THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."-John iii. 14, 15.

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die.)"-John xii. 32, 33.

IN order to make this subject plain, I will read the passage referred to-Num. xxi. 6-9. "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that He take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

This is the transaction to which Christ alluded in the text. The object in both cases was to save men from the bite of the serpent, its influence being unchecked, is the death of the body: the effects of sin, unpardoned and uncleansed from the heart, are the ruin of the soul. Christ is lifted up, to the end that sinners, believing in Him, may not perish, but may have eternal life. In such a connection, to perish cannot mean annihilation, for it must be the antithesis of eternal life, and this is plainly much more than eternal existence. It must be eternal happiness -- real life in the sense of exquisite enjoyment. The counterpart of this, eternal misery, is presented under the term "perish." It is common in the Scriptures to find a state of endless misery contrasted with one of endless happiness.

1. Christ must be lifted UP as the serpent was in the wilderness. From the passage quoted above out of John xii. it is plain that this refers to His being raised up from the earth upon His cross at His crucifixion.

2. Christ must be held up as a remedy for sin, even as the brazen serpent was as a remedy for a poison. It is not uncommon in the Bible to see sin represented as a malady. For this malady, Christ had healing power. He professed to be able to forgive sin and to cleanse the soul from its moral pollution. Continually did He claim to have this power and encourage men to rely upon Him and to resort to Him for its application. In all His personal instructions He was careful to hold up Himself as having this power, and as capable of affording a remedy for sin.

In this respect the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. So Christ heals not from punishment only, for to this the analogy of healing is less pertinent -- but especially from sinning -- from the heart to sin. He heals the soul and restores it to health. So it was said by the announcing angel, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. His power avails to cleanse and purify the soul.

Both Christ and the serpent were held up each as a remedy. and let it be specially noted -- as a full and adequate remedy, The ancient Hebrews, bitten by fiery serpents, were not to mix up nostrums of their own devising to help out the cure: it was all- sufficient for them to look up to the remedy of God's own providing. God would have them understand that the healing was altogether His own work. The serpent on a pole was the only external object connected with their cure; to this they were to look, and in this most simple way -- only by an expecting look, indicative of simple faith, they received their cure.

Christ is to be lifted up as a present remedy. So was the serpent. The cure wrought then was present, immediate. It involved no delay.

This serpent was God's appointed remedy. So is Christ, a remedy appointed of God, sent down from heaven for this express purpose. It was indeed very wonderful that God should appoint a brazen serpent for such a purpose such a remedy for such a malady; and not less wonderful is it that Christ should be lifted up in agony and blood, as a remedy for both the punishment and the heart-power of sin.

The brazen serpent was a divinely-certified remedy; not a nostrum gotten up as thousands are, under high-sounding names and flaming testimonials; but a remedy prepared and brought forth by God Himself, under His own certificate of its ample healing virtues.

So was Christ. The Father testifies to the perfect adequacy of Jesus Christ as a remedy for sin.

Jesus Christ must now be held up from the pulpit as one crucified for the sins of men. His great power to save lay in His atoning, death.

He must not only be held up from the pulpit, but this exhibition of His person and work must be endorsed, and not contradicted by the experience of those who behold Him.

Suppose that in Moses' time many who looked were seen to be still dying; who could have believed the unqualified declaration of Moses, that "every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live?" So here in the Gospel and its subjects. Doubtless the Hebrews had before their eyes many living witnesses who had been bitten and yet bore the scars of those wounds; but who, by looking, had been healed. Every such case would go to confirm the faith of the people in God's word and in His own power to save. So Christ must be represented in His fullness, and this representation should be powerfully endorsed by the experience of His friends. Christ represents Himself as one ready and willing to save This, therefore, is the thing to be shown. This must be sustained by the testimony of His living witnesses, as the first point of analogy is the lifting up of the object to be looked upon, the second is this very looking itself.

Men looked upon the serpent, expecting divine power to heal them. Even those ancient men, in that comparatively dark age, understood that the serpent was only a type, not the very cause in itself of salvation.

So is there something very remarkable in the relation of faith to healing. Take, for illustration, the case of the woman who had an issue of blood. She had heard something about Jesus, and somehow had caught the idea that if she could but touch the hem of His garment, she should be made whole. See her pressing her way along through the crowd, faint with weakness, pale, and trembling; if you had seen her you would perhaps have cried out, What would this poor dying invalid do?

