NT Framework - An Impeccable Man

To live a perfect life without regret, it's what we aim for and never achieve. All of us have regrets. But God, loving us with a perfect love, sent His Son, yes to redeem us from sin, and so much more. In Christ we see how to live a life without regrets. He modeled for us the way to rely upon the Father so that we too can 'not sin'. The difficult part is living this way every moment of our life. And when we don't, He is there to forgive us and restore us to fellowship.

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. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and
our series on the New TestamentFramework.
Today, the full lesson fromJeremy Thomas.
Here's a hint of what's to come.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Assume a battleship was built that was impervious to
every weapon known to man.
You've got this ship.
It's impervious to anyprojectile that man knows.
The enemy can fire as many ofthose projectiles as he wishes
at the ship right, yet noprojectile will sink it right

(00:34):
Because it's impervious right.
In the same way, the enemycould fire as many temptations
at Jesus as he wished, yet Jesuswould not succumb to the
temptation, would he have beengenuinely tested?

Speaker 1 (00:46):
would not succumb to the temptation, would he have
been genuinely tested.
Today, jeremy is talking aboutthe love of God.
Now, as you start to listenthrough, there are going to be a
lot of heavy doctrinal topicsat hand here and you're going to
wonder how does this relate toGod's love?
Well, let me put forth thisproposition as you're listening
today.
Well, let me put forth thisproposition as you're listening.

(01:08):
Today, jesus was tempted in thewilderness for 40 days to
develop a model for us of how tolive the Christian life, how to
resist temptation.

(01:29):
Everything that Jesus did in histime on earth was to
demonstrate for us how to live,and the foundation for him doing
that was his love for us.
He wants us to be everything wepossibly can be in the Father in
this life, for this life andthe one to come.
What greater love is that thanfor someone to want the very

(01:50):
best for another person?
So we're going to talk aboutheavy doctrinal items.
We're going to look into theminutia and wonder how can God
be fully man and fully God atthe same time in the man Jesus
Christ?
What does this mean fortemptation, for sin, for living

(02:11):
by faith, and what does hismodel mean for us and
undergirding all of it is theFather's love for us, sending
his Son to live a life that wecan follow and, at the end of
Jesus's life, redeeming us fromsin on the cross, so that when

(02:35):
we look back and look at him, wehave an idea of how we should
be living.
It's an amazing and beautifulthing.
It is deep doctrinal.
It is highfalutin conversationsthat the church has had that we
should be happy, and it's allfounded in God's love.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Okay, we're going to go to another doctrine that
grows out of the life of theking.
Remember, we're studyingbasically in the New Testament
the life of the king.
Remember, we're studyingbasically in the New Testament
the birth of the king and thedoctrines that are associated
with it for the Trinity and thehypostatic union.
Then we move to the life of theking and here we're dealing
with three doctrines, most ofwhich are well, all of which are

(03:19):
built on the hypostatic union.
So we'll have to look at we'vealready looked at the kenosis.
I'll talk a little bit moreabout the kenosis here in a
moment.
That's a Greek word out ofPhilippians 2.7, which means to
empty.
So the whole doctrine of hisemptying, what did he empty
himself of, and that type ofthing.
And then, of course, todaywe're going to deal with the
doctrine of impeccability andthen in a few weeks we'll deal

(03:42):
with infallibility.
So these are the threedoctrines that come out of the
life of the king and, as I'vementioned, probably in emails
and probably here, a lot ofpeople have been Christians
their whole life and theyhaven't heard one or more of
these doctrines, which shows youhow far the church has moved
away from teaching sounddoctrine.
Mostly they're just interestedin getting a crowd.

(04:05):
We may not amass a crowd ofpeople by going through these
doctrines, but I'm sure we amassa crowd of angels who are
interested in these things andattentive, and so you never know
who all is here in attendance.
We see one another, but wedon't see the unseen realm.
But we know that they are veryinterested to look into these

(04:28):
things.
Ephesians, chapter 3, verse 10discusses this.
So we're going to go into it,and this one's going to kind of
be fun because I'm going to go alittle bit slower and give us a
chance to try to digest andthink about some of the
questions that I'm going to askyou as we try to delve into some
very important matters.
So the doctrine ofimpeccability and, again, as I

(04:52):
mentioned, the hypostatic unionis the basis of all Christology,
and what I mean then is that ifyou get the hypostatic union
wrong, well then you geteverything else wrong.
If you get the hypostatic unionwrong, well then you get
everything else wrong, becauseit's built upon and presupposes
the definition that we've givenin the hypostatic union, and we

(05:13):
dealt with that a whole lotearlier in this part of the
series.
I spent some time going throughchurch history and showing you
various viewpoints that peoplehad of Christ as they were
wrestling with the text in thefirst four centuries of the
church.
And you had Nestorians and youhad Eutychians and you had
Monarchists and you had Arians.

(05:33):
You know, and I showed youthrough all that, hey, these
aren't just ancient ideas.
These ideas are still with usin places.
Arianism is commonly knowntoday as Jehovah's Witness.
So it's not like these are newideas.
These are ancient ideas thatthe church has never got
themselves or people haven't gotpast.
So it's critical to define thehypostatic union correctly, and

(05:56):
the definition that came out ofthe Council of Chalcedon, which
is 451 AD so that's kind of afew centuries ago it's a big,
long statement, but I'vesuccinctly summarized it here by
saying Jesus Christ isundiminished deity, united with
true humanity in one person,without confusion or separation,
forever.
And so this is the idea thatthe church came to.

(06:23):
As they studied the text, dealtwith points of view that people
brought up and people said no,that doesn't seem to fit the
text, and so the church had towrestle with it, and I even
mentioned that this is, to thisday, still the greatest
discussion the church has everhad.
It took over 400 years toresolve it.

(06:43):
So we can't take for grantedthese truths, or we shouldn't,
because men of God struggled andwrestled with the text to try
to come up with an accurateassessment of what the
Scriptures teach about whoChrist is, and so this is where
they came to.
So everything is built on andbased on the hypostatic union.

(07:05):
The next doctrine we looked atis called the kenosis, which is
the emptying.
Philippians 2.7 is the famousverse that mentions he emptied
himself.
And so the great questionbecomes well, what did he empty
himself of?
Well, I mean, the text saysthat he is the exact form and
representation of God.
It says he is also the form andrepresentation of man.

