Union with Christ, Part 1

Introduction: The Question of Christ's Death and the Covenant of Redemption

0:02 Now, our study this morning is the third in this series addressing itself to this very critical question, for whom did Christ die? Now, I'll take the liberty of reminding you of the main hinges of the case as I've been seeking to develop it thus far. First of all, I would underscore again what the real issue is. The issue, most simply stated, is this.

0:28 Did Christ die for all men indiscriminately and distributively, or did he die for some men specifically and exclusively? And secondly, our approach is not to come to individual texts, which on the surface address themselves to the subject of the extent of the atonement, but rather to take the biblical doctrine of atonement as sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption, and to set it in relationship to its larger biblical categories, which bear upon the work that he accomplished on the cross.

1:09 And so we're coming, not the atomistic approach, but the holistic approach to this question. Last week, we looked at the first circle of relationship, namely the covenant of redemption. And what I attempted to demonstrate from the scriptures was that there is...

1:29 There is much biblical evidence pointing to that which the theologians have entitled, most of them, the covenant of redemption, with its synonyms, council of peace, or council of redemption, or the terminology used in the class here, the inter-trinitarian agreement. And whatever term we use, it's the thing itself that we're concerned about, not embodying any term in some kind of special class, but there is biblical data pointing. To the fact that there is a pre-temporal, inter-trinitarian commitment with reference to the salvation of the people. And all of the data with reference to that agreement, that we call the covenant of redemption,

2:14 points to a particularism that a specific people are given to Christ. He assumes their liabilities and is committed to effect redemption on their behalf. The Father is committed to uphold and sustain them. The Son, the Spirit, is committed to do all that is necessary to give to the Son the full reward of that which He purchases upon the cross.

The Necessity of Considering Christ's Death in Relation to His People

2:40 Well, that's a very quick overview of what we've covered thus far. Now we come this morning to consider the death of Christ in this second circle, that of His relationship to His people. The death of Christ, then, with respect to the relationship of Christ to His people, or, you may use another parallel term, the death of Christ in relationship to the doctrine of union with Christ. In thinking our way through this glorious aspect of revealed truth, we shall first of all examine, number one, the necessity of this approach.

3:21 Secondly, a statement or an exposition of Christ's relationship to His people. And then, our next step is to consider the death of Christ in the light of this teaching. The lecture next week will deal with the implications of this teaching. The implications are so rich that I felt it would be wrong to simply tack them onto the lecture today when time was running out.

3:42 Alright, first of all then, the necessity of considering all facets of the death of Christ in the light of His relationship to His people. And there is a two-fold necessity, a logical necessity and then an exegetical necessity. So under heading number one, A, the logical necessity, heading B will be the exegetical necessity. Now the logical necessity is stated in, I shall state it this way.

4:13 If the doctrine called the covenant of redemption is a biblical category of thought, if indeed there was and is a Trinitarian arrangement in which the Father gives a people to Christ, a people for whom Christ assumes all liabilities and responsibilities, if indeed the Spirit engages to support the Son in His mission and apply the fruits of that mission, then we must ask the question, we can't avoid it, what was the precise relationship of Christ to those people whom the Father gave to Him,

4:54 which would make all His doings, applicable to them? You follow now this logical necessity. If there is such a thing as a covenant of redemption, a people are given to the Son, a Son assumes the debts and liabilities of that people, commits Himself to effect everything necessary for their salvation, the Spirit concurs in that Trinitarian commitment to do all that is necessary as a sign to Him in the responsibility of saving the people, but we cannot avoid the question, it's just forced upon us by the sheer pressure of any logical consistency,

5:36 what was the precise relationship established between Christ and the people whom He engages to save? Now, since God always judges according to truth and reality, what relationship will constitute the just grounds of transferring all of the ill-desert of the people to Christ who acts on their behalf? What relationship will justify transferring all of the liabilities of the people to Christ who agrees to accept those liabilities? You see, God does not deal in legal fictions.

6:20 He commands us to judge righteous judgment. His judgments are according to truth. So that if a people are regarded as righteous on the grounds of the doings of another, there must be a relationship between the surety and the people for whom he is surety that justifies that exchange of guilt to the one and of merit to the other. Now, objections to the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice have always found two major expressions.

6:56 One, Christ cannot be said to suffer in the room instead of others because that's foreign to every concept of justice. The soul that sinneth, it shall die, and you can't transfer guilt from one party to another. And then the second great objection is it is not right for guilty people to be set free on the basis of the virtue of another. Just as you cannot transfer guilt from one party to another, you cannot transfer innocence from one party to another who is not innocent.

7:33 Now, in taking up those two great objections to the Christian doctrine of vicarious sacrifice, Hodge, having ably disposed of those objections, then says, and I quote now a rather lengthy quote from Hodge, page 112 on to 113 in his Treatment of the Atonement in the book I recommended last week, The Atonement by Hugh Martin and A. A. Hodge. It's two books put into one, published by Mac Publishing.

