Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 3.34 → restored 4.48
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
I can report, gentlemen, that from where I sit, the sight before me is magnificent. To see some sixty or more men prepared to give time, energy, and money to devote themselves to God's living word, that they might seek God in his word and prepare themselves to be used of him to communicate his word to others. This is a magnificent sight to me. I am greatly enriched by your presence, my good brethren.
My first present duty is to thank you for the lively way in which you cooperated in the open discussion yesterday. Among other things, it served to illustrate an important principle of the exposition of the book of Joshua, and indeed any narrative book in the Old Testament. We were asking, why was Moses not allowed to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land? What was so serious about the offense he committed?
One answer was that his offense spoiled the type of our blessed Lord, who once was smitten for us like the rock of Exodus seventeen, when he died in our place, that we might be reconciled to God, who before time were enemies. The rod of God's judgment fell upon him then, but now he is in glory. The rod should not be used upon him. All we need to do is to speak to him, as he also intercedes for us.
That was one answer to the question, what was so serious about what Moses did? And a valid answer for those of us who live in the time of our Lord after his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to glory. But that is not the answer given by God to Moses and Aaron and the people in the book of Numbers itself. How could it be? They would not yet know for some centuries the details of our Lord's earthly ministry and his present intercession at God's right hand.
The reasons given to them at that time was that they had disbelieved God. Disbelief led to rebellion and disobedience to God's explicit command. And more seriously, they had misrepresented God. They failed to sanctify God, that is, to demonstrate his holy character. God's holiness is seen not only in his indignation against sin, his holiness is also exseen- seen and expressed in his gracious mercy and restoration of those that have fallen, his forgiveness and reconciliation, his sympathy with his people.
It is was in that respect that Moses and Aaron had so grievously misrepresented God on that occasion. So thank you for your cooperation, and now this morning we enter upon another of these open discussions, where we all contribute one to the other to help our mutual understanding of scripture. The topic for this particular investigation is the covenant by which God gave the inheritance to Abraham and to his seed.
This, of course, is highly relevant to the book of Joshua that records Israel's entry into the Promised Land and the distribution of its territories to the various tribes. It is also relevant to us, as we shall see in a moment. So first of all, then, the covenant by which God gave the inheritance to Abraham and to his seed. We wish now to investigate that covenant and to decide a number of questions about it. So first of all, do I have your agreement?
That the covenant concerned by which the land was covenanted to Abraham and his seed is the covenant men- mentioned in Genesis fifteen. There are sundry covenants mentioned in the book of Genesis. Are you with me or not? Oh, you are. Oh, well, that's a matter solved in five minutes discussion time already saved, you'll see. That the covenant in particular is the covenant mentioned in Genesis fifteen. So let us turn to that passage and notice one or two things about it.
First of all, the promise to go- by God to Abram, Genesis fifteen five and six. He brought him forth abroad and said, Look now toward heaven and tell the stars, if thou be able to tell them. And he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he, that is Abram, believed the Lord, believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness. We shall not need to be told that that verse six is a fundamentally important in the enunciation of the principles of justification.
It is cited many times by Paul in particular in Romans and in Galatians. Here is the basic principle of justification. Foundational principle of salvation. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. That establishes the fact that justification is by faith and not by any particular ceremony, such as circumcision. Abraham was still uncircumcised at this time, but he was justified by faith in God and believing what God said.
And in verse seven it follows, does the narrative to record, and he said unto him, that is, God said to Abraham, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. Now we notice the connection between justification by faith and now the inheritance. The one follows the other immediately. Abram, being a practically minded man, said, thank you, Lord, but whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
It wasn't a matter of doubt, it was faith asking for assurance. By what method or how do I, can I be sure that I shall inherit it? And the s- rest of the chapter is given over to God's answer to it. The covenant and the covenant ceremony was the, uh, the answer to Abram's question, how can I be sure that I shall inherit it. So now we have a basic question, and perhaps we ought to read the passage so as to refresh our minds as to the details of the covenant, uh, ceremony.