(07:27):
So he's both God and man,meaning he has a full divine
nature, he is sovereign, he isrighteous, he's just loving,
omniscient, omnipotent,omnipresent, immutable, eternal
right.
He is God.
He's also fully man, 100% man,meaning he has a human body.
He has a human body, he has ahuman spirit, he is a human soul
, he has human characteristicsor qualities that are derivative

(07:51):
of God's qualities, becausewe're made in God's image.
So if God is sovereign, man haschoice.
If God is righteous and just,man has a conscience, right.
If God loves, man has love.
That's why we love.
If God is omniscient, meaninghe knows all things, man has
knowledge.
We have finite knowledge.
He never learns, but we learn.

(08:11):
So there are always differencesbetween his attributes and ours
, but we understand who we are.
And Christ had both a divinenature and a human nature.
But he wasn't two people, right, he's only one person.
You can't separate him, likethe Nestorians did, into two
people.
So we ended up defining thekenosis this way, saying that in

(08:37):
the incarnation, in other wordsat the virgin birth, which
we're about to celebrate thistime of year, at Christmas,
right, when he took to himself atrue humanity, see, in that
event Christ gave up or emptiedhimself of the independent use
of his divine attributes.
Notice, we didn't say JesusChrist gave up his divine

(08:59):
attributes.
If he gave up his divineattributes he'd no longer be God
.
If he gave up his divineattributes, he'd no longer be
God, and that would mean there'san essential change in God,
because God is essentially threein one.
Then he would have changed andbeen two in one, see.
So you have to be so carefulwith how you define these.
So the kenosis means he gave upthe independent use of his

(09:21):
divine attributes.
And that's what it means inPhilippians 2, where it says
even though he was the exactrepresentation of God, he did
not consider equality with God athing to be grasped.
It's that word grasp that kindof throws us into English
because it sounds like he'ssaying he's not really God.
But the idea of grasp is he didnot consider equality with God

(09:44):
a thing to be asserted orutilized.
That's what the word means.
In other words, he was fullyGod, but he did not assert his
divinity Without what?
Without the Father's permission.
Because, as he says in John 10,always do what pleases the
Father.
He came here to do the will ofthe one who sent him right, the

(10:05):
Father.
So he's constantly submittingto the Father.
And this idea of his kenosis iswhat gives rise to three very,
very practical and importantdoctrines in the Christian life.
None of these complicated ideaslike hypostatic union or
kenosis, or today impeccability,or next week infallibility and

(10:26):
a few weeks infallibility, iswithout application, practical
application, and I think you'veseen that, I think you've been
totally impressed actually byhow important these doctrines
are for our everyday christianlife.
So the three applications ofkenosis are, first of all, the
chief virtue in the Christianlife is humility.
Humility undergirds everything,and I said fundamentally,

(10:52):
humility is a right evaluationof oneself.
A right evaluation of oneself,you have, a proper evaluation of
who you are.
And that all starts withrecognizing the creator-creature
distinction.
Okay, that God is the creator.
We're not the creator, we'recreatures.
We're made in his image, forhis purposes.

(11:13):
And so the first step in havinga right, you know, humility, is
to recognize who we are ascreatures and he is our creator.
And that sets up the authoritystructure, right, it sets up the
authority, authority structurefor all society.
And that's why, um,subordination of role in society

(11:35):
is, is, is something that's soimportant.
It's, it's what we're seeingbeing rebelled against in our
culture.
Nobody wants to recognizeauthority.
I mean, who are the police?
Let's defund them.
That's a problem.
Let's feminize the military.
Let's destroy every structurethat has a subordination within

(11:56):
it.
Let's destroy marriage, let'sdestroy family.
I mean little kids.
They're independent, they canturn their parents in to the
police and all this kind ofstuff.
So all this rebellion againstauthority, I saw this or I heard
this expression in a song.
Someone said they had ODD, notADD, odd.
I was like what's that?

(12:17):
It's oppositional, defiant,disorder, opposition defiance
disorder, defiant disorder,opposition defiance disorder,
and I was looking into this andbasically what it says
opposition defiance disorder ispeople who have this disorder
that they're very rebelliousagainst authority.
And I was like you mean the sinnature?

(12:41):
Isn't that what you're talkingabout in Romans, chapter 8?
The thing that it says itcannot submit to God, it's not
even able to do so.
Now we've labeled everythingtoday a disorder that way.
See, we can claim to be victims.
We're not responsible.

(13:02):
See, this is just the way I am.
I'm a victim, this victimmentality that everybody in our
culture has.
And the bible says no, that'syour sin nature.
You need to believe in the lordjesus christ.
Then you'll receive the holyspirit and you can live by the
spirit.
And guess what?
You can overcome your sinnature.
But that's too great of I meanthe free gift that we could

(13:25):
overcome our sin nature.
It seems like nobody wants thisfree gift.
I mean free gift, for God soloved the world that he gave his
only begotten son thatwhosoever believes in him shall
not perish but have everlastinglife, for by grace you have been
saved through faith, and thatnot of yourselves.
It's a gift of God, not ofworks, lest any man should boast
.
See, salvation is just a freegift, right, and it's the

(13:46):
opportunity to enjoy freedom.
Freedom from what?
Freedom from the penalty of sin, but more than that, freedom
from the power of sin in yourlife that dominates you, that
crushes you, that enslaves you,that makes you a very difficult
person to be around.
It makes us all difficult whenwe live by our sin nature.
So, odd, whatever the disorderis, we all just explain that

(14:10):
away as I'm just a victim.
But the Bible says no, no, no,you're responsible.
And what the kenosis does is itsets up for us authority
structures, because even the Sonin the incarnation submitted to
the Father.
He says not my, but is that nota subordination?

(14:32):
It's saying I may want to dothis, but whatever you want me
to do, that's what I'm going todo.
And so this sets up anauthority structure as something
that does not imply inferiority.
In other words, in a marriagebetween a husband and a wife,
the wife is the subordinatepartner and the husband is to be

(14:54):
the leader.
Right, and they're givendifferent roles.
The man is cast in the role ofsomeone who is like, someone who
loves unconditionally, wholoves his wife, who cherishes by
caring for her, providing forher, ok, all these things.
He's out, he's looking out forher best interest.

(15:16):
Why?
Because she's his own flesh,see, and nobody hated his own
flesh, right, but he loved andtook care of it.
And see, if you really loveyourself, of course you'll want
to love your wife, you'll wantto cherish, you'll want to
nourish, you'll want to takecare of her, you'll want to be
interested in her.
As 1 Peter 3 says, you'll wantto live with her in an
understanding way.
And all the guys are like huh,I don't know what is going on in

(15:41):
that brain of hers.
But the Bible says live withher in an understanding way.
Try to understand what is goingon.
By the way, it never says thatwomen, about men, that you have
to figure out and live with usin an understanding way and I
know you're saying I don't knowwhat's going on in his head.
Well, it never says you have to.
So there you go.
Just understand that we'retrying to figure out what's
going on in your head.

