Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
Jeremy approaches Bible teaching with a passion for getting the basic doctrines explained so that the individual can understand them and then apply them to circumstances in their life. These basic and important lessons are nestled in a framework of history and progression of revelation from the Bible so the whole of Scripture can be applied to your physical and spiritual life.
Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
NT Framework - And Justice for All
Yes, for all. Not all will see it or accept it, and yet it is still available. God's justice has been fully satisfied by Christ's substitutionary death and the completed righteousness is ready to be credited to your account.
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament Framework. Today, the full lesson from Jeremy Thomas. Here's a hint of what's to come.
Speaker 2:On the road to Emmaus, as Jesus walked with the men, they thought that the death of Jesus meant that he was not the Messiah. Don't you find that odd? They said well, we were thinking that it was him, but he died. It's not him.
Speaker 1:An unblemished lamb, perfectly white, one year old, nothing wrong with it, no marks, mars, perfect health, bleeding gently in your arms as you slit its throat and its blood pours out. An act of cruelty, an inhumane act toward an innocent animal. Or does it signify something deeper Grace, love, mercy. When we think of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, when what they mean an innocent thing dying for a guilty human, a human guilty of sin, transgression against God, is this a cruel God telling us to harm animals, or is it a loving God demonstrating the value of life, of purity, of righteousness and pointing toward the cross, where the ultimate beautiful innocent died for the guilty? There's a lot wrapped up in these old stories, which are more than stories. It's the most foundational truth known to man.
Speaker 2:Okay, we have to finish up infallibility before we get to the death. So I had a few more things that we needed to cover. Remember, the issue of infallibility is dealing with the question of whether the Bible is true on every matter to which it touches or whether it's only true when it touches the issues of faith and morals. And so when I say every issue, I mean to add to faith and morals issues of history and science. And so this has become a great divergence in evangelicalism. And so now we have a lot of Christians under the umbrella of evangelicalism who claim well, we do independent investigations of history and science and we see then that the Bible is not fallible, but rather fallible in these areas, and so we have to reinterpret the Bible to fit the modern conclusions of science and history. And so we've been standing against that and discussing why, and discussing why, and part of the reason why is because the tests of a prophet and I went through these last week Deuteronomy 13, deuteronomy 18, and just discussed in the Old Testament how important it was that a prophet be 100% in his predictions as well as he be orthodox in his teaching. And so, while someone may do all sorts of signs and miracles and wonders, that is not a sign that that person is a prophet or an apostle. In fact, the sorcerers in Egypt. They did all sorts of signs and wonders and things that didn't mean they were to be believed. When the Antichrist comes and the false prophet, they will do many signs and wonders. The whole world will be awestruck by the things that they do. And yet that does not mean go after them, does it? Of course not. So that's not the issue. The issue is do they have the teaching of Scripture or not? Because if they don't, who cares? It's false, and so that's part of the reason that the scriptural authors cannot err when they make statements that touch on history or science, Because if they did err, well, they're a false prophet, because a prophet was the voice of God. God doesn't err, so God's not going to make a mistake regarding science or history, is he? But still we have people making this division.
Speaker 2:Now, we did make the point that prophets and apostles only spoke infallibly when they were writing Scripture. In other words, when they say thus saith the Lord, right Outside of that, of course they, you know, in their normal everyday mode of life, doesn't mean they would not, they would be infallible. Of course they were fallible in that respect. So when the word of the Lord came to them, then they were infallible. Okay, but Jesus was infallible all the time. This means if he was growing up as a boy in Nazareth, with Joseph and Mary and whatever brothers and sisters came along after him, he was infallible in all the home situations. He was infallible in all of his situations growing up as what we would call a teenager and so forth, all the way up into his ministry. And through his ministry. We would say he was infallible all the time. See, the word of the Lord did not come to Jesus through his ministry. We would say he was infallible all the time. See, the word of the Lord did not come to Jesus. Jesus was the word of the Lord.
Speaker 2:Yet, as I mentioned last week, ken Bryan back at Western in like 1980, you know he was having this discussion with the Presbyterian pastor. The Presbyterian pastor's like well, you know, when asked about who wrote Isaiah, he's like well, you know, you've got Deutero or Tridereo, you've got, you know, possibly up to three authors of Isaiah. Well, what about when Jesus said? Isaiah said oh well, jesus made a technical error, jesus erred. So that kind of thing is very prevalent.
Speaker 2:Don't think this is just like one church out there that's out in the blue. No, this is most of the churches today, unfortunately, because they're all in denominations and hierarchies. They're trained in all the same cemeteries and if it's in the cemeteries, well, I mean the cemeteries. Excuse me, if it's in the cemeteries, then it's just come down here. Not all cemeteries are bad, but they tend to go negative before the pastors and so forth in the pulpits go negative and it trickles then down to the people. So it's kind of a process, but it's not a good situation today for the most part.
Speaker 2:So we did the test of a prophet right Negative test, orthodoxy test and we then wanted to say a few things about Jesus himself. With respect to infallibility, first of all, that Jesus is greater than Moses. In Deuteronomy 18, god tells Moses there will be a prophet like unto you that will come and all the people should listen to him. He's a prophet greater than Moses. I mean, who can be greater than Moses? Right, he's the author of the Torah. Well, at least if you hold to infallibility. If you don't hold to infallibility, then it was written by J-E-D and P and not Moses, and Jesus was wrong again. And so the story goes. But Jesus is to be greater than Moses.
