WHO IS THIS MELCHISEDEC #21
September 20, 2000
Brian Kocourek
Wednesday evening we took our
text once again from paragraph 50 of Brother Branham's sermon, Who is this Melchisedec, where brother Branham
said, God's
sovereign in His choosing, did you
know that? God's sovereign.
2. The Role of the
Son in our Salvation
For whom did Christ die? It
surely does not need arguing that the Father had an express purpose in giving
him to die, or that God the Son had a definite design before him in laying down
his life — "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the
world" Acts 15:18. What then was the purpose of the Father and the design
of the Son? We answer, Christ died for "God's elect."
We are not unmindful of the
fact that the limited design in the death of Christ has been the subject of
much controversy — what great truth revealed in Scripture has not? Nor do we
forget that anything which has to do with the person and work of our blessed
Lord requires to be handled with the utmost reverence, and that a "Thus
saith the Lord"; must be given in support of every assertion we make. Our
appeal shall be to the Law and to the Testimony.
For whom did Christ die? Who
were the ones he intended to redeem by his blood shedding? Surely the Lord
Jesus had some absolute determination before him when he went to the Cross. If
he had, then it necessarily follows that the extent of that purpose was
limited, because an absolute determination or purpose must be effected. If the
absolute determination of Christ included all mankind, then all mankind would
most certainly be saved. To escape this inevitable conclusion many have
affirmed that there was no such absolute determination before Christ, that in
his death a merely conditional provision of salvation has been made for all
mankind. The refutation of this assertion is found in the promises made by the
Father to his Son before he went to the Cross, yea, before he became incarnate.
The Old Testament Scriptures represent the Father as promising the Son a
certain reward for his sufferings on behalf of sinners. At this stage we shall
confine ourselves to one or two statements recorded in the well known
fifty-third of Isaiah. There we find God saying, "When thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed", that "he shall see
of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied", and that God's
righteous Servant "should justify many" Isa. 53:10,11. But here we
would pause and ask, how could it be certain that Christ should "see his
seed", and "see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied",
unless the salvation of certain members of the human race had been divinely
decreed, and therefore was sure? How could it be certain that Christ should "justify
many", if no effectual provision was made that any should receive him as
their Saviour? On the other hand, to insist that the Lord Jesus did expressly
purpose the salvation all mankind, is to charge him with that which no
intelligent being should be guilty of, namely, to design that which by virtue
of his omniscience he knew would never come to pass. Hence, the only
alternative left us is that, so far as the predetermined purpose of his death
is concerned, Christ died for the elect only. Summing up in a sentence, which
we trust will be intelligible to every reader, we would say, Christ died not
merely to make possible the salvation of all mankind, but to make certain the
salvation of all that the Father had given to him. Christ died not simply to
render sins pardonable, but "to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself" Heb. 9:26. As to who's sin (i.e., guilt, as in 1 John 1:7, etc.)
has been "put away", Scripture leaves us in no doubt — it was that of
the elect, the "world" John 1:29 of God's people!
(1.) The limited design in
the Atonement follows, necessarily, from the eternal choice of the Father of
certain ones unto salvation. The Scriptures inform us that, before the Lord
became incarnate he said, "Lo, I come, to do thy will O God" Heb.
10:7, and after he had become incarnate he declared, "For I came down from
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" John
6:38. If then God had from the beginning chosen certain ones to salvation,
then, because the will of Christ was in perfect accord with the will of the
Father, he would not seek to enlarge, upon his election. What we have just said
is not merely a plausible deduction of our own, but is in strict harmony with
the express teaching of the Word. Again and again our Lord referred to those
whom the Father had "given" him, and concerning whom he was
particularly exercised. Said he, "All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out ... And this is the
Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" John 6:37,39.
And again, "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and
said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify
thee; As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal
life to as many as thou hast given him. ... I have manifested thy name unto the
men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest
them me; and they have kept thy word ... I pray for them: I pray not for the
world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine ... Father, I
will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they
may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovest me before the
foundation of the world" John 17:1,2,6,9,24. Before the foundation of the
world the Father predestinated a people to be conformed to the image of his
Son, and the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus was in order to the carrying
out of the divine purpose.
