Table of Contents

The Body

The Bride, the Lamb's Wife

Colossians

Ephesians

Hebrews - Priesthood

The Holy Spirit as seen in John's Gospel

Luke's Gospel; Reconciliation

Matthew 12: 38-50

Nehemiah

Philippians

Reconciliation

Romans 5, 6, 8 and 12

Romans 5, 6, 8 & 12.

Romans 5: 1-11

Romans 6.

Romans 8: 14-30

Romans 12.

Vessels

George Davison - Bible Readings

George Davison

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com)

The Body

The Bride, the Lamb's Wife

Colossians

Ephesians

Hebrews — Priesthood

The Holy Spirit as seen in John's Gospel

Luke's Gospel; Reconciliation

Matthew 12: 38-50

Nehemiah

Philippians

Reconciliation

Romans 5, 6, 8 & 12.

Vessels

The Body

The Body

Acts 2.

Reading with G. Davison

Our subject for this series of readings is THE BODY, one of the aspects in which the Assembly is viewed as the result of the work of Christ upon the cross, and His present session at the right hand of God in glory. We know that the Spirit has come down from Christ in glory to form the Body in this world, hence we are beginning our readings in this chapter. In Acts 1, we have the record of Christ ascending to heaven, and in Acts 2 the descent of the Spirit to form a company in relation to Christ in glory. In this chapter, we have suggestions of the Kingdom, then the Assembly and the House, as well as the Body, which is the subject we are dealing with at the moment. All that the Spirit is forming here stands in relation and attachment to Christ in glory. In the beginning of the chapter we see the work of the Spirit in bringing it all into being and in the verses we read at the end we see how, from our side, we enter into it. So we have the descent of the Spirit from God's side and the reception of the gospel from our side, resulting in our being brought into the Body where we find ourselves today.

A distinctive point is reached in the time ways of God in the record; it was on the day of Pentecost that this event took place.

We can trace all the feasts of Lev. 23 in the first and second chapters of this book. In Acts 1: 3 we have mentioned His "passion", or His suffering, which is the answer to the feast of the Passover. The feast of Unleavened Bread is taking shape in the disciples in their separation from the nation and in the exclusion of Judas from the company. This is followed by the answer to the Feast of Firstfruits, in Christ risen and ascending to heaven as recorded in v. 9. In Acts 2 we have the answer to the Feast of Pentecost in the formation of the New Meat Offering, of which we all form part. In Peter standing up with the eleven to preach the gospel, we have a suggestion of the Feast of Trumpets to arouse the nation; and in those who were aroused and turned to repentance we have a suggestion of the feast of Tabernacles in their rejoicing in the knowledge of the forgiveness of their sins. Rejoicing forms a great part of the Feast of Tabernacles and here we see a foretaste of it in those of the nation who now stood in acceptance with God. We see then how, in the time ways of God, the Body has been formed here in this world in association with Christ in glory.

Will you tell us why this Body was formed?

There are so many reasons as to why it was formed that one statement would not fully cover them. We hope as the readings proceed to see the many reasons for its formation. It is its spiritual formation that we have in view tonight.

The first feature as seen in this first verse is unity — "one accord in one place". This is one of the outstanding features of the Body at all times — unity.

I suppose this unity is brought about because they all have their thoughts centred on Christ? This was the preparation for the Spirit to form this mystical Body.

No doubt, and they form the nucleus of the Body into which now we have all been brought by the Spirit.

Have you in mind that the full thought of the Body will not be seen till the Gentiles are brought in?

That is so in view of the truth of the mystery connected with it, but it is brought into being here by the Spirit.

Are these people joined to the Lord by one Spirit as we read in 1 Cor. 6: 17? This would be union as well as unity.

Yes! There is a distinction between unity and union. Unity is one, but union involves two, and both are true. The Body is one living entity, and as a living entity is united to Christ in glory.

In this chapter we have the formation of the Body before the teaching regarding it. If we attempt to trace the teaching of the Body in this chapter we shall not find it, but the formation of it is here.

No doubt we have everything which the Spirit formed in this world coming into being in this chapter, as we have already pointed out; but their confession of Christ as Lord brought them into the Kingdom, as we are taught in Romans 10: 13. Then in this chapter in v. 42, Fellowship, I judge, is connected with the House, as also the prayers; while the breaking of bread is more connected with the Body, as 1 Cor. 10: 17 teaches. The apostles' doctrine would be connected with the Assembly, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2: 20).

The formation of these things is one matter, the teaching of them is quite another.

I was interested in the remark that we have in this chapter a new beginning in the ways of God. I have noticed that the word for "firstfruits" in Lev. 23: 10, is the same word as "beginning" in Gen. 1: 1. Genesis would give us the beginning in creation but this time we have a new beginning in redemption. That would be why we read in John 7: 39, that the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Verse 2 would assure us that it is something new which is coming in, not something emerging from something else.

You are referring to the word "suddenly". It was not something arising out of Judaism, nor something into which they grew, but suddenly, a completely new thing came into being in the power of the Spirit of God.

Would it be the Spirit's working which brought them together in the first place?

Surely, and they were already unified in this fact — Christ was before every one of their hearts.

This sound comes from heaven because Christ was there. It did not come from the temple but from heaven, stamping the mark of what is heavenly on this company.

That is very important. Indeed it is one of the marks of the Acts — "from heaven". In Acts 9, we read of "a light from heaven"; in Acts 10 we read of a vessel let down from heaven to earth, all because of that Man glorified in heaven.

What is the difference between the Body and the Assembly?

I think the Assembly is a parent thought, for we read of "the church, which is His body" (Eph. 1: 22, 23). We are using the better term "Assembly" as being the real meaning of the word "church". Then we also read of the "church" being the house in 1 Tim. 3: 15. We believe the church is His Bride as seen in Rev. 21. The Assembly would be the widest thought of the Christian company, as it embraces all three.

You may remember the Lord speaking of the Assembly first of all in Matt. 16, where it is obviously living, for it is linked with "the Son of the living God". In this chapter we have two other marks coming to light, it is spiritual, and it is heavenly. Peter groups these three things together in his first epistle.

We read here that the sound heard was like "a rushing mighty wind", and the New Trans. says it was "a violent impetuous blowing". That word "blowing" suggests "it kept on blowing", and this would teach us that the Spirit was beginning something here which was to continue. Violent would suggest irresistible power. Again, the word "blowing" means a breathing, though it is not the word translated "breathed" in John 20: 22. There it was inbreathing life; here it is inbreathing power.

Would this be the same character in which the Lord spoke of the Spirit in John 3?  Surely!

As wind I suppose the Spirit was not seen, but in the next verse we have something which was seen, the tongues of fire; not that the Spirit was seen but an effect was seen. I do not doubt the first character shows that the saints are held together by a power unseen to the natural eyes. No wonder the people of the world cannot understand how we are held together.

Is not the thought here that God initiates all this?

Very good! for whatever comes into display in the world to come will be seen as proceeding from God initially. This is all the result of redemption having been completed and Christ taking His place at the right hand of God. The body could not have been formed otherwise. Christ must be there in glorified Manhood first.

We usually contrast the Spirit here seen as fire with the Spirit seen as a dove when it descended upon our Lord. There it signified purity; here it signifies judgment, not of course penal judgment, but in a judicial way. There was that in them which must come under judgment in order that what was of God might take precedence in their service for God. The Spirit taking a subjective place in them, must maintain what was holy in view of their being used to establish the truth of the Assembly in this world.

This would be the answer to the New Meat Offering being baken with leaven in it, yet nullified by the fire.

One has noticed in that connection that a Sin Offering was presented with the New Meat Offering. Only Burnt and Meat Offerings were offered with the Wave Sheaf, for it speaks of Christ, and in Christ raised from among the dead there cannot be any more a question of sin. With the New Meat Offering this is not so, hence the mention of leaven and the baking, for the saints are in view there.

What is the thought of filling the house?

The word translated here "filled" is "pleroo", and really means "plenitude". We thought it suggested plenitude in a collective way, and in v. 4 in an individual way. I do not think it means the Spirit takes an objective place in the Christian company. How can the Spirit be objective when He dwells in the hearts of the saints? Some persist in giving the Spirit an objective place today and so actually pray to Him, but I am not aware of any Scripture which refers to the Spirit in an objective way. Men are thus arrogating to the Spirit a place which the Spirit Himself does not take according to the record of Scripture. I remember being at some readings a few years ago on the coming of the Spirit as recorded in John 14. A brother pointed out that there we have two verbs used, one in the present tense and one in the future. "He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you". He suggested that the Spirit dwelling with them — present tense — was at that moment with them in the Lord, that is, objectively, but the day was coming when the Spirit would dwell in them subjectively. I thought over this for long and have come to the conclusion that it is right. All may not agree with this, I know it is not the general interpretation of the verse, but I never could understand how the Spirit could be objective to them. I only mention this to cause exercise about the tenses, as I have wondered, in view of recent developments, if this brother had not a prophetic word from the Lord.

What about the statement in v. 3, "it sat upon each of them"?

An old brother once explained this to me regarding the House of Lords. He said, "When the Lord Chancellor sits upon the woolsack, he takes possession of the House. So the Spirit, sitting upon them, took possession of them".

The fact that they were filled would mean that in the Spirit they had all they needed for service. Then it must be noticed they were "all" filled, which justifies the thought. It also means that the Spirit of God does not need our little minds to keep the thing going; He brought with Him and still has with Him all we need to move here in every sphere for the pleasure of God.

We add nothing to this as from ourselves, the Spirit adds everything to us, coming from a glorified Christ. We read in the first chapter of Ephesians that the body is the complement of Christ. this could only be produced by the Spirit. Hence, it is not the church and Christ but Christ and the church.

Now in between the verses we read at the beginning of this chapter and those we read at the end, we have the going forth of the gospel in the power of the Spirit. This is what God is using to bring to light these members of the body, as we read in Eph. 6: 19, "the mystery of the gospel".

Is the filling here in line with that word in Eph. 5: 18, "be filled with the Spirit"? What is the difference between that and being indwelt by the Spirit?

We are not told to be indwelt by the Spirit or to be sealed by the Spirit, we are this sovereignly from the moment we believed the gospel; but being filled with the Spirit is practical. I am always indwelt by the Spirit, but I may not always be filled with the Spirit, hence the exhortation.

Perhaps the fact that they had been together for ten days praying, resulting in their being filled with the Spirit, may have a voice to us today in view of being filled with the Spirit.

I quite agree with the need on our side today but we must remember it came sovereignly here. We get the sealing as well involved here, though it is not taught.

Then we should note their speaking. When they did this, it was only as the Spirit gave them utterance. We might take notice of this today when so many come to meetings hoping to get an opening to say something. Open meetings are not arranged to give brothers an opportunity to speak, but to wait upon the Lord to give a word through one and another.

If we, like them, were marked by obedience, it would mean we were divested of our own thoughts and giving only what the Lord has given to us.

The result of the going forth of the gospel was that many were pricked in their hearts; not like some in Acts 7: 54 who were "cut to the heart", that is the flesh was cut and they stoned Stephen. Here they were pricked in their heart, in their affections, and were brought down in repentance. They ask at once, "what shall we do?" The result is, they become material for the body.

It is then through the gospel that the potential material for the body is brought to light. By our reception of the gospel, we are brought into line with the purpose of God.

When you speak of the work on our side, you mean the work in the souls of those who are to form the body of Christ? In this way God brings us into line with His purpose.

Yes! the people do not say, "What is God going to do?" but, "What shall we do?" The simple answer to that is, Believe the gospel. It is no new statement that the gospel brings to light God's elect, but on our side we are responsible to believe it. We read "they gladly received his word"

Being baptised dissociated them from the nation and associated them with the Christian company which had just been formed.

For them to continue in the apostles' doctrine meant a great change, for they would abandon the old service of the synagogue and all they had formerly observed. Thus they were saved from that untoward nation.

Is the forgiveness of sins here national?

No. It was individual, though they had a place nationally before God which we Gentiles never had. It meant a great deal to them to give this up.

Would this salvation have an immediate effect for them?

It would. Salvation is a wide term and means not only an escape from the judgment of God in the future, but also an escape from many things now. Present salvation is a real thing though many saints seem to know little of it. Ask the average saint what he is saved from now, and how many could give you an answer? Our hymn expresses it, "From sin, the world, and Satan".

It was a present thing to them to escape from the judgment of that untoward generation, and their baptism severed them from that nation in the sight of God. While this truth we have been looking at involves a heavenly company, baptism is not for heaven but for earth.

You have stated that God in His purpose marked us out for blessing. Is it possible for us in our responsibility to miss that blessing?

No! The point is, God tells us we are responsible to believe the gospel, though He gives us the faith to do it. We go on with the gospel because we know it is the means God is using today to effect His purpose for men.

This does not lessen the responsibility of all to believe, for "God . . commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17: 30).

It has often been pointed out that on the day the law was given three thousand souls were destroyed, but on the day the Spirit was given three thousand souls were saved. What characterizes the day in which we live is God working in grace.

"They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine". A new divine order had been brought in and had superseded the old order of Judaism which, as a consequence, was now disowned. They went on with the new thing which had been formed by the Holy Spirit come down from heaven. In the future, power and blessing will come for Israel from Zion but today it is coming from heaven. It meant for them leaving what was earthly and material for a new order which was heavenly and spiritual.

It was the teaching of the apostles that formed this new fellowship. The fact that they all gave heed to that doctrine formed them into this fellowship, for it was fellowship in what the apostles taught. This is what is in view in Heb. 13: 10, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle". We have a new circle of fellowship and these saints were formed in it at the outset. This fellowship was not now based upon the Peace Offering but upon Christ in glory and their association with Him. The breaking of bread was the formal bond of this fellowship, for it kept in view that they were associated with an absent Lord Who had died in this world.

The New Translation makes it quite clear that the fellowship was the complement of the doctrine.

Yes! and in this wonderful expression of the fellowship, the breaking of bread, we have the greatest privilege of the Christian company today. In 1 Cor. 10, it is what we do, and the fact that we all do it together forms us into one body. It has sometimes been said that the loaf there speaks of the saints, but I do not think this is what is meant; rather that the fact that we all to it together forms us into one body.

In the chapter in Hebrews which you have quoted, it is shown that those who ate of the sacrifices were in communion with the altar. Now we are in communion because we all eat of that one loaf.

Yes, I feel sure that is what is meant.

Then "in prayers" we have the expression of our dependence upon the Lord to guide us in all we do here for His glory. How wonderful that, at such a late date in the history of the church, we still have these privileges maintained to us! May the Lord give each of us grace to go on with them till He comes.

The Bride, the Lamb's Wife

The Bride, the Lamb's Wife

Rev. 19: 7, 8; Rev. 21: 1-9

Reading with G. Davison

Our subject is the Assembly as called by these two characteristic titles, "the Bride" and "the Wife". Some time ago a request was made that we look into the matter together to see what the distinction is between these two titles. It may be that in our great appreciation of the love of Christ for His own, and in dwelling so much upon the thought of the Bride, we have forgotten this other title, the Wife. I think we shall see that it is of equal importance and we should enquire — Why has the Spirit been pleased to use these two titles of the Assembly in her association with Christ?

It has been remarked that in the thought of the Bride we have the fruit of the love of Christ, but in the thought of the wife we have the fruit of His work. Is that so?

Both, I think, are the fruit of His work, but perhaps the Wife describes more the work of Christ in us in view of the world to come. The Bride hardly speaks of capability or competence, but the Wife does suggest this and seems to me to be the fruit of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ in formation in us. It is all with a view to fitting us to share with Him in His Lordship and Headship in display in the world to come.

So the world to come is the end to which this work is moving, the Wife character first, and the Bride character in eternity. Is that right?

Not quite, for they both come together in the day of display, as we shall see in these passages we have read. In our first passage in Rev. 19, just prior to the moment of manifestation, we read it is the marriage of the Lamb and "His WIFE hath made herself ready". Then, in Rev. 21: 9 we read, "The Bride, the Lamb's Wife". both are seen in display. Again, looking back to the opening verses of Rev. 21 where the new heaven and the new earth are in view, we read, "as a Bride adorned for her husband". So the Assembly is married as a wife, displayed as a Bride; and abides as Bride when the Wife character has passed away.

The Bride character then is that which abides after the world to come — she is the object of His affection.

I think that is the point. The world to come is the sphere where God will display His triumph when He has solved all difficulties and overcome all opposition to His will. We know from the general teaching of Scripture that the Assembly will be the vessel which He will use for this display. She comes under the Headship of Christ for this, as we read at the end of Ephesians 1, "and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all".

It is the wife in Ephesians 5?

That is what led us to take up this subject. "Husbands, love your wives"; it does not say "your brides". We do not want to destroy one thought by another, for we shall see they are both of equal importance, but we do want to grasp the distinction and see what the Spirit has in mind in using both these terms to describe the Assembly. It was that statement which first led me to think over this matter and, in view of the exhortation given us there, it led me to suggest that the wife is the fruit of the work of Christ in us as well as his work for us. I gather the work going on in us by His daily care has in view the forming of a competent vessel to display His glory in the world to come.

It has been said that Adam and Eve are the only types in the Old Testament which are cited in the New Testament as a figure of Christ and the Church.

We might have said the Man and the Woman are the only types, for I believe there is a distinction between these terms — the Man and the Woman, and Adam and Eve — though of course they are the same persons. The name Eve does not appear until after the fall but the "Woman" was named before the fall.

What is the distinction?

It is God Who says, "I will make him an help meet for him", and, taking the rib from the man He builded a woman (Gen. 2: 22, Margin). In Gen. 5: 2 we read that God "called their name Adam". Adam called her "Woman" for she was taken out of Man; but after the fall he called her name "Eve" — which means "life" for "she was the mother of all living". We might have said, She is the mother of all dying, but Adam had grasped the thought of God in the promise He made as to the seed and he "called his wife's name Eve". Not, mark, his bride's name, but "his wife's name Eve". So, the woman shows the original thought of God, a help meet for the man; Eve, the vessel through whom He is going to operate to recover all that had been lost.

In relation to the first few verses of Revelation 21, I understood you to say that the abiding thought is the bride.

That is right, for the Scripture uses that title.

It has been said that we can qualify for a place in the world to come, but we cannot qualify for a place in the eternal state. Do you think that is so?

That appears to me to be the general teaching of Scripture. Scripture assures us that corresponding to our service and labour in the world today, we shall have a suitable reward in the kingdom in the world to come. It does not say this about eternal conditions. So far as the thought in "wife" is concerned, we can be dogmatic about that, for it is clear from this Scripture. We read here "His wife hath made herself ready". I suppose this is the result of our fidelity to Christ.

You were suggesting that while it is clear there will be differences between the saints according to the degree of faithfulness today, these differences will have ceased to exist in eternity. What about 1 Corinthians 15, where it speaks of star differing from star in glory and then adds, "so also is the resurrection"?

What I am trying to establish is that I think what the saints have done in their faithfulness today has altogether to do with this present order of creation, not the eternal state. I gather that when we reach the eternal state there will be nothing there that has come to light as the result of the faithfulness of saints. It seems to me that we shall have reached just the place which in the purpose of God we should reach, altogether as the fruit of His work and not the fruit of our own.

But you would not imply that there is uniformity between one saint and another throughout eternity in view of 1 Cor. 15?

That chapter is connected with the world to come and not with eternity. It has display in view; but I did not use the word uniformity.

I suppose in the eternal state we shall all be conformed to the image of God's Son?

We shall be that in the world to come, for that will come when the saints are raised or changed at the coming of Christ. Of course, I think it must go on eternally, but it will be true of us at His coming.

Are there not Scriptures which suggest that whatever enlargement there is in the way of capacity now will remain for all eternity? The impressions that you and I have received of Christ now have enlarged our capacity to take in spiritual things. Surely that will remain for all eternity? Another's capacity may be greater than mine but all will be filled, for there will be no envying of one another, but I believe that the capacity will remain.

If we asked you for your Scripture for that remark, to which would you turn us?

I would turn you to the Epistle to the Galatians, where it says "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting".

But that is an exhortation for today. It is the way to enjoy eternal life today. We do not reap eternal life originally, it is the gift of God; but the whole point of that passage is that if I am to enjoy it I shall have to go the road in which it can be enjoyed and that is, by the Spirit.

Does the body of Christ exist eternally?

That the Assembly will go into eternity as such is clear from these Scriptures, but I am not aware of any Scripture which says the body will be there as such.

I thought that was the meaning of Ephesians 1?

It is the world to come at the end of Ephesians 1, not the eternal state.

We do reach the eternal state in Ephesians 3 but not in Ephesians 1. "Unto Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages", is the eternal state. There is no idea of rule here but rather a reflex in that company of the glory of God for His eternal pleasure. Growth, rule and such like things connected with the responsibility of the saints will have passed, so far as I understand it. Many think as our brother about capacity, but some of us think these things have only to do with the kingdom in its display. I believe when we reach the new heaven all growth God intended to be there will be there in each one of us, and all the fruit of His work not our own. What we do will have an answer in the world to come, in the kingdom; but I gather that when we reach the point of these verses in the opening of Rev. 21 and the passage we are quoting in Ephesians 3, all thought of faithfulness will have ended with the day of display and what God has wrought will abide. But I do not press the point, as many think as our brother does.

Why does it not say in Rev. 19 that the marriage of the Lion of the tribe of Judah has come, or of the Faithful and True, but of the Lamb?

We are viewed first as the product of the work of Christ and the beginning of that work was that He died for us on the cross. It is "the Lamb's wife". His work for her is still going on, as Ephesians 5 assures us, but it began at the cross. Here is a help meet, a fitting return for all He has done and a wife who will delight His heart and share with Him in His administration in the kingdom.

This is indicated as far back as Genesis 2, when the man was put into a deep sleep and as the result of that the woman was formed.

Yes! and the word there is, "the man and his wife". In Ephesians we are told it is a great mystery, Christ and the Assembly, and here we have the same thought, "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready".

Do you get the thought of the Bride at all in Rev. 19?

Not that I am aware of. We often listen to addresses upon the subject of the Bride taken from Rebekah and Isaac, or David and Abigail, but in every case you will find they are called wives, not brides. I do not object to the use of these terms in ministry but when one is asked what the distinctions between the words are, it is another matter.

In speaking of the judgment seat you are not suggesting that it is there we are prepared? That preparation is going on now.

It is, but it is established there in view of display. It will be revealed then what place each person has qualified for in the kingdom.

What you have in mind is the statement, "And to her was granted"; she is said to be worthy of that robe of practical righteousness. What a triumph that, in spite of all our weakness and failures, it will be established at the end that there have been so many right things about the saints that this robe has been produced. It has been pointed out concerning that robe of fine linen that God will not clothe with glory anything that is inconsistent with Himself. If the Lamb's wife is to be clothed with glory, as we read in Rev. 21, she must have fundamentally this garment of righteousness.

There are two outstanding things which will merit reward at the judgment seat, righteousness and faithfulness; two rare qualities in the world today.

That is something the saints have attained to?

Yes! in practice in this world. That is why our brother said it will not be produced then, it is being produced today, but it will be acclaimed then and suitably rewarded.

The first recorded words of our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew are, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" — practical righteousness. This is the path He trod and the one which we ought to tread.

It has been said that the Jewish bride prepares her own wedding dress.

Probably that is the simile used here. In our way of stating these things naturally, we speak of a bride before a wife, but the Spirit puts these terms the other way round.

Colossians

Colossians

Colossians 1: 15-29; Colossians 2: 1-23; Colossians 3: 1-11; Colossians 4: 7-18.

Reading with G. Davison

Colossians 1: 13 refers to "the kingdom of His dear Son", and we emphasized at the close of our previous meeting that v.14 begins "In Whom we have redemption", not by Whom. This gives added weight to the glory of the Person as One great enough to bring in redemption for the glory of the Godhead, and secure the company which has been formed as a consequence. I mention this to show the connection with the verse we began with this afternoon, for we see how the sentence runs on, speaking now of the greatness and glory of the Son of God. It is Himself Who is brought before us in these verses. We can easily understand that only One Who is God can be the image of the invisible God. Apart from the revelation of God that He has given us, God must still have been invisible. In our readings on the Ark of the Covenant we were all affected by the fact that not only was the Ark overlaid with pure gold without, but it is first said that is was overlaid with pure gold within. There in type we have what we are trying to show is in this passage; because He is God, He made God known in His nature, attributes and disposition to the sons of men.

It was said of Adam that he was made in the image and likeness of God. I note that "likeness" is not said here about the Lord. What then is the meaning of this term "image"?

"Likeness of God" was said of Adam because he was not God. It is not said of Christ because He is God. Two thoughts are connected with the term "image" — presentation and representation. Adam represented God to the creation and ought to have presented God as well, so far as he could, being a creature; but Christ perfectly presented God when in the world in Manhood.

What had you in mind in the two words, presentation and representation?

In the first word, all that God is came to light in the Son of God. He shewed that God is love, that God is righteous, holy, merciful and gracious; but He also showed that God is a Saviour God and bent upon the blessing of His creature. That is what we meant by disposition, and in this way He presented God to the creation.

Every attribute and every moral feature of God were presented perfectly in that blessed Person. Yes!

Is that what we have in Hebrews 1: 3, "the express image of His Person"?

Yes! The word used there is different from the one used here for image, but the thought is much the same. The word there is "character", like the type used for printing. That is the meaning of the word. We have not seen the type from which our Bibles were printed but we know what it is like, exactly, by the impress before us. So it was with Christ, the exact impress of God, to use that term.

It is interesting to note in Hebrews 1, as here, that in the midst of many glories of the Son of God we read He made purgation for sins. You may remember that His accusers said, "Who can forgive sins but God?" It is one of the things that mark Him out in His Godhead, that He can bring in forgiveness of sins. Who dare say this on behalf of God but the One Who is God?

That is one of the rays of His glory, that this presentation of God has come in where God has been maligned by the incoming of sin, where the features of God, as seen in Adam, have been besmirched. Now we have had a blessed Person in the world in Whom that image has been perfectly expressed.

Then there is representation.

Yes, because in having to do with God now, we come to Him through Christ Who represents God to us. Moses represented God but he could not present Him. In all the dealings of Israel with God, they came to Moses. With us, we come to Christ. He is ever the point of contact between our souls and the Godhead, having presented the Godhead to us He also represents it.

This is including what we read of later, that in him all fullness was pleased to dwell.

Is this a parallel with John 1: 18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"?

We have often heard in the meetings that there are three very similar chapters in the New Testament — John 1, Col. 1 and Heb. 1.

They all present the Godhead glory of the Son of God and some presentation of God manward.

Do they not all speak of His work on the cross?

Yes! That would throw emphasis on the word in v. 20, "His cross". The cross of such a One as this.

I think we are right in keeping that in mind as it is not so much the greatness of the work done which is before us in this epistle as the greatness of the Person Who has done it.

Not only do we read of His co-equality with God in this verse, but also of His perfection in Manhood. He is the "Firstborn of all creation" (v. 15. New Trans.).

The great teaching of this chapter as distinct from the others is — what He is doing here is for the pleasure of the Godhead.

Another point mentioned in all three chapters which have been referred to is, the reconciliation of all things. So we read here. He comes into Manhood to reconcile all things for the pleasure of the Godhead. He comes into Manhood to effect this and becomes in Manhood "the Firstborn of every creature".

If His work is to bring all things into reconciliation, then He must of necessity be above all things. He could not do this work were He inferior to, or even on a level with, all things. He must be above them to reconcile them.

Is "Firstborn of every creature" looking forward to the world to come?

It will, of course, be true then as now but this verse refers to what He was in Manhood in this world. From the moment He comes into Manhood, He takes the place of first in rank.

It is interesting to note that reconciliation is shown here to be more for the pleasure of God than for our blessing.

Yes! They are, of course, correlated. The One Who as Creator brings all into being for the pleasure of the Godhead, as related in Genesis 1, is the same Person Who comes into Manhood to reconcile it, but because of Who He is when He does come into Manhood He takes the place of Firstborn, a term which means first in rank.

Seeing we have touched upon the truth of reconciliation, it is well to remark that it is spoken of in two ways here — of things and of persons; and I think it is well to see that the whole thing is for the pleasure of the Godhead. If the saints could see this, all the difficulties would be met.

There is a remarkable use of prepositions in v. 16, "For by Him were all things created . . by Him, and for Him". They give us a clear view of the greatness of the Son. The first "by" indicates that He is the source of all creation, though we know that each Person in the Godhead is spoken of in relation to the original creating of the universe. Yet this second "by" means that the Son is the active instrumental Agent in bringing it into being. While all three Persons are associated in the creation, as the source of it the Son only is spoken of as the active instrumental Agent. Then, "for" means that in bringing it into being He did so having His own glory in view.

What a striking tribute that is to His deity.

Do we not get a similar thought in Rev. 4: 11, "for Thy pleasure they are and were created"?

Another place where an almost similar statement is made is in Rom. 11: 36, "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him . . ". A wider thought here no doubt. It has often been pointed out that when one of the Persons of the Godhead is singled out as being the Creator it is always the Son. The first "by" involves the Son standing in relation to the Father and the Spirit as source, but the second "by" means that He is the one Person in the Godhead Who actually brought it all into being.

In the chapters which have been quoted we have this very truth emphasized. In John 1 we read, "All things were made by Him" (v. 3). Literally, there was not anything came into being apart from Him; He created it all. The same thing is said in Heb. 1: 2.

Do not all the other glories of Christ mentioned later in the epistle flow out of that?

It gives character to all — that He is the Creator of all — for HIS Godhead glory underlies all the rest.

It says about those things He created, "in heaven and . . in earth". In Phil. 2: 10 it adds, "things under the earth". Why is that statement not here?

"Things under the earth" is more a moral term than a material one. It is quite clear from Gen. 1: 1, that the creation of the heavens preceded the creation of the earth, including all things in both, but the things under the earth refer to infernal beings. It is a point to notice in regard to this that reconciliation begins from earth and reaches to heaven. In creation heaven is first, but in reconciliation earth is put first.

Does v. 16 include every force in the universe?

Yes! For nothing came into being apart from Him. These infernal beings were not infernal when He created them; they became that by rebellion.

Do we get the same two things in this verse? The earthly is put before the heavenly, thrones and dominions are earthly, while principalities and powers are heavenly.

Is it right to say that there are three things attributed to the Son — creation, redemption and judgment?

Quite. The great thought here is that He creates all; then, sin having come in, He comes into Manhood to reconcile all; and if we go on to Ephesians 1 we read He fills all things. It is, of course, true as well that all judgment is committed to the Son.

While things under the earth are not spoken of here in relation to reconciliation, let us rejoice that they all have to yield to the supremacy of the Lord as stated in Phil. 2. They will be subdued, not reconciled.

There is another Scripture which says that things under the earth will yet ascribe glory and honour to Him — Rev. 5: 13.

That is in line with Phil. 2, which has been quoted. They will be forced to ascribe this to Him.

Does not this term, "Firstborn", mean in rank, not in time?

The term is used of David in Ps. 89: 27, "Also I will make him My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth".

The term "Firstborn" is used twice of Him in this chapter, v.15 and v.18. The first is absolute concerning Him, but the second is relative as there are other dead persons.

We must keep in mind that all this is said in relation to reconciliation. He must be pre-eminent to bring it all to pass. He is said to be before all things lest we might have thought that as the Firstborn He Himself was a product of creation. He was there before it all came into being, and He sustains it all. He did not only bring it in on behalf of the Godhead, but He also keeps it going.

Does this "by" (v. 17) mean the same as the second "by" in v. 16?

Yes! He actively keeps all going.

The word "all" is not defined in detail as it means everything — things in heaven, things on earth, all persons, everything. Moreover, He holds them together but He Himself is before all.

What does the reconciliation of all things mean?

Everything in heaven and on earth which has been marked by sin and used at times against God, will be brought back into the service of God by Christ. As mentioned earlier, the same Person Who created these things comes into Manhood to reconcile them and will yet use them all to fill the universe with the glory of God.

It will all be on the basis of redemption.

In Ephesians we read, "and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1: 22). Does that include creation and the church?

It is the same "all things" which we have here, but He cannot control and use them for God until He reconciles them.

It is said in Ephesians that God has given Him to be Head, but here He is Head in the glory of His Own Person.

Yes! We must note, though, in Ephesians it is everything inclusive of the church, for He is Head over all things to the church, which is His body. His Headship there does not include the body. It does in Eph. 4 and also here but in Eph. 1 it is over all, to the church. I understand Eph. 1 to teach that He is going to use the church to take possession of all things with a view to filling them with the glory of God.

Coming back to our chapter, v. 18 teaches us that this wonderful Person Who created all things and keeps them all moving, is the "Head of the body, the church". The emphasis here is that we, the members of His body, are in touch with this supreme Person. If there is one Person great enough to keep us moving here for the pleasure of God, this is He. We do well to get hold of this.

What is involved in this term, "Firstborn from the dead"?

Coming into Manhood as we read in v. 15, He was "Firstborn" because of Who He is, but He left this world and the sphere of responsible Manhood by death. Coming forth again in resurrection He opens out a new sphere for the glory of God and in this new system He is again said to be "Firstborn". He must be that because of Who He is.

That is why "Firstborn from among the dead" (New Trans.) is preceded by "Who is the beginning".

What does that mean — "the beginning"?

The beginning of all things. It is purposely left as an abstract statement to show the greatness of the Person. It is not Himself in relation to anything in particular — He is the beginning.

I suppose it is in line with Gen. 1, "In the beginning", and yet, of course, more than that for He is the beginning of all things, whether in creation or redemption.

In Gen. 1 it is a question of time, and He was before time, but here it is a Person Who Himself embodies the beginning. Nothing was begun without Him for He commenced everything. I think it is a tribute to His Own Person, not quite related to anything. As stated, He closed up the sphere of responsibility and brought a new condition of things to light and He is the beginning. The One Who has power to bring all things into being now brings in this new order.

There can be no doubt that Christ is the beginning of new creation, but if we add new creation to this statement we are going to lose something for He is the beginning of everything that has begun for the will of God. Neither angels nor men ever began anything; all was originated by Christ. We can only lay hold of things that have been brought into being, we cannot begin them.

We read that He is the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last" (Rev. 22: 13).

That is of interest as the end is of as much importance as the beginning. The One Who began all is the only One Who can end all when it has served its purpose. He brought in this universe and will yet use it for a thousand years to fill it all with the glory of God. What then? He will bring it to an end and bring in a new heaven and a new earth.

That is interesting. No one else can bring it into being, no one else can control it and no one else can end it but He.

Why is the body brought in here?

The truth of the body is one of the main thoughts in this epistle. The Colossians may have been losing sight of the magnitude of what they had been brought into, so the apostle is being used to remind them of this in these statements. If such a Person is Head of the body and I, as a member of that body, am in communion with Him, why should I look to any one else for help or guidance? It is all in this wonderful Person, and available for us all.

What is the distinction between the body and the church?

I judge the church is a parent thought, it is composed of course of all believers today. In the first epistle to Timothy the church is said to be the house of God. In Ephesians and Revelation it is said to be the wife and bride of Christ; and here as well as in other places it is said to be the body. Taking them all together we have the various functions of the church described for us.

What is the outstanding feature of the body here?

The display of the Head.

He is not only Head to the body but, as stated here, Head of the body.

It is as the Head of the body that He is said here to be the beginning. Is that philosopher, then, going to tell me something which He cannot tell me? The Head of the body is the beginning of everything.

What is the good of having something which is subsequent to Christ? Why not go to the source? If He is the beginning everything must be subsequent to Him.

It may interest some to point out that in Proverbs 8 and 9 we have this word "beginning" three times, and each occurrence is distinct from the others. "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of His way" (Prov. 8: 22); there it is a word translated in other places "firstfruits". "I was set up . . from the beginning" (Prov. 8: 23); here it is a word which means "the outset". "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 9: 10); that word means "the first time". An analytical concordance will show this. It is remarkable that when it applies to us, "first time" is the thought; it may not be the only time. But this word is not used of Christ, He was the "firstfruits" and was there at "the outset". Ch. 8 runs very close to this epistle as we see Christ there the beginning of the heavens, the seas, and the earth, in this order. You will remember in Gen. 1, the order is heaven, sea and earth, so it is in Proverbs; but we quote from there in line with this thought. He is the beginning of all. He brought it all into being. Suppose I give my life to the study of astronomy, I may acquire a tremendous knowledge of the subject, but I should be a long way beneath what I can be as a member of the body of Christ.

We can understand then, that whether before the cross in His movements here, or after the cross in the new sphere in resurrection, He must be pre-eminent.

The New Translation renders it, "That He might have the first place in all things". We must remember that "firstborn" is a relative term, as was said, but in every sphere in which He stands, He must have the first place. In Romans 8: 29 we read, "that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren". Then we are told, "it pleased . . that in Him should all fulness dwell". Here it is in the past tense as true of Him when in this world; the Father and the Spirit dwelt in Him.

Would that convey that the pleasure of the Godhead was bound up with the Son being here in Manhood?

The Godhead is heard in unity in the creation of man in Gen. 1, "Let us make man". While we have seen that the Son was the active Agent in bringing the creation into being, yet He does it in conjunction with the Father and the Spirit. The word "us" is in the plural in the Hebrew language, which involves three; it could not be two for this is indicated by the dual; so that the whole of the Godhead was involved in that mighty transaction. Is it not a remarkable tribute to this Person that all the fullness dwelt in Him? The whole of the Godhead in revelation has been seen in that blessed Man.

It comes to light in a way that we can take knowledge of at the banks of the Jordan, the voice of the Father, the descent of the Spirit, and the Son in Manhood. J.N.D. said about it — The Father was there in testimony, the Spirit was there in power and the Son was there in Person.

In v. 20 we come to the thought of reconciliation and now we see that the One Who brought the creation into being for the pleasure of the Godhead comes into Manhood to reconcile it for the pleasure of the Godhead.

I note it is the same expression, "by Him".

He made peace through the blood of His cross. Again it is abstract; it does not say He made peace for us, but He made peace and reconciles all things to "Itself" i.e. the Godhead, so it should read. As said before, in reconciliation things on earth take precedence over the things in heaven. It will not be seen in its totality till the end of the world to come. We must keep clear all the same, that for a thousand years all things in heaven and in earth will be in the hands of the One Who reconciles them all, and He will fill them with the glory of God. Finally, the beings who had defiled these things and at times used them in opposition to God will be cast into the lake of fire.

It is the created heavens you are speaking about?

Yes! not the beings who inhabit them. Unfallen angels do not need reconciliation; fallen angels will never have it; it is fallen men who have been reconciled.

The elders in heaven are saying glory and honour to Him Who created all things (Rev. 4: 10, 11). That would be at the beginning of the world to come.

Reconciliation has begun on earth so far as we are concerned, but it has to wait till the kingdom before the "things" are brought into it.

When you say the world to come, do you mean the kingdom?

Yes! it is coincident with the thousand years reign in the kingdom. The "things" will be brought into reconciliation by ruthlessly expelling the persons who have used these things in opposition to God. I do not doubt that, as reference has been made to Eph. 1, the members of His body will be put into these spheres and so all will be held for the pleasure of the Godhead throughout the administration of the kingdom. In that way and at that time the "things" will be seen publicly as in reconciliation to the Godhead. Christ will be in control, the glory of God will fill all, and the whole universe will resound with the praise of God. What we learn here is that Christ will bring it all to pass — He Who is the great Head of the body.

Colossians 1: 23-29

Following the truth of reconciliation which we looked into yesterday, we come now to what we might call a test for the Colossians. It was stated that, although we have an "if" here, we do continue if we really are saints, but it is as well to consider this exhortation lest there may be in any one an attachment to the circle and not to the Son of God. It is stated earlier in this chapter that they had faith in the glad tidings and this had brought them into Christianity; this would assure us that they did stand in the good of reconciliation with God.

Would you say something about the "hope of the gospel"? It would assure our hearts today that we have not been moved away from it.

We have already considered the "hope which is laid up for you in heaven" (v. 5); this they also heard of in the truth of the gospel. Here it is connected with the mystery mentioned in verse 27, "Christ in you, the hope of glory". We have to realize that the Spirit of God dwells in our souls and gives us light as to these things preparatory to our entering into the place to which they belong; that is, to be glorified with Christ above. Hope does not mean something indefinite, as men use the term, but a certainty which gives us hope.

In Hebrews 6, we read, "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast" (v. 19).

Yes, that is the kind of hope. There are no doubts whatever connected with it.

Is there the thought here of some giving up the gospel?

It does seem as though that was so. That is why we said there may have been some attached to the company who were not attached to Christ. We know that no one attached to Christ by the Spirit could possibly give up, but some may have been attached to the company only and consequently have been turned aside. We must regard this warning. It has been pointed out that only in the epistle to the Ephesians are there no "ifs". The evidence of being real is that we continue.

Although we read at the close of the gospel of Matthew that our Lord gave His disciples authority to preach the gospel to all nations, Paul says here, "to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister" (v. 23). We may well ask why he speaks of himself in this way in the light of what the Lord said to the twelve. Have we not learned that what Paul was the minister of to the Gentiles was not the same as that which the twelve were commissioned to preach? That was the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. To Paul was given the gospel of the glory, and while this means the greatest blessing that God has in view for the sons of men, it is for every creature under heaven.

I understand the article "a" before minister should not be there. It is not that he was one of many but he, specially, was "made minister". Would not his exhortation not to be moved away also have in view that they should go on to the realization of the truth of the calling? There may be an attachment to the gospel without a going on to what the gospel has in view, the laying hold upon this hope.

Would not Demas be an example of one who moved away?

It does not say that he left Christianity but he did leave the Pauline teaching. The fact that there is no article before this word "minister" stamps it as being something very special — Paul's gospel. Is it not a great fault that Christendom has moved away from the peculiar characteristics of Paul's gospel? It is important that we do not skip over this verse, while assured that every true believer will go on; but are we all seeking to go on to the full scope of the gospel of the glory, or are we content with the gospel as bringing only relief to us?

Is it not true that while Balaam could not curse the people of God, he gave them something which attracted them away from God and their testimony for God? While it is true that every believer will certainly land in glory, do we not have this teaching for present enjoyment?

It is a very significant fact that as soon as the apostle has brought in this exhortation to fully follow the thought of God in the gospel, he mentions the matter of suffering (v. 24).

This is a peculiar verse to understand. He speaks of "sufferings for you", and filling up "that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the church". I apprehend this verse means that whatever has been introduced into this world concerning Christ, Satan has opposed it. As he opposed Christ when He was in this world, now that Christ is in glory and forming this body which is going to subsist in attachment to Himself, Satan is going to persecute it. That is why he so intently persecutes the apostle who brings out this truth of the church. He could no longer persecute Christ Who is in the glory, so he persecutes the vessel which is bringing out this ministry.

Does it not show how very precious this ministry was to the heart of the apostle that he could rejoice in these sufferings? Here is a man who had committed to him the most remarkable ministry, involving the most intense suffering, but the ministry was so precious in his sight and so essential for the practical salvation of the saints, that he personally would rejoice in all the sufferings which it involved. This is a beautiful principle.

This is in sharp contrast with Peter, as recorded in Matthew 16. As soon as he is given the keys of the kingdom and told the Lord was to die, he said "Be it far from Thee, Lord". Evidently this mind to suffer is very important.

In regard to the practical salvation of the saints, to which you call attention, Paul says in 2 Tim. 2: 10, "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory".

He had been prepared for this at the outset of his commission, for the Lord had said, "I will shew him how great things he must suffer for My Name's sake" (Acts 9: 16). Is this peculiar to him?

I do not doubt that the other apostles suffered in relation to the glad tidings, as we read in the beginning of the Acts. "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3: 12).

How many of us are prepared to suffer for the saints? Paul not only prayed for the saints; he was prepared to suffer for them. It has often been pointed out that Christianity has been established upon sacrifice, and I doubt if we make real progress in the deep things of God apart from sacrifice. How much am I prepared to suffer for the saints?

One of the outstanding truths in this epistle is the Body which is the Assembly. It is a deepening appreciation of what the saints are to Christ which will enable us to suffer, and to rejoice in suffering to see Christ formed in them.

Why does he speak of these sufferings as a filling up? Does it suggest there was not a completeness of these without the apostle?

This body which is being formed is so contrary to the world, and we may say, so contrary to what Satan was doing in the world, that it might have been doubtful whether it was right had Satan not persecuted it. Paul says, as it were, I minister it on the one hand and am prepared to suffer for it on the other, for suffering is bound to come; and he accepted it with joyfulness.

Were there many in the good of this truth in what we speak of as the dark ages?

Indeed yes, for how many there were who suffered!

Do we not get the first touch of the truth contained in this verse on the Damascus road? He heard that voice say, "Why persecutest thou Me?"

It is certainly the body that is in view there..

We ought to keep clear, whatever the general implications may be, that these sufferings were special to him as minister of this truth. Nevertheless, if we pursue this truth in our day, and move in relation to it, persecution more or less will be our part.

Ere we leave this verse, why is it stated that they are "the tribulations of Christ"? (New Trans.)

The reference to the words of our Lord on the Damascus road gives us the secret. "Why persecutest thou Me?" This body is so identified with Christ that it is the counterpart of Christ in testimony today, and will be used to display Christ in the world to come. What Satan is persecuting is Christ in the saints. They are thus the afflictions of Christ.

We have often said Satan has nothing against us as men but if we have the savour of the anointed vessel, which is what "the Christ" indicates, that is another matter (see footnote to v. 24 in the New Trans.). It is recorded of Amalek that he put his hand on the throne of Jah. I do not think for one moment that he could stretch his hand up to God; he cannot touch anything there but (in type) he can put his hand upon the rights of God in our hearts.

In v. 25, Paul says of himself he was "made minister", a word which indicates "waiter". Paul as a waiter ministered this truth for the enlightenment of the saints. Again in the verse, this word "dispensation" means "houselaw" — the house-law of God which was given to him to complete the divine revelation.

Prophecy had long been given; the kingdom had been announced; the sufferings of Christ and the glory of that kingdom were in the Old Testament. It is the scope of the revelation that is in view and the last thing to come out which completes that scope is the truth of the mystery. We can be sure, if it is the last thing God made known, that it is the greatest thing, for it is the centre from which all the rest will be put in order.

There is a footnote to the word "complete" in the New Translation. It is not to complete another thing by adding to it but to fill up a system already sketched out. The idea of fresh light and that sort of thing is completely ruled out. This would be in view of the danger in Colossians 2, where some would add to the revelation. If this is the completion of the matter, no more needs to be said.

It is clear from v. 26 that he is referring to the mystery. Someone has said it is the key stone to the arch.

Was this not hid in God till made known to the apostle?

It says it was "hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints". Is not that something fresh then?

We have said before that God had been speaking by the prophets to the fathers; truth was beginning to be unfolded, but the last great disclosure God has made in the scope of truth is the revelation of the mystery.

That will be why there is no quotation from the Old Testament in the epistle. It is not the completing of a prophetic word given before but a new divine revelation that never was known before.

It is said of this mystery elsewhere, that silence was kept in relation to it. It was there, but silence was kept about it.

It was not revealed to Paul only; it was revealed to all the holy apostles. What is said here is, he was the particular minister of it.

Would it not be well to describe this mystery lest it should remain a mystery to some?

It is described for us in the next verse, "Christ in you, the hope of glory".

Do you think this is quite as extensive as the expression in Colossians 2?

Yes! that is the mystery, the same mystery as here, spoken of by another term. There it is said to be the mystery of God, but here it is on our side, "Christ in you".

What about the Ephesian aspect of it?

There are many details that we may trace out in connection with it but it is definitely said here to be "Christ in you, the hope of glory". You may add a few more details about it from other places, and I would quite go with them but that is what the mystery is as spoken of here.

Does not the mystery include two thoughts — a Man at God's right hand and, Christ in you, the hope of glory?

It does, but it is the same mystery. One is the complement of the other, it must be so of necessity. There could not be "Christ in you" unless there is a Man at the right hand of God. This is the setting forth of an entirely new order involving a Man there, and that Man in His features and characteristics can be formed in each; that is the mystery.

It has been pointed out that in Ephesians the main thought is "in Christ ", but in Colossians it is more "Christ in you". These are two sides of the same thing. If we do not see that, we are going to make out there are two or three mysteries, but in the Pauline gospel there is only one mystery.

Scripture does not refer to the same thing every time we read of a mystery, for example in 1 Cor. 15, "Behold I show you a mystery". It may be as well to point that out.

Quite so, that is why we said the mystery of the Pauline gospel.

The fact that a ministry is given in relation to this mystery prove it is not mysterious, for this is something which has been made known. It is a revelation.

It is still a mystery in this way, that only those who are initiated into it by the Spirit can understand it. So it says, "Now is made manifest to His saints".

Does it help to note that in Rev. 10, it says "the mystery of God should be finished"?

This mystery in Colossians is not the same mystery as in Rev. 10. That has to do with the ways of God on earth, but this is connected with the heavenly company and is more connected with the counsel of God. In Revelation it is the mystery of why God has allowed all the bloodshed on earth; why He has allowed His people to be persecuted and why He allows us to suffer. All is going to be seen in light in that day, but here it is the hidden thought of God concerning the Church. I agree that the mystery of God may be more comprehensive in its details, but there is only one mystery when Christ and the Church are in view, that is what I am trying to keep clear.

The riches of the glory of this mystery ought to be of interest to us. Paul says concerning this, "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom".

That verges on the twofold ministry of Paul, the ministry of the gospel and the ministry of the mystery. I suppose it was the ministry of the gospel when he brought the glad tidings to them, but he not only warned every man, he also taught every man. It was said yesterday that the gospel never has its full effect upon us till we learn our attachment to Christ, and that is the effect of the teaching.

Why does he say of the mystery, "Christ in you"?

I do not suppose that was the first time they had heard that, but apparently they had not yet fully taken it in. We have seen the build up in this chapter, beginning with the "invisible God" and all that follows concerning Christ, and now have to learn that this wonderful Person is dwelling in the heart of every one of the saints today, even Gentiles. It follows that we all have a link with Christ in glory that is going to abide and is the pledge that one day we shall be with Him above. With that knowledge in our souls the practical effect is that we lose interest in man's world. That is the practical part of Colossians 3, seeking the things which are above.

The truth of the mystery is that God has persons here now, in the very place where Christ has been crucified, in whom the living characteristics of Christ are coming out, and that above all in the Gentiles who never had a link with God at all. We do not see anything greater than this, and this is the mystery.

We might have said earlier that Colossians presents the mystery in its present character today, while Ephesians has more in view the world to come. Jew and Gentile formed into one body has display in the world to come in view according to Colossians 3, but the character of the mystery here is that Christ is in the saints now and coming out in testimony.

That is what I have in mind, that God has now in this scene that which is the "Me" of Acts 9: 4, called to live as Christ would live, every feature of that blessed Man reproduced in the lives of the saints here. It is a mystery to the world, but thank God it is made manifest to the saints and we know that we are in it.

We do not take these words in any extravagant meaning at all — "the riches of the glory". To think that God has the very best for rebels such as we were, bringing us into association with Himself as being here in this world with Christ dwelling in us, the hope of glory!

What I connect with the riches of the glory is that God is so delighted with Christ, and always has been. In eternity past, "Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world". When here, He was manifested as the Son of His love. Now He is cast out of the world but says, as it were, I have a people in whom are reproduced the features of that One Who has delighted My heart for ever. This is the mystery.

It is a mystery, I suppose, because God had this in mind before ever the world was, but He could not disclose it till He had Christ in glory. The mystery involves a Man in heaven and God on earth — the characteristics of this dispensation. It is peculiar to this dispensation too, and the mystery was not made known until these two facts were established.

So we are a privileged people.

Yes, it involves being full grown in Christ Jesus, as the word "perfect" indicates. This is the light which governs us, and that is why I pointed out the word is house-law, the real meaning of this dispensation. There was a time when the house-law consisted of meats and drinks; separation from Gentiles, etc.; but that is not the house-law today. The house-law today is the mystery; that is the governing thing which has to control us, the ministration of Christ and the manifestation of Christ here in this world today.

Why is verse 28 in the singular?

Did you mean teaching every man?

Yes, and presenting every man.

Well, I cannot grow for you. It is there for each one of us. It has been rightly said — no one can put truth into anyone's soul. If some of us have been graciously helped to open up the word a little for the enlightenment of others, we cannot put it into any soul; only the Holy Spirit can do that.

It has been pointed out that in a babe all the faculties are there but they need to be developed. Now God has put the faculties in the saints, no one else can do that, but we may by our simple ministry help to develop those faculties. So that the suffering of v. 24 goes on to combat in v. 29.

What is this presentation?

Fully grown in the truth today. How often people say, "We shall never be perfect in this world", whereas there are many Scriptures which say we ought to be, and here is one of them. No doubt what they have in mind is sinlessness, and we shall never reach that till we are glorified; but perfection in this chapter means full growth to maturity. We ought to have that in mind in every little service we take up, to present the saints in that way.

Every faculty in exercise.

Very good. As our brother has said, all the faculties are there but they need developing and using in exercise.

Venturing on a free translation of this verse, it may be, "agonizing, according to His energy, which worketh in me effectually". So far as I can see, that is the meaning of these words. Agonizing for the saints in the work which God had given him to do; supplied with divine energy to do it, and thanking God that it had been made effective.

So that the effect of the gospel brings us into the Assembly, and we have teaching there to bring us to perfection.

What would be the gain of coming to meetings like this if we were not desirous of growing in the truth? It is grand for us to reach out to maturity. Surely no one would like to think he had no more knowledge now than when he was five years old! Well, how long have we been in the meetings? How much more do we know of these things than when first we came along? How much more capable are we of using them? That is the perfection in view here.

It took Jacob twenty years to add El to Beth-El.

The reason for that was, he was in a sphere where they would not put the second before the first. Laban said it was not the custom of that land to put the second before the first and until we see that God has put the Second Man before the first, and we do so, we shall not make progress in these truths.

Colossians 2: 1-12

It was remarked at the close of the reading on chapter 1 that the mystery in Colossians is said to be "Christ in you, the hope of glory", as having a present effect in the reproduction of the features of Christ in the Gentiles. This gives us a link with where we begin today. We noticed that the mystery was not presented here as it is in Ephesians, where it involves the body composed of Jew and Gentile, and having display in the world to come in view. Here it is what is operative now amongst the Gentiles, and that helps us to see why in this chapter we have a succession of warnings against the things which would hinder the reproduction of features of Christ in the saints today. The chapter opens with an account of the conflict — agony, as the word means -which the apostle endured as he thought of Laodicea a well as of those Colossian saints. He feared lest the ministry he was called of God to give to them was not working out as it should do in these companies, and he agonized in prayer for them that they might stand in the power of it.

Are we to agonize in the same way?

It would be this to which the apostle alludes in 2 Cor. 11, "the care of all the churches", and I think it ought to mark all who are called in any way to minister the truth; there ought to be deep exercise that what is ministered is made good in the hearts and the lives of the saints.

This is more than doctrine — our daily devotion enters into it. The more I love the Lord, the more He is precious to me, so much the more shall I agonize that features of Himself might be displayed in the saints. While one would desire to present these things in order, so that the saints might grasp them in their minds, I would also be concerned in prayer that the affections of the saints might be stirred. I do feel that this is something more than teaching; it involves intimacy with Christ, and an appreciation of His Person and His love. One would desire that such things should have a living place formatively in the hearts of the saints, and to agonize for them that this might be so is one of the highest services we can engage in.

It is the affections of the saints the apostle had in view when he says, "That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love".

I am impressed with the fact that the combat here stands related to the features of Christ being reproduced now — not in the world to come. That is the whole point in this epistle.

There will not be any need of combat in the world to come, for Christ will be displayed in glory in all the saints. The amazing thing is that we are called by the grace of God, enlightened and empowered, to manifest now those features which came out in Christ.

The Holy Spirit would effect this in the saints. It seems as though the saints at Colosse did not know what the apostle was passing through on their account, and the saints today may not know how much of this marks those who minister the truth to them.

We have noticed already in this epistle how that which specially concerned the apostle is brought before us, yet these principles ought to be true of us all. The apostle desired that the word should go deeper than their minds when he said — "That their hearts might be comforted".

I suppose the one thing which is going to produce this is "the full knowledge of the mystery of God", as it is in the New Translation. Assurance, connected with "full knowledge". The danger is in thinking that this is something difficult of understanding, yet it is the very thing which is going to bind the saints together and bring to light that united reproduction of Christ which is in view in these chapters.

Why did you say a united reproduction?

Would not that statement "their hearts . . knit together" have this in view? It means that we have each an individual appreciation of this and move together. It is wonderful to see a company diverse in social standing, intellectual attainments, etc., yet moving and held together. Only truth like this will produce such an effect. Can anything draw me to a brother or sister more than his or her desire to be here like Christ? It draws out my affections to them at once.

Would there be a moral order here? Comforted; knit together; full assurance of understanding. It seems to me the comfort and being knit together lead to the full assurance.

This word "assurance" would indicate that as we go on with this truth we get so thoroughly established in these things that we are not moved away by other things. We have assurance.

Can you say what it was that caused Laodicea to miss all this?

I can only think they had fallen victims to the very things from which the Colossians were preserved — that is, if they were preserved from them. Maybe the Laodiceans had disregarded these warnings. If we go in for philosophy, vain deceit, and the wisdom of men, we shall soon be so filled with that sort of thing that Christ will be left outside. There is no room for the Head in that.

Is it in your mind to say a little more about "the mystery of God"? If so, why, according to the New Translation, is "of the Father and of Christ" omitted?

I suppose, first, it is a matter for the translators to judge whether it ought to be there or not. Yet it is called in Colossians 4, "the mystery of Christ". As we said yesterday, there is only one mystery whatever name is given to it according to the particular aspect in each place in which reference to it is made. It is the mystery which was given to Paul and came directly to him from God.

We may well seek that this mystery might be unlocked to us, for in it we read are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge".

If we are established in the truth of the "mystery" we have the key which unlocks the revelation God has given to us of His thoughts. We do not want to stop short of this, but seek to grasp it in its entirety; for it is the kernel of the ways of God, the kernel of the counsel of God, and in it we have the key to unlock all the treasures of God in the unfolding of the Divine revelation to our souls. I do not doubt the Assembly is the secret of it all.

Having spoken of the importance of the truth of the mystery, he now warns the saints lest they might be distracted from the power of it. He begins to point out to them in v. 4 that many delusions were around to which they might fall victims unless fully established in the truth of the mystery. One often has the experience of being asked, "What do you think of this?" or, "Do you thing that is right?", and one cannot help but think that had the saints been more fully established in the truth of the mystery they would not have had any difficulty with the delusions. If we are not going in for this truth we may fall a prey to all sorts of wrong things.

When Paul went to Corinth, he carefully kept away from the very things he speaks of as dangers to these Colossians. The same words are used there — "persuasive speech" — but Paul did not use this. We need to be clear in our minds between true gift and persuasive speech. It is not what a brother may say in persuasive speech but what he brings of the glorified Man, Christ Jesus.

What did you say about "full knowledge"?

That we do not want to stop short of it in its entirety. Some have striven all their lives to know more and more of these great matters. Often sleep has been sacrificed when men have wrestled with divine problems, determined to know them at all cost.

It is recorded of J.N.D. that he gave three days to prayer and fasting seeking to understand that verse, "greater works than these shall he do".

It is obvious that the apostle recognizes the seriousness of this attack. They had not yet slipped, for he speaks of the firmness of their faith. It must have been a pretty serious attack which he recognized as setting itself against those who were marked by firmness of faith, not those who were slack. Yet that opposition was sufficient to overthrow them if they were not on their guard.

It does seem that if we have not this knowledge we are not going to unlock many parts of the truth of God. Some are rather disposed to opening out the typical system in the Old Testament, but we must be firmly established here if we are to see it all in relation to Christ and the working out of the counsel of God. Ephesians no doubt goes beyond this, for we are told there the counsel of God is to head up all things in Christ, but we must know this aspect of the mystery in order to unlock other secrets and to safeguard ourselves from being turned aside by delusions. By the grace of God these precious secrets are all available to us.

It is stated in the first chapter that God would make known what are the riches of this mystery, for had God not made it known there would not have been this combat that the saints might know it. Paul was not beating the air; it was known, and he laboured that the saints might know it.

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord" would be when they had believed the gospel, but having thus believed on Him, confessing Him as Lord, it is now a question of going on in Him — "walk ye in Him". When first we came to Christ we came to Him as the only One in the universe Who could meet our need, and He did. Well, He is the only One Who can meet our need in working this out in our lives for the pleasure of God. "Walk ye in Him: rooted and built up in Him". We need not be disconcerted if we are not far on in the philosophies of this world, but let us be exercised to be rooted and built up in Him. "Rooted" means we can grow there, drawing all our resources from Him. "Built up" means we are established in the truth.

"Rooted", while something that has been done, in its effect continues. "Built up" is a continuous thing now going on, but "rooted" also means we continue in that condition. We are not uprooted. One has connected "rooted" with fruit bearing, that which is for the pleasure of God; "built up" with the house of God, which is testimony.

What had the apostle in mind when he wrote "beholding your order" (v. 5)?

Would it not be that they were walking subject to the truth they had received? Paul had said the ministry he had was working in him effectually, and I judge it was working effectually in the saints, but he feared lest that effect might be spoiled. It is not said they had lost this, but he was afraid they might lose it, for some danger was apparently surrounding them.

The order would stand out in sharp contrast to that of the Corinthian saints, where much disorder prevailed, and their faith would stand out in contrast to the Galatian saints, who were slipping away from faith.

What we have been saying gives point to the emphatic "you" of J.N.D. in v. 8. It was such persons as these who were in danger of being carried away. J.N.D. has a note that there was not merely a possibility but a real danger of such persons as these being carried away. We do not want to under-estimate the power that is set against saints who are characteristically like Christ. We may be assured that the effort of the devil does not stand in relation to our eternal salvation, for he knows that is assured, but what he is set against and what he can prevent is the moral features of Christ coming out in the saints now. That is a real danger, not a mere possibility, and we do well to face it. Here were established saints, firm in the faith, going on as they had been taught, having accepted Christ Jesus as Lord, and yet even with such there was the imminent danger that if they did not hold fast the Head, they might fail in this representation of Christ.

"Beware lest any man spoil you". It means "make a prey of you". Something like a captured animal, unable to move in the sphere where one could normally move; out of one's environment, and all through philosophy and vain or empty deceit — nothing in it at all.

Satan would use men and elements of the world, but what he cannot use is that which is according to Christ. "According to Christ" is the standard. Is it according to God's anointed Man?

The things of verse 8 do not carry us one step out of man's world. We know how quite a lot of these things are detailed in other epistles.

Was there a danger of this marking them?

There may have been those in the Assembly there who were active in these things. There was love, faith, hope, and the truth, and a firm standing in what they had been taught. The danger was of their being moved away from that, and then these things would be found within. Evidently we have to admit there is that within each one of us which would answer to these attacks from without, and they would soon get in if we did not hold fast the Head. That is the only salvation. If we are holding fast the Head we shall receive nourishment from the Head and the influence of the Head will control us.

There is so much that is according to Christ to occupy us for time and eternity, so why should we turn to these other things? The fulness of the Godhead is in Christ and it is not worth while being occupied with anything else.

It has been a wonderful experience to some of us, in passing through this world, to notice many things going on there which do not interest one at all. It is a good exercise to examine oneself as to whether one was beginning to show interest in them. They ought not to attract us.

It is not only that they do not interest us but what a danger there is in touching them. We may as well warn ourselves that there is positive danger in touching the philosophy, politics, wisdom and religions of this world. They are not according to Christ, and that is the simple standard. He is outside of them all. We need to take notice of this word, "Beware".

We reach now one of those very comprehensive statements about the Personal greatness and glory of Christ, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily". What room is there here for the elements of this world? We noted in Col. 1: 19, that the word "Godhead" is not in the text, and also that "Father" is in italics; it is merely "all fulness was pleased to dwell"; but we are assured that here it is the "fulness of the Godhead". This word, as most of us will know, is used only in this single place in Scripture. We might have understood the "fulness of the Godhead" as seen in Christ when in this world in testimony for God. It was there in view of reconciliation for the pleasure of the Godhead, as we noted, but here it is stated of Him as in Manhood in glory; and this time, not so much for testimony, or to effect reconciliation which He has done perfectly for the pleasure of the Godhead, but to keep simple saints like us here for the pleasure of God. How wonderful, is it not?

Would that verse in John 1: 16, "and of His fulness have all we received" come in here?

I hardly think so, for preceding that statement it says "full of grace and truth". That was the resource that was in Him to meet our need. The truth enlightens us concerning God; grace meets us in our need; it is of that fulness we have received, it is dwelling in Him; but what we do receive from the One in Whom that fulness dwells is all the support we need to move here for the pleasure of God.

This fulness, though in Him, is there in regard to us. What you have just said is very important and encouraging, that the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in that blessed Man in heaven is available to enable me to be here according to the divine mind.

We can see then the necessity of the addition of this word "bodily". The fulness must be toward us in that blessed Man. It is of course an assertion that Christ is still in Manhood in a glorified body in the presence of God. Not merely a spirit, but in bodily form He is glorified in the presence of God.

What is meant by the word "dwelleth"?

The fulness of the Godhead is there to stay and to be available for us at all times.

Does it carry also the thought that it is complacent there, it is at home there? What a blessed Person He must be in Whom this fulness is at home.

It adds here "And ye are complete in Him which is the Head of all principality and power". It does not say "head of the body" — why is this?

I think we see this worked out somewhat further down the chapter. They may have been turning to these principalities and powers, so the apostle is warning them that Christ is the Head of these beings. They are all subordinate to Him.

When He is spoken of as the "Head of all principalities and powers" is it to show the difference between this and "the Head of the body"? The members of the body are united to Him, these beings are not.

No doubt. If there is anything in these principalities and powers that can be of help to me (for I suppose the unfallen angels are at His disposal) the Head will direct them to help me, but if I pray to angels on my own account they will not help me at all. He controls them all on my account.

All this seems to be heading up to the statement "holding the Head". Is it not true that in His headship we can go direct to Him? We do not need any intermediary, but receive direct from His hand. All wisdom, all nourishment comes from Him and as the supreme One we can go direct to Him.

The word "complete", in v. 10, is the word "fulness" in v. 9. "All the fulness" dwells in Him bodily and we are filled full in Him. It involves both His Godhead and His Manhood, if we are to be in touch with Him.

Is there any difference between being filled full in Him and being filled full by Him?

Do you mean we are potentially filled full in Him by appointment but filled full by Him when we lay hold of these resources? Yes! indeed, it is one thing for us to read that it is true for us in Him, but another thing for us to be laying hold of that, going on with it in practice.

There is another fulness mentioned at the end of Eph. 3, "filled with all the fulness of God". That is often placed alongside the fulness here, but I judge the two are distinct. I have come to the conclusion that the fulness in Eph. 3 is the fulness of the divine revelation which is going to be displayed in the world to come, called in Eph. 1, "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all". I do not think it is the fulness of Godhead there. The Assembly is being formed as a vessel to contain that fulness in view of display, but I am sure this fulness of Godhead will never dwell in the Assembly. It is in the One Who dwells in the Assembly and is available today to enable the saints to function for God. I do think there is a distinction between the two statements and what each involves.

It is a definite statement, "ye are complete in Him". That is true from the Divine side and is true of every saint; but as observed, we need to lay hold upon it.

It is there for the company but it is true we do not touch these things in the company unless we touch them individually. We must note that the company is in mind, it is the body, saints knit together in this hostile world showing the moral features of Christ in testimony. And this is one of the resources we have to enable us for this — that the One in Whom all the fulness of the Godhead is dwelling bodily will maintain us. We need not go outside of Him at all.

There are three things connected with the Headship of Christ — direction, control and nourishment. Here it is the thought of control, "Head of all principality and power". How grand to be under His control, that of Him Who is in control of every angelic being.

These definite statements would assure the Colossians of all the resources they had in Christ to combat these things against which he warns them. The exhortations come later.

Yet the exhortations are on the lines of warnings, so that they should avoid them. The dangers come from men in the flesh and they appeal to us as in the flesh, but circumcision means that the fleshly order has been ended in the cross of Christ. This v.11 is one of the verses which show that circumcision in the Old Testament is not a type of baptism in the New, for both are mentioned here as distinctive things. In type, they were through the waters of Jordan before they were circumcised.

Circumcision is said to be in Him; baptism is said to be with Him.

"In which" in v. 3 (New Trans.) would refer to the mystery, but "In Whom" v. 11 would refer to Christ, I suppose.

Yes! and what is in view in v.11 is that at the cross God brought to an end, judicially, that fleshly man that is in me. He did not circumcise it in me but He did circumcise it in Christ, substitutionally that is.

The flesh did not need to be cut off in Christ Personally as we well know, for such was never in Him. It is the cutting off of "our old man" in Him, substitutionally.

Why does it say, "the body of the flesh", as it ought to read?

It is the "old man" in totality. We read in v. 11 "ye are circumcised", for God has done this at the cross; but in v. 12 we are responsible to do something in answer to this. We show our appreciation of what God has done by submitting to the waters of baptism with a view to association with Christ as risen again from among the dead.

Colossians 2: 13-23

There are four things in these verses which we must note, two on the negative side and two on the positive. These are — "circumcision" and "buried"; then, "raised" and "quickened". This teaches us that one history is closed in the death of Christ and a new history opened up for us in His resurrection. We have seen that resurrection introduces us into a new sphere in association with Christ, and quickening gives us the new life to live there.

Why does it add at the end of v. 13, "having forgiven you all trespasses"?

I judge it is to show that in the new sphere the question of sins will never arise. "Having forgiven" would show that God has settled that question in view of leading us on in the new sphere. I apprehend the Gentile is in view in v. 13 and the Jew in v. 14. The cross of Christ has dealt with both and we have been "quickened together with Him". We know this is the side of the mystery presented mainly in Ephesians, the Gentile and the Jew. That is one of the places where the Gentile is put before the Jew, both formed into "one body".

Is that why in v. 13 he says "you" and in v. 14 "us"?

Yes! The handwriting of ordinances was never against the Gentiles but it was there against the Jew. On the other hand, so long as that was standing as the house-law (the meaning of the word administration, Col. 1: 25 N.T.), it meant that a Gentile would have had to become a Jewish proselyte, but there is now a new house-law, the mystery, which is "Christ in you, the hope of glory".

I note it is in the singular, the "handwriting of ordinances". I suppose the Jews put their hand to it, the Gentile never did. That condition of things which had grown old has now been taken out of the way and room made for the introduction of the mystery, involving both the Gentile and the Jew.

Would it include the whole ceremonial law?

Yes! the whole economy to which a Gentile would have to subscribe, and we learn from the Acts that there was an attempt on the part of Christians to force the converts into an acceptance of all these ordinances. It was completely against the mind of the Spirit.

What is the force of having nailed it to the cross?

A word in Galatians would help here. It is recorded that Christ has borne the curse of a broken law, as it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3: 13). This handwriting stood against them in condemnation, it brought in every one of them as guilty before God. We know that while Christ lived He maintained every principle of that covenant, then he died, bearing the curse of the law broken by the people, to deliver them from its bondage.

Emphasis is laid here upon "the cross" (New Trans.), while peace is made by the blood of "His cross" as in Col. 1. In Col. 1 it was more the Person but here it is the way it has been done. It is the cross.

Wherever we get the cross in Scripture it has in view the judgment of man after the flesh. When the blood of Christ is spoken of, the redemptive work which He has accomplished is in view. When the death of Christ is spoken of, His love is in view; how clear this is on Lord's Day morning. When the cross of Christ is spoken of, the end of that man who could only offend against God is in view. So He met the curse of a broken law when He was nailed to the tree.

Often in our business dealings when a matter fails we tear up the agreement and put it in the fire, but God does not deal with it in that way. He says as it were, I'll take that document which you have signed and fulfil it, so Christ has borne the curse entailed.

We have life in v. 13, quickening; liberty in v. 14; and deliverance from all which held their souls in bondage in v. 15.

You mean by deliverance that He has spoiled principalities and authorities?

Yes! All this is the effect of the cross and makes this ministry effectual. These principalities and powers would be the beings who are opposed to us in the sphere into which we have been introduced through being raised and quickened.

Would the record of Samson carrying the gates of Gaza to the top of the hill be descriptive of this triumph?

Yes! It was done openly; as Paul said — "not done in a corner".

We must remember this is God's acting, not man's. This goes back to the sentence in v. 12, "the operation of God". All these verses are covered by that phrase. In v. 14 the ordinances are brought to an end, hence he says in v. 16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink". Principalities and powers being overthrown, as stated in v. 15, was to preserve them from "a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels" (v. 18).

Is "triumphing over them in it" the same as in Eph. 4, "He led captivity captive"?

We usually apply that verse in Ephesians to death itself, all that it meant as bondage to the souls of men. He took it captive in resurrection. Here it is adverse angelic powers, supernatural as we speak. Christ is in supremacy above them, having gained this public victory over them. The cross is the evidence that they have all been eliminated.

In what way is this publicly manifested?

It has reference to the cross of Christ which was a public event. It was a manifestation to the world, and all the world was represented there in the superscription over His head — Hebrew and Greek and Latin. The victory was on the cross according to this verse. The cross was an open event; the resurrection was private, but this was an open victory. The Lord had said of this, "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John 12: 31). He added also "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me". That is what is here. Resurrection is the victory over death, but here it is the cross where Christ publicly overthrew every adverse power. Death was the result of sin coming into the world and Christ, having dealt with every opposing force when on the cross, went into death to overcome it also — when He was raised from among the dead. It is striking that in 1 Cor. 15 death is said to be the last enemy. It was the last enemy Christ dealt with, having accomplished the work upon the cross, and it is the last enemy He will deal with at the end of the kingdom.

Every power that could be ranged against Christ was seen at the cross; the leaders of the people, the Gentiles, the powers of darkness, the prince of this world, all were there and every one of them has been completely and absolutely defeated. It is well for us to get a clear view of this or we shall not enjoy the victory and liberty which have been secured for us. What we are trying to establish is that His death has cleared the ground of every opposing force and His resurrection has opened up a new sphere where these things can never come.

In Psalm 22 there are seven distinctive enemies enumerated and Christ met every one of them single-handed and overcame them all. The first one is the worst — SIN; and the last one is DEATH. "Save Me from the lion's mouth". The answer is — resurrection.

The result now is "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink". Do not allow any one to put you again under these legal ordinances, for the death of Christ has ended them. These things would be the ceremonial law which has been spoken of but they are all shadows.

There can be little doubt that this would be a real difficulty to a godly Jew; to think that these things which had been set up by God had to be set on one side.

Is not that what we read of in Hebrews, "He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second"?

No doubt. We apprehend that "of Christ" (v. 17) means that I believe the body here is the body which is attached to the Head, and that body is "of" Christ in derivation and is not derived from the shadows.

This body could not come into being till Christ had set aside the shadows.

Surely, that is why we must not attempt to link the body with the shadows, it is derived from Christ and came into being from Christ in glory, The "but" seems to simplify that; it is a contrast.

What is the reward or prize in v. 18?

That which is stated in v. 19, holding the Head. Do not let us get to worshipping angels etc.; hold the Head.

The worship of angels is shown to be wrong in Scripture, "Let all the angels of God worship Him".

What are these "things to come" (v. 17)?

They will be seen displayed fully in the world to come of which the law was but a shadow, but they are here now in Christianity before the world to come is established. They are all available for us today. It is a term used more than once in the epistle to the Hebrews, "But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come" (Heb. 9: 11). This in fullness is looking on to the world to come, but in that epistle they are all available in the power of the Spirit today. They have come.

Some of our hymn writers had these things in mind, as we note in two lines of No. 233.

Thou dost make us taste the blessing,

Soon to fill a world of bliss.

Are these things contradictory, "doing his own will in humility" and "vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh" (N.T.)?

That is why he does it; being puffed up by the mind of his flesh he does things which God has never told him to do. All these things are the product of the imagination of a corrupt mind, yet men introduce them into divine service, so-called.

Whilst the angels excel in strength, their measure is that of a man (Rev. 21: 17). I take this to be obedience.

Yes, creature measurement. Why worship that which is limited by creature measurement? We worship before the immeasurable infinity of the blessed God.

It is a serious thing to notice that what actuates all this is the mind of the flesh, and we know from elsewhere that that is enmity against God. However religious and however attractive these things may appear the motive behind it all is anti-God.

Christ in Manhood takes precedence over angels, and we are associated with Him where He now is. The last verse of Hebrews 1 shows the place of angels. It is worth noting that two distinct words are used there for "ministering" and "minister". The word for "ministering" is liturgical — public servants of God. The word for "minister" is diaconate — to wait upon. Here are the public servants of God who serve Him in every part of the universe, waiting upon the saints of God.

Angels are not brought in to be regarded in a derogatory way, but rather to show the blessed place the saints have as associated with Christ.

Angels have a great work to do both today and as porters at the gates of the holy city, so we must not speak of them in any slighting way; but if God presents to me a MAN above all angels I am not to worship angels but to "hold fast the Head".

What is involved in "holding fast the Head" as the New Translation renders it?

That we turn to Him for all guidance, enlightenment, direction, control, nourishment; for He will give all that I need to move in relation to Him in this world, and He supplies all we need to make those movements according to God.

What is meant by "worship" here?

Giving to these angels what is called sacerdotal service, bowing down to them, ascribing praise and adulation to them. No unfallen angel seeks this, but fallen angels do (Matt. 4: 9). In the Revelation the angel would not have worship from John. He told him to worship God.

If the Head is given His rightful place, what place have the joints and the bands?

We had before us yesterday these four prepositions — "in Whom" (v. 11); "with Whom" (v. 12); "of Christ" (v. 17); "from which" (v. 19). We have been circumcised in Him; buried with Him; we are of Him; and we receive everything from Him. It will come from the Head but He may give it to me through those He has chosen to minister these things. All direction and guidance is from Him, but we receive it through those whom He uses to minister the truth to us.