8:05 As to the second side of the objection made above, and I've just referred to those objections, we confess that the divine administration both as to the coming in of the curse through Adam and as to the redemption from the curse through Christ rests upon principles higher and grander than those embraced in ordinary rules of human law. Our doctrine, although never contradicting reason, does not rest upon reason. But upon the supernatural revelation given in the word. But while the complete satisfaction which absolute justice finds in the vicarious sufferings of a substituted victim may transcend reason,

8:48 it by no means conflicts with reason. And then Hodge goes on to show, quoting from Turretin, one of the older theologians, and Grotius, you'll find those names occurring in Reformed theological literature, the writing, that there are three kinds of union known to us which justify the imputation of sin because they are of such a nature that in the case of certain actions the moral responsibility for the sin is common to all the parties involved. In other words, he's going to illustrate this principle in human experience, natural as between a father and his children. We find that in Scripture.

9:30 A father's sins implicate a child or the family, remember Achan and his whole family and household were judged. Then secondly, moral and political as between a king and his subjects. And then voluntary as between friends and an arraigned criminal and his sponsor. Now the union of Christ with his people rests on stronger ground than any of these considered alone.

9:55 And then he goes on to show that it was absolutely voluntary and the thrust of his argument is we will not understand the rightness, the justice of this transference of the guilt of the guilty to the innocent and the innocence of the innocent to the guilty unless we come to grips with the doctrine of Christ's relationship to his people, the uniqueness of it, the reality of it, the nature of it being such that when God declares Christ to be laden with the guilt of his people he's not playing games. And when he declares his people to be accepted with the righteousness of his son he's not playing games. There is a valid transference of one to the other

10:40 because a relationship has been established which makes that possible. So I say in the first place thinking of the work of Christ upon the cross in terms of his relationship to his people is a logical necessity growing out of the doctrine of the covenant of redemption. But secondly and primarily it is a scriptural necessity. And now I want to demonstrate the scriptural necessity of contemplating the death of Christ only whenever we're thinking of that death in any extensive way only in its larger category of his relationship to his people.

Scriptural Evidence for Union with Christ in Prophecy and Christ's Own Words

11:24 In other words, what I propose to do is to demonstrate that this is not just a logical extension of a previous theological category but it is the inescapable conclusion of careful exegesis. And what I hope to do is to convince you so that you in turn will know something of the blessing of this and in turn be able to convince others. Consider the evidence then along four lines. First of all in the prophetic announcement concerning his death.

12:01 Now all we're seeking to show is that thinking of Christ's death in this vital relationship to this doctrine his relationship to his people union with Christ and the death of Christ thinking of them always together it is first of all pressed upon us from the scripture from the prophetic announcement concerning his death. And if you will please consider Isaiah chapter 53. Some have called it this pre-written eyewitness account of the death of Christ. In Isaiah 53 the suffering servant is put before us and our concern is particularly with

12:45 verse 10 and following. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him. He hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see not his seed but a seed he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand he shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many and he shall bear their iniquities. Now the particular phrase that is of concern to us is in verse 10.

13:28 When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see a seed. When thou shalt make an offering he shall see a seed. So that the offering and the seed are brought into the closest proximity in this prophetic announcement concerning the death of the suffering servant of Jehovah. That's just another way of saying that his death upon the cross must not be contemplated in isolation from the people

14:11 to whom he is united. When thou shalt make his soul an offering he shall see his seed. Offering and seed are brought into the closest proximity so that any contemplation of the offering divorced from the seed on whose behalf the offering was made is a fractured contemplation of the death of Christ. We are separating what God has joined.

14:42 There is a deep and intimate relationship previously established between the one who is offered and the seed which forms the rationale for the sin-bearing capacity of the one who is offered. This is not a relationship established subsequent to all the accomplishment of the work. It is one previously established when thou shalt make his soul he already has a seed and he sees that seed. Alright?

15:18 In the prophetic announcement then we see not just a justification but the scriptural necessity of contemplating the death of Christ in relationship to the biblical doctrine of union with Christ or Christ's relationship to his people. Then secondly look at the prophetic announcement at his birth. The prophetic announcement at his birth. Matthew chapter 1.

15:46 You remember the setting of this particular passage. Mary and Joseph are engaged and engagement was a bit of a different nature then as now. They were actually considered married though they did not live together and cohabit. He was espoused to Mary and during this time he discovers that she is with child and Joseph contemplates what his action should be and living under the old economy he contemplates it in terms of the strictures of the ceremonial and civil laws of Israel.

