(Richard Stone) Now I don't know how far we'll get through this outline, but here are some of the subjects that are covered in this outline. The sacrificial death of Christ was in the form of an offering for sin; sin destroyed in the crucifixion of Christ; Christ died to effect the forgiveness of our sins; why was Christ raised from the dead; the blood of the everlasting covenant; Jesus Christ as a sin bearer; and God's right eousness declared; and diabolos, a moral term. There was one other that I wasn't able to complete before tonight, so it will be taken some other time. We probably will not get through this tonight because there will be some discussion and there will be questions. But I'd like for us to read together this first paragraph because I think that its extremely important that we recognize what happens in the sacrifice of Christ. In dealing with the death of Christ the mistake is often made of ignoring the ritual aspect of his offering. Unless due consideration is given to this viewpoint of his sacrifice, as well as to the divine principles exhibited therein, we shall miss entirely the full import of his death. Failure to recognize the purpose of the sin offering under the law (which contained shadows of good things to come) will lead one to strange conclusions as to why Christ was required to suffer the kind of death he did. It will be recognized that in the purpose of God concerning the reconciliation of repentant sinners, His son was subjected to a violent, blood shedding death. This subject has many facets, some of which we shall attempt to cover in this lesson, as we pursue the Scriptural reasons for the death and sacrifice of Christ.
Now this is important that we understand and recognize that a sin offering is a ritual or a ceremony. It ritually exhibits what is due sin. And we are going to look at that in a little more detail here.
The first point that we want to make tonight is that the sacrificial death of Christ was in the form of an offering for sin so lets turn to Hebrews and I'd like the class to read around and we'll begin with Les over here and just follow around as we pick out these particular scriptures. Let's go to Heb. 9:26-28 if you'll read that for us Les please.
(Ellis Higham) "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
(Richard Stone) And of course in chapter 10:12; "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God:". So I think we must admit that his offering was indeed an offering for sins. Now the purpose of his offering was to take away sins, and this means our sins can't literally be taken away, they can't literally be covered, but they can literally be forgiven. And by taken away, I mean that the means was provided in the death of Christ by which God could, without compromising any of his own principles of righteousness forgive us our sins.
Figuratively, they have been taken away: so we know John 1:29, "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." Here is a lamb of God's own provision. A lamb is a sacrificial victim. It pointed to the fact that God in some way was going to take away the sin of the world through this man that was called the lamb of God.
Now look at Romans 3:25. Now we are going to look in detail at these verses in Romans but not at this point here. All we want to establish is the fact that by the offering of his son God provided a means by which our sins could be forgiven. Sandy, would you read that please.
(Sandy) Rom. 3:25. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"
(Richard Stone) Now what he is saying is that God has set forth Christ to be a propitiation: but it requires faith on our part in his blood in which was declared the righteousness of God to effect the remission or the forgiveness of sins that are past. By this way God could be shown as being just and be the justifier of them that believe in Jesus. As I said before, we'll get back to this because this is a whole section by itself. God's Righteousness Declared.
Now lets look at the sin offering under the law. Since Christ was to be a sin offering it behooves us to understand the principles exhibited in the sin offering under the law of Moses. Because after all, they were shadows and types. All offerings under the law were actually ritual prophesies of Christ. They were a ritual or a ceremony. The word ritual merely means that it is something that you go through, you act out to demonstrate other principles as in partaking of the wine and eating the bread on Sunday morning. This is a ceremony or a ritual that we go through. But it serves to remind us that we intellectually and morally digest the teachings of Christ. We give a moral accent to the principles exhibited in his death, we remember Christ, but it is a ceremony; its a ritual.
And so is the ritual of the sin offering. The sacrifice had to be brought by the offeror before the sanctuary. He then laid his hands upon the head of the animal and he killed it himself making his confession of sin. Now lets check that out. Go to Lev. with me, Chapter 1. In almost all cases the one who brought the sin offering, the trespass offering killed it himself. Lets read Lev. 1:5 and 3:2.
(A) "And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."
(Richard Stone) And of course verse 4 it says he puts his hand upon its head of the burnt offering. Also at chapter three at verse 2 and verse 8.
(A) And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
(Richard Stone) O.K. Beth, would you read verses 8 and 13 for us.
(Beth Higham) "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about."
(Richard Stone) So the one who brought the sacrificial victim laid his hands upon his head and then he killed it himself and then the priest manipulated the blood in such a way as to effect his forgiveness.
Now there were certain rules governing these offerings and first of all the animal had to be a clean animal, and it had to be taken from out of the herd or flock, and we notice this in Lev. 1:2. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock."
Now there were many other animals like the deer and the roe buck which were clean animals which could be eaten but they could not be offered in sacrifice. It had to be a domesticated animal, one out of the herd or out of the flock. And the reason was that it stood in close relationship to the offeror. It was going to represent him. It was the closest living thing to him apart from the human being. It was one on which he had placed a great deal of care, and perhaps expense. But it was something that was close to him. And further more, the animal had to be without blemish. There was only one offering, a voluntary offering, in which the animal could be defective. Not that it could be diseased, but that it had superfluous parts of something. But in the main all the other offering required to be blemishless. Lets read Lev. 1:3.
(A) "If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord."
(Richard Stone) And also verse 10.
(A) "And if his offering be one the flocks, namely, of the sheep or of the goats for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish."
