Our study this morning is the
third in this series addressing itself to this very critical
question, for whom did Christ die? I'll take the liberty of
reminding you of the main hinges of the case as I've been seeking
to develop it thus far. First of all, I would underscore
again what the real issue is. The issue most simply stated
is this, did Christ die for all men indiscriminately and distributively,
or did he die for some men specifically and exclusively? And secondly,
our approach is not to come to individual texts which on the
surface address themselves to the subject of the extent of
the atonement, but rather to take the biblical doctrine of
atonement as sacrifice propitiation, reconciliation and redemption
and to set it in relationship to its larger biblical categories
which bear upon the work that he accomplished on the cross
and so we're coming not the atomistic approach but the holistic approach
to this question last week we looked at the first circle of
relationship namely the covenant of redemption And what I attempted
to demonstrate from the scriptures was that there is much biblical
evidence pointing to that which the theologians have entitled,
most of them, the Covenant of Redemption, with its synonyms
Council of Peace or Council of Redemption, or the terminology
used in the class here, the Inter-Trinitarian Agreement. And whatever term
we use, it's the thing itself that we're concerned about, not
embodying any term in some kind of special class but there is
biblical data pointing to the fact that there is a pre-temporal
inter-trinitarian commitment with reference to the salvation
of a people and all of the data with reference to that agreement
that we call the covenant of redemption points to a particularism
that a specific people are given to Christ he assumes their liabilities
and is committed to effect redemption on their behalf. The Father is
committed to uphold and sustain the Son. The Spirit is committed
to do all that is necessary to give to the Son the full reward
of that which He purchases upon the cross. Well, that's a very
quick overview of what we've covered thus far. Now we come
this morning to consider the death of Christ in this second
circle that of his relationship to his people. The death of Christ,
then, with respect to the relationship of Christ to his people, or,
you may use another parallel term, the death of Christ in
relationship to the doctrine of union with Christ. In thinking our way through this
glorious aspect of revealed truth, we shall first of all examine,
number one, the necessity of this approach. Secondly, a statement
or an exposition of Christ's relationship to his people and
then our lecture next week will deal with the implications of
this teaching. The implications are so rich
that I felt it would be wrong simply to tack them on to the
lecture today when time was running out. First of all then, the necessity
of considering all facets of the death of Christ in the light
of his relationship to his people and there is a two-fold necessity
a logical necessity and then an exegetical necessity so under
heading number one A the logical necessity heading B will be the
exegetical necessity now the logical necessity is stated in
I shall state it this way if the doctrine called the covenant
of redemption is a biblical category of thought If indeed there was
and is a Trinitarian arrangement in which the Father gives the
people to Christ, a people for whom Christ assumes all liabilities
and responsibilities, if indeed the Spirit engages to support
the Son in His mission and apply the fruits of that mission, then
we must ask the question, we can't avoid it, What was the
precise relationship of Christ to those people whom the Father
gave to him which would make all his doings applicable to
them? You follow now this logical necessity? If there is such a thing as a
covenant of redemption, a people are given to the Son, a Son assumes
the debts and liabilities of that people, commits himself
to effect everything necessary for their salvation, the Spirit
concurs in that Trinitarian commitment to do all that is necessary as
assigned to him in the responsibility of saving the people then we
cannot avoid the question it's just forced upon us by the sheer
pressure of any logical consistency what was the precise relationship
established between Christ and the people whom he engages to
save now since God always judges according to truth and reality
What relationship will constitute the just grounds of transferring
all of the ill-desert of the people to Christ who acts on
their behalf? What relationship will justify
transferring all of the liabilities of the people to Christ who agrees
to accept those liabilities? You see, God does not deal in
legal fictions. He commands us to judge righteous
judgment. His judgments are according to
truth. So that if a people are regarded as righteous on the
grounds of the doings of another, there must be a relationship
between the surety and the people for whom he is surety that justifies
that exchange of guilt to the one and of merit to the other. Now objections to the doctrine
of vicarious sacrifice have always found two major expressions. One, Christ cannot be said to
suffer in the room instead of others because that's foreign
to every concept of justice. The soul that's in it, it shall
die and you can't transfer guilt from one party to another. And
then the second great objection is It is not right for guilty
people to be set free on the basis of the virtue of another.
