The Moral Glories of Our Lord

• About this site

Eternal Security

• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

 The Encourager

• About this site

• About this site

Sunday School Teachers Newsletter

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

As regards our Lord’s burial, is it right to say that, “Burial is a necessary part of our Lord’s vicarious work”?

“The Gospel includes it as we see 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4. Adam being guilty, the judgment of God required that he should return to the earth whence he came. The burning outside the camp of the sin- offering when its blood was taken inside the veil, points to this”

It is important to distinguish between the penal and governmental consequences of sin. The former are defined in the words of the Lord God, “In the day that thou eatest therefore thou shalt surely die.” There is no mention till later of dust returning to dust, if we must take that as the equivalent of burial, though it is more a putting out of sight, than physical dissolution. Nor indeed was physical death the death primarily referred to in the above warning: additional precautions had to be taken to ensure that, namely the prevention of access to the Tree of Life—”Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever (i.e., exist in a sin-haunted body), therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.” Nothing of an outward physical change seems to have taken place at the Fall, but a mysterious moral gulf had appeared between the creature and his Creator; he was afraid of God and hid himself. This was spiritual death.

In verses 16 to 19, the governmental consequences of the Fall are detailed quite distinct from death. The Christian is saved from the penal consequences of sin whereas he often has to know its governmental consequences. I believe the former were exhausted at the cross as the words, “It is finished,” declare, and as the rending of the veil proves. The Lord before breathing out His spirit was now no longer forsaken of His God for He commends it to His Father.

But as the writer Mr. J. T. well says, “The forsaking would not have been a public matter, had not our Lord uttered the cry.” So the death of the body was the outward and visible sign of that other death which had the much deeper significance of separation from God. I am surprised that Mr. J. T. should understand the meaning of the burning of the sin-offering outside the camp in Lev 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev 4 as burial. The word for “burning” is “araph,” representing Divine judgment; it is Christ’s suffering under God’s righteous judgment, outside the camp.

It is difficult to conceive our Lord Jesus as under Divine judgment when with reverent and loving hands He was laid in Joseph’s tomb. We may remark that His grave with the rich man was not a penalty for sin, but, “because he had done no violence neither was there any deceit in His mouth.” It is perfectly true that Christ’s burial is an eloquent testimony to the complete setting aside of the old man; but could it be said that our Lord was buried vicariously? I trow not. It is part of “the truth of the Gospel,” but as far as I remember, is only once referred to by an apostle in any public address in the Acts, which seems to show that it is not a significant part of the Gospel for the unsaved. But the Gospel is very great and extended, and has a close application to the believer. Perhaps we would be right in saying that the cross is the refuge for sinners, the sepulchre, the receptacle for the old man— Signified by baptism; and “in Christ” risen, the residence of the new man.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Hebrews 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:22 states that “almost all things are by the law purged with blood,” and Wm. Lincoln has pointed out that the only sin offering which did not Involve blood-shedding was that of Levitus 5:11. The peace-offering was never made without the burnt-offering and then blood was shed.

Who paid for the burnt offering? Did one offering avail for two persons?

To reply to the last parts of the question first: I judge from Leviticus 10:2," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 10:2, that each offerer brought his burnt-offering at his own expense, and if so, it was an individual offering. There was, however, the continual burnt offering (see chap. 6. 9-i3), and I should think that was provided by the priests from the offerings to them by the people. I do not think the peace-offering was necessarily accompanied by a burnt-offering. They were quite distinct, but it would be true to say that the burnt- offering, representing the whole offering of Himself by Christ to God, was constantly accompanied by a meal-offering (see Numbers 28: 11-13;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 11-13; Numbers 29;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 29; Judges 13:16-19)," TARGET="_blank">Judges 13:16-19), representing the spotless humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, tested in every possible way. The bloodless offering to which Mr. Lincoln refers was the tenth part of an ephah of fine-flour offered for a sin-offering (Leviticus 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 5:11). This represents the lowest form of sin-offering. Really there was only one—representing Christ. The different degrees of offering in Lev. 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 4 and 5 represent the different degrees of appreciation of the offering by different classes of offerers. Some, like the high priest, would offer the bullock—that would entail a very high estimate of Christ; this also availed for the whole congregation. It will take the whole of the redeemed fully to appreciate Christ. The ram would stand for a lower, though still high, appreciation of Christ, and so down to the turtle doves, but in these all the offerer would have the see of the need and value of the blood of Christ. The handful of flour would be Christ too, but Christ little understood, little appreciated, “a touching of the hem of His garment,” a coming to Him, a trusting Him, but with no sense of His atoning sacrifice. Some, perhaps many, to-day, begin like that, they come to the right Person, but they do not yet apprehend Him in the right way, and which of us can say that we do this as we ought to? One thing we may say in the case of the fine flour, the offering would be almost unseen, but in the case of the bullock it would be the offerer who might be almost unseen; and the higher our thoughts of Christ, the smaller we will become. We cannot think much of Christ, and of ourselves at the same time. “He must increase, I must decrease!”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Can you give any Scripture for the “silencing” of a brother? For what “crime” is he to be “silenced”? and who is to do it?

This is an important enquiry. I suppose the questioner does not mean literally a “crime,” for surely no one guilty of a serious moral offence against the law could be allowed to preach or teach, even if he were allowed for the time being to remain in the assembly, which could hardly ever be the case. But I suppose what is meant is some brother, against whom, perhaps, no real accusation can be made, but who has been requested not to minister the Word.

Now, of course, we cannot judge of any particular case without knowing the details. I believe in general that no one would be silenced, unless there were good reasons—some manifest lack of gift, some recognised inability to edify the saints, some habit of too lengthy and unprofitable ministry, which had wearied hearers, or some clear moral defect. Sometimes a man may insist on reading and commenting on long chapters of the Bible, or always the same chapter, as we have known in one case, or always the same disputed doctrine, which in an unruly way he persists to inflict upon the saints.

Perhaps Paul refers to some such men in Titus 1:10" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:10 as ”unruly and vain-talkers and deceivers . . . ,“ and then adds, “WHOSE MOUTHS MUST BE STOPPED.” It is not necessary to fill every line of this indictment, to deserve the form of discipline here prescribed. A man would seem to fall within it, who is known as an unprofit able talker, or as pushing some doubtful or controversial teaching. I do not think this silencing ought to be done by an individual acting on his own responsibility. It is a case where “two are better,” and they should act only as representatives of the assembly.

The phrase, “the liberty of the Spirit,” is sometimes quoted to show that the Spirit gives liberty to anyone who likes to teach, but in their context the words only refer to seeing Christ without a veil. Certainly the Spirit does not give liberty to those whom He has not qualified to speak. However, it does not always follow that the one silenced will never again be able to minister, for sometimes it may be that a young man may have been too quick to come forward into this service, and may develop a true gift later. I know of one such case, where the one silenced (and he submitted himself humbly to the ruling of his elders) became afterwards universally recognised as a true minister of the Word.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site