Speaker 2:In Matthew, chapter 12, it says that Solomon is the wisest man who ever lived. And then it says something greater than Solomon is here, and that, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ. He's greater than Solomon and John the Baptizer among men born of women, there's none greater than John the Baptist. But John the Baptist said he who comes after me, I'm not even fit to untie his sandals. So obviously Jesus is greater than John, right? So I mean he is the greatest.
Speaker 2:So if he's the greatest, that's pointing out his infallibility in all of his life. So everything he spoke, whether those issues related to faith and morals or whether they related to history and science, if he spoke them, they are true. Now jesus also said in john 3, 12 hey look, if I tell you about earthly things and you don't believe, how are you going to believe me when I tell you about heavenly things? So if you can't believe something Jesus said about earthly things that could actually be observed or checked out, then how could you believe him if he told you about heavenly things which couldn't be checked out, such as if you believe in me, your names are written in the book of life. Anybody ever go check and see if their name was written up there, anyone? It says that nobody has ascended and descended. So I guess not right.
Speaker 2:So the point being that in Scripture, well, he is the word of the Lord. I mean, all of Scripture comes from who? Jesus Christ, right? Ultimately, its ultimate source is him. This is why you have the red letter editions and they say well, all the red letters, those are Jesus' words. If you actually have a red letter edition, every word in the Bible would be red. Those red letters are no more important than the black letters in Isaiah or Daniel or Moses or Habakkuk. They all come with equal authority, the authority of the one who is the Word of God. The Word become flesh and dwelt among us. That is Jesus Christ. So you can't separate those red letters from the rest of the words. They all come with equal authority. And so if the Bible talks about various things that are what we would consider earthly things, such as the age of the earth, if it talks about things like gender, if it talks about things like marriage, and it links these things to the age of the earth using phrases like in the beginning it were not so and so forth, then you are inextricably linking together moral ideas with historical and scientific ideas.
Speaker 2:So let's turn to 1 Corinthians 15 quickly, because here we have Paul writing about the resurrection. This is the most extensive section in the Bible on the resurrection, and you'll notice that this is a matter of history. Is Jesus Christ risen from the dead or not? That's a historical question now, and it was when Paul wrote this. And notice how he mingles that together with faith and morals.
Speaker 2:So, chapter 15, verse 12, if Christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how does some among you say there's no resurrection of the dead? But if there's no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised. In other words, if we make an absolute statement there's no resurrection from the dead, not even Christ has been raised. In other words, if we make an absolute statement there's no resurrection from the dead, then that absolute statement would also apply to Jesus Christ, right? So if there's no resurrection from the dead, well then Christ isn't raised, verse 14,. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching, the preaching of the gospel, is vain. Your faith also is vain, moreover, and here's where it infringes on our morals and ethics, in other words, if we don't want to believe in the resurrection, because that's a matter of history that well we know.
Speaker 2:People don't rise from the dead. That just doesn't happen. We know that scientifically it's a fact. People don't come back from the dead. Therefore, jesus is not risen from the dead, right, but he's saying this will affect you ethically. In verse 15, we are found to be false witnesses of god. In other words, we're liars. We're liars, okay, because we testified against god that he raised christ from the dead, in whom he did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. So you can see the intermingling of history with morals and ethics, right. What about down in verse 32?
Speaker 2:One of my favorite implications of not believing in resurrection. If, from human motives, paul says I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, probably referring to the riot that started there, the silversmiths and so forth he says, what does it profit me? You know, I mean like, if people aren't risen from the dead, why would I put my life in jeopardy? That's what he's saying. I mean, why would I be a fool like that If the dead are not raised? Then he says something Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. In other words, if there's no resurrection from the dead historical resurrection then this has moral implications for how we should live our lives. Now. Right, I mean, this is me to a T. I have no problem with this at all. If I didn't believe the resurrection, I would. I would go be a hedonist, I mean, what would be the point? Just make yourself as happy as you can possibly be, because when you die, you're dead and that's it, and you're never coming back and that's the end of it. You're just extinguished. See, if you're a logical person, that is exactly what you will do. You will try to make the most money at the expense of the most people to make the most pleasure for yourself. Who cares about anybody else? What does it matter if there's no resurrection? See, that's logical. And so Paul's saying historical issues which have major scientific repercussions, such as resurrection, that would have moral and ethical implications. They're linked together.
Speaker 2:The second coming point D here is likened to the global flood of Noah. In other words, it builds it on that basis. It says you know, as in the days of Noah, so it will be in the coming of the Son of man. Says, you know, as in the days of noah, so it will be in the coming of the son of man. So it likens the days of noah. We have a what we would say in genesis six, seven and eight, a global catastrophe. You know, water covered every high mountain under all the heavens and all all flesh that had the breath of life in it died, All Except, you know, the eight people on the boat and the animals that they carried across the floodwaters with them, right? So if that's what the global flood of Noah was like and that's a matter of history, and we come along and say you know, I mean, you know, that's not really true, we know now from science, say you know, I mean, you know, that's not really true. We know now from science that you know there are many local floods over hundreds of thousands of years that brought about, you know, fossilization and erosion patterns and geological formations and so forth. You know, we know better, and we know that the Bible doesn't really teach a global flood.
