My thought is just to touch on another element, an additional point, which is of the greatest possible moment in connection with the subject of our relationship with God. When we come to the question of our relationship with God the Father, it is not faith that we want, what I understand by faith is light from God, and the amount of light a man has is in proportion to his faith. The great divine thought is that we are to be in the light as God is in the light: God has come out in all the fulness of light, and His thought in regard to us is that we should be in the light as He is, but my light practically is measured by my faith. It may be said, we have the whole of the Scriptures, true -- but how much do we know of them? I can say unhesitatingly, 'I am sensible how little I know of them,' indeed I was saying to a brother, 'I feel as though I was but on the very threshold of christianity.' One may well be aghast at one's ignorance. I would not demur for a moment to admit, as I have said, the truth that we are in the light as God is in the light; but along with that, it is perfectly consistent to ask, how much faith have I in my heart? Faith, remember, is light from God; and through the entire line of God's word, we have men presented in their various measures of faith, if you begin with Abel, it is seen to be so, "Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Hebrews 11:4); so with Noah; take any of the patriarchs, the light they had was the promises God had given them.
What is our light now? It is the full revelation of God in Christ, but my own measure of light is according to what my faith has apprehended. It is perfectly true in that sense that faith must precede the work of the Spirit, that is you must have light from God.
As far as I understand, there are three steps in God's work in every one of our souls. The first thing is, 'new birth'; the second is the light that comes into our souls by the gospel testimony, and that is where comes in the very deep importance of all gospel preaching; I need not say, the preacher cannot convert a soul, but his office is to enlighten the soul as to God, and the great purpose of God now; the third thing is he receives the Spirit, and then takes place all the formative work in the soul of the believer, which is carried out by the Spirit, and then comes out the great and blessed question: if I am brought out of darkness into His marvellous light (1 Peter 2:9), the thought is that I should know God.
People's general idea of the gospel is that God's great object is to save their souls, forgive their sins, preserve them from judgment, or some kindred thing; but the object of the blessed God is infinitely above all that, His wonderful purpose in it being to make Himself so known to the heart of man that he may find his complete delight and joy in Him. To my mind no greater thing can be conceived than the fact that God should come into this dark and sinful scene, where all the wickedness of man rages, and that His gracious and persistent object and purpose should be, yea, that the very pleasure of God in gaining the heart of man is, so to make Himself known to him, that He might have his confidence and love, and that man might be completely at home in His presence.
Beloved brethren, may we not ask how far we have travelled on this road? Depend upon it, christianity has never been seen by us in anything like its full worth if we have not been led to see this.
But it is well for us to be clear on this point -- that it is not faith that knows God thus, it is love! Quite true, apart from faith you could not know God at all, but when it becomes a question of relationship with your soul and God, then it is love that has to be brought
in as we find in the epistle of John. "Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love" (1 John 4:7,8); so again in the first chapter of Ephesians: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" Ephesians 1:4 (not 'in faith').
I may say I know God practically, and my relations with Him are practically measured by my love. Without love a man is nothing for God, he may, according to 1 Corinthians 13, have faith to remove mountains, bestow all his goods to feed the poor, or give his body to be burned, but the absence of love leaves all worthless. I would say further, that void of this, we are nothing for the christian circle, because all our relations there are to be carried on in love. You find in Romans the first thing our hearts are made acquainted with by the Spirit is the love of God; it is His divine work in us. God has gained His end, inasmuch as I am made partaker of the divine nature when that is effected in me. If it is a question of being in relation with God, I know Him, and that according to His nature, there can be no true intercourse where there is not a kindred nature.
With regard to our relations with God, they are all carried on in love. We were chosen in Him that we should be before Him, holy and without blame, in love Ephesians 1:4. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God" (Romans 8:28). That is preceded by what we have in chapter 5, that is God's love to us.
We may notice that there are three chapters in Romans that specially present God, and three chapters the christian. That is, in chapter 3 it is God revealed in righteousness; in chapter 4 in power; and in chapter 5 in love. As to the christian, in chapter 6 he is dead to sin; in chapter 7 he is married to another that he should bring forth fruit to God; and in chapter 8 it is seen that all things work together for
good to them that love God. In chapter 5 it is God's love to you--here it is your love to Him and what goes along with that is unbounded confidence. We know that all things work together for good Romans 8:28, that it is in the very nature of things. it is not, as people sometimes put it, that God will make or mould things to bring about good to them that love Him, but it cannot be otherwise. God has secured His end in having gained the full confidence of your heart, that heart where there was once nothing but distrust of God, or fears of everything going wrong; now you are assured that nothing can go wrong, because you are sensible that all things work together for good to them that love Him. I am ashamed of anyone who denies the thought that God should have pleasure in gaining the affections of man's heart; He has, blessed be His name, so revealed Himself as to win the affections of the heart of man, and this effected, the heart confidently rests in the assurance, "That all things work together for good" Romans 8:28. It is not a question of my faith now, the point is, I love Him and I cease to be agitated by things around, I am not going to make the best of both worlds. Alas! How many christians there are who, on the one hand, want all the good of christianity, and at the same time seek to secure all the conveniences of this world that they possibly can, but this is not to be done: you cannot on the one side be entering into all the blessed truths that God has made known, and on the other securing to yourself a smooth path here.
If God has set to work in His boundless love to gain the affections of your heart, be assured that He is jealous to have nothing short of the entire affections, and believe me, I do not speak of a thing that I am practically a stranger to. I have not trod the path without tasting some of the pressures that belong to it, and perhaps, could I have foreseen the path before me I should have been ready to say I could not have gone through it.
There is one point further I will allude to, and that is: if you want to know the things that God has prepared for you, it is not faith that will teach you, you will get no true insight into them unless you love God. There are three points: first, you begin by loving God because He loves you. We love Him because He first loved us 1 John 4:19, that involves your being partaker of His nature, and you are assured as to everything here, you know all things work together for good Romans 8:28. Then you get a step further, loving God, you get an insight into the things He has prepared for them that love Him, and let me add this, if you and I want to know what it is to reach the "heavenly places", it is not faith that will take us there. No, it is love that must bring that about and I will tell you why: because it is the pleasure of God to have you there that He might gratify Himself and make known the riches of His grace. He is set on securing His own pleasure and meeting the satisfaction of His own heart. Do not let us be afraid to be there, because God wants us there to gratify Himself, to suit His own heart, and if that is so, how rightly I say every bit of fear may be dispelled. In the presence of such thoughts may we not well say, 'Do not be afraid to enter there'. Bear in mind, I again say, that it is not faith that secures an entrance into the 'heavenly places' nor yet (in that sense) the power of the Spirit, but it is love, and every heart ought to realise that nothing will meet the heart of God, or reach His wonderful desire for us, but that we should be in those 'heavenly places'. I again remind you, that your faith is the measure of the light that you have from God; a man is in pitch darkness unless he has faith; you may have men of great learning and distinction in the religious world, or in the political world, but it matters not what natural abilities or acquirements a man may possess if he is destitute of faith -- he has no light from God. Neither rank nor position, nor education, nor aught else will bring light from God,
a man who is a mere beggar on the dunghill may have his heart full of light because he is one who has faith.
I feel we could not have brought before us a more important truth than what we have been looking at, namely, that if it is a question of your present relation with God He has made Himself known to you and the first of your history is that you love God, and you never were, nor could have been, a partaker of the divine nature, until you knew His love. Knowing His love, we may well rest in it freed from agitation or disturbance by circumstances or whatever may be around us, reposing in His word we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose Romans 8:28. And to those who love Him, He gives a present entrance into those things that He has prepared for them.
There is a verse that I think will help to illustrate this, in Galatians 2:20. "I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, I, but Christ lives in me; but in that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me". It is not that either of these passages brings out what I should call christian privilege, that is much more difficult to unfold than people think and is in contrast to responsibility. If you take chapter 8:4 of this epistle, "That the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit" Romans 8:4; it does not go beyond our responsibility, it is for man on earth. It is not christian privilege, that is sonship, it is God's mind about man on earth, the blessing of those who have the Spirit.
I want to show the principle on which we carry out our life here and it does not go beyond what God looks for from man in his path through this world. He did look for it from the very time He had a vineyard, He very rightly looked for fruit from the vine. We find in Scripture both the vine and the fig tree, the former especially in relation to Israel, and the other more man in the flesh. The very fact of there being a vine shows that God looked for fruit, the wood is of no use if it does not bring forth fruit, it is good for nothing but to be burned; they were a nation to bring forth fruit to God and if they failed in that they were useless. The place for fruit-bearing is this earth. There was no true answer to meet God's eye until Christ came, and took a place as Man. He is as the tree planted by the rivers of water that brought forth His fruit in its season. He was indeed the true
vine and as He could say, "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me" John 15:4. Abiding in Him there was fruit for God and from that point there will be fruit for God; even Israel by-and-by will abide in Christ, and so will yield fruit for God. Now God looks for fruit and He has it in the christian. We are familiar with the passage that enumerates the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance Galatians 5:22: amongst these are qualities you will not need in heaven, but seen now in the christian, they are most acceptable to God. There is nothing spoken of as fruit of the Spirit but what God has had in Christ, and we have no more power to bring forth fruit to God than Israel had, only that by Christ we do so, in the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God, Philippians 1:11. This is seen in the Philippians, who, under the constraint of Christ's love, loved the apostle, and that was the fruit of righteousness. The christian is dead to the law by the body of Christ, is married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that he should bring forth fruit unto God Romans 7:4. Under the law the passions of sin working in their members brought forth fruit unto death. The purport of all I have to say is that we shall bring forth fruit to God only as our hearts are under the influence of the love of Christ, and we are married to Him who can direct the heart of the believer into the will of God. To bring forth fruit to God you must be in the way of God's will and your soul in the reality of what it is to be near to Him.
We have the two expressions in the word -- the love of God and the love of Christ; there are certain specialities in the love of Christ, living in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not live by the law but by the life of Christ. There is one expression in chapter 6 to
which I should refer, "for in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God" Romans 6:10. In a previous verse it is stated, "We are buried with him by baptism unto death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" Romans 6:4, it is a question of walk. The christian down here is made up of life and fruit-bearing. We all have to begin by reckoning ourselves dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord Romans 6:11. This is very defectively understood, a great many christians think they are dead, but you are dead only in the measure in which you have reckoned yourself dead. Scripture unfolds the doctrine, but I do not know any statement that we are dead. I reckon myself dead indeed unto sin and that is the antithesis of being alive unto God. No one who lives to God can live to sin, he must die to sin. The way to it is this, if you want to be free from sin, you must accept death to sin.
I see the grace of the Lord Jesus, personally He was free from death but He settled every question for us by entering into it and thus He opened up the way of life. You cannot have a greater conception of grace than that He on whom death bad no claim should enter into it, that He might draw us into this way of life. He is raised from the dead by the glory of the Father Romans 6:4, and in the life in which He is I accept death. The soul must appropriate the blessed grace seen in the Lord Jesus going down into death to open up for us the way of life. When I see that, I am prepared to reckon myself dead; and that is the account the christian takes of himself down here. Nothing inferior to Christ will suit God, there is a new life, all is in Him. If you trace out in Ephesians, "In Christ Jesus", you will see it indicates a new order of life and it alone will do for God; everything is on the basis of being in Him. If it is faith, it is faith in Christ Jesus, or life, or grace, or acceptance, or position, every principle
which God can accept or appropriate is in Christ Jesus. We accept His death as to deliverance, but it is a wondrous thing that to be for God I must be in His life. If you could have innocent man like Adam in paradise it would not do for God now because it has been completely eclipsed; there has been that down here that answered perfectly to God and was to His eternal satisfaction. God is revealed in all His attributes and the only order He can now accept is what Christ brings in.
If you raise the point, 'What is going to be my rule of life?' we know many christians look at 'the law' for their rule of life, and many of us here tonight think that we are justified by His death, but that 'the law' was still for the rule of life. The only rule of life for the christian is love. I have said sometimes that there is nothing that really affects the heart of man like love. People pray that the word of God may affect the heart; I think it is what the word of God reveals that will affect the heart. "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" Galatians 2:20. I am married to another, joined to another, even to Him that is raised from the dead, that I should bring forth fruit unto God Romans 7:4. That is now entirely outside the order of things here, it being the will of God; mark the expression, "outside the flesh", Christ is now apart from that entirely and He will direct you to God's will, and all that is involved in that is not after the flesh, as my business, domestic or family concerns. If you want to know what is the will of God read Romans 12, and there you will learn that you are to present your body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, and the first thing that comes out in answering to this exhortation is that "we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" Romans 12:5 and you are to exercise the gifts given you with that in view. You do not get anything that is after the flesh, you are
married to another that you may bring forth fruit unto God Romans 7:4, and what I may call God's will, His mind, that in which He has revealed Himself to us, is altogether outside the order of things on this earth. He is not after the flesh, He has died out of that order and we are married to Him that He may be to us the rule of life. And the principle on which the believer brings forth to God is that he is directed by Christ to the will of God, he is so under the love of Christ that he brings forth fruit to God. As in 2 Corinthians 5:14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again". He, in boundless grace, came into death to make for us a way out of it, into life; and He now takes that place as Man God-ward, as well as the place of directing us into the will of God and to be under the constraint of His love. The blessed life that the christian is privileged to live is the life of Christ, I walk in that life and I find myself in company with Christ because He has taken up that life as Man. "In that he liveth, he liveth unto God" Romans 6:10. He has died unto sin and He lives to God, I am called to reckon myself dead unto sin but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord Romans 6:11. It is only in the path of God's will that you can bring forth fruit unto God Romans 7:4. What has come in now is Christ and we are joined to Him for that object, the latter part of Romans 7 is to lead up to what is in the next chapter. If there is no power in the believer there would be no fruit to God, so it says, "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death" Romans 8:2 and again, "That the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit" Romans 8:4. The christian is set in a special relation to Christ that under the constraint of His love he may bring forth fruit to God, those divine
principles so perfectly exemplified in Him when here -- 'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness' Galatians 5:22.
It is indeed an immense thing to be under the constraint of this love, so as to be not in the path of self-will, but bringing forth fruit to God according to His will, and being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Christ Jesus unto the glory and praise of God.
Was this epistle written to bring out the gospel of God more fully, and in order to recover the Galatians? They were in danger of turning back to the law.
They had nearly fallen from grace; chapter 5:4.
It is evident enough that they had known grace. They had the Spirit.
Do you think the saints in Galatia had known the truth of Romans?
It could not have had much force with them. They were like the children of Israel who had heard the word, but there was a danger of their falling in the wilderness, that is, coming short of the purpose of God.
You think they knew what is in Romans up to the middle of chapter 5?
They had the light of it but not the enjoyment.
They had had a good start, the apostle could say, "Ye did run well".
I do not think they had ever known deliverance, and you cannot have enjoyment without deliverance. I see three parts in deliverance: we need delivering from sin (Romans 6), legality (chapter 7), and flesh (chapter 8). Apart from deliverance you cannot get the enjoyment of that which is made known to you in the gospel, that is, the light of God.
Had they not refused the truth of Romans 6?
They had not the good of it, but I doubt if you could go so far as to say they had refused it; they were hampered and hindered by judaising influences.
Is not verse 4 the key to the epistle?
It is the present evil course of things, it is not quite
the same idea as in the gospel of John: "Not of the world". The legal system was a part of the age.
Why do you say 'a part' of it?
I think Judaism is one part of 'the present evil course of things', and idolatry another.
Does not the apostle put them together in chapter 4:8,9?
Does not the apostle bring in the light of the world to come?
You will find that almost every epistle anticipates in some way what is to come. If you take Romans you have the reign of grace; in 1 Corinthians the temple of God and victory over death; in Galatians you have Jerusalem above; in Ephesians, everything put under Christ; in Hebrews, the world to come whereof we speak. The thought of this helps me very much; each epistle brings us into the light of what is to be displayed; the point in Galatians is Jerusalem above.
Can you have the Spirit without deliverance?
Yes, you cannot really get deliverance apart from the Spirit.
What do you connect with Jerusalem above?
It is the revelation of God's purpose, it is the heavenly part of His purpose; you have the light of it brought in, in contrast with the legal principles of Jerusalem below.
Then would you say that the object of every epistle is to connect us with the purpose of God?
Exactly, they are all to bring you into the light of what is to come. You anticipate it, it is all good for faith now, Jerusalem above is our mother Galatians 4:26; the world to come is not yet displayed but we speak of it; Hebrews 2:5.
The gospel sets forth the ground on which God will accomplish His counsels. The gospel is very often looked at only from the side of man's relief, and not from the side of God's purpose. Oftentimes the blood
in Egypt is only spoken of as man's shelter from the judgment of God; it was really the first step in the carrying out of God's purpose for His people.
The first thing declared in the gospel is God's righteousness, on that depends the possibility of God being truly known. This lays a foundation in man's soul; it is very well to talk of love, but a sinful being like man needs to know about God's righteousness. It being a question in the gospel of approaching man, I can very well understand that the first presentation is righteousness, but behind all that, God has His own purpose of love. The difference between Romans and Galatians is, that in Romans it is God approaching man according to what man is, while in Galatians He is speaking from the height of His purpose. He begins at the top. Paul's apostleship dates from God the Father and Jesus Christ.
In speaking of purpose do you mean what is eternal?
It runs on to what is eternal, but all is immediately connected in the epistles with the world to come. The world to come is the scene and sphere of God's administration in grace.
Would you confine 'world to come' to the lower part?
I think it also takes in the heavenly part; the holiest must be connected with the world to come. The tabernacle was a pattern of the world to come, not exactly a pattern of this present time, and the tabernacle took in the holiest, that is, the heavenly side.
Is it the same as the "day of God" in 2 Peter 3:12?
Can it be said that the world to come links time with eternity?
Does not the world to come run on into the eternal state?
Not exactly; because in the world to come there is the complete solution of every moral question: every
such question is solved in view of the eternal state, and the eternal state is not brought in until every moral question is completely settled in the reign of righteousness. The world to come speaks of administration, not of the new heavens and new earth. The world to come is put under the Son of man, the eternal state brings in God's supremacy. The world to come is a necessity for the glory of God; every moral question must be settled there; man took of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and that brought in a most serious element with regard to man, and involved that every moral question must be solved by man.
But for that, Satan would have had a victory?
Yes, I think so, the Son of God was manifested to undo the works of the devil; good and evil were inextricably mixed up but are completely disentangled. Some think the lake of fire arbitrary, but I can see it is a moral necessity. Everything must find its own place.
I thought the question of good and evil had been solved by the cross?
Yes, but it has to be worked out in detail as regards man.
Is there not another world also in the epistles in which we have access to God according to His nature, revealed in the relationship which He has established, and which takes us higher than the administration of the world to come?
Yes, I think you get heavenly privilege, and association with Christ above, where Christ comes in as priest above all question of administration, but you get the other thing as well, you do not lack any element of blessing. What marks the world to come, is everything put under the Son of man; but we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, all is put under Him for us.
Is the dispensation of the fulness of times Ephesians 1:10 the same thing?
Would you say the question of good and evil was completely settled for God at the cross, morally settled there, actually in the world to come?
The question of good and evil does not bring in the cross only, it takes in the whole pathway of Christ. He met the whole force of evil in the perfection of good, we really know but little about good and evil except as we see it in this. Perfect good was there in Him, not exactly in the sense of that absoluteness and supremacy which belongs to God (Mark 10:18), but perfect good in man in the place of obedience; and as to evil, man never knew the full power of evil till Christ came. Man never knew the terrors of death and Satan's power till Christ -- perfect good in man -- exposed all the force and power of evil. He goes through it all and meets every element, and then having gone through all, He Himself is made sin and bears its judgment under the hand of God.
In 1 Corinthians 15 all enemies are put under His feet and then He is Himself subject; in Hebrews 2 the world to come is put under the Son of man; but in 1 Corinthians 15 it is the Son who is subject, after having given up the kingdom, because He is Man. The Son of man is a designation of the Son, Hebrews 2 is an allusion to Psalm 8. In Philippians 2 it says He "emptied himself", and the fact remains true to eternity.
Everything is set right according to God by Christ who is the head of every man.
Still, things never return in eternity to what they were; they remain on the platform on which God has been pleased to place them; the Son of man never ceases to be the Son of man. The Son takes the place of subjection that God may be all in all 1 Corinthians 15:28.
Is not the object of our epistle to put the sons in liberty?
