CHRIST INCARNATE--HIS LIFE
In the previous page was considered the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. On this page the concern is with His life from birth to His death. His death will be considered on the next page; and His resurrection on the following one. In this discussion we will have an introduction, His birth and baptism, His temptation and transfiguration, and His teachings and miracles.
INTRODUCTION
The Old Testament sets forth prophetically, the birth
of Christ, His life, and His ministry here on earth. The
importance of these themes in seen in that nearly a half
of the New Testament is devoted to His life. This includes, of
course, His death and resurrection.
The four Gospels set forth these
truths. Matthew, in general, pictures Him as the King of
Israel; Mark stresses His servanthood; Luke emphasizes His humanity;
and John presents His deity.
The Old Testament anticipates His
life and ministry in types ranging from Aaron as
Priest to the veil of the Tabernacle.
Naturally the prophecies declare the incarnate Christ.
The very word "Christ" is the New
Testament translation of "Messiah." This term alone constitute the
majority of prophecies concerning Him; they include general ones that could
only be fulfilled by Him. They include the ones that are
personal such as the term "Immanuel." The details of such a study
is beyond the scope of this web site. Such a study would be
profitable, indeed!
Under consideration in this section is His birth through His baptism. Thus it includes His childhood.
1. The birth of Christ. The purpose of His birth
was His entrance into the realm of humanity. We are concerned
here with the events and the truth of it. The presentation of
Him as the God-man was presented in the subdivision of the webpage
God entitled God the Son. This
portion will be considered in two parts, the events themselves and the virgin
birth. Of course, these two are closely linked, but this writer
believes the virgin birth (under so much attack these days) is important
enough for separate discussion.
a. The events themselves. Of interest
is the fact that only Matthew and Luke record the events of His birth.
John only refers to it in John 1:14: "The Word was made flesh
and dwelt among us" with possible other hints or suggestions. The Apostle
Paul may have hinted at it in Galatians 4:4.
1) The question why Matthew and Luke
only. The question is why Matthew and Luke only record these events.
Matthew was presenting Jesus Christ as King of Israel. Thus,
it was essential to present His genealogy and birth. Mark was presenting
Him as Servant. No one is interested in a servant's birth. Luke
was setting forth Him as Man. Therefore, His lineage back to Adam
and His birth was again important. Also, in tracing the
lineage back to Adam, Luke was connecting the birth with the promise of
"the seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15. John, however,
was declaring Him as God, so again His human birth was of little
importance. The genealogies in both Matthew and Luke show that Christ
was born into the human race.
2) The facts of His birth. The birth
of Christ is recorded in Matthew 1:1,18-25.
a) The conception. Without
any equivocation Matthew states that Mary was pregnant of the Holy
Spirit. As Joseph was a just man and not knowing the circumstances
was minded to "put her away", that is, divorce her; and
though they had not yet come together in the marriage relationship,
yet they were considered already married; Joseph was instructed by an angel
as to the real reason of Mary's condition. Immediately, this
is tied to the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, a virgin shall be
with child; and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,
which begin interpreted is, God with us." Thus, the birth of Christ
was the coming of God into the human race.
b) The historical situation.
Luke puts the birth of Jesus Christ into its historic
perspective. There was the adoration of the shepherds in the
manger of the inn. There was His circumcision at which there
is the adoration and prophecy of Simeon and the adoration of
Anna. Matthew, then, sets forth the visit by the wise men perhaps
a year or two later, judging from Herod's killing of children
two years and under. Prior to that killing, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus
fled to Egypt by direction of the angel of the Lord recorded
in Matthew 2:13-15. Then, after Herod's death (it is uncertain how
long this was), they returned to Nazareth as shown Matthew 2:19-23 and
also recorded in Luke 2:39, 40.
c) The critics problem. Luke
is silent about the trip to Egypt. This seems strange if the
critics are right and Matthew and Luke (and probably Mark) had a common source.
The reasons for this silence is beyond the scope of this website,
but Luke omitted it because it was not important to his plan of presenting
Jesus Christ as man. These are the essential facts of the birth
of Christ. The fact that He was born is testified by Paul
in Galatians 4:4 (which verse we will discuss later). Very few
people deny that Jesus was born. Even Carl Sagan admitted that much.
d) The reason for it. The
Bible makes it clear, however, that Jesus was born to be the Savior
of the world (Cf. Matthew 1:21). That He was born God incarnate
is equally clear if one but accept the testimony
of Scripture. Christ Jesus because He is God manifested
in the flesh is uniquely the God-man. "The two natures
combine in one Person. He is no longer God alone, nor is He man
alone. He is not two Persons; He is one. He
is the theanthropic [God-man] Person--the first, the last, and the
only One of His kind in heaven or on earth. Deity has not in
this instance taken loosely an indeterminate or equivocal relation to humanity.
In Christ, Deity and humanity are joined in one Person as the immaterial
and material are joined in one human being. The two natures in
Christ may be considered separately, but they cannot be separated." (Chafer,
Systematic Theology, V:51)
b. The virgin birth. It was stated
somewhere in these web pages that the virgin birth has to do with the
conception rather than the birth itself. The birth was a normal, natural
birth. The following is essentially a message this writer brought several
years ago. It has been revised slightly for this web page.
How important are the facts surrounding the birth of Christ? What does it matter whether these facts are true or not? Perhaps, these questions in one form or another have crossed your mind. Often they have been raised especially by unbelievers. Thus arises the question, Was the Virgin Birth Necessary? Luke 1:27-31 should be read in this connection. Do these verses tell us anything about the necessity of the virgin birth? Before one can see the necessity of anything, one must determine either its existence or its possibility of existence. "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS." (Luke 1:31). This verse together with the others states:
I. THE FACT OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
a. First of all, consider that such a birth
was possible.
1) It was possible biologically.
For many years the virgin birth was criticised because it was thought
to be biologically impossible.
The idea of an egg cell developing without fertilization by a male element [is] called parthenogenesis. For
some decades, parthenogenesis was considered a biological impossibility, but today it is recognized as frequently happening, both in some plants and in some animals. . . . Such a law actually prevails in nature. "A drone
bee develops from an unfertilized egg, thus having a mother, the queen, but no father. In three classes of animals, there is a frequent exhibition of parthenogenesis--namely, in rotifers, crustaceans, and insects. . . . Parthenogenesis
is the rule in the dandelion . . . ." No critic of the Virgin Birth today would dare speak of the "biological
impossibility" of such an event." (Wilbur Smith, Therefore, Stand, 91-92; inner quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition, XVII:341-2)
It is admitted that this has not occurred in higher
forms of animals, but this demonstrates the biological possibility.
With all that has been accomplished since those words were publish,
such as in vitro fertilization and experimentation with genes, who
can say that such a birth is not possible?
2) One can further see that such
a birth was possible Scripturally. This very fact was prophesied
in the Old Testament by Isaiah (7:14): "Therefore the Lord Himself
shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call His name Immanuel." The rendering by some to translate the
Hebrew as "young woman" is flawed on two accounts: first, the LXX renders
the Hebrew word into Greek by the word that can only be translated "virgin";
second, the quotation in the New Testament by Matthew uses the term "virgin"
showing that this was the understanding of the word. Furthermore,
it was divinely possible. Who created man in the first place?