Uh, and we, uh, read now from verse nine: He, that is God, said unto him, take me an heifer of three years old and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. And he took him all these and divided them in the midst, laid each half over against the other. But the birds he did not divide. And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away. And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and low and horror of great darkness fell upon him.
And he that is God said unto Abram, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. And also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge, and afterward they shall come out with great substance. But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, thou shalt be buried in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. And it came to pass that when the sun went down and it was dark, there holed a smoking furnace and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces.
In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land. And he defines its borders and dimensions. First question, therefore, what, gentlemen, do you make of the ceremony that accompanied this covenant? The rather picturesque, getting, slaying the animals, dividing them in pieces and putting them in two rows, and so forth and t- uh, so on. Tell me, if you will, please, your impression of the significance of the covenant ceremony itself.
Nowadays, when you make a covenant with, uh, some builder or other to build you your mansion by the lakeside, and you enter into covenant, you don't, I think, kill a few animals, divide them in pieces, and walk between the pieces, you see. This is an old-fashioned way of making a covenant. Please tell me. Oh, there's a hand over here. Yeah, righto, please. Okay, um, what I heard once was that back in the old days, when they were making a covenant in mo- in Abraham's time, they would divide those animals, they would have to walk between it, and it would symbolize that if you break this covenant, be- I'll be like that animal that we just killed.
Whoever broke the covenant would be saying, let this be done to me. Yes, that's very interesting. That way it'd be a very significant hope. I mean that, you know, you'd die if you didn't Fulfill the terms of the covenant. That's very interesting. Uh, is good man here? Yes? I think this was a unilateral covenant. Oh, that's a big word, sir. A unilateral wor- uh, covenant means what? It was not dependent on Abraham. It was dependent on God, because you see, Abraham fell asleep. He did that, yeah. God is left to carry out the terms of the covenant. I see.
That's an important point, sir. Let's see if we can establish that. Is everybody, this good man here is saying that it was a unilateral covenant, that only God walked between the pieces, but Abraham didn't because he, he fell asleep. Yes? It, it, is that, yes, nem con, all agreed? It is a unilateral covenant. Now, that is important, isn't it? Um, uh... It means that the one or ones that walk between the pieces are thereby indicating that they have a responsibility to fulfill whatever is now being undertaken.
Is that so? Yes? That's right. Uh, let's look at another passage where such a covenant is mentioned, in order that we can see the difference between this one in Genesis and the one I shall refer to now. Jeremiah chapter thirty four. Jeremiah thirty four. verses eighteen to twenty two, And it reads in my version here, says God, I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the works of the covenant which they made before me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts thereof, namely the princes of Judah and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs and the priests, and
all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf. The context shows you that the people had made a covenant with God to let their Hebrew slaves go free. Actually, they shouldn't have continued to hold them, but in spite of the commands of the law, they had kept Hebrews in permanent slavery, and now being convicted, so they said, that this was against the law.
They made a covenant before God that they would let these slaves go free. And the covenant took the form, once more, of animals cut in pieces. But this time, notice who it was that walked between the pieces. It wasn't God. God had nothing to fulfill. It was the princes and the people that walked between the pieces, because they were binding themselves by that act of walking through the pieces, binding themselves to fulfill the conditions laid down in the covenant.
And alas, having made the covenant, having bound themselves by this ceremony, they went and revoked it, reneged on it, and took back their slaves into, uh, uh, into their slavery, instead of them le- letting them enjoy their freedom. So here is another instance, and the point our good friend here has made is the exceedingly important point. The one who walks between the pieces, or the ones who walk between the pieces, are the ones who are binding themselves to fulfill certain conditions. So it becomes exceedingly important in Genesis fifteen to notice who walked between the pieces.