I should say that the apostle brings them into the light of God's purpose that they may enjoy the liberty. It is after he has brought in Jerusalem above, that he says, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty" Galatians 5:1. In the history of Israel they were brought into the light of God's purpose, but it was long years after that before they got into the liberty, that is typically speaking. They had a sense of His purpose in Exodus 15 when they were through the Red Sea. We get the purpose announced in Exodus 3 and the song takes that up. The epistle to the Galatians is not what we may call a simple exposition like Romans or Ephesians, but for recovery. In an epistle the object of which is recovery, you do not get the simple elements of the gospel, but the revelation of God's purpose, and if people are not recovered by that they are past recovery. It is the same in Hebrews, the purpose is seen to bring many sons to glory; there again it is for recovery.
Where is the purpose of God brought out in Galatians?
In chapter 3:26, "Ye are all God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:26, that is how I read it and my reason is what follows: "For ye are all one in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:28. God has nothing beyond His purpose; men may drop away in measure from grace but there is something else to bring in, the divine purpose, but if that does not recover a man there is nothing that will. "We are unto God a sweet savour", Paul could say; it is either salvation or men are lost. "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost". He brings the topmost truth before them in order to recover them, refers, too, to what they had started with to show that their fall was inconsistent with that. You received the Spirit by the hearing of faith and are going on with works of law. The two are inconsistent.
You would not talk to one who had backslidden about purpose, would you? Does not he bring in the cross, and the cross leads to self-judgment?
The apostle does speak about purpose to the backsliding Galatians.
I do not quite look at the cross in that way, the cross is brought in to make way for the Spirit. Galatians and 1 Corinthians are both corrective epistles and the Spirit brings in purpose. The Spirit is the Spirit of another Man, it does not connect itself with man after the flesh, the cross makes way for another Man. God has got clear of the flesh in the cross. Christ has been crucified, and you cannot revive the thing that is gone and crucified, with a divine purpose, that God might give the Spirit. There are three types of Christ's death: the blood in Egypt, which declares the righteousness of God; the Red Sea, in which the enemy is overthrown; and the brazen serpent in which is seen the condemnation of the state of man. All that was effected in the death of Christ, and on the ground of it the Spirit is communicated. That is why the cross is brought in, in 1 Corinthians and Galatians; you will always find the Spirit is the antithesis of the cross.
What do you mean by the Spirit of another Man?
Christ is a Man of another order and the Spirit comes from Him; it is the Spirit of Christ that is given. If a man has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of Him. It does not seem possible to give the Spirit of another Man until the first man had been set aside. God had tried the first man enough: after forty years you get the brazen serpent, and then it is "Spring up, O well" Numbers 21:17. We have this in John 3 and 4, the water of life is in the believer now, this order is invariably maintained. John 6 and 7 are the same. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you" John 6:53, and then in chapter 7 you get the Spirit mentioned.
Would you not say the Galatians and Corinthians were allowing the man which God had condemned and set aside, and therefore the cross is brought in that
they might judge themselves first? I do not mean forgetting God's purpose, but you seem to jump over self-judgment.
There is a difference between dealing with an individual case, and the wholesale departure from the truth, the very foundations of christianity, as at Galatia. When you deal with individuals you have to think of the particular state of their souls, not of principles; you cannot deal with masses -- a general defection as at Galatia -- in the same way; you state broad principles. He calls them 'senseless,' because they had begun in the Spirit and were going on in the flesh: one principle was absolutely inconsistent with the other; and he brings in purpose, a line of truth never before known and which may be used of God to recover. With the Hebrews the light of purpose is brought in as a means of helping them out of Judaism.
Is it not the thought that they had gone off on the wrong road and they would have to come back to the point of departure?
Yes, they were going off to Judaism but something fresh is brought in to act upon them, if God was working they would be struck with it; if you could get hold of christians in system and bring the light of purpose before them they would be astounded.
Do you think it is unwise to go and lecture on prophecy and thus seek to call the attention of the scattered sheep to the word of God? I think I know more than a dozen who have tried it successfully.
Well, I think the time is rather short for it: in early days dispensational truth was largely dwelt upon and it was necessary in order to disentangle us from the confusion of christendom, but I fancy it has done its work with us, and the only way by which you can hope to affect people inside is in what we have here in Galatians, the purpose of God, to recover them out of the legalism into which they may have fallen. Still there are cases in which souls in the systems need
dispensational truth to disentangle them, but I do not think we should now be very interested in a lecture on the Assyrian, for instance. It will not do to think that there is a halting place for us short of God's purpose; we have to follow Christ and to go on, if we do not, then the next thing will be we shall go back to the earth to find our satisfaction. It is interesting to see the whole extent of God's purpose, it brings in, too, the light of the inheritance. We are come to "the heavenly Jerusalem", Hebrews 12. The purpose of God is all that which God will effect in Christ for His own glory.
Does not prophecy touch the purpose of God?
Only the inferior part of it, the earthly side.
In writing to the Corinthians the apostle said, "We write none other things but what ye read or acknowledge" 2 Corinthians 1:13. It seems to me in dealing with saints we must start from a point of agreement, if they are to be recovered; we must take up what they acknowledge and lead them on.
In dealing with people in system no doubt that which has been useful to us in the past may still be useful, for they know very little about God's dispensational dealings: the 'stream of time' might be very useful to them.
There are some breaking bread who are not clear about the two resurrections.
Well, all that might be very useful to them to clear them. Saints could not read their Bibles properly unless dispensational truth is somewhat understood.
Some who have announced themselves to lecture on prophecy have had to leave their subject and preach the gospel to the hearers.
There is an important point to remember -- it is that the evangelist is not the vessel of Christ's testimony, the church is that. The importance of this is that we see that we are in a day of weakness and decline, and cannot get away from it; it is a day of small things
and we cannot expect great apparent results when the vessel of testimony has failed. The tendency of some evangelists is to break away from the church. Some go to the scriptures to get what will affect others, but the great thing is how it affects us. I am thinking of John 14 and 15. The disciples are prepared in chapter 14, and in chapter 15 they go out in testimony. They were to love one another, we have to see to that; it is the effect of the truth upon us, we have to be inside before we can come to the outside. We should be a people marked by love one to the other even as Christ has loved us; the evangelist goes out from that, he bears the character of that. Lots of evangelists go out in a loose kind of way perfectly indifferent to the state of the house; they do not see that the church is the vessel of testimony and that it has utterly broken down, and no one can help being affected by it.
Will you give us a definite thought about the purpose of God?
I will trace it through the epistle. In the first chapter we have the fitting of the instrument: "When it pleased God... to reveal his Son in me" Galatians 1:16. Then in chapter 3: "Ye are all God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:26. They were in that light. In chapter 4, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" Galatians 4:5, and verse 26, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all" Galatians 4:26. Then in chapter 5, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free" Galatians 5:1. The whole thought is of purpose rather than of grace, and the apostle touches new creation in chapter 6. Jerusalem above is what is actually established according to divine purposes; we take our character from it; we are like Isaac, children of promise. A man largely takes his character from his mother; great men commonly have had distinguished mothers. Jerusalem
above is in contrast with Jerusalem below with its judaising tendencies for the Galatians. What we have to remember is that for God everything is accomplished in Christ; we see it all in Him. The one act of God's great power was the resurrection of Christ, all the rest is a question of detail. I do not believe God will exercise His great power again. If you take the change of our body it is according to the power whereby Christ is able even to subdue all things to Himself. The resurrection of Christ is God's one great act, it is the exceeding greatness of His power, and we are to be strong in that power, it is towards us.
"Jerusalem above" Galatians 4:26, refers to, but is not the new covenant, the first covenant was with the Jew and gendereth to bondage; it answers to Hagar and Ishmael. Jerusalem above is free.+ Isaac was the son of the free woman. If you look at grace simply as a question of relief for man it never could bring in sonship. Paul's gospel was a presentation of God's purpose in regard of man. Purpose brings in sonship. If you take a man with a lot of debt and a rich man relieves him, that does not make him his son. In the new Jerusalem there is no sun, it all reflects Christ. When the church comes out what is seen is Christ.
The way then to recover souls is to present the Son of God?
That is the thing to do, but we are so poorly up to it. The thought in chapter 1 is that the Son of God was revealed in Paul that he might preach Him among the heathen. There was that which Paul had in common with the twelve, but there was that which marked him off from them; he communicated the gospel he preached to them, they added nothing to him. It was the point of recovery with the Corinthians. The Son of God was preached to them, and in Him was the yea and amen of all God's promises. He brings
+It is presented to us in the Son of God glorified, and we are begotten of and have our character from that testimony.
in the Son of God in Hebrews to show the greatness of His purpose. Even in Romans it begins with the Son of God. It is easy to preach the ruin of the first man, but to preach the Son of God is a different thing.
What is "revealed his Son in me" Galatians 1:16?
It is apostolic. He had not been revealed in this way in anyone else before; everything was inaugurated in the apostle; it is all good for us, we have to preach on that line. Paul was the first to preach the Son of God in the Acts. He brings it in here in Galatians to mark him off from the twelve, it is not like 1 Corinthians 15, where he has a common testimony with the twelve. There is a new start with him, he did not get it from the twelve, he communicated it to them.
What is the difference between revealing the Son in him and to him?
Revealing the Son in him is a divine work which gives the Son of God His own proper place in the affections. Every part of the truth is touched in Galatians, so that it is brought out in wonderful power and brightness. If the Galatians were not touched by the light brought out to them it was a poor look-out for them, there was nothing left that could act upon them. If circumcised they were fallen from grace; the two principles were absolutely irreconcilable; if Isaac comes in Ishmael must go out.
He was revealed as Jesus to Paul before He was revealed as Son of God.
The revelation of Jesus was in the way. I do not fancy the revelation of the Son of God took place then, it was a work of spiritual power afterwards. The church is to be formed in that. If I preach I preach on the same line, "Ye are all God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus" Galatians 3:26. Sons of God in Christ, I fancy that is the reading of the passage, it is not Christ as the object of faith but the place we have in Him, the whole scheme of divine purpose, eternal life revealed in Christ, every purpose brought to light in Christ Jesus.
I think "by faith" is the way in which it has reached us. I think that it is the revelation of God's purpose. Sonship brings in the thought of purpose. There is the positive statement in Romans 8"Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son". That is purpose most undoubtedly. Inheritance hangs on the place we have in Christ.
The question is whether we are on the ground of Ishmael and the breakdown of man, or of Isaac and the inheritance.
We have not got the inheritance yet but we have sonship?
You have not got the inheritance but you have the Spirit who is the earnest of it, and in like manner you have the Spirit of God's Son -- the power of the relationship and the earnest of the inheritance.
Why do you think "by faith" is introduced?
Because you have no title to it but by faith, there is no other way into it. It is only faith that can enter into it, and it stands contrasted with what was under the schoolmaster, it speaks of faith having come and being no longer under the law. Faith is the light of divine purpose. Faith always did, as a matter of fact, look forward into the other world; Hebrews 11 shows that. Christ being formed in you is the effect of it.
Is that individual or corporate?
I think myself it is corporate, but I should not press it. It seems to me the apostle has behind all this the thought of what the church is, but still it has to be wrought in each one even if the result is corporate.
Is it the same as chapter 2:20: "Christ liveth in me?" (Galatians 2:20)
There it is individualised. The great idea to me is what is expressed in Colossians 1"The riches of the glory of this mystery among the nations which is Christ in you the hope of glory". That is the great idea of the body; the body is the vessel in which
Christ is to be displayed, you cannot really understand the house without understanding the body. You must understand what is within before you can appreciate fully what is without. Ephesians 3 comes in to fill up chapter 2.
Then you think Christ in you is corporate?
Every trait of Christ was to come out in the body, nothing whatever to be lacking; that is what I understand by Christ formed in you, and that is why I call the church the vessel of testimony. What was really in display in Christ is to come out morally now. The church is the fulness of Him that filleth all in all, it is the vessel for the display of Christ. It is difficult to make it merely individual, you lose the breadth and greatness of the divine thought; a part comes out in each, of course, Christ has to be formed in everyone. Paul could say: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20), but what would be true of the whole company, was that divine affection which overrides every distinction in the flesh, Christ all and in all. The distinctions are there in the flesh but we get above them. I do not see too much of it with us; it ought to be seen. Mind, I am not saying we are the church or the body, but we are in the light of it, and what is proper to the church ought to come out in us. The more we appreciate the light of it the more there will be seen in us.
What I understand by the Son of God is, that the Son has come out from God but without ceasing to be the object of the Father's affection, and that is what you are brought into. You cannot understand the love of God in relationship apart from Christ's becoming a Man, and so we get "That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them" (John 17:26). You can never enter into this except by the Spirit. You stand a little company in the presence of the Father's love, but you do not know anything about it except
in Christ, there you get the character of it; He is the perfect object of it.
We have God's love to us and also to the world?
Yes, there is the sovereignty of love and the love of relationship. The first is in view of the last, but it is not the love of relationship. God has been pleased to reveal His nature, which is love, and love always has its own object to fulfil. In Romans 8:39, He has got to His point; it is the identification of the saints with One who is naturally and properly the object of God's love. His glory is the glory as of an only-begotten with a father (John 1:14), and no other takes that place. You get Him loved as Man on earth: to take us up to that level, He identifies us with Himself and takes us back to the place from whence He came.
Is not Romans 8 an individual persuasion?
Yes, but it is an individual persuasion about a company, i.e., the 'us'. I am amazed at what christianity is. I feel to know nothing about it; the little bit I see of it fills me with the greatness of the divine thoughts; everything about God is so inexpressibly great.
The revelation must be mediatorial, there must be a proper channel to communicate it.
The mediatorial character of it is the way in which God has been pleased to place Himself in relation with men.
What about: "According to the will of God and our Father" (verse 4)?
That is purpose. Christ comes to do the will of God, gives Himself to carry out His pleasure.
To deliver from this present evil world?
That is true, but the will is more than that, it is positive. The love of God is like an ocean seeking to break forth from its bounds, and it must find out a way and has found out a way since Christ died, but it was ever there and would come out, and it has cleared away everything that stood in the way, and now this
frees me from the whole system of things here, the present evil course of things.
In speaking of deliverance you distinguish between sin and the flesh?
I think Scripture does. Sin is taken up in Romans 6 and flesh in Romans 8.
We have the world in that sense blotted out before we get the unfolding of God's purpose. Babylon must go before the heavenly Jerusalem comes out.
I think everything was cast into the burning when Christ died. How good to know it and to accept it.
He "gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us" (Galatians 1:4), is that the idea of the heart's affection?
Yes, and He met the whole question of responsibility to bring about the purpose of God.
When it says: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again" (John 10:17), is it not stating something for the hearts of the disciples? I cannot exactly understand what is said sometimes of supplying motive to God for loving Him.
His obedience drew out the Father's affection, it rested upon Him for all eternity, surely, but we must accept the statement. I would not say God's love because I think it speaks of the Father's love. It is a different thought.
Would you say that the apostle in seeking to correct the saints took up all the positive truths of christianity, such as sonship, liberty, etc.? He seems to be on the positive side all through. They had got into a negative state.
Yes, I think so, but I am afraid they had got into a positive state or were in danger of it, they were taken up with something that was not christianity. In the
present day we have not simply an abuse of the truth, but elements have been brought in that were never of the truth, that are entirely foreign to true christianity. I suppose there never was such an extraordinary mixture, as christianity so-called, is now: heathenism, Judaism, rationalism, and a measure of divine light, in inextricable confusion.
What would you say is a definition of christianity? Is it Christ displayed? Would you say it was the doctrine of Christ?
Christianity is a name given to a system of religion down here: it is a term not, I think, found in Scripture, but current in the world, to which men attach a meaning. I only spoke of that which is popularly known as christianity. Take the feasts of christianity, they are not even Jewish feasts, they are an adaptation of heathen festivals. The sign of the cross is said to be not originally a christian symbol; I have seen it made out that it is a heathen sign and existed long before Christ came, and I think there may be truth in it. I only refer to it as showing the tremendous confusion that exists in what is now known as christianity.
Now let us get on to what will take us out of the confusion.
The point was to put the Galatians on the line of Abraham, as inheriting, not the blessing of Adam, but of Abraham. In Abraham we get the first man who comes out distinctly in the line of purpose; therefore he is the father of all them that believe.
What is the difference between purpose and promise? Promise is the outcome of purpose. You will find in Hebrews 6, "God willing ... to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, etc". Counsel precedes promise, promise is the declaration of it. The same word in Greek would mean either counsel or purpose.
Have they always the same meaning? I have thought of purpose in connection with bringing Israel
into the land, that purpose was earthly and counsel heavenly?
But in Ephesians 3 we get "eternal purpose", and that is heavenly.
Is counsel the idea of taking counsel "In the volume of the book it is written of me", Psalm 40:7?
I do not quite like that. God's counsel was an eternal counsel, it was that the Son should come. It was always there in the divine will, you could not speak of any commencement to it.
"With whom took he counsel", Isaiah 40:14?
Human expressions are used to convey things to us. What does it mean, "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way", Proverbs 8:22?
That is wisdom. Wisdom is that by which God works out His purpose. That is why Christ is spoken of as the wisdom of God. He is the resource of God in that sense. By Him God works out His purpose.
In the promise to Abraham do we not get the idea of the purpose of God and the world to come first introduced?
First of all we get a man called out of his country, kindred, and father's house, called to leave all natural ties and associations.
The first great step with a man is the call, then he is justified, and the next is he is glorified. That is as to God's purpose. It is the line of His purpose. The forty years of the wilderness may or may not come in. If you take the dealings of God with Abraham, he was first called out from his country and kindred, next he is justified. He "believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3), but as yet he had not any name of relation with God. Then God reveals Himself to him by a name, and gives Abram too a name and the covenant of circumcision, and that is where he is in a sense glorified. I do not, of course, mean literally, but he is put in a new place with God.
What answers to the three things now? What is the call?
First, the effectual call of the gospel, then the believer is justified, then God's name as Father is revealed to him and at the same time he gets a name. Then there is circumcision, the flesh has to go if you get a name with God. But you get God's name first, that is, you pass to His side. That is, as you may say, you are glorified. Abraham is to walk before God and be perfect, he goes to God's side: so it is with saints now, with the revelation of God's name you pass to His side.
I know no name but Christ, the name which God has put upon us is Christ. The name given to a man indicates what God intends should be set forth in that man, what should characterise him. In giving a name God appropriates a man to Himself. The name by which God reveals Himself is, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, more especially Father; with Abraham it was undoubtedly Almighty, and with Israel, Jehovah. You are put in the line of Abraham here. The law was a temporary dealing, which brought in the curse. It goes on up to a certain point, then it gives way to faith, and faith brings in the light of Christ Jesus and sonship, and you come into the light of this. The blessing of Abraham is righteousness.
Do you say that the name of Christ is put upon us when we are justified?
When we know the Father, I think that is the point when you get the Spirit and when the great transference takes place from one man to another. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his", Romans 8:9.
Is not the name of Christ put upon us when we are baptised?
Baptism does not go so far as that. It does say "As many as have been baptised unto Christ, have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27), but I doubt if the apostle takes baptism
up in the way I have spoken of, or if that is quite the significance of it. It would be difficult to baptise children on that ground. It is as profession in Galatians 3; more baptised to Him as Lord, I should say. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", Ephesians 4:5. What you are speaking of is the inward work of the Spirit?
You could not bring in infants or mere professors, grown up or otherwise, as having Christ put on them as a name by God. One is sovereign grace and the other only profession.
Why does it say the promise of the Spirit?
The promise of the Spirit was ever in the mind of God. We read of it in the Old Testament. Everything had to be founded on redemption, the Spirit was the way by which everything was to be subdued subjectively. The Spirit is to be poured out upon all flesh. That is a passage I should quote. All looked on to the coming of the Spirit.
I have no doubt the effect of the judaising teaching was to take the Galatians off the line of faith, by attempting to make out that if they wanted to be in the line of Abraham they ought to be circumcised. The apostle shows that it is those who are of faith that are blessed with faithful Abraham. The blessing of Abraham was not circumcision but righteousness, he was accounted righteous before he was circumcised. The force of it is that he was approved in the eye of God for the scene and sphere of God's purpose, it is more than being cleared here; he was cleared, but I think it will all come out in the coming day.
The promise of the Spirit is now fulfilled by the Spirit being here. It is in contrast with the promise made to Abraham. There was no mention of the Spirit in the time of Abraham.
In Acts 1 you get it mentioned as the promise of the Father?