(16:01):
This trying to figure outwhat's going on in your head,
this is our responsibility.
But the wife is placed in asubordinate position right Now.
That's why it says wives,submit to your husbands as to
the Lord.
Do you submit to the Lord,women?
Yeah, yeah.
Why would you want to submit toyour husband?

(16:24):
Because that's how youdemonstrate your subordination
to him.
Is to submit to your husbandbecause that's how you
demonstrate your subordinationto him is by submitting to your
husband.
Does that mean you're less thanhim?
No, if it meant you were lessthan him, then the implication
would be that jesus christ isless than god the father, and
that's not the case.
They're equal in essence, butthey are playing or taking on

(16:47):
different roles, and it's thesame way in all relationships.
If society is to have balanceand to have freedom, authority
structures must be recognized.
You have the governingauthorities and you have the
citizens.
The citizens must submit to thegoverning authorities so long
as they do not say no, you mustgo worship Satan or you must
support giving your tax dollarsto abortion.

(17:09):
No, we can't do that.
We cannot go against the Wordof God.
The Word of God trumps allauthorities, but we still have a
structure and we should respectand submit to the governing
authorities.
Does that make us less than thegoverning authorities?
No, in fact.
In our country, the Constitutionsays we, the people.
Well, that would be theDeclaration of Independence.
But we, the people, see, poweris invested in the people, not

(17:35):
in the governing authorities.
Remember, they're ministers,minister of this, minister of
that.
That's why that name is therein history.
It comes from a Greek worddiakonos deacon.
They're servants, they'resupposed to be.
The people in our governmentare supposed to be servants.
Law enforcement, again, they'resupposed to be servants, and

(17:57):
many times they are, but manytimes also, of course, they're
not.
They want to take the power andrule over people, but in
America the rule and power isinvested in the people, but
still we are to submit to ourgoverning authorities because we
voted them into office in mostcases.
So this sets up all everythingin Christ's kenosis, sets up the
idea of authority structures insociety.

(18:18):
But today we have kids who rebelagainst their parents.
The parents just stand thereand let them just do whatever
and I'm like no, take them outof here.
If you spare the rod, you spoilthe child.
Thank you, this is truth.
Okay, Please don't set afour-year-old down and start
trying to reason with them.
No, bank their little butt andmove on.

(18:40):
The last thing they want to dois listen to a lecture.
When they get nine, ten, okay,more lecture.
Why?
Because their brain hasdeveloped.
Their mind is about, they canthink, but when they're little
bitties they just swap them.
You know, we always used uh, I'mgoing on the record, okay, the
old testament.
Uh, the hebrew word for the rodis a very thin rod.

(19:03):
This isn't a paddle.
You know, I went to middleschool too and I got the paddle.
You know, they drill holes inthe paddle.
Somehow.
This makes it like steam moreor something when it hits your
rump.
I don't know, and I got licks,okay, I did all that stuff.
But that's not what the Bibleis talking about.
Neither is it talking about abelt, you know.
It's talking about a very thinrod.

(19:27):
Okay, that when it hits the rump, there's a very specific
placement.
Okay, not on the back, not onthe arm, not on the face, not on
the head, not on the foot, onthe buttocks.
Okay, without anything betweenthe rod and the skin of the
buttocks.
In other words, pants pulleddown.
Yes, I said that.
Okay, why For consistency?
What?
I said that?
Okay, why For consistency?
What if they have a big thickdiaper on?

(19:48):
What if they have just theirunderwear on?
See, all these things matter,okay.
So what do you do?
You pull it down forconsistency.
And it stings.
It doesn't leave bruises.
This isn't a big heavy object.
We used to go to the littledowel rods.
You know that you'd buy thehardware store and we'd use
those.
And then, when they outgrewthat little thin one, we got a

(20:09):
little bit thicker one.
Okay, now we didn't get to theone inch size or anything like.
They're not doing that.
Okay, it's something that'sflexible and it stings.
Why do we do that?
Because of the hebrew word andbecause of the implications for
how it works out in realdiscipline.
So it works.
It works.
If you don't think it works,you can go ask those five people

(20:30):
over there Now today.
Well, you can't even spank yourkids.
We can't have that.
Instead of parents being theauthority over the children,
today children are authoritiesover the parents and the parents
are scared to death.
And so what's happening?

(20:51):
We're raising a whole societyof children.
All the adults are children.
They function like children,they're greedy, they're selfish,
they think they have their way.
I mean, it's hard to be theowner of a business today
because all your employees thinkthey're the boss, and it's only
going to get way worse.

(21:12):
Just wait the next 10 to 15years.
It's going to get way worsebecause we've lost this concept
of authority that is embedded inthe kenosis that is Christ
submitting or subordinatinghimself to the father.
The last thing that comes outof the kenosis is the
sympathetic that jesus christ isa sympathetic high priest.
I've listed the verses herebecause while we started this

(21:33):
point last week we didn't finishit.
So hebrews chapter 2, verse 10and 4 14, those are the two that
say okay, let's just look at it.
It's easier just to look at it.
Hebrews chapter 4, let's lookat that one, verse 14 and 15.

(21:59):
Then we'll press into theimpeccability idea, especially
hebrews 4, 15.
Okay, but 4 14, since we have agreat high priest, who's our
high priest now, presentlyoperating at the right hand of
the father, the lord jesuschrist.
He's our high priest.
He's not levitical, okay.

(22:19):
He's from the line of judah,which was not a priestly house,
so he's of a different class ofpriests.
He's a melchizedekian priest,right in the book of hebrews.
So we have this great highpriest who passed through the
heavens, that is, the realm ofthe angelic realm.
He's passed and now he's farabove them, all right, seated at
the right, at the right hand ofthe Father.

(22:39):
He says Jesus, the Son of God.
So let us hold fast ourconfession.
Why Verse 15, for we do not havea high priest who cannot
sympathize with our weaknesses,but one who has been tempted in
all things as we are, yetwithout sin.
See, he's someone who cansympathize with human weaknesses

(23:01):
because in the kenosis he'shaving to live in the same
humanity that you share with him.
Remember, he didn't just borrowand use his divine attributes
to overcome the difficulttemptations that he faced.
He had to face them in his truehumanity, independence upon the

(23:21):
Lord, in the same way we haveto, and that means that he can
sympathize with us in ourweaknesses.
In other words, he knows thestruggles that we're facing in
our temptation.
Now, this is already lookinginto the impeccability doctrine,
but I want to press on fromthis high priest guy this idea

(23:41):
of him serving in that capacityto the fact that he's the judge.
Hebrews chapter I'm sorry, johnchapter 5, 22.
So let's turn to John 5.
Another implication orapplication of the kenosis
doctrine is that he is now thejudge of the human race.
In other words, let's say thatyou were taken to a court.