She knew what she was trying to do. At last unnoticed of all, she reached the spot where the Holy One stood and put forth her feeble hand and touched His garment. Suddenly He turns Himself and asks, Who was it that touched me? Somebody touched me: who was it? The disciples, astonished at such a question, put under such circumstances, reply -- The multitude throng Thee on every side, and scores are touching Thee every hour; why then ask -- Who touched me?

The fact was, somebody had touched Him with faith to be healed thereby, and He knew that the healing virtue had gone forth from Himself to some believing heart. How beautiful an illustration this of simple faith! And how wonderful the connection between the faith and the healing!

Just so the Hebrews received that wonderful healing power by simply looking toward the brazen serpent. No doubt this was a great mystery to them, yet it was none the less a fact. Let them look; the looking brings the cure, although not one of them can tell how the healing virtue comes. So we are really to look to Christ, and in looking, to receive the healing power. It matters not how little we understand the mode in which the looking operates to give us the remedy for sin.

This looking to Jesus implies that we look away from ourselves. There is to be no mixing up of quack medicines along with the great remedy. Such a course is always sure to fail. Thousands fail in just this way, forever trying to be healed partly by their own stupid, self-willed works, as well as partly by Jesus Christ. There must be no looking to man or to any of man's doings or man's help. All dependence must be on Christ alone. As this is true in reference to pardon, so is it also in reference to sanctification. This is done by faith in Christ. It is only through and by faith that you get that divine influence which sanctifies the soul -- the Spirit of God; and this in some of its forms of action was the power that healed the Hebrews in the wilderness.

Looking to Christ implies looking away from ourselves in the sense of not relying at all on our own works for the cure desired, not even on works of faith. The looking is toward Christ alone as our all-prevalent, all-sufficient and present remedy.

There is a constant tendency in Christians to depend on their own doings, and not on simple faith in Christ. The woman of the blood-issue seems to have toiled many years to find relief before she came to Christ; had no doubt tried everybody's prescriptions, and taxed her own ingenuity bee sides to its utmost capacity, but all was of no avail. At last she heard of Jesus. He was said to do many wonderful works. She said within herself -- This must be the promised Messiah -- who was to "bear our sicknesses" and heal all the maladies of men. O let me rush to Him, for if I may but touch the hem of His garment, I shall be whole. She did not stop to philosophize upon the mode of the cure; she leaned on no man's philosophy, and had none of her own; she simply said -- I have heard of One who is mighty to save, and I flee to Him.

So of being healed of our sins. Despairing of all help in ourselves or in any other name than Christ's, and assured there is virtue in Him to work out the cure, we expect it of Him and come to Him to obtain it.

Several times within the last few years, when persons have come to me with the question, Can I anyhow be saved from my sins -- actually saved, so as not to fall again into the same sins, and under the same temptations? I have said -- Have you ever tried looking to Jesus? O yes.

But have you expected that you should be actually saved from sin by looking to Jesus, and be filled with faith, love, and holiness? No; I did not expect that.

Now, suppose a man had looked at the brazen serpent for the purpose of speculation. He has no faith in what God says about being cured by looking, but he is inclined to try it. He will look a little and watch his feelings to see how it affects him. He does not believe God's word, yet since he does not absolutely know but it may be true, he will condescend to try it. This is no looking at all in the sense of our text. It would not have cured the bitten Israelite; it can. not heal the poor sinner. There is no faith in it.

Sinners must look to Christ with both desire and design to be saved. Salvation is the object for which they look.

Suppose one had looked towards the brazen serpent, but with no willingness or purpose to be cured. This could do him no good. Nor can it do sinners any good to think of Christ otherwise than as a Savior, and a Savior for their own sins.

Sinners must look to Christ as a remedy for all sin. To wish to make some exception, sparing some sins, but consenting to abandon others, indicates rank rebellion of heart, and can never impose on the All-seeing One. There cannot be honesty in the heart which proposes to itself to seek deliverance from sin only in part.

Sinners may look to Christ at once -- without the least delay. They need not wait till they are almost dead under their malady. For the bitten Israelite, it was of no use to wait and defer his looking to the serpent till he found himself in the jaws of death. He might have said -- I am wounded plainly enough, but I do not see as it swells much yet; I do not feel the poison spreading through my system; I cannot look yet, for my case is not yet desperate enough; I could not hope to excite the pity of the Lord in my present condition, and therefore I must wait. I say, there was no need of such delay then and no use of it. Nor is there any more need or use for it in the sinner's case now.