That is the Spirit looked upon in connection with
christianity. The promise in the Old Testament went wider than that. It is poured out upon all flesh. The blessing of Abraham is righteousness; the character of the name bestowed upon him depended upon the name by which God revealed Himself. If God reveals His name as Father, the name put upon you is that of Christ.
Does having a thing by faith imply that you have it in another?
It implies that you have the light of it. The revelation of God's purpose has come out, but it is made known in another. I am justified in accepting the light of it. It is not God's purpose to elevate the flesh, it is not by the elevation of the man that exists that we have the place of sons; we are sons of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. God made Adam as perfect as He could make him: if he had remained as God made him he could hardly, I judge, have been put into another place; the second Man is out of heaven. It is by the introduction of the Man that came out that we are sons. No one could properly have that place but Christ. It is given to us through Him in grace. You must have another order of things for man to be put into sonship.
Adam is said to be the son of God?
So are angels, and Israel was God's son; son of God by itself is rather vague. You cannot hang too much upon the mere term. It is more there in the sense of offspring.
I suppose, according to verse 5, the apostle could minister the Spirit -- does it refer to the preaching? to the one who preached?
I should hardly have thought so. I thought it was God. I doubt if it goes quite so far as to say that the apostles could minister the Spirit.
But you get following, "And worketh miracles", Galatians 3:5. You could not say that was God.
It was the power of God doing it, "Even as
Abraham believed God" (Galatians 3:6) follows immediately. I have referred it to God. What I think the apostle wanted them to see was that it was God acting, and God acting not on the ground of man's responsibility, but for faith. God acted by a report, they believed the report and got the Spirit. It was not by law but by faith; by a report, but the source was God. It was the same principle with Abraham. He did not believe an apostle, but believed God; the real point was to put them in the line of Abraham.
Is it the question 'who' ministers it? Is not ministering the Spirit, giving the Spirit?
I think so; their faith connected it with God, so as to put them in the line of Abraham. The testimony had come to them connected with miracles, and the giving of the Spirit, and in accepting it they had believed God; they had seen the hand of God. The apostle wishes to take them away from all teachers to God Himself.
What we see in Scripture is that blessing came in with Abraham; then, four hundred years after the blessing, the law came and brought in the curse, but that could not set aside the blessing. You would have thought that it might have done so, but instead of that, Christ bears the curse, and the blessing not only abides but goes out to the gentiles. The blessing of Abraham has reached the gentiles. Abraham personally was blessed, but his seed after the flesh were put under law; I do not think they ever came really into the blessing of Abraham or the promise. Blessing and promise were there, but the seed after the flesh never reached it. The promise to Abraham was unconditional and the law could not set it on one side, but Israel accepted conditions and failed, they came under the curse. Christ took the curse, and what now appears is that the blessing has gone beyond the natural seed: the gentiles really get it before the nation, and the object is that we might receive the Spirit.
Israel will not receive it until they receive Christ?
No, they will not really. I daresay you have often noticed that Balaam does not come in until after the brazen serpent. Man, and behind him the enemy, raises the question of blessing and curse. Balaam is compelled to bless. The secret is that the brazen serpent had come in, he cannot curse and unwillingly has to bless. Satan is outwitted. The brazen serpent was the answer to the broken law. The prophecy of Balaam is one of the most beautiful pictures of Israel's blessing. And really it gave an entrance into purpose, life comes in and the Spirit. He would have cursed them with the law if he could, but he has to say, "How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed?", Numbers 23:8. Balaam was looking in the vision at the elect Israel, the people of God's purpose, not those after the flesh. He saw them in divine order. God had not cursed them but had justified them, and Balaam could only pronounce their justification and their beauty and order.
Gather the people together and I will give them water, Numbers 21:16.
That comes after the brazen serpent; it was a foolish thing to think of cursing after the brazen serpent had been lifted up. It comes in to show that God had not departed from His purpose of blessing. The law went on for 1500 years, but now the Lord has come and the curse is gone, and the gentiles have been made to partake in the blessing of Abraham, and a great deal more because of the Spirit. The great importance of it to people affected by the law was to show them that they were in the line of Abraham by faith. He was blessed on the principle of faith, and on the principle of faith you partake in the blessing of Abraham.
I suppose the conflict with these judaising teachers began in Acts 15?
With regard to the Spirit, you first get the rock smitten and the water gushing forth; that I suppose
was a type of the Spirit, and then subsequently the lifting up of the brazen serpent and the springing well.
If you take it typically you must connect the Spirit with Israel from the time they were brought through the Red Sea. The moment they are on resurrection ground you must connect the Spirit with them on God's side, but not as characterising their state. The water from the smitten rock is one thing and the well springing up into everlasting life is another. In Romans 8, you have God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sacrifice for sin, and then you have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit.
Everything was complete in a way when they got over the Red Sea?
Everything was complete on God's side, but not on their side; when you come to our side we properly begin after the brazen serpent. We get rid of the man. Jordan comes in on the experimental side but it carries you further. In 1 Corinthians 2 the apostle says, "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2) -- the brazen serpent aspect of Christ's death.
The brazen serpent comes in after the thirty-nine years of testing?
Yes, and that is why Balaam cannot curse them, because in type the flesh is gone. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?", Romans 8:33. That answers to Balaam. "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him", Numbers 23:21.
Galatians 3:1, "Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you", is the brazen serpent, is it not?
He takes the same ground in Galatians and in Corinthians. The blood in Egypt, the Red Sea and the brazen serpent all point to the one death of Christ. In a full gospel all three may be brought in, but in
Scripture they are given in detail for our apprehension. Under the eye of God it is all one, but all does not come under our eye at once. The fact is some of us have had a good many years' experience and have taken in very little.
I do not see how you connect the powerlessness of Balaam with the brazen serpent and not with the Red Sea?
In the ways of God He took up the seed of a wholly right stock and tested it after the flesh. He saw fit to do that. God does not do that again, and it only brought out this, that, let the seed be as good as it might, it was after the flesh, and then the brazen serpent comes in to answer that. If man were not perverse you would not want the brazen serpent. You would want the blood in Egypt and the Red Sea. God requires that He must declare His righteousness and break the head of the enemy, but if man is perverse, you want the brazen serpent, the condemnation of man's state in addition, in order to enable God to give the Spirit. God must reach the root; man must go.
But then there must be the experimental knowledge of the flesh in me?
I will tell you how you found out the perversity of the flesh -- by its opposition to the Spirit; at least, most of us did so.
But in Romans 7, the man has not the Spirit?
Most of us have found out the flesh by its opposition to the Spirit.
We have to go through a sort of experience analogous to Romans 7 in some way?
There never was a man who went through it exactly. I think you have to learn how powerless you are, to learn that not only is death upon you, but death is in
you, you have to learn how dependent you are upon the Spirit of God.
That is what the Galatians had to learn!
But before he talks about the conflict he puts them into the full light of the purpose and seeks to put them in the intelligence and power of that. It is only after you have accepted the light of the purpose that you are prepared to enter into the conflict. It was after the Lord had received the Spirit that He was driven of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Of course, all depends upon what is meant by conflict.
Do you mean that Galatians 5:17 becomes a kind of Romans 7 to us?
No. Romans 7 is for those who know the law, though we may learn it after we have received the Spirit.
But a good many do before they know redemption, that is Romans 7,
Take the case of the Galatians; there was a good deal of flesh about them, and yet they had the Spirit, they had not come to the end of the flesh. In Galatians 5 the apostle sets before them in a naked way the principles of the flesh and of the Spirit. They were biting and devouring one another.
It is the normal conflict of christians in that verse, is it not?
It may not take that shape, the apostle states what is true in principle but not necessarily all realised in experience. I should think the apostle learnt pretty much what flesh was before he came into peace. Most of us learn the contrariety of the flesh afterwards. We have been converted under a gospel which gave us a sense of the grace of God.
That may be true of the most part, but some learn it in another way; Romans 7. In my own case it was so.
What is stated in Galatians 5 is always a true
principle, flesh and Spirit are opposed. Two armies always opposed but not always fighting.
There is always opposition, not however, of two equal combatants, that will not do; the Spirit is a power entirely superior to the flesh, and it enables you to put off the flesh. The Spirit has a more blessed object than keeping under the flesh. Another thing is that the flesh is not myself now, I repudiate it, I am in the Spirit, identified with the Spirit, it forms me, is closer to me than the flesh, I put off the body of the flesh by the Spirit. They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts, Galatians 5:24. People are disposed to look at the matter as though there were two forces, and it was uncertain which was to be eventually victorious. The communication of the Spirit is that you may be delivered from the control of the flesh. It is the superior power, a well of water springing up, there is an energy in it. There is no excuse for the flesh. You have a power superior to it which sets aside the natural will, you mortify the deeds of the body, lust is not allowed to control you.
What is the thought of the flesh in Scripture?
The flesh is the natural generation of man from Adam, what we have inherited from Adam. "After the flesh" is man's natural line, not exactly sin though sin has come in; man was in the flesh before the fall in Eden, but sin came in. Christ did not come out as the glorious man, but came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Sin is the principle dominant in the flesh. Flesh is not necessarily evil; it is necessarily evil now but not at the first. Sin brought in the evil, the natural man was not always evil. "Not in the flesh but in the Spirit" (Romans 8:9) shows that we are of a different generation and on new lines.
I have my standing naturally in Adam and my state in the flesh?
I do not care about the standing; I have the reality now, if in the Spirit I am in Christ.
Still it is important to remember that Christ is our righteousness?
The nature of man now is sin, but Paul could say, "In that I now live in flesh, etc", Galatians 2:20. We have natural relationships, they belong to the flesh, they are all right. It is important to distinguish between what is condemned and what is recognized. For God, the whole thing is gone in Christ.
The brazen serpent brings in not only the fact that sin is gone but the state is gone, and in that connection you could bring in the Lord's words speaking of the resurrection of the just, "They neither marry nor are given in marriage", Mark 12:25.
In new creation even the natural relationships disappear, the brazen serpent is very broad. The whole order with regard to man in the flesh is gone to give place to a new order.
"The end of all flesh is come before me", Genesis 6:13. It has been said that all was either drowned in the waters of the flood or covered up in the ark. In 2 Corinthians 5:14, we read, "If one died for all, then were all dead". When Christ died there was not a living man here under the eye of God, and the first that comes out is Christ. You get new creation starting from the point of resurrection, and in Christ Jesus risen one can see the range and order of all things. He is the beginning. Then we get our place in Christ in sonship; you can have nothing beyond sonship, it is impossible. Inheritance is very small compared with sonship.
Is sonship equal to our being in union with Christ? It is greater; when it is a question of sonship we are with Him, we are companions, sonship comes first, and then our being the body of Christ. You must have sonship first. I do not see how Christ could be expressed in us unless we were in His relationship with God. If the church is to be His fulness, I think we must be in His place with God, "I ascend to my Father and your Father", John 20:17. We must be in His place
if we are to set Him forth here. When you come to heavenly privilege He declares the Father's name, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee", Hebrews 12:2. You cannot get anything greater than that. He praises God in every circle: in the great congregation, also among the nations, but it is a very different thing when He says, I will sing praises in the midst.
Ephesians 1:1-8, is greater than what follows. The apostle comes down after that to forgiveness, etc.
It begins at the top and drops down.
The mystery includes more than the body, does it not?
No, the mystery is the body simply. It is the idea of one body composed of Jew and Gentile. How could you explain how the gentiles can be joint heirs and joint partakers of His promise in the gospel? The question is answered by the fact that they are brought into common heavenly privilege; it hangs upon their being brought into sonship. The mystery hangs upon sonship but then the mystery has no reference to heaven, it refers to what has taken place upon earth. In Ephesians 2 we get nothing about the mystery, the mystery is in connection with what is set up on earth. In Ephesians 3 it is that we may be filled with the fulness of God. The church is the vessel down here for that; that is, there is to be a complete setting forth of God in the church. There was to be a setting forth morally of what was of God before the eye of angels. No single thing which came out in Christ, even the very power which came out in Christ, nothing was to be lacking, it was all to be set forth in Christ's body. The first hint of the mystery came when Paul learnt that Christ was in His members down here. A good many people take up the latter part of Ephesians 2 -- Jew and Gentile builded together for a habitation of God -- as a mere dispensation. But God is to be seen there. What is the good of the
habitation if God is not to be seen there? It is that God may come out in the house.
In John 11 we have "gather together in one", but they are children first. Is that one body?
I should say rather one flock, one company.
Is not the thought of children somewhat more intimate than that of sons, though not so high in position? John always speaks of children, for instance. The son is in contrast with the servant, but in children is it not more intimacy?
The thought of sonship is that we should be holy and without blame before God in love Ephesians 1:4, but there is a peculiarity about 'children' that there is not about 'sons': it contemplates saints sharing Christ's rejection, sons brings you to glory; you are children now. Children are connected with the Father's love. In the end of John 17 the Lord says, "I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them". That is down here. Here, in the midst of a ruthless scene, the children are objects of the Father's love and they are bound together by the tenderest love to one another. 'Children' gives the thought of sweet and blessed relationship with the Father. Sonship is more in relation to Christ in glory.
Now are we the children of God; 1 John 3. The point is now. The world knoweth us not, 1 John 3:1. The great point in John's epistle is that you get His place. What is spoken of in reference to Christ in John's gospel is said of us in the epistle. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", John 1:18. "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us", 1 John 4:12. That is being filled with all the fulness of God, the setting forth of God in the church. Does it not strike you how great the departure is from the truth? "God dwelleth in us" is collective. But look
at christianity! I feel almost afraid to speak of the greatness of what was to come out in the church if one contrasts it with the state of things around us and with what we are ourselves. We are to be exponents of the truth. The church is the vessel of testimony. I do not ignore the gifts, but we must not ignore the church as the vessel of testimony. "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world", John 17:18. Nothing that came out in Christ should be lacking, but all come out in the church.
The gospel is to bring that out.
Christ left a little company here in His place, so that in principle it was brought about before the gospel went out.
The evangelist is really for the body?
If I went into a place to work I should be careful to work in connection with the church. The evangelist is to go to the regions beyond, but he looks to be furthered by the church and to have the fellowship and sympathy of the saints. I think his spirit would be in fellowship with what exists. If you do not go in the light of Scripture you cannot set up to be what you see in Scripture, and if you do not go upon that you have no light.
How would you dislodge from the mind of men the idea they have of setting up something here?
Well, it means pretension, viz., that you are going to do better than those before you, but it is only to have the same failure or worse. If we could be set up again we should only break down; perhaps more speedily. The same power is with us as with the saints at the beginning, but it is working so as to open the eyes of the saints that they may get to the Lord who is above the ruin; we can act upon the principles of the Scriptures, they abide. But then you do not set up anything.
A man must get his orders from the Lord?
Never a man got orders from the Lord but the spiritual were with him. I rather doubt a man having a mandate from the Lord when nobody else sees it.
I am rather sceptical about it myself. Paul and Barnabas went forth from the assembly.
Why did we take up Galatians before Corinthians? Corinthians comes before Galatians in Scripture.
Not in Scripture, it comes first in man's arrangement of Scripture. The books of the Bible are not arranged divinely. Morally perhaps, Galatians comes before Corinthians. The defection in Galatia was more serious than at Corinth. Romans looks at things normally. Hebrews, Galatians, and Corinthians come in to correct a tendency to departure from first principles.
Would you say that the Corinthians had departed from the foundation?
Are they corrected on the truth of Romans?
Righteousness is not prominent in Corinthians as in Romans. I think that in 1 Corinthians the first man is put out by holiness rather than by righteousness. This chapter is a salient point. I suggest that we take up the first seven chapters.
Will you give two or three sections of the epistle?
The first two chapters are introductory. The principle of the epistle is to correct the lowest things by the highest. He refers to the wisdom and deep things of God as a corrective to mischief at work at Corinth. The principles in chapters 1 and 2 are Christ crucified and the Holy Spirit. I think in chapter 3 the fundamental principle is holiness. "The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are", 1 Corinthians 3:17. The next important section is chapters 8-10, which brings in the question of fellowship, as to which some were compromising the assembly. In chapters 11-14 the point is the order of the assembly come together, in which there was grave disorder. In chapter 15 an
error in doctrine is taken up; the resurrection was in question. To correct that, he begins to touch the deep things of God in the last Adam and the second Man. I think it is very much like holding a bait before them. In chapter 2 he had given them to know that he has something very wonderful to unfold, but then they were not in a condition to receive it.
In the first six chapters does he answer questions they had put to him?
No, not entirely. In chapter 7 he answers certain points in regard to which they had written to him, but I do not know that it is what they had written to him about in the other chapters.
Does not the fact that the apostle addresses the churches of Galatia in the way he does, e.g., omitting the usual salutation and greetings, indicate that the departure was greater there than at Corinth, and that if they continued on that principle they could no longer be recognised as assemblies of God at all? They were giving up christianity.
The apostle addresses them abruptly; he is stirred to the depths. In Corinth they had forgotten that they were God's assembly, they were acting as though the meeting was their own. It was the assembly where God should have been known in holiness.
You might say that doctrinal principles were involved in the error at Galatia, and in Corinth ecclesiastical.
Holiness rather than righteousness is insisted on. Clearly that is the point in chapter 3: "The temple of God is holy", "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you", 1 Corinthians 3:17,16; and again in chapter 6 the body of the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Why does it couple with the Corinthians, "All that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ", 1 Corinthians 1:2?
For the reason that fellowship is a prominent point in the epistle; it involves everybody, it is not simply local fellowship. Bethesda, for instance, knows nothing
but a local fellowship. The fellowship of the church of God is universal, but fellowship will come out in the second section.
I suppose the truth of chapter 1:30 would meet the whole case at Corinth? It was specially a point with them to glory in man.
It is in view of Christ Jesus, who is made of God unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that no one should glory in men but in the Lord. The contrast is with the first man. The first chapter is that God has completely cleared the ground for Himself in Christ crucified. By Him God has cleared the ground in view of the coming of the Spirit and the communication of the deep things of God. That is seen in the first two chapters. The ground completely cleared in the cross of Christ so that the Spirit might bring to light the whole range of the wisdom of God, but then there comes in this difficulty, that the spiritual man only can enter into it, and the Corinthians were carnal.
Did you say the deep things of God are touched in chapter 15?
Yes, but not developed; he gives them, as it were, a taste. It is not until the second epistle that the apostle is able to enter fully on the deep things. The first epistle insists on the death of Christ, the second on the glory of Christ. When you come to the last Adam and the second Man, as in chapter 15, you are coming very near to the wisdom of God.
And I suppose when he speaks about the Spirit, too? Everything was in the Spirit. I think the wonderful thing is, that God should have been able to clear the ground so that the Spirit should be given to unfold the deep things of God; clearly there is no room for the wisdom of man. The wisdom of man never affected the practice of a man. Take Bacon, he was a man of most extraordinary mind, but he was a man exceedingly corrupt. The same thing was true with
the Greek philosophers. You may see it in Romans 2. It is said of Bacon that he was the wisest, wittiest, and greatest thinker the country ever produced, yet he would take bribes as a judge. When the deep things of God are known they greatly affect a man's practice.
I suppose the Corinthians had never accepted the word of the cross, and therefore could not be addressed as spiritual?
I think they were glorying in the external effects of the presence of the Spirit and using the gifts to make much of man. They were missing the deep things of God, their state prevented their getting the good of them, and the apostle could not unfold such to them. When you come to the counsel of God, the mind of man cannot enter into it, a man cannot in divine things go beyond his spiritual state. Many of us when we first came into fellowship studied Scripture much, but we did not get any great hold of the deep things of God. The mind was in advance of the spiritual state, but they cannot be really known apart from state. That is what comes out in chapter 2.
Will you say a word as to the difference between a spiritual man and a carnal man?
A man is characterised by what he has got, a spiritual man is characterised by the Spirit. He would not use his body for himself, but as a vessel of the Holy Spirit. There are two things evident in a spiritual man: one is, that he has a sense of the love of God, and the other, that he is self-judged; in that way he is perfect, a full-grown believer.
Were the Corinthians always in a carnal state or had they gone back?
My impression is that they had never gone on. They were wishing to enjoy the millennium before the time. Paul shows them the things that will characterise the millennium. The three important things that will characterise the millennium are the temple of God,
the Christ, and the victory over death, and the Corinthians had them all in a spiritual sense.
In the first five verses of chapter 2 we have the state at Corinth that gave character to Paul's ministry -- caused it to be such as it was.
Yes, he went to Corinth in a way he went nowhere else. I think he found there what he found nowhere else -- tremendous activity of mind.
