June 24 2 Guys and A Bible The Blessing of Abraham versus The Curse of the Law

William, how are you this evening? I'm doing very well. How are you doing? I'm doing great. Matter of fact, we have enjoyed the fact that summer has definitely set in. Oh, well, in Ardmore, Oklahoma. We've been in the mid 90s already. And last Saturday, I got out in my shop trying to do some work on one of my old Mustangs. I didn't have my headband on. And man, I'm telling you, I don't know how much weight I lost. But I should have lost a bunch because it was like being in a sauna. It was incredible how much the humidity on one day was like 96%. Yeah, here in Ardmore. So anyway, yeah, it's definitely been hot. It is currently still 90 degrees at six o'clock. Okay. Yeah. So anyway, I was just explaining that we have been trying to share with our viewers and listeners, how Abraham is in so many different ways, foundational to the entire story of eschatology. The story and one of my lessons at upcoming lectureship in Montana is the restoration of all things. And one of the ways that I'm developing my lesson is to demonstrate that in one way, the story of the Bible is the story of alienation and death versus restoration. And it begins, obviously, with Adam and Eve being cast out of the garden. But it advances from there to the nations being alienated from God. In Genesis chapter 11, the story of Babel, they desired to build a tower that would reach the heavens. And God said, let's not allow that. So God scattered them, that's alienation because of their arrogance, and because of their sin. And then following immediately on that story of alienation. And of course, we have the previous story of Noah and alienation of people whose every thought and intent was to do evil and wickedness continual. But anyway, in Genesis chapter 12, we have Adam introduced immediately after the scattering of the nations. And now Abraham is introduced as the one who's seed would be a blessing to all the nations. And so that's the story of reconciliation, as I see it. What was alienated, what was dead because of sin would be reconciled and resurrected. And last week, we spent some time in Galatians chapter 3, and we talked about how God foretold, preached the gospel beforehand, that the blessings of Abraham would be given to the Gentiles, would be given to the nations. Now we have to recover just some of the territory that we covered last week. Did Israel as a nation exist in Genesis chapter 12? No. Okay. So one would have to extrapolate beyond the context in order to say that he was only talking about Israel, correct? Yes. So is it not contextual to say that the blessing of Abraham would extend certainly to the nations that had been scattered, that were pagan, non-Israelite, non-Jewish, to use all of that terminology. And so the blessing of Abraham absolutely was not supposed to be restricted to one nation. Yeah, that's what I would see as well. Okay. Any further thoughts on that? Well, I think the point that you were suggesting, particularly with the scattering of the nations, and then you see that promise of Abraham, I don't know how anyone who would have read it at the time that that was stated, or from the perspective of the time that God gave it, they would have understood anything other than the nations that then existed. Yeah, I agree with that 100%. Okay. So once again, Galatians chapter 3 verse 8, and the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preach the gospel to Abraham beforehand saying, and you, all the nations shall be blessed. This simply reiterates and reemphasizes the point that we just made. This statement, the scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles, the nations, the ethnoi spoke to Abraham beforehand saying, and you, all nations. Well, William, are you aware of any place in scripture in which the 12 tribes of Israel are referred to the nations? I can't think of one where they are, you know, I've heard some use certain passages to say that this refers to the 12 tribes of Israel, for example, even in Matthew 25, I've heard them say it there. And I'm trying to think of another one where that's possibly used. I think it might be in one of the epistles, even in the book of Revelation, you know, these shall rule them, rule over the nations with the rod of iron, they've used it there to talk about. And then, of course, the other one would be maybe a text in Genesis. But that's all that I can recall at this particular point where they use it in that way. Well, you know, I'm familiar with how some people try to make the term Israel mean the nations, and the nations mean Israel. But that's isogenic as far as I'm concerned. You know, in fact, just today, I've been corresponding back and forth with some folks who take the Israel only position. And I pointed out Acts chapter 9, verse 15, God said concerning Paul, Saul at the time, that he was sending him and he would preach to the Gentiles and to Israel. Well, you can't make Israel to be the Gentiles there. You can't make the Gentiles to be Israel. That would become tautologous. That would be God saying concerning Saul, if you please, okay, I'm going to send him to the Gentiles and to the Gentiles. You know, what kind of sense does that make? There's no logic in that. Certainly, there was no grammatical support of that. And so, these individuals are just going, I got to tell you, sometimes I just shake my head and wonder, why do I waste my time with dishonest, flagrantly, blatantly dishonest people? Sometimes you get the idea all they want to do is argue. That's all in the world they want to do. They don't have any honest motive, and it's not honest, but they have a motive to destroy people's faith. They're practical atheists, if not overt. And so, they want to do anything they can to destroy people's faith. So, it's really, it's not frustrating