Just as you cannot transfer guilt from one party to another, you
cannot transfer innocence from one party to another who is not
innocent. Now in taking up those two great
objections to the Christian doctrine of vicarious sacrifice, Hodge
having ably disposed of those objections, then says, and I
quote now a rather lengthy quote from Hodge, page 112 on to 113
in his Treatment of the Atonement in the book I recommended last
week, The Atonement by Hugh Martin and A. A. Hodge, it's two books
put into one, published by Mack Publishing Company. As to the
second side of the objection made above, and I've just referred
to those objections, we confess that the divine administration,
both as to the coming in of the curse through Adam, and as to
the redemption from the curse through Christ, rest upon principles
higher and grander than those embraced in ordinary rules of
human law. Our doctrine, although never
contradicting reason, does not rest upon reason. but upon the
supernatural revelation given in the word. But while the complete
satisfaction which absolute justice finds in the vicarious sufferings
of a substituted victim may transcend reason, it by no means conflicts
with reason. And then Hodge goes on one of the older theologians,
and Grotius, you'll find those names occurring in Reformed theological
writing, that there are three kinds of union known to us which
justify the imputation of sin because they are of such a nature
that in the case of certain actions the moral responsibility for
the sin is common to all the parties involved. In other words,
he's going to illustrate this principle in human experience. Natural, as between a father
and his children. We find that in scripture. A
father's sins implicate a child or the family. Remember Achan
and his whole family and household were judged. Then secondly, moral
and political, as between a king and his subjects. And then voluntary,
as between friends and an arraigned criminal and his sponsor. Now
the union of Christ with his people rests on stronger ground
than any of these considered alone. And then he goes on to
show that it was absolutely voluntary and the thrust of his argument
is we will not understand the rightness, the justice of this
transference of the guilt of the guilty to the innocent and
the innocence of the innocent to the guilty unless we come
to grips with the doctrine of Christ's relationship to his
people, the uniqueness of it, the reality of it, the nature
of it being such that when God declares Christ to be laden with
the guilt of his people, he's not playing games. and when he
declares his people to be accepted with the righteousness of his
son he's not playing games. There is a valid transference
of one to the other because a relationship has been established which makes
that possible. So I say in the first place thinking
of the work of Christ upon the cross in terms of his relationship
to his people is a logical necessity growing out of the doctrine of
the covenant of redemption. But secondly, and primarily,
it is a scriptural necessity. And now I want to demonstrate
the scriptural necessity of contemplating the death of Christ only, whenever
we're thinking of that death in any extensive way, only in
its larger category of his relationship to his people. In other words,
what I propose to do is to demonstrate that this is not just a logical
extension of a previous theological category, but it is the inescapable
conclusion of careful exegesis. And what I hope to do is to convince
you so that you in turn will know something of the blessing
of this and in turn be able to convince others. Consider the
evidence then along four lines. First of all in the prophetic
announcement concerning his death. Now all we're seeking to show
is that thinking of Christ's death in this vital relationship
to this doctrine, his relationship to his people, union with Christ
and the death of Christ, thinking of them always together, it is
first of all pressed upon us from the scripture from the prophetic
announcement concerning his death. And if you will please consider
Isaiah chapter 53. Some have called it this pre-written
eyewitness account of the death of Christ. In Isaiah 53 the suffering
servant is put before us and our concern is particularly with
verse 10 and following. 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 not his
seed, but a 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. Now the particular phrase that
is of concern to us is in verse 10. When thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin, he shall see a seed when thou shalt
make an offering he shall see a seed so that the offering and
the seed are brought into the closest proximity in this prophetic
announcement concerning the death of the suffering servant of Jehovah
that's just another way of saying that his death upon the cross
must not be contemplated in isolation from the people to whom he is
united. When thou shalt make his soul
an offering, he shall see his seed. Offering and seed are brought
into the closest proximity, so that any contemplation of the
offering Divorced from the seed on whose behalf the offering
was made is a fractured contemplation of the death of Christ. We are
separating what God has joined. There is a deep and intimate
relationship previously established between the one who is offered
and the seed which forms the rationale for the sin-bearing
capacity of the one who is offered. this is not a relationship established
subsequent to all the accomplishment of the work it is one previously
established when thou shalt make his soul he already has a seed
and he seeds that seed In the prophetic announcement then,
we see not just a justification, but the scriptural necessity
of contemplating the death of Christ in relationship to the
biblical doctrine of union with Christ, or Christ's relationship
to his people. Then secondly, look at the prophetic
announcement at his birth. The prophetic announcement at
his birth, Matthew chapter 1. You remember the setting of this
particular passage? Mary and Joseph are engaged and
engagement was a bit of a different nature then as now. They were
actually considered married though they did not live together and
cohabit. He was espoused to Mary and during this time he discovers
that she is with child and Joseph contemplates what his action
should be in living under the old economy. He contemplates
it in terms of the strictures of the ceremonial and civil laws
of Israel. And while he's wrestling with
what course of action is open to him, verse 20 of Matthew 1,