Whom does the last word of chapter 2 refer to? "We have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16), is it apostolic or christian?
I have thought of it as being christian. Yes, I think it is.
They were not corresponding to it.
They were not spiritual; you could not speak of them quite as having the mind of Christ unless they were spiritual, though you may say it belonged to them.
The mind of Christ here means the thinking faculty, does it not? It is not as we speak sometimes of having the mind of Christ, meaning we know His will for us?
Yes, it is the thinking faculty. The 'we' often refers to what is proper to christians, it is what is normal, but all christians are not so.
Is it different from that expression, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One", 1 John 2:20?
I do not think it is very different. Anointing is not only having the Spirit but the Spirit characterises the man. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me", Luke 4:18. That is the way the Lord had it. So it is with the christian, it is characteristic. It is a great comfort that we do not teach people, but that it is God who teaches them. The passage in John has reference to the babes who were in danger of being seduced. His object is to throw them upon the Spirit of God instead of upon men.
The capacity is in the Spirit, but it was useless
unless they were characterised by the Spirit. I think the anointing is characteristic. It is like the oil poured on the head of Aaron, it all came down even to the skirts of his garments. Unless the characteristic is there, the capacity is not available. Aaron carried the scent of the holy oil wherever he went.
A man walking in the Spirit is a spiritual man?
Yes, if a christian is happy in the full light of divine love, self-judged, and therefore not allowing the flesh, see what rapid progress he will make in divine things. There is nothing I am so afraid of as activity of mind in divine things. I was not always so but I am now; you cannot touch the things of God to really understand them, beyond your spiritual state.
It is a great mistake to confound earnestness of purpose with spirituality?
Well, it is, but the Lord helps a man that is earnest. Why do we have all this in the first two chapters before we come to the temple in chapter 3?
It is to whet the appetite, I think, to show that he has wonderful things for them if they are prepared to receive them, and also that man's wisdom has no place in the discerning of them. Before the Spirit came there was no room to bring in these things; the first man was still there, but God had now cleared the ground. Christ crucified was to the Jew a stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness, but to us He is the wisdom of God and, the power of God.
I thought it was said yesterday that the way to get an unspiritual man into a spiritual state was to bring in the purpose of God?
This cannot be gainsaid as to dealing with assemblies. The three epistles, viz., to the Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews, are corrective, and the counsel of God is introduced in each. On the other hand there was that which hindered and grieved the Spirit and had to be judged. The Corinthians had to judge themselves in many things: they were not up to the holiness
proper to God's temple; they were defective in regard to fellowship; some were compromising the church through their want of understanding of fellowship; they were very defective in conduct in the assembly itself, and in doctrine; all that had to be corrected.
It seems to me you attach more importance to spirituality than to earnestness?
But then can you not have spiritual earnestness?
Surely a spiritual man is a devoted man.
I think in a spiritual man the effect of the Spirit's power is to make him obscure; he is not inclined to show off the effects of the Spirit's power, he would forget himself. Take the strongest case of all -- the Lord Himself -- the fact of His being full of the Spirit was to make Him obscure. He did not care to show Himself to the world. His pathway was activity in obscurity. He was unknown and yet well-known. His brethren complained of His not showing Himself to the world.
Does not earnestness suppose opposition in the man? You could not apply that to the Lord.
Earnestness does not necessarily bring in the idea of what is contrary. The Philippians were a good instance of earnestness. God works more in us than by us. He will work by you if He works in you. If you go to the epistle to the Ephesians you will find "Strengthened with might by his Spirit, in the inner man", Ephesians 3:16. Then in chapter 6, you come out strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might. He works by you; the one is the consequence of the other. We should be more anxious that God should work in us, the other will surely follow.
You would expect to see earnestness in a spiritual man?
I connect earnestness with man. There is a word I prefer, it is what Paul used as to himself, viz., purpose. I like to see a man with purpose. When you come to divine things you get deeply sensible of your
own weakness, and are afraid of natural energy. Being led by the Spirit produces that feeling, you are made to feel your own weakness so that you are afraid of yourself, but then with the consciousness of weakness comes strength.
Paul said he was with them in weakness and fear.
Yes, because put a thing as clearly as ever you may, only God's Spirit can really affect people. "My strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9) -- he was conscious in the midst of weakness that there was the Lord's strength, but he never lost the sense of his weakness.
It was more as a vessel of testimony, I suppose, that he had that feeling?
Fancy a man with hesitation of speech addressing all sorts of people! He would feel weak, that was Paul. A man taking up science would not feel weak in the same way. He would feel master, in a sense, of his subject, but when you come to divine things, if you are not sustained by the Spirit you will break down.
The Corinthians were using the manifestations of the Spirit to make the first man prominent.
A spiritual man will perceive the mind of God, but the more he knows, the less he feels he knows. He feels he cannot do justice to his subject. Scientific people have only touched the fringe of the things they are studying, and yet they seem to be inflated with the greatness of their knowledge; but did you ever feel you did justice to your subject? People come and say sometimes, 'We have had a good word', but I have felt ashamed of myself. A man who lectures knows a great deal better than anyone else whether he has got on, he knows when he is supported by the Lord. You may keep up a pretty good front before your audience, but you do not keep up a good front before yourself.
But then there have been times when I have felt I did badly and others have said they got helped.
I should not believe them as to my doing. You know when you are supported and when you are not, when you go on talking to keep up appearances.
Do you think under such circumstances that one ought to stop?
Yes, if one had the courage for it; but the fact is we have not always the moral courage to do this. When we come to handle divine things we must be conscious of our weakness. The Lord may let me feel my weakness, but if He gives me His support that is all I want.
Do you not think as one goes on the sense of the Lord's support increases?
Is not the sense of weakness necessary for the work of the Spirit in us?
No doubt it precedes; you cannot help feeling how weak you are, you say 'Who is sufficient for these things?' The apostle says that then you get the competency that is of God.
Liberty in speaking is not necessarily power?
No. I do not think the apostle ever expected to be sufficient in himself, the Lord alone was sufficient.
The Lord claims in John 8:25, that He was altogether what He spoke to them. His word and what He was were alike. In that He was perfectly alone.
There was the fulness of the Spirit in Him.
You were saying the 'perfect' man was one in whom the love of God was shed abroad and who was self-judged. Is that what we get in Philippians 3, let us "as many as be perfect", etc.?
It is the apprehension of the proper or normal christian state and place. I think if you are in the proper christian place you are in the light of the love of God to you, and this produces self-judgment. Such are said to be perfect.
It is rather the place to which it has been the purpose of God to bring you. I do not think 'perfect' means anything beyond proper, normal christian condition. That is the force, in chapter 2, of "We speak wisdom among the perfect", 1 Corinthians 2:6. The Corinthians were very little in the light of God. There is a reproach in chapter 15:
"Some have not the knowledge of God", 1 Corinthians 15:34. The consequence was that there was a great deal of flesh, the apostle could not speak to them as to spiritual. Spiritual and perfect are pretty much the same thing.
What is the force of "All things" (verse 15)?
The whole range of divine counsels.
Will you say something about the building now?
Did you say the temple was the leading thought of God's purpose in this epistle?
Yes, properly it belongs to the millennium; to the kingdom, not to the wilderness, the tabernacle belongs to the wilderness. So, too, "the Christ" (chapter 12), when you come to that it is His body; again, in chapter 15, we have not the rapture but the victory over death, because it does not go beyond what is effected on earth. Then we have "Thanks be to God which giveth us the victory", 1 Corinthians 15:57. Everything is in anticipation thus of the millennium. You really have now the great ecclesiastical marks of the kingdom.
The temple belongs to the established order of things?
Yes, the temple was first connected with Solomon's reign.
Take such expressions as "quickened together with him", "raised us up together", etc. They are anticipatory, and present what will actually take place when Christ comes. Every man quickened in his own order, and we shall then be made to sit in heavenly places. It is all good for faith now.
Will you say a word with regard to the meaning of the temple?
Growing to a holy temple is future, is it not?
The difference between the house and the temple is that the temple is continuous, but the house is not. The temple is not built and the house is. It is not exactly that you are the temple, but you are God's temple -- it is characteristic. I think he brings it in for the enforcement of holiness. God was there as light, and if God be there you must have holiness. So even with the individual the Spirit dwells in you, therefore you must be holy. The Lord called the temple of old, "My Father's house". In its nature the temple is continuous, though as a matter of fact God was no longer in the material building. The temple was superseded by Christ's body. The Lord could say, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up", John 2:19.
What did you say was the difference between the temple and the house?
I think the mass of professed christians form the house, but it is not the same thought with regard to the temple. There was the naos and the enclosures of the temple; it is the naos here. I do not think the temple brings in the idea of profession as the house does. I doubt if temple goes beyond living stones. The temple does not come under judgment, the house does. The temple may be corrupted, but God purges it. It is an awful thing to corrupt the temple, because you are corrupting saints and it brings judgment upon the corrupter. Saints are corrupted by evil principles. Supposing you get people taking up some evil doctrine, such as non-eternity of punishment, or anything that makes them worldly, they are demoralised by it.
Is not the house more where God is in relation with men?
I think that is so. The scripture which gives me the best idea of the house is 1 Timothy 2, where the men and women are to be in suitability where God approaches men; the house is where He has set
Himself to approach men. The testimony is there and the apostle went forth from the house. "Mine house shall be called an house of prayer of all people" (Isaiah 56:7), is the same idea, it is where God is in relation with men. The temple of God is God's shrine, where He may be approached to be worshipped.
Is the holy temple only living stones?
Yes, I do not think you can bring profession into the naos.
Would "wood, hay, and stubble", have no reference to the unconverted?
I think not. A good foundation, it seems to me, had been laid in people's souls, and others came along building up, say, a sacramental system, not of the character of the foundation. That is what is referred to, judaising on a good foundation. That is what I understand by "wood, hay, stubble". Colossians 2 would touch the same thing.
Is there a difference between this and Ephesians 2:21? And what is the difference between that and verse 22?
It shows that ultimately the temple will come out a holy temple, but in addition to that he brings in the thought of the habitation of God through the Spirit, what saints were as the effect of the apostle's ministry, builded together Jew and Gentile.
Do you limit chapter 3:10 to the work done at Corinth, or is it general?
To the work at Corinth. The apostle's work was done in souls, though of course he was an inspired instrument; the foundation was really what he had laid in souls. It is not the thought of the foundation of the local assembly at Corinth, though that was the effect of it. You lay a foundation in souls. I think Paul was really troubled about the Corinthians. He speaks of them as being real saints, but he puts them on the ground of profession. In chapter 1 they are viewed as sanctified in Christ Jesus and called saints.
Does the building refer to the structure (Matthew 16) or to work in souls-in the souls of the saints?
Although human instruments were used the work was of God, it is referred to God's hand. Ye are God's husbandry, God's building, 1 Corinthians 3:9. 'Journeymen' is the thought in verse 9, not joint workers with God or God's fellow-workmen, but fellow-workmen under God. He enforces the responsibility of the builder, but he wanted to lead the saints away from man and his work to God's building. God might employ men but it was really His building.
Is it not an illustration taken from putting stones together; why does he use it if it refers to work in souls?
You do not generally build with "wood, hay, and stubble".
Is not the outward assembly the result of the building in souls?
Having come to Corinth and laid a good foundation, somebody follows and builds upon it heterogeneous material and spoils the work; that was just what the apostle had to contend with. We can little enter into how it must have affected the heart of the apostle.
"The day shall declare it" (1 Corinthians 3:13), when will that be?
The day when everything shall be made manifest. The day shall be revealed in fire, it must be a day of testing if revealed by fire. Persecution might come along and a good many people fall off.
I should like to refer to Ephesians 2, "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets". What is that?
They are looked at there in a different light. Here the apostle is referring to his own individual labour. The other is a general idea, the church is built upon the apostles and prophets because their doctrine is identified with themselves.
You have given us the first thought about the temple, what is the second?
The working out of it is this, that man has to go out completely; the holiness is exclusive of man as man, and there must be consistency with the holiness collectively and individually. There is another thing comes out in chapter 7: that the relationships which God established down here are not inconsistent with holiness.
Psalm 27 speaks of enquiring in God's temple.
Here it is the first principle that is pressed on account of their state; you cannot get on a step if you do not recognise the first principle of God dwelling in His temple, that is holiness. Holiness involves all the rest. It is the first thing, if you have to say to God you must have to do with holiness. I think the application of righteousness is more individual; holiness refers to the saints collectively, holiness characterises the temple or assembly.
Righteousness, of course, comes in when there is positive evil, but I think righteousness refers to us more individually; individually we are justified, individually we walk in self-judgment. When we have: "I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me" (Leviticus 10:3), that is, to us, collective.
Is righteousness in reference to our conduct?
God reveals His righteousness and we are justified, and we become the servants of righteousness.
"The day shall declare it" (1 Corinthians 3:13) -- is that the judgment -- seat of Christ, or is it some day of fiery persecution which would test them?
I think there is that in the subject which reaches on to the future but refers also to God's governmental ways.
In 1 John 2:28 the apostle says: "Abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed". Is that the same thought of the work perishing or abiding in that day?
We labour under this difficulty that we look back 1800 years, but the apostles did not look forward to
this, they did not contemplate a christianity of 1800 years. You take the Thessalonians, the apostle speaks to them as though the Lord was coming in their lifetime; he speaks of the living and remaining as though all was very near. In 1 Peter a fiery trial is spoken of which was to try saints. Persecution became necessary to stay the progress of evil while the Lord tarried.
To the end of chapter 7. If you recognise the holiness of God's temple you can then get the true measure of a man: the principle of God's holiness is so exclusive that it leaves no room for man, and you do not think of man above what is written. If we had a due sense of the Spirit's being here we should not make much of man, we should not seek to act upon man; the best service you can render me is not to make much of me. It is not a question of our being in the presence of one another, but in the presence of the Spirit of God.
It is all viewed in the light of a coming day; does he not look forward to it?
It is all as in the presence of the Spirit of God, and the apostle strictly is referring to the local assembly at Corinth.
When it says, "Not to think of men above that which is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6), does it refer to what the apostle has written in chapter 3?
I do not think the gifts were meant to make anything of the man, and the Corinthians were using them in this way. You are not to let your thoughts of men, even though gifted, go above what is written; that is, I think, the impression which Scripture gives you of men.
What sort of impression is that?
The sooner that man gets out of sight the better. Men have a relative importance in the world, in the providence of God. We are not on one common level. What I say as to myself is, that in this world, I shall
never be a great man; I have not the qualities for it. But there are men qualified to be great in this world, but in the presence of the Spirit of God, that is nothing. I quite give a man his place, I feel I cannot help doing so in a way, but in the presence of the Spirit of God, all that is nothing. God is no respecter of men. A christian is not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. In the presence of the Spirit of God it is a question of a man's holiness, how far he answers to the Spirit of God.
It is all of God in that line of things.
We see the recognition of the flesh in the Old Testament. Daniel was a capable man, a man fit to be third ruler in the empire, and so too, Joseph, in Egypt, but now when you come to the Spirit of God and the temple, a man's measure is his holiness.
According to what is written, we can see that man is thoroughly exposed in Scripture.
I have thought sometimes that as regards the question of administration, Paul thought Peter greater than himself. He says, "I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle" (1 Corinthians 15:9), but when you come to his testimony and the Spirit of God, he says, "Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me", Galatians 2:6.
Peter, too, evidently thought Paul a greater man than himself.
At any rate it is interesting to see what each thought of the other.
The apostles were nothing, they were not seeking a place of prominence in the world, but they were a spectacle. In the latter part of our chapter (4) you can see they did not seek a place of power and greatness.
You see the travesty of it all in the head of the church being a great spiritual peer in the kingdom. Paul really leads you to a place of obscurity, he was
himself as the offscouring of the world. He sees the Corinthians on another line and seeks to lead them into his ways. I cannot conceive anything more monstrous than that a man should assume to be anything in the presence of the revelation of God. If a man were consciously in the presence of the Spirit of God he could not think much of himself or seek a place here.
"The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power", 1 Corinthians 4:20. Why does he go on now to the kingdom?
Because if you have the temple you must have the kingdom.
Is it viewed as present or anticipative?
It is present in a peculiar form but it is also anticipative. It is in the power of God, spiritual power. Now, we have it by the Holy Spirit. It is not meat and drink but power. It was J.N.D.'s great spiritual power, not his learning and knowledge, that gave him the place he had; the thing that affected me most was to hear him pray, and now it is his hymns that I enjoy most.
Was it found in the way that his doctrine and life corresponded?
Yes, "the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power", 1 Corinthians 4:20. Paul could say: "Be ye imitators of me", 1 Corinthians 11:1. Follow me in obscurity rather than in seeking prominence amongst others.
What an extraordinary thing christianity is today What a travesty of the truth even in Protestantism!
Do we not get the germ of it all here?
The germ of every evil is seen in the Corinthians. The beginning of the departure was that they lost the sense of the presence of the Spirit, for they had not maintained holiness; that is where I should think every evil began. The moment the Spirit's power is lost sight of, man's power comes in. There is a sort of principle of order in man in the kosmos, so they established the best order they could. When the church lost the power of the Spirit, it was characterised
by what characterised the city it was in; the same principle holds good now.
In chapter 5 the apostle insists on their recognising holiness; they had to purge out the old leaven. In chapter 6 it is the believer's body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit; this involves holiness individually. Chapter 7 shows that God's ordering down here was not inconsistent with holiness.
Is chapter 5 directions for an assembly meeting?
I do not call it an assembly meeting, it is an alarm, it is the trumpet-blowing.
That was for the assembling of the congregation. It is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It was not the assembly normally, that is what I mean. The apostle's eye saw everything; he saw what they did not see. I do not think they understood that the conduct of an individual compromised the very existence of the assembly. The man was to be put away from among them.
It is very simple; if the man is disqualified for fellowship, we put him away. What I see in Bethesda is that they have no fellowship beyond the local assembly. We have a case now amongst us where the fellowship is broken up locally, but I do not see that the brethren there are as individuals out of fellowship with us generally. They have not broken fellowship with us generally.
If one came you would not make him sit outside?
No, but I should not force my judgment upon others. Of course, you must know the person, for we could not receive a letter of commendation, but if anyone were unhappy about it, I should not press it. Consideration is a great thing nowadays. Supposing a godly person in church or chapel coming to us to break bread, we have to take care as to his association. Associations are so bad in churches and chapels now that receiving persons is very difficult.
Suppose such a person goes back to his church or chapel?
He is just as much amenable to the discipline of the assembly as anyone else. We have to be careful not to become sectarian, not to have two orders of fellowship-christian fellowship and some other fellowship.
We have to be clear as to associations.
That is where holiness comes in. People are contaminated by associations, and until they are purged they never will understand it.
A person has been excluded from us simply because he went back to a chapel a second time; it was yielded to on the ground of conscience, but I felt it was wrong.
Well, you must respect another's conscience. There is a danger of doing violence in this way. I do not like people playing fast and loose. In breaking the one loaf they own the unity.
Often there is an effort to make a sect of us; "We will come to you if you will come to us". It is not honest to let people come and break bread without telling them what it means. They ought to be shown what it means. Sometimes they shrink from it when they understand it.
Do you not think that after all if a person breaks bread once he has done right for once, as a wise brother said? Our responsibility is to let them in, their responsibility is to stay in.
But then they often seek to make their own conditions.
In chapter 6 the point is personal holiness, their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit, and yet they were going to law and that before the unbelievers. The way the apostle meets all that is by the Spirit of God, the body of the believer is God's temple, the Spirit of God dwells in the believer. Your bodies are members of Christ, the body is His property, you have no title to appropriate your own body to your own use; your members are to be at the disposal of Christ.
It is entirely in a moral sense. It is a very different thing from our being members of Christ's body. It says our bodies are members of Christ.
He is only insisting on the absolute title of Christ over your body. He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:17), that has nothing to do with Christ's body. It is taken from marriage. They twain shall be one flesh. So he that is joined to the Lord is not one flesh, but "one Spirit", the oneness lies much deeper.
A brother wishes to know whether this morning, you connected holiness with chapter 3 and righteousness with chapter 6, or whether chapter 6 is individual holiness, and chapter 3 the holiness of the temple?
I thought that chapter 6 brought in holiness as regards the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit; he seems to take them up on that ground. That would be clearly individual. In chapter 3 the point is, the temple is holy, and in chapter 5, sad to say, it is that holiness has to be maintained by discipline on account of the existing state of things; discipline becomes necessary; I doubt if you could maintain holiness without discipline down here.