(24:09):
Why do they have trial by jury?
Why do they have the jurorscome in, you know, and sit down
and listen to the lawyers,examine and cross-examine
various witnesses and so forth?
Why is there a jury over there?
Is it a jury of angels?
Is it a jury of foreign people?
You know people from Cambodia.

(24:31):
Are they the ones on the juryover there?
Why isn't it people fromCambodia?
Because they're not Americans,they don't live under American
law, right?
Why is it not angels?
Because they're not Americansand they're not under American
law.
Why is it a group of Americanssitting over there, hopefully in

(24:54):
the jury?
Because they are your peers andbecause they live under the
same laws in the same societythat you live in.
So what they know, what you aregoing through, they've shared
the same types of experiences.
So it's a peer jury.
Now, who's our judge?

(25:15):
Is it God?
Is God our peer?
God the Father?
Did God the Father ever comedown here and live in this world
, like you and I know?
But he sent his son, the secondperson of the Trinity, god the
son.
He did so.
What does John 5, 22 say?
What's the significance of it?
For not even the father judgesanyone.

(25:37):
Did you know that the fatherwill never, ever, ever, ever,
ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,ever, ever judge anyone, ever,
ever, never, it says.
But he has given all judgmentto the Son, all of it, all of it
, so that all will honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,
and so forth and so forth.
Now, why has he done that?

(25:57):
Why has he given all judicialhonor to the Son?
Because he came down here andin the kenosis he had to go
through what you had to gothrough and what I had to go
through, and he had to betempted in all things as we, and
he knows what it is like foryou and for me so he can be a

(26:21):
sympathetic and good andexcellent judge.
In other words, nobody can everstand before god and say, well,
you can't serve as our judge,you didn't know what it's like
to go through what we wentthrough.
And the father said, well, myson did, and that's why I gave
all judgeship to him.
And so this is an implicationof the kenosis is that Jesus

(26:44):
Christ is now not only oursympathetic high priest, but
he's also the judge of theentire human race.
The father judges no one.
So as far as the summary ofthese doctrines hypostatic union
and kenosis Jesus Christ as thecreator.
God took to himself thecreature and he gave up the

(27:06):
independent use of his divineattributes in order to provide
the perfect model ofsanctification, modeling the
cardinal virtue of humilitybefore God, showing us what true
submission to authority is anddemonstrating what a walk by the
Spirit looks like, such that hehas become our sympathetic high
priest and the judge of all.

(27:26):
So that's one sentence.
It doesn't do it justice, butit gives a good summary of
everything.
That is there Now.
The impeccability.
Remember I told you this thing.
That is there Now, theimpeccability.
Remember I told you this.
Well, this doctrine is based onthe definition of the
hypostatic union that we'vealready discussed.
It's also based on thedefinition of the kenosis that

(27:47):
we've already discussed.
So, this doctrine, what's it allabout?
Well, it's about the questionof whether Jesus could truly be
tempted as we are, since he wasGod, and God can't be tempted to
sin.
James 1.14.
James 1.14.
Make sure you understand that.
Let's look at that, james 1.14.

(28:09):
Because that's a presuppositionfor following the argument.
James 1.13 and 14, especially13.
James 1, 13.
Let no one say when he istempted, I am being tempted by

(28:30):
God, for God cannot be temptedby evil and he himself does not
tempt anyone.
So can God be tempted by evil?
Can God be tempted to sin?
No, okay, so was Jesus God.
Well then, was Jesus tempted tosin?

(28:51):
Do you see the?
Because we just read it inHebrews 4.15.
It says Jesus was tempted inall things as we, yet without
sin.
So the text is saying he'stempted, but the text also says
God can't be tempted.
And the text also says Jesus isGod.
So the trouble with thisdoctrine is trying to organize
those three statements.

(29:12):
Do you see why it's complicated?
So let's talk a little bit aboutthis English word impeccable.
Remember, I told you in thirdgrade I was a really good
speller.
I was still pretty good at it.
I'm still pretty decent today.
But I got a 100 on my spellingpaper and my teacher wrote
impeccable on there.

(29:32):
I think she thought he'll lookthis up.
He's a good speller, he's goingto look this up, which I did,
and this is what you'll find.
It comes from the Latin inpecare, which is not to sin, not
to sin.
So flawless, not capable ofsinning, not liable to sin

(29:53):
that's what the word in Englishmeans, and sin, of course, means
missing the mark.
So if you're impeccable, you'renot capable of sinning, you're
not capable of missing the mark.
Sin is also, of course, was anarchery term.
Many Christians have heard this.
It was a talk about missing themark, you know.

(30:15):
So in archery, if you miss themark, that meant you missed the
bullseye and they called thatsin.
That's what they would say hesinned.
Today we'd say what he missedthe bullseye.
Yeah, yeah, that's what itmeans you sinned, you missed the
mark.
So an archer who was notcapable of sinning was a perfect

(30:39):
archer.
It means he always hit thebullseye, right.
The question becomes was JesusChrist perfect?
Did he always hit the bullseye?
Did he never sin?
Okay, well, the Bible saysJesus never sinned, right?
I mean, we've already gonethrough a lot of these verses.
Luke 1.35 says the child thatwas in Mary would be a holy
child.
Holy meaning set apart orseparate, so of course, sinless

(31:10):
right.
John 8.46, when Jesus himselfconfronted the crowd and said
which one of you convicts me ofsin?
Go ahead, anybody.
Now if I said that there mightbe a room full of people that
could come up here and givetestimony that I have sinned,
but nobody was able to convicthim of any sin.
That's one of the mostastonishing things that the Lord
Jesus Christ did.

(31:30):
Anybody convict me of any sinhere.
Anyone, anyone.
It's a remarkable thing.
Nobody came forward.
Romans 8.3,.
He came in the likeness ofsinful flesh.
In other words, he looked likea true human being, just like
you and I, but he didn't havesinful flesh right.

(31:51):
2 Corinthians 5.21,.
He who knew no sin became sinon our behalf.
That we might become therighteousness of God through
faith in him.
He knew no sin became sin onour behalf.
That we might become therighteousness of god through
faith in him.
He knew no sin, he never sinned.
Hebrews 4, 14 and 15 tempted inall things as we, yet without
sin, which we already saw.
Uh.
Hebrews 7, 26.