16:29 And while he is wrestling with what course of action is open to him verse 20 of Matthew 1 when he thought on these things wonderful lesson about he that believeth shall not make haste. Thank God Joseph didn't make haste. He was a God maker. He was a holy man which meant that he would weigh his actions before engaging in them.

16:48 While he thought on these things behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying Joseph thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. She is referred to as his wife you see in that commitment of betrothal. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit and she shall bring forth the son and thou shall call his name Jesus for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. Now the main point of exegesis is this in the whole complex of his saving activity it is his people

17:31 who are the focus of that activity. He shall save and in that word save is the whole complex of saving activity but all of that activity is with distinct and exclusive reference to his people. Now what is the precise identity of his people? Some would say well that's the Jews.

17:53 Well if so then every single Jew whoever was or ever shall be is going to be saved. Because this verse does not say he shall provide salvation he shall make salvable it says he shall save. He shall actually release from sin his bondage unto the consummate blessings of grace his people. So if you make that to Jews you have at least Hebrew universalism.

18:22 Now I don't think anyone wants to live with that. Well what's the other alternative then? Well the other alternative is that his people is that seed of Isaiah 53. It is that people who were deposited to his care for whom he assumed liabilities and responsibilities in the covenant of redemption to whom he is so intimately related in the whole complex of his saving activity that they are identified as his people.

18:54 Now since the cross is his central work now I didn't say exclusive but since the cross is his central his pivotal work to accomplish that salvation it is unthinkable that that cross would be divorced from the people. For whom the whole saving complex is designed. It's unthinkable. Well if it's unthinkable for our Lord it should be unthinkable for us then to contemplate the work the pivotal work by which salvation is wrought apart from the people on whose behalf it is to be wrought.

19:35 Alright the third line of evidence is in the actual words of our Lord himself. John chapter 10 John chapter 10 in this chapter in which we have some of the most rich teaching in all of scripture concerning Christ as the shepherd of his people I direct your attention to verses 14 and following. I am the good shepherd our Lord speaking and I know mine own and mine own know me. Here our Lord is speaking of a relationship presently existing.

20:12 He has a people there who knows and who know him. There is this reciprocal saving knowledge. Even as the Father knoweth me and I know the sheep and I lay down my life for the sheep and other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and they shall become one flock one shepherd therefore doth the Father love me because I lay down my life that I may take it again. He taketh it away from me but I lay it down of myself.

20:46 I have power to lay it down. I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father. Now the focus of our exegesis is upon two strands of thought in this passage.

20:59 Verse 14 obviously points to a relationship that Christ sustains to a people presently existing and who presently know him. I am the good shepherd I know mine own and mine own know me. So what he is saying at this point applies at least to those who are in a present saving relationship to him. But then notice how the perspective opens up in the following verses.

21:32 Surely he lays down his life for the sheep which in verse 14 means at least those who presently know him it may not mean anything more than that it may not be any broader than this statement I am to die for those who are presently savingly related to me. But now notice what verse 16 does. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold how are they to be identified them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and they shall become one flock under one shepherd. So now he says

22:14 he speaks of a people who are his sheep not in terms of present experimental relationship to him. They are yet to hear his voice effectual calling. They are yet to come into his fold into his visible community. So when he says that he lays down his life then for the sheep previously and then he follows with these assertions you notice that our Lord defines the sheep as the total aggregate of his own presently in saving relationship to him and others yet unborn and uncalled and ungathered

22:57 but he gives them all the one designation my sheep. You see that? So that when he goes on to state that I lay down my life for them no one takes it from me I lay it down he is saying that all that I am about to perform in the giving up of my life upon the cross is with distinct reference to my people my sheep in a relationship previously established. Long before they hear my voice long before they are gathered into the one fold and consciously submit to the one shepherd he says I call them my sheep

23:41 I am in the most intimate relationship to them though yet they know nothing of that relationship. And he says I am dying for them in the mind of our Lord then these two things are brought into the closest proximity his death upon the cross and the uniqueness and the validity of his relationship to his people. And then the fourth passage just a section from the epistles you see what I have done I have sort of gotten locked into this method Sunday mornings and I kind of like it so for a while you will have to bear with it we have gone from the prophetic utterance to the announcement of his conception now to our Lord's words then to the teaching of the apostle

Apostolic Teaching on Union with Christ and the Church

24:26 and perhaps no passage is more germane to this issue than Ephesians chapter 5 Ephesians chapter 5 the apostle Paul cannot teach the most practical duties without doing as Moses did when he taught practical duties to Israel soaking the tap roots in redemption you see now here is the similarity when Moses would say do this, do this, do this don't cut the corners of your beard don't mix your cloth for God brought you out of Egypt you are his redeemed people the duties given peculiar to that circumstance are always soaked in the tap roots of redemptive privilege

