MEN CHOSEN—FALLEN ANGELS REJECTED CHS.

[Zaatar71]

Sermon #90 The New Park Street Pulpit 1 Volume 2 1 MEN CHOSEN—FALLEN ANGELS REJECTED

MEN CHOSEN—FALLEN ANGELS REJECTED

BY THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON

“Verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Hebrews 2:16
THE Almighty God, who dwelt alone, was pleased to manifest Himself by created works which should display His wisdom and His power. When He set about the mighty work of creation, He determined in His own mind that He would fashion a variety of works, and that all His creatures should
not be of one form, nature, grandeur, or dignity.

Hence He made some grains of dust, and others mountains of stupendous magnitude. He created some drops and some oceans, some mighty hills and some valleys. Even in His inanimate works He preserved a wonderful variety. He gave not to all stars the same glory, neither to all worlds the same ponderous mass. He gave not to all rocks the same texture, nor unto all seas the same shape or fashion, but He was pleased, in the work of His hands, to observe an infinite variety.

When He came to create living creatures, there, too, are distinctions that we must note. From the worm up to the eagle, from the eagle to the man, from the man to the angel, such are the steps of creating goodness in the fashion of things that are animate. He has not made all creatures eagles, neither has He fashioned all beings worms, but having a right to do what He will with His own, He has exercised that right in making one creature—the majestic lion—king of the forest, and another, the harmless lamb, which shall be devoured, without power to resist its enemy or defend itself.

He has made His creatures just as it seemed Him fit. He has given to one swiftness of foot; toanother, speed of wing; to one, clearness of eye; to another, force of sinew. He has not followed any fixed rule in His creation, but He has done exactly as it pleased Him in the arrangement of the forms which He has animated.
So also we must observe a great difference in the rational beings which He has created. He has not made all men alike. They differ mightily—from the man of the smallest intellect to the man of majestic mind, there are no few steps. And then there is the higher order of rational creatures, more superior to unrenewed man than man can ever be to his fellows, namely—the order of angels.

And in the fashioning of angels and men, God again has exercised His own right to create as He pleases, to do just as He wills with His own. Thence, all angels may not be alike in dignity and all men are not alike in intellect. He has made them to differ.

 

[Zaatar71]

After that, it pleased Him to make another race of beings, called men. He did not make them all at once. He made but two of them, Adam and Eve, and He committed to their keeping the safety of their entire progeny throughout all generations. He said to Adam, as He had said to the angels, “I give unto you free-will, you may obey or disobey, as you please. There is My law, you are not to touch yon tree.
The command is by no means irksome. To keep that command will not be difficult to you, for I have given you free-will to choose the good.”

However, it so happened, much to the misery of man, that Adam broke the covenant of works. He touched the accursed fruit and in that day he fell.
Ah! what a fall was there! Then you, and I, and all of us, fell down, while cursed sin did triumph over us. There were no men that stood. There were some angels that stood, but no men, for the fall of Adam was the fall of our entire race. After one portion of the angels had fallen, it pleased God to stamp their doom, and make it fast and firm.

But when man had fallen, it did not so please God. He had threatened to punish him, but in His infinite mercy, He selected the major portion of the human race, whom he made the objects of His special affection, for whom He provided a precious remedy, to whom He covenanted salvation, and
secured it by the blood of His everlasting Son.

These are the persons whom we call the elect.

And those whom He has left to perish, perish on account of their own sins, most justly, to the praise of His glorious justice. Now, here you notice divine sovereignty. Sovereignty, that God chose to put both men and angels on the footing of their free-will.

Sovereignty, in that He chose to punish all the fallen angels with utter destruction.

Sovereignty, in that He chose to reprieve the whole human race and to grant an eternal pardon to a number, whom no man can number, selected out of men, who shall infallibly be found before His right hand above.

My text mentions this great fact, for when properly translated it reads thus, “He took not up angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” As this text has two translations, I shall give you the two meanings as briefly as I can

 

[Zaatar71]

. In the first place, the translation of our authorized version runs thus, “He took not on him the nature of angels.”
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, when He came from heaven to die, did not take upon Himself the nature of angels
1. In the first place, if Christ had taken upon Himself the nature of angels, He could never have made an atonement for man.

2. Had our Savior become an angel, we must note, in the next place that He would never have been a fitting example for us.

3. Sweetly, also, let us remember that if Christ had been an angel, He could not have sympathized with us. In order to sympathize with our fellow creatures, we must be something like them.

4. Once more Christ became a man and not an angel, because He desired to be one with His dear church. Christ was betrothed to His church ere time began, and when He came into the world,

5. Again, if Christ had not taken upon him the nature of man, then manhood would not have been so honorable or so comfortable as it is.

 

[Zaatar71]

II. Thus I have tried to explain the first part of the subject and now for the second. The literal translation, according to the marginal reading, is, “He took not up angels, but he took up the seed of Abraham,” by which is meant that Christ did not die to save angels, though many of them needed
salvation, but He died to save fallen man.

I tell you, it is your unhumbled pride that kicks against these doctrines. It is your infernal self- conceit, born of hell, that makes you hate this truth. Men have always kicked at it and they always will.
When Christ preached it once, they would have dragged Him out to the brow of the hill and cast Him down headlong, and I expect always to meet with opposition, if I speak out broadly and plainly. But let me tell you solemnly, if you do not believe God’s right over you, I am afraid your heart has never been right before God.

But another practical conclusion. If you do feel this to be true, that God has a right to send your soul to hell, and that if He saves another and not you, He will be just, but if He saves you, it will be an act of free distinguishing love, you show a spirit which is very near to the kingdom of heaven. I do not think a man will admit this truth unless he has a change of heart. He may admit it in his mind, but he will not feel it to be true unless he has got a new heart and a right spirit.
I will not go so far as to say that a man who believes divine sovereignty must be a Christian. That were to stretch the truth. But I do say that if a man is humble enough, meek enough, contrite enough, to lay himself down at the Savior’s feet with this, “Nothing in my hands I bring;”
“I have no righteousness, no claims. If You should damn me, You would be just. If You save me, I will thank You forever,” such a man must have had a work of grace in his heart to bring him to such a conclusion. If you can say that, then, poor sinner, come to Jesus, come to Jesus, for He will never cast you out.

 

[Zaatar71]

But I will show you that this is a practical subject. It is practical in this way, that if any man does not submit to God’s right to do with him as He pleases, he has very grave reason to doubt his own piety.
“Ay,” you say, “too cutting by half.” Now I do not mean to say anything harsh or bigoted, but I do mean to say that again. I do not assert that if you doctrinally deny it, but if you in your hearts hate the doctrine, that God has a right to save or to destroy you, you give me very grave cause to suspect whether you ever knew your own position in the sight of God. For I am quite sure that no humble sinner will doubt God’s right to destroy him, and I believe that no man who has any love to his fellow creatures, believing that God has a right to destroy him, will ever quarrel with God, if He chose to save another who is only as bad as himself.