when he thought on these things, wonderful lesson about he that
believeth shall not make haste. Thank God Joseph didn't make
haste. He was a godly man which meant that he would weigh his
actions before engaging in them. While he thought on these things,
behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,
Joseph, now son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy
wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit,
and she shall bring forth the Son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus. for it is he that shall save
his people from their sins now the main point of exegesis is
this in the whole complex of his saving activity it is his
people who are the focus of that activity he shall save and in
that word save is the whole complex of saving activity But all of
that activity is with distinct and exclusive reference to His
people. Now, what is the precise identity
of His people? Some would say, well, that's
the Jews. Well, if so, then every single Jew, whoever was or ever
shall be, is going to be saved. Because this verse does not say,
He shall provide salvation, He shall make salvable, it says,
He shall save. he shall actually release from
sin and its bondage unto the consummate blessings of grace
his people so if you make that the Jews you have at least Hebrew
universalism now I don't think anyone wants to live with that
well what's the other alternative then? well the other alternative
is that his people is that seed of Isaiah 53 it is that people
who were deposited to his care for whom he assumed liabilities
and responsibilities in the covenant of redemption to whom he is so
intimately related in the whole complex of his saving activity
that they are identified as his people now since the cross is
his central work, now I didn't say exclusive but since the cross
is his central, his pivotal work to accomplish that salvation,
it is unthinkable that that cross would be divorced from the people
for whom the whole saving complex is designed. It's unthinkable. Well, if it's unthinkable for
our Lord, it should be unthinkable for us then to contemplate the
work, the pivotal work by which salvation is wrought apart from
the people on whose behalf it is to be wrought. The third line
of evidence is in the actual words of our Lord himself, John
chapter 10. In this chapter, in which we
have some of the most rich teaching in all of scripture concerning
Christ as the shepherd of his people, I direct your attention
to verses 14 and following. I am the Good Shepherd, our Lord
speaking, and I know mine own, and mine own know me. Here our
Lord is speaking of a relationship presently existing. He has a
people there that he knows and who know him. There is this reciprocal
saving knowledge. Even as the Father knoweth me,
and I know the sheep, and I lay down my life for the sheep, and
other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I
must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall become
one flock, one 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. This commandment received I from
my Father." Now the focus of our exegesis is upon two strands
of thought in this passage. Verse 14 obviously points to
a relationship that Christ sustains to a people presently existing
and who presently know Him. I am the Good Shepherd, I know
mine own and mine own know me. So what He is saying at this
point applies at least to those who are in a present saving relationship
to Him. But then notice how the perspective
opens up in the following verses. Surely he lays down his life
for the sheep, which, in verse 14, means at least those who
presently know him. It may not mean anything more
than that. It may not be any broader than
this statement, I am to die for those who are presently savingly
related to me. But now notice what verse 16
does. and other sheep I have which are not of this fold how
are they to be identified them also I must bring and they shall
hear my voice and they shall become one flock under one shepherd
so now he speaks of the people who are his sheep not in terms
of present experimental relationship to him They are yet to hear his
voice, effectual calling. They are yet to come into his
fold, into his visible community. So when he says that he lays
down his life then for the sheep previously, and then he follows
with these assertions, You notice that our Lord defines the sheep
as the total aggregate of His own, presently in saving relationship
to Him, and others yet unborn and uncalled and ungathered,
but He gives them all the one designation, My sheep. You see
that? So that when he goes on to state
that I lay down my life for them, no one takes it from me, I lay
it down, he's saying that all that I'm about to perform in
the giving up of my life upon the cross is with distinct reference
to my people, my sheep in a relationship previously established. Long before they hear my voice,
Long before they are gathered into the one fold and consciously
submit to the one shepherd, he says, I call them my sheep. I am in the most intimate relationship
to them, though yet they know nothing of that relationship.
and he says I'm dying for them in the mind of our Lord then
these two things are brought into the closest proximity his
death upon the cross and the uniqueness and the validity of
his relationship to his people and then the fourth passage just
a section from the epistles you see what I've done I've sort
of gotten locked into this method Sunday mornings and I kind of
like it So for a while you'll have to bear with it. We've gone
from the prophetic utterance to the announcement of his conception,
now to our Lord's words, then to the teaching of the Apostle,
and perhaps no passage is more germane to this issue than Ephesians
chapter 5. Ephesians chapter 5. The Apostle Paul cannot teach
the most practical duties without doing as Moses did when he taught
practical duties to Israel. soaking the tap roots in redemption. You see, now here's the similarity.
When Moses would say, do this, do this, do this, don't cut the
corners of your beard, don't mix your cloth, for God brought
you out of Egypt, you're his redeemed people. The duties given,
peculiar to that circumstance, are always soaked in the tap
roots of redemptive privilege. Now we've got some duties laying
out here, and what does Paul do? He does the same thing. Husbands,
you should love your wife. But now, where should we take
our motivation? From what should we derive perspectives? Well, he does the same thing.