I see a town,middle eastern in appearance,semi rural theres a marketplace theres a man and a group being led by Governor StrangeReno through it clearly this man is not impressed it shows, but he follows,heres the source of commotion a ring of people,who's there why its the important religious leader and lawyers Sheep1,Sheep2 and Peg the Prophet upstanding righteous,pious people,ah a test Sheep wishes to test this man with the law,there in the circle is a woman,an adultess,punishable by death,very tricky stuff if the man says 'yes' or 'no' stone her, he by human thinking loses each way,he passes judgement

'Let he without sin cast the first stone',now the Chief Pharisee there obviously doesn't want to admit sin,he furtively glances around,none drop their rock,this man walks up to him looks at the ringleader,no looks through the ringleader drops to one knee and starts writing in the sand,lets have a look what he's writing,oh dear thats er naughty,sorry filthy,sick,perverted disgusting,the man looks up this time straight in his eyes,quick,quicker than a snake the message is communicated 'you filthy creature with filthy habits and a sick mind how would you like this shame to be made public',the look is backed by force, power,something inside the ringleader moves quickly a part of him he never knew existed and it is terrified, for the first time in his life true fear strikes him,the rock is dropped , the others drop theirs the mob moves off.The man uses his foot and erases the writing then tells the woman 'go sin no more'-not a word spoken but quite a lesson imparted-thats the skill I mentioned.Its called lesson in abstraction.

Obliged for the correction on Spurgeon's terminology!! I am relieved if Spurgeon was no great fan of sporting events ... sometimes I think I'm about the only one.

Nope. Me too. Don't understand the games. Don't understand the interest. Who was it who said "Any damfool can see one horse can run faster than another!" Great quote.

"Who you gonna pick for the SuperBowl??" Calvin. Arminius and Wesley keep going onto the playing field without even wearing their pads. And their playbook reveals a strategy that defeats them over and over again, even though their fans still cheer them on as they lose game after game. Their problem is that they never did understand the rules of the game as written by the Great Umpire.

Thanks for the Athanasius material.

To Uriel-for one thing 'creeds' mean nothing, the issue what does the Bible teach. Second, Christ was not 'begotten' in eternity, He was begotten in time(Psa.2:7,Heb.10:5)

Begotten means to 'give birth' thus, he could not be 'begotten' in eternity and be equal with the Father.

Thus, the NAS reading in Jn.1:18 -a 'begotten' God!

What started this discussion was the idea that the Father and the Son could have two different wills, the Son wanting all to be saved(1Tim.2:4) while the Father having decided who would be the elect.

Regarding the equality of the Son, it is in Phil.2:6, that is why the NAS changed it!

Heb.1:3 says what? It says nothing about eternity

You guys have eternity on the brain.

The Trinty is either three persons, co-equal and co-eternal having one essence (the Nicence Creed) or it is not!

When you mentioned FdC were you referring to me? Because I do not have anything on my search from you?

Feel free to challange all you want. Your positions are pure heresy!

To George W.Bush, this is not as complex as you want to make it. 'Begetting' means that to give birth. If you have the Father 'begetting' the Son sometime in eternity you have a 'lesser' god being created.

You understand this from your defense of the Father being 'preeminent' over the Son IN ETERNITY!(hence two wills)

By the way, the NAS has the begetting of a 'god' in Jn.1:18 but the correct reading in 1Jn.4:9.

Since the Calvinists have placed all their eggs on the all encompassing 'eternal decree', they are make these statements, to defend their TULIP at all costs!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

'Begetting' means that to give birth. Do you even have a Bible?

It is not women who beget anyone in the Bible. Only men. The word "beget" is used to identify the paternity and lineage of individuals.

Admit it or don't bother me with any further replies. Normally, I don't take this attitude but no one on these threads argues over such petty but easily provable items. This is a matter of fact, universally known among Bible students. It is not some theological speculation like the true nature of the Trinity. There is no point in disputing with those who are so weak in Bible knowledge. Frankly, despite our other disagreements, I'm shocked anyone with even the faintest acquaintance with the Bible would say this merely to forward their argument.

You are discussing the very Word of God. You need to be more sober when it comes to Bible facts.

