But tonight, we're going to keep going on the incomparable Christ. Hopefully you've read some of those books on Christ, such as the Sanders book and the comparable Christ or whatever. We've talked about his eternality or pre-existence. We talked about his deity. He was indeed God. Now we're going to talk about his incarnation. And with that, on the next below that, virgin birth, the next page, humanity and his person and all those kind of go together. And we're going to come to some conclusions at the bottom of page two and then also on page three. But let's just start with his Incarnation. First of all, it's a big word. What does it mean? Obviously, it's a transliteration of a Latin word. Incarnate. Chili con carne. Anybody like chili con carne? What does that mean? With meat. With flesh. All right. Anytime there's con, it's with, and carne is flesh, so carne is flesh. Incarnation means incarnation. Flesh, in the flesh, very good. So the Latin word means to embody in, that's the blank there, and incarnate as flesh, in flesh. Or here's the formal definition, it's the divine act in which the son was eternally embodied in human nature, flesh and form. We're going to get to the eternally part of that. It took me a long time before I figured that one out and I was raised in a church and studied all the things and I just didn't realize he was eternally. embodied in flesh. But anyway, we'll get to that in a minute. Now, note the terms used to describe the coming into this world of one who as God already and always existed. How do you explain to somebody that this baby was born when he already existed for all eternity past? You know, I mean, you just got a little bit of a difficulty there using the right words to make sure you don't say the wrong thing about the reality of it. We could have a whole lot of verses, but let's go with these. Somebody look up John 6, 51. Raise your hand. Thank you, Michelle. Somebody read Galatians 4. You don't want to hit your head. Galatians 4, 4. Somebody look that one up. Thank you, Bryant. And somebody look up Hebrews 2, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Thank you, Al. And the rest of you can pick whichever one you want. And as soon as you get to John 6, 51, who's got it? Michelle. All right. Notice how carefully The various words are used to make sure that you realize you maintain his deity. He always did exist, but he also became flesh or was embodied in flesh. So read it, would you please? Okay. I'm the living bread, which came down from heaven. And so that's one phrase that's used. And sometimes in the scriptures, it will say he came down from heaven. I'm the living bread who came down from heaven. How about Galatians 4.4? Okay. Sent forth his son, born of the woman, born under the law. And so he can use that phrase born, but he also has to use sent forth. God sent forth his son. And so he's already preexistent. How about Hebrews 2 verse 14, 15, 16 and 17? We'll stop right there. He himself likewise shared in the same. You notice the careful wording there. I've got a whole list someplace of all the words that are used to describe how he came down from heaven, how he was sent from his Father. He shared into our flesh. Those kinds of statements. Philippians 2, we're going to get to in a little while, etc., etc. So the Bible is very careful to give those words that tell you he was embodied in human flesh or in flesh. Here are some things that changed in his life. We just read John 6, verse 51. He came down. That's a change in his dwelling. He came down from heaven to earth. So there was a change in his dwelling place. He was in heaven. Now he's down on earth. 2 Corinthians 8, 9. Does anybody remember that one? He was rich. Yet for your sakes he became poor. There's a change in his possessions. Change in his possessions. It was from riches to poverty. You could mark there Luke chapter 9 and verse 58. Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the son of man doesn't even have a place to lay his head. And so there was a change in his possessions. John 17 5. Somebody have it? Or remember it? Go ahead, Brenda. All right, so there was a change in his glory. He once lived in glory. He was in glory and no longer there now. He's in obscurity. In fact, Isaiah 53 says what? He's despised and rejected the men, but before that says, we esteemed him not. We saw no merit in who he was. We looked at him and never even caught that he was anything different than anyone else. In fact, there was no form nor comeliness, and when we beheld him, there was no beauty that we should desire him. So he went from glory to obscurity. Philippians 2. Turn there if you would. Philippians 2. We're going to keep going back there tonight a lot. Verse 6 and 7. Somebody read that. Yep. Okay. Two things are happening there. First of all, there's a change in his position. He was equal with God. And now he became a servant of man. I mean, that's a well of a difference in one sense. And so in his incarnation, he changed his position. He also changed his form, being in the form of God. We're going to study that a little bit later on. So we'll go into that. He was in the form of God. He now was in the likeness, the form of a servant and the likeness of a man. And there's a distinct word that's changed there from form to likeness. So he changed his dwelling place, his possessions, his glory, his position and his form. And now he's in the likeness of man. Of all of those five, were all of them permanent or temporary? Yes. Except the last one. All right. And we're going to see that a little bit later on. He had a permanent transformation into the likeness of man. And that's very significant as we get further on. All the changes were temporary except his being made in the likeness of man. That was permanent. And he will always be in the likeness of man. Here's the question that goes along with it in the incarnation and somewhat with his deity and his humanity. John 1.1. In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God. All right. If you understand. grammar at all. And I gave you a sheet on this a couple of weeks ago, probably last week, a little bit. The Jehovah's Witnesses use that verse more than any other verse to prove that Jesus was a God. All right. Now, you understand that in our language, we have a definite article of the, the man, the car, the whatever. So I said, go get the car to my son. That meant I have a definite car in mind. He would probably know it. Because somehow the context, he would know it's the car. Not any car in a parking lot, but the car. If I said, go get a car, that means I got six cars out there. Go get a car. Which one does he have to get? He can get any one. It's indefinite. So we have a definite article, the. We have an indefinite article, a or an. And in Greek, they don't have that. They don't have an indefinite article. They don't have an a or an an. You'll never see that. They just have a definite article or nothing. So I can go, I can say, go get the car. I can say, go get a car, or I can say, go get car. That doesn't sound good in English. All right. In John 1.1 it says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was translated. It's just translated God. The Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you that generally when there's not a definite article in Greek, generally We supply the word a or an. And so it should be translated in the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was a God. And grammatically from the Greek language, that is a legitimate way to translate it. And therefore, they would prove to you and then when you when they come to your door, that's what they're going to run to right away when you get onto the deity. Well, John one one says that he was a God. You say, well, it's not in my Bible. My Bible says God. And they'll show you their Bible says a God. And then they will quote, the article I gave you is a quote from one of the leading conservative Greek scholars of our day, which proves that they're right. Or in a sense, it could very well be. If you read the article, you realize he then takes it all away from you. How do you handle that? Here's the thing. Was he the God? Was he a God? Or was he God? Yeah. The truth is, When there isn't a definite article in Greek, we have three options. We have definite article, indefinite article or nothing. We have three options. They only have two options. Definite article or nothing. All right. And we can supply A if it seems like it sounds better to us or we can leave it out. The truth is what it's trying to say in John 1, and don't try to say something in John 1 that it doesn't say. What it's trying to say is this. He was. If you want to use the word A, it's all right with me. And if it says he was a God, it doesn't mean there's more than him, does it? If I said, go get a car and there's only one car out there, what car are you going to get? All right. I don't have to be definite because there's only one, right? I don't have to be definite. There is only one car out there. The fact is, the fact that it is indefinite, if you would, is not a proof that he's one of many gods at all. What John is trying to say is he is the one who has all the characteristics of God. There's no one else like that, by the way, in history, but John doesn't say that necessarily. He is the one who has all the characteristics of God. In other words, he's God. Anybody who has all the characteristics of God, they're going to get you confused on that. You're going to run around around. Let me just tell you one thing I did once in the standing in the driveway and in the Byron, New York, two of them came to me and they were waxing eloquent about all that kind of stuff. And I said, well, boy, if you could show it to me in the Greek, I'd probably, you know, because they're going in the Greeks as the Greeks is. I said, well, you know, if you could show it to me in the Greek. Oh, yeah, it's in the Greeks. I said, well, just a