He goes to redemptive realities, not Old Testament national redemption,
but the redemption of the people of God. So, verse 24, verse 25,
Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church
and gave himself up for it. that he might sanctify it, having
cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he
might present the church to himself, a glorious church, not having
spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and
without blemish." Now the point for exegesis, again, is simply
this. that the loving and his giving
of himself to die is said to be for the aggregate body, the
church. Christ loved the church. The
church was the specific object of his love. The church in the
mind of our Lord as an entity. It was for the church that he
gave himself up with the intention that he might sanctify it, having
cleansed it, and ultimately present it to himself without spot or
wrinkle. What is the apostle telling us
with reference to the doctrine of Christ's death then upon the
cross? Well, he's telling us that in
the mind and purpose and intention of our Lord, that death was intimately
connected with an entity already existent in his mind and in his
own heart. It was his church which he loved,
even to the giving up of himself. It was his church which he died
for with the specific intention that that entity should be purified,
sanctified and ultimately presented to himself without spot or without
wrinkle. So that we must never think of
the cross as bare substitution. We must never think of the cross
as isolated vicarious sacrifice. We must think of it as substitution
for a people. vicarious in the place of a people,
not just mankind generically, not just sinners generically,
but sheep, church, his people. And so the dominant emphasis
of the Word of God forces upon us a contemplation of the work
of Christ as inseparably joined to this broader doctrine of union
with Christ or the specific relationship of Christ to his people. Well, there are many other texts
that could be brought to the service of this point. I have
simply pointed out some of them so that I trust you are convinced
not only is this category of thought a logical necessity,
but it is an exegetical necessity as well. Logically, it's a necessary
corollary of the covenant of redemption. Exegetically, it
is the inescapable conclusion of divine testimony. So you have
necessary corollary, and then you have divine testimony. Alright,
now how shall we expound the relationship? Having demonstrated
the necessity of considering the cross of Christ in this relationship,
now we make an effort at expounding the relationship, and once again
we're at a loss for biblical words to define or describe the
relationship with precision. So the terms I use are not inspired,
nor are they sacrosanct, that is, particularly holy and therefore
immune from change. If God will use some of you to
restate these issues and give greater clarity and beauty to
them with fresh terminology, hallelujah. That's what we hope
is going to come if God spares us with the resurgence of concern
with historic Christianity. Some of us are praying that God
will raise up not only theologians and preachers, but writers and
poets and everything else, so that these truths will be freshly
expressed and beautifully embodied in the very thought patterns
of our own generation, in the language forms of our own generation. I'm at a loss. Maybe so much
of my help has to come from bygone days that I just have to stick
with traditional terminology. But the issue is not the terminology,
but the thing which it reflects. And I think after wrestling with
this and wondering what terms shall I use and writing down
some and scratching them out, I'm going to fall back on one
of the old masters in Israel and simply say with hajj that
we may think of this relationship in two basic categories. on the one hand we may think
of it as a legal or a federal union or federal headship and
secondly as a vital or a mystical union or headship the two terms
that Hodge uses are legal and vital I've added to them federal
and mystical all right the relationship then of Christ to his people
we're looking at that second circle here it is What was the
precise relationship of the Lord Jesus Christ who hung upon the
cross What was his relationship, while upon the cross, to those
designated in Isaiah, his seed, Matthew 1.21, his people, John
10, his sheep, Ephesians 5, his church? Well, I suggest that
we may codify, we may seek to collate the biblical materials
and express them in this manner, it was a legal or a federal relationship. and using the word federal in
terms of its old Latin meaning, focusing upon a compact or a
treaty. Now that the salvation of guilty
sinners is procured and applied within a framework of federalism,
that is, in which one party acts on behalf of the many is the
inescapable testimony of two key passages of the word of God.
And no one, and I make this statement guardedly, no one can be a theologian
of any sorts who is either ignorant of or uncommitted to the obvious
truth of these two passages. You cannot begin to construct
anything that borders on an understanding of true biblical and systematic
theology, or systematic theology that is biblical, if you are
either ignorant of or uncommitted to these two passages. All right,
you tell me, what are they? Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Thank you. All right, let's turn
to them. Romans chapter 5. And my purpose now is not to
give a detailed exegesis, but simply to point out some of the
dominant lines of thought. Romans 5 verses 12 through 21. Therefore, as through one man
sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death
passed unto all men, for that all sinned, then you have a parenthetical
statement from verse 13 all the way down to verse, some would
say all the way down to verse 18, some would break it off at
verse, I believe at verse 15, so verse 16 would be the picking
up of the thought again, But be that as it may, what I want
you to do is just notice, as I pick out certain elements of
this, what the dominant themes are. As through the one man sin
entered into the world and death through sin, and so death passed
unto all men for that all sinned, 17 For if by the trespass of
the one death reigned, through the one much more shall they
that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ, verse 18,
so then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men,
even so through the one act of righteousness the free gift came
unto all men, verse 19, as through the one man's disobedience the
many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the
one shall the many be made righteous, do you catch the strands of emphasis?