(Richard Stone) I think we are all quite familiar with this rule under the law, that it had to be absolutely without blemish. And of course this illustrates how foolish and how absurd the view is of substitution. Because the animal, if he became guilty, if God put the guilt of the sinner upon the animal then that means of course, that Christ also was guilty because the animal then would become guilty. Because this animal represented Christ. The physical perfection of the animal in these offerings prefigured the moral perfection of Christ.
Now lets read together 1 Peter chapter 1:18-19 where Peter makes this connection.
(A) "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:".
(Richard Stone) So the physical perfection of the animal prefigured the moral perfection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we shall find that things physical under the law depicted things moral under Christ.
Now, this was a ritual he had went through, he had made a..., he had committed a sin, he had committed a trespass, he brings this animal before the sanctuary, puts his hand upon the head of the animal and makes his confession of guilt and then he kills it, and the high priest manipulates the blood in the proper way. Now the ritual of the sin offering enabled the offeror to further identify himself with the animal by putting his hand upon his head: and it also..., he gave ritual assent that sin then deserved death. He was indicating that what happened to the animal was something of which he himself was worthy. He had sinned. He was worthy of this violent death. But the violent death was being imposed on the animal as a ritual, and he represented the offerer.
And of course it illustrates that God was intolerant to sin. It was a dramatic way of expressing God's judgment and condemnation of sin. A violent blood shedding death. You see the sin of the person was not taken away by canceling the fact that the wages of sin are death, but the offerer had to actually vindicate God's judgment of sin through the ritual of the sin offering. He had to say God is absolutely right in demanding death of sin. And if he didn't make this ascent, then he couldn't be in a position where he could be forgiven. And of course it enabled him to confess that he was justly related to death, and also to give his expression and his desire for forgiveness.
Now go back to Leviticus again, chapter 1. And you'll see that this is implicit, in the verses we are about to read, that he sought forgiveness. Lev. 1:4.
(A) "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him."
(Richard Stone) O.K. and chapter 4, verse 20 also.
(A) "And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them."
(Richard Stone) And this is repeated many, many times in the instruction governing the offerings, that they were forgiven. So this is the ritual of the sin offering.
Now, sin is spoken of as being destroyed by God. There is many ways of speaking of this, we can have our sins removed; we can have them covered; we can have our sins forgiven, or they can be destroyed. And one way of speaking of it is to have sin destroyed in the crucifixion of Christ.
You can't destroy sin literally, because sin literally has no existence. Sin is a transgression of God's law, its an act. But you destroy it ritually. It means that a means has been provided by God by which those who are held captive by sin can be delivered. And therefore sin is spoken of as being destroyed. Now to illustrate this point, go to Hosea with me.
You see, there are many figures of speech and language used in relation to the death of Christ which we must recognize are figures of speech. So that we can properly understand and appreciate the principles that are exhibited in his death. What we are going to show is that the ritual of the sin offering was continued and converged upon the Lord Jesus Christ and repeated in his death on the cross. Hosea 13 and 14.
(John Hensley) "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes."
(Richard Stone) Of course this is quoted in the 15th chapter of 1 Cor. by the Apostle Paul (that verse 26 in the outline is a wrong verse, its later on in the chapter) where Paul quotes this and this is what is spoken of when the righteous and the faithful are resurrected and endowed with immortality. Death is destroyed. In Revelations death is said to be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone depicting the utter destruction of death, the complete abolition of death.
Sin is spoken of in much the same way. Now sin is that which has the power of death. Now lets go to Hebrews 2:14, for a moment.
(Stan Newton) "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and deliver them who though fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
(Richard Stone) In other words the destruction of him who had the power of death, which was the devil effected the deliverance of them who though fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. That was the purpose of the destruction of sin.
Now I'm going to deal with diabolos a little later on but for the time now, just assume that diabolos here does represent sin. Now I recognize some maintain that diabolos here represents sin nature, and it does in a sense. But if we find out, and go to other places in the Bible we will find out that that which has the power of death, we shall see that it is sin. For instance turn to Romans. Rom. 6:23.
(Ellis Higham) "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Richard Stone) Now the wages of sin are wages which we earn. The death of which he speaks here is eternal death, its the second death. And the wages of sin, if we commit sin, then the wages we are going to reap is death. Now in the seventh chapter of Romans Paul speaks of sin in the very sense in which it represents sin as having the power of death. Notice in verse 7-9.
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not know lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."
Now sin here is personified. It speaks of something that could kill Paul. And the reason it could was because the law came and enlightened Paul. Paul realized that he was indeed a sinner. In verse 11:
"For sin, taking occasion by the commandment," (the law of God) "deceived me and by it slew me."
Sin therefore has the power of death. And from whence comes the strength of that sin? From the law. If there is no law, there is no transgression, there is no sin, that is not imputed against us. But when the law comes, we become enlightened, we're aware that we are sinners, sin therefore dominates us and slays us. Now 1 Cor. 15, Paul makes that very statement, in verse 56.
"The sting of death is sin." That's what has the power of death. "and the strength of sin is the law." Sin could only have power if the law of God is there to tell us that it is a sin. When God speaks, if you trespass of course means a sin.
Now God condemned sin in the offering of his son. Go back to Romans now and chapter 8:3.
(Sandy) "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh."
(Richard Stone) Now this is one of Paul's characteristic compound sentences in which you have to delve through it to find out exactly what he is saying. But he's telling us that there is something that the law could not do, and God did. And that which the law could not do was to condemn sin. Now he had just illustrated in chapter 7 that the law condemned the sinner, for the law said cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things written in the law and to do them. And since everyone sinned, the law condemned the sinner. But what the law could not do was to condemn sin, but God did.