(32:12):
He was holy, innocent,undefiled and separated from
sinners.
I mean unique, right, totallyunique member of the human race.
First peter 119.
He was precious, unblemished,spotless, all signifying his
sinlessness.
And in first john 3, 5 in himis no sin.

(32:34):
So the bible says jesus neversinned, right.
I mean there's no question, thebible teaches that.
Yet, very interestingly, jesusappears to have been rude to
people.
Matthew 12, 34, you brood ofvipers, who warned you of the
wrath to come.
I mean, how would you like thatif somebody called you and your

(32:58):
group, your posse, a brood ofvipers?
Is that nice talk?
No, it's not nice talk.
In Matthew 15, 7, he says youhypocrites.
I think if some people heardthat one today they'd be.
I don't think so.

(33:19):
I mean we're going to have afight.
What about the Syrophoenicianwoman in Matthew 15, 26, where
he called you and me and everyGentile in the world dog,
because we don't throw our.
The Jews said we don't throwour things.

(33:40):
Jews said we don't throw our,our things, our good stuff, to
dogs.
How does that make you feeldogs are considered, you know,
an unclean animal.
They didn't have pets in theirhomes, in Jewish homes in that
time.
What was it that ate Ahab andcleaned up Jezebel off the
sidewalk?
They were eaten by dogs, wilddogs.
What was it that ate Ahab andcleaned up Jezebel off the

(34:00):
sidewalk?
They were eaten by dogs, wilddogs.
It's a very despicable way todie and to be cleaned up.
So you know he called peoplethat.
She said what?
Even the dogs eat the crumbsfrom the master's table.
What'd she do?

(34:22):
She humbled herself because sherecognized that salvation is of
the Jews and we have to come tothe Jewish people, and
especially the Jewish Messiah,to get salvation.
And if that meant deprecatingherself and saying, hey, I get
it, I'm just a dog.
But hey, we get crumbs from youspiritual crumbs.

(34:44):
And the Lord said, okay, okay.
So he listened to her.
Matthew 16.4,.
He says you are an evil andadulterous generation.
How would you like that?
It's not very nice talk.
Here's one that's even worse.
2315.
Hypocrites, and he calls themsons of hell.

(35:05):
Again, that's not going to goover so well today.
In Matthew 15, 27, he callsthem whitewashed tombs.
You know, you look good, butinside you're just dead.
There's nothing there.
He was abrupt with andinsensitive toward his mother,
john 2.4.

(35:25):
Look at this one John 2.4.
Not many mothers would likethis.
So just imagine if you were hismother and he said this John
2.4.
Remember this is at the weddingin Cana.
They ran out of wine.
Right, we need some more wine,verse 3,.

(35:50):
And so his mother said to himwhen they had no wine you know,
hey, hey, they have no wine.
And Jesus said to her in verse4, woman, what does this have to
do with me, us?
You know, hey, hey, they haveno wine.
And jesus said during versefour woman, what does this have
to do with me, us?
You know what?
My hour has not come.
I just put myself out there,says mary, and you just kind of

(36:10):
went no, we're not doing that.
So it's not exactly the picturethat many mothers would want to
see with their own children,this type of response.
So he's kind of abrupt with herthere, right?
What about Matthew 12, 48?

(36:30):
These are passages you'refamiliar with.
When people say, hey, yourmother and your brothers are
outside, and he says, who is mymother and my brothers and my
sisters?
Kind of like they're not thatimportant, who cares about them?
You know how would you likethat?
You're like, thanks, thanks alot, family.
I thought blood was thickerthan water, but apparently not
in our house.
So you know, these types ofbehaviors and statements that he

(36:53):
makes don't come across topeople like, well, he was
without sin.
What about his abrasive attitudetoward Jewish family loyalties?
When Jesus says something likecome follow me.
And the guy says, well, yeah,but I've got to bury my dad, and
he says, let the dead burytheir own dead.
Now, burying your own familymember, that was a traditional

(37:15):
Jewish loyalty to the familyhonor.
And Jesus says, ah, who caresabout that?
By the way, it points up howimportant it was to follow him
when he was on earth.
Because I mean, who is he?
He's God in the flesh.
I mean, what could be moreimportant than that Burying the
dead?
That's his point.
He's not saying burying yourown dead is unimportant.

(37:37):
He's saying, given theimportance of my presence, that
is less important and I am moreimportant.
He assaulted businessmen in thetemple right and he damaged
their wares John 2, 15 and 16.
It says he made a scourge.
It didn't say he picked one up,he made it for this purpose.

(37:59):
You ever done that?
Made a weapon and then went andused it on someone?
Many people say that is not theact of someone who is sinless,
that's sin.
Now if jesus took a modernpsychological personality
profile a lot of companies dothese right.
They want to evaluate peoplewho are candidates for their

(38:24):
positions in their corporationsbecause they want to see if
they're, you know, in the rightplace in the bell curve, because
we can't have any people on theoutside fringes of the bell
curve.
So they have thesepsychological profiles that
prospective employees must fillout questionnaires and so forth.
Now if you did and Christianshave done this they've submitted

(38:50):
the gospel accounts of Christ'slife to these questions to fill
it out, so to speak, on hisbehalf, to see where he would
fit on the bell curve.
He wasn't exactly inside thebell curve very far and people
like, for example, some of thesequestions are like do you pray
about this or that?
And so forth.

(39:11):
If you say yes, you get pointsoff.
Okay, so Jesus kind of did alot of that stuff where he lost
points on these modernpsychological personality
profiles.
So he wouldn't be consideredagain by these evaluations to be

(39:34):
perfect.
He'd be on the fringes of thebell curve.
Now I'm building all this upbecause I said on one hand, hey,
the bible says jesus neversinned.
There are behaviors, thingsthat he states and other things
that he does that from somepeople's perspective indicates
he did sin.
And now I'm asking the questionwhy is it that there seems to

(40:01):
be a discrepancy in somepeople's minds about whether
Jesus was really sinless or not?
It has to do with the source ofstandards for evaluating.
It has to do with the source ofstandards for evaluating.
Question who came up with thepersonality psychological
profile test?
Well, the guy who wrote thetest.
In other words, what's it areflection of?

(40:22):
It's a reflection of the personwho wrote the test standards.
The standards come from theperson who made the test.
All they are is reflective ofhis own persona.
Now, when we evaluate Jesus'life, his bluntness toward his
mother, his abrasiveness towardJewish family loyalties and

(40:48):
traditions, his perhaps speechabuse of people calling them
sons of hell, dens of vipers,whitewashed tombs and every
other thing like this.
Where does the source ofstandards for judging him come

(41:09):
from?
In many cases, they're comingfrom us.
What do we think is a properchild's response to a parent?
Where is that source orstandard coming from?
Because if the Bible insiststhat Jesus never sinned, then
Jesus' bluntness toward hismother was not sinful, was it so
?
Could a child be blunt towardhis mother like that and be okay

(41:32):
?
Well, many moms today would sayabsolutely no.
But what is wrong with thepicture?
The mom has her own standards,or the dad whatever, and they're
not the standards of god.
They are that person's ownstandards.
So what have you done?

(41:53):
You've elevated yourself andmade your thinking above god's
thinking.
In other words, you violatedthe creative creature
distinction and made yourthinking above God's thinking.
In other words, you violatedthe created creature distinction
and you put yourself above him.
Is this a problem?
Yes, this is a problem.
We shouldn't do this.
We should never do this.
So the source of standards forjudging is the Bible.

(42:16):
In fact, if you want to look atthe perfect person to see what
the perfect life looks like, soyou can design a test.
You would take the life of theLord Jesus Christ and you would
build a test based on him andwhat he did and what he said and
whatever that test was.
Then people took that test.
You'd see how perfect they wereor were not, because he's an

(42:39):
absolute standard.
This isn't Joe Blow working forsome corporation who built a
personality profile test.
This is the God of the universewho came and dwelt among us and
he knows what it is to be ahuman and he lived the perfect
human life.
So this challenges every one ofus to ask the question do I have

(43:00):
the right standards?
Am I adopting the rightstandards and criteria for
evaluating things?
Because if we're not, we're notjudging things rightly.
And that's why I said you know,the modern Jesus has been
reduced to a caricature and awhat would Jesus do bracelet.

(43:21):
I mean it's laughable, becauseI don't think that 99, and I
really mean 99, not 95 or 90 or88, 99% of Christians would not
do what Jesus did and they wouldthink that if they did
something like what Jesus did,it would be sinful.
And why would they not do whatJesus did?

(43:44):
Because they don't really knowwho he is.
And that's why I've gone intothe hypostatic union, that's why
I've gone into the kenosis,that's why I'm going into
impeccability now, because ifyou really want to do what Jesus
did and you really want to loveJesus, you have to know who he
is and you have to see what hedid and you have to face this
stuff.
I mean, does the Bible say hecalled people sons of hell?

(44:06):
Absolutely.
Did he go into the temple aftermaking a scourge and tear it out
and overturn tables, okay, andspill their money all over the
place and run them out of thetemple?
Yes, he did.
Was it sinful?
No, on that occasion it waswhat we call a righteous anger.

(44:27):
Right, remember, it wascontrolled.
It was controlled because hesays take the doves over there.
He was fully under control.
If he hadn't been under control, he'd have spilled the whole
thing, destroyed the doves.
You know it would have justbeen a big garbage mess after it
was all over.
But he was a righteous anger.
We can have a righteous anger.
I hope we have righteous angerabout things going on in this

(44:52):
country, about things going onin Israel right now.
I hope we have a righteousanger.
We should.
It's right, jesus had it.
If we don't have it,something's wrong with us, right
?
So was he really sinless?
Well, yes, the Bible says hewas, but that's where we get our
standard for what is right andwhat is wrong, what is true and

(45:12):
what is false, what is sin andwhat is righteousness.
Now, the doctrine ofimpeccability, then, is dealing
with this big question like um,well, we would want to say he
was tempted in all things, as we.
But we also say, well, he's god, but god can't be tempted.
So how do we get all thistogether?
Okay, answer.
The debate centers on two latinphrases.

(45:33):
I didn't come here to teachlatin today, but but so I
translated into English as well.
These two Latin phrases arenon-passe, picare and passe
non-picare.
Now do you notice?
They're the same three words.
They're the same three words,just different order.
Right?
One of them has non first, theother one has passe first.

(45:53):
So there's an emphasisdifference in the two phrases.
The first phrase means not ableto sin sin.
It puts the non first, not.
The other phrase means able notto sin.
Do they mean the same thing ordo they mean something different
?
Yeah, they mean somethingdifferent.

(46:14):
Good, because word orderchanges the emphasis and meaning
.
So the first one.
Let me ask you this which oneis stronger?
A the first statement, not ableto sin it makes it sound like
it's impossible, right.

(46:34):
The second one, able, not,sounds like, well, there's a
possibility, possibility of sin.
So it's a difference inemphasis here.
Now, so we could take somequestions and just ask these

(46:56):
Does phrase one apply to God?
Phrase one not able to sin?
Does that apply to god?
And everybody says yes, okay,james 1, 13, god can't be
tempted to evil, so you knowhe's not able to sin.
Um, does phrase two apply toman?
Not, not, okay, not that youalready saw.

(47:17):
Like, uh, well, I want you'resaying I want to ask a follow-up
question uh, which men us today?
Or adam?
That's a good clarificationadam has originally created
versus people who are now fallen, because there's a difference
there.
You know, adam didn't have asin nature, but we do, so we're
both men, though.

(47:38):
So, though.
So when you say man, do youmean Adam or do you mean people
today who are fallen?
Okay, because my answer isgoing to be different.
That's fine, good.
Does phrase two apply to Adam?
Okay, so now I've isolated itto Adam as created, the first
guy before he said okay, was hein a condition, when God first
created him, where he was ablenot to sin?

(47:59):
Okay, good, good, everybody'slike, yes, I think that that
sounds right.
Like he could have chosen notto sin and he could have
remained sinless.
That's good, that's good.
We're thinking this through Now.

(48:19):
Does phrase one apply to AdamNot able to sin?
No, we'd say no.
So, however, god created Adam.
He created him with thecapability not to sin, but he
didn't create him in a conditionwhere it was impossible for him
to sin.
If he had created him in thatway, well, we wouldn't have any

(48:41):
sin today.
Now let's go to the fifthstatement.
Does phrase two apply to Jesuswhen he was born of the virgin?
Was he in that condition, likeAdam, able not to sin?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, okay, Ifeel like we're pretty safe.

(49:07):
Most people are thinking, yeah,yeah, that's, he was a lot like
adam when he was first created.
So, yeah, phrase two able notto sin.
How about, uh, phrase one?
This is where it gets hard andsomebody says, yes and yes, I
would agree with that too.
But wait, isn't that acontradiction?

(49:27):
I mean, he's not able to sin,but he is able to sin one's
impossible, one's possible,possible and impossible opposite
one's god, one's man.
You say okay, okay, and he'sgod and man.
Right, so you're, you'rethinking it through and this is
good.
I've just repeated the firstfew lines up there so you don't
lose these two phrases.

(49:49):
The sixth question there doesphrase one apply to Jesus?
We're going to talk about thatone.
That's the one that's like no,wait a minute.
I mean, if he's not able to sin, then was he really tempted
like us?
See?
I mean, the Bible says he wasTempted in all things his way,
but he's also God.

(50:09):
So how does this work?
So let's look at 6a here.
If phrase one does not apply toJesus in other words, jesus was
not in a condition where he wasnot able to sin well then he's
not God.
I mean, that's just, you haveto come to that conclusion.
He wouldn't be God.
But we've already confirmedfrom Scripture that he is God.

(50:30):
If phrase one does apply toJesus, which in general I think
that's probably a consensus herehow is it that he was tempted
in all things this way?
Because God can't be tempted,okay.
So again, I'm just pointing upthe difficulty.
Why do I do this?
To drive you crazy?
No, because I want you to think.

(50:50):
I want you to think about JesusChrist.
Many ministers want you tothink about themselves or their
social agenda or something likethat, or do good, I'm not trying
to get you to do that, I justwant you to think about him.
I think that is so importantthat you think about Jesus
Christ.

(51:10):
You have to if you want to lovehim, if you want to do what he
would do.
So here's the difficulty.
Now we sense that somehow thatfirst phrase not able to sin
applies to Jesus because we say,well, jesus is God, but somehow
it's also unsettling to oursouls a little bit.

(51:32):
So centuries ago, a couplecenturies ago, hodge and Shedd
had a debate this debatesomewhat still continues today
Over these two phrases.
This debate somewhat stillcontinues today Over these two
phrases.
Charles Hodge said that phrasetwo able not to sin which we all
agree must apply to Christ.
But he says guess what Phraseone does not apply to him,

(51:53):
because it must be possible forhim to sin in order to ensure
that the temptations were real.
He was concerned about thisbecause of the kenosis.
Okay, that Jesus Christ gave upthe independent use of his
divine attributes.
He thought that if otherwise,jesus could not be our
sympathetic high priest andjudge.

(52:14):
In other words, he doesn'treally know what you're going
through, said Hodge, andtherefore he can't really serve
as your peer judge, okay.
So Hodge was trying to protectthat and so he emphasized that
Jesus had a true humanity.
He didn't deny the deity, hejust emphasized the humanity

(52:35):
because he wanted to preservethat the temptations were
genuine, so that Jesus couldidentify with you and with me
when we're tempted.
Next time you get tempted, bythe way, what should you start
thinking about Jesus?
Jesus was tempted in all things, as I am, okay.
So he was without sin.

(52:56):
Now, I'm not going to agree withHodge here, but Shedd, on the
other hand, said this.
He said, but he does have atruth.
Let's just say that Hodge is onto something.
There's something true there inwhat he's saying.
Okay, and he's doing his bestto try to understand.
Shedd said that phrase two andphrase one must apply to Christ,

(53:18):
both of those statements,because he said otherwise it
would fracture the hypostaticunion.
You see how these guys are.
They're, they're thinking thisthrough and they're thinking
okay, he's undiminished deity,he's, he's true humanity and
he's in one person.
Now he's.
What shed was concerned about isthat, if we don't say both of

(53:39):
these are true of him, we'vepulled his humanity and deity
too far apart, to where we'vefractured the hypostatic union.
He's no longer one person, he'stwo people, and that's what the
Nestorian said, and we knowthat's heresy.
So he's trying to balance thesetwo, and what he's trying to
protect, then, is that Jesus isjust one person.
We've got to be careful talkingabout his divine nature and his

(54:02):
human nature.
Before we know it, we'retalking like two people, and
he's not.
He's only one person.
And so my conclusion is, ofcourse, we want to do justice to
both, both of these ideas thatthese men set forth, which are
both of these statements here,these phrases.
Now, I'll just introduce this.
I don't know if we have time toresolve it, but the difficulty

(54:22):
is this this is the difficultyI've ever given you to
understand.
Okay, are you ready?
The word able in those twosentences means something
different in each sentence, andit has to.
It cannot have an identicalmeaning.

(54:44):
The first phrase right.
Not able to sin.
We said that applies to God,james 1.13.
Second able not to sin.
That applies to man, at leastAdam and Christ.
Now, are God and man the same?
Everybody will say no, god andman are not the same.

(55:05):
Everybody will say no, god andman are not the same.
God is the creator and man is acreature.
When we make a sentence aboutGod and then we make the same
sentence about man, do those twosentences mean the same thing?
I'll give you an example Godloves.
Does everybody like this?
Give you an example God loves.
Does everybody like this?

(55:26):
I love this statement.
God loves, now man loves.
Do those two sentences mean thesame thing?
Does the love that God has andthe love that man has, are they
identical?
That God has and the love thatman has, are they identical?

(55:49):
If they are the same, let's saythe word love means the same
and God's love is equated withman's love, then isn't man God?
Because we express the sametype of love, exactly as he
expresses.
See, that's the problem.

(56:10):
The problem is that we knowthat God's love is infinite, but
we know that man's love isfinite.
So they can't be the sameexactly.
They have to be similar, or wewouldn't know what it was
talking about God's love orman's love.
We wouldn't even know what thatmeant.
So they have to have asimilarity, but they can't be
identical, because if they'reidentical, then we love in the

(56:34):
same sense that God loved, andwhat we've done is we've
produced a universal category oflove and we put God and man
underneath that universalcategory, and you can never,
ever, ever, ever do that.
What does Isaiah 55, 8, and 9say?
My ways are not, my thoughtsare not your thoughts, but my

(56:58):
ways, he says, are higher thanyour ways and my thoughts higher
than your thoughts.
And you say but I don'tunderstand.
And I said amen, yes, we do notentirely understand this
because ultimately, god isincomprehensible.
But when you see these twostatements not able to sin, that

(57:25):
word able in that sentence is aword reserved for the creator
and its entire meaning is filledby his nature, in essence, not
our idea.
The second one, that word ableable not to sin, able, there has

(57:46):
the concept that is among us ashumans.
Are the two words similar inmeaning?
Yes, they must be similar, orwe have no connection point.
But they're not identical.
Okay, they're not identical.
This is the only way topreserve both of those two
statements as true.
It's the only way, but it isthe way that we understand it.