(2.) The very nature of the
Atonement evidences that, in its application to sinners, it was limited in the
purpose of God. The Atonement of Christ may be considered from two chief
viewpoints — God-ward and man-ward. God-wards, the cross work of Christ was a
propitiation, an appeasing of divine wrath, a satisfaction rendered to divine
justice and holiness; man-wards, it was a substitution, the innocent taking the
place of the guilty, the just dying for the unjust. But a strict substitution
of a person for persons, and the infliction upon him of voluntary sufferings,
involve the definite recognition on the part of the substitute and of the one
he is to propitiate of the persons for whom he acts, whose sins he bears, whose
legal obligations he discharges. Furthermore, if the Lawgiver accepts the
satisfaction which is made by the Substitute then those for whom the Substitute
acts, whose place he takes, must necessarily be acquitted. If I am in debt and
unable to discharge it and another comes forward and pays my creditor in full
and receives a receipt in acknowledgment, then, in the sight of the law, my
creditor no longer has any claim upon me. On the cross the Lord Jesus gave
himself a ransom, and that it was accepted by God was attested by the open
grave three days later; the question we would here raise is, For whom was this
ransom offered? If it was offered for all mankind then the debt incurred by
every man has been cancelled. If Christ bore in his own body on the tree the sins
of all men without exception, then none here perish. If Christ was "made a
curse" for all of Adam's race then none are now "under
condemnation". "Payment God cannot twice demand, first at my bleeding
Surety's hand and then again at mine." But Christ did not discharge the
debt of all men without exception, for some there are who will be "cast
into prison" (cf. 1 Pet. 3:19 where the same Greek word for prison
occurs), and they shall "by no means come out thence, till they have paid
the uttermost farthing" Matt. 5:26, which, of course, will never be.
Christ did not bear the sins of all mankind, for some there are who die in
their sins John 8:21, and whose "sin remaineth" John 9:41. Christ was
not "made a curse" for all of Adam's race, for some there are to whom
he will yet say, "Depart from me ye cursed" Matt. 25:41. To say that
Christ died for all alike, to say that he became the substitute and surety of
the whole human race, to say that he suffered on behalf of and in the stead of
all mankind, is to say that he "bore the curse for many who are now
bearing the curse for themselves; that he suffered punishment for many who are
now lifting up their own eyes in Hell, being in torments; that he paid the
redemption price for many who shall yet pay in their own eternal anguish `the
wages of sin, which is death'" (G.S. Bishop). But, on the other hand, to
say as Scripture says, that Christ was stricken for the transgressions of God's
people, to say that he gave his life for the sheep, to say that he gave his life
a ransom for many, is to say that he made an atonement which fully atones; it
is to say he paid a price which actually ransoms; it is to say he was set forth
a propitiation which really propitiates; it is to say he is a Saviour who truly
saves.
(3.) Closely connected with,
and confirmatory of what we have said above, is the teaching of Scripture
concerning our Lord's priesthood. It is as the great High Priest that Christ
now makes intercession. But for whom does he intercede? For the whole human
race, or only for his own people? The answer furnished by the New Testament to
this question is clear as a sunbeam. Our Saviour has entered into Heaven itself
"now to appear in the presence of God for us" Heb. 9:24, that is, for
those who are "partakers of the heavenly calling" Heb 3:1. And again
it is written, "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost
that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them" Heb. 7:25. This is in strict accord with the Old Testament type.
After slaying the sacrificial animal, Aaron went into the Holy of Holies as the
representative and on behalf of the people of God: it was the names of Israel's
tribes which were engraven on his breastplate, and it was in their interests he
appeared before God. Agreeable to this are our Lord's words in John 17:9 —
"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast
given me; for they are thine." Another scripture which deserves careful
attention in this connection is found in Rom. 8:1-39. In Rom. 8:33 the question
is asked, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" and
then follows the inspired answer — "It is God that justifieth. Who is he
that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is
even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Note
particularly that the death and intercession of Christ have one and the same
objects! As it was in the type so it is with the antitype — expiation and
supplication are co-extensive. If then Christ intercedes for the elect only,
and "not for the world", then he died for them only. And observe
further, that the death, resurrection, exaltation and intercession of the Lord
Jesus, are here assigned as the reason why none can lay any "charge"
against God's elect. Let those who would still take issue with what we are
advancing weigh carefully the following question — If the death of Christ
extends equally to all, how does it become security against a
"charge", seeing that all who believe not are "under condemnation"?
John 3:18.