minute. I went to my house, got my Greek New Testament. I said, why don't you do it? And they had it upside down. They were trying to find it in their Greek Bible and had the Greek Bible upside down, which means they don't have a clue what Greek meant. I said, here, let me help you. I turned it around. I said, now find it. And of course, they didn't know where John was, because it's all Greek to them. And so we had a real good time. And finally, they left. And they're just blowing smoke. They are truly lying to you. I don't think they know they're lying. They are lying to you. And if you have any ability in the Greek language, you can just make them look really stupid. Anyway, it is not the God or a God. He's God. He has all the characteristics of God. So the word was made flesh, John 1, 14. So, how did that happen? Well, that's the next article that we're going to study, namely His virgin birth. Matthew 1.20 was conceived of the Holy Spirit as the clearest statement of it. And that just helps us to get a start for it. But let's find some statements. Remember in Genesis 3.15, there is the fall of mankind. And somebody read that for us. I got a few words there from Genesis 3.15, but somebody read the whole passage. Yes, anybody. Yep. Yeah, enmity. Okay, between your seed and her seed, which is a very, to us in our day and age, men, women, you know, we're not too big on that, but to a Jewish way of thinking, a Jewish mind is never her seed. Even though she has to bear the child, it's never her seed, it's his seed. That's my son. I'm the dad. That's my son. And you'd find it's always his seed, Abraham's seed, Isaac's seed. It's always the man's seed. It's never the woman's. Here, right away, it's her seed and that would jump out to a Jewish reader like, wow, that's different. Where's the man? And so even from the start, we recognize there's an indication that somehow there's going to be a seed born of a woman. And all the way through the Old Testament they're looking for the seed of the woman. And that's really strange to a Jewish mind because that implies there was no guy involved. And how can that be? So obviously it started there. But let's go to Isaiah 7, verse 14. Isaiah 7, verse 14 in the clearest Old Testament prophecy regarding it. Can somebody read that? Alright. There you have, in the context of that day, there were some kings who were attacking another king, Ahaz, and he was a little worried about the whole thing. And God said to him in verse 10, Moreover, the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God. Ask it either in the depth or in the height above. Just ask me for anything. to give you a sign that what I'm telling you is true. You stand up for me, do the right thing, I'll defend you against all those enemies that are coming in. And, of course, Ahaz says, whoa, I'm not going to ask a sign. I mean, to ask a sign of God is like not really trusting Him, so I'm not going to do it. God says, I'm going to give you a sign anyway. Here's the sign I'm going to give. Watch this one. Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and you will call His name Immanuel. There are three things that should jump out at you. Real quickly, first of all, the word virgin is going to conceive a son. Wow, that doesn't happen. You're no longer a virgin when you conceive a son. So virgin. And it's not a virgin, but it's very definite in the Hebrew language there. It's the virgin. Like there's one virgin. And so the virgin shall conceive a son. And then guess what his name is going to be? Emmanuel, which means God with us. All of that should have stacked up to really grab their attention and it did. The Old Testament readers of that prophetic section were just like standing in awe, like how could this possibly be? When we talk about translations, one of the factors in the reliability of a translation is the guys who do it, the people who do it. If you happen to be a strong Baptist, you're going to kind of see things your way and if you're a strong liberal, you're going to see it your way and whatever. So you're going to kind of tend to see things the way they are. One of the reasons some people are very critical of the Revised Standard Version, some of the liberal translations done by liberals, is instead of virgin, what word did they use? Young lady, young woman. As Martin Luther said, if anybody can show me anywhere in the Hebrew language where that word means young lady, I'll give them, I think it was like a thousand farlings or whatever kind of thing it is. And the Lord knows where I get it. Because that's Luther, you know. He said it just can't be. And the liberals would say it can be. It can be. The Hebrew word Alma can be mean young lady. It doesn't mean she's a virgin. And you could debate that until you're about blue in the face with them and with other people if you want. But there's one way to help you to answer that. When the Jews translated it from Hebrew into Greek, There is a distinct word which means virgin in Greek, Parthenos. And guess which word they chose to translate the Hebrew word Alma? Parthenos. When they came to Isaiah 714, they understood it to mean virgin in the true sense of that word. And so in the LXX or the Septuagint, it's translated with the Greek word virgin or Parthenos. You say, well, you know, those are just Jewish guys and maybe they were prejudiced against it and they wanted to prove that or whatever. Well, let's go to Matthew. And chapter 1 in verse 23, and see how God did when he translated it, because God also translated it in the New Testament. Somebody read Matthew 1.23. All right. Sounds awful lot like Isaiah 7.14, doesn't it? Well, it's all in Greek in the New Testament, it's all in Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the word virgin is that Greek word for virgin, parthenos. So you have a clear statement in the Old Testament, Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14, a virgin shall be with child. And so that's why we come up with the statement of virgin birth. She was indeed a virgin who bore a child. There's some other indications that it clearly is a virgin birth. Go with me to Matthew 1.16. And somebody read that. It might not jump out at you, but a little phrase, of whom was born? Who's the whom? Well, a pronoun always has an antecedent. If you have the word he, you look for who's the he. If you have a she, you look for who's the she. If you have a you, it's who's the you. Here's the pronoun of whom. Who's the whom? Of whom was born Jesus? You've got two options in the text in an English way of looking at it. It's Joseph or Mary. So he was born of Joseph, he was born of Mary. The truth is in our language whom can be male or female, it doesn't matter. But in the Greek language it's defined and it's, is it feminine or masculine? It's got to be feminine and it is. It's singular feminine and the only antecedent in the vicinity is Mary. So there you have another statement. So although Joseph and Mary are identified there, the one of whom he was born was Mary, okay, and it doesn't say Joseph. How about Luke 135? Somebody read that one. All right. Remember, as you read before that, this angel comes to Mary and says, you know, you're going to have a child. She says, whoa, that's going to be special because I've never known a man. How can that possibly be? She asked a logical question for a young lady. And of course, the answer in verse 25, the Holy Spirit will come upon you. That is the answer for it. So there's another indication. of the virgin birth. Luke 3.23 is another one. There are many, many other ones, but Luke 3.23, somebody read that one. Absolutely. Being, if you took out that little parenthesis, as was supposed, being the son of Joseph, it would just say he was the son of Joseph. But what does it supply there in that little thing? It's a little parenthesis, as was supposed. In other words, the people in the town figured what? I mean, you have to conclude Joseph was the dad, as was supposed, but it's very careful in scripture to make sure that it covers all those tracks because if it didn't have a little parenthesis, we might be okay with it, but it makes it very clear to us that he wasn't really the son of Joseph. And if he wasn't the son of Joseph, then you've got to figure out who he was the son of. And unless you're a liberal and come up with some German soldier who happened to be passing through town, you've got to conclude what the rest of the scripture says. One other verse that's not there is Galatians 4.4, which you read before. In the fullness of time, God sent forth his son, born of a woman. There it is, born of a woman again. And so all the way through scripture, it's very clear, although in one sense Joseph is called his father. in a few places. In another sense, it's always modified slightly and really it's always his mother. It's always his mother and it's very, very clear to us. Now, what's the significance of that? Well, there's at least two. For one thing, it fulfills prophecy. That's always a significant thing. That's not stated here. I'd like you to read Jeremiah 22 and verse 30. God had a little bit of a problem, but with God, problems aren't so big because he can take care of them. All right. In Jeremiah 22 verse 30, if you can follow the genealogy of all things here, he makes a statement, and if you go back to verse 28 it says, is this man Coniah, a despised, broken idol? And if you look in your margins, it's very clear from various places such as verse 24 and other, Coniah is really Jeconiah, and Coniah is just a shortened form of it, or Jehoiakim, which is another way of saying it. We're talking about Jeconiah, Coniah, Jehoiakim, that one who was in the lineage of David, Solomon, da, da, da, down to Jeconiah. And it says in verse 30, thus says the Lord, this guy was so bad, God said this, write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, and none of his descendants shall prosper sitting on