Where do you get the idea? Oh, is somebody here got a question? Yes, brother, going just to update it a bit for the minds of the men. We have a marriage covenant today in which the bride and groom walk between two sets of witnesses. Do they really? And then they're walking between something to make vows. Yes, that's right. That's very interesting, sir. And both have to walk. Yes. Not just the man alone or the woman alone. Not in the American custom, both walk. Both walk. Unless you fancy that, you'll see. Both have conditions to fulfill. Have you ever done that, brother? What? Walk between couple of witnesses? Yes, with a beautiful thing next to you too or not?
Uh, no, but uh, there's always time, isn't there? Yes, yes. And, and some need the time to pluck up the courage. But anyway, what evidence have we now, uh, as we, uh, leave this, uh, uh, this ceremony itself, that it was God who walked between the pieces? Where does it say God walked between the pieces? Abram didn't because he was asleep anyway.
Where's seventeen. Pardon? Where's number 17? Where- what, read that if you will. And it came to pass that when the sun went down and it was dark before the smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed between the pieces. Yes. That seems to me, do you agree, it's a symbol of the divine presence? Like the flame in the burning bush before which Abraham stood. This was a symbol of the divine presence walking between the pieces. God had initiated the covenant.
He had made the promise. Now he was binding himself graciously by this ceremony to fulfill the covenant. Yeah, hello? Could you clarify from the language one thing for, for me, maybe for some of us? When it says a, a smoking furnace and a burning lamp. Uh-huh. Is the smoking furnace even a burning lamp, or is it two separate images? Well, it it could be two separate sides. I'd be very interested to hear what you had to say. No, I'm, it's a question from the language. I thought maybe the language would have something to bear on. Well, you you can argue, uh, uh, from Hebrew when you get two things, uh, with an and in between them.
It can be, uh, two different things joined by and, or the second, or the and can mean even this. But that's not, uh, what, uh, uh, can be decided simply by the grammar. The thing is open to it such an interpretation. You'll see. Eh, eh, uh, that's why I asked sincerely, have you any thought about it? No, I didn't really. Mm? Brother, it seems significant as well that there is not a couple of piles of rocks, they're actually living things that were cut apart. Yeah. And obviously there was some shedding of But, yes.
And it would seem significant, uh, this is prior to Abraham's, as you mentioned, prior to his circumcision, so that that type of covenant would also incur the shedding, require the shedding of blood. Oh, yes. Significant. Oh, surely so. Oh, surely so. When our Lord handed the cup to his disciples at the Last Supper and said, this cup is the new covenant in my blood, he was not unaware of what that ceremony meant. In my blood. He was about to go to Calvary to shed the blood of the covenant.
Surely. Well, we notice that now as we leave the passage, eh, the, uh, a- addition that the land is promised to Abram and to his seed, but not in the sense that all the seed, uh, uh, of the, in the sense of all Abram's descendants shall actually occupy the land. Abram and his descendants for four hundred years were not going to occupy it. They are told that in the preamble to the covenant.
The nation descended from him will endure persecution, we now know, in Egypt. Afterwards, God would bring them out and bring them into the land of Canaan. And the time scale is determined in part by this, that the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. The implication being that when Israel entered the land, that time would coincide with the time when now the cup of iniquity of the Amorite was full, and God would rain down his judgment on the Amorites.
This is part of the preamble to the covenant itself, and we shall find it in Joshua as we proceed. That entry into the land for Israel meant being the executives of God's wrath upon the Canaanites. But leave that for the moment, because our chief interest is now to turn to Galatians chapter three, We have to notice how Paul cites this covenant, comments on some of its terms, precises their meaning, and then comes to the climax of his argument by showing its relationship to us.
So let's notice Galatians three and, uh, verse thirteen. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. So notice Paul is here then discussing the basic terms of justification by faith.
You'll see. And in addition to justification, he talks about the blessing of Abraham. And the promises made to Abraham. And now in verse fifteen, he is about to talk about the covenant that God made with Abraham. And we notice that this is part of a coordinated argument.