because it's hard to deal with them, or to the contrary. Sometimes it's just amazingly easy, but it's frustrating because of their dishonesty. And I don't like to deal with dishonest people. And I know you're the same way. And I noticed you haven't chimed in much in dealing with some people. Well, I've been hacking and coughing and sick. Uh-oh, still sick, huh? Yes, I'm still, I mean, I'm feeling kind of okay today, but prior to and even earlier this morning, I mean, it's just been ongoing. So, and last Sunday when I was preaching, I barely made it through the sermon, and about the time the invitation was going on, I had to run out. That's kind of been my life for the last week or so. And hopefully, it's beginning to wane at this point. Well, if I catch it over the internet, I'm going to blame you. And Leora's been going through the same thing. Oh, goodness. Yeah. Okay. So, Paul is going to set forth some things in verses 10 and following that are going to be incredibly, incredibly important. And let me set the stage, and I want your thoughts on this. You are very familiar with the fact that our dispensational friends out there tell us that God's eschatological plan is for Israel in our very, very imminent future. I'm sure you've seen a lot of the YouTube videos about how this current Israeli-Iran war is a sure sign that Gog and Magog, or at least Armageddon, I mean, the end is here. The signs around us are everywhere. Well, the point I want to make here is they tell us that we are looking today for Israel to be blessed by God. We are looking today for Jesus, the Messiah, to come and to rule and to reign from Jerusalem on a literal throne in the literal city of Jerusalem and what have you, the resurrection to occur, et cetera, et cetera. But if I am reading Galatians 3.10 and following correctly, all of those blessings, while they were given to Israel, to be sure, resurrection was a promise to Israel, kingdom was a promise to Israel, all of the constituent elements and promises of eschatology were given to Israel, no doubt about it. We've emphasized that many, many times on this program. But if I'm reading what Paul says correctly here in Galatians 3.10 and following, he is saying that those blessings, while they would be fulfilled for Israel, would be at the end of the law of Moses. Am I reading this correctly? Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. In these verses, in terms of the law and then, of course, following it, I mean, he makes it so clear in the verses that follow that this was, you know, at the time of the end of the law, and I'm sure we'll get to that as we move on through the chapter. If, in fact, all of those eschatological and soteriological promises were to be fulfilled at the end of the law of Moses, then what's the implication, William, of all three futurist eschatologies? You know, I know you know where I'm going on this. All three futurist eschatologies tell us the law of Moses has been fulfilled and taken out of the way. The end of the law of Moses has come in the first century. Of course, most of them put it at the cross. Some of them, a growing number, put it in A.D. 70s. So what are the implications of saying, William, God removed, God fulfilled the law of Moses in the first century, but we're still waiting on the resurrection, the kingdom, etc., etc.? Well, the main implication of that is that we must, of necessity, yet be under the law, because the text says, excuse me, not one jot or tittle would in any wise pass from the law till all were fulfilled, and even says till heaven and earth pass. And of course, you know, looking at that, if their eschatological promises are still future, and Paul in passages like Acts 24, 14, and 15, and Acts 26, 22, and 23, where he spoke about the resurrection, even Acts 26, 6 through 8, and pointing out that all of those were the promises made to the fathers, that he taught nothing that was not a part of the law and the prophets, and said no other things than Moses and the prophets said would come, that tells us that the resurrection and those eschatological promises have to be the fulfillment of the law. So you can't have the law fulfilled and those events yet in our future, or you can't have those things in our future without bringing the law into the future as well. And I know they don't like that combination, but that's the logic that results from it. Yeah, and see if I can state this very clearly and succinctly. While the blessings would come in fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, they would also come at the end of the old law because their fulfillment would do away with the law. As I expressed it to one person today on YouTube, they sort of kind of challenged me a little bit because they said they didn't understand what I meant by the removing of the law because they heard dispensationalists say, well, God fulfilled the law and etc. And I cited Matthew 5, 17, and 18, just like you quoted there a moment ago, and I said here is something that's critical to understand. When God fulfilled his promises to Israel, that included the promise of a new covenant, but the promise of the new covenant demanded the removal of the old covenant. Because here's Paul, I say, well, so it's still sort of kind of old of that. Hebrews 8, verse 13 says that the old covenant was nigh unto passing away, and yet Christ was the mediator of the new covenant. Hebrews 9, verse 15. And so the end of the old coincides with the full arrival of the new. Is that an accurate way of putting that? Yes, yes. I'm reminded of passages like Hebrews 7, 18 and 19. You know, there's verily an annulling of the commandment going before because of its unprofitableness. And then he talks about the bringing in of the better hope. And so that would be, of course, the new covenant. You've already indicated that from Hebrews 8 