Is not discipline more connected with the 'house' character?
Practically, it is the assembly acts that way. It is in order that they may be consistent with the holiness of the temple; that is, in approaching God in worship. The exercise of discipline prevents saints from being corrupted. Then in chapter 6 we see the place which the body of the believer has. This goes to the root of the whole matter. If the man at Corinth had only looked out as to his own body, he would not have been under discipline, it was the use he made of his body that brought him under it. There is another
thing, the Lord is for the body as well as the body for the Lord. He cares for it, He is the Saviour of it, and it is important that we should have the sense of that. Chapter 6 is the responsibility side; the body is His, a member of Christ, therefore He is free to use it if He sees fit; you are not free to use it as you like.
I think chapter 10 is the close up of the subject which opens in chapter 8. Chapter 10 raises the question of perishing in the wilderness. It finishes up with: "Be ye followers of me". The question is, are you going on? I think chapter 10 is the crucial chapter.
What is the force of perishing in the wilderness?
That you do not go on to the assembly, you are content with a sacramental christianity. You stop short of God's purpose. The apostle wants them to go on with himself: "Be ye followers of me", 1 Corinthians 11:1.
What do you mean by not going on to the assembly? Take the great bulk of people in christendom, they never pass beyond this chapter. The question is whether they go as far. It is only too sadly apparent that they are content with a sacramental connection with Christ, that is, the outward ordinances as a means of grace.
The subject of this section (chapter 8-chapter 11:1) is the use which you may make of liberty. The apostle does not restrict it but maintains it, only you must be careful not so to use it as to injure your brother (chapter 8), or yourself (chapter 9), or to compromise the fellowship (chapter 10). How many there are who do not go on to the truth of the next chapter. They have the ordinances, but they do not apprehend them in their own proper connection with the assembly, that is, the purpose of God for them down here. They lust after evil things. They are drawn back by the world; you may say they are lost, but that is an extreme form of it.
There is a moral order in the things mentioned, it
is not historical order. Can you give us the meaning of it?
The first thing is, we are not to lust after evil things as they did, they were idolaters, they committed fornication; I think this is with the world. Mischief begins in lusting, then you come under the power of the world, you make unhappy connections. Then comes tempting Christ and murmuring, which is the close and brings destruction. Tempting Christ is saying, "Is the Lord among us or not?"
You were speaking about going on to the assembly, are there not many who are satisfied merely with the knowledge of Christ's work?
In any meeting you know, the larger part never enter into what the assembly is; they may be very nice christians, and one may have a respect for them, but entering into the assembly is another thing, it is to know Christ as Head and the saints as members. You can only realise it spiritually. It is not what we are outwardly, we are here in flesh. The assembly, if entered into at all, must be entered into spiritually, but very many do not enter into it. I do not, however, unchristianise them, but I doubt if they understand the words: "In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises", Hebrews 2:12. They hear it and get the benefit of it. Perhaps you will say: How far do you enter into it? Well, I can only say, I should like to more truly.
When you say 'entering into the assembly', you mean, I suppose, entering into the truth of it?
Yes, the truth of it; but it is necessary that the hindrances should be removed. People claim liberty, but liberty may become a snare. Paul does not deny the liberty, but lets them know that they might use their liberty to cause a weak brother to perish, or even themselves. Look after yourself, you may be preaching to others and forgetting to keep your body in order, and finally you may so use your liberty, as to compromise the whole question of fellowship and bring
Christ into association with devils. I think we are necessarily much hindered by the state of the church, which we cannot help feeling; we like to be a nice little company seeking to be separate from evil, but I do not think God will allow us to be independent of the state of the church, I mean the church generally. The nearer we are to the Lord the more we feel it. It is questionable whether anyone who enjoys the presence of the Lord can do otherwise. You have to be clear of it, but you cannot be independent of it.
Then there is to be also the acceptance of death, the first man cannot go into the presence of the Lord.
It is a very important thing to see how we are affected by the state of the whole church; it would serve as an antidote to what you were speaking about this morning, the tendency to sectarianism.
I do not think it would be righteous not to feel the state of things. It would show a want of oneness of mind with the Lord and with the Spirit.
Still, there is no reason in all this, is there, why we should not apprehend better what it is to be in the Lord's company?
No; in early times there was very great power, yet it was real hard work to maintain holiness. When Paul, too, had to meet opposition on points of practice, there was much disputation before he gained the day, it was not all plain sailing. It is no new thing for there to be difficulty. Everything was not in such perfect order as we think, there was a great deal at Corinth that would shock us today.
Why are we so little affected by the state of the church?
Because we are so little spiritual. In regard to fellowship, there is only one real basis of fellowship, and that is the Lord. The Lord is the centre of true fellowship, and if you get near the Lord you will feel about things as He feels about them. That is a totally different thing from what is termed 'coming into
fellowship'. It is not a question of coming into fellowship with 'brethren', but to the Lord. It is no new thing, "Believers were added to the Lord". The direction in which the Lord leads your soul is to Himself, that He may give you understanding of His mind.
What is the difference between adding "to the church" and adding "to the Lord", Acts 2 and Acts 5?
We see after the sin of Ananias and Sapphira that such a sense of fear came upon people that they were afraid to join themselves to the church, but they were brought to the Lord; believers were added to the Lord, and they came to the company as the fruit of coming to the Lord. And that is the way when rightly done. You must get the Lord's mind first and His feelings about things, then you come to the assembly. They were frightened at first, seeing what the holiness was that belonged to the church. If you take most of our meetings through the country they are low down, there is but little to come to outwardly, and we make them very artificial. Perhaps a few are converted and brought together, with very little instruction or exercise; a little meeting springs up and then they must have a regular system of meetings, Sunday schools, preaching, and other weekly meetings, apart from whether there is spiritual power for it.
What is it to come to the Lord?
I do not know whether I can explain it, it is a sort of thing that is better understood than explained.
Do you think we could say the Lord added to the assembly now?
I would not say that the Lord added to 'brethren'. It is most important to remember that we are at the end of the dispensation, you are not going to set up things again as they were at the beginning. Take the coming of the Lord as a truth; in early days there was the sense in souls that it was very near, and they lived and walked in the light of it.
We have to follow righteousness, faith, love, and peace with all that call on the Lord out of a pure heart, 2 Timothy 2:22?
Yes, but coming to the Lord, is a little earlier than that; that follows as a consequence. The first thing is the sense that the Lord knows them that are His. When I left the established church, I felt that I was leaving the world, and was going against the advice of friends: when you come away in that sense, you feel that you are walking in a path the end of which you do not know, you have a sense that the Lord knows them that are His. You are, as it were, walking on the water to go to the Lord, everybody ignoring you, perhaps everybody against you, but the Lord knows them that are His, everyone that calls upon Him must depart from evil. Then the other follows, and you find yourself following righteousness, faith, love, and peace with others.
What about putting away from the Lord's table?
It is too pretentious for us. Many of those expressions have been used without any wrong intention, but I rather doubt the advisability of using them now. My fear is lest we should make anything of 'brethren'.
I was only saying the other day that the principles of Philadelphia are carried out in a remnant without any ecclesiastical pretension.
You see a remnant does not occupy the ground for themselves but for the whole church. "Thou hast kept my word", Revelation 3:8. If you think of the Lord as standing in connection with any particular company, you do not keep His word. You must apprehend Him as in relation to the church.
How do you understand, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", Matthew 18:20?
The immediate object there, is coming together to pray.
The Lord's table is a moral idea, and this is important to get hold of, it is not a meeting or a locality.
If a person is put away from among us, of course, he is put away from the fellowship of the Lord's table, but that is a different thing from saying that, as a formula. People are ready to take up a pretentious idea, and when you have got a kind of phraseology you like to stick to it. You must, of course, take care that in correcting the phraseology you do not weaken the truth. It is best to keep to scriptural terms as much as possible.
Putting away comes out in chapter 5 before there is any mention of the Lord's table.
Exactly; it is putting away "from among yourselves", 1 Corinthians 5:13. That is how the scripture puts it, and we are not wiser than Scripture.
For the exercise of discipline there ought to be a special meeting, if you take Scripture for your guide. It is the sounding of an alarm and the congregation is called together. No one person can do that, it must be at least on the testimony of two or three.
What is meant by putting away "from among yourselves"? What would be the extent of it now?
You put the person away from fellowship, you avoid his company. It is not merely that he is put away from the breaking of bread, but he is put away all the week.
You could not hinder such from coming to the meetings, the prayer meeting or reading, but you would not shake hands with him.
Supposing a meeting had been called to put a person away, would it be right to mention it again at the Lord's table?
As the natural rallying point of the assembly is the Lord's supper, it might be well to inform the saints there gathered, of what has been done. The conscience of the saints is to be exercised, but that is best done by a special meeting. If things went on as they ought there would be no occasion for discipline.
Are we at the Lord's table? What is there in the
expression 'Lord's table' that it is desirable to avoid?
I do not know anybody who is there. The apostle speaks of what saints do -- of partaking of the Lord's table, it is not a question of where they are. He takes them up as having part in the breaking of bread. In the expression "ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table" (1 Corinthians 10:21) he refers to the bread, I judge, because the cup of the Lord is distinguished in the same verse; but he does not speak of anybody being at or having the Lord's table. It is really a question of fellowship.
Is the Lord's table an allusion to Malachi: "The table of the Lord is polluted", Malachi 1:12?
Perhaps so, but that was Israel after the flesh. The whole point is fellowship. I believe you get to the Lord's supper through the Lord's table.
What do you mean by that? Explain.
The Lord's supper is otherwise a sacrament, and has not reference to the assembly. I used to go to a church where there were many communicants, some 400 or 500; the clergyman was a very evangelical man, and we used to have the sacrament in the evening. I remember that I used to post myself near to the end of the church, so as to delay going to the communion table, in order that I might have as long a time as possible to prepare myself. That proved that to me it was an individual act. In the form of the service it says: 'Christ's body given for thee'. But that is not the true idea of the Lord's supper. It may be done in remembrance of Christ, I know, but it is not done in relation to the assembly at all. The Supper is, in a sense, the basis of our fellowship. Still, if you are going to take the Lord's supper, you must come to it through the Lord's table. 1 Corinthians 10 comes before chapter it. It is through the fellowship of His death. That shows the importance of chapter 10 morally.
Is it right to say the Lord's supper is the expression. of the Lord's table?
There is nothing in this chapter corporate, in that sense. The object is to take care that no individual should compromise the fellowship by the exercise of his liberty; the individual responsibility is enforced. The Lord's table is used in contrast with the table of demons. Fellowship is a subsisting thing from Lord's day to Lord's day. You express your fellowship in Christ's death when you come to the Supper. We are here as christians in the fellowship of His death, you cannot be in the fellowship of Christ without being in the fellowship of His death. He is not a Lord living here in this world.
The breaking of bread then is the expression of that fellowship?
If you are not true to the Lord's death in the week you cannot have the holiest, when the time comes you are not fit to go in.
I am sure that you have to come to chapter 11 through chapter 10. You may do a great many things which you think you have a right to in the world, but you have to remember that you may compromise the fellowship. If men are in partnership in business, those men are bound together by the articles of partnership, and what one does may compromise all the others. If a christian went and ate in an idol's temple he compromised the company.
Could you rightly give the bread and wine to one who came in late?
I am not great at order, but I think consideration for one another is a great thing. We are told to tarry one for another.
Is the fellowship of Christ's death connected with the taking of the cup and the bread in this chapter?
I think that is the expression of it. Someone was speaking of it as going on through the week. I am sure it does in one sense, but there is, at the same time.
the definite act. The apostle takes them up on it: "the bread which we break", 1 Corinthians 10:16. In baptism you are committed to death, in the Lord's supper you are in the fellowship of His death. You are one body. It is all in connection with the thought of fellowship, fellowship necessarily is of the character of partnership. You are all one company, it is one fellowship. The apostle takes them up on a known and ostensible act. In things here, a deed of partnership constitutes one firm.
"The bread which we break", etc. Is it thus that we express what is true always?
The apostle takes them up on their own act and shows them the moral force of it. The position is illustrated by the history of Israel. Those who ate of the sacrifices were in communion with the altar. The apostle's great point is that the act of one person might compromise the whole company.
Would the act of one person compromise the one body?
I hardly think it is quite the idea here of the one body.
Is it more the thought of one company?
Properly speaking it includes every christian, that is, in the scriptural idea of it. The great point is that as we are here in the fellowship of Christ's death, there should be no inconsistency with it. It is the privilege of every christian to be a partaker of the Lord's table. It is a truth that ought to affect people.
You connect the Lord's table with the bread, what do you connect with the cup? What does it convey to you?
You must have the bread and the cup in order to have a complete symbol of death. If I am in the fellowship of Christ's death I must be in separation from idolatry.
The Lord's table refers to partaking of the bread
which is distinguished from the cup. The Lord's table is a moral idea.
I quite agree with you; the apostle brings them up on their ostensible act, you are committed to it by your own act and deed, not as in baptism, by the act of another. Every one is committed to it, we are identified as one body with the Lord's death. Every one identified with it has to be true to it. Christian fellowship exists not only when breaking bread, it is a test of your ways. It involves your individual responsibility, and shuts you off from everything that is inconsistent with Christ's death. It is the Lord's table and the Lord's cup. The table is what the Lord sets before you, as if I should invite anybody to partake of my table. It is what I set before them. The ground of our fellowship is the death of Christ, our fellowship is the fellowship of all christians; fellowship is a common bond and is not dependent upon our agreement. At first it took in all saints, so it does now in principle. The death of Christ is the only bond. It shuts out all distinctions in the flesh.
Do you think we get the death of Christ here as the peace offering? That is the offering that sets forth fellowship on the common basis of sacrifice.
It might be, but the idea in that seems more individual. There is a slight reference to the shewbread, only now it is one loaf instead of twelve.
How do you understand the peace offering to be individual?
It was a person that brought it.
But the sacrificing priest and Aaron's sons and the offerer all partook. But in the assembly it is simply Aaron and his sons, the priestly company. We see in our chapter how the priests in eating were bound up with the altar, so now we are bound up with the death of Christ. Every one in that fellowship is bound to maintain it and no single individual can go and do what he likes. I have a very great repugnance to the
use of theatres for preaching, if people see you use them they will think that after all you do not think so badly of them. They are places that are associated with what is morally filthy, and I think we should shrink from using places that are devoted to what is unclean.
There is also a great difficulty about using public halls.
I think it is a great mercy when you get a room that is free. A public assembly room is not the same as a theatre, that is a place that is wholly given up to what is bad and defiling. So it was if a man went to an idol temple, it was giving a sort of sanction to idolatry. You have not that literally now in this land, but the principle remains.
Does idolatry refer to association with the world? John says, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols", 1 John 5:21.
The people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play (Exodus 32:6), that was an expression of idolatry. The way in which it is put is remarkable; it refers to the golden calf but it is not put in that way.
You could not say of the sects that they are in the fellowship of Christ's death. They really go upon the ground that Christ is in honour here, but it is the same principle as it was with the Pharisees. Your fathers killed the prophets and you build their sepulchres. The world killed Christ and now they set up temples in honour of Him. Christ has been rejected and is in rejection. I do not believe that people in the sects and systems are in the fellowship of Christ's death, in fact, I am sure they are not, though no doubt many remember His death for them individually. They have not gone forth to Him without the camp bearing His reproach. You have to go outside the established order to find Christ.
What is the reason that in chapter 10 the cup comes first?
The blood was always dealt with first in the sacrifices. You must have the wine separate from the bread to have a complete figure of death.
Would you connect going forth without the camp with the Lord's table?
The fellowship of His death would put them there, I should say.
I should like to know a little more of what fellowship with His death is?
I think in this chapter the point is that you are in this world and are in the fellowship of His death; you accept the company that are on that ground. You are identified with His death in this world. It is not so much the position which His death gives me before God as that which it gives me in this world. What is seen in the systems around is not the fellowship of His death and rejection, but it is professing to do honour to Him, setting up fine buildings and connecting His name with them. You have to go to chapter 11 through chapter 10. What is evident to me is, that people may have the sacramental symbols of Christ's death and never be in the fellowship of it, accepting the grace side of it, God's side, so to speak, without the rejection side, the rejection side is here. The death of Christ is the test of everything, we ought not to be mixed up with anything here inconsistent with it. The Supper is the entrance door to the assembly, as that which places you in touch with Christ and with one another. The table is the other side, and in effect it comes out here in the world. We have expressed our fellowship in His death, and now it tests every association in the world, I cannot take up with anything inconsistent with it. We are always in the fellowship of His death. In John 6 you are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, that is, the fellowship of His death is maintained.
That is if we are to enjoy life?
John 6 is the carrying of it out. It is continuous.
If you have any sense of the love of Christ, how can you go on with things inconsistent with His death, such things as idolatry or worldly association, you could not go on with them. It involves the refusal of all that made that death necessary.
In the case of the eunuch it is after Philip came to the passage: "His life is taken from the earth" (Acts 8:33), that he goes into death in baptism; it had a great effect upon the eunuch, it formed his position on the earth.
In the Lord's supper you are in the fellowship of that position. No one can baptise himself, and no other can take the Lord's supper for him. In the Lord's supper you are remembering the One whose life was taken from the earth, but how can you call Him to mind if you are inconsistent with His death!
What is the difference between the fellowship of His death and the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:9?
One is the obverse of the other. I see there are three aspects of fellowship -- fellowship of the Lord, of His death, and the fellowship of the Spirit; but I think all three go together.
In speaking of 'our' fellowship, what do you mean?
I mean the whole christian fellowship.
It has been used to indicate a narrower sort of fellowship; you would refuse that and hold it important that we should include the whole, would you not?
Yes. Is not our fellowship the fellowship of all christians?
In the midst of the professing church you are led out to the Lord. In the second epistle to Timothy, the Lord becomes very special to you. The great mass are viewed as departed, and what was general at first had become special, and so it is today.
'Partake' and 'communion', here are different words.
Quite so, but 'partake' involves communion. The apostle is referring to a definite act, they had partaken of the bread and the cup, but it was on the part of the
whole christian company, and it was communion, participating in common. We are all in one common bond; our confession is that we are one body.
What about the fellowship in 1 John 1?
That is christian fellowship, it is in walking in the light of God's revelation and the blood cleansing us, we have fellowship with one another. In Corinthians you have the special bond of fellowship.
Is the fellowship in 1 John 1 an everlasting thing? Someone has said there will be no fellowship in heaven.
I do not think there will be any fellowship in heaven the word to me implies a special bond in a scene of contrariety, that is, I believe, the force of it in Scripture. And there will be nothing in heaven to call for fellowship.
What does "fellowship ... with the Father and with his Son" mean?
I think it was apostolic, strictly speaking. There was, besides christian fellowship, the promulgation of the truth, it was communicated to the apostles, and what they had seen and heard they declared for the fellowship of the saints. It is in contrast with the darkness around, it was a bond of fellowship which held them together. God is revealed now.
Is not the idea of fellowship among men something possessed in a special way where the mass are not in it, such as the freemasons?
Yes, the idol was a bond of fellowship among the gentiles, the altar was the same to Israel when the world was fully of idolatry.
If there is not fellowship in heaven what about the hymn which says, 'Close to Thy trusted side in fellowship divine'? (Hymn 270)
I do not read those hymns in the letter, I do not read Scripture in the letter, I try to get the spirit of the hymn and do.
There are common thoughts and feelings that will go on for ever.
The apostles communicated the truth to the saints that they might have fellowship with them, but the apostle is speaking of them as on earth. You will not want the truth in heaven as a bond of fellowship; there is no special bond there to mark some off from others.
I think you said once we shall not have the Lord in heaven?
Well, that is true, we shall not know him as Lord in heaven, we shall know Him as Head.
You were speaking yesterday of many not apprehending the Lord's supper in relation to the assembly; what is the relation of the Supper to the assembly?
Well, I think the relation of the Supper to the assembly, is really the relation of the Lord to the assembly. I thought the prayer this morning expressed what we are called to -- the sanctuary -- and to come to the sanctuary we must come the right way. Chapter 10 is a crucial point; it is where the great bulk of saints fall in the wilderness, that is, they never come to the sanctuary. Chapter 10 is brought in for deliverance, and you do not come to the sanctuary except in deliverance. A fleshly man may claim liberty, but is all the time in the most abject bondage himself.
Then by deliverance you mean complete deliverance from the first man?