25:09 now we have got some duties laying out here and what does Paul do? He does the same thing Husbands you should love your wife but now where should we take our motivation? from what shall we derive? perspectives well he does the same thing he goes to redemptive realities not Old Testament national redemption but the redemption of the people of God so verse 24 verse 25 Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for it that he might sanctify it having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word that he might present the church to himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing

25:53 but that it should be holy and without blemish now the point for exegesis again is simply this that the loving and his giving of himself to die is said to be for the aggregate body the church Christ loved the church the church was the specific object of his love the church in the mind of our Lord as an entity it was for the church that he gave himself up with the intention that he might sanctify it having cleansed it and ultimately present it to himself without spot or wrinkle what is the apostle telling us

26:36 with reference to the doctrine of Christ death then upon the cross well he is telling us that in the mind and purpose and intention of our Lord that death was intimately connected with an entity already existent in his mind and in his own heart it was his church which he loved even to the giving up of himself it was his church which he died for with the specific intention that that entity should be purified sanctified and ultimately presented to himself without spot or without wrinkle so that we must never think of the cross as bare sin as substitution we must never think of the cross

27:19 as isolated vicarious sacrifice we must think of it as substitution for a people vicarious in the place of a people not just mankind generically not just sinners generically but sheep and so the dominant emphasis of the word of God forces upon us a contemplation of the word of Christ as inseparably inseparably joined to this broader doctrine of union with Christ or the specific relationship of Christ to his people well there are many other texts that could be brought to the service of this point

Expounding the Relationship: Legal/Federal Union

28:03 I simply pointed out some of them so that I trust you are convinced not only is this category of thought a logical necessity but it is an exegetical necessity as well logically it is a necessary corollary of the covenant of redemption exegetically it is the inescapable conclusion of divine testimony so you have necessary corollary and then you have divine testimony alright now how shall we expound the relationship having demonstrated the necessity of considering the cross of Christ in this relationship now we make an effort

28:48 at expounding the relationship and once again we are at a loss for biblical words to define or describe the relationship with precision so the terms I use are not inspired nor are they sacrosanct that is particularly holy and therefore immune from change if God will use some of you to restate these issues and give greater clarity and beauty to them with fresh terminology hallelujah that is what we hope is going to come if God spares us with the resurgence of concern with historic Christianity some of us are praying that God will raise up not only theologians and preachers but writers and poets

29:31 and everything else so that these truths will be fresh freshly expressed and beautifully embodied in the very thought patterns of our own generation in the language forms of our own generation so I am at a loss maybe so much of my help has to come from bygone days that I just have to stick with traditional terminology but the issue is not the terminology but the thing which it reflects and I think after wrestling with this and wondering what terms shall I use and writing down some and scratching them out I am going to fall back on one of the old masters in Israel and simply say with Hodge that we may think of this relationship in two basic categories

30:14 on the one hand we may think of it as a legal or a federal union or federal headship and secondly as a vital or a mystical union or headship the two terms that Hodge uses are legal and vital I have added to them federal and mystical alright the relationship then of Christ to his people we are looking at that second circle here it is what was the precise relationship of the Lord Jesus Christ who hung upon the cross what was his relationship while upon the cross to those designated in Isaiah

30:58 his seed Matthew 1.21 his people John 10 his sheep Ephesians 5 his church well I suggest that we may codify we may seek to collate the biblical materials and express them in this manner it was a legal or a federal relationship and using the word federal in terms of its old Latin meaning focusing upon a compact or a treaty now that the salvation of guilty sinners is procured and applied within a framework of federalism that is in which one party acts on behalf of the many

31:41 is the inescapable testimony of two key passages of the word of God and no one and I make this statement guardedly no one can be a theologian of any sorts who is either ignorant of or uncommitted to the obvious truth of these two passages you cannot begin to construct anything that borders on an understanding of true biblical and systematic theology or systematic theology that is biblical if you are either ignorant of or uncommitted to these two passages all right you tell me what are they Romans 5 Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 thank you all right let's turn to them

32:25 Romans chapter 5 and my purpose now is not to give a detailed exegesis but simply to point out some of the dominant lines of thought Romans 5 verses 12 through 21 therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin and so death passed unto all men then you have a parenthetical statement from verse 13 all the way down to verse some would say all the way down to verse 18 some would break it off at verse I believe at verse 15 so verse 16 would be the picking up of the thought

33:09 again but be that as it may what I want you to do is just notice as I pick out certain elements of this what the dominant themes are as through the one man into the world and death through sin and so death passed unto all men for that all sinned verse 17 for if by the trespass of the one death reigned through the one much more death reigned through the one much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one even Jesus Christ verse 18 so then as through one trespass unto all men even so through the one

33:54 act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men verse 19 as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous do you catch the strands of emphasis as through the one these results as through the one these results now just keep that in your head and turn to first Corinthians 15 verses 20 through 22 and then verses 45 to 49 first Corinthians 15 20 through 22 but now hath Christ been raised from the dead the firstfruits of them that are asleep for since by man death by man