There are some who will say that man evolved. However, the
Bible clearly teaches that God Almighty created man. Can not the Maker
of man overrule His natural laws to cause this birth. Certainly
He could, and He did as testified by Matthew 1:18 (Cf. Luke 1:30ff.).
Thus, one can see that this birth was possible.
b. Furthermore, such a birth was actualized.
1) The gospel records are plain.
Matthew plainly stated (1:20, 21): "But while he [Joseph] thought
on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
a dream, saying, Joseph, thou 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 a son, and thou shalt
call His name JESUS; for He shall save His people from their sins."
Who signed your birth certificate? The hardware man or in the
case of Matthew, a tax collector? Of course not. It was
a doctor who authenticated your birth. Likewise, God had a doctor to
authenticate Christ's birth. Dr. Luke stated the fact in Luke 1:27-31,
34, 35. This birth is likewise strongly implied in John 1:14.
2) The statement of Paul.
Again, the Apostle Paul implied it in his statement in Galatians
4:4. What is so unusual about being "made of a woman"?
Is not everyone? Certainly Paul was saying that Christ's birth
was unique, namely, a virgin birth.
3) Someone is, however, surely to object
to the fact of this birth. The biological objection
need not concern us having already considered it.
a) Some will object on the
grounds of supposed contradictions. But are not these two
accounts from two different points of view, that is, Joseph's in Matthew's
account and Mary's in Luke's since he spends considerable space on Mary?
This is really the case rather than contradictory. One writer
has shown at least 12 points of agreement:
(1) Jesus was born in the last days of Herod. (2) He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. (3) His mother was a Virgin. (4) She was betrothed to Joseph. (5) Joseph was of the house and lineage of David. (6) Jesus was
born at Bethlehem. (7) By divine direction He was called Jesus. (8) He was declared to be a Saviour.
(9) Joseph knew beforehand of Mary's condition and its cause. (10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife and assumed full paternal responsibility for her child; (11) The Annunciation and birth were attended by revelations
and visions. (12) After the birth of Jesus,Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth. (Wilbur Smith, Therefore, Stand, 92-93)
Also, the differences put the lie to the contention
that Matthew and Luke had a common source.
b) Others object that
these stories were written to show a fulfillment of
prophecy.
Matthew 1:22, 23 gives some credence to this. Luke, however,
gives no such idea. Furthermore, there was no such expectation among
the Jews at that time. Until Christ actually fulfilled Isaiah 7:14,
this prophecy had been forgotten. Well writes Wilbur Smith, "The simple
facts of the case make it impossible that Matthew and Luke should
ever have built up such a remarkable story around a verse like this,
which was not being discussed with these implications during the time
of Christ's advent on earth." (Ibid., 93-94)
c) Others object to this truth due to
the silence of other New Testament writers. This writer
asks how often does God have to say something for it to be true?
Once is enough. God through His holy apostles saw fit to plainly
state it twice (which is the number of witness). It is certainly
implied by Paul at least once and possibly by John in his gospel.
d) Others also object to the virgin birth
on the grounds of a supposed mythological origin. They
supposedly trace the virgin birth to Greek or Babylonian myths. However,
"In pagan mythology, it is not claimed that any hero is born of a virgin."
(Wilbur Smith, Ibid., 96). The idea of such a construction
would have been utterly abhorrent to Jewish and early Gentile Christian
writers.
Clearly, all of these objections are due
to unbelief in the Scriptural testimony.
It has been shown that the virgin birth was possible, and it actually occurred. Therefore, the fact of this birth is established. There must need be next to examine:
II. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
a. Negatively. Let it be assumed for a moment
that the virgin birth was NOT true. Then what are some of the
implications?
1) First, Jesus would have been
illegitimate. In fact, the Jews accused Him of this--
John 8:41. But this does not square with the Scriptural facts.
Joseph thought this at first, but the angel told him differently. If
Jesus was not virgin born, then He was as much a sinner as you and
I. Some liberals take this position, but they claim He overcame
His sinful tendencies. Again, Scripture is very clear on this point.
Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21 states that Jesus "knew no sin." The
writer of Hebrews (whom this writer believes to be Paul) in 4:15 says that
He was "without sin." The Apostle Peter who walked and talked
with Jesus says of Him in 1 Peter 2:22 that He "did no sin."
The Apostle John in 1 John 3:5 declared of Jesus: "In Him
is no sin." The text (and Matthew's account) states His holiness.
Jesus Himself stated His sinlessness in John 8:46. Then also, if
Jesus was not virgin born, He could not die for our sins, but only
for His own.
2) Furthermore, He would be a liar.
His disciples would be liars, and every believer
would be a liar and false witness. Then, too, the Bible
would be full of lies. Of course, there are those who would
say this, but the truth of the matter is that they are the liars.
These are just a few of the implications IF the virgin birth is not
true.
b. Let it now be considered the implications
positively.
1) If the virgin birth is true,
and it is, then the Biblical record is true in all its details.
Then also the prophecies concerning His birth were fulfilled: the
prophecy concerning His birth-place (Micah 5:2) and the prophecy concerning
the sex of the child--many years before by Isaiah (7:14), and then
at His conception (Matthew 1:21).
The virgin birth made it possible for God
to become incarnate. The Scripture abundantly testifies to the
pre-existence of Christ (as seen on the previous web page); and incarnation
is that process by which this pre-existent One, Who is God, became man.
Such a process necessitated the virgin birth.
2) This process made it possible for
Christ to be sinless. We read in Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned." This verse may well teach
that the seed of sin is passed down through the male. Further
evidence of this is seen in that Eve was deceived whereas Adam
sinned with eyes wide open. Jesus had no human father, and
therefore, was sinless. Besides all this, the angel expressly
declared His sinlessness (Luke 1:35). Dr. G. Campbell Morgan well states
this matter in speaking of the angel's reply to Mary's question:
"The Holy Spirit overshadowing, that which is begotten shall be held
from contamination with the sin of thy nature and in human nature."
(Quoted by Wilbur Smith, Ibid., 88)
3) The virgin birth also makes it
possible for Jesus Christ to be what He claimed to be.
He claimed to be the Messiah (John 4:25, 26). He claimed to
be God. There are many references to Jesus as the Son of God.
Several times the Jews attempted to stone Him because of His
claim to Deity. It has been shown that the virgin birth
was possible and that it was actualized. It has also been demonstrated
what a disbelief in the virgin birth implies.
c. Therefore, one can see that the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ was necessary.
Even the critic, Dr. Charles A. Briggs,
had to acknowledge: "Historically and logically the divinity of
Christ and the incarnation are bound up with the Virgin Birth, and
no man can successfully maintain any one of them without maintaining
all." (Quoted by Wilbur Smith, Ibid., 89)
Dr. Benjamin Warfield, an outstanding
Evangelical of a generation ago, has
well reminded us: "It is just in
proportion as men lose their sense of the divine personality of the
Messianic King who is Immanuel, God with us, that they are found to doubt
the necessity of the Virgin Birth." (Ibid, 89)
Your belief, or lack thereof, in this doctrine will, to a large extent, determine your attitude toward Jesus Christ. It may be possible to trust Jesus Christ as Savior without a belief in (but not a denial of) the virgin birth, but after that trust one must acknowledge that virgin birth. What is your attitude toward the virgin birth? Do you doubt it? Then you better reconsider the evidence. Do you believe it? Then Jesus Christ is your divine Lord from Heaven as you put your trust in Him. Jesus is God. Then you must answer the question, what have you done with Jesus Christ. There are just two attitudes: rejection resulting in eternal damnation; reception resulting in eternal life. What is your attitude? Rejection or reception?