(58:10):
Okay, jesus Christ is both Godand man, okay, so the problem is
complicated because of ourinability to comprehensively
understand what God is like.
You just can't, sorry, for alleternity.
You're still never, ever, ever,ever, ever going to know God as
God knows himself, because he'san infinite being and we will

(58:31):
never be infinite or haveinfinite understanding.
You just can't.
We'll always be creatures.
The two phrases are similar,you know, right.
So we have an idea of what Godis like.
But again, if they're identical, then God and man would be
identical, and we know that'snot true, everybody knows that's
not true.
So the bottom line is that bothphrase one not able to sin and

(58:51):
phrase two able not to sin aretrue of Jesus Christ.
And phrase one refers to hisdeity.
Right, it's looking at him fromthe deity side, and phrase two
refers to his humanity.
Okay, so we look at him as inhis two natures and say phrase
one applies to his deity, butphrase two to his humanity.
But then the question becomeswell, what about him?

(59:13):
He's only one person.
So how would we speak aboutthis in terms of his one person?
Well, because of the hypostaticunion, because his deity and
humanity are inseparable,they're not mixed.
Remember, they're not mixed,but they're not separated either
.
They're just, let's just say,touching.
Okay, because of that phrase,one not able to sin.

(59:38):
Now, because I wanted to finish, I'm going to take you to the
last statement.
Okay, again, we can'tcompletely explain this.
God can.
Let me use an illustration.
Assume a battleship was builtthat was impervious to every

(59:58):
weapon known to man.
You've got this ship.
It's impervious to anyprojectile that man knows.
The enemy can fire as many ofthose projectiles as he wishes
at the ship, right, yet noprojectile would sink it.
Right, because it's impervious.
Right.
In the same way, the enemycould fire as many temptations

(01:00:20):
at Jesus as he wished, yet Jesuswould not succumb to the
temptation.
Would he have been genuinelytested?
Yeah, yes, yes, just like theship would have genuinely been
tested.
So there's he could, and yetnot succumb, not be able to

(01:00:45):
succumb.
Jesus Christ, though genuinelytempted beyond anything any
other creature ever experienced,could not sin as the one having
true humanity and undiminisheddeity coexisting in one person
forever, christ would always bevictorious, even though canonic.
During his life on earth, hewould always be victorious.

(01:01:08):
That is what is so interestingabout Luke 4.
I spent all this time on thisdiscussion, just so I could take
you to Luke 4, so you could seeone little phrase, because
without all this, this phrasewould probably never even get
noticed by most of us as readers.

(01:01:39):
Luke, chapter 4, the first verseJesus, full of the Holy Spirit,
returned from the Jordan and hewas what, led around by the
Spirit, in the wilderness for 40days, being tempted by the
devil.
Who was leading him around inthe wilderness?
The Holy Spirit, what?
What is the Holy Spirit doingby leading him around in the

(01:01:59):
wilderness?
He's taking Jesus to the fight.
He's taking him to thetemptations, he's leading them
into the battle.
He's taking him right to thefront lines.
You say, why would he ever dothat?
To show that he's impervious.
It is to show that he could notsin.

(01:02:23):
It is to show that he could notsin.
Satan waited 40 days duringwhich he was tempting him
through the 40 days, and then,after the 40 days, it says what
it says he ate nothing duringthose days.
When they had ended, he becamehungry.
In other words, it's anopportune time to break through

(01:02:43):
this seemingly imperviousindividual, and that's when he
brought the three, what we callthe three temptations, these
great temptations.
But the point is that the HolySpirit was taking him to the
fight to show who he was inimpeccability.

(01:03:06):
Jesus Christ could never sin.
Yet he was, at the same time,tempted to sin, just like you
and I were.
And you say but I cannotunderstand that, good, if you
could, you would be God and youare not and I'm not.
But we are God and you're notand I'm not.
But we are supposed to beimpressed with this.

(01:03:30):
There's one other occasion inthe Gospels we'd probably miss
if we didn't talk about it, andthat's that later in Gethsemane,
when he has everybody prayingright, I'm sorry, they were
asleep, they couldn't even forone hour and he says behold, the
betrayer is at hand.
And that's not all it says.

(01:03:50):
It says and he went in thatdirection.
He went to the fight, he wentto be arrested.
Why?
Because it's not my will.
He says it's thy will.
Be done Now.
Is this the way you live yourChristian life?
I have to say many, many, many,many, many times, most times, I

(01:04:15):
don't.
If I don't face this, if Idon't look at these truths, I
don't get convicted and I don'thave the humility that I need to
be exalted by God.
And you don't either.
You know, without Him you'renothing.
Until we recognize that Eventhe Lord Jesus Christ recognized

(01:04:40):
this Without Him I'm nothing.
If he will do that, will younot do that?
No, I'm something.
That's what we think.
I'm somebody.
It's when you become nobodythat you actually become
somebody.
It's when we are weak that heis strong.

(01:05:01):
His power is made perfect inour what Weakness.
That is what the wholeChristian life is about.
It's not about being the topdog on the block, it's about
being least of all.
Matthew 18,.
He who becomes like this littlechild will be greatest in the

(01:05:21):
kingdom.
He who is servant of all willbe greatest in the kingdom.
How do you get greatness?
You become servant of everybody.
You become a nobody.
Are you going to be great inthe kingdom?
This life's going to pass.
The kingdom is forever.
Which one's more important, nowor then?
These things cannot compare.

(01:05:44):
Paul says to the glories tocome.
All I'm trying to do is make youthink like the Bible.
That is all I'm interested indoing, because I don't think
most Christians want to thinklike the Bible, even though they
sit there and listen to it.
Some of them.
Whatever the preacher has tosay that Sunday Hopefully
something deep like this.
You need this stuff.
You need it Because I'll tellyou why.

(01:06:06):
Eternity is forever and he whois least in the kingdom is
greater than anyone in thisworld.
But he who is greatest in thekingdom is greater than John the
Baptist.
You realize that Jesus saidthat You'll be greater than John
the Baptist in the kingdom ifyou become least of all and
servant of everyone.
That's the way to live yourlife, just like the Lord Jesus

(01:06:26):
Christ.
He showed us.

Speaker 1 (01:06:28):
Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with
Jeremy Thomas.
If you would like to see thevisuals that went along with
today's sermon, you can findthose on Rumble and on YouTube
under Spokane Bible Church.
That is where Jeremy is thepastor and teacher.
Bible Church that is whereJeremy is the pastor and teacher
.
We hope you found today'slesson productive and useful in

(01:06:49):
growing closer to God andwalking more obediently with Him
.
If you found this podcast to beuseful and helpful, then please
consider rating us in yourfavorite podcast app, and until
next time, we hope you have ablessed and wonderful day.