Merriam-Webster: 1) to procreate as the father : SIRE

To GeorgeW.Bush-PLEASE! To beget-(1) to procreate as the father'(sire)

(2)to produce as an effect

Now, are you that obtuse or just dishonest!

You know very well what I meant, and my not putting it exactly right(the father does the 'begetting') does nothing to diminish the point!

Did God the Father 'beget' the Son in eternity?

If He did, you have a greater God and a 'lesser' God(which is how the JW's read it).

Are there two 'wills' in the Trinity?

If you want to discuss these issues-fine, if not, and you are going to close your mind to everything but the god of TULIP go to it!

Clearly you are more like Uriel, spudgin, doc, and Jerry M. then you realize. It must be the same Bible rejecting spirit!

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

To GeorgeW.Bush-PLEASE! To beget-(1) to procreate as the father'(sire) (2)to produce as an effect Now, are you that obtuse or just dishonest! Even if I were to adopt your second definition, it would still have Christ "produced as an effect" of the Father. I don't see how this actually alters the basic discussion.

If Christ is truly co-equal with the Father, then His absolute co-equality is a little less than "eternally begotten" or "produced as an effect". In either case, He proceeds from the Father. The Father is His source. Otherwise, the words "Son" and "Father" are stripped of any meaning whatsoever.

My explanations of the Trinity do not suffer the same handicaps. That's why I hold to them but do not consider them to be the basis of my own faith.

Your theological position has not improved in the slightest. You've merely demonstrated that the word "beget" is a mystery to you.

I'll challenge you to find a single instance of a woman "begetting" a child in the scripture. Find one or admit that "beget" means "to sire".

To George W.Bush-are you really that stupid! I said in my last post that I had used 'beget' to create. I had expressed it incorrectly by stating 'gave birth' INSTEAD OF SIRED

It was you guys who brought up this idea so that you could avoid the clear wording in 1Tim.2:4 and stating that there were TWO wills now existant in the Trinity which existed IN ETERNTIY!

Stop playing sematic word games and deal with the issue.

The JW's use Jn.1:18 as translated in the corrupt NAS to defend their two god system.

You talk about not getting to get involved in mysteries but you TULIP lovers make Papal prouncements regarding a Eternal Decree which cosigns most of the Earth to the Lake of Fire.

When called on that with 'why' or you guys can do is shrug your shoulders and say 'it is a great mystery' 'Allah' I mean God be praised!

Regarding your comment on words having meaning, yes, they do. Sometimes I may phrase something incorrectly, but at least I know that 'all' means 'everyone'(Rom.3:22 AND 1Tim.2:4,1Tim.4:10,2Pet.3:9) and 'whosoever' means 'anyone'(Jn.3:16,Rom.10:13) not just the pre-selected 'elect'.

Even, so come Lord Jesus

To George W.Bush-are you really that stupid! I said in my last post that I had used 'beget' to create. I had expressed it incorrectly by stating 'gave birth' INSTEAD OF SIRED

It was you guys who brought up this idea so that you could avoid the clear wording in 1Tim.2:4 and stating that there were TWO wills now existant in the Trinity which existed IN ETERNTIY!

Stop playing sematic word games and deal with the issue.

The JW's use Jn.1:18 as translated in the corrupt NAS to defend their two god system.

You talk about not getting to get involved in mysteries but you TULIP lovers make Papal prouncements regarding a Eternal Decree which cosigns most of the Earth to the Lake of Fire.

When called on that with 'why' all you guys can do is shrug your shoulders and say 'it is a great mystery' 'Allah' I mean God be praised!

Even, so come Lord Jesus

To RnMomof7-the problem comes with using the word 'Eternal'when referring the 'begetting' since it does occur IN time (Psa.2:7,Heb.10:5)

If you have it occuring in some point in Eternity you have a second 'created' lesser god, which is the Arianian heresy.

One of Calvin's 'hang ups' wias the ridiculous piece of philosophical speculation which stated: All the decrees of God are eternal.'Being unable to understand eternity (Isa 57:15) or 'eternal'(where it dealt with what God 'decreed'), all Calvinists applied this dictum to Psalm 2 and got the ridiculous, dogmatic statement on some 'day' (see the text) before Genesis 1, God begat another God...