2. The baptism of Christ. Much misunderstanding has arisen
over Christ's baptism. Several questions need to be answered.
a. The one who baptized Christ. The person
who baptized Christ was John the Baptist. He was a second cousin of Jesus;
that is, Mary and Elizabeth, John's mother, were cousins (Cf. Luke1:36).
He was chosen of God to be the forerunner of the Christ
(Matthew 3:1ff; Mark 1:2ff.; Luke 3:1ff; John 1:19ff.; Acts 19:4). He
was the voice crying in the wilderness (Cf. Isaiah 4:3-5). He
hesitated to baptize Jesus, for he knew that Jesus was the Messiah and thus
divine. Nevertheless, he fulfilled his priestly function (John was
the son of the priest Zacharias of the course of Abia,
and of Elizabeth who was of the family of Aaron; thus a priest
by birth) and baptized Jesus.
b. The reason for the baptism of Christ.
Several ideas have been put forth regarding Christ's baptism.
1) Identification with sinners.
First, John's baptism was one of repentance, and He was identifying
with sinners; He was, so some think, already a substitute for them. This
is contrary to the fact that His redemptive work was only on the cross, for
did not become their substitute until His death on the cross.
2) Setting apart as Messiah.
There are those who claim the baptism was a setting apart to His ministry
as Messiah. It is true that is when He began His ministry, but that does
not mean it was the setting apart for that ministry. Furthermore, it
does not meet the statement of Christ in Matthew 3:15, "thus it becometh
us to fulfil all righteousness."
3) Identify with John's followers.
Another group says His baptism was His taking part
with those who had responded to John the Baptist's preaching. There
is no such connection in the Bible, and it does not really fit in with Matthew
3:15.
4) The right position. The
correct idea seems to be the introduction into the priestly office. Luke
3:23 states, "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age."
This is the age which a person could enter the priesthood. His
priestly office was not Aaronic, but of the order of Melchizedek
(Cf. the argument set forth in Hebrews 7:14-17). Though of the
tribe of Judah, He became the Priest, and thus, in a sense, consecrated
to that office by John the Baptist.
c. The relationship of His baptism to the
believer. This writer is not concerned here with the mode of
baptism. That mode was discussed on the web page concerning the
church. It
is really ridiculous to think that Christ's baptism was any different
to believer's baptism as to mode. Chafer states, "Apart from every
consideration of the mode by which Christ was baptized, it is certain
that His was not Christian baptism. Assuming that Christian baptism
represents crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection, there could be no
meaning in Christ enacting that which later He would accomplish in
substance." (Systematic Theology, V:70) Believers following
Christ is in moral matters, not official ones. His baptism was an official
act. Thus, Christ's baptism is different in meaning the believer's
baptism, but not in mode.
d. The other baptisms of Christ. There
are two other factors that some think are baptisms.
1) Descent of the Holy Spirit.
The first is the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ at His
baptism. There is, however, no statement that equates the word "baptize"
with that abiding of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus. It is called
an anointing (Cf. Luke 4:18, 21; Acts 10:38), but it is never called a
baptism.
2) The cup and baptism. Another
statement that Jesus makes is concerning the cup of which He was
to partake (Cf. Matthew 20:22; Mark 10::38, 39). Because of the use
of the word "cup" and the word "baptize" in the same verse, it is concluded
that the cup "is a baptizing agent." (Chafer, Systematic Theology,
V:72)
The related passage
in Luke 12:50 does not refer to the cup at all. That the cup has
reference to His forth coming suffering on the cross is evident as
also the use of the "baptizing."
The drinking of the
cup is symbolic of His baptism of death. In a real sense
Christ entered into suffering as a baptism. It is
rhetorical to try to use this against immersion, for
Christ in His death was completely immersed in suffering
for our sins
This same picture
is presented in the Lord's supper; the cup becomes a memorial of that
suffering. Other Scripture that deals with this matter of the
cup are Matthew 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; and John 18:11.
The Temptation and Transfiguration of Christ
Under consideration in this section is the temptation of Christ by Satan and His transfiguration. Both are important to a contemplation of Jesus Christ.
1. The temptation. The temptation of Christ is an important
study because the Scriptures plainly teach it. But the question is
in what way was He tempted.
a. Three factors. There are three factors
that are involved in the initial consideration of this topic.
1) The meaning of
temptation. The word in the Greek generally rendered
"temptation" occurs about 50 times. It means "to make proof
or trial of one:--to tempt, make trial of, seek
to seduce." (A Lexicon, Abridged from Liddell and Scott's
Greek-English Lexicon, 539; italics are in the original.). "It
has two significations: one to test with a view to proving or developing
virtue, the other to solicit in the way of evil." (Chafer,
Systematic Theology, V:74) Jesus Christ was tested
in the former sense rather than the latter. In the former sense even
the believer is to test himself (Cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5); and, of course,
the believer can be tried in the latter sense (Cf. James 1:13, 14).
Thus, the term can mean testing for good or temptation to evil.
2) The testing of God.
What is being considered is the fact here that the Trinity can be tested.
He can be tested but not to do evil or to tempt others to evil
(Cf. James 1:13-15). At least 27 times the Scriptures states that God
can be tested.
Acts 15:10 states
this in regard to the insistence of requiring the Mosaic
Law for believers in this age. This has to do with testing God the
Father.
Acts 5:8-10 states
in part, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of
the Lord?" This was in regard to Ananias and Sapphira selling
a piece of property and bringing part of the price obtained while
pretending to bring it all. There was no requirement to bring any of
it, but the testing of the Holy Spirit was the lie they told.
More is said
about the temptation of Christ set forth in Luke
4:1-13 and other passages.
3) The testing of Christ.
Here, we are concerned with the testing of Christ in general.
a) The impeccability
of Christ. In view here is the matter of the impeccability
of Christ. The question is whether or not Jesus Christ could have sin
or not. The testing could not be in regard to His Deity, but could
be in regard to His humanity.
The
fact that is ignored by those who say that Christ could have sinned is that
He had no sin nature. The sin nature is not a necessary aspect
of humanity, but the human race as a whole acquired
the sin nature due to the fall of Adam.
It
has been previously suggested that the sin nature (based on Romans 5:12)
comes through the human father. Since Jesus had no human father, but
was generated by the Holy Spirit, He had no sin nature. Therefore,
as Chafer states, "He had no solicitations to evil such as arise out of a
sin nature." (Systematic Theology, V:77) Involved, of course,
in the unique union of the human and divine natures. "The contention
that Christ could, but would not, sin is far removed
from the contention that Christ could not sin." (Ibid., V:78;
italics are his.)
b) The temptation
of Christ. Luke 4:1-13 (cf. Matthew 4:1-11 and Mark 1:12,
13) is the major passage on this testing. Each of the Synoptic
Gospels records that He was led into the wilderness of the Holy Spirit
to be tested. The reason for this testing is beyond complete human
understanding. He was clearly led, however, to this point by the Holy
Spirit. This writer proposes two reasons: 1) in order to be set
forth as the perfect High Priest as set forth in Hebrews 4:15, 16 and 2)
in order to be an example to believers as to the way of escape from
temptation.
b. Relationship to the Holy Spirit. The
relationship to the Holy Spirit in regards to His temptation is obvious.
