WELCOME
PRAYER
WORD SET TO MUSIC
SILENCE
2nd Peter 3.5-7
March 6th 2016
Meat
Okay. We are in the final chapter of II Peter and last week we read, in verses 1-4
1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
I used these passages as a platform to discuss a few things.
First, that Peter was saying that in his day – his day – there were scoffers and mockers who were criticizing the idea that Jesus was going to return.
I also suggested that Peter and the rest of the Apostles believed (according to their own words) that they were in the last days (and that is why there were scoffers)
And then we launched into a discussion of the Two Covenantal Periods into which Jesus was born – and last week we covered the first – the period where He was
Born of a virgin into this world.
That His purpose in this world was to redeem the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (who at that time were His own and were of the Tribe of Judah).
That this mission was obscured by God for the purpose of that Nation (His own) to put Him to death.
And that coming from the Tribe of Judah he could not EVER reign on this earth as a priest or as a King, after the order of Melchizedek, who in my estimation was not an actual King and Priest but was, as scripture says, “without father or mother,” and was a spiritual type of the Messiah to come.
If you weren’t with us last week we summarized all of this by saying this was all part of Jesus first birth (his physical birth) but, I suggested, He had another “begetting” – a birth that would bring Him, Jesus, the Man, into a realm where He could and would reign as both King and Priest – the heavens.
And I touched on the fact that this part of His mission as Messiah was in fact revealed to all that world (the people of that age) and this was the culmination of the end of that age, as prophesied all through the Old Testament.
So, I touched on some of this on HOTM last Tuesday but the information is worthy repeating as we are discussing this very topic here in Meat.
Alright, on the show a few weeks ago we talked about Jesus and said “that since He was a Man,” and that “men need to be born-again” (in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven,) we wondered if “He Jesus was born-again in order for Him to see the Kingdom of God?”
If He was, when and where was Christ “born from above?”
Automatically you can see that I am suggesting that Jesus experienced the second birth of His ministry and into a second Covenant when He was regenerated.
Understanding this is hugely important to our understanding more about His make-up and nature (as Lord and Savior) but also about regeneration in general.
Now, remember the idea behind the terms, “re”-generation, “re”-birth, born “AGAIN.”
Most in the faith maintain that there is no reason for Jesus to have been spiritually regenerated (since He was God in the flesh from the start). I understand this view if we are only looking at Him as God. But IF we take His humanity into consideration then it does open up a door to see a need for the Man to be regenerated BEFORE He entered into the realm of His Father.
Other Christians suppose that Jesus was born from above at His water baptism, when the Holy Spirit fell as a dove upon Him and God spoke saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”
Because we can say that at His birth that He was the Son of God that at His water baptism the decent of the Holy Spirit was anointing Him for the ministry and that at this point God announced that He was (indeed) His beloved Son and that He was indeed well pleased with Him and the life that He had lived thus far.
I maintain that both of these positions held by Christians contain merit but neither of them are complete in and of themselves regarding what we might call “the total regeneration” of Jesus, which again, would prepare Him to enter into heaven.
Complexity can be a frightening situation and so as a means to get through or past it most of us accept simplified explanations as a means to save time and simultaneously feel secure.
But we are talking about the very eternal God having His Word take on flesh, become a human being, and then after living by every word which proceeded from the mouth of God, suffer an incomprehensible death in the flesh He inhabited, rise up over the grave after three days death, and then as the man Jesus of Nazareth entered into heaven AFTER living life on earth!
This was unheard of happening before and it’s not a subject that can be simplified or fully explained by our measly minds.
So again to the question, “Was the Man Jesus born again at some point? There is a biblical precedence that says, “yes, He was,” and that it occurred . . . at His resurrection.
This is an important biblical concept relative to the “two births” of Jesus and that they relate to two Covenant Worlds.
Jesus was born twice – physically, then spiritually. Both births were “into” specific Covenant Worlds – the first into the Covenant World of the Jew, and the Second into the Covenant World of Heaven.
Remember, (it’s important) when He came to earth He was NOT born into a second covenant world of gentiles that exists here on earth. Again, the first birth was into the covenant world of the Jews and the second was the covenant world that exists in heaven.
Remember, from the Bible it is a false premise to believe (in the light of Hebrews 8:5) that Jesus could be a King or priest on earth.