and verse 13. And so that one that was obsolete and that was, you know, passing away, leaving the one that would remain. And that's the same language of chapter 12 that talks about the kingdom remaining with the old heaven and earth being shaken. And it would only be shaken once. And that indicated the removal of those things that were being shaken at that very time. So you have a contrast then between what has been shaken and what remains. Yeah. Okay. To follow up on what we just went over there, let's emphasize the fact that not only do we have this segue between the old and the new, but the old covenant people had to be God's covenant people at the time of the fulfillment of the promises made to her. Is that a valid statement? Oh, yes. Yes. He couldn't fulfill it to them if they were not his people. They had to be the recipients of it. So that established them as his people at that point and not some delayed fulfillment and creation of them, you know, in a later eschatological paradigm. And that brings up the problem. Now that the premillennialists seem to have a little bit of a handle on this concept because they claim that Israel of today is still God's covenant people. Although they say the law of Moses has been taken out of the way. I mean, that's a paradox, folks. That's a contradiction. You can't have the removal of the law of Moses without the removal of old covenant Israel, because old covenant Israel was identified by the law of Moses. That was her covenant. That was Sinai. That was the two tables. On and on it goes. So the millennialists seem to have at least that much of a grasp of the concept that Israel had to exist for the fulfillment of God's eschatological promises. Okay, so far so good. But once again, to reiterate, they then turn around and say, but the law of Moses containing those promises has been done away with. Sorry, that's a paradox. But then the amillennial and the postmillennial world, both paradigms say, oh, look, we're looking for the resurrection. We're looking for the new heaven and the new earth. We're looking for the everlasting kingdom. And you look at the other eschatological tenets that the postmillennialists and the amillennialists say are still in our future, all the while saying the old law and Israel as a nation has been removed. They seem not to grasp the implication of their own paradigm. I mean, these are things that you and I both struggle with in our struggles with our eschatology, I dare say. I certainly did. Once I saw that God's promises concerning the resurrection were made to old covenant Israel, it's like old covenant Israel has to exist for that promise to be fulfilled. So, I mean, that very quickly, that caused a paradigm shift in my mind really, really quickly. And so, here's an element of eschatology that not one, not one of the futurist views of eschatology are coping with. You know, I wrote my book, Temple to Telos. And the premise of that book is one that's seemingly well known among preterists, at least. And yet, to me, the power of the truth of it seems even to escape a lot of preterists. I know Daniel Rogers and I were talking about it on the phone one time as I was writing the book. And I made the comment, what it seems to me even a lot of preterists are missing is the fact that the temple that was standing in the first century that Jesus predicted was going to be destroyed, it is that temple that had to be standing at the time of the fulfillment of all things spoken of by the prophets. I know you and I have gone over that point a gazillion times. But once that, once the point hits a person, may I say, once they catch the power of the point that it was the first century temple that had to be standing for all prophecy to be fulfilled, all of a sudden, that opens up a can of worms that no futurist view can deal with. They can talk about, oh, we're going to see a messianic temple. We're going to see a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Oh, sorry, that doesn't qualify. That's not the temple that was standing when Jesus said, these are the days of vengeance in which all things are written must be fulfilled. Yeah, that's very apparent when looking, you know, for example, at 2 Thessalonians when you see the temple being referenced in that particular text. And it's so problematic for, you know, as you were saying, a person to claim that these eschatological promises and events extend beyond the temple that existed in the first century. The only one that the people, as you're indicating, they had to be present at the time, that would have been the only one that they would have understood. I mean, you know, if you talk to them about some temple that was to be rebuilt 2000 plus years later, that would have made no sense to them whatsoever. When Jesus said, do you not see all of these things? That makes it explicit. I mean, Jesus wasn't saying, I want you to use your imagination here, guys. Just imagine 2000 years from now, there's going to be another temple Jerusalem and that temple is going to be torn down. Now, amazingly enough, obviously, dispensationalists by and large, and as a whole, they understood that Jesus was predicting the destruction of that very temple. And then all of a sudden they jump ship and they say, well, it will be at the fall or destruction of a third temple, which technically is a fourth one, because they believe the third temple is the temple built or authorized by the man of sin, which I don't get at all. But nonetheless, that's part and parcel of the dispensational paradigm. And so we're supposed to believe that the Jews would have caught on to that, would have understood that Jesus was talking about in his eschatology, a fourth temple, 2000 years removed from their day and time, even though he said this generation will by no means pass until all of these things are fulfilled. So once we grasp these concepts that William and I have just been going over, and that is the eschatological promises, resurrection, kingdom, salvation, judgment, et cetera, et cetera, are all posited by scripture as promises made to Israel, but they would come into fulfillment at the end of the law of Moses and that old covenant world. But that old covenant world had to be standing at the time of the fulfillment. Did I state that well enough, William? Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm sitting here thinking, even as you were saying it, it'd be difficult for the Romans to destroy a temple that's in existence today or that has not yet been built. I mean, they're asking for something that is just absolutely mind-blowing to reiterate and regurgitate, I guess would be a better term, resurrect the Romans from the first century, when the scriptures talked about them being the ones who would destroy the temple when those who were in Judea saw the events taking place. And they would have seen, as you've stated before, the temple, as Jesus said, all these things. That's the temple that they said, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet. So it's that temple that they would see that the Romans would destroy that would be existing when the Lord came. And when you put all that together, there's no way that any kind of paradigm that reflects on a future coming or a future temple is going to work. I agree. Okay. So having touched on that, Paul continues here, and folks, what I was doing in all of that, what William and I were doing in all of that, was trying to lay the foundation for what we're about to see in verses 10, all the way through chapter four in reality, or chapter five. So Paul is really, really going to get down to the brass tacks, so to speak, and let's remember, he's dealing in a context of the Judaizers. The Judaizers who were saying to Gentile Christians, you must be circumcised and keep the law in order to be saved. And Paul's, guys, in chapter two, verse 10, he has already reminded them saying, we know that a man is not justified by the law. Those of us who are Jews and not Gentile sinners of the Gentiles, we know that a man is not justified by the law. Galatians chapter two, 10 and following. So now in chapter three, verse 10, as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Okay. So how does this strike at the foundation of the Judaizers? Well, he's telling them, you know, since they're trying to enforce the law, they're trying to bind the law on people, such as in Acts 15, you know, unless you keep the law of Moses and are circumcised, you cannot be saved. And they are looking at it and using it for justification. They're thinking that, you know, this is how you must be justified. And so what Paul tells them is that anyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, they're the ones who are under the curse. They're the ones who are going to actually fall short of the very righteousness that they supposed they could obtain within the law. That's the irony of it, isn't it? Like Romans 10, they are going about to seek and establish their own righteousness rather than submitting themselves to the righteousness of God. And when Paul defines their righteousness, like Philippians 3.9, he talks about it being those who are seeking it through the law. By doing enough good, by being perfect enough. You know, just this last week, I was engaged in a dialogue with, I never could figure out whether they were Muslims or whether they were Jews. They never clarified it. There seems to be a little bit of ebb and flow almost between the two paradigms. And I forgot the exact background of it. But anyway, they said, show to us in the original scriptures, that was the term that they used, the need and the demand for worshiping somebody called Jesus and what have you. Well, I shared Isaiah 9, 6 through 9, you know, Isaiah chapter 7, pardon me, and what have you, that, you know, Messiah would be called Emmanuel, God with us. That's John 1, 14. And so they never responded to any of that. And then they said, you made the claim that the old law demanded perfection. They said, where does the, they kept calling it the original scriptures, which I took from that they were actually Jews, but you know, I can see how Muslims would use that term as well. They said, you know, you're just so far out on that. This is ridiculous. So I cited Galatians chapter 3, 10 and following for them. I cited James chapter 1, 23 to 25, whosoever keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point, he is guilty of the whole law. Whosoever keeps the perfect law of liberty and offends in one point, guilty of the whole law. Evidently they never read that and they, or they didn't care about what the New Testament has to say. And it's been three days now since they offered anything and my rebuttal to them, but some in Paul's audience took a great deal of umbrage at some of the things that Paul had to say they did in Romans chapter 7, when Paul talks about that, which is good and holy and, and pure and spiritual. And he says, is the law then against the promises of God? So these Judaizers were going to say, well, you're saying we're not justified by the works of the law. Then you're talking against the law and Paul says, no, I'm not. I'm confirming the law as a matter of fact, for the purposes it was given to point out sin does a great job of that, but it doesn't save from that sin. Right. Okay. So Paul says those who are under the law are under a curse. Now, what is this curse, William? Well, that's, you know, the curse that's placed upon them as far as sin is concerned. I mean, they're under a curse. They can't deliver themselves from the power of sin and death. Okay. So it kind of goes back in a way to Romans chapter 8, where Paul says, there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who do not walk out of the flesh, but after the spirit for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. You know, not long ago, William, I was in correspondence with somebody and they said that the law of sin and death is the same as the old law itself. What's your take on that? Well, they're reading the text incorrectly as far as I can see, because he talks about what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh and God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us or in those who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to, you know, truth and according to righteousness. So he's making a contrast in that statement with the law itself and what the law could not deliver them from. And that's where the specific delineation should take place with those who are reading that the law of the spirit of life in Christ. Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death the law of sin and death you sin you die and so he's saying that the law could not deliver them from that death and therefore it required the righteousness of Christ Christ dying and the righteousness that he brings through the gospel as the means to deliver from that condition. So what I hear you saying there, and it's my position for sure, there are three laws in Romans 8, 1 to 3. Yes. There's the law of the spirit of life in Christ, there is the law, and there is the law of sin and death. Yes. One law, the law of spirit of life in Christ, can and does deliver from the law of sin and death. The law, which is the law of Moses, Paul uses that term the law with the definite article something like I think 110 times or something like that in the New Testament. Every single time he is referencing the law without any qualifier, without any modifier, he's talking about the law of Moses. I believe that I believe that's the correct number but it's over 100 I know that. So again there are three laws at work here and yet amazingly enough we have people who tell us no no it's the law of Moses that was the law of sin and death. No, the law of Moses exacerbated. It implemented. That's what Galatians chapter 3 is saying is it not William? Those who are under the law are under a curse because cursing is ever one that does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. What's the curse? The curse is the law of sin and death. For what? You violate the law. You're under the curse and so Paul is really making an incredible argument here against the Judaizers who are saying you must keep the law of Moses, be circumcised in order to be saved and so Paul is appealing to the Gentiles and to the Jews who are being almost coerced, religiously coerced to come back under the law or to come under the burden of the law as the case might be and Paul says guys don't you don't you realize, don't you remember, don't you know if you bring yourself under the law if you violate one commandment, one law, that's death. That's alienation and so where's the grace if you're going to put yourself under the law where's where does grace for your sins come from? Would that not be a challenging question and a legitimate concern? Where was grace under the law William? Yeah I mean you think of even the statement that Christ made in John 1 17 or at least the statement that's that's written there for the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ so he's making this delineation between the two and I don't think that that's saying that there was not some element of grace under the law because even when describing it in Corinthians second Corinthians he will speak of it as glory but then what he says is that the glory of the new so far excels and exceeds the glory of the old that it makes it appear as that there were no glory in the old but yes there was grace there there was glory there but by way of comparison with the glory that could deliver them from sin and death there was just no comparison with the glory that was in Christ. I like to express it like this that in the old law and we find this in Psalms, Psalms 104, Psalms 105, I say that there was grace between the lines and what I mean by that is that in the letter of the law you sin you die you the law of sin and death was very quickly brought to bear on you for one violation of law Paul said and I had not known sin except the law said thou shalt not covet and I was alive once without the law the commandment came sin revived I died so there there is that imposition of the law and the condemnation of the law for by one violation of the law well David said as far as the east is from the west so far have you removed my sins from me now if I've got the historical circumstances of that text correct it is when David committed adultery with Bathsheba William what was the punishment for adultery it was death yeah but God didn't kill David now there were consequences but it was the letter of the law was not carried out against David and so David could exalt you know in Psalms chapter 51 he labors under that burden of guilt for his sin and he cries out to the Lord wash me from my iniquity purge me from my transgressions make me and wash me and make me whole well he knew that under the law itself that was not to be found he knew that God had to be gracious to him but there there was not always grace although we find in Romans chapter 3 that Paul could say that God did not impute their sins to them and we might say we might express it like this God did not impute their sin to them immediately God in his forbearance that's the term that's used in Romans chapter 3 in his forbearance God did not impute their sin to them so that's why I say it's grace between the law which should have made them eager for a time and for a covenant system that could genuinely provide forgiveness that that's where I see that headed that God was gracious enough with them so