As to the one, these results. As to the one, these results. Now just keep that in your head
and turn to 1 Corinthians 15 verses 20-22 and then verses
45-49. 1 Corinthians 15 20-22 But now
hath Christ been raised from the dead the firstfruits of them
that are asleep. For since by man death by man
also resurrection of the dead as in Adam all die so also in
Christ shall all be made alive verse 45 as it is written the
first Adam became a living soul the last Adam became a life-giving
spirit however how be it that is not first which is spiritual
but that which is natural then that which is spiritual the first
man is of the earth earthy the second man is of heaven As is
the earthy, such are they also that are earthy. And as is the
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. As we have
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image
of the heavenly. Now it is obvious then that in
both of these passages there is an assertion of the fact that
the moral government of God is an arrangement in which all mankind
is dealt with on the basis of a relationship sustained to two
men, Adam and Christ. Now if you have any question
that this is the obvious meaning of the passage, read a commentator
who denies that and see what he tries to do with these passages. Now that's what drove me forever
away from Pelagianism back when I didn't know much about systematic
theology I don't know much now but I knew much less then and
I was desperately trying to find my way through the woods and
see some light up through the trees and I was reading everything
I read every single word of Finney's lectures on systematic theology
and it should be called Finney's rationalistic pronouncements
sprinkled with the flavor of the Bible. And that's not too
harsh. Phinney, when it came to systematizing,
was a pure rationalist. He talked about the first laws
of human reason. He made everything in the Bible
submissive to them. This is offensive to our first
laws of reason, therefore it cannot be of God. I'm not saying
Phinney was not a Christian. I believe the man in his heart
was probably a lot better in his theology, but he's been one
of the great watersheds of many of the problems that plague present
evangelicalism. But be that as it may, I was
following him along, finding him quite convincing in point
after point, until I came to his treatment of Roman spies.
And I said, if any man has to do that with the Bible, then
he's got an ax to grind and a point to prove that doesn't go out
of the Bible. And I was forever done with anything that bordered
on Pelagians. You should see how he tries to
treat Roman spies. And anyone who denies the principle
that God's moral government of all his creatures, that is, all
his human creatures, not his angels, but all his human creatures,
is determined on the basis of the relationship of those creatures
to two men, Adam and Christ. Anyone who denies that just simply
cannot work through an honest, contextual, linguistic analysis
of these passages. But now, the point that I want
to make is, what is the context in which both of these sets of
teaching, or this one teaching is given in these two places?
What is the context? Well, those of you familiar with
Romans 5 know the context. Paul has opened up the grand
doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the
law. Justification based upon the work of Christ, in the latter
part of chapter 3. Received by Faith Alone, Chapter
4. Now in chapter 5, he starts opening
up some of the tremendous corollaries and attendant blessings of this. Being therefore justified by
faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand,
not only so, we rejoice in tribulations, all of these secondary benefits
that flow out of this, and he says they all rest firmly down
upon what? Verse 6, for when we were yet
weak and docile, Christ died for the ungodly. 8 But God commendeth
his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us. 9 Much more than being justified
by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 If,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death
of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 Not only so, we rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have received the reconciliation. There is
an intimate connection. Do you see what that connection
is? Having laid out the great blessing of justification on
the basis of the work of Christ and received by faith, The apostle
is now answering the burning question, what arrangement was
there in the moral government of God that makes it right for
all the blessings that Christ has procured to be applied to
those who do not deserve them? What in the moral government
of God can justify creatures described in chapter 1 verses
18 through chapter 3 and verse 20? What can ever justify God
so dealing with creatures like that that they are declared righteous,
they have peace with God, they rejoice in life now, they're
saved for all eternity? What arrangement can ever justify
that? And Romans 5, 12 through 21 answers
that question. It is an arrangement of solidarity,
of federal representation, that just as surely as in the first
man the whole human race fell, so in the second man, the man
from heaven, all to whom he is related by federal or legal representation,
will share in the benefits of his work. As God constituted
a relationship between Adam and all his posterity that brings
upon them the implications of his defection, so God has established
a relationship between Christ and his seed that brings upon
that people all of the benefits of his obedience. And that's
the basic argument of Romans 5.12-21. What is the nature then of that
relationship that we sustain to Christ without which we must
never contemplate the work of the cross? It is a relationship
of federal or legal headship in which Christ actually stands
in the place of his people by divine appointment. And how do
we know that such a relationship is a bonafide one that really
brings genuine fruits? It's not just a legal adjustment,
Paul argues, from Christ back to Adam. He said, now how do
we know that Adam's representation was real? He said, the presence
of death is the inescapable witness to the reality of the presence
of sin sin and death are the inescapable universal witnesses
that God dealt with the human race in the first one Adam and
he says as surely as God dealt that way unto death in Adam so
in Christ he deals on this principle of federal legal union the one
standing in the room and the place of the man And of course
you have a similar practical setting in 1st Corinthians 15.