He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness for that very purpose.
As suggested previously, Jesus Christ was in His humanity subject to
the Holy Spirit. The Scripture clearly teaches this dependence in such
passages as Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:14; and John 3:34. In
part, this was to demonstrate that the only effective life for God is one
that is lived in complete reliance on the Holy Spirit. This dependence
on the Holy Spirit in no way lessen or detracted from His Deity; but it was
part of His emptying set forth in Philippians 2:6-8.
c. The testing of Christ itself. In
discussing this testing of Christ one must keep in mind that Jesus
Christ was sent into the wilderness for this test by the Holy Spirit. One
must also keep in mind that Jesus did not go against His will in the matter.
This testing was not originate by Satan but it was part of the
sovereign purpose of God. Jesus went in complete dependence on
the Holy Spirit. This is clear from Hebrews 10:5-7 as He came to do
God's will.
1) The synoptic record. The
gospels set forth the testing of Christ as threefold. Yet the
common thread was the testing of whether He would use His divine powers
in each situation, for Satan challenged Him with the words, "If thou
be the Son of God."
a) The appeal to
the flesh. The first test was whether He would use divine power
to satisfy natural hunger. This was basically an appeal to the flesh.
Jesus' answer was "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word of God." (Luke 4:4 quoting Deuteronomy 8:3).
b) The appeal to
the eyes. The second test was whether Jesus would take a short
cut to obtain the kingdoms of the world. This was basically an appeal
to the eyes. His answer was "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and
Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8 quoting Deuteronomy 6:13)
c) The appeal to
the pride of life. The third test was whether
Jesus would use His divine power for a useless end. This
was essentially an appeal to the pride of life. Jesus answered,
"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Luke 4:12 quoting Deuteronomy
6:16).
d) Jesus' answer
to each appeal. These three tests are the
essence of all temptation as shown in
1 John 2:15-17. Jesus answer was always a proper use of
the Word of God, for Satan also used the Word, howbeit wrongly. Though
a side issue, it is nevertheless interesting that Jesus quoted from
Deuteronomy, one of attacked books of the Bible (if not the
most attacked) by the critics. Jesus Christ successfully overcame the
temptations in the power of the Holy Spirit using the Word of God.
Likewise, those who are in Christ can overcome in the same way.
2) The Hebrews 2:17, 18 passage.
This passage, while emphasizing the mercy of God, sets forth
the truth that He was made like mankind to be a merciful and
faithful high priest (in contrast to many of the Old Testament priests
which were neither) to the end of making reconciliation for sins of
mankind. Also, He suffered during His temptation in order to help us
who are tempted. Hebrews 13:3, 4 suggests the severity of this
test which His holy nature had to endure. "The implication is that
Christ's testing called for a resistance unto blood. This may lead
on to the experience which was His in the garden, . . ." (Chafer, Systematic
Theology, V:83-4)
3) The Hebrews 4:15
verse. This verse has bearing on the testing of Christ. He
is a High Priest Who can be and is touched by "feeling of our infirmities."
He was, this text declares, tested in all points as we are, "yet without
sin."
This writer pointed
out that He was tested in the three areas as believers are: the
lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride
of life. Every sin falls under one or more of these
three areas.
Therefore, every point of human temptations was covered by these three
areas. It was not necessary, therefore, for Jesus to have experienced
every individual sin humans do.
It, thus, is foolish
to think or say that Jesus had to experience thievery, murder,
homosexuality, adultery, etcetera in order to be a sympathetic High
Priest. He endured the temptation to an infinite degree, while
believers always cave in to the temptation.
It has been demonstrated
that Jesus was without any fault in His temptation. Chafer put
it well, "He was not tested with a view to ascertaining whether He would
fail, but rather to prove to those of a doubtful mind that He could
not fail." (Systematic Theology, V:84)
2. The transfiguration. The importance of the transfiguration
is seen by its very inclusion in the gospel record. To those who deny
the millennium, this event is virtually meaningless; or they must allegorize
it to be a picture of the church in heaven. Moses and Elijah
spoke to Jesus about His death on the cross (Cf. Luke 9:31). It
is this reason some allegorize it as a picture of the church. The
context, however, is about the kingdom of God (Cf. Matthew 16:28;
Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27). This kingdom is more than a kingdom in heaven;
it is also an earthly one.
The Greek word which is translated "transfigure" occurs
only four times: Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2; (Luke uses another term to
indicate this transformation); Romans 12:2; and 2 Corinthians 3:18. This
last passage is used of Satan transforming into an angel of light.
The Romans 12:2 has to do with the believer being transformed by
a renewed mind. Thus, only the first two passages are applicable to
the transfiguration of Jesus the other passages cited to get some
understanding of the word.
a. Its importance. Several things could
be said about its importance. There are 38 verses that are involved
in this event plus the three from 2 Peter 1:16-18 which refer to this
event.
Interestingly, only the synoptic gospels,
which deal to some extent with the kingdom teaching, record this event;
John who sets forth the divine aspect of Jesus Christ and the truth
of this church age does not record it.
The context of the synoptics show
that He was talking about His second advent. The whole scene here is
earthly, not heavenly. Peter in 2 Peter 1:16-18 connects it with
the second coming. It is a travesty, therefore, to try to connect
this with the church.
b. Its reason. The occurrence of this
event certainly requires an explanation other than the fact that it occurred.
His miracles were to demonstrate "that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name." (John
20:31). Again, any attempt to apply this to the church requires an
allegorizing interpretation. Thus, only the premillennialist has
an adequate explanation. Two considerations can be given as the reason
for this event.
1) The immediate aspect. First,
there is the immediate aspect. There was need that this event was not
revealed until after His resurrection. This need was unnecessary if
this event related to the church, but it was necessary in relation
to the kingdom which was being rejected. The transfiguration had to
do with the Christ, that is, Messiah. The death of Christ was
mentioned in the transfiguration which was a necessary aspect of the
change from the kingdom aspect to the redemptive aspect. In fact, the
transfiguration is the turning point. Increasingly there is an emphasis
after this event on His death.