We must hold the fact that we are bound to the Word. Men are rising up who claim that they receive things direct from Christ which cannot be found, as they put them, in the Scriptures. We only receive from Him through the medium of the Scriptures. We need to beware of new light etc., and stick to what is given in the Scriptures.

We do get help in private meditation though, looking to the Lord to guide us.

Yes! but it is through the Word. If we follow some we shall soon be saying we do not need the Bible any more.

When Mary came to the disciples she said, "she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her" (John 20: 18). That is the kind of ministry to which you refer.

It is for that is here. It was in the power of that ministry the disciples were gathered together.

I think you have used the term "influenced by the Head", and it may raise the question as to how many of us are. To be in the Christian company at all we must own His Lordship, but then we are led on to know His Priesthood and here we are led on to know His Headship. I do think we need to know more of it.

I am glad you raise that because that is what we all need. The introduction of that word "fast" in the New Trans. is of the last importance. It is not to be a casual matter, or an intermittent matter. Holding fast the Head from Whom all comes, through whomsoever it may come; but it comes from the Head.

All that we need to function here Christ will supply, and will supply through one and another.

I rather think the three thoughts regarding Headship that are mentioned in the epistles are seen in the feeding of the five thousand. He took control when He took the five loaves. He gave direction when He commanded them to sit down. In the food He gave them nourishment. These three things are connected with Headship.

The disciples were delegated by Him to pass this on. It was food that was increased and magnified and multiplied by the powerful hands of the living Lord Himself, but He delegated the distribution of it to His disciples. Spiritual food does not come from the servant, though the Lord may greatly use such to help us, but the Word has come from Him, from the Head. I appreciate the desire to guard this matter as I think there is a danger of someone attempting to be so hyper-spiritual that they pretend to have fresh light that no one else has got, and which cannot be proved from Scripture.

In the Synoptic Gospels the Lord gives the food to the disciples, but in John He gives it to the multitude Himself. It is one of the points which enhance that gospel that it is not recorded that the disciples gave, but that the Lord gave directly, Himself (see New Trans. John 6: 11).

While we are directly dependent upon the Head for all, He has made us interdependent as members of the body.

Why do you think this particular expression, "holding fast the Head", is used?

Obedience is connected more with Lordship and the kingdom, but here it is a question of deriving sustenance from Him. It has been said, He supplies in His Headship all that I need to obey Him in His Lordship.

Does it take a certain amount of spiritual wisdom to hold the Head?

I do not think so! I believe there are many saints who are holding fast the Head who do not know Christ by that term at all. There are some saints who are in touch with Christ from morning to night, yet if we spoke to them of the Head they might wonder what we were talking about. It is important to have a spiritual understanding of it, but it is there for the simplest believer.

Paul said, "immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood" (Gal. 1: 16).

Yes! that is it in operation.

We must note here it is not the increase of the Head but the increase of God. I gather that is why this is linked with the Headship of v. 10.

It might help here to point out that the Headship of Christ is presented in seven distinctive characters, two of them in the Old Testament. In Ps. 18 He is said to be the "Head of the heathen". In Ps. 118 He is said to be "Head of the corner". Creatorially in 1 Cor. 11 He is "Head of every man". In Col. 1: 18, He is "Head of the body". In Eph. 5: 23, He is "Head of the Church". In this chapter He is "Head of all principality and power". In Eph. 1: 22, He is "Head over all things". Now I think that when it says here "The Head", they are all gathered together.

I thought it linked up with the fact that He is the One in Whom is all the fulness of the Godhead. This is what we are drawing from, the One Who has all the resources of Godhead dwelling in Him; and as we see this Headship linked with that aspect of the One in Whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, we see the absolute foolishness of attempting to draw from any other source.

What is the end in view in all this?

As the result of nourishment being ministered, we are knit together corporately and increase with the increase of God. We touch here one of the mediatorial offices which Christ is filling as the Head, with a view to building us up spiritually in the knowledge of God.

If we were not drawing from the Head we might forget these hidden joints and bands. Every saint of God is drawing from this blessed One Who is Head of the body, and that must of necessity result in a uniting together and an increase which is according to God. Is this not the object of all ministry that there may be increase according to God? We do not want an increase of doctrine and knowledge only, important as that is, but we do want an increase that is of God that He may become blessedly real to us.

I would not care to attempt to speak to the saints without first asking counsel from the Lord as to what to say and then asking help of Him in saying it. That is holding fast the Head. When things are done that way, we can be assured that some impress of God will come about as a consequence. I have to acknowledge this is going on in ministry and if I ignore it I am going to miss much help in the things of God. It is there for every one of us as members of His body.

Colossians 3: 1-11

We have gathered from the ground already covered in the two preceding chapters that Christ, as Head of the body to which we belong, has every resource for every member to enable us to function for Him in this world. As Gentiles, in whom Christ has been formed, we are able to live pleasurably to God in this world now. Then we saw in Col. 2 many things which we need to avoid, things which are of no help to us in the service of God. Now we come to the positive side of that to which we have been called, and again read of other things we need to avoid. The chapter opens presenting the objective sphere where Christ is in glory and our association with Him there as raised, then goes on to show that having put off the old man and put on the new man, the features of Christ come to light in every one of us.

I suppose the meaning of this "if" is "seeing this is so", seek the things which are above.

We see here the counterpart of our having died with Christ; now we are said to be raised with Him. I suppose one is consequent upon the other.

We have already noted from Col. 2 that we are said to be both raised and quickened. Not only have we a place in that sphere with Christ as raised, we also have the power to live there — we have been quickened. It is a new sphere of life entirely in association with Christ in glory. It is well to note that we are said to be quickened together with Christ. Not only has God caused us to live, we live in relation to Christ not in a detached way at all.

Can we define these "things which are above"?

What characterizes these things is that they are with Christ at the right of God. We are to seek them and have our minds on them. This involves real exercise of heart as following the rich ministry of the previous chapters. These things should become attractive to us, for we do not seek things which are not attractive to us. In Psalm 27 we read, "One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after". It is not sufficient to have desires after these things; we must seek after them. It seems that if we were seeking the things above the Spirit would be more free to reveal them to us, for all those things, though spoken of as the depths of God, stand in relation to a Man Who is at the right hand of God.

A completely new order of things has come into existence now as available for the saints of God, and Christ is the centre of them in glory. These things could not come out while He was living in this world; but after His death, resurrection and ascension the whole scope of these spiritual blessings is opened out for us, and that is what we are exhorted to seek after.

There were many things which the Lord said to His disciples which they were not to speak about till He was risen from the dead. They had to wait till the Spirit had come and the right presentation of what He had given would be known to them. Now our life is hid with Christ in God and these things are not publicly known. They can be known only in a realm where we are in association with Himself, and to those in mind at the beginning of the chapter, "if ye then be risen with Christ".

What is the force of this expression "at the right hand of God"?

In the epistle to the Hebrews it is said four times of the Lord that He is sitting at "the right hand". In Heb. 1 He "has sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high". In Heb. 8 it is "on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens". In Heb. 10 it is "on the right hand of God", and in Heb. 12 "at the right hand of the throne of God". When His Personal glory is in view in Heb. 1 and  Heb. 10 it is the right hand of God, while as Priest and Overcomer He is at the right hand of the throne. It amplifies what has been said that the Man in the glory of God is God in His Person.

"To which of the angels said He at any time, Sit on My right hand?" (Heb. 1: 13). We were speaking of the worship of angels yesterday, but that verse would preclude any such thought. When our Lord was before the council He said, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man siting on the right hand of power" (Matt. 26: 64). That meant He was the Son of God. It is the place of power but also a striking testimony to the glory of His Person.

I understand His being at the right hand of God is to show that as co-equal with God He will carry out everything for the pleasure of God, and this place is unique to Christ in Manhood. We are said to be seated with Christ in heavenly places, but it never says we shall be at the right hand of God.

Would these things which are above be the spiritual blessings which are ours in Christ?

I do not doubt that. In Ephesians we are said to have been blessed with them in heavenly places in Christ; here in the beginning of the chapter we are told to seek them as we are still on the earth, but associated with Christ in resurrection in the power of a new life.

Why does the New Translation give it as "the Christ"?

Some have averred that "the christ" is always a title, but you will find an important note on this very matter in 2 Cor. 1 (New Trans.). J.N.D. shows it is not always a title nor always a name. We have understood the anointed vessel in 1 Cor. 12: 12 to be the body, and the footnote helps in relation to this point.

"Sitting" indicates something completed as we know so well from Hebrews, and He sits there to bring into being everything for the pleasure of God.

The contrast to things above is obviously things on the earth. There is a difference between worldly things and earthly things, and it may be we are more in danger of earthly things than worldly things.

It was that which brought tears to the eyes of the apostle as he tells us in Philippians of those "who mind earthly things", and he does not say of them that they were enemies of Christ but enemies of the cross of Christ.

Three times in the gospel of John we have recorded that the Lord spoke of being lifted up, but only in John 12 are those significant words added, "will draw all men unto Me". It is lifted up "from the earth"; He has left the earth and we are to leave the earth in our affections as attracted to Him. First we seek these things, then we set our minds upon them; we go after them as minded to allow them to have an effect upon us.

Would it not test us when we meet one another as to whether we speak of earthly things or heavenly things?

We have a helpful illustration of this in the two going to Emmaus. The topic of their conversation was Himself. When He asked them of the things of which they were speaking they said, "Concerning Jesus". Though disappointed, the topic of their conversation was Jesus. Then He enlarges on that by giving them something more — the knowledge that Christ was risen.

The sphere of life in Colossians 3 has been mentioned. We have been quickened in our souls as seen in Colossians 2, but here it says "your life is hid with Christ in God". I think it is importance to get hold of this objective side of life, for the life we are given in our souls is lived in the sphere where Christ is.

Say something about the phrase, "ye are dead", and what is involved in "your life is hid with Christ in God".

We have this life while we are on earth but it is not given us for the earth. So far as our spiritual history is concerned we are dead to things here, and we live that new life in the scene where Christ is, a life said to be "hid with Christ in God".

Perhaps our brother has in mind the absolute character of this statement. In other Scriptures we are said to be dead to certain things, but here it is categorically stated "ye have died" (N.T.).

That subject is raised in Colossians 2. In relation to our baptism we profess to have died. No doubt in the thought of God that is true, but we professed it in baptism. It is a definite statement that we have to accept. God Himself has brought it about through the death of Christ. If it is asserted that we are risen then we must have died. It may be asked, Died to what? Died to everything which could not be associated with Christ in glory.

This seems to be the most absolute statement on this matter in the New Testament. In Romans 6 we are exhorted to reckon ourselves dead; Paul said he bore continually in his body the dying of Jesus; but here we are said to be dead as an absolute statement.

From whom is this life hidden?

From the men of this world. It is not hidden from us, for it says "your life". We are just guarding the fact that it is our spiritual life as the fruit of what God has effected. "If ye then be risen with Christ", that is, in the operation of God associating us with Christ.

It has been said as to our bodies, we are still in Egypt; as to our experience we are in the wilderness; but through faith we are in the land.

What life was the apostle Paul referring to when he said, "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. 2: 20)?

I think it was this life coming out in practice. He was no longer living to himself, but living to and for Christ in that new impulse of life he had received from the Son of God. No doubt in Galatians it stands in contrast to trying to live by the law; he lived by the faith of the Son of God indicating, no doubt, Christianity in its power.

There is only one life spiritually, whatever name is given to it. Sometimes it is called eternal life, but there is only one kind of spiritual life in our souls.

We have a definition of this life here; "Christ, who is our life".

Would not Joash when hid in the temple be a picture of this? Faithful hearts in Israel knew of him there and bowed to him there in view of the day when he would come forth and take his rightful place on the throne. As Joash was ultimately manifested, so will Christ be. One could hardly imagine that any fellowship between the supporters of Athaliah and those of Joash would be possible. So it is today.

Life is characterized by relationships, affections and enjoyments. If then our life is hid with Christ in God, all our relationships, affections and enjoyments are there.

In the gospel it is recorded that "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3: 36). Is this a different aspect of that life?

There is only one source of life and one power of life in our souls, whatever the different characteristics of that life may be. Here it is lived in the new realm of things which has come into existence through the resurrection of Christ. Eternal life is lived in communion with the Father and the Son. The same life, but looked at in two distinctive ways. No doubt development goes on in that life, but it was there in germ from the outset of our new history with God.

Would this be what the apostle speaks of as laying hold on eternal life?

Yes! for the correct rendering of that phrase is, "Lay holy of what is really life" (1 Tim. 6: 19, N.T.). Life in this world is not really life. This is, for it is lived in the things which will not end in death.

When it speaks of "your life", that which we have in possession, it is a hidden matter. When it is defined as "Christ who is our life" it has manifestation in view. The day is coming when it will be manifested in the world to come that the life we have been living now is that very life which will be in evidence then.

If we accept the word "Your life is hid with Christ", we shall not wish for prominence in this world, its honours will not appeal to us.

We do not want to hurt anyone, but all those things will be eschewed if we are really true to the fact that our life is hidden with Christ. We may as well be practical about it, we are either living for heaven, or living for earth; it must be one or the other. We must settle it in our minds that we cannot live for both worlds. I may try to persuade you that I can, but the fact is I cannot. I cannot spend my time sitting on councils and such like and then come to the meetings and begin to open up the truth of the mystery. I shall not have the time or inclination to appreciate such truth.

Are these definite statements true of every Christian?

Yes, indeed! They are stated to encourage our hearts so that we may seek to enjoy these things which are above. If I could move naturally into this I should not need the exhortation to seek it. Then comes the other side, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth". Life there and my old life here cannot go on together.

As true of me that I have died to things here, I now seek to mortify my members in relation to my former life here. God has given me the right to live in that new sphere and in appreciation I seek to die to life in this sphere, for I can live that old life if I want to. Let us truly face this matter. We shall never be free from these potential dangers as long as we are here, hence we need this warning. What then are we to do? God has said we are dead, but here we are as men and women in this scene, and there are certain habits which are catalogued for us from which we can never say we are free. The point is that when these things present themselves to us we are to mortify them at their very conception.

We spoke at the beginning of the objective sphere of that life; now the subjective answer is coming out in these verses.

Does Gilgal come in here?

It does. Circumcision removes the reproach of Egypt. I remember a brother once explaining that very simply. He said that when asking about a certain brother sitting in the meeting, he was told, "Had you known that man before he was converted you would not now recognise him". He was a drunkard etc.. Now, sitting so happily in the meeting, all those former marks had gone. The reproach of Egypt had been rolled away from him, for he was practically circumcised from his old life. Do the people who live with us in the same town see that we too are not marked by the things which mark the men of this world? Such things ought to have gone in mortification. "In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them". Not now! That verse is in the past tense.

Will you explain the statement, "Covetousness which is idolatry"? It is so often condemned in the Scriptures.

So far as I understand it, covetousness means allowing the desire of something God has not given us the first place in our hearts. Thus it takes the place in our affections which belongs only to God and becomes an idol. Whatever displaces God in our affections is an idol. We may desire certain things in this life which we think would be for our good, but to covet them leads to the surrender of everything in order to get them, and they then become idols.

That is a good description of idolatry — something which displaces God in our affections — and that is what covetousness leads to.

What would be the difference between mortifying and putting off as in v. 8?

Mortifying refers to the members of our body, while putting off is in relation to what we are as characterized by the old man; as we read, "seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds". I may end those things which are externally evil without putting off those things which are still latent in me — the old man. I cannot mortify them but I can put them off.

This mortifying is really a violent thing — putting to death. How does it work out in us?

Suppose I have a pressing temptation in regard to something which appeals to me and I naturally would give myself to that because it does appeal to me, it would mean violence to myself to refuse it. I think Peter has that in mind when he says; "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin" (1 Peter 4: 1). We do not always know what others are suffering by deliberately avoiding certain things.

"Make thee sharp knives" was the word of God to Israel in Gilgal. Not one of us knows what the secret of another is. The evidence that we have faced this exercise with God is seen when the features of the new man come to light.

Would this truth of putting off the old man and putting on the new be illustrated in Elijah and Elisha?

Yes, indeed! the sons of the prophets said of Elisha, "The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha" (2 Kings 2: 15). He had rent his own garments and adopted the garment of Elijah. He had no further use for the old robe.

Then it says, "Lie not one to another". We tells lies about things we have done and are too ashamed to own up to. If we are doing the things we ought to do we shall never be tempted to tell a lie. Let us note the place the tongue has in this list. James, as we well know, tells us how much evil it can cause. It is rather humbling to have to admit that all these things are in me and if I am not watchful they will soon manifest themselves.

How can we mortify them?

Seek the things which are above. That is how we have power to do so. If our minds are ever set on those things we instinctively say, "That is not going to be of any help", and we mortify it. If we have not the attraction of this better sphere governing us, we shall not have even the desire to up them off, much less the power.

If we have our hearts filled with the things which are above we shall not fear any of these things coming out.

All these negative things are summed up in the "old man". This term is used to give a complete representation of every evil feature fallen man is capable of. If we could gather together every evil thing in their totality we should see a personification of that man we should cry, Away with such a fellow, it is not fit that he should live.

That is just what God did when He crucified him with Christ. Now we are said to have put him off. In Colossians 1, where we are said to have believed the truth of the gospel, we put off the old man by faith. In Colossians 2, where we are said to have put off the body of the flesh, we put off the old man by profession. Now, in these verses by putting off his deeds we put off the old man by practice. We did not know of course when we believed the gospel that we were putting off the old man, but we did by faith — by profession when we were baptized; and by practice when we put on the deeds of the new man.

Well now, having disposed of the old man, what about the new man?

It is Christ formed in our souls by the Spirit of God. It does not say new men as though it was the company. It is that work by the Spirit in every one of our souls.

The new man is neither you nor me personally, but what the Spirit has formed of Christ in each one of us. I do not find the saints in this district doing anything different from the saints in other districts, for we all take character from Christ. The new man is not Christ personally, for He is the Second Man, but is Christ characteristically formed by the Spirit in our souls. We may make excuses for failing to maintain this by suggesting a different environment, but it matters not where we are or what we are, Christ ought to be seen in each one of us.

Could we have a word on "renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him"?

I apprehend the Creator of the new man is God, for God ever brings in new creation. I think it is God coming to light in testimony in each one of us.

Does the renewing into full knowledge give me the capability of looking at things in the way God looks at them?

The word for "renewing" is "anakainow", something entirely new. We have an entirely new motive, an entirely new power in our thinking, for we think for God now and not for ourselves. It is in the present tense.

In regard to thinking as God thinks, we have a very strong word used in 1 Cor. 2: 16, "But we have the mind of Christ". It has been pointed out that the word for "mind" there means "the same thinking capacity". The marvel is we have the thinking capacity "of Christ" and can understand divine things with the same kind of mind as Christ. We have this by having the Spirit Who searches the depths of God. May we use that mind in our thinking and so be found always considering for God. Christ will then come to light in each one of us and the features of God will be seen in display in testimony.

Colossians 4: 7-18

It is in mind, at the end of our readings, to consider the saints mentioned in the Scripture we have read together. There are several, I think, in whom we see in a living way how the truth of the epistle works out in the formation of Christian character. We see this coming out in the features of those who surrounded Paul, and who were no doubt affected by his ministry. It may have been that Tychicus took this letter to the saints because he could give an account of what was happening to Paul in the prison; Paul was also looking for him to bring back an account of what was happening in Colosse. It showed mutual interest in one another. How happy it will be, as we are about to move away from each other, if that which marked these men marks us and comes into evidence in our dealings one with another; the companies to which we belong benefiting as the fruit of what we have had before us, and room made for the Holy Spirit to continue ministering Christ to us.

It is evident that Tychicus profited considerably from Paul's ministry, for he was considered by the apostle to be a vessel competent to visit both the Colossians and the Ephesians. In view of the truth given to these two companies, it would be a test of the spiritual stature of the man whom he sent to them. We are told in the epistle to Timothy, "Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus". That would show there was discrimination with the apostle in discerning which vessel had profited by the ministry. Something distinctive is said of these persons but there are exceptions, for nothing is said of Demas in a complimentary way, just a reference. Evidently the apostle, moving under the power of the Spirit, detected what was there, for Demas had not yet openly defected. That in itself is a solemn warning to us, as to whether we may, after these meetings, be found without any of these features formed in us. There should be some feature in each of us which the Holy Spirit can take account of and use among the saints. It is a very serious challenge to us all at the end of these meetings.

Tychicus is first on the list and Demas last (so far as Paul's company is concerned) and one of the features which marked Tychicus appeared to be just the thing which tested Demas, that is, the feature of the "fellow-bondman". Demas was not prepared to suffer along with the glad tidings. Three things are said about Tychicus, "a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord".

"Fellow-bondman", as the word is, may not mean that he was in prison but he certainly had been in the prison with Paul and was quite prepared for affliction and rejection.

Why should it be considered a good commendation to be called a brother?

I gather that when Paul says, "Quartus a brother" (Romans 16: 23), Quartus had given every evidence of acting as a brother and was dependable in fulfilling his service for the Lord. He is not addressed either as a teacher or as an evangelist, but "the brother, Quartus" (N.T.), as though there was something about him which made the saints very thankful he was with them.

I take it this would not be in the eyes of Paul only. He must have been so regarded in the estimation of the brethren.

Paul always makes room for the features of a brother. In his two epistles to the Corinthians, where much needed to be put right, he associated a brother with himself; "Sosthenes our brother" in the first epistle, and "Timothy our brother" in the second.

Paul did not just lay hands on a man standing by having nothing to do, in divine things that does not happen. One is fitted for the work entrusted, and it would take some degree of spiritual judgment in Tychicus to enable him to outline to Paul the state of the Colossians, and also to outline the feelings of Paul towards them.

Paul in writing to the Philippians said of Timotheus he had "no man like-minded who will naturally care for your state".

Do we gather from this that what a man is as a brother is really greater than what he is in gift?

I think we must all accede to that.

What is the distinction between Tychicus and Onesimus?

He gets a similar commendation though evidently working in a different sphere. Tychicus is said to be a "faithful minister", while Onesimus is said to be a "faithful and beloved brother". One feature may be seen more prominently in one than in another. If this is the same person as mentioned in Philemon, it would be worth recounting now that he was "faithful". He had not been that before meeting Paul.

Perhaps they appreciated a beloved brother more than a faithful minister. By nature we tend to love affection more than faithfulness.

If we are appreciating and going on with Paul's ministry we shall value faithfulness.

We need to differentiate in our appreciation of the brethren but we should love them all.

That is why we said these men fill different spheres. Tychicus had a ministry committed to him which Onesimus did not have, but we must not think less of Onesimus because of that. He was probably shining just as brilliantly in another circle. "Beloved" and "faithful" need not describe different brothers, they may be combined in one, as they were in Tychicus.

This term "a beloved brother" is not thrown out indiscriminately, there were features there which called for it. If a brother is to be beloved there must be features about him which are lovable. Our love is not like the love of God as to its source, but it should be in its character. God loved us when we were unlovable, but there should be in us as brethren features that can be loved, and that is a challenge to us.

That is why Peter in his epistle says, "in brotherly love, love" (2 Peter 1: 7. N.T.). We love all the saints of God but I must say that certain brothers call out my love in a way some do not. Is that what you mean?

It is, and it need not be hypocritical, for brotherly love may cause us to speak in faithfulness at times.

When John wrote to Gaius as well-beloved he also spoke of his walking in the truth, and then said, "Beloved, thou doest faithfully".

One always hesitates to bring the Lord in when exhortations are before us, but is there not a very blessed example of this in John 13? He loved, and served them in love; then having put on His garments again He began to teach them, and they were ready to listen to His ministry because of the effect His love had had upon them. I am convinced that if the brethren recognized that those who minister have a real love and care for them, and that what they say is springing from their hearts' desire for the encouragement of the saints and for the promotion of the things of God, the ministry will be listened to, however faithful it may have to be. "A beloved brother, and a faithful minister", would lead to our taking the place of a bondman in faithfully serving the saints in love, a most precious thing.

Paul, no doubt, excelled in these features but he was great enough to recognize them in others.

Onesimus is referred to as a beloved brother "both in the flesh, and in the Lord" (Philemon 16). That is a remarkable expression, relating to what we speak of as mundane things as well as to the interests of the Lord.

Then we have Aristarchus, "a fellow-prisoner", one who was quite prepared to suffer affliction along with the glad tidings.

There are three expressions in this chapter — fellow-servant, fellow-prisoner and fellow-worker. Together they show a beautiful expression of fellowship.

The word in the previous chapter "the bond of perfectness" (v. 14) is the same word as "bands" in Colossians 2: 19. That feature would appear to be coming to light in this chapter.

I have thought that these three expressions are an epitome of the teaching of this epistle, fellow-servants, fellow-prisoners and fellow-workers. The epistle to the Colossians is not altogether individual; it has the body in mind, working together; moving together; being knit together. Here is a practical expression of these features coming out in men who are named.

It is striking that he should say, "These only are my fellow-workers", and yet Barnabas is named in v.10. It is not Barnabas to whom he is calling attention but Marcus, Barnabas had apparently ceased to be a fellow-worker with Paul. We know the history in regard to Marcus and it seems from that moment Barnabas and Paul ceased to be fellow-workers. It is striking that the very man who was the cause of the difficulty now comes in as a fellow-worker, and can we not assume that this wonderful recovery had come about in Marcus through an increased appreciation of Paul's special ministry?

So if Demas is slipping away, Marcus is in the way of recovery. Paul says to Timothy, "Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Tim. 4: 11).

In that very chapter there is a further moral touch which is beautiful to see. Here, in order to identify him he says "Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas", but when it is a question of his complete serviceableness to Paul there is no mention of his being Barnabas's relative.

Would it be significant that Mark was nurtured in an atmosphere of prayer? I refer to Acts 12, where it says of Peter when he was free of the prison, "And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying". Obviously that was not the first time there had been a prayer meeting in that house.

Another thing comes to light here, it is Paul who is giving commandment concerning him as though there may have been some hesitation with the other brethren concerning him. He who first detected the defection is the one who encourages the others to receive him.

Are you suggesting that the eye should ever be open for features of recovery? Do you not think that may be a practical matter as to brethren whom we have not seen for some time?

It is certainly remarkable that this man who had been such an unprofitable servant was taken up by God to write of the perfect Servant. It shows how complete the recovery was. Paul appears to be very glad to commend him as recognizing his recovery.

Then we come to Justus, another man of whom no outstanding thing is said, but he is seen as in the company of fellow-workers.

Would this be the man whose house was hard by the synagogue?

It may be so — but we cannot speak with certainty. Being of the circumcision may suggest it was the same man.

It is worth noting in that connection that Paul says of Justus that he was "of the circumcision", while he had taught in Colossians 3 that in the new man there was neither circumcision nor uncircumcision.

We have to note a clear distinction there; it is "in Christ Jesus" that there is neither Jew nor Gentile. A Jew converted to the Christian faith would not cease to be a Jew as to flesh and blood conditions. We have to distinguish between what we are as "in Christ" and what we still are in the body. The classic reference as to this matter is found in comparing Galatians with 1 Corinthians. We read in Gal. 3: 28 that, "There is neither male nor female . . in Christ Jesus". Then in 1 Cor. 14: 34 we read, "Let your women keep silence in the churches". Not seeing this distinction has led some to say, Women can speak in the meeting for in Christ there is neither male nor female.

It does not seem as though there had been many who were a consolation to Paul.

I suppose there must have been some outstanding work with these men who had been a tremendous encouragement to him. It is good to note these things, for we may have to note and comment at times upon the lack of interest in certain ones; not that we want to develop a complaining spirit. If we do have to mention this lack of interest at times, let us not forget that there are those who are deeply devoted to the interests of the Lord. If Paul needed encouragement, and took courage as he looked at them, let us look at such and take courage. Paul would trace all this back to the Lord and would be encouraged that his ministry had taken effect in the saints. It must have been a comfort to him to trace these features, for there were many who had opposed him, many who forsook him. In the midst of such conditions to be able to take account of those who are fellow-bondmen in the Lord would be an immense encouragement.

Epaphras being a local brother would know what to pray for, "always labouring fervently for you in prayers".

According to the New Translation, Tychicus was a "fellow-bondman in (the) Lord", but Epaphras was "the bondman of Christ Jesus".

In the fourth chapter of Ephesians, Paul speaks of himself as "the prisoner of the Lord", but in the third chapter he had spoken of himself as the "prisoner of the Christ Jesus" (New Trans.). I apprehend that as the prisoner of Christ Jesus he speaks in relation to the mystery, and as the prisoner of the Lord there is an answer to the mystery in a subject service to the Lord. Thus when he speaks as the prisoner of the Lord he speaks of their walk; it is the sphere of responsibility. Whereas in the third chapter, which is a parenthesis, he refers to the wonderful grace given to him in relation to the mystery. He was held for that reason, to unfold to them the truth of the mystery, but as a bondman of the Lord he refers to their responsibility.

We might suggest that Tychicus being a servant of the Lord would pray for the saints in relation to their walk, while Epaphras would pray that the truth might be established in their affections.

Epaphras praying that they "may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God" covers the whole truth of this epistle.

We have noted previously as to Paul agonizing in prayer on their account, that this truth might find a place in their affections. Here, the same word is used of Epaphras, agonizing in prayer.

Is Epaphras a good specimen of what was mentioned earlier in the readings, a brother who not only taught the saints but had them in his heart? In Colossians 1: 7 we read he ministered Christ to them; here we read he prays for them.

Would you help us on this expression, "fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God"?

We have said much in these meetings about the world to come and I think the kingdom of God here is the world to come. We know that kingdom is established today in the power of the Spirit; we see it and enter it as born of God but here its display in a day that is coming is in mind, and they were labouring in view of that day. There is only one kingdom so far as God is concerned, but it is presented to us in at least ten different characters — past, present and future — and I doubt not it is the aspect of future display which is in view here. In Colossians 1 it is called "the kingdom of His dear Son". It is the same kingdom but in its present aspect there. The law of the kingdom for us today is love.

Colosse was the local meeting of Epaphras and at the moment he was away from it. The nearest meeting was Laodicea, and he appeared to have a very great interest in both places. He seemed to have a heart like Paul had in his feelings towards the Corinthians. We perhaps would have cut them off, but Paul never gave them up, and Epaphras appears as though he would not give the Laodiceans up.

There were overcomers in both assemblies. How many may have been affected by this word we do not know. There was a blessing at that time for the overcomer in Laodicea, "I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me" (Rev. 3: 20).

In Laodicea the strongest incentive is given to the overcomer, for the Lord presents Himself as the Overcome. There could not be a greater incentive to overcoming than that.

Why did he keep on praying for the saints in Hierapolis? So far as I know this is the only place where it is mentioned. I may sometimes pray for saints in Australia although I know nothing at all about their conditions. No doubt he did know the saints at Hierapolis, although we have no other record of them; he continued to pray for them. That would be carrying out the exhortation that we should pray for all saints.

Would you consider this to be the characteristic service of Epaphras?

It seems to be so. It may be that Paul and he prayed together about these matters, for Paul speaks of his agony in chapter 1, and as Epaphras similarly comes in here it may well be they prayed together about these things.

The man with the greatest gift is prepared to speak about the prayers of his brother. This man with an apostolic gift is bringing into prominence the service of another.

He speaks like that of the Philippians, making much of their service, and reference to his own as a drink offering poured out on their sacrifice. Paul uses the balances of the sanctuary in doing this. Otherwise it would be flattery. All these statements are made in the light of the holiest for he weighs these things before God. We may flatter one another and injure one another; we may call attention to a brother's service to others and injure him in doing it, unless it is weighed in the balances of the sanctuary. I am convinced that every bit of the appraisal which Paul gives here was in the power of the Holy Spirit.

What are you referring to by the balances of the sanctuary?

Weighing things in the presence of God, and not according to my partiality or how I like the brother who said it. No, these were weighed in the presence of God and given the value that He would put upon them as being material to help His saints.

That would be viewing things in the light of the judgment seat of Christ.

That is what was in mind in regard to the kingdom of God. That is where things come out. It is the balances of the sanctuary which put a real assessment upon our work.

Hannah had that in mind when she said, "the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed" (1 Sam. 2: 3).

In regard to Luke we have a brother mentioned in relation to his secular calling. "Luke, the beloved physician"; an encouragement to us that we can go on with these things without giving up our secular calling. Here we are in different walks of life and yet we regard each other from the standpoint of the divine circle, "beloved brother", whatever calling may be followed.

His calling did not give him any place of exaltation, nor did it militate against what he was as beloved. Some of the saints are more affluent in their circumstances than others, but however that may be this adjective can be added. I think it is beautiful to see that a person can get on in business and still be a beloved person. It seems to suggest that he carries his Christianity into his business.

Then just a short word as to Demas. I do not think Paul would give up praying for him. The fact that he mentions his name would prove he was still interested in him. He was, of course, still there.

The parable in the first part of Luke 15 seems to be repeated in Matt. 18, only that there it says, "And if so be that he find it". There is no "if so be" in Luke 15 for there it is the work of the Lord Himself as Shepherd. There is an "if so be" in Matt. 18, for there it is our work. The Lord always finds the one He goes after; I may fail, but that does not mean I ought not to try to recover a brother who has gone astray. I may have the pleasure of bringing him back again.

Ephesians

Ephesians

Ephesians 1: 1-23; Ephesians 2: 1-22; Ephesians 3: 1-21

Reading with G. Davison

In our former readings we have considered the main features of the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Colossians. In the former we saw how God had moved towards us on the basis of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring deliverance to us from the bondage of sin, the world and Satan. We noted among many things that we are not said to be raised in that epistle, the bearing of which is to liberate us from the thraldom into which sin had plunged us, so that being thus liberated we might walk in this world well pleasing to God. In the Epistle to the Colossians resurrection is one of the outstanding features, for we are said in that epistle to be "risen with Christ". Resurrection has a new position in view and, while we are still viewed as on earth, our minds are to be set on the things above where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Thus a new heavenly position is opened out to us and we are exhorted to set our minds upon it. In the Ephesian epistle, into which we are about to look, we are carried one step further, for not only are we, as in Colossians, on earth with our affections set upon heavenly things, but we are also taught that we are raised and seated in the heavenlies. We have, of course, to accept this as Divine teaching and seek to live in the experience of it by the Holy Spirit. In the types Romans answers to the plains of Moab — Israel free from all the entanglements of the wilderness; Colossians is the answer to the crossing of the Jordan — in Gilgal and feeding on the old corn of the land; while Ephesians is the answer to the fruits of the land of Canaan and the conflict with the seven nations who disputed Israel's possession of the inheritance. We hope to see in these readings the answer to those fruits and the need of conflict to hold what God has given us as a heavenly inheritance. The features of His inheritance is necessary if we are to maintain possession of and enjoy what God has given to us in the riches of His grace towards us. In the verses we are considering we shall see the position opened out to us as the fruit of the purpose of God and the work of Christ, and we shall also see that God had in mind before time began that a company should be called and brought into sonship now, and ultimately in glory, who already by the Spirit enjoy the inheritance.

Would it help to say something about the work of Paul while he was in Ephesus, and what he said about that work in Acts 20?

In his last discourse to the Ephesians as he was about to leave them, he reminded them of all that he had taught them. Not only had he spoken to them of the "gospel of the grace of God", he had also taught them the principles of the "kingdom of God", the circle in which the will of God had been established, and had gone on to declare to them "all the counsel of God". The grace of God, the will of God and the counsel of God had been made known to them in his teaching while among them, and we shall see all these features coming to light again in this epistle.

Will you say a word as to why the apostle says these things mostly to the Gentiles?

At this time Paul was in prison and he tells them in Ephesians 3, it was "for you Gentiles". I believe Paul is referring to himself as a vessel, not only to his ministry but to himself as the vessel in whom this ministry had been deposited. It was a necessity that he as a vessel should be in prison, in order that he might see in all its fullness the mystery in its relation to the Gentiles. We note in both the Epistle to the Colossians, and in this one to the Ephesians, that he puts the Gentile before the Jew, showing how definitely he was now formed in the truth of the mystery. How often he had said, "to the Jew first" but now he sees the Jew has no pre-eminence above the Gentile.

Does it enhance the truth of this epistle that what is here is not a conception of time at all and is carried forward to eternity? The statement, "chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world" sets before us the unique position of the Christian's blessing apart from every other blessing, even that of the Jew. Their blessing was "from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25: 34), but our blessing is said to be counselled "before the foundation of the world". Before the foundation of the world the blood of Christ was precious in Divine minds (1 Peter 1: 19, 20); Christ Himself was precious to the Father (John 17: 24); and all that the Godhead purposed for the saints of this dispensation was truly precious (Eph. 1: 4). If we note these things carefully, the truth in this Epistle will become very precious indeed to us.

The very fact that this truth is distinctively Pauline (the vessel to whom was committed "the gospel of the glory") would assure us of this. He was not called to present Christ as the Messiah of Israel, but in relation to this deep secret which was in the heart of God from eternity. If God had selected the Jew in preference to the Gentile when dealing with the things of earth, He is now offering to the Gentile something greater than He ever offered to the Jew.

What is meant by "the faithful in Christ Jesus"?

Two things may be in that statement. First, they had been brought into this circle of favour by faith in Christ Jesus, but they had also made progress in the truth of it. They were a company who had made progress in Pauline ministry, so much so that he had been enabled to open out to them the whole scope of the counsel of God.

Why does he use the expression "God our Father"?

The saints are seen here as in relationship with God as Father, the great privilege of Christianity. Paul, of course, did not bring that to light, it was our Lord Himself on the morning of His resurrection — "I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". In Christianity every saint of God stands in relationship with God as Father. When God is referred to as "our God" His rights in supremacy are in view, but when He is spoken of as "our Father", it is the place of privilege we are brought into by God that is in view. As another has said, "our Father involves His counsel in relation to His children". In verse 3, the two names are used in relation to Christ. When it is "the God . . . of our Lord Jesus Christ", He is viewed as Man; when it is "the . . Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", He is viewed as Son.

Are the blessings referred to here greater than those of the New Covenant?

Yes! In the fact that they are heavenly. We must not forget that New Covenant blessings for the Gentiles are outlined in 2 Cor. 3, that is righteousness ministered from glory; but this chapter has in view the vast inheritance into which we have been brought. The New Covenant sets us in right relations with God; this brings us into what is heavenly in Christ. In 1 Cor. 3, Paul speaks of the foundation which is Jesus Christ; here it is more the Head Stone of the corner. I do not doubt that the New Covenant which he outlines in 2 Cor. 3 is the ground of our righteousness, it is called "the ministration of righteousness", but we are reaching up to the heights here and Christ is at the top as well as at the foundation.

What are these spiritual blessings?

All that we are brought into in association with Christ in glory. One would hesitate to draw up a list but sonship, eternal life and, above all, the gift of the Spirit are some of the outstanding blessings which we have today.

Would it not be the sharing of all the preciousness and joy and glory which stand related to that blessed Man Who is the Centre of this Divine sphere? Whatever He is enjoying as the centre of God's world, is open to you and me to enjoy.

In connection with your suggestion that the gift of the Spirit is the highest of these spiritual blessings, do you consider that to be higher than sonship?

I do! There could not be anything greater than a Divine Person dwelling in our souls.

There could not be the cry of sonship apart from the Spirit, for He gives it to us.

That is why the Spirit is called further down "the earnest of our inheritance" (v. 14).

You would connect the two together I suppose?

We must connect all together, but not one of these spiritual blessings could be known by us apart from the Spirit of God. That is why we put the Spirit first.

Would these spiritual blessings be all that was prepared for us in the counsel of the Godhead?

No doubt! We shall see that all lay in the eternal purpose of God when He made the plan which is now being carried into effect. The Father is the source of all, and they have been brought into effect by the Son and secured in each one of our souls in the power of the Holy Spirit. All this would be the fruit of the love of God to us.

Would not the fact that these things were counselled before time began establish the truth that God is working for His own pleasure?

Would the statement in Luke 15 convey this, "let Us . . make merry"?

It would! That is why we have brought in here fundamental truths such as, "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins", for apart from this we could not be there. So the wonderful picture of Luke 15 describes the end reached.

In the choice of God that we should be "holy and without blame" we see that the mind of God was active in relation to sin before time began. It was a necessity if He was to carry into effect the plan which was in His mind to have a company before Him accepted in the Beloved without any suspicion of sin attaching to them.

It is wonderful that these three things should be said of us — that we should be "holy and without blame before Him in love" — for these three things mark the blessed God Himself. Holy in His character; blameless in His ways; and love in His nature.

It has been pointed out also that they are said to mark Christ. What God has marked us out for has already come to light in Christ, hence we are "taken into favour in the Beloved" (New Trans.).

That being so, we know from a later chapter that Christ brings us, as the fruit of His present service, into what was in the mind of God in purpose for us (Eph. 5: 27).

Would it be right to say that all that lies in the heavenlies is there for every family besides the church?

Yes! So far as every heavenly family is concerned, though the church will have its own distinctive place there. It is well to keep in mind the breadth of the purpose of God. We have perhaps the tendency to limit the scope of the purpose of God to the church, but it is all things in heaven and all things in earth. Christ is Head over all things It is all part of the inheritance of God but, as we know, our part is in relation to the "all things . . in heaven".

Would this be the new heavens and the new earth? Does it go as far as that?

That new order is touched upon in two verses only of this epistle, Eph. 3: 20, 21. It is crystal clear here that the world to come is in view. We do not doubt that what God is effecting today for the delight of His heart will go into the new heaven and the new earth, but all in this chapter looks on to the day of the display of the glory of God in Christ in the world to come, that is the reign of Christ in glory for a thousand years.

In the world to come we have the display of every detail of the purpose of God and every detail of His ways so far as this order is concerned, and it will bring to a close His movements. At the end of the world to come Christ hands back the kingdom and by that time every thought of God will have been secured. Then, what God has secured for the delight of His own heart will be carried over to the new heaven and the new earth. We must keep in mind that the new heaven and the new earth is a completely new beginning so far as creation is concerned, and into it will go all that God has effected here.

I have long thought in readings on this epistle that we have been too much taken up with our blessings and have perhaps failed to see what God has secured for His own heart. To see this would exalt in our eyes the Giver, and enhance the magnitude of what He has brought us into in Christ. The two outstanding things in the epistle are the knowledge of God and the knowledge of Christ. These are the central themes of the two prayers.

In verse 5 we read of the adoption of children as the fruit of predestination. What does adoption mean?

It is really sonship. It has been pointed out that adoption involves a previous history, that is we have been brought from a former condition into this; but the thought of children is related to that of new birth and does not involve a previous history. It is obviously a completely new beginning in life and nature.

Do we attain to this position by growth?

No! We are brought into it by the sovereign working of God.

Does all this proceed from the Father?

It does! So far as predestination is concerned. Hence we are sons of God, and all for the good pleasure of His heart, for it is according to the good pleasure of His will.

What is involved in being "accepted in the Beloved"?

God has marked us out for this place, for predestination has the end in view, and it is for this God has chosen us, and we are brought into it today. In the day of display glory will be brought to God when the greatness of His grace towards us is seen manifestly. He is going to use the saints to display Himself. Observe the character of it for, as we said, adoption involves a previous history; yet here we are accepted — brought into favour — in the Beloved. That is more than being right with God. The precious blood of Christ comes in here to show how He has made us fit for this, but think of being accepted in the Beloved. Is it not that God wants us to know how much He loves us? That is why He did it.

Does this include only New Testament saints?

It could only be that so far as I see! That all the heavenly company will be brought into blessing with Christ is true, but the church has her unique place as accepted in Him, individually so of course. It could be said only of those who have a direct link with the Beloved. It is the distinctive character of the blessing for the saints today.

Will you say a word as to the distinction between the word "chosen" in verse 4 and "predestination" in verse 5?

They must both run together in this way, they were both there for us before time began; "chosen" carries the idea of selection, and "predestination" what God has selected us for. Selected by God and what He has selected us for; that is really an epitome of this epistle.

Taken into favour in the Beloved would suggest how much God loves us, would it not?

Indeed! For our Lord said so Himself as we read in John 17: 26, "that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them".

We may miss the greatness of this by bringing ourselves into it too much .

Perhaps, but we must remember we are brought into it although God has done it for Himself. I am glad we have had that so much in view today.

All this then is the fruit of the effectuation of His eternal purpose.

That term "eternal purpose" is used in Eph. 3: 11. It may help to point out that the term "eternal counsel" is not once mentioned in Scripture, but "eternal purpose" is and that just once in the verse I have quoted. So far as I have found purpose necessitated counsel, and from this springs the ways of God. I have not yet found a Scripture connecting purpose with the ways of God but we have at least two connecting His ways with His counsel. "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2: 23). Again, in the chapter we are reading we have, "according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will". Purpose is the objective which God has before Him; divine Persons took counsel as to how that was to be secured; and the ways of God are bringing it all into effect. When the ways of God reach finality His counsel will all have been carried into effect, and that which He purposed will have been secured, and it is this which will go into the eternal state. I judge that is why we do read of "eternal purpose", for when that which was purposed is secured it will abide eternally, as seen in the end of Ephesians 3. Notice how all three are in verse 11 of our chapter, purpose, working and counsel.

What has come to light on earth are the time ways of God springing out of His counsel and all to secure His eternal purpose.

Say something about "purposed in Himself".

It could not be anywhere else but in Himself. If God has resolved this of Himself and for Himself He will surely effect it Himself. I do not doubt the Son and the Spirit would be involved in it, but certain things are ascribed to each Divine Person for there are certain things which it is said the Father does which are not said of the Son or the Spirit; things which the Son does which are not said of the Father or the Spirit; and things which the Spirit does which are not said of the Father and the Son.

Counsel would always involve more than one Person would it not?

I think so! We may venture to mention another word — "conclave", for we understand the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were in conclave as to how that eternal purpose was to be effected and that the universe was created as the sphere in which it would all be effected.

In verse 9 we have mention of the "will", the "good pleasure" and "purpose" of God. Could you say a word about them?

The will and pleasure of God are practically the same, for what could give more pleasure to God than the accomplishment of the details of His own will? And if you add that the will of God and the purpose of God are the same I would quite agree. We may say His will is to accomplish His purpose.

What is meant by the statement of verse 8, "Wherein He hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence"?

Of old it was said, "He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel" (Ps. 103: 7). The children of Israel saw what God did but Moses knew why He did it. Now not only has God brought about today the greatest thoughts of His heart in blessing for men, but He is pleased to tell us about it. Not only has He abounded towards us in blessing, He has abounded towards us in spiritual intelligence, for He desires us to know all about it.

It is very blessed to be brought into the secret of what is for the good pleasure of God. The "good pleasure" and the "purpose" are one, for it says "His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself". It is very blessed that when God makes known the mystery of His will to us He also gives us to see that it is something in which His own affections are delighted. What is involved is the bringing in of Christ. We could not think of the good pleasure of God without bringing Christ into it. The marvel is that God would enlighten us as to what is the secret of His own heart.

Would this wisdom and prudence be in any way connected with Prov. 8?

We do see there that wisdom was the handmaiden of God, that God had every resource to accomplish the desire of His heart, and He brought in the creation to that end. We shall find that one of the requests of the prayer is that He "may give unto you the spirit of wisdom", but it is there for us for God has abounded toward us in it. I may say, "I am only a simple brother and cannot understand these things", but everyone of us can understand these things for God has given to us the resources to enable us to do so. There is not one word in the Bible which we cannot understand for the Spirit Who wrote it all dwells in our hearts. I may have to admit there is very little I do understand, but I have the solution of every problem in my heart for the Spirit dwells there. It may be my simplicity is through lack of exercise; it cannot be through lack of supply when I have the Spirit.

What is the difference between these two words, wisdom and prudence?

So far as I know wisdom is resource or ability, but prudence means intelligence. Wisdom would be the ability to understand these things; intelligence that you apprehend them. Without the ability to understand these things we could never have them as light in our souls.

We are apt to limit the workings of the grace of God to satisfy our needs but here it is the unlocking of the secrets of His own heart.

Is that why the thought of glory is brought in?

Yes! It is all for the display of Himself and the delight of His own heart.

We have here the full declaration of the mystery of God; He says as it were, I am telling you of all that is in My heart. Here it is, in this revelation. He must ever remain beyond the comprehension of the finite mind because He is God. I believe we worship God as beyond us in the greatness of His Person, but He has made known the thoughts of His heart towards us. There is that which cannot come into revelation but He has been pleased to tell us all that is in His heart.

The "dispensation" mentioned in verse 10 is really "administration", a word which means "the houselaw", that is, what will be the ruling principle in that day. What will be in operation in that day will be Christ at the head of all things, holding the whole universe for the pleasure of God in the day of His power. In that day, with the saints in glory with Him, praise will be called forth to God as we see how immense is that grace which has given the saints a place in the glory. In view of this we already have the Holy Spirit, the greatest part of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. That is better rendered "the acquired possession" (New Trans.). On our side we have been brought into this as believing the gospel, but soon it will be manifested to the universe that God had marked us out for this place before time began. That day of display will not be for our glory, but for the praise of His glory Who planned it, and Who will effectuate it all for the delight of His own heart of love.

In this section we have the record of the prayer of the apostle in relation to the truth he had been inspired by the Spirit to bring before the saints. We do well to note this. If he needed to pray for the saints that the truth might find an abiding place in their affections, how much more do we? However clearly the truth may be brought before the saints, only the Holy Spirit can make it good in their hearts, and the apostle was well aware of that. He assured them that he did not cease to pray for them, "do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention (of you) at my prayers (N.T.) We can be sure he did not pray for the saints in a general way only, he was too intelligent in the truth for that. Reference was made earlier in our readings to the Corinthians, and we can understand that when he prayed for them he would ask for something quite distinct from that which he asked for the Ephesians. One has wondered why in our prayer meetings we are not more particular and less general. We do pray for all saints, we pray for the gospel, for the ministry of the truth. Why not name those who may be so ministering? Paul says to them here, "making mention of you" at my prayers. Perhaps if we were as much in touch with God as he was, having the interest of the saints as much at heart as he had, we should make specific requests for specific people in relation to the service of Christ and the prosperity of His people.

I notice in this prayer that he goes into the details of the truth he had opened out to them in the earlier part of this chapter. Would that have a specific request in view in reference to the truth of God?

Having ministered to them this particular outline of the truth, what he is praying about is that this truth may find a rightful place in their affections.

The prayer takes up as much space as the teaching which precedes it.

Does he give thanks here for the faith he had seen in them?

He was very thankful for all that he had heard about them, and the progress they were making.

Would you say that Paul was an exponent of his own ministry?

What you mean is that he not only taught these truths to the saints but he was characterized by them himself.

Another thing which marked him was, he had an insight into the spiritual needs of the saints. I like your thought about praying intelligently for the saints, for it is a little difficult to pray for people whom we do not know and of whose real needs we have little knowledge.

This prayer is addressed to the "God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory". Paul did not use these terms without some definite purpose in mind, nor would the Spirit of God inspire him to use them without some definite purpose in view. The apostle is about to describe for us the wonderful victory that God had accomplished through this wonderful Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, hence he goes to the source, to God, addressing Him as the "God of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Does that involve that Christ is viewed as Man here?

It does! He is the One Who came into subject Manhood to give effect to every detail of that eternal purpose.

The Holy Spirit gives us to understand that He is "our Lord Jesus Christ" — a very blessed thing. I do not know of any greater blessing than that I should have fellowship with God in relation to His own thoughts of Christ.

The Son in Manhood is so great that He can give effect to every thought of God. The greatness of His Manhood lies in the fact that He is the Son, and He has so wrought that He has given eternal delight to the heart of the Father. It is His Manhood which is stressed here, for in coming into Manhood He has sustained the rights of man, accomplished the will of God and established the pleasure of the Father.

Should the normal development of the believer be on those lines? Growing in the knowledge of what God has wrought for His own glory and at the same time developing in the affections of the Father and the Son.

Yes! The theme of this prayer is, "ye should know". The other side, of which you make mention, is more the burden of the prayer of Eph. 3, what we are as formed in the love of the Christ. God wants us to know the glory of His thoughts in this prayer; that we may be formed in relation to them is the theme of the prayer in Eph. 3.

Does the term "Father of glory" suggest that the Father is the originator of this glory?

That appears to be the bearing of it! While we know God as Father and are related to Him as such, if we trace everything back to its source, He is the source of all. There are five similar references to this thought of glory. We read in Acts 7: 2, "The God of glory" appeared to Abraham. Here we have God addressed as "the Father of glory". In 1 Cor. 2: 8 we read that our Lord is "the Lord of glory". Then in Psalm 24: 7, we read of Him again that He is "the King of glory", and lastly in 1 Peter 4: 14 we have "the Spirit of glory" (see footnote in N.T.). While we can see a connection between all five, they are yet distinct.

Not one single ray of real glory ever shone in this scene which did not originate from God, He is the Father of it.

Not only does all true glory come from the Father, Who is the source of it, but in that glory He is supreme for He is also "the God of glory". He has found a blessed Man in Whom all glory can be centred, whether administratively from the heavenly side as the Lord of glory, or on the earthly side as the King of glory.

What is involved in the revelation spoken of here?

It is "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him". This word "wisdom" means resource, and there it would be Divine resource, the ability given to us to understand the mystery. 1 Cor. 2, shows the wisdom of this world to be utterly incapable of understanding the things of God, and the princes of this world unable to recognize the Lord of glory — "but God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit". Again the apostle says in that chapter "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect", referring to those who have ability to solve these problems and to understand the things of God.

In Psalm 29 we read of the God of glory, the only place in the Old Testament where that title is used. It is mentioned in verse 3, and in verse 9 we read, "in His temple doth every one speak of His Glory". A company has been brought into that glory intelligently, able to discern it and respond to it. That is in view here; not only that God is the "God of glory" but, the desire in this prayer is that we should discern Him as such and respond to Him as such.

Who is more capable of giving us the ability to understand these things than the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has operated through Him to bring this to pass. God, Who is the source of glory which will abide when all the passing glory of men has gone for ever. Who is more capable of leading us into the knowledge of these things than the God and Father of it all? We first need "wisdom" which enables us to understand these things; then we need also "revelation" — the unfolding of them. This word "revelation" is the title word of the book of Revelation, and means the "unfolding", or "the drawing aside of the veil". It is one thing to have "the spirit of wisdom", the ability to understand these things, but if God does not graciously reveal His thoughts, the spirit of wisdom would be useless, as there would not be anything for us to understand.

Is the word the same as the one used by the Lord when He said to Peter, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven"?

It is! This word "apokalupsis" means "drawing aside the veil". The word wisdom would involve the wonderful resources which stand in relation to His counsel. Revelation would draw aside the curtain that we might not only perceive those resources but be able to avail ourselves of them. That is why the spirit of wisdom comes first. Resources are there, that is why wisdom is personified in Christ, He is the resource of God. We are enabled to see what God is effecting in Him.

The effect of having "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" is Divine illumination, as the next verse shows. It is not only that we know these truths as in the Word, but to have them as spiritual illuminations in our souls is a far greater thing.

I suppose we can only know God in so far as He has been pleased to reveal Himself in His Son.

Yes! But we not only have the revelation of God in His nature, character and disposition to the sons of men, which all came out in Christ when in the world; but now we have revealed to us the thoughts of His heart in relation to His eternal purpose. This could not be revealed until Christ was in glory and the Spirit in the hearts of the saints. Having received the "spirit of wisdom" our souls are prepared to understand these things, then He unfolds them to those who can understand them, and this leads to spiritual illumination.

Earlier the apostle speaks of God's abounding towards us in all wisdom, but it is the spirit of wisdom in this verse for which he prays. Does this not call for refined thinking in a spiritual way? They are not things which we can enter into in a casual way.

If we are in the state referred to in v. 15, "faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints", we shall not be attempting to take these things up in a casual way; the state referred to would give us refined sensibilities in relation to Divine things.

I judge the reason it is said to be "the spirit of wisdom and revelation" is to impress upon us that these things are outside the material sphere.

It is said prophetically in relation to the Lord Himself that He had resting upon Him "the Spirit of wisdom" (Isa. 11: 2).

We need these two things if we are to progress in the "knowledge of Him". It is often asked, Does the end of verse 7 refer to God or to Christ? All that is being effected in this section right down to Eph. 2: 10 is the result of the work of God, hence one is assured it is the knowledge of God which is referred to. In this chapter it is "His will"; "His grace"; "His glory"; "His power" etc.. That is why we judge it is the knowledge of God.

Would this glory be that of which the apostle speaks in 2 Cor. 4, "the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ"?

Yes! All that God is pleased to reveal to us is centred in Christ, but here the apostle prays that we may be in the good of it all in our souls.

Do you think we miss a lot because we are not prepared to sacrifice other things to give time to the consideration of these great matters?

We have already said that these things are not gathered in a casual way, and we must be prepared to give ourselves "wholly to them", as Paul said to Timothy, if we desire to understand them more fully.

Would this preparation be the subjective answer to God's abounding towards us?

It would! The word in verse 18 reads in the New Translation, "the eyes of your heart". That would suggest the product of love, for it is a question of our affections.

All that we have here is on the line of giving.

It must be, God has reserved to Himself the more blessed part, for "it is more blessed to give than to receive".

It reminds one of the book of Joshua where God told them that all the land was theirs but only what they set their foot on was their possession. Title and possession, though related, are yet distinct.

I think that is what our brother meant when he spoke of the need of sacrifice if we are to possess these things. There is a statement in Obadiah that the house of Jacob will yet "possess their possessions" (v. 17). Now is the time for us to possess our possessions. It is one thing to have title to all these blessings, quite another to have them as light in our souls. It is interesting to note that the word for "knowledge" in Eph. 1: 17, is not the same word as translated "know" in v. 18. The first one is objective, but the second is subjective. The latter involves its being in one's soul as Divine light. That is possessing your possessions. "That gives us now, as heavenly light, what soon shall be our part".

Is it not a matter as to which we value most, spiritual things or the things of time and sense?

The apostle prayed that they may know three things — "the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power". It is not here that we may know Christ, but rather what God has effected through Him. It is this he desired them to know.

What is meant by "the hope of His calling"?

It has been helpfully pointed out that that covers what the apostle had opened out in relation to the calling in vv. 3-7. Then "His inheritance" is covered in vv. 8-14, and the third request about the power of God is covered in this prayer, "the exceeding greatness of His power". While the features of that calling are covered in those verses, I apprehend that the "hope of His calling" is its realization in glory. It means that we shall be in association with Christ in the world to come when He administers all for the glory of God.

Do we not enjoy it in anticipation?

Yes! We should gather that we do, seeing the apostle prayed that we might know it now.

Is this in regard to "His inheritance in the saints"?

We have seen that God takes possession of His inheritance through the saints. Here is a company great enough for God to use them to take possession of His inheritance. Seeing then that we form part of that company, the apostle desires that we should know something of the inheritance for we are the ones through whom God will take possession.

What is meant by "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints"?

That statement looks on to the heading up of all things in Christ and the display of the glory in the world to come. It is "His inheritance" and I do not doubt that God will be glorified in every part of it, and He takes possession through the saints.

Would this hope be that to which Peter refers when he says, "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you"?

Peter was looking on to the world to come, and if anyone should ask us why we tread the pilgrim pathway we can tell them of the place to which we are going. Here it is more the present realization of that hope in the enjoyment of our souls. Both of course refer to the same thing, but here we have the hope of being glorified with Christ in sonship already in power in our souls by the Spirit. The word hope does not always look on to the future. We have the word used in Hebrews and that again is distinct from this. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope . . by the which we draw high unto God" (Heb. 7: 19). That hope is now being realized, for we do draw nigh unto God; but here it is in view of being displayed in glory in the world to come, and this involves God's taking possession of the universe through the saints.

It is a wonderful thing that we should be seeking to interest each other in the glory of Christ. We are blessed in Him, but how blessed to have a real interest in His glory, the heading up of all things in Himself, and to view the saints now in relation to that.

We must keep in mind too what God is going to obtain in that day, His inheritance in the saints; and along with that, His pleasure in Christ in Whom all will be headed up. He is going to be glorified in every corner of the universe, when every feature of opposition will be removed and God will be fully glorified.

When the Father has gathered together all things in the Christ, the things in heaven and the things on earth, at the end of the world to come, will the result be that He will see all that He planned in His eternal purpose, handed back to Him in all its glory and perfection by the Son?

The inheritance is connected with this present order and not with the eternal state. Yet we know that what He secures for His pleasure in His people will be carried over to the eternal state.

What I meant was, that when it is handed back, it will be as God saw it in all its beauty in purpose before time began.

I am sure that when Christ does hand all back it will be as perfect as when it came from the hand of the Creator at the outset of creation. We must see that for one thousand years God will be glorified in every detail of this universe, and Christ is the One Who will bring that about.

God is going to be completely justified in His character and in every one of His ways. One has often thought that the world to come is a necessity for the public justification of the character of God and the establishment of His ways. The eternal state is a necessity for the satisfaction of His heart.

A brother now gone home often said of the world to come, "In that day, God will explain Himself". Everyone will see that everything which God has done is right and it will all be manifested in Christ.

What is the bearing of the term "eternal inheritance" in the epistle to the Hebrews?

There is a sense in which "eternal" is used to convey the thought of "as long as time lasts". The word "eternal" is used in that way six times in the Epistle to the Hebrews. They all point to the fact that what Christ has brought in now will never be succeeded by anything else. Peter speaks of the "everlasting kingdom", and there again it means Christ's kingdom will never be succeeded by another, but we know from 1 Cor. 15 that the kingdom will not go on eternally. These things have come into being and are final, they will not be succeeded by other things.

You think then that what is in this chapter does not go beyond the world to come?

The end of the chapter makes that quite clear.

Will the riches of the glory of the inheritance be seen during the reign of Christ?

They will! Now the apostle goes on to request for them a third thing, "the exceeding greatness of His power".

Looking back a moment, do you not think the riches of His glory are something beyond us, something which we cannot explain?

It does not say only "the riches of His glory", but "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints". It is not the Personal glory of God which is in view here, but the glory of His inheritance and this is something we can understand and seek to explain. If it were something beyond us, the apostle would never have prayed that saints might understand it. I apprehend it is the glory that will come into manifestation, and not the glory of Deity which will never come into manifestation.

Now "the greatness of His power" demonstrates the ability which God has to effect it all, and it is of paramount importance to note here that God begins with Christ in death. It is a completely new beginning of a completely new order of things which came into being only when Christ was raised from among the dead. These things were in counsel ere time began but were not brought into being till Christ was raised from the dead. Three words are used here to describe this power, each one carrying the thought of strength or might — "His power", and "The might of His strength" (N.T.); and we note they are all distinct. One may venture a free translation of them — the ability of His all-prevailing strength. The first word is the well-known "dunamis, the word from which we derive our word "dynamic" or "dynamo", and is the word translated in Eph. 3: 20 as "able", and in other places as "ability". God has given a demonstration of His ability to carry out his thoughts and He has demonstrated it by a display of His all-prevailing strength. The word translated "mighty" is from the same root as the word from which the Divine title "Almighty" is taken, it is "kratos". The third one "iskus" is the word commonly translated "strength". The resurrection of Christ was the greatest display of the mighty power of God which has ever been seen in this world.

It says that the power is towards is.

Yes! And it is noteworthy that in Eph. 3 it is said to be working "in us" (v. 20). Then in Eph. 6 it works out from us (v. 10). It is available for the saints in order to bring us into line with the thoughts of God and to maintain us as standing in relation to them. As before stated God is not working on one line with Christ and on another line with us. He desires that we should know Christ as He knows Him, enjoying what He enjoys in Christ, and He is using this same power to bring it all about as light and substance in our souls.

I am reminded of the words of our Lord when He said, "the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light" (Luke 16: 8). In view of this wealth, how little we seem to value it.

One can only speak for oneself in these matters. It is there for all of us and we are wise if we give time to consider it.

Is this power to keep us in the pathway, or to keep us in the enjoyment of this sphere into which we have been called?

This power has already operated towards us as we shall see in Eph. 2. It came into evidence when Christ was raised from among the dead and has had an effect upon every one of our souls, bringing us into line with Christ according to the counsel of God.

When you said this was the greatest display of the power of God ever manifested, had you in mind that it was to give effect to the purpose of God? Others had been raised from the dead.

No doubt! But no one was raised as He was raised to the height of the glory of God.

We may not know much about the power which was manifested in creation and all that lay behind it, but now blessed to know that we have an intimate part in this far greater power, the power of resurrection. It is amazing to think that God has used that great power to get us into this blessedness.

The apostle prayed that the greatness of that power might enter into their hearts, that they might understand the potentiality of the victory of Christ, and the way it would affect the saints now and eternally.

There can be no doubt that the power put forth in raising Christ was much greater than that put forth in raising Lazarus.

Surely! For His descent and His ascent were far greater than anything which had ever happened before. Enoch went up and Elijah went up, but neither went up as this Man went up. They had not been down to where He had been, nor could they possibly go so far up.

In the death of Christ, God has been eternally glorified in His nature and attributes; His love and light are seen there and it is all displayed to us now in the power of resurrection.

I suppose this power is not limited to His resurrection for it goes on to say, "and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places".

It is comprehensive; that is why we spoke of His descent and His ascent, for He went to the bottom in order to overthrow every force of evil. The resurrection proved that the power of God was equal to the need. Having dealt with every evil force, He is raised by this mighty power in order that God may go forward to accomplish His thoughts for His own glory, and for the glory of Christ, thoughts which involve, too, the blessing of all those whom God has associated with Christ.

During the forty days in which Christ walked on this earth between His resurrection and ascension the enemy is completely out of sight. What must Satan have been thinking during those days? The Lord moved on this earth as the unchallenged Victor and He must go to the right hand of God. In that way it does go beyond the resurrection.

Yes! But it began in His resurrection for it says, "when He raised Him from the dead", that is the first thing and that power puts Him far above all. I think when the word "raised" is used for the resurrection of Christ it involves more than His physical resurrection. Resurrection is always a physical matter, but this word raised has to do with position, while it does begin with His physical resurrection. We are said to be raised but we are not yet resurrected. Brought out from among the dead, Christ is raised to this new position in Manhood in order to carry out the counsel of the Godhead according to purpose. To me that is what is involved. Often this word "raised" is used in Scripture when resurrection is not in view at all. We have pointed out in John 5 that the word "the Father raiseth" up the dead; is the same word as that used for the impotent man, "rise, take up thy bed". Again it is used in Acts 13, "raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus". Then further down that chapter, "raised again" (vv. 23, 33, 37). The "again" in vv. 33 and 37 ought not to be there, but the word "raised" is used in each verse and it cannot mean resurrection in each case. J.N.D. translates the first one (v.23) as "brought", which no doubt is the meaning of that word. However, I offer this for consideration as I think that while His resurrection is obviously in view, this word "raised" goes as far as setting Him at the right hand of God.

That is the statement of Eph. 2, "raised us up together", and that could hardly be resurrection. It is positional as you say.

Is this the same word as in Col. 3, "If ye then be risen with Christ"?

It is! And there again I think it is positional. It seems to me that in Acts 13, God raised up Jesus a Saviour, and after they had crucified Him, He raised Him up again as Saviour, though obviously the second time it involved His resurrection.

This raising then is not only resurrection from the dead but raising Him to a place of supreme elevation.

That is why we said the whole thing is comprehensive, raising Him from among the dead but also raising Him to the highest place in glory.

He has been put into the highest place of administration and that administration will come out through the church. Is that so?

It is! And that is why it says, "His power to us-ward". The body is His complement, and the power which put Christ there is the power which puts us there, in spirit now and actually with Him in the world to come.

All the glory of this world is corruptible but the glory established in resurrection is beyond corruption. This is what is going to abide.

There is just one thought here which shows the uniqueness of Christ in Manhood. Whilst this power operates towards us in putting us in the heavenlies as it put Him there, it does not say that it puts us at the right hand of God. This is exclusive to Him.

Does it involve that He is Son of Man there?

He is the Son of Man with the widest glory yet to be seen in the kingdom, but here it is more, for His Headship is stated in relation to all things.

Both Headship and Lordship appear to be here in the statements "Hath put all things under His feet" and "gave Him to be the Head over all things".

I was thinking of Stephen when he saw the Son of Man at the right hand of God.

That is quite right but His reign in the kingdom is more in view there. Here His Headship is more in view, controlling and directing it all, while in His place of Lordship He rules over it. He rules over everything and influences everything for God.

Then we read that all will be brought into effect through "His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all". So we are being taught and formed in view of the place we are destined to fill when as Eve was with Adam, formed to share in his lordship and headship, we shall be with Christ sharing His Lordship and Headship. What a wonderful place the body has in the scheme of God. It is the vessel which Christ will use to fill all things, and the vessel God will use to take possession of all things in the glory of His inheritance in the saints. It well becomes us in the light of this to consider deeply the teaching of these first three chapters of Ephesians where all the light of this is to be found, so that we may be formed in it now in view of the world to come.

Ephesians 2: 1-10.

We noticed in a previous reading that the display of the power of God seen in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is said to be "towards us". We find in the verses now before us how that power has worked to fit us for association with Christ in the glory where He is. We have already pointed out that these verses still bring before us the work of God; it is from verse 11 of this chapter that the work of Christ is in view. We have before us in the section read the power of God put forth to quicken us and to create us anew, and so to bring us into line with the work which has already begun in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from among the dead.

Why do we read that we were quickened, and yet quickening is not used in relation to Christ personally?

Christ did not need to be quickened. This refers to what we were spiritually, we were dead spiritually; He was dead in relation to His body only, He is said thus to be raised; but we who were dead in trespasses and sins needed to be quickened. It is to bring us into association with Him where He is, as it goes on to say "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus". The "together" here refers to Gentiles and Jews. We must note in this chapter how consistently the apostle puts the Gentiles before the Jews. This is what he had learned in the Roman prison, that the Jew has now no longer any superiority over the Gentile in relation to blessing. We see here again that the word "raised" in connection with our Lord, means more than resurrection; He has been raised to the highest point in glory consequent, of course, upon His resurrection from the dead.

This would be one of the omissions of Scripture which guard the uniqueness of Jesus. Personally, He did not need to be quickened.

There is one place where the word is used of our Lord, and it may we well to mention it. Peter writes, "being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3: 18). J.N.D. renders this rightly "made alive in (the) Spirit". It is obviously His body which is referred to there.

Do you think what is said at the end of Eph. 2 is collective, but what we have in these verses is individual?

It is! We see here how God has wrought in us individually to form us into that body corporately.

At the opening of this chapter man is no longer referred to as under probation, he is dead.

We have seen that God begins with Christ in death, that is so far as effecting His purpose called "the mystery". Now we read that He begins with us in death. Christ coming forth from among the dead is the beginning of a completely new order of things, and God has made a completely new beginning with us so as to bring us into that order. Hence we have the clear statement that all springs from God's own movements, not from any of our own.

If we put the first verse of this chapter alongside the last verse, we see something of the greatness of God, for only God could produce such results from such material. So far as men are concerned, death is the end of all activities, but it is just there God begins, and from material that was dead He fashions a habitation for Himself. This is a wonderful tribute to the glory of God.

If death shows how far down we were, this shows how far God has raised us up.

We have seen how God has been glorified in the resurrection of Christ, but we see here also how He will be glorified in that which He has done with those who have believed. He has displayed His power in raising Christ, but He has displayed also His grace and kindness in raising us, and it will be to His glory in the ages to come.

Both externally and internally this material was dominated by that which was an offence to God. It is wonderful to think that God can do anything at all with material like this. In the New Translation it reads, "according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience". What a victory the death of Christ has secured!

It is the working of God here, but of course based upon the death of Christ, the One Who has subdued that force in order that God might free us from its power.

Would not verse 4 assure us that it is all based upon "mercy"?

Surely! And we read that mercy had its origin in the love of God. Moreover, it is characterised by grace — the divine favour into which He has brought us — and it is all summed up in a fourth thing, "His kindness".

Underlying it all is sovereignty.

It is indeed! I am persuaded we need to be well established in the sovereignty of God to understand Christianity. It all sprang from the heart of God as purposed in eternity.

Would not this fourfold ministry of God towards us suggest how great our need was?

We do not have an account of our actions only here, we are left in no doubt about our state, that is, not only what we have done but what we were is clearly stated in these verses. "The spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience". Satan acquired his power over men through disobedience, and he holds that power over them today because they are still in a state of disobedience. Once obedience to God is produced in any one of us, the power of Satan over us is broken.

Why does it say in verse 5 that we are quickened together with Christ? You have already said Christ did not need to be quickened.

The word "together" does not mean that we and Christ were quickened together, but that Gentiles and Jews were "quickened together"; not separately, but together, and objectively with Christ. It has in view the formation of the body as we shall see later in the chapter; it is Gentiles and Jews together, not the company together with Christ. The apostle was speaking about the Gentiles when he described their state as "dead in trespasses and sins" and their state of "disobedience", but verse 3 speaks of the Jews. That is why we said earlier that he puts the need of the Gentiles before that of the Jews.

Why do you think that is?

He is being used by the Spirit to show us there is something now which is distinct from Judaism; the gospel is going out to every creature which is under heaven, and the Gentile is as much in view today as the Jew.

If the Assembly is to be composed of those who were Gentiles and those who were Jews, then it must be shown what such are in their nature. Both are dependent upon the sovereignty of God, and any advantage which the Jew had over the Gentile had disappeared, for in nature he is as much in need of mercy as the Gentile. Both are used to form the Assembly and both are subjects of the mercy of God.

Why does he say "we" in verse 3?

"Ye" refers to the Gentiles, "we" to the Jews. What the Gentiles were by practice as outlined in verse 2, the Jews were by nature as outlined in verse 3. The Jews by practice were not what the Gentiles were, for they were not marked by the abominations of idolatry, apart from some lapses in their history. As called and enlightened by God they were nationally removed from that sort of thing, but what the apostle does say is, "and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (v. 3).

What is the import of verse 5?

You mean the word "we"? That no doubt refers to both Jew and Gentile; the Gentiles are said to be dead in sins in verse 1, and now the Jew in verse 5, and both are quickened together and brought into association with Christ.

Would not the "us" in verse 4 refer to both Gentile and Jew? Both needed the mercy of God and both have been quickened.

Is the emphasis here on practice or on state?

Both are seen together; dead would be the state, but trespasses and sins would be practice. It was because of what they were that their practice was in opposition to God. Hence in regard to the Jews it is more state than practice that is spoken of. In the first three chapters of Romans the whole human race is found to be guilty before God; that was through sins, but here state is more in view, and the need of new life if they are to be brought into line with Christ. So, whether Gentile or Jew both needed the sovereign mercy of God. Both were children of wrath by nature, though by practice they were different. Paul as a sample of that favoured race could say, "I obtained mercy" (1 Tim. 1: 13).

Would not both of these things be seen in the younger son of Luke 15, "For this my son was dead, and is alive again, he was lost, and is found"?

Yes! And it may help to see what "dead" really means. The father was not saying that his son had been physically dead and buried, but had been dead to him all the time he was in the far country. So it was with us, very much alive in this world (as the verse says, "ye walked") but quite dead in relation to God, and without one movement in our souls towards Him.

So this mercy reached us form God because He loved us.

What a movement! What resources! "But God, Who is rich in mercy" It seems to suggest that had God not been "rich in mercy" our case was so desperate that He could not have rescued us, but His resources were equal to the need.

Of old God had said, "I . . will shew mercy on whom I will show mercy" (Ex. 33: 19). That is sovereignty, and is quoted in Rom. 9 to show that God is still acting in sovereign mercy through the death of Jesus.

Would you open out a little the difference between these phrases, "the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1: 7); "rich in mercy" (Eph. 2: 4), and "the riches of His glory" (Eph. 3: 16)?

For myself, I would arrange them in what I think is a moral order and put "rich in mercy" first. That has in mind the meeting of our need. "The riches of his grace" goes beyond the meeting of our need, and has in view the wonderful place of favour He has brought us into as "accepted in the Beloved". "The riches of His glory" has the display of it all in view, and Paul prays in Ephesians 3 that the saints might "according to the riches of His glory be strengthened" in view of formation for that day of glory. The "riches of His mercy" and the "riches of His grace" will be seen in display in the world to come, and God will be manifestly glorified.

Referring again to Luke 15, it would have been grace had the father made the younger son a servant, but the "riches of grace" were seen in the putting on of the best robe.

Luke, doubtless, was instructed in the Pauline teaching, and his gospel follows very closely on that line. He alone gives us the parable of the two debtors in Luke 7; the parable of the certain Samaritan in Luke 10; and the threefold parable of chapter 15, perhaps the greatest of all the parables. Taken together, these three parables aptly describe for us the ministry of reconciliation, one of the outstanding ministries committed to Paul. In chapter 7, the sins of the woman were remitted; in chapter 10, the man was constitutionally restored, and in chapter 15, the son was positionally reinstated; and we see in this epistle all these things effected in us. Some have helpfully connected chapter 7 with "grace"; chapter 10, with the "riches of His grace"; and, chapter 15 with "the glory of His grace".

It is worth noting on that line that only when we come to Luke's gospel do we have the term "salvation". It is not once mentioned in Matthew nor in Mark, and only once in John. We do not get the full thought of salvation till we reach the Pauline gospel. Salvation in its full sense is taught mainly by Paul, while it does come in as offered to men in the opening chapters of Acts. We do not say it is a term used only by Paul for it is used in many places in the New Testament, but it does seem as though it was given to Paul to show the fullness and greatness of the salvation which has reached us through the Man Christ Jesus.

We see then that we were in a state of death and the first thing we needed was life. Life is characterised by movement, and if we were to have part in this wonderful scheme we must have life to move in relation to it.

At what period in our history did this quickening take place?

We have said much about the sovereignty of God, and I doubt if we could specify a moment when quickening took place in any one of us. Some of us may be able to remember the moment when we became conscious of it, but it was a sovereign movement by God in our souls. It is very much in line with the explanation given by our Lord in John 3 in relation to new birth, "The wind bloweth where it listeth . . and thou . .canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit". I do not say that being born again and quickening are the same thing, but both took place in that way. I doubt if any one of us can say just when we were quickened.