the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah. So God says, okay, David has a son Solomon, Solomon was king, Solomon had a son, he was king, da, da, da, that goes on down. And down the line you go to Jeconiah and he says, Jeconiah, you're so bad, you're going to be childless and not one of your descendants is going to sit on the throne of David. So all of a sudden you also recognize there's something else going on. If you went to 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 12 through 16, you'd realize that God had said to David, you will always have a son sitting on the throne. And he had said to Solomon, he'll come through your line. So now we got a thing through the line of Solomon, David, Solomon and down through there's going to come this son who's going to sit on the throne and ultimately the son is going to sit on the throne who we know as Jesus Christ, except in Jeremiah says it's it. We're done right there with Jeconiah. Never again. So which do you believe? On one side, he says, through the lineage of Solomon, there's going to be born the son by the name of Jesus eventually. Another place he said, we're stopping it right here. Now we've got a problem. Well, here's what happens. If you look at the genealogy in Matthew and the genealogy in Luke, they're different at one point. Here's David. He's got a couple of sons, a bunch of sons. One of them is Solomon. And we would expect the lineage to keep going down. The legal lineage, according to 2 Samuel, has to be through that line. But somewhere along the line, he said, no, we're shutting it off. So God has to fulfill his promise without allowing that son to be on there. So it's that son. And ultimately, we are told that Joseph is born and of Joseph is Jesus. So through that line, Solomon and down, Jeconiah, Joseph, Jesus. There's another line that goes like this, David, Nathan, Nathan and down. And it's Mary, that's the one recorded in Luke. and of Mary is Jesus. And you put them two together, because of the virgin birth, he was born biologically through Mary and has a biological tie to David. But because he was the son of Joseph, technically, legally, if you would, not biologically, but technically legally, he is connected all the way up through Jeconiah, through Solomon to David. So one is the in Matthew, we have the legal claim to the throne. He can take it takes you right back from from Jesus to Joseph and right on back through through Jeconiah, through Solomon, through David. He has a legal claim to the throne. He is indeed the son of David legally, but biologically isn't. He is biologically. of the lineage of David as well and that's through Mary and so he has a claim on the throne physically or biologically and that's recorded in Luke. And if it had not been for the virgin birth that could not have happened because he would have had a biological father somebody and that would have negated the biological claim through Mary and it's the only way it could have been done. That's an interesting feature there and so if you draw the chart you get David at the top, two sons Nathan and Solomon and of course he had more Under Nathan, you get to Mary and Jesus. On this side, you get Solomon, Jeconiah, ultimately Joseph and Jesus. And he has a legal claim and he has a biological or a physical claim to the throne. And the virgin birth allows that. But there's a more important reason for the virgin birth. And what would that be according to Luke 1.35? It was without sin. It was the only way that he really could be born and ultimately, as we'll find in the next section, truly God and truly man. The Holy Spirit will be the one through whom she conceived. The Holy Spirit will come upon you. The power of the highest will overshadow you. Therefore, also that holy one who is to be born of you will be called the Son of God. And so he is indeed the one who is sinless deity and yet fully human. and it was only in the virgin birth that that could be. Okay? Any questions on page one? By the way, if you go back under changes, under Philippians 2, 6 and 7, where it says in his position, from equality with God to servanthood, you might also write down next to that one, Hebrews 5, 8, you know what it says? He learned obedience. He had to learn to obey. Why did he have to learn to obey? Does that mean he was a sinner? Does that mean he was a rabble rousing rebel? No. He had never had to obey anybody. Why not? He was fully God. God doesn't have to obey anybody. God can do whatever he wants. Now you become man. You become incarnate. He was equal with God. Now he came as a servant of man and he had to learn to obey his mom and dad. It doesn't mean he ever sinned, it just means he had to learn it. That must have been quite an education on his part. Usually for us it's the other way around, but he had to learn to obey. Very good. Any comments on page 1? Very good. Let's go to His humanity, which kind of goes with it. 1 Timothy 2.5 is one of the key verses. The man Jesus Christ. He truly is man. The Bible speaks of Christ as one who has all the essential elements of a true human body, or human being, I should say. What is not listed there, you might just list it in the margin there, he has a human body. For example, Matthew 1.18 says he was born, he was a baby, you know, he had a body. People touched him. You can just read through the Gospels, you realize people bumped into him and people touched him and whatever. He had a human body. And also we find out he had a human spirit, Matthew 23, verse 46. And so he had all the essential elements of a human. He had a human body and spirit. And that made him a human in one sense. All right. But notice the verses I have here. Luke 2, 5 says he began as a baby. All right. That's how humans start. You know, that's how we all start. We started as babies and so did he. He was born of a woman. conceived slightly different than the rest of us, but he was ultimately conceived and born. See, that would tell you he's a human. Luke 2.52. Remember that one? Came back from the temple. He had stayed in the temple too long, etc., etc. And it says he grew in wisdom, stature, and in favor with God and favor with man. He grew like anybody else. I mean, he once was a little baby. He grew up physically. I mean, he grew like any other human being would grow. grew up to be a boy and then a man. Mark 3, 5, somebody look that one up. Just raise your hand if you would. Somebody, thank you, Nick. Somebody look up Matthew 4, 2. Raise your hand, thank you, Michelle. John 4, 6, Johnny. John 1, 10, Brenda. And John 19, 30, Bryant. All right, let's just pick these up. The point here is he has the essential elements of a true human. Mark 3, 5. Somebody's got that. Nick, I think. All right. At the beginning of it, he was moved with anger and he was grieved. Those are what? Those are emotions. He had emotions like normal human beings. You could find places where he loved, where he hated, where he got angry. He was grieved. One place you know what he did? He wept. He was sad. All right. Now on the list goes. So he had the emotions of a normal human being. Love, compassion, anger, grief, sadness, sorrow, on and on it goes. All right. How about Matthew 4.2? All right. He had an appetite like who? Like all of us. All right. I don't know how you fast 40 days and 40 nights, but I think you'd be very hungry. And you'd find he had the appetite, he was hungry. Even after his resurrection, by the way, he was hungry. Did you know that? Resurrected body, you get hungry. Just think on all of eternity, we're going to have to be on a diet. I can't imagine that. But anyway, John, chapter four, verse six. And if you read on, he said, give me some water to drink, right? He was thirsty. So he was weary. He was thirsty. You'd find places where he was hungry, etc., etc., etc. So he had certain human limitations. I mean, if he wasn't human, if it was just this phantom appearance of God, why would he get hungry? Why would he get tired? Gods don't get tired. Gods don't get hungry. Gods don't get thirsty. John 1.10. Okay. The world did not know him. I know you can't quite catch that. But he looked like any other human being. When he walked on the face of this earth, people didn't say, oh, wow, God. I think if it was just God, he wasn't human, you'd go, wow, there's something different about this person. In fact, as I quoted in Isaiah 52, there is no beauty that we should desire in him. He was not king of the class. He was not the world's best looking guy. He wasn't the one that you said, wow, there's something physically like that. He looked like people, like you and I would look. You could find a lot of verses where people would talk to him like he was a normal human being. How about John 19 verse 30, Bryant? Alright, if you read through that whole section, he experienced pain or suffering, maybe would be a better word, just like humans suffer. If he wasn't a human, if he was just God or a phantom appearance of God or whatever, you know, the whipping and the The crucifixion and the pain and et cetera, et cetera would not have been feelings to him. So he was truly man. He was humanity. He was that. Let's go to the next one. We'll put this all together. His person, the mystery of God, even Christ. All right. The issue here is the union of the two natures. Talk to me about the difference between when I use the word person, when I use the word attribute and when I use the word nature. What's a person? Am I a person? I hope. You say yes. What is a person? All right. Yeah. Okay. God is a person by the way too, so don't limit it to humans. What's the difference between me and this thing right here? This is not a person, trust me. All right. All right. So a person, when you talk about a person it's a being. Generally we say he has emotions, intellect, will, maybe some other words like that. And so, I think we know what a person is, but I just wanted to see if you could define it. Obviously, you can't do it any better than anybody