Speaker 2:How long is it before we say, therefore, there's not a global second coming, see, because in the Bible they're linked, they're linked. So then, what the Bible does in Matthew 24 is it talks about being ready for the coming of the Son of man, being prepared for that event. It says you should be faithful, you should be sensible, you should live a certain way. In other words, it has moral repercussions. The geology of the flood has moral repercussions for how we ought to live our lives in preparation for the second advent. So you see, in the Bible, heavenly things and earthly things are inextricably linked. That's the point we have to see.
Speaker 2:And you can't segregate off the scientific and the historical over here, away from faith and morals, and say, well, yes, the Bible speaks infallibly over here, but it speaks fallibly over here. And we know better than Jesus and the prophets and the apostles Gender issues, marriage, these are all tied up with creation, design. You know, things that happened in the beginning, no more than about 7,500 years ago maximum. That's tied in with the age of the earth and the age of the universe. You know you can't just pick and choose, as my mentor taught me, charlie Clough. He said you know this is not a rubber Bible, you can't stretch it whichever way you want, you know, to fit your philosophy. It doesn't work that way.
Speaker 2:Now the last point on infallibility is one of my favorite points, which I just think is entirely interesting, and that's the idea that infallibility is an inescapable concept. In fact, roussos Rushduni wrote a book called I think it's called the Inescapability of Infallibility, I think that's what it's called. And this is the idea that, whether you're a Christian or not, whether you're consistent in this area of infallibility or not, everybody holds to infallibility. They just relocate it somewhere else. So the claim that Jesus or the prophets and apostles made technical errors in the Bible, in the historical and scientific matters, requires that you make a claim of infallibility and that it's somewhere other than the Bible. In other words, you can never get rid of infallibility and that it's somewhere other than the Bible. In other words, you can never get rid of infallibility, no matter who you are. You can only relocate it somewhere else. So think of the fact that a lot of people will say things to you like do you really think that the Bible is infallible? I mean, that's such a silly thing. Just turn that around and say you know what's even sillier than that? That you think that you are infallible on this issue. Because that's what you have to be making a claim that infallibility either lies in you or in some other source in order to make the claim the Bible's not infallible or it's a silly idea that it's infallible. You see, just turn it around. I mean, they brought up the argument. Just flip it on them Easy enough.
Speaker 2:Rush Juney said in his book if men refuse to ascribe infallibility to scripture, it is because the concept has been transferred to someone else. Always, this is always the way it is, he wrote. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin spoke of, quote, the infallibility of the evolutionary process. In other words, it doesn't make mistakes, it's infallibly true. This is the exchange of the personal, sovereign God for a blind evolutionary process. Is that where you locate infallibility? Well, many people in the world do. They haven't got rid of infallibility, see. They've just moved it over to the evolutionary process. They've exchanged the infinite personal God for a finite, impersonal process, but they still hold to infallibility. Charles Clough wrote One observes this movement of infallibility. Charles Clough wrote One observes this movement of infallibility away from Jesus and the Bible to man.
Speaker 2:In the conflict between Genesis and historical science. Modern schemes of earth history are basically considered infallible in that no amount of data, it is believed, will radically alter them toward the view of early Genesis. In other words, no amount of evidence that is shown to modern evolutionists will change their mind. Why? Well, because they're going to reinterpret the data within an evolutionary paradigm. It's not something that is challengeable. You cannot challenge it.
Speaker 2:When I was in the university doing my biology studies, one of my main professors, dr Michael Deeney, said that all of the disciplines that we studied are like spokes on a bicycle wheel, and the hub of the wheel is evolutionary theory in its broadest sense, meaning cosmic or physical evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. He says that's the hub of the wheel. All the disciplines, whether it's anthropology, botany, ecology, biology, chemistry, molecular chemistry, neurobiology all of these disciplines are spokes of the wheel and he says they all point to this one hub. All of these disciplines are spokes with will and he says they all point to this one hub. It's an unchallengeable philosophy. No matter how much data you bring to the contrary, it will never change their mind.
Speaker 2:Now I'm going to quote from Richard Lewontin, who was a historian of evolution, and hopefully this quote. If your life has not already been changed by quotes to this extent, it'll be changed forever when you read this. Our willingness, he says, to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. Let's not read any further. Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science, in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. See, it cannot be challenged. It is quote, unquote infallible. It's infallible.
Speaker 2:So the just so stories, the supposedly these abstruse conclusions, they have to be because we are committed to materialism before we ever even get to the data. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori, before the facts, adherence to material causes. Okay, before the facts even come in, we're already committed to this. So once a fact comes in, what do we do? We just interpret the fact in terms of our a priori commitment. That's the way the game is played. We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes. In other words, everything must have a material cause.
Speaker 2:You cannot talk about supernatural causes, they will say To create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations. In other words, it's always going to have a material explanation because we set it up that way, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated like huh. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. We can't, we're not going to do that, we're not going to go there. It's part of the game, it's the way they aim. You can present all the evidence in the world, it doesn't matter. They've already set up the system so that when they do the investigation, they're just going to take your fact or whatever you brought to the table and they're going to reinterpret it in terms of a materialistic worldview.