34:38 also resurrection of the dead as in Adam all die so also in Christ shall all be made alive verse 45 as it is written the first Adam became a living soul the second Adam became a life giving spirit however how be it that is not first which is spiritual but that which is natural then that which is spiritual the first man is of the earth earthy the second man is of heaven as is the earthy such are they also that are earthy and as is the heavenly such are they also that are heavenly as we have borne the image of the earthy we shall also call them of the earth

35:23 which is the foundation the foundation of the earth which is the foundation of the universe and also in every creature and in every being there is an order of the earth that is the world and in every being there is one and the world is a heaven in the earth what he tries to do with these passages. Now that's what drove me forever away from Pelagianism. Back when I didn't know much about systematic theology, I don't know much now, but I knew much less then.

36:06 And I was desperately trying to find my way through the woods and see some light up through the trees. And I was reading everything. I read every single word of Finney's lectures on systematic theology. And it should be called Finney's rationalistic pronouncements sprinkled with the flavor of the Bible.

36:28 And that's not too harsh. Finney, when he came to systematizing, was a pure rationalist. He talked about the first laws of human reason. He made everything in the Bible submissive to them.

36:40 This is offensive to our first laws of reason, therefore it cannot be of God. Now I'm not saying Finney was not a Christian. I believe the man in his heart was probably a lot better in his theology, but he's been one of the...

36:51 great watersheds of many of the problems that plague present evangelicalism. But be that as it may, I was following him along, finding him quite convincing in point after point until I came to his treatment of Roman spying. And I said, if any man has to do that with the Bible, then he's got an ax to grind and a point to prove that doesn't go out of the Bible. And I was forever done with anything that bordered on Pelagians.

37:17 You should see how he tries to treat Roman spying. And anyone who denies...

37:21 denies the principle that God's moral government of all his creatures, that is, all his human creatures, not his angels, but all his human creatures, is determined on the basis of the relationship of those creatures to two men, Adam and Christ. Anyone who denies that just simply cannot work through an honest, contextual, linguistic analysis of these passages. But now, the point that I want to make is, what is the context in which both of these sets of teaching, or this one teaching is given in these two places? What is the context?

38:01 Well, those of you familiar with Roman spying know the context. Paul has opened up the grand doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law. Justification based upon the work of Christ, in the latter part of chapter 3, received by faith alone, chapter 4. Now, in chapter 5, he starts opening up some of the tremendous corollaries and attendant blessings of this.

38:31 Being, therefore, justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, not only so, we rejoice in tribulations, all of these secondary benefits that flow out of this, and he says they all rest firmly down upon what? Verse 6, For when we were yet weak in due season, Christ died for the ungodly. Verse 8, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than being justified by his blood, we should be saved from wrath through him.

39:10 If when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Not only so, we rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we rejoice, through whom we receive the reconciliation, therefore. There's an intimate connection. Do you see what that connection is?

39:30 Having laid out the great blessing of justification on the basis of the work of Christ and received by faith, the apostle is now answering the burning question, what arrangement was there in the moral government of God that makes it right for all the blessings that Christ has procured, to be applied to those who do not deserve them? What in the moral government of God can justify creatures described in chapter 1, verses 18 through chapter 3 and verse 20? What can ever justify God so dealing with creatures like that, that they are declared righteous,

40:14 they have peace with God, they rejoice in life now, they're saved for all eternity? What arrangement can ever justify that? In Romans 5, 12-23, 21 answers that question. It is an arrangement of solidarity, of federal representation, that just as surely as in the first man the whole human race fell, so in the second man, the man from heaven, all to whom he is related by federal or legal representation, will share in the benefits of his work.

40:53 As God constituted a relationship between Adam and all his posterity, that brings upon them the implications of his defection, so God has established a relationship between Christ and his seed, that brings upon that people all of the benefits of his obedience. And that's the basic argument of Romans 5, 12 through 21. What is the nature then of that relationship? It is a relationship that we sustain to Christ, without which we must never contemplate the work of the cross.

41:32 It is a relationship of federal or legal headship, in which Christ actually stands in the place of his people by divine appointment. And how do we know that such a relationship is a bona fide one that really brings genuine fruits? It's not just a legal adjustment Paul argues from Christ back to Adam. He said, How do we know that Adam's representation was real?

41:59 He says, The presence of death is the inescapable witness to the reality of the presence of sin. Sin and death are the inescapable universal witnesses that God dealt with the human race in the first one, Adam. And he says, As surely as God dealt that way unto death in Adam, so in Christ he deals on this principle of federal, legal union, the one standing in the room and the place of the many. And of course you have a similar practical setting in 1 Corinthians 15.