that David could even cry out in Psalms 132 blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute unrighteousness blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven well in the truest objective way David's sin wasn't forgiven he couldn't offer enough offer enough bulls and goats to ever take away that sin and so that that's an awful lot of what I see as the matrix lying behind Galatians chapter 3 where Paul says we know that by the works of the law no man is justified because the one who walks in them shall do them and those who are under the law are under a curse now in the time we have remaining here I would like to do just a little bit of a divergent digression if you please it is not directly related to the subject of the Abrahamic promise it might be tangentially but Galatians chapter 3 verse 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us I know William that you are aware that on Facebook a year or so ago and ongoing really when I have I and others have said that on the cross when Jesus cried out my God my God why have you forsaken me that at that moment he realized that his father had turned his back on him and that for the very first time in the totality of his existence he felt abandoned he felt forsaken and I have been castigated criticized and condemned in every way possible I mean you know I'm not orthodox well I gave up worrying about orthodoxy a long time ago to be honest about it I think you did too but nonetheless it is it has been called the worst sort of anathema and false doctrine possible to suggest that the father turned his back on Jesus why don't you share with us a few thoughts on this idea of whether or not the father actually turned his back on his son while his son was on the cross yeah well you excuse me when you think about the passages in the gospels where the statement is made my God my God why have you forsaken me and you know was Jesus simply just saying that to sound good or was he saying it just you know to have something to say or was it a statement of reality in terms of what had you know transpired in that situation and when you look at the texts that speak about his standing in the position of the sinner standing in the position of those that he had to deliver and then you know being the firstborn from the dead I can see that that is an expression of this separation that occurred between Christ and the you know feeling what that's all about and of course knowing that he was you know righteous sinless etc and then to have to experience that certainly in my understanding would demonstrate how he fell under the curse or was made a curse on behalf of you know mankind those he had come to say so that's how I would see you know that scenario and you know when you talk about that I don't know you know some of these guys who are saying that and I know some of them have been even from the background and fellowship that we are from they seem to be you know offended by that but if you go back and look at some of the people that they revere yeah they actually stated as well amen I'm thinking about for Wallace jr for one those of us who know who he is uh he stated it and and there were others you know some of the uh restorationists uh likewise stated that so I don't know how they skipped all over that uh to think that this was something that was created by us when it wasn't uh this had always been a part of the um understanding of some of these men well as a matter of fact since you brought that up and it's a great point uh I have an entire file document of quotes from highly highly revered church writers all the way back into the patristics all the way down through history of leading world-class scholars who have recognized and who have said that Jesus experienced the father turning his back on him and so it's uh in fact in one of the conversations I was having on Facebook in which I was being criticized and condemned so so vehemently I made the comment the view that I am taking is not a novel invention by predators by me or anyone else this is a long well-attested scholarly historical view and they just went off they said that is not true nobody's held that I've never heard this before in my life well I just went to my file I just copy and pasted just you know a list of quotes that long and of course I pick up even more quotes as you go along but over and over and over down through history highly revered church leaders I won't call them church fathers but church leaders have held to the view they just read the text of course one of the objections that was offered to me was well in his citation of psalms 22 which is my god my god why have you forsaken me in that text David states that the that the abandonment was not permanent and my comment was that's my point that that you can't have that point that's an admission that he was abandoned but that by quoting that from the text Christ was stating yes the abandonment was real but number two he knew the father would not abandon him permanently he would not completely permanently forsake him and and for some of them just like you say uh one of them a church of Christ guy just absolutely he's just oh he called me a bunch of you know let's just put it like that most of them had to do with heretic false teacher damnable doctrine etc etc and yet when I produced all of this evidence and I asked a few questions so William I would like for you to comment on this I asked some questions did Christ on the cross bear the sins of the world yes or no that's yes okay if Christ bore the sins of the world did he experience the consequences of bearing the sins of the world that would be a yes third question what are the consequences of sin death ah and that's when they shifted gears and said well he died physically so then go ahead I'm reminded of the uh and I want to say this is in Leviticus 10 maybe but