Speaker 2:More Infallibility concepts are all around us, a great variety of substitutes for the infallible word. In other words, these are of substitutes for the infallible word. In other words, these are all substitutes for the Bible. One of my other favorite teachers, cornelius Van Til, always taught that he taught that all other views borrow or steal concepts from the Bible and that they have to. Here's a concept that they borrow from the Bible Infallibility. They stole that from the Bible. Most of the best ideas in history were stolen from the Bible. I'll get on too long of a rabbit trail if I go down that trail and start giving you examples.
Speaker 2:But democracy is one such substitute. By the way, technically we're not supposed to be a democracy. We're technically a republic. Right, the republic for which I stand, not the democracy for which I stand. Democracy is a very, very different idea than a republic. Democracy is one such substitute for the infallible word From ancient times. Its essential faith has been summed up in the Latin motto Vox Papuli, vox Dei. That is, the voice of the people is the voice of God. In other words, if 50.5% of the people say that in the womb an infant is not a life, then that's the voice of God. That's infallible. The people or democracy are the new God and they speak infallibly through majorities. That's a false placement of infallibility.
Speaker 2:Marxist dogma is the infallibility of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They can do no wrong. They can do no wrong. Dialecticism, which is the concept you take the truth, another truth, contrary truth, you synthesize the two and you take a step of progress forward is a system built on rationality and irrationality. But that's the whole Marxist system, the dictatorship of the proletariat. They can do no wrong because, even if they pronounce two opposite things, they just synthesize and take a step forward, at least in their mind. It's infallible. In other words, they've located it in a particular political theory. They've moved infallibility to a political theory.
Speaker 2:All these exchanges of infallibility are violent oppositions to the Bible and they will lash out against the Bible at every opportunity, and they have. Man must free himself from God, is the cry of paganism, all unbelief the world over, and the best way to do this is to relocate God's infallibility in man himself or in man's politics and theory. So nobody ever gets rid of infallibility. Okay, they steal the concept from the Bible and move it elsewhere and then use it to attack the Bible. Okay, that's the end of infallibility, and I think we can trust the Bible in all matters upon which it touches, whether morals and ethics or history and science. Whatever the Bible says when it touches on that matter, it is true Now. We are now going to go to the death of the king, the death of the king, king, the death of the king, and hopefully we're going to have to spend several weeks getting ready for this?
Speaker 2:Because the cross is the central picture of justice in the whole history of the world. Yet one in 10,000 people, including Christians, if asked to give a depiction of justice, would very unlikely ever refer to the cross of Christ as the preeminent picture of justice that it is. I'm going to quote from Leon Morris, who wrote a book called the Cross in the New Testament, and he's pointing out how dominant the theme of the cross is in the New Testament. The cross dominates the New Testament. Notice how naturally it is referred to as summing up the content of Christianity. We preach Christ crucified.
Speaker 2:1 Corinthians 1.23. I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2.2. I delivered unto you first of all how that Christ died for our sin. 1 Corinthians 15.3. Far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Galatians 6.3. Far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Galatians 6.14. The gospel is the word of the cross. 1 Corinthians 1.18. The enemies of Christianity are the enemies of the cross of Christ. Philippians 3.18. Baptism is baptism into Christ's death. Romans 6.3.
Speaker 2:And it is not without interest that, while Christ did not enjoin his followers to commemorate his birth or any event in his life. He did call on them to remember his death, which is what we do in communion. Do this in remembrance of me. What about me? That he died on the cross, that he paid the penalty for our sins. So the cross of Christ is the dominant picture of the New Testament and it is the central picture of God's justice. And it is the central picture of God's justice, which is an interesting idea, because most people do not think again of the cross of Christ as being like a picture of God's justice.
Speaker 2:Even Peter, when Jesus told him that he would suffer, he would die, and Peter says it will never be Lord, it will never be, matthew 16. So Peter didn't even think the Messiah would die. Don't you find that interesting in the Gospels? I mean, didn't you know the Messiah was going to have to die for our sin? Peter's like no, this shall never happen to you. It should strike you as odd.
Speaker 2:On the road to Emmaus, as Jesus walked with the men, they thought that the death of Jesus meant that he was not the Messiah. Don't you find that odd? They said well, we were thinking that it was him, but he died. It's not him, it's like what. So there's some odd things about the Messiah Jesus, of course, and the cross in the New Testament which lead us to kind of ask the question, maybe back away from the whole issue, and kind of wonder why this was not understood well even at the time of the Messiah, with all the Old Testament already there, and yet they didn't see it Now. So they obviously did not have the same conception of justice and the nature of God and man's sin that we do. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have, of course. Just because they have the Old Testament doesn't mean they understood everything in the Old Testament. Right, if you and I had been there, we may not have understood the Old Testament either. We may have been just like Peter and said, no, it's not going to happen, you're never going to die. But then you have to walk away saying, well then how would the sin problem be resolved? Right, because in your mind you're thinking you're a Monday morning quarterback, you have more information than they did. So you're thinking well, it's necessary, but the cross was not well understood.