The very fact that Nicodemus moved towards the Son of God showed that the Spirit of God was working in him. Nicodemus did not know that, but that was what was happening.

It comes to light as we follow him through John's gospel. In John 7, he makes a stand on what is right, and in John 19 he walked out of the company of the Pharisees forever.

The point here is not when it was done but the fact that it is done.

Did not our Lord say to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again"?

He did! But it does not follow from that statement that he was not. I think, as our brother has said, he was born again but did not know it, and our Lord gives the condition a name.

Could it be said that we were quickened when Christ was raised from the dead?

No! We were not in existence when Christ was raised, except as in the foreknowledge of God. The point is that the power which did raise Christ from the dead is the power which has quickened us, that we might live with Him in the scene where He lives to God. So far as that scene is concerned, the power began to operate in raising Christ, and has been operating ever since in order to bring to light, and into line with Him, every one who was marked out to be associated with Him in His place at the right hand of God.

The important thing is to see that if that life is there it will most certainly come to light.

Is this life that of which our Lord spoke in John 10, life more abundantly?

I think life "abundantly" is higher than this in its bearing. I suggest that what is in mind there is eternal life, in which we enjoy fellowship with the Father and with the Son. I am not by any means inferring that we have two kinds of life, but that life is viewed in more than one way. Here it means I have power to live in that circle where Christ lives, and which will soon come into display in the world to come. On the other hand, this life enables me to live in the conscious enjoyment of the circle where the Son lives in the presence of the Father, and that is what is meant by "life . . more abundantly", that will not come out into display so far as I see it. We could not have one without the other of course, indeed I believe they are two sides of the life which we have.

Is not the evidence of this life seen in verse 10, "good works . . that we should walk in them"?

This life is peculiar to this dispensation as working out something different from what came out in any other day. Two words in this chapter show that very distinctly — "with Christ".

We know from John 5, that the Father had been quickening dead persons such as Noah, Abraham and David, and that He will yet quicken Israel according to Ezek. 37; but He did not quicken them in relation to the same things nor in relation to that for which He has quickened us. We must note here that quickening has an objective side to it. Each of the men we have mentioned as being quickened was quickened to walk in a certain sphere before God, but the objective side of our quickening is "with Christ"

In referring to the wind blowing where it listeth (John 3), we can be quite sure it is under the power of the predestinating grace of God and moves in relation to it.

I am sure we cannot press that too much, for the basic principle underlying all these verses is the sovereignty of God.

It has been helpfully pointed out that new birth stands in opposition to corruption; quickening stands in opposition to death. One is more nature and the other life. We are not trying to infer that one can be born again without being quickened, we are just attempting to explain what they are as distinct in their bearing.

Would not the distinction between the Gentile and the Jew be lost "in Christ Jesus" (verse 6)?

That is what we had in mind earlier; from the end of verse 3 differentiation between the two ceases, and now it is together "with" and "in" Christ.

What is the difference between these two prepositions, "with" and "in"?

"With" has in view our position and association with Christ, and brings in His complement, His body. "In" has in view our acceptance and standing, and shows that we are brought into all the blessing which is in Christ in His place in the glory.

We may note, in relation to what was said as to raising being more than resurrection, that we are said to be "raised up together". Is that what you had in mind?

It is! And that is why we ventured to point it out. It could not be said that we have been resurrected, but we have been raised to where He is at the right hand of God. It is clear to me that Christ being raised from among the dead means that in resurrection He has been raised to an entirely new position, and now we have been raised to that same position with the exception that He is the One actually at the right hand of God. We are associated with Him there.

Some of the saints may never experience resurrection but every saint associated with Christ has been raised.

Does salvation mean a change of place?

Rather, I think, a change of condition, but it does mean that those who are saved today are brought into a heavenly position. We are brought into a new place in a new condition suited to it.

We have before stated that "the heavenlies" conveys the thought better than "heavenly places". It is more characteristic.

Where are these heavenlies?

Where Christ is! It is more a question of where these blessings are than what they are.

We read in Hebrews that Christ has gone into heaven itself, and yet again that He has passed through the heavens. What is meant by all these statements?

If you look them up in their settings you will find that they are all contrasting statements. "Into heaven itself" (Heb. 9: 24) stands in contrast to Aaron's entering the holy places made with hands, that is on earth. "Passed through the heavens" (Heb. 4: 14 New Trans.) means that as Aaron passed through the door of the tabernacle, then through the veil into the presence of God, Christ has passed through the heavens themselves and is in the presence of God. "Far above all heavens" (Eph. 4: 10), means that Christ has gone beyond the created sphere right into the presence of God Himself. Contrasted with the depths to which He went, He has ascended to the highest place, beyond the created sphere, in order that He might fill all things.

What is involved in being made to "sit together", or as the New Translation puts it, "made (us) sit down together" (v. 6)? Is it true that we are in the heavenlies today?

It is true! We are not yet there physically, but in the apprehension of our souls by the Spirit. "Sitting" carries the thought that we are now in possession of the place and privilege, and have the present enjoyment of it in our souls. "Sitting together" in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus indicates the solving of all the problems between Jew and Gentile as we read further down.

There could not be any other way for the Gentiles and the Jews to be put together, for had a Jew taken any other way it would have been apostasy from the nation. We shall see in a later Scripture how clearly that difficulty has been solved.

All this is in preparation for the working out of the administration of the mystery which is referred to later. The word translated "dispensation" is a word which means a "house-law". If I come into your house I must conduct myself there according to your ordering of your own house, and we are to see how both Gentiles and Jews are to conduct themselves today as having part in this new order. As a Gentile I have no right to attempt to tell a Jew he ought to order his life according to my thoughts, nor must a Jew come to me and tell me that I must order my life according to his. "In Christ Jesus" Gentile idolatry and Jewish laws have all passed away, and we both are brought into a new order with entirely new conditions, to which we both have to bow, as verse 10 says, "that we should walk in them".

Would you tell us what is meant by "the ages to come" (verse 7)? Do you limit that to the thousand years or does it go on for ever? To me the term seems to go beyond the thousand years; do you think it is limited to that?

I do! According to J.N.D. the only word he could find in this epistle where the day of God (or the eternal state, as we call it in contrast to time) is referred to, is at the end of Eph. 3: 21, where he translates it "unto all generations of the age of ages". The ages to come means, I think, the age in which will be secured all that came into being for God in the ages of time. We saw in chapter 1 that the "fulness of times" means a gathering together of many things in the working of God, and this word "ages" has the same force, so far as I see.

Do you think that what God has wrought in the space of two thousand years He is going to display in the space of one thousand years?

In so far as heavenly things are concerned, yes! But we must not forget that He will head up all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are upon earth. The display is the day of the kingdom reign of Christ, when as Head, Lord and King He will influence and control all things for the pleasure of God and fill everything with the glory of God. We rather think in the eternal day it will not be what God will display of Himself and His ways with men, but as the fruit of His ways and His counsel springing out of His purpose He will have secured that which He set His heart upon, and we shall be there to enjoy God Himself throughout His eternal day.

To whom will this display be given in the world to come?

Men on earth, and principalities and powers in heaven, all created and intelligent beings!

It may help to say that whilst administration and display characterise the world to come, the day of God is marked by dwelling, satisfaction, and contemplation.

We must remember that in the day of God all things will be new. Persons brought to God now will be there, carried over into the day of God, but all else will be new.

Just a word on these other verses, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God". These verses assure us again that man in himself is absolutely hopeless, and if we have been brought into blessing, it is all of God. Even the faith to believe was given to us of God; not of works, not even a work of faith put to our account; if we have evidenced faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, God gave us the faith to do so.

Do the works of verse 10 flow out as the result of that?

Yes! "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God had before ordained that we should walk in them". We have earlier said that God uses the power which He employed to raise Christ from among the dead, to quicken us and to created us anew; that we who once walked according to the course of this world, dominated by Satan and thus disobedient, should now in obedience to His will produce good works and thus show the magnitude of His workmanship in every one of us.

What are these good works?

Works of which God is the source and which are for His glory. These works could not possibly be those of Gentile darkness, nor are they the dead works of Judaism; they are the reproduction of Christ in our lives, the manifestation of the new life we have as the result of quickening. The exhortations which come before us in the last three chapters would give us an outline of what these works are. It is striking to read that not only were we foreordained in Christ Jesus, but the works which are the fruit of that new life were also foreordained that we should walk in them. As we do so it will become abundantly evident that God has used His power to begin a new work in us, and thus we shall be living witnesses to the wonderful place of favour God has brought us into, in that already Christ is manifested in us in testimony.

Ephesians 2: 11-22.

In the opening of this epistle we have been engaged with the statements concerning the purpose of God, His election and predestination in Christ before time began. In giving effect to His purpose we have seen that He begins with Christ in death; raising Him out from among the dead and setting Him in the highest place in glory. In the beginning of this chapter we saw that the power which God used to raise Christ out from among the dead is the power that has operated towards us, quickening and creating us in Christ Jesus. Hence in regard to the truth of the mystery, Christ Himself being raised and glorified, the company which is called "the body", His complement, has also been brought into being and is now associated with Him as the body of which He is the Head. We have noted that up to verse 11 of this chapter all is the fruit of the working of God Himself. In the section which is now before us we have the work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, so that on our side we may be fitted for the work which God is effecting. We shall see that the two main features of the work of Christ, redemption and reconciliation, are the fruit of the death of Christ. Everything presented to us in this epistle has its origin in the death and resurrection of Christ, not in His life. We are not including purpose, but the elements of that purpose all coming into being when Christ was raised. So far as I can see there does not appear to be any reference to the life of Christ in the whole of this epistle, all comes to light in His resurrection, and His place at the right hand of God in glory.

I suppose reconciliation, as presented in Col. 1, is somewhat wider, but here it seems to be brought in only in relation to those who are members of the body. Would that have the mystery in view?

It would! At the beginning of this chapter we are said to be dead in trespasses and sins, necessitating the quickening power of God, and we now learn from these verses that while God does move sovereignly in quickening, He does it righteously. This necessitated the death of Christ; the blood of Christ alone enabled God to so move in righteousness.

We not only have this work described as necessary for the blessing of man but to enable God to effect His purpose.

That is the point we ought to note in this passage; the condition seen in chapter 1, that we should be holy and without blame, is effectuated as the fruit of the work of Christ.

Why does the apostle go back to the Gentiles here when, as we saw in the previous verses, he had already outlined the need of both Jew and Gentile?

He was writing to Gentiles and so once again he puts them first. The verses higher up show what God has done with both Jew and Gentile sovereignly, while these verses now go on to show how the work has been effected through redemption. It bears out what we have said, God working sovereignly but all based upon the redemptive work of Christ. It will be an added feature of God's glory in the world to come. It is important to see that God will not work sovereignly unless He can do so righteously. He describes their condition again to show the absolute necessity of the blood of Christ.

Their condition mentioned here is, "without Christ . . without God", and if they were to be brought nigh dispensationally, the death of Christ was an absolute necessity. It was one thing for it to be in the mind of God, but here we see the work by which it has been accomplished.

When the circumcision had its standing before God, that is the circumcision made with hands, the Gentiles were right outside the circle of divine blessing which had been established in Israel.

Although the children of Israel had this particular advantage of the atheistic Gentiles, for that is how they are represented here, yet they themselves were very limited in their access to God. Now, through this special work, they have access to God in a much fuller way than ever before. Even for Israel it was a new and living way, as we are told in Hebrews 10.

The apostle is indicating the state in which these Gentiles were, outside the polity of Israel, that is what the word "commonwealth" means. It may have seemed in that day that God was very arbitrary in His dealing, but now He shows that something very far better is in mind, and in this better thing He does not give the Jew any priority over the Gentile.

We read higher up that the Jew by nature was subject to wrath even as the Gentile, though ceremonially the Jew was near and the Gentile far off. J.N.D., in one of his notes says the word translated "without" in verse 12, is one of the strongest negatives which could be used. It means "wholly apart from". Two places where this word is used will show its bearing. In Romans 3: 21 we read, "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested". The law has absolutely nothing to do with the righteousness by faith. The other place I refer to is in Hebrews 9: 28, "and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation". His coming again has nothing whatever to do with sin. So here with the Gentiles, they had no part in the blessing of Israel whatsoever.

It is not only what the Gentile was morally, but what he was positionally which is in view here; yet both Jew and Gentile need the same work if they have to do with God in Christianity.

Would this not emphasize the great grace which had been shown to the Gentiles, who had no claim to blessing at all?

It would! The Gentiles are not brought into blessing by becoming Jewish proselytes, this wonderful blessing of both Jew and Gentile can only be effected "in Christ Jesus". "In Christ Jesus" is as far from the Jewish position as from the Gentile in all his low moral condition.

Why does the apostle use these two terms "in Christ Jesus" and "the blood of Christ"?

"In Christ Jesus" is a Pauline term used by him when speaking of Christ in glory. When we have the single title "Christ" it is, as we know "the Anointed", and I think embraces His Headship. It is the blood of the Christ here, the Anointed of God Who has shed His blood for us, but we are taken into favour "in Christ Jesus", the One Who is glorified. It is not only the blood of Jesus but as the Anointed of God He takes both Jew and Gentile up together and forms them into one body. As the Anointed of God He came with His hands filled with blessing for men, as we may see in Luke 4 and, while He was rejected, He comes forth in resurrection and as made Lord and Christ He still has blessing in His hands for the sons of men.

It is well to emphasize the new position. Gentiles are not brought into the blessings of Israel, but both Jew and Gentile are brought into an entirely new position. "Brought nigh" is something far in advance of anything offered to Israel. We must hold to the fact that "in Christ Jesus" is positional. The Jew needed precisely the same gospel as the Gentile if he was to be brought nigh. That is what is in view in verse 14, "For He is our peace". This is peace between Jew and Gentile, where all racial and religious distinctions have vanished, for "in Christ Jesus" all that has been abolished. The wonderful thing now is, "Who hath made both one". The question is asked in Romans 3: 1, "What advantage then hath the Jew?" and the next verse answers, "Much every way"; but any advantage which the Jew had, positionally, is completely abolished "in Christ Jesus". The very best that God had for men in the Old Testament was ministered to the Jew, but He has now something far better and brings in the Gentile to share in it. As Gentiles they never knew the grace of Jehovah as their God, but now they know the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". If this teaching had been apprehended what a lot of error would have been saved in Christendom, for the great sin of Christendom has been first to ignore the teaching of the Spirit, and then to attempt to show that Christianity has sprung from Judaism, whereas it is something entirely new.

If this access is to the Father, as we read in verse 18, then it must be far beyond anything the Jew had enjoyed previously, and it must involve this new position, for whatever advantages the Jews had they never had access to the Father.

Then do we not have the saints prepared to withstand the attack against Christianity which Satan would use, for no sooner had God introduced this new order than Satan used the old order to attack Christianity? So here we have a complete answer to all Satan's attacks.

If God is to be known in regard to that which He has unfolded here, then He must be known in the intimacy of love as Father. It has been rightly said that the access here is commensurate with the revelation. The revelation of God as Father introduced an entirely new way of access, and that way of access involved an entirely new position.

Why does it say in verse 15 "in His flesh"?

That refers to His death! It means that He came into Manhood, but came into it that He might die. He did not, we may say could not, effect this in His life, but He has effected it in His death. Not only has He removed the barrier between Jew and Gentile, He has annulled death and brought something entirely new into being in His resurrection. Both Jew and Gentile needed reconciling and He has reconciled both in one body unto God. The barrier between Jew and Gentile is removed, and the barrier between them both and God is also removed, for in reconciliation He has brought both to God. He not only removes the barrier but removes the cause of it, for "in Christ Jesus" there is now no room for enmity. All that was ended in the death of Christ on the cross.

Reconciliation in this passage refers more to our state than to our guilt. In that state of enmity of heart we could never have known what it was to be brought nigh to God. It involves the removal of all moral distance between our souls and God. Afar off speaks of distance, but we who once were so are now brought nigh.

We have life in contrast to death as the result of God's working, and nearness in contrast to distance through the work of Christ.

Is reconciliation linked with new creation?

We saw clearly in a former reading that reconciliation subserves new creation. God reconciles us, not to put us back into any former standing, but to bring us into something entirely new.

Why does the annulling of the enmity stand related to His death, and reconciliation stand related to His cross?

I have thought that when the cross of Christ is so named it signifies the end of all that is offensive in the sight of God; when it says "He died for us" His love is in view; when we read of the shedding of His blood, it is redemption effected both for us and for God. In the cross we have the ending, for the pleasure and glory of God, of the evil state that is in man.

Is the enmity here between Jew and Gentile?

It is! But the state in us which caused it has been slain in His cross.

Would there be a distinction between "He is our peace" and the statement now "making peace"?

The verses are still dealing with that which subsisted between Jew and Gentile. Had our national status been continued we might have been at variance for ever, but when a Jew accepts Christ and a Gentile accepts Christ, He becomes our peace. The result is that we are formed into the new man where that which caused the enmity cannot come. He made, or formed in Himself, "one new man".

Is the new man what we are by new birth?

No! It is an abstract term standing here in contrast to both Jew and Gentile; it is a completely new order of man taking character from Christ. Into this "new man" every Christian has been brought, that which caused the enmity has gone, and we are found together in a new company where each one takes character from Christ. We are, of course, formed into this individually, but all who are thus formed are part of this "one new man". We read in Ephesians 4 that every one of us has put on this new man, but here I think it refers to the whole company as being so characterized. It is practical in chapter 4 but characteristic here.

Is this word "new" the word used for something which has not been seen before?

It is! What is stressed here is that it is something of an entirely new character. The cross put an end to all national distinctions and not one of them has been revived in the resurrection of Christ. Something entirely new is brought into being and has in view the working out of the mystery in practice. Now on the basis of this, Christ is preaching peace to both Gentile and Jew. Those who were afar off were Gentiles, and those who were near were Jews. This appears to be a quotation from Isaiah 57: 19, "Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD". While we would not search in the Old Testament for the mystery, we have verses such as this where we can now see that God had this blessing in mind. Notice how He puts the Gentile before the Jew even in Isaiah. We might have pointed out that all down this chapter in Ephesians the Gentile is mentioned before the Jew. How the great apostle had moved into the truth of this as the vessel used of God to make it known to us. At the outset of his service the order is "to the Jew first and also to the Gentile" but here, in the Roman prison, where he is being used by the Spirit to explain the truth of the mystery, he no longer puts the Jew first. It may be, as we have already mentioned, to guard against any thought of introducing Judaism into this great truth of the mystery.

We read in verse 15 that He has made us one new man in Himself, while in verse 16 we read that He has reconciled us both to God, Would "in Himself" involve the new conditions of which we have been speaking?

It would! While in reconciliation we are brought to God, we are brought to God in Him. This, as we saw in a former reading, means "new creation". Only as we are "in Christ" can we be holy and without blame, and Christ has made us this so that God can go on working out that which is for the delight of His heart of love.

Will you please say a little more about reconciliation?

Reconciliation stands in contrast to enmity. The necessity of reconciliation springs from the fact that something is existing between two persons which keeps them at a distance from one another or, as here, at enmity with one another. The cause of this estrangement must be removed if reconciliation is to take place. We know the error of saying or singing, "our God is reconciled, His pardoning voice I hear". We needed to be reconciled, not God, for all the enmity was on our side. Christ has effected this reconciliation, having completely removed the enmity. In Luke 15 when the younger son is restored to happy relationship with his father, we have about the best picture of reconciliation in the Scripture. It has been helpfully pointed out that of the two debtors in Luke 7, offences are in view; in Luke 10 the state which caused the offences is more in view; both are seen together in chapter 15 in regard to the younger son. We read, "For this my son was dead, and is alive again", which answers to chapter 10; "he was lost and is found", answers to chapter 7. We have the component parts of reconciliation seen in the forgiveness of sins, the removal of our evil state, and the new position seen in the younger son as he is fitted for the presence of the father and the father is rejoicing over him.

In line with our reading today, the elder brother also needed that reconciliation.

He did! For he was as far away from the father as the younger son. He may not have gone so far on his feet, but he was as far away in his heart.

In the Old Testament days the access was limited as we clearly see in the tabernacle system, but there is no limit to this access today and it is to God as Father, far greater than any approach to Jehovah.

Does the thought of sonship underlie this thought of access?

It would do! For we are told it is by one Spirit, and that to the Father. The great point to notice here is that we are not only brought into a place of privilege but we are brought to God Himself. God is known to us as Father, and in the blessedness of that relationship and in the intimacy of affection, worship, I doubt not, is in view. The assembly is the worshipping company and the Spirit is the power.

Why does it say it is "by one Spirit"?

To show the unity of it. It is to guard against the thought that the Jew may have a right of access which a Gentile does not have, but both have access by the same power, "one Spirit".

This access is so immensely blessed that it engages the whole Godhead; we have each Person mentioned in this verse.

If each Divine Person is concerned in this access, it is that our sense of intimacy might be in relation to Them all, and that is seen in the following verses. We are said to compose the household of God, an holy temple in the Lord, and a habitation of God through the Spirit. In this chapter we have the work of God outlined from verse 1 to verse 10, the work of Christ from verse 11 to verse 17, and the work of the Spirit from verse 18 to the end. All the Persons of the Godhead are seen in unity working for the delight of Their own heart. It is the Spirit Who brings us into the realization and the enjoyment of it all, and one feels it is all for the pleasure of the Godhead more than for our blessing. How wonderful that it is so.

I have been interested of late in three thoughts which seem to be in line with what you have just said. It is recorded for us that God is love and I have related that to the household of God -all His care, and solicitude, and affection. It is also recorded that God is light, and I have related that to the temple — the shrine of Divine light. Again it is recorded that God is Spirit, and that I have related to the habitation of God in the Spirit. What is revealed of God is to be known and responded to and enjoyed as the result of this access. That is why it was said earlier that the approach is commensurate with the revelation. God in earlier days made Himself known as the Almighty and as Jehovah, but to us He has made Himself known as Father; hence the access to Him is in the light of that revelation. Now that we know God as Father there is no limit, for the Father is the very source of all.

We are no longer "strangers and foreigners". The meaning of the word "strangers" is, "we were not born there"; the meaning of "foreigners" is, "we do not live there". This has to do with the commonwealth of Israel mentioned in verse 12, for as Gentiles we were not born into it, and never belonged to it. Now, however, we do belong to this greater sphere of blessing.

Will you please say more about the household of God?

In regard to the statements, "household" and "habitation", they are both said to be "of God", suggesting that there are congenial conditions in which God can dwell.

It is striking that the only other place where this word occurs is in Revelation 18: 2, "Babylon . . the habitation of devils". In Ephesians we see the conditions in which God can dwell, and in Babylon there are conditions in which devils can dwell.

Why is the temple said to be "in the Lord" and the house "in the Spirit" (N.T.)?

The temple looks on to the day of display in the kingdom when Christ comes forth vested with universal supremacy. The temple will diffuse the light in the world to come, but before that day dawns the saints already form that dwelling place "in the Spirit". You remember the city takes a temple character, "And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21: 22). While not needing a temple, the city itself is of temple character for the diffusion of the light. In the meanwhile, God dwells in the company "in the Spirit".

In regard to the habitation we may see a picture of it in the construction of the tabernacle. When Moses had ordered all according to the pattern shown him in the mount, the cloud of glory filled the house. This happened again with the temple of Solomon, and it will happen again with the temple of Ezekiel.

This habitation has come about as the fruit of the working of each Divine Person, as we have had before us in this chapter. It is all of God, hence the right conditions are there in which God can dwell.

We have the authority of the Lord connected with this. We may speak of temple light but it is in the Lord. We shall know nothing of this intimacy unless we are walking subject to His authority. It is so easy to slip into a sort of hyper-spirituality without recognising that spiritual things in their holiness can only be received and enjoyed and practised as our hearts are held in subjection to Christ as Lord. It is in the Lord we are fitly framed together.

Ephesians 3: 1-13.

It may be well to state that this chapter is a parenthesis in which the truth of the mystery is opened out in detail. We have considered the work of the Godhead in chapter two, where we saw how each Divine Person operated to produce a company composed of both Gentiles and Jews, which company today forms the habitation of God in the Spirit. It is obvious that chapter four morally follows, with the exhortation to walk worthy of this calling, but in between we have this great chapter which shows that not only is the habitation of God formed altogether as the result of these divine workings, but also that the Gentiles are now a "joint-body" (New Trans.) with the Jews, but in entirely new conditions. Another point of importance is the precedence Paul gives to the Gentiles in this epistle. You will remember that in Acts 20 when speaking to these Ephesian saints he says, "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks", but now from the Roman prison he describes himself as "the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles". We have before noted how in this epistle he consistently puts the Gentiles before the Jews, and it would seem that as a vessel he was now fully formed in the truth of the mystery, and hence used by the Spirit to communicate this great truth to the saints.

It seems that from the moment the Jews closed the temple doors to Paul, God closed the door to the Jews.

The use of this word "nations" — as it is in the New Translation — shows that this precious truth is for all the Gentiles.

Yes! For we note when the word "nation" is used in relation to the Jews it is in the singular. When in the plural, as here, it means the Gentiles. So he goes on to speak of the administration — as the word "dispensation" ought to be rendered — and emphasizes, "towards you".

In the first chapter we read that this truth of the mystery was counselled by God; in chapter two, that it was brought into effect by the working of the Godhead; and now the administration of it, as outlined in chapter three, is given to the apostle to pass on to us. Had these Ephesian saints enquired as to how Paul had received this truth, he would have said that it was a distinct revelation from God.

Would he have this given to him while in the deserts of Arabia?

Well! he tells us in the epistle to the Galatians that God revealed His Son in him. Who can tell how much God had made known to him earlier, when for three days he was blind? He may have seen much of a spiritual nature when he could not see things of a material nature. Have we not noticed that, taking the full scope of the particular ministry committed to him, it consisted of four divine revelations? He may not have received them all together; indeed we know he did not. He obviously received the truth of the gospel first, which as we have remarked, was the revelation of the Son of God in him; this he clearly states to the Galatians. Then he seems to have received the truth of the coming of the Lord for His saints, just when it was needed for the sorrowing Thessalonians. Also he received from the Lord the truth relating to the supper, which comes to light when he is writing his first letter to the Corinthians. Nor can we doubt that he had the truth of the mystery when speaking to the Ephesians in Acts 20, he said "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God".

We may wonder what he did receive during those three days. The result is soon seen for we read, "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God" (Acts 9: 20). He learned that God had reached finality in the Son, for in Him is the accomplishment of all God's purpose.

Is the revelation mentioned here greater than the thought of the habitation in the previous chapter?

It is all part of the mystery. In chapter two, he has outlined what is fundamentally necessary if the mystery is to be brought into being, but in this chapter he is showing that this work was done in order to form this "joint-body". In chapter two we see the work needed to bring it into being, but chapter three is to enable us to work it out in practice, hence we read here of "the fellowship of the mystery". The word "fellowship" is really "administration".

We saw in chapter one that it was all in the mind of God before time began; in chapter two, that the gospel was used to bring it all about; and in this chapter we read why the gospel was announced to us — to effect the mystery.

If, as we read in verse five, this revelation was given to all the apostles, why is it that Paul is chosen so uniquely to be the one to bring this administration to the saints?

Because he was particularly the minister to the uncircumcision. It is Paul who tells us here that Peter and the others had the revelation of the mystery, but he alone had the administration of it as the minister to the Gentiles. He was specially called to carry this truth to the Gentiles.

Would it be that this truth lay so near to his heart, that he can speak of "my intelligence" (v. 4 N.T.)? One would not say a derogatory word about the other apostles and prophets, but it does seem that this matter lay so near to the heart of Paul that his intelligence of it outstripped that of all the others.

It is obvious that while Peter was the first to have the truth of the assembly given to him when he confessed the Lord as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16: 16), he did not have the light of the assembly as it was given to the apostle Paul. Both had this truth by revelation, for the Lord said that to Peter, but we have to see that while the mystery was made known to all the apostles and prophets, Paul was the only one who received it by a direct revelation from Christ in glory. This revelation was not something which might have been gleaned from places like the prophecy of Isaiah, it came directly from Christ in glory and the truth of it has been administered and brought into action. The administration means it is in function today.

While this wonderful truth was revealed to Paul as a vessel, it is yet something which we can take in, for by the Spirit we can understand these things.

That would take us back to chapter two, where we saw how, as vessels, we were prepared to be brought into and to take in this truth. We could hardly expect Peter to say that the Gentiles should be "fellow-heirs, and of the same body", but Paul now gives us this truth in its completeness and fullness.

This matter of revelation has not continued beyond Paul. If the truth of the mystery is out, as it certainly is here, then no other revelation is needed in relation to it. If therefore any pretend to have received a fresh revelation, they are not moving within the orbit of Scripture.

It is interesting to see that in order to have this truth given free from all other encumbrances, the apostle is apprehended in the very centre of Judaism and transferred to the centre of the Gentile world, so that in the Roman prison he writes freely of this wonderful truth. It took some time to draw him away in heart from the Jewish synagogue, but we see him in this epistle right outside of that system and we see him as the vessel giving us in such fullness the truth of the gospel of the glory. We know he had already been teaching this truth, but now he is used by the Spirit to pass it on in all its fullness in writing.

What is the mystery?

"That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel" (v. 6). The Gentiles did not come into this under Jewish control or by Jewish teaching, they stand in an equal status with them, not of course in Judaism but in Christianity. That is why we read in chapter two of the middle wall of partition being broken down and both being reconciled in one body. All that the Jews were nationally has gone in the cross of Christ, and this new body comprising both Gentiles and Jews, apart altogether from Judaism, has been formed.

All this has been brought about through the Gospel, the glad tidings, which God is using to establish every thought of His heart. We are born again by the Gospel, quickened by it, reconciled by it, and we receive the mystery, too, through the Gospel.

To what does this promise in verse 6 refer? Has it any connection with the promises in the Old Testament?

I do not think it refers to anything which God had promised to Israel, but it is that which is in promise today, and is held out to men in the Gospel. The promise lies in the same sphere in which the mystery lies, in Christ Jesus. That would exclude all Old Testament promises, except in so far as they may have looked on to a time of blessing by God.

We must remember that Paul received his Gospel from heaven, and it is effecting everything for God. At the end of the epistle to the Romans we read of Paul's particular ministry in these terms, "my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom. 16: 25). We are in the habit of preaching the gospel according to the need of men, but there is such a thing as presenting the gospel according to the revelation of the mystery. When facing a company with some unconverted present, do we look at them according to their needs, or as potential material in relation to the mystery?

We have only to follow the record of Paul's preachings to learn how he spoke to each company according to their need, and no doubt he had preached in an advanced way to these Ephesians.

What is meant by the term mystery?

That which was hid in God. It is something which can only be known when God graciously reveals it and gives certain ones power to understand it. We read in 1 Cor. 2: 9, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him". We have the whole scope of natural intelligence here, and it has been pointed out that man acquires his knowledge in three ways, either observation — the eye; or inculcation — the ear; or intuition — the heart. When it comes to the things of God these human abilities are of no use whatsoever, but God has given to us of His Spirit, and this is the power by which we can understand divine secrets, and the mystery of the Gospel is perhaps the greatest of them all.

In verse 7 the apostle tells us he was the minister of this by "the effectual working of His power". He did not have the truth of this mystery merely as a scholar to store it up in his heart. It was something which was to be known by the saints and he had been formed as a vessel to minister it.

I suppose this is the effectual working of the power of God.

It is! and by it He has formed a vessel, competent and willing to suffer in view of the ministry being carried out. He speaks of his gift as "the gift of grace" but that gift can only come into display by the power of God.

Is this the same power by which Christ was raised from the dead?

It is! For all that is being effected today is by the power of God.

It is important to see that while we are entirely dependent upon God for grace in gift, that gift cannot come into operation to the glory of God apart from His own power.

It is well worth noting that while the apostle is speaking in this epistle of the great ministry given to him and his exercise of it, he yet regards himself as "less than the least of all saints". He says that anything which has been effected by him in his ministry was effected by the working of the power of God.

Would this gift of grace be something which was given specially to Paul?

It was a special gift to him in view of this ministry. There are two parables which have the thought of gift in view; the parable of the pounds in Luke 19, and the parable of the talents in Matt. 25. In the first all receive alike, but in Matt. there are five talents, two or one. That is what we have here. All have gift in some measure, but here are special gifts for special occasions. Paul had the special work of administering the mystery and had a special gift to do so, but the vessel was reduced in order that the ministry might be enhanced in the minds of the saints.

In Ephesians 4 we have those two things brought before us, "but unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (v. 7). and again, "And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (v. 11).

The two things are distinguished. Obviously a special gift is in mind here, though he does call it "the gift of grace", for he acknowledges it to be of the free favour of God.

Did God reserve this truth till this time so that the Gentiles would come into blessing?

It was reserved until the moment that Christ was risen and in glory, and the Spirit of God was operating in this world. Had Christ sent out this truth by the apostles while He was on the mount of Olives, everything effected would have been in relation to the mount of Olives, but this truth is not only dependent upon His being raised, it depended also upon His being in the glory. So He said to them, "tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high" (Luke 24: 49). What was to be effected stood in relation to Christ in glory.

You have emphasized the mystery of the gospel. Does that involve the church?

It certainly does! For here the church is spoken of in these terms, "fellow-heirs, and of the same body". The reason we are emphasizing "the mystery of the gospel" is that there are other mysteries. We read in Matt. 13 of the mysteries of the kingdom for instance, but that is not what we have here. It may give some fundamental features of it, but this mystery is that which was given particularly to the apostle Paul.

You would not say that the gospel is a mystery?

No! the mystery is that which is embedded in the gospel. So he tells us here, "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (v. 8). The gospel is being used to bring this body into being. Whatever advantages the Jew may have had, he did not know of the unsearchable riches of the Christ.

Why did Paul speak of himself as "less than the least of all saints", yet in another place say, "I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. 11: 5)?

In Corinthians he is comparing himself with other apostles, but here he has the glory of Christ in view and he makes nothing of himself. Again, when he is comparing himself with his contemporaries in Judaism he says, "And profited in the Jews' religion above many mine equals" (Gal. 1: 14). In Judaism he was at the top, in Christianity he goes right to the bottom.

There are three statements in which he speaks of himself. Chief of sinners; not meet to be called an apostle; and, less than the least of all saints. He himself said all these things of himself, and it seems that the further he progressed in these glorious things the less he thought of himself. I do not know of anything more calculated to humble us than an apprehension of the glory of Christ.

He had told these Ephesian elders that he served the Lord in all humility of mind and with many tears. That is the attitude of a man who laboured in presenting the truth of the unsearchable riches of the Christ.

I suppose the meaning of "the unsearchable riches of Christ" is that they are inexhaustible and so beyond the finite mind to encompass. Now he goes on to say that he desired that all may see, or as it is better rendered, "to enlighten all (with the knowledge of) what is the administration of the mystery" (New Trans.).

What is involved in the term, "the unsearchable riches of Christ"?

That there are sufficient resources in the Christ to bring this all about. Here it involves that there are sufficient resources to bring the idolatrous Gentiles and the believing Jews into a place of blessing, the standard of which is Christ in glory. Think of riches of grace like that! When we read of the riches of mercy, the need of man is in view. When we read of the riches of grace, the glory of God is in view, and is seen in the place of favour to which He has brought the saints, after meeting their need in the riches of His mercy.

Do not the unsearchable riches of the Christ involve the necessary resources to carry into fruition the whole purpose of God?

God is quite capable of doing this, and Christ is His resource. Hence, it is Christ Who is preached in the gospel for He is able to bring all into divine favour, that is all who believe on Him. So we go on to the administration of the mystery. Without being pedantic about these words we may point out again that this word rendered "administration" or "fellowship" means — "the houselaw". This is the truth which governs in the divine circle today, and as men are enlightened according to it, they are able to move in relation to the mystery in a practical way. If then God was working in Paul to bring the truth of it to the saints, now, in the light of it, we work it out in practice. Again he tells us it was "hidden throughout the ages in God, Who has created all things" (New Trans.). If I were asked as to why God created the universe, I should point to this verse as the answer.

Say a little more about the houselaw.

We are not governed in our walk today by the law of Sinai or by any of its ceremonies, but by the truth which comes to us in the mystery.

Say a little more about why God created the universe.

Well, we read about the houselaw of the mystery which was hid in God Who created all things (there is doubt about the words "by Christ Jesus" in verse 9). So we read of God Who created the universe having this thought in His heart and it was to effect the mystery that He created the universe.

You mean that this creation is like a platform upon which God is working all this out!

That appears to be the meaning of verse 9.

God had an eternal purpose in mind and in the creation of the universe He prepared the platform upon which He is working it out. This carries us back to Genesis 1. Here we learn that He prepared this platform for the working out of all His ways and has brought into the time scene the Second Man in Whom that purpose was established. The work of Christ upon the cross has given God a righteous foundation to go forward with His purpose, and now with Christ in glory, God is securing in Christ the men who were in mind in that purpose. Very shortly He will display Christ Who has fully vindicated Him in every detail of that purpose; then, according to the words of Peter, He will dissolve the platform (that is the heavens and the earth), because He has secured all for which He created it. He will bring in a new heaven and new earth as the eternal home of that which He has secured for the delight of His own heart.

So that if the would to come, and also eternity, are still in prospect what we have today is, "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God" (v.10). Angels can see in the church today the wonderful resources of God. They are finding out in this way what was in the mind of God and why the universe was created. It has come to light in the Assembly.

If we have what is provisional in verse 9 — this creation — we have that which is eternal in verse 11 — the end for which they were created. "According to (the) purpose of the ages" or, as rendered in the authorised version, "eternal purpose". Angels are learning that while the Assembly is the last vessel which God brings into being, it was the first thing He had in His mind. It is "according to the eternal purpose", not according to His dispensational ways. So that no matter what has come in through sin, God has not been thwarted in His eternal purpose.

The angels are learning of the infinite resources of God, and that in spite of all that has happened in this world, He has produced a vessel in which every thought of His heart has been secured. I do not doubt that all that is learnt of the wisdom of God will be learnt through the Assembly, for it is the vessel which is used for the display of Christ both today and in the world to come.

Would these principalities and powers include the fallen angels?

I do not thing so! It would be the beings who have ever moved for the accomplishment of the will of God.

We pass from the vessel through whom this truth was given to the vessel which is the subject of that truth. It is Paul the vessel in verses 7, 8, 9 but it is the vessel formed by that truth in verse 10. As the fruit of this work the truth of what the church really is has been brought out so that it may be worked out by those who compose it.

The saints therefore are to know how to conduct themselves in the light of this truth. We do not have the Gentiles attempting to introduce the myths of idolatrous worship, nor do we have the Jews attempting to introduce the ceremonial law; in the church all are to be governed by the truth of this mystery, moving together in the same circle, possessing the same blessings and enjoying a liberty in approaching God which was never known before. It is this note he seems to end with so far as this unfolding is concerned. "In Whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of Him". Such a thing was not known to the Jews, much less to the Gentiles, but it is the privilege of all who have part in this joint-body. We know that both heathen myths and Jewish ordinances have been introduced by some, so that the truth of the mystery has been entirely lost to them. Let us see to it that we keep clear of every element that would rob us of this truth, and continue not only in the light of this wonderful truth but in the practice of it. It is in function today.

Ephesians 3: 14-21

We come now to the prayer of the apostle in relation to the great truth of the mystery which he had been unfolding. Having communicated to the saints this truth, as the vessel who had been called and enlightened and commissioned to minister it, he now turns to prayer in order that a right state may be given them of God to understand it. Once more we note that while a vessel may minister truth in all its clarity and in the power of the Holy Spirit, only the Holy Spirit can make it good in the hearts of the saints of God. Hence this second prayer in the epistle. In the first prayer we see Christ as Man in Whom the power of God was evidenced in view of securing the inheritance, but here Christ is before us as Son. The first prayer is objective and is to God, but this prayer is subjective and is to the Father. The first has in view that we may know all that is secured in Christ in glory, but this prayer is that Christ may dwell in our hearts. That is why we suggest that the first prayer is objective and that this one is subjective.

Would not the thought of the Father suggest the source? The power for truth to be effected in the hearts of the saints is love, and so the apostle turns to the One Who is the source of this love.

We see that every family is linked with the Father, whether the whole heavenly company comprised of Old Testament as well as New Testament saints, or the Jews and Gentiles on earth who are blessed in the world to come. All stand in relation to the Father as the fruit of counsel. The Father is the source of all and He has named every family according to the place He has declared it is to fill. Who is more able to enlighten us as to the place of these various families than the Father Himself Who has named them?

The spheres here do not go beyond the scope of revelation.

It would be useless for the apostle to pray for anything outside the scope of revelation.

To what is the apostle referring in verse 13 when he speaks of "my tribulations"?

He is referring to what he says in the first verse where he speaks of being "the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles". His being in prison was not hindering the work, hence he says, "which is your glory".

In Philippians the apostle said it was for the furtherance of the gospel; here it was for their glory, that the Gentiles might have passed on to them the full truth of the mystery. Both the gospel and the mystery are furthered by prison circumstances.

While every family will not be brought into the same place of blessing, every family will take character from the Father.

They must do, and that is what I apprehend is conveyed in the Father's naming of them. We perhaps give names haphazardly, but in Scripture names are given in relation to circumstances.

The assembly must have its own distinctive place in the world to come.

Yes! And that is why it is "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". No other family can have the distinctive knowledge of the Father as enjoyed by the Christian company today, and which was given to us in John 20, "My Father and your Father". God does take the name of Father in the kingdom, as we read in the gospel by Matthew, but it does not there reach to the height of the revelation which is given to us by the Son.

That would save us from the error of the universal Fatherhood of God.

Now that the Assembly is secured, all that was lost in former dispensations will be recovered for the glory of God and He will be magnified in them all. The last great family having been secured, all will be established in the world to come, and I do not doubt will be regulated according to the place of the Assembly which is "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all".

Would there be a link with John 14?

I think so! For our Lord said, "In my Father's house are many abodes" (N.T.).

When our Lord said, "I go to prepare a place for you" He had in mind a special place for man in the presence of the Father, a place which was not manifested until Christ in Manhood opened it out by going there.

The apostle therefore prays to the Father Who, as the Source, could alone give to us the ability to understand this wide scope of things.

The Spirit is said here to be the Spirit of the Father.

This is the only place in which the Spirit is so called. It is the Father to whom the apostle prayed and it is His Spirit we need in order to be strengthened in the inner man.

Why is it put in that way?

As we said earlier, Who is more able to instruct us in these details of counsel regarding the mystery than the Father, Who is the source of all? He gives us of His Spirit that we may enter into the knowledge of it.

We need the Spirit in this way, for it is not only that we may know certain things but, "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith". Who is more able to prepare my heart for that than the Father Who gives me His Spirit to this end? Only of a believer can the term "inner man" be used. It is not only necessary to have an "inner man" but also to be strengthened by the Spirit in it. Thus enabled, we know these things and hold them in our souls. Christ dwells there.

We know that the Son ever dwells in the bosom of the Father and if I have the Spirit of the Father strengthening me, Christ now dwells in my heart. There is the full enjoyment of the Father's love; here in my full enjoyment of His love. What an intimate connection.

It is a marvellous thing that the One Who dwells in the heart of the Father is now to dwell in our hearts. I have long thought that is what underlies this statement, "His Spirit" — the Spirit of the Father. It seems to suggest that the Father desires that the Son should be as dear to my heart as He is to His own. The innermost feelings of the Father have been satisfied by the Son's dwelling there, and our affections are to be satisfied by the same blessed Person dwelling in our hearts.

Would there be a distinction between this and what is said in Colossians, "Christ in you the hope of glory"?

There it seems to be the glory of the mystery that Gentiles should be brought into such blessing, but here it is that the love of that circle, not only the glory of it, might fill our hearts. It is more the intimate side of it here.

Can you define the "inner man" for us?

It is what is called in the next chapter "the new man". It is the new creation work of which we read in Ephesians 2, "created in Christ Jesus" (v. 10). God has formed within us a new moral being termed in Ephesians 4, "the new man", and called here "the inner man". My natural intellect is connected with the "outward man" (2 Cor. 4: 16), for intellect is connected with the bodily condition. We have a new moral being formed in our souls, called here the "inner man", and that is where this work is going on.

Would that new moral being be connected with the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit?

It no doubt refers to the same thing, a capacity to take in and hold these divine things which have been given to us.

We may use a term from Peter in this connection, "that ye may grow thereby" (1 Peter 2: 2). This is growth in the divine nature. One may have a great knowledge of Scripture and yet have a very feeble knowledge of God. I am persuaded the two things are not the same. We cannot do without the knowledge of Scripture, otherwise we should be very unintelligent, but if it does not deepen within us the knowledge of God we are going to miss the kernel of it.

How we should value the presence of the Spirit in our hearts! With all these various descriptions we have of the functions of the Spirit, how we should take care that we do not grieve the Spirit and hinder His work in our souls.

It is a danger to have a knowledge of Scripture without a corresponding knowledge of God. It is not here, rooted and grounded in the Scriptures, but "rooted and grounded in love". We value being rooted and grounded in the Scriptures hence our presence at these meetings, but let us be sure beloved that it is rightly affecting us in our affections and not our minds only. One is very conscious of the danger of acquiring a knowledge of Scripture and of constantly moving there without a corresponding knowledge of God. It is this which keeps us rightly balanced, formed by the truth, not merely instructed by it.

As the Father gives us strength, Christ becomes to us of paramount importance — Who He is; what He has done; where He is; His love; His interests, and thus He dwells in our hearts by faith.

The One Who is the centre of every thought of God is to be the centre of our moral beings. That is a necessity if we are to look out in understanding upon the "breadth, and length, and depth, and height". For this we must have Christ in the centre of our hearts and look out from that centre.

If we attempt to work from the perimeter to the centre we shall never grasp the truth, but if the centre is in our hearts by faith it is wonderful how all opens out to us.

We ought to note it is put in the way of exhortation, "That Christ may dwell". It depends upon where our true interests really lie. If Christ is everything to me, His interests, His glory, I shall have the privilege of living in this wonderful circle of divine life and light and love.

I am glad you bring the personal side into this for it does involve that each one of us should have personal affection for Christ.

It has been said that Christianity is a faith system.

Yes! And I have to lay hold of Christ by faith and give Him that central place in my heart. I may give something else that place and if I do I need not be surprised if I am unable to appreciate this wonderful circle wherein I might be illuminated.

Man works all by three dimensions, but here we have four dimensions. We are thus in the sphere of divine working.

It is of interest in that connection to point out that when the earthly city is mentioned in Zechariah we have mention only of the breadth and length (Zech. 2: 2). When we read of the heavenly city being measured it is the length, and the breadth and the height of it (Rev. 21: 16). Height is added there because of its heavenly character as taking precedence over earthly Jerusalem. Here a fourth measure is added, breadth, length, depth and height. The full scope of the revelation is in view. I understand that length and breadth and height are used in the Holy City because what is being displayed there is displayed in such a way that beings on earth can understand it, but with depth added I gather there is something here which only the heavenly saints will understand.

We should not have had height without the depth, as the next chapter shows. It is to be noted that depth comes before height. "He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth" (Eph. 4: 9).

"That breadth, and length, and depth, and height" of what?

It does not say, leaving it in the realm of its own peculiar vastness. We cannot go one step beyond what is revealed. We may put a limitation to it if we attempt to define it. In such a sphere of things we need the love of Christ to sustain us.

What do we understand by being "rooted and grounded"?

It is the sphere in which we grow and in which we are established.

We can understand height being added when the heavenly city is in view, for display is the thought there; here where the depth is included we have something which surpasses display, for it tells of the love of Christ which passes knowledge.

I am assured that of all the spheres brought to our notice in Scripture, this is the greatest.

In view of that, what a wonderful thing it is that we are able to apprehend it. It is infinite, beyond all human measurement, and yet we are granted a power in the Spirit of the Father by which we are able to fully apprehend this wonderful unfolding of the thoughts of God.

Is this the sphere which lies beyond what will be displayed?

Yes! That is why I said it is greater than the city. Much of it will be displayed in the city, but it seems to suggest here that there is something beyond what will be displayed, and as suggested earlier, speaks of the great place of privilege which belongs to the Assembly as associated with Christ in glory.

We know that while the Son, coming into this world, showed forth the Father in testimony yet He had a place with the Father which did not come into display. Does it not seem here that while the Assembly is the vessel through which all that is displayed of Christ will shine out, yet she has a place with Him as the object of His affection which does not come into display? This is more clearly seen where the eternal state is brought before us, "a bride adorned for her Husband".

We noted in chapter 1 that three words are used to describe the power of God when He raised Christ from among the dead and these three words are used again here, verses 16 and 18. The words are "strengthened", "might" and "able". Venturing a free translation of verse 16, we might suggest "enabled by His super-abounding power to be strong enough to apprehend". In chapter 1 this power is towards us, but here, as we read in verse 20, it is "in us". All the power put forth by the Father in chapter 1 is working in us now, in order that we might apprehend all that He has effected in raising Christ from among the dead and placing Him at His own right hand in glory.

Can we comprehend the love of Christ?

No! It does not say that. What it does say is "to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge". Literally it means, "to know the surpassing-knowledge love of Christ". While the love in its entirety passes knowledge, we can know that love. God Himself is infinite but we know Him. This love is infinite, but we know it, not in all its entirety, but we can know that which in its fullness surpasses knowledge.

As to these measurements, I think we may trace them all in this epistle. The BREADTH: may be seen in Eph. 1: 10, "things . . in heaven . . and . . on earth". The LENGTH: is in Eph. 3: 11, "the eternal purpose". It was counselled in eternity and it will extend to eternity; beginning before time began and extending right through the times ways of God and reaching the coming eternity, as we speak. The DEPTH: is seen in Eph. 4: 9, "descended first into the lower parts of the earth"; the depths into which Christ has been to accomplish all, and where His love shines out in its fullness.

The HEIGHT is also seen in that verse, "He ascended", and we are told it is in view of His filling all things. In His DESCENT into death He has dealt with every opposing foe, wrought the reconciliation of all things, then has ascended in view of filling all things, when He fills this universe with the glory of God in the world to come.

We note, in relation to what you have pointed out as to these measures, it is added "and to know" (as though that was something additional) "the love of Christ". What would those measures mean to me if I had not the knowledge of the love of Christ which fills it all? God is going to fill the whole sphere with the One in Whom His love is centred.

There are two infinitudes here. The infinitude of this vast circle, the limits of which we cannot reach, and the love of the Christ which in its fullness is beyond us. This circle extends into eternity, but we have Christ at the centre and yet His love is infinite. We are touching the infinitude of God here, and we can only worship before Him. If we cannot apprehend it all, we have the ability to apprehend something of the blessedness of it, and as we do so it fills our hearts with worship.

Would it not come to us as it did to the apostle that our entering into this is in the spirit of prayer?

We must all agree with that.

What is involved in the expression "filled with all the fullness of God"?

I take that to be the scope of this divine revelation. I am persuaded that the Assembly is being formed as a vessel which is competent to take in, hold and ultimately display the glory of this in the world to come, and after that to give an eternal response to God in the new heaven and the new earth. It is really, "filled to all the fullness of God".

It has often been said that the response will be equal to the revelation. No other verses in Scripture equal these verses in opening out the revelation of the counsel of God, and the Assembly is to be filled to all the fullness of God so that as a vessel she might be competent not only to apprehend these things, but to respond to them intelligently for the satisfaction of the heart of God.

In the epistle to the Colossians it is said twice of the Son that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him; was in Him when in this world, is in Him in the glory. That is in relation to Him Personally and assures us of His Godhead glory, His deity. That cannot be displayed, for deity is beyond creature knowledge and subsists in light unapproachable. What is in mind here comes out into display, for it is not the fullness of deity, but the fullness of the revelation which God has given of Himself, and which will be displayed in the Assembly. The apostle prays that this may be formed now in the hearts of the saints in view of the day of display.

God is forming a vessel fully competent to display Him in the world to come.

It is the complement of Him Who filleth all in all, for we view the Assembly here in its completeness, although we are exhorted to expand in the knowledge of it. No one individual could possibly contain all this fullness, but in the aggregate when all the work of God in the saints is complete, a vessel will be formed competent to display this fullness.

Would this apprehension include all that Christ will yet be?

I would link the fullness mentioned here with Eph. 4: 13, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ".

Is that future?

In its completion, yes! But what we have to learn is that a ministry is going on in order to produce it in our hearts today.

If Christ is dwelling in our hearts by faith we have the light of all that is going to come out in that blessed Person. There is not a single thing which God will bring into display but what we have the light of in Christ.

In spite of all the failure which has come into the church in testimony, what is of God and will be displayed is being formed in the hearts of the saints today.

"The Spirit and the bride say, Come".

The bride will be ready. Ephesians 5 assures us that it will be so as the result of the ministry of our Lord to our hearts by the Spirit. She will be ready and fitted for the place, first as the wife, "His wife hath made herself ready", that is on the ground of responsibility. Then she will be invested with the glory spoken of here in order to display the fullness of God, fruit of the work of God in our souls, and she will be displayed as "the bride, the Lamb's wife".

If we really follow out the exercise of this we shall see that we are related to One Who can do "exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think". That is according to the power which is now "in us". While much of this is connected with the future, the power to apprehend it is now with us.

Do you think a moment will be reached before the Lord comes when all this will be reached and the bride able to say, Come?

I know of no Scripture which suggests that formation will go on after the Lord has come. I think it will all be ready when He presents it to Himself. She will be ready for display. He will see to that.

The washing of water by the Word, to which you are referring, is not so much the removal of defilement but the maintenance of what is due to God in the Church without any defect. The service of Christ is maintaining the church in relation to God's original thoughts. What God counselled the church should be as brought out in Ephesians 1, is seen effected by the work of Christ in Ephesians 5.

You mean so far as we view the church abstractly as the fruit of the work of God there never was any spot in us.

How wonderful that in spite of all that marks the saints in their passage through this world, at the end the church will be free of all spots, wrinkles, sins and blemishes; spotless, ageless, sinless and blameless. She will be complete, competent for the display in the world to come, to delight the heart of Christ eternally, and also to give glory to God throughout that eternal day.

Would it be right to say that the spots and wrinkles are not connected with the "inner man"?

I am sure that is right! They represent the failures we are prone to in spite of the inner man, but what is in our souls as the fruit of the work of God cannot be affected by these things.

Would it be right to say that already glory to God has begun in the Assembly, will be seen in display in the world to come, and then go right through into eternity?

That is what this verse means, I think! It is "unto all generations of the ages of ages" (New Trans.). This would include the present time too. It is the Assembly "in Christ Jesus", and as such there must be glory at all times. We are so apt to think of ourselves in relation to the breakdown, but we have the privilege of taking account of ourselves in relation to these magnificent thoughts of God about us. If we viewed ourselves more in this connection, there would be glory to God now.

We are "His workmanship".

Being occupied with the positive side of the truth is a great preservative today. Why be unduly concerned with what the world is doing, or the failure in the professing church? We should be concerned regarding some of the things we read of in Christendom, but do not let us be unduly occupied with them. I have found that those who drop out of serving God, and are not only discouraged themselves but would discourage others, are generally found occupied with the failures of the saints of God. We have heard before that people occupied with failure turn out to be failures. Let us keep these great and glorious thoughts before us.

It was later said to these Ephesian saints that they had left their first love. Failure had come in.

Yes! But as you have already reminded us at the end of the book of Revelation the position had been recovered, for "the Spirit and the bride say, Come". As a local company they had allowed other things to displace Christ in their hearts, but we are assured His work went on in them nevertheless. We have been reminded of two things, revelation and response. The world to come will be the display of the revelation, but I rather think the eternal state will be more characterized by response.

It would appear that the world to come will be the day in which the ways of God will be seen to be vindicated, but the eternal state will be for the satisfaction of His heart of love.

Would the statement in Ephesians 1, "the glory of His inheritance in the saints", be involved in this?

It would! But that is connected with this present universe and will come out in the kingdom; after the kingdom has run its course and the new heaven and new earth are brought in, the Assembly will be there on the heavenly side to give glory to God eternally.

You connect the inheritance with the world to come?

I do! For it says, "things . . . which are in heaven, and which are on earth".

So while we read so much of what our portion is, it is good to see that God the Father will have something for His own heart as the fruit of this work.

Yes! And we may add, the Spirit will have some fruit for His work, and so will our Lord Jesus Christ. All this is seen in the description of eternal conditions in the opening verses of Rev. 21.

Hebrews - Priesthood

Hebrews — Priesthood

Hebrews 5: 1-14; Hebrews 7: 1-25; Hebrews 9: 1-14; Hebrews 10: 1-14; Hebrews 10: 12-22.

Reading with G. Davison extracted from "Precious Things" 1956-1990

When this epistle was suggested for our present series of readings it was not with a view to giving a general exposition of the whole of the epistle, but rather to consider the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is why we begin at Hebrews 5, where this subject is about to be opened out. The Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, has been introduced earlier in Hebrews 3, but the subject is more fully opened out in this chapter. It may help to see the connection between the Aaronic and the Melchisedec priesthoods, both of which have been taken up by our Lord Jesus Christ in answer to their typical foreshadowings. We shall see that there are two aspects of the priesthood of our Lord; what we venture to call the wilderness conditions; and the Minister of the Sanctuary, leading that company in holy liberty to God.

Priesthood is a service which was inaugurated by God, for no one takes up the position unless he is called to it by God. So Christ has not glorified Himself to be made a High Priest, "but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee", also said, "Thou are a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec". Priesthood must be a wonderful thing for Christ is glorified in relation to it by God Himself.

We rightly insist on the fact that the work of Christ in relation to redemption is done. He said ere He left this world, "It is finished". While that is true, as we rightly emphasize in the preaching of the gospel, the work of Christ is still going on in relation to those who have believed the gospel and now stand in relationship with God. Christ in glory is officially the Head, the Lord and the Priest; and these titles describe for us His present activities at the right hand of God as supporting and leading in safety through the wilderness those who have trusted him as Saviour. Hence His priesthood both Godward and manward has in view the supporting of the divine system He has brought into being as the result of His work upon the cross.

In relation to His present service is it not more His Person that is stressed rather than His work?

When we had the readings on the Ark, it was pointed out that the Ark was covered with pure gold within and without, and it was said that if He had not been God He could not have made God known. We noted that the altar of incense was also covered with pure gold. Only One Who is God could bring the revelation of God to man, and only One Who is God could adequately sustain a company in relationship with God. So in this chapter the Priest is THE SON.

God has found One Who can sustain the full thought of priesthood according to His own mind. In the systems of men nothing has been more vitiated with human ideas than priesthood. It has been reduced to the level of men, but here we get priesthood of the highest possible kind according to the mind of God, and a blessed Person in view Who can sustain it there. So we have both His personal and His official glories stressed, one in relation to Psalm 2 and the other in relation to Psalm 110. Only One of such power could sustain priesthood according to God.

In that connection we note the statement which has already appeared in Hebrews 2, "in things pertaining to God" (v. 1). We may add that if we have reference to His personal glory in verse 5, and His official glory in verse 6, we have also His moral glory in verse 7.

That is particularly necessary in relation to His priesthood for had he not been morally perfect in His Manhood He could not have drawn near to us to help us in our need. So while He is Son and Priest, He has drawn near to us in Manhood, and we are able thus to appreciate both His personal and official worth.

What is the meaning of those words, "in things pertaining to God"?

His priesthood has been inaugurated for the sustaining of the divine system which has been brought into being, and in order to sustain the people of God in relation to it. Both things are in the verse, "for men" and "pertaining to God". It is because we are men that we need this Priest, but He is established to sustain us in the things pertaining to God. While we come to Him with all the details of our lives, He sustains and encourages only in that which is according to the will of God. We must not attempt to detach His priesthood from God's side to our side, as though it was merely to get us through the wilderness. Rather He sustains us in the wilderness in relation to the things pertaining to God. So while I may make movements here and seek His guidance in relation to those movements, He will guide according to the will of God.

Do men need to be sustained because of the conditions in which they are found?

Yes! You will remember Aaron was consecrated to bear the iniquity of the children of Israel, and he stood for them representatively in every aspect of their responsible life in relation to God. If we are to keep moving in relation to the will of God we shall constantly need to be sustained by the Priest. It is in view of response to God, as we read "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin".

It is, of course, mediatorial, for He is there on behalf of both God and man, in order to sustain men who stand in relation to God to move rightly for God, whether Godward or manward.

There will be holy substance in our hearts as they intelligently respond to God, and the priesthood is to sustain this. Whilst God has given a full revelation of Himself yet there could not be a response from my heart apart from the priesthood of Christ. This anticipates Hebrews 10, where we are exhorted to draw near, into the very presence of God.

Will you distinguish between "gifts and sacrifices"?

We have the gain of the tabernacle system to turn to in explaining these things for it is always the tabernacle which is in view in Hebrews, not the temple. When Aaron was sanctified, anointed and consecrated in his robes, he was there representatively to offer to God the gifts and sacrifices of the people who brought them to God. The first sacrifices offered were offered to sanctify the priests, but thereafter they offered the sacrifices on the altar of burnt offering, and Aaron offered the bullock and the goat on the great day of atonement. Then there were gifts brought to God such as the firstfruits, oil for the light, spices for incense, etc., and the last act lay with the priest to offer to God that which was brought. They all represented the response of the people to God.

Were not the sacrifices "gifts"?

No! For most of them were obligatory, but these are quite distinct, "gifts and sacrifices". The point obviously is that every sacrifice or gift brought to God was presented by the priest.

Why are gifts put before sacrifices for sins?

It is "things pertaining to God", not things pertaining to man. Even when the offerings are outlined God begins with the burnt offering, not with the sin offering. We do well to note where God begins, and it will give us a higher estimation of the things which do come from our side. The gifts are on a higher plane than sacrifices for sin which really have in view the failure of the people of God.

So in these first four verses we have things said about Aaron which could never be said of Christ. His condition was descriptive of the condition of the people whom he represented.

Were there not priests before Aaron?

Yes! Melchisedec was there first, a point we do well to remember. Jethro was a priest, and there were provisional priests in Israel before the tabernacle was built; but the Aaronic and the Melchisedec orders are in view here. We must note again that they did not take this honour upon themselves, "but he that is called of God, as was Aaron". It is a divine institution. This ought to assure us of the importance of the subject, for had it been humanly instituted we might have doubted its utility, but when instituted of God and One called to fill that office we can be assured of its importance.

We must remember that the priesthood is not something merely to fall back upon in time of need. Thank God that is included; but it also has in view response to God for His glory. "He that offereth praise glorifieth God", and the various movements of the Priest have this in view.

Would not the things pertaining to God have in view God's revealing Himself in Christ and our response to that?

There could not be a response till there had been a revelation. We must know God if we are to approach Him and eventually the response will be adequate to the revelation. It is one of the great points of the priesthood of Christ to bring that about.

We noted when reading of the Ark that it was one and a half cubits high. The Table of Shewbread was one and a half cubits high. The Grate of the Brazen Altar on which the sacrifices rested was in the middle of the Altar which was three cubits high, and so the Grate would be one and a half cubits high also. One has thought about that measure; it is seen in the Most Holy Place, in the Holy Place and in the Court. When Christ came into this world -the answer to the Ark — He made God known to us. Then we see typified in the Table that He sustains us in relation to that revelation; and in His sacrifice upon the cross He has met the claims of God. He only could make God known; He only could meet the claims of God in relation to sin, and He only could sustain a company formed as the result of these two things. That is why we said earlier that only One Who is God can sustain us in relation to God.

In the rebellion of Korah, they attempted to take upon themselves an honour which God did not give to them.

Uzziah was guilty of the same sin, and it gives us to see the importance of being "called of God". What a serious thing for a man to force himself into an office to which God has not called him. It is one of the great errors of Christendom to which Jude alludes. On the one hand the priesthood of all saints is denied, and on the other the priesthood of Christ is usurped by men who dare to pronounce the forgiveness of sins, and of whom one claims to be the vicar of Christ. It is all in opposition to the teaching of Scripture.

It is remarkable to note in verse 5 that even Christ did not glorify Himself to be made priest. If priesthood is an office of divine institution to be filled by divine calling, it is a mark of the perfection of the subject Manhood of our Lord that He fills that office by divine appointment.

It is worthy of note that according to the New Translation, "Thou" art My Son; "I" have begotten Thee, and "Thou" are a priest, are all emphatic and show the importance of this matter. It is the action of God, yet intensifying the point that it is this Person Who is the Priest.

The word used here for "begotten" is not the same word as that used by John for the "only begotten" Son. The word used by John means one only of that character, and is used to preserve the truth that when the Son came into Manhood He did not change in His Person, hence we have "Who is in the bosom of the Father" (New Trans.), not was. It is His Person that is guarded there, But the word used here has to do with His birth into the world and God's declaring His relation to Him in Manhood. The word John uses does not refer to His birth into this world, but is the declaration of Who the Person is Who came into flesh; we believe He was the only begotten Son before He came into this world and abides so. The word has nothing to do with begetting at all. It is used in the Septuagint to translate the word which Mr. Darby translates as "my only one", and which the Authorised Version gives as "my darling". The word john uses is found once in this epistle and is used of Isaac as the only one of Abraham. Here we see the force of the word, for Isaac was not the only one begotten by Abraham but he was the only one of that character. If the word meant begetting, it could never have been used of Isaac. This may help in view of the erroneous things which have been said about it of late. In this chapter it is the relationship to God in time, but in John His relationship eternally. It is, of course, the same blessed Person in relationship to God eternally Who is acknowledged by God as in relationship to Him in time.

While in a different condition as coming into Manhood, He the Son is still recognized as in relationship to God as Son. Some object to the term condition, but what we simply mean by it is the flesh and blood condition into which He came and in which He obviously did not subsist before coming into this world.

So coming into time did not make Him the Son?

No! That is what we are trying to guard. It is the Son Who came into time, and while in flesh and blood He was in a new condition yet it was the Son Who came into it; He abides Son when in it, and is so called by God.

It is important on that line to remember that the Manhood of Christ continues.

In the opening of this epistle the Son stands in contrast to angels and His personal glory as such is maintained though coming into subject Manhood to accomplish the will of God. We are sure He abides in Manhood for ever. That is important in connection with this priesthood which continues for ever.

Now in verse 6 we move on to the quotation from Psalm 110. The same One Who says, "Thou art My Son", speaks again of a Person in Psalm 110, "Thou art a priest for ever". If we were not able to gather from Psalm 110 Who this Person is, we can certainly do so now in the light of Heb. 5: it is the Son. This Priest is established by an oath and God will not repent.

We can see now why Melchisedec had no earthly genealogy. This is one of the greatest supports of the truth of the eternal Sonship of Christ.

Does Psalm 110 suppose His resurrection?

It does! "Sit Thou at My right had, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool". You know that the terms there are "Jehovah said to Adonai". That is what puzzled the educated Jews when the Lord asked them the question concerning His Personal glory, but here as simple believers today we have the solution to that problem.

Do we understand from verse 6 that Christ will always function as a Priest?

I gather that this term "for ever" means as long as time will last. The main thought in the term is that it will never be altered or passed on to another as the priesthood of Aaron was.

Is there any suggestion anywhere that priesthood will continue in eternity?

Not that I am aware of.

Will there ever be a time when we shall not be dependent upon someone for the administration of blessing?

We may put it this way, there will never be a time when we shall not need a mediator between us and God even in eternity.

I was thinking of 1 Cor. 15.

So am I! And there we gather that the Son remains in Manhood and will ever be the One through Whom we are kept in conscious relationship with God.

There does not seem to be any need for priestly function after the world to come, though it is obvious that Christ remains a Man. The word perpetuity is used later, and means without interruption. It is not there a question of going on to an end, but it is a priesthood which goes on without any interruption. The priesthood of Aaron was interrupted by death but this one will never be.

We have to remember that while the Lord is functioning now after the pattern of Aaron, He will come forth in the world to come after the order of Melchisedec.

Is not the Aaronic priesthood for the wilderness and the Melchisedec for the land?

Yes! Though we said before it has two sides, to sustain me in the wilderness and to get me to God.

What you said about Melchisedec helps us to understand why it is brought in here. The only thing said about him is — he lived.

Perhaps the two outstanding things connected with these two orders of priesthood are: in Aaron — intercession; and in Melchisedec — blessing. It was after the battle in which Abraham was the victor that Melchisedec comes to light, and it will be after the last great battle in which Israel will triumph that Christ in the Melchisedec priesthood will come forth. That is why we said that at present, though established as Melchisedec, He is functioning after the pattern of Aaron. So long as we are in the wilderness we shall need Him as such. Whatever the meaning of this word "for ever" is, whether as to character or duration , we can be encouraged by the fact that so long as a priest is needed there will be one.

It has been pointed out that Israel was never without a priest in the wilderness, for Eleazar was robed in the priestly garments before Aaron died. I judge where the term "high priest" is used Aaron is in view, for Melchisedec was never a high priest which involves others sharing with him. Though it says, "a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" I gather that the two thoughts of priesthood are involved. "High Priest" would refer to His present functioning, while Personally He is after the order of Melchisedec. I cannot see how "high priest" could refer to Melchisedec in any other sense.

Referring again to the Scripture where Melchisedec first comes to light, it was after the slaughter of the kings. It has been said that the first battle in Scripture typifies the last one, Armageddon, and when Melchisedec met Abraham he pronounced a divine title which had not been known before, "the Most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth". Until Christ takes possession of both heaven and earth for God He is functioning after the pattern of Aaron, but when He does come forth as the true Melchisedec He will sustain the whole scene and fill it with the praises of God.

Melchisedec was a king. Personally, his name means "King of Righteousness, and after that King of Salem, which is King of Peace". Kingship has the world to come in view.

If we turn to Zechariah 6: 12-15, we have the whole matter set out for us. These men are crowned in relation to the Branch spoken of in verse 12. Isaiah speaks twice of the Branch, and Jeremiah also speaks twice of the Branch, and here in Zechariah we have it spoken of twice. Isaiah refers to Christ as the Branch officially; Jeremiah morally; and Zechariah personally, for we are told here, "Whose Name is The BRANCH". "Even He shall build the temple of the LORD; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both" (v. 13.). Royalty and Priesthood are brought together and the counsel of peace between them both. This is a clear reference to the Melchisedec priesthood in the world to come.

We do not presume to know what will be in the eternal state, but we do not read of a priest there, so we must leave it. It does say that in the world to come righteousness will reign and that is in line with this, while in the eternal state righteousness will dwell.

We should remember the word "for ever" means that certain things have been brought in which will abide. There was nothing of an abiding character in Judaism, death and such like things were always occurring, but this word is brought in to show that final things had now come in and were to abide. That is why the term is used so often in this epistle.

Would that not be why the Son is brought before us so much? Being eternal, all that stood in relation to Him would be abiding, as He could not be superseded by anyone.

That is why we stressed that His personal glory comes in before His official glory.

In regard to what was said earlier about "high priest", note in verse 5 this term is used, but in verse 6 "Thou art a priest" not "high priest", and I believe both things are incorporated in verse 10 — "Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec". All may not agree to this but I think it is right. High Priest is comparative, but Melchisedec is not comparative with any other associate. I judge the word "high" shows Him to be after the order of Aaron, He being personally after the order of Melchisedec. I do not think Christ is functioning after the order of Melchisedec as yet, but He is ordained of God as after that order. It is a point most difficult to grasp but we must see the two orders running together in Christ. Verses 7, 8, 9 all refer to the Aaronic character, verse 10 to Melchisedec. They are so closely interwoven that it is difficult to see both things in one Person. The point is — the One who is Priest now to support us in wilderness conditions, is the same One Who will support us in the world to come when we leave the wilderness to share in the kingdom.

We get all the anti-typical privileges suggested by Aaron in One Who is personally greater than Aaron. Not one thing typified by Aaron is lost, but we have them in One Whose priesthood supersedes that of Aaron, and He administers all the privileges typified by Aaron yet in the dignity of the Melchisedec order.

So we read of Christ as "a great high priest" (Heb. 4: 14). He is great as well as high.

Do we not anticipate those blessings which will come in with Melchisedec in the world to come?

We do in the power of the Spirit! But what we have here is the actual functioning of priesthood. In answer to the Aaronic, He takes us in to God as we shall see; Melchisedec comes out from God to bring blessing to men, but let us remember it is the same Person Who does both things. Here is a priest great enough not only to sustain us in the wilderness but to set us all in our places in the world to come.

What is the difference between the Priest and the Advocate?

The Priest would give succour to prevent us from falling, but the Advocate would restore us if we have fallen. Three things are said to be ministered to preserve us — succour (Heb. 2); sympathy (Heb. 4); and salvation (Heb. 7), all on the wilderness side.

Will the Lord not give up the Aaronic line and function altogether as Melchisedec in the world to come?

It does seem to be so according to the prophecies, for He will sustain both heaven and earth in that day. We must keep in mind that here it is the order spoken of, not the future function.

It is clear that when we read of one going in with sacrifices Aaron is in view, for that is never said of Melchisedec. "High Priest" stands obviously in relation to the sons of Aaron, but Melchisedec had no sons; he stands alone.

The qualifications of Aaron are outlined in verses 1 to 3; the qualifications of Christ are seen in verses 7 to 9. There are most remarkable qualifications in verse 7. "In the days of His flesh', with a view to representing this company, He offered up "prayers" , a word meaning "requests"; and "supplications", a word meaning "seeking a divine favour". It was with "strong crying and tears" — this refers to the garden of Gethsemane — "unto Him that was able to save Him from death", or more correctly "out of death"; and He was heard because of His piety, as the word really means.

The qualifications for this priesthood are stated before He entered into His priesthood, then in verse 10 He is "saluted of God" — as J.N.D. renders it. He has perfectly qualified for the office.

In Psalm 22 the Lord says He cried and was not heard, yet here it says He was. Why?

In the correct translation we see the answer. He could not be saved "from" death but He was saved "out of" death. In the beginning of that Psalm He was not heard, but after the work was accomplished He was heard (verses 2 and 21). If He could not be saved from death, He was saved "out of death" after doing the work, and that is what is referred to here.

Would the obedience here be the same as that in Philippians 2?

Yes! But note the words "learned obedience". While the Lord must have known what obedience was, yet He experienced it in perfect Manhood in the world, for He had never experienced obedience before coming into Manhood. Obedience was seen perfectly in Him. The Garden of Gethsemane depicts a scene of the most intense suffering.

We shall never have to face what the Lord faced in the Garden, but we may be subjected to the most intense suffering in seeking to carry out the will of God. If so, we can be sure of the support of our Great High Priest Who has gone through such a trial.

It says He became the author of eternal salvation.

Yes! And having so suffered in His spirit, in view of that, He can support those who obtain that salvation and may need His further support in working out the will of God as a consequence. Eternal salvation is in contrast to the temporal salvation which Israel as a nation had experienced. This is final and complete. Being made perfect has in view the experience through which He passed on the way to that, and it means that He is now able to succour His people no matter what amount of testing they may be subjected to. It means He is fully qualified.

Perhaps the difficulty we have in apprehending these things is seen in our closing verses. It is apparently a subject which requires a certain amount of growth to understand. Had they not been so desirous of clinging to the earthly things of Judaism, they would have grasped it more readily. It is testing to see that the apostle is led into this long digression because of the immature state of their hearts; and how slow we are at times to take these things in.

I must say that when I have heard things which I have not understood, I have not blamed the minister. I have always blamed myself. The constant cry of "Give us something simple" is a palpable acknowledgment of the babe state out of which many ought to have grown. Let us rather give ourselves more fully to these things, and thus seek to understand the truths that God has so graciously given to us. We shall then be in a fuller enjoyment of the vastness of the sphere He has brought us into today, and more able to answer to it intelligently for the pleasure of our God.

Hebrews 7: 1-25.

We have passed over the exhortations of Hebrews 6 where the apostle seeks to encourage the saints to go on to perfection. This exhortation has a twofold application, for while there were those who belonged to the company through faith, but had made slow progress, there were others in the company who had no faith, and many of these were turning back to Judaism. It is clear that the opening verse of this chapter links on with Hebrews 5: 10.

Would it help to consider the circumstances in which Melchisedec met Abraham?

We mentioned in our previous reading that the account of this meeting as recorded in Gen. 14, was after the battle of the five kings against the four; the first battle in Scripture and indicative of the last. It is a picture of the deliverance of the remnant of Israel after the battle of Armageddon, and of their restoration in the land in the world to come. The Melchisedec priesthood is connected with the world to come, and if these believers are already associated with the One Who is the true Melchisedec it is obvious that they are going on to the kingdom. We are referring to the company of whom they were the beginning. That is why we read in verse 25, "Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost"; that is, right through to the end.

That seems to be anticipated in Heb. 6: 20.

Yes! They already had the blessings and privileges which were promised to Israel in relation to the world to come. In verse 19 of that chapter we have an anchor there now, but verse 20 would assure us that we are certainly going there also, for our Lord is there as forerunner.

Would there be any significance in the fact that Abraham only joined in the conflict in order to deliver his nephew Lot?

I suppose dispensationally Abraham represents the two and a half tribes who will stand for God in the conflict and who will ultimately be used to bring to light the ten tribes after the tribulation. All the goods and all the souls will be recovered. What we need to see is that we are already linked with the One Who will sustain the whole scene in the day of display, and will support us until that day dawns. That is why we have pointed that until that day dawns He functions after the pattern of Aaron. We have noted

that intercession marks the Aaronic and blessing the Melchisedec priesthoods. This is seen in the first verse of our chapter.

We shall not need an intercessory priest in the glory, but we shall join in the response which is the answer to the revelation.

So we read in Zechariah 6, "the counsel of peace shall be between them both". It is the responsive order of priesthood which is in mind in relation to Melchisedec, and it will be seen in that day.

Melchisedec brought forth bread and wine, and while we shall not need sustainment when we are with Christ, we shall be nourished in a spiritual way on the fruits of His victory. I connect the bread and wine with the fruits of the harvest and the vintage; and as Melchisedec ministered them to Abraham the conqueror, so will Christ minister to the overcomers not exactly in the way of sustainment, but rather of blessing.