else. But anyways, it's a being, a living being with intellect and emotions and will and some other things like that. What's an attribute? All right. So, what is one of the attributes of Richmond Hewcliffe? Well, he's 6'1", right? I got a lot of attributes, right? You have a lot of attributes. We have and all those attributes. What's a nature? We're going to talk about two natures, one person. So we've got to distinguish what's a nature. Okay, you can have a sin nature and little Johnny here. I'm sorry Johnny, you weren't like this. But the rest of us when we grew up, we had a sin nature and we just had a... What is a nature? Okay. The way we are. I mean, if I said he acts like a dog, So, he's got the nature of a dog. I mean, dogs do this. They bark or whatever it is that you think of dogs, right? A nature is the complexity of our attributes that make us who we are, all right? All right? So, you ever hear Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, that story, you know? One person, and at one time, he had this kind of a nature. And I've seen people like this. One day, they're really, really nice, you know? Bipolar. All right. Sounds good, all right? Next day, you can't believe who you're meeting. They seem to be the same person. So keep that in mind. The issue here is the union of the two natures, the nature of God. He has all the attributes and complexity of the attributes of God. That's his nature of God. He also has the nature of man, the complexity of the attributes of man. We've seen many of them listed and understood it. In Matthew 11, verse 27, it says the two natures. Somebody have that verse? Somebody read it. Go ahead, David. So who really knows the Son? Only the Father. In other words, the two natures we cannot totally understand or come to fully know. And I think we have to start there. When you talk about the God-Man, you and I accept that. In some ways, we understand it. We have no problem with it. But there are people who have problems with it, and then you try to explain it to them, and somehow you might get lost in the shuffle once in a while. And you just have to start and say, we cannot fully understand that. And Matthew 11, verse 27 seems to imply that. How about Romans 1, 3 and 4? Somebody read that. While they're looking it up, somebody look up Luke 5, 24. Who's going to look up Romans 1? Thank you, Brian. Who's going to look up Luke 5? Nick, who's going to look up Hebrews 2? Verse 14, Al. And then Hebrews 7, 24 and 25. One more hand. Thank you, Johnny. Great. Who had the first one? Bryant, I think. Alright. And as you go through there, you get Not confused, but he's jumping back and forth from humanity to deity and back and forth almost it seems like. What it says is it's the two natures, although united in one person, yet remained distinct from each other. And you could identify him as the man, Jesus, and you could identify him as the deity or the son of God, Jesus. And so he has two natures. He has the nature of deity, he has the nature of humanity, and yet there's one person. And so the two natures, although united in one person, remain distinct. They didn't get so messed up that you looked at him and you thought, is that a man or is that God? You know, when they saw him, they saw him as a man. And then at other times, Peter would say, my Lord and my God. So they didn't, you know, if I was half man and half God, you wouldn't say there's a man. You'd say there's a modified man, right? And you'd say there's a modified God. But of him, you would find it's always talked like he's man, he's God, just like he's fully man, fully God. How about Luke 5, 24? All right. By this union, the divine nature imparts its power to... His divine nature imparts its power to the human nature. So the son of man forgives sins. Who forgives sins? Only God. So you can add to that its power to human nature. Hebrews 2.14, Al. All right. By this union, certain human experiences are made possible for the divine person. God actually, if you would, Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, He was allowed to experience things like you and me experienced them. And if it wasn't for His incarnation, that would not have been possible. So two natures, one person. The second one there for Hebrews 2.14, this union made it possible for one person to be the mediator between God and man. You'd find that in verse 15 and 16. And so that is true. How about Hebrews 7, verse 24 and 25? He always lives to make intercession for them. All right. And the point I'm trying to find there in that verse is this union is permanent. It's everlasting. He ever lives. He ever lives. All right. I think you could clearly show that after his death, he continued to be called the son of man. He appeared to people in his resurrected body and they recognized him as a man, different than us in the sense that he doesn't have a body like ours, but it was a resurrected body, etc. And so his union, that union between the two natures was permanent. So you got some lines there. Is Jesus still fully divine and fully human? Is that still true? And the answer is absolutely. Yes. So on those lines, here's what you're going to do. I'm going to, we're going to go this way. Okay. So you're going to go from your left to your right, from that side of your paper to that side. All right. You got a line that goes, boom. That's his, before his birth, he came down to earth. That's where you're going to drop down to the lower line. You're just going to go down. He came and that's his birth. That point is his birth. He's going to live on earth for 33 years and that's going to be the cross or his ascension. And he goes back up to heaven. All right. That line is going to be called his deity. Started in eternity past as God. When he was born, he was still God. And now he's still God. He's always been God. Got it? Let me draw it for you. Just like that. It's real simple. He started in eternity. He passed as God, came to this earth. He's still God in that line. Now throughout all eternity, he'll always be God. Now underneath it, underneath it, starting right here with his birth, you're going to have another line just like that as a starting point. That's his humanity. His humanity has a starting point. He was not human in eternity past. He was only divine. So right there, he started to be man at his birth. When he died and ascended, that did not end. That keeps on going. So now for all of eternity, he will be the God-man. The God-man. Does that make sense? It's not complicated. Probably the lines make it more complicated than I was trying to do. And so that's very significant, very, very significant. We'll see that in just a few lines down, all right? So there's the question, is Jesus still fully divine and human? The answer is yes. But his humanity started at birth, all right? Now let's go to Philippians 2, 5 and 6 and 7. And this is the great kenosis passage and helps us to take all that we've learned about his deity, his humanity, his incarnation, his virgin birth, his person, et cetera, et cetera, his two natures, his one person, two natures, et cetera, et cetera. And how do we put that all together? Philippians chapter 2, in verse 5, 6, and 7, said, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Here's the phrase. Who, being in the form of God, did not consider robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, or made himself of no reputation, depending on your translation, made himself of no reputation, and taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. Now we've got to pick up a bunch of things here. Notice the word form. It's found twice. Form of God, verse 6, form of a bondservant. So there's a word form. There's also the word likeness. What's the difference between the form, when he uses that word, and likeness? You've probably studied this before, so tell me. When he says the form of God, the form of a bondservant, versus the likeness of man. Why didn't it say the form of man? He was in the form of God. He became the form of a servant. Then he took on himself the likeness of a man. Sure, you got all the answers, right? Okay. Now I'm totally confused. All right. Let me explain it this way. Let me explain it this way. You ever see apple trees? No? Some people are going to walk through an orchard and tell you that's an apple tree. You say, how do you know it's an apple tree? It looks like an apple tree. It's an apple tree. You know, that's a pear tree. Oh, really? How do you know that? It's a pear tree. It looks like an apple tree. How come it's a pear tree and how come it's an apple tree? Because in its form, in its inner essence, it's an apple tree. Apple trees look like apple trees, all right? And if it looks like an apple tree, it's not a pear tree, right? And you're right. If you look at a tree and it looks like an oak tree, it's an oak tree. It's not a maple tree that looks like an oak tree. It's an oak tree. So in its form, the inner essence, in its very core, its genetic makeup or biological makeup, it makes an apple tree. And so it has the form of an apple tree because it is an apple tree. He had the form of God. That's because he In the inner essence, he was God. God looks like God. And he had the form of God because he was God. He took on the form of a servant because he really was a servant. That wasn't no fake. It wasn't no hocus pocus. And you can use that word because it's trying to say he was in the form of God because he really was God. He took on the form of a servant because he really was a servant. All right. Now, the word likeness, that's easier to understand. And so an apple tree in the spring looks like what? It has blossoms. And in the summer, it's got things growing on it. In the fall, it's got apples and leaves falling. And in the winter, it's bare. Same tree, it looks different. You say, well, how do you know it's an apple tree? Well, because its inner essence is apple tree and whether it's blossoming or bearing fruit