Speaker 2:Now everybody has a sense of justice, every human being, and the reason we have a sense of justice is because we have a conscience. The conscience isn't something that you can dissect, take out, put it on a scale, measure the weight of the conscience, or something like that. It's a part of the immaterial part of man, part of our human spirit, part of that aspect of our constitution. We have that because we're made in God's image. As image bearers of God, we are finite replicas of him. So, whereas he has certain attributes, like he's sovereign, man has choice. Sovereign's an infinite quality. Choice is a finite quality. God is love, infinite right. Infinite love we love. Why do we have love? Well, because we're finite creatures made in his image. Right, he is righteous and just right, what we sometimes call holy. We have a concept of righteousness and justice as humans because we're made in his image and it's called conscience. Our conscience can't help but judge and say that's right, that's right, wrong. I mean, people do it every day. You make judgments every day. Every human does. It's because we're made in God's image that we do that.
Speaker 2:So humans have developed systems of justice, what they consider to be just. Here's a few of them Distributive justice this is a form of social justice where it's basically redistribution of assets, wealth, from those who are the haves to the have-nots. So this is considered by many to be a form of justice. You know, we should all be equal. We all should have equal amount of assets, power and so forth, right? So distributive justice is the concept of redistributing through various means, such as progressive tax systems, where you would tax those who make the least amount less than you would tax those bracket who make the most, tax them more To try to redistribute wealth, reallocate wealth so people are more. We can get to a level where everyone's equal. So that's a form of justice.
Speaker 2:Does it sound just? I mean, like you know, some people think this is just. I think that the people who make this theory actually are just jealous. So that's not just right. We would say, well, that's not just right, that's. We would say well, that's not just, you shouldn't get something that someone else has earned or inherited just because you feel like you should get it and they shouldn't have have it, or because you feel like they have too much and they'll they'll never be able to spend that much money, so I should get some of it and they'll never be able to spend that much money, so I should get some of it Anyway. So this is their plan.
Speaker 2:Retributive justice this is the idea that a perpetrator must suffer something that is proportional to the victim, some loss that's proportional to the victim, some loss that's proportional to the victim. The Bible actually does touch on this type of has a discussion about many passages that discuss this. We saw one today in Deuteronomy 30, I think it was verse 6. Those who had cursed Israel and brought pain and suffering on them would suffer. So there's concepts of retributive justice in the Bible, but it's not a total picture of the Bible's view of justice.
Speaker 2:Rehabilitory justice so this is the prison system, which obviously, this is a part of our justice system. This is the idea that the criminal is a victim and the justice system is responsible to take care of these people Because somehow, you know, we failed them. They're just a victim. So we'll take them and we'll care for them and rehabilitate them in the prison system. Whereas what actually usually happens is the criminals in the prison system are now together with. Usually happens is the criminals in the prison system are now together with other criminals. So all criminal minds come together and they create new ideas for how, when they get out, they're going to do more vicious and more complicated crimes, not so much rehabilitation.
Speaker 2:Egalitarianism, a form of social that gives, is designed to give equal opportunities and treatment to all citizens, with consideration of past treatments of people, groups, racial groups and so forth. So principles like affirmative action would be employed in an egalitarian and you can see that a lot of these aspects are used or mixed together. We kind of have an eclectic system where a lot of these ideas are mixed together in our system of justice or injustice, whatever the case may be. But people have these senses of justice because they're made in God's image. But the problem with all these is that human conceptions of justice are all fallen projections that emanate from finite humans.
Speaker 2:So, first of all, we're finite, right, we're just limited. We can't know every outcome. If we make a specific decision in a court of law, how do we know that that decision will actually be efficacious or helpful? How do we know that it's proportional? We don't know all the details in any crime and therefore how to proportionally deal with that. We just don't know, because we're finite humans and we can't say, we don't even know what the effects of it will be. So it's really just speculation and guess. Not only are we finite, we're also fallen. So, like I mentioned, with distributive justice, the haves versus the have-nots, let's tax the haves more so we can redistribute wealth, so we can all be equal playing field. Right, that's probably stemming from jealousy, covetousness, which are all sinful, we would say, but so it's a projection of fallen humans, that whole system. So what this does is it challenges us to look at the cross more closely, because only when we look at it more closely are we able to understand what justice really is from God's point of view, because it's the central picture of justice and it combines several elements that I now want to walk through. I'll walk through portions of the Old Testament and look so we can have a corrective to our understanding of justice that will set us up for understanding the cross.
Speaker 2:So what is the death of Messiah all about? Did he die just as an inspiration for us? You know, an inspiration to live a better life. You know, some people call the martyr theory. You know of the death that he's dying as a martyr, you know, and we should be martyrs like Jesus. Or as an example is another way to refer to the theory, the example theory. He's showing how you lay down your lives for others, you give up your life for others. Now, the New Testament does make an application in that direction of the cross of Christ. We love because he first loved us. Why do we lay our lives down for our wives as husbands? Because Christ laid down his lives for us. Okay, so it does make application of the cross of Christ to how we live.
Speaker 2:But is that all? Is it just to be a moral example, to be a martyr, to be an example? Is that the only reason he died? Is that what the death of Christ is teaching us? Or did his death actually accomplish something before God that involves our salvation? In other words, is there something about what took place on the cross that relates directly to procuring our salvation? Right, well, I mean, the Bible teaches point three that the death of the Messiah is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy related to the fact that God is holy and man is a sinner, and so the problem is God and man getting together and how that transpires. In the mix of how that transpires, justice has to be met, because God is just so.