You have some who are denying the doctrine of the bodily resurrection
of believers. And so he's going to show why
this is ridiculous. You can't have the gospel without
that. Why? Because look at verse 20. Now
hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of
them that are asleep. Well, what makes it essential
that Christ's resurrection is just the firstfruits? And you
know the analogy. When the harvest was full, in
the Old Testament you'd get some of the firstfruits and bring
it as an offering to God. The firstfruits were of the same
kind and were the inescapable witness to the fact that a harvest
was yet to come. Well, what makes it essential
that Christ's resurrection should be but the first fruits of a
greater resurrection? Well, the answer is the nature
of his relationship to his people. For since by man came death,
by man came also the resurrection of the dead. As in Adam, all
who are constituted as in him by this arrangement of God, all
who are in him representatively and federally, all of them die. So all who are in Christ, representatively,
federally, they shall be made alive. So real is that relationship
that what God does with the one passes to all who are in Him.
God punished Adam with death. All who were in Him died in Him. In the language of the Catechism,
sinned in Him and fell with Him in His first transgression. Likewise,
all who in Christ obeyed. All who in Christ were put to
death. All who in Christ were buried.
All who in Christ were raised must of necessity be brought
forth and actually share in their life experience all that Christ
has done as their federal head. So then the nature of this relationship
then It must not be contemplated apart from this arrangement of
legal or federal union in which Christ actually stands in the
reckoning of God in the womb and stead of his people. And
then the second aspect of the nature of that relationship is
a vital or a mystical union. Now, we face a problem at this
point in our study because I do not want to take in the whole
doctrine of union with Christ. And as Professor Murray has so
ably and warmly expounded this doctrine in the chapter in Redemption
Accomplished and Applied, the doctrine of union with Christ,
he says, is the central doctrine of salvation. It stretches back
into eternity, as we shall see, and then it looks forward into
eternity. Now what we're doing is taking
out a segment of this doctrine. up to the point of the cross.
We're not going to conceive of the doctrine of union with Christ
in the application of salvation when the dead sinner is actually
quickened to life and brought into living experimental union
with Christ. 1 Corinthians 1.9 God is faithful
by whom ye were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ
our Lord. If any man be in Christ, he is
a new creature. So what we're doing is isolating
this section of the doctrine of union with Christ the nature,
the reality of that union which is set before us in scripture
that precedes and attends the actual work upon the cross. Now
the other aspects of that union we're not going to discuss now
because our concern is the relationship of the doctrine of union with
Christ to what Christ accomplished upon the cross for sinners. Now
this vital union This union in which we are conceived of as
in Christ, or we may use the term mystical in terms of the
biblical concept of a mystery, a truth hidden and only known
by revelation. Let's look at it in two subheadings. In the divine intention, and
then in the infiltration of salvation, and then I'll explain that. I'm
using the theological term not to impress you, but to instruct
you. It's a term you will find many times in theological literature,
and it ought to be in your working vocabulary. First of all then,
our union with Christ in the divine intention. Now the scriptures everywhere
assert that the salvation of rebel sinners by the grace and
power of God is a salvation rooted in divine purpose and executed
according to eternal plan. We looked at those verses last
week. The biblical words election, elect, chosen, predestinated,
foreknown, force this category of thought upon us. Now, assuming
that we accept the doctrine of divine selectivity, that is,
the doctrine of eternal, gracious, sovereign selection as the fountainhead
of our salvation, what I want you to notice is in Ephesians
chapter 1 that this election is never spoken of as an exercise
of simply, or I should say amazingly, gracious and sovereign selection
There's another element that is central to this whole act
of divine choice. In chapter 1 of Ephesians, in
verse 3, the Apostle begins this great eulogy. Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with
every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ. Now here's the controlling thought
of all that follows. As the Apostle contemplates the
grand and glorious salvation that God has conferred, he says,
Blessed be that God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
in particular, He is to be blessed, He is to be honored, He is to
be praised and worshipped for the great reality that He has
blessed us with every spiritual blessing within a specific orbit
of reference. He has blessed us with all of
those blessings in Christ, indicating that there is no blessing ever
conferred upon a child of God that does not have its origin
and source in Christ. No blessing out of him, every
blessing in him. Now, he's going to enumerate
those blessings and he begins with the first one in verse 4.
Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
Now I confess there are mysteries that I cannot begin to plumb,
let alone expound. But will you notice what the
text says? It does not say, He chose us to be in Him before
the foundation of the world. As though the act of choice constituted
us as candidates to be in Christ. He doesn't say chose us to be
in Him. Now certainly it does not say,
chose us because we would choose to be in him by faith. That's
the typical Arminian exposition of election by foreknowledge.
God chose us to be in Christ because we would choose him. We would choose to be in him
by faith. But what does the text say? Look
at it. Even as he chose us in him. so he's saying that the
very act of divine choice by God the Father acting as the
administrative person of the Godhead remember now the act
of the Father is certainly the act of the divine will though
the Father is prominent never think of a reluctance on the
part of the Son and of the Holy Spirit he chooses us and in that
very act of choosing He chooses us in a way that we are already
contemplated as being joined to Christ. So that God setting his
sovereign love upon a people, As far back as God's word lets
us trace that activity says, we were never even contemplated
in the divine counsels apart from being in Christ. Isn't that
what it says? That's what my Bible tells me.
