Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Oh Lord Jesus Christ, we thank you for the opportunity, for the joy, for the privilege to gather together with others who claim to be your children on the Lord's Day, the day you ascended, the day we so joyfully celebrate as being so integral in our justification.
We thank you for bringing us here. We pray that you would bless the ministries, bless those who are in Sunday School right now here, and even those men and women around the church today who are ministering to others.
Pray that you would be with them. I pray that you would be exalted, that those who are not saved would be redeemed, and those who are would be encouraged to love and good works. We thank you for this opportunity again, and we pray that you would be glorified here.
In Christ's name I pray, amen. Last week I spoke about justification, and I was in a little hurry toward the end, so I'm going to wrap up what I started to teach, particularly talking about how were Old Testament saints saved?
How were they justified? But before I do that, we need to talk about Jehovah's Witnesses, a little bit at least. And I'll tell you why I have this on my mind and how it ties into, particularly, justification.
Has anybody in the last few months, let's say less than the last two years, walked around Boston or Cambridge? A few? Anybody been to Fenway to watch the Sox play, for instance? Have you guys come across Jehovah's Witnesses in their stand?
So there's usually a pair of people, they stand or they have a very well-decorated stand, which has a bunch of placards and information about Jehovah's Witnesses. Often the stand says, what does the Bible really say?
Do you have a good family? Do you have good family values? Have you lost anybody recently? It's all over Boston and Cambridge. And you'll find them standing in pairs, and they're often very, very well-dressed.
Very well-dressed. They're very clear. They don't try to come up to you and force you, but they're smiling all the time. You can clearly see that they're ready to talk to you. But if you haven't, I'd strongly say, look for them.
They're there. They're there everywhere. I've seen them in Boston. I've spoken to them a couple of times. I've seen them in Cambridge. It's fun to talk to them because, you know, usually talking about Christ is not easy, but they're actually standing there hoping that you don't know anything about Christ, and so they can evangelize to you.
Turn with me to 1 John 5. Let's read 1 John 5, 1 to 7. Can somebody read that? 1 John 5, 1 to 7. This talks about how God is the witness. And God is a witness about what? He is the witness that Jesus is His Son, that Jesus is God incarnate.
This section talks a lot about the deity of Christ. John loves talking about the deity of Christ. We see that even in the Gospel of John. We also see that it mentions union with Christ. Now, this is an essential passage when it comes to defending who Christ is, particularly with Jehovah's Witnesses.
Because who do Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be? They claim to be witnesses of God. But in 1 John 5, and in many other parts of Scripture, the true witness of God is, indeed, God Himself. And what He witnesses about is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He is God incarnate.
And that is not what these Jehovah's Witnesses claim to do, or be. They claim to be witnesses of God. They claim that they are the source of revealing and propagating truth. But they're not. I'm going to be very explicit when I say this.
I think they're quite plainly liars. And we see that even in 1 Corinthians 15, 12 -19. Why am I calling them liars? And why am I being so harsh with respect to this? First thing is, they deny the very thing God witnesses to.
God witnesses to the deity of Christ, and they don't, they clearly say that Jesus is a small God, with a small g, that He is not God. It goes against the clear teachings of Scripture. One, next, they also claim that He was created, that He's not a member of the Trinity.
Does anybody know what is the relationship, according to Jehovah's Witness, between Jesus Christ and the angel Michael? What do they believe about this? Does anybody know that? Brothers? Okay, so, some parts of their text say they're brothers, but predominantly, what does it say?
Anybody? Predominantly, what do they say about who is, who Jesus Christ and who the angel Michael is? Somebody say something? They're the same. They're the, many, if you look at the text, if you look at what they say clearly in their text, they state that before the incarnation, before Jesus Christ took the human form, He in spirit, He was the angel Michael.
Anybody have a problem with that? I couldn't believe it. I thought I was reading wrong. And on top of that, they deny that Jesus Christ has a bodily, physical resurrection. Well, if you don't believe He is God, and you don't believe He, you believe He's just some angel, then His death was just like any other human death, right?
And you don't need a bodily resurrection, but Paul has a problem with that. Turn with me to 1 Corinthians 15, verses 12 to 19. Can somebody read that? 1 Corinthians 15, 12 to 19. This is Paul talking about the importance of Christ's bodily resurrection and how crucial it is in a person's justification.