I think from anything and everything in which there is the recognition of the principles of this world; that is the idea of chapter 10. Of course evil had the form of idolatry then; it is not exactly that now, but the great idea is deliverance from the world, from all that in which the power of Satan is recognised.
Was all that was opposed to them left behind -- speaking typically -- at the Red Sea?
Yes, that is what chapter 10 brings in; the real way of freedom is fellowship in the Lord's death, it is very much akin to John 6, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man, only that in 1 Corinthians to the idea is founded on a recognised act of fellowship. A great many take the Supper, but they take it individually, not in connection with the assembly. The great point to which we come in chapter it is the convening of the assembly. It was very well expressed in prayer as coming to the sanctuary. The Lord's supper lies at the threshold.
The sanctuary is the assembly come together with the Lord in His place. The Lord's supper is the way into it. It is the introductory act into the assembly. I look upon the Lord's supper as being the rallying point of the assembly normally; it is not as in chapter 5, the sounding of an alarm. The Lord's supper brings the assembly together normally.
We need to appropriate His death in order to be in company with Him outside this world.
People do not touch the assembly if they do not break free from everything here, the great world system.
Is not chapter 8:6 important for us? "To us there is one God" (1 Corinthians 8:6), etc.
Quite so, you do not recognise any other. The point for us is, there is only one; it is most important that in every detail we refuse any recognition of the power of the god of this world.
If you recognise the flesh you recognise the prince of this world. If the flesh is allowed it recognises him, if you recognise the world you recognise its prince; it is of all importance to see that the death of Christ has altered the aspect of everything here. Christ has been presented to the world and rejected, and Satan has definitely now the place of the god and prince of this world. The very same thing which closes up
what we have escaped from, opens the door into all we have come into according to God's purpose.
I think there has been a little misunderstanding as to the breaking of bread -- the meeting has been limited to that. There has been the getting the breaking of bread over early and then two or three speaking, so that the character of the meeting has been lowered instead of its going on into worship.
You will find that the Lord's supper properly apprehended and carried out, has the effect of putting saints in touch with Christ and with one another. In assembling together, each coming from his engagement and home, saints are not for the moment free in spirit to enter into what is proper to the assembly, but they sit down for a while and partake of the Lord's supper, and so get in touch with Christ and with one another; they are thus brought into the spirit and tone of the assembly, and are as different as possible in mind and spirit from what they were at first.
You mean that thus after the breaking of bread saints rise up spiritually, not drop down; but I dare say you have known ministry taking place directly after.
It only shows how little power there is for worship. We too often go through the meeting without getting into the sanctuary at all?
It is a great thing to see the right way; but I think I have entire sympathy with a brother well known, in the way in which he presses deliverance. If you come to know much of people you see that is the crucial point. If they do not accept the death of Christ as the way of deliverance, they do not enter into the sanctuary; that is the secret of there being so little worship; people are not free.
It is one thing to talk about it and another thing to be in it.
That is as good a thing as has been said. If you are in a scene where Satan has immense power, it is not
an easy thing to be free, there are so many subtle things with which you are mixed up.
Holding the doctrine is not being delivered; that by itself is a poor thing.
The heart is in a new region if there is deliverance. And there will not be deliverance unless the heart is there. The doctrine shows the ground on which it can be had. In the Old Testament they had no real claim or ground laid for it, now you have.
The ground being thus laid, why is it souls do not enter into it?
They are not eager enough. If really the sanctuary were more tasted there would be more eagerness after it. The apostle puts the wisdom of God before them as a kind of bait. There are wonderful things to be unfolded to you, but you are so hampered the difficulty is not in unfolding them but in yourselves. I do not know whether you have ever spoken to an audience not in sympathy with you; you feel shut up. It makes all the difference when your audience is in sympathy.
Deliverance is not quite a thing once for all, is it? It has to be maintained. John 6 shows that eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood is habitual. There is a time when the soul enters upon that ground, but then it has to be maintained in the soul. When a person is converted he is set free from bondage to sin in God's sovereign grace; that is initial, then his deliverance has to be maintained, that is why Romans 6 comes in.
I suppose it corresponds to getting through the Red Sea, they had deliverance in a way?
Then comes the important point, how it is to be maintained. You are not taken out of the scene of sin; but how, being in a scene of sin, you can be kept free from it. The Israelites ought to have sung the song of deliverance all the way along, they were not under the power of sin when singing that song. We may say they did not enter into deliverance experimentally
until the brazen serpent; speaking of it as a type.
Deliverance is not maintained without continual surrender.
The great thing is that you are in concert with Christ's death. He has come into death, and that brings you into company with Him. He has come into death and entirely changed its character. You desire to be in concert with His death, death was your true place down here, as things were. When Christ came into death, He only came into man's true place. Man was already in death. Christ's death did not make men dead, it proved they were dead, but His coming into death has altered its whole character, and every right-minded saint would say, I would like to be in concert with His death. That is the fellowship of His death; and it meets us at every turn, every temptation is to make us swerve from it. There is a good passage in Proverbs, "When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat", Proverbs 23:2. You have to stick to your line, to what is before you and to take care of the ruler's dainty meats. His effort is to divert you by them; put a knife to your throat, you are in the way of temptation. Having a purpose in view you have to consider what is before you, that is, your purpose, for he knows how to lure you. Where is the man not given to appetite? "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh", Galatians 5:24. I do not think it is sufficiently seen that when a person really has taken the Lord's supper, he has accepted the place of death. Many take the Supper merely as individuals, though in remembrance of Christ. I used to myself, and you can go on at the same time with many things in which there is the acknowledgment of the prince of this world.
Why is there the introduction of the relative place
of the man and woman, between chapter 10 and chapter 11?
I think the apostle is coming on to the ground of devotional exercises, and takes up that point in connection with Christ the Head of every man. He is not setting aside the order of God that man is the head of the woman; God has not set aside that, and the woman has to accept it. The assembly does not come in until verse 17. The first part of the chapter does not refer to the assembly.
I think we must take up these four chapters in conjunction, that is chapters 11-14. I venture to say one word with regard to chapter it, that it brings in the Head, the real bond of unity. I think it gives the Lord His own proper place of pre-eminence: the Supper gives Him His proper place in the pre-eminence of love; the Supper comes before us as the expression of His love, and everybody would recognise His pre-eminence in love. He said, as it were, in establishing it, My love is not abated one bit; I cannot remain in your company, but I do something greater, I give Myself for you. When you come to the Supper you recognise the proper pre-eminence of the Head. He is pre-eminent in love.
Does it carry authority with it?
No, I do not think that is the idea.
The absent One has shown His love.
Yes, but still He is present: the first time the Supper was taken He was present; the first time was on the night of His betrayal.
You were speaking of the traitor; it was immediately after the going out of Judas that these words were spoken.
Yes, but that is another account, you do not get the Supper brought in in John's gospel. All association with Christ after the flesh was broken up. At the first there was a complete company, that is twelve, but after the treachery of Judas there was an end of that
association morally, the whole company was affected. All possibility of association on that ground was over. Christ would give Himself for them. He shows that His love was unabated. He would do even better than remain with them, He would give Himself for them.
Does 'Remember Me' connect itself with the sufferings at all?
You call Him to mind being absent, He is absent and you remember Him.
Yes, but the instant you call Him to mind, you call Him to mind as a living One. It is the Person. The bread and the wine set before us death accomplished, not accomplishing. One would be slow to make limitations to prevent the heart travelling over all His sorrows, but we must have the heart set in the right direction.
We call Him to remembrance who accomplished redemption; but He is called to mind in that which is the expression of His love to the assembly. We remember Him as those who are in the fruit of His death. We are all conscious of the immensity of that which has been given for us, but who can enter into it? The perfection under the eye of God of the living Christ down here is that which has been given for us.
Is it not in the sense of His love for us, not as giving Himself for sin?
It is Himself pre-eminent but pre-eminent in love. I think anyone can take up His death in its symbols, but I do not want it as a mere fact. I want to get behind the fact, and when I do I find love, and that is Himself. The Lord's supper brings the saints into the sense of being in His company. It is not a question of debts paid or of circumstances gone through, but He gave Himself.
Is it what He is to the Father we think about?
You must know what He is to yourself first, then you may be led into something further.
It is very important that much that has prevailed amongst us should be avoided, we have had many times first an hour of open meeting, and then reaching the point for which we are gathered.
I think we are getting out of it, the danger will now be the other extreme.
I do not know whether the end for which we are gathered is always reached; it seems to me that the sense of being really of His company is hardly known at all.
There are two things by which we are hampered, one is the state of the whole church, and you cannot help being affected by it, and another is, that in the hymns we have a collection, many of which were written by people who had very little light, pious men but with little light, and hymns are a great expression of where people are, hymns very often throw the meeting back.
The praise and worship greatly depend upon individual state. If you can affect the state of saints you can affect their worship. People do not see the place and meaning of the Supper, if they did they would reach it early in the meeting; of course, it assumes a spiritual state, at any rate in those who take part. There are a vast number who have a certain sense of what is right, they may not be intelligent, but they get the benefit of what passes. I do not like to see the breaking of bread forced on, for one great thing in the meeting is consideration of others. Saints come together, and many from under considerable pressure, it may be very easy for you and me to get to the meeting in time and free, but there are a large number not so situated, and you have to give them a little time. It says, "Tarry one for another", 1 Corinthians 11:33. Chapter 13 would put that all right. You may say eleven o'clock is late to come together, but many are up late on the Saturday
night, under great pressure in shops, and then there are mothers of families, nurses up all night, etc.
Chapter it gives us the Head, and chapter 12 the body; that which is here in the power of the Spirit. There are two things in chapter 12: the manifestation of the Spirit and the one body. "Head of every man" (1 Corinthians 11:3) in the beginning of chapter 11 is wider than "Head of the body", Colossians 1:18; it is the place which Christ has as last Adam. The idea of headship is pre-eminence. "That in all things he might have the pre-eminence", Colossians 1:18. He claims the pre-eminence of the body not in the way of authority, but in the way of love, it is the sort of pre-eminence no person could resist; you cannot resist the pre-eminence of love.
Do you think that is the force of headship in Colossians?
Yes. Chapter 12 is brought in to check the tendency to clericalism. The state of things at Corinth was that they were rallying round teachers. It was not literally Paul and Apollos, but local teachers. The apostle brings in chapter 12 to show that in the sanctuary you cannot have clericalism, you cannot have pre-eminence in the body, that is in the Head: no member is pre-eminent, and everyone is indispensable. When you go to the assembly you should go like a blank sheet of paper, and not with any preconception or purpose of doing or saying anything. If a man is lecturing he is addressing people on his own responsibility, but he cannot take that place in the assembly. All those who are there have to see to it that they do not encourage confusion by hanging on the word of some favourite teacher, or else the Lord is not pre-eminent. There is no pre-eminence in the body; my head or my eye does not claim pre-eminence over my hand or my foot, and every member is indispensable.
Suppose a man lectures, is that as a member of the body?
If a man lectures it is not on the ground of the
assembly, but on the ground of gift. The gift has its own proper sphere of exercise, and premeditation before an address is quite right.
Manifestation of the Spirit is not quite the same as gift.
Whatever form the manifestation takes, the great point is that it is to be for profit, not to make much of the man. What can we be in the presence of the living Christ? The source of the manifestation is the Spirit. The manifestations are in contrast with their formerly being led away to dumb idols. The manifestations may not be permanent, but that is as the Spirit sees fit?
The chapter takes up the manifestation of the Spirit in a very wide way. I think we have a little limited the truth in this chapter to the manifestations in the assembly when convened. It is the general effect of the Spirit's presence. We have the light of it given to guide us when together, and if we do not act upon this light what light have we? We are now in a time of ruin, and how much we have to suffer because of it, no one can tell.
What is the force of the verse, "So also is the Christ", 1 Corinthians 12:12?
I think the next verse explains it.
Does it mean the Head and the body?
It says, "For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body", 1 Corinthians 12:13. I doubt if this goes outside of what is in the baptism of the Spirit. There seems to be an analogy to the two sacraments, 'baptism' and 'made to drink', the latter referring to the cup; it does not go beyond that.
What is the force of drinking into one Spirit?
I think it is much greater than any mere outward bond, it is not merely the fact of being baptised by one Spirit into one body, but inwardly we have been made to drink into one Spirit. It is inseparable from the
Spirit, which forms us into one body. I think the apostle is referring to what is here in the power of the Spirit, and he uses the human body as an illustration of it.
You could not bring Christ into that?
I think I have heard you say that you do not get the Head in Corinthians?
Yes; but the baptism of the Spirit makes one body, one Spirit cannot make two bodies. It is really what is in the power of the Spirit and all in view of shutting man out so that he should have no prominence. There is nothing about the mystery here.
What relation have the gifts to the body?
The gifts are in the church: I used to think that they were in the body, but Scripture is wiser; they are in view of the edifying of the body, but we read: "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" (1 Corinthians 12:27), then immediately: "God hath set some in the church" (1 Corinthians 12:28) not the body. The fact is the Corinthians were not in a condition to enter into the truth of the mystery.
Chapter 13 is most important, it is the measure of each one in the assembly, it shows how a man is properly measured, it is how you take his height, his spiritual calibre.
Has every christian love, in some degree?
Not every professing christian; if you have not love you are nothing. I venture to say that what fits a man for the assembly is not the possession of the Spirit, but the work of the Spirit forming him in the divine nature. That is love. It is not gift or knowledge. This is one of the most lovely chapters in the Bible; everything is corrected by love, every tendency of the flesh to make much of itself or offend others; love is the great corrective, it practically displaces self. If we have not love, the gifts are evils, they do harm to one's self. If you have not love you are nothing, it is a poor thing to be nothing.
Is that why chapter 13 comes between chapters it and 14?
Yes. The apostle's way was to correct things not in righteousness but in love. You have to look after yourself. I have given up correcting others, I have enough to do to look after myself. One could not be in the assembly properly, that is efficient for it, except according to chapter 13 formed in the divine nature; one is not otherwise suitable for Christ or for the saints. The Corinthians were making much of gifts and so of themselves. That is the force of the word in Romans. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his", Romans 8:9. The Spirit really is love. This chapter is brought in here in connection with gifts between chapter 12 and the carrying out of the principles in chapter 14. After all, a man may get up and give an address, but it is love that gives unction to it. It is not only what a man does but how he does it, as we see in Romans 12:8, "He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness". What marked the Lord was the way He did things, not simply the things He did but how He did them. The fact is that everything in Him was divinely perfect, and that is where love comes in.
Love is the uniting bond of perfectness.
Yes, that is it. Love abides, all else passes away; that is intelligible because it is the divine nature. You grow into it in the assembly. It is an interesting and important point to see that chapter 13 is brought in that you may learn your proper place in the assembly. I very much doubt whether a saint shut up entirely alone would get on much. I do not think there would be much growth, it would be retarded by the isolation. Growth comes in, not simply by being in contact with the Lord, but also with one another, by being in the sanctuary where Christ is, and there we come in touch with one another. He has connected us not
only with Himself but with the home of love where He is. The assembly is the home of divine affections down here before you have the home up there. "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren", 1 John 3:14. One grows in that home.
In the assembly gathered together?
Yes, that is where you find it, but I do not think the assembly ought, in a sense, ever to be apart; there is only one assembly meeting, and it ought to go on all the week long, if it were possible, which it is not down here.
The first day of the week we begin again, that is God's order. We shall have a long first day of the week in heaven.
The state of the assembly is the state of the persons composing it; we ought to be individually in touch with the Lord and with His love. We must realise the love of the Lord before we can touch the assembly.
Yes, that is where the Supper comes in. Chapter 13 is intensely individual and subjective. I have been greatly struck by the saying of another: 'What is presented to you in testimony becomes the power of life in you'. The way in which God makes Himself known becomes the power of life in you. We see it in the case of Paul, the revelation to him became the power of life in him. Light becomes life in us. That is what I understand by the word being living and powerful, it is living in the saints.
It is being perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
You have the light of your Father, and that is the result of it. The Holy Spirit works in that way; He makes it life in us.
Is not the word living in itself apart from the work in us?
The word of God is the revelation of God, and the
revelation of God is life in our souls; it is in the saints that it is living, if you take the Bible it is the letter. Christ is the expression of God to us. I do not know a surer verse than "Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected", 1 John 2:5.
Will you say a little more about only one assembly meeting?
The assembly is convened by the Lord's supper, it is the normal rallying point, you come to that once a week. No other meeting of the assembly is apart from that, it is a continuation of it, but it must be really a meeting of the assembly. J.N.D. refused the idea that a prayer meeting was a meeting of the assembly; as a matter of fact I do not know that I should wish it otherwise. A prayer meeting brings together those who have at heart the burden of things. I would rather have it on that footing. If you have got the whole company together, unless they all felt the burden of things, you would not be quite so free. There are often special and peculiar things to bring before the Lord.
If the assembly comes together during the week it is important to keep the link with the 'first day' meeting, to really view it as a continuation of the Lord's day morning.
I do not think we ought to exercise discipline without a special calling together of the assembly.
As to the prayer meeting, it ought to have a special character, and not be with a view to pray for everything. It is on the footing of Matthew 18:19. "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask". I think there ought to be a special meeting of the assembly for discipline, that is what the apostle calls for. No one can call an assembly meeting; it is not just for one to do it, it is called on adequate testimony, and for that you must have two or three.
To connect discipline with the Lord's supper, seems to me to mar the Lord's supper. It is more an alarm; the Lord is virtually saying, There is sin amongst you, and I will not go on with you, if you do not put it out.
In chapter 14 you get the height of the assembly, God is recognised as being there. In chapter 13 you have the measure of each one, but what comes out here is, that a man coming in ought to be so affected by what he sees, everything so completely exposed, that he is compelled to own that God is there.
That man is supposed to be an unbeliever.
Yes, but I think an unbeliever under exercise. It is not likely a man not under exercise would come in. He was capable of being affected, and he is compelled to own that God is there. That is the result of prophesying. It was in the presence of God and in the power of the Spirit. Where the Lord is, there God is. If you have the Lord, you have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You cannot separate divine Persons. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily", Colossians 2:9. It is that which makes up the sanctuary. "Ye are the temple of God", 1 Corinthians 3:16.
God is there, you are the temple of God. Where the Spirit is God is, the Spirit is prominent in chapter 14. Everything is regulated by the Spirit down here. In the sanctuary God is known. The Spirit is the great regulating power; you get no miracles now, because the Spirit does not see fit to give them.
What is verse 26? What sort of a meeting have you in this chapter?
It is the continuation of chapter 11 only for edification, whatever the Lord might lead to. There is no such thing as revelation now, but the principles of the assembly hold good for us; if you do not act upon the principle given here, you have no light at all, you might as well have minister and people.
In Acts 5 it is plain that Ananias and Sapphira had lied unto God and not unto men; the presence of God was so real in the assembly.
I do not know at all whether we have any sense of the greatness of the sanctuary. The Holy Spirit is always here, but that does not give you exactly the idea of the sanctuary.
Do you think what you say goes further that Matthew 18?
The Lord gives that to two or three: of course it is true for the assembly, but specially given to the smallest possible number.
Does verse 26 sanction open meetings? What about those meetings we have at holiday times?
I should call them meetings to help and edify the saints.
You act on the ground of chapter 14, do you not?
I do not know, but I think that what we call open meetings have been made a bad use of, quite a refuge of radicalism; that is what I have seen sometimes. I do not think we could regard open meetings as assembly meetings. I judge they are usually arranged so as to afford an opportunity for two or three to speak instead of one to lecture. In coming together to read Scripture, as we are now, there is no restriction as to liberty, we speak freely to one another, which of course we should not do if we were in the recognition of the Lord in the midst; when that is the case, I should not like to see one brother speaking to another.
You mean then that we should sustain the meeting through the week, and if for necessary things we have to go home, when we come together it would be a continuation?
What begins on Lord's day morning goes on through the week.
What lines are open meetings upon?
Take the meetings at Q-, they are called open meetings.
They are open meetings in the sense that there is not the setting up any one person to speak. The meetings at Q- are not meetings of the saints at Q-. You could not regard them as assembly meetings.
Some think if you have a lecture it is an indication of serious degeneracy.
I think we must be guided by circumstances. You should think of what will best secure edification. I do not think for instance, last night where we had 400 persons present, and many among them strangers, that what is called an open meeting would have been appropriate.
What is meant by "Let the prophets speak two or three", 1 Corinthians 14:29?