And where was sin condemned? In the flesh. And if we ask in the flesh of whom, the answer is in the flesh of Christ. And how did God do this? He did it initially by sending Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh or sin's flesh which is a much better way of expressing it. It means identicalness of human nature as Heb. 2:14 illustrates to us. He partook of the same flesh and blood. He came under the same condemnation that all of us do, the condemnation of mortality, a proneness to transgression. So God initiated the condemnation of sin by providing Christ. Here was a body prepared. One who had come to do the will of God. So God sent his son in the likeness of sin's flesh and then, for sin and here in the original and other translations will put for a sacrifice for sin because that's what it means, peri hamartia: and it means for a sacrifice for sin, he condemned sin. God condemned sin in the ritual of the sin offering of his son. Now this illustrates again that the sin, the ritual aspect of the law was carried over and converged upon Christ. It was repeated in the experience of Christ on the cross.
Here was the sacrificial victim. The death he died was a violent death and was given to criminals. But it illustrated what was due sin, and we must never loose sight of this ritual aspect of Christ's offering. It illustrated what was due sin. Here was a sinless man made subject to the consequences of sin to illustrate for the whole world to see because he was crucified and this was a Roman way of putting to death criminals, the most vilest of criminals. He illustrated his own intolerance to sin, and what God thought about sin. It was worthy of nothing but to be crucified.
So we see again that the ritual of the sin offering was repeated in the death of Christ. Now of course apart from the law of God sin would have no power to kill us, would it? Because in Romans 5:12,13:
"For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law."
Well, sin is still there of course. But it is not reckoned against a person unless there is a law, unless he's enlightened. And likewise in chapter 4:15
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
Now the wrath of the law of works is the wrath of God. And the wrath of God is going to be exhibited against sinners and against sin. For the law therefore works wrath. The law says cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things written in the law, and therefore it cursed everybody. Everybody who came under the law was cursed by that law.
Now, in the redemptive work of Christ God provided a means by which sins can be forgiven. As far as the beneficiary's of the sacrifice of Christ are concerned, sin has been destroyed.
Are there any questions on the ground we have covered so far? Now we are going to deal with diabolos later on, and we are going to deal with Rom. 3.
Now this next section, Christ died to effect the forgiveness of our sins. Now you notice that almost a whole page is taken up with verses that illustrate that he died for us. And I know not of a single scripture that says he died for himself. Now I'd be willing to look at this scripture if there is one. Christ benefitted by his death on the cross. And his death was expedient to his own salvation, but I know of no place that says that he died for himself. But he died for us. Yes?
(A) Isn't that one and the same?
(Richard Stone) No.
(A) Its not?
(Richard Stone) He died for us and died for himself? How can that be one and the same. If I do something for you, its not necessarily doing something for me is it? If I pay a debt for you, that is not necessarily my debt is it? Or if I do something on you behalf, it may not be on my behalf.
But you notice in these verses here, he died for us, he delivered for us, he sacrificed for us, he gave himself for us. Lets turn to 1 Pet. 2:21...
(A-1) Dick, if you are a member of an organization and you pay dues for that organization for the whole group as the treasurer, you are paying for yourself as well as for others; so since Christ partook of sin in the flesh as we do, since he died for our sins in the flesh, would not you say then that...
(Richard Stone) There's another phrase, where does it say he died for sin in the flesh?
(A-1) I didn't mean...
(Richard Stone) Now I didn't say he paid the debt. If he paid the debt, that's substitution. But he died on our behalf, he died for us. It never says he died instead of us. But he died for us, didn't he? He died to effect our salvation. He died to effect the remission of our sins. I will deal with that in a moment.
1 Pet. 2:21-23. "For even hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously."
So here is Christ who suffered for us. Now its true that his suffering was part of the obedience that God required of him, but I find of no place that says he died for himself, or he died for sin nature, or he died to cleanse sin nature. Now I'm quite willing to look at those verses if there are any of that nature. Yes?
(A-2) Heb. 5:3.
(Richard Stone) All right, Heb. 5:3. What is your point there.
(A-2) The verse reads: "And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins."
(Richard Stone) Are you suggesting that Christ offered for his owns sins there, is that what your saying?
(A-2) No, he offered for his nature.
(Richard Stone) It doesn't say that. And further more, he isn't even talking about Christ is he really? V. 1. "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." So, "And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron." He's not talking about Christ, he's talking about the Aaronic priesthood. "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest:". Now I have seen Hebrews 5:3 used to illustrate what Christ did. Its not talking about Christ. Its talking about those in the Aaronic priesthood.
(Ellis Higham) Isn't he making a comparison between Christ and the Aaronical priesthood, though?
(Richard Stone) What the comparison is that Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest. But God said, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. And of course in the 110th Psa., "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."
(A-3) It wouldn't be Aaronic?
(Richard Stone) No. After the order of Melchisedec. There were similarities in the offering of Christ and those offered under the law of course. The offering of Christ was to effect the redemption of the sins of the High Priest as well as those of the people. Christ in one offering effected the forgiveness for the High Priest, as well as the people. The High Priest offered first for his own sins, then for the sins of the people, this Christ did once, when he offered himself. He effected the liberation, not only of the people but of the High Priest. His sins effected the forgiveness of sins in all branches, in all areas. Not only the people but the high priest as well. If this verse says anything that is applied to Christ, it says for himself to offer for sins. Now we were just told that he's sinless.