But that's not what they believe. They believe that He was not raised as a human son. They believe He died, and once He died, it was done. But He did, as we all have a spirit after we are dead, He did come up as an immortal spirit and back as angel Michael, which nowhere in the scriptures do you see this.
They state that He never came back to life, that He was just a spirit being, and that's all they say about Christ. So as I was studying this and I was thinking about this in my mind, I have no idea how they're a part of Christianity.
How are they considered a denomination of Christianity? This is heresy. This is blasphemy. Yet they're all around Boston, they're all around Cambridge, claiming to be speaking and spreading truth about Jesus Christ.
So let's quickly, two minutes, let's quickly look at how does what they believe about Christ affect justification? Well, if they don't believe He's the Son of God, can He ever be the substitute? Perfect.
Right? Corey was saying if He couldn't, if He wasn't perfect, then He would have to A, work out His own salvation, He would have to be perfect and please God, but then how could He be a substitute for anybody else?
To Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ is for the most part nothing but a good example of how you should live. Nothing but that. The holiness of God, and we spoke about this, in order to understand justification, you need to get two aspects right.
One is God, you need to understand God is a judge. We looked at Romans 1, 2, and 3 last week. And you need to understand the total depravity of man. We looked at, again, Romans 1, 2, and 3 for that, but if you don't get either one of those right, you can't get justification right.
Jehovah's Witnesses clearly do not have either one of those right. They do not understand the holiness of God, and therefore they do not understand how it's a requirement to have a powerful, holy substitute.
If that could just be another human being, why would Christ have to die? On one of my conversations with these, there was a husband and wife standing at the stand and I was talking to them, and he saw me, my kids were sleeping and my wife was getting some coffee, so he saw me going around, so he stopped me.
And he asked me, do you have a good family? Do you have a good family life? And he probably thought I was a Hindu, he had no idea that I was a Christian, no clue, so he had no idea what was coming. And he was trying to sell me that, look, you probably don't have a good family, you probably don't have a good family life, you know that Jesus Christ can fix all that, and when you have, the question he asked is, do you sit down every day and have dinner with your family?
And I said, yes, I do. That's good, that's one of the ways you can be saved. And I said, okay, okay. So you can see, the thing is they're getting pressured by, when they look outside, they see there's no family, there's no family values, the family is being redefined in society, right?
So I think maybe they're trying to defend that side and talk about how, hey, Christianity can, or Jehovah's Witnesses can bring back family values, and then you can all be saved. And he almost dropped down, he almost, I think he almost raised his hand at one point, when I told him about the holiness of Christ and how you having a good family is never going to make you right with God.
You know, you standing here and proclaiming the, well, seemingly proclaiming the gospel is not going to save you. Obviously, his wife took a few steps back when I said that. But when you talk to them, they have, they clearly state that they are saved by their works, by their good works.
And because you're saved by their works, why do they need to be justified by the work of Christ? They don't. To them, he's just a good example. And to them, therefore, the resurrection is not important.
Paul would disagree. Paul would disagree. And so it's very dangerous as the more and more you talk to them, the more they get defensive too. The more they get defensive. So here's my kind of homework for Bethlehem Bible Church.
Go to a Red Sox game. Add half an hour to your trip. Go around Boston. Find these people. They're all over. Have fun. If you're, if you like evangelizing, you like defending the truth, here, I just gave you great armor.
They don't believe in justification. Here's a reason why. Spend half an hour. Spend 10 minutes. They'll talk to you for that long. Defend the truth. Right? Maybe, maybe go to Boston, take your wife out for a date.
Plan half an hour, plan an hour more. Go walk around with her. It's getting beautiful. No reason why you can't walk. Right? And it is a beautiful city. Walk around. See the flowers. Talk to some Jehovah's Witnesses.
Yes. Yes. Yes. There's plenty of opportunities. There's plenty of opportunity, but I haven't seen them quite as much, but I see them all the time when I'm going to South Station or walking around Cambridge.
They're everywhere. And it's a great opportunity to defend the truth. I hope you guys have fun. Now, last week, I didn't quite finish what justification... Wait. Actually, let me wrap that up a little bit.
Maybe we're not Jehovah's Witnesses, or maybe you don't claim to be a Jehovah's Witness. But I hope you understand the importance of knowing who Christ is according to what the Scripture says. Right? It doesn't matter.
I'm not saying... Okay. You may not claim to be a Jehovah's Witness, and you may be, you know, reformed. You may be thinking. You may be evangelical. All these terms come to mind. But I want to challenge you today to examine yourself no matter how long you've been saved.