It argues that justification is by faith. It argues that the promises are by faith. It argues that the blessings are by faith. And now the inheritance promised by the covenant is likewise by faith. That is the general drift of the argument. All right? Happy? No objections as far as I can hear. What I'm now stressing is how this covenant and the inheritance is an integral part of our salvation.
Paul is arguing not merely that justification is by faith, but the inheritance is likewise by faith. So let us, um, uh, go through the passage and notice verse sixteen. The promise, the covenant was made to Abram and to his seed. The all-important question comes to be, when God promised the inheritance to Abram and to his seed, what did God mean by the term seed?
Pardon? The le- the blessed line. Yes? Let's take a a a consensus on it. What did Go- God mean by the term seed? One suggestion here, the blessed line. Someone at the back here. The person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes? Any further, uh... No, no, no? Oh, somebody else down there. Those that are, uh, those that are Christ.
Oh, those that are Christ, yes. And he's going to talk about that at the end of the chapter. You see. Uh-huh. Sir, if I were to ask you what these others have suggested, eh, say some, some are saying that the seed is Christ personally. That is when you extrapolate it. Yes, to include? Those from the blessed line. Those from- It is not all, uh, a- not all Abraham's seed belong to Abraham in that sense.
Yes. For instance, Ishmael did not belong to the blessed land. No, that's true, he didn't. Yes. Yes. Those through whom the blessing passed, but in any case, Christ is the one who encapsulates all of these. Ah. Yes, that's a very good phrase, that Christ is the one that encapsulates all of Of these. You see. If the promised seed, therefore, in the terms of the covenant, and this is a legal covenant, if the promised seed is technically Christ, can anyone reject Christ and still claim right to the land.
Did somebody say no? Seriously, gentlemen, this is a very important point. Can anybody reject Christ and still claim on the basis of this covenant that they have a right to the land? Somebody over here says no. Well, let let's be outspoken, gentlemen. You You have to say yes. Pardon? You would have to say yes, because he said to Abraham and the end. And to his seed. To Abraham there, so there's two. There's Abraham and his seed, and the seed is Christ Jesus.
Yes, indeed, yes. Hello? Yes, that'll bring us to a bigger problem. We do have the seed, the physical seed, the biological seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yes. People of Israel. Yes. Given that blank, however, your question was, can they claim a right to it? Yes. Without Christ. Yes. They can claim, but they won't come into it until they have Christ. But that begs another question. We, the church, those that are in Christ, can we claim the land today? Well, we're going to come to that, my boy. You might find, uh, that you're more wealthy than you think you are. Hello there, somebody's going to speak.
Is there a difference between the individual claim and the national claim? That is a very big point. You'll see, according to that covenant, uh, the covenant gave what you might call title deeds. Do you have that expression in American? You know what title deeds are. Title deeds are one thing, possession is another. Abraham and company were given title deeds to the land, but Abram wasn't given possession of it. He was told straight in the preamble to the covenant that he and his seed would be strangers in a land, and they wouldn't be in possession of Canaan.
It would be four hundred years before anybody came into possession of it. We have to distinguish, therefore, between title deeds and actual possession. Yes? And if we think in those terms, let me now make the provocative statement that the vast majority of Abram's physical descendants have never been in the land anyway. Even the godly, like Daniel, were turned out of the land. God allowed them to be turned out. And some came back under, uh, under Ezra and Nehemiah, didn't they?
For just a few, uh, century and a bit, or two or three centuries maybe at most. And then, from AD seventy and more particularly AD hundred and twenty onwards, the nation, as Christ said, were banished and scattered among the nations. The vast majority of Abram's physical seed have never possessed the land. Oh, they didn't. Yeah. But they never have possessed the land. Pardon? They never have possessed the land. That's right. Because they they never they never received all of it yet, and they won't until the That, that you're, ah, yes.