I can't recall for sure but even the priests were to bear the sins of the people in their own body yes and when they refused to die you know after um um nadab was it Nadab and Abihu after their death yeah yeah Leviticus 10 um Moses chided Aaron he says you have not eaten the offering and of course you know he told him about the circumstances that have occurred and asked whether or not God would have accepted it but that's what they were doing they were taking the sins of the people and the scripture says if they did not eat it the sins yeah so uh it's you know I think that's exactly where this idea is drawn from he bore our sins in his own body yeah so then when they said well yes he died physically but not spiritually the next question that I posed was is spiritual alienation separation a consequence of sin that would be a yes Isaiah 59 behold the honor of the Lord is not shortened that he cannot save his his ear is not heavy that he cannot hear you but your sins have separated between you and your God that he will not hear you that is alienation and there's a concept William I've been discussing this on my morning musings in this in the discussion of the cessation of the miraculous gifts and in regard to the fact that Paul said in first Corinthians chapter 13 verse 10 that the miraculous gifts would end at the arrival of the face to face and most people try to define that in the way that says well what that means is uh when Christ comes we will see him literally face to face that's the old Pentecostal view in the Preterist community there is now the view that was sent to me very lovely lady of wonderful demeanor wonderful disposition very kind email but she said I don't believe that the miracles were supposed to end at the day of the Lord which is a rejection of the traditional charismatic paradigm but she says if we possess the miracles when we die and we go to heaven then we don't we no longer perform miracles well that misses the point of first Corinthians 13. First Corinthians 13 is not saying when you die you won't be able to perform miracles it is a a corporate objective cessation of the of the uh of the church possessing the miraculous gifts pardon me so what I have been emphasizing is that throughout the Tanakh we find this imagery and it is imagery of dwelling before the face of God it is it is language of intimacy it is language of presence uh the word face found in the Septuagint the Greek translation of the Old Testament the word translated as presence is from the Greek word prosopon prosopon literally means face or more specifically it actually means nose and prosopon is I call it the first cousin I really think it's the twin brother of the Greek word parousia parousia is presence right yes okay so parousia is presence prosopon is presence and it's translated as presence over and over and over and over in the Old Testament but it is also translated as face and in for instance in Jeremiah chapter 23 43 and following the Lord says because you say that is the wicked inhabitants of Jerusalem because you say that the burden of the Lord the burden of the Lord the burden of the Lord is this that is the commandments of God therefore I even I will utterly forsake you and cast you out of my presence prosopon so here is Judah being cast out from before the face of the Lord she no longer dwelt before the face of the Lord but in Hosea written at the earlier time obviously speaking of the ten northern tribes the Lord said he was going to cast them out of his presence but he would return when they would turn back to him and at that time they would be raised from the dead when they turned back to him and they would say come let us return to the Lord because he is smitten but he will raise us up and we will dwell in his prosopon to dwell in the presence of the Lord covenantally relationally was to dwell face to face okay again that imagery of intimacy that image imagery of covenantal relationship and blessing so when we look at first Corinthians chapter 13 and when we look at this whole concept of the wages of sin the wages of sin is separation it's alienation being cast out from before the face of the Lord but restoration and resurrection is to be brought back into the face or before the face of the Lord so here Paul expressing the imagery of sin brings the curse Christ was made the curse well if the curse is being cast out of the presence cast out from before the face of the Lord then how could we ever say that Christ was under the curse of the law bearing the sins of all mankind really and was not separated from the father how is that even possible to conceive your thoughts and we've only got about we only got about a moment left so yeah well I can't conceive of it from that perspective I mean if he's taking on the sins of the world and in so doing he's made a curse so how in the world is that going to I mean what that says that would sort of negate the meaning of it for all other mankind I mean how is it not for him but it is for everyone else that fell under the curse it would mean that he didn't genuinely die the death of Adam for instance yes and he didn't die the death of the law the death of the law was alienation so it completely destroys the whole concept of sin and alienation completely negates it okay we are out of time thank you for your thoughts on that I agree 100 with that I knew I did I knew we agreed on that folks thank you so much for joining us for this evening's two guys and a bible I did not record this on YouTube I had some kind of a technical glitch with YouTube it would not sync it would not interact so I thought well okay I won't even try to put it on YouTube so it will be on Facebook and YouTube very shortly so appreciate you William appreciate you very much great to be with you folks thank you for joining us and with that I will say good night God bless