(4.) The number of those who
share the benefits of Christ's death is determined not only by the nature of
the Atonement and the priesthood of Christ but also by his power. Grant that
the one who died upon the cross was God manifest in the flesh, and it follows
inevitably that what Christ has purposed that will he perform; that what he has
purchased that will he possess; that what he has set his heart upon that will
he secure. If the Lord Jesus possesses all power in heaven and earth, then none
can successfully resist his will. But it may be said, This is true in the
abstract, nevertheless, Christ refuses to exercise this power, in as much as he
will never force anyone to receive him as their Saviour. In one sense that is
true, but in another sense it is positively untrue. The salvation of any sinner
is a matter of divine power. By nature the sinner is at enmity with God, and
naught but divine power operating within him, can overcome this enmity; hence
it is written, "No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent
me draw him" John 6:44. It is the divine power overcoming the sinner's
innate enmity which makes him willing to come to Christ that he might have
life. But this "enmity" is not overcome in all — why? Is it because
the enmity is too strong to be overcome? Are there some hearts so steeled
against him that Christ is unable to gain entrance? To answer in the
affirmative is to deny his omnipotence. In the final analysis it is not a
question of the sinner's willingness or unwillingness, for by nature all are
unwilling. Willingness to come to Christ is the finished product of divine
power operating in the human heart and will in overcoming man's inherent and
chronic "enmity", as it is written, "Thy people shall, be
willing in the day of thy power" Psa 110: 3. To say that Christ is unable
to win to himself those who are unwilling is to deny that all power in heaven
and earth is his. To say that Christ cannot put forth his power without
destroying man's responsibility is a begging of the question here raised, for
he has put forth his power and made willing those who have come to him, and if
he did this without destroying their responsibility, why "cannot" he
do so with others? If he is able to win the heart of one sinner to himself, why
not that of another? To say, as is usually said, the others will not let him is
to impeach his sufficiency. It is a question of his will. If the Lord Jesus has
decreed, desired, purposed the salvation of all mankind, then the entire human
race will be saved, or, otherwise, he lacks the power to make good his
intentions; and in such a case it could never be said, "he shall see of
the travail of his soul and be satisfied." The issue raised involves the
deity of the Saviour, for a defeated Saviour cannot be God.
Having reviewed
some of the general principles which require us to believe that the death of
Christ was limited in its design, we turn now to consider some of the explicit
statements of Scripture which expressly affirm it. In that wondrous and matchless
fifty-third of Isaiah God tells us concerning his Son, "he was taken from
prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut
off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he
stricken" Isa 53:8. In perfect harmony with this was the word of the angel
to Joseph, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people
from their sins" Matt. 1:21 i.e. not merely Israel, but all whom the
Father had "given" him. Our Lord himself declared, "The Son of
Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many" Matt. 20:28, but why have said for many if all without
exception were included? It was his people whom he "redeemed" Luke
1:68. It was for "the sheep", and not the "goats", that the
Good Shepherd gave his life John 10:11. It was the "Church of God"
which he purchased with "his own blood" Acts 20:28.
If there is
one scripture more than any other upon which we should be willing to rest our
case it is John 11:49-52. Here we are told, "And one of them, named
Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing
at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for
the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of
himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die
for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". here we are
told that Caiaphas "prophesied not of himself", that is, like those
employed by God in Old Testament times (see Pet. 1:21, his prophecy originated
not with himself, but he spake as he was moved by the Holy Spirit; thus is the
value of his utterance carefully guarded, and the Divine source of this
revelation expressly vouched for. Here, too, we are definitely informed that
Christ died for "that nation", i.e., Israel, and also for the One
Body, his Church, for it is into the Church that the children of God —
"scattered" among the nations — are now being "gathered together
in one". And is it not remarkable that the members of the Church are here
called "children of God" even before Christ died, and therefore
before he commenced to build his Church! The vast majority of them had not then
been born, yet were they regarded as "children of God"; children of
God because they had been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world,
and therefore "predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ
to himself" Eph. 1:4,5. In like manner, Christ
said,
"Other sheep I have (not "shall have") which are not of this
fold" John 10:16.
If ever the
real design of the Cross was uppermost in the heart and speech of our blessed
Saviour it was during the last week of his earthly ministry. What then do the
Scriptures which treat of this portion of his ministry record in connection
with our present inquiry? They say, "When Jesus knew that his hour was
come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his
own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end" John 13:1. They
tell us how he said, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends" John 15:13. They record his word, "For
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the
truth" John 17:19; which means, that for the sake of his own, those
"given" to him by the Father, he separated himself unto the death of
the Cross. One may well ask, Why such discrimination of terms if Christ died
for all men indiscriminately?
Ere closing
this section of the chapter we shall consider briefly a few of those passages
which seem to teach most strongly an unlimited design in the death of Christ.
In 2 Cor. 5:14 we read, "One died for all." But that is not all this
scripture affirms. If the entire verse and passage from which these words are
quoted be carefully examined, it will be found that instead of teaching an
unlimited atonement, it emphatically argues a limited design in the death of Christ.
The whole verse reads, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we
thus judge, that if One died for all, then were all dead." It should be
pointed out that in the Greek there is the definite article before the last
"all", and that the verb here is in the aorist tense, and therefore
should read, "We thus judge: that if One died for all, then they all
died." The apostle is here drawing a conclusion as is clear from the words
"we thus judge, that if... then were." His meaning is, that those for
whom the One died are regarded, judicially, as having died too. The next verse
goes on to say, "And he died for all, that they which live should not
henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose
again." The One not only died but "rose again", and so, too, did
the "all" for whom he died, for it is here said they
"live." Those for whom a substitute acts are legally regarded as
having acted themselves. In the sight of the law the substitute and those whom
he represents are one. So it is in the sight of God. Christ was identified with
his people and his people were identified with him, hence when he died they
died (judicially) and when he rose they rose also. But further we are told in
this passage 2 Cor. 5:17, that if any man be in Christ he is a new creation; he
has received a new life in fact well as in the sight of the law, hence the
"all" for whom Christ died are here bidden to live henceforth no more
unto themselves, "but unto him which died for them, and rose again."