or dropping leaves or bare, I know it's an apple tree, right? But it changed the way it appeared to us. Some of the external appearance has changed, right? It's his likeness. That's the word likeness or schematic. The schematic, if you draw a schematic, some of you engineers know that you have a schematic of a part. It's a likeness of it. It's a drawing. It's trying to tell you what it really looks like, right? And so he was made in the likeness of man. Let's not say he wasn't fully man, but he came in the form of God. He was in the form of God, became the form of a servant, and then he had the likeness, he had the appearance of, he really did look like a man. But that did not mean that he lost the fact that he was also God. Here's the phrase that's often the problem for us, who being in the form of God did not consider robbery to be equal to God. He didn't hold on to that like a robber. The reason it's translated robbery, that word is when a robber goes into something and grabs something, he grabs and holds on to it, right? He did not consider that form and that state of being God to be something he would hold on for dear life. Rather, he took the form of a servant. And the way he did it, he emptied himself or made himself of no reputation. He gave up what it meant to be God, even though he still was God. And he took on the appearance of a man, the likeness of man. Putting that all together, that's called the kenosis. Many people say, do you know the kenosis theory? Well, now you do. How do you put that all together? He said this. It was not the subtraction. When he came to this earth as a man, it is not that he lost his deity, that he subtracted his deity. That's not what it's saying. What it's saying is that he added humanity. And that's why the two lines go together from that point on. He did not lose his deity. He added his humanity. So how do you put that all together? When one day he's tired, gods don't get tired. He's thirsty. Gods don't get thirsty. One day he says, I don't know. Remember the time he said, I don't know. Gods know everything. How could he not know? How could he be hungry? How could he get tired? How could he cry? Well, maybe gods could cry, but how could he have that and still be God? If he really was God, he wouldn't have gotten hungry, people would say, et cetera, et cetera. Here's what it says. It says this. He voluntarily, here's the line you better remember real well, he voluntarily gave up the independent use of his divine attributes. He did not think it was something that he was forced to get rid of or let go of. He voluntarily said, OK, being in the form of God is a really neat thing. I'm going to let that go voluntarily, the independent use of my attributes of deity, and I'm going to look like a man. And for 33 years, he really did look like a man. I was doing some things that were pretty spectacular through God and through the Spirit, but he still was in the likeness of man. And here's what it's saying. He never really lost those attributes. He voluntarily gave up the independent use of them. You see the difference? And so, you may have the right to do something, but you can voluntarily give up the independent use of that right and say, I'll just do what you tell me to do today. And that's exactly what he did as he walked on the face of this earth. Rather than claiming and holding on to to all the attributes of deity and say, I'm never going to get tired. I'm never going to be thirsty. I'm never going to be hungry. I'm never going to whatever. He gave up all the independent use of those attributes and said, whatever you want, Father, that's what I'll do. And so there was a temporary voluntary giving up the independent use of his divine attributes. He volunteered to be a servant. He volunteered to walk in the faces of others and to be like us, to look like us. And he looked like you and me for 33 years. He got tired like I get tired. He got hungry like I got hungry. And he was grieved like I get grieved. And he voluntarily said, you know, I'll leave the splendor of heaven and I'll just act like the rest of these people over here. I'll walk around like I'm a man. In one sense, he really was. Does that make sense? OK, the key phrase is voluntarily gave up the independent use of his divine attributes. Now, the significance. Well, let's do that. Let's do that and then we'll go to the wrong theories. What is the significance of all this is the two natures, one person, kind of stuff. John chapter 10 and verse 10 as well as John chapter 6 and verse 51. In order that he might share, I've come that he might have life. In other words, he might share his eternal and his abundant life with us. If he had not been the God who became man, if he had not walked on the face of this earth and did all the things that he did, He could not have shared His life with us. All right, so it's kind of like the Trinity. You almost feel like in some ways when you're talking about the God-man, you have a lot of the same concepts that you kind of have with the Trinity. Father is God, Son is God, Spirit is God, yet they're not each other and all that kind of stuff. Well, He is fully God, and you can look at Him as fully God, and He's fully man, and you can look at Him as fully man. And how can they mix together without being mixed together? And how can it be the same person with two natures? You know, it's like, how can that be? But it can be. All right. We're going to read some wrong theories. Obviously, it's caused people problems. How do you put it together, including yourself? That's why I started with was it Matthew 11, 27. Nobody knows the son except the father. You know, you really don't know him. You really don't understand this. Neither do I. So here's some wrong theories. Some deny. True and full deity. They say he is not deity. Those are, some of them would be called Aryans. For example, Christ was a created being who was exalted and then himself became the creator of this world, but was never God, was not God. So, there are just some who just say he wasn't God. He wasn't truly deity. Okay? Second one, some deny true and full humanity. He really wasn't man. The docetists, docetics would be, from the Greek word daseto, which means to be an appearance or a phantom. So he really wasn't a man, but he was like a phantom. You thought you saw a man. You thought you touched a man. You thought you heard a man, etc., etc., but he wasn't a man. He was just God who kind of showed up here. And some people say, some of those would say he actually came upon a man by the name of Jesus at the baptism. So the deity part of him kind of came upon a man And so he was really Jesus with a Christ kind of upon him kind of thing. So he's not fully humanity. That's what some would say. Some would say that his humanity was incomplete. Apollinarians are some of those. God replaced, Apollinarius said man was made up of body, irrational soul and rational soul. That was his theory of mankind. And so God replaced the rational soul of a human with an eternal and divine spirit of logos, all right. So that part of man, that particular man by the name of Jesus was replaced with the logos. So he wasn't really completely human anymore. The others would say, number four, he was adopted as divine at his baptism, the Unitarians. You hear about them. They live in Waterloo. You know, there are Unitarians around us. Christ was a great and good man who lived in close communion with God. He is to be honored and imitated, but not worshipped. So he's a really great guy. He probably walked closer to God than the rest of us, but he really was not worshipped, not to be a worshipper. Number five, some say he was God's highest creation. The Thessalonians and sometimes the JWs would be classified here. He was the best of men. He exalted to share in the divine nature, and he was exalted to share in the divine nature because of his perfect obedience. Therefore, he's worthy of worship. So the JWs would worship him, but he still was God's highest creation. And eventually he became a God in that sense. Number six, some say he was fully human and God worked through him to reveal God. Barthians, they're called, are neo-Orthodox. In other words, he was fully human, but God had worked so much in his life that when he walked around, you kind of like saw God, you know. And sometimes you can almost say, you know, that guy walks so close to God, it's like being with God. I mean, we make statements like that once in a while with people, but they take it to another degree. So he did reveal God to us. He never was God. He just revealed God to us, which is kind of a good trick. The Orthodox, which is us. Whenever I use the word Orthodox, that means genuine, historic Bible-believing people, right? Paul was Orthodox. Hopefully we're Orthodox. We're not unorthodox, right? Yeah, it's not the wrong theory, it's the right theory. There you go. Thank you. We'll put right theory. All right. Right theory number one. Only theory. Thank you. Maybe instead of wrong theories, I should say theories at the top there. That's a good way to put it. These are theories. Only this isn't a theory. This is what the Bible says. All right. The Council of Chalcedon is one that's historically been noted to kind of settle this and come up with a statement. And it goes like this. He is one Christ. Existing in two natures without mixture, they didn't get mixed up. Without division, they weren't divided up. Without separation, the diversity of the natures not being destroyed by their union in one person. The peculiar properties of each nature being preserved and concurring to the one person. In other words, one person, two natures, they didn't mix, they didn't separate, they didn't get all messed up. He was fully God. He was fully man. And you say, he's got to be one or the other or some mixture of them. And they said, no, he was both. It's like the Trinity. There's God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. They're