2) The final aspect. There
is also the final aspect. This event was understood by the early church
as a postponing of the kingdom for Israel. This can be seen in the
conclusion proffered by the first church council (Cf. Acts 15:13-18). It
is also seen by Paul's discourse on the nation Israel in Romans 9-11 after
his declaration of justification by faith. The Reformers failure
to return to the position of the early church (in this as well as other
matters) has given rise to the unscriptural church-kingdom theology (which
theology was predominate in Romanism).
c. Its reality. There is no credence in
the idea that this was a vision or dream. It is true that they were
half asleep initially; but Luke plainly states in Luke 9:32, "when they were
awake", they saw what is recorded as historical fact. Peter affirms
this in his second epistle. Mark 9:2 simply declares, "And He was
transfigured before them." It is only unbelief that wants to make this
something other than it is, a historical event.
d. Its representation. There are those who
say it is a representation of heaven and the glory that Jesus
will have there. This ignores, however, the fact that the earthly kingdom
promised in the Old Testament, under the leadership of the greater
Son of David, would be glorious. It also ignores the immediate
context of this event. Matthew 16:28 clearly states, "Verily
I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death,
till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom." (Also, see Mark
9:2 and Luke 9:27). Immediately after Peter, John, and James are taken
with Him, and He is transfigured before them. Again,2 Peter 1:16-18
bears out this fact connecting it with His second coming. This glory
is generally connected with His position as the Christ
(Messiah). George N. H. Peters in his definitive work on the kingdom
(Theocratic Kingdom, II:559-61) has a lengthy presentation of the
aspects of the kingdom in regard to the transfiguration.
e. The attestation. God has attested to
the event in the statement in each of the synoptics, "This is My beloved
Son; hear Him." (Matthew adds, "in Whom I am well pleased.") At His
baptism by John, this same attestation took place. Also, in John
12:28 there is divine witness to Jesus. In the words "Hear Him" His
prophetic office is emphasized.
The primary meaning of the transfiguration is to set forth the future earthly kingdom of Christ in its power. That the church as His consort will share in that kingdom is certain, but it is and will be a kingdom here on earth.
The Teachings and Miracles of Jesus Christ
In this section a consideration of the ministry
of the Word of God as taught by Jesus Christ and which were in turn
authenticated by His works is set forth. Christ was the Prophet par
excellence. As with all prophets, He both forthtold and foretold.
Only a fraction of what Jesus said
(and did) are recorded in the four gospels, even as John stated in
John 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which,
if they should be written every one, I suppose that the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written." This passage cuts
two ways: it shows the gospel records to be sufficient for what God
intended, and it undercuts any of the pseudo gospels and books written
in subsequent centuries.
This writer will follow Chafer's divisions
in the discussion of Christ's teachings. The miracles will then
be considered separately.
1. Christ's teachings. It is not always easy to ponder these
teachings systematically. There are probably other ways to think of
them.
a. Three major discourses. These discourses
deal with a wide range of material; and as Chafer observes, "This fact
has not only been greatly overlooked, but can be accounted for only when
dispensational distinctions are recognized." (Systematic Theology,
V:96) It may also be observed that some think that Jesus taught
in a simple way and thus He did not teach doctrine. This is, of course,
farthest from the truth. Thus, it behooves one to study diligently
the teachings of Jesus Christ.
1) The Sermon on the Mount.
Probably the best known discourse by Jesus is the Sermon on the Mount
which discourse is set forth in Matthew 5-7. The passage in Luke 6:1-49
is another briefer discourse repeating some of the Sermon on the Mount.
The one in Luke is actually spoken by Christ on a plain after He came
down from a mountain (See Luke 5:12-17, particularly verse 17).
a) Importance of
literal interpretation. It is very important to observe
literal interpretation in the Sermon on the Mount, but it also important
to ponder the difference between primary and secondary application.
Primary
application is always what the passage teaches as to whom and what is address.
Too often this discourse has been applied primarily to the church as
a rule of life for the believer under grace. This is a
grave error which has led to all sorts of distortions of doctrine.
That a secondary application can be made to the church results in
principles and some lessons that can guide the believer in this age.
Primarily, however, this Sermon was addressed to Jews prior to the
cross and had to do with the kingdom of God in its earthly
manifestation.
Not
everything address to believers in one age is for believers in
every other age. Three rules of life (not ways of salvation)
for the conduct of humans are set forth in the Bible. There is
the Law of Moses which was for the past period of the Old Testament
economy; there is the Sermon on the Mount that sets forth the rule
of life for the future millennial kingdom; and there is the rule of
life under grace set forth in the Gospel of John, the book of Acts,
and the Epistles.
Though these three are independent rules of life, they
are not three different ways to be saved. Salvation is and
always has been by grace alone by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament saint was saved by faith in the coming Redeemer;
the believer in this age is saved by faith in the death, burial, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer; the believers in the millennium (and,
incidentally, those saved during the great tribulation) will be saved by
faith in the risen Lord Who died for them. This sermon is now considered
in greater detail.
b) The
setting. First, consider "the setting" of this sermon.
The
Old Testament concludes with the prophecies of the coming
Messiah-King. Matthew presents that King. In
the chapters previous to this sermon, His credentials are initially
presented. These credentials include His genealogy as being the Son
of David as well as a Son of Abraham. His birth was in
the city of David, Bethlehem, as predicted in the Old Testament. He
is filled completely with the Spirit, and He is tested by Satan as to
His humanity. The message of His forerunner, John the Baptist,
was regarding the kingdom (cf. Matthew 3:1,2; 4:17); and even His disciples
were to preach (at this time) only to Israel (Matthew 10:5-7) as well as
restricting His own ministry to Israel (Matthew15:24). This is not
to say that He did not minister to Gentiles also, but His primary mission
was to Israel. Paul states this very fact in Romans 15:8.
He
did teach regarding all three ages, but it was primarily to the Jews and
the earthly kingdom. His references to the church were always future.
The Sermon on the mount was a kingdom proclamation; and it
"constituted the authoritative edict of the King relative to the
character of the kingdom, its requirements, and the conditions of
admission into it." (Ibid., V:101)
The
sermon builds upon and expands the main provisions
of the Law of Moses. Thus, it is a travesty
to relate this sermon to the church (except by way of secondary
application). It can only be done (as is often done to the Messianic,
Davidic earthly kingdom) by the allegorizing method.
c) The distinctive
character. This brings one to "the distinctive character"
of this sermon.
(1)
Not a compilation. First of all, this sermon is
not a compilation of separate sayings of
Jesus. That is a thoroughly modernistic, higher critic notion
that has no historical fact, but is the result of an assumed evolution
of Christianity. This notion is clearly debunked by the words of
Matthew 7:28, 29. The general character of this sermon is well
described by Dr. C. I. Scofield (Scofield Reference Bible, 999-1000).
A consideration of the sermon section by section will now be
made.
(2)
The Beatitudes. The sermon begins with the well known
Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12. There is the blessing of the kingdom
for the poor in spirit. Isaiah anticipated this in Isaiah 66:2. The
mourning will be comforted. Isaiah speaks of this in Isaiah 61:2,3.
The meek shall inherit heaven? No, it says they shall inherit
the earth. This shows the earthly aspect of
this kingdom; it also shows that this kingdom is not
heaven. The believer's citizenship in this age is in heaven. It
is a misinterpretation to apply this kingdom primarily to the church.
Next, it speaks of the fact that the merciful will get
mercy. This is in direct contrast to the gospel of grace where
believers receive mercy and thus, are to be merciful. This can be seen in
Ephesians 2:4, 5. The same can be said of the other beatitudes.
This is not to say that there is not a secondary application to this age,
for there is; but primarily it is for the future earthly kingdom.
(3)
Light and salt. The next section, Matthew 5:13-16,
deals with the saints of the kingdom being light and salt
during the millennium. It is a false assumption that everyone in the
kingdom will be saints (although this will be true at the beginning). The
fact that believers in this age are to "walk as children of light
(Ephesians 5:8) and are to have their speech seasoned with salt (Colossians
4:6) does not make Israel and the church the same.