42:39 You have some who are denying the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of believers, and so he's going to show why this is ridiculous. You can't have the gospel without that. Why? Because, look at verse 20, Now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.

43:00 Well, what makes it essential that Christ's resurrection is just the firstfruits? And you know the analogy. When the harvest was full, in the Old Testament you'd get some of the firstfruits and bring it as an offering to God. The firstfruits were of the same kind and were the inescapable witness to the fact that a harvest was yet to come.

43:22 Well, what makes it essential that Christ's resurrection should be but the firstfruits of a greater resurrection? Well, the answer is the nature of his relationship to his people. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. As in Adam, all who are constituted as in him by this arrangement of God, all who are in him representatively and federally, all of them die.

43:50 So all who are in Christ, representatively, federally, they shall be made alive. So real is Christ, real is that relationship that what God does with the one passes to all who are in him. God punished Adam with death. All who were in him died in him.

44:08 In the language of the Catechism, sin in him and fell with him in his first transgression. Likewise, all who in Christ obeyed. All who in Christ were put to death. All who in Christ were buried.

44:24 All who in Christ were raised. Mosque of necessity. They brought forth and actually share in their life experience all that Christ has done as their federal head. So then, the nature of this relationship then, it must not be contemplated apart from this arrangement of legal or federal union in which Christ actually stands in the reckoning of God in the womb and stead of his people.

Expounding the Relationship: Vital/Mystical Union in Divine Intention

44:56 And then, the second aspect of the nature of that relationship, is a vital or a mystical union. Now, we face a problem at this point in our study, because I do not want to take in the whole doctrine of union with Christ. As Professor Murray has so ably and warmly expounded this doctrine in the chapter in Redemption Accomplished and Applied, the doctrine of union with Christ, he says, is the central doctrine of salvation. It stretches back into eternity, as we shall see, and then it looks forward into eternity.

45:38 Now, what we are doing is taking out a segment of this doctrine up to the point of the cross. We are not going to conceive of the doctrine of union with Christ in the application of salvation, when the dead sinner is actually quickened to life and brought into living experimental union with Christ. 1 Corinthians 1.9 God is faithful by whom ye were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

46:03 If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. So, what we are doing is isolating this section of the doctrine of union with Christ. The nature, the reality of that union, which is set before us in Scripture, that precedes and attends the actual work upon the cross. Now, the other aspects of that union we are not going to discuss now, because our concern is the relationship of the doctrine of union with Christ to what Christ accomplished.

46:33 upon the cross for sinners. Now, this vital union, this union in which we are conceived of as in Christ, or we may use the term mystical, in terms of the biblical concept of a mystery, a truth hidden and only known by revelation. Let's look at it in two subheadings, in the divine intention, and then in the impetration of salvation, and then I'll explain that. I'm using the theological term not to impress you, but to instruct you, it's a term you will find many times in theological literature, and it ought to be in your working vocabulary.

47:10 First of all, then, our union with Christ in the divine intention. Now, the Scriptures everywhere assert that the salvation of rebel sinners by the grace and power of God is a salvation rooted in divine purpose and executed according to eternal plan. We looked at those verses last week. The biblical words election, elect, chosen, predestinate, and foreknow force this category of thought upon us.

47:43 Now, assuming that we accept the doctrine of divine selectivity, that is, the doctrine of eternal, gracious, sovereign selection, as the fountainhead of our salvation, what I want you to notice is in Ephesians chapter 1, that this election is never spoken of as an exercise of simply, or I should say amazingly, gracious and sovereign selection. There's another element that is central to this whole act of divine choice. In chapter 1 of Ephesians, in verse 3, the Apostle begins this great eulogy,

48:25 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ. Now, here's the controlling thought of all that follows. As the Apostle contemplates the grand and glorious salvation that God has conferred, he says, Blessed be that God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in particular, He is to be blessed, He is to be honored, He is to be praised and worshiped for the great reality that He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing within a specific orbit of reference. He has blessed us with all of those blessings,

49:08 in Christ, indicating that there is no blessing ever conferred upon a child of God that does not have its origin and source in Christ. No blessing out of Him, every blessing in Him. Now, he's going to enumerate those blessings and he begins with the first one in verse 4. Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

49:41 Now, I confess there are mysteries that I cannot begin to plumb, let alone expound. But will you notice what the text says? It does not say He chose us to be in Him before the foundation of the world. As though the act of choice constituted us as candidates to be in Christ.

50:02 He doesn't say chose us to be in Him. Now, certainly it does not say chose us because we would choose to be in Him by faith. That's the typical Arminian exposition of election by foreknowledge. God chose us to be in Christ because we would choose Him.

50:24 We would choose to be in Him by faith. But what does the text say? Look at it. Even as He chose us in Him.