This 'proof text' (Psa.2.7) was twisted to suit the philosophers fancy: the word DAY was translated as 'eternity' (or 'eternal') and the verse was taken slap out of its context, which dealt with the first coming and the second coming of Christ. There is no reference to anything before Genesis 1 found anywhere in the Psalm

Calvin, the first real Protestant pope, was always fascinated by 'decrees' because he fancied that he was a Christian dictator ruling a 'Christian City'(Geneva, Switzerland) He never checked out the word one time in any Bible at which he ever looked...

But you see, Calvin had this problem: how could he justify his 'Decree of Reprobation' unless he swore on a stack of Plato and Augustine that the 'non-elect' were damned BEFORE Genesis 1, along with the election of the 'elect'.Simple: he pretended since both of these 'decrees' took place in Eph.1:4-which says nothing about any Decree of Reprobation-all of God's 'decrees took place before the 'foundation of the world'(Gen.1:1)

....Is this true? Of course not. It is only true if you are a lazy, stupid intelellectual in need of a course on remedial reading.

None of God's 'decrees' are fixed or eternal or permanent if CONDITIONS accompany them...You see, often what God 'decrees' can be altered by a man's WILL. (tell that to a Calvinist and watch him blow his lid!)

On second thought, don't tell him that. Take him to the Holy Bible (AV1611) where the poor, Biblical illiterate can stumble over the Scripture (1Pet.2:8)and break his fool neck (Matt.21:44)

Never mind Calvin and 'Calvininism'They got a few things straight, but not a great deal when to came to salvation and the new birth. Their 'fixed' 'eternal decrees' are about as 'eternal' as the Third Reich. Even the Decree of Salvation is conditional: look at Jn.1:12-13,5:24,3:36,5:40,and 6:29)

You cannot be one of God's 'elect' unless you receive His 'ELECT; you will find that one Isa.42:1-4

Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come unto me!'

(Peter Ruckman, Bible Believers Bulletin,Vo.3.p.457-58,)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

To George W.Bush-

From the OBD

Beget:To procreate'To Generate,USUALLY Said OF THE FATHER, BUT SOMETIMES OF BOTH PARENTS (p.121)

Now, since God had no 'female' to mate with, it is totally acceptable, when discussing the ETERNAL BEGETTING' to use either 'sired' or 'gave birth to'

I am totally willing to use the usage found in the Bible relating to the male (sired) which does nothing to remove you from your dilemna.

However, if you want to pretend I have committed some 'heresy' (as did Woody and Spudgin did before you-modus operendi of the Calvinists when they can't defend their heresies, attack the other person as a heretic (e.g.Servetus), go right ahead. But you might need to go running to Uriel to for some more ammo.And Uriel has not addressed anthing to me, lest he pretends that I did not reply!

You guys are a bunch of liars-period

Even so, come Lord Jesus (and bring George W. Bush a brain and the heart to learn)

You are attempting to' strain at a gnat' while you swallow a camel'(Matt.23:24) The POINT is if you have God 'begetting' the 'Son' in eternity you have a lesser God, whether or not you want to call it a 'cause' or a 'siring' since the Father now is AS YOUR SYSTEM MAKES HIM, PREEMINENT OVER THE SON! Actually, it is pretty clear to me that it is you who strains at a gnat and has an understanding of the Trinity which is somewhat problematic.

You are also blaming all the other Calvinists for my own private opinions and information I have unearthed. I really don't know whether they share my belief or to what extent. I guarantee you that they will hold some theological distinctives that differ from me on this matter.

However, I have at no point questioned your faith or salvation in this matter. It is you who is pointing fingers and making insinuation, not me.

You talk about not getting to get involved in mysteries but you TULIP lovers make Papal prouncements regarding a Eternal Decree which cosigns most of the Earth to the Lake of Fire. In fact, it is you Arminians who make common cause with Rome. This has always been the case and can be abundantly demonstrated. Not that any position taken by Rome is inherently and completely wrong. Just that it mostly is and that it is wrong on key issues of the Christian faith. To many of their followers, it is certain to be fatal heresy and to lead them to a false Christ. One is almost tempted to say that the heresy of Rome is so deep as to preclude anyone coming to a saving faith in Christ but we are not given such certainty in this life. However much I hate to admit it, I have to recognize that there are key elements of my theology and my understanding of scripture that came from (dissident) elements of the chruch of Rome. For you and I particularly, we have to recall that Erasmus never did totaly break with Rome but he did produce the Textus Receptus. It is a little disturbing to think about and requires some explanation, does it not?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.