(4)
The legal aspects. Matthew 5:17-48 is an
important section, because it presents the
legal aspects of the kingdom in its clearest light. Here
again, one must distinguish between the primary interpretation which
is to Israel and secondary applications which can be applied to this church
age. Jesus, in this section, not only confirms the Law of Moses,
but gets to the heart of that law. In this present age believers
are not under law (whether the Law of Moses or its expansion by Jesus),
but under grace. It does not follow, however, one can be lawless.
(5)
Christ fulfills the law. The section begins with the
statement that Jesus did not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to
fulfill them. The Law has been fulfilled in Him; and because believers
now are in Him, the law has been fulfilled in us. A believer's
righteousness is in Him; and thus, he is righteous apart from any law keeping.
Although each phrase will not be examine , it is evident that these
statements belong to an era when the King of kings is present and ruling
here on earth.
It may be pointed out that "those who apply these requirements
in sincerity to themselves and to others utterly fall short of the
fulfillment of them." (Chafer, Ibid., V:107) Again, this
is not to abrogate the application of these truths in our daily lives,
but neither as necessary for salvation nor for Christian living.
There is no way that the three warnings against hell fire can
be incorporated into the grace system. John 10:28 and Romans 8:1 both
show that believers are not under condemnation after salvation.
Furthermore, one can not accept the Sermon on the Mount as what they
follow and avoid the hell fire passages.
That these sections can serve by application to the unsaved
is certainly true, but it is also to warn them of the reality thereof.
(6)
Giving, praying, and fasting. The main point of the
next section, Matthew 6:1-18, is the outward pretending
in the matter of giving, prayer, and fasting. Again, this had
primary application to the Jews, both of His day and in the future.
But it serves as a warning to believers in this day not to become routine
in service to God.
The prayer called "The Lord's Prayer" was never intended for
routine repetition. It is a model prayer which tells what is to be
included in prayer. Certainly, Christians can pray for the will
of God to be done in their lives as it is done in heaven. Truly,
they can ask God for daily provision. However, the petition,
"And forgive us our debts [or transgressions], as we forgive our debtors
[or those we transgress against]" is strictly law and not grace. Believers
are to forgive others BECAUSE they were forgiven (Cf. Ephesians 4:32;
also see Colossians 3:13). Furthermore, it is this one petition that
Jesus expands upon in this discourse. His comment shows that
the grace dispensation was not in view, but the future kingdom. The
new ground of prayer is set forth in John 14:14.
(7)
Devotion to God. Matthew 6:19-34 sets forth devotion to
God which far surpasses the Law of Moses. Treasures
can be laid up in heaven as the place of safe keeping. It does
not mean that they remain there. Here again, the application to this
grace age is valid, but it does apply primarily to the kingdom. Its
application to the church age together with verses 25ff. is simply that
all Scripture is profitable to the believer even if it does not
apply primarily to him. As Chafer points out, "It is not right
or commendable for believers to claim Israel's richest blessings, but
refuse her penalties and curses." (Ibid., V:110)
(8)
The matter of judging. The first part of chapter
seven, verses 1-12, deal first with the matter of judging one
another. All too often this passage is used to say one should not judge
any one. That is not, however, what Jesus was teaching. He
was teaching that we should not judge without any self judgment. Everyone
must make judgments in regard to other people; but this judgment needs to
be made after one examine oneself. It is obvious that this section
though primarily for Israel in the kingdom has application to the church.
The remaining verses of this section again returns to prayer.
The principle of God answering prayer applies regardless of
the dispensation.
(9)
The two ways. Matthew 7:12-14 speak of the broad
and narrow way. Again, the primary application is
to the Jew in regard to the kingdom. This is seen from verse 12, which
is often spoken of as the golden rule. This rule is basically a measure
"by one's own self-interest." (Ibid.) In the light of that
context, the narrow way would be the outworking by the Israelite with life
as the end. The believer in this church age, however, has life by faith
in Jesus Christ. The application of this passage is that entrance
into life by faith is a narrow way, and few find it.
(10)
The two warnings. The conclusion of the sermon involves
two warnings.
The first is against false prophets setting forth how to detect
them. This, of course, has application to all ages.
The second warning is about mere profession with doing God's
will. This is applicable to the church age to the extent that it is
a warning about mere religiosity and not a real acceptance of
Christ.
(11)
The two foundations. Jesus concludes with the two foundations.
It is true that what is in view here is what a person does and not
who he believes. This is most applicable to the kingdom. It
is really only those, however, who are on the Rock Christ Jesus
that can really do. The passage does not say that he the
doeth the sayings is building on the rock foundation. Rather it is
saying that the one doing the sayings is evidencing that he has built on
the rock. He chose the proper foundation. Thus, this writer thinks
this conclusion has a broader application than just the kingdom.
In
concluding this brief and very incomplete analysis of the Sermon
of the Mount, it is evident that it applies primarily to Israel and
its kingdom. Many applications can be made secondarily to the church
age; but most of the great truths dealing with regeneration, justification
and life in Christ are absent. Thus, the two ages are wide apart as
to purpose and ultimate ends.
2) The olivet discourse. This
olivet discourse was spoken to the disciples only (in contrast to the Sermon
on the Mount spoken to them before the multitude). It is set forth
in chapters 24 and 25. The context is the lament over Jerusalem (Matthew
23:37-39) which speaks indirectly of the kingdom and certainly to the
disciples as Israelites.
a) General
considerations. The discourse is in answer to the questions of
the disciples in Matthew 24:3. The questions had to do with Christ's
coming and the end of the age. Thus, it does not pertain (except
by means of secondary application) to the church age. It is because
of this that much confusion has occurred about whether the church will
go through the great tribulation or not.
The
disciples asked three questions of which the latter two are dealt
with here in Matthew; the first is answered in Luke 21:20-24. The term
world in Matthew 24:3 is the word in the Greek meaning age
which word means a period of time.
Their
question has to do with the era in which they lived at that time.
That era was still the Mosaic era, the end of which is predicted
in Daniel 9:24ff. Daniel set forth a period of seven sevens followed
by a period of 62 sevens after which the Messiah would be cut off.
This would then be followed by a period of one seven. That
these sevens were years is beyond the scope of our study here
(See the study of the Book of
Daniel.). That last period of seven years has never been
(and in no sense can be) fulfilled immediately after the death of
Christ in the church. That period belongs to the great
tribulation which is an extension of the Mosaic era.
b) General idea
of the timing. In Matthew 24:4-8, Jesus does not answer
immediately the questions asked by the disciples, but He gives a general
idea of the intervening time before the final end of age in question.
The statements were general statements and have no reference to the
church though the church exists during this period. The end of this
time is pictured as the "beginning of sorrows" (literally, birth pangs)
not the sorrows themselves.
c) The Great
Tribulation. The Great Tribulation is pictured in Matthew 24:9-28.
Verse 29 shows the termination of that period. Verse 9
uses the time word then, that is, following that which was set forth
in verses 4-8. It is spoken of as the "great tribulation"
in verse 21 which verse shows that this is a unique time and not
just a reference to tribulations in general.
This
period is described in various Old and New Testament passages. It is
a period that is spoken of as the time of "Jacob's trouble."