In other words, those who belonged to this "all" for whom Christ
died, are here exhorted to manifest practically in their daily lives what is
true of them judicially: they are to "live unto Christ who died for
them." Thus the "One died for all" is defined for us. The "all"
for which Christ died are the they which "live", and which are here
bidden to live "unto him". This passage then teaches three important
truths, and the better to show its scope we mention them in their inverse
order: certain ones are here bidden to live no more unto themselves but unto
Christ; the ones thus admonished are "they which live", that is live
spiritually, hence, the children of God, for they alone of mankind possess
spiritual life, all others being dead in trespasses and sins; those who do thus
live are the ones, the "all", the "them", for whom Christ
died and rose again. This passage therefore teaches that Christ died for all
his people, the elect, those given to him by the Father; that as the result of
his death (and rising again "for them") they "live" — and
the elect are the only ones who do thus "live"; and this life which
is theirs through Christ must be lived "unto him", Christ's love must
now "constrain" them.
"For there is one God, and one Mediator, between God and men" (not `man', for this would have been a generic term and signified mankind. O the accuracy of Holy Writ!), "the Man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" 1 Tim. 2:5,6. It is upon the words "who gave himself a ransom for all" we would now comment. In Scripture the word "all" (as applied to mankind) is used in two senses — absolutely and relatively. In some passages it means all without exception; in others it signifies all without distinction. As to which of these meanings it bears in any particular passage, must be determined by the context and decided by a comparison of parallel scriptures. That the word "all" is used in a relative and restricted sense, and in such case means all without distinction and not all without exception, is clear from a number of scriptures, from which we select two or three as samples. "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were "all baptized of him" in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" Mark 1:5. Does this mean that every man, woman and child from all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem were baptized of John in Jordan? Surely not. Luke 7:30 distinctly says, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Then what does "all baptized of him" mean? We answer it does not mean all without exception, but all without distinction, that is, all classes and conditions of men. The same explanation applies to Luke 3:21. Again we read, "And early in the morning he came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them" Joh 8:2; are we to understand this expression absolutely or relatively? Does "all the people" mean all without exception or all without distinction, that is, all classes and conditions of people? Manifestly the latter; for the Temple was not able to accommodate everybody that was in Jerusalem at this time, namely, the Feast of Tabernacles. Again, we read in Acts 22:15, "For thou (Paul) shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard". Surely "all men" here does not mean every member of the human race. Now we submit that the words "who gave himself a ransom for all" in 1 Tim. 2:6 mean all without distinction, and not all without exception. He gave himself a ransom for men of all nationalities, of all generations, of all classes; in a word, for all the elect, as we read in Rev. 5:9, "For thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation". That this is not an arbitrary definition of the "all" in our passage is clear from Matt. 20:28 where we read, "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many", which limitation would be quite meaningless if he gave himself a ransom for all without exception. Furthermore, the qualifying words here, "to be testified in due time", must be taken into consideration. If Christ gave himself a ransom for the whole human race, in what sense will this be "testified in due time"? seeing that multitudes men will certainly be eternally lost. But if our text means that Christ gave himself a ransom for God's elect, for all without distinction, without distinction of nationality, social prestige, moral character, age or sex, then the meaning of these qualifying words is quite intelligible, for in "due time" this will be "testified" in the actual and accomplished salvation of every one of them. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" Heb 2:9. This passage need not detain us long. A false doctrine has
been erected
here on a false translation. There is no word whatever in the Greek
corresponding to "man" in our English version. In the Greek it is
left in the abstract — "he tasted death for every". The Revised
Version has correctly omitted "man" from the text, but has wrongly
inserted it in italics. Others suppose the word "thing" should be
supplied — "he tasted death for every thing" — but this, too, we deem
a mistake. It seems to us that the words which immediately follow explain our
text: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and whom are all things,
in bringing many sons unto glory, make the captain of their salvation perfect
through sufferings." It is of "sons" the apostle is here
writing, and suggest an ellipsis of "son" — thus: "he tasted
death for every" — and supply son in italics. Thus instead of teaching the
unlimited design of Christ's death, Heb 2:9,10 is in perfect accord with the
other scriptures we have quoted which set forth the restricted purpose in the
Atonement: was for the "sons" and not the human race our Lord
"tasted death". {a}
In closing
this section of the chapter let us say that the only limitation in the
Atonement we have contended for arises from pure sovereignty; it is a
limitation not of value and virtue, but of design and application. We turn now
to consider —