Right now, this moment, or even maybe after church today, what do you truly believe about Christ? And what do you believe about sin? And what do you believe about the judgment of God? You might be surprised.
You might be surprised. It was one of these things a few years ago that showed me that I wasn't saved, that I was wretched, that I needed a substitute. So please, while we need to think about Jehovah's Witnesses correctly, we also need to examine ourselves and see, okay, what do I believe?
That's the best way you can defend the truth. That's the best way to see if you are saved yourself. Okay. Justification in the Old Testament. We spoke a little bit about this, but I was hurried, and I just want to wrap things up.
And then I want to leave plenty of time for questions and comments, because I know you guys have plenty of those. We tried to define theocracy, and we did. Anybody remember the definition or even know it outside of this class?
What is a theocracy? Do we have any theocracies in the 21st century? Corey. Excellent. Excellent. Right? God is a civil ruler. God is the head of the state. And mostly in such a state, where he is a civil ruler, you have an ecclesiastical system that also ministers, that does the administrative work.
In most of the cases, they're priests. The priests are the ones who run the theocracy. Do we have theocracies in the 21st century? Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yes. Yes. I completely agree with that.
And it's actually Joshua and Austin Johanson that reminded me. Wait a minute. Aren't some of the Muslim countries that follow Sharia law, aren't they theocratic? Yes, they absolutely are. It's the mullahs, which is the Muslim priest that essentially runs the system.
And they determine what the laws are. The laws are based on Quran. And the laws are based on whatever salvific works around Quran. And what is... Kuwait was never a theocratic system. But they were a Muslim country for the most part.
Very liberal, but they were a Muslim country. If you were found out to be homosexual in many of these countries, do you know what the plight is? Do you know what happens to these men or women? Anybody have an idea?
Do you know what? Yes. It's execution. And even in Kuwait, which is a highly liberal Muslim state, if you're found to be homosexual, you're executed in public. My dad knew this was going to happen. It didn't happen for 20 years.
A Bangladeshi man was found out to be homosexual. He was hung out, right? Not too far from where we were in Kuwait. My dad knew that it was going to happen, made sure we didn't go anywhere near it. But one of the biggest differences between a Christian...
Not a Christian theocracy. We don't have a Christian theocracy. But when you look at the theocracy and the true God, and that's the difference that Corey made as well, right? Under the true, living, sovereign God, and the theocracy of a false god like the Islamic one, the first thing that stands out as different is grace.
There's absolutely no grace in a system where there's no true God. And that's what you see in the theocratic system of Iran. Iran is a great example of that. Saudi Arabia is inching more and more closer.
They've always had Sharia law, but now they're inching more and more closer to making it all throughout their kingdom. But one thing that stands out is there's absolutely no grace. You're not good. You've not done the right works.
You're ashamed to the state. You're ashamed to the religion. We're going to execute you. Big difference from what we saw in the Old Testament. Is the church a theocracy? Based on the definition of it, right?
Based on the definition that we've just said. Is the church a theocracy? Do some people think it's a theocracy? Right. I agree. But what I do disagree with is he's not the civil ruler, is he? Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out.
The civil ruler of the church, I don't know. Yeah. Right. I mean, if you get angry with what I'm saying right now and you hit me with your car and I try to pull away, speed out of the church, it's the state police that's going to try to solve the problem between us.
It's not Pastor Mike or Pastor Steve, right? So I think in that sense, I don't see the church as necessarily a theocracy. And that's what I meant. Yeah. Yeah, clearly Christ is the head of the church, and clearly we understand that from what the Bible says, and we know he's sovereign.
Those things are not brought into question by the theocracy, but I think the question is we see a theocracy clearly in Israel. Is that the same thing we see in the church, right? We don't see that. That was my main question.
What was the purpose of the law given to Israel? And why is it important to understand as part of justification? Because people are confused, and they're very afraid to study this topic. They're very afraid to study the topic of how were people saved in the Old Testament?
How were people saved in the New Testament? Because some people truly believe it's not clear. I disagree, and I think it's important to study that. I was talking to a few colleagues of mine who are also seminary students.
Some are in Master, some are in Southern, and they were saying that apart from those two seminaries, a lot of seminaries don't teach about Old Testament salvation as much. So there is, again, confusion as a part of that.
But I think it's very important to study, because it brings us even more joy to see how God does work in the Old Testament and the New Testament, how in the Old Testament he was looking forward to Christ's sacrifice, even though they didn't understand it perfectly.