It is also a period in which Gentile nations will be judged. It
is also the time of the appearance of a ruler who is described
as the man of sin. Verse 9 shows that this section belongs primarily
to the Jews. No other group of people has been hated by
all nations as have the Jews. By no stretch of the imagination can
this be interpreted to refer to the church although it
can be applied secondarily as the persecution of God's people.
The
gospel that is preached is the gospel of the kingdom, not the
gospel of grace that brings eternal life. The kingdom gospel
will again be declared by the 144,000 as recorded in
Revelation 7:1-8. The end of the Jewish age (after its postponement
for the church age) is set forth beginning with verse 15 in the declaration
concerning the man of sin. Paul sets this forth (so it is seen
that Paul does not contradict Christ) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3,
4. This is Satan's final attempt to claim to be God (See Ezekiel 28:1-10).
Following this are verses dealing with instructions to those who see
these events.
Verses
19, 20 clearly shows that this section is for Jews after the man of sin
is revealed. The prayer is not one believers in this church age need
or would pray. Those who are post-tribulationists sometimes use the
term "elect" in verse 22 to show that the church will go through the tribulation.
As has been stated before, the word "elect" refers to other groups
besides the church. Also, the severity of these days are clearly
set forth in verses 21 and 22.
Though
verses 23-28 has secondary application to this present age, it is primarily
for the Jews prior to Christ's coming in power and glory. His return
is set forth in verses 27 and 28 as described also in Revelation 19:11-21
as well as other passages. The verses following further describe that
coming. The parable following illustrates the certainty of Christ's
coming. The word "generation" is a term meaning race, or family, or
kind. Thus, "this generation" refers to Israelites not the disciples
themselves.
d) Exhortations
to Israel. The section that follows (24:37-25:13) is an
"exhortation to Israel to be prepared for the coming of their
Messiah-King." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, V:129) In the parable
of the ten virgins, the five wise are not to become the Bride. The
marriage mentioned in verse 10 is the marriage feast after the marriage had
already taken place. The details of this and the other parables
are beyond the scope of this page. This is clearly seen in Luke
12:35, 36. The other parables of verses 14-30 continue with matters
with Israel. A person's effort is in view here, not the unmerited favor
that characterizes grace.
e) Judgment of
Gentile nations. Beginning with verses 31-46, Christ turns
to the judgment of Gentile nations. This judgment is determined on
the basis of their treatment of Israelites. The church
is not Christ's brethren; believers are members of His body
and are His Bride. The Israelites, however, are, in a real sense, His
brethren. Before leaving this portion, this writer reminds you that
the primary meaning is for the nation Israel. Selective
portions can be applied to the church secondarily.
3) The Upper Room Discourse. The
upper room discourse is presented in John 13-17 exclusively. This
discourse, unlike the other two is for this present church age.
The Gospel of John
is primarily and foremost the presentation of Jesus Christ as God the
Savior. He does connect it with Messiahship of Jesus.
John 20:31 clearly shows that aspect as well as that of having
eternal life through faith in Him. It is, therefore, erroneous to think
that Paul and the Lord Jesus differed on the nature of the gospel of
grace. It is thus "the voice of Christ and is the foundation
of that which constitutes the positions, possessions, and privileges
of the Christian." (Ibid., V:141)
The truths of this
discourse are completely foreign to the Old Testament economy and also to
the Sermon on the Mount
a) A new
relationship. A new relationship to God through Christ is set forth
in this discourse. The way of salvation is not presented, except
incidentally (John 14:6 for example). John dealt with that way in the
earlier chapters.
The
new relationship is in the fact that the believer in this age is IN
Christ. The Lord announces this in John 14:20. The Apostle Paul
expands this truth in his epistles. This relationship is set forth
through this section in various ways.
Interestingly, His high priestly prayer is for those who would believe
on Him through the message of the gospel as would be preached by the
disciples (Cf. John 17:20). He never prayed for the nation of
Israel this way. The Epistle of Ephesians speaks of this
relationship particularly, and 2 Corinthians 5:17 states it in a brief
way.
b) The cleansing
of sin. The cleansing of sin for unbroken fellowship
is also set forth in this discourse. This idea is set
forth in the washing of the disciples' feet. This washing has
a clearly presented truth. When we are saved, we are clean as suggested by
John 13:10. Jesus is using the illustration of a person who had been
at the baths and bathed. Then walks home; his feet becomes dirty. He
does not need to bathe all over; he needs to wash only his feet. Likewise,
we need not get saved over again; we need to have only our spiritual feet
cleansed. John expands on this truth in 1 John 1:5 -2:2. Paul
deals with this truth in another way by showing we have died to sin (Romans
6).
c) Fruit bearing.
Another theme Christ presents in this discourse is fruit bearing by
abiding in Christ. Here again the aspect being IN Christ is set forth.
There is nothing in this passage that teaches a loss of salvation.
The abiding here has to do with fellowship, not salvation. This
is shown by John 15:10. Some may say that verse 6 shows they lose their
salvation if they abide not in Christ. He is cast forth as a
branch. He did not cease to be a branch. So, salvation is not
in view. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 suggests this truth also.
d) New relationship
to Holy Spirit. One finds in this section a new relationship to
the Holy Spirit. Here He is announced as another Comforter as the same
kind as Christ.
The
promise is given initially in John 14:16, 17. This promise is the result
of Christ's prayer in contrast to the Luke 11:13 where the Holy Spirit
is given to them that ask. In this passage in John it is evident that
every believer partakes of the Holy Spirit. Also, because of
Christ's prayer, it is an unchangeable fact. John touches on
this truth in 1 John 2:27.
In
John 16:7-11 is a further promise of the Holy Spirit. His
work of convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment
is mentioned here, but it is in relation to the believer's Comforter. John
16:12-15 shows that the Holy Spirit would guide believers into the truth
as well as revealing truth through the disciples.
e) New
relationship between believers. The Lord set forth in this discourse
a new relationship between believers. In John 17:11 as well as in verses
21-23, Christ speaks of the unity of all believers. That
is an organic rather than an organizational unity (as pushed by
ecumenicalists) is evident not only here, but the Apostle Paul's amplifying
of this truth in Ephesians 4:1ff. This unity is seen in the image
of believers being in the body of Christ. It is also set
forth in the picture of the church as the Bride of Christ. It
is the unity of the Spirit that must be maintained by believers, not
the unity of an organization.
f) New basis for
prayer. Jesus also states in this discourse a new basis for prayer.
This is mentioned in John 14:12-14; 15:7, 16; and 16:23, 24, 26.
The
first passage shows that prayer is to be in the name of Jesus Christ.
This was not the case during most of His earthly ministry. This
praying in His name is due to the fact that we are now IN Christ.
Also,
believers are in partnership with Him in His work. John 15:7
(cf. verse 16) shows that believers prayers can be unlimited--"Ye shall
ask what ye will." That is based, however, on abiding in Christ
and His words abiding in us. By having His Word in us, we know what
to pray for because we know His will. In John 16:23, 24 shows
that this basis for prayer is new for He said, "Hitherto have ye asked nothing
in My name."
g) The promise
of His return. The final topic Jesus deals with in this discourse
is the promise of His return. This is set forth in John 14:1-3.
Paul deals with this in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. This return
is confirmed after His ascension in Acts 1:11.