Speaker 2:This is the first big point about justice is that justice is not a quality that exists independent of God. It's not something out there, an idea that's just out there and God says that's just no. Justice is who God is, and so justice originates in God. It stems from his nature and essence. In other words, to put it another way, you and I would have no concept of justice at all if God was not just Because he made us in his image, and so our concept of justice, even if it's fallen and finite right, is reflective of him. It's why we have a concept of justice. If God wasn't there and we were all here, there would be no. Humans would not have come up with an idea of justice or non-justice, just like we wouldn't have come up with love or non-love. These are all things that stem from who God is. Whether you're a believer or an unbeliever, it makes no difference in the world. We are who we are because of who God is and how he made us in his image, and even though that image is marred and fallen, we still have concepts that derive from him. So that's the source of justice.
Speaker 2:Okay, it is God himself. It's tied in with who he is himself. It's tied in with who he is, and because he's the opposite of sin, this creates the problem, and God has to judge the sin. He can't compromise his character. He can't set justice aside, for example, and just say, well, I can overlook sin. He can't overlook sin. It's contrary to who he is. So it has to somehow be dealt with. And that's then how I've laid the lesson out is how that gets dealt with, because the Old Testament is paving the way for us to understand why this bloody, gory mess is a picture of justice. So this first point sin requires blood sacrifice.
Speaker 2:Let's go to Genesis 3.21. And really think through this, not just read it. I know you're familiar with it, so I'll try to shock you again. It's the best way to try to read the Bible really is if you don't know what's there, if you're reading it going yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're reading it wrong, you're going to miss things. You're going to miss a lot.
Speaker 2:321, the Lord, god, made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Wait a minute. Made garments of skin? We would say leather, right, leather who was the first clothing designer? God, who made the first set of leather pants? And all the cowboys and bikers said praise, god, right, he made the first set of chaps right.
Speaker 2:But what was the process of making this leather pant? Can you imagine Adam and Eve, everything's good. You know, there's this little lamb, hadn't done anything. God slits the throat, blood just gushes out. You know you're thinking what did that little animal do? It was innocent. Why does it deserve that? That's not the end of it.
Speaker 2:Then all the entrails are drug out. Have you ever cleaned an animal Slit? You know, get all the entrails out. It takes time. You've got to get your hands in there. You're bloody. I usually have a bucket under me. Flies are coming. Then you have to take this fur and you have to skin that sucker right. You're working with your knife and you're getting it all off.
Speaker 2:This is what happened. They had to see this. They had to watch this, this innocent animal and then make the leather pants to cover them. What's all this blood shit? What's going on? What's going on is teaching us something about justice, the justice of god and what it takes for a man to be right with god. And you say this is slaughterhouse religion, this is nasty, I I'm not going to eat meat anymore, I'm just going to be a vegetarian. You get this response. I mean, how many did you ever? I read a quote one time on the internet. It says it said something to the effect I wish these people would stop hunting animals and just get their meat the way everybody else does in the grocery store, the way everybody else does in the grocery store. That's the way most people think they're, so separated from the process, right, the bloody, gory death process that's required for us to have meat to eat that they think we're just. You know, it's just the stuff in a package. Hey yo, the rose sours what.
Speaker 2:Let's go to the next example, chapter 4, verse 3. Cain and Abel. Right Verse 3. Well, verse 2, abel is a keeper of flocks, right, cain a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time. Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part, also brought the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering, but for Cain and for his offering he had no regard. Now, why not offering? He had no regard. Now, why not? How did Cain try to approach God Through plants? Right Through plants? How did Adam and Eve first try to approach God Through plants? Why is God not accepting people approaching him through plants? This is fundamental. It's a fundamental way of thinking about the world. It's a fundamental way of thinking in science, in nature.
Speaker 2:Plants don't have nephesh, which is a Hebrew word for life. They don't have that. The life is in the blood, leviticus 17, 11. Animals don't have that. The life is in the blood Leviticus 17.11. Animals don't have blood. If I go out and I cut down a plant, blood doesn't come out, does it no? So I'm not. It doesn't have life, it can't die. In that sense, animals though. Animals have blood, right, they have nephesh, they have life. Life is in their blood. Their life is not made in the image of God, right, but they do have life. And so what was happening with Adam and Eve when God slew the little lamb? See, well, the life of the lamb was being given for the life of Adam and Eve. Right Now, this is an animal life, so it's less than the value of their life. But this is preparatory for something right. This is supposed to prime our minds for understanding what is required for God to restore man to himself. Same thing here with Abel and Cain. One brings plants. That's not going to work. God is not pleased with that, because there's no life in the plant. But Abel's offering God was satisfied with. Life is in the blood.
Speaker 2:Let's go to Noah and the clean animals, genesis 8. Remember they got on the ark two of each kind right, except for the clean animals, where you had seven right Seven rather than just two. Now in Genesis 8, 20 and 21, they've gotten off the ark and it says Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And then it says the Lord smelled the soothing aroma. And the Lord said to himself I will never again curse the ground on account of man and so forth. He smelled this, this soothing aroma, aroma. He was anthropomorphism, it said. It was pleasing to him, he was satisfied. Uh think, from the animal's perspective, you put me on this boat we've been here 371 days all so I could get off on the other side and be sacrificed.