Saints do not seem to rise to the goodness of God. Few can take in more than what two or three give out. It is His consideration which would hinder more. Although some of our meetings are not assembly meetings, not quite on the ground of chapter 14, yet you have the light of this chapter to guide you. I remember four speakers at one meeting; the fourth did not speak to profit.
This gathering is not strictly an assembly meeting?
We have not strictly the assembly anywhere now, we can only at most act in the light of it. Matthew 18 is specially for prayer, not reading. The Lord gives us an outlet in that way and says, I will be in the midst. If you have matters of difficulty and come together I will be with you.
Do you think we could talk to one another as we have this morning if the Lord were in the midst? I think the Lord is with us, but not as in the midst.
People, alas! do in our assembly meetings what they would not do in a church. I think there should be the fullest deference given to His presence.
In Timothy, we read of those who said that the resurrection was past; here, some seem to have been denying it.
Yes, they were saying, "The dead rise not" (1 Corinthians 15:16), something of the Sadducean idea. With them it was materialistic.
You said this chapter went back and connected itself with "The wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 2:7) in chapter 2. Will you tell us something about it?
Three things come out in the chapter. First, the facts announced in the gospels; second, the light of the resurrection day -- God's day -- and then the place that Christ has in regard to that day. It is there that the apostle begins to touch the deeper things, in the last Adam and second Man. First, he recapitulates the facts, the basis of faith, the common testimony of all the apostles; then the light of the resurrection day is brought in, but I think the point as to that day is, that it has already come in; that is the import of its application to us: "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ", 1 Corinthians 15:57. God has the victory, and He gives it to us. This is often referred to at an open grave, but it is not spoken of here in that connection, but to be realised day by day. I think you have the victory every day, by being brought into the light of the resurrection day. Although an open grave presents a good opportunity for realising it, yet it is important that we should do so, when everything is prosperous with us.
"By him", the Lord Jesus Christ. Is not that a point?
Everything is by Him, administratively, in the connection and sphere in which He administers.
What do you mean by 'God's day'?
It is the day of God's victory, the resurrection day, but must not be confounded with Peter's expression:
"The day of God", 2 Peter 3:12.
What thought have you when you speak of the application to us, when things are going on prosperously?
We are in the light of that day, and if in the light of that day you would not think much of this world; you would not be affected by it, but would be morally superior to everything down here; you would be in a greater light not bounded by things down here.
Paul desired to know the power of Christ's resurrection.
Yes, because Christ's resurrection is the start of it for God. The great point for us is, that we are brought into the light of the resurrection day. The day has begun for us, and it separates from all here and that in the brightest day, not merely in dark days. The greatest artificial light will not shine very brightly in that day; we have a light above the brightness of the sun.
Do you mean by the resurrection day, the day when the saints are raised?
Not exactly -- it is the resurrection day now for us, because Christ has risen; though it is not displayed, it is good morally. We can see our way into the resurrection day. The apostle wanted to bring the Corinthians into the true light of the resurrection day. It began in John 20. What we have as light now, will be displayed. It is the unvarying principle throughout the New Testament, that we get the light of what is to come. That is what I meant last night by the faith sphere. Resurrection is the glory of God, His effulgence, the way in which He has come out to vanquish all that is contrary. It is the witness of His triumph over everything that is against Him. The
triumph over Satan was complete in death, but death itself had to be annulled, and resurrection annulled it. We read of the saints being sons of God because they are sons of the resurrection, Luke 20:36. They come out in that way as the fruit of God's power in resurrection.
Is it purpose there: "sons of the resurrection", Luke 20:36?
Yes, Satan was met in his own domain, and his power destroyed there, but death still remained to be overcome, and that was overcome in resurrection. So that in the very presence of a scene of sin, we have the victory. There is no rapture mentioned here, the great point is the victory.
Do we get anything apart from resurrection?
Yes, many mercies down here, but none of the blessings of God apart from it. Every distinctive blessing of christianity is on the ground of it. The faith of Abraham was in the God of resurrection. The God who quickens the dead. Abraham is the father of all those who believe. The law came in by the way, in connection with the man that was; but there were blessings promised long before that on the ground of resurrection. The law came in to test a wholly right seed, but did not remove death from man; in that sense law came in by the way. In the failure under the law God goes back to the original purpose -- to the promise made to Abraham, and so David who lived in the time of the law, comes in on the same line of promise as Abraham. That is the reason he is brought in, in Romans 4. It is the royal line. Abraham believed in the God of resurrection.
What is the force of "a wholly right seed", Jeremiah 2:21?
They had a good source, were the best sample that could be found, and boasted of it continually, "We have Abraham to our father", Luke 3:8.
What the apostle is insisting upon in this epistle, is what is here in the power of God; the two great points that come out in the earlier part are God's temple and Christ's body, but the entering into that
really demanded victory over death in an experimental sense. I mean that if you are not in the light of the resurrection day, you will not attach much force to the temple and Christ's body. You can only be unto God, in the place where Christ is, through His death. So for us, it must be faith, otherwise you would get the Spirit connected with man in the flesh. We are in the light of what is true for God, and that is true for faith.
You say we do not get the rapture here: what is meant then by, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed", 1 Corinthians 15:51?
The rapture goes beyond change. In Thessalonians, where the rapture is spoken of, you have no mention made of the change, the point there is the rapture. This is the same scene, no doubt, but we have to look at the moral import of what is presented. Any man whose soul is in the light of the victory over death does not fear it. Corinthians does not go outside of earth. It is out of death into life, resurrection merely. It is not so much that we are a risen people, but resurrection is applied to the body, and this does not in itself take us away from earth.
You lose the moral force of things if you materialise, and the tendency in our minds is to do so. I find the tendency to it all around; what often leads to it is a misuse of symbols; you view them in a material way and fail to apprehend the force of them as figures. New birth, for instance, and other things -- life again; I think the grossest example is in the way a high churchman looks at spiritual life. Resurrection is material to a large extent, but then there is a moral element in it. In Psalm 16 resurrection comes in. I see there, One on earth so morally excellent, that He must go to the right hand of God, even though it be through death, so that resurrection is involved. In the latter part of our chapter, it is what is sown in weakness that is raised in power; you must have
something sown which morally involves resurrection. God has to begin His work with people here, or there would not be anything sown, and resurrection would be a mere act of power on God's part. There is the sowing of something that must come forth, it is of such a character. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone", John 12:24. In that respect the Lord Jesus must be viewed alone. It is "Thine Holy One", Psalm 16. There is no idea of our going to the right hand of God. I cannot conceive anything more lovely than Psalm 16, that Man must go to the right hand of God. Death in relation to Him, has only reference to the place into which He came for us. Then the glory of God comes in as requiring resurrection. The expression has been used, The glory claims Him: He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father Romans 6:4.
It was in view of the "pleasures for evermore" that the Lord lived here, was it not? And is it not the same in principle for us?
Except that we do not go to the right hand of God, but we have the "pleasures for evermore". Of course Psalm 16 is very personal to Christ. He showed the way, and the whole way was clear before Him. As to what is sown, as a matter of fact, it is what is morally excellent that goes into death.
There is something sown in weakness and sown in dishonour.
As to the idea of sowing, Scripture continually speaks of things according to our experience -- that is, of the way in which they present themselves to us; and thus we view the departure of a saint. Scripture does not speak of phenomena in scientific language, but in the language of the experience of men.
Why is the serious doctrinal error left so late in the epistle before it is touched? Paul touches upon immoral things first.
The sting was in the tail, there is a moral reason
for it. The apostle takes them up first in regard of the very thing in which they were glorying -- the outward effects of the Spirit -- but shows them that the temple of God and the body of Christ were much more important than the outward effects of the Spirit's presence down here. The apostle meets them as to the denial of the resurrection, and shows them the significance of it, that it was connected with most serious error, and he works it out as a kind of climax. The root of all the trouble lay here. The body was used for evil, and they turned the manifestations of the Spirit to the magnifying of themselves, and this would be checked by the knowledge of the resurrection of the body. It was largely the human element displacing God; if they had the knowledge of God, resurrection must come in.
Why does he bring in the gospel first? Is that the first part of the sowing?
I think he does it to show that they were departing from the common basis of christian faith, the common testimony. The first part is dogmatic; he lays down certain statements as the foundation of the christian faith, and if they departed from that they departed from christian faith. He begins with the facts of the gospel. "It behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day", Luke 24:46. It lays the basis for the next part of the chapter.
The fact is, the knowledge of God is the condition for understanding anything. If we knew God better, we should understand that certain things must be because of what God is. The Corinthians were hindered by the human element, as we see in chapter 1, human wisdom; they were attempting to work christianity in the light of this world. I do not think they were in the light of the resurrection day at all. It was the first beginning of an effort to connect christianity with the course of this world -- really Balaam's doctrine.
We ought to take the second section now, on account of the intrinsic importance of it. Verses 20-28 are the second part. It is a kind of parenthesis, and shows the moral import of resurrection, as the principle on which God will set aside everything that exists; all has to give place to resurrection. That is the thought of the resurrection day, for it goes on to eternity. God will weaken things that exist by providential dealings or by judgment, and the new order of things, brought in by resurrection, will displace all. This new order of things was effected for God when Christ rose. Resurrection, in principle, applies to Israel as well as to the church, it applies all the way through: "Brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Hebrews 13:20) shows the principle. Justification in Romans 4 must necessarily be in view of this order of things. So, too, the blessing of Abraham, only now we have come into the light of it. It dawned when Christ arose, and everything for God is now in the light of that day. Justification has been largely limited to relieving a man in this world, but that is only one side of it; man is not only cleared from the reproach attaching to him in this world, but he is approved for the world to come. Christ is your righteousness in the scene where He is. There would be a lack in the presentation of justification, if one failed to bring in the light of another day. "By him all that believe are justified from all things" (Acts 13:39), but there is another side; Christ has been raised again for our justification, Romans 4:25.
Is "justification of life" the other side?
That, I think, involves the subjective state. We are justified in view of the world to come, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. You come into a new scene, not into the highest christian privilege, yet a new scene.
Does John 5 bring in resurrection? "My Father worketh hitherto" (John 5:17) shows that the Father's work is to raise the dead and quicken them.
I think John 5 carries you to the full result, the resurrection of life. "Whom he justified, them he also glorified", Romans 8:30. I have thought that for the Holy Spirit to be given to a man, is in a sense to glorify him; all is settled morally. The gift of the Holy Spirit to man is most extraordinary. We are Christ's body and the temple of the Holy Spirit. I do not say that fully explains the verse "Them he also glorified", but we have a most extraordinary thought in John 7, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". This is not the feast of tabernacles, but morally greater. "This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified", John 7:39. And I say that in this sense, we are glorified.
Does our possession of the Spirit involve resurrection?
It is just on the principle we see in John 6, "I will raise him up at the last day". When Christ was in death there was nothing of life here before the eye of God. God began in resurrection and that is the display of God's own triumph. The Lord said, "Father, glorify thy name", and the answer was, "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again", John 12:28.
You see the apostle in this passage opens up the entire vista; he carries the light in which we are on to the subjugation of everything, and even the giving up of the kingdom. That is, all the light of resurrection, the full light of that day coming in, carries us on to the eternal state. We have the putting down of the last enemy. The power of death was annulled when Christ was raised, but death does not actually cease, until it is cast into the lake of fire. But all is on the same line; the resurrection of Christ was the beginning, and the beginning involves the end. We are in the light of the beginning, and it is as good to us as the end.
Is that the "better thing" of Hebrews 11? No, that referred to the accomplishment of redemption. The christian's title was settled when Christ destroyed death; death only exists now for those who have no part in Christ. Death is destroyed with their being cast into the lake of fire. The Corinthians were living to a large extent in the darkness of this world; this was proved in a variety of ways -- corruption in the assembly, confusion when they came together; their souls were not in the light of the resurrection day. This is really the corrective chapter, that which would put all to rights. The apostle had referred to it in chapter 1, "Awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ", 1 Corinthians 1:7. It is a blessed thing to have before us the complete solution of the question of good and evil, and the eternal supremacy of God. Nothing is more blessed than to think of what is beyond all, even the kingdom. The kingdom has a great place in Scripture, but the christian goes on to the eternal supremacy of God.
Is that the time when God rests in His love? Well, that is millennial, but Israel's blessing depends upon resurrection as much as ours; how could they be relieved of death if the power of death had not been broken? When death is swallowed up in victory, then God will rest in His love.
While the authority of the kingdom is being exercised, the question of good and evil is being solved, but we are in the light of its having been done?
The whole question has been solved in Christ.
Yes, and before; but it has to be carried out in effect and detail, and everything has to find its own habitation, and the wicked are consigned to theirs.
In what sense, before the cross?
Christ was here walking in the midst of evil but always above it in good, so that He could say, "I have glorified thee on the earth" (John 17:4), "I do always those things
that please him", John 8:29. Glory to God in the highest (Luke 2:14), came out in the walk of Christ. There was the revelation of perfect goodness in Christ here. When the Lord enters Jerusalem, the children cry, "Peace in heaven", Luke 19:38. When man has a place in heaven, Satan is cast out and there is peace. There was peace on earth when Christ was here. Peace was connected with His Person.
The third part is very important. The place Christ has in all this order of things, and the complete setting aside of the first man; when you get to the Man of God's purpose you have the second Man and the last Adam, you touch chapter 2 again.
How do you get to purpose in 1 Corinthians?
When I speak of purpose, I refer to life and the mystery, and you do not get this properly or fully in the epistle, but you get a hint of it, it is not developed; the nearest approach to it is in what you get here, that is, in the second Man and the last Adam.
What is the difference between the two terms?
I do not know that there is much difference except as to the connection; the last Adam is the Head, and the second Man the pattern. You are identified, not with the last Adam, but with the second Man. While Head He is also the One from whom we all derive. He is a life-giving Spirit, 1 Corinthians 15:45. The Son of God takes that place as last Adam; takes that place because He is the Son of God. He comes out as last Adam in resurrection in John 20.
Was the Lord the second Man and last Adam on earth?
It is rather what He is in the resurrection sphere. He does not take up that place until risen. He could not take the place of being a life-giving Spirit, until He had closed up all connected with the first man. I suppose the last Adam involves the truth as to His Person. He could not be a life-giving Adam except as divine. We have here the setting off of one man against another in an abstract way. First man Adam;
last Adam. In order to understand it you have to supply the truth that He is the Son of God. Other scriptures teach us that He is the Son of God.
He breathed on them the breath of life?
Yes, only He does it administratively. I think it is in connection with: "Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him", John 17:1,2. That is as last Adam, I think. As last Adam He could not be a pattern, it would be an unsuitable connection. He takes the place of last Adam in John 20. He is Head of the race. He is a life-giving Head. Adam had a position no one could share with him.
"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive", 1 Corinthians 15:22.
That refers to what is potential, what is in the power of, or in virtue of Christ.
Does that refer to christians only, or to all?
It only refers to those who are identified with Him. The apostle is not thinking of others. It is "they that are Christ's at his coming", 1 Corinthians 15:23.
Only the article seems to indicate that it is more general, it is the Adam, the Christ.
But it is only christians who can be spoken of as being "in Christ".
Is it the second Man because others are to follow? It is that order of man, the second Man is a new order of man, the pattern of the heavenly ones. There cannot be any man after the second Man. He cannot be surpassed, you will not have a third man; the second Man is in contrast with the first. The first man was of the earth, earthy; he did not go beyond earth, nothing connected with him was beyond earth. He was made for the earth, and his relations with God were all of that order. God could come to him and he could enjoy all the beneficence of God, but he could not enter into the mind of God or the holiest, as
a christian can now. He was as perfect for his place as God could make him, formed for the earth and earth alone, but such could hardly go to heaven. At the same time he was a very beautiful creature. The image and glory of God, that is what man is, and put into a position in which no angel ever was put. I think Satan coveted the position.
The place of authority and supremacy?
Yes, and he gets it by and by; the extraordinary thing is this, he does not even then come to the front; the beast is put in the front, but Satan is behind, there is a trinity of evil. I believe Satan would have given Christ the glory of the world, if He had worshipped him. I think Satan coveted the position man had. You see the result of the fall is that Satan gets great power through man. It is a very remarkable thing that Satan gets displaced from heaven by a Man. He had ruined man, and God says, man shall come in and you shall go out. The Lord says to the seventy: "rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:20), and coupled with that is, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven", Luke 10:18. That is the Seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head.
What about Enoch going to heaven if the first man is of the earth?
You cannot think of Enoch without pleasure. Enoch was a most wonderful man and a type of the church. He walked with God, and was not; for God took him, Genesis 5:24. He had the testimony that he pleased God; "without faith it is impossible to please him", Hebrews 11:6; to please Him you "must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him", Hebrews 11:6. There was faith.
Yes, but it is difficult to think of his translation to heaven, apart from his being a heavenly man.
I do not think it is said he went to heaven, but it says so in the case of Elijah. It was all after sin had come in.
Enoch comes in as a type of the church. Abel had already shown the ground of acceptance. You may depend upon it, that all these men partook in anticipation of the character of Christ. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ They all came in a sense, under that headship.
What is, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day", John 8:56?
I should suppose it referred to the kingdom in some way. God always had Christ in view, and these Old Testament saints were formed upon Christ. Abraham was the model of the perfect pilgrim here. God ever had Christ before Him. Christ, when He came with the promises, took up all the perfection of the Old Testament saints; Romans 15:8. But all that came to a close in His death. Then in resurrection He introduces a new order. Abraham offered up Isaac; he knew God as the God of resurrection, and in principle, Christ risen.
Does "They that are Christ's, at his coming" (1 Corinthians 15:23) include Old Testament saints?
I think not, for the apostle had christians before him, and he is writing to christians. The gospels generalise more than the epistles. The platform there is much larger. In the gospels we have a going out of God to man in the widest range, but when you come to the epistles, they are written to expound christianity to the christian company; I do not think they generalise; what is properly christianity is before the writers. You have plenty of Scripture to give you instruction as to other points. Paul is not instructing the Corinthians about Old Testament saints. You cannot read Scripture too simply, and it instructs by what it teaches positively.
You may depend upon it, that there was no beautiful moral trait ever found in the Old Testament saints, which you could not find in its perfection in Christ when here as Man.
You do not want an argument to prove that Abraham
looked forward to Christ's day. I think it is perfectly beautiful how the character of Christ came out in him, except his failure: that, of course, you do not get in Christ.
Moses was reproached for Christ.
Well, quite so, it is so construed in Hebrews 11. You would not understand the psalms, except as you saw the righteous man in Christ.
The righteousness of God is vindicated in the righteous One. God has shown forth His righteousness in the righteous Man.
Not by the position in which the righteous One is now?
No, by the judgment having been borne by the righteous One. Christ is spoken of as the righteous One, the obedient One, and grace is by one righteousness, by the obedience of One. He loved righteousness and hated iniquity. In Romans 1 we have, He was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness", Romans 1:4.
We often say our history was ended at the cross; it was ended in the righteous One, so that God has been glorified in Him -- that is the point.
At the close of the chapter we get the resurrection of the dead, and the change of the living, and death swallowed up in victory; that brings in the full light of the resurrection day.
Is "Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Corinthians 15:54) a quotation from Isaiah?
It is literally connected with the millennium. God has removed the reproach from His people, has wiped away all tears from their faces. The argument here is, that that comes to pass after the resurrection and change of the saints for heaven; the application to us is, that being in the light of the resurrection day, God has given us the victory.
Will you say what the victory over death is for us? You are in the light of the resurrection day; death
does not stand between God and you. If death is an expression of God's love, it is a way through for you to God. The enemy's purpose was defeated because a way was made for Israel through the Red Sea.
Why is God spoken of as "the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus", Hebrews 13:20?
Because He had destroyed the enemy. He is the God of peace. He does not delight in confusion and disorder.
About the righteous One, does that link itself with Psalm 16?
Yes, Psalm 16 presents the righteous One.
Does the victory over death mean more than a christian not being afraid to die? We have the victory now?
God has made a way through death; it is now the expression of His love, and thus it is the way through to Him. It is miserable to think of christians merely being not afraid to die. God commends His love to us, in that Christ died for us. It is in relation to His love that death is brought in there. You go through it to God, just as the Israelites went through the Red Sea.
The truth of this chapter prepares for the second epistle, that we should come out in the power of life. The, second epistle brings in the light of the glory of the Lord. It is another side. Still it is all the resurrection side. But then you accept it, and you always bear about in your body the dying of Jesus.
We might take up the first three chapters this morning. We ought to have some definite idea of the division of the epistle. The first great idea is the Apostle, then the Priest and Minister of the holy places, and then the holiest.