They possessed a portion of it. They, they got a portion of it, but They haven't possessed the full land yet that was promised to Abraham. That's right, my good sir. And the point that follows from that, it seems to me, is this. How marvelous it is that the land is invested in Christ. If it weren't, if it were just invested in the seed, well, I'm sorry, most of them, even the godly, have never possessed it. And never will possess it. All the long centuries of godly, believing Jews that never possessed it.
If the land weren't invested in Christ, they never will possess it. Their only hope is in Christ. Who himself was thrown out of the land, thrown out of his capital city, and crucified. Who hu- on the human side never did possess any square inch of it. The hope that the promise would be fulfilled, therefore, is in Christ. Dear old Abram shall yet possess it, with all the faithful down the years. Is somebody here bursting to have a question?
Yes? I have a question because, clarification, because this, this passage in Galatians has always confused me. Oh. Um, I understand his ar- the passage in Galatians argument centers around the singular seed and applies it to Christ. Yes. But in the usage of the word seed can either apply to plural or singular, and if we go back to the Genesis covenant that you just read, the singular is what's, uh, used to represent the plural. It says, uh, look at the stars in the heaven, this, if you can count them, this so shall your seed singular be.
Mm-hmm. So it seems to me that the usage in, in fifteen, Genesis 15 is speaking about many, many people, not one individual. Uh-huh. Yes, that's a very interesting observation, uh, linguistically, surely. The difficulty with Paul's language is that in his day they didn't have, uh, the technical terms of grammar and syntax that we now have. Eh, the word seed in Hebrew, as in English, can be, uh, indicate one particular little seed.
It's rightly used. This is a seed. But the term seed can be a collective noun, so that if you had a sack full of wheat and somebody asked you what you had there, you would say, I've got seeds. That's a bag of seed. There are thousands of seeds in it. The term seed can be used as a collective. When we come to our Lord, the Christ, he of course is an individual, and yet the term Christ is a collective. Let me cite you an example.
One Corinthians twelve: as the human body is one and has many members, and therefore all their many members, that's one body, so also is the Christ. The Christ is the name of the Lord Jesus and his body. So the term the Christ can be a collective. When therefore Paul points out, it doesn't say to seeds as of many, but as of one that is Christ, that is true. It refers personally to our blessed Lord Jesus.
But since he is the Christ, as the end of the chapter is going to say, as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Just as a man might put on a large cloak, so if you've been baptized into Christ, you have put on Christ. That obliterates all distinctions, in this context, that is. For in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free. For when it comes to salvation, there is no distinction in the terms, in faith in Christ.
When it comes to the inheritance, there is no distinction. The ground of inheritance is to be in Christ, because Christ is the seed. He is its heir. If any man therefore be in Christ, says Paul at the end of the chapter, if any man be in Christ, you are Abram's seed. Now I'm going to ask a question. How many of you gentlemen agree, uh, and and admit and confess that you are Abram's seed.
There's a good hand, number of hands going up. By virtue of Christ. By virtue of Christ, yes. I have a good friend, uh, certain John Lennox, who was invited at one stage by, uh, Israeli mathematicians to go to Israel, uh, to talk about mathematics, but so they could also discuss his views on salvation and on the Old Testament, you see. And when he showed himself very knowledgeable about the Old Testament, and more knowledgeable than the Israelis were themselves, they inquired, how on earth do you know so much about the, the Tanakh, as they call it, meaning the Old Testament?
Well, he said, I am Abraham's seed. It, pardon? Uh, I just wanted to read a verse. Yeah, do. Yeah, uh, speaking of Abraham in Romans four, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet been uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Amen, sir. That is very good. And indeed, to read a little further in that same chapter four, the promise that Abraham should be heir of the world was made before he was circumcised, so that the inheritance might be sure to all the seed. Read that, if you will, my good brother, the rest of that passage that you quoted from Romans four. The rest of the pro- verse thirteen. for the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Mm-hmm. Yes, uh, carry on. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of no effect, because the law worketh wrath, for where no law is, there is no transgression. Mhm. Therefore, it is of faith. Mhm. That it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. Amen, sir. Like time somebody shouted hallelujah. That the promise might be sure.