Speaker 2:Same story too, right, it's a bloody, messy thing. You know why it's a bloody, messy thing. You know why it's so bloody and so messy? Because sin is bloody and messy. That's why we're not supposed to take it lightly. It is absolutely contrary to the holiness of God and there has to be a payment made for it because he's just and this is at the heart of justice and there has to be a payment made for it because he's just, and this is at the heart of justice.
Speaker 2:Question about good works. See, any system that thinks in terms of good works, that we need to do good works to go to heaven or something like that, has never, ever, come to grips with justice. It's such a shallow view of justice that I could do enough good works to pay for my sin. No Sin causes death, which is the loss of life. You're dead. You're a dead man walking. You don't have anything to give. You're dead. And until you don't have anything to give, you're dead. And until we realize how dead we are, we'll never understand grace and we'll never understand the cross, because when we're saying I'm going to do this or I'm going to do that, we're forgetting that everything we do is coming from a dead person. It's just dead works. It means absolutely nothing to God, because God is saying you stole life. Therefore, the only way to get your life back is for something to die, something that has life to die, so it can give you its life.
Speaker 2:How could good works do that? That's a silly idea. Somehow blood atonement satisfies God's justice and we're on a track to understand why. So the first big point is sin requires blood sacrifice and it's messy. The second big point is all sin is against God and even though sins involve other people, all sins are against God. So let's go to Numbers, chapter 5. Notice, all we're doing here is just going through the Torah kind of chronologically through the Bible. We could go to Passover, we could look at that. But I want to look at how sin is against. It's against god. Numbers five, five through ten. Just watch the elements as they unfold.
Speaker 2:Then the lord spoke to moses saying speak to the sons of israel. When a man or woman commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the lord, and that person is guilty, then he shall confess his sins which he has committed and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong and add to it one-fifth of it and give it to him whom he has wronged. But if the man has no relative to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution which is made for the wrong must go Okay. So every man's holy gifts shall be his. Whatever any man gives to the priest, it becomes his Okay. So did you notice that you know there were people involved, you know, and they were damaged, or damaged goods, and you had to make restitution and you had to add to it one-fifth, which is how much percentage-wise, 20% right, and then if you can't make restitution because that guy didn't have any relatives who were living, then it goes to the priest and so forth. But all that involved I mean people were injured by this right, other people. But did you notice that in verse 5 and six it's not against the victim, but the sin was against the lord. It says in verse six when a man or a woman speaks, commit, commits, any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully, against who, the lord? Why is it against the Lord and not against the victim? Because the Lord is the one who made the law, he's the one who gave the law and so if there's a violation of the law, the sin is against him.
Speaker 2:Leviticus 5. Turn back Genesis, exodus, leviticus 5. I'll turn back Genesis, exodus, leviticus. Turn back to the left, Just so we see this clearly again. 5.14-19. There's another word here. You'll see this word over and over. You'll pick it up 5.14.
Speaker 2:Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying If a person acts unfaithfully and sins, unintentionally against what the Lord's holy things, so these things relative to the articles in the temple and so forth, then he shall bring his guilt, offering to the Lord a ram without defect from the flock, according to your evaluation, in silver, by shekels, in terms of. So again, this sin, whatever this is, this is against, even if it's unintentional. See, even if it's unintentional, it still counts as a sin and it's against the Lord. And we can go on in chapter 6. You see it there in verse 1. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying when a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit, so did that hurt anybody? Did that injure anybody? Sure it did. You got robbed, you got extorted, you know something like that or has found what was lost and he lied about it and he swore falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do. I mean, this is not very optimistic about what people do, by the way. Verse four then it shall be when he sins and becomes guilty that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found or anything about which he swore falsely. He shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs, on the day he presents his guilt offering. But remember back in verse 2, who was the sin against? It was against the Lord. People were involved, yes, but it's against God. Now, this same concept of sin and justice are still part of our legal system today in America, which is super interesting. Take any case I just made this one up Lawrence versus the state of Washington. Let's say, in this case, Lawrence murdered someone. Why is the case not Lawrence versus the person Lawrence murdered? But why does it say Lawrence versus the state of Washington? You would think it would say Lawrence against X, whoever Lawrence murdered, or that family. Nope, it says the state of Washington. Why? Because the state of Washington made the law. That's why, in the same way that in the Old Testament, when someone broke the law, it was against the Lord, because the Lord's the one who made the law.
Speaker 2:So Israel's government, of course, had three branches, just like ours did. Ours is modeled after theirs. People in the 1700s who were thinking about this. They noticed the importance of division of powers, right. So you've got a legislative branch, you've got a judicial branch, you've got an executive branch. So you've got the legislative branch they make the laws right. The judicial branch they enforce the judge on the laws. And the executive branch they execute right. So you've got this division of power in our country.
Speaker 2:Now, this came from the Old Testament, israel. So Israel had an executive branch. This is going to be like the judges during the judges' period and the kings. You've got the legislative branch. These are like the priests who would interpret the law and deal with those types of issues judicially. And then you've got the legislative branch. Who's the legislative branch?
Speaker 2:Who wrote the law?
Speaker 2:Who gave the law?
Speaker 2:Whose law is it? See, it's God's law law. Who gave the law? Whose law is it? See, it's god's law. He gave the law, right. So he is the one who was sinned against whenever the law was broken.