(John Hensley) Can I ask one thing Richard? Does the word s-i-n-s used in the plural, (we know that s-i-n sometimes means sin nature,) is there a place in the Scripture where undoubtedly, if the word s-i-n-s is used where it undoubtedly means sin nature? Is there a place in Scripture?
(Richard Stone) I know not of any. Where sins, plural, ever means sin nature.
(John Hensley) It says here he offered for s-i-n-s. Its difficult to think of Christ offering for his s-i-n-s. I'm just curious.
(A-1) The only way you could understand that is if you were talking about plural people. A plurality of people would have sin natures in the plural. No, I don't know of how you'd understand that.
(Richard Stone) That would kind of strain it though. It is, really in the context, it is talking about the Aaronic priesthood. We must be careful in searching for something which somebody has a theory on, to misapply Scripture.
Now surely, if Christ offered for sin nature, it would say that wouldn't it? If that's very important, it would say that in Scriptures. But I can find no place in Scripture where it says he offered for sin nature. And the very word sin nature is a term that is not found in the Bible. Its an invented term that we...I believe that there is such a thing as sin nature, don't misunderstand me, but...and sinful flesh. Course, that is a mistranslation. That expression only occurs in Romans 8:3, it should be flesh of sin. Sinful flesh means sinning flesh, its a moral term in that case. But I think there in means in the flesh. Christ came in the flesh. God sending his son in the likeness of sin's flesh.
(Ellis Higham) Are you going to deal with that later or is this an appropriate time to ask you what is sin nature?
(Richard Stone) No, you can ask questions.
(Ellis Higham) I mean I don't know what you are planning on dealing with later, but I would be interested in what your explanation of what sin nature or...
(Richard Stone) Yes, I'll explain what I mean by sin nature. Remember that sin nature is not a Scriptural term. O.K? Understand that sin nature means a nature that is capable and almost invariably produces sin. Now sin nature is such that it always produces sin in everyone except the Lord Jesus Christ, by metonymy it can certainly be called sin.
(A-4) By what?
(Richard Stone) By metonymy. That's a figure of speech. And we must recognize that there are figures of speech used in the Scriptures. And if we try to make a literal application, say that sin nature is the same as sin, its like saying an automobile is the same as death because an automobile causes death. Or a gun could be stamped death, because it produces death, but it doesn't produce death, it isn't death itself, its a gun. You don't treat an accident the same way that you'd treat a car, and God does not deal with sin as he deals with human nature. Or the natural man. Or the Adamic nature. He does not deal with that the way that he deals with sins.
Sins requires a blood shedding sacrifice to atone for it. And I'll show you how he speaks of sin in a moment. How he speaks of the redemption of the body. But that my explanation of sin nature. Its a nature that invariably produces sin.
(Ellis Higham) In using that particular line of reasoning, Dick, and that's the same line of reasoning that I believe that Bro. Carter uses in his "Unity in Australia" booklet under the section of Metonymy. In going through that section carefully, I find that bro. Carter has misused that word metonymy. It happens to be a figure of speech. But there are over one hundred figures of speech in the English language. Metonymy is one of those. Now, as you know as well as I...
(Richard Stone) But it is a figure of metonymy.
(Ellis Higham) Yes, but...
(Richard Stone) What other figure is it?
(Ellis Higham) But metonymy bro. Carter has used incorrectly there and in the example that he gives in the article at that point, he, he did the same thing that you just did here. Metonymy, particularly, is talking about terms which are closely related. Now there are other ones. You can say "The ship was a silver galleon sailing across the silver sky. That happens to be a metaphor. You can say something is like something. That is a simile. He used the expression "making mountains out of mole hills." That happens to be a hyperbole.
Now he is using all different ones and then he attempts to take those explanations and apply them to metonymy. But metonymy has to be very closely related terms, such as the power of the press meaning journalistic ability. This type of thing. And when you have very closely related terms, yes, they can be substituted completely for...
(Richard Stone) Don't you think that which leads to sin is a very closely related matter?
(Ellis Higham) And it can be substituted, just like every other example you can thing of metonymy in the English language. One word can be completely substituted for the other an make complete sense.
(Richard Stone) Only, only...It can't make sense unless you recognize the figure of speech. Sin nature, or human nature is not sin. Sin is a transgression of God's law. Human nature is that which causes that. You can't just substitute the one phrase for the other.
(Ellis Higham) Right, but its not like a mountain and a mole hill.
(Richard Stone) But I'm not here to defend bro. Carter.
(Ellis Higham) No. I'm just saying that the explanation you used here...
(Richard Stone) I'm just saying that this is by metonymy, sin can be called, human nature can be called sin because it produces sin. And there we are calling the cause by the effect.
(Ellis Higham) And God could treat them the same.
(Richard Stone) He doesn't treat them the same. I would challenge you to show anywhere were it says that God requires a blood shedding sacrifice to redeem or to cleanse sin nature, or to forgive human nature or whichever what you want to put it. But I can show you 100 verses where it says our sins are forgiven in the offering.
(John Hensley) Can I add something? A sister asked a question that I believe would make this all clear. The word metonymy is a hard word, its hard to understand. When one word is used instead of another it suggests something. Now lets just forget about the word metonymy. We know that we all have in our flesh certain impulses, desires. Now not all of them are bad. For instance, the desire to eat, that not bad. Or the desire to eat, its not a bad thing. We have desires. The desire to go to meeting is not a bad thing. No, we have desires. But we have some desires or impulses in our system, it would be wrong if we followed them out. It would lead to sin. The impulses that would lead to sin if obeyed, are called by Paul in Rom. 7 the passions (and the margin says impulses) of sin in our members.