So that I never to think of election. As mere gracious sovereignty,
it is always to be gracious, Christocentric sovereignty. So when your logic begins to
play tricks on you and you're tempted to become a supralaxarian,
just remember this text and that'll cure you. to talk about bare
selection of people as people and not fallen. No, no. We were
contemplated as fallen and we could never be the objects of
God's gracious delight and approbation apart from His dear Son. We are chosen and loved in Christ
and of course logically then you see we're forced back then
were forced back then into the whole orbit this matter of the
covenant of redemption and all that flows out of it and so if
we were in the mind of God conceived in an inscrutable way as united
to his Son from the very first motions of eternal Godhead with
reference to our salvation how unthinkable that the central
act of saving us would find us divorced from that relationship. You see how unthinkable it is
and how wicked it is to fracture this doctrine of union with Christ
when contemplating the cross and somehow to separate the two. Old Toplady had it when he wrote,
To thee, O Lord, alone is due all glory and renown. Ought to
ourselves we dare not take or rob thee of thy crown. thou wast
thyself our surety in God's redemptive plan, in thee this grace was
given us long ere the world began. He speaks of grace given us in
Christ before the world began. I don't ask you to understand
it. I don't believe it's properly the object of intellectual scrutiny. It's rather to be the object
of loving and adoring worship, that we should so be united to
Christ in the intention of God in eternity, and then secondly,
in the actual impetration of our salvation upon the cross.
The word impetration goes back to the Latin, which means to
accomplish, and when you read the impetration, i-m-p-e, i-m
as in man, i-m-p-e-t-r-a-t-i-o-n, It's speaking of the accomplishment
of salvation objectively, what Professor Murray would call redemption
accomplished, distinguished from redemption applied. So the infiltration,
when you read that in theological literature, the infiltration
of our salvation is just a term used to describe the actual procurement
in the life history of Jesus Christ of the salvation of his
people. When Christ actually humbles
himself, gives himself up to die, even the cursed death of
the cross, does he sustain a relationship to his people in those saving
acts? Prior to their ever being made
aware of those saving acts, prior to the announcement of those
saving acts to them, prior to their believing response to those
saving acts, is a relationship previously established. And I
quote now from Murray, It is because the people of God were
in Christ when He gave His life a ransom and redeemed by His
blood that salvation has been secured for them. For this reason,
they are represented as united in Christ in His death, His resurrection,
and His exaltation to heaven. And I tell you, you can't make
sense out of three pivotal passages in the New Testament unless you
get a hold of this. Ephesians 6 I'm sorry, Romans chapter 6,
Ephesians chapter 2, and Colossians chapter 3. What do they say?
Well, let's look at them. Let's look at them. The apostle has opened up the
truth that we've previously referred to, that our salvation depends
wholly upon the work of another. And where sin abounds, grace
does superabound in Christ. Then comes the devil's logic.
What shall we say then? If my salvation depends wholly
on the doings of another, what I do don't matter to a hoot. So let's live in sin. If God's
grace is magnified, when grace overcomes a mountain of sin ten
feet high, let's raise it twenty feet so we can magnify grace.
That's the devil's logic. And Paul knows that the devil's
always going around whispering his logic in people's ears. So
he says, what shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that
grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin,
how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that
all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into
his death? We were buried therefore with
him. through baptism into death, that
like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of
the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For
if we become united with him in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing
this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin
might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin."
What is he saying? He is saying that there is something
in the nature of the procurement of our salvation and its application
that makes continuance in sin utterly impossible. And that
something, he says, is the reality of our union with Christ. established
historically, once for all when Christ died, personally and inwardly
and dynamically, when by faith we are brought into union with
Christ and there is, and I know no other way to describe it,
but as it were a retroactive efficiency that takes us, as
it were, right back to the moment when the blood was spilling from
His own veins and the curse of God was being pronounced upon
Him. He said, He that is died is released from sin. When faith
brings me into union with Christ, it's as though God pronounces
over me the same malediction that was pronounced over His
Son. And his abandonment becomes my abandonment. His death is
my death. His burial is mine. His resurrection
is mine. The great point the apostle is
making is that when Christ died, such a relationship was established
already with his people. that when in time they come into
the virtue of that all of the power and implications of that
union will come to light in their life history but what happens
in their life history is but the opening up of the womb of
that which was secured here and that which secured it was the
reality of his relationship to his people now much of that may
be going over your head but think on it I don't know how to explain
it in simpler terms As one man said, this is one of the curses
of modern preaching. In an attempt to make things
so simple, we've made them simplistic and gone beyond the Bible. The
Bible wasn't made for people who wouldn't think and pray and
meditate. There's the grand truth, enunciated
again, of course, in Ephesians chapter 2. Describing what they once were,
now he says, but God's mercy has come. Verse 4, God being