all fully God. One God. And then they said this, we must neither divide the person nor confuse or confound the natures. And then there's another statement that's made that goes like this. He is fully God and the perfect man. and that these two natures were united in one person without forming a third nature. A guy by the name of Eutychus was coming up with that idea. Or two separate persons, Nestorius taught that. Got it? One God, fully God, fully man, one person, two natures. Remember that, one person, two natures. It's not two persons, one nature. Not two natures, two persons. It's two natures, one person. All right. Now we're going to start where we actually started an hour ago. Can he sin? Number 7a on page 4 is his character. Yet without sin. Hebrews 4.15 is a clear statement of that. This is also called his impeccability. And you might think I made that word up, but that's what they use. I got an article here. See, I'm not the only one who uses that. It's impeccability. You always say something's impeccable. That means it has no flaw in it. You have somebody who's a craftsman and builds you something out of wood and says, it's impeccable. I can't find any flaws in it. There's nothing wrong with it. The impeccability of Christ. There are three views. Number one, that Jesus was not sinless. In other words, he was a sinner. And that this sinless thing that we now talk about in Christianity was something that was developed by his disciples later on. Obviously, that's the liberal point of view, always has been, always will be, that his disciples or later theologians developed these truths. We throw that one out, okay? The other two views are where you kind of get into great theological debate. One says he was not capable of sin. In other words, his temptations were not like ours. I mean, for me, a temptation is a temptation because I could sin. And for him, he couldn't have sinned anyway. So it wasn't the same as my temptation. So he was not capable of sin. That's what impeccability means. The other side is he was capable of sin. He just didn't do it. In other words, he could have. At Matthew chapter four, when the serpent threw it out or as he walked through the world and you know, all the temptations that you and I face. He could have sinned. He just didn't because he was sinless. All right. So which is it? Could Jesus have sinned? All right, because he is fully God, you would say, no, God cannot lie. God cannot sin. That's what we are told in Scripture. So then what was the deal with the temptations? I mean, why tempt somebody who can't be tempted? I said that wrong, didn't I? I said, why tempt somebody who can't be tempted? That's not the same, is it? Why tempt somebody who can't be... Right. Alright. Alright. Okay. You would find Very conservative Bible-believing people were divided on this. So whichever view you took, you'd probably find somebody. For example, if you're familiar with Radio Bible Class, Martin DeHaan and the DeHaan men who preached it, they said they constantly thought he was very capable of sinning, and what stands out is that he didn't. So he was capable of sinning. Otherwise, the temptation was useless and futile, they would say. It was like, what good's that? And so there are many of that view that he really could have sinned, otherwise it wasn't a fair temptation. But I would say probably in our circles, most of us would take the position he was not capable of sin. But all of us are a little hesitant to be really, really dogmatic about it because it's a tough one to do. I just wanted you to be familiar with it. Hebrews 4.15, let's read that one. Here's the key. We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses. Why? He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Should be translated this way. Having been tested according to awe, according to the likeness, yet tested apart from sin. In other words, the key is he didn't sin. He's impeccable. He has an impeccable record. You've got to remember that part of it. Was he capable of sinning? I don't think he was because he was fully God. And somehow the fully God part of him and the fully man part of him were so wound together in one person and yet so distinct that how could the human side of him have sinned without the divine side of him sinning? You see, that kind of a thing. Anyway, you get to that. But here's the bottom two questions. Were his temptations to see if he could sin or were his temptations to prove that he could not sin? And those of us who say he was not capable of sin would say his temptations were not designed to see if he'd sin. They were designed to show us that he didn't sin, that he couldn't sin. But I am not dogmatic on that. And if you hold a different position, you're still my friend. All right. We're not going to go to the mountain on that one. All right. But it's very, very important to recognize that he was without sin. He was in all points tempted, like as we are. The difference was he wasn't tempted according to sin or with the potential of sinning. It's still a temptation. Pardon me? Okay. Are you making a statement or a question? All right. Good. All right. I think it's very important for us to realize he did feel the temptations that we felt. And he handled them correctly. And he showed us how to handle them. Matthew chapter four. But he was without sin. OK. Let's go on to number eight. We'll just jump right over his teaching. You could say spend time on that. Never man so spoke. And he was quite a teacher. Anyway we'll jump past that. Number nine is works. The works that I do bear witness of me. There are three offices or Realms of works that he does he is called a prophet Matthew chapter 11 or 13 verse 57 when a prophet reveals God's message or God's Somehow reveals something about God or God's message to people. So he was God's messenger and that's exactly what he did He is a priest Hebrews 5 verse 1 through 10 a priest mediates between God and man. He makes sacrifices, etc, etc Now he's our great high priest. Obviously. He was prophet. He was priest and he was also called King and he is King and And a king rules and reigns. He establishes rule and reign. John Walbert said this, taken together, the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest, and king are the key to the purpose of the incarnation. His prophetic office was concerned with the revelation of the truth of God. In other words, he revealed truth to us. His priestly office was related to his work as savior and mediator. Without being a priest, he wouldn't have been our mediator. He wouldn't have been our sacrifice and savior. His kingly office had in view his right to reign over Israel and over the entire earth. And he does. In Christ, the supreme dignity of these offices is reached. He was the perfect prophet, the ultimate priest and the ultimate king. So those are his works. Let's go to his death. Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 5, verse 6. A couple of things we just want to note about it. It is a central theme of the Bible, sometimes called the scarlet thread. Why is it called the scarlet thread? Yeah. Genesis 3, verse 15, all the way to the end. And there's always blood involved. There's blood sacrifices, etc., etc. Genesis 3, verse 15, he will bruise. Yeah, crush his head. All right. And so right from the start, we have an indication of that. You could just unlimited number of verses talk about the death of Christ. Psalm 22, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And you read through that on and on. It just talks about his death. There are many Psalms. There are many Old Testament passages. Isaiah 52, of course, Isaiah 53, he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. One of the great, great passages. By the way, if you ever bump into someone, you just can't get through to them. And I've had that. You just can't get through to them about the cross. They're just like hard as a rock. might try Isaiah 53. It is one of those passages. I don't know. I've just seen really, really, really hard people weep over that one. It doesn't mean they accepted Christ, but it is one of those passages. It's very powerful. Zechariah 12.10, whom they have pierced, talks about the death of Christ. So his death is in the Old Testament. Of course, it's in the New Testament. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, etc. Matthew 16, verse 21, He began to show them how you must suffer and die. I must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die and be raised. He was talking about John 3, 14, 15 and 16, where as Moses lift up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. In other words, over 100 times in the New Testament alone, you have the death of Christ. It is indeed the central theme of the Bible, as far as most of us would be It is the first truth in the apostolic preaching. 