We all have those impulses, if somebody steps on our foot, we want to take our foot and kick them of do something, or commit some act of sin. Now these desires if followed could lead to sin, or transgression, are called impulses to sin. The impulses themselves couldn't be sin, or you would make Christ a sinner. He had impulses, the wrong ones, their called the impulses to sin. I think that metonymy is a hard word.
(A-4) I understand the word, I just didn't hear what he said.
(John Hensley) Does that make it clear?
(A-4) Oh yes.
(Richard Stone) The impulses to eat, self survival, propagate; these impulses are not wrong in themselves, but if you commit adultery in the way of propagating, or if you carry it out to beyond a certain bound, it becomes sin. The feeling of self preservation, if we didn't have that feeling, brothers and sisters, we wouldn't want to be saved, would we. Its a good feeling. But if we sacrifice others to achieve it, then its wrong.
These propensities have to be regulated by the law of God, and if we go beyond the boundaries, they become sin. And they invariably produce sin in all the children of Adam, before they are very old, with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Ellis Higham) No sacrifice is required for those propensities?
(Richard Stone) I don't know of any place it says that, do you?
(A-5) What about where it says that if a man even in his mind, he lusts after a woman he has already done that, he has committed the sin.
(Richard Stone) Ah. Now there is lusting after a woman. That is committing adultery with her in his heart. Now that is sin.
(A-5) That is propensity, you didn't actually carry it out.
(Richard Stone) No, no. All right. Turn with me to James 1.
(A-5) Just bear with me, I'm kind of new at this...
(Richard Stone) That's all right. I just want to explain what temptation is, and what produces sin. In James he gives it very clearly here, v. 14. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed. Then," and notice, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin." Now sin is the child that is born when lusts conceives. Now lusts here is epithumia. And it means a strong desire or a craving for something. And I have illustrated in the lessons later on here that it can be used in a good sense. When Christ said "with desire have I desire to eat this passover with you." Paul expressed desire to see certain faithful in the truth. The same word translated lust here.
In other places it represents the inward craving or strong desire for something that promises sensual satisfaction. Now these desires in themselves are not sin . Because James says before sin can be produced, conception has to take place. He treats it as a conception. So here is lust. What has to join with lust before it gives birth to sin? Its the human will. You have to agree to it.
Now you could see a woman walking down the street, and you can see that she's beautiful and you can dismiss it from your mind. But if you dwell upon that woman and you think of committing adultery and derive a certain sensual satisfaction out of its contemplation, that is sin. You have committed adultery in your heart. But Christ on the other hand could talk about an adulteress, he could talk about adultery, he could talk about killing without ever violating or trespassing in his own mind. Because he didn't lust. He didn't derive any mental satisfaction out of this consideration. And James says that these cravings only produce sin when conception takes place. And the human will is a very powerful factor, in either doing good or bad. But when we allow ourselves top be dictated and guided by our propensities, or willing to go along with it, then we become animal like in our thinking. An animal is guided solely by his propensities, and he kills, he commits adultery, without any kind of sin against him, but he does these things by a natural inbred, what we call instinct. But he's programmed for this. God make him that way. But when we allow ourselves to be guided by the dictates of the flesh we become like animals. We become like beasts.
(Ellis Higham) Is this the very good state that God created Adam in, that would do those kinds of things?
(Richard Stone) Adam did it. God created Adam, but when he created Adam, he had to give Adam an independent volition, didn't he? And when you give anybody an independent volition, you make it possible to sin. He made Adam capable of sinning. Now if you say he didn't, then he made a robot. But the very fact he sinned, he gave Adam the choice, didn't he? Your an independent individual, you have a volition of your own, and I have given ye life or death, choose ye life. But Adam and Eve chose another road. They had the capacity to sin. And they sinned. But the motivation came from an external source but, it also got the woman to thinking in her mind, it produced the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, the pride of life, she contemplated what could be had by this fruit, and she decided to go ahead with the words of the serpent. She agreed to do it. Put forth her hand and took of the tree and it became sin to her. Adam did too.
(Ellis Higham) Could this have happened on its own without the serpent?
(Richard Stone) I don't know. I can't tell you. It seems unlikely that it would have, because, what happened in Adam and Eve when they partook of the fruit of the tree? Their eyes were opened. O.K. There was something that happened within their mentality. Dr. Thomas explains it as their passions being released and inflamed. What ever it was, we have inherited it, and Christ inherited it too, and he had the same kind of temptation as we.
In this case the suggestion to do otherwise came from an external source and with us it becomes permanently visible. The first thing of when God tells us to do something is doing something else. That's natural for us.
(Ellis Higham) Well then, Dick, in clause 5 of the constitution where it talks about a law in their members, I presume then that you feel this is referring only to the law of sin and death or mortality. Your not talking about anything other than mortality becoming a law in their members.
(Richard Stone) No. A law is a rule of life. And the law of sin and death is a rule of life in which one sin will lead to death. And the law of the spirit of life when Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death. In other words it has delivered us from the consequences of our sins. And this is the condemnation that rests upon us because of our sins, and the condemnation which is no longer in those that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1)
And the reason is that Christ has provided a means by which sins can be forgiven. Under the law there was no provision. It condemned. But under Christ there was deliverance.
(Ellis Higham) Well, more particularly, I don't think I got my point across. Clause 5 speaks as though when they were expelled from the garden of Eden there was a law. It talks about the something became a law in their members at that point and I'm after what you think became a law in their members, at that point when they were expelled from the garden.