Now in the New Testament, we look backwards at what Christ has accomplished, and it's important to look at that. We spoke about this briefly last week. What was the purpose of the law given to Israel?
It's a theocracy, yes, but... So therefore there was a civil rule and law there, that is, there were instructions on how they need to live within that government. But what were the other laws? Or what were the other reasons, sorry, for the law?
Corey said this last week, so anybody remember what he said? Deuteronomy 4, 6 to 8 and Deuteronomy 33, 1 to 4 talk about how the law was given with the purpose of separating Israel from the other nations, particularly from pagan nations.
God is holy. He is different from any other entity that claims to be God. He's the only God. And his people need to be separated from other people. And that's one of the reasons why they had the law. It was also to bind them as one nation under God.
One thing the Jehovah's Witnesses struggle to understand is they believe Israel deserve to be God's people. They believe because they don't believe in, they don't understand God as a judge. We saw that earlier.
I spoke about that, and I also spoke about how they don't understand depravity. So they are one denomination. I can't call them a denomination of Christianity. It's hard to do that. But they believe that Israel deserve to be God's people.
Is that what the Bible says though? Okay, can you give me an example somewhere? New Testament, Old Testament, where we see that they were chosen by the sovereign grace of God to be God's people, and not because they were good, not because they were obedient.
Were they always obedient? No. Didn't they always need to be restored? They constantly needed to be restored, and that was another sign of God's grace. Galatians 3 and 4, Romans 1, 2, and 3. They were given the law, that is they were made a theocratic nation, but even that was by grace.
And I asked this question last week too, but it's good for us to think about it. When you look at God and Israel in the Old Testament, what is often a good example, illustration of that relationship? I'll give you a hint.
Hosea talks about it a lot. What is the relationship often between God and Israel? Faithful husband and a Harlem. Thank you. It's often a picture of an unfaithful bride and a faithful, patient husband.
And you see that painted on a lot of places in Scripture. Can somebody read Isaiah 40, 29 to 31? Isaiah 40, 29 to 31. We're going to take a look at Israel's privileged position. Again, we're trying to determine from the Bible if God chooses people based on their works, based on their behavior, or based on His sovereign, independent will.
Isaiah 40, 29 to 31. It's an example of how, thank you Mark, it was an example of how in the Old Testament, dependence on the flesh was strongly discouraged. Strongly discouraged. No matter what, whether the law was there or not, God through the prophets has always made it clear that Israel's privileged position was given as a gift.
And that dependence on the flesh needs to be strongly discouraged. Jeremiah 1, 20 and Hosea 2, 19 talks about how much grace God has displayed and frequently in restoring Israel, in restoring sinful people.
Grace upon grace, God's patience shown multiple times, even under law to restore His people. Okay, so now that we've thought about the Old Testament, we looked at what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and how that affects their view of justification.
We've looked at how they and some others do believe that Israel was chosen because of their works. Now, the next thing is, it's a very important topic, it's a very deep topic, and that is understanding the Old Testament sacrifices.
What do you think were some of the functions of the Old Testament sacrifices? I have four points. Are they important to understand? And what is the purpose of those sacrifices? Because your understanding of this shows that you believe the way God saved was through Christ and not because of the works that people did under the law.
So it's important to understand that. It's important to see how God worked. And in studying Old Testament sacrificial system and studying the Old Testament salvation, you will stumble upon covenant versus dispensational.
No way to avoid it. I wanted to avoid it because you cannot study that topic with a light heart. You have to go full in. By the time I finished studying the two, I had 400 pages of my own personal notes.
Don't worry, I'm not teaching you that. I'm not going through all of that. Don't worry. But it's a very deep topic. It's good to understand it. It gives me more joy to see how God has worked, even in Israel and in the church, and how He does all of that for His glory and through the work of Christ.
But how? So back to my question. Can you tell me some of the functions of the Old Testament sacrifices? Do you know? What do you know? When you study, what have you learned about that? Old Testament sacrifices, are they important?
What's their function? Excellent. You see, Karen was mentioning how it was a reminder to them that they did not meet God's standard, that God was holy, and He's righteous, and He needs sacrifices. There has to be some kind of atonement, some kind of penalty paid, and that's where the sacrificial system came.