1 Corinthians 15, 1-3 says, I declare to you the gospel. And what is it? What's the first thing? Christ died for your sins according to the scripture. And that he was buried and that he rose again according to the scriptures and that he was seen. So it's the first truth or first aspect of the gospel. It is the foundation of it all. And so that is important. It is the guarantee of every spiritual blessing. Who can do Romans 8, 31 and 32? If God is for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him? He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? How shall he not freely give us all things? So, when you look at the cross, You say, you know what God did? He sent his son and he died for my sins. Now, if he did that, do I have to really question whether or not today he'll help me through the day? Do I really have to question if today he won't give me what I need in life? If he gave me the greatest gift possible, surely he'll give me the lesser. And so it's an argument from the greater to the lesser. So it's a guarantee of every spiritual blessing that God is for us, is demonstrated and proved by the death of Christ on the cross. It's a foundation for Christian living. And there are two passages there. Romans 6, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? And it goes into how shall we who died? Of course, it goes into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which became our death, burial and resurrection. So because he died for our sins and was buried and rose again, doesn't say to you and me, now just go out and do whatever you want. You can live any way you want. Really what it says to you is, and for me, it's the foundation for my Christian living that I shouldn't sin. He died for my sins. My sin cost him his life. So I should be very careful about sinning. Of course, Romans 8, 3 and 4, where the law could not do and that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own son. It's the foundation for all of spiritual victory, the death of Christ on the cross. It's interesting that it is the interest of the heavenly world, In Luke 9, you have Moses and Elijah, and you have an interview with them, and they're talking with Christ, and what are they talking about? It says they spoke of His decease, of His death. He hadn't died yet, but they were talking about it. So those Old Testament saints that were in heaven, in glory, when they had an opportunity to talk to Christ, were talking about His death. In 1 Peter 1, verse 11 and 12, it talks about His death, etc., etc., things which angels long to look at. And that word is so picturesque. It's a word that means to stretch the neck. They're just like stretching their neck. They just can't get their neck out there far enough. They just love to see this thing called the crucifixion and the death of Christ. Not because they enjoyed that, but the fact that God would send his Son to die for our sins. And of course, many, many places in Revelation, especially chapter 5, those in heaven, they sang a new song, da-da-da, in that you were slain. Or they talk about the Lamb slain. Lamb, lamb, lamb is found many, many times slain. It is the interest of the heavenly world and probably the primary interest of us in the heavenly world. We'll think about what he did for us. It is the payment for the penalty of sin. Of course, the key phrase, he was wounded for, should have an E.D. on there, shouldn't it? He was wounded for our transgressions. The key word is for there. You can pick it up in 1 Corinthians 15, 3. Christ died for our sins. In Romans 3.23, as well as the one we just had before, Romans 5.6, which talked about Christ died for the ungodly. The word for, when you use that word, what does that mean? Pardon me? Go ahead. Because of, could be one way the for is taken. Instead of, follow the word for, it could be taken a lot of different ways. So which is it? All right. Which one is it? Is it because of our sin or instead of our sin? Or is there some other option? As payment for our sin. All right. So it's that concept of a substitute. He was in my place. That's why we call it a substitutionary atonement. He was wounded in my place or for my transgressions. He was bruised in my place or for my iniquities, etc., etc. And by the way, that is a That phrase, something for, wounded or died or whatever, for our sins, that little phrase is used many, many times more than these three or four that I listed. So that's what, it was for the penalty of the, payment of the penalty of sin. Here's a question. What is the extent of the effectiveness of his death? And there are a couple options, all right? I just listed three, perhaps there'd be more, but we're just going to look at three. First of all, there's universalism. Universalism teaches Christ died for all and all are going to heaven. All right. It's universal. I mean, he died for the sins of the whole world. That's what it says. I mean, if you paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, then who would go to hell? I mean, they're all paid for. So that's called universalism. Most of us don't believe that in orthodox circles. Hopefully you don't believe that. Unlimited atonement. This is where you get into the arguments of Calvinism and Arminianism. Unlimited atonement means that Christ died for all. It was unlimited in that sense. He died for all. However, it is only effective to those who believe. So the payment was made for everyone, but you have to believe to benefit from that. A good illustration of that would be if tomorrow I went down to Northwest Airline and I paid for everybody in Waterloo an airline ticket to Florida. I just paid the whole schmear. And then we put it in the paper tomorrow and said, you know, all of you can just go down to the airport And all of your tickets have been paid for and you got a free trip down to Florida. It's all been paid for. We got a motel down there for you. All the living expenses, all paid for. All you got to do is show up at the airport and get on the plane. All right? I paid for it all, but it won't do you a bit of good until you do what? You better believe me. If you don't believe it, you're going to say, I'm not stupid enough to go to the airport because I'm going to get to the airport and they're going to laugh their head off at me. That really could not be that someone would give me a free trip to Florida with all expenses paid, and he did it for the whole city of Waterloo. Nobody does that. I know nobody does it. It couldn't be Japanese, so I'm not going to believe that. So I'm not going to the airport. So in other words, it was paid for for all, but it only is effective if you really believe it and therefore act upon it and place your trust in that and get on the plane. All right. So that would be unlimited atonement. The other position, the real strict Calvinists are limited atonement. And that is Christ died for the elect, not for all humanity, not for all people, but for only the elect. And so we will settle that in one minute. Ready? All in favor of number one, say aye. Good. All in favor of number two or three, say aye. All right, we got it made. And A.W. Pink, for example, would be very, very strongly on limited atonement. He is way off the charts that way. Most of us try to figure it out and we're not, we don't know how to do it, so. Anyway, I just tell people I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I just read the Bible and that makes them really mad, so. Anyway, we won't go there, but I wanted you to know about that. Was his payment, his death, sufficient for all and was it effective for all? And there is a little difference there. Any questions on that? Not what do I believe, but do you understand the differences there? Okay. No, I'm not. All right. Yeah. So what difference would it make if I believe one or the other? At the end of the day, it really, I was with your father and your father, Joe tonight for supper and he had red pink. And he, uh, he got, he said, you know, But I figured it out. It doesn't make any difference. It really doesn't make any difference to me or you because I don't know who the elect are anyway, neither do you. So who do we witness to? Everyone. So he said, I don't have to settle that issue. I'm glad. You really don't have to settle that issue. The really hyper, and I was raised this way somewhat, the limit of atonement taken to the nth degree was this, if God wants to save people, is going to save people. I mean, it says that you don't have to witness. And so the Protestant reform, which is actually a little bit further than we were, we were Dutch reform, the Protestant reform would say it's even wrong to send missionaries. And it's wrong to witness because God can take care of that. And you don't need to mess it up. All right, don't get in his way. I don't know, you'd have to ask them. They were They were my buddies in school. Resurrection is this next one. Whom God raised from the dead, Acts 4 at 10 is there. I want to just point out, first of all, it was a bodily resurrection. And what type of body was it? Pardon me? Yeah. What kind of human body was it? All right. Give me some verses that would tell you a little bit about it. The resurrected body, not the normal one. Imperishable. Good. I thought you said perishable. I thought, boy, you are messed up. All right. Some people say he was resurrected and when they saw him, it was just a memory. That's not true. When they saw him, they saw him in his resurrected body. Okay. So did they recognize him? Yeah. Could they touch him? He said, why don't you take your fingers and put it here in your hand here. So apparently you could touch him. Did he eat? Yeah, he ate fish. Did he pass through walls without the doors opening? Yeah, that's a little different than us. He was pretty fast. He could just suddenly appear. And you could just put a little of those things together and you recognize he had a resurrected body that was, connected to his former body and appearance and some of the things he did, and yet in other ways it was different. And so the question is what is the future of our bodies? No more dandruff. All right. The world's greatest problem, right? We have only those little hints, but it will be a bodily resurrection for us too. And I always say this at graveside, almost always say it at graveside, Some people think that your body is totally unimportant because the real you is your soul and spirit. And grandma's not here, she's already in heaven. Well, we understand absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And so grandma who dies in Christ is with the Lord, but her body is still laying in front of us. So I remember one guy saying, when I die, just dump my body in the ditch. It doesn't really matter, you know, because I'm going to be in heaven. The body is very important to God. You will miss your body when you're in heaven, initially, because you're going to be present with the Lord. Your body is going to be rotting and decaying in some grave here in Iowa. But there's going to come a day when what's going to happen to your body? It will