(Richard Stone) Well there is a rule, the law speaks to me of a rule of conduct and when they were expelled from the garden, it became a physical part of their being, they had the tendency or proneness to transgress. That tendency was built in.
(Ellis Higham) Was there proneness before?
(Richard Stone) No, I don't think they had it before. No. But they had the capacity to sin before, that's what I emphasized. But when Adam and Eve had sinned of course, they had done this experience then, then of course I suppose the passions were inflamed because something happened to them mentally because they knew they were naked. They no longer had a good conscience towards God because they went and hid among the trees and they attempted to cover their nakedness. The covering was good, but it was not ade quate. But, we inherit that same proneness to transgression now. As Christ did. But, I contend that God did not hold us morally responsible for this. And although this body must be changed, he deals with it a different way than he does transgression. Transgressions he deals with through the offer of sin offering. And he effects the forgiveness of our sins.
When anyone is baptized, he is baptized for the remission of his sins. He is not baptized to clean his nature, because if he did, he would have clean nature afterwards, and we still don't have a clean nature if that's what you might call it. Do we? We still have a nature that's prone to sin. Nothing physically happens to us when we are baptized. God deals with that by changing this mortal into immortality.
(A-2) But we do become related to Christ when we are baptized?
(Richard Stone) Oh yes, Certainly.
(A-2) So you can't say that baptism is only for the forgiveness of sins.
(Richard Stone) I should say that its for the remission only of sins. And then of course...There are a lot of things that happen at baptism. We figuratively crucify the old man of the flesh. We make a covenant with God, we come in covenant relationship with God. We become associated with the Abrahamic covenant. We become the seed of Abraham, heirs to the promise. Lots of things happen at baptism.
But these aren't the points that are contentions among many brethren. The point of contention is what happens to us personally, in regards to our sins. They are forgiven. What about our nature? Not a thing. Because the truth of the matter is that our redemption in Christ has not one thing to do with our natural hereditary death we inherit from Adam. We inherit a dying thou shalt die death, and salvation has nothing to do with that. But were sins forgiven, if we are found faithful, we are still going to die. It doesn't avert the death, any more than it averted it in the case of Christ. And that's all death could claim. The only thing mortality could claim from Christ was death. It couldn't hold him in the grave. In fact, Peter says it was impossible that the grave could hold him. John, you want to say something.
(John Hensley) For the sake of clearness, can we say that when God created Adam and Eve, they did not have the impulses to sin, in their bodies at the beginning. They were very good. The impulses to sin came as a result of transgression. Had there been no transgression at the beginning, there wouldn't be any sin nature or the impulses to sin in our bodies. We inherit the impulses to sin in our members, there is built in along with that, mortality. The two have to go together. Or other wise...God never intended for anyone to live beyond a natural life with sin nature. Sin nature has to be changed.
In the case of Christ he had to do his own dying. In that sense he died for himself, he gained something by it. Had he refused he'd have lost his claim for salvation. But he was raised up for that purpose with God.
(Richard Stone) The kernel of all these things was built into the nature of man I would suppose. God told him to multiply and replenish the earth, and they were both naked, they were not ashamed, apparently they had no physical attraction to each other at that time. Adam didn't know his wife till the forth chapter of Genesis. And they didn't know they were naked immediately. I suppose in due course of time God would have showed them how to propagate and how to do these things, but they were suddenly released, their passions were released with the transgression. And these impulses to sin became a physical property of their bodies. And we inherit it.
(John Hensley) I have one small thing to say if you don't mind on the matter of lusts and desires. Lust is what you call inordinate, excess, beyond when you desire something, somewhere along the line you desire it too much, it becomes inordinate, it becomes covetousness or lust. Beyond that, its sin. Christ knew just when to stop and not go any farther. We don't. Undoubtedly I commit lust and sin through my desires and I may not be aware of it. I don't really know that its sin. There was a connection there in Christ, just in Christ, and Christ knew just when to stop.
Desire in itself is not wrong if you know just when to stop and stop it. If it was, then it means Christ was wrong because he had that desire. He was tempted in all points as we are...
(A-1) But desire is involuntary.
(John Hensley) Right. But he knew just where to stop. He's probably the only one who ever lived that never broke the commandment "Thou shalt not covet". Paul broke the commandment. There's probably not a better man in this day than Paul and he broke down.
(A-4) In going beyond that point your talking about, that is where desire becomes a lust.
(John Hensley) That's right, an inordinate lust.
(A-1) When you dwell on it, just where does it become wrong?
(John Hensley) I don't know just where that begins, but Christ would have to know. He had to know. But I don't know, I don't have to know all that because I can get forgiveness for my sins. There was never to be any forgiveness of Christ. Either he had to live an absolute perfect life..., He was in a different situation, really.
(Ellis Higham) Dick, I don't see another section that covers this so I think that this is probably an appropriate area to ask this question. You were talking about the offering under the law, right back near the beginning of your presentation this evening. And, I could dwell on the High Priest, but I'd rather go back and talk about the other things that the sacrifices were made for. There was a sacrifice made for the alter, there was a sacrifice made even for the mercy seat, all the things in connection with the tabernacle were referred to as the heavenly things and these were spoken of and the book of Hebrews makes mention of them as representing Christ.