Good. What else? Mark. Excellent. Can I use the word typological, where it was showing a type? So let me ask you this question. If it is typological, did the Israelites understand fully that it was pointing to Jesus of Nazareth and that He was the Messiah and all of that?
Yes, no, maybe, why? Question of controversy? Is it a true statement that sometimes, or at least what I see from covenant theologians, and not everything they talk about is wrong, I don't want to put it out like that, but when they say that Israel and the church are the one, they kind of muddy up that water.
What they're stating is, in conversation with many of them and in trying to study what they believe, they do believe that Israel understood very well through the sacrificial system that it was going to point to Jesus of Nazareth.
I don't see that in the Bible. I don't see that from studying Scripture. I don't see how they can draw that conclusion. But the reason they draw that, at least from, again, talking to many of them and reading up on their literature, was they're afraid that if you don't talk about Christ, if you don't say that that was the way that God would save people, that there's two ways of salvation.
But that's not the case. They didn't understand everything. We don't see that in the Bible. They didn't understand everything about salvation, that it would be Christ. But they did understand one thing, that God would fix the sin problem.
Did they understand exactly how they would do it? No. But they knew that at that time, the sacrificial system was given to them, and that God was making a way for propitiation and expiation. They didn't fully understand that it would be through Christ, that it would be through Jesus Christ, who was born in Bethlehem.
In fact, if they did understand that, my argument was they would have seen Christ being born, and they would have immediately recognized Him as Lord, and there would be no problem between Him and the Pharisees.
But my other argument is if they did understand, if they did know that it was just a type, it was just a shadow, that Christ would come, and eventually never have to sacrifice again, would they have made those sacrifices in the first place?
Would they? What do you think? Because if they knew that that's exactly what this meant, this sacrifice is a lamb, but it's just a type of the Messiah that would come, and this is the way He would be sacrificed, would there be a need for them to?
Would they still need to sacrifice, or would they sacrifice? That's the question. Yes. Absolutely. Yes, I agree with that. I have that written down here as well. They should do it because God commanded.
They should do it. But why am I bringing up this point? Even though they didn't fully understand the system, they didn't fully understand Christ's salvific work, His life, His death, His resurrection, they knew that God would make provision to fix the sin problem, and that He alone is the one who can save.
They did understand depravity. They did understand that God alone is the one who forgives sins and saves, and even though it was not fully in the Lord Jesus Christ as well. Right. And the Israelites understood that because, well, they did know.
Nationally, they knew that He was God and He was holy, but the sacrificial system also showed that He was related to them spiritually and theocratically. And by the sacrifices, first thing is that the sacrificial system would restore them back to a good standing with the government, right, with the government head.
That makes sense. Even we have that law here, right? You want to be made right of the government, you commit a crime. There's a certain number of steps that need to be followed to be made right. Again, there are no police officers in the room today, even though we have several in our church.
Could have asked them more for details. But, so God was a ruler in Israel, so when a person sinned, it affected his relationship with God as a theocratic ruler. So therefore, you had sin offerings and guilt offerings and trespass offerings, which helped you restore that function.
I'm not saying this was the only function, but this was one of the functions. It had them restore them to the theocratic system in Israel. The second, as Mark said, it also had a typological function.
And let's look at Hebrews 10 .1. I know Pastor Mike is going to get here probably in two years, right? Five, okay, five years. But Hebrews 10 .1. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of these realities, it can never by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year make perfect those who draw near.
This is not to say that the sacrificial system was wrong, that it was worthless, no. But you have to understand, even by looking at the Hebrews, and even the Israelites understood it, even the believing Israelites understood that this was just a shadow of the real thing that was to come.
And that's what I mean that the Old Testament sacrifices, one of their functions was a typological function, that it was a type of what was to come in Christ's sacrifice. Questions, comments about that?
Finally, one of the other functions in the Old Testament sacrifices was that it was also used as a means to worship God. We saw grain offerings. We see peace offerings. They were always meant to be brought by the believing Israelites who loved the Lord, who understood the holiness of God, who was truly grateful to God.
And that was one of its main purposes. And last, but importantly, it also did have a soteriological function. Soteriology is the doctrine of the study of salvation. And the main argument here is this.
The believer was not, I'm not talking about the Old Testament believer, was not necessarily committing himself to sacrifice. The person who truly understood that he was a sinner, that he was depraved, that sin needs, there's consequences to sin, it needs to be punished.