Would you say the apostle is entirely in connection with the new order?
In point of fact; first of all in the epistle the question of responsibility is seen as settled, and the Son is introduced, sins are purged, and He is at the very centre of the new order of things, "the world to come", Hebrews 2:5.
In view of the holiest -- that is the end, is it not? The holiest belongs to the world to come. I do not think the holiest belongs to this world. It is part of the order of the world to come, not exactly of heaven now; it will have its place in heaven. It is important to see that the connection of the holiest is with the world to come, it is not part of this world. The idea of it is taken from the tabernacle; the tabernacle was never a pattern of the existing but of another order of things.
A pattern of things in the heavens, not exactly of heavenly things; we get heavenly things now; I do not think we have yet got things in the heavens.
Are there two things referred to in chapter 9:23? Heavenly things are christianity, things in heaven are things in heaven. The Lord says in John 3"If I tell you of heavenly things".
Yes, I think so: the difficulty is in seeing that we have heavenly things brought down to us. We have
that here with the introduction of the Son, and of necessity you must have this new order.
Therefore you get the holiest in Him.
As we get outside of present things, we get into the holiest.
Quite so. In chapter 1, it is the greatness of the Speaker, the One in whom the eternal throne is established; in chapter 2, the divine counsel in Man, and the world to come; and chapter 3, God's house, outside this world, it is moral.
The idea of name is that which God is pleased to set forth in a Man; that is His name. Whatever God is pleased to set forth in Christ, that is His name, but before ever the name is introduced you get the greatness of His Person, the Person is greater than the name He inherits. Name is renown, "They shall call his name Emmanuel". I do not suppose that the Lord when here ever did anything to prove that He was God, but He did a great many things to prove that God was here in Him.
That is a very important observation, the Lord did a great many things to prove God was there, etc.
It is the whole thing, "They shall call his name Emmanuel", Matthew 1:23. God with us was to be set forth, and there was the complete setting forth of God. That is the character of Matthew. The Lord Jesus had veiled His glory. In becoming a Man He became the vessel in which God was set forth. His object was to set God forth, not Himself. He says, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true", John 5:31. It was a just conclusion arrived at, "That God hath visited his people", Luke 7:16.
Now you get the introduction, it is the Person in whom God has spoken.
Really the glory of the Son was not declared till resurrection.
The contrast between chapter 1 and chapter 2 is,
that the first gives us what is for God and the second what is for man. The name inherited represents everything that is for God. It was now God speaking, not as by the prophets, but in the Son. There cannot be anything more blessed than God making known what was in His own heart and His counsel in a Man. That Man was the Son. Another thing follows, viz., that you cannot have any more communications, no one can speak after the. Son; it is the last word you can have from God, the Son speaks after the prophets, but no one after the Son.
"At the end of these days" (Hebrews 1:2) "last days" refers to. Messiah's days, does it not?
Not Messiah's days; as a matter of dispensation, the day of the law is not over yet. The Jews divided time into two parts, the day of the law and Messiah's day. The day of the law is not strictly over. There is a kind of parenthesis now. Messiah's day is not yet introduced. The passage refers to the last of those days, days of the law. We are brought into the blessing of the parenthesis, the blessing of heavenly things. Christ left things outwardly pretty much as they were. He did not touch Moses' seat. He says to His disciples (Matthew 23), "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works", Matthew 23:3.
The fact of the Holy Spirit being here and speaking, connects us with another day and order.
The world to come is not put under angels; what he says is this, "We see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, ... crowned with glory and honour", Hebrews 2:8. He is in that place for us. In Ephesians 1 He is given to be Head over all things.
In Ephesians it is counsel, the actuality has not come. In principle it has come, it has come for us; if exalted, all things are put under Him. We see Jesus crowned: we see the top but not the bottom. It is not yet manifested so as to be seen, but really for God
it is effected; it is not so important for us to see all put under Him, as it is to see Him crowned with glory. All things will come to pass in due time, but that is not so much the point for us. I think that it is a most blessed point to see Him, seating Himself on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, Hebrews 8:1. He is at the centre of the counsels of God. God's end has been reached in that way, and it shows the dignity of His Person, too. What is important in chapter 1 is that everything is cleared for God; I do not think people will rightly understand what belongs to them unless they understand that. All the rest is detail.
What is the force of inheriting a name?
Taking up different things spoken of in the Old Testament, and thus showing that these things are all centred in the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever", Hebrews 1:8. "Thou remainest", Hebrews 1:11. "Let all the angels of God worship him", Hebrews 1:6. It is what is set forth in Him.
Is it the writer addressing the Lord in verse 10? There is no 'Lord' in Psalm 102:25. There the psalmist is speaking of God, here it seems to address the Lord.
The Septuagint has Lord; it is a quotation from it. It is adopted by the New Testament writers where it substantially expresses the truth.
I think the point is that when all created things pass away, He remains. He changes everything, but Himself remains the same.
I thought the writer made that quotation as showing the name of Deity as applied to the Lord. He is the Same, the immutable One.
Well, yes, it does, but that is not the point. The name with which the chapter opens, "The Son", is greater than all He inherits. All would admit that a person must be greater than any name he could inherit. In the psalm, "Thou art the Same" (Psalms 102:27) is in contrast with the One cut off in the midst of His days. Here it
is in contrast with the passing away of all things; they will all fulfil their purpose.
Speaking of the ways of God, He abides till all is finished and over.
I think the idea of the whole chapter, is what there is before God, what God has established for Himself in the Son, the setting up of God's throne.
Thus we get that which applies to Him from eternity distinguishing His Person, and that which applies to Him as born in time.
All that is predicated of Him as born in time; He inherits the moment He becomes Man; all is going to be set up in Him as Man, and it is not simply the glory of the Man but the glory of the Son in manhood.
I think they are things, which for God's glory, are set forth in Him. It is what God intends to set forth in a Man, only the One who takes up these things is the Son; no man could take them up or be competent to hold them, but the Son.
That is, I suppose, He is behind all that which is external? The first four verses give us the text for the whole epistle.
They give character to the whole.
You say 'predicated of Him as born in time'; is it not resurrection?
They are predicated of Him as born in time; the difficulty is this, that if all were not taken up in resurrection, Christ would be totally alone, we could have no part with Him otherwise.
We are not brought in in this chapter, but in the next, because there it is a question of us. First-begotten brought into the world (verse 6); it is predicated of Him personally.
Bringing in the first-begotten into the world is looked at as a whole.
It is not the place, so much as the Person who takes it.
Yes, death and resurrection come in for us.
The first and second coming are looked at as one whole.
"Annulled death, and brought to light life and in-corruptibility by the glad tidings", 2 Timothy 1:10.
It was for us, not for Himself; He did not want it. Take Psalm 45, "My heart is inditing a good matter". It really is the grace and beauty of the Person, "Grace is poured into thy lips" and, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever". It is what attaches to Him. Then again Psalm 102 is the divine answer to His humiliation; He was cut off in the midst of His days. The divine answer is, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning" (Hebrews 1:10), etc.
What is the idea of the "expression of his substance", Hebrews 1:3?
I think Christ is naturally the exact expression of divine substance.
It is essential being, not person; all that is moral; the essential being of God is naturally expressed in Christ. You can have no other idea or expression of it but in the Son. Becoming a Man, He becomes the Logos. It is different from being the brightness of His glory; glory is effulgence. If God sees fit to come out and display Himself, Christ is the effulgence of God. It shines out in Christ; but He is the exact expression of His substance, that is a deeper thing. Glory is rather more display.
The note in the New Translation says effulgence is 'that which fully presents the glory which is in something else'.
Exactly: if God sees fit to let us know what His glory is, He comes out as the Son.
I suppose that we have here the glory of the Person who takes us into the holiest?
Yes, but then you have gone on to the Priest. This is the coming out. The Lord was all this before He did any work whatever, it all belonged to Him. I think the first two chapters lay the basis of the epistle;
in the second you get what you do not in the first. You get the counsel of God in the complete subjugation of evil; one great idea connected with the Son of man is the complete subjugation of evil. All things are put under His feet; that establishes God's purpose, but also involves the subjugation of evil. This is necessary to the first, man exalted but evil subjugated. It is by the seed of the woman; man was not the seed of the woman, but the Son of man is; the seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the serpent. It is Christ's supremacy as Man. There are certain great things involved in that; one is, "bringing many sons to glory" (Hebrews 2:10) and the other the subjugation of evil.
In that connection the genealogy in Luke 3 is traced back to Adam.
That is to bring Him in as Son of man. It is the purpose of God that as Satan brought in evil through man, so God brings in the subjugation of evil by man. That is the real meaning of Psalm 8. The importance of man is inexplicable except to those in the secret; the regard God has to the Son of man is wonderful; then the secret comes out that it is the divine way for the overthrow of evil. Man is the being in whom the whole question of good and evil is solved.
God in His purpose had man in view. The Hebrews who had a tendency to go back were in danger of losing all this; would not that explain the way he unfolds these things?
The highest thought the Jews had was of the Messiah, they had no idea beyond that. The Spirit of God takes up two things, neither exactly Messiah: in chapter 1, "The Son", in the second, "The Son of man". Christ is both, but neither one nor the other is exactly the idea of Messiah.
They did not know the glory of their own religion. You see the mind of the disciples when they said: "We trusted that it had been he which should have
redeemed Israel", Luke 24:21. They did not go beyond that. Did not their own scriptures point to Him as the Son?
Yes, this is what the writer brings out here, only putting things on a greater platform. God had spoken in the Son, and everything is put under the Son of man; it is universal, nothing is left out. These Hebrews afford a practical evidence of the danger of leaving out God's purpose in christianity. If we do not go on we go back. I really think very few people enter into God's purpose. I do not think they have much idea beyond being saved. The immensity of God's purpose is poorly entered into by us.
Did you remark on how far the apostleship goes in chapter 1?
There is not apostleship strictly until you come to chapter 3. The contrast there is with Moses. In chapters 1 and 2 the contrast is with angels.
Why is there so much stress laid upon angels?
The Jew gloried in the law given by the disposition of angels. An angel is a most exalted creature of God.
You have said that in chapter 1 we have the Lord viewed as setting God forth, and in chapter 2 as leading men in?
In connection with the Son of man you get the revelation of God's purpose to bring many sons to glory. He brings that to light. It is not exactly, if I may use the expression, when all things are subjected to the Son of man that that is done, but it is while His rights as Son of man are in abeyance, though we see Jesus crowned with glory and honour.
Did not the place angels had, imply distance between God and man?
Very likely; I had not thought of it. Now there is to be no distance. God has come out.
You do not think brought to the holiest is brought to glory? Or does the holiest anticipate the glory?
No, the holiest does not; in one sense the holiest
belongs to the world to come. The world to come becomes the display of God's glory evident and manifest; it is the establishment of what is of Himself. That is what is anticipated here, "the world to come of which we speak", Hebrews 2:5. You have the light of the world to come if you see Jesus crowned with glory. The writer later on says we have come to these things; chapter 12:22. When God's throne is established, His purpose effected, and evil subjugated, we get the display of His glory. But, so far as the complete revelation of glory is concerned, only in the heavenly sphere.
The revelation holds good for everybody, but the capacity to enter in is a very different thing. It is through the medium of the church for those on earth. Everything is to be put in touch with God. The church with God, Israel and the nations with the heavenly city. All know the Father, but all will not be able to enter into that revelation. God cannot draw back on His side. Everything on our side depends upon the capacity given for entering in; what constitutes the sanctuary is God coming out, but there is another thing, you can go in, but you cannot go in apart from Christ.
There are two things then quite distinct -- God coming out and our going in?
Yes, and the coming out stands good for the whole universe; every family is named of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they have not the same capacity for going in.
Will Israel have the Spirit of adoption?
No, not as we have; they will enjoy God according to the capacity given them. In certain things the whole heavenly company is looked upon as one. I think the twenty-four elders in Revelation represent the whole heavenly company. I do not think that alters the fact that the church has its own peculiar place, which is not the subject of that book. You get the church in
the end, however, as the heavenly city, the bride, the Lamb's wife. So far as God's coming out was concerned, it was complete in the Lord's Person on earth, but you must have the veil rent.
Christ on earth was the holiest in His own Person, but it was as closed until the veil was rent.
I think there was in Christ that which was outside in touch with man, but there was the inner garment. He was the holiest, but there was no way in; I mean there was no communication as yet.
Do we not see the church in the man child of Revelation 12 5?
We can see it spiritually; you feel it must be so, but there are many things the spiritual eye can see, but which are not on the surface, and we cannot be too simple in dealing with Scripture. There is a difference between what is taught in a passage and what underlies it.
I thought it was the veil, not the holiest, that set forth Christ.
What of the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat then? They typify Christ.
What is the meaning of made "perfect through sufferings", Hebrews 2:10?
He is installed through sufferings. Crowned with glory and honour, He has reached that place through sufferings. He is installed through sufferings, not initiated, that would not do; initiated means that one is instructed in mysteries, that could not apply to the Lord.
Is it akin to learning obedience through sufferings? Yes, quite so. He is installed in the place according to the purpose of God, He has gone through sufferings to reach it. I think you can see the object of it. He takes that place in relation to us. We pass through sufferings and trials and He too went through them. There is a suitability to us in it.
What is the thought in "Leader of their salvation", Hebrews 2:10?
He is the first to go in. He suffered in order to succour and to sympathise, He is to be pre-eminent in all things.
Is it not also, as saving? God's purpose was to bring many sons to glory; He must go that way.
That is all true; there is complete identification with those who are the heirs of salvation. The Sanctifier and sanctified "are all of one", Hebrews 2:11. An important point is that chapter 10 takes up again the thought in chapter 2. The thought there is that God is bringing many sons to glory; in the recognition of that, Christ is not ashamed to call them brethren. The identification is seen in the quotation from Psalm 22. The idea of sanctification appears again in chapter 10; when you come to that, you will see how we are sanctified. The idea here is akin: there it is to show how the purpose of God is carried out.
The will and purpose of God are brought out in that way.
It is put abstractly in chapter 2. It is the connection with the divine purpose there, and a very definite application in chapter 10.
"Will I sing praise unto thee", Hebrews 2:12. Is that present or future?
It is quoted from Psalm 22. It is the praise the Lord took up in resurrection.
Do you connect that with the holiest?
How could it be other than the holiest, where Christ is?
Is it not Christ singing praises to God in His own knowledge of the Father?
Where Christ is there must be the whole light of God. It is really the presence of God, He brings it. There are two sides, what He brings and what He conducts us into. If He is in the midst, that is the holiest.
What connection has that "Will I sing praise" with the future remnant of Israel?
The Lord says afterwards, I will praise Thee in the great congregation; that refers to Israel and will have its application in the future. He takes His place in the midst of Israel, and He also praises God among the gentiles.
I thought the great congregation took in the gentiles? No, it is Israel; it is distinct in a sense from the priestly company, the sphere is enlarged. We see the place that Christ takes in every circle, the assembly, Israel, and the gentiles.
Then verse 12 has no reference to the remnant by and by?
No, it applies, I imagine, to the remnant of the present, Mary Magdalene and the disciples in John 20
-- to the place Christ took with the remnant when He arose. The New Testament shows how we come in to what was proper to the remnant. The remnant became the heavenly band.
How does Christ praise as distinct from us? With respect to Him as leader, I mean?
You need to understand how Christ identifies Himself with us, He is on God's side to declare the Father, and He is also identified with us. The Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one. We can understand Him better on God's side than on ours because we are such poor things.
If He identifies Himself with our praise, we ought to think of our identification with Him.
You find the same thing in the cakes upon the hands of Aaron and his sons; Leviticus 8:27. I think we should find a great difference if we were conscious of that.
Do you believe that Christ has pleasure in your company?
There are some kind of praises that Christ can hardly lead.
You see it in the association of the Lord with the disciples; they hung on Him and He supported
them. The Lord had the greatest pleasure in that little company.
He said, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer", Luke 22:15. If this were realised, it would give character to the breaking of bread.
It would give character to the assembly. It is most wonderful that the Lord should have pleasure in our company. If He had not been a man upon earth you could not have understood it, you could not understand it from doctrine, but only from fact. The Lord did not go among angels to find companions.
Then what you get is this, that all evil is completely met in power. There are two great things: Christ has tasted death for everything, and through death destroyed him that had the power of death. He has met all in that sense.
Before Christ praises in the great congregation, what will the remnant have? In what way will they be connected with Him?
I do not think there will be any public connection until He praises in the great congregation. He will support them as Priest, but the great principle is that they believe in Him when they see Him. You could not speak of singing or praising during that period. Chapter 9 refers to the priest coming out to the people. "Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation", Hebrews 9:28.
"Behold I and the children which God hath given me" (Hebrews 2:13) is an expression of the Lord's delight in the children. All is on the principle of identification; the children are with Him. It is in the time of His rejection; and so, too, the quotation, "I will put my trust in him" (Hebrews 2:13) is on the same line. It shows the way in which He completely identifies Himself with the objects of God's purpose, the sanctified company.
When Moses and the children of Israel sang the song of deliverance, is there any analogy in that to
what we have now? "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee", Hebrews 2:12.
No, I do not think so. I think that is very much more like Christ in the midst of the great congregation. They sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb in Revelation 15. It is not the present time.
Chapter 3 is a contrast to Moses. God's house is spoken of and you have the Apostle. Moses is referred to as the one who set up God's house, that is as apostle, but then a contrast comes in. Christ is Son over God's house. Moses was servant in it. You get the house, Christ as Son over it, and the Holy Spirit speaking there.
Is the Apostle and Son the same thought?
The Son is Apostle. The apostle is the one who set up the economy, the builder; only Moses was not exactly a builder, but Christ is, He built all things. The idea of the house of God which the tabernacle typified was the universe; that is properly God's house. Christ is over the whole system of blessing. 'The centre Thou and Sun'. He is Head over it all also. "Whose house are we" (Hebrews 3:6), is, as far as it goes now, God's house. Christ is over it as Son, and the Holy Spirit speaks, "Wherefore as the Holy Spirit saith", Hebrews 3:7. The Holy Spirit speaks in connection with the Son.
Why does it say "Consider the Apostle and High Priest ... Jesus", Hebrews 3:1? Why the personal name?
Because it is a personal office in that sense. It is in connection with Him as Man. He takes up the place of both Moses and Aaron. We have to consider Him in these two ways, as Apostle and Priest. The apostle inaugurates, the priest carries on what is inaugurated. Aaron did not set up the system, he carried it on. Moses had nothing to do with the ordering of the sanctuary, when once it was set up Aaron was the minister. The system is introduced by Christ, but He is the Aaron also.
The Holy Spirit says, "Hear his voice", Hebrews 3:7. Is that the voice of the Son?
It is God's voice, in a sense, giving present application to the Scriptures; you are bound to listen to the Scriptures in the house. All the New Testament is the Son's voice, but here the Old Testament scriptures are referred to. In the first two chapters you get the attitude of Christ, first from God to man, second from man God-ward; we have to consider Him in these two ways. Hebrews is our Leviticus, not quite Numbers, though that is referred to in the end of chapter 3. It lays down the order of our approach to God. Leviticus was the setting up of the tabernacle system. The offerings had to be offered by Moses first; after that, we have the way in which Aaron and his sons approach. The Lord speaks out of the tabernacle after it was set up. The system was not inaugurated by Aaron. Properly, the first thing is the ordering of everything, then the consecration of the priests; that was the work of Moses; then Aaron and his sons come in, and you have the great day of atonement. Moses did not have much part in that. But the fact is you cannot work out christianity from Leviticus; it is only a shadow; people who have tried to do it have made a mess. A man makes a model of the tabernacle and tries to fit everything in with christianity. You cannot do it, all is spoilt. It is not the image of things, only a shadow. If you make a model, you make a model of what characterised the time when the way into the holiest was not made manifest. The divine description of the detail of the tabernacle began with the ark of the covenant, not with the brazen altar, that is the divine way. What characterises the present time is not merely that man has gone in but God has come out. Nothing is more feeble than to attempt to work out christianity from Leviticus. You must begin with the ark, that is what you get in Romans 3. When you know christianity, then you
get a great deal of help as to detail in Leviticus.FRUIT TO GOD
READINGS AND ADDRESSES AT WESTON-SUPER-MARE
READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 3
READINGS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 10-CHAPTER 11:1
CHAPTER 11
CHAPTER 15:42-58
READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
CHAPTER 1