Are you referring to Rev. 14. in relation to the harvest and the vintage?

Yes! But such references are scattered throughout the prophetic word. You may remember that in Joel we have the restoration of the meat offering and the drink offering; here again the harvest and the vintage are in view. I do not doubt Armageddon is the vintage and, like Melchisedec, our Lord will reap the fruits and will share the spoil with the strong.

Just one more reference to this matter. I have noticed that whilst the corn and the wine are mentioned once or twice in the first four books of the Bible, in Deuteronomy "oil" is added, suggesting perhaps that these things are to be enjoyed in the power of the Spirit of God, for Deuteronomy prepares the people to go into the land. The harvest is a discriminating judgment; the vintage is a wholesale judgment, and out of each will come something for God and for blessing to His people. The very fact of every opposing force being at last removed will prepare the way for the people to dwell in peace, and the King-Priest will bring this about.

Does the king speak of subjugation by rule?

Yes! But the linking of the priest with the king shows that when God at last asserts His right and power as the Possessor of heaven and earth, and when Christ reigns in that power, He will sustain both the heavenly and the earthly company to answer to His rule, and all will be seen serving God for His glory. He shall reign as Priest; if it were dictatorial law only, the people would fail in relation to it, but as wielded in a priestly way they will be sustained in relation to it.

Both the beginning and end of this chapter indicate the dignity of the Son. Why is that?

It is to show the greatness of the office in that such a Person as the Son is the One Who fills that office.

In this world the conferring of an official position upon a person often adds dignity to him, but no conferred office can add dignity to the Son; He rather, as Son, adds dignity to the office. Whatever He may be officially cannot add to what He is Personally, but being Who He is He brings a dignity into the office that was never there before.

Connected with this priest we have two inseparable divine principles — righteousness and peace. There never could be peace apart from righteousness. In Ps. 85: 10 we read, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace". These will be the governing principles in the world to come. So David, when he came to the end of his reign, said, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God" (2 Sam. 23: 3).

We stand before God on these two principles, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5: 1). Our Lord has brought these things together and established them, and He is the King-Priest Who will govern in righteousness and bring peace to this world. It is through Him that we have the gain of these things now.

These features are sustained in One blessed Person for the glory of God. He is the King of Righteousness — that is His Name. His character is — the King of Peace.

These principles characterize the kingdom today as we read in Rom. 14: 17, "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost".

In this description of Melchisedec there is record neither of a progenitor nor of an heir. He neither received his priesthood from, nor did he transmit it to, another but the record is "that he liveth" (v. 8). He was a priest in his own right.

Why is it said, "made like unto the Son of God"? There is a record of the birth of our Lord as coming into this world.

The statement that Melchisedec "was made like unto the Son of God", does not refer to the birth of our Lord into this world, but shows the Lord to be eternal in His Person. As to the Manhood of our Lord, all these statements -father, mother, descent, beginning of days and end of life — are variously recorded; but the Person Who came into Manhood and of Whom these facts are true, is eternally the Son without any generation whatsoever. This proves what has already been said, that only such a Person could fill the Melchisedec office. Of whom but the Son of God could these things be true?

In Daniel we read of one like unto the Son of God in the midst of the fire. Why should the same statement be used there?

The New Translation clears that point by showing it more correctly as, "a son of the gods". What Nebuchadnezzar saw was a supernatural being that he, being a heathen king, could only describe as "a son of the gods".

You are not asserting that Melchisedec was a supernatural being?

No! And that is why it does not say the Son of God was assimilated to Melchisedec, but that Melchisedec was made like unto the Son of God.

When Melchisedec was in the world the Son of God had not come into incarnation, hence this type is to describe an eternally divine Person Who came into Manhood. It is the Person Who is in view, not His Manhood. We must keep the fact quite clear that Melchisedec was not an eternal person, but by having no genealogy he is a type of the Son of God. That is the point here.

All this is to show that this priesthood did not depend upon earthly succession, but was in the power of an endless life. It is not limited by death.

The record as to Melchisedec is "he liveth" (v. 8). Some have thought that Melchisedec was an angel, but we are left in no doubt that he was a man (v. 4). Others have said it was the Son of God Himself, but again we read, "made like unto the Son of God" (v. 3). Melchisedec was neither the Son of God nor an angel, he was a man with a priesthood which was entirely his own.

We are exhorted to consider this man in verse 4. Does it follow that if we do so we shall learn something more of the Son of God?

His greatness is seen in the fact that Abraham gave to him a tenth of the spoils and "the less is blessed of the better". Abraham was blessed by him, therefore Melchisedec was greater than Abraham, and Abraham owns this when he gave him the tenth of the spoils. I have thought of Melchisedec as the greatest man in the Old Testament. Of no other personage is it said, "consider how great this man was". We are not told to consider his history for he had none, but we are told to consider the way in which he was assimilated to the Son of God.

Another remarkable thing is, that after the record of his meeting with Abraham we do not read of him again until we reach Psalm 110.

Could we not take the first three words of this chapter and link them with the last phrase of verse 3 like this, "For this Melchisedec . . abideth a priest continually"?

A footnote by J.N.D. will help with that. He points out that the word "continually" means "uninterruptedness", showing that termination of his priesthood does not come into question. We have two things brought out here; the greatness of the Melchisedec priesthood and the greatness of the Person Who fills the office.

This is one of the most convincing verses to establish the truth of the eternal Sonship of Christ. To attempt to read into this verse the Manhood of Christ would wreck it altogether. I am sure we are not wasting time in giving this matter such long consideration. The office of priesthood is enhanced by this glorious Person.

We must remember that our Lord does take it up in Manhood.

That is quite right! But it is that great Person Who came into Manhood Who now fills that office uninterruptedly.

In verse 14 we read that "our Lord sprang out of Judah", the kingly line — not the priestly line of Levi. This clearly shows the need of a king being priest, as we have at the beginning of this chapter. Only a king could fill that order of priesthood. Therefore God brought in Melchisedec before He brought in kingship, knowing that the Son would be King and Priest.

Then the apostle adds that it is not only evident that our Lord sprang from Judah but, "it is yet far more evident" that another priest was to arise. See how the apostle now turns the question of similitude to the priest. Melchisedec was assimilated to the Son of God as to His Person, but now the Son of God is assimilated to Melchisedec as to His priesthood. It is remarkable how carefully these matters are stated to guard the Person of our Lord and yet to show His office. J.N.D. points out that in Psalm 110, from which this is quoted, it was not a prophetic pronouncement, but was oracular. It means that God said to Him, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec". It is by an oath, and not after the law of carnal commandment, but in the power of an endless life. Provision was made in the Aaronic priesthood for its continuance, but there is no such provision here, for He abides a priest continually in the power of an endless life. Hence our Lord has not derived this priesthood from any previous priest, but it is of the character of Melchisedec and He is saluted by God as in the office.

Would that oracle be given to Him in counsel?

We know that all that comes to light in the revelation God has given to us was there in counsel, but I think Psalm 110 had in view God saluting Christ when He was established in that office, and whilst the Melchisedec priesthood came in before Aaron we can easily see what was the greater thought of God in relation to priesthood. It is now an established fact — "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec". The expression we have been referring to has resurrection in view, for it is in resurrection that He takes it up.

Are you thinking of verse 16 in saying that, "the power of an endless life"?

Surely! He lives for evermore.

It is somewhat difficult to see how the two orders of priesthood are blended in the Lord.

Towards the end of this chapter we come back to the features of the Aaronic priesthood, for both are now running on together whilst our Lord is on high. The priesthood of Christ is after the order of Melchisedec but He is functioning after the patter of Aaron and will do so until we are out of wilderness conditions, and are with Him in the kingdom.

Why is the contrast to a fleshly commandment brought in?

That looks back to the time when Aaron passed off the scene and his garments were put upon Eleazar, and in course of time they would be taken from off Eleazar and put upon his son. God had given commandment that this was to be done because those priests died and others had to take their place. There is no such commandment in relation to the Melchisedec order, for it is an intransmissible priesthood. Hence it is by an oath and not by a carnal commandment. I may add that the power of endless life is not merely resurrection but what is true of Him essentially. It was because of what He was essentially that He came forth in resurrection.

Why is this priesthood connected with the new covenant?

It is bound to be! The carnal commandment came in with the dispensation of law. Moses brought it in as mediator, and Aaron was priest to sustain it.

It would be right to say the new covenant necessitated a new priesthood. How else should we have been free to draw near to God?

If it were as the result of His essential life that Christ came forth from among the dead, why does it say in Romans 6 that He was raised by the glory of the Father?

It is just another aspect of the great truth of His resurrection. Where you quote, it is the Father Who raised Him. In John 2: 19 the Lord said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Yet again Peter writes, "For Christ . . being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3: 18). Each Divine Person was concerned in Christ's resurrection, and it depends on the objective in view as to which Divine Person is said to be active. The Lord Himself said of His life, "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again" (John 10: 18).

Christ having taken up this office in resurrection and in the power of an endless life, we shall never be without a priest. The only way man can establish perpetuity is by succession. We get perpetuity established here in one blessed Person. Even in worldly kingdoms it is said, The king never dies, but that fact is maintained by succession. That is what Christendom is trying to do in relation to the priesthood — keep it going by succession — but there is no thought of that here. It is maintained in one Person by an indissoluble life, and hence a dignity is given to this priesthood which causes us to bow in worship.

Two things are said here about this priesthood, it is perpetual and it is intransmissible, one being the outcome of the other.

We can see the need of the Aaronic priesthood being brought in if the people were to be maintained according to the law, but what need is there to bring in this Melchisedec priesthood?

If as you say Aaron was appointed to represent the people in relation to God in the wilderness, then Melchisedec comes in to sustain the people in the world-to-come. I do not think the Melchisedec priesthood has any function in the wilderness; it has to do with sustaining the universe in relation to God, the Possessor of heaven and earth. What we learn here is that the One Who is now established after the order of Melchisedec is carrying a company through the wilderness, acting after the pattern of Aaron towards a people in wilderness conditions, whilst waiting to come out fully as functioning according to the order of Melchisedec in the world to come. We need sustainment by Christ after the pattern of the Aaronic priesthood until we reach that day. It may help to point out that Melchisedec is not said to be the priest of Jehovah nor of the Father but of the Most High God, which clearly connects his priesthood with the world to come. We have to see the distinction between what Christ is as Priest after the order of Melchisedec, and His present exercise of priesthood which is according to the Aaronic pattern.

I do not doubt it was to enlighten these Jewish converts that they already had available to them the privileges which will come out fully in the world to come, and that they were already in the care of the One Who would lead them safely to that end. Hence the two orders of priesthood being bound together.

Abraham lived in view of the world to come, and that is morally where we are today. We can see traces of this priesthood in the provisional priesthood of Aaron. Mention has been made of the purple being seen in the garments of Aaron, the Son of Man character; also it says in chapter 6, "Whither the forerunner is for us entered".

God has done a work in our souls and Christ has sanctified us, and as a consequence we have the ability to draw nigh unto God. In the tabernacle system the offerer could only approach as far as the altar of burnt offering. Aaron approached as far as the veil, but Moses could go right into the presence of God. Today we stand in relation to both the Apostle and High Priest, and the result is we go through the veil into the presence of God.

Hebrews 7: 1-25.

We see from verse 22 that the new order of priesthood is linked with a new covenant, and we shall also see that the priest abides to minister the blessings of the new covenant to those who stand in relation to Him. Priests according to the line of Aaron could not continue by reason of death, "But this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable (intransmissible) priesthood". He will never hand over His priesthood to a successor, for He liveth for ever. We also see that His work of intercession is still in view, and because He liveth for ever He will sustain all who are associated with Him right to the end of the pathway.

In Hebrews 2 we have read of the Lord as the Captain of our salvation leading many sons to glory, and the "uttermost", in verse 25, would be that glory.

I suppose the fact of Aaron's being installed as the result of a carnal commandment shows that his priesthood was to do with man after the flesh, hence it is called, "a carnal commandment" (v. 16). The whole order had to do with man after the flesh.

Hence if God was to be rightly served He needed to bring in something of an entirely new character. We must remember that if God brings in certain principles and ordinances at various times, such things must abide until He Himself removes them. In this section we see that God has removed the order of fleshly service by the introduction of a more excellent ministry and of a better covenant (Heb. 8: 6).

Would verse 25 show the competence of the priest?

Yes! And in the passage you referred to, in Hebrews 2, I think that there we see the working out of purpose in bringing many sons to glory, while here we see them carried through by the power of the High Priest. Even though we are marked out for glory we are still encompassed by infirmity, and our Priest will see to it that we are all preserved to the end in spite of many weaknesses and infirmities.

Whilst this salvation does reach right to the end of the pathway, it is related here in verse 25 to our approaching to God by Him. The highest point in our circumstances is our approach to God.

We have before noted that in this epistle we are regarded, characteristically, as comers to God.

This word "uttermost" occurs in one other place only — Luke 13: 11 — where it is used concerning the woman who had an infirmity and could "in no wise" lift up herself. "Extent" is the meaning of the word, she could not full extend herself. That helps to show the meaning of this word "uttermost".

It is important to see, as already observed, that the great objective is to get us to God.

The priest is not only established to get us through the wilderness, but also to sustain us in right conditions so that at all times we can come into the presence of God. One has written, "He comes to my side when I need Him, but blessed be God I learn that He comes to my side to get me to His side, and so into the presence of God". The result will be praise and worship to God.

We are exhorted in Hebrews 4 to come to "the throne of grace" to receive needed grace, but do all the saints receive this help?

From the point of view of divine sovereignty I do not doubt that they do, for Christ will see to it that all reach the end; but if we would live in the enjoyment of the presence of God and know what it is to be carried morally outside of wilderness circumstances whilst going on to the end, then we must experience the succour of Hebrews 2, the sympathy of Hebrews 4, and the salvation of Hebrews 7. It would be a poor thing to be taken safely home by the Priest without living through these things experimentally. What lack we should experience in relation to the service of God today!

Why is Christ said to be "a Priest", a "High Priest" and a "Great Priest"?

"Priest" views the Lord in a mediatorial position able to sustain a people compassed by infirmities, and so free them from pressure in view of their coming to God. "High Priest" would speak of the dignity of the One Who is pre-eminent in the company associated with Him, it is a relative term. That is the distinction between Aaron and Melchisedec; Melchisedec was never associated with a company so far as we know, he seems to have been alone in that order of priesthood. Aaron had sons, but while they shared in the priesthood he was elevated above them as the "high priest". The term "great high priest" was never used of Aaron, and it applies only to Christ because of Who He is. We read at the end of this chapter that the One Who is the "high priest" and the "great priest" is the Son.

What is the condition of those who may not avail themselves of the priestly services of our Lord?

Any who attempt to go through wilderness conditions without availing themselves of His high priestly service will most certainly be in constant need of His advocacy. It has often been pointed out that His priesthood is to help us in time of need but His advocacy is to restore us when we fall. If we availed ourselves more often of His high priestly resources we should not need Him as the Advocate. Further, if we do not come to Him for support we shall not know what it is to come to God experimentally.

Do I understand that the salvation here is not judicial salvation, which is ours by faith in Christ as Saviour, but practical, daily salvation which we have by Christ the Priest?

It is! We have salvation provided because of the many obstacles which may beset us in the pathway, perhaps as seen in Hebrews 12. Christ as Priest deals with every difficulty in order to sustain us in the service of God.

Why are the characteristics of the priest given in verse 26?

They are to show the characteristics of the people whom He represents, as the opening statement says, "For such an high priest became us". That word "such" is intense; it calls attention to such a Person, not any person. His priesthood stands in relation to the many sons whom He is bringing to glory. It also indicates that these sons are heavenly.

The word "holy" means "pious"; the word "harmless" means "guileless"; the word "undefiled" means "spotless"; and such a Person is separated from sinners. He is not there for sinners, but for a company who have the privilege of drawing near to God.

I suppose pious, guileless and spotless refer to what He is in Person, and separated from sinners in His present position.

He is, of course, out of the world now and made higher than the heavens, but as Priest He is not there to be appealed to on behalf of sinners, but on the behalf of saints. If this is what becomes such a company, we may well consider what manner of people we ought to be as answering to it. No doubt He lives to maintain us in relation to the dignity of the position.

We are almost afraid to take full account of ourselves as the fruit of the work of God, but note what John says — "he that is born of God cannot sin". There is a work in our souls which is characterized by the things spoken of here, and Christ lives to give to us all that is needed to bring that character out in display.

Why is this sentence brought in which tells us that Christ has gone right outside the created sphere (v. 26)?

The first verse of chapter 8 gives the answer. He is "set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens". While it speaks of heaven here as in contrast to earth, yet He is at the right hand of the Majesty, beyond the created sphere. The type is seen in Aaron who went through the door of the Tabernacle, then through the veil into the presence of God once every year. So our Lord has passed through the heavens into the presence of God. We read in verse 24 of chapter 9, "now to appear in the presence of God for us".

Would the statement "made higher than the heavens" mean that He now has something added to Himself which He did not have before?

If you refer to His Manhood, that is true! He has gone back to the place from whence He came, and while Personally He could not be greater, nor have anything added to Him yet He has gone back in perfect Manhood, and as such appears in the presence of God for us. In the greatness of His Person He came forth alone, but now in Manhood He has a company associated with Him there.

Is this what is called acquired glory?

All His official glories are acquired! They mark Him out in His supremacy and in His ability to hold the universe for the pleasure of God, as the Man into whose hands God has put all things. We see in the divine revelation which God has given to us that it was His intention to put the whole universe into the hands of a man, but we know today that Man is His own Son, and every official glory taken up by Him in Manhood will be manifested as that by which He will administer the universe for the pleasure and glory of God. Here it is the High Priest, and we are told "He ever liveth to make intercession for them". There is so much to drag us down and attach us to things down here, but He is there to lift us out of them all and to keep us in touch with God.

How great and essential is the priesthood of Christ! There is not a difficulty in the whole created sphere which He is unable to deal with.

It may be that on more than one occasion we have been engaged with something which, while not a sinful practice, was robbing us of time that we could have put to a better use in the service of God. Perhaps the priestly intercession of Christ brought us to the decision to give it up and devote that time to the service of God. It may have been unconsciously drawing us away from God.

Would there be a change in the subject at the opening of Hebrews 8? We read that the Lord is "set on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens"?

There is a change, as we have tried to indicate. Up to the end of Hebrews 7 we see the Priest presented largely on the side of our need, for while as the fruit of the work of God in us and the fruit of the work of Christ for us we are fit to associate with Him in the presence of God, yet we are in constant need of His help, because there is much in us and around us that would rob us of our enjoyment of the blessings of God as outlined in this epistle. As we have seen, He is able to meet us in every need to keep us as potential worshippers of God. Ere we leave Hebrews 7, notice verse 28. It is no less a Person than the Son who is the Priest: capable of freeing us from every hindrance and keeping our souls in touch with God, and thus able to maintain a people for His pleasure.

In Hebrews 8 we come to the other side of His Priesthood, "A Minister of the sanctuary". The subject in view is "coming to God", not now getting through the wilderness. I am sure the one is dependent upon the other but it now has coming to God definitely in view.

If in Hebrews 7: 26, we read of "such an high priest" in relation to our need, we have the same phrase again in Hebrews 8: 1, but this time in relation to our approach to God.

Would both of these things be seen together in Hebrews 2: 17, "a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God"?

Yes! — "merciful" as on our side, and "faithful" as on God's side. We must ever remember that what He does to us and for us has ever in view maintaining us in relation to God. If we get hold of this in these readings we shall not have been here in vain. His service has ever in view our coming to God.

We read in verse 3 that He has "somewhat also to offer". Would that link with Hebrews 13 where we are exhorted to offer spiritual sacrifices to God by Him?

I do not doubt that whatever is offered to God today is offered through the Priest but you will find, if you look at this verse carefully, it does not mean what He offers, but that as established in the priesthood He must be an offering Priest. That is, priesthood is not static; it is ordained to offer, and if He is established in the priesthood then He must be offering, or we might say, the priesthood is to be in movement. We may have somewhat to say later as to what we believe He is offering, but the point here is that He is established as Priest, and hence He must be offering.

We might think that Hebrews 13: 15 would be one place where we read of His offering.

I do not think that verse has to do with being inside the veil at all but is referring to being outside the camp. If you read the passage in the New Translation you will find that the offering with our lips is the confession of the name of Christ in a hostile world, not our approach inside the veil.

Is it not true that the saints today are both outside the camp and within the veil?

That is true! But one cannot be in both places at the same time. Only those who are outside the camp can know the privilege of being inside the veil but the two things are not the same.

If we were in the good of all this priestly support, we should have strength to confess His Name outside the camp.

That is the meaning of that passage. If I confess His Name in this hostile world it will cause me to offer something of a sacrificial character, and when I do so it ascends as praise to God. Sacrifice is outside, there never was a sacrifice offered in the most holy place. I can praise God inside the veil by speaking to Him of the perfection of Christ, and I can also praise God by standing for Christ in the place where He has been crucified.

What then is involved in His being the minister of the sanctuary?

He has taken up the service of the Christian company as being in holy places, as I believe the words mean, not only in one place but in both.

We read here that He has entered into the "true tabernacle". There are two words used for "true", one which means a contrast to what is false; but this word means the genuine or the real thing. The tabernacle of old was not a false tabernacle, for Moses carefully made it according to the instruction given him of God, but it was not the real thing itself. This tabernacle is the real one of which the other was but a shadow. It is the same word as that used for the true worshippers, the genuine worshippers who had the genuine tabernacle to worship in. It stands in contrast to the shadow, not to what is false.

It is interesting to note also that the word used in Hebrews 9 in regard to the tabernacle and translated a "figure", is really a "parable" (verse 9). this is the true building of which that was the parable.

So today we are serving in that which is real, the true tabernacle which is the heavens themselves, and not a mere parable. To get hold of this will preserve us from slipping into the principles of Judaism.

Why does the apostle say so much about the tabernacle in this epistle? It must have passed away long ago and the temple would be better known to them. Why does he use the tabernacle as a type in this way?

It is interesting to note that while Paul always refers to the tabernacle in this epistle, Peter always refers to the temple in his epistles; both, of course, were patterns of the house of God. The tabernacle had approach to God in view, while the temple had more the display of God in view; and we judge that approach to God is the greatest privilege that we have today, hence the tabernacle is used to portray that. It has been pointed out that the tabernacle is a greater thought than the temple, for it is the tabernacle character which is seen in the eternal state. In the tabernacle God dwells with men, but in the temple man dwells with God. The city is seen in temple character during the thousand years of the kingdom display, but is seen in tabernacle character in the eternal state. It gives one cause to think that the eternal state will be more characterized by contemplation than by display.

I have looked into the functioning of these two buildings and as yet have not found a record of a priest functioning in the most holy place in the temple. It is, of course, called the Oracle; but I have not found a place where a priest functioned there, that is, within the veil. What was said when Solomon had dedicated the temple and the cloud covered it was, "And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD'S house" (2 Chr. 7: 2). It strengthens the thought that the temple was more for the display of the glory of the LORD, and that it will be of this character during the kingdom reign; while the tabernacle has approach to God more in view, and that is what marks the eternal state. The day of display had not yet dawned, so the writer is using the figure of the tabernacle to assure these Hebrew Christians that they had the privilege of access to God within the veil. These chapters are leading on to that. We read in the next chapter that Aaron went in, and thus the teaching of this epistle is maintained.

The two most prominent things in the temple were the pillars, both of which were outside. These have an answer in the house of God today, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15). There it is the display of God in testimony. But in the chapter we are considering we have the answer to the tabernacle, and approach to God is the theme.

It is said of the priest that he was ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices and referring again to Hebrews 7: 27 we read, "He offered Himself". Note in Hebrews 8: 4 He is said to offer gifts, not sacrifices. May it not be that it is gifts that are offered today in the holiest and not sacrifices? I know the general interpretation of Hebrews 13 is that what is said there is inside the veil but I am persuaded that no sacrifices are offered inside the veil. Some seem to be unable to see this point, but I think verse 4 substantiates it. The only things offered inside the veil were the blood which met the claims of God and the incense which covered the mercy-seat. The incense ascending from the golden altar is indicative of priestly intercession, but the incense ascending from the censer is indicative of worship. This will be one of the themes in the next chapter.

What then of the holy priesthood mentioned in 1 Peter 2?

I think that passage is in line with Hebrews 13 of this epistle. It is the temple character there.

It has been taught that the holy priesthood is inside, and that the royal priesthood is outside.

I do not think Peter ever raises the question of being inside the veil. He speaks much of suffering in testimony, and I believe he links the priesthood with that. On the one hand suffering in testimony rises as a spiritual sacrifice to God, and treating with kindness those who so persecute the saints shows forth the virtues of God. I do not think offering spiritual sacrifices is speaking to God about the sacrifice of Christ but rather that I am suffering in relation to the will of God.

We know that the offering of sacrifices is not a work which Christ does Personally. He has offered Himself in His great sacrifice, and there is no more sacrifice for sin, but He is there to offer mediatorially the gifts of others.

All the sacrifices were involved in that one sacrifice which He offered once for all, but it appears that the gifts go on.

I believe it is on the gift side that worship comes in. So it would be that He offers the gifts of His people.

I think it is worth considering that the word "sacrifices" is not used in verse 4 where obviously the present work of Christ as Priest is in view.

While we are assured that our Lord was not a priest while on earth it is significant that at the end of the gospel of Luke we find a company of people continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Seven times it is recorded in that gospel that men glorified God, hence it is a priestly gospel. He produced all that without being an official priest. So here where He is established as Priest, He is functioning in regard to a company in whose heart there is a response to God, something greater than anything which had been in the world before — the true worshippers indeed. He certainly has something to offer. If, without being a priest, he produced all that we read of in that gospel, what must He be doing now that He is a Priest in relation to a heavenly company!

Is not the thought in priesthood — representation?

It is in Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 9! But when we arrive at Hebrews 10, association is in mind. This we hope to see. Just one point in regard to what has been said about our Lord while in this world. There are two words used for the temple, "Naos" — which means "the inner shrine"; and "hieron" — which refers to the outer courts. When it says our Lord was in the temple it was the "hieron" — the courts; He was never in the "naos" — the inner shrine.

So while He did not take up the priestly function in an official way, all He did was priestly.

Indeed! The greatest offering ever made to God was when "He offered Himself without spot unto God". Now He leads the greatest company of priests into the presence of God.

Did you say "praise" was not worship?

I think one is higher than the other, so far as we can gather from their usage. What was said was to contrast praise mentioned in Hebrews 13 and worshippers mentioned in Hebrews 10. It has been suggested that we thank God for what He has done; we praise Him for the way He has done it; but we worship Him for what He is in supremacy of His being as the Supreme One to our souls.

If the sacrifices offered in the court ascended as a sweet savour to God, the incense which was offered in the most holy place went beyond that. This, I have thought, is the real thought of worship in the typical system. Both are right in their place, but consciousness of being in the presence of God is bound to produce more intense reverence and consequent worship. Whilst much is said about our association with Him it is a fact that we are never said to be priests in this epistle. On the other hand we are said to be priests in the first epistle of Peter, but the priesthood of Christ is not once referred to. These things are not so presented by chance, and we do well to enquire into them. I have thought that the reason Peter does not mention the priesthood of Christ is because entrance within the veil is not the subject of his epistles. In Hebrews that is the point to which the epistle is tending, hence the priesthood of Christ is brought in.

It has occurred to me that in Hebrews 10 we have something which only God can take account of, but in Hebrews 13 and in Peter it is something of which man can take account.

That seems to clear the matter a great deal. In Hebrews 10 it is inside the veil with God, but in Hebrews 13 it is outside the camp in testimony to man.

However, we mention these things to cause exercise, and if we consider them we shall get help from the Lord. No one grows in the knowledge of these things without exercise and much study, and we can well afford to give time to meditate on them with profit.

Hebrews 9: 1-14.

We noted in a previous reading that Hebrews 8 marks a change in this epistle in relation to the priestly service of our Lord. Up to Hebrews 7 His ministration manward is in view, ministering succour, sympathy and salvation; but Hebrews 8 presents Him as the offering Priest. Both sides of His priestly service are thus brought before us; a ministration from God to man covering the first seven chapters, and a ministration from man to God in Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. The truth we are now considering is leading up to our association with Him as the Great Priest over the house of God, inside the veil. We have both the first order and the second described for us, and we shall see the great advance which has come in, the shadow giving way before the substance, and we having ability to enter fully into the liberty of approach to God. The translators have inserted the word "covenant" in italics, but it is more than that; it covers the whole system of Judaism.

We read in verse 6, "Now when these things were thus ordained". Does that refer to what is said in verses 1-5?

It does! The whole material system was ordered and we know by referring to the Scriptures which speak of that ordering that there were certain services connected with it, and the whole system was earthly and material. The tabernacle was a picture, or parable, or figure of the universe.

What is meant by "a worldly sanctuary"?

J.N.D. gives a most interesting footnote to this word in which he says that it could be translated as "the holy universal order". He tells us that the word, an extension of the word "kosmos", refers to the creation in its ornamentation. It would seem therefore that this tabernacle in its ornamentation was a figure of the universe as verse 9 shows.

Is it the same as "garnishing the heavens"?

Yes! The same idea. More than one word is used for the universe even in this epistle, but the "kosmos" refers to its ornamentation, so we are told.

Why is there no reference to the court in this outline?

That is another matter which shows the point reached in this epistle. We have noted that our Lord is here presented as the Minister of the Sanctuary; thus it is the inside rather than the outside which is in view. We are told the tabernacle was constructed (v. 2), and we know that this was by Moses. What are to be noted are the references to the first and second places, in their order. We read that the candlestick, the table and the shewbread were all in the first place which is called the "holy place". It was here that the divine services were carried out daily. The approach of Aaron was limited to the holy place, when he went in daily to trim the lamps and again to light them.

We do not have this limitation today, for it says in the next chapter that "He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second".

In that connection we must note that in Hebrews 10 it is the first and second orders which are referred to, while in Hebrews 9 it is the first and second places which are in mind. The first order allowed man to come at all times into the first place only, as seen in the daily service of Aaron; but the second order gives us liberty to come into the second place. This is what we are reaching on to in these verses.

I suppose the apostle is referring to these vessels, not to show their service but rather to bring out the great contrast which marks the present day. Is that right?

It is! That is why he says it is not the time to speak in detail about them. He is not giving us an outline of the tabernacle service, but is rather showing the contrast between that service and what we have today. He is not concerned with typical teaching but with contrast.

We have both an omission and an inclusion in this section which bring out that contrast very clearly. The golden altar, which had a very important place during the time of the tabernacle, is omitted here. The golden altar is indicative of priestly intercession, and the answer to it would come out in the first seven chapters, which we have considered. Here it is a question of a response to God, not a ministration of intercession in regard to wilderness conditions. I believe the Spirit of God has purposely left out any reference to that altar, and refers instead to the golden censer. Whilst we suggest this as the reason for the altar not being mentioned, we are assured that if we have not received that of which the golden altar is typical we shall not be in a fit condition to handle that of which the golden censer speaks.

One has thought that in coming to a morning meeting we may be so occupied with wilderness conditions that it may hinder our moving consciously inside the veil. As having availed ourselves of the priestly service of our Lord manward, we should be in a right condition to leave the wilderness and its needs out of our thoughts for the moment, and so enter into the presence of God as worshippers.

I am sure that is right, while not limiting this to the morning meeting. The principle is there. It is remarkable that a saint of God can be so relieved of difficulties that he can be absorbed with the greatness of God and is thus able to worship.

I am sure that is what these verses are leading on to. There is the question of need, that we have in the opening chapters; there is also the question of response, and that is what we have in this section. The end of this section is where we are exhorted to come with boldness inside the veil. The writer outlines the types first; then goes on to show how the work of Christ has glorified God and has sanctified those who can enter with Himself inside the veil.

Why does he speak of these things in the holy place if access within the veil is in view?

We need the gain of all these things if we are to know what is involved. The lampstand gave its light inside the holy place; the only light that was inside. I do not think the lampstand has in view testimony in the world, but rather light in the circle where priestly activity is seen. It is light in relation to the holy things of God, and it is there for the saints of God, not exactly for the world. We need to move in the light shed by the Spirit in the divine circle if there is to be any response from our hearts for the pleasure of God.

Will you amplify a little the distinction between the holy place and the holiest of all?

While these verses are not an exposition of the teaching of the tabernacle, yet we do have mention of certain things, and we need to know what they typify. I believe the things in the holy place have to do with the sustaining of the people in relation to God, for we have light, food, and priestly intercession mentioned there. That is why we said that without such provision we should not be in a fit state to go on through the veil, and, as occupied with the glory of Christ and the glory of God, worship Him in spirit and in truth. Aaron moved in that holy place daily as representing the people of God. Yet, while I think it has sustainment in view it is nevertheless in relation to the divine circle to which we belong.

So then, in the holiest of all we are where Christ is and join Him in priestly service Godward?

Yes! The court is the place of sacrifice, and the holy place the circle where the daily service of God for His pleasure is carried on, such as our coming together today. We are here enjoying the privileges of the divine circle and not as before the world in testimony. Then, as we shall see, we have the privilege also of moving inside the veil where the character of the service is worship to God.

Could we say the holy place represents what we need in our responsible pathway and the holiest what is ours in privilege?

In a way, Yes! So far as what we need is in view, but think of the shining of the light there which indicates the ministry of the Spirit to illuminate the saints according to the mind of God. You may remember we have noted the absence of the golden altar, which does have responsibility in view; but these vessels as mentioned here are all connected with privilege.

Do you not think that our responsibility is brought in as an answer to the light which shines there? We have to walk in response to the revelation which God gives to us.

Yes! It is, but we must remember the blessing which is ours as we are in the shining of that light, the ministry of these divine things by the Holy Spirit.

The priesthood being brought in would give us to see that we are sustained in relation to that light, and we cannot pass over the holy place to enter the holiest. We need this light and provision if we are to be intelligent and in suitable conditions to enter the presence of God. This would preserve us from the idea of coming together on a Lord's Day morning merely for the breaking of bread. We should see that all that might be a hindrance has been removed, and that we were in a right condition to enter within the veil.

We suffer in our morning meetings from those who are seldom at a week-night meeting, and hence have little idea of the ministry of the Spirit in the company. If they came more into the sphere where the word is ministered in the power of the Spirit, they would then be able to follow the leading of the Spirit, and to add something intelligent to the service Godward.

If we understood the bearing of what is brought in here, we should seek every opportunity to be instructed in divine light and thus have something to present to God when we did come together.

I am sure that if we do not get the gain of the provision of the holy place, we shall not know what it is to move within the veil in holy liberty. If we are in the enjoyment of this daily service, then when we come together on the Lord's Day we shall be in a right condition to follow the leading of the Spirit, and to enjoy conscious association with Christ in the holiest of all.

While there is liberty for every saint to enter the holiest, we must ever remember we have to be in a sanctified condition practically in order to be suitable for the presence of God. We must have, first of all, no more conscience of sins, and thus be freed from pressure of every kind. Though not brought in here, the laver would remind us of the absolute necessity of moral cleansing with a view to entering the presence of God. While saying this, we do not limit the entering within the veil to the morning meeting, or to any other meeting. It is available for every individual to enter at all times, whether in company with one's brethren or in private communion with God. What is essential is a suitable condition as being free from every hindrance on our side and perfectly at home in the presence of God.

While the vessels mentioned in these verses were in use, men did not know what it was to approach inside the veil.

In line with that the apostle says in verses 6 and 7, that the priest entered daily into the first place, but not into the second, except once a year with blood. In this Holiest of all were the Golden Censer; the Ark with its contents; the Cherubim of Glory, and the Mercy Seat. It is remarkable that the first vessel mentioned as being within the veil is "the Golden Censer". We might have thought the Ark, or the Mercy Seat would have been placed first. Does it not suggest that once we step within the veil we are there in the spirit of worship? How could we appreciate the glory of the other vessels unless we were? How could we rightly contemplate all that was there if we were not in the spirit of worship?

Do you think this Censer would suggest the lines of the hymn -

"His deep perfections gladly sing,

And tell them forth to Thee".

Surely! that is the answer to the Censer. It is the appreciation of the greatness and glory of Christ in our souls that gives us an enlarged apprehension of the glory of that place, and directs our hearts Godward in responsive praise and worship. Whilst there is a distinction between thanksgiving, praise and worship, all can be offered to God within the veil.

When you draw the distinction between the court, the holy place and the most holy place, are you suggesting that this involves the necessity of progress in our souls in order to pass from one to another?

No! We are just keeping clear the bearing of each so that we may understand the truth in its completeness. We must see that the claims of God have been met on our account at the Brazen Altar. Then we become aware of the support of all that is for us in the holy place, and as having the gain of this provision we are free to enter the holiest of all. The whole is for every saint of God, but it is the apprehension of it which gives us the gain and liberty of all. We must begin with our acceptance before God through the work which Christ has accomplished; that introduces us into the divine circle where every provision is made to sustain us there, and as the fruit of it we can enter into the presence of God Himself.

So the youngest believer has the capability of worshipping God!

A new convert can worship God immediately after being saved. That is what we are trying to point out, but the teaching of this epistle would produce a much more intelligent note of worship.

Was the Censer always in the most holy place or was it taken it?

I believe it was always there. I believe this is the only place where location is mentioned in relation to it. It says, speaking of the holiest of all, "Which had the Golden Censer". We are not told in Leviticus 16 where it was kept. I have thought that it was always before the Testimony filled with incense. In Ex. 30: 36, we read that incense was ever before the Testimony. In which vessel was it? From this verse in Hebrews it appears that it was kept in this Golden Censer, and was thus in the presence of God at all times.

Connected with the Censer are the other vessels in the holiest. The Ark would speak of the Son of God in His Manhood, and the contents would suggest all that which He sustained for the pleasure of God. Then the cloud which covered the Mercy Seat, seen here as incorporating the Cherubim, would have in view the revelation of God which He has given of Himself through the Son. It involves that we are in that light, and thus consciously in the presence of God.

If we are to be free from wilderness conditions as in the holiest, why is it that we have mention of the Manna and of Aaron's Rod that budded? Both came to light in the wilderness.

They are attached to Christ Himself. It is not what we are encompassed with in wilderness conditions, but what Christ was to the pleasure of God when in the wilderness. He was the answer to all these things, and so they would engage us with what He was and not with what we may be feeling as to ourselves. Whilst we did not know Christ when He was in this world, we can now consider all the glory attaching to Him when here, and in the presence of God tell Him of our appreciation of it. It was an "omer" of Manna for every man; it was an "omer" in the Sheaf of Firstfruits. The same blessed Man Who glorified God in this world is now in the glory, and whilst it is as He is there that we have been brought to know Him yet we learn also of what He was when in this world.

The Manna in the Golden Pot was never eaten by men.

No! that is why we said it was God's own appreciation of Him when He moved here for His glory.

Why is the gold mentioned so much here?

To assure us that all that was there stood in direct relationship with God Himself. In the typical system we have a distinction between "gold" and "pure gold". We believe "gold" sets forth what is divine, but that the "pure gold" sets forth Deity. The apostle has said this is not an outline of the Tabernacle system, but a reference to those vessels in order to show the answer to them in Christ.

Covered in every part with gold would teach us that there has been a Man here whose every movement was for the pleasure and glory of God. Is it not the appreciation of that in our souls which leads to the spirit of worship?

The Manna was what He was as come down from heaven. Aaron's rod which budded speaks of His coming forth in resurrection, taking up His priesthood in the power of an indissoluble life. It may be the two tables are connected with the world to come, when He will order the whole universe according to the mind of God. The new covenant will be consummated with Israel and God will write His laws in their minds and in their hearts, and Christ will sustain the universe for His pleasure. As Melchisedec He will sustain a company who, in both mind and heart, will serve God for His pleasure. By their minds they will apprehend what is due to God, and from their hearts they will render it to Him. Christ did answer to it of course in His pathway here according to Psalm 40, "Yea. Thy law is within My heart". As the fruit of this He will sustain the company in the world to come. I believe all three things in the Ark can be seen in Psalm 40. Brought up out of that "horrible pit" would be the answer to the rod. He also says that in His pathway He had declared the faithfulness of God and His salvation — the answer to the Manna. Then the one already quoted — "Thy law is within My heart" — the answer to the Tables of the Covenant.

When consciously within the veil, there is surely much to produce a sense of worship if we have been rightly enlightened as to these things.

If we are led by the Spirit, we shall know when we are there, and we shall know what to say. We need much concern and much thought about these things if we are to enjoy the presence of God in company with our brethren.

We must keep clear that the first thing for which we come together on Lord's Day morning is to remember the Lord. While ever desiring to be led on from that point to conscious association with the Son inside the veil, we cannot lay down rules about this matter. We have found over many years that if we break bread early in the meeting — and that is why we come together — then are led on to worship the Father, that seems to be the normal way to enjoy the presence of the Lord, and to function in true assembly order with Christ as He leads the praise to the Father.

Yes! We must begin with the precious fact of the death of Jesus in His love to us. We cannot know anything of either the holy place or the most holy apart from that.

The apostle then proceeds to show why he had referred to these two places and the vessels which reposed in them. He reminds the saints that while that structure had its standing, the priests went at all times into the holy place accomplishing the service of God. That would refer to putting the shewbread in its place once a week; burning the incense and trimming the lamps twice a day. While the altar is not mentioned, we know it was there. While that service was carried out daily, the high priest alone entered into the holiest, and that but once a year, on the great day of atonement. This was a serious work for Aaron, for had he made but one mistake he would have died. "Lest he die" was said to Moses concerning him.

We do not have in Leviticus the reason for Aaron's being barred from approaching, but we are told why in verse 8 of our chapter. The Holy Spirit is teaching that approach into the presence of God could not be realized while the first tabernacle was standing. The material system must give way before the spiritual answer to it, if man is to stand in the presence of God. This could never be done under the first order, for the sins of the people had never been put away. That is undoubtedly the fundamental reason.

We are thankful for the teaching of the first order, but just as thankful that we now have the answer to it.

Does that mean that those who had this privilege had it outside the camp?

That is so! as Hebrews 13 clearly teaches. If they were to have these privileges as being outside of the actual system of Judaism, what is our position in regard to that which is but a poor imitation of the Jewish system? If they are exhorted to be outside of that which God had originally set up, surely we are to be outside of that which man has set up. According to Heb. 8: 13, the system was about to vanish away, yet men have attempted to rear it up again and with what disastrous results.

We learn from verse 9 that the whole system was but a parable. The word translated "figure" is really parable. Whilst the parable was in function, those who served were never made perfect as to their consciences, and the result was they were never free to go in to God. They could not go, nor could God have them there.

Would this service be the same as that referred to in verse 14, "to serve the living God"?

Yes! What they could not do we can do, for the work of Christ has fitted us for it. Those ordinances were there until the "time of reformation" (verse 10) — a term which means "setting things right". The time for setting things right has come, for verse 11 goes on to transfer our thoughts from the carnal ordinances to the work of Christ. There He is, the new High Priest in relation to this new spiritual system, the answer to the parable. Nor is He said to be there so much in the accomplishment of what went before, but of what was to come — "good things to come". These good things are those to which the tabernacle points; they have come, and Christ in glory is the guarantee of them all.

The "more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands" (not of this creation) is not material at all, but is the spiritual answer to the old. Nor is Christ's High Priestly office based upon the offering of the blood of goats and calves; it is based upon His own blood. "By His own blood" has caused must controversy as to the real bearing of the phrase. There is a comma after blood in the New Translation. In a critical note it has been pointed out that the sense of the passage is that He became High Priest by His own blood, and not quite that He entered in by it. This seems to be the real bearing of the verse.

J.N.D. says in a footnote that the preposition "by" gives the character of His coming; not the place through nor the means by which. It means, so far as I can make out, that all that has come to pass has come to pass in the power of His own blood.

I am sure that is right, and it would show at once that the idea of His carrying His blood into heaven is simply not in this passage at all. Propitiation was made at the cross. As a result, Christ has come forth from among the dead and as High Priest has entered in, His own blood being the basis of all in view of our association with Him in the presence of God.

Would the difficulty arise through carrying the parable too far, do you think?

I am sure of that! Some have thought that between His death and resurrection He went to heaven and sprinkled the heavenly Mercy Seat. Obviously the parable had been carried too far. A right understanding of this verse will dispel those ideas. There could only be one entering in, and that was when He ascended; He "entered in once".

We then read that wonderful word "offered Himself" — a priestly action. Who is the Priest Who was great enough to offer that sacrifice? In the power of the eternal Spirit He offered Himself, and as the fruit of this accomplished work He has entered in. Having obtained eternal redemption before going in. He has fitted us for association with Him there. In verse 25 it speaks of the "blood of others", a word which means "alien blood". this word is so translated in Heb. 11: 34. The inference is that the blood carried in by Aaron was really inferior to the blood of those for whom it was shed. This was bound to be so; but what a contrast when the blood of Christ is in mind, which is infinitely superior to the blood of those for whom it was shed. Truly Peter says of it, "the precious blood of Christ". It reminds us too of that word in Acts 20, "the blood of His own".

Certainly His blood has effected what the blood of bulls and goats could never effect. In the power of that we are brought to God. The superiority of the one work as compared with the other is abundantly manifested here.

In what way were these Israelites purified by the blood of bulls and goats?

In an external way! They were set apart in flesh and blood conditions, as the verse says, and to touch a bone or a dead man externally defiled them. The ashes of the heifer were sprinkled on them but did not effect anything in them. In verse 14, the blood of Christ has not sanctified us outwardly, but has purged our consciences from dead works. The whole of that system was for man after the flesh, it did not deal with their souls or clear their consciences. The entire nation was sanctified when they came out of Egypt; all has to do with their external standing with God. Those sanctified were never free in heart and in conscience, and were never able to worship God as we can today.

What place would "for the remission of sins that are past" have in relation to this?

The work which was typically but ineffectively done by the blood of bulls and goats, was all taken account of when Christ died. His death was effective for the sins that were past; and what the blood of those animals did only in type, Christ has done in actuality, and the whole question is now settled. God was forbearing in view of the time when Christ would, through His own work, vindicate Him in passing over the sins of the Old Testament saints. The great point for us, as in the full blessing of what Christ has done, is that we can enter into the presence of God without any question of our sins ever being raised. That question is settled for ever, and we are set free in His presence as worshippers.

Hebrews 10: 1-14.

In our previous readings we have been occupied with the new order of priesthood connected with our Lord Jesus Christ, and we have seen that it is established after the order of Melchisedec, and is related to a new order of things which are spiritual in contrast to material. In this chapter we see a new company who stand in relation to the new Priest, whose service is connected with a new Sanctuary. Moreover, we see this company not only represented by Him in the presence of God, but also associated with Him in the presence of God, having right of access inside the veil. This appears to be the bearing of the verses we have read together. We thus have a further contrast between the old and the new orders, the shadow giving place to the substance.

Will you define what you mean by association with Him?

In the record of the consecration of the priesthood as recorded in Exodus 28, much of the detail is taken up with an account of the garments of glory and beauty. On the shoulders of the High Priest were two onyx stones, and on each stone six of the names of the tribes of Israel according to their birth. On the breastplate which was upon the heart of Aaron were the names of the children of Israel according to their tribes, each one on a different stone. On the shoulders and according to their birth, would suggest their place of responsibility before God; on the breastplate according to their tribes would suggest the thought of privilege as set by God in their order around the tabernacle. Each time Aaron moved Godward in these garments the whole twelve tribes were represented by Him in the presence of God. Not only do we read of these garments, we also read of Aaron's four sons who were consecrated with him, and who functioned in association with him in the service of God. When we are not, as in association with our Priest, in the presence of God, He represents us there. When we are not taking up our privilege as with Him there, we need to be represented, and He does represent us at all times as we move through the wilderness; but there comes a time, as we shall see in this chapter, when not only is He there as representing us, but we are there with Him in the immediate presence of God. That I think is association. This is a truth we need to apprehend lest we regard the Priest only as our Representative. In His character of Representative He ministers to us all that which we need in wilderness conditions, but we are to see that He does this in order that we may enter into the presence of God, free from all that would have hindered our going there. That is the ground we have been covering in the earlier chapters, and in the one now before us we see the new company who have been sustained by Him, and who have liberty to enter in to the presence of God as in association with Him.

Is all this involved in His coming into this world to do the will of God?

It is! The three main truths in this chapter are, the will of God (vv. 1-7); the work of Christ (vv. 8-14); the witness of the Holy Spirit (vv. 15-17). These verses teach us that the will of God has been accomplished by the work of Christ, and that the witness of the Holy Spirit is to give us an understanding of this and, consequently, liberty to approach into the presence of God. According to verse 14 everything from the divine side is perfect. On our side the Spirit would bring us into the blessing of it.

Was not the Holy Spirit given by Christ ere He ascended?

That was an inbreathing of life associating them with Him in His resurrection state, but not as associating them with Him in heaven above. That could only be as recorded in Acts 2 when, on the descent of the Spirit, all who received Him were in immediate association with Christ in heaven above. This has now extended to all who are in the Christian company and we are in association with Christ in heaven.

It says in verse 15 the witness is to us.

Had we not the Spirit dwelling in our souls we could not have understood that Christ has accomplished the will of God, nor could we have drawn near as a consequence.

The work of Christ had produced the company seen in the opening chapters of Acts.

I believe John 20 had in view that those upon whom He breathed were those who would bear witness to Him as having seen Him alive from among the dead. He breathed into them life as in resurrection, not resurrection life as is sometimes said.

What would be the difference between the witness in us and the witness to us?

I gather "to us" would involve the Spirit calling attention to the record given of these things for our learning, and "in us" would be to bring us into the blessing of it all.

It has been said that the greatest tribute to the perfection of the work of Christ is that another divine Person has committed Himself to that which was formed by it.

We read in verse 1 that while the Tabernacle system was a shadow of these heavenly and spiritual things, it was not the exact image. We need to take care lest we think there are vessels in heaven of which those in the Tabernacle were the counterpart. The latter were constructed to convey a spiritual meaning, not as exact representations of vessels in heaven. We need to be free from these materialistic ideas.

What did Moses see when he was in the mount?

The vessels he was instructed to make. He saw the pattern, and was told to make the vessels according to the "pattern which was shewed thee in the mount" (Ex 25: 40). I do not think he saw the spiritual things, but the pattern of the material things.

We read in chapter 9 that there is a distinction between the patterns of things in the heavens and the heavenly things themselves.

We have just such a symbol in the loaf which we break. It represents the body of Christ but it is not an exact image. In the same way we are not to think that the vessels mentioned here were an exact replica of the things in heaven, but they were a representation of them. We can understand how needful it was for these Hebrews to understand that point.

What does the word "patterns" in Hebrews 9: 23 mean?

"Representation", as the New Translation renders it. We saw yesterday that the whole tabernacle system is called a parable (Heb. 9: 9).

If association is the main thought in this chapter why is so much said of the incarnation?

So far as man is concerned the material system was in being before the spiritual system was revealed, but with God the spiritual system was there first. That led to the giving of patterns in view of the spiritual displacing them when the time came. Hence we have the Son saying that His coming into Manhood was in counsel before the sacrifices were introduced. The substance was there first, then came the shadows, then the answer to the shadows, which is really the original thought of God.

If these sacrifices could not bring in perfection, why were they given?

We read in Hebrews 9: 10, that they were given till the time of setting things right, or "the time of reformation". It was a temporary state of things until the moment dawned in the ways of God when the true things came into being. God was teaching them something of the holiness of His presence, and that only on the foundation of the shedding of blood could man stand in His presence. These important truths were indicated by the types until plainly established by the work of Christ.

Why, then, do we go back to these types?

Because we can now interpret them in the light of Christianity, and can understand them better than those to whom the types were given. In the inscrutable wisdom of God He introduced a system with a worldly sanctuary, which was outside the region of faith. It consisted of that which was tangible, but in this dispensation we can see every principle expressed in that system to the consistent with God's thoughts as now made known in Christ.

Moving on to the teaching we read that whilst the first order was standing there was a constant repetition of sacrifices, because not one of those sacrifices was great enough to settle the question of sin. They were offered "year by year" — a reference to the day of atonement — but instead of settling the question of sin we see how it kept the matter very much alive. Had the question been settled, the sacrifices would have ceased. No one in that day knew what it was to have "no more conscience of sins".

Some of us may say that we are very conscious of sin.

We are all conscious of sin within. "No more conscience of sins" means that they are no more on our conscience; we know that the work of Christ has settled that question for ever. It does not mean no more consciousness of sin, but our sins are no longer on our conscience; we know that God has forgiven them all through the work of Christ and our faith in Him as Saviour.

In view of our association with Christ inside the veil, that question needs to be very clearly before us.

We have noticed that in the consecration of the priests, a bullock for the sin offering was offered, suggesting that the largest appreciation of the death of Christ was needed for the priests. Also on the day of atonement it was a bullock for Aaron and his house.

How could anyone feel happy in the presence of God with sins pressing upon the conscience? That question must first be settled before one can be free to worship God.

One is struck with the teaching here. God maintains His Holiness, yet brings such as we are into His presence. What a wonderful light that throws upon the death of Christ as fitting us for the presence of God.

Were not sins forgiven on the ground of those Old Testament sacrifices?

They were for God said so; but while that was said in a provisional way, the question was not settled. That is why in Romans 3 we read of the "sins that are past, through the forbearance of God". The word "propitiation" in the New Testament carries much greater weight than the Old Testament word "atonement". Atonement means — "covering"; but propitiation does not mean to cover, it means "putting them away". We believe that is why the word "propitiation" is the word used in the New Testament and not the word "atonement". In 1 John 2: 2, we read "He is the propitiation for our sins". We read in Leviticus 1 that the offering "shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him"; but we are told in Hebrews that the offering did not take the sin away. The blood of bulls and goats was efficacious for atonement, but not for propitiation as we appreciate it in this day. Christ has not now covered the sins, He has put them away for ever.

If, as we are so definitely told here, the question was not settled by the blood of bulls and goats, we can thank God that it is settled today.

It is summed up in verse 4 in the words, "take away sins". The blood of bulls and goats could not do this, but the work of Christ has. So we read in verse 5, "Wherefore (or, seeing that is so) when He cometh into the world He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me". He came to do what other sacrifices could not do, and took a body that the question of sins might be settled for ever.

Would this reference to the incarnation of Christ carry our minds back to the life of Christ as preceding His death?

There is a remarkable break here worth noting, verse 5, "Sacrifice (the peace offering) and offering (the meat offering) Thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared Me". The statement regarding His body is brought in before mention is made of burnt offerings and sin offerings. Why are they thus divided? When it is repeated in verse 8 they are all put together. J.N.D. points this out without commenting upon it. Would it be that the first two did not deal with the question of sin? They were both food offerings; but after the statement "a body hast Thou prepared Me" sin comes into the question. He did not come to present a food offering only to God; He came to deal with the question of sin also. It may suggest His spotless life as underlying His efficacious death. While the peace offering has His death in view, it was not to deal with sin. The meat offering as we know was His perfect life. We are assured that both in His life and in His death He has glorified God.

Both the burnt offering and the sin offering have sin in view; in the first it is dealt with for the pleasure of God; in the second it is for the relief of man.

However precious the life of Christ was, He must go into death if sin was to be dealt with.

Why does it say in Psalm 40, from which this is quoted, "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire"?

That is translated here as "Thou hast had no pleasure". When an Israelite brought an offering, God was pleased with the offerer; it was a movement of heart Godward. But He could not take pleasure in the offering, because it could not do for the offerer what God desired to do for him, hence the term "didst not desire". We learn from many Scriptures that the pleasure of God is bound up with the accomplishment of His will. The pleasure of God could never be secured until Christ came. The offerings were imperfect; how could God take pleasure in them?

Why do you think the statement in the Psalm, "I delight to do Thy will" is omitted in this quotation?

The four offerings are all in view in the Psalm, and also the testimony of our Lord in His life hence the joy which filled the heart of the Lord when He said "I do always those things that please Him" (John 8: 29). The meat offering was included in that Psalm as it is here and Christ as Man ever found joy in pleasing the Father. That may be another reason for the break we pointed out earlier, for we see that stress is placed upon the burnt offering and the sin offering, and whilst our Lord ever found delight in accomplishing the will of the Father in His pathway, He found no delight in being made sin. We would gather that is why the Spirit leaves out here "I delight".

We see that coming to light very clearly in the garden of Gethsemane. There was no delight there.

Was the burnt offering propitiation?

Both the burnt and sin offerings have propitiation in view, for both have to do with dealing with the question of sin. In the burnt offering the work was to glorify God, and to give Him a basis upon which He could come out in blessing to His creature. In the sin offering the work had in view the clearing away of the sin so that man could come into the blessing of God. Both found their answer in the cross, but we distinguish that the work was for the glory of God on the one hand, and for the need of man on the other. It is the work in its totality which is seen here in these two kinds of offering, God glorified and our need met.

Can we rightly take account of His death without taking account of His life?

The whole of Psalm 40 has to be taken into account. In that Psalm we hear the Lord speaking prophetically of all He declared in His life, five things I think, hence the thought of delight. But the Spirit in Hebrews 10 has selected only those items which speak of His death, for even a portion of the meat offering was burnt upon the altar as indicating His obedience in the death of the cross. We know it was never intended that our Lord should continue to live in this world, He came into Manhood to die; hence we must keep the whole truth before us, and here the accomplishment of the will of God was in the offering of His body. Sins are the main question here, and so stress is laid upon the burnt and sin offerings. It was a statute that no burnt offering was to be presented without a meat offering, we must keep that in mind; but here it is altogether His dealing with sin and sins, whatever else may underlie it. At the very moment of His transfiguration they spoke of His decease, and we know the coming of Christ into this world had ever in view His death upon the cross. We see not only His personal fitness, but the reason for His coming into Manhood.

I have noted that in Luke chapter 2 there are four distinctive references to His death, and that at the moment of His birth. A universal testimony that that Babe born into this world was born to die. We must not separate these matters one from the other. He said Himself, "even so must the Son of Man be lifted up". So we have three things mentioned here in relation to His coming into Manhood in order that He might die — His body, His flesh and His blood. They all have to do with his coming into this world to accomplish the will of God.

What is conveyed by "the volume of the book"?

It is generally thought to be the book of counsel. The word volume means "the heading of the roll". It would involve something to which

God was committed. Divine writing is unalterable and if this was written of Him then it must come to pass.

It is worth noting that it involved a sanctified company and divine Persons were committed to that.

Could you say simply what the will of God really is?

All that was conceived in the heart of God for His own glory, and as a sanctified company was in mind the cross was a necessity.

The will of God springs from eternal purpose, the objective towards which God is working until all is secured. The details of that will involve the region of counsel, and it is in that connection that we read here, "Lo, I come to do Thy will". He comes to give effect to the counsel of the Godhead.

We hear God saying in sovereignty "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9: 15). Only God can really say "I will". The moment God said that, the death of Christ became a necessity. How could God carry out His will which involved the showing of mercy apart from the cross?

Two things may be noticed in regard to the will of God; first that it is according to His purpose, and secondly He has power to accomplish this purpose without being in any way deflected from it. Man may have the will to do certain things but may not be able to accomplish that will. God has both the will and the power to accomplish it.

Did you say counsel was the expression of eternal purpose?

I believe the ways of God to be linked with His counsel. I have not yet found a Scripture which connects His ways with His purpose. We do not read in Scripture of eternal counsel, but we do read once of "eternal purpose" (Eph. 3: 11). So far as I know we have this statement once only. Counsel is the deliberating of the Godhead in view of accomplishing eternal purpose. In the ways of God we see the working out of the details of counsel which will ultimately bring into effect eternal purpose.

I suppose we can say that both purpose and counsel belong to eternity, while the ways of God come into view in time.

Both purpose and counsel were formed before the ways of God were manifested in time, and indeed the creation was a necessity to effect them.

We read therefore that the will of God involved a sanctified company.

In verse 9 we read of Christ coming into Manhood and saying, "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God", and in verse 10 we read, "By the which will we are sanctified". It is the Son who says "I come to do Thy will", and we also see that that "will" was to sanctify a company. If we lay hold of that we shall soon understand what it is to be in association with Christ inside the veil.

This is an aspect of the will of God which should be of great interest to us. It involves one of our greatest privileges.

Then we read "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second". It does not say that He established the first, but He has established the second. We saw in chapter 9 that first and second there referred to place; but here it is the first and second orders that are in mind; the material displaced by the spiritual of which it was the type. It has ever been so in the ways of God; the first goes, it is taken away; but the second abides, it is established.

There are many Scriptures which bear record to the Deity of the Son and here is one. Who dare attempt to take away anything that God had brought in ? Only the Son could do that, for He is God.

The Son being co-equal in Godhead, how does He say here "Thy will"?

The Godhead presents the three Persons as One, but we use the word Trinity to distinguish the three Persons in the Godhead. They are distinguished in this chapter. Whenever the source of things is in view, this is attributed to the Father. The active instrumental Agent who brings all into being is the Son, and the power to secure it all is in the Spirit. In Godhead the will of God is the will of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; of that there can be no doubt. So we read in Genesis chapter 1 "Let us. In Hebrews 10 the Son has taken a subject place in Manhood in order to carry out that will, and in that place of subjection He says, "Lo, I come to do Thy will". So the source of this matter is in God; the doing of His will in sanctifying the company is by the work of Christ, and the witness of it is by the Holy Spirit.

Why is sanctification connected with the body of Jesus Christ rather than with His blood?

His body has to do with our state, while His blood deals with our guilt. Another place where these two things are seen is in Colossians 1, "And you . . hath He reconciled, in the body of His flesh through death". The blood of Christ has settled for ever the question of our sins, but there was in us a state of alienation which could only be ended by the offering of His body. We could never have come into the presence of God whilst in that state of alienation, but so wonderfully and fully has Christ wrought, that our sins have gone through His precious blood, and our old state has gone by the offering of His body. Not only are our sins forgiven, but the old condition from which they sprang has been judged, and we stand forgiven and in an entirely new condition in the presence of God.

Not only has God dealt with what we have done but also with the man who did it. He has removed the sins and the sinner, but He has secured the person by bringing him in in a new condition entirely.

Does this word sanctified mean set apart?

It does! And we learn that by the work of Christ He has set us apart altogether for the service of God. In the type, Aaron was washed all over with water; then blood was put upon his ear, thumb and toe. Washed all over with water is suggestive of being born of God, and we have also been cleansed by the precious blood of Christ. The water cleanses morally; the blood judicially; the result is that we have holy liberty to approach into the presence of God.

Both blood and water came out of the side of Christ when He was dead. It is the twofold effect of His death. The result is a sanctified company secured for the pleasure of the Godhead, a company in the light of all that has been done in Christ, and capable of approaching God intelligently in the light of it all. Thus there is secured a response to the Father and to the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 10: 12-22.

Where we begin, in verse 12, we have the statement that the work of Christ in dealing with sins is so complete that it will never need to be repeated; the work being done He has sat down "in perpetuity" (New Trans.). Two statements are seen in verse 11; one that the priests never sat down but were standing daily; the other that they offered "oftentimes the same sacrifices". Verse 12 assures us that Christ has sat down, and that He will never again need to offer Himself. It is to this completely finished work that the Holy Spirit bears witness, in view of our having perfect liberty of approach into the presence of God.

Why do we have this quotation from Ps. 110 added here?

To assure us of the order of priesthood our Lord now takes up in relation to that accomplished work. It is the Psalm in which we have the two statements, "Sit Thou at My right hand" and, "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec". The world-to-come is in view in His enemies being made His footstool.

Will this be at the rapture or at the appearing?

The point here is that Christ is already in the place of power. He will begin to exercise that power at the rapture, and will complete it at His appearing. I do not doubt it goes on to the end of the kingdom when the last enemy to be destroyed is death; but He has the power now at the right hand of God, and we are attached to Him ere He uses that power publicly.

Is that why it says "the right hand of God" and not, as in Heb. 1, "the right hand of the Majesty on high"?

"The right hand of the Majesty" is so stated to impress us with the greatness of His person, for who but the Son could sit there? Here it is not so much the greatness of His Person but of His work.

It says, "until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Heb. 1: 13).

Yes! He has accomplished this work for the pleasure of God, and all authority is placed in His hands in order that the full results should be manifested in the world-to-come.

Will that be the David character or the Solomon character of the kingdom?

Mainly David! For when Solomon came to the throne there was neither enemy nor evil occurrent, for David had subdued all. Yet we must remember what is written in 1 Cor. 15, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death". The final subduing of all enemies will not be seen until the end of the kingdom.

It is not the subduing of enemies which is the main point here, but that Christ is there now in the place of power.

That is the point! And also to establish the fact that He has now taken up the office of Melchisedec. He has gone in and has sat down there, and this is in view of our going in as in association with Him. We saw at the end of Heb. 9 that He has gone in and has not yet come out. While He is in, we can go in; that is what is before us in this section. Thus we are brought into all the blessed results of His going in before He comes out for the blessing of Israel.

We see that in type in Leviticus 9. Moses and Aaron went in and came out; on their coming out the glory of the LORD appeared and fire came down and consumed the sacrifice, whereupon the people shouted and fell on their faces and worshipped — a picture of the appearing of Christ in the world-to-come. At the moment, as Moses and Aaron He has gone in; that is, the same One Who came out has gone in, and that is what is in view in the verses we are considering.

Would that be why we need the Holy Spirit to testify of these things, seeing He has gone in and has not yet come out?

It is! And the result is that before He comes out in display in a future day, a spiritual order is in function now; that is why the Holy Spirit is spoken of here. While we await the moment when this display will be seen, we have access even now into the presence of the One in Whom everything is secured.

Why does it say, "expecting" (v. 13)?

There is no doubt that it will be brought to pass, hence Christ sits there "expecting". We must remember Christ is seen in Manhood in all these statements and we in association with Him. You may remember in Mark 13 our Lord said Himself, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (v. 32). The Father has reserved to himself the right as to this, and hence the Son patiently waits the Father's time.

It was stated yesterday that the presence of the Spirit here is the greatest proof of the perfection of the work of Christ. Is there still some thought of that here?

There is! For we are going on to see not only that the Spirit's presence here is a witness to the perfection of the work of Christ, but so great is that work that we can join Him in the very presence of God. How effective that work is if such fitness is ours.

We saw yesterday that only a divine Person could take away what another divine Person had brought in, and here we see a divine Person testifying to what another divine Person has established. The Son took away what had been brought in originally by God, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to what has now been established. Who but He could tell us where Christ is as the result of the work He has done? So by the Spirit we may know and enjoy the full value of that work ere Christ comes out into public display.

In that way we have the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant, hence the terms are repeated here. How else could God put his laws into our hearts and minds but by the Spirit? Here we are today with our hearts in right condition before God, and we have spiritual intelligence which enables us to apprehend this teaching. This time the heart is put first, before the mind.

Why should that be?

It may be that Israel will yet have to understand the prophetic word and accept it as the means of God's working in them, while God has worked in our hearts today and is now teaching us the principles of Christianity.

Movement Godward springs from the affections and that may be why the heart is put first. Approach to God involves more my loving God than my knowledge of His will. One would not despise the mind, for we cannot know anything apart from it, but what we learn ought to affect us in our hearts, and this will lead to a response to God.

As distinct from Israel, is not Christ written on the hearts of the saints today?

That is true according to 2 Corinthians 3! But was there any detail in the law which did not shine out in Christ? He was the living expression of every divine statute. This is given here to produce a willing people in the day to come. Yet we read in Romans chapter 13 that love is the fulfilling of the law.

So something higher is given to the saints of God today, that which would fully fill out all the righteous desires of God. We have the power to do this by the Spirit.

Would it be right to say that Christ taking His place at the right hand of God in glory is not the completion of the story, but that it is necessary for the Holy Spirit to come here to bring us into it?

Yes! For all that was being effected according to the will of God involved a company being sanctified and able to draw near to God. Christ has accomplished the work necessary for our sanctification, and the Spirit has come in order to bring us into the light of it and into movement Godward as a consequence.

When we read "after those days", to which time does that refer?

I do not doubt it refers to the world-to-come, the time of reformation of which we read in Hebrews 9 — the time of setting things right — but the spiritual blessings of that day are introduced in Christianity so that we can now draw nigh to God. They will know in that day what we know today, that sins and iniquities are remembered no more. In Israel the remembrance of sins was perpetuated, and so far as they are concerned this is not ended yet; the work is done, but they do not know that. They will yet be brought into the blessing of it. We are already in the blessing of the work done on our account while Israel, nationally, have to come into their place in the world-to-come.

While that is true, something better has come to pass today than will come in for Israel in the future.

The world-to-come has the blessing of Israel in view, hence the reference to it, but the One Who did the work brings us first into blessing on the heavenly side today, and will also bring Israel into it in that day. Their blessing will of course be on the earthly side.

Are you keeping in mind the thought of Aaron and his sons?

Both sides are here! — the present and the future. While verses 16, 17 and 18 look on to the future, the apostle refers to the present in verse 19. The one sacrifice of Christ has covered both the blood of the bullock and the blood of the goat; the first for Aaron and his house, the other for the people. We are the answer to Aaron and his house, and we have access today, while Israel awaits His coming out to bring them into their place.

Verse 19 shows us the blessedness of what is present. There is remission of sins today and we are in the good of that. The New Covenant is connected with the death of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and with His glory in the second Epistle. It is His death as bringing us into blessing, but the Spirit forming us according to His glory by the ministry of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3.

Why does it say "no more offering for sin" when remission is in view in v. 18?

I think it refers to the work in its completeness. You remember that Aaron confessed sins on the head of both the bullock and the goat, but here it infers that the work for sin has also been accounted for in the greater sacrifice of Christ. It is the effect of the death of Christ in its widest character. If we were to turn the verse round it would involve that if sin has been dealt with in its totality, then my sins must have been removed.

It is that which I had committed which had been a dishonour to God, my sins and iniquities. It is summed up in the statement that where remission of these is there will never be a need for another sin offering. The assertion in verse 18 is the answer to the negatives mentioned in verses 1 and 4, that the blood of bulls and of goats could never make the comers to God perfect. We have three statements in verse 1, and the answer to them in this chapter. The "shadow" gives way to the substance in verse 7; the "image" is removed in verse 9; the "never . . perfect" is answered in verse 14. Thus what was lacking in the first order has all been secured by the coming in of Christ, and by His work on the cross.

We do read in v. 12 that Christ offered Himself to take away sins and now in v. 18 it is sin. I am not clear as to what was said about the distinction. Would you repeat what you said?

In the types we do not read of a sins offering but a sin offering. That is, an offering altogether to deal with the sin question. It does say when an offerer brought a sin offering to confess some sin, "it shall be forgiven him". Yet I judge the meaning here is, an offering for sin, the sin having been dealt with in its entirety, both the root and the fruit, we are now free from both in the sight of God.

These passages are so extensive that it takes time to explain them a little, but we do want to see the importance of these things to ourselves today. The first great result is that we have boldness to enter consciously into the presence of God by the blood of Jesus.

Is this the privilege we have when we come together to break bread?

We have learned by experience that when we do come to remember the Lord and are led on to experience approach with Him into the presence of God, that we then have the most fruitful time together, and we reach greater heights than one can reach individually. On the other hand to say we can enter the holiest on a Lord's Day morning only is not true. I would not like to think that if I could not assemble with the saints I could not draw near into the presence of God as a worshipper. Yet we do not wish to weaken the collective side, for this is clearly taught in the Word. Nor would we limit these experiences to the morning meeting, for often in Bible Readings and Prayer Meetings we have known what it was to touch an atmosphere of worship to God.

What do we find when we do enter the holiest?

When looking at the outline of the Tabernacle system at the beginning of chapter 9 we suggested what was to be found there, the Ark and the three things which were in it; also the Mercy Seat and the glory. In other words that which speaks of Christ and of God would engage our souls.

Why is it put as an exhortation, "Let us draw near"?

They had been cut off from the Temple where the literal thought of drawing near was seen, hence he is showing them that in having embraced Christianity they had something far superior to the Temple worship.

Does this mean that they drew near to the Father?

We have connected that with Hebrews 2 and with John 17, "I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren". In this chapter it is not so much the revelation which the Son has given of the Father but rather God Himself, and they seen in responsibility. All having been cleared on that ground, they now have liberty to draw near to God. It could hardly be to God known as Jehovah but rather known as Father.

What revelation do we receive in the Holy of Holies?

It is because of what has been revealed that we can go there. We go into the place from whence the revelation has come. It means we are consciously in the presence of God Himself. I doubt if any one could ever be there consciously apart from the revelation which God has given of Himself. The New Translation gives it as "the holies", and I gather both places are in view. As in the light of the first we have access into the second, access into both places, by the blood of Christ. It would mean that the sense of having been forgiven gives freedom to approach into the presence of God, in order that we might respond to the revelation which He has given of Himself.

What would be the character of that response?

Thanksgiving and praise and worship; and all for the heart of God. We are not told here what we do or what we say when we get into the presence of God, but I think as experiencing it we give God His portion in answer to all that we know of Him and all that He has done for us.

Do we go in as brethren, sons or priests?

I think as brethren in the dignity of sonship, His brethren and sons of God. We are never said to be priests in this epistle, but what is stated is the dignity of the calling, and as in association with Him as His brethren we are said to be "all of one". This may suggest equality with Him in all His service Godward, for we are as acceptable to God in Him as He Himself is, the fruit of His sanctifying work. I gather that is why it reads "great Priest" in the New Translation, not "High Priest", as we have it in the Authorised.

What is the difference?

"Great" has to do with the dignity of the Person Who is Priest. Aaron was said to be a "high priest", but was never called a "great priest". Only of Christ could that be said. I gather the reason we are not called priests is to impress us with something greater, and that is relationship rather than office. In Hebrews 2 we are said to be sons, brethren and children.

Is this in view when Christ is referred to in Heb. 8 as, "minister of the sanctuary . . . which the Lord pitched, and not man"?

It is! For we read in Hebrews 9 of the first place and the second place, and in this chapter of the first order and of the second order. It all has in view the spiritual answer to the material shadow.

We must keep in mind that it is not the Personal glory of Christ which is in view in these passages, but what He has effected in Manhood, and into which He has graciously brought us, hence the term "all of one".

I am sure that it is in the realization of the height of the calling that worship is produced in our hearts.

So we go into the holiest to give, not to get?

Quite so! That is why we said that we go as in response to the revelation, not to receive it. We have revelation and response complete in Christ. In revelation Christ was alone, but in the response He associates us with Himself.

I suppose being consciously in the holiest the heart will be so full that worship is bound to be the outcome.

We go there in the light of all that Christ has done, as typified by the brazen altar, and all we learn of Him in the holy place. Then as with Him in spirit in the most holy place we are filled with a sense of His Personal glory and all that we know of God as coming to light in Him, with the result that the heart must be filled with worship in the contemplation of these blessed things.

The more we are enlightened by these things and the more our hearts are affected by them, so much the greater will be our response. In the reception of the truth of these things our affections should be stimulated, and this would lead to a greater response. We must link intelligence with the affections.

Should not one keep in step with the other?

Surely! For there is great danger of our becoming unbalanced and extreme, but if our affections are engaged by these things all will be in right balance.

We are told in verse 20 it is "By a new and living way". Literally it means "a newly slaughtered way", that is it is based upon the offering of a recent sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ. It is in that way He has opened out for us a way in "through the veil, that is to say His flesh". Even at so late a date since the sacrifice was offered, it still abides in its efficacy, still "a newly slaughtered way".

It says in verse 10 that, "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ", while here it refers to "His flesh". What is the difference?

I think His flesh brings before us His Manhood, "The Word became flesh". God was at one side of that veil and Man at the other. He brings God to man, and man to God; revelation and approach are complete in Him. As I appropriate Christ He brings the light of God to me and, in result, through Him I go in to God. It would be presumption to go in any other way. I take it His flesh means He came into Manhood to effect all this.

Two things seem to be involved in verse 20. We have pointed out that the word means a "newly slaughtered way", but it is also a "living way". I believe it suggests both His death and His resurrection. His death clearing the ground on our side, and His resurrection opening up the way for us to go in to God. Christ came in flesh in order that He might die. This we have in John 6, eating His flesh, not His body. That involves we believe He was the Word who became flesh and went into death on our account. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God Who has died for us, and in believing we have life through His Name. Again in Colossians chapter 1 we read of "the body of His flesh". There again His death is in view.

Then we also have the mention of His blood.

That is to give us the sense of cleansing and to remove sin from our consciences. Not only has His death and resurrection opened up the way for us to go in to God but when we do go in it is in association with Him, "an High Priest over the house of God". We could not go in apart from His work, nor could we go in apart from Himself, for it is as associated with Him we approach into the presence of God. It is thus that what is said in Hebrews 2 is brought about — "in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto Thee". We have often heard Psalm 22 referred to as the Sin Offering; Psalm 40 as the Burnt Offering, and Psalm 69 as the Trespass Offering, and in each of them we have a song. There seems to be an ascending note of praise from Psalm 69 to Psalm 22 then to Psalm 40. In the first it is "I will praise", that is Christ alone; in Psalm 22 it says, "in the midst of the congregation"; while in Psalm 40 it adds "praise unto our God". It suggests that while the praise begins with Christ Himself He associates us with Himself in it.

Would there be a distinction between praise and worship?

I think so! It has been suggested that we thank God for what He has done; we praise Him for the way He did it; but we worship Him because of Who He is. All three can be offered to God within the veil.

It seems clear that we need to be in company with Christ to participate in this.

Yes! We have pointed out that we first need to be in touch with Him as we move in this wilderness, for if we do not get the gain of His priestly ministry in regard to our circumstances we shall not be in a condition to join Him in the holiest. He first removes all that would hinder; then, having freed us, would draw us with Himself inside the veil that with Him we may praise and worship God.

We may worship God without uttering a word, and if we do worship God it must be in association with Christ, for we could not know anything at all about God apart from Him.