And that he needs, there has to be a provision for his sin made by God. He didn't rely on the sacrificial system alone, or he did not rely on that for salvation. He depended on God for salvation. They put their full faith and trust in God and not the sacrificial system.
When you look at Jeremiah and when you look at the major and minor prophets, if you look at it, the prophets call Israelites, do they call them back to the sacrificial system or do they call them back to God?
In other words, they say, okay, you need to, this is the mistake you've made. You've not made the sacrifices or you've not done this. You have to do the sacrifices, but they never say return to the sacrificial system.
They say return to God. And we see that in a number of places, especially with the major and the minor prophets. So John Feinberg, he wrote essays and notes by, I believe, his father, Charles Feinberg.
And it's just a great little book written in 1981, way before I was born, on understanding Old Testament theology. And I found this book a goldmine. But it's a lot to study, so I won't go through every aspect of it.
But one of the things he states is that the sacrificial system, soteriologically, while did not justify, had an effect on, did sanctify. Agree? Disagree? What do you think? For me, this is the first time the word sanctification has even come to my mind when I'm thinking about Old Testament saints.
I never even thought about it like that, but when you look at it, that's true, false? What do you think? There's a difference between justification and sanctification. Is that correct? If justification is required in the Old Testament and the New Testament, would you say that sanctification is required, too, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament?
Did it mean the exact same thing, that is, grow in Christlikeness? Yes. Yes. Right, right. It's the same idea, that is, growing towards holiness, pleasing God in a manner, because He saved you, pleasing God, still understanding that it's His grace and His finished work, eventually, that will save you.
So, what is the process of sanctification for the New Testament believer? We know we're justified, we're forgiven by grace alone, but what is the process of sanctification? When you talk about daily sanctification, what's the first thing that comes into your mind that you need to do?
Hint, 1 John 1. 1 John 1 .9, to be specific. You can turn there if you... Thank you. Corey. Somebody wants to read it? This is an essential part of sanctification. What is it? You go to God daily and do what?
1 John 1 .9. What does it say? Excellent. ESV? Yes, it looks like ESV. That's very good. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Kind of the pillar of sanctification, you can say, oh, the very important part of sanctification for the New Testament believer, you sin, you understand your sin, you go to Him daily, you confess. He's an ever-living, mediatorial high priest who makes intercession.
Right? That's what it is. It's a very important part of the sacrificial... Sorry, important part of the New Testament believer. What about in the Old Testament believer? Old Testament saints, what did he have to do for sanctification?
Did he still have to go and confess sins? Did he still have to be repentant? Are there examples of repentant in the Old Testament? Anybody? Other than Corey? I'm just joking. Job, didn't he? Was Job repentant?
Did he even seek forgiveness for his wife and his children? You can see a repentant heart seeking forgiveness from a holy God. You see that throughout the Old Testament. But in addition to seeking God's forgiveness, going to Him in that manner, what else did the Old Testament saints have to do in order to be sanctified?
We're talking about the whole day. We're talking about this the whole day. Sacrifices? Maybe? No? Convinced? Not at all? They had to bring the sacrifices too as part of their sanctification. Why? Because God said so.
Because at that time, that's the way God commanded and that's the way God had chosen that sins would be forgiven. That sins, that there would be an area that they would grow in sanctification. So the Old Testament sacrifices did not justify.
But I thought about it, and this is the way I've put it. And I've seen some other authors do the same thing. Can I say that they were a down payment for sin? Well, what is a down payment? What do you give a down payment for?
Anybody bought a house lately? Or anybody bought something? Or if you guys like buying cars on loans, do you do something like that where you give a down payment? It's a start where I can continue with the paperwork.
It's not full. You still need to pay off the full price through the loan, but it's a start. It tells you, okay, now you can get the house or get the car and here's a ton of paperwork you need to sign.
It's officially yours, except the bank owns it, but it's a start. That's what the down payments are for. So can I look at the sacrificial system and say that it was a down payment for sin, whereas when we study Hebrews we see that it was Christ's sacrifice that was the full and final payment?
You guys don't look convinced. Karen? Yes. I'm not saying that they knew it was a down payment. No, no, that's not what I'm saying. But when we look at it, because they didn't see Christ, because even though in God's mind, for God, he knew exactly what was going to happen.
Before the world, before he created the world, he knew exactly the role of Christ and how he alone would pay the sins. He knows that very well. But the people didn't know that. The Old Testament saints didn't know that fully.
