose to
use. Well, I hope that you won't have to say that. But to whom
much is given, much should be required. If you ever turn from
this concept, your apostasy will be a frightening thing. Frightening
thing. So let me urge upon you to feed
upon the truth until you suck sweetness to your own soul. And
as we go back to Owen, he who has seen the glory of truth and
felt its power will never relinquish it. He who relinquishes it has
never seen its glory nor felt its power. The only safeguard
against apostasy is the power of the truth in the heart as
well as the form of the truth in the mind. One without the
other won't keep you. But thank God that's an unbreakable
bond under the blessing of the Holy Ghost.