It has to be by faith, not on the grounds of the works of the law. That the promise might be sure to all the seed. Both those, uh, who, well, we should say converted Gentiles, and also to converted Jews. Jews that are not merely circumcised, says Paul, but as well as circumcised, they walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham. That is, they're trusting for salvation through faith in Christ. And it's this way round that the promise may be sure to all the seed.
You see, it's a very important, is it not? Paul is making the point in Galatians three that when a covenant has been signed, sealed, and settled, even though it be only a human covenant, you cannot change it, and you cannot add terms to it. And he's making, therefore, the historical point that this covenant, granting the land to Abram and his seed, was made four hundred years before the law was given on Mount Sinai. It follows that important as that law was, you cannot add the law as a condition for inheriting the promised inheritance.
If the law had, was going to be a condition for inheriting, then the law would have had to be written into the terms of the covenant itself when the covenant was signed, sealed, and settled. Yes? But the law wasn't given until four years afterwards. It cannot therefore be regarded as being a condition subsequently added upon which inheritance depends. The inheritance depends on the terms of the covenant. It is given to Christ and to all those that are in Christ. You see.
Uh-huh. Someone has a quote. In Genesis twenty two, after Abraham takes Isaac up the mountain. Yes. God provides. God says in verse sixteen, by myself I have sworn, says the Lord. Mm. Because you have done this thing, you have not withheld your son, your only son. Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore, and your descendants shall possess the gate of heaven. Mm-hmm. In your seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because you have obeyed my voice. Mm-hmm. Is that an amplification of this same coming, a re- a restating of it, or is that something? Oh. Well, now the grounds of that, uh, that, uh, promise is, uh, carries an important distinction, does it not?
For James comments on it, and Hebrews chapter six comments on it. And James comments to this effect. Abraham was justified by faith, Genesis fifteen six. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But Abraham, Genesis twenty two, sacrificed his son and was justified by his works. Genesis twenty two is showing us Abraham justified by his works.
And so says, uh, Hebrews chapter, uh, Eleven, of course, and chapter six. So that is an important point to be noticed, I think, the difference between those two chapters. One is justification by faith, the other is justification by works. Yes? Mm-hmm. Abraham showed that his faith was real, therefore, by the way he behaved. The test was not to say, well, will Abraham give a thousand pounds to Oxfam or something?
The test was, when Abraham said he trusted God and solely God, was that real? When Abraham first believed, according to Genesis fifteen six, what he believed was this, that God was going to give him a son. He was already old, and Sarah was barren. God said, I'm going to give you a son, a seed. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, justified by faith. But you know what happened in the interval?
Abram's faith, dear man, became a little bit wobbly. And, uh, at Sarah's suggestion, he took Hagar in an attempt to fulfill the promise that God was going to give him a son, using his own effort to fulfill God's promise. Ishmael was born. God said, well, he's a nice boy, and I'll bless him, but that's not what I meant, Abraham. Not what I meant. When I said I was going to give you a son, I meant I was going to give you a son.
You believed, and Abraham was asked to stick at it and believe, and now his body was getting de- old and decrepit, beyond all hope of fathering a son, and still he believed. And God honored the faith, and Isaac was born. Justification by faith, not by works. Yes. But eventually God came along to Abraham, and if I might paraphrase what God said, was this: Abram, when it comes to the future, Abram, you're now very old, aren't you? Where is your hope for the future, Abram?
In me or in Isaac? And Abram said, well, in you, of course, God. Are you sure? In me? And not in Isaac? Abraham says, it's in you, Lord. I tell, says God, shall... Shall we just demonstrate that, Abraham? You give me Isaac. And Hebrews eleven cites what was involved for Abraham. He that had received all the promises and all the promises vested in Isaac was now taking Isaac and putting him on the altar.
If Isaac went, Abram had nothing, no future. And Abraham took Isaac and went up the mountain. Logically in his heart working it out, says scripture, that God had made the promise that in Isaac shall thy seed be blessed, shall all the nations be blessed. Well, if God was now asking him to sacrifice Isaac, well, he would. Abram worked it out logically, logically accounting it.
Well, then God will have to raise him from the dead, that's all, because God cannot lie. God will fulfill his promise. And if at his command I sacrifice Isaac, God will raise him from the dead, that's all. But there's a splendid example of justification by works, showing by your works that your faith is in God and not in yourself or in anything else. And of course, God honored his faith, didn't he? That's a long story and would take us beyond our allotted hour. Uh, someone has a question down there.
Actually, something I mentioned earlier, I like to understand by the implication of your comments that since the church is the body of Christ, the Christ, Yes. that while at the present we could say we do, we have title possession to that land, Yeah. that we will, uh, title deed, excuse me, that when we reign with Christ, it will be fulfilled and that we will possess it. Do I understand? Oh, oh, amen we shall. Now, I, I, I, I frankly admit to you that some of my, uh, dear elders in my youth, and, uh, godly men they were, discouraged me from thinking that the earthly inheritance had anything to do with the church.
They said, my boy, the earth is for Israel, you see. Uh, we have a heavenly, a spiritual inheritance. You shouldn't be interested in such mundane things as an earthly inheritance. It sounded good. But then I thought about Christ. Is Christ going to inherit it? Yeah? Amen. Christ is going to inherit it, and not just a few acres in Palestine either. He's going to the whole world, I'm pretty, yes, the whole world is going to inherit. Will that be unspiritual of Christ?
No, certainly. Hello there. But at the same time, would we not see that while the whole earth, the whole world is our inheritance, that there will be a future for some people, particularly related to that land. Oh, yeah, I, I myself, I, I, uh, uh, in my conviction, I believe in a literal millennium. Don't know about you, gentlemen, I do seriously hold a literal millennium, and I hold it won't just be Jews in Palestine. It'll be an earth full of people. But that Christ shall inherit it.
He is the heir. The, the vineyard keepers saw him coming and determined to get rid of him so that the inheritance be theirs. They flog him out of the vineyard and killed him. God is not content to leave it that way. It belongs to his son, and his son will take possession and reign from shore to shore. And all that is his, magnificent though it is to say it, belongs to us too. If you are in Christ, if you are Christ, then you are Abram's seed in the terms of the original covenant.
You are that seed and heirs according to the promise. But there's a question here, it must be our last. It seems that the unconditional promises given in the Old Testament, uh, this one for the land, uh, justification, uh, as demonstrated, uh, in Abraham's case, and I'm also thinking of David, the sure mercies of David. Yeah. It's unconditional. These all come together and are given to the church. In Christ. In Christ. Yes. They're made in Christ to Christ, aren't they? Yes, that is true. And all that Christ has, by definition, if you are Christ, you are heirs.
Heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ. For which account we are wealthier than we can possibly imagine, and we ought to shout a hallelujah in our hearts. But Israel also will one day come under the rule of their Messiah. Oh, surely they will. Oh, surely they will. And so, all men everywhere will be required to bow to him. Of all things in heaven and on earth and under the earth will be required to bow to his rule. Shall we just pray, shall we? So, Father, we thank thee for this opportunity to think about thy word together, and for the mutual help and encouragement it is.
We praise thee now for these magnificent evidences of thy grace. We bless thee for this covenant, and praise thee for the confidence that we have, that all its terms shall be fulfilled. Therefore, we bless thee with all our hearts that by thy grace we have been baptized into Christ and have been, have put on Christ, heirs of God, joint heirs with the Lord Jesus. Help us, Lord, in this poverty-stricken world to show by our lives the wealth into which thou has brought us, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