So my argument is not that they knew it was only a down payment. I'm not saying that they used it as a workspace system. But even though they didn't fully understand it, because Christ has not come, he hasn't lived, he hasn't died, he has not been raised.
So in that sense, what I'm saying is, while they didn't know, they still believed in God. They're not resting in the sacrificial system, so therefore it's not workspaced. They're not resting in the down payment.
That's not what I'm saying. They did trust in God, and that he is going to fix the sin problem. But what I am saying is, when you look at it, and the whole of Scripture, and you look at it from our side, can we say that, because people are arguing, the thing I'm trying to correct is, people are arguing that the Old Testament saints were believed because they kept the law and because they kept the sacrificial system.
What I'm arguing is, no, that's not the case, and here's why. The statement I'm making is, it's not full. It's not God's wrath, as we see in Hebrews 9 and 10. It cannot be appeased by the sacrifice of goats and lambs.
It had to be the Son of God. So that's my point. Yes, in anticipation, looking forward, that's where the type comes in. Does that make sense? I don't want you to leave thinking that. No, no, no, great question.
That was my main point. Did everybody understand that? No, Mark. Yes, yes. Okay, yeah. I agree, I agree. Again, I'm looking at it from the New Testament believer, not from the... For them, it was complete, right?
Because they were fully resting in God. This was what God had ordained for them to do, and they were doing it by faith, right? The same way we do, by faith. By faith in the true God, by faith that He will fix the sin problem.
Okay. Finally, this is what Feinberg closes things out with, and I'd like to end by just stating this. The Old Testament sacrifice is pointed to, typological function, the sacrifice of Christ, which would fully handle sin, even if the Jew did not understand the typology of the sacrifice.
On the ground of His sacrifice, to which the Old Testament sacrifice pointed, the Old Testament believer, who in repentant faith brought a sacrifice, could be assured that God would cover, cleanse, and forgive such sin.
But the objective deed, from God's standpoint, that would completely pay for and remove sin, was only offered on Calvary. Clear? Does that make sense? Questions, comments, because I'm done, so I'll take some questions and comments.
Yes, I'm over. Yes. So that brings up an important question. Did the sacrificial system, does the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus numbers, say that the sacrificial system cleansed, that it forgave sins?
It did, right? It was covering. It covered sin. So it did forgive sins. It did cover sin. So in that sense, wouldn't those who practiced the sacrificial, who followed through the sacrificial system, wouldn't they have had a clear conscience, assurance of salvation?
We understand that it's not fully cleansed until Christ finishes the work. But did it, but it did, I would argue that it did cleanse, that it did. Looking forward to Christ's finished work. It's not wrapped up in a perfect bowl like we see, but wouldn't you say that it did?
Yes, yes. Yeah, absolutely. So the dependence is still on God, and I like that. It's a future hope. He knew it would be, so I would argue that, yes, he had a clear conscience after he gave the sacrifice.
Yes, absolutely. Yes, yes, yes. Agreed. Yes, agreed. And that's Hebrews 1 to 10 right there. Exactly. Only Christ's work could fully, especially for us as New Testament believers, we look back and we have clear consciences because Christ's one and only sacrifice.
Great question. John, it's complete. Because we see it from this side as finished. We're looking back at the finished work on the cross. We understand. It's progressive revelation, right? We see it's complete in the Bible, right?
So they didn't have the whole of revelation, but we do. In Christ Jesus, everything is complete, so we have a hope that they did not even see fully. That's the main point. That's the main argument. Okay, I'm going to stop before more people come in.
Again, sorry, I went overboard. Not overboard, over time. Sorry. The Jehovah's Witnesses do think I went overboard, but let's pray. Lord, I thank you for your scripture and how we understand it because you've given us the Holy Spirit because he's our guide, our comfort.
We thank you that you have once and for all finished the work of redeeming, of redemption, how you became the substitute, how you obeyed. And based on your obedience, we are declared righteous. We thank you for paying the penalty for our sin.
We thank you for giving us the opportunity to gather together with others who believe in this, to encourage one another to love and good works, to grow in Christlikeness. We thank you also, Lord, that there is plenty of opportunities around with Jehovah's Witnesses and others in different religions to preach that Jesus Christ is Lord and that in him alone is there salvation, is there justification.
Would you help us to share this truth in love, in gentleness, and in boldness. We pray that you'd bless the rest of this day, that you would be glorified in our singing and in the preaching and, Lord, even in the way we listen and obey.
In Christ's holy name I pray. Amen.