However, Christ’s Priesthood and Kingship, after He lived a mortal life, was put to death, resurrected, and ascended, were once and for all “revealed” (in power and glory) at his coming at the end of the Old World age which Peter and John have clearly said, was “at hand.”
When this was completed we would see a result of it in a “New Jerusalem,” (which included the completed and perfected New Temple in heaven) which would come down from “a new heaven” onto “a new spiritually regenerated earth,” and, as Revelation 21:1-4 says, “the cry would go forth, “the tabernacle of God is with man.”
So the first physical birth of Jesus definitely had limiting factors in regard to his Messianic mission.
These limitations were the first step that would lead inexorably to the full revelation of the Messiah – which all believers HAVE to admit was not yet experienced when the Apostles were writing but was being promised to those people at that day.
But once this full revelation was completed Jesus could and would reign as a King and a Priest from and in heaven – where everything is, and has, been based ever since.
The idea of a futuristic return and reign of Him for us is not only against all the evidence in scripture (which His own apostles taught was to happen in their day and age), but it is clearly against the fact that for Him to reign on earth as a physical King and Priest it was against the physical Law – which He came to fulfill, and replace with a new way, a new heaven, a new earth, and a New Jerusalem.
So after . . .
Fulfilling the law and the prophets.
After living by every word that proceeded from the mouth of God.
After suffering for sin – actually becoming sin for us
Healing us by His stripes,
And after offering His sinless life up for the sins of the world and being put to death BY HIS OWN (who did not know fully what they were doing because it remained hidden from them)
Jesus the human being was regenerated, reborn, transformed from “earth Man” to “heavenly King and Priest man.”
He was “born-again” into a realm/sphere where he could fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies that futurists believe apply to Him returning to a physical earth to live out in the confines of His mortal flesh.
Again, at his resurrection Jesus went into that heavenly “realm or sphere,” (Now listen . . .)
His second birth or regeneration no more enables Him to become an earthly King on this physical earth than His physical birth enabled Him to reign in heaven.
(REPEAT THIS)
He had to be regenerated prior to reigning in the heavens. It was this rebirth that enabled Him to enter that realm as a man!
Put it this way, the only way for Him to reign here on earth was for Him to denigrated or be degenerated (by taking on flesh and submitting below all things), right?
And after denigrating Himself by taking on flesh and blood He could not turn around and IN THAT STATE inherit the Kingdom of God. There had to be a regeneration – even of Christ Jesus – as hard as it is for some to believe.
Listen to how some of the apostles, post ascension of Christ, spoke of this heavenly Kingdom over which He reigns.
Paul said in 2nd Timothy 4:18
“And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
And Peter added in 2nd Peter 1:10-11
“Wherefore the rather, brethren, give ldiligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, to put a cap on all of this, and to give you what you’ve been waiting for, in Acts 13:27 Paul preached about Jesus and his resurrection. In that resurrection, the apostle said,
“God hath fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus.” Got that? Then Paul adds, “As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, This day I have begotten You.’”
Take note that the Father, speaking of the Son’s resurrection says, “This Day’ I have begotten you.”
I thought Jesus was begotten when He was born? He was, but into the first Covenantal world.
But at the resurrection of Jesus He was begotten again! This was His second birth! He was begotten by God at His resurrection!
In Romans 1:3-4 Paul contrasts these two “births” of Jesus, and says,
“He was “born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”
I don’t think there can be a clearer passage supporting what I am saying!
He was first the only begotten Son of God in flesh, born of the seed of David and then He was “declared to the Son of God WITH POWER, according to the spiritual of Holiness BY . . . BY . . . BY THE RESURRECTION from the dead.”
And then as “the Son of God with Power” He is now able to reign over the spiritual Kingdom of all things as King and Priest – and from heaven.
We know from Hebrews that it was when Christ entered into the Heavens that He became our great High priest. Not before.
Again, couldn’t be one here – wrong tribe, wrong time, wrong sphere. When was He made a High Priest to reign from Heaven? When He was begotten by God the second time at His second birth. We have support for this in Hebrews 5:5 which says:
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, “Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”
So again, in the day that God said unto Jesus, “thou art my Son, today I have begotten you,” Jesus was made a high priest.
When was that day?
Paul tells us as quoted in Acts, speaking of Jesus resurrection, and saying:
“God hath fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, This day I have begotten You.’”
So, what are we to make of all of this and how does it (or how should it) affect our views on how it all applies to us today?
Jesus is our model and example, the firstfruits of everything, etc.