Speaker 2:When david sinned this is a good analogy. When david sinned, right, I mean he committed adultery. Oh my goodness. I mean like this is a bad scene, right? I mean, this is a guy who was a wonderful shepherd boy, a man after god's own heart. Right, he loved the lord from his youth. God saw this, wanted to make him king and made covenant with him right that his house would always rule in israel, on the throne forever.
Speaker 2:And then, in the midst of this guy's reign, he starts staying up all night partying, hanging out on the rooftop watching naked ladies bathe she's not exactly without fault there, by the way, right and before you know it, invite her up to the palace. Check out my crib, bro. You know, I mean like I'm for real. This is what the people are thinking Like. Look at this place. I've got, you know, got a mansion here, don't you love it? Okay, commits adultery. Then what? Oh, I don't want to get caught. She's pregnant. Oh man, I should have thought of that ahead of time. Oops, well, that ahead of time. Oops, well, she's married to this guy who's more noble and upright than David. Front line. Put him on the front. He's a great warrior. He's on the front lines. Put him at the very front of the front. So he gets killed, murdered. It's a malicious murder.
Speaker 2:In Psalm 51,. When this finally comes to his attention, that he was being an idiot. Right, which we all do, by the way. We go down these paths and we do idiot things. When it finally comes to his attention and he realizes and he confesses. Who does he confess to? Uriah's family, bathsheba's family? Does he go to them and say you, you know, I sinned against you. No, he says against you, and you only have I sinned. Did David get it? Yes, david got it. He understood that God was the standard for what is right and wrong. It's not just some human conception of what's right or wrong. Human legislatures don't make up what's right and what's wrong. It's not just some human conception of what's right or wrong. Human legislatures don't make up what's right and what's wrong. They either reflect what is right and what's wrong or they don't. But that's a good analogy to show you the situation with David, that all sin is against God.
Speaker 2:Now we'll go on to the next point next week, but just so, you probably saw this word over and over as we went through those texts and the numbers in Leviticus restitution, restitution, restitution. And if whatever was taken, you have to give back that plus 20%, right, plus 20%, which is a very interesting form of justice. God is interested in restoring the thing. See, we have a different system in our country. It's very different. Usually there's not restitution.
Speaker 2:If I'm a thief, I steal something. I steal things, the things I steal. Do I have to literally go to the people who I stole from and restore that plus 20% If I stole someone and restore that plus 20%? If I stole someone's car next week, I said I've got to have that McLaren. I saw over there a so-and-so park and I steal the McLaren and then I get caught. Do I have to buy them another McLaren and then add 20% on top of that? No, I mostly just have to pay a fine or go to prison or something like that. The insurance company will pay all that. Does that really teach someone a lesson? Yeah, it teaches them a lesson. It's no big deal. No big deal. I've had to pay $285,000. That changed my whole life. I might think twice before I stole something again.
Speaker 2:God is interested in the thing being restored. Plus. Why plus more? Well, because the guy didn't have his McLaren. You did wear and tear to it during the time you had it. It caused psychological and emotional distress. All these things add up right. So tack on 20%.
Speaker 2:Finally, when we'll get to the death of Christ, what's going to happen? What are we seeing happen? What is going on on the cross? I mean some payment's being made, right, some restitution is being made, just enough for humanity, or more, 20% more, see. See, something is going on At the end of it. Is God satisfied? Oh, he's satisfied, like a soothing aroma, right, what Christ did on the cross. It's like a soothing aroma, right, what Christ did on the cross. See, all this is leading up to organize our thinking about what is just and what is right, so that when we look at the cross, we see something that we've never seen before about justice. In fact, when we get to Colossians, we see something even grander that 20% more, so to speak, to put it in numeric terms, of what Christ did on the cross is sufficient for the renovation of the entire universe.
Speaker 2:Salvation isn't just about going to heaven and sitting on a cloud. It is about a new heaven and a new earth being created. You see, the restoration from the situation in Genesis, when God first created this perfect garden in Eden, right To the situation that you see in the last two chapters of the Bible. Right, a new heaven and a new earth. See, it's a step higher too, isn't it? It's a step up. There's nothing wrong with the original garden, but it's a step up when you get to the new heaven and new earth.
Speaker 2:On what basis and grounds is that thing built? One basis, one ground the perfect substitutionary blood atonement paid for you and me and the entire cosmos which is infected by our sin. And suddenly the cross becomes much bigger than we ever imagined, that what he was doing was not just salvaging a few people to float off on clouds together and sing kumbaya, but no, an entire new universe for us. 1 Corinthians 3 will end this way All things belong to you, things to come, they all belong to us. Why? Because our Savior is the Savior of us and all those things in the universe.
Speaker 2:So let's leave off, but let's remember that what we're about to remember right as we take communion is really the preeminent picture of justice in the world. It's a picture of other things too. I know it's the love of God. It's other things too. I'm not dispensing with that. I'm just saying that if we really want to understand why the cross happened and why Peter was wrong and why the men on the road to Emmaus had no idea what was going on, at least we do right. At least in hindsight we can say we understand, we can see that God was resolving the problem of sin and hopefully we'll be able to preach the gospel clearer to people so they understand that there's no amount of good works you can do. You're dead in your transgressions and sin. You can't do anything out of deadness that brings value to God. But if someone came on your behalf who didn't have sin and was alive and they gave themselves for you, what would that mean? What would that mean?
Speaker 1:Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube under Spokane Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app, and until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.