50:33 So He's saying that the very act of divine choice by God the Father acting as the administrator administrative person of the dog head. Remember now, the act of the Father is certainly the act of the divine will. Though the Father is prominent, never think of a reluctance on the part of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He chooses us and in that very act of choosing He chooses us in a way that we are already contemplated as being joined to Christ.

51:18 So that God's setting His sovereign love upon a people as far back as God's word lets us trace that activity says we were never even contemplated in the divine counsels apart from being in Christ. Isn't that what it says? That's what my Bible tells me. So that I never to think of election as mere gracious sovereignty.

51:48 It is always to be gracious and Christocentric sovereignty. So when your logic begins to play tricks on you and you're tempted to become a supralapsarian just remember this text and that will cure you. To talk about bare selection of people as people and not fallen. No, no.

52:12 We were contemplated as fallen and we could never be the objects of God's gracious delight and approbation apart from His dear Son. We are chosen and loved in Christ and of course logically then you see we're forced back then we're forced back then into the whole orbit this matter of the covenant of redemption and all that flows out of it. And so if we were in the mind of God conceived in an inscrutable way as united to His Son from the very first motions of eternal Godhead with reference to our salvation how unthinkable

52:57 that the central act of saving us would find us divorced from that relationship. You see how unthinkable it is and how wicked it is to fracture this doctrine of union with Christ when contemplating the cross and somehow to separate the two. The old top lady had it when he wrote To thee, O Lord, alone is due all glory and renown. Ought to ourselves we dare not take or rob thee of thy crown.

53:31 Thou wast thyself our surety in God's redemptive plan. In thee this grace was given us long ere the world began. He speaks of grace given us in Christ before the world began. I don't ask you to understand it.

53:54 I don't believe it's properly the object. of intellectual scrutiny. It's rather to be the object of loving and adoring worship. That we should so be united to Christ in the intention of God in eternity and then secondly in the actual impetration of our salvation upon the cross.

Expounding the Relationship: Vital/Mystical Union in the Impetration of Salvation

54:17 And the word impetration goes back to the Latin which means to accomplish and when you read the impetration I-M-P-E I-M as in man I-M-P-E-T-R-A-T-I-O-N It's speaking of the accomplishment of salvation objectively. What Professor Murray would call redemption accomplished distinguished from redemption applied. So the impetration when you read that in theological literature the impetration of our salvation is just a term used to describe the actual procurement in the life history of God Jesus Christ of the salvation of his people.

55:02 When Christ actually humbles himself gives himself up to die even the cursed death of the cross does he sustain a relationship to his people in those saving acts? Prior to their ever being made aware of those saving acts prior to the announcement of those saving acts to them prior to their believing response to those saving acts there is a relationship previously established and I quote now from Murray It is because the people of God were in Christ when he gave his life a ransom and redeemed by his blood gave his life a ransom and redeemed by his blood that salvation has been secured for them for this reason they are represented

55:47 as united in Christ in his death his resurrection and his exaltation to heaven. And I tell you you can't make sense out of three pivotal passages in the New Testament unless you get a hold of this. Ephesians 6 I'm sorry Romans chapter 6 Ephesians chapter 2 and Colossians chapter 3 What do they say? Well let's look at them.

56:10 Let's look at them. The apostle has opened up the truth that we previously referred to that our salvation depends wholly upon the work of another and where sin abounds grace does superabound in Christ. Then comes the devil's logic what shall we say then? If my salvation depends wholly on the doings of another what I do don't matter to a hoot.

56:40 So let's live in sin. If God's grace is magnified when grace overcomes a mountain of sin ten feet high let's raise it twenty feet so we can magnify grace. That's the devil's logic. And Paul knows that the devil's always going around whispering his logic in people's ears.

56:56 So he says what shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin how shall we any longer live therein?

57:07 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father so we also might walk in newness of life for if we become united with him in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection knowing this that our old man was crucified with him that the body of sin might be done away that we should no longer be in bondage to sin. What is he saying? He is saying that there is something in the nature of the procurement of our salvation and its application that makes continuance in sin

57:51 utterly impossible. And that something he says is the reality of our union with Christ. Established history historically once for all when Christ died personally and inwardly and dynamically when by faith we are brought into union with Christ and there is and I know I have no other way to describe it but as it were a retroactive efficiency that takes us as it were right back to the moment when the blood was spilling from his own veins and the curse of God was being pronounced upon him he said he that is died is released from sin when faith brings me into union with Christ it is as though God pronounces over me the same maldiction that was pronounced over his son

58:35 and his abandonment becomes my abandonment his death is my death his burial is mine his resurrection is mine the great point the apostle is making is that when Christ died such a relationship was established already with his people that when in time they come into the virtue of that all of the power and implications of that union will come to light in their life history but what happens in their life history is but the opening up of the womb of that which was secured here and that which secured it was the reality of his relationship to his people now much of that may be going over your head but think on it I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms

Further Scriptural Support for Vital Union and Christ's Joy

59:20 as one man said this is one of the curses of modern preaching in an attempt to make things so simple we've made them simplistic and gone on beyond the Bible the Bible wasn't made for people who wouldn't think and pray and meditate there's the grand truth enunciated again of course in Ephesians chapter 2 describing what they once were now he says but God's mercy has come verse 4 God being rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us even when we were dead made us alive together with Christ

60:05 raised us up with him made us to sit with him in the heavenly places raised with him seated with him there's some kind of a union between Christ and his people when he accomplishes these once for all redemptive activities and then of course Colossians chapter 3 will not take time to go into the thing it's the same motif that runs through those verses Colossians 3 verses 1 through 4 now what in the world does this have to do with Christ's death upon the cross well all we're asserting is that we must not think of those saving acts accomplished

60:49 in the events surrounding the cross divorced from the relationship he sustained to his people that it was not only legal and federal but was vital or mystical there was some sense long before Christ dwelt in us by the spirit that we were conceived of as being in him in him in such a way that when we are actually brought into fellowship with him in our effectual calling the virtue of what was accomplished here begins to be manifested in our own life history so that in the actual impetration the actual procurement of salvation Christ would not as it were

61:33 sever the relationship he had to his people when they were chosen in him from eternity when it was not prophesied that when he would come he would see his seed when at his actual conception it is announced he has come to save his people those who have been in his heart those who have been upon his hands from eternity are not erased from his hands when those hands are pierced upon a Roman gibbet those who were in his heart from eternity are not suddenly pushed from his heart when that heart is poured out in death upon the cross of Christ if ever union with his people was precious to our Lord it appears from Hebrews chapter 12

62:18 it was precious the more intense his suffering became you remember John 17 he says for their sakes I sanctify myself the day may be sanctified in truth Hebrews 12 encouraging Christians to press on says looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross despising its shame and what was that joy I believe it's the joy described in Hebrews 2 in bringing many sons to glory knowing from the language of Psalm 22 which is quoted in Hebrews 2 that he would one day stand in the midst of his brethren and sing praises

63:02 to God it was that joy the certainty that the people given to him the people to whom he is committed the people to whom he is related in this federal and vital union would actually receive the benefits of all of his work it is that joy that sustains him as he faces the agony of the cross and goes through the baptism of his suffering I found last Lord's Day sitting amongst the Lord's people only two times now in 14 years that I've had that privilege and I've been made I've been spoiled just to sit not to have anything to do not to lead in prayer and apart from that little faux pas with the song

63:47 where I had to get the tune it would have been the service when I did absolutely nothing to my great delight that as Mr. Clark read that passage from Psalm 22 let's look at it and I'll close on this note if you read that passage from Psalm 22 you have the vivid depiction of the sufferings of Christ and after the prayer verse 21 save me from the lion's mouth yea here's the affirmation of faith from the horns of the wild oxen thou hast answered me from the place of strength the horns of the wild oxen being the symbol of strength yea

64:32 thou hast answered me what's the next statement I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the midst of the assembly will I praise thee think of it here the suffering Messiah who's been heard in his prayer says my brethren in their praise those who are made brethren as the fruit of my sufferings and that very thought is picked up in Hebrews chapter 2 for both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one that is and I believe this is the most satisfying interpretation all of one nature that is they are men he became man they are all of one for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren

65:16 think of it we would think it impudence to call the Lord our brethren but he said I'm not ashamed to call you my brethren I'm not ashamed to call you my brethren think of it the Lord calls us his brethren not his slaves we're that and we gladly say with Paul bond slaves of Jesus Christ he says I don't call you that I call you my friends I call you my brethren and then there's the quote in the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise well what's the point well the point is this that the Lord Jesus had a relationship to these a relationship that had its roots in eternity

Conclusion: The Glory of the Cross in Union with Christ

66:01 a relationship that formed the rationale for his incarnation a relationship that sustained him as he went to the cross in the knowledge that all that he would do as their federal head all that he would do as the one to whom he is joined in a way that is beyond my ability to describe that they would know all of the blessed and holy truth of the work that he accomplished for them upon the cross I say brethren when we begin to view the cross in this biblical category we are forever immunized against any unjust accusations that to believe in quote

66:46 limited end quote is to rob the cross of its glory I say to set the sufferings of the Son of God in an insulated and isolated convent that veritably declares he died for no one in particular to accomplish nothing for certain is to turn the glorious cross of Christ into a travesty the cross is glorious because it is the pinnacle expression of the depth of the love that he sustains to those who were chosen in him and is the pledge that all that he died to purchase

67:29 will infallibly be applied to them may God give us a new appreciation for this and the Lord willing next week will deal with the applications that derive from this doctrine of the cross in relationship to union with Christ applications theologically but that will have to wait another lecture