We have very briefly touched on the three
major discourses that Jesus gave in His ministry here on earth. There
are, of course, more truths in these discourses than that on which
this writer has touched. Each of these discourses can be studied
in detail, but this writer has only given a brief outline.
b. Parables. Parables are essentially stories
used to illustrate a truth or truths. That Jesus used parables is evident;
in Matthew 13:11-17 He explains why He used them. This passage is
a turning point in Christ's ministry, for most of His parables
were given from this time on.
Israel as a nation was rejecting Him as
their Messiah-King. He explains that their hearts and minds are blinded
even quoting Isaiah 6:9, 10. Parables are not meant to teach doctrine
as such; they were divine illustrations.
Parables are generally declared to be
such; therein a caution must be made that we do not consider something
to be a parable if it is not stated to be so. Sometimes a phrase
such as "this or that is like unto something." This indicates a parable
even if not specified as such. Whenever a story has a person named,
it is NOT a parable.
1) The Messianic parables. There
are five groups of parables that have to do with the Messianic kingdom.
a) The postponement
of the kingdom. The first group has five parables concerned
with the postponement of the kingdom. There is the parable in Luke
12:35-40. Matthew 24:45-51 and Luke 12:42-48 is the second one. The
third parable is found in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-17. The fourth
parable is found in the three synoptic gospels: Matthew 24:32-35; Luke 21:29-33;
and Mark 13:28-31. Mark alone gives the fifth, Mark 13:34-37.
b) The preparation
for coming kingdom. The second set also have
five parables with regard to the preparation for the coming of the
kingdom. Mark records the first of these in Mark 4:26-29.
The three gospels give us the second one in Matthew 13:31, 32; Mark
4:3-32; and Luke 13:18, 19. The third one is found in Matthew 13:33
and Luke 13:20, 21. The fourth and fifth are found only in Matthew
13:44 and 13:45, 46 respectively.
c) The establishing
of the kingdom. Six parables constitute the third group having
to do with the establishing of the kingdom. The first is found in Luke
14:16-24. The second through fifth are only presented in Matthew at
18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:28-32; and 22:2-14. The last one is set
forth in all three gospels: Matthew 21:33-44; Mark 12:1-12; and Luke
20:9-18.
d) Cleansing,
separation, and judgment. Three parables speak of cleansing,
separation, and judgment. These are all found in Matthew one right
after the other in 25:1-13, 25:14-30, and 25:31-46.
e) Separation of
evil from good. The last group of Messianic parables
are two regarding the separation of evil from the good. Both
of these occur in Matthew 13: verses 24-30, 36-43; and 47-50.
2) General parables. These
general parables occur in Luke only with the exception of the parable
of salt found in all three gospels at Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50; and
Luke 14:34, 35.
The other parables
are only in Luke: the creditor and two debtors in 7:41-50; the good
samaritan in 10:30-37; the rich fool in 12:16-34; the barren fig tree in
13:6-9; the building of a tower in 14:28-30; a king going to war,
14:31-33; the three restorations in 15:1-32; the unjust steward found in
16:1-13; a parable regarding service in 17:7-10; the unjust judge in 18:1-8;
and the story of the Pharisee and the publican in 18:9-14.
c. Special messages. There are some teachings
of Jesus found in more or less disconnected messages.
1) Those in Mark. Mark states
four of these: warning about hell in 9:42-50; the law regarding
divorce (Matthew deals with this in 19:1-9 with mention in 5:31, 32;
cf. Luke16:18) in Mark 10:1-12; warning regarding riches in 10:23-31;
and the great commandments in 12:13-17.
2) Those in Luke. Luke
presents our Lord's revelation about Himself in 4:16-30; teaching on
prayer in 11:1-13; a warning about the leaven of the Pharisees in 12;1-15;
and the rich man and Lazarus in 16:19-34 (This is not a parable
as some teach, but historical fact.).
3) Instruction on forgiveness.
Matthew 18:21-35 and Luke 17:1-6 present instruction on forgiveness.
4) The ones in John. The remaining
teachings are all in the Gospel of John where He taught about eternal
life in 3:1-21; the Water of life in 4:1-45; some general teaching
to the Jews in 5:17-47; the Bread of life in 6:1-71; the Light of the
world in 8:1-59; the Good shepherd found in 10:1-39; and special instruction
given to Andrew and Philip set forth in 12:23-50.
5) Ones spoken to individuals.
It should be noted that Jesus Christ made some important
declarations while speaking to individuals. This is an interesting
study which ranges from the conversation with a lawyer in Luke 10:24-37 to
His conversation with Pilate recorded in all four gospels.
Very briefly, we considered the teachings
of Jesus Christ. This web site is not intended to be exhaustive.
These teachings can each be examined in detail.
2. Christ's Miracles. The intention is this section is not to
study the miracles of Christ in any detail which is beyond the scope
of this web site. A miracle can be defined as "some special
achievement which is outside the known laws of either human experience
or nature." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, V:170) A couple of
general comments need to be made.
a. Satanic lying wonders. It must be kept
in mind that Satan has in the past, and will in the future, produce "lying
wonders" (Cf. Acts 16:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:1ff.). It
is because of this fact that much false or incomplete doctrine has
been sanctioned.
Though this writer is not of that
group that says God no longer does miracles, He does not do so today for
the purpose of authenticating doctrine.
On the other hand, much of
so-called miracles today are either bogus or satanic in origin, particularly
when it is used to valid some teaching that is contrary to the Word of
God. One must also keep in mind that the majority of godly
men in both the Old and New Testaments wrought no miracles. Though
a study could be made of the Old Testament
miracles as well as those wrought by men of the early church,
the concern here is with those done by Christ.
Why miracles ceased after the close
of the first century is controversial. It is not
a matter of faith, for there has been many spiritual believers who
never did miracles or were blessed by receiving a miracle. 1 Corinthians
13:8 shows that some gifts (including tongues) would vanish away.
This writer believes that this was the case when the Bible was completed
after John penned the Book of Revelation.
b. Purpose of Christ's miracles. As
to the miracles of Christ, they were to authenticate His claim
as the Christ, the Son of God, and thus very God. John 20:30,
31 declares, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing ye might have life through His name."
Most of His miracles were in connection with His kingdom teaching,
although those in John were recorded for the expressed purposed stated
above.
c. The terms of miracles. Several
terms are used in referring to miracles (though that term is not used).
1) The first term is
wonder. This term is the result of astonishment the
particular incident produced in those seeing the miracle. The term
is never used alone but in conjunction with other words such as "signs and
wonders." Thus, the miracle is not to produce an effect, but rather
it was to draw attention to a spiritual truth.
2) The second term used is
sign. A sign is an indication that God is working,
and the ethical aspect is more prominent than in the term "wonder." They
were used to confirm the word spoken (Cf. Mark 16:20; also see John
20:30, 31)
3) A third term term used is that of
powers or mighty works. The power resides in the
divine Messenger, but it is manifested as a mighty work. John
often simply uses the word works.
We have only briefly considered the matter of Christ's miracles. R. C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord, has written extensively on this subject and should be consulted for a more detailed study.
We have presented briefly various aspects of the life of Jesus Christ. The next page deals with His death, and this is followed by the web page on His resurrection.