As such the LDS claim that He came and first did what all humans who seek to follow Him would do.
The implication of this, in LDS circles, is that all people who accept Jesus here, do their best to follow Him, repent when they have sinned, and hope like hell that God will redeem and exalt them after this life.
So in a sense the LDS leave the end justification of all men to the resurrection too, ignoring the immediate justification of people by faith here.
I remember reading in LDS Apostle Hugh B. Brown’s autobiography where Brown tells a story of passing by the late J. Reuben Clarkes house when Clarke was ready to pass.
Brown reported that J Reuben Clarke was just weeping and weeping on the front porch and Brown asked him what was wrong.
Clarke, through tears, said, “I just hope I’ve done enough to make it.”
This was an LDS man who had done more than probably 99% of other LDS people past or present! And he remained unsure of the finished work of Christ in His life.
But the unfortunate thing remains not with the LDS alone. There are believers out there who, because they can prove from the Bible that Jesus Himself was regenerated at His resurrection that the same holds true for all of us!
And they go so far as to suggest that there is no such thing as spiritual rebirth here on earth for human beings.
Whoa whoa whoa the hell down now.
They support this stance by the saying that if or when someone is TRULY regenerated or reborn, they would NOT sin.
Therefore, in their estimation, true regeneration only occurs at the individuals resurrection because it is only at this moment that a person is, well, genuinely REGENERATED.
If you think about it the implications of this, especially in the face of what most Evangelical teach about rebirth, are enormous.
And if taken wrong all of us Christians may just find ourselves standing our porches like J Reuben Clarke, weeping and wondering if we too have done enough to merit entrance into the Kingdom of God and Christ.
Are people born-again/regenerated here?
I think we need to flesh this out – and so I am going to appeal to the white board once again.
ADAM
(DEATH)
Adam’s “death” was gradual
JESUS
(THE WAY, TRUTH and LIFE)
Jesus life was ever present
MAN
(Eternal Life)
Our “living” is gradual
First Death
(spiritual, the day he died God moved out)
His natural birth into this world (for His own)
First Life
When we are given the Holy Spirit internally (the day God moves in)
Continued Death
(of his soul – mind, will, and emotion) over the course of his life.
His perfectly lived life “according to every word that proceeded from the mouth of God.”
Continued Life
(as we learn to walk by the Spirit and not the flesh)
Eternal death
(of his body)
His Resurrection
(firstfruit of the grave)
(flesh the veil)
(His total Regeneration)
Eternal Life
in the resurrected bodies received for life lived as Christians here.
DEATH
The Way, Truth and Life
LIFE
Okay, so there is a bit of a rabbit trail but a necessary one for our future understanding of what Peter is actually writing about here in this last chapter of II Peter.
So let’s continue now with what Peter says here about the scoffers of his day who were mocking the idea of Jesus returning.
5 For this they (the scoffers and mockers) willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Let’s cover these three verses and see where that leaves us on time.
Peter responds to their scoffing beginning at verse five and says:
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The line, “for this they are willingly ignorant” has been debated by different scholars for hundred of years.
Guys like Luther say that it means that while they may have been aware of the facts Peter mentions they preferred to not remember it (or to ignore or discount it in their views).
But others like Robinson or Rosenmuller think Peter is saying that this was these scoffers opinion of things, that they were thus minded.
In other words, remember the scoffers claim that Peter cites in verse 4. In response to the idea that Jesus was coming and it would be the end of that world, they said:
“Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
According to the later interpretations the sense is,
“They hold to an opinion that all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” but they have either willingly or purposefully ignored the fact that
“there has been a destruction of the world once by water.” So how could they say that things have remained the same from the beginning?
There is an implication, whichever interpretation of the Greek that we adopt – Luther or that of others – that “the will” of the scoffers was involved in how they were viewing the world around them, to the point that they convinced themselves that “the world, as they knew it, had remained the same as from the beginning!”
Every now and again we may run into a person who discounts all the biblical stories of creation and floods and Sodoms and Gomorrah’s and they often maintain similar positions.
But again, one way or another the Greek seems to convey that these scoffers were possessed by personal obstinacy.
From this we might believe that the human will has more of a role in our denial and rejection of doctrine than our understanding.
I have seen former believers move from being zealous for God to denying His existence all together. I cannot believe this has to do with understanding and learning over faith, but instead has to do with the will and desires of the individual to believe what they want over maintaining faith.
So it seems to be with the scoffers of Peter’s day.
And the argument that Peter appeals to appears to be a simple one – the scoffers say the worlds from the beginning has remained the same (and that it always would, apparently) and Peter points out that these guys have missed something as simple as the flood which forever altered the course of the World.
Admittedly this is a verse that supports a world-wide flood and not a geographical. Something to consider.
So they have said that from the beginning the world has remained he same but
“this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
This is the beginning of Peter’s rebuttal, and He starts by pointing out that by His word alone God the heavens were, and the earth upon which these scoffers stood.
The idea here seems to be that everything depends on Him, his Word and His will. And just as the heavens and the earth were originally made by his very command, so by the same command the end would be.
And where it reads, “the earth standing out of the water and in the water,” the idea, which the translators seem to have had is that
“in the formation of the earth, a part was out of the water, and a part under the water; and that the former, or the inhabited portion, became entirely submerged, and that thus the inhabitants perished.”
This, however, does not seem to be what Peter meant.
He has made reference to the account given in Genesis 1 relative to the creation of the earth and where water played an important role.
The thought that Peter seems to have been making was that water entered materially into the formation of the earth, and that in its very origin there existed the means by which the world would later be destroyed.
The word which is translated “standing” could mean, “consisting of or constituted of,” and the meaning is, that the creation of the earth was the result of the Divine agency acting on the mass of elements which in Genesis is called “waters.”
According to Genesis there was at first an immense fluid of some sort, called waters and from this the earth rose.
The point of time that Peter seems to be speaking of here is NOT when the mountains, and continents, and islands, seem to be standing partly out of the water and partly in the water, but when there was a vast mass of materials called waters from which the earth was formed.
I say this because the phrase “out of the water” speaks to the origin of the earth and says that it was formed “from, or out of,” that mass.
The phrase “in the water” (di udatov) more properly means through or by. It does not mean that the earth stood in the water in the sense that it was partly submerged; but it means not only that the earth arose from that mass that is called water but that that mass called water was in fact the grand material out of which the earth was formed.
In other words it was through the vast mass of mingled elements that the earth was made as it was. All of it arose out of that chaotic mass and through that, or by means of that, all things were formed.
And because of this fact there were causes that ultimately resulted in the deluge or Noah’s flood.
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Another problematic passage because the pronoun here is in the plural number which has caused no small amount of difference as to meaning.
Some (like Dodderidge) think that it refers to the heavens mentioned in the preceding verse, and to the fact that the windows of heaven were opened in the flood.
Others think that the Greek phrase is taken in the sense of “whence the worlds that was then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”
Wetstein believes that it refers to the “heavens and the earth.”
But though the plural number is used, and the word water in the antecedent is in the singular, it seems to be speaking of water.
The fact seems to be that the apostle had the waters mentioned in Genesis prominently in his mind and meant to describe the effect produced by those waters on the earth.
He has also twice, in the same sentence, referred to water – “out of the water and in the water.” It seems he evidently is referring to the waters mentioned in Genesis, out of which the world was originally made, and this is what he is referring.
The world was formed from that fluid mass; by these waters which existed when the earth was made, and out of that which it arose, it was also destroyed.
Because of all of this pretty confusing stuff some scholars believe that when Peter writes in verse 6:
“Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished,”
That this is a reference to some sort of universal catastrophe that occurred before the flood in Noah’s time and even before the earth was fitted up in its present form.
All that Peter seems to be saying, however, is that the world had been once destroyed, and that therefore it was no reason to believe that it would not happen again.
Simply put those who said there was no sign the earth was ever wiped out missed whatever Peter was talking about here.
Now listen, I realize we could allow ourselves to believe very easily that Peter was referring to the flood in all this – and he may have been! But there is disputation among scholars regarding this stance. Then Peter adds:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word (again, Peter’s point) are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Now take note of something here. There is talk about the end of the world (or the age).
Included in this description of the coming destruction is not only the earth but the heavens as well.
When it comes to the word earth Peter here does NOT refer to the world Kosmos (though it could have been referred to in terms of its soil or ground) but he uses a word that more commonly refers to a geographical area (Ghay, in the Greek).
So I believe He was talking specifically about that vincinity. However, when he includes the heavens we have to wonder what he means?
At the coming end of the age the heavens would be wiped out too?
We’ll get into this meaning next week.
Q and A