How would you explain that in view of what you have presented here that it has to be a personal sin that one would make an offering. I think you recognize that I agree that Christ didn't have personal sin. What I'm getting at is that I believe that Christ had to sacrifice for sin nature which man kind, and he as a representative of mankind possess which would appear to be symbolically dealt with by the fact that even the heavenly things under the tabernacle, the most holy things, needed a sacrifice for, which represented Christ.
(Richard Stone) All right. When these things were, had to sacrifice, you know; had blood sprinkled on them and so forth they were done so because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel. God considered them to be tainted by the uncleanness of the Children of Israel. In order to emphasize His own holiness and His absolute righteousness and to show that reconciliation could only take place on the basis of pure right eousness, and therefore these things that were tainted or corrupted, you might say; by the children of Israel.
In Lev. 16 for instance, it says in v. 15: "Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness."
He considered them to be tainted with the uncleanness of Israel. And therefore he required this kind of an offering for it. But the uncleanness of the children of Israel constituted not only ceremonial uncleanness, but personal transgressions. They were personally transgressors. The law was given to reveal their sins. The law was added, as Paul says in the third chapter of Galatians, because of sin. That's the purpose of the law. The law was not meant for a righteous person, but for a sinner, to reveal the fact that he is a sinner.
But to arrive at a deduction, and you know, a conclusion that because of these things being sprinkled and so forth...it showed that he had to be cleansed, that true. And if we ask when was Christ cleansed, well that word is never used of Christ as far as I know. What Christ does speak of is the fact that he was perfect, and he's quickened, and God gave him glory. What we could say of Christ in the days of his flesh is that he was imperfect physically. Well when was that remedied? When God raised him from the dead and made him perfect. I shall walk today, tomorrow, and the third, and then I shall be perfected, Christ said.
So God dealt, if you want to call it cleansing of sin nature; he did it after he raised Christ from the dead. And that's when we will be cleansed from sin nature, when God raises us from the dead. Because when we rise from the dead, we are going to have this very same nature that we had when we went into the grave. Its like those who are gathered to Christ at the judgment seat: see, they will have the same nature when they appear before the Lord at the judgment seat just as those who have been raised from the dead. That nature will have to be changed because Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. So this mortal has to put on immortality.
And here is the cleansing of the sanctuary, or the heavenly things. And that was effected when God raised Christ from the dead and endowed him with immortality. But I can't see where it was done by sacrifice on the cross, because it doesn't say that.
And if we are going to arrive at a conclusion, be certain that the conclusion is consistent with the facts. Never place an interpretation upon an ambiguous Scripture that is in violation of other places of God's word. We tell this to those who believe in heaven going and so forth, but we must practice the rule ourselves. Never place a strange interpretation upon a difficult passage. We can never prove anything this way.
(John Hensley) Please, may I say one thing? I realize, Les, that you look at this way. But we all agree basically on this. There are two things we need in order to live forever. We need first our sins forgiven, because apart from that God wouldn't change us to a nature where we could live forever. Next, we need our physical nature changed. It wouldn't mean anything to me for God to tell me that he forgives my sins, cause I just go ahead and live this life and then die, that's all there is to it. With no physical change there wouldn't be any life. The two things are related, one moral, the other physical. The things we must have before we can live forever: we have to have our sins forgiven and we have to have our physical nature changed. Our sins are moral to our physical change. And everyone agrees and its written over and over and over; that Christ came to do what he did and he had to do exactly what he did in every particular, in every respect: in order to gain redemption or salvation in himself. He had to gain it for himself first before he could share it with us. And it so happened that God raised him up to accomplish the forgiveness of our sins.
(A-1) Where's it say that?
(John Hensley) It says that he carried away the bondage of our sins which is another way of saying what he did was the basis of the forgiveness of our sins so that God then could change us, the physical nature at the judgment seat. What God really is saying to us is, now if you do something about your sins now, cut them down to a minimum, do what I say; (we can't be perfect of course) and I'll do something about your physical nature, I'll change that;...I'll change your physical nature at the judgment and replace it with a nature controlled by righteousness.
Christ being raised up that way to die for us so we can have our sins forgiven he had to do exactly what he did. What did he have to do? He had to die the kind of death where his blood would be shed. God required it. It doesn't mean you have to understand all the wherefores and wherebys and particulars, or that you had to understand every little thing like that, you know; heaven sakes, that would be impossible for most people I'm certain. But the situation being God bringing Christ into the picture to accomplish certain things, Christ had to do exactly as God wanted him to do. So we all had to agree that Christ had to do exactly what he did, submit to the death on the cross. As for himself, he had no personal sins, no forgiveness for Christ; God never forgave Christ. Physical nature isn't something you forgive a person for, its something that will change. Sons are forgiven, that moral. Though Christ accomplished redemption, he had first for himself, and being in the situation, and us connected with him; he had to do just what he did. He couldn't enter into eternal life alone. God wouldn't permit that. So that his perfecting salvation for us, really was made the basis of his own salvation. And we're connected with it.
(Richard Stone) Look on page 3 of the outline here at the bottom of the page it says why was Christ raised from the dead? All right, he never committed a single act or transgression, did he? He was faithful to Him, and all His appointments, he was tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin, he was absolutely obedient to his Father's will, and God satisfied him with long life, in the Psalms.
And in this connection, look at Philippians 2. Now the reason I'm doing this is I want to show you what the Scriptures say the reason for the resurrection of Christ was. Now some will say he was resurrected because he atoned for his own sin nature. But lets see what the Bible says. In Philippians 2, lets read v. 5-7. In fact lets read all the way through verse 9.
(Sandy) "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth:".
(Richard Stone) Now verse 8. Look at that very closely. He was obedient unto death even the death of the cross and therefore God highly exalted him. The reason given for his exaltation was his obedience. Keep that in mind. Turn to Hebrews Chapter 1. In verse 8 of the first chapter of Hebrews: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Why did God anoint him with the oil of gladness? Because he hated iniquity and loved righteousness. He was obedient in every sense of the word, and therefore it was impossible that death could hold him. Death had no claim on Christ because he was raised on the basis of his obedience to God. Because as I said before, the only thing that mortality could claim from Christ was his dying thou shalt die death. That's all he inherited. It couldn't keep him in the grave. His flesh rested in hope because he trusted in God.
So he was raised because he never committed a single act of disobedience to the Father's will, and further more, he was raised because he shed his blood as a perfect sacrifice to confirm the Abrahamic covenant. Now, Romans 15:8 speaks of him confirming the covenant made unto the fathers. In Matt. 26:28 at the institution of the breaking, "This is my blood, the new covenant in my blood, shed for the remission of sins."
Here was a covenant. His death connected with the confirmation of the covenant and forgiveness of their sins. They are all tied in together. And also he was raised from the dead to secure our salvation. Remember in Rom. 4:25, it says he was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification.
And we are all quite familiar with those passages in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Cor. that says except Christ be raised from the dead, we would still be in our sins, our faith would be vain and so forth.
(John Hensley) That means if Christ hadn't been resurrected, regardless of his dying on the cross, we wouldn't be resurrected, would we.
(Richard Stone) No. But the basis of his righteousness is always his obedience, and the shedding of his blood to effect the remission of sins of many.
(John Hensley) That's the heart of it, isn't it? That's the crowning act, wouldn't you say that's the crowning act?
(Richard Stone) He was obedient to the death, the death of the cross. He couldn't be obedient to something of which he was not commanded. But he knew right from the beginning of his ministry he had to die the death upon the cross. I lay down my life for my sheep. He never says I lay it down for my sin nature. We must be careful that we don't invent terms to propagate an idea that has been pounded into our minds.
(John Hensley) Richard, may I say one more thing. His having sin nature of the impulses of sin in his members qualifies him to die for us as a representative man upon the cross. It was an essential quality, feature he had to have. Had he not had the impulses of sin in his members, and been tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin in respect of transgression, he couldn't have qualified to die for those who have. Now that was an essential quality that he had to have. It was not the real reason that he died on the cross. The real reason that he had to die on the cross was to attain salvation for us and that's what he was raised up to do. But in doing that, he of course gained for himself as well as for you. So he benefited from it.
In that verse, if you look at the verse, that it proves Christ had to submit and do just what he did, you have it in the last chapter of Hebrews, brought again, shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant. The Mosaic law ritually pointed that to the things to come in the millennial age.
Everything in the millennial age, the blood of Christ would be the base of. It wouldn't be a millennium apart from the shedding of the blood of Christ. That's why the altar and everything else had to have the sprinkling of blood. Those things represented the age to come. Christ had to do just what he did. The Mosaic law was foreshadowing what Christ would do.
(Richard Stone) He was our representative. He died a representative death. His sin nature represented sin, just as he personally represented us. But if he himself were a sinner, he himself would require someone else to die for him and redeem him . But he was not a sinner. And he obtained salvation on the basis of his one obedience, and therefore became, having been made perfect, Paul says, he became the author of eternal salva tion unto all them that believe.
(A-3) Would he need someone to die for him? Why couldn't his death...Why would he need a Messiah, why wouldn't his death be sufficient?
(Richard Stone) If he were a sinner? Well, in that case, then anybody can die. That only shows what is due to sin, while not doing anything to remedy it. That only illustrates what's due sin. Sin had to be condemned in one that was sinless himself, that resurrection might follow. That's only half the story. He had to be resurrected to show that not only was sin condemned but was conquered.
(A-6) Well Richard, I understand what John just said was that Christ had to be bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. He had to be a descendant of Adam. No other being could truly represent us. I think that's what John means. There could no being represent the human nature that we have. It had to be bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. One who would be tempted in all points like we are tempted, and yet knew no sin. And this is great when you think about it.
Think how great Christ really is. He never sinned by omission or by commission. And we don't know, when we sin by omission, but Christ had to know. And I think this is his greatness that he knew no sin and as John laid out, was faithful even unto death, even the death on the cross.
(Richard Stone) The ritual sin offering converged upon Christ. Sin had to be condemned in the flesh of one who himself was sinless. If sin were actually there and condemned, Christ couldn't have been raised from the dead. So it had to be a representative, represented by sin nature. The animal under the law was not a sinner. He only represented the sinner. And God treated him as a sinner. So Christ himself was made subject to the consequences of sin to illustrate what was due sin, and we give ritual assent to this when we are baptized into his death and join with him.
We too, die, ritually speaking. We confess that we are sinners, worthy of the violent death which Christ suffered. And once we uphold and vindicate God's judgment upon sin, we are then in a position where God can forgive us.
(A-6) Personally I think this is why the genealogy of Christ was given in the Bible. It takes you clear back to Genesis, and even when Able was killed, Eve conceived, and what did she say? God has given me another son instead of Able who Cain killed. Why? Because the genealogy had to be confirmed. And was bone of our bone, and if you follow that clear through and if you follow that seed covenant, you see that Eve was promised a seed that should bruise the head of the serpent. You follow that seed covenant clear through the Scriptures, and it leads you right to Christ.