Worship is more the state of the heart than what is actually said. Certainly we need to use right expressions and the word will supply us with these, but worship is not so much what one may say but the attitude of heart in the one who says it.

Thus we have the two great sides of the priesthood of our Lord in this epistle. We cannot do without Him if we are to move for God in this world; His succour, sympathy and salvation are ever available, and we shall be in constant need of them as long as we are here. But may we ever remember that if He does support us in the scene of trial, it is to maintain in our hearts right conditions to enable us to come as worshippers into the presence of God. This is the great end in view. May we all reach it experimentally.

The Holy Spirit as seen in John's Gospel

The Holy Spirit as seen in John's Gospel

John 1: 29-39; John 3: 1-16; John 4: 13-26; John 14: 15-27; John 16: 7-16; John 20: 17-23.

Reading with G. Davison extracted from "Precious Things" 1956-1990

The subject for our consideration is the Holy Spirit as brought before us in the gospel of John. We hope to take in almost the whole of the gospel by referring to the ministry of our Lord as given to us in the first twelve chapters, then His communications to His own in view of His departure, which cover chapters thirteen to sixteen, and lastly His breathing on them in resurrection as recorded in John 20. In this way we hope to consider the main features of the Lord's ministry and its ultimate effect on the disciples. In the section we have read we begin by considering the descent of the Spirit upon the Lord Jesus, marking Him out Son of God, thus confirming the testimony of John the Baptist, and showing the introduction of the new order which had its beginning in the ministry of the Lord as anointed publicly by the Spirit. Whilst this gospel especially keeps before us the fact that the Son of God was moving here to accomplish the will of the Father, yet He is seen in Servant character as giving effect to the details of the counsel of the Father, which involved the securing of a company capable of taking in the revelation He would give, and able also to answer to it.

Would there be some reason why the Spirit is seen here in the character of a dove, whilst in Acts 2 we have the character of fire?

Men of this world have adopted the dove as an emblem of peace, but we gather from the record of the dove sent forth from the Ark that Scripture uses it as an emblem of purity. It is well known that the first use of any type in Scripture determines its use throughout the Scriptures. The raven suggests what is impure, but the dove suggests purity. The day had dawned in which God was going to give the Spirit to others, but the One to receive it first, in this way, was the Son of God. We must remember that others would receive the Spirit while still marked by sin within, hence witness is borne that Christ was sinless and pure. With Him therefore the Spirit was seen in the character of a dove, but with others as fire. There was something in all others which was never found in the Son of God, hence the Spirit came upon them in a judicial character, dividing in them between the new nature and the old in view of the testimony.

Is this anointing of the Lord referred to in John 3: 34, "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him"?

Not exactly! You will note that "unto Him" is in italics. It was of course true of our Lord, but not only of Him. It is rather the character of the order introduced by the Son of God, that those who are to share in it will also receive the Spirit. It is in contrast to Old Testament days when God gave a servant a measure of spiritual power to accomplish some work for Him, but did not give to any in that day the indwelling of the Spirit. Today as the result of the work of Christ the Spirit is given as an indwelling power to every saint, and we hope to see later that He will be in our hearts for ever.

What is conveyed by "The next day"?

It is worth noting that in the section which we have before us two references are made to that day. First, the work of the cross by "the Lamb of God", then the incident of the two who followed Him. The first reference to "the next day" covers the pathway of our Lord to the cross, while the second event of that day rather suggests the result as seen in the two who followed Him. As often pointed out, it is the work to which prominence is given in the first reference, but it is the Person Himself who is in view in the second. Hence these two events, happening on the same day, give us a complete picture of Christianity from the coming of Jesus until a company is permitted to dwell with Him "that day".

What do we learn from the other two days?

It seems obvious from the events of "the day following" that the future call of Israel is in view. In the first day John is given an unmistakable sign from God and from heaven as to who this Person is, but in the day following it is the One "of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write". Thus Israel will recognize Him in the future day, when the history of the first day has come to an end, which as we know, will be at the rapture. Just as clearly the third day of chapter 2 has the establishment of the kingdom in view, with the suggestion that Gentiles will then be included in the blessing; the mention of Galilee would indicate this. We may mention at this point that the three appearings at the end of this gospel are in line with these three days. We see that the Son of God will eventually take His place as Head over all, whether it be the Assembly, Israel, or the nations. We may add that this is in line with the indication of His work as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world".

I suppose this section is suggested as having the Spirit in view, but does not the whole chapter cover the ground now being spoken of?

It does! For it opens with a reference to the Word before time began, and ends with the Son of Man in the kingdom in the world to come. In between these two points we have reference to the various families which will share in the blessing of the kingdom.

John seemed to know already that this Person Whom he was told to point out was Someone greatly superior to himself. Would he have this made known to him by God?

He must have done, although until the Spirit descended upon the Lord he did not know Him. In regard to John's knowing the pre-eminence of the Lord, it is interesting to see the bearing of the word "before" in verse 30. It is the first part of the word used later in the epistles for firstborn, and would indicate that the Lord was not only before John as a matter of time, but also in rank. No doubt the emphatic "was" has time in view, but here is One of whom John could testify "He was before me", and it seems to indicate His precedence in both time and rank.

Why was John given this ministry of baptism?

Baptism is indicative of death, and for those whose hearts were right it meant that they accepted the condemnation of God upon them because of the state of the nation. It is evident that only those who submitted to this baptism would accept the One whom John heralded. Ultimately they would come into the baptism of the Spirit mentioned in verse 33. John baptized with water in the way of preparation, and the consummation is seen in the Lord's baptizing with the Holy Spirit.

John bears record that he actually saw the Spirit descending upon Him, so there could be no mistake.

Five times in this chapter we read that John bore witness. First in verse 7 — this section runs down to verse 14 and is mainly occupied with the Lord's coming into the world. Then verses 15 to 18 mention another witness -which is mainly concerned with His pathway. In verses 19 to 31 we have his witness concerning the death of our Lord, and in verses 32 and 33 we have his witness as to the results of His resurrection. Finally, in verse 34, John sums up by affirming that the Person of whom all this is true, is the Son of God. In the section before us we have witness borne to both the death of our Lord and the effects secured for us in His resurrection, for baptizing with the Holy Spirit could only take place in resurrection. We have often heard that the outstanding effect of the coming into Manhood of the Son of God is finality, for He is the One who will bring all to fruition. He Himself is not a type of anything, but the fulfilment of every type, every promise, and every prophecy. This shows the importance of the testimony of John.

Referring to type and prophecy, does not the presentation of the Son as the Lamb of God bring Him before us as the One who would effectively deal with the question of sin?

Our minds turn instinctively to Genesis 22 when we read this section. How clearly we see there a foreshadowing of these verses when Abraham said, "My son, God will provide Himself a Lamb for a Burnt Offering; so they went both of them together". It is well to add the second half of that verse, for it brings out remarkably the community of interest between the Father and the Son, and would intensify the fact that sin was to be dealt with universally and for the glory of God Himself. We cannot doubt the Burnt Offering character of this presentation — "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world". He is the One who will so effectually deal with the outstanding question of sin that it will ultimately be removed from the universe and the whole scene filled with the glory of God. We often point out that it is not merely dealing with our sins, but dealing with the question of sin in its entirety on the behalf of God as well as on behalf of His creatures. Who but One who is co-equal, co-eternal with God could do such a work? It may be more literally rendered "Who beareth away" — the thought of sacrifice being in view. Abel's offering was doubtless a lamb, for he was a keeper of sheep, and here again we see the first occurrence of a type giving its full force throughout. Both Abel's lamb and the offering of Genesis 22 would leave no doubt as to the thought of that which is sacrificial.

Later we have the Lamb in Egypt and I suppose this would also be in view here?

No doubt! For whilst we stress Genesis 22 on account of the lamb there being for God, Exodus 12 would provide for the faithful in Israel a type of Him who would effectually meet their need. To use well known terms, perhaps Genesis 22 would have propitiation in view, and Exodus 12 substitution. Certainly we know both were accomplished by the Son of God when He dealt with the question of sin.

Why does John say twice, "I knew Him not"?

He was to have this knowledge given to him by a divine sign, not by some other means such as family links. That would be why he dwelt in the wilderness until the time of his showing to Israel. The Son was to be made known by the Father in the particular way indicated, and John says he knew Him not until this sign was given.

Is the descent of the Spirit here the sealing by God to which our Lord referred in chapter 6: 27?

It is! The Lord there was exhorting them to believe on Him as the One whom the Father had so manifestly indicated as the Giver of eternal life to those who believed on Him. He calls Himself there the Son of Man. It may be that when He speaks of Himself as Son of Man it refers to Him as here to carry out the will of God in relation to mankind; whilst as Son of God He carries out that will for the pleasure of God. It is recorded that the Spirit descended from heaven, and this would indicate that what was being done had heaven in view rather than earth. It will reach out to the whole universe as we have seen, but heaven is in view first, and from hence the Spirit came.

Does the Lord receive the Spirit here with a view to giving it to others?

Not exactly at the outset! But that eventuates as the latter half of verse 33 suggests. First it would perhaps indicate that all the Son is doing is in the energy of the Spirit, as being here for the accomplishment of the pleasure of the Godhead.

Do we not have the Godhead seen in this connection?

Yes! It appears to be the first time the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are seen in unity, and the fullness of the Godhead is disclosed as being triune. It has been pointed out in this connection that the Father was heard but not seen; the Spirit was seen but not heard, and the Son was both seen and heard as in Manhood He made all things known. It involved the dwelling of the Spirit in our Lord as this passage clearly records, and had in view His movements here in Servant character for the accomplishment of the pleasure of the Godhead. The teaching of Colossians has primarily in view the reconciliation of all things by the blood of His cross, but it would appear to be at this point that each Person of the Godhead is seen in connection with the Son as here in Manhood.

We do not have the voice of the Father mentioned in John's account. Why is that?

What is in view here is to call attention to the Son. In the other gospels, where the voice of the Father is heard, it is to call attention to the fact that the Father found His delight in the Son, whether as the King or as the Servant, or as the lowly subject Man; but here it is right that we should note that attention is called to the Son as the One who would bring to fruition the counsel of grace which had in view the family of God being brought into blessing. This will occupy us in our further readings.

What is meant by this word "baptizeth" (v. 33)? Is it the same word as that used of the baptism of John?

It is the same word, but having something quite different in view. The word means "to completely submerge". We usually say of baptism that two thoughts are connected with it — dissociation and association. It involves in figure passing from one state to another. As a figure, the baptism of John severed the people from the guilty nation, and prepared them to receive the Lord as their Messiah. The baptism of the Holy Spirit brings us into a wholly spiritual sphere where that which is natural and fleshly cannot enter. This involves being born of God, a subject we hope to consider in our next reading.

This would be the outstanding proof that He is the Son of God, for who but One Who is Himself God could bring men completely under the power of the Spirit of God? I suppose this looks on to Pentecost.

It does! And so introduces the circumstances prefigured by the two who followed Jesus. We noticed the two events recorded on "the next day", and it is well to bear in mind that the two events are connected. If we take the two who followed Jesus as indicative of the introduction of Christianity by the Spirit at Pentecost, we see from this connection that what the Spirit brought to pass in the disciples was the continuation of that which came to light in our Lord while in this world. We know from the later chapters, John 13 to 16, that the Spirit was to be given to make good in them all that came into manifestation in our Lord when in this world. It shows how great this day is in which our lot has been cast.

Would not the very fact that in this second half of the next day John looked upon Jesus "as He walked", confirm what you say that it is the continuation of that which came to light in our Lord walking in this world.

I believe so! Note also that "John stood". I think it indicates that his ministry had reached its proper end, and he now stood whilst Jesus walked. hence it is right that the two who heard John speak should leave the man who is standing to follow the One who is walking. It would be the normal effect of the ministry of John, who later said "He must increase, but I must decrease", John 3: 30. There may be some point in the fact that in verse 36 it does not say "John bore record", but that he "saith", and they "heard him speak". His witness ended when he had indicated Jesus as the Son of God, but as has often been pointed out, it was the contemplation of his own heart which drew this statement from his lips. Someone called it a soliloquy, and the word used would allow for this.

Would it involve that if we, today, seek to follow Jesus as indicated by these two we, too, need to be occupied with Jesus "as He walked"?

While we have more brought to light today as the result of our Lord's ascending to the Father, we must ever remember that the nature, character and disposition of God came to light in the Son of God in this world, and not after He ascended back to where He was before. "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" was what came out down here, and we do need to contemplate Jesus as He walked if we desire to see this in all its fulness.

Would not the fact that He drew them aside, and into the place where He dwelt, involve the further light and liberty which could only be available after He went back to the Father?

I am sure it would! But we see how ready the Lord was to answer their request and draw them into the secret of His own enjoyment of the love of the Father. They were disciples of John; they had been prepared by baptism and obviously had been instructed by John, and in the normal leading of their own exercise they were ready for the moment of transfer from John to the Lord, and thus into the intimacy of the divine circle into which only He could bring them. Need we say again, only in His company can we have experience like this. Many saints of God move on with clear conscience and with simple faith and confidence in the Lord and yet seem to miss the greatest of all blessings — that of dwelling with Him in spirit in the place where He Himself dwells.

Is this open to all?

Surely it is! But we must remember it is only in the company of the Lord that it can be realized. They began by following, then they made this request of Him. It is open to us all to ask for further light and experience. There are two things in view, "come and see". The first would have in view abstraction from the circles in which they daily moved, and the second would involve occupation with the sphere into which He introduced them. So we read, "They came and saw where He dwelt". We must be free in spirit, in mind and heart from the one sphere of things, in order to be fully occupied with the other.

What is the meaning of this word, "Rabbi" or "Master"?

In this case it means "Teacher". They obviously had in mind that He could teach them something of which they had as yet no knowledge, and we cannot doubt that in the "seeing" they had something unfolded to them which confirmed them in the knowledge of Who He was. It so affected Andrew that he went at once to find Simon to bring him into the company of the Son of God.

What did they see?

We could not venture an answer to that! All it says is "they . . saw where He dwelt"; just what was disclosed to them it would be difficult to say. Even in our own experience we get visions of things in our souls which it would be difficult to put into words, but these visions do deepen within us the sense of His greatness and glory and the desire to be more and more in His company. This word "dwell" or "abide", is a characteristic word in the gospel occurring about forty times. It ought to be our habitual exercise to keep in constant touch with The Teacher, and so be free to be led by Him into the presence of His Father. Later in the gospel we learn that this is the realm of eternal life, and these two were led into it by the Son of God at that moment.

Do you mean they would know what eternal life was and were in the enjoyment of it?

No! What was said was that we so know it now, but I do not doubt it was into that circle they were brought, though we do not know the terms of what they saw. To be secluded with the Son of God in His own sphere in the home of life, of light, and of love, is to know the three elements of eternal life. It is in this home we enjoy fellowship with the Father and the Son, and we know from the epistle of John that that is where eternal life has its relationships and enjoyments. We must ever remember that Scripture never severs these things from the sphere to which they belong. We are very apt to take up these things in a detached way, but they are set in attachment to Christ where He is, and we see the clear evidence of that in this incident. That is why we have the word "this life is in His Son". We cannot detach it from Christ, and can enjoy it only in communion with Himself.

What is indicated by "the tenth hour"? The margin reads "That was two hours before night".

It would appear that the marginal annotators were reckoning time by the Jewish method, which was the tenth hour from sunrise. The other three gospel writers use Jewish time, but John uses Roman time, counting from midnight and noon as we do. If this is not seen, a difficulty will appear in John 19: 14 where it states that our Lord was still in the hall before Pilate at the sixth hour, while the other gospels tell us that He was on the cross at that time. Other references in this gospel bear this out. Probably this "tenth hour" was ten o'clock in the morning. We understand that from ten o'clock until two was the time of the siesta. (A dictionary gives "siesta" as "the sixth hour"). It was the time when they retired from the heat of the sun during midday. Apparently Andrew still had time to go and look for Simon ere the day came to a close.

Would it not suggest that we, too, can draw aside into His company, away from the rush and turmoil of the day?

Does it not seem as though the Lord would indicate to us that we must be drawn aside from the busy life we are largely compelled to live if we are to be in a restful state to contemplate the unfolding of the things which belong to the Father and the Son? How much more in this increasingly active world we are compelled to live in. Few of us have time to be drawn out of the vortex of this busy world to sit in His company and, like Mary, to hear His word. However, the fact remains that if we do desire to be there, we must make time and allow the Lord to lead us in Spirit into that circle "where love's treasures are displayed".

When the Lord turned He did not ask them "Whom seek Ye?" but "What seek ye?"

Perhaps they were more occupied with the place than the Person. No doubt they were quite sure of the greatness of His Person, but desired that this wonderful Person might lead them into the circle where He dwelt. It would again intensify the fact that only such an One as He could lead us into that circle.

There can be no doubt, either, of the effect it had upon these two. If we do not know in terms what they saw, it so impressed Andrew that he went immediately to find his brother Simon to bring him there as well. Surely if we dwelt there more we, too, should be more anxious to bring others to where they also could obtain such blessing.

We may add that John also in his epistle presses that very point when he says, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" (1 John 4: 14). Dwelling in communion with the Son will add power to our testimony to Him, and would have an effect upon those to whom we speak, for the testimony would be in the warmth of divine affection.

Just one more question ere we close. Do these two who followed Jesus suggest the Assembly? We often hear it spoken of as a nucleus of the Assembly, whatever that may mean.

The word nucleus really means a centre around which other things revolve, though some have used the word when they mean a beginning. Christ is the Centre of the Assembly, not any two disciples. We may however speak of them as the beginning of the Christian company, for from this point others began to gather around our Lord. The change of Simon's name to Peter would have this in view, but it will be well to keep in mind in our readings on this gospel that John does not speak of the Assembly as such, nor of the various features of the Assembly, such as the Body of Christ, or the House of God. The body could only be formed after Christ was in glory, and the truth of it is taught in the epistles by Paul; but we do have suggestions both of the Assembly and the House in the other three gospels. John rather deals with the family and the flock of God.

What of John 12 where "they made Him a supper"? Have we not often heard that taken up as the Assembly responding to the Lord at the Lord's Supper?

It certainly is a lovely picture of loving hearts responding to the Lord. What we are dealing with at the moment is not applications but the teaching of this gospel. That the family and the flock are both composed of the people who form the Assembly is known to us all, but it is well to keep each feature in its own connection. Life, light, and love are the features which mark the company as presented by John, not administration and discipline as in the Assembly and the House. We cannot separate these things, but we can indicate the main teaching of any book or epistle. We shall see as we proceed in these readings that John speaks of divine life and nature made available through the incarnation of the Son, and we all need to be brought into the living gain of it.

John 3: 1-16

In our reading yesterday we were occupied with our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as anointed with the Holy Spirit in view of His service for God in this world. As thus anointed He revealed God in His nature, character and disposition as a God of love bent upon the salvation of His creature. This involved the Son of God's going to the cross as the Lamb of God to deal with the question of sin, in view of ultimately clearing the universe of its every trace. In the coming into Manhood of the Son of God both life and light were seen to be in Him, and both became available to men as a consequence. Thus the kingdom of God was revealed in Him; but although it was fully revealed, man in his natural state was unable either to see it or enter into it. In this gospel, the state of man as both dead and in darkness is emphasized. As morally dead, he does not want God, and as in darkness he does not know God. If men were to enter this kingdom an entirely new work of God must take place in their souls. This work is variously referred to as "born again", or "born of water and the Spirit", or "born of God". This work of God is the subject we are now considering. The opening verse of this chapter stands in contrast to the closing verse of chapter 2. Many believed on Him when they saw the miracles, or signs, which He did; convinced by these miracles they would have followed Him, but we read "But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew what was in man" (John 2: 24, 25). There is no moral or spiritual foundation in the soul of any man to which God will commit His spiritual blessings; all need to be born of God.

Do these verses suggest that Nicodemus was in some way different from those persons referred to at the end of chapter 2?

They do! For the chapter should really open with "But there was a man". This is in line with John 1: 11, 12, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him", etc.. These were distinctive persons, of whom we are told in the next verse that they were born of God.

Is the Lord meeting Nicodemus on Jewish ground?

The necessity of being born again was pressed on the Jews lest they should think that they had right to the kingdom as of the stock of Abraham. The phrase "born again" does not appear to be used in reference to Gentiles. Of course, we need to be born of God if we are to see or enter the kingdom, but "born again" has special reference to Jews as such. It is doubtless on this account that the three negatives are brought into John 1: 13. "Which were born, not of blood" — that is, not of the nature of man, "nor of the will of the flesh" — that is, flesh was not the agent used to bring it about; "nor of the will of man" — that is, man was not the source of it. What is insisted upon in the verse is "Which were born . . . of God".

Was Nicodemus speaking for others as well as for himself?

It appears to be so! For the Pharisees were convinced that our Lord was the Sent One of God, as He could say to them, "Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am" (John 7: 28).

What are the effects in the life of a person when new birth takes place?

New desires after God, coupled with the sense of having sinned against Him, which lead one to seek the forgiveness of sins and desire to be in possession of salvation!

Is there a difference between being "born again" and "being saved"?

One is preparatory to the other! In this chapter the two outstanding blessings of the kingdom are salvation and eternal life, but we could neither see nor desire these blessings till we were born of God.

Is being born of the Spirit the same thing as being sealed by the Spirit?

No! But the one leads to the other. There must be the initial work of new birth in our souls, and this appears to be enlarged as we go on, but it must be there first, as our Lord said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". This word "again" means "anew", or "from the outset", and is the initial work in our souls, sealing would be its completion.

Is there not such a thing as instant conversion?

The work of new birth must be there first, however short or long the period may be before the one born anew enters the kingdom. The point here is not as to any length of time but the absolute necessity of this work in the soul if one is ever to see the salvation offered to him in the kingdom. I doubt if any man thoroughly understands that he is lost before this initial work takes place. Men may have the sense that they are not right with God, but to have the deep conscious knowledge of being lost is one of the first effects of being born of God. It was this which gave each of us to see our need of salvation; we knew we did not possess it, but we kept on until we found it. Then, after receiving salvation, we were sealed by the Spirit, which would be the completion of the work. Let us never think that when God begins a work He will not finish it, but it is the beginning which is in view here, and it leads on to believing in the gospel of our salvation.

We had no more to do with this new birth than we had with our natural birth.

That is very evident here! Indeed, one has grown to be very thankful that it was all of God in His sovereign love. As being all of Himself, it is bound to be perfect and abiding.

Would you enlarge a little on the thought of the sovereignty of God? Some have thought that they were born again after believing the gospel.

How could that be when our Lord says they could not even see the kingdom until they were born anew? Paul evidently had some such thought in mind when he said, "For God, Who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts" (2 Cor. 4: 6). All began with divine intervention, not by human appropriation.

Do any other New Testament writers speak of new birth?

Yes! Both James and Peter refer to it. James perhaps uses the stronger terms, and leaves us in no doubt that it is sovereign. "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth" (James 1: 18). It was not when we willed to be saved, but when God willed. Peter has more before him the thought of agents -the Spirit and the Word; while John has both the source, as in James, and the agents, as in Peter, but also adds what it is as seen in result. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (v. 6). If the kingdom is spiritual, then we must have a new spiritual nature in order to enter into it.

Why did our Lord speak of seeing the kingdom in verse 3, and then of entering it in verse 5?

Seeing was the initial effect in us, and led us to accept the Word of the Gospel, but I have come to regard entering the kingdom as being sealed by the Spirit. Both the water and the Spirit were necessary in order to bring about this work, but how could anyone be in the kingdom before being sealed by the Spirit? This may not be generally held as the meaning of this verse, but I have come to regard it as being so, and offer it for consideration. There is obviously a reason for the change from seeing to entering, and this involves the reception of the Spirit, for as in the kingdom we are in possession of salvation and eternal life. Could we have either apart from having the Spirit in our souls?

The persons mentioned at the end of John 2 saw the Lord as a worker of miracles only. The spiritual kingdom manifested in Him was beyond them. All they could see was the great effect of these works; what was spiritual was utterly beyond them although it was demonstrated before their eyes.

That is why we are told that both light and life were brought into this world by the Son of God as coming into Manhood. Men were both morally dead and in the dark, and needed to be born of God so that they might both see and live. Unconverted men do not believe they are blind, and certainly do not believe that they are dead, but we know that we were in such condition before the work of God in our souls.

Say a little more about the agents which God uses in this work — the water and the Spirit.

Water is a well known reference to the Word in its cleansing efficacy. Whenever we have water in movement in the Old Testament the Spirit is in view, as in the smitten rock and in the springing well. This is referred to in John chapter 4. When water is used in its cleansing character, as in the laver and in the water of separation, the Word of God is in view. Hence these two agents would suggest that the Spirit uses the Word to cleanse us in the springs of our being by begetting a nature which sin can never defile. So much so that John in His epistle speaks of the believer as one that cannot sin. We know he is viewing this work in an abstract way, but the new nature in a believer cannot sin. We see how the Word is typified by water in our Lord's own words to His disciples, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15: 3).

When the thief on the cross said, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom", was he thinking of this kingdom?

Not in the aspect which is in view here. The kingdom is spoken of under at least ten different titles, and no doubt the malefactor had the kingdom of God in its earthly display in the world to come in mind. In John 3 the Lord was speaking of the heavenly and spiritual side of the kingdom. It is of course the same kingdom, for there is only one, but it is not always viewed in the same way. This kingdom is now established in the power of the Spirit, and has the character mentioned in Romans 14: 17, "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost".

Speaking again of the word which the Spirit uses, can we always be sure when that word was spoken, or when it was received by us?

I am sure we cannot! Someone has said the Word of God is productive, referring to the Sower with the seed, but it is only productive in an honest and good heart, and such a heart is found in one born of God. Some Word of God has entered our hearts, it may have been in our early days. This gave us an honest and good heart, and the time came when we believed the gospel, but it was God who had prepared our hearts for its reception.

Why did the Lord say that Nicodemus ought to have known this? To what was He referring?

It is generally understood to be Ezekiel 36: 25-30. Indeed, had we mentioned that point earlier, we should have seen the import of the water and the Spirit, for both are referred to there. The sprinkling of the clean water in the day to come will be through the prophetic word of the remnant. This the Spirit will use to prepare them for the reception of the New Covenant, and along with that they will receive the gift of the Spirit, and will thus receive power to walk in the good of the spiritual realities mentioned. Whilst it was that chapter which the Lord had in mind in speaking to Nicodemus, the Spirit and the Word are with us today, not to prepare us for a place in the land under the New Covenant, but to bring us into the present enjoyment of eternal life in fellowship with the Father and the Son. Nicodemus as the teacher in Israel ought at least to have known of the necessity of such a work if man was to be blessed of God.

In line with what you are saying, were the Old Testament saints born of God?

They were! But they did not see the things which we see. You remember that the Lord told His disciples that very thing, for this was an aspect of the kingdom the Jews knew nothing of, nor did they know the greatness of the Person Who brought it in.

Does not John in his epistle speak on this line?

You have in mind his reference to Abel as the first of the line of those born of God. He is used by the Spirit to indicate the three salient features of those born of God. They are righteousness, obedience, and love. He speaks of new birth some ten times in his first epistle, thus indicating the features of the family of God, and he mentions Abel as the first of the children of God. Need we add again that while he was one of the children of God he did not know what we may know, nor did he possess the blessings that are available to us. Yet he was certainly born of God, as all who stood in divine favour were.

When do you think Nicodemus entered the kingdom?

I would not venture an answer to that. He is referred to three times in the gospel, in chapters 3, 7 and 19. Perhaps the first feature of the children of God was seen actively in him in John 7 when he said, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" (v. 51). Righteousness was beginning to assert itself in him. Later when he came out definitely on the side of the Lord and assisted in His burial, love was in evidence. Can we doubt that he was then in the kingdom? We must of course remember that all was in prospect when the Lord was speaking to him in John 3, for the blessings bestowed upon those entering into this kingdom could only be true of them after His resurrection, and by the gift of the Spirit. Nevertheless the teaching is here, and it is certainly seen functioning today.

Would Nicodemus be looking for the kingdom in the same aspect as that in which the thief on the cross was viewing it?

He must have been! And perhaps thought of obtaining a place of eminence in it. So far as the earthly side was concerned he was of the right birth according to flesh, but he was favoured to hear of the kingdom in an aspect greater than that presented by the prophets. He had to learn that flesh could have no part in this, however good and of the right generation that flesh might be. No one can transmute flesh into spirit, and hence he has to learn that in order to enter this kingdom he must be born again. We might have pointed out earlier that this word "again" is the same word as that translated "above" in verse 31, and has the thought of being something entirely new from an entirely new source, and not derived from "our father Abraham", however much Nicodemus might have prized it as such.

If new birth is a sovereign work of God, why do we continue to preach the gospel?

Let us hear what Peter has to say on that matter! He tells us, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abided for ever . . and this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Peter 1: 23, 25). Again, we have the Lord's own word, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (v. 8). So we go on preaching the Word, and the Spirit continues to use it, although we may not know how or when He does so. The effect is evident when the gospel is believed.

It may help to point out that the word "ye" in verse 7 is plural, and others as well as Nicodemus were in mind; that would confirm what was said as to Israel, who are undoubtedly in view in Ezekiel 36.

Would it be right to preach new birth in the gospel or rather to preach "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"?

Why contrast these things? If the Lord spoke to Nicodemus about new birth why cannot we do the same? We have often contrasted this with what was said to the woman in the next chapter, but what the Lord said in both chapters is right in its place. Surely we may preach from this chapter, not from design as the Lord did, but because it is laid on our hearts to do so. We should not hesitate to tell people that they need to be born again. In any case, they do need to be. Nicodemus was doubtless making a move towards God, and he was told by the Lord that entirely new conditions were necessary before he could receive the blessing which He had come to offer. The fact that Nicodemus did not understand it did not make it any the less a necessity, and it is just as essential today if men are to be brought into blessing.

What do we receive upon entering the kingdom?

Liberation from the bondage of sin, which is salvation; and the conscious knowledge of relationship with the Father and the Son, which is eternal life!

What about the forgiveness of sins?

There is no doubt that we have forgiveness, but it is not the teaching here. Salvation is an absolute necessity if we are to enjoy eternal life, and that is why it is spoken of here. We do not have the word forgiveness in this gospel, although remission is once referred to. That truth was given to the apostles to administer in the laying of the foundation of Christianity. The last word the Lord said to His disciples ere turning in mind to the Father was, "I have overcome the world" (John 16: 33). In John 17: 2 He says, "that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him". Comparing this with 1 John 5: 5, we read "Who is he that overcometh the world?", and then the apostle goes on to speak of the three witnesses in order to assure us that we have eternal life. Does it not seem to show that if we are to enjoy eternal life we must overcome this world? I am not speaking of the possession of eternal life, but the enjoyment of it. No doubt that is why salvation is spoken of as being a necessity if the other outstanding blessing of the kingdom is to be enjoyed, for as another has said, "eternal life is an out-of-the-world condition of things".

We sometimes sing, "Thou dost make us taste the blessing, soon to fill a world of bliss", Is that what we have now in the kingdom?

The kingdom of God is the sphere wherein the will of God is supreme, and as having bowed to His will the benefits of the kingdom are ours!

So that everything in the kingdom is spiritual?

As presented here, yes! We have already quoted Romans 14 in confirmation of that.

Why does the Lord go on to speak of the Brazen Serpent?

New Birth is a work done in us, and the Brazen Serpent speaks of a work done for us. The work in our souls would not have availed to bring us into that kingdom, had not the question of sin been settled at the cross. That work gave God the liberty to bring us into blessing, and accomplish His will righteously. Have we not often heard these two truths put together? "Ye must be born again", and "even so must the Son of Man be lifted up". We are born of God by the work of the Spirit, and are brought to God by the work of the Son. Consequently we have salvation and eternal life.

Do you consider eternal life to be a heavenly matter?

I do! For the Lord spoke of it after referring to what is heavenly. New Birth will yet prepare Israel to enjoy eternal life on the earth in the world to come, but we have been born again to have eternal life in heavenly conditions and relationships. That is why the Lord speaks of eternal life after telling Nicodemus He was going to speak of heavenly things.

The Brazen Serpent was introduced at the end of the wilderness journey, not at the beginning. Would that have a bearing on the Lord's speaking of it here?

I am sure it would! The Brazen Serpent came in to prepare them to cross the Jordan, and it was the new generation that went over, so we come in on the line of the new generation and go in to possess the heavenly inheritance which is seen here as the circle of divine life, and light, and love. In type, the Brazen Serpent was the judgment of God on the root — sin. As a result, a new nature is formed in us, and in this we are in touch with God, and by it we live in the enjoyment of all that Christ has brought to us. It was first revealed in His life in this world, then He went to the cross to deal with sin, so that we might be brought into the circle where love's treasures are displayed.

At the beginning of this meeting you distinguished between new birth and salvation. Now you are distinguishing between salvation and eternal life. Could we put these together in this order, first new birth bringing us into salvation, and as the result of salvation we are brought into eternal life?

In the well known verse, John 3: 16, "should not perish" is certainly first stated, then "but have everlasting life" follows. I would suggest that instead of one being the outcome of the other, they all stand together as the complete effect of the work of the Spirit in our souls and the work of Christ upon the cross, to bring us into the kingdom and thus into these blessings. It is right to distinguish these important truths one from another, but it may be dangerous to separate them.

We get in verse 15 the words "eternal life", and in verse 16 "everlasting life". Are these different, or do they mean the same thing?

They are both the same word! We may add that eternal life is the power by which we live in communion with the Father and with the Son, but while it is of this character it is nevertheless everlasting, that is, it will never end. Salvation delivers us from the power of this world, and eternal life empowers us to live in a new spiritual world. New of course to us, but not new in itself, for it is the realm in which the Son has ever lived in unbroken communion with the Father. We have now been brought into this realm, where we are enabled to live to the Father and to the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. May we know what it is to live there continuously.

John 4: 13-26.

We have already seen that the Spirit working in our souls is the only power by which we can enter the kingdom of God. We further saw that the matter was not complete until the sealing of the Spirit, when the fruit of what is fundamental is seen in a new nature capable of apprehending the things of God, and ultimately, based upon that foundation, we find ourselves at liberty and at home in the divine circle. It is as sealed by the Spirit that we enjoy the blessing and liberty for which new birth prepares us. In the section which we have read, the gift of the Spirit, as additional to new birth, is brought before us leading us, as we shall see, into the full enjoyment of eternal life, and into what is perhaps the highest point of our calling today — the worship of the Father in spirit and truth. The chapter itself is well known to all; we have selected the portion relating to the Lord's dealings with the woman of Samaria, and that which came to light as a consequence.

It is apparent that this incident is outside the confines of Judæa.

I think so. We may wonder, and yet not wonder, at the way the Lord speaks in chapters 3 and 4. To Nicodemus (whose name means "Champion of the world") who was "the teacher of Israel", the Lord opened up the question of new birth; whereas to this woman, who was doubtless much further down morally than Nicodemus, He speaks of the blessedness of worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth. If we look at these incidents from the divine standpoint, we shall understand the divine wisdom manifested in dealing with them. The fact that this question of worship was raised in Samaria (which is distant from Jerusalem) indicates how detached the worship of the Father was from the system of Judaism.

The presentation of the Spirit in this chapter is that of living water. Again there is the assumption of some knowledge of Old Testament teaching. We read in Numbers, "Sprinkle water of purification upon them", and we have gathered from the types that where water in its cleansing efficacy is used, that is clean water, the Word of God is typified. On the other hand, where water is seen in a living or moving character, the Spirit of God is typified. We have that which answers to the Brazen Serpent in John 3, and the answer to the Springing Well in John 4. It is only when the complete setting aside of man after the flesh is realized that the introduction of that which is altogether spiritual can be appreciated. New birth entirely displaces man after the flesh, and the foundation that is laid in one born of God has in view the reception of the Spirit as living water.

Did you say that you connected this with the sealing of the Spirit?

It is really the gift of the Spirit, whether we view it as the Sealing, or the Anointing, or the Earnest. We are using the term "the gift of the Spirit" as referring to a divine Person resident in us. In new birth we do not quite get the full truth of the Spirit as a divine Person dwelling in our souls; it is rather the work which leads on to that. The work is not completed until we have the Spirit as a divine Person dwelling within and that is what is before us in this chapter.

We are conscious of new birth, but are we conscious of being sealed by the Spirit?

When "sealing" is mentioned the Spirit Himself is referred to, He is the Seal. New birth is something that the Spirit of God produces, but the sealing is the Spirit of God Himself dwelling in each one of us as the Earnest of the inheritance. It has been said that the seal is a mark, but it is more than a mark, it is the Spirit Himself. We are sealed by His Spirit.

We read in Ephesians 1: 13, "After that ye heard the Word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation . . . ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise". Does that bring us to the point in Romans 8 that we see what entering into salvation really is?

In Romans 8 the truth is presented on our side for our deliverance and for liberty to walk in the things of God; here it is presented on the divine side in order to produce in us something for the pleasure of God Himself, the worship of the Father.

I can see from Romans that God moves towards us in grace for our blessing; here the Spirit is not only bringing us into liberty and the consciousness of blessing, but is producing vessels capable of moving here for the pleasure of the Father.

You do not think that any time elapses between the receiving of the gospel of our salvation and the sealing of the Spirit?

The Word is "After that ye have believed". How long after has often been debated. I doubt if we could know that our sins are forgiven apart from the Spirit of God, because it is the Spirit who gives us assurance as dwelling in our souls. It has been said that it depends upon what you believe. What Scripture simply states it, "After that ye have believed", and we are bound to agree that whatever may have been proceeding in our souls, liberty and enjoyment can only be known as the Spirit of God takes up His abode there.

These things may take place in us long before we are aware of them. When we read the Word of God we learn what God has done, and that He has given us His Spirit so that we may enter into these things. John 3 would show what the Spirit of God has been doing in us, but in this chapter we have Him as indwelling, and we are thus enabled to have our part in the service of worshipping God.

Three things are apparent in the verses we have read — Judaism in responsibility and what it was capable of producing; Gentiles in infidelity and what they had produced; and thirdly what the Spirit of God produces. It is not now a question of "this mountain", or of "Jerusalem"; there is a completely new order with a new divine centre.

There is nothing really for God except that which is produced in us by the Holy Spirit. Divine teaching gives us the light of what is ours, in order that we might more intelligently enjoy it and respond to it. The Lord gives it to us by the Holy Spirit, and then shows us from the Word what He has given to us by the Spirit.

There is one more point that may help. We understand food to be that which sustains; whereas drink has the imparting of satisfaction in view. So we have the Lord's Words, "whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again", it could not give complete satisfaction; "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst".

The contrast is between material things and spiritual things; material things come very far short of satisfying. However much we may accumulate in the way of material things they cannot, in themselves, give satisfaction.

We have often spoken to one another of what we call "the region of satisfied desire". We reach that sphere as appropriating this living water which springs up into everlasting life.

Perhaps we spend too much time over the explanation of these truths instead of appropriating them in the Spirit's power. The blessed God is seeking worshippers, and He gives us the Spirit as the power which enables us to respond to His desire.

We cannot doubt that the gift of the Spirit is in view, although the word speaks rather of the effect. Verse 14 really reads, "shall become in him a fountain of water". That is what will be produced; it is not exactly a well, it is a fountain springing up, radiant, fresh, spontaneous, springing up into eternal life. The Spirit is in us, but He is here to lead us into something further, that is into the realm where the Father is known as revealed in the Son, and where we are brought into communion with both the Father and the Son. The object of the Holy Spirit is to attract and attach us to heavenly things.

We learn these things slowly, but we find that along with the many blessings presented to us in the New Testament, the objective sphere to which they belong is also mentioned. Take, for instance, the truth in relation to quickening; Scripture does not just say that we have been quickened, but adds that we have been quickened with Christ, which shows the objective side of the truth. We have spoken of being sealed by the Spirit, and the first chapter of Corinthians shows that in that sealing we are firmly attached to Christ. It is important to see the objective side of the truth, and that while we have the subjective power of the Spirit, it is that we may know the blessedness of being attached to this divine circle where the things of God are known in the Son.

Why do you stress the word, "it shall become in him a fountain of water"?

What is in mind is the effect that will be produced as the result of the Spirit dwelling in us. He would bring us into this wonderful circle of eternal life.

We might have Mount Gerizim on the one hand, or Jerusalem on the other, one a system where God is not known at all, and the other a system where God was but partially known; in neither place could there be known this wonderful light and life and freedom. It is ever the product of the Spirit of God, and enjoyed only in an entirely new position.

The fountain suggests life and refreshment, and that surely is what we need in a world where everything is marked by death and barrenness. True satisfaction can be produced only by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, therefore do you think we should press the point of the Spirit being in the believer?

We often speak of the difference between what we possess and our enjoyment of it. The Old Testament speaks of a day to come when Jacob "shall possess their possessions" (Obadiah 17). These things of which we speak are true of every saint of God, but how many of us know them and enjoy them is another matter.

As having the Spirit we have the divine power within us in order that we might move intelligently in that spiritual sphere to which he would lead us.

Does the thought of springing up into eternal life suggest that heavenly things have been made available to men, and that a response in worship is secured to God? That is, they spring up to the source from whence they came.

That is why we introduced the thought of the objective side of eternal life; God does not give us anything in a detached way at all; everything that He has given to us is to attach us to the scene from whence it comes. That is surely true of all the blessings God has given to us.

As we consider further the details of the chapter, we see that there is much more involved than this woman's moral condition, and the way in which the Lord meets it, important as that is. The Lord is using the opportunity to present deeper things. Her state is manifested, and she realizes how unfit she is for what the Lord is making known to her. He was reaching her conscience as she says "I perceive that Thou art a prophet".

Apparently she had some desire for what the Lord spoke of. There seemed to be something that had won her heart to the Lord Himself.

Does the fifteenth verse suggest that she had perceived that the water the Lord spoke of was different from the water she had come to draw?

She is slowly learning, but her one desire at the moment was to find water that would so satisfy that she need not draw from the well again. What I like to take out of this verse is that the Lord had first of all created a desire in the woman's heart, and then He showed her how that desire could be satisfied.

Do you think the gift mentioned in verse 10 is the gift of the Spirit?

I thought it was! "If thou knewest the gift of God". Some may say that it involves the Lord Himself. We could not have the Spirit apart from the coming of Christ, but the gift here, as in line with the teaching, would doubtless be the Spirit of God.

We get both in the verse, "and who it is that saith to thee"; that is the Lord Himself. He is the only One from whom this gift is obtained.

It would seem that this woman was not entirely ignorant of God. Perhaps she knew something of a demanding God, but a giving God was new to her, as it was at one time to all of us.

We do not know the kind of worship which was practised in Mount Gerizim; we do know the kind of worship which went on in Jerusalem. It may be, as you say, that she had been accustomed to a system of demand which all were utterly unable to meet. Now she is in the presence of One Who has the supply of something infinitely greater, and He creates a desire in her heart for it. I feel sure, on the ground of what we saw in our previous reading, that a work had begun in this woman's heart which led her on step by step until at last she was found in the company of the Saviour of the world.

The desire is produced, and then the fountain is reached.

One of the first effects of being born of God is that we are awakened to our lost estate. Verse 19 shows that the word was reaching her conscience.

Is this a matter which involves having to do with the Lord privately as this woman did?

Indeed it is individual! That is the thought which runs through these chapters; Nicodemus in the dark alone with the Lord; here this woman is alone by the well with the Lord; and these are matters which none of us can truly learn except as alone with the Lord Himself.

Is it important to notice the change in the place of worship?

Yes! The two things that come to light in relation to worship are the change of place, and the change of character. A worship of God by the use of material means was seen in Judaism, but it brought no satisfaction either to God or man.

Why do you think it mentions in verse 21, "Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh", and in verse 23 it mentions, "the hour cometh, and now is"?

The Lord was speaking of what was coming, but in so far as He was concerned in His own person it had come. We know that this teaching had the day of Pentecost in view when the Spirit Himself actually came, but the new system was being brought into being by the Son of God Himself. He was the beginning of it.

The introduction of the name of Father would be a new thing to this woman!

It would! And referring again to what has been said as to worship by material means, we see today those who will go back to what is external ceremonial in the worship of God. There can be no satisfaction in it, either for God or for the saints.

True worship must be in the Spirit. There is no substitute for the Spirit of God.

There is not! And if we abandon what is spiritual we are bound to bring in a substitute, and it is useless so far as the worship of God is concerned.

"The hour cometh, and now is"; has that any reference to the two days the Lord spent there (v. 40)?

We have often connected the two, but I believe it covers the whole period we are in today.

The first two chapters of John are introductory, and the last two chapters are supplementary. The three days of the first two chapters have an answer in the three appearings in the last two chapters. You will find the dispensational setting in those chapters but in this day, which we can rightly call the Spirit's day, the greatest result is being produced by the Spirit in the light and liberty of the knowledge of God as Father, and in consequence true worship is produced.

In the ninth chapter of John the place in which the man who had been blind worshipped, was outside of Jerusalem.

Very good! He was outside the place of merely ritual worship, but he found the Person who alone could speak of worship which is in spirit and in truth.

Now it is important to see that the Lord did not introduce the subject of worship in John 4, it was the woman who introduced it. Her conscience had been reached, and almost instinctively it occurs to her that God ought to be worshipped. I believe this thought lies in some measure in the heart of every man, whether they respond to it or not.

We often meet those who talk about worship, but have no true idea of what it is.

The truth is brought to light by the Word; it is the Word that searches this woman, but it is not searching her merely to condemn her, it was to extricate her from the place in which she was, and bring her into something infinitely better. We can, each of us, thank God for the measure in which this is so with ourselves.

When the Lord confronted her with things that she would have liked kept dark, and told her all things that ever she did, she says, "Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet". That would be the result of divine revelation.

Yes! God is careful in His selection of worshippers. There must first be the removal of all that which would hinder, and we see this in the Lord's dealings with this woman. God's ways are wonderful.

Not only are worshippers in mind, but that which is to characterize true worship is coming to light. The word "true" means "genuine"; it is a word much used by John, the genuine Light; the genuine Bread, and the genuine Vine.

It is sometimes said that the highest form of worship is in silence.

The conclusion most of us have come to is that worship does not necessarily consist in what is said, but in the attitude of heart. But if the heart is filled with a sense of worship we could hardly understand the lips being silent. Doubtless there is often with the sisters, who are enjoined to be silent, a very real spirit of true worship. In John 12 we do not read of Mary saying anything, but the whole house was filled with the fragrance of her appreciation of Christ.

In 2 Chronicles 29 there is a scene recorded in which "all the congregation worshipped" (v. 28); it ends with the whole company falling on their faces and worshipping. "The king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped" (v. 29). They were filled with a sense of the glory of God.

It is an appreciation of the worth of the Person which produces worship. The woman said, "Come, see a Man, which told me all things that ever I did; is not this the Christ?" She appreciated who He was. The man in the ninth chapter when conscious of being in the presence of the Son of God "worshipped Him".

Two important things are brought together in this chapter — spirit and truth. There were those in the Old Testament on whom the Spirit came, but they never reached the height of worshipping the Father "in spirit and in truth". John in his writings often uses the word "truth". It is a word which would convey the thought of divine revelation . There are only three things, so far as we are aware, that are said to be The Truth. The Lord Himself said, "I am the way, The Truth and the life" (John 14: 6); then in John 17: 17 speaking to the Father He says, "Thy Word is Truth"; and in John's first epistle John 5 we read "The Spirit of Truth". These are the three things that are said to be "Truth", and they would involve the revelation of divine Persons.

We have been dwelling on the details relating to the woman, and how she was searched; do we not also see the way in which the Father is revealed to her?

Some contend that the Father only is to be worshipped, but is not the Son to be worshipped too?

We all agree with that! We see from John 5, that the Son is to be honoured as the Father is honoured. The man in John 9 fell down at the feet of the Lord and did Him homage.

It has been said that the Lord leads our praise to the Father. Can it be equally said that He leads our worship to the Father?

In the epistle to the Hebrews we have the true worshippers mentioned. We are, through grace, among the true worshippers who once purged have no more conscience of sins. We certainly could not be there except as in company with the Son of God.

My difficulty is this — you have One worshipping the Father who is equal with the Father; could the Son be spoken of as worshipping?

The Son abides in Manhood, and we read "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto Thee" (Hebrews 2: 12).

In the temptation in the wilderness did not the Lord as in Manhood apply the word to Himself, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Luke 4: 8)?

Is it not in relation to Christ in Manhood in connection with the Assembly, that we have the expression, "Unto Him (God) be glory in the church by Christ Jesus"? Does it not suggest that glory will always reach the Father through the Son?

We are dealing with what is perhaps a rather difficult question. There are things connected with the Lord in Manhood which are beyond our finite minds; for instance, why should the Lord pray? But that marked Him here as in Manhood.

Would you not think that the Lord's present place in glory somewhat alters that? We cannot think of the Lord in glory praying for His own personal needs as He did on earth; His testimony in glory seems to have altered that, and personally I cannot see that the Scriptures support the thought that He worships the Father.

We have carefully stressed the point that the Lord has come into Manhood; He has taken a place in subjection to the Father that He will never surrender throughout all eternity, and hence when we see Him as identified in this way with the Assembly, we must note what Scripture says. In fact He says it Himself prophetically, and it is quoted in Hebrews 2, not in relation to Christ as in this world, but as in the glory, "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto Thee".

Although I cannot explain the verse quoted from Hebrews, I would still hesitate to say that the Lord is a worshipper of the Father. He was the dependent, praying Man here, and His trust was in God. But I would not say that of Him in His present position.

The Lord does praise God as we see from Matthew 11, but perhaps worship is another matter.

We must make it perfectly clear that we are viewing the Lord in Manhood, not as in co-equality with the Father in Deity.

What is the difference between what we have in John 4 and Philippians 3, where we read "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit"?

Philippians stresses the contrast between the formal worship of Judaism, and the true worship which is by the Spirit of God. In our chapter the power that produces the worship is in view.

God whom we know as Father, is said to be spirit (verse 24) hence "They that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth".

And then there is one further point. The only One who could possibly make this known is He who said "I that speak unto thee am He". If when the Lord said "The hour cometh, and now is", it was at that moment only true so far as He Himself was concerned, yet the blessedness of it is to be known and entered into today in the power of the Spirit of God.

John 14: 15-27.

We saw in our first reading something of the greatness of the descent of the Spirit of God to abide on the Son of God for the purpose, no doubt, of the revelation in His perfect Manhood of God as Father. In John 3 we saw the work of the Spirit of God on our side, preparing us for the reception of and response to the truth that has come to light in the Son of God, and bringing us into a realm wherein we have salvation and eternal life. Then in John 4 we considered the Spirit in the character of "living water", an evident allusion to the springing well in Numbers 21. He, the Spirit of God, has the power to lift us out of man's world and its material systems and make us know what it is to live in that spiritual sphere where the Father and the Son are at home. In the section we have now read, where we have the last words of the Son of God ere He left this world, we have the Spirit brought before us as the Teacher, both in regard to that which came to light in our Lord while He was in this world, and also to the further truths that could only be made known after He had taken His place in heaven above. Hence the Lord is here preparing His own for His departure, and for the coming of the Holy Spirit who would continue that which came to light in the Son, in order that it might be made good in the hearts of the saints.

Would the words "another Comforter" give us to understand that the Lord was going away?

Yes! The word "Comforter" is "Paraclete", which means "One that is alongside to help". The Lord had been with them visibly to instruct and guide them into divine things; when He left this scene another divine Person came, the Spirit of God not seen but dwelling in them, that He might continue the work that the Son of God had begun in them when He was here in this world.

The first fourteen verses of the chapter give the objective side of the truth as seen in the Son of God; the subjective side seems to be in view in the verses we have now read. The first statement is "If ye love Me, keep My commandments". That is, the proof of our love to Him is seen in a walk corresponding to His own desires for us. Whilst we often regard this special commandment as distinct from the ten commandments in Exodus 20, yet we must ever remember that His injunctions are binding upon us, and we are willing that they should be so. Love would always command such things as would not harm us, but would give us delight in the doing of them.

John in his epistle gives the double affirmation as to how we know Him, "Hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments".

Is there any difference between the Lord's commandments and His words?

Yes! There are certain things that are communicated to us as divine enlightenment, and there are other things communicated to us by way of commandment that are binding upon us if we are to enjoy in its fullness the love and the blessedness of this divine circle. There must be obedience to Him and to what we know to be His mind, as well as the receiving of divine communications by way of enlightenment. We may seek to take the edge of this word "commandment", but if the Lord's love appeals to us as it ought to do, every request that He makes would be binding upon our affections. We may call it the compulsion of divine love.

The Lord had the disciples themselves before Him at this point; this was something new in regard to the things of God.

That is so! "I will pray" (v. 16) is the word used in John 17, where the Son is praying to the Father. It is not the word which implies the begging of a favour, but is rather the asking of a person of status equal to that of the one from whom he asks. "I will ask the Father"; it was something necessary for the fulfilment of divine counsel. The Lord is seen here as moving in the realm of the accomplishment of the Father's will, and with a view to that will being accomplished it was necessary that the Spirit should be given in the absence of the Son.

It is important to realize Who it is that asks. In verse 16 the "I" is emphatic; the Lord alone could introduce this new thing.

We see the absolute necessity for the coming of the Holy Spirit if what we have in these chapters is to be carried on in the power of God; it could not be done otherwise.

That would be why it says "That He may abide with you for ever".

It was a necessity so far as the Son was concerned that he should leave this world and go back to the Father, as we read in the beginning of John 13; but the Spirit abides with us in order that He may make good in us that which came to light in the Son, and which could only be fully known after He had gone back to the Father.

Is it not in contrast to the Old Testament where David said, "Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51: 11)?

What marks the present day is that the Spirit has come to take up His abode in the saints in relation to an external condition of things. He is said to be "the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not". Men of the world are not born of God, hence they are absolutely bound to the material sphere. Whilst it does not say that we see Him, it does say we "know Him". There is already in our souls that which is the work of the Spirit, and as He takes up His abode in our hearts as the Comforter, we are conscious that He is there, we "know Him".

"He abides with you and shall be in you" (v. 17 New Trans.). Does that refer to the present time and does it also continue for ever?

The time would come when the Son would be in them, but that time had not then come; the Son could be in them only in the power of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the Lord does speak of the Father and Himself manifesting Themselves to the saints. Such words are not spoken of the Spirit, He is here in our hearts and He is here to stay.

When the Lord said "I am coming to you" (v. 18 New Trans.) it suggests that He is to be characterized by this attitude of coming to His own and making His presence known to them, as He surely does on occasions like the present.

One of the outstanding characteristics of the day in which we live is that the Spirit of God has come into our hearts and He will never leave us. The Lord had been in their midst, and He was about to leave them. In fact He is today in heaven above, but He comes into the midst of His own as assembled together, and that I understand is the bearing of the expression "I am coming to you".

The disciples did not actually receive the Spirit of God as indwelling until Pentecost, did they?

That is right in the corporate sense, but He did breathe on them in resurrection (John 20). What we have in our chapter is that the Lord was about to leave them. He said, "I go to the Father"; but having gone to the Father He would send down the Spirit and the Spirit would not leave them. I believe that in the power of the Spirit dwelling in their hearts they would become sensible as to visitations from the Lord. "I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you". He is to be characterized a making these visitations.

Would such coming be realized in the power of the Spirit?

That is one of the great advantages we have in the gift of the Spirit of God, we are made sensible of the Lord's presence amongst us.

When would you say that this "I am coming to you" commenced?

I think it commenced in Acts 2. When they came together to break bread they had the realization of the Lord's presence with them in their midst. The coming referred to is, I believe, collective. Only in the power of the Spirit do we have the realization of the Lord's presence with us as we are assembled together.

In verse 19 we have the expression "Ye see Me", and also "Ye shall live"; and at the beginning of verse 20, "Ye shall know". There is no doubt that the disciples did actually see the Lord raised again from among the dead, and we also have received divine illumination in relation to the Lord's being so raised.

It is true that the Lord Himself comes to us, but it is only in the power of the Spirit of God that we realize that He is there. The Spirit is not here to draw attention to Himself, but to make us conscious of the Lord's presence. In that way He is here as serving the Lord, even as the Son was here as serving the Father.

We need to distinguish between the Spirit's dwelling in each of us individually, and His service in making us, as together, conscious of the Lord's presence with us.

God said to Moses, "My Spirit shall go with thee", he was to realize that God was present with him, although not visible to him. Paul on one occasion, when things were very dark, said "Nevertheless the Lord stood by me"; he was conscious that the Lord was there.

Those incidents relate to individual service and testimony, but what we have in this section is a company to whom the Spirit of God has come, so that in relation to that company the interests of the Father and of the Son might be maintained in the hearts of the saints.

Verse 21 would suggest that the gain of these manifestations is consequent upon our having and keeping His commandments.

Yes! There is what is collective in His coming to us, but there is also that which is individual. It is not every individual that gets a manifestation, nor is it every company that is conscious of His visitation. If we are keeping His commandments, and are moving in subjection to His will, assembling together according to His mind, then we shall be conscious of His presence with us, but not otherwise, although we still have the Spirit indwelling each of us as believers.

In verse 17 we have the introduction of the Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit is thus seen in relation to the Truth in order to make it attractive and intelligible to the saints.

The things mentioned in verse 20 are available for our enjoyment today. Would reference to "at that day" suggest that what we enjoy now was not enjoyed by the disciples?

The fullness of it was not known at that precise moment because the Spirit had not yet come, but He is here today. "At that day" refers to the wonderful day which began at the coming of the Spirit as seen in Acts 2. Thus we have the preciousness of the three things mentioned in that verse, "I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you".

How do we enjoy the presence of the Father and the love of the Father?

Because we are in the Son who is in the Father. It is the making good to us of all that has come to light in divine revelation. "In My Father" carries with it the thought of relationship. The Son would draw us into the conscious enjoyment of the Father's heart and the Father's own presence. We are in the Son Who is in the Father.

We have a very important clause at the end of the 19th verse, "because I live ye shall live also".

The expression "but ye see Me" would suggest that the disciples were able to realize what follows in perhaps a much fuller way, but we may thank God that the spiritual answer to every one of these things has been made good in our souls in the Spirit's power.

Whilst eternal life is not mentioned here we have it in substance, do we not?

I am quite sure of that! It would be conveyed in the words that we are in the Son, and that the Son is in us.

Verse 21 would refer to what is individual. The company would be in view in verses 15 to 20, and the Lord's presence among them. They would be capable of realizing His presence by the Spirit dwelling in them. Now we have a further thought regarding the individuals who compose the company, and a further blessing is in view, but once again it is conditional. "He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me". It has been said that if verse 15 is the outcome of love, verse 21 is the proof of that love. The one who keeps His commandments is the one who demonstrates that he loves the Lord, "He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me". Then we have the additional word, "He that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him". This is definitely individual.

At the end of the chapter the Lord Himself manifests His love to the Father by keeping His commandments.

There is something very blessed in these verses. In John 1 we have the two disciples who enquired where the Lord dwelt, and the Lord said, "Come and see", and they dwelt with Him that day. But here the result of loving Him and keeping His words is seen in the Father and the Son making Their abode with us.

The reference to the special manifestation mentioned in verse 21 raise a question with Judas (not Iscariot), "Lord, how is it that Thou wilt manifest Thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" The Lord answered "If a man love Me, he will keep My words; and My Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and make Our abode with him". That is intensely individual, and it is clear that the gain of keeping His commandments as the proof that we love Him, is in those spiritual manifestations which we should not otherwise obtain.

Would you say that verse 23 is of deeper gain than verse 21? In verse 21 we have the Lord individually manifesting Himself, whereas in verse 23 both the Father and the Son are mentioned.

If the Son makes Himself known to us, He will also bring the knowledge of the Father with Him. We learn the Father only through Him. What we have here is not so much on the objective side, it is rather illumination in the heart of the believer who is in a suitable condition for the experiencing of this abiding, and for the conscious enjoyment of eternal life.

In chapter 15 the Lord says to His disciples "For all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you".

There again we have the objective side of the truth.

If we consider the chapter before us, how much enlightenment have we in relation to it?

The truth is there for everyone of us. Are we close enough to the Lord and walking in subjection to His will, so that these things may open out in illumination to us as we enjoy communion with the Father and with the Son?

We must emphasize that the disciples needed to have their feet washed and Judas had to go out from the company!

We must agree with that! It was when Judas went out that the Lord began to open out these wonderful things. There must be the right conditions, otherwise we certainly shall not know the blessedness of these manifestations.

Was Judas at this feet washing?

Apparently he was! But it was after he went out that the Lord began to open up His mind. Feet washing was useless to a man like Judas, but it is an absolute necessity for us.

I am a little concerned lest we suggest that what the Lord promises here cannot be accomplished unless we are in a right state.

Can we think that believers, in whatever condition they may be, perhaps linked in practice with the ungodly things of this world, will receive these spiritual manifestations?

I am speaking of that which God will do; I have discovered that whatever God wants from me He Himself provides. If it is a question of love for the Lord, He sheds abroad His love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which He gives to us, and thus enables us to be found in a state to which he can manifest Himself.

The word of the Lord in verse 24 is clear, "He that loveth Me not"; He is speaking to the Christian company, not to the world. Then on the positive side He says "If a man love Me, he will keep My words; and my Father will love Him". We must accept these statements in their reference to us in the condition in which we may be found.

It is evident that we cannot enjoy these things except as being in the Spirit, but we must also remember that this is a positive statement, "If a man love Me, he will keep My words".

Do "commandments" and "words" convey the same thought?

One involves the other; there are the communications of divine thoughts, but when we allow them to govern us in our affections and we walk in subjection to them, then we get further enlightenment, the conscious sense of the company of divine Persons and a fuller realization of eternal life. The slow progress made in the apprehension of these things is often because we are not sufficiently obedient to the will of God.

The Lord was addressing men whose affections were toward Him; Judas had gone out, and true-hearted believers were evidently in view.

There is the emphasizing of the fact that it is "He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them" who will enter into the enjoyment of these manifestations.

In Corinth the saints were in a very bad condition, yet there is no suggestion that they had not received the Spirit; and there is no suggestion that the Spirit would be taken from them; whatever may be the state of the saints of God, the Spirit of God still abides with us, but in order to have the gain of His presence we must be in a suitable state.

We read in verse 26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name". We have often noticed that in John 14 the Father sends the Spirit; in John 15 the Son sends Him, and in John 16 He comes of His own volition. This again shows how divine Persons work together. Here it is the Father who sends Him, but He sends Him in the interests of the Son, "in My Name". "He (emphatic) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you". The Lord said to them, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now". There were things that could not be made known until the Son was in glory; but whether it was what did come out in His life down here, or that which is administered from the glory, the Spirit brings "all things" to our remembrance, as divine enlightenment.

We do well to notice that this divine Person is so often spoken of as the Holy Spirit. This would guard the fact that the Spirit of God can operate in the way this chapter speaks of in holy conditions only. He is never poured out upon the flesh of man. The Spirit is here to produce the character of Christ in the saints. There are many ways in which the Spirit is described, but He is always the same Holy Spirit of God.

The Spirit will produce the conditions of which we have spoken so much.

Yes! That is the reason for His being here, conditions in which He can minister these precious things and make communion with the Father and with the Son a blessed reality to our souls. It is not merely a question of knowledge, there are many simple souls who make little progress in knowledge, but they may have a very warm love for the Lord, and as obedient to the light they have they may get precious manifestations of Himself.

What we long for is to see the effects of the work of the Holy Spirit in the people of God. These results cannot be reached on the line of natural effort, they are promoted by love.

It is blessed to realize that in spite of the public failure amongst the saints of God, and the perilous condition in the world around, it is possible for us to enjoy the presence of divine persons in the power of the Spirit now; it is one of the highest privileges that we have as we journey to the glory. Thus, as we read in our last verse (27), we can go on in peaceful conditions in the enjoyment of the love of God. "Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid".

The Lord had to go away but another divine Person, co-equal with the Father and with the Son, now dwells in our souls for the accomplishment of the Father's will.

John 16: 7-16.

In John 14 we considered the service of the Holy Spirit as the Teacher bringing us into the power and blessing of the realm of eternal life in communion with the Father and the Son. In John 16 the Spirit is again brought before us as the Teacher who produces in the saints a testimony in this world where Christ has been rejected. In chapter 14 He would lead us into the knowledge of these divine things so that we might have them in power in our souls in relation to the divine circle; whereas in chapter 16 it is that we might bear witness to them in this hostile world that has crucified Christ. The disciples were doubtless feeling that they were going to suffer a great loss when the Lord left this world, and so He would assure them that instead of His going away being a loss to them, it would be a gain. "It is expedient (or, profitable) for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you".

In what way was the coming of the Holy Spirit more profitable for them?

They could not have had apprehension and enjoyment of these things apart from the Spirit's work in them. Had Christ remained with them, the truth concerning Him must have remained objective, but it would be made living and real in their souls by the Spirit indwelling them. In the power of the Spirit they would understand in a far deeper way than before what the Lord had said to them while He was with them.

In John 14: 26 we read, "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"; and in John 15: 26, "He shall testify of Me". Then there are the additional things that the Lord made reference to in our chapter, which could only be established and become known by the disciples after He had gone back to the Father (vv. 8-12).

We sometimes hear perfectly godly people say that they wish they had been here when the Lord was on earth; but such have not grasped the power and blessedness of the things that are to be known in relation to a risen and glorified Christ by the power of the Spirit.

It is well to see the importance of what the Lord says here. He is not merely sending the Spirit, but the word is, "I will send Him unto you". A vessel was in view to which the Spirit would come. He dwells in believers today, and nowhere else is this divine teaching known.

Why is it that the first statement in connection with His coming relates to the world (verse 8)?

As we have said, in chapter 14 His coming is more to keep the saints in touch, we may say in simplicity, with the inside circle, whereas here His coming is to give them power for testimony in the world where Christ has been rejected. The world is very much in view here, because there are two sides to the Christian calling — identification with the Son where He is, and representation of Him where He has been. Hence we need to see the Spirit's attitude in these verses.

It has been pointed out in regard to this passage, that it is not quite that the Spirit of God bears testimony, but that the fact that He is here, and Christ is absent is in itself a testimony to the truth that the world has rejected Him. The Holy Spirit does, however, dwell in believers, and if conviction is to be brought to the world it must come through them. Hence, as believers, we occupy a very privileged but very serious position.

The Lord said in John 5, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work". Now the time had come when His work was completed, and the work of the Spirit of God was to commence.

That is a most important verse. "My Father worketh hitherto", covers the history of the Old Testament; "I work", was the testimony of Christ in this world; now the day of the Spirit has come and His movements characterize the day in which we are now living.

Again, in John 5: 43 we read, "I am come in My Father's Name"; then in John 14: 26, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name"

In the thought of the "Name" we have the interests of the Person who bears that Name, and as the Son was ever here in the interests of the Father, so the Spirit is here altogether in the interests of the Son. It is a most precious thing to see one divine Person serving Another, and that the Spirit is here in the character of a Servant.

If the Spirit of God is to bring conviction to this world — and obviously it is through the Christian company — is it not of vital importance that we should be intelligent in these things?

Could not the Acts of the Apostles be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit?

I think so! It is a divine Person who is moving here on behalf of the Godhead; for if we speak of the Son serving the Father, and of the Spirit in the capacity of Servant in relation to the Son, we can be perfectly sure that it is the pleasure of the Godhead which is being effected.

We must avoid underestimating the activities of divine Persons.

Do you think it is possible for a person to be convicted without human agency?

We are not safe in putting limitations upon God. I quite agree there is a danger of our doing it. We read in Romans 2: 14, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or excusing one another". Paul is referring to the Gentiles who had no law whatsoever, and yet had the testimony of creation. Apparently there were those who evidenced the work of the law written in their hearts, although they had never heard of the law which was written by Moses.

Is there then the testimony we are reading of here through the believer in the power of the Spirit, and also the testimony of creation?

I think so! There may be thousands of people in this world today who have never heard of the name of Moses or of the Name of Jesus. Are these people to go into perdition because of that? There may be those reached in a way which is beyond our understanding, and it would appear that Romans 2 has this in mind.

"The heavens declare the glory of God . . There is no speech and there are now words, yet their voice is heard" (Psalm 19: 1, 2 New Trans.). Thus the testimony of creation, in the goodness of God, goes "to the extremity of the world", whilst at the moment we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the work and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the greatest day in which one could possibly live, the day of the Spirit. We have the greatest of all testimonies carrying with it the greatest of all blessings.

Do you think that the Spirit sometimes works in the conscience without human agency or a knowledge of the word?

That may be, but it would not be normal in a favoured land like this, where the testimony in the gospel is rendered.

There is another important verse in the first of Romans, "For from the world's creation the invisible things of Him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both His eternal power and divinity — so as to render them inexcusable" (v. 20 New Trans.).

Is it suggested that the world is affected by the demonstration that is given in the power of the Spirit?

This world is bound to be affected; this town is bound to be affected by the fact that there are believers living in the place.

How does this demonstration "of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" come about?

The Lord Himself tells us in verse 9, "Of sin, because they believe not on Me". The Spirit is here to bear witness to this; His very presence here bears witness to the fact that Christ is rejected, and when we contact unconverted people in this world we also are aware of the fact that they have not believed.

There is a sphere in which the testimony of Christ is being rendered in the world into which Christ came, and from which He was cast out. A brother once happily said, 'before Christ left this world He formed a world of His own', and it is to that circle that the Spirit of God has come in order to continue a testimony which is a rebuke to the world.

Why do you think it is that unconverted people are unhappy in the company of even one believer?

God in His mercy is offering untold blessing to men, and the devil is blinding the eyes of those that believe not lest the light of the glorious gospel should shine in and they should be saved; under his influence they resent the truth. True believers are marked by loving righteousness and hating iniquity, and that is very quickly detected by men of the world, and it is a rebuke to them. The men of this world put Christ upon the cross, and in their thoughts the matter is closed, but to their dismay the testimony to Christ is here in His people and God will maintain it in the power of the Spirit.

Would it be true to say that the greatest sin today is unbelief?

It is! Man will not be judge merely because he did not believe the gospel, but unbelief is nevertheless the greatest sin of all. At the judgment of the "great white throne", the word is not "whosoever was not found written in the book of works" but, "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire".

Would you say that men will be held responsible as to whether they accept or reject the testimony of the Spirit, even as they were judged by their attitude to the testimony of the Lord in His day?

I think so! In this very gospel, which was written some time after the Lord had gone back to heaven, we read "he that believeth not is condemned already".

Now the second thing mentioned is that the Spirit brings demonstration of righteousness, and the Lord says, "Because I go to My Father and ye see Me no more". The world would not have the Son, so the Father takes Him out of the world back to the glory. And how right it is that this should be! The testimony now is to a glorified Christ.

Why does it say, "Ye see me no more", not "they see Me no more"?

His interest was in the company that had moved with Him. He says in verse 16, "A little while, and ye shall not see Me; and again, a little while and ye shall see Me". That refers to the short period of His life here after resurrection. Then He left the world entirely, and they were left to bear witness to the fact that the One the world had crucified had been raised from the dead. They saw Him as thus raised; they also saw Him go up to heaven, and afterwards they saw Him no more.

What are the things that they could not bear at that time (verse 12)?

The truth as to the Lord's present glorified condition, the unfolding of the full revelation which came out through Paul including the truth that a vast company of sons, all conformed to His own image, will surround Him in the glory of God for ever.

"Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged". We need to include in our testimony to men that this world is under the judgment of God, and the only escape is by faith in the One whom the world has rejected, but who is now in the place of power at God's right hand.

It mentions that "the prince of this world is judged".

This world has come under the domination and rule of Satan; if he as ruler has been judged, what is the portion of those in his kingdom of darkness but judgement too? The Lord's words are "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John 12: 31).

These would be the leading features of the testimony. We do not suggest that the Spirit says these things, but His presence here demonstrates them, and because of this demonstration by the Spirit, we have the light and the power to bear witness to them.

Nothing could be more valuable in separating us from the world than the consideration of such Scriptures as these; there is always a tendency for us to be drawn back into the world, and when we see the solemnity of these verses we feel thankful to God that we have been delivered from it.

That is the impression we get when reading the book of the Revelation; if this is the judgment that God will bring upon this world, we do well to let this have its due effect upon us, leading us to view the world as a judged system now, and thus detaching our affections from it.

Mr Darby's hymn shows us the way in which we arrive at this:

"'Tis the treasure we've found in His love

That has made us now pilgrims below."

The more we are led to value the divine circle where grace has set us, and the more we know the power of divine things, the less shall we want to do with this world, or with any of its affairs.

Verse 13 commencing with the word "Howbeit", would bring the positive side of the truth before us. "When He" (the word "He" is emphatic) "the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth". The judgment of God lies upon the world, soon to be executed; but if we are not being formed in the positive truth of the divine circle we shall not bear an effective testimony.

The truth of what we have been considering so far would detach us from the world, whereas what we have in verse 13 onwards would attach us more definitely to the things of God.

We do well to consider the power and resources of the Spirit of God as the One Who guides us "into all truth". There is no feature of the truth of God into which He is not capable of bringing us.

In John 14: 26 we read that the Spirit will teach us "all things". In John 16 we have "He will guide you into all truth". It appears that progress in these things is not automatic, we need teaching and guidance. Then we read "For He shall not speak of (or, from) Himself". Even as the Son did not speak from Himself, but whatsoever the Father gave Him to say He said it, so also the Spirit does not speak from Himself "but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak and He will show you things to come". These wonderful things are beyond our comprehension, but the blessed facts are there. The Son Himself was here serving in love, and now the Spirit comes with precisely the same objective in view.

The Authorised Version gives the idea that He would not speak about Himself; that is quite incorrect, for He speaks much of Himself. The word conveys the meaning that He would not speak of His own accord".

The fact that the Spirit has recorded these things involves His speaking about Himself, but He had come to glorify Christ, "He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show (or, announce) it unto you".

At the end of verse 13 it says, "but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come". Much has been revealed to us in the apostolic ministry since the Lord went to heaven; is that what the Lord had in mind in saying this?

It has been said the words "Bring to your remembrance" would perhaps refer to John's gospel; "He shall take of Mine", to his epistle; "Show you things to come", to the book of Revelation. But of course we cannot confine these statements to John's writings; the Spirit's teaching is seen in the ministry of all the apostles.

In regard to the various activities of the Spirit — His teaching, His guiding, and His showing — there is the need on our part of submission. To be guided we must follow the Guide, and to be subject to the Guide involves that we have teachable hearts.

Also we must give Him time to teach us. If we speak from hearts which are in the enjoyment of His leading and teaching what power there will be in the testimony! One of the greatest dangers today, and doubtless Satan is behind it, is that we do not find time to sit down and read our Bibles. We have a thousand and one things to do, and that `one thing' for which the Lord commended Mary is often missing. That is why we made the suggestion that we should give the Spirit time to teach us these things.

The disciples had the benefit of the Lord's being with them, and the Lord is now preparing them for His departure and tells them of the activities and services of the Spirit of God. If we were acquainted with the resources we have in the Spirit, and availed ourselves of them, other things would be displaced.

In verse 15 we have a most wonderful statement — "All things that the Father hath are Mine". This would show the immense resources which are available to the Spirit in His ministry to the saints.

We see something of the wonder of the position into which we have been brought. "All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you".

In the last verse in our section we read, "A little while, and ye shall not see Me" — He was going to the cross; "and again, a little while and ye shall see Me" — they were going to be witnesses of His resurrection; and thirdly, "Because I go to the Father" — they were going to be witnesses of His ascension. They had seen Him in this world; they were to see Him in resurrection, and they were to see Him going back to the Father. This is the company to whom the Spirit of God would come, giving them power to be living witnesses of these matters. They could bear first hand witness as having actually seen these wonderful things.

What follows shows that the disciples did not grasp the significance of the Lord's words. In verses 19 and 20 He graciously explains that their time of sorrow and weeping, which they experienced when He was taken from them in death, would be "turned into joy". As empowered by the Spirit they would bear witness to what they had seen before His death, witness to what they had seen when He came forth from among the dead, and witness to the fact that they had actually seen Him ascending to the Father.

John 20: 17-23.

In these verses we have the last mention of the Holy Spirit in the gospel by John, and they will thus provide suitable consideration for our final reading in this series. We have considered the truth of the Spirit in relation to the incoming of our Lord in testimony for God in this world; we have also thought of Him as the Teacher and Guide in relation to the things that are ours now that Christ is raised from among the dead. In the verses now before us we see the Spirit in connection with the imparting of new life to the disciples, associating them with Christ as raised from among the dead, that life flowing in the company, uniting them in what is perhaps the first picture of the saints of God as seen standing in the blessing of what Christ had secured. We hesitate to suggest that they formed a nucleus of the Assembly, for John does not speak of the Assembly, of the Body or of the House. What we have here is rather the family of God, and the brethren of Christ. Yet it is that company which had its beginning at that moment to which, in the goodness of God, we belong today.

Our attention has been drawn to Mary at the tomb, in her sorrow at the thought of having lost her Lord. In one sense that was perfectly true; she had lost Him in the way in which she knew Him previously, but she is about to find Him in an entirely new way as brought into relationship through Him with the Father. This could never have been known before.

Why did the Lord allow the women in Matthew to hold Him by the feet, but did not allow Mary to touch Him?

Mary was to learn that a new relationship was being established, something much more blessed than that which she had so much enjoyed before Christ died on the cross. The women in Matthew's gospel had tangible proof that the Lord was raised from the dead. Indeed we know that He said to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into My side". These were highly favoured people, they had had links with the Lord prior to the cross; but He was now unfolding to them eternal relationship which could not have been known before. We have never known links with Christ before His death, but we can thank God that we know something of the blessedness of these eternal links.

In verse 17 the Lord said, "I am not yet ascended to My Father".

Yes! It is not now His place in the midst of Israel in which Mary had rightly apprehended Him, but it is the new place He would occupy in which He would attach His own to Himself. We are reminded of what the Lord said in John 12, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone". Mary knew Him as "Rabboni" (her Lord or Teacher); He was indeed that, but now she is to be brought into a sphere where she would know Him in a deeper and more intimate way, as in association with Himself in entirely new conditions.