be resurrected. Well, what kind of body will it be? 1 Corinthians 15 says exactly what Bryant made out. And it asks that question, what kind of body will it be? It will be sown mortal, it will be raised immortal. It will be sown perishable, it will be raised Imperishable, is that the right word? I am perishable imperishable sold in Something and raised in glory. What's the other side of glory? Anyway you read that passage So our body will be resurrected just like Christ was and that's one of the great things to see in his life What you know, he was bodily resurrected. So is it a bodily resurrection? It was a divine resurrection By the way, that's one of my pet peeves, but, you know, the body is important. And I just really hate it when people say, hey, it doesn't matter what you do with the body, you know, it does matter what you do. It doesn't say much about cremation, but the body is important. Oh, I didn't say that either. Just don't tell me, throw my body in a ditch, you know. It's very important. Someday I'm going to be all that I'm supposed to be, and that'll be body, soul, and spirit all together. It'll be a better body than this one. I know that, so I'm looking forward to that. It is a divine resurrection. Always it will say, except once, whom God raised. One time it says he raised himself, so obviously you have to deal with that. But basically, God raised him. It was a divine resurrection. The next one, it was a verified resurrection. Do you know how many times the Bible goes out of its way to prove that he really was raised? Matthew 28, the whole chapter is about he was seen by and he was seen by and he was seen by and he was seen by and he was seen by. The whole chapter is designed to say, here is proof. People actually thought he was dead and were surprised when they found him. People went to a tomb thinking it would be closed. It was open and they looked in and there were grave clothes there, but they were empty and they were laying in the right order. And all of it is designed to say we have proof, historical proof, that he really was raised. It's verified. And of course, 1 Corinthians 15, verse 5, talks about he was seen by, and he was seen by, and he was seen by, and ultimately he was seen by 500. So it was a verified. It is an important resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15, as well as Romans 4, 25. Romans 24, 25, he was justified because of his resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection of Jesus. If he was not raised from the dead, our preaching is empty and our hope or our faith is empty. And so it's very, very important. It is the next page. Any questions on that? I know I went fast, but I think you've studied that many, many times. It is a debatable resurrection. The four theories that are pretty prominent, you keep hearing them at least, is the theft, lie, the swoon theory, the hallucination explanation, and the wrong tomb teaching. Theft lies simply says what? They stole them and they lied. All right? And so he was stolen and they lied about it. And so the whole schmear that we have is a big lie. In fact, Matthew 28 says they told the soldiers to lie, right? What about though? It's the opposite. Yeah. They were trying to cover it all up. So that's the first theory, that he never did raise from the dead, but his body was stolen and they lied about it. And so the Jewish leaders said to the soldiers, you tell that lie. Tell everybody that it was stolen, all right? And that's been going on ever since. The second one is a swoon theory. You like that one? What's that one? Yeah. Yeah. So he wasn't really dead. He just fainted. He really pulled the wool over everybody. And then we got in a nice cool grave. He came up. He woke up. He got out of his clothes without messing them up. By the way, John 20 is very clear. He was wrapped in how many pounds and so of clothes and so. And when he was resurrected, they were laying exactly that way except the head cloth was moved. In other words, so somehow he revived. He snuck out of all those grave clothes without wrinkling them up. without unwrapping himself, then he moved this big stone out of the way and he left. So he did pretty well, I would say. It's called the swoon theory. And by the way, soldiers who were trained in crucifixion said, oh, don't need to break his bones because he's already dead. Right? Again and again, a lot of people must have been fooled by that one, if that's true. The hallucination explanation, I like this one. Who hallucinated? Everybody. Hey, I saw Jesus. Did you see? Oh, man, I saw Jesus. That's pretty good because at one point it says in 1 Corinthians 15, 500 songs. There are 500 hallucinating people one day on a mountain in Galilee. The wrong tomb teaching, this one's even better. They went to the wrong tomb and there happened to be some grave clothes laying in it that looked like the body was still in it, I guess. I don't know. So, I mean, you can really, we can laugh about it, but people, they will talk about that as if it is absolute historical fact. It's just how they'll talk about it. Yeah, right. Okay. Excellent. His ascension. He ascended on high, also called his exaltation. The issue is where is he and what is he doing? He is at the right hand of God, Romans 8, 34. Matthew 16, 18, he is building his... I will build my church. So what's he doing right now? He's very active building his church. John 14, 3, I go to pre... Prepare a place for you. He's preparing a home for us. Hebrews 2.14, he's a faithful high priest. And Hebrews 7.25, he's always making intercession for us. So the fact that he's still alive and well and he's in heaven at the right hand of God the Father, ever living to make intercession for us is a pretty significant thing. Besides, you could add a whole bunch of other things. Colossians 1.17, he's holding all things together is just one other one you could add. We won't deal with his messiahship. He is the anointed one. His ministry. He came to minister. You could make a big presentation of that. His return. He said, I will come again. John 14. His return is imminent. Anytime he could come back. Acts 111. As you have seen him go, so he will return. In other words, his return is just like or as he left. He went up in the clouds and they saw him take off. He's going to come back in the clouds. Philippians 2, 10 and 11, every knee will bow that passage. His return will lead to worship, if you would, or recognition of his lordship, one or the other at a minimum. Revelation 6 talks about the wrath, wrath, wrath. His return will involve wrath. And Revelation 19, his return will result in his rule and reign. But really, when you think about Christ, you probably think about some very significant passages. So you tell me, I got four of them listed there. I could have picked a whole bunch of other ones. Tell me some passages that have warmed your heart through the years. Just talk about Christ. Why do they warm your heart? Any passages? Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13.5, I believe. Why does that warm your heart? All right. All right. Here are some. Have you memorized Isaiah 53? You ought to do that. Who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He has no form, nor comeliness. And when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men. He is a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him." Imagine that. They hid their faces from him. But he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement that was necessary to give us peace was laid on Him. And by His stripes, we have been healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray. We have turned everyone to His own way. And the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted. Yet, He opened not His mouth. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before His shearers was done. So, He opened not His mouth. And it just goes on and on and on. You ever get discouraged? You just read about Christ, right? You pick up Isaiah 53. You go to Philippians 2, which we've read. You can go to Colossians 1. He's the one who has preeminence. Hebrews 1. He's the express image of God the Father. On and on it goes. And you just can't help but, when you think about Christ and focus in on Christ, recognize He's the incomparable Christ. And you take away... You could have this whole book and you take away Christ. And I'll tell you, it wouldn't quite be the same, would it? I mean, it'd teach you how to raise your kids, and that'd be nice. And it'd teach you how to get along with people, and that'd be kind of nice. And it'd teach you that there's a God up there who created it all, and that'd be nice. Boy, there'd be a whole lot of things you're glad that you'd learn. At the end of the day, it'd even tell you that you were a sinner, and that you deserve hell. And then you'd be in a world of hurt. So you take away Christ from this book, and I don't know if I'd want to read it, because he's everything, really. Some of the songs, My Jesus, I Love Thee, Jesus, The Very Thought of Thee, I'd Rather Have Jesus, and on and on the list goes. If you want your heart warmed, you might read William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him, G. Campbell Morgan, The Crisis of the Christ, J. Oswald Sanders, The Incomparable Christ. There's one out more recently that some of you have read, The Fisherman. I mean, those are the kind of books that really warm your heart. I trust that Jesus Christ is all that he claims to be. And I mean, you know him as all that he claims to be in the scriptures. Obviously, you don't understand him fully because no one knows the Son except the Father. I love that verse. Every time I get a little confused, I don't quite have it all together. I think, well, I was told right from the start I wouldn't understand them completely and that's okay. Any comments? I know you're waiting for your exam and it's waiting right here. It's hot and ready to go right off the press.