rich in mercy for His great love were with He loved us even when
we were dead, made us alive together with Christ, raised us up with
Him, made us to sit with Him in the heavenly places. Raised
with Him. seated with him. There's some
kind of a union between Christ and his people when he accomplishes
these once for all redemptive activities. And then of course
Colossians chapter 3 will not take time to go into the thing. It's the same motif that runs
through those verses. Colossians 3 verses 1 through
4. Now what in the world does this
have to do with Christ's death upon the cross? Well all we're
asserting is that we must not think of those saving acts accomplished
in the events surrounding the cross divorced from the relationship
He sustained to His people that it was not only legal and federal
but was vital or mystical there was some sense long before Christ
dwelt in us by the Spirit that we were conceived of as being
in Him in him in such a way that when we are actually brought
into fellowship with him in our effectual calling, the virtue
of what was accomplished here begins to be manifested in our
own life history. So that in the actual infiltration,
the actual procurement of salvation, Christ would not, as it were,
sever the relationship he had to his people when they were
chosen in him from eternity. when it was prophesied that when
he would come he would see his seed when at his actual conception
it is announced he's come to save his people those who've
been in his heart those who've been upon his hands from eternity
are not erased from his hands where those hands are pierced
upon a Roman gibbet those who were in his heart from eternity
are not suddenly pushed from his heart when that heart is
poured out in death upon the cross for sinners. If ever union
with his people was precious to our Lord, it appears from
Hebrews chapter 12, it was precious. The more intense his suffering
became. Remember John 17, he says, for
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they may be sanctified in
truth. Hebrews 12, encouraging Christians
to press on, says, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher
of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured
the cross, despising its shame. And what was that joy? I believe
it's the joy described in Hebrews 2, in bringing many sons to glory,
knowing from the language of Psalm 22, which is quoted in
Hebrews 2, that he would one day stand in the midst of his
brethren and sing praises to God. It was that joy, the certainty
that the people given to him, the people to whom he is committed,
the people to whom he is related in this federal and vital union,
would actually receive the benefits of all of his work. It is that
joy that sustains him as he faces the agony of the cross and goes
through the baptism of his suffering. I found last Lord's Day sitting
amongst the Lord's people only two times now in fourteen years
that I've had that privilege and I've been made one. I've
been spoiled just to sit, not to have anything to do, not to
lead in prayer, and apart from that little faux pas with the
song where I had to get the tune, it would have been a service
when I did absolutely nothing to my great delight. But as Mr. Clark read that passage from
Psalm 22, let's look at it and I'll close on this note. He read
that passage from Psalm 22, you have the vivid depiction
of the sufferings of Christ And after the prayer of verse
21, save me from the lion's mouth, yea, here's the affirmation of
faith, from the horns of the wild oxen thou hast answered
me, from the place of strength, the horns of the wild oxen being
the symbol of strength, yea, thou hast answered me. What's
the next statement? I will declare thy name unto
my brethren in the midst of the assembly will I praise thee.
Think of it. Here the suffering Messiah who
has been heard in his prayer says, I'll join my brethren in
their praise. Those who are made brethren as
the fruit of my sufferings. And that very thought is picked
up in Hebrews chapter 2. For both he that sanctifieth
and they that are sanctified are all of one. That is, and
I believe this is the most satisfying interpretation, all of one nature. That is, they are men. He became
man. They are all of one, for which
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren. Think of it. We
would think it impudence to call the Lord our brethren. But he
said, I'm not ashamed to call you my brethren. I'm not ashamed
to call you my brethren. Think of it. The Lord calls us
his brethren. Not his slaves. We're that. And
we gladly say with Paul, bond slaves of Jesus Christ. He says,
I don't call you that. I call you my friends. I call
you my brethren. And then there's the quote from
Psalm 22. I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the
midst of the congregation, will I sing thy praise. Well, what's
the point? Well, the point is this. That
the Lord Jesus had a relationship to these. A relationship that
had its roots in eternity. A relationship that formed the
rationale for his incarnation. a relationship that sustained
him as he went to the cross in the knowledge that all that he
would do as their federal head, all that he would do as the one
to whom he is joined in a way that is beyond my ability to
describe, that they would know all of the blessed and holy truth
of the work that he accomplished for them upon the cross. I say,
brethren, when we begin to view the cross in this biblical category,
We are forever immunized against any unjust accusations that to believe
in quote limited atonement end quote is to rob the cross of
its glory. I say to set the sufferings of
the Son of God in an insulated and isolated covenant that veritably
declares He died for no one in particular to accomplish nothing
for certain is to turn the glorious cross of Christ into a tragedy. The cross is glorious because
it is the pinnacle expression of the depth of the love that
He sustains to those who were chosen in Him and is the pledge
that all that He died to purchase will infallibly be applied to
them. May God give us a new appreciation
for this, and the Lord willing, next week we'll deal with the
applications that derive from this doctrine of the cross in
relationship to union with Christ. Applications theologically, devotionally,
and ministerially. But that'll have to wait another
lecture.