Seeing that the Lord had not yet ascended to His Father, and the Holy Spirit was not yet given, how could He speak of His disciples as "My brethren"?

We read in Hebrews 2, "He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren". The work being accomplished, redemption having been wrought, and God having been glorified, He can now take account of His own as in the value of His redemptive and sanctifying work, and can address them as "My brethren". All needed to be made good in their souls by the Holy Spirit, but the ground had been established by the work of the cross.

The Lord retains His own unique relationship with the Father in saying, "My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God"; He does not speak of our Father and our God. There must always be that relationship between the Father and the Son which is peculiar to Themselves.

Why does it say in Luke, He was "carried up into heaven", whereas here He Himself says "I ascend"?

Luke regards the ascension as the answer of the Father to that lowly life of absolute perfection; He would exalt Him. In John it is more the dignity of His own Person that is before us.

Whilst the ascension is in mind throughout John, yet we do not get the historical record of it, why is that?

It has been pointed out that the two gospels which do not give the details of the ascension are Matthew and John, Matthew has in view the establishment of the kingdom, whilst John deals with the realm of eternal life into which we have been introduced.

The word which Mary conveys to the brethren indicates wonderful balance of thought. There is the blessed intimacy of knowing God as our Father, but there is also the holy reverence due to Him as God.

We understand that when the name of Father is used in the gospel it speaks of His counsel of grace in relation to the children, whilst as God He must ever be the Object of our adoration and worship. We have been brought into relationship with God, and we bow before Him, and own His rights over us. Yet the God whose claims we own has graciously revealed Himself to us as Father.

The expression "counsel of grace" has been used. Do we get grace spoken of in John's gospel except in the first chapter? Is it not love all the way through?

The meaning of the word grace is "free favour". The love of God is behind any favour that He bestows upon us. It is true that love is more prominent in this gospel; grace is more connected with Paul's ministry.

Mary Magdalene, having received this wonderful communication from the Lord, carried it to the disciples. The word to her was "Go to My brethren". We do well to preserve in our minds the dignity of these expressions, and not to fall into the careless way in which some speak of the Lord as "our Brother" etc.. We can never be wrong in seeking to maintain the true dignity of the things of God.

Could we have a little more on this matter of brethren? The Lord says in Mark, "Behold My mother and My brethren; for whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is My brother, and My sister, and mother" (Mark 3: 34, 35).

The Lord is indicating the formation of new relationships, not now relationships to Him after the flesh, but in regard to a new sphere that was coming to light. I think the Lord uses the term "brethren" there in a moral sense. They were drawing attention to natural relationships and, using the thought that was in their minds, He calls attention to the fact that something new was coming to light. In Matthew 13 the Lord speaks of "the children of the kingdom"; this would refer to the new relationships He had been speaking of.

Elsewhere the Lord spoke to His disciples of their heavenly Father; what we have in John 20 would be something quite different.

It has been said that God takes that name in relation to the kingdom, because the kingdom of heaven involves the acceptance of the rule of heaven which is centred in God the Father in heaven. It is connected with the rule and will of God. But the thought in John 20 is much more intimate, and refers to a relationship with Christ in the power of His life as risen again from among the dead.

The message carried by Mary, and the subsequent coming together of the disciples, seem to indicate a new starting point in their movements. "The same day at even" would suggest that the old order had passed and an entirely new day had dawned, "the first day of the week" — a day coincident with the resurrection of the Lord. It is on this entirely new ground that they assemble together, having a knowledge of God in the new relationship which had been made known by Mary's message to them.

What is emphasized here is "The same day at even". It was the first day of the week, but it was the same day. That is, whatever is coming to pass is related to the resurrection of Christ out from among the dead. It is this completely new beginning of things that we have today in Christianity. There were, of course, the forty days in which the Lord moved among His disciples, but it is this entirely new era to which we belong. What we have here would perhaps link with Leviticus 23, where they were to count fifty days from the waving of the sheaf; that which came in fifty days later was directly linked with the morning of the wave sheaf which typifies the resurrection of Christ out from among the dead. It is spoken of as the "new meat offering", and here we see the beginning of the "new meat offering" — the new Christian company.

We may regard this first coming together as being more on family lines, although we sometimes refer to it as a picture of the saints gathered on a Lord's Day morning. There is no objection to that, because it is those of the family of God who gather together on such occasions.

The Spirit is not regarded here as having come down from heaven, as we see in Acts 2, but rather as the in-breathing of life from Christ is resurrection, directly associating the disciples with him in the power of His own life.

The name of Father is seen in various connections. For instance, we have the expression "the Father of glory".

That would suggest origin or source. The Father is the Source of all. We have already sought to distinguish between the term "heavenly Father" — referring to the position God occupies in the Kingdom as the One in supreme control — and the name "Father" — referring to the relationship which we now have with Him in the power of the life of Christ, which is obviously the bearing here.

Is it right to use the expression "Heavenly Father"?

It depends on the connection in which it is used; but there is a higher thought in our chapter. I see no objection to addressing God as Heavenly Father, but it is not the height of John 20. For instance we could have no objection to using the so-called Lord's prayer within certain limits and in a proper connection, but we could not use it as coming together in assembly; it is not an assembly prayer, but everything therein can be used in its right place.

The Lord Himself speaks of His Father in heaven on more than one occasion.

But not after His resurrection surely? It would imply the thought of distance; whereas we know God now as our Father in nearness.

The term "Heavenly Father" or "your Father which is in heaven" does imply that I am still on earth and that He is in heaven. The thought of distance is there; it may not be any moral distance, but that we are on earth and the Father is in heaven and we are here in relation to His will. But John 20 suggests our being introduced into present conscious nearness of relationship with God as Father.

We do not have the term "Heavenly Father" in the epistles.

No! That is why we say it is not in connection with the Assembly; we are associated with Christ in glory, and any thought of distance between ourselves and heaven has been entirely removed. The Lord, moving here subject to the will of God as the Messiah in relation to the kingdom, used terms designed to impress the disciples with the need of reverence and recognition of the fact that they were dwelling on earth, and the Father was in heaven. When the Lord used those terms it was at a time when it was a question of the establishment of the kingdom on earth; now the matter is reversed, "I ascend unto My Father". Man is to be in association with Christ in heaven, and we see from the John 14 that we shall actually be there. We must always remember that any thought of man's going to heaven awaited the accomplishment of the work of Christ. The truth of that does not come out even here, it is in relation to the mystery that the truth of man's being destined for a place in heavenly glory with the Son is seen.

We read in verse 19, "The disciples were assembled". Who were they?

I think it was the eleven; there may have been others there. Luke records "the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them" (Luke 24: 33).

Would not verse 23 refer to the eleven only?

That verse is definitely apostolic. Whilst there may have been others present, it was obviously to the eleven that the Lord said those words.

Why did the Lord make brief appearances only? We might perhaps have thought that He would have remained with them for the full period in order to strengthen them.

It has been said that He was in an out-of-the-world condition of things although actually still in this world. Those brief appearances were the witness to them that He was raised again from among the dead. His links with them were no longer earthly but heavenly.

It is good to see that the Lord's first word is "Peace be unto you"; that would set them quite calm in their spirits.

It is important to see who was present on this occasion in view of what was committed to them.

From the other gospels it does seem that there were others in the company at the moment, but whether all took place on the same occasion may be questioned.

The matter of the remission of sins (verse 23) makes the question as to who was present of vital importance.

Doubtless that was limited to the apostles. I do not think it was transmissible. On the day of Pentecost, after the Lord had gone to glory, Peter stood "with the eleven"; it does not say that he stood up with the one hundred and twenty. Doubtless they were there, but he stood up with the eleven, hence we conclude that verse 23 is limited to the apostles. This was not restricted to Pete alone. We do find Peter exercising this authority in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, but Paul also speaks of committing one to Satan. It is purely apostolic authority which the Lord gave to them, but it was certainly not limited to Peter. Matthew 18 would show that in some measure this feature is in the assembly administratively today.

With regard to the Lord's breathing on them and saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost", would that be the only way in which the disciples could have any part with Him in resurrection?

The life in which the Son of God was as raised from the dead, was the life in which He had ever lived, but it was now made available to the disciples as He breathed into them. It was a new life so far as they were concerned, but not a new life in itself, it was the life in which the Lord Himself had ever lived. It is the eternal life that was with the Father, breathed now in the power of the Spirit into the disciples.

What was the life that the Lord Jesus laid down?

We are now touching rather difficult ground. The life that the Lord laid down was that in which He lived here in subject responsibility in Manhood, a life that He did not take at all in resurrection. Eternal life could never be given up at all, hence the two sides are given to us, one in John 6, where we read "Which I will give for the life of the world", and then in John 10, "I lay down My life, that I may take it again". The latter we have here, and this spiritual and eternal life was breathed into the disciples by the Lord Himself. This is a matter which was dealt with most fully by J. N. Darby in his tract "A man in Christ". It is one of the most difficult passages in John's gospel. The life that the Lord lived in flesh and blood condition was given up at the cross, but the One Who gave up that life did not give up His own personal life, He carries that through death and it has become available to us in resurrection.

Was this in-breathing provisional?

It was the quickening voice of the Son of God bringing them into direct relationship with Himself, not now as Messiah but as raised again from among the dead, it was the quickening voice of the Son of God in relation to new conditions.

Had they any more in their apostolic position than we have now?

In Acts 2, we have the anointing of the Holy Ghost in regard to the testimony and then in the verse in 1 Corinthians 12: 13, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body". That, I think, is additional to this in John 20. We too have come under the quickening voice of the Son of God, and the gift of the Spirit links us with the Christian company to which we belong.

Would you explain why you speak of "life in resurrection", but not "resurrection life"?

It is to guard the fact that the life of the Son of God, of which John speaks in his epistle, "was with the Father, and was manifested unto us". It was seen in the life of Christ down here, and it then became available to the disciples in resurrection. I am really quoting a letter of Mr. Darby in which he said resurrection life is a short enough term because we understand what we mean by it, but it does infer that this was some kind of life that came into being in resurrection only. But it was the life in which the Son of God ever moved and lived, and it now becomes available to His own in resurrection. We can only derive it from Christ because He is raised again from among the dead, but it is His life that we have, it is a life which was laid down and taken again — laid down in one condition and taken up again in this new condition, and made available to us in our day.

In John 11 the Lord says, "I am the resurrection, and the life".

That is what He is in His own Person, He demonstrated it in His resurrection from among the dead and it is made eternally good for all who belong to Him.

"Receive ye the Holy Ghost"; is that the same thought as "the Spirit of life" in Romans 8?

It is the only new life that we can possibly have; it is of course quite new to us, and the only way that we can have this new life is in the power of the Spirit of God in our souls.

In 1 Peter 3: 18, we read that the Lord Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit".

I think we must guard the fact that death does not touch anyone's personality, much less that of the Son of God; the person does not die, it is the condition in which the person is. This is one of the most difficult things to explain or understand. Perhaps the most helpful remarks on the subject are found in a footnote to John 11 in Mr. Darby's Synopsis.

"It has been pretended that these thoughts affect the divine and eternal life which was in Christ. But this is all idle and evil cavil. Even in an unconverted sinner, dying or laying down life has nothing to do with ceasing to exist as to the life of the man within. All live to God, and divine life in Christ never could cease or be changed. He never laid that down, but in the power of that, laid down His life as He possessed it here as Man, to take it up in an entirely new way in resurrection beyond the grave"

We must guard the fact that when a person goes into death, that person is as much alive in another sphere as he had been in the previous sphere, otherwise we shall arrive at the annihilation of the soul completely. Paul could say, "To depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better". He would be very much alive as with Christ, but the condition in which he had lived down here would be ended.

In speaking of these things in relation to our Lord we feel we are on delicate ground, and one hesitates to say too much, but I believe that the condition into which He came was given up by Him at the cross, and was not taken up again; but the life in which He lived in that condition He did take again, and that is the life imparted to His own in this chapter.

With regard to the statement "whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them", there is no suggestion of persons confessing their sins to and receiving absolution from the apostles?

This is administrative, and not the forgiveness that only God Himself can give us. I do not think it refers to the eternal forgiveness of our sins before God. We must remember that there was a special administration in the hands of the apostles, none could be converted without listening to and believing their testimony.

Matthew 18 shows that there is an administration in the hands of the Assembly today. If a company of saints is desirous of maintaining the truth as to true Christian conduct, it is responsible before God to exclude any who walk contrary to the truth.

In regard to any excluded in such a way, mercy was to be shown in view of their recovery.

We have been touching a very delicate theme, and we cannot pretend that we understand much about it, but we believe all is based on the fact that the chapter shows a company in the life and power of the Son of God as raised from the dead, a company capable of things it had never been capable of before.

Would you say a word on verse 10 — "He showed unto them His hands and His side"!

Would it not be the evidence that the One they knew in resurrection was the same blessed Person Who had died for them upon the cross? It would surely bring His love before them, and a completely new order being opened out, but it is the same blessed Person Who is opening it out.

It certainly had a most wonderful result, "Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord".

Luke's Gospel; Reconciliation

Luke's Gospel; Reconciliation

Luke 2: 8-18; Luke 2: 25-38; Luke 7: 36-50; Luke 10: 25-37.

Readings with G. Davison extracted from "Precious Things" 1956-1990

Our subject for this series of Bible readings is "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5: 18). We hope to see from Luke's gospel how that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them". In the birth of Christ, which is the subject of this reading, we see how God has drawn near to man in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. We hope to follow this line in the various events recorded, and also in the words of grace spoken by the Lord, having in mind to reach Luke 15 eventually. We begin, then, with the record of our Lord's entering into Manhood, and the celebration of the angels in relation to that wonderful event.

What is in view in the edict of the emperor mentioned at the beginning of this chapter?

Caesar Augustus would be an apt picture of the god and prince of this world. These emperors had divine honours given to them as in complete control of the civilised world. Hence this man makes an edict and sets the whole world in motion in his own interests. Yet by the edict Mary was to be found in the very place which had been prophetically indicated as that where Christ should be born. Thus God overrules the acts of a pagan emperor and causes them to be in absolute accord with what He Himself would do.

It would be helpful if we had a word as to what reconciliation is.

It is mentioned in four of the Epistles. In Romans 5 it is presented objectively in the gospel, and in simple faith we have received it. It is not explained in Romans 5 but we are assured that whatever it means, we received it when we received the gospel. In Colossians chapter 1 we see how reconciliation was effected in order that God might righteously bring us back to Himself. "You . . . hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy . . in His sight". In 2 Corinthians 5 reconciliation subserves new creation, in that God has recovered us for His pleasure, we read "that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again". Then, in Ephesians 2 it is in view of the mystery. Thus we have the thought of man's being completely recovered in relation to God's own thoughts and purpose and for His pleasure.

Is that enhanced by the fact that in the Epistles we have contrasted with reconciliation the thought of enmity?

Whilst the blood of Christ secures our forgiveness, the reconciliation of the believer involves a further matter, and so we read, "in the body of His flesh through death". There was a state of alienation with us, and that state needed to be judged; it has been judged at the cross, and a new state which is entirely of God has been established.

So that as reconciled we are brought to God, and that in such conditions that God finds delight in us. The precious blood of Christ deals with our guilt, and the offering of His body with our state.

We note in Luke's gospel the lowly conditions which obtained at the birth of the One who came to manifest the grace of God, in order that what was for His pleasure might be established.

Would it be helpful if a word was said on the fact that there was no room for Him in the inn?

It would suggest a world which was not only without God morally, but which did not want God at all.

In such conditions God acted in sovereign grace, and the promised Child was born.

In relation to this matter of reconciliation, God had no need to draw upon any of the resources of this world, He had everything necessary in His own hands. We need to stress the point that God called for nothing from this world, and this wonderful Babe was born in circumstances which were humble and lowly beyond compare. But from Psalm 22 we learn that even at such a moment His trust was in God. All depended upon what God was doing and what God was going to do.

What is the bearing of the verse in Hebrews 10, "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared me"?

Obviously the "seed of the woman", as having the whole human race in mind, is in view. While there is the fulfilment of prophetic Scriptures, there is the fact that the Son of God Himself has, in infinite grace, come into Manhood to effect that which is for the pleasure of the Godhead, and this movement is introduced by a communication from heaven itself.

Does this take in the whole of the Lord's movements in Manhood from His birth in Bethlehem?

He came into the conditions of Manhood not only on the royal and the prophetic line, but as "the Seed of the woman". He took up the cause of man, but took it up in view of the glory of God, and He must become Man if He was to recover men for God. He might have introduced an order of manhood completely independent of Adam's race, but God had spoken of the Seed of the woman, and as such He is born into the world. He came into flesh and blood conditions as Hebrews 2 clearly states. In this chapter we are on the ground of Isaiah 7, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel".

Would you say that reconciliation is for God, although it can be enjoyed by us?

It is man recovered for the pleasure of God!

In Luke 2 we do not have reconciliation itself exactly, but we have the Person who is going to bring it about, and we have the explanation of many features that we now know in doctrinal terms. If we keep the Person in whom it is set forth definitely before us we shall learn more about the truth of reconciliation than we could in any other way. God commences with the Person; He ever had these thoughts in His heart, but He could not bring them into expression until Christ was here. And, we shall never really have the truth of reconciliation in our hearts, nor will it be seen in our testimony, until we see the importance of it all centring in the Person of Christ.

Would Galatians 4 bear on this? "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law".

Yes! And how beautiful it is to see God coming down in the limited conditions of a lowly Babe! How precious are those first words — "Fear not". If man had a dread of God in his heart, and he may well have had through the way in which he had acted, God would seek to banish that dread from the outset of this movement in grace.

This chapter may present the Lord in a very lowly setting, but there is a glorious side seen in Timothy, "God was manifest in flesh . . seen of angels". This is the first time the angels had seen God.

A Babe represents the point of utmost dependence in humanity. In the Old Testament the numbering of the Levites started from one month old and upwards, but here we get the Child mentioned right from the moment of birth; such were the conditions of His humility.

Did we get the full significance of the remark that this was the first time angels had seen God?

"Seen of angels" came out in regard to that which was displayed in this Babe when the divine features of God were manifested in public testimony. It began there, and these angels knew it was there and they spoke of it.

As accepting the conditions in which He was found the Lord was ever seen in perfect subject Manhood from the manger to the cross, and I am persuaded that only a divine Person could have accepted such limitations and humbled Himself accordingly.

"Fear not" was God's first words to the shepherds. He would, in this wonderful happening, remove all sense of terror from their hearts as the angel continued the message of grace, "for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people". Here again we see the universal character of the promise made in "the Seed of the woman".

The conditions obtaining in Malachi's day are seen here, "They that feared the Lord spake often one to another". Anna reveals to us what they were speaking about; but here they were, and into such conditions the Lord came.

God was intimating from the outset what was in His heart; had we been there we could not have entered into the full thought of God, even as the shepherds could not. But, thank God, we know today the blessedness of what was then being introduced.

"Fear not", is a good beginning.

A grand beginning! "Good tidings of great joy", that is one of the great features of reconciliation, and in Luke 15 we shall see that "great joy" is the result of this wonderful movement in grace. The results bear the character of the announcement.

Why should shepherds be singled out to receive this wonderful communication?

The first person in Scripture who is typical of Christ was a shepherd — Abel. In Moses, and also in David, we again see shepherd characteristics. A shepherd is one who gathers, and perhaps it is fitting that the incoming of One who was pre-eminently The Shepherd should be made known to shepherds themselves.

Two thoughts are brought together in the beginning of Psalm 80, "Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock". Then the Psalm goes on to say, "Thou that dwellest between the cherubim shine forth". He is not only seen in His lowly character as a shepherd, but He is the One who sits between the cherubim.

The title "A Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" would indicate the greatness of the One who was coming in. Only One who is co-equal with God could have given effect to the great thoughts of God in reconciliation.

Christ, as we know, is God's Anointed, but He is co-equal with God Himself, Christ Jehovah. In Isaiah there is a term used several times, "The Arm of the Lord", and we find that "the Arm of the Lord" is personified; and here in Luke is "the Arm of the Lord" — God's Anointed — One who brings in salvation for men and glory to God.

The expression "Christ the Lord" is one that must bow our hearts in adoration and in worship.

"And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall be fruitful" (Isaiah 11: 1 New Translation). We have the two sides of the truth there.

We get a similar thought in the epistle to the Romans, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom. 9: 5).

In verse 10, where we have the expression "Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy", we see in this approach of God to man that instead of man being afraid of God he is to know what it is to "joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation". The word "atonement" in that verse (Rom. 5: 11) is really "reconciliation", and carries the thought of rejoicing in God.

In verse 14 we have what are perhaps the three outstanding features in reconciliation — God is glorified; peace is made, and God can now take His pleasure in His creature. We cannot reverse the order, God's glory must be secured first.

It is good to see from verse 11 that the wonderful Person who is presented to us as "Christ the Lord" is said to be "a Saviour". It was not God's desire to come down as a Judge. He came down in the character of a Saviour.

We often speak of the Saviourship of Christ as though it were an elementary matter, but we see that His Saviourship is connected with the glory of His Person. In John's epistle we read "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world". His Saviourship is thus linked with the dignity and glory of Who He is in His Person. Only such a Person could be the Saviour.

There are two precious thoughts connected with this truth. First it is The Son who is the Saviour, and the work is perfect and final, and yet the sign that is given in relation to the incoming of this glorious Person is a "Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes". This would emphasize His perfect humanity. We read in Isaiah 7, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son". We see this literally fulfilled in "the Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger".

May we warn one another of the attempts made in Christendom to weaken the truth of this; let us hold tenaciously to the fact of the virgin birth of Christ. We may say plainly that the publication called the 'New English Bible' weakens both the truth of the Lord's perfect humanity and that of His deity.

And suddenly there was . . . a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest". The coming in of this Holy Babe was to result in "glory to God in the highest", and the bringing back of men to God in order that He might find pleasure in them.

At the commencement of Luke's gospel we have a scene of "great joy" at the moment o f the incarnation, and in the last chapter we have another scene of "great joy" as those He has secured through His work on the cross are found at Jerusalem, "in the temple, praising and blessing God".

The testimony given to the shepherds moved them towards the Person. If the truth of these things moves us towards Christ in our affections, we too shall be marked by this feature of praising God.

May we have a further word on these three statements — "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men"?

It is important to see first of all that God is glorified. Sin has been dealt with; sins have been dealt with; the prince of this world has been judged at the cross; death itself has been conquered. These are but a few of the things which Christ has accomplished; every promise of God is fulfilled in Him, man has been recovered in reconciliation for God, and all that God ever desired for the delight of His heart of love is centred in the blessed Man in whose face the glory of God now shines. God's love has shone out in a Vessel who never impaired it; He brought the perfect revelation of God to us in love, and God is glorified in it all.

We cannot doubt that what is celebrated in verse 14 looks on to the world to come for its full accomplishment, when "peace on earth" will be enjoyed. The eventual fulfilment of this is as certain as its announcement, and we through grace have been brought already into the joy of it as knowing the One in whom it is all secured.

We read in Colossians that the day is coming when God will "reconcile all things unto Himself", but we read further that the saints are already reconciled. We have been brought into the good of this because we know the One who has brought glory to God in the highest; we know the One who will bring about peace on the earth, He is the Prince of Peace; and we know the One in whom God expresses His good pleasure toward men. As having the knowledge of this Person in our hearts we have been brought into reconciliation.

Luke 2: 25-38.

We have already seen that according to prophetic word the Lord was born in Bethlehem, and was found by the shepherds in the manger in swaddling clothes, the fulfilment of the promise that "a virgin should conceive and bear a son". In the section before us we have the presentation of the Babe in the temple according to the instructions of Leviticus 12. Thus, in accordance with the law which was still in force when our Lord was here, He would be found on true Israelitish ground, not limited to that ground but growing up on it in view of the time when He should step forth in His public ministry.

Simeon is introduced as in priestly conditions, coming into the temple, a man divinely enlightened of God and ready in the power of the Spirit of God to enter into the occasion intelligently. One feature of the opening chapters of Luke is the fact of the Holy Spirit's presence as the power to move the vessels mentioned, so that whilst the Lord Jesus Christ is presented to them objectively on the one hand, the Spirit is working subjectively in them to prepare affections for His reception.

Are we to gather anything from the fact that the scene moves from Bethlehem to Jerusalem?

This may be the fulfilment of the word in Malachi that "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple". Simeon was waiting for Him, Anna was waiting for Him, as He suddenly appears.

The Scripture continues, "Who may abide the day of His coming?" It is good to see that there was a subjective work wrought in hearts so that we have both a man and a woman able to abide His appearing. That would carry a challenge to each one of us! It shows the two sides of the truth, the approach of God in His well-beloved Son, and on the other hand the preparation of vessels for His reception.

So that if the Lord comes into holy Manhood, the Spirit of God rejoices to tell us that there is a man who represents an order of manhood which, as the result of the Spirit's work, is ready to recognize the preciousness of Christ.

Simeon means "hearing", and he evidently was in the right state to receive this communication, and ultimately to receive the Lord. We read that "the same man was just and devout"; he was devoted to the interests of God in this world, and it needed such vessels at this early moment to handle things, speaking reverently, in a right way according to the mind of God.

This man was waiting; he is indicative of that godly remnant whose hopes were all centred on the appearing of the Messiah, and in this prepared condition he is "waiting for the consolation of Israel". His moral state was right, his expectations were right, and he had the power of the Spirit for the fulfilment of them.

Yes! It was by the Spirit that he came in at the precise moment. Here is a vessel that God can use, and whom the Spirit does use, and he is suitably prepared for the reception of the Lord in the temple. We can understand that whatever is to be done in this holy matter, must be done in full accord with the mind of God. What needs to be emphasized is the holy character of the vessels that God had prepared to rightly handle this situation.

Might we not say with all reverence that the Holy Spirit of God at this moment is guarding this precious Babe; only hearts that were morally in accord with what was expressed in Him are allowed to handle Him; it is a beautiful touch of the guarding by the Holy Spirit of the preciousness of Christ. There are those today who venture to speak of the incarnation according to the mind of man, and one is afraid that they do not always handle the subject with holy hands. We do well to speak carefully regarding the incarnation of the Son of God.

Simeon had a special communication from the Lord. I think we must judge that this man must have been in very intimate relationship with God to have had such a communication, and yet, although so signally selected for this great service, he refers to himself as just a bondman.

Before he speaks of the wonderful blessing that is to accrue to the Gentiles and to Israel through the coming in of this Holy Vessel, the first thing he mentions is what God Himself finds in this blessed Person, "Thy salvation".

When he said that, he had the Babe in his arms; His parents had brought the Babe in to do for Him "after the custom of the law". So that we have both features of Galatians 4: 4, "made of a woman, made under the law". It is important to see that He did come as "made under the law" because that was necessary if blessing was to come to the Gentiles; every righteous requirement was fulfilled.

The sovereign operations of God are in view in the divine communications which were given to Simeon, and God has in mind to bring us into the good of these things. Has the knowledge of these things produced in us the same effect as that produced in Simeon? When he took the Babe up in his arms he "blessed God". Could there be a greater evidence of reconciliation than a company marked by blessing God?

He was anticipating the wonderful effect of the Lord's own ministry as seen in the last verse of the gospel, a company "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God".

We have a rather remarkable statement in verse 29, where Simeon says, "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace". The word "Lord" is really "Despot", and we see the effect of a man moving under the power of the Spirit of God. Simeon recognized that supreme power was with God, not with the Emperor. Only a person having the advantage of the indwelling Spirit can really understand the trend of things in this world.

Why, as in the light of this wonderful communication, did Simeon desire to depart?

I think he was assured that however long he remained he would see nothing greater than that which he had been privileged to look upon as he held that Babe in his arms. "Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people".

What had Simeon in mind when he said, "The thoughts of many hearts may be revealed"?

The coming in of One who was God's salvation would result in the securing of all that would be for God's glory, and would bring into judgment all that which was not according to God. That is, I think, what is involved, but I question if Simeon understood the full implication of his prophecy.

He was "waiting for the consolation of Israel". When would that take place?

This term "consolation of Israel" is a reference to the Messiah. In Jewish writings the Messiah is sometimes called the "Consolation of Israel". Simeon's eyes were now fixed upon the Person of whom the Spirit had spoken.

Why is it that the Gentiles are mentioned before Israel (verse 32)?

Luke obviously writes with Paul's line of things in mind. In the epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians the apostle usually puts the Gentiles before the Jew; he had been given the truth of the mystery. Previously he regarded the Jew before the Gentile, but he had to learn that the Jew had no precedence in Christianity.

Simeon was using words which in their full meaning were probably quite beyond his own knowledge of things.

What is the meaning of "a light to lighten the Gentiles"?

In God's dealings with Israel He had to a large extent left the Gentiles to their own devices for the time being. In Isaiah 42: 6, the prophet speaks of "a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles". Simeon speaks of light going beyond the nation of Israel, all peoples being again in view.

"I will also give Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be My salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isaiah 49: 6).

We have the same thought in Genesis 49 in relation to Joseph's branches going over the wall, It is clear that the whole world is in view in Luke 2.

If God in His ways selected a nation to whom He gave His law, and to whom He also gave many privileges, He nevertheless had blessing in view for the whole of mankind; we have already seen that the glad tidings were given in relation to the "seed of the woman".

It pleases God that the gospel should go throughout the whole world.

Yes! We are coming to that, but we should first notice that the word "to lighten" in verse 32 is really "apokalupsis", which means "an unveiling". It is the word used for the book of the Revelation, that is the force of the word — an unveiling of something hidden, of which the Gentiles knew nothing at all. The veil was about to be rolled away, and they would know that God had their salvation in view.

In Ephesians 2, we read that Gentiles "were without Christ . . having no hope, and without God in the world". They were in gross darkness. Who could enlighten these Gentiles? The only One who could do it is the Son of God, and He came into the world for that purpose.

What is the significance of the words "And the glory of Thy people Israel"?

The glory of Israel would be the fulfilment of the prophetic word, "the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail" of the nations.

In a day to come, when the words of Isaiah 53 are in the hearts and upon the lips of the people, it will be abundantly evident that Christ is the glory of Israel.

In verse 36 we read, "and there was one Anna, a prophetess". We see in her a vessel that had been in touch with God and had also received divine communications. She was one who had been seeking to maintain the interest of the godly remnant of Israel in relation to the coming Messiah. She was "the daughter of Phanuel", a name which has reference to the "face of God"; and as "of the tribe of Aser" we see in her features answering to what is said of that tribe in Genesis and in Deuteronomy. She was marked by prayers, and there was much to pray about; she was marked by fasting, and there was much to fast about.

It is said of Asher in Deuteronomy 33 "let him dip his foot in oil". A foot dipped in oil leaves an impression in its walk, and that is what Anna did, she "spake of Him", and left an impression of Christ wherever she went.

It is somewhat remarkable that the tribe of Asher is mentioned here. Normally we might have expected a reference to Judah and Benjamin. Evidently Anna was a representative of the ten tribes, and perhaps there is in that a prophetic touch in relation to the future day when reconciliation of all twelve tribes to God will be complete.

It confirms what has already been said of the wider picture of blessing. God has not forgotten the ten tribes, nor did Paul or James, both had them in view in their writings.

What is involved in the expression "she . . served God"?

We can hardly put it into words. Her service for God was obviously marked both by her works and her words. She was a prophetess.

There appears to be three distinct ways in which she served; she fasted, she prayed, and she spoke of Christ; three very good ways of serving!

Luke 4: 1-22.

In pursuance of our theme we move from the record of the Lord's birth into this world, and see in this chapter the beginning of his Levitical ministry. The three features before us are -

First: the character of the One in Whom God has approached us,

Second: the power that activated Him as He moved out from the wilderness, and Third: the introduction of that which is said to be "the acceptable year of the Lord".

We may say that we have in the gospel which He was anointed to preach the display of God's disposition to man. In the book of Genesis the attack of Satan upon the first man was the beginning of all the estrangement that has come into this world between man and God, and it seems fitting that this account of the temptation in the wilderness is given to show the distinctive character of this blessed Man, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as the One who was to "destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3: 8).

Was it necessary for the Lord to be manifested to destroy the works of the devil before reconciliation could be effected?

If man was to be brought back to God, which is what we see in reconciliation, God must remove everything contrary to His thoughts, and that could be done only by One in whom no feature of the first man was found. If the Lord is to deliver men from the power of Satan, then He must Himself gain the victory over Satan, and we judge that when the Lord speaks later of binding the strong man with a view to destroying his goods, the "binding" took place here in the wilderness.

In relation to the character of the Lord as Man, which is the first point under consideration, are the features of that character seen in His being "led by the Spirit in the wilderness", and in that the Word of God was enshrined in His heart?

I think so! He enters into conditions resultant from the fall and stands there for God. He is seen in these conditions as a perfect, sinless, incorruptible, subject Man, and it is as such that He overcomes the devil. The temptation was not to see whether He was sinless or not, but to bring into manifestation the fact that He was. The movement was His own in perfect holy Manhood, as subject to the leading of the Spirit.

It was characteristic of all His movements in this scene, all He did was in the power of the Spirit.

The order of these temptations is somewhat different from that in Matthew's record, where the history of Israel, we believe, is in view. It is rather the history of man that is in question in Luke, and the order there seems to relate to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" — three things that are said to be "in the world" — and which things we have all become subject to, but in the Lord Jesus we see One who, as Man, withstood each temptation.

Do we see the principle here that "The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me"?

Yes! Although those actual words refer to a later incident.

In the second chapter of Hebrews we read that He "suffered being tempted".

If one were asked what would constitute the suffering in this chapter, perhaps it would be right to say that the Lord knew suffering in His body, His soul and His spirit as He faced the threefold temptation. But these are holy matters about which we do well to say but little.

Is it not the case that in the two Old Testament examples of men who fasted forty days one, Moses, was in the presence of God (evidently he would not be suffering) and the other was alone? Here it is specifically stated that the Lord was in the presence of the devil. Would not that constitute the suffering you are speaking of?

In that connection we ought to remember that the Lord, being who He is with unblunted sensibilities and a sensitiveness beyond that of any other, would keenly feel the very fact that the devil was in His presence.

Do you think He would feel that on behalf of God? Satan was so opposed to God in the accomplishment of His will, and the Lord would discern that it was an attack through Him upon God.

"The reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon Me" (Ps. 69: 9).

We see the true features of One who, in severe temptation has God before Him. Twice the Lord quotes "the Lord thy God", shewing how definitely God and the Word of God were before Him. I believe that to be most important — "I have set the LORD always before Me; because He is at My right hand, I shall not be moved" (Ps. 16: 8).

In these temptations the Lord is quoting the written Word from the Old Testament, but He is quoting that which He Himself as Man is in the good of.

We must remember what was referred to earlier, that this is the character of the Man in Whom God has approached us. If the devil had succeeded in finding a flaw in Him, then the approach of God would have been completely negatived. The whole point of our readings is that God has approached men in Christ, and it is through this perfect, spotless Man that God has effected His great work of reconciliation.

In regard to the two instances in the Old Testament to which attention has been drawn, Moses afterwards failed and also Elijah. Indeed every member of Adam's race has failed, but here we see One Who resisted completely every temptation of Satan, and completely defeated his every attack.

In Luke chapter 11 we read, "When a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted". What was his armour in which he trusted? It was that every man of Adam's race would either fall to one or all of these three temptations. That was the armour in which Satan trusted, and the Lord took it away.

The Scriptures quoted by the Lord were all from the book of Deuteronomy, which we have learned to call "the people's guide book". The Lord thus took a place in subjection to the revealed will of God, quoting Scriptures that were affecting Him and guiding Him in His Manhood and to which He was answering. Hence, when the test came He could stand firmly for God.

John, in writing to the young men, recognizes that their power to overcome the wicked one is exactly this, "The Word of God abideth in you". Thus we see that God had in mind that there should be a generation patterned after the Man in Whom He has approached us.

It is necessary to stress continually the unique character of this blessed Man in view of some of the things that are taught today. God has approached us in One Who is absolutely flawless — the humanity of Christ is unique. We see Him as Man, living by the Word of God. Teaching which is unsound regarding the humanity of Christ would endanger, spiritually, all who heeded it, the very fabric of the Christian faith is based upon this truth.

In the next temptation the devil shows Him "all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time", and says, "All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them; for that is delivered unto me". It has often been asked, how was it delivered unto Him. In the second chapter of Ephesians we read "According to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience". Satan has acquired power over man because man is in a state of disobedience. He has not power over an obedient man, and that is what we see in these verses. He acquired his power through the disobedience of man in the garden of Eden, but his power is annulled by the obedience of a Man in the wilderness.

It is characteristic of the devil's activity throughout the pages of Scripture that he attempts to anticipate God. We can see from Genesis to Revelation that before God brings in His masterpiece the devil presents his counterfeit. He is doing the same thing here. Eventually all kingdom glory will be seen to belong to Christ, but He refuses it at the hand of the devil.

Would the devil in fact have this power to give?

Well! It seems to have been so. The Lord did not refute his claim. So far as wilful, sinful man is concerned the whole world lies in the wicked one (1 John 5: 19).

Do we not see in Revelation 13 that one will be found to whom the dragon will give "his power, and his seat, and great authority"?

It is a serious thing to underestimate the power of the devil. We need not fear him, but do not let us underestimate his influence.

Would it not be true to say that the Lord is moving here as a dependent Man before One who will give to Him all that He asks?

Yes, indeed! The last temptation which we must now consider was probably the fiercest of all, as it attacked the Lord in His spirit.

It looks as though the devil was actually flattering Christ in quoting a Psalm that would remind Him of His Messianic rights.

Actually it was an insinuation that God was not equal to His promises -the very thing with which Satan attacked Adam in the garden, "Yea, hath God said?" There were promises made to the Messiah, and the devil was insinuating that these promises could not be trusted until they had been put to the test. But the Lord, as Man, knew His God, and that His promises were sure.

According to the second Psalm the Lord will ask these things from God.

Yes! It has been thought that the devil may have been suggesting that He should take them without suffering, but the order is "The sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (1 Peter 1: 11). These sufferings were before the Lord, and He was taking every step in relation to the will of God.

Would it help to say a little more as to the order of the temptations in Matthew, and their references to Israel?

The principles underlying the temptations as Matthew records them, would take our thoughts first to the giving of the manna; secondly, to the waters of Meribah; thirdly, to the golden calf. But in Luke it is not so much Israel, but man in general that is in view.

As having overcome Satan, verses 14 and 15 show the Lord moving out in the power of the Spirit, with a view to the deliverance of others. We can see that, having taken away the strong man's armour, it was for the purpose of spoiling his goods, and the Lord is about to demonstrate by His acts of power and by His gracious words, that He had both grace and power to deliver His creature completely. It is in the power of the Spirit He returns, and He returns to Galilee.

Why Galilee?

The poor of the flock are in view. Galilee was the place where the light was to shine according to the prophetic word.

The power moving in His ministry is now noticed (v. 14) following the manifestation of the characteristics evident in Himself — the positive proof of who He is in His Person.

Men might well say of Him later, "For He taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes" (Mark 1: 22).

It has been well said that the temptation was not witnessed by anybody, it was a victory gained in secret. That which we are now coming to is the public result of that victory.

"He taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all". God's being glorified is mentioned many times in Luke's gospel, but apparently this is the only occasion on which it is stated that the Lord Himself was glorified; He is glorified of all as He steps forth in His public ministry, and men glorify God as a result of what He did.

How remarkable that it should have been the book of Isaiah which was delivered to Him; in the ordering of God that was probably where they were reading on that Sabbath day. John Baptist had taken his ministry from the prophet Isaiah, and now that is where the Lord begins to read. It is significant that Isaiah's name means "the salvation of Jah".

Referring again to the Lord as in Manhood, we see how well He knew the Scriptures; this is surely something we need to take to heart!

It says He unrolled the Book and He found the place, and there is something particularly precious in that. The One who indited the Scriptures found the place and, standing up, read it to those who were there. How we ought to approach the reading of the Word of God with reverence, as He did!

There is just another point here which bears on the Lord's perfect Manhood; it says, "As His custom was". Now, that is delightful! He was not just an occasional visitor to the synagogue, He was there regularly.

The section of Isaiah from which the Lord read is very striking. Isaiah 61 opens with "The Spirit of Adonai Jehovah" — a title which often occurs in Isaiah and in Ezekiel. Occasionally we have Jehovah Elohim, but in the majority of cases it is Adonai Jehovah, and that is what marks the passage the Lord read. He began with "the Spirit of Adonai", and ends with the acceptable year of Jehovah.

Adonai means the "Lord in blessing", and in the very prophets that announce the iniquity of Israel, we have this remarkable repetition of "Jehovah in blessing"; an attitude He was waiting to adopt if only they would listen to His voice and repent.

That would be absolutely in keeping with our subject, the way in which God approaches man with blessing in view.

The Lord omits the rest of the verse in Isaiah, "The day of vengeance of our God".

Actually "the day of vengeance of our God" does come in in chapter 21 of Luke, the Lord does mention it before He left the world, but He did not mention it at the beginning of His ministry. He was anointed "to preach the gospel to the poor . . . to preach the acceptable year of the Lord". Isaiah 61 obviously looks on to the world-to-come and to the establishment of the kingdom and the Lord, so to speak, was saying that it was then available to them in Himself if they would but have it.

Only the Lord can heal broken hearts!

That is the character of His ministry, which we have before us in these readings. And that ministry ever has healing in view, whether of the widow of Nain with her broken heart; the man among the tombs as captive to Satan; blind Bartimaeus; or, the man on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho who was bruised; all came under the healing touch of this precious ministry of grace.

Is it not beautiful to see how this good news is linked with Christ Personally when He said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears"?

And we are still in this acceptable year of the Lord!

Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 6, which follow the ministry of reconciliation in the previous chapter, are "Now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation".

What is the thought in the gospel being preached to the poor?

It shows the disposition of God in coming down in lowly grace, not merely on the official line of Matthew as the King who should have been received with royal honours; but the poor of the flock are in mind as we find indicated time after time in the Old Testament.

That little expression pretty well covers the whole of Luke's gospel — "glad tidings to the poor". The Lord repeated that word to John Baptist "the poor have the gospel preached unto them".

We have already quoted the Scripture "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them", and this is what we see in effect in the verses which the Lord read.

He was the only One who could bring these things to pass, and in the synagogue He was telling them plainly that He was the One to whom the Scripture referred. "The eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him", and He assured them that that day the Scripture was fulfilled in their ears.

Prior to this it was the law which had been ministered in the synagogues, now they were listening to words of grace.

They wondered at "the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth". Their response was "Is not this Joseph's son?". But the attitude of God is seen in those "gracious words", and that is what marks God's attitude towards men today as the gospel is still preached, it is still "the accepted time . . the day of salvation".

Luke 7: 36-50.

In this well-known chapter we reach a point in our readings where, in relation to the subject in hand — the ministry of reconciliation, God seeking the recovery of His creature for His pleasure — we have one of the simplest and probably one of the most blessed examples of infinite grace flowing out, as seen in this Pharisee's house, in regard to the woman of the city who was a "sinner". In the previous verses the Lord had been speaking of the refusal by the Pharisees of the grace that was presented to them. On the one hand we see the rejection of that grace by them; on the other hand we see the reception of it by the publicans and sinners; and following the Lord's speaking of these things we have this wonderful picture where we again see the indifference to grace on the part of the Pharisee, but that same grace appreciated and gladly received by this sinful woman.

Would you say that this woman is a prepared vessel as indicated by the words "but wisdom is justified of all her children" (verse 35)?

Yes! That is why those verses were referred to. She stands out immediately as a picture of one of wisdom's children. There are five distinctive marks of wisdom's children in the gospels, and if we took them in order we should see this to be the first one, for at the end of the chapter the fact that she received the forgiveness of sins is clearly stated.

What was the motive of this Pharisee in inviting the Lord into his house?

We have sometimes heard that it appeared as though he had invited the Lord in order to insult Him publicly. The refusal of the courtesies which were ordinarily given to guests would seem to support the thought that this was a studied insult to the Lord Himself.

What contrasts are seen in this incident! The contrast of the motive that actuated the Pharisee with that which actuated the poor woman, and above all with the motives that were actuating the blessed Lord as He manifested the wonderful compassions of God.

We have noticed that whereas Simon the Pharisee's house was representative of the general state of the Pharisees in Israel — the very sphere into which the Lord had come — their religious pride and animosity against the Son of God did not hinder the grace of God from flowing out. It did not hinder the expression of that grace even to one like Simon, grace was there in the heart of God for both Simon and the woman.

Is this a typical example of the ministry of reconciliation?

That is what was in mind in regard to this chapter. We have spoken previously of reconciliation more on the doctrinal side, as brought into the world by the coming in of the Son of God and His own declaration of it in Luke 4. Here in Luke 7 we have an example of the matter, and the very words spoken to this woman would show that it was already taking effect.

We never read of the Lord's going to the house of a Sadducee.

No! It has been pointed out that He always met the Sadducees with the point of the sword. On more than one occasion we find Him in the house of a Pharisee, a sphere which today would perhaps represent ritualism, but for men who played fast and loose with the Word of God He had nothing but the Sword of the Spirit. We need to remember that today, when men are seeking to rob us of the truth of God.

There is no case in the New Testament of a Sadducee coming into blessing.

They did not believe the Scriptures, and no man who refuses the Scriptures can come into blessing. The Pharisees were seriously wrong in the way they handled the Scriptures, but it is not said of them that they did not believe them.

What infinite grace is coming out in this incident! Simon, in requesting the Lord to come into his house used a strong word of request. Indeed, it is the word used by the Lord in John 17 when He prayed to the Father, a definite request by one in a position to make a demand, and yet in wonderful grace the Lord acceded to the request.

There is much in that which we ought to note; we see the grace of the Lord shining out in such circumstances. He was infinitely superior to the Pharisee, but He is prepared to accede to his demand in order that in the Pharisee's house the wonderful grace of God might be seen flowing out in all its blessedness. There is an infinitude of grace in the fact that the Lord accepted the invitation.

Whatever may have been Simon's motive, the one thing that is outstanding is the amazing grace of the Lord, who with His foreknowledge of all that would happen, nevertheless went into that house.

That surely is the point we need to stress. The Lord fully knew the pride that was in the Pharisees' hearts. He knew that they loved the high places, and that Simon would seek some popularity, at the same time hoping to show how inferior the Lord was in his eyes; but the Lord, knowing all that, in infinite grace accepted the position in order that He might bring the compassions of God to this poor woman. It is indeed most blessed.

We should assume that the Lord took a very low place at the Pharisee's table (in Luke 24 He took the chief place in the home of Emmaus), for we can scarcely conceive that this poor woman went right to the head of the table. And it would seem that the Lord took a very lowly place in order that He might be accessible to this contrite soul. There is infinite grace in it all, the more we consider the Lord's movements the more that grace shines out, and the greatness of His Person is enhanced before us as we contemplate the way in which He dealt with the whole situation.

Our subject is the "ministry of reconciliation". How does that fit into this chapter where we have only the forgiveness of sins?

That we should know our sins forgiven is the very first, and a most essential point, on the line of reconciliation. Other things, if the Lord allows, will come before us but fundamentally we must all begin here. The first great necessity is the forgiveness of our sins.

The last word in the chapter, "peace", carries the thought of "unchanging peace". She was brought right to God.

Does not this incident show the disposition of God in the new creation?

In the two epistles which perhaps give us the highest Pauline ministry, Ephesians and Colossians, the forgiveness of sins is early introduced. We can thank God for every blessing into which we have been brought, but we must have the knowledge of sins forgiven if these blessings are to be enjoyed.

Our sins had brought in separation from God, hence they must be removed if we are to be in reconciliation with Him.

We must ever remember that if God acts in infinite grace He does so in absolute righteousness, so that the question of sins must be dealt with. It was provisional with this woman at the moment, but the principle is ever true.

Why was it provisional?

Forgiveness of sins really awaited the work of the cross, but these incidents are given us to illustrate the ministry that marked the Lord in His movements here as He manifested the compassions of God.

Reconciliation could not be effected without the shedding of blood, but the ministry of it shone out in the movements of Christ, and it was ultimately made effective by His death upon the cross.

If the apostle James had been at that feast, he would have said that this woman's faith was justified by her works; she showed manifestly her appreciation of the Lord as the Vessel of Grace. Matthew presents the Lord as the Vessel of Promise; Mark as the Vessel of Prophecy; John as the Vessel of Glory. Luke obviously shows us the Vessel of Grace, and here is a woman who not only apprehended that she needed that grace, but also proved by her works that she was prepared to receive it.

Why is it that her character is so expressly stated, "a sinner of the city"?

It is to show the limitless grace of God, indeed it is what Paul speaks of as "the riches of His grace".

It is evident that this woman had heard the Word of Christ, because it is said that she had faith.

Yes! We have noticed her works as the proof of her faith, but we see also from the Lord's words in verse 50 that her works were there because of faith.

Was it this woman's need that drew her to this house?

It certainly was, and such a sense of need that she would not be repelled. She might well have been repelled by the company and atmosphere of Simon's house, but she was so aware of her need that she did not allow the circumstances to repel her, and we can be safe in saying that she was also conscious that the Lord would meet that need.

Doubtless the Spirit of God had been working in her heart before she came; she was a prepared vessel, one of wisdom's children.

There is perhaps in this chapter more the thought of human responsibility than that of divine sovereignty. In a further chapter we shall see divine sovereignty in operation, but what seems to stand out more clearly in this chapter is human responsibility, and whilst we all appreciate and rejoice in divine sovereignty, we must see that human responsibility enters into the matter. Here is a woman who is a sinner, and if she is to be blessed she must come to the Saviour, but the very thing for which the Lord had come into this world was to make the grace of God available to sinners.

It is evident that even so early in His pathway He was known as "a friend of publicans and sinners".

Is there a link with Isaiah 52, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of Him that bringeth good tidings"?

Doubtless we have presented here the One of Whom Isaiah speaks, and the fact that she poured this ointment upon His feet may show that she appreciated in some measure His gracious pathway.

Does not the Lord, in what He says to Simon, clearly indicate that her motive was affection for Himself?

Yes! That is a matter that should engage our attention.

Simon had the opportunity of anointing His head (see verse 46), but he failed to take it and, as he observed what this woman was doing, instead of its moving him as it ought to have done, it did but stir him up to further contempt for the Lord as he says "This Man, if He were a prophet, would have known . . she is a sinner".

The Lord calls attention to her tears. No doubt they were the evidence of true repentance, a condition brought about through the goodness of God. "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" (Romans 2: 4).

The Scripture would suggest that she continued with these acts of affection.

The words used show that she continued doing all these things all the while. She stood at His feet behind Him weeping and began to wash His feet with tears, and was wiping them with the hairs of her head, and was kissing them, and was anointing them. There is a continuity about it; it was not just one single action. "Since the time I came in (she) hath not ceased to kiss My feet", would show this. Whilst the Lord was speaking to Simon there was this demonstration of affection before his very eyes.

What is the significance of her wiping the Lord's feet with her hair?

It would show how deep her repentance was; it has often been said that which was given to her as her glory was that which she surrendered at His feet. We might ask how many sisters today could have done that with their hair.

This act appears to have aroused a feeling of contempt in Simon, exactly what might be expected from a proud religious man. "This Man if He were a prophet". The word "man" is really not there, it was an expression of absolute contempt. Do not let us be surprised when the voice of contempt is raised against us. Even the devoted act of Mary of Bethany raised a note of criticism!

Verse 42 introduces that which is very apposite to the subject of reconciliation which we have in mind. It has often been pointed out that only here do we get this parable of the creditor and the two debtors, a simple yet beautiful illustration of the attitude of God today to both self-righteous men and to sinners. "He frankly forgave them both", or it might be rendered "He showed grace to both". This word "forgave" is not the same word as the "forgiven" at the end of the chapter, it is a word which signifies that grace was available for both debtors.

When speaking to men of their responsibility before God, is it not well to seek to bring home to the conscience that they have nothing with which to pay?

That is the bearing of the teaching presented here. It was a most difficult thing to convince a man like Simon the Pharisee that he had nothing with which to pay, but the Lord was showing that both were bankrupt so far as the claims of God were concerned, and it is on that account that the free grace of God comes to men through Christ.

These verses indicate that the Lord is definitely fixing responsibility on Simon. In verse 39 we are told that it was the "Pharisee which had bidden Him" who raised the question of the Lord's knowing who the woman was, and then the Lord names him, saying "Simon". It was a very solemn thing that he who had opened his house to the Lord was refusing completely to open his heart to the grace that was in the Lord.

Simon failed to see that the very thing which he despised in the woman, that she was a sinner, was the very ground upon which he might receive the grace that was available to him. It is, as we see in the Roman epistle, unmerited favour on the principle of grace.

Man is looking for something in which he can boast, but we know that boasting is excluded.

Grace was available for Simon, but he was not prepared to accept it, but this is the attitude of God, illustrated in the subject which is engaging us, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them".

A creditor who frankly forgives all his debtors would quickly begin to feel the cost, but the wonderful free-hearted giving of our God does not impoverish Him! He is rich in mercy, rich in grace, and there are the riches of that grace in evidence. We speak sometimes of Luke 7 as setting forth the grace of God; Luke 10 the riches of His grace; and Luke 15 the glory of His grace, but certainly the riches of grace were available in the passage before us.

A question was asked earlier as to the results of reconciliation. We can see from Luke 7 that one result is that God secured the love of His creature — "she loved much". It was the grace of God that drew it out.

Was it possible for anyone to be in the good of reconciliation before the Lord rose from the dead?

Reconciliation, which involves being brought back to God with every stain removed, could only be as a result of the cross, but it does say that, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself", and we see from His ministry how that, on every hand, the Lord was showing that attitude to man before He actually completed the work that was necessary for its accomplishment.

We have sought to show the necessity of differentiating between the "Word of Reconciliation" and the "Ministry of Reconciliation". In the epistles the Holy Spirit gives to us the "Word of Reconciliation", but the Word of Reconciliation is known in greater power as we see the Ministry of Reconciliation displayed in Christ in His movements here in grace.

We might read 2 Corinthians 5 and be unable to understand fully the terms used, but in Luke 7 we can thank God that we have demonstration of the thing itself in Christ.

This woman, although knowing nothing of the doctrine of Colossians or Ephesians, was yet a living example of what the Lord had come to accomplish. She was before Simon as an example of what God was doing in Christ. He was showing the very thing for which He had come into this world, not the expulsion of man, but his recovery.

It would be well to remember that we do not in this chapter have the full thought as seen in Luke 15. Here is a woman of the city who needed forgiveness; we see the ground upon which she obtained it, and the pouring out of her heart's affection to the Lord.

The great thing we should notice is the attitude of the Lord Himself; He showed grace to both, and if there was one who missed it, let us thank God that we, like the woman, have received it.

Would this be in line with John 3, "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved"?

That is obviously what is coming out here.

In what way were they debtors?

It is, surely, a picture of man as having sinned against God, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".

Although we are now considering one of the most elementary aspects of reconciliation, the incident seems to open the door wide to this wonderful expression of "loving much".

That is a point we need to get hold of, what the effect of reconciliation is. Could there be a greater one than this? It charms our hearts to see that what God desires more than all else is the responsive love of His creature.

The first thing the devil did in the garden of Eden was to plant distrust of God in the heart of man, and lack of affection followed distrust. We see in this chapter how that affection was recovered.

Would you say that with the Pharisee there was the feature of distrust?

In the heart of every man at a distance from God there is the thought that God is in some way against him.

Simon had no true appreciation of the position in which he was. He did not think he needed the free grace of God, he thought he had earned His blessing. The deeper our impression of the grace of God and the blessing that grace brings to us, the greater will be our response of love to Him. The Lord indicated that in telling Simon, "Thou hast rightly judged".

How do we show our love to Christ today?

We have spoken of this woman's faith being justified by her works, and surely we show our love for Him in the way we serve Him; it may be in the way we praise Him. The greatest thing that can mark any of us is devotion to Him. Perhaps we may quote the verse "They which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again".

In verse 47 the Lord, in speaking to Simon, says "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven". This is a different word from that used in verse 42. It indicates the complete putting away of her sins. We know that that involved His work on the cross.

What are we to gather from the Lord's words, "Her sins . . . are forgiven her; for she loved much"?

She knew that she had been forgiven much, and as a result she loved much. However far we may get on in the things of God, we need ever to remember the mercy which brought to us the forgiveness of sins. Paul towards the end of his pathway, in the epistles he wrote to Timothy, shows that he never forgot that he was a subject of the sovereign mercy of God.

The Lord did not speak to the woman about her love, when speaking to her He mentioned her faith; it was to the Pharisee that He discoursed upon the woman's love.

That would give us to see that what is available now in Christ in relation to reconciliation is available only to faith.

It was not what she did to the Lord that gave her settled peace, although He greatly valued it.

Would it be right in the preaching of the gospel to preach something deeper than what we have here — justification, etc.?

Of course justification does involve that sins are forgiven, and that we are righteous in the sight of God. A person cannot be right with God if his sins are still upon him, but in our gospel preachings we should not venture too far into these deeper truths, we should have the blessing of the unsaved in view.

If we had a deeper sense of the mercy which met us in our hopeless condition, would not the feature of "loving much" be more evident?

Paul preached "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ". Perhaps John Baptist's preaching had affected this woman; and not only was repentance seen with her, but the One whom John Baptist pointed to was before her, and her faith in Him was manifest.

Will the expression of real affection for the Lord always produce opposition? It did in this incident and also in that of Mary anointing His feet.

It brings to light that which was in the hearts of those who had no appreciation of what was displayed in Christ. Judas led the opposition in Bethany but, sad to say, the disciples also came under the power of it.

How beautiful is the language of verse 49, "And they that sat at meat with Him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" Who dares to say that the debt has gone? But the Lord turned to the woman and said "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace". Thus, added to the knowledge of the forgiveness of her sins is the possession of salvation. These are wonderful steps on the line of reconciliation — the forgiveness of sins and salvation. But, let us ever remember that we are saved for God.

It is interesting to note that the woman did not say anything. We have no need to justify ourselves in answer to the opposition, the Lord has taken everything upon Himself in relation to our blessing.

"It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?"

What peace must have filled that woman's heart as she left that house, and what an appreciation she would have of the grace of God! It has been well said that peace is a state of things into which nothing can intrude to disturb.

Luke 10: 25-37.

When reading chapter 7 we saw that the guilt of man on the ground of human responsibility was mainly in view. In the verses we have now read we see not only the guilt of man but the state that underlay that guilt. In Luke 7 we see a woman who moved and who herself did certain things, whereas in Luke 10 we find a man who cannot do a single thing to help himself. And, by keeping the incidents distinct we can see more clearly that Christ has dealt not only with the guilt of man, but also with his state. We see from the parable, in answer to the question raised by the lawyer as to what a man can do, that the Lord indicates that whatever is needed to be done must be done by this "certain Samaritan". There will be confusion of mind and but a partial entrance into the joy of deliverance if these truths are not held as distinct. It has pleased the Spirit of God to relate these separate incidents, and if He has thus kept them distinct we should seek to get the distinctive teaching of each. We are wise in taking up a Scripture in the way the Spirit of God presents it, and thus we obtain a clearer understanding of the Word. Men at a distance from God may be conscious of their guilt, but it is certain that none are conscious of their state of alienation from God until a work has been done by God Himself in the soul. The woman in chapter 7 was conscious of her guilt, but in this chapter we see a man unable to arrive at anything at all, he is absolutely helpless by the wayside.

So that in the one case we find guilt driving the woman to Christ, but in the other we have a state that could only be met by Christ Himself, as seen in the Samaritan coming to the man.

It is important to see that the lawyer asked two questions. The answer to the first question exposed the complete helplessness of man, the second necessitated the Lord presenting Himself as able to meet the whole case. "Who is my neighbour?" could only be answered by the Lord's presenting Himself in the character of this "certain Samaritan". The only way in which we can understand true neighbourly features is as we see them presented in Christ.

There can be little doubt that this man, being a lawyer and well acquainted with the law of Moses, would know that there was such a thing as living an endless life on the earth. The question is often raised as to what is meant by eternal life in this passage. It is certainly not what we now know to be eternal life as brought in by the Son of God. He would have in his mind the thought of endless life on this earth, as presented in Psalm 133 and in Daniel 12. His enquiry was as to what he could do in order that he might not die, but continue to live here under the blessing of God.

Are those the only two places in the Old Testament where this thought appears?

They are the only two places where we have the term "life for evermore" or its equivalent. Psalm 133 reads "there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore"; and in Daniel 12 it is put in contrast to death, some are to be raised to "everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt". It would appear that endless life on the earth is what is in view in each of these passages. In the New Testament where the Lord, in John 6, speaks of believers availing themselves of the bread of life, saying "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you? (verse 53), He is referring to "that eternal life, which was with the Father". But in the same chapter He also says to the Jews, "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead, . . . if any many eat of this bread, he shall live for ever". Obviously if we have eternal life we shall live for ever, but living or ever is not quite the same as eternal life.

Life for evermore, as mentioned in the two Old Testament Scriptures referred to, would be limited to the thought of duration, whereas the thought of eternal life in the New Testament suggests the character of that life.

It must be so because the Father had not yet been revealed. John 17: 3 reads, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee . . . and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent". Therefore it could not be eternal life as we know it that the Lord speaks of in His answer to the lawyer; indeed He does not say "eternal life", but "This do, and thou shalt live".

We must be clear in seeing that the character of eternal life as presented in the New Testament includes the thought of duration which is presented in the Old.

The only answer the lawyer made when the Lord said "This do, and thou shalt live", was an endeavour to justify himself. He appears to have had but a face value of the law which he could quote. If we allow our thoughts to move in a legal sphere we at once attempt to justify ourselves; the only way to be delivered from the principle of self-justification is to get into the realm where grace is known. The lawyer was content to continue in a legal atmosphere indicated by his words "What must I do?"

This section seems to bring into sharp contrast the difference between law and grace. The lawyer was really tempting the Lord as to His orthodoxy, and his question brings into sharp relief the difference between the dispensation of law and that which was coming in as marked by grace.

Another point we ought to notice is that in this parable the Lord does not go back to the law only. He goes far beyond it, and brings to light that while the lawyer was concerned with principles of the law, he had to learn that the law did not come in to give life to man, but to prove what his state was long before the law came in. The law did not produce that state but it most definitely brought it to light.

It was a ministration of death.

That would appear to be the point in mind, We must remember that the law did not bring death upon man. Paul is very clear as to that in Romans 5, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression". Death was in the world from the outset, the law only intensified it. Paul again said that if the law had not said "Thou shall not covet" he had not known lust, "for sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me".

There was no provision made under the law to meet a case like that presented to us in Luke 10. Neither the priest nor the Levite was able to help, indeed both the priest and the Levite would have been defiled if they had touched this man.

Would this incident take our thoughts back to the question "where art thou?" asked by God of Adam in the garden of Eden? Both there and in Luke 10 we see man in a state which necessitates the intervention of God.

The beginning of this parable indicates a man going down, his back upon God, his face towards destruction, for Jericho had come under the curse of God.

What would the thieves represent?

They are robbers. Man in turning his back upon God was found in a state of which Satan took full advantage, and he robbed man of all that he had, bringing death upon him as the result of what he had done. Luke 10 would show not only what man has done in departing from God, but also man's wrong position in relation to God as a consequence.

It has been well said that whilst by his act of disobedience man gained the knowledge of good and evil, with that knowledge he only learned how prone he was to evil and how impossible it was to do good.

The very fact that the priest passed by on the other side did but intensify the hopelessness of this man's position. There was nothing the priest could do to help a man in this condition, it was entirely beyond anything that Judaism could provide. His condition is suggestive of the state in which man was before there was any law at all. Hence it was manifest that the priest was helpless to do anything for a man in this condition, so of necessity he passed on. The priest can do nothing for a man whose back is turned on God.

Is not this incident representative of the whole state of man even if the law had not been given?

That is what we are pressing; the matter goes right back to the garden of Eden.

The lawyer was acquainted with the law of Moses, and hoped to inherit eternal life by law-keeping. But he had to learn that the law had no power to give life, even life in the way in which he speaks of it, that is living for ever on the earth. The life which we have is life in Christ, and the power of that life is in the Holy Spirit.

Eternal life as we know it today is in God's Son, "He that hath the Son hath life". Saints in Old Testament days did not have the Son. Doubtless they will be brought into it eventually, but the eternal life which is in the Son was never in this world until the Son brought it here.

The state of man in relation to God is being stressed in our reading. Why then both here and in chapter 18, where we have a similar question as to inheriting eternal life, does the Lord's answer deal more with an attitude to one's neighbour rather than an attitude toward God?

In the failure of man's attitude to his neighbour the heart of man is completely exposed. We cannot discern whether there is love to God in one another's heart, but we can discern whether there is love towards the neighbour. It thus manifests man's complete failure on the principle of law.

The apostle John puts it in his own way by saying that "he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" Right relations with our brethren would be the proof of right relations with God.

The parable was not really an answer to the lawyer's question as to what he should do, but an answer to his question, "Who is my neighbour?", and in the answer we have a wonderful manifestation of the compassions of God in Christ.

If neither the priest nor the Levite could do anything for the man, it is perfectly evident that this Samaritan brought everything with him.

That is the point we need to reach, not only to see the weakness of both the priest and the Levite, but to see the complete service in compassion of the Samaritan.

That is the point we need to be occupied with, not the ineffectiveness of the law, nor the poverty of the man, but the resources that came in with the Samaritan. He brought everything that was necessary, and in compassion took full charge of the situation. The priest was on the line of demand, but the man had nothing to give — he had lost all he had. The Levite was on the line of works, it was his duty to teach Israel God's law — but the man is half dead and there was nothing he could do. He could not be in a worse state than that in which he was, and it was this that drew out the compassion of the Samaritan.

What is suggested in the fact that he "came where he was"?

There are three movements to be noted in relation to the Samaritan. The first is that he was definitely on a journey; secondly, he "came where he was"; and thirdly, in verse 34, he "went to him". Perhaps the "journey" would suggest to us the Lord's down-stooping into Manhood in this world; coming to "where he was" may refer to the various incidents in His pathway as He manifested forth the grace of God in its movements of blessing towards man; whereas when he went to him", to bind up his wounds and effect his complete recovery, would perhaps involve the cross itself.

There is a wonderful touch of grace in the fact that the Lord took up the thought of a Samaritan, for in the ninth chapter we read that a village of the Samaritans had refused Him. It is one of those precious incidents we have in Luke of the amazing grace and humility of the Lord Jesus.

Luke begins his gospel with a similar thought. The Lord's birth was at Bethlehem, later He went to Nazareth where He was brought up. He did not come forth from the temple or from the system in which the priest and the Levite were, He was morally outside of that system. Yet as in that outside, despised position He was the only One capacitated to help those represented by this man.

So that in these three movements we see something of the blessedness of the "ministry of reconciliation". It must inevitably involve the cross itself if man's state was to be adequately dealt with and man himself completely recovered for God.

We sometimes sing together of that journey of love:-

Came from Godhead's fullest glory

Down to Calvary's depths of woe,

Now on high, we bow before Thee;

Streams of praises ceaseless flow!

How beautiful that verse expresses God's movements towards us in Christ, and the wonderful result in responsive praise.

In John 8: 48 the Jews taunted the Lord by saying, "Thou art a Samaritan".

They also said, "And hast a devil", a matter which the Lord at once refuted, but He accepted the outside place of a "Samaritan" in order to show that no one in Judaism, or anything that that system could produce was able to do anything for this helpless man; it needed someone entirely outside of it if relief was to be made available.

In the complete recovery of the man do we see an instance of the Lord's undoing the work of the devil?

I am sure that is so!

An aged brother, now with the Lord, made a suggestion in regard to this chapter that appeals to one. He thought that in these few details we get an opening out of what is included in many sections of the New Testament. Coming to the man he thought would suggest — the gospels; binding up his wounds — the cross; pouring in the oil and the wine — the Acts of the apostles; setting him on his beast — Romans, particularly chapters 6, 7 and 8; taking him to an inn — Corinthians; and His promise to come again — Thessalonians.

It is apparent that once having taken the man's case in hand, this Samaritan made himself completely chargeable for him. He gave the inn-keeper the privilege of caring for him for a time, but indicated that he was himself still interested in and responsible for him.

One cannot help but think that this place where the man would be safely cared for has the Assembly in view. It is surely where we find ourselves through grace, and where we are cared for in a spiritual sense.

In verse 34 it is the Samaritan who "took care of him", whereas in verse 35 the inn-keeper is enjoined to "take care of him". Perhaps verse 34 might suggest the Lord's care for His own while He remained here, and consequent upon His ascension His interests are now in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

We can all truly say that since the Lord first put His blessed hand upon us He has cared for us in a most wonderful way, and has provided those who have watched for our souls. Many of us can look back and thank God for godly men and women who have had our spiritual welfare definitely at heart.

Reverting to the doctrinal side for a moment. By the time the man arrived at the inn everything he had was the provision of the Samaritan, all he had previously had gone. Would not this connect with the chapter we have already quoted, 2 Corinthians 5, where we read "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature;", or, there is a new creation, "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself"? Here we are today, and all that we have is through the blessing of God in reconciliation, "and all things are of God".

Peter gives us a very good word at the opening of his second epistle, "His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue".

The Lord's last words to the lawyer were, "Go, and do thou likewise". If the Lord has done all this for us we ought to take this exhortation to heart, the carrying out of which would be an evidence that one is really in the enjoyment of eternal life.

Would the enjoyment of reconciliation produce not only response to God, but also a portion for the neighbour?

Yes! That would surely result.

Thus the Lord completely answers the lawyer's question, "What shall I do?" in saying "Go and do thou likewise".

In seeking to carry out this exhortation we have no need to search for opportunities, "the neighbour" would be he who is nearest to us. If we see an immediate need our exercise should be to show mercy to that needy person, for that is the way God Himself is moving today.

Emphasis is laid on the Lord's repaying, "I" (the word in the New translation is emphatic), "I will render to thee". The Lord makes Himself completely responsible for all that is necessary for the care of His own; he may delegate it to others, and others may take it up in the power of the Spirit, but we can be assured that the Lord Himself will always see to the care of His own. The love which took Him to Calvary is the love that is manifested now in His service to His own.

It was rightly remarked earlier that there should be some practical evidence in our movements that reconciliation has taken place with us, and what better proof could there be that we are right with God than the love and care that we can bestow upon one another whenever the need may arise?

"We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren" (1 John 3: 14).

LUKE 14: 12-24.

In previous readings we have been occupied with the public ministry of our Lord, In Luke 7, in regard to the woman in Simon the Pharisee's house, we saw how He dealt with the question of man's guilt; and in Luke 10 we had the way in which He dealt with the state in which man was found. In the section now before us we have the outgoing of the glad tidings. Demonstration of the Lord's ability to deal with both the guilt and the state of man having been made, the invitation now goes out in order that men might avail themselves of what God has for them in blessing. Perhaps we could first consider with profit the section in which we have certain sayings of our Lord Himself before He began to speak the actual parable. It is obvious that, in His words to the one who invited Him into his house, the Lord is stressing the motives that should have marked such a person, and in so doing He is expressing the character of God Himself. In Romans 4 we read "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt", and in the very words the Lord spoke to this man, He shows that if the invitation is to be according to the mind of God, it is one that looks for no merit in or return from the recipient, but is for the acceptance of someone really in need.

Is the Lord teaching here that mutuality is suitable to the family, but that grace becomes the kingdom?

It is remarkable that one of them that sat at meat should have raised the matter of the kingdom of God. Perhaps some little light of what the Lord was showing had entered his mind, hence his rather apt remark.

Would you think that this man could see the kingdom of God?

We must ever be ready to recognize the sovereign work of God in regard to persons, but these verses primarily show to us God in His attitude toward men, rather than His work in men. It is God's own provision.

Verses 12, 13, 14 would show the unique character of the gospel, and definitely stamps the proclamation as coming from God. God is not needing recompense, His grace comes out to those who are not only unable to merit it but quite unable to give anything to secure it.

As the Lord watched the attitudes of those in the Pharisee's house He was doubtless grieved in His spirit. He was the One who had come down in humility and in grace, and these were seeking the high places for themselves.

What is being clearly demonstrated in the chapter is that the principle operating in the kingdom of God is grace, grace going out to those who have no claim whatsoever upon it.

Having brought the principle of free grace before the man who invited Him, the Lord adds (verse 14), "And thou shalt be blessed". Now while the Lord said that to the man that invited Him, it is a word for every one of us, and it is a setting forth in some measure of the thing that God Himself has done. This man might have turned round and said, "Yes, but who does act like this?" The parable is the wonderful answer, showing as it does the blessed movements of God in His grace.

Would it be too much to say that God Himself will have a recompense in the resurrection of the just?

We do bless God today, but what a wonderful answer to His grace will be seen in the coming day!

In the first chapter of Paul's first epistle to Timothy we have the testimony which has been committed to the house of God and the features of that testimony ought to characterize all who compose that house; that is, the house itself is to be characterized by the testimony given to it.

If the earlier part of the chapter we are considering discloses the character of man, the parable itself unfolds to us the character of God.

The parable in Luke 10 follows the comments by the lawyer; the parable of the two debtors in chapter 7 was a reply to the thoughts of Simon, and the parable we are now considering is a complete exposure of the condition of the men who were sitting at the feast. Against these different backgrounds the Lord is bringing to light the attitude of God in grace.

In verse 15 we read, "And when one of them that sat at meat with Him heard these things, he said unto Him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God". A perfectly right statement, suggesting that something of the blessedness of the Lord's words had been brought home to him.

Doubtless the only aspect of the kingdom this man could have contemplated was the kingdom according to prophecy as under the sway of God's Anointed, in what we understand to be the world-to-come; a time when the will of God will be manifestly supreme.

The Lord had said, "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just", and that promise apparently caused the man to speak as he did.

Are you suggesting that this man, in regarding the Lord, saw in Him the kingdom?

He evidently recognized that the Lord Jesus was completely reversing the order obtaining in man's house. Who has the right to reverse the order in man's house? Here was One Who was actually rebuking the man who had invited all there; by His utterances He is showing that everything needs to be adjusted, and He is introducing principles entirely opposite to those already existing. Who is this One? He must be the Christ, and it would appear that the man speaking of the kingdom recognized, in perhaps but a feeble measure, that there was authority as well as grace in the Lord.

The point we need to stress is, that in setting forth the principles He mentions in verses 7 to 14, the Lord was introducing something that completely reversed the principles which dominate men.

As we read this chapter we see a blessed Man who had everything in His hands. He had the ability to entirely expose the thoughts and actions of men, but He was also able to reveal the outflowing of the heart of God in grace. There will be the answer to that outflowing of grace in the coming kingdom from the hearts of all who have availed themselves of it, and in that day the Lord alone will be exalted. Men were exalting themselves in Luke 14, as they are today, but the place of exaltation belongs to Christ alone, the One who has disclosed to men the character of the heart of God.

The parable commencing at verse 16 is not only an answer to the man's assertion but a word, without doubt, to everyone at that table. "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many". We can see that what we have here is a picture of the gospel going out to men. We have remarked that the Lord's movements, in Luke 10: 33, involved the work upon the cross and now we have the testimony in relation to that finished work. What we have here in parable form actually took place as recorded in the book of the Acts.

Why in Matthew do we have a king making a supper for his son, whilst here it is "a certain man"?

Matthew being, as we well know, the kingdom gospel, we have there presented the celebration of the kingdom established by God's Anointed who, according to the prophetic word, is the Son of David; clearly a dispensational thought. In Luke it is more the thought of God making a supper to which the guests must be compelled.

Each presentation is in accord with the particular gospel; "a king" is certainly in keeping with the Messianic gospel; whereas "a certain man" is in accord with the way in which Christ is presented in Luke, where we have the movements of God displayed in a blessed Man.

Would the servant — in the singular throughout — refer to the Holy Spirit?

Yes! That is why reference has been made to the Acts, which could perhaps be called "the Acts of the Holy Spirit" — although the apostles were the instruments used.

The inclusion of the word "many" (verse 16) gives to us a wonderful disclosure of the grace of the heart of God. It would no doubt refer to the proclamation of the glad tidings as recorded in the second chapter of the Acts — where the whole nation is invited to repentance. We have three separate invitations in the parable, verses 17, 21 and 23. The first would link with the Acts of the Apostles from chapter 2 to the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7, where the testimony is to the Jews. It was they who were first bidden in verse 17. In the stoning of Stephen we see the complete refusal by the Jews of the testimony presented to them, and the confirmation of another parable which we have later in this gospel, "We will not have this Man to reign over us" (Luke 19: 14).

It is worthy of note that the Lord speaks of this supper as "a great supper".

There would appear to be two "great suppers" only, this one and the one mentioned in Revelation chapter 19. Both are great suppers, one expressing infinite grace, the other righteous judgment. Levi made a "great feast", but the term "great supper", so far as we know, is used in these two chapters only.

The chapter shows that those invited had different excuses, but they had one thing in common. That is, they would not answer to the divine appeal. Many suggestions have been made regarding these three excuses, but in effect man's heart has not changed since the time of the garden of Eden. These men were doing exactly what Adam did; Adam hid behind the trees which were the mercies of God to him. Here we have the mercies of God again, and those invited to the supper were using the very mercies given to them by God to hide away from Him. It is sadly true today that men will use the very mercies that God Himself has given to them as an excuse for refusing the gospel.

"All things are now ready" (verse 17). What do the things refer to?

If in this chapter we have the "great supper", Hebrews 2: 3 refers to the "great salvation", a matter "which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord". Why is it great? Is it not because of the absolute completeness of it as that in which God Himself is eternally glorified, and every need of man eternally met? The "great supper" is characterized by the greatness of the person who provides it, and so is the "great salvation".

You are suggesting that this first invitation would be exclusively to the Jews?

It would suggest the testimony rendered in Jerusalem itself; they were the people who first of all were bidden to this feast. The Lord's ministry never went beyond the confines of Judaism; it did go to the northern point of Palestine but never beyond it, and the disciples were instructed to begin their testimony at Jerusalem.

There were those who accepted the invitation, as we see in Acts 2 and 3, but nationally they said "We will not come". When the Lord was on earth they rejected Him, and afterwards Stephen had to say to them "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost". What more could God do with that nation?

The solemn thing in this parable is that it is the one who provided the supper who is angry, not the servant who carried the invitations, but it did not hinder the feast, God does not close the door.

On what ground is the nation of Israel received back again?

Two things are said of them in the 11th chapter of Romans; they are "Beloved for the fathers' sakes", and "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance"; He is pleased to act in the sovereignty of His mercy.

Would you say that the nation is rejected or set aside?

The nation as such will never taste of this supper, even when they are brought back again. Heavenly blessings have been made available to them, but they refused the One in whom they were presented, and so they will never taste of this supper. Israel as a nation will be brought into an earthly possession, whereas those who have accepted this invitation will be found in the heavenly company.

The cursing of the fig tree would assure us that on the ground of responsibility all was lost, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever" (Matthew 21: 19). That is a solemn word; it is their national doom.

In verse 21 we read, "Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city". That would appear to cover the book of the Acts 8 to 12. In Acts 8: 1 we read, "Saul was consenting unto his (Stephen's) death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria" They have not yet gone out of the city, but have reached the very outskirts, for Samaria was still in the land. This movement of the testimony is most remarkable, for it developed historically in the book of the Acts in the very order indicated by the Lord in this parable.

It was in the lanes of the city, when the Lord was in Samaria, that He found the poor, the lame, the halt and the blind. These were needy souls who knew their need, and gladly came into the feast when they were bidden. The thought of compelling does not come in until verse 23. These were people who were in desperate need of blessing from God, and gladly availed themselves of His overtures of mercy.

If the nation as such refused God's offer, there were many needy souls in the land who would accept it. Surely this would forcibly remind us that God will see to it that there is an adequate answer to the work of Christ on the cross?

Inverse 23 we have the last invitation to the supper, and historically this connects with the movement which commences in Acts 13.

The invitation now broadens out, and the word is "compel them to come in, that My house may be filled".

The testimony thus goes out as God intended it should. There is room for the Gentile, those outside of the city, and even outside the lanes and streets of the city in the highways and hedges, outside of the ordered system altogether; from Acts 13 to the end of the book we see God's good news presented to such.

What are we to gather from the thought of compelling them to come in?

The people to whom the first and second invitations were sent had some knowledge of the true God however poorly they may have responded to it, but the outcasts of the Gentiles had no knowledge of the true God, an example of which we see at Athens where they erected an altar to "the unknown God". Thus we have the proclamation of the gospel going out in the compelling power of the Spirit of God, drawing men into the light and favour of God as He is known today through Christ.

The commission to Paul was threefold. He was "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God".

The first two invitations were addressed to those who stood in a privileged position. They were the children of Abraham so far as their natural genealogy was concerned, but the gospel has now gone beyond them. They refused it and it has gone out to a people who were "strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2: 12). We also read "That Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers". Note that word "confirm". They stood in relationship to God, but the chapter goes on to say, "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy" (Rom. 15: 8, 9); not for His promises but for His mercy. That is the bearing of the expression "compel them to come in".

The whole matter is concisely stated in the last chapter of the Acts where the Jews refused the testimony that Paul rendered in his own hired house, and he says, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed".

If at the end of Luke 13 the Lord has to say of that privileged nation, "Your house is left unto you desolate", how blessed to read in Luke 14 the beautiful words "That My house may be filled".

LUKE 15: 1-14.

In previous readings we have noticed the attitude of the Lord Himself as expressed in His words and His works of grace, and have connected it with the ministry of reconciliation. In Luke 14 we saw the going out of the glad tidings, "Come, for all things are now ready", and in that testimony we have the word of reconciliation. We saw in the Acts of the Apostles the proclamation of the glad tidings subsequent to the work of Christ upon the cross. And this would indicate to us that which Paul said had been particularly given, not only to himself but also to the other apostles, as part of the word of reconciliation, telling men that on the ground of the work that Christ had accomplished they could be brought back to God.

In chapter 15 there is a summing up of all the other chapters that have been before us. We have here a threefold parable. In the Shepherd seeking the lost sheep — we have God's gracious answer to the guilt of man as seen in Luke 7. In the woman searching the house — the state of man (Luke 10) as lost and recovered through divine seeking. Whilst in the younger son who, we may say, heeded the invitation to "Come; for all things are now ready" — we find both of these things taken account of, his guilt and state met in divine grace so that the Father might have him back happily in His presence. We ought also to notice that in the servant going forth with the word "Come; for all things are now ready", we have a suggestion of the Holy Spirit, in whose power the apostles made the proclamation known. In line with the first chapter of Colossians we here find the Son, the Spirit and the Father, each with His own particular work, and can thus discern the great interest of the Godhead in the recovery of man for the divine pleasure. It is blessed for us to contemplate that the source of the whole matter was the desire of God to recover man for Himself. In order to bring that about the Son comes in incarnation; and to produce an effect from this coming in the hearts of men the Spirit is still operating in the world today. God finding His joy in the recovery of his creature man.

When we speak of being recovered to God, there is no suggestion that we are brought back to the state of innocence seen in Adam, but we are brought back to God in reconciliation on perfectly new ground.

Man did belong originally to God, for he was created by Him, but in being recovered on the basis of redemption a new order of sonship has been introduced as we shall see as we proceed.

In Malachi we read "Have we not all one Father?", but the Scripture goes on to say, "Hath not one God created us?" (Mal. 2: 10). Obviously this refers to the relationship in creation. Is not the overruling thought that God had lost man's affections? In this chapter we see how He recovers them. It is not so much what man is brought back to, but what God Himself has recovered.

Would the repetition of the word "lost" indicate that God was missing the affection of man?

Perhaps we ought to emphasize that. The chapter seems to suggest that the end in view is the rejoicing of divine Persons in what They have recovered for Themselves.

There is, too, an historical order in this chapter. The first part of the parable, where we read of the shepherd going after the lost sheep, would refer to the work of Christ. The rest of the chapter really hangs upon that. In the incident of the woman searching for the piece of silver we see the work of the Spirit, and as the result of the work of Christ and of the Spirit, we have the reception by the Father Himself of one who is made suitable for His house.

What do the ninety and nine represent?

They would no doubt be those of the nation who had no sense of their need, with the result that they are never brought into the blessing seen in this chapter. Probably the Pharisees themselves were in the Lord's mind. The whole parable is a justification of the Lord's attitude in receiving the "publicans and sinners".

In that connection the beginning of the chapter is important. These people were drawing near to Him, and whilst the parable shows the Lord seeking the sinner, it commences with the thought of sinners drawing near to Him.

Does not the parable stress the thought that that which was lost was of value to the owner? "My sheep which was lost"; "the piece which I had lost"; "My son". Hence there is the rejoicing on the part of the One who recovers that which had been lost.

What does the house suggest? The sheep having been found the shepherd did not return it to the wilderness, but brought it to the "house" (New Trans.).

That is one of the points we ought to notice. Whilst there is the feature of recovery throughout the parable, there is something special in relation to each section. So that the recovered sheep is brought to a position beyond anything it had been in before. He brings it home.

In John chapter 10 we have in contrast to the fold, "one flock, one Shepherd" (v. 17, New Trans.). That is something new which was not known in Judaism.

What is conveyed in the thought of carrying the sheep "on his shoulders"?

It would perhaps be similar to what there is in the tenth chapter, where we find that the power is supplied by the Samaritan's own beast. So in this chapter the shepherd makes himself responsible for the sheep all the way home.

With regard to the expression in verses 6 and 9, "Rejoice with me". One has thought that this may refer to the Father and the Holy Spirit rejoicing in the work of the Son in verse 6; and the Father and the Son rejoicing in the work of the Spirit in verse 9; "let us eat and be merry" (verse 23) would be the Father, Son and Holy Ghost rejoicing together. Doubtless there is a joy into which we also are brought, but these verses seem to indicate the distinctive joy of the Persons in the Godhead in the recovery of man for Their pleasure.

It is clear that divine Persons are active, working for Their own pleasure, and rejoicing together in the results secured.

In considering the movements of the younger son (verse 13) we see that which is indicative of man who, receiving the bountiful mercies of God and using them in self gratification at a distance from God, finds himself entirely destitute of joy and happiness.

Looking at this from a doctrinal point of view we see man's utter depravity in the first chapter of Romans, before we have the manifestation of what God is doing in His grace. If man turns his back on God it must result in his depravity, but we see in Luke 15, and also in the epistles, that when God in His grace effects man's recovery, He has in mind a condition of blessing beyond anything that man knew previously.

God in His movements of grace has the whole of mankind in view. The early chapters of Romans show all to be unprofitable, and the whole world "guilty before God". Then from the middle of Romans 3 we have the line of recovery introduced from God's side, and the result in Romans 8 is that those recovered through God's operations in grace are to be "conformed to the image of His Son".

In the Acts of the Apostles we find the representatives of the three branches of mankind — Ham, Japheth and Shem — brought into a position that they never enjoyed before. When the eunuch "went on his way rejoicing", he had a new sense of joy in his heart; and when Cornelius came under the power of the gospel through Peter he saw things in a way in which he had never seen them before. He was a pious, praying man but he did not know the power of the Spirit until he believed the gospel which Peter preached. Saul of Tarsus was a man who was advanced in Judaism beyond his contemporaries, but as receiving the grace of God he was brought into that which outshone all that he had ever known. Thus we see that God is not only recovering man from his lost condition but also introducing him to that which was in His own heart for man. In the theme before us we rejoice in a love which not only takes account of man's need and meets that need, but brings him into suitability for the presence of God for God's own joy and delight.

What are we to learn from the fact that whilst the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver are picked up in their lost condition, the younger son moves towards his father?

That question brings us back to the doctrinal thought. Following the work of Christ as seen in the shepherd, we have the work of the woman which illustrates the movements of the Spirit of God. The expression in verse 17 — "when he came to himself" — would indicate the subjective effect of the Spirit's work in the heart of the believer. The first movement in any one of us towards God was not of ourselves; there was a complete change from the moment when "he came to himself".

It was the thought of the goodness of his father that was operating in his heart. There was the famine on the one hand; he felt his hopeless condition, and his mind went back to the place where he knew his father would provide "enough and to spare".

If in Romans 1 we have the depravity that marked man, in Romans 2 we read that "the goodness of God leadeth . . . to repentance".

Repentance involves a true valuation of things. I could not have a true valuation of anything apart from a work of God in my soul. Hence we see the necessity for the work of the Spirit in the second part of the parable.

In the provision of the father's house is there any suggestion of what we saw in chapter 14, "All things are now ready"?

We hope to see in this chapter what some of those things are. In Luke 13 the Lord had to say to the Jews "Your house is left unto you desolate". We have God's house presented with its provision in Luke 14, and we hope to see something of that provision in Luke 15.

This younger son had some knowledge of what was in the father's house, but he did not know the blessedness of what was in the father's heart for him. Reconciliation does not comprise the bringing again of man to that which was lost in Eden, but the bringing of him to that which was ever in the purpose of God for man, the knowledge of His love in eternal conditions.

If God by His Spirit shows to us that we are bereft of everything as away from Himself, He delights also to show us another scene in which there is absolute fullness, the provision of His own love.

Perhaps we are only just beginning to find out what there is in the Father's house. According to Romans 1 man has partial knowledge of God, even the darkest pagan had some knowledge of God. So the son had some knowledge of what was in his father's house, but neither he nor ourselves knew the extent of blessing that was in God's mind for us until we came home to Him.

In 1 Corinthians 2: 9 we read, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him". It is only by the Spirit we have the knowledge of these wonderful things today.

There are three different words used for servants in this section. Whoever these hired servants may refer to, the younger son knew they were there and that they were amply satisfied in their service, whilst he was starving. It was that point to which he was brought, the consciousness of the dignity that could be his, and perhaps the dignity that once had been his, so that he says, "I will arise and go to my father". But he was in a far country, he was a long way off, how could he get back? If it was the Spirit's work that brought him to the state of self judgment, was it not because the Shepherd had gone every step in His seeking love, that this returning sinner can now take every step back again? Love has made the way clear.

In relation to the sheep and to the silver, it is evident that they were out of sight until they were found, but in relation to the son we are brought to the thought of the purpose of God, he was never out of sight.

In the compassions of his father he found a greater welcome than he could have expected; the father fell on his neck and covered him with kisses. Whilst he had of necessity to own his sin, saying "I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son", he was not allowed to ask that he might be given the place of a servant.

What are we to learn in the further thought of the son being clothed? This follows the affectionate reception he had received from his father.

It has been said that we have the two sides of the gospel presented here. The father covering him with kisses would perhaps suggest Romans chapter 5, "Through whom now we have received the reconciliation" (verse 11, New Trans.) — the distance all removed. Then in 2 Corinthians 5 we see that reconciliation subserves new creation, and that is what would be seen in the things the father speaks of in Luke 15: 22, things which were in reserve. So that while forgiveness and the complete removal of all distance are the first great and necessary steps in reconciliation, what follows is our being made fit for the new position for the pleasure of God.

In reconciliation the distance has been entirely removed. Sometimes we hear about the distance being bridged, but if there were a bridge it would connect the new with the old, and this we sometimes try to do. As clothed in the best robe, the younger son would not be constantly speaking of that which he had previously worn! His conversation would surely be of the wonderful place in the affections of his father which he now had and which doubtless he appreciated. He knew the heart of his father in a way in which he had not known it before.

We need not conjecture what he was talking of. We read, "They began to be merry". He certainly would not be thinking of the rags and of the swine, for there was nothing in those things to cause merriment.

If, as has been suggested, the best robe indicates the thought of new creation, how could the servants put that on?

It is certainly the Holy Spirit who does the work, but He acts through the servants. However we must not assume to be in the good of new creation because we have heard the truth concerning it; the ministry would show what is really available for us.

It is quite evident that these servants knew where the best robe was. that would be a challenge to all those who seek to serve and help the saints!

At the outset of these readings we saw the truth of reconciliation presented to us in the gospel for our acceptance, "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5: 20), but how many of us knew what we were really brought into as we obeyed that word? Hence the necessity of further ministry in order that we may be brought consciously into the blessedness of new creation, and the dignity of sonship as we are found near to God in reconciliation. Thus we can be at home in the Father's presence.

Whilst the necessity for forgiveness was there, it was with a view to clearing the ground in order that God might bring us into this completely new order of things in which we can enjoy the blessedness of that which His love provides as seen in verses 22 and 23.

There is the responsibility of the servants (verse 22), but it is by the work of the Spirit in our souls that we are brought into the good of new creation.

Is it not a fact that when we come to Christ all these blessings are ours?

We have sought to make that clear. These blessings are not the proprietary right of some special class of Christians; the servants through ministry do not give us these blessings, but they do help us into the joy and power of them.

Will you say once more what is the difference between the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation?

The ministry of reconciliation was seen in the movements and words of the Lord Jesus when here in this world He made known God's attitude to man. We read in John 3: 17 "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved". Again we have the words in John 8 of the Lord Himself, "Neither do I condemn thee"; He was "not imputing their trespasses unto them". In every detail of His service here He was manifesting the wonderful fact that He had come into the world to recover man for God; that is the ministry of reconciliation. Now, as to the word of reconciliation, we know that before any one of us could get the gain of what was expressed in the Lord's movements of love, His precious death was a necessity. He must die upon the cross, and now as the result of that work God has moved towards us in the gospel, as we see so plainly evidenced in the words of Paul, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5: 20). This is the word of reconciliation which he tells us in the previous verse God had committed to him.

The ministry of reconciliation is connected with Christ personally, whereas the word of reconciliation stands related to the movements of the Spirit through the apostles.

We have not considered verse 22 and 23 in detail, but doubtless they would bring before us the circle of divine affection of which we often sing, "Where love's treasures are displayed". The fatted calf would perhaps suggest a peace offering which, as we know, is the fellowship offering. For the remarkable thing is that we can actually enjoy fellowship with Father and with the Son, and thus enter into this circle of holy joy which the words, "Let us eat, and be merry" would suggest.

Matthew 12: 38-50

Matthew 12: 38-50

Reading with G. Davison

In this section we have the last words of our Lord Jesus Christ as Messiah of Israel before He turned away from them to introduce another aspect of the kingdom as outlined in Matthew 13.

It is the aspect of the kingdom which we know as Christianity.

Is it significant that in this rejection by Israel of their King, and before He as the Sower introduces in the next chapter the thought of something new, He should bring before them His own death?

I suppose you are referring to the sign of the prophet Jonas. There are three "greater" passages in this chapter, "greater than the temple" (v. 6); "greater than Jonas" (v. 41); and "greater than Solomon" (v. 42). He was "greater than the temple" because the revelation of God was shining out from Him at that moment. The display of light is the thought in the temple. "Greater than Jonas" relates to the effect of His death, and "greater than Solomon" to the glory that resulted as the fruit of His death.

It is a fact that whilst the Lord pronounces this judgment, the basis of the judgment will be His own death. The Lord Jesus introduces in the next chapter what is new, but the only way in which that could be substantially established is by His death. When they asked for a sign He spoke of His death, and we need to be brought back very definitely to the thought that everything hinges upon the death of Christ. We need ever to keep the cross in our thoughts. It was in this way God could move forward in the accomplishment of the secrets which were in His heart. Apart from the cross not one of us could have been blessed as we have been today.

Would there be a hint as to that which was new in the last few verses of this chapter?

I suppose you are referring to the break with His natural relations. It points to the definite break with Israel as a nation and the introduction of a completely new order of things. I believe the real transitional period began in Matthew 11, where we hear the Lord saying, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth". One of the things we learn from 1 Cor. 15 is that the natural is first and afterwards that which is spiritual. Having presented the kingdom according to promise and prophecy, the Lord is about to open up the kingdom in a spiritual way because Israel had refused the offer made to them in His ministry. We may point out that Matthew quotes more often from the Old Testament than the other evangelists, showing the kingdom as presented according to promise and prophecy. Now that the moment has come to introduce the heavenly side of the kingdom, the Lord does not say earth and heaven, but "heaven and earth". The earthly and material side of the kingdom had been presented first, now the spiritual and heavenly side was to take its place.

Is not the old going to be established as well?

The Lord uses these terms Himself in Matthew 13 verse 52, "things new and old". The moment had arrived to set the earthly aside; not to give it up entirely, but to set it aside until the heavenly side of the truth was accomplished. Then what had first been offered to Israel and had been refused, would come in again when the Lord returns to establish His kingdom in power and glory in the world to come. At this juncture in the ministry of our Lord He is about to bring in the kingdom in a way not found in prophecy. He says in the next chapter that it had "been kept secret from the foundation of the world" (v. 35). Christianity was something entirely new and this fact marks out this section as being very important. It does not mean that the old is abandoned.

Would it refer to what the Lord speaks of in John 3? "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" Would that refer to the old and the new which we have in these chapters?

Yes! That is why we pointed out that these things were not recorded in the Old Testament. It is the kingdom on its heavenly side which is about to be brought in and I am persuaded it is through lack of seeing this that some have gone astray in the interpretation of these parables. They have attempted to bring in much that is connected with the earthly side of the kingdom, whereas the old things have been set aside and have no part in the heavenly side which is outlined in Matthew 13. I hope we shall clearly see this when we get to that chapter.

Do we not see in verses 43 to 45, the old going from bad to worse?

That is clear. We know that what is meant by the term "this wicked generation" is the nation of Israel in their present character as unbelievers and refusers of the Lord as their rightful King. That generation was to be removed as it certainly has been in governmental judgment.

In relation to what was said about the old eventually being established we may take as an example the children of Israel in the wilderness. Almost all who came out of Egypt perished in the wilderness, but the nation went in, in a subsequent generation. The old generation perished but a new generation went in.

Would not that have a present application? Is not this same sort of thing happening today?

That is true, but I think we should see clearly that here it is that generation which is in view. The nation never really gave up idolatry, as Stephen assures us, even carrying the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of Remphan through the wilderness, which led God to say to them "I will carry you away beyond Babylon". That is where idolatry belongs, and there they went. Zechariah refers to the same thing in the vision of the woman sitting in the ephah. For seventy years they suffered in Babylon because of this idolatrous spirit. By the time the Lord appeared among them the house was swept and garnished, a word meaning "adorned". The warning the Lord is giving them looks on to the time when the nation will apostatize to antichrist, and the last state of that nation will be worse than the first. John in his gospel records the Lord saying "I am come in my Father's name, and ye received Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (John 5: 43). No doubt the Gentile apostasy will be just as bad when they apostatize to the beast, but here it is obviously Israel.

Does not all this show how we need to be clear as to what is new and what is old? If we were initiated by the Spirit into what is new, the old would be in its right perspective, and this new thing which has come out would hold our affections and attention.

Looking back to Genesis with this in view, we read that the first time God made promise to Abraham about his seed He told him it would be as "the dust of the earth" (Gen. 13: 16). The next time God spoke of that seed in Genesis 15: 5, He said it would be as "the stars". Then in Gen. 22: 17 He added a third thing as to the seed, saying it would be "as the sand". So Abraham received the promises in this order-dust, stars and sand. When God gave confirmation to Isaac as to his seed, He said it would be "as the stars of heaven" (Gen. 26: 4). Later, when God confirms it to Jacob, he tells him, "and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth" (Gen. 28: 14). Isaac is typical of the heavenly company and Jacob is typical of the earthly. So to Isaac the stars are mentioned and to Jacob the dust. Yet in Genesis 32: 12, Jacob says God had also promised to give him seed as the "sand of the sea". In this chapter Jacob is about to meet Esau and effect a reconciliation, a picture of the Gentiles being brought into blessing through the Jew in a day yet to come. It is striking that just here Jacob should make mention of the sand. In giving them all to Abraham God gave them in this order-dust, stars and sand; but when in the ways of God the order is-stars, dust and sand. While the dust came first at the outset, the stars take precedence in the dealings of God; and we have long understood the stars to typify the heavenly company, the dust Israel and the sand the Gentiles. We see from this that while historically Israel was first in the dealings of God in this world, the heavenly company now take first place, Israel second and the Gentiles third.

Is there not a suggestion in the promise to Abraham as to the stars, that there is the heavenly side of the kingdom as well as the earthly? Would that be the Assembly?

No! I was pointing out that in the world to come that is the order of blessing. This is seen in the tabernacle system where the Assembly is in the inside place, the nation of Israel in the holy place, and the Gentiles in the court; this is, viewing the Tabernacle as a picture of the universe. We must bear in mind that when we speak of the heavenly company it includes more than the Assembly, it takes in all the Old Testament saints as well. This I hope we shall see in the parables. What we need to see here is that God does not bring in the earthly and fall back upon the heavenly when the earthly fails, but rather that the heavenly is first in the thought of God. We have mentioned before that God closed the history of man at the cross so far as expecting anything from him. If any of these companies are to be brought into blessing it must be on the basis of grace, hence the necessity of the cross. So far as man in responsibility is concerned no blessing can be obtained. God now is bringing in blessing according to the purpose of His own heart.

Do you think we can discern in this chapter the disposition of God in grace towards His earthly people? In Stephen's address we see the desire of the heart of God toward them in that He is prepared to give them another opportunity.

So far as I see, Stephen never offered them anything. What you speak of is seen in the earlier chapters, but not in the address of Stephen. So far as I read, neither Noah nor Stephen ever offered salvation to anyone. In both cases the die was cast and only judgment was in view.

Is not the suggestion here that God is bringing in a generation who will be in accord with His own thoughts? Not only that He brings in something new, but produces a generation in which it will all be substantiated.

That is one of the main things I hope we shall grasp in these readings. We read in Galatians 3: 20, "Now a mediator is not . . of one, but God is one". Moses was the mediator of the first covenant because there were two sides to it, and man was responsible as to his side of the covenant. Reference has been made to the purpose of God, which does not refer to man in responsibility at all. God has put into operation that which was in His heart, bringing man into blessing no longer as expecting anything from him in responsibility, but bringing it all to him in sovereignty. That is why no mediator is needed in new covenant blessing.

"For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother". That is what you mean by the new generation.

Yes! And that is brought about by the sovereign action of God producing a generation who would do His will. It does not do away with our responsibility, but it does not begin from our side. The point is we have answered to our responsibility because of a new work in our souls which has produced obedience in us. That generation is in moral correspondence to Christ, doing the will of His Father.

Why do we have it in this order? The Lord refused these natural links before introducing the new ones. It is not refusing links of some who were far from Him, but the most intimate to Him, so far as His place in Manhood is concerned.

A verse in Rom. 15 will help us there. "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers". We must remember that all the promises made to a nation were made to that nation only, and Christ came to make good to them all that had been promised. That is seen in the first verse of this gospel, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham". Further down we have reference to the seed of the woman, the virgin bringing forth a Son; all that God had promised through the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, and the seed of David was offered to that nation in the birth of Christ. It must come first in the ways of God with Israel. He could not cast aside what He had promised, and to make sure it was all there it was of that very nation, "as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom. 9: 5). That is why we see Him here in that relationship, it was only right that He should be. Hence the verse in Rom. 15 we have quoted. Now the apostle can add in the next verse to the one we have quoted, "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy" (v. 9). The Gentiles could not thank God for His promises, but they can thank Him for His mercy. As Gentiles we had not a single promise, but we have mercy and all is through Christ.

Would not all this be established in resurrection?

It would, and we shall have to note that. The section beginning in Matthew 13 and continuing to Matthew 18 covers the principles of the present dispensation. In it we see the church within the bounds of the kingdom so long as it is on the earth. Now the church only came into being when the Spirit descended as recorded in Acts 2, hence it must have been subsequent to the resurrection of Christ.

It is blessed to see the Lord stretching forth His hand here to take in the circle which has been brought about by the sovereignty of mercy.

In Mark it says He looked round upon His disciples, but here the stretching out of the hand may indicate His kingly character.

That is what I had in mind; He stretches out His hand in a kingly way as in blessing and in ownership in the sovereign rights of a king. You cannot have a kingdom without subjects, and He stretches out His hand and indicates those subjects; and they are all there on the ground of sovereign mercy.

It is interesting to follow that out from the first outline of the principles of the kingdom in Matthew 15. I have found verses in the epistles where all those principles are in mind in the practice of Christianity today. We might expect that, for the church is in the kingdom so long as it is on the earth, and these things are to be seen, although we do see later that our place will eventually be on the heavenly side of that kingdom in the world to come. The first principle is, "Blessed are the poor in spirit". Compare that with Rom. 12: 16, "not minding high things, but going along with the lowly" (New Trans.). These things show that the church is within the bounds of the kingdom and we ought to be marked by them as individuals.

Referring again to Jonah, was he not a sign of the resurrection of Christ more than of His death?

Both, of course, were seen in Jonah, His death in verse 40 and His resurrection in verse 41.

The leper in Matthew 8 was a picture of the nation, but in verse 5 of that chapter a Gentile comes in for blessing. He was marked by faith, and it is on this principle the Gentiles are brought into blessing.

We had that in mind when we suggested this passage. The signs show that the Jew having refused the blessing it now goes out to the Gentiles; all subsequent to the Lord being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. We need to keep these things in mind when we come to Matthew 13.

That order comes in again in the book of the Acts, for it is only after the preaching first to the Jews that the gospel goes out to the Gentiles in Acts 10. What comes to light is God taking out of the nations a people for His name; not the Jews as a nation but a people which is now composed of Jew and Gentile.

That is all involved in the simile the Lord uses of Himself as the Sower. It is the beginning of a new order now coming to light in His ministry.

Another thing we should notice in this sign of Jonah is that he was a sign of coming judgment, as he said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown". We know that about forty years after the death of our Lord Jerusalem was overthrown. These things are all here in this sign of the prophet. Forty years, as we know, is a probationary period and their doom was sealed when they would not believe.

Is it significant that this question of sin against the Holy Spirit is brought in?

That was their final sin.

What is meant by three days and three nights in relation to the Lord/

It does not mean three periods of twenty-four hours, but involving this time. The time when our Lord died was already inclusive of a day and a night; then the Sabbath in which He lay in the grave was a day and a night; and on the first day He rose we have the third day and night, inclusive. At any time in twenty-four hours it is the same day and night whether early in the morning or late at night.

Would the three days and three nights carry the thought of competent testimony?

They would, and along with that three is the number of resurrection.

We must, of course, hold both His death and resurrection together. His death closed the old history, so that God might bring in this new order, and this He has established in the resurrection of Christ. We have often heard that new creation came to light in the resurrection of Christ. In His death old things have passed away, that is so far as we are concerned. It is this of which Peter writes, "begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away" (1 Peter 1: 3). This is reserved in heaven where Christ is.

Please say more about the moral characteristics of this new generation.

We may gather two things from these two signs. First, we have repented like the Ninevites, and we have come with our hard questions to the Lord. These are two of the marks of "wisdom's children". These two things mark the gospel which Paul preached, as he said in Acts 20, "Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ". Repentance would involve that we accept the judgment of God upon the first man, and it leads us through faith to be attached to the Second Man as risen from the dead. We read that Solomon had the solution of every question, and Christ raised from among the dead has the answer to every moral problem in the universe. He had the solution of all while in this world, but it is as believing on Him as raised from among the dead that the solution of all our problems becomes available. "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God". Here we are, the children of wisdom, with the solution of every problem. Completely emptied in the sign of Jonah; and completely filled in the sign of the Queen of South. It has all come to us through the mercy of God and our acceptance of it by faith. May we never forget that we are the subjects of His mercy, for we were all lost dogs of the Gentiles.

I suppose what we need to bear in mind is the greatness of the Person Who superseded Jonah and Solomon, for that is why it says "a greater".

The word translated "greater" means "more". This evidently means that more was bound to come to pass through Jesus Christ. That is one of the words used to show His supremacy.

Some have had difficulty about a greater than Solomon through not reading it carefully. I remember a brother asking me about it, contrasting the glory of Solomon with the lowliness of Jesus. I pointed out to him, she did not come to see the glory of Solomon but to hear his wisdom. It is not glory here but wisdom. When the Lord referred to the glory of Solomon He contrasted it with the lily of the field (Matt. 6: 29). It does say about the fame of Solomon it was "concerning the name of the LORD". So Christ was here concerned with the name of God and all that was due to Him.

Would not the reference to the Queen "from the uttermost parts of the earth" show how far this new blessing was to go?

It shows how far she was away from the place of blessing. It is suggestive of the moral distance of the Gentiles, the ends of the earth. This is seen morally in the Canaanitish woman; as to distance, she was not so very many miles away, but morally as far outside as she could be.

We do well to notice the closing words of our Lord to these people when His ministry is about to take a decided change. He had presented the kingdom in a way outlined in the prophets, and now was about to present it in a way not known in the prophets; yet He skilfully shows that while the Jews have refused their opportunity, it was about to be opened out to the Gentiles. It is worth noting that on the very day the Spirit came down the gospel went out in almost every language. We may not have stressed enough that there were "proselytes" in that company. While Jewish in religion they certainly were not Jews. It does seem to give us a picture of the universality of what was now being preached.

One of the places where this blessing going out is beautifully seen is in Isaiah 51: 16, "I have covered thee in the shadow of Mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art My people". Is not the kingdom on its heavenly side and on its earthly side seen here?

It is indeed.

Is not this new generation brought to light by the Sower?

It is, and it is brought to light in relation to the Father Who is active in heaven, not in relation to God active on the earth.

It is a serious consideration here that the Son of God had come in power as their Messiah, healing on every hand, yet they refused to accept Him as such and were already conspiring against Him. Yet how blessed that it did not hinder God's going on with His work, but opened the way for Christ to bring in something greater than that which had been prophesied of Him as the Anointed. We do well to thank God for the day in which we live. The kingdom as we know it today is not any adjunct of Judaism which only came in because Israel refused Christ, but it is something which in the counsel of God is greater than anything He had ever promised to Israel.

Matthew 13: 1-9; 18-23.

I note at the beginning of this chapter it says, "The same day went Jesus out of the house". The position would now appear to be irrevocable so far as His ministry to Israel was concerned.

I think we do right to note that, as we have emphasized from the previous chapters. Some have thought that the kingdom of the heavens as presented in these parables is an extension of that house-Israel as a nation-but it is something altogether distinct from it. The Lord is seen leaving the one position, as indicated by the "house", and occupying a new position as indicated by the "sea side".

Does it always happen in the ways of God that when a new departure opens the break with what was previous is immediate?

It does not always happen simultaneously, as we see in the first seven chapters of Acts; in the transfer from Judaism to Christianity it took quite a number of years. But Judaism did not produce Christianity; it is quite distinct from it.

From the Divine side it was the same day, but on the side of man's responsibility it took time to bring it about.

Even Paul had a struggle to free the converts from Judaism and bring them into the liberty of Christianity; they had to learn that a system of works and a system of faith, or earthly things and heavenly things, could not go on together.

The Lord had not yet left Jerusalem; He was still there in their midst, but His ministry as outlined in these parables is something of an entirely new character. That is why the Lord presents Himself in the character of a Sower.

We have to see the distinction between what the Lord is doing and our acceptance of it in responsibility. In regard to what has been said about Genesis, after the offering up of Isaac, Rebekah is brought to light at the end of that chapter showing what was in mind in the purpose of God; but it is not until Genesis 24 that we see the matter worked out subjectively. So here, so far as the mind of God is concerned, the break is complete. It is for us and Christendom at large to accept it.

Another house is mentioned in verse 36 into which the Lord went, but it is distinct in its bearing from the house in verse 1. The second house is where we are today, as we hope to see when it comes to the instruction. He left the house in verse 1 and "sat by the sea side", before introducing us to the house of verse 36.

Does the first house suggest profession?

I have taken the first house to be Judaism, and the second one Christianity. When He leaves the house the multitudes are still prepared to follow Him, hence the necessity of this parable of the Sower. It shows they were attached to Him more than to the house, although they still belonged to it. It is the attraction of the Person which caused them to gather together unto Him. His position determines the position of His own.

Would not Hebrews 13 have a similar thought in view, "Let us go forth therefore unto Him"? He would attract His own to Himself.

What is conveyed in the fact that He sat in a ship?

That carries us in thought to Genesis, where we read of the promise of the seed to Abraham in three distinctive ways; first as dust, then as stars, and lastly as sand. We saw that when the Lord sent out His disciples in Matthew 10 He told them to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They are the dust, and had the first offer of His ministry in this world. Now, Israel having refused the offer, the sand is coming into prominence, and we have learned that if the dust speaks of Israel the sand speaks of the Gentiles. I apprehend that the Lord sitting there suggests the Teacher. When we read of the Lord walking it is for disciples to see in Him the example which they should follow, but when He sits it is more as Teacher. A completely new set of principles is coming out and the Lord sits as the great Teacher of this multitude.

These things have more than Israel in mind, they include all nations.

Yes. We see in relation to Cornelius the public entrance of the Gentiles into the kingdom, and Peter was the man who had the privilege of bringing him in. In Acts 10, where we read of this, Peter also was at the sea side, quite in line with what we have here.

I have noticed that Isaiah speaks a lot about the sea and also says much about the Gentiles being brought into blessing.

Did the Lord give these parables to attract the hearers to Himself, or were they given in such form in order that the people should not understand what He was saying?

I think we shall see both of those things in this chapter. I have noticed a word in chapters 13, 14, 15 and 16; it is the word "departed". In each of these chapters He departs, leaving one set of things for another in order that the new position may be established apart from that suggested by the house. We have perhaps got into the habit of taking up parables to explain the truth, while the Lord gave them to hide it. Hence, we shall find that what is brought to light in this chapter springs from sovereignty, for only those born of God were capable of understanding these things.

You do not suggest that Israelites are excluded?

This would be a Jewish crowd, but the Lord does not refer to them as such, showing that something new was being brought in so far as His ministry was concerned. It has often been pointed out that when that which God has committed to men breaks down, He goes on to something better.

We have seen that what had been promised to Israel is laid aside while this new thing is brought in. God will resume His dealing with Israel in a future day, which carries us in thought to the New Covenant, so that when He does take them up again it is in a much greater way. It will be the same nation to which the promises were given, but they will be fulfilled on an entirely new basis.

Does not the Old Testament show that Israel will be on the earthly side of the kingdom of the Son of Man, whereas the church is on the heavenly side?

The first presentation by the Lord of the kingdom was in relation to the Son of David, their long promised Messiah. I do not think the kingdom of the Son of Man comes into being until the world to come, when heaven and earth will be united together. Here the earthly side of the kingdom is being laid aside, so far as the ministry of our Lord is concerned, so that the heavenly side may be brought into effect. The prophetic promises to Israel will certainly be fulfilled, but when they are it will be on New Covenant lines and no longer on the ground of human responsibility.

Is the kingdom of the Son of Man merged in the kingdom of the heavens today?

I rather think it eventuates in that. So far as I see, the only thing in administration today is the heavenly side of the kingdom. I do not think it can be said to be the kingdom of the Son of Man till both heaven and earth are united in it, in manifestation. It is of course the kingdom of the Son of Man to us so far as the heavenly side is concerned, but we must remember that that term includes both heaven and earth. We have to keep these terms distinct.

It does say about the sower in the second parable that the one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.

That is why I said it is the kingdom of the Son of Man to us, for we are being formed for the heavenly side of it; but in its entirety as seen in such places as Daniel, it involves the earth as well. We know from Psalm 8 and Heb. 2 etc., that He is exalted already as Son of Man, and "all things" are said to be subject to Him, but this is not yet effectuated as to earth.

If we think of the administration of the kingdom it is quite clear.

Psalm 8 is quoted three times in the New Testament-in Heb. 2, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 15. I mention Heb. 2 first for it is given in relation to the place Christ has today. In Eph. 1 it is in connection with the world to come, heading up all things in Christ, but in 1 Cor. 15 it is in relation to eternity.

While the kingdom of the Son of Man carries the thought of administration yet the blessed features of it are known in a moral way today. Hence these references to the Son of Man.

We do have it in light as the fruit of teaching before it comes into public evidence, but what we are trying to show from this chapter is the aspect of the kingdom in administration today, as the kingdom of the heavens. It is also the kingdom of God, as we shall see. Again, we are to be manifested in the kingdom of the Father, but we have not reached that point yet. Then will the kingdom of the Son of Man also come into display, but we have the light of it all now.

Is that being brought about by the secrets being shown to us?

It has been said that this parable is not concerned at the moment with the inward work or effect, but what has been brought into manifestation today.

That is true and we must guard the fact that this first parable is not said to be a similitude of the kingdom of the heavens. Hence we must have the word of the kingdom before the children of the kingdom are brought into evidence. They come to light in the second parable.

Another thing we must note, the field is not mentioned here, and for a specific reason. This parable only covers the ministry of our Lord, and during the time of His ministry the kingdom of the heavens had not yet been brought in, that is why it is not said to be a similitude. Nor did the ministry of our Lord go beyond the confines of Israel. We find the field in the next parable, for that does go beyond the limits of Palestine.

I suppose, to keep the matter quite clear, we do not get the heavenly side of the kingdom brought in till Pentecost.

The Lord in giving this parable begins by telling them, "Behold, a sower went forth to sow". It may help to point out that the phrase "went forth" is the same as "went . . out" of the house.

May I ask in reference to verse 3 and what you have said about this first parable, are these "many things" connected with these first nine verses or are they in reference to something else?

I think all that comes out in this chapter is in view.

Does it mean that if we are to have some understanding of all that comes out in the rest of this chapter, we must understand first what the Lord is bringing out here?

It is the foundation of the other parables. How could we understand the end if we do not understand the beginning!

This parable covers the work of our Lord before the cross, the next parable His work subsequent to the cross. It is when Christ is in glory and the field is left in the care of men that we come to the second parable. The Lord says in Matthew 10, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles . . go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", the house which is indicated at the beginning of this chapter. That is in line with this first parable; but in Matthew 28 He tells them to "teach all nations" and that is in line with the second parable.

Would not such a verse as the one further down which says "he bought the field" have this in view? It would.

We often have this parable compared with its report in the other gospels and we want to see the main thought here. Here emphasis is on the Sower, in Mark the sowing, and in Luke what He sows; but here it is the Person Who sows.

Is there any significance in the fact that He was in the sea, as in the boat, while they are still on the land?

Yes! They had not yet been taken off the land. He is showing His position, having in view the formation of the kingdom, but so far as they were concerned they were not taken off the land till after Pentecost. The ministry which was now coming out would eventually detach them from the nation, but that moment had not come as yet.

That would be interesting as connection the Sermon on the Mount with the land, and this with the sea.

Yes. A mountain is mentioned six times in this gospel. In referring to the presentation of this parable in the other gospels, what is stressed in this one is the majesty of the One Who brings it in.

It is often said that Christ is presented as the Son of David in this gospel, but in chapter 16 it is the greatness of His Person as Son of God which is stressed. Not only what He says, but Who He is.

What would the seed of the kingdom suggest?

The very words which the Lord was saying to them here. We have a complete section from Matthew 13 to chapter 18, and this is the beginning of it. It is this ministry, beginning here in this new character, and which is to form them for the reception of the kingdom. We shall find that the people who answered to it had already been born of God. Nor can we doubt they had been baptized by John as wisdom's children-Matthew 11: 19-but now they are ready for the unfolding of this new teaching, however little they may have understood it.

All this comes out as the administration of God, in Christ.

It is in contrast to the prophetic word, not in spite of it. They had been listening to Him in relation to the prophetic word concerning the kingdom of David; now they are to hear communications about the kingdom which had not been recorded in the prophetic word at all.

It has been said that the Father reveals His will, the Son effectuates it and the Spirit makes it good in our hearts.

It is God's administration in faith and we have that here in its beginning.

Did the Lord minister something different to them after His resurrection?

I think the second parable had that in view. I believe that this first parable involves what the Lord said to produce the company who were there for the reception of the Spirit, and in whom the kingdom was formed in this world in the power of the Holy Spirit. We find them active in the second parable, but the first sowing produced them. We have Divine revelations; one we have already seen in Matthew 11, "revealed them unto babes" (v. 25). Again, "the Son will reveal Him" (v. 27). Another one is spoken of by our Lord in chapter 16, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven" (v. 17). All this is on the line of sovereignty. We have reference to these things in this chapter but not in these terms.

The sowing here prepares for the coming of the Spirit. In Isaiah 49: 4 we hear the Lord saying, prophetically, "I have laboured in vain . . My judgment is with the LORD, and My work with My God". This would be the work which comes in after His vain labour with Israel. In that same chapter His work with the Gentiles is recorded.

In relation to the kingdom on earth the will of God is to go out from Zion, as so many Scriptures teach, but now the will of God is coming down from heaven and that is what marks the kingdom of the heavens.

Is not the sowing of this seed to establish the will of God in our hearts? We do not now look back to Jerusalem, or Zion, or the temple, but to heaven; and the kingdom is established in our hearts.

That is what the Lord said of the New Covenant in the previous chapter, they "do the will of My Father Who is in the heavens" (v. 50. N.T.).

Why are you emphasizing the term "kingdom of the heavens"? Is there some other term with which you are contrasting this?

Yes! We are comparing it with the term "the kingdom of our father David", which is the aspect spoken of in the prophetic word. That involved His riding into Jerusalem to deliver His earthly people. The kingdom of the heavens, seen in its beginnings here, views Christ as in heaven, not in Jerusalem, and the Spirit setting up that kingdom in the hearts of the saints today. These disciples had submitted to the baptism of John and had accepted Christ as the Son of David, their Messiah; but now, coming under this new ministry, they are being brought into a greater side of the kingdom because they have accepted Him. If the character of the kingdom is to be changed, then they too are to be changed, and they will find themselves not merely in relation to the kingdom as presented to Israel, but in the kingdom of the heavens and related to Christ in glory. So that as the result of this ministry the Lord established something in this world to which the Holy Spirit attached Himself at Pentecost.

We have at least ten aspects of the kingdom presented in the New Testament but they all refer to the one kingdom which is the kingdom of God. These terms are all used of it in order that we might understand the various things connected with it. To us today it is the kingdom of the heavens as taught here. Yet we are told in Colossians it is the "kingdom of His dear Son", the same kingdom but in another aspect.

I suppose those who had submitted to the baptism of John would be in this crowd, and it would seem that many of them would have ears to hear, as the Lord says. I do not doubt that they are those already referred to as wisdom's children.

Is not the theme here fruit for God?

Yes! Fruit as the result of the Lord's ministry. Israel being set aside as having rejected Him, this sowing will produce something greater for the pleasure of God.

In regard to that it may help to point out that Israel is referred to as an olive, a vine and a fig tree. Here we have a sower, one not seeking to re-establish the nation in any of these characters but to produce something of a new character, and I gather that as the sower He is not at the moment dealing with nations but with individuals.

I am glad you mentioned that, for the Lord here is not looking for fruit, but sowing in order that a yield may result. This would also help us to see the distinction already referred to between what is earthly and what is heavenly; there could not be anything of a heavenly character unless He Himself first sows the seed which produces it.

Complementary to that we read in verse 19, "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom".

The fact that seed is used confirms what you say that there is no thought of resuscitation here, such as the fig tree etc., but it is seed from which fruit is produced only after sowing.

It is a completely new beginning. Luke tells us the seed was the Word of God, but here it is the Word of the Kingdom, the same seed of course, but Luke tells us what it is in its essence, and here we see what it is producing. Some have ventured to suggest that the Word of God is that only which takes vital effect in our hearts, but these parables will not support that thought. If the Word of God is that only which takes vital effect in the hearts of people, how could the devil ever take it out? The book which is in our hands is the written Word of God, called in Ephesians "the Sword of the Spirit". We must hold fast to that.

The seed tests the soil, that is, the hearts of those who hear it.

Truly, but it is the Word which does the testing, and that brings us to the details of this parable. We read first of all "And when He sowed", and then we are told of the effect produced in those who stood round Him. We often wonder, when we hear earnest preaching and see no visible results, what is wrong; but if one fourth only of the preaching of our Lord produced positive results we need not be surprised at our apparent poor success. Tonight some brother will be preaching and we do not know what the effect will be; someone may be here as good ground, just ready to receive the seed. We have to leave it all with the Lord.

I have thought that the seed sown by the wayside may be seen in men like the Pharisees. In the second case where the seed made some little progress it might refer to such as walked no more with him as recorded in John 6. The seed which grew yet more, but was ultimately choked by the deceitfulness of riches, may refer to such as Judas. The Pharisees rejected it entirely through hardness of heart; some went on a little until the hard saying of John 6 stumbled them, and Judas went on almost to the end, but the love of money led to his destruction; not one of these brought forth fruit. Again one has thought the trouble in the first case with the wayside ground would be the devil; with the stony ground the flesh; and with the thorns the world. What we need to be occupied with above all is found in verse 23, "He that received seed into the good ground". This word for "good" is not the common thought of good, but is a word which means "honest", "worthy" or "virtuous". It is what is right in the Divine estimation, good ground, and speaks of those who had moral courage to go forward with the truth. While it says of all that they heard the Word and some received it, it is only in relation to this company we get the words, "understandeth it". We have referred to the Pharisees, those who turned back, and to Judas; but we should also remember the eleven true men who still stood by Him. No doubt there were others, but those were there, true-hearted men. They did not understand much, the Lord told them after they did not, but they believed in Him and kept His word.

That goes on today, for we read when Paul preached at Athens, "some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter . . Howbeit certain men clave unto him" (Acts 17: 32, 34).

We have yet to see how that good ground is brought about, but we can be sure the good ground was there even as He spoke, for we can hardly think the Lord kept sowing on bad ground only. The primary reason for the sowing was the good ground.

Does this ability to understand indicate sovereignty?

It does, and I am sure that is very clear in this chapter.

The Lord's words in verse 11 would mark them out as having that understanding given to them of God. That is why He spoke to them in parables. It is only the initiated, as we say, who could understand them. Here they are, and no doubt they answer to the good ground.

We shall see as we go down step by step that it is God Who produces the good ground. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10: 17). So we go on with the word today.

How do we find out that people understand the word?

They bear fruit. If the word is sown on good soil the fruit is bound to come to light. Man being what he is there must be a work of God in his soul if fruit is to be borne. That is why we read in Rom. 2: 4, "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance". He puts what is essentially good into the soul. We need not puzzle our minds about this, for we read, "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7: 20). When fruit is seen, that is definite evidence of the work of God.

What would the fruit be for which we look?

Obedience to the Word of God. The first thing that marks those who turn to God is "obedience to the faith" (Rom. 1: 5).

Would not the reference to seed in Genesis help here? "Yielding fruit . . after its kind" (Gen. 1: 12). Those who respond to the Word bear the marks of the Sower, that is, Divine marks.

They "do the will of My Father which is in heaven".

We read, "the Holy Ghost, Whom God hath given to them that obey Him" (Acts 5: 32).

I am persuaded that obedience lies at the foundation of every right thing we do for God.

The only suggestion I have as to the various quantities here may be in John 15: 1-5, "fruit"; "more fruit"; "much fruit". This is in the opposite order; but it may be the Lord has the full result in mind. The suggestion that the dispensation running to its end may account for the quantity decreasing will hardly fit in here; it is not the dispensation which is in view but the work of our Lord to produce the company in which the kingdom had it original commencement. While that is so, may the desire of our hearts be to make full proof of the work of God in our souls.

Matthew 13: 10-17, 34, 35.

What is meant by a "parable"?

If we break the word up into two halves we might understand it better. The word is para-bole. The preposition "para" means alongside of, and "bole" conveys the idea of an illustration. The word means "a placing side by side", it is an illustration with a spiritual meaning running alongside. A parable is useless to anyone who cannot see its application running alongside.

I have noticed two references to that word outside of the gospels, both of them in the epistle to the Hebrews. In Hebrews 9: 9 the word translated "figure" is literally "a parable", and in Hebrews 11: 19 where it is again translated "figure". These two references may help in the understanding of the word. As you say, it is something conveyed to those who have the intelligence to understand what is conveyed.

In verse 35 we have a quotation from Psalm 78, and that Psalm opens with a parable.

There are seven or eight people who are credited with parables in the Old Testament days, the best known of which is Balaam. We also see the tabernacle system with all its details as an illustration of that which is spiritual and heavenly, and these references give us a clear idea of what a parable is.

When you say intelligence, I suppose you mean spiritual intelligence?

Yes! That is what we wish to show. Thronging our Lord there were crowds who had plenty of natural intelligence but had not the least conception as to these things. We see this where the Lord answers the disciples' question as to speaking in parables, by assuring them that it was given unto them to understand what He was saying. Not that they had more natural ability to think these things out, but as the subjects of the sovereign work of God in their souls they were given a capability to understand these things.

In chapter 11 of this gospel we hear the Lord saying that the wise and prudent of this world know nothing as to these matters, but those who did have the ability to understand them were babes.

At a later date we read of the apostle Paul praying that the Ephesian saints might have granted to them "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him" (Eph.1: 17). There it is that they might understand "the mystery of the gospel", and in this chapter wisdom is needed to understand "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" (v. 11). Revelation is something unfolded; the word means "an unveiling", and wisdom is the ability to understand what is unveiled. We should not know anything of these things if God had not graciously made them known. On the other hand we must have the wisdom given of God to understand what He does make known.

Would the designation "disciple" involve that. Does it not mean one who is taught? I note the heading of Psalm 78, which is quoted in verse 35 is "Maschil" meaning "instruction" and a disciple is one who receives instruction.

Surely these are the "good ground" hearers; those who understood what they heard.

In referring to the tabernacle as an illustration of a parable, would the children of Israel understand that?

I cannot say as to the children of Israel, but you will remember that Abraham saw something of the day of Christ in his movements with Isaac, and perhaps Moses understood something of the heavenly system when he saw the patter of these things. Our Lord speaks here of things hidden since the foundation of the world, but it does appear that God intended to teach His people by the tabernacle pitched in the wilderness. That is why it is used so much in the epistle to the Hebrews.

Whatever the parable might be, only by the Spirit can we understand it. There are two distinct things; the initial work of the Spirit in new birth in each one of our souls, giving us a subjective capability to understand these things; then added to that, in the opening up of the word of God by way of Divine teaching we have the sealing of the Spirit and the anointing. No one can be sealed by the Spirit who is not initially born of the Spirit, and there can be no doubt these disciples were already born of God. It was said in the previous reading that they would not understand much of what the Lord was saying at this time, but when the Spirit came upon them later he would bring to their remembrance all that the Lord had said to them.

When the Lord asked them if they had understood all these things they said, "Yea Lord" (v. 51). Had they?

They must have had some grasp of them, but I am sure they would not fully apprehend them till the Spirit filled them.

It has been said that men grasp their knowledge in three ways: by observation-using their eyes; by inculcation-using their ears; by intuition-using there brains; but these human faculties are of no use in attempting to grasp divine things. Hence we read, "But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear" (v. 16).

The Spirit forms in the believer a faculty to understand what is revealed. We read in 1 Cor. 2: 16, "But we have the mind of Christ". This is a remarkable statement, it means we have the thinking faculty of Christ. Not only has God worked in our hearts so that we recognise that He is revealing Himself, but He has given us His Spirit that we may understand what is revealed. Hence in that chapter we learn that spiritual things can be understood by those only who have spiritual capacity.

In verse 12 the Lord says, "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath". To understand this verse we must view these people in the place of privilege in which God had set them nationally; as such they had something which the Gentiles had not, but they did not possess this new thing which Christ was opening out. The result was they were as a nation about to lose the original standing they had before God, but those who had received Jesus as their Messiah were about to be introduced into the realm of the kingdom of heaven in its heavenly character. To them was given the ability of which we have spoken.

A footnote by J.N.D. shows it is not so much what is given but the manner of God in giving it. It is thus an abundance. There never was a day in which the manner of the giving of God was so liberal. This word is taken from the corn measure used in the market when it is so full that it runs over. Such is the measure of the giving of God today.

While I agree with that, we must remember the "abundance" is something by itself, distinct from what they had in Him as Messiah. I only want to keep that in its own sphere. No doubt the thought of the manner of giving has that in view, something greater than anything God had offered them before. The word "hath" would involve what had been promised to them on the earthly side of the kingdom in the prophetic word, and for those who accepted Him the "more abundance" would bring them into the heavenly side. Now that brings us to the "mysteries" of the kingdom of heaven and it is of interest to note that this is the first mention of a mystery in the New Testament. Israel have no part in the mysteries of the kingdom as we shall see, and we need to keep that in mind if we are to comprehend the teaching of this chapter.

Is the mystery of the kingdom the character which it assumes during the absence of the King?

Yes! We do not read of any other kingdom without a visible king, but this kingdom is established today without a visible King. We are in the most powerful kingdom in this world today, one which encompasses the most glorious things, yet the King cannot be seen.

"We see Jesus"

Truly; I meant, of course, He is unseen by the men of this world.

Why is the word "mysteries" in the plural?

Because all these parables stand in relation to them. There is so much to be learned about them that one parable could not contain all the teaching.

Do you not think verse 12 has in view our progress in the knowledge of these things? I have heard that verse used to warn saints that if they did not go on with what the Lord had given them they might lose what He had given.

I do not think that is the teaching here at all. It refers to Israel nationally as we have said.

Would not the parable of the pounds in Luke 19 rather give what our brother has suggested?

Yes! That is the Scripture for exhorting the saints to use what the Lord has given them, in case they lose it in the day of the kingdom in display.

These disciples had submitted to the baptism of John, they "had" and now "more abundance" was to be given to them. We read also of some in the Acts, Apollos for instance, who knew only the baptism of John, but he was soon brought into "more abundance" when Aquila and Priscilla took him in hand. We must not forget that the people to whom our Lord was speaking had a prior claim to the kingdom which we as Gentiles never had, that is on its earthly side. The Pharisees having refused the baptism of John "had not" and so were not offered the "abundance" coming in here. On that account the Lord said, "Therefore speak I to them in parables" (v. 13). They having refused what He offered them in His first approach to them, He now hides the new things in parables.

If God moves in sovereignty towards those who had received Him, He cannot be accused of being arbitrary in His dealings. So we have the order, "they seeing see not; and hearing hear not". Seeing comes before hearing, and I do not doubt seeing is the result of a work of God in our souls which led us to hear. It is worth noting in the first epistle of John that he begins by saying "which we have heard, which we have seen" (v. 1); but in v. 3 "That which we have seen and heard". The solution, I suggest, is that in verse 1 he is there as a receiver, but in verse 3 he is there as a communicator. On the responsible side he must hear first, but on the sovereign side he sees first. So, I think, I have found it in tracing out these two words which often appear together. In John 1 we read, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not" (v. 5). There is absolutely no capacity in the natural man to receive it.

I think the Lord in putting seeing first indicates that they had the power to perceive what He was saying, hence Paul prays that the saints might have first the "spirit of wisdom" then "revelation". The capacity is there first.

In John 10 we read, "My sheep hear My voice" (v. 27), but they were already His sheep and with a capacity to hear. That is how the Lord refers to them in verse 16 of our chapter, "But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears for they hear". It is negative in verse 13, but positive in verse 16. It is striking that when our Lord quotes from Isaiah it says, "By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive" (v. 14). That is from their side in responsibility, hence hearing comes first, but where God is working in the heart, seeing comes first. What the Pharisees saw was what could be seen with their natural eyes, but they could not see these spiritual realities. In the case of the blind man in John 9, the Lord said to the Pharisees "but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth". Such was their state.

The Lord said again to the Pharisees "Why do ye not understand My speech? even because ye cannot hear My word" (John 8: 43). It shows that they lacked the capacity. All this has come in to our reading in attempting to explain the sovereign working of God and why the Lord spoke in parables. We might add another figure, the cloud between the children of Israel and the Egyptians. To the one it was a pillar of light, to the others a pillar of darkness. Hence these people of whom our Lord was speaking had closed their eyes; it does not say God closed them, they themselves closed them, and so were not given the light of this new thing.

In Romans 11: 8 it says, "God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear". Also in John 12: 40, "He hath blinded their eyes".

But we must remember it is in relation to the things of Christianity that He has blinded them judicially, not to the things He promised them in the prophets. Read a little higher up in John 12: 37, "yet they believed not". It was after they had refused Christ as their Messiah that God closed their eyes to the greater things the Son was bringing to pass. So it is in this chapter. We must see that God is righteous in His dealings. They closed their eyes themselves to that which was so obviously outlined in their prophetic word, therefore God judicially closed their eyes to that which was not obvious and which came to light in the ministry of our Lord. He said to them in another place, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me" (John 5: 46).

In the face of these many demonstrations of power they turned away from Him, and He says as it were, You are not going to know the mysteries of the kingdom.

The root of the trouble was that their heart was waxed gross.

Do we not see the same things when God speaks of Jacob and Esau in Malachi? "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau" (Mal. 1: 2, 3). That statement was not made before the days of Malachi. Esau had deliberately chosen the wrong course, and at this late moment this judgment was given of God concerning him, long after he was dead.

If we read Scripture carefully we find subsequent events always justify what God does.

One of the places where this is clearly seen is in Romans 9: 10-12. Before Jacob and Esau were born God said, "the elder shall serve the younger" (Gen. 25: 23). It may have seemed that God was arbitrary in this, but the time came when Esau deliberately sold his birthright for a mess of pottage and thus justified God in His selection.

May we not say on the other side in relation to Jacob, "But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matt. 11: 19)? What God loved in Jacob was his appreciation of the birthright, and what he hated in Esau was that he despised it.

The people here in Matt. 13 must have had a great opportunity of understanding what He said to them, for according to the New Translation it is "Beholding ye shall behold and not see". It was demonstrated in front of their eyes and yet they never understood it because of the hardness of their hearts. It was a very solemn thing for people to shut their eyes to Divine communication. They had so failed in relation to their responsibility Godward that when the light shone in Christ in all its brilliance, they were incapable of taking it in. That ought to make us appreciate more the blessedness of being able to see and to hear.

It is obvious that had these Pharisees received John they would have received Christ. It is recorded that they rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of John.

Could we have a word on the difference between the people mentioned in verse 15 and those mentioned in verse 17?

That is another important link in this teaching. Prophets and righteous men had desired to hear these things, the things of the kingdom as outlined in these mysteries, but had not heard them. These men wrote about the kingdom connected with the call of Abraham and the ascension of David, and had some knowledge of the kingdom in glory on this earth in a coming day, but they had no light as to the things coming out in this chapter.

This is not said to decry these men but to amplify the greatness of what we are brought into.

That is what we want to see, for these men wrote on the lines of that ministered by our Lord in the first ten chapters, but they did not know these things in Matthew 13.

Would not the word of our Lord in relation to John Baptist help in that way? He said, "there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11: 11). Positionally greater I suppose, not morally so.

The prophets did not see these things because they were not presented to them. They only come to light when the Lord brought them out. How many of those faithful men were raised up of the Father and quickened; men who wrought wonderfully for God in their day, yet they did not know these wonderful things which we have had made known to us.

Are you connecting that verse in John 5 with the operations of the Father in raising up the Old Testament saints?

I am! It does not say he resurrected the dead but raised them up; raised them up to serve Him and gave them life to do so. Now the Son comes in to give life, "even so the Son quickeneth whom He will". I was asked to point some of them out and referred the enquirer to Heb. 11, men whom the Father raised up and quickened. I believe according to chapter 6 of John the Father is still raising up, but the Son now quickens. "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out" (v. 37). The word "raiseth" in chapter 5 is the same as that said to the man at the pool, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk" (see John 5: 8 and 21).

If these things were not presented to the saints in days gone by, in what way did they desire to see them?

Someone referred to that verse in 1 Peter 1: 12, "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things". It seems that they had some idea that they were writing of things for other people which they did not understand themselves, "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify". They had the sense that something great was there but something which they could not understand.

This is what is in view in verse 35, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world". What comes out in these parables is what has come to light in Christianity; the preparation of this began in our Lord's later ministry as we have seen in the first parable, but what comes to light in the other parables is Christianity in its existence in this world following the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. That which comes to light in these parables is the Church as brought in in the present aspect of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of David was not used to bring about the Assembly, but the kingdom of heaven in its present form does so, as we shall see in the treasure and the pearl.

Why, then, is this "from" the foundation of the world and not before the foundation?

It views the Assembly as being brought to light not so much as the fruit of Divine counsel but within the bounds of the kingdom today, commencing with the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost.

While we know from Eph. 1 that the Assembly is the fruit of eternal purpose, we learn from this chapter that it is brought into being in the ways of God within the bounds of the kingdom in its present aspect as set up on earth today in the power of the Spirit. The kingdom is being used to bring this about. We do read in Eph. 3: 9 that all things were created in order to bring the Assembly to light. Whilst it was counselled in eternity, the time ways of God are brought in when He created all things, but the secret behind those time ways did not come to light until Christ was in glory and the Spirit set up the kingdom here. "Kept secret from the foundation of the world" simply means that in the ways of God the secret had not yet been told. It is Christ Who discloses that secret. So in the verse we refer to, Eph. 3: 9, we read "which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God". That is not eternity exactly but the beginning of the world, and the secret was kept until Christ was in glory.

While the New Translation renders it "hidden throughout the ages" it still remains true that this secret was not disclosed at any time prior to the coming of Christ and the subsequent work of the Spirit when Christ was in glory. That is, it is manifested in this time scene.

First we have it counselled; then comes the creation to provide the sphere in which it is to be effected; but not until Christ was here were those movements seen by which it has been secured-His death, resurrection and glory, and the coming of the Spirit. I gather then it is the creation that is in view in Eph. 3: 9.

It is clear that the things in Matt. 13 were not mentioned before in any Scripture, but were kept secret from the foundation of the world.

That is why in the teaching of our Lord we are led on from the earthly to the heavenly side of the kingdom, for the Assembly could never have been formed within the bounds of the kingdom in its earthly character. All this is involved in the teaching of this chapter as we shall see.

Matthew 13: 24-30; 36-43.

We come now to the parables which the Lord said are similitudes of the kingdom of heaven. The phrase, "The kingdom of heaven is likened", was not used by Him in giving the details of the first parable. That parable covered the time of His own ministry while still in the world, and is not said to be a similitude of the kingdom. The reason, as we shall see, is that the kingdom did not come into existence until Christ was in glory and the Holy Spirit sealed the Christian company on the day of Pentecost; that is, so far as this aspect of the kingdom is concerned.

One clear mark of that is seen in the fact that Satan is active in this second parable. That could not have been in the work which Christ has done. Satan does catch away the word in the first parable but here he is seen as active in the sphere of the kingdom.

We note that the work of sowing is in the present tense according to the New Translation, referring no doubt to the fact that while the early disciples were doing the work in the power of the Spirit, the Lord Himself was behind the disciples and using them in His service in this world. The Lord was sowing "good seed in His field" (v. 24). In this parable the good seed is not said to be "the word of the kingdom" (v. 19), but rather what that word has produced. The seed this time is said to be "the children of the kingdom" (v. 38). It may help us to keep in mind what we said in our earlier reading that we do not have all these things taught in one parable, for each parable has its own similitudes and all are needed to give us a comprehensive idea of the whole.

Do I understand you to say that the company of one hundred and twenty we read of in Acts 1 was brought about by the ministry of our Lord, and in that company there was no mixture? The work of our Lord as seen there was all good.

Yes! For when the Spirit came down He sat upon each of them, proving that all there were genuine. We know that they were waiting and were in right conditions when this wonderful event took place.

Does this expression "the kingdom of heaven" cover the sphere where Christ is owned as Lord?

No doubt! For while there are many within its bounds who say, "Lord, Lord" (Luke 13: 25), and who do not really belong to Him, every one who does belong to Him and is a true believer is in this kingdom.

I suppose the kingdom in the future will not be like this? The Lord says, "The kingdom of the heavens has become"; that is, it is like this today.

Yes! We shall see later that a distinguishing between what is good and what is bad will take place ere the kingdom of the Son of Man is seen in display. We know that the kingdom in its spiritual character cannot possibly include any mere profession but only that which is real. We must remember that while the "field" is brought in here, it can only include the sown portion of the world. That would limit it to wherever the testimony of the gospel has gone forth today. Should there be any doubt that this parable dates from Pentecost, note the phrase "His field". Also, in verse 27 "Thy field", and again in verse 31 "His field". When did "the field" become "His field"? When He bought the field; hence what is taught here must be something subsequent to His death.

You do not mean by that that only the sown part of the field is His?

Oh no! He bought the whole field, but it can only be the sown portion which is in view in these parables. That is, where the gospel has gone and brought to light the children today. He must own the whole of the field. That too is a clear proof that Israel has been set aside, for the whole field is in view.

The devil does not seem to lose much time in sowing this darnel, as I suppose it is. He had already introduced Judas into the company.

Yes! And the Lord knew right from the outset about that, for it could not happen without His knowing. That serves to illustrate the point in this parable, for only the Lord knew of him, not the disciples. John says in his epistle, "even now are there many antichrists", and Paul says to the Thessalonians that the mystery of iniquity doth already work. That is what the tares refer to, they were there right from the outset.

Does not the action of the enemy reflect on the fact that the sower sowed good seed? His attempt was to destroy its effect.

If we are set in testimony to the Lord within the bounds of the kingdom we can expect these spurious elements to come to light. That is the value of this parable to us. We have this assurance from the Lord that we shall have to suffer it, and indeed go on with it, so far as public testimony is concerned. We must wait until the end when that which is spurious will be rejected, and that which is good will be secured.

We get an emphatic Nay, when the question of dealing with the tares is raised.

Just so. It is not our task to eliminate them.

In regard to the explanation "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man" (v. 37), that is a beginning which must produce an abundant harvest. It is important to get hold of the fact that the beginning of Christianity was brought about by the movements of a Divine Person and what He does is good. Hence the harvest must be for His glory. While much that will be marked by failure has come in, what He began will not fail.

Why is the title Son of Man used here and not the Lord?

I think because it will be seen in the future that universal dominion will be His.

Would not the thought also be that consequent upon His refusal by Israel the kingdom will be brought in in a universal character? It is going beyond the bounds of Israel now and that will be seen in the future.

While the disciples were active in their labours something else was being done of which they were not aware, but it soon began to show itself. Some of the cases are recorded for us in the early chapters of the Acts.

The simple fact is, Satan saw the power of that company and the Holy Spirit among them, and seizes on the thought-I must sow others who will corrupt that company. That is how this great confusion which exists today has been brought about.

Satan has two weapons in his armoury-violence and corruption. He tried violence at first, but as fast as he destroyed one grain of wheat many others took its place; but when he resorted to corruption he did succeed in corrupting what is outward. Yet one is encouraged to note that in spite of the apparent success of the enemy in relation to what is outward, what is of God is there and will yet be gathered into His granary. That ought to encourage us.

I notice that when the disciples come to the Lord for an explanation they call it "the parable of the tares".

They would have no difficulty about the wheat, it was the tares which puzzled them.

In regard to the title Son of Man which, as we see, stands in contrast to Son of David in His dealings with Israel, and which goes beyond the bounds of Israel in its present aspect, it involves that He will gather into His own power all things in heaven and on earth. The bounds marked out for Israel indicate the bounds of the kingdom of the Son of David, but heaven and earth mark the kingdom as attached to the Son of Man.

Is there any wider glory than that which is attached to the Son of Man?

Not so far as the display in the kingdom is concerned; that is why we said earlier the kingdom of the Son of Man refers to the kingdom in display.

A Scripture like this would give us encouragement as we look around and see the state of things in professing Christendom today. Sometimes we are inclined to get downhearted thinking things ought to be different, but this mixed condition of things goes right to the end, so we need not be discouraged.

What we need to take note of is that in spite of the work of the enemy the wheat does not stop growing. That ought to encourage us to go on. Some may say, "Look at the tares", but we keep our eyes on the wheat.

In the explanation of the parable the servants are not to touch the darnel at all, He will deal with it through His angels.

Are we able to distinguish between the wheat and the tares? That is one of the points in the parable. It seems as though the angels are the only ones able to discriminate there.

The only way we can tell is by the fruit.

Who are these bondmen who are in charge of the field?

At the outset-the apostles. I hope we are still in line with their labours today. That is why I called attention to the fact that the sowing is in the present tense; it is still going on.

Did they fail in their responsibility in falling asleep?

I do not think they failed in their responsibility by being asleep. In the language of the parable, they had laboured through the day and gone to sleep at night. It was in the dark the enemy sowed the tares. They were, of course, unawares of what was happening.

Would you say that these servants were representative of every servant today?  I would.

That is a challenge to us as well as an encouragement. When we have all explained to us, we are no longer dependent upon our own discernment and can view it in a right light. When these difficulties arise, and what is spurious comes to light, we are in danger of attempting to deal with it by our own efforts.

While the field is said to be sown and left in the care of those men, we can apply it to ourselves today as carrying on this work now. I think from the language here, the Lord is still doing the sowing whoever He may use to do it. It could not be said without qualification that it is good seed were it otherwise. If I thought the salvation of men was to depend upon my preaching, I doubt if I would dare to preach at all. While the Lord does use us it is His work to sow good seed though it may be through us.

That would be seen clearly in the last verse of the gospel by Mark, "the Lord working with them". The Lord can carry on His work without any one of us, but He does not carry on without us. Yet, as you say, He really does the work.

When you say that do you mean it does not matter what you say or how you say it when preaching?

By no means! We ought to give of our best in every service we perform, yet knowing that if any work of an abiding character is going to be done, only the Lord can do it by His Spirit. If we are working under His guidance we shall preach the preaching that He bids us and if we are working in touch with Him He will surely use it.

That would be why Peter says, "If man speak . . as the oracles of God".

That is what the Lord said to them in the explanation, "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man". That is what you are drawing attention to.

We may say it is the preacher, but we learn here it is the Lord Who does the work whilst using our preaching.

So we have these things explained as we read, "Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house" (v. 36). Looking back we read in verse 27, "So the servants of the householder came". It might have said that they come to the field owner, but these things are not explained in the field, but in the house.

You mean it is only in company with the Lord that we get these answers?

At a time like this when we are assembled together, apart from the world or the busy life we are called to live, the opportunity is given to us of hearing what the Lord has to say to us about these things.

That is borne out in verse 36 in the fact that ere He went into the house He dismissed the crowds.

Are you referring to the house here as the house of God?

No! Rather to the fact that we do not get things explained to us in the world, but apart from it and alone with the Lord, as these disciples undoubtedly were.

It is important to see that they were not only in the house but were in company with the Lord in it. It is not only that we are in the place of privilege, but in that place attentive to what the Lord has to say to us.

By paying attention to what the Lord says as the householder, we become in turn householders as He says in verse 52, "Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder". If we are more in the field than in the house we shall not know much of these things. There are treasures in the house, and they are available to each one of us.

What do you mean by saying we may be more in the field than in the house?

If I attempt to spend all my time in active service for the Lord and neglect to wait upon Him for instruction and guidance I am afraid I should very soon over-run my power and usefulness in any service for Him. If I spent too much time in the house I may become idle in that service. We do need a balance.

I am sure we all know we must spend time with the Lord, as evidenced by our coming together this week to wait upon Him in His own company, so that we may hear His voice speaking to us, instructing us in these divine things. When He chose the disciples, He chose them first that they might be "with Him" (Mark 3: 14).

Would you say a word as to the distinction between the field and the Assembly? There could not be any tares in the Assembly.

We get the Assembly indicated in the parable of the pearl, but the kingdom has been brought in to secure the Assembly. The function and exercise of the Assembly as such is not given to us in these parables. It is the whole of the profession where Christ is owned as Lord, real or unreal, as we have seen; that is the bearing of the field. Hence in the sphere of profession we have much of the character of the tares, but no such spurious elements are in the Assembly. We know from this chapter and Matthew 18, the Assembly is in the kingdom, but the bounds of the kingdom go wider than the Assembly, enclosing much that has no living link with Christ in the power of the Spirit at all.

In the parable we are considering the Lord first said, "his enemy came and sowed tares", but in the explanation He says, "The enemy that sowed them is the devil".

I suppose the devil is the seducer, the deceiver who sows the tares. When the saints as the wheat came to be persecuted it was Satan in his opposition who attacked them, but the devil introduces these tares to corrupt the kingdom.

Paul had this in mind when he said to the Ephesian elders that after his departure grievous wolves would enter in. We see it coming to light as we said in the early chapters of the Acts.

Are these tares people?

They are! People of the character of the Pharisees, as the Lord said to them, "Ye are of your father the devil" (John 8: 44). We must keep it quite clear that the tares are in the sphere of the kingdom, not in the church.

What would the servants have to do today to eradicate the tares from among the wheat?

They would have to put them out of existence, but that is not our work, it is the work of the angels.

Is there any significance in the fact that the saints are said to be wheat? Not barley, for instance.

I think there is. In the gospel by John we have recorded two facts which the other writers do not record. The first is in John 6, where he tells us the five loaves were made of barley, and he also records in John 12 our Lord's words about the grain of wheat. Barley is connected with resurrection and thus with earth, but wheat seems to be more connected with heavenly glory, and I believe it is the kingdom of the heavens and those who are rightly in it today are linked with Christ in heaven above.

There would be a link between the first parable where the devil is said to take away the seed, and this one where he sows the tares. It is said to be "A man, an enemy" in the New Translation. It would appear the devil has a choice of instruments which he can use.

There is no doubt the enemy uses both men and women to introduce these false people among the wheat. The Assembly is composed of both men and women, for it says of Saul of Tarsus that he brought out of the houses both men and women (Acts 8: 3). So if the devil uses men and women, there are at the same time men and women growing up alongside them who are truly of God.

Is the fact that He speaks of a man here and not a woman because He is dealing with the outside responsible condition? Further down when He speaks of that which is subjective and going on inside He speaks of a woman leavening the food.

That is an interesting comparison.

It would be extremely difficult for us to begin to uproot in any way. As an instance think of the apostle Peter; we might have said, "A man like that who denies his Lord with oaths and curses cannot be converted"; but he was, for he was wheat.

That is the very thing the Lord said to him, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" (Luke 22: 31).

I suppose these tares, darnel as the word should be, are very much like wheat. That would by why the Lord calls attention to the fruit.

If we were more occupied with the wheat we should not be so distressed about the darnel.

That is one of the things we are instructed in here. They said to the Lord, "Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man".

What is involved in the tares being tied in bundles?

That has the end in view, as we read in verse 39, "The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world (age); and the reapers are the angels" (v. 39). We learn here that the final act of dealing with the tares will be done by the angels, not by men-"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world". The disciples no doubt had often seen tares burned in the fire and so would understand this reference. The tares are first gathered out in bundles. The next act will be to gather in the wheat, and the final act will be to burn the bundles of tares. In verse 30 the householder says, "Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them". I understand the preposition "to" means, "ready to burn" or, "with a view to burning them".

Do we see anything of that today?

I think we do see movements today which seem to indicate the bundling has begun. The idea of a universal religion is coming more and more to the front. Nebuchadnezzar tried that out, and it is in the air today. It will raise its head first in professing Christendom and finally in Israel.

We have read of a world federation of churches.

It is clearly said here that the bundling is to happen at the time of harvest. Have we reached the harvest yet?

Not quite, so far as we can see. I do not say the bundling has begun but the events connected with it are beginning to show themselves.

The apostle says to the Thessalonians, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work" (2 Thess. 2: 7), but the bundling cannot take place surely until the end.

I think the bundling may begin to take place before we are taken.

That is the point in the interpretation.

If we are going to defer this matter, are we not virtually saying in our hearts, "My Lord delayeth His coming"?

No one knows what length of time a harvest will take. The wheat may be getting ready for the coming of the Lord as well as the darnel be getting gathered. The darnel is almost separating itself, and the wheat beginning to say as it were, "Come, Lord Jesus".

What a blessed thing it is to see that the wheat is not gathered into bundles.

No! It is gathered into the barn. We must note what the Lord says, "in the time of harvest". That includes all the events.

I would like this bundling to be further explained if you will.

So far as I see we have first in verse 30 the tares bundled; then the wheat gathered into the barn; then will come about that which is said in verses 41 and 42-the tares are cast into the fire

Could we bring 1 Thess. 4 into this, the wheat gathered into the barn?.

I am sure we can.

That is the action of the angels then, gathering the wheat?

It does not specify who gathers the wheat, but it does specify who gathers the tares.

Do you limit the corn of wheat in John 12 to the church.

We do not view the church in its heavenly calling here but in its responsibility in the kingdom. That we shall shine forth as the sun is clear from verse 43, but it is more the church in the kingdom in responsibility here. We must remember the many phases in which the church is presented in Scripture; as the Body of Christ; the House of God; the Wife and Bride of the Lamb; but here it is the church in its responsibility in the kingdom.

Will there be any saints here after the church is gone?

Yes! But not of this dispensation. We have seen that when what is taught here is accomplished, God will revert again to his dealings with Israel and the saints on the earth will be of the character of those seen in Matt. 10. We shall certainly be on the heavenly side of the kingdom, as this chapter teaches, but Israel have yet to be called to take their place on the earthly side of it. These saints are seen in the opening chapters of the book of Revelation, standing for God on the earth.

You think, then, that in the presentation of the kingdom here it is not that which is earthly at all/

Yes! It is brought about on earth but is in association with Christ in heaven. Here we are today in that kingdom and we shall have our part in the world to come on the heavenly side. In saying it is not our heavenly calling which is in view here, I had in mind Scriptures such as Ephesians 1, where we are seen as the body, a far higher calling than that which is outlined here although, of course, it is involved.

To me this bundling is a most interesting matter, for there are happening in the world today so many bundling movements and this puts one on the tiptoe of expectation of the coming of the Lord.

My difficulty in regard to what you are saying is this. If there are those who are being bundled today their doom will be sealed, but the gospel is still going out.

You are not suggesting that you may be able to change tares into wheat are you? All we said was that we can see the beginning of these things today.

Will not these beginnings facilitate the last bundlings when the time comes for them to take place?

Does it infer that the angels who gather the tares deal also with the wheat?

It does not say that in the parable. It may appear to be so, but we have to remember it is a parable and the Lord calls the angels harvestmen. We know from 1 Thess. 4, that it is the Lord Himself Who calls us to Himself with a shout.

Is not the main fact in this parable that the Lord wants us to know how the darnel will be dealt with at the end?

That is what we want to get hold of. That was the difficulty with the disciples.

It would be the concern of the Lord to gather the wheat.

It seems clear enough that this bundling will take place prior to the Lord coming for His own.

While we do not get the teaching of 1 Thess. 4 here, we know that is exactly what will happen when the wheat is gathered into the barn.

No doubt things will happen very quickly after the church is gone even if we do see them beginning.

It is often pointed out that in the book of Revelation we have a company designated, "them that dwell on the earth", who are quite distinct from "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Rev. 14: 6). We have long understood that "them that dwell on the earth" refers to apostate Christendom.

In Revelation 7 we have a company of Jews sealed and after them a great company of Gentiles brought into salvation. Does the teaching of this chapter go forward unto that time?

I do not think so. There will be no wheat left after the gathering into the barn. The only thing left here will be the spurious material which comes under the judgment of God in the tribulation. The companies you refer to rather take us back to Matthew 10 and will form the earthly side of the kingdom as we have seen.

It is clear we get this bundling going on today, then we get the translation of the church followed by the burning of that which is spurious.

In Philadelphia we have the intimation of that. "I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth". It is Philadelphia which brings to light apostate Christendom, for the earth dwellers are first mentioned in that epistle, and I believe it is in line with what we have here in the exposure of the tares.

I remember a man who said on his death bed, "I am doomed, my last chance is gone", yet that man was gloriously saved before he died.

But he was not a tare, in spite of what he said. That brings us back to what the Lord said-that we do not always know which are wheat and which are tares. So we go on with the gospel, for only by it can the wheat come to light.

We must note that when angels are brought in they are always used in judgment, that is in these parables. We have to remember that our work is to secure the good; the work of angels is to deal with the bad.

Now after the wheat is gathered into the barn and the tares in the field are burned, the wheat comes into manifestation, "Shining forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father". Referring again to the term "the kingdom of the Son of Man, alongside the term "the kingdom of the heavens", why is it now referred to as "the kingdom of their Father" (v. 43)?

I apprehend the term "the kingdom of their Father" refers to the heavenly side of the kingdom. I note this word "shine" is the same as that used of our Lord in the mount of transfiguration, "His face did shine as the sun" (Matt. 17: 2).

Will that be the answer to the prayer of the disciples, "Thy kingdom come"?

No doubt! But it will be in that day the kingdom of the Son of Man. That prayer is more on the earthly side, while we now see it on its heavenly side, and I believe both are included in the term "the Son of Man in His kingdom". As we have said, we shall be on the heavenly side shining as the sun. Let us bend our efforts to the wheat; caring for that which is good; sowing to produce that wheat as we take the gospel to all and sundry, that the Lord may carry on His work by us to secure those He would bring into blessing. We can well leave the tares to the angels, who will deal with them at the end of this age.

Matthew 13: 31-33; 44-52.

The first thing we need to note in the five parables which we have read is that two were uttered outside the house, and the other three were uttered inside the house. I believe we have a history of both the wheat and the tares in these five shorter parables. The result of the tares being sown is seen in the "mustard seed" and the "leaven", while the result of the good seed is seen in the "treasure" and the "pearl", that which is of value. Then in the parable of the "net" we see the securing of both good and bad material which will be sorted out at the end of the age. This we shall clearly see as we consider the parables together.

Do you connect these first two parables with Pergamos and Thyatira?

One has heard that application and no doubt there are features in these parables which have their parallel in the messages to those two churches in Rev. 2.

Is this "mustard seed" in opposition to the "good seed"?

Here we have seed which is neither wheat nor tares. Each parable has its own symbols. This time seed of a small kind is referred to by our Lord, yet it grows into a great tree which is out of all proportion to its usual size. It is what we call a monstrosity; that which should have been small in the world has grown into a great tree. The Lord was teaching the disciples that thought the kingdom began in a small way, and ought to have continued as thus in comparison with other kingdoms in the world, yet it was to grow out of all proportion to its real sphere.

The word used here is used of the city Babylon. "Greatest" is the description of the tree, and of Babylon it is said, "that great city".

The Authorised Version uses the word "great" for Jerusalem, but in the New Translation it is "great" Babylon and "holy" Jerusalem. What is real is not marked by this feature of outward greatness but rather by that of holiness.

We may trace a correspondence between this tree and the tree mentioned in Daniel, chapter 4. In the book of Revelation we see it in its full-blown character, "Babylon the great is fallen"; and there we have the description of these birds-"the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Rev. 18: 2). It is sad to think that the professing church of God, or if we hold to the term used here, the kingdom of the heavens, where the authority of Christ ought always to be owned, has grown to such dimensions and that room is found for these evil agencies with their corrupting influences to lodge in its branches.

Yes, and this corruption is the worst kind of corruption. Satanical agencies are operative there.

What about the grain of mustard seed itself?

It is used by our Lord to show the smallness of the kingdom in its inception, for perhaps no other kingdom was so small in its beginning.

You do not regard the mustard seed itself as that which is evil?

No! It is selected by our Lord because as He says, "the least of all seeds", yet it grows into a great tree, which naturally it ought not to have done. Such has happened to the kingdom today. It is not a question of good and bad seed here representing the children of the kingdom but of the character of the kingdom itself.

But is this not the result of the evil finding entrance there?

Yes! That is what I had in mind in my opening remarks, and it will be the character of it till the end of the age.

This, then, is what it has grown into. Evil men have found a place in it but they ought never to have been there.

Would a tree represent a worldly power?

Yes! That is what we had in mind in referring to Daniel, where Nebuchadnezzar as the head of the kingdom of Babylon is regarded as a great tree, and many of the symbols there are used here by our Lord (Dan. 4: 12).

There it is the beginning of Gentile power and this is the beginning of the kingdom of heaven, only seen here in its ultimate character as already observed.

It is interesting to note that this word "lodge" or "roost" means "to camp down", which means they had a permanent place there. conditions are such that a harbour for these men is provided.

Had this kingdom remained in its true character there would not have been room or conditions for these men to have stayed inside, but political and ecclesiastical conditions have been introduced which just suit these men and there they are, very much at home.

At the beginning it was said, "And of the rest durst no man join himself to them" (Acts 5: 13). It had not gone beyond its real limits at that time.

While you mention the testing we are put to in having to go along with this false element, what must it mean to the Lord to allow it to go on?

There are men today who tear the heart out of the faith, destroy all that is true in Christianity, and yet are outwardly part of the profession. No other company in this world would suffer such a thing, but we have to suffer it.

It may be a comfort to us to remember that when our Lord came into this world He met similar conditions among the religious leaders of Judaism; and today the strongest opposition often comes from the supposed religious leaders, men who are not leaders in the faith at all but living denials of it.

It is a comfort to know that one day all the lodgers are going to be turned out. This is what the kingdom has become like, but this likeness will not be known in the future day of its manifestation.

When we consider that holiness becometh the house of God, there could not be any room for that sort of thing.

The reason Babylon is referred to in the book of Revelation is that we might gather the estimation of God about it, and see His judgment of it.

In these two sets of parables we get a twofold thought that one has long enjoyed. We are definitely called to view the preciousness of the church as the Bride the Lamb's Wife, but we are not told anywhere to view the harlot. What we are told to do is to see her judgment. The angel did not say I will show thee the great harlot, but "the judgment of the great harlot" (Rev. 17: 1). That brings us to another question. What is to be our attitude today in view of the moral import of this mighty monstrosity which has grown up?

In that section you are quoting from we have the answer, and it may help to clear up another difficulty. "Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (Rev. 18: 4). One is often asked the question, Who does that verse refer to in a day like that? It is not addressed to anyone in that day, it is addressed to us. The whole of the book of Revelation is written to the seven assemblies. So then if we note what you have called attention to, "the judgment of the great harlot", our exercise today will be to get out of that which bears the character of Babylon the great.

That would lead to what God says again about that harlot, "God has judged your judgment upon her" (Rev. 18: 20 N.T.). We are capable of arriving now at the judgment which will fall upon her in a day to come.

If our original attitude is to come out of her, what is our continued attitude to be?

To stay out. If we take the first step and do not stop half-way, we shall not only leave such dishonouring associations but we shall continue to walk apart from them. Speaking for oneself, not only do I desire to answer the exhortation to get out of what is Babylonish, but I desire to listen to what the Lord has to say as to Philadelphian conditions on the positive side. I do not think we can answer to Philadelphian conditions unless we are well clear of Babylon.

That is exactly what I have in mind in raising this matter. In the face of this vaunted greatness what becomes us is to be content to be small. One has been much occupied lately with the thought of obscurity, not in a legal sense, but as knowing something of the intrinsic value of what we have. So to Philadelphia the Lord says, "thou hast a little strength"; they apparently had nothing great but what they did have was very precious. Preserved from the spirit of boasting, and contentment with obscurity in the enjoyment of what is intrinsically precious will, I believe, ensure deliverance from these features of outward greatness.

Would that be like "poor in spirit"?

It would! Would not Enoch be like that? Walking apart from all that was going on but having the assurance that he pleased God.

So we have this instruction for the days in which these features have come to light. Sometimes when challenged about these matters we have to tell people that we should have been surprised if these things had not come to pass. The Bible tells us that they would come.

It is still a "little flock", as the Lord said, in spite of what has attached itself to the outside testimony. We shall see that side before the reading closes. In Revelation we see that Philadelphia is surrounded by Romanism and Protestantism and the religious democracy of Laodicea; in the public eye we are identified with it all; but I hope we are morally apart from it.

Yet there are those in these systems to whom we can appeal with the gospel.

The grain of mustard seed does not refer to persons, but to the system which has grown from it; what it has become in the hands of men. You will remember that Nebuchadnezzar said, "Is not this great Babylon that I have built?" He calls attention to what he had done, and so it is in principle today.

We see two things working together in this passage, external greatness produced by internal corruption. That is how it came about.

Is this the kind of secret thing which would deny the Deity of Christ, and similar negations? Do you think it comes about by men introducing their natural intelligence into the things of God?

It is referred to here as leaven, and the human intellect is destructive of the things of God. We do not read of God's dispensation which is in reason, but "God's dispensation, which is in faith" (1 Tim. 1: 4. N.T.). That is clearly to be seen in verse 11.

This tree is good for neither God nor man. Herbs have their use, but this thing is no good to anyone.

Are you referring to the leaven when you speak of internal corruption?

Are we not all part of Christendom?

Externally we are, but I trust we are apart from the system which carries the features of this tree.

Can that which is real be corrupted with this leaven?

The fruit of the work of God in our souls can never be corrupted, but we can come under corrupting principles and walk according to them.

In Zechariah 5, we read of the vision of an ephah with the talent of lead which is said to be "a woman", and it is carried to Shinar where idolatry began. Then we see in the Revelation that judgment falls on Babylon in its idolatrous character. I believe this leaven is idolatry. It will eventually corrupt the whole mass.

Wherever Shinar is mentioned, it is viewed as a challenging glory to the glory of God, but the remarkable thing about it is that when it appears God indicates a generation who will have nothing to do with it. The tower of Babel is Shinar and was a challenge to the glory of God. The God of glory indicated that He would call out a generation who would respond to His call and so Abram came out of it. Again in Joshua where the Babylonish garment is mentioned, calling attention to a man who is conspicuous in this world, God calls attention to Joshua, a man who was conspicuous in heaven, for the sun stood still at his word. Again in the book of Daniel, where we get some of the vessels of God carried into Shinar, we have brought to light three men who will go into the fire rather than dishonour God. The reference in Zechariah is the only other place where it is mentioned, and there it is seen as judged of God.

I suppose in spite of this corruption there will always be those who are moving for the pleasure of God. The wheat will always be there so long as we are in this world.

In regard to that I have often heard it said that the path is becoming more and more individual. What is meant by that?

If those who use that statement mean they expect to be left on their own before the Lord comes, it will be their own fault if they are.

The word in 2 Tim. 2 is, "with them".

What I should mean by such a statement is, you cannot depend upon the collective gathering carrying you along unless you are going on in individual faith in the Lord. The company will not carry me. When one hears others say, I am prepared to go on alone, I wonder if they want to go on on their own.

One man did think he was alone but God told him there were another seven thousand.

Is this tree still growing or did it reach this stage at an early date?

I think it reached this state before the apostles had left this world. We trace warnings about the evils which had found entrance in their day. It is not so much how long it takes to grow but that it would assume this character.

We see this character coming out in the book of the Acts, for while the bounds of this kingdom have been expanding it has not altered its character.

Looking again at the leaven, it is well to bear in mind that it is never used in a good sense in the Word of God. It is used six times in the New Testament as a symbol and in each case in a bad sense.

Is that not true also when it is used in the Old Testament?

Yes! Just as in the New.

Will you say more about the point indicated that a man sowed the seed and a woman introduced the leaven?

No doubt the sower of the mustard seed was the Lord: He sowed in "His field". What others have done in that sphere accounts for its failure,. The Lord did not introduce the leaven, others have done that.

The tree began with what was good and became corrupted, but the leaven is corrupt to begin with. No doubt the mustard seed would originally be good and others corrupted it, but this leaven corrupts everything it touches, it corrupted the whole of those three measure of meal.

A servant of the Lord long since pointed out that these "three measures", or as the words are "three seahs", are the same measure as the ephah in Zechariah 5. An ephah is "three seahs". That is where we see the connection between these two Scriptures.

Leaven was strictly forbidden in the meat offering and one has suggested that this woman was corrupting the food of the priests. It would suggest what we feed on.

We certainly do need to take heed to what we give our attention in doctrine today. One has said, and I have proved it by contact, that outside of the sphere where the Spirit is owned as the great Teacher, one can expect only milk and water or milk and poison.

It certainly does seem to involve corrupting the food, that is what we enjoy as food. Some would adulterate it with modern ideas, intelligent men relying on their intelligence to provide food. It only leavens the food of the people of God.

It is interesting to note when Abraham sought to entertain his three divine visitors, he told Sarah to take three seahs of flour, the same measure as we have here.

It is striking in the next chapter when the two visitors arrived in the house of Lot, he baked them "unleavened cakes", but it does not say the cakes of Abraham were unleavened (Gen. 18 and 19). The suggestion is that they would certainly be unleavened in Abraham's house but it was not so sure with Lot, hence this point is noticed. One may imagine Lot saying to his wife, These are holy men, be sure and see the bread is unleavened.

The same thing is said of the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28: 24).

It is surprising to note these attempts to do what was right in circumstances which were hopelessly wrong; just an outward attempt to do what was right.

The suggestion in Matt. 13: 33, is that the woman did not hide the leaven because she sought a hiding place for it, but rather because she definitely desired to leaven the meal, and so the whole was eventually affected.

Does that indicate that where the things of God are held there will be that attempt to corrupt them?

We have to accept that fact for it says till the whole was leavened.

We read of it in two epistles, Corinthians and Galatians. All would be in some way affected by it, for the apostle tells them "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5: 6).

As we move on to the next three parables which we have read we find that all within the sphere of that kingdom is not bad. The first two were uttered outside the house, these three inside the house. We need to take care lest we spend too much time on the parables which speak of evil and have little time to speak of that which is good. Had we the two outside only to consider we might have given up any attempt to go on for the Lord, thinking all was just a waste of time, but we have something very valuable here. First, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field". We have already seen that "the field" became "His field", and now we have "a field" as bringing before us the world again. There was something hid in this world which was of such value to the Lord that He sold all that He had to buy the field in order to possess the treasure.

Was the treasure of more value than the field or Israel?

It must have been, for He sold all that He possessed in relation to Israel to buy the field to gain the treasure.

Would the selling be that He surrendered His rights as Messiah for the time being in order to gain that treasure?

It says all that He had, He was prepared to part with that to have this treasure. One would like to consider this parable minutely in its statements because of other interpretations which we judge have sprung from the lack of observing carefully what is said in these parables. First we have the statement that He knew the treasure was there but did not bring it to light, He kept it hidden till He had bought the field, but He knew from the outset it was there. I think this looks back to what we have considered in a previous reading, "I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world".

Did you say that the field was only the sown portion of the world?

Not quite! I believe the whole world is seen as the field, but what we did say was that it can only be the sown portion of the world that is seen as the extent of the kingdom.

Would Matthew 16 give us a little insight of what this treasure is?

If we take both the treasure and the pearl together I think it would, though for myself I think the treasure is a wider thought than the pearl.

Had you in mind here the sovereignty of God, for He alone knew about that treasure?

Yes! It is things hidden from the foundation of the world. It was kept a secret while Christ was in this world and what is involved here did not come to light till the Spirit had come, that is, so far as we are concerned. I think this treasure is something wider than the church of Matt. 16. I believe it has in view the whole heavenly company, which would include the Old Testament saints. We see some of them in Heb. 11, beginning with Abel, who is said to be the first of that line of faith, although I do not doubt Adam also will be there.

It was given as a promise to Israel that they should be a peculiar treasure to God but they failed on the ground of responsibility. Do you think the church carries this through on the ground of what Peter says in his first epistle?

So far as the thought of treasure is concerned that may be, but we are dealing with the heavenly side of the kingdom, not the earthly side in this chapter, and we know when the Lord comes all the saints right back to Abel will be raised and have their part in the heavenly side of the kingdom. I think the treasure includes them.

In that connection it would go wider than the saints in Israel of old, for there are quite a number of Gentiles who will participate in the resurrection.

It has long been pointed out in 1 Thess. 4, that we have three things mentioned in relation to the resurrection-the "shout", the "voice" and the "trump". The shout is the shout of the Lord and will reach back to Pentecost in relation to the church. The voice is that of the Archangel and this will go right back to Abel, and I suppose Adam, but I am keeping Hebrews 11 in mind. God spoke to these men in testimony right up to the call of Israel. Then we have numerous instances in the Old Testament connecting Michael the Archangel with Israel, while now we have the Lord Himself as the Guide and Saviour of His people.

With that in view I have thought that in the treasure we have that which is mainly for the pleasure of God; in the pearl that which is mainly for the heart of Christ, and in the net that which is the product of the work of the Spirit.

If this man found the treasure, as though he did not know it was there, how do you align that with the counsel of God?

I believe the Lord found the treasure first of all in counsel, He knew it was there. That is where it first came to light and that is why we keep referring to verse 35, "kept secret"; but He knew of it before He came into the world. Indeed, the reason the world was created was to bring this into view. We need to remember, when we read of the purpose of God, that it involves more than the church. This is quite clear in Ephesians 1: 10, "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth". I apprehend this treasure verges on all things which are in heaven so far as individuals are concerned; then after the church is in glory, all things which are upon the earth will be brought in.

That is why we saw it was the kingdom of the Son of Man, for it was as such the Lord began the work of the Sower.

From whom is the treasure hidden?

That is not the point in the parable, but it was hidden from all but Divine Persons. They only knew it was there.

It has been said to be Israel.

It cannot be Israel in this chapter at all for Israel have no part in the heavenly side of the kingdom, nor is there any mystery as to their part in the prophets.

A footnote by J.N.D. says, "because of His joy" and I think the joy of the Lord involves the Assembly. While, as you have been saying, it includes more than the Assembly, the treasure does not come to light till the Assembly is secured.

The next parable brings that to light.

I am convinced that in each case the hiding was not the objective. With the woman the desire was to corrupt the meal, but here it is to bring to light that which would be for Himself and for the glory of God. He would secure it all by redemption.

Would this be "the joy that was set before Him"?

It would be a large part of it, for it says here, "for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that He hath".

It appears to me that to attempt to restrict this to Israel would be to limit the joy of the Lord. Surely the chief joy of the Lord is in relation to the Assembly?

I thought that reference to the "joy that was set before Him" has His place on high in view.

I certainly think that is so, but do not let us forget the company which is associated with Him there.

Do we not see this in Psalm 16, the path which led through death to the glory?

You may remember in that very Psalm we read, "My goodness extendeth not to Thee; but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all My delight".

Does not His joy involve all that was according to the will of God, which would include all these other things?

Selling all that He had would include the laying down of all He had a right to as Messiah in Israel, and may go back to His leaving the Father and coming into the world.

We must note the selling was to buy the field; it does mean parting with something to gain something of greater value.

We learn from another that the two words for selling are not the same. The word in relation to the treasure means "to trade in general"; but in regard to the pearl the word indicates one who is a "tradesman in certain goods", a much more definite transaction by one who knows the value of that which he has.

"Yet for you sakes He became poor".

That would involve the idea of cost. He knew the value of pearls. It does not say He was seeking the treasure, but it does say He was seeking goodly pearls, something specific. When He had found this one pearl of great price He recognises its value. As a merchant man He knew what He was after, and His heart was set upon it.

The distinction you are making between the treasure and the pearl is that the treasure would include the whole heavenly company, and that the pearl sets forth the Assembly.

If you ask me for Scripture for these things, we find it worked out in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 5 we see the whole heavenly company as the four and twenty elders, and this runs on to Revelation 19. In that chapter the Lamb's wife is brought into view as having made herself ready for her marriage, and after that we do not read again of the twenty-four elders. There is clearly a differentiating between the wife and those who are invited to the marriage, but all are there in heaven.

They would be some of the friends of the Bridegroom.

Yes! John the Baptist will be in heaven and many more like him.

Will you, please, say something further as to this pearl?

There can be no doubt about the value Christ sets upon it, and all will eventually see how much He did value it, for when the city comes into display with Him, every gate is said to be a several pearl. In every outgoing of that city men will be impressed with this fact, "Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5: 25). What is in view is the oneness of this pearl, a great truth to be treasured today. The pearl would suggest something of great beauty.

I have noticed that this word for "great price" is used in this form in one other place only, and that is in relation to the box of ointment (John 12). It occurred to me that it may set forth the fact that there is a company on earth who measure rightly the love which took that blessed One into death in order that He might secure that choice note of praise for His own heart.

Why is the pearl selected to describe for us His thoughts of the church?

Why did you say earlier that the pearl sets forth beauty?

I was thinking of the book of Revelation, where we see that the Church in its beauty is going into the eternal state without any change. Again it is asked in Proverbs, "Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies".

It has often been pointed out that a pearl is the result of suffering and the church is the result of the sufferings of Christ. The church could not come into view until He had suffered.

You will remember that on the breastplate we have mention of twelve precious stones. Again in Ezekiel 28, in connection with the king of Tyrus, there are nine precious stones mentioned. Yet again we have mention of twelve stones in the foundations of the wall of the holy city. Now in each case these stones are there to reflect the glory of God. In Ezekiel 28, they reflect the glory of God in creation; on the breastplate they reflect the glory of God in grace; and in the holy city they reflect the glory of God in redemption. Now we do not read of a pearl in any of these collections, and I have come to regard it as having been reserved to symbolise the unique glory which attaches to the Assembly, not only what she will display but what she is to the heart of Christ.

In the holy city we read of all manner of precious stones in the twelve foundations, and "every several gate was of one pearl". I do not doubt that there will be a wonderful shining out through that city of the glory of God, but there will be a special ray that has not yet shone out in this world and that will be the pearl.

It says that each gate in the city was a pearl; does that mean there will be twelve pearls? If so why does it say here "one pearl"?

The New Translation makes that clear, "And the twelve gates, twelve pearls; each one of the gates, respectively, was of one pearl". "Of one pearl" would mean that each partook characteristically of the features of the pearl. To me it suggests that when the city is set in administration all the outgoings will be characterised by the fact that Christ loved the church.

Why did it say the treasure was found and then hidden, but it does not say that of the pearl?

Because the treasure includes the Old Testament saints, but the church does not. The church did not come into being until after the death of Christ, but the Old Testament saints had already appeared for God in the world. I am sure we all fully agree that this pearl is an intimation of the Assembly which comes out more fully in Matthew 16 in our Lord's word to Peter.

In the net we have a picture of the going out of the gospel, the means God is using today to secure the material which composes the church.

Does this drawing to land take place at the end of the dispensation or is it going on today?

I believe it is going on today. Would not "they" be the men who had cast the net? It is not left to men at the end to do the separating, that is the work of the angels. It may suggest the whole dispensation as brought in by these means, but we note that men gather the good into vessels, and cast the bad away. I take it the bad will be dealt with by the angels at the end, but these men secure the good before the end.

What do you think the gathering into vessels means?

It would be to exercise us to look out for what is good and seek to bring it where it can be of service to the Lord.

Do you mean gathering into the meetings?

So far as I am concerned, yes. We have often pointed out that four things are said about nets in the gospel. Both here and in Mark 1: 6, we read of them casting a net; in Mark 1: 19, we read they were mending their nets; in Luke 5: 2 we read they were washing their nets; and in this parable they drew the net. Regarding this as a picture of the going out of the gospel, I would put mending first; be sure the gospel you preach is capable of catching men for Christ. Then in regard to the washing, keep the gospel clean from worldly sayings and worldly influences. Further, no matter how good a net may be or how clean, if it is not cast we cannot hope to catch men. Then lastly, let us not be always casting the net, we need to take time to gather what we have secured, and this I think is in view in gathering the good into vessels. Take care, too, that we do not waste too much time over the bad, rather give more time to the good. A servant, well known to some of us, said to his nephew just before he died, "If I had my life to live over again I would give more time to those who wanted to go on and would not waste again the time I have wasted on those who would never go on".

As with the tares higher up, we read again that the angels will deal with the bad at the end. They sever the wicked from the just, but we ought to be severing the just from the wicked.

Let us take note of this and seek opportunities for helping those who give evidence of being good fish gathered in by the gospel.

If the Lord should ask us, as He did His disciples, "Have ye understood all these things?" may we be able to answer "Yea, Lord". If we can truly say so, then as spiritually enriched by the understanding we shall be "like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old".

Matthew 16: 21-28; Matthew 17: 1-9.

In our readings on Matthew 13 we have seen how the kingdom will be brought into being and the features which mark it during the time of its mystery character. This we had before us in the seven parables recorded in that chapter. It is interesting to note that at the end of that chapter we read, "He departed thence" (verse 53). Again, in Matthew 14: 13 we read, "He departed thence". Yet again in Matthew 15: 21, "Jesus went thence, and departed", and in Matthew 16: 4, "He . . departed". Having instructed the disciples concerning the new character the kingdom would assume, He is now moving from one sphere into another, so far as His ministry is concerned. It would appear that the climax is reached in the record of the mount of transfiguration, for this looks on to the world to come when the kingdom, which is in mystery today, will be in display in that day. In view of this, we have the reference to His death as given to the disciples, for the heavenly side of the kingdom could not be brought in apart from this. It was inevitable that He should die, and what He teaches them from this point to the end of Matthew 18 (which is the end of this section) is all in view of the fact that He was going into death. The glory of the Christ must be preceded by His sufferings.

When you said the glory depends upon the suffering, you mentioned the world to come. Do we share in that?

We shall see that a blessing on those lines is opened out for us in these verses which we have read together. The reference to His death in verse 21 is the fulfilment of what we saw in Matthew 13, "sold all that He had". It involved the giving up of His rights as Messiah in order that He might possess this greater object which was now in process of being formed by His ministry. He not only told them He was going to die, He assured them that He would rise again, and that has in view the establishment of the kingdom as we have seen.

Why is it at Jerusalem He must suffer these things?

That is the centre from which the administration of the kingdom will go forth over the earth, from "Zion . . the city of the great king" (Ps. 48: 2). In the very place where He ought to have been accepted and crowned as their King, He was rejected and crucified.

So He was not only going to die; it says here He was going to be killed.

Yes! It is His rejection by His earthly people which is in view.

Is it significant that He speaks of this matter of going to His death immediately after He has brought to light the fact that He is establishing by His own work something against which death cannot prevail?

This is not looked at as a laying down of His life, but rather what they would do as having rejected Him.

The laying down of His life is presented in John's gospel as that which He is doing for the glory of the Father; being crucified at Jerusalem as described in Matthew 16 is what the people are doing. We have the light of both of these things today and we thank God for it. He did not die at Jerusalem only because they refused Him, but their rejection of Him is the aspect of His death which is in view here.

We need to keep both sides of the truth in our minds; His suffering on our account and His suffering on God's account.

It is in the setting in which the death of the Lord is presented as being the deliberate act of wickedness at the hands of men that the question of discipleship is raised. It is a very important matter that the Lord should present first that He is establishing something against which the power of the gates of hades cannot prevail, then shows that such an One as He is going to be completely and absolutely rejected by Israel on earth, and in that setting introduce the thought of men being prepared to lose their lives for His sake.

So that if the kingdom, so far as our Lord was concerned, is established in suffering, it is also to be characterized by suffering on the part of the disciples.

It necessitates that the mind should not be on the things of men but on the things of God. That is the point I have in mind. Peter's mind was related to the things of men. Now it is quite apparent that the things of men are irremediable. The mind of men has expressed itself in all its wickedness by the rejection of Christ. If our minds are set upon what is of God and not what is of men, we see the absolute necessity for the death of Christ to establish the thoughts of God, and the need on our part to accept the path of suffering that we may enter into the joy of these

thoughts.

There may be a tendency with us to try to avoid the consequences of the death of Christ. That is where Peter was wrong, and the Lord said to him, "Thou art an offence unto Me".

While Peter expressed a care for the Lord, he did not relish the thought of suffering, and it is a challenge to us as we speak of the principles of the kingdom of heaven as to how far we are prepared to suffer in relation to those principles. I do not doubt that the exhortation in Peter's first epistle was based on such events as are recorded here. "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind" (1 Peter 4: 1).

Why does the Lord say it would be the chief priests and the scribes who would kill Him?

They represent the leaders of the people who ought to have recognized Him and accepted Him. There must be the complete closing of one door before the other door can open. They cast Him out of the vineyard and as outside He has brought into effect the kingdom as we know it today.

Are there not three ways in which the death of Christ is spoken of? At the hands of men; laying down His life of Himself; and, as in Psalm 22, "Thou hast brought Me into the dust of death".

We do well to keep these things in balance in our souls. It is of interest to note in the gospel by John that while we hear the Son saying, "The Father which sent Me", on other occasions He said, "I am come". While the Father sent Him that His will might be accomplished, the Son of His own volition came into the world to accomplish that will. We have, as you say, the further thought that man by wicked hands crucified Him.

Would Satan be using Peter here to hinder the Lord's going to the cross?

There is a distinction between sentimentality and spirituality and it was obviously sentimentality with Peter at that moment. We may think he had very little ability at the time to grasp the full thought of the Lord's words, yet it was sentiment and not of the Spirit. He was shrinking from the thought of suffering.

Do you think it was Satan or was it Peter himself?

I believe Peter himself was Satan characteristically at that moment. The Lord does not say the being we know as Satan was using Peter at that moment, but treats him as Satan, a definite opposer, which the name Satan means. An interesting distinction between this and what the Lord said to Satan in the wilderness is worth noting. In the wilderness when Satan tried to persuade the Lord to worship him, he received the reply, "Get thee hence, Satan" (Matt. 4: 10); but here when Peter is rebuked the Lord said, "Get thee behind Me, Satan". He would not say to Peter, "Get thee hence".

Satan did not know what the consequences of the cross would be, otherwise he would never have urged men to crucify the Lord.

Was there a move by Satan to deter the Lord from going to the cross?

I rather think it was the flesh in Peter which shrank from the thought of suffering on the cross. Why did Satan later drive men to crucify the Lord if here he tried to dissuade Him? I think it is Peter himself but of that character, and so the Lord treats him as such. Satan means "opposer" and we can oppose the things of God if we too act in fleshly zeal.

The serious thing is that there was an attack upon the Lord in an endeavour to divert Him from accomplishing the will of God.

Satan can only operate through the flesh.

That is true, but the flesh can operate apart from Satan and that is what is here.

Would not the next verse confirm that? "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself" (v. 24).

It would! Peter may have had himself in mind as well as the Lord and did not relish the thought of suffering.

To a Jewish mind, the thought of the Messiah going to the cross would be abhorrent. Their idea of bringing the kingdom in was more by power and glory, not by going to a cross.

Earlier in this chapter the Lord had said, "Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (v. 18). If the gates of hell are not to prevail against it He must destroy that power, hence the necessity of His death. We know He began to build His church after that power had been destroyed and when He rose triumphant from among the dead. It is all established in resurrection.

Is that why the Lord said, "I will build", looking on to a future day?

It is what He does in the power of the Spirit when He had taken His place on high in supremacy as the great Administrator.

Peter had practically said to the Lord, "Save Your life", but the Lord says, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it" (v. 25). If we are desirous of possessing the blessings of this kingdom we must be prepared to lose our lives in man's world or in the kingdoms of men, and find it in the blessedness of this kingdom. We have been reminded that Ittai put death before life when he said, "Whether in death or life, even there also will thy servant be" (2 Sam. 15: 21).

The steps indicated here are, first the mind set upon what is of God; then the desire which accompanies that; then putting that desire into action, prepared to lose one's life in man's world and to find it in relation to God's world. If the mind is not set on these things the desire will not be there. The Lord says, "If any one desires to come after me" (New Translation). We have a similar thought with the Psalmist, "One thing have I desired to the LORD, that will I seek after" (Psalm 27: 4). It is not sufficient to have the mind set on these things, or to have the desire to follow what our minds are set upon ; we must put it into practice, there must be action.

The simple point is that I cannot hope for gain in both spheres. I cannot labour for a place in man's world and obtain the favour I may gain there, and then hope to obtain favour in this kingdom. There must be preparedness to surrender the one, with the view of enjoying the blessings of the other. In Christianity the way into life is through death.

Could we have a little help on these three statements in verse 24? "Let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me". What do these three things mean?

To deny one's self means that you make up your mind that the things of God are going to be first in your life; not your will, but the will of God. Then you accept the judgment of God upon man after the flesh, for the cross means that God has ended the flesh as a means of producing anything for Him. Both its best and its worst are completely set aside. You may remember in the sin offering the skin went into the fire, that is the best of it; but the dung went in as well, that is the worst of it. While we may be thankful we have power to judge and set aside the worst of the flesh, we may often be captivated by the best of it. If we accept the cross of Christ we bring that cross to bear on every motive of the flesh, good as well as bad. There is only one way left open now to the man who has reached self-displacement, who has accepted the judgment of God upon himself in relation to the flesh, and that is, to follow Jesus. It would raise the question with one, What am I really seeking? Is it that I may be glorified, or that Christ may be glorified? Is the state of my heart right as having but one desire, that Christ may be glorified in my life here?

We have a good example of that in Levi, "And he left all, rose up, and followed Him".

Does the statement "his cross" mean my cross, not the cross of the Lord?

It does! It is the most testing thing any one of us can face. This complete surrender of will, the death of Christ applied to my aspirations or my ambitions. I may think that by living in another district conditions might be more congenial for me, but I have to ask myself, "Is it the will of God that I should be there, or am I seeking only my own will? I may give up one situation for another purely to get more money, but what about the will of God? A man who practically takes up his cross would first of all wait to ascertain the mind of God before making any move at all. These are testing things.

I thought taking up his cross would be a man applying the cross of Christ to himself.

It is! But to take it up in relation to one's self. It then becomes my cross.

Would not that be what Paul has in mind in Galatians, "I am crucified with Christ"? Then as able to enter into the realm where Christ lives he goes on to say, "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. 2: 20). Only affection for Christ will bring this about in any one of us.

A brother, now home with the Lord, was once asked regarding a certain sentiment in a hymn, "Can you sing that?" His reply was, "I can sing any hymn in the book provided I know the tune". I must say when we reach such words as "All the vain things which charm us most, we'd sacrifice them at Thy word" I always sing them with reserve in my mind, and at times I feel I cannot sing them at all. In a home where we were lately singing a few hymns together, a sister asked us to sing that hymn as her favourite; yet that sister is slipping into the world as fast as she can. She may still be wondering why I did not sing that hymn. We must be honest with the Lord.

If we take an attitude like that we may not sing anything at all.

Oh no! There are many things one can truly sing to the Lord, but when it comes to my singing intelligently to Him and telling Him of my judgment of self and the world with all its appeal I must be able to sing honestly; but I speak for myself; others must speak for themselves. There is no doubt that we shall be tested on these things.

If a man were seen carrying his cross it indicated his end so far as this world is concerned.

There are times in each one of our souls when these right desires do mark us, and it is a good thing for them to find expression. If times come when we may feel we are not up to these truths the memory of a time when we were may be used to recover us.

I am sure there are times when we have all felt there is nothing we would not do for the Lord. We must keep in mind that devotion is not something which marks those only who may have advanced in the Christian pathway; it should mark us all.

Could we move on to the compensation which is mentioned here?

With all the gain men have made of things in this world, no one has yet gained the whole world, but our Lord says if that were possible and one lost one's soul, what would it be worth at the end? This word "soul" is the same word translated "life" in verse 25, and I am persuaded it is the same thought as in that verse.

It was the whole world which Satan offered to the Lord.

We usually apply this verse to the unconverted but in its setting here it applies to disciples. I do not think it is an appeal to sinners, but an appeal to saints to beware lest they lose their lives by wasting them on worldly things. Notice that the Lord adds, "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works". This is the compensation, and He thus encouraged them to go on in faithful discipleship.

Again the Lord says to them, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom". This is the compensation on the way, a vision of the Lord as He will be at the end, and we may have this view before we reach that end. At times like this when we gather together we see rays of this glory, and we are thus encouraged to keep going on, knowing what the end of the path will be.

That is what Peter has in mind when he speaks of "the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you" (1 Peter 4: 14). We could not bear an eternal weight of glory in these bodies, but in the meanwhile as suffering for Christ's sake we can know the embrace (as the word means) of the Spirit of glory.

Would this be more on the line of suffering with Him than for Him?

Suffering "with Him" is a statement in Romans 8, "if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together". It also says in 2 Tim. 2: 12, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him". In both cases suffering and glory go together. It means that we enter in our spirits into the rejection of Christ by this world and are prepared to share in that rejection.

Suffering for or with Christ is not a matter of our bodies or our circumstances only, but it is a matter of our spirits also. When Paul went to Athens it says, "his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry" (Acts 17: 16). As we walk through the streets of our towns and take account of the absolute indifference to the claims of Christ, it ought to affect us in our spirits. That is one phase of suffering with that blessed One, the feeling in our spirits that His Name is dishonoured and cast out.

When we are attacked in our preaching it may be suffering for Christ, but in what you say it is suffering with Him.

When you mentioned compensation you were not putting all off to the future, were you?

No! We come to that now in Matthew 17. The Lord had said that before the coming day of glory there was something to be known now, a vision of the Son of Man in His glory. That is what is seen on the mount and their hearts would be encouraged through the experience.

It had a very establishing effect on Peter, and when he wrote his second epistle he said, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye witnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1: 16).

It has been pointed out that he apparently based his first epistle on the revelation he received in Matthew 16, and his second epistle on the vision in Matthew 17.

Is it not a blessed compensation to have our affections brought into a realm where we not only see Christ glorified, but we also hear the Father expressing His delight in Him?

I am glad you used that world "brought", as that is what is said here, "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart". We shall only reach these things in our souls as we are in the company of the Son of God.

I had in mind, when I spoke of denying ourselves in regard to things here, that it leads to companionship with Christ. He will lead us eventually into the kingdom in the world to come, but He leads us now into this wonderful sphere where His glory alone shines. It is a wonderful thing to have our eyes and our hearts closed to the scene where man glorifies himself, and to have them really opened to a scene where there is no challenge to the glory of Christ. All that shines there is the glory of Christ, "they saw no man, save Jesus only", and the sound which breaks the silence is the voice of the Father expressing His approbation of His beloved Son, this blessed Man. We have the privilege of enjoying these things now.

These are the things we wanted to consider mainly today. I think in line with what has just been said, the term "Jesus taketh" would involve abstracting them from one sphere, and then when it says "and bringeth", that would be the introducing of them into another sphere. How blessed to be taken by Him in spirit out of things here, and to be introduced into the sphere of His glory. We may well ask, What kind of a sphere is it into which He would bring us? First, it is a very elevated sphere, for it is "an high mountain apart".

A mountain suggests something which is solid, and established. Then it is apart, it is in the region of sanctification and of the things of God.

What thought have you as to why it should have been Peter, James and John marked out for this special favour?

I have noticed at least one feature in regard to that in Galatians. When Paul went up to Jerusalem to make known to the disciples what God had wrought through him in the gospel of the glory, Peter and John were there; James had been killed by Herod. No doubt they would remember this vision of Christ in glory and the displacement of Moses and Elijah. It may have been to prepare them for the new departure in the ways of God which came out so fully in the Pauline ministry.

While He had warned them of His impending sufferings, He also gives them this vision of the glory which was to follow.

Paul refers to them as "pillars" in the reference in Galatians 2: 9. Their minds must have gone back to this scene as Paul spoke of his commission to take the gospel of the glory of Christ to the heathen. Further, Peter and John were themselves used to write epistles for the enlightenment of the saints. These may be two of the reasons why they were selected for this privilege.

It is worth noting in that connection that they both mention Christ's glory in their writings. Peter records this very incident in his epistle, while John refers to beholding His glory, though that no doubt was His Personal and moral glory rather than His official glory in the kingdom. Apart from these Scriptures we do not appear to have any other references to this incident. It seemed as though the kernel of this truth of the glory awaited the writings of Paul.

Is this word "transfigured" the same word as that translated "transformed" in Romans 12?

It is! This word is used on three occasions only in the New Testament; here, then in Romans 12: 2, where it is translated "transformed", and yet again in 2 Cor. 3: 18, where it is translated "changed".

In regard to your remarks about the Lord abstracting them from one sphere in order to bring them into another, it is interesting to note that in Romans 12 we have the same two thoughts. "And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind". While that is not from one place to another, it is from one condition to another.

The transformation indicated here was from a subject, humble, obedient Man to one of supreme glory and authority, One Who is to fill the universe with the glory of God in the world to come. It is the kingdom of the Son of Man, but He will use that kingdom in supreme administration and authority in order to fill the universe with the glory of God, and at the centre of that scene His own glory will shine forth. "His face did shine as the sun" would suggest a place of supreme power and authority. "And His raiment was white as the light" would refer to His intrinsic purity as One Who had ever been marked by moving in the light, and Who had no darkness in Him at all.

Have we not read in Matthew 13 that there will be a generation like Him, shining forth as the Sun?

That, as we saw, is said of those who will be in the heavenly side of the kingdom.

In 2 Cor. 8: 23, we have men spoken of as "deputed messengers of assemblies, Christ's glory" (New Translation).

You are suggesting that would be the fruit of transformation.

Yes! And in what we might call a very lowly service. They were carrying the collection.

Why does it say, "after six days" here, and "about an eight days after" in Luke?

It is dispensational here, the end of the ways of God on the earth as bringing together both that which is heavenly and that which is earthly in the display of glory in the world to come. Luke, who mentions the eighth day, has more in view the new features connected with it, features which did not appear in the prophetic word in relation to the ways of God with Israel. Luke is the only one who records that the disciples were asleep when the glory appeared and when they were awake they saw it. That is a picture of Israel who are asleep today, but when awakened again nationally they will see Christ in glory and men with Him.

We read that Moses and Elias appeared with Him at first, but after the vision had passed they saw no man save Jesus only. Why is that?

We must see the completeness of this picture. Moses and Elias were talking with Him. We read much about the laying aside of what is earthly in view of bringing in what is heavenly. All that Moses said and all that the prophets wrote will have an answer in glory in the public display of the kingdom. Moses and Elias talked with Him. Note we said "laying aside", not "giving up", for those things will yet have an answer in the coming day of glory. All that comes to light in the Old Testament is contained in this picture. What Moses and Elias said, taking the words of this vision, was the truth but not all the truth. Much has come to light as the result of Christ coming into Manhood which Moses and Elias knew nothing of. We can be sure that all that was testified to will have an answer, but more than was testified to will be there in that day. Hence the Father says, "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him". We do not take our instruction concerning the kingdom from the law and the prophets, but from all that the Son has brought to light. That is why in Colossians 1 we are said to be in the kingdom of "His dear Son". The rule of the kingdom for us is love, and we know it is a way that cannot be gathered from the Old Testament writings. We do not despise what was written there, it will all be seen as fully secured in the day of glory, but the greater things will also be there, things which only the Son could have brought to light. He has brought them to light and we have been engaged with them in our readings together. That is why our Lord said at the end of Matthew 13, "Therefore every scribe which is instructed into the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old". We have before noted this order, new and old, not old and new. So quite rightly "they saw no man, save Jesus only".

Nehemiah

Nehemiah

Readings with G. Davison extracted from "Precious Things" 1956-1990

Nehemiah 1.

The point in mind in suggesting this book is not to dwell so much on the historical side, important as that is, but rather to see its moral features. We have the break-up of the things of God as seen in the condition of Jerusalem; the purpose of heart of one man, in spite of great opposition, to go on with what he knew to be in accord with the mind of God; and we notice also the divine support, directly and providentially, that accompanied his exercises. The book could be described in one word, "Recovery". We shall refer briefly to the historical side, but hope to dwell more on the features that God commends and supports in days when He had it in view to bring about recovery in conditions where divine interests are in disrepair.

If the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are carefully read it will be seen that each book is divided into two parts. In the book of Ezra, the first part deals with the rebuilding of the house, and the remaining part relates to the re-establishment of the order of service. In between those two sections there are 60 years, and in those 60 years the happenings of the book of Esther took place, showing that God in sovereign mercy maintained His people in view of His own service being re-established. In the book of Nehemiah we see that the first six chapters deal with the repairing of the wall, and then in the following chapters we see that when the principle of separation has again been established, divine instruction is made available for God's people.

The history covered by the book of Nehemiah, including the defeat of one great power by another, and the various movements of the Jews to Jerusalem, is extremely interesting, but what we desire to notice is the moral features of the man of God who, under great opposition, and in great weakness, stood for the will of God. The personal devotion of a man in service to God and His people shines in this book.

Would what is mentioned in the opening verses-rejection, reproach, breakdown, etc.-indicate the need for such a moral awakening in our hearts today? Are not such conditions around us today in a moral sense?

Yes! It will be seen as we proceed that it is distinctly analogous to our day.

Do you connect Haggai and Zechariah with Ezra, and Malachi with Nehemiah?

Yes! There is a striking thing in Malachi, that is the recurrence of the words, "My name, my name"; and doubtless that is one of the things which moved Nehemiah at this time (see verse 9).

Does that give a moral connection with our day, with the Philadelphian features in which one of the things seen is that the name of Christ has not been denied?

In regard to what has been said as to recovery and also as to Philadelphia, there was probably quite a long time between the recovery in Ezra's day and the actual building of the wall. Has that a particular reference to our day in contrast to the recovery of the truth about 140 years ago?

It would seem that these two books cover about 120 years of history, and that rather does fit in with our day. Ezra seems to have moved on the ecclesiastical side of things, whereas Nehemiah was more on the line of the kingdom; he was a governor, Ezra was a priest. Is it not true that the early brethren brought out the ecclesiastical side of the truth, and then came the truth of the Kingdom with a view to preserving those divine things which God had recovered to His people?

Must we be recovered to the truth, before we can truly walk in separation?

The temple was built first, then Ezra instructs the people in regard to their relationship to God. Nehemiah was anxious about the wall, and then he has to do with the people inside the wall, not outside of it. What we are badly needing today is a stirring up as to the value of what God has given to us, so that we do not lose our heritage.

It is interesting to notice that Nehemiah's exercise was in relation to God's people; it is not until the very end that he speaks of his official position; his exercises did not lie in the region of his service to the king of Persia, although quite obviously God moved that great monarch to be sympathetic towards the exercise, but the whole exercise of Nehemiah stood in relation to God's people. His prayer was mainly in the past tense, he was reminding God of what the people were to Him, and what He had done for them; he was dwelling upon the faithfulness of God, and not upon the people's unfaithfulness. That is a characteristic of a true servant.

Circumstantially, Nehemiah was not on divine territory, He was in Shushan which was, I suppose, Persian territory; but he was there in the governmental ordering of God; his heart was not there. One of the things we perhaps need to remember is, to quote the remark of another, "That while providence put Moses into Egypt, faith took him out of it"; and here we see a man providentially in Shushan, the palace, but faith took him out of it; and took him in divine exercise of heart, under the hand of God, back to divine territory.

It is quite obvious that his heart was not set upon the expansion of the Persian empire, but upon the recovery of God's people. We, too, may be legitimately held upon what we may refer to as not being divine territory, we have to do our work, but in such a sphere our affections can be true to the interests of God.

Not one detail of divine purpose will ever fail, but our exercise should be to be moving in line with it. Here was a man with faith enough to discern the mind of God, and who sought grace from God that he might answer to it. We see how God answered his desires.

Is there any significance in the names of the three men who are mentioned? Nehemiah-"whom Jehovah comforts"; Hachaliah-"Wait upon Jehovah"; and Hanani-"Jehovah will be gracious".

Yes! Their names would show that they were men who valued their relationship with God himself and with the people of God.

We might notice that between the month Chislev mentioned in verse 1 of our chapter, and the month Nisan mentioned in Nehemiah 2: 1, there is a period of several months. We see therefore that Nehemiah's prayer and exercise were sustained. The Lord Himself commended continuance in prayer, and we need in our day to "continue in prayer" so that we may receive an answer from God to our exercises.

It is obvious from verse 2 that Nehemiah's concern was related to the state of Jerusalem. News as to the state of God's interests reached him providentially, he was not in Jerusalem himself. What sadness of heart the report occasioned him; "great affliction and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire". What a reproach that was, because we read "Thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise" (Isa. 60: 18).

It would be right for the saints of God to be concerned about that which answers to these things today.

Yes, indeed! It is both surprising and encouraging what even one saint can do if truly exercised as to the interests of God.

It is apparent from verse 4 that Nehemiah was well occupied during the months that have been referred to; "I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven".

Do you also think that God, knowing the exercise of this man's heart, moved at His own appropriate time by sending these brethren who made him acquainted with the condition of things?

I quite think that! It is all part of what we speak of as the providential working of God. Nehemiah moves in the energy of desire and of faith, and at the same time God in His own time moved in relation to the vessel He had prepared.

In verse 5 Nehemiah uses three names of God, and they are of special importance. The words in the Hebrew are, "Jehovah"-which is His covenant name with Israel; "Elohim"-which is His supremacy in the universe; "El"-which speaks of the might that God has at His disposal to carry out every detail of His will, it is the "Mighty God".

It is obvious that Nehemiah knew God as expressed by these names. Would it raise the exercise with us as to whether we know God in the way in which He can be known in our dispensation?

A fourth name is used in verse 11, "Adonai"-a divine name which means "the Lord in blessing", and it is beautiful to see the way he leaves that name till verse 11. First he owns the rights of God, and the power of God to sustain His rights, and finally he appeals to God as the source of all blessing for His people. And it is in that verse he is able to speak of those "who delight to fear Thy name" (New Trans.). It is one thing to call upon God to help us, but it is a much more blessed matter to be truly transparent and to tell God that we delight in the way in which we know Him; Nehemiah does both.

Does not Nehemiah indicate here that he is taking account of the potential value of the children of Israel to God in spite of their departure from Him? It is very blessed the way in which he speaks not only of "Thy servant" but "the children of Israel Thy servants". Who would have thought there was any value at all in those people at that time? We do well in the present day of breakdown to regard the saints in relation to what they can be and should be for God.

In his appeal to God in verse 6, his desire is, "Let Thine ear now be attentive, and Thine eyes open". In verse 9 he reminds God of His promise "to set My name there". He mentions God's ear, God's eyes and God's Name. In 2 Chr. 6: 40, Solomon says, "Now, my God, let, I beseech Thee, Thine eyes be open, and let Thine ears be attent unto the prayer that is made in this place". In the next chapter, verse 15, we have God's answer to Solomon's prayer; "Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that My name may be there for ever; and Mine eyes and Mine heart shall be there perpetually." Nehemiah comes to God and reminds Him of this wonderful promise, desiring that God would keep His promise at that time.

The excess seen in 2 Chr. 7 is delightful; both Solomon and Nehemiah ask that God's eyes and God's ears be attent, but God adds to that and says, "My heart". It is blessed to see that not only God's eyes and ears are towards His people, but His heart is towards them too.

If Nehemiah was to be used of God in the recovery of the people, it was necessary that he should feel their condition in his own spirit, and associate himself personally with the failure. In the New Testament we have in Paul and Timothy and others, servants who felt the condition of the people of God and wept over them. Indeed the Lord wept over Jerusalem.

In what way could we confess the sins of the people today (v. 6)?

We may see the breakdown and speak one to the other of it. But how necessary to carry the matter in the spirit of humiliation and confession in prayer before God, owning our own part in it all.

Is there not a similar condition among the people of God today? And whilst perhaps none of us have been exercised as Nehemiah was, yet how much could be done if one was so exercised.

Those who brought the report to him must have been exercised too.

It would be a happy thing if what is now being said promotes such exercise amongst us.

In general our prayers should be articulate, but what is really important is what we are in our spirits. It is quite obvious that Nehemiah was carrying this matter upon his spirit; he could not pray audibly whilst serving the king. In our work, and in places where we cannot be praying audibly, we ought to be carrying these exercises on our spirits, and whilst not claiming the faithfulness which marked Nehemiah, yet we can say that we do feel these things in measure.

How often we have found that when one person is exercised as to these things and taken them up with God, it is not long before others come to light as having the same mind.

The feature of gravity is seen in Nehemiah, but alongside the gravity we get the expression "The joy of the Lord is your strength"; both these features should be present in our exercises today.

In verse 6 we read, "We have sinned against Thee", but Nehemiah adds, "Both and my father's house have sinned". "We have dealt very corruptly against Thee". We might have thought that with a man like Nehemiah it was just the other way round, but that is what he says to God. "And have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which Thou commandest Thy servant Moses". They had been downright disobedient to the things of God, and that is where trouble always commences.

The thing which causes a great deal of exercise today is that there are so few marked by obedience in gathering to the name of the Lord. I see very little movement of saints in this way.

I think that raises a very important issue, and we ought to face it. We may not be able to do much about it except to mourn and weep and pray, but we can do those things. There are thousands today who do not know the truth, but our responsibility is to live it before them.

There was one spot for God in the whole of this earth at that time, and Nehemiah knew that it was at Jerusalem, because there was the only place where God had ever placed His name. If we get the moral truth of that into our affections, that there is now a centre where the Lord has placed His name, it will be the one place where we shall desire to be, and where we shall devote ourselves to the interests of the Lord.

Regarding the remark about saints not having the truth, is there any responsibility on our part to take it to them?

Not if it places us in conditions that are not according to the present mind of God. If opportunity is given to help people regarding the truth, I hope we shall not miss that opportunity; but we cannot compromise what we know to be of God in order to help somebody else.

When Joshua was outside the camp he never went back, "Joshua departed not out of the tabernacle". They went out to him, didn't they?

That is right! Moses was acting for God, and Joshua remained outside of that which was dishonouring to God.

In regard to the matter which has been raised, was not the difficulty in Nehemiah's day that the enemy had destroyed the wall, and hence there was no separation?

That is what we sought to show in relation to the division of the books. The people could not be re-instructed as to divine principles until the centre was established; the wall is built, and then the people are re-instructed as to the features that should mark them. Had we as brethren maintained the truth of separation, perhaps others would have been attracted to us.

A great multitude went out from Egypt; only two of them went into the promised land, the men of faith.

Well, Nehemiah certainly did not lack faith. He laid hold first of all on the greatness of God, and the power of God, and the result was that he had but a small appreciation of the power that is in the hands of men. In the end of verse 11 we read, "Prosper, I pray Thee, thy servant this day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man". Nehemiah recognizes that this great monarch was but a man in the sight of God, yet a man whom God would use for His own purpose.

Why then does he afterwards say "For I was the king's cup-bearer"?

Well! That was his occupation.

When addressing the king personally, Nehemiah would have to give him his title, he would call him "great", which was the usual salutation for monarchs, but here he reserves greatness for God and, as before God, speaks of the king as "this man".

It is delightful the way in which Nehemiah associates others with him; he was quite sure others must be praying as he was; but it seems that as a special vessel he was being prepared of heart, and God was about to prepare him further.

He describes his official position in just six words at the end of the chapter, but how many times in these months of waiting and of preparation he must have spoken to God in prayer as to the interests of God Himself.

We can be assured that if one has such desires, and continues in them before God, God will use that man for His own glory.

Nehemiah 2

The month Chislev, of which we read in Nehemiah 1, is the equivalent of our December, and Nisan, of which we read in Nehemiah 2, is equivalent to our April; hence Nehemiah evidently continued in prayer for a period of about four months, seeking that God might open His hand in the restoration of His people. December would perhaps indicate the decline of things, whereas April suggests the time of sowing with a view to another harvest; there may be this moral link between the two. We certainly see a new beginning in this chapter, and if the four months was a period of inactivity externally, waiting before God that God might answer, this chapter from first to last has movement in view, a movement which commenced when the right moment came.

It is important to notice that whilst Nehemiah may have wondered how and when he should make the first move, God saw to it that the king himself moved first; God thus answered the continued exercise of those months. Sometimes when we are exercised as to a matter, and feel sure that the exercise is of God, we are perhaps in danger of being a little too impatient instead of waiting upon God.

We shall never see our way through an exercise in a godly sense unless we really feel the burden of it; that is the outstanding feature of these four months, months in which Nehemiah must have felt deeply the condition of Jerusalem. But these months were not wasted, and if we were more ready to await God's time, we should find that things would move much more quickly and successfully than they would have done by our own activities.

Is dedication to the interests of God the keynote of Nehemiah's exercises?

I am sure of that! God's interests should command our first attention, they are not to be neglected. These exercises did not hinder Nehemiah in his service to his earthly master, and we find him following his daily routine; yet his exercise is with him all the time. We all have our pathways of responsibility in this world, but we also can carry an exercise before God, quietly going on in our daily work until God Himself intervenes.

The attitude that marked Nehemiah was the result of his affections having been drawn out in relation to the condition of that which was precious to the heart of God. The king was able to discern that this was something deeper than that which was merely physical, for he says "Thou are not sick". It was something much deeper; Nehemiah's spirit was burdened and troubled because of what he had heard concerning the interests of God in Jerusalem.

Why does Nehemiah say, "Then I was very sore afraid"? Is that the natural man coming in?

Well, it was an insult to such a monarch for any servant, and especially this servant, to be sad in his presence. The king considered himself great enough to affect everyone of his servants with the merriment of the court, and not to be so affected could have endangered Nehemiah's life.

Does not this all show that, however impossible the circumstances appeared to be, God as above them all? Nehemiah, as any one of us would have been, was afraid because he was in the presence of a man with absolute power. He had power to send Nehemiah to his death and Nehemiah, knowing that, made his first request not to the king but to God. Under the hand of God it was the monarch who asked Nehemiah what his request was; but he prayed to the God of heaven. Circumstances, under the hand of God, may be turned in our favour but it is God Himself we should have before us.

Would you say that the king's action would suggest what is providential and governmental under God as favouring the testimony?

Yes! God is in complete control and Nehemiah, as being near to God, knew that and so he prayed to God.

God can make the very circumstances in which we are found to yield the very resources needed for His interests, and that is what happened here. Nehemiah had no resources in himself, he was but a servant; but God so ordered the circumstances that not only were they propitious towards him but they yielded the very resources that he needed.

"Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will"

Yes! And here is a man in line with that, and with an exercise of heart and a readiness that God was able to use. I must say that I have been struck with the close link in this incident between God and the king. We have the secular side and the spiritual side, and they are seen moving together without any discord. It would appear to be normal that this should be; if otherwise, there may perhaps be something wrong. I am not speaking of opposition or of persecution, but if some service I am engaged in is reflecting adversely upon my home or some other circle, then I very much doubt whether God is with me in it. The two sides should be going on together, the service of God and one's secular service.

Why does Nehemiah, when questioned by the king, ask that he might go to his fathers' sepulchres?

It may suggest that he is looking back to former generations, "my fathers"; this was the place they belonged to, where they were born, where they lived, and where they died in the service of God; and Nehemiah desired to see that place maintained.

He emphasizes "The place of my fathers' sepulchres"; he does not say the place of my fathers' achievements. As generation had succeeded generation upon divine territory, Nehemiah seems to say that that is the place where he ought to be, maintaining what they maintained when they were there.

The emphasis does not appear to be on the sepulchres, but on the fathers.

That which was definitely before Nehemiah was the city, and is it not very interesting and challenging that, after carrying this burden for months, when challenged in relation to it he could speak of it so definitely? He knew exactly what he wanted, he was not vague in his exercise; he could put the exercise of four months into one sentence and say exactly what he desired.

In the previous chapter, as sorrowing, Nehemiah had said, "I and my father's house have sinned"; but when speaking to the king he refers to his fathers' sepulchres. It would appear to set forth his faith; the commandments had been broken by his forefathers, but he does not refer to that in the king's presence, he is looking to the fulfilment of the promises that God had made.

That is a very good point; he did not say to the king, the place where my fathers have sinned. Before the king he speaks of divine territory, before God he says "Both I and my father's house have sinned".

Another very interesting point is seen in verse 4. When the king says "For what dost thou make request?", Nehemiah does not immediately reply. He first lifts his heart to God, and God puts into his heart what he should say to the king. That is similar to what the Lord said, "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto the magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say" (Luke 12: 11, 12). So Nehemiah "prayed to the God of heaven".

The "God of heaven" is a remarkable title to be introduced by Nehemiah into the narrative of his dealings with this great king. We, in our day, have little conception of the splendour and greatness of the monarchy in those days, but it was not this overt greatness that was in the mind of Nehemiah, but the God of heaven. He recognized that, however great and important the circumstances around him were, it was the heavens that rule, and he was in conscious touch with the God of heaven. God will not assert His title as the God of the earth until the coming day of which the book of Revelation speaks, but He is still "God of heaven", supreme in the universe, though as yet He is not laying claim to the earth.

Why did Nehemiah accept an escort, when Ezra did not?

The circumstances would appear to be entirely different. Ezra was carrying the vessels of the service of God; his was a more spiritual matter having to do with the re-establishment of the worship of God. But this was more outward, a governmental setting.

Ezra was a priest, his genealogy is traced back to Aaron. The Holy Spirit of God gives us the genealogy of Ezra to show the priestly character of that book, and if we introduce secular things into the worship of God we are on very dangerous ground.

The answer to this question would be seen in the end of verse eight, "And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me"; the request was in accord with divine wisdom. Whilst the resources were in the hand of the king, it was God who was behind it all. We must see that there is a striking moral difference between the service of Nehemiah and that of Ezra.

Do you think that Nehemiah did ask for a force? From the end of verse nine it would appear that it was a concession on the part of the king.

I think that it was an excess. It has not been suggested that Nehemiah asked for it; he asked for certain things and the king gave him an excess. "He granted me according to the good hand of my God upon me".

He apparently had three things before him; the palace, the house and the wall of the city. They would all speak of divine things, and they all needed preserving. If the palace and the house were to be preserved, then the wall of the city must be built.

In verse 8 Nehemiah says, "That he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace". When David, in an entirely different day from this, was collecting material for the house of God, the first thing he had in mind was the doors. "Nails for the doors of the house". It seems to be an important point that the gates, or doors, should be set up in their right position.

The palace would perhaps refer to what we should call the Town Hall; the house, of course, was the place of divine service; and the walls would safeguard both. There is the need today for preserving divine administration among the saints in regard to what we know to be the rights of God among His people; hence it is important to see that the gates have a prominent place in the thought of Nehemiah.

Then we see that there was the palace as well as the house. The palace would be suggestive of the many hortatory remarks we have at the end of the epistles as to right conduct and matters of order. How can a man move aright in relation to the house of God unless his own house and his own affairs are in order? There are certain things in the government of God that we must submit to if we are to move in a right way in the sphere of God's house.

The palace may be called the "fortress"; the place where things are guarded; and the truths made known in the epistles are guarded by their practical expression in the lives of the saints.

It has been pointed out that Haggai, when encouraging the people, speaks first to the governor and then to the priest. We may be sure that, if we are not moving aright in relation to the governmental ways of God and are not subject to Him in the administration of divine things, we cannot expect His blessing in the house character. I am persuaded that the truth is maintained in our practical answer to these things.

There is much detail in between the two statements "I prayed to the God of heaven" and "The king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me". Nehemiah recognized where his resources were, and he also recognized that in giving them to him God, in His sovereignty, used the secular power. Nehemiah did not ask for them from the secular power, he asked of God, and he recognized that they came from God.

In verses 9, 10 and 11 there is another point that we do well to note. Nehemiah arrives at his objective, at least he came to the governors beyond the river, but he himself says in verse 11, "So I came to Jerusalem". All his troubles were not over when he left the king's palace; he ran into a completely different set of exercises in the intensive opposition which was forthcoming from Sanballat and Tobiah.

The differing circumstances in which Nehemiah was found bring to light three distinctive moral features. In the four months already referred to, we see the burden which he was carrying, in the presence of the king what comes to light is the definiteness of his desire; but when in the presence of the opposition, as seen in verse 10 of our chapter, we see the purity of his motive. It is when the servant is marked by purity of motive that the opposition is overcome. If the service of God is not undertaken in absolute purity of motive, then the enemy has a point of attack, but when the motive is entirely pure the enemy is absolutely impotent, he cannot harm us. He may attempt it, he may harass us, he may even depress us, but he cannot stop the exercise. Nehemiah was a man who had come to see after the welfare of God's people, his motive was pure. He was misunderstood, and even maligned; they said that he was a rebel against the king. Other servants of God have been so spoken against, but with them there has been purity of motive to serve the saints, and they have gone through in triumph.

It says that Sanballat and Tobiah were grieved "exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel". Later they pretended to treat the matter with disdain, but it is apparent that this was unreal; they knew they were faced by a man of resolute purpose, and they set out to attack him. When God raises up a man the enemy instinctively prepares to attack.

Let us look to our motives in service, whatever that service may be; if our motives are pure we shall not be immune from attack by the enemy, but the attack will fail in its objective.

Now we see a further movement in verse 12, where we read, "And I arose in the night". This would be in contrast to Nehemiah 1: 4, where we read that Nehemiah "sat down". In chapter 1 it was right for him to sit and weep, but now it is a time to "arise".

It was not the normal time to get up and start work!

No! He would appear to be still carrying out his own exercise; others would share it later. Apparently he rose up that he might view the city for himself. As a wise man he would make himself acquainted with the true condition of things, before attempting to commence the work of recovery. As taking the lead in the matter he wished to be fully aware of all that was needed.

Three more features are seen in this section. From verse 11 to verse 16 we find that which we may speak of as investigation, a diagnosing of the position. It is always a good thing to consider a matter calmly and quietly, taking account of it from every viewpoint. From verse 17 to verse 18 we see Nehemiah calling his brethren into fellowship with him in the exercise. He investigates it himself, and we too must have our own impression of an exercise, but as having these personal impressions we ought not to move on independent lines; we should seek the fellowship of our brethren. Then in the 19th verse, as the opposition shows itself again, what marks Nehemiah is an absolute determination to carry the thing through. Investigation, fellowship, and then determination; and we need these three things as facing the exercises of the present day.

Referring to the three days of verse 11, would they be suggestive of resurrection? We read in Hosea 6: 2, "In the third day He will raise us up".

Would these three days involve separation from his previous circumstances, so that he might be in the hands of God?

That is what I think our brother has in mind; the verse in Hosea reads, "After two days will He revive us; in the third day He will raise us up". There is the transfer from one thing to the other with a view to the new beginning. We see the truth of it in the Scripture which says, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and . . . was buried". That is the end of the old condition. "He rose again the third day"-that is the beginning of the new order of things.

After he makes the exercise known to his brethren (v. 17) it would appear that the enemy brings up reinforcements (v. 19); the Arabian is added. They realized there were now others with similar exercises who were prepared to move with Nehemiah.

We know from the New Testament that Satan himself is opposed to the truth.

In that connection is it encouraging to keep before us the fact that the Spirit of God is just as active as ever? The ruin in that day was great, and it is so today, but the Holy Spirit is moving with perfect knowledge of the conditions which obtain at the present moment.

We, too, are not to act as though the ruin did not exist. Nehemiah waited, and went by night to view the situation, hence he knew perfectly well what was at stake and what was needed. Some ask why we cannot do today exactly the same as was done 100 years ago, but the present ruin is too great. We have to seek guidance to move, as helped of the Lord, as recognizing present conditions and seeking by His help to move through.

When Nehemiah called in his brethren we read "Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me, as also the king's word that he had spoken unto me". Note again that he puts the matter as it stands in relation to God first; he does not overlook the fact that the king had been favourable towards him, but he acknowledges that it all came because God's hand was upon him.

The fountain and the king's pool appear to have been damaged in this chapter.

What he found was that all the resources were cut off, and the point was, as to how they were to be opened up again. We are quite assured the hand of God was not shortened. God said to His people through the prophet, "Who hath despised the day of small things?" (Zech. 4: 10). God called their attention to the fact that it was a day of "small things", but He gave His people what was needed for the moment, and blessed them in it. Nehemiah, recognising that God's hand was upon him for good, and as moving in the power of that knowledge, had said "Let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach" (v. 17), and his brethren responded by saying "Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work" (v. 18).

In verse 18 we come to the thought of consecration, which means "the hands filled". We need not only devotion, that is having right desires, but we need also the material to get on with the work. That is indeed the main thought in view in meetings like these. The desires are already there before coming to the meeting, but if God fills our hands with a little more divine material then the meetings are worth while. I think we know that consecration simply means the filling of the hands. Aaron was sanctified, which would be by water; then we read of his dedication, which was by blood on the ear, the thumb and the great toe. That was followed by consecration, the hands were filled with the preciousness of the sacrifice. If our hands are not filled with divine material we are incapable of serving God.

When "Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian", said with scorn, "What is this thing that ye do? Will ye rebel against the king?", the striking thing is that Nehemiah does not fall back on the king's authority, he falls back on God Himself. He could have said, "See these letters which I have from the king", but instead he said "The God of heaven, He will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build". His enemies might have said, "Are you not the servant of the king?", but again and again in this chapter we see that his whole exercise stood in relation to God.

Nehemiah regarded these people in the same way in which the apostle regarded the sorcerer when he said, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter"; he discerned who he was (Acts 8: 21).

It was a very subtle thrust "Will ye rebel against the king?", but they met it in the consciousness that they were moving before God. They were God's servants, and could say, "The God of heaven, He will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build", If there is the conscious sense in the soul that what we do has divine approval, we can leave all opposition to God. Paul's advice to Timothy was "study to shew thyself approved unto God" (2 Tim. 2: 15); the more the opposition increased, the more Nehemiah was determined to carry on with the work.

Would you say there was increasing apprehension with Nehemiah? This is the third time he mentions the God of heaven; previously he had besought and prayed, now he has the consciousness of divine support.

That is very good!

Later in these readings when we come to the actual building of the wall, we shall hope to see the features of the men who did the work. Malachi brings in the last moral word from God, when it seemed that the very people who were inside that wall were seeking to break it down again. Nehemiah closes the book historically, but Malachi closes it morally; and we see the features of a generation approved of God carried right through, and appearing again in Simeon and Anna, Elizabeth and Mary in the beginning of Luke, those that spake together in the hill country of Judæa; morally the same generation. Our exercise should be that these features might be seen in us.

Have you not found as a practical fact today that people who will not regard the principle of separation, which the walls suggest, are in danger of losing the truth of the assembly completely?

The challenge comes to each of us as to whether we value the truth sufficiently to make a stand for it, and seek to keep in accord with it in all our movements and associations as God gives us grace. The moment we move from it, we are on slippery ground.

The word to Philadelphia was "Hold that fast which thou hast" (Rev. 3: 11). We have reached Laodicean conditions, but the truth that was available to Philadelphia is still with us to help us.

Nehemiah 3: 1-15.

In the section of Nehemiah we are now considering we arrive at what is perhaps the crucial point in the whole book. Nehemiah's chief exercise was the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, and along with that the restoration of the city in its relation to the thoughts of God. We have seen his own personal exercise as before the Lord, and then the way in which he made the matter known to his brethren. Now in this chapter we see them rising up to accomplish the task that had been laid upon the heart of Nehemiah. As we take account of the various ones who were engaged in the work, it should be an encouragement to us in our day, however small our place may be in the sphere of divine interests, for there is the need for each one to be set for the maintenance of separation from all that is inconsistent with the truth that has been given to us.

It is important to see that the first man mentioned is Eliashib. In his name we have the suggestion that God is a "God who will restore". He and his brethren builded the sheep gate, the point from which the work commenced and also at which it finished. We learn from the 5th chapter of John's gospel that the sheep gate is connected with Bethesda-the house of mercy. The principle of sovereignty in mercy thus characterizes the work throughout.

Then, too, we see that with Eliashib a priestly lead was given. Days of recovery bring to light men who know what it is to spend time in priestly conditions in the presence of God and we can be assured that the lead given by such men will be blessed of God. There was a defect in Eliashib, as we shall see, but as the priestly leader of the people he did well in commencing this work.

The sheep gate, as connected with the thought of mercy, would doubtless suggest the exercise of pastoral care and the sustaining of the saints of God in priestly conditions.

Whatever there may be in any one of us that can be used in the way of recovery, we have to recognize the fact that the basis of recovery in the heart of any saint of God, or of any position, is the sovereignty of God's mercy.

It would appear that Eliashib gave a right lead when he builded the sheep gate; he sanctified it, and set up the doors of it; but unfortunately he seems to have forgotten the locks and the bars. Some have thought that it was right that the sheep gate should not have had locks and bars, but Eliashib was the man who later brought Tobiah into the inside place, a place where he should never have been.

These are points we need to see the force of, for these gates as suggesting centres of administration, needed to be preserved from the inroads of all which was destructive of the things of God. It says of Eliashib that he builded "even unto the tower", it does not say that he built the tower which would be protective in character.

There are only ten gates mentioned in this chapter, we have to look further into the book to find the other two. This may suggest the feature of responsibility as connected with the work.

Is there anything in the New Testament which would answer to the locks and bars?

In the Epistles we find many warnings, which if heeded would promote a preparedness to maintain the truth of God as we know it.

"Having your loins girt about with truth" (Eph. 6: 14) would be a practical exhortation in this regard. A wall suggests that something precious is enclosed. Let us value the heritage that we have come into, a wonderful heritage of the truth- let us be set to guard it. We need to be on the alert in regard to maintaining what we know to be due to the Lord Himself in our gatherings, seeking His constant help in doing so.

In a day of ruin we see what would answer to the locks and bars in the word to Timothy, "Be thou also on thy guard" (2 Tim. 5: 15 New Trans.).

"And next unto him builded the men of Jericho" (v. 2). That is a most encouraging feature; here were men connected with a city, the wall of which had been brought down by God, and now they are prepared to help in building a wall round the city of God itself. That is a wonderful thing. Would it not challenge each of us as to whether we have given more time and interest to the system of things that Satan has built up, rather than to the circle of divine interests into which God has brought us?

One of the features that come to light in this chapter is the unity that marks the different classes of those engaged in the work-"Men of Jericho", nobles, goldsmiths, perfumers and others. Would not this suggest that, although differing from one another in secular things, yet we should be unified in our desires and activities in divine interests?

Does the thought of the sovereignty of God in mercy apply to these men of Jericho?

I think so! The character of Saul of Tarsus is expressed in his own words, "I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did". He was assured it was the right thing to do, and he used all his energy to destroy that Name. But when converted he was prepared to lay down his life for Christ's sake. It was the same man, but he says twice in his letter to Timothy, "Mercy was shewn me".

We have references to building and to repairing; is there a difference?

Yes! There is a suggestion in this chapter that part of the old wall had apparently stood; the reference to the Old Gate would perhaps indicate that everything was not destroyed; but that which had been destroyed was renewed.

Is not that confirmed by verse eight in the New Translation? "And they left Jerusalem in its state as far as the broad wall". The footnote suggests that the Chaldeans had left the wall as far as that.

The Fish Gate would perhaps have the out-going of the Gospel in mind, "The Fish Gate did the sons of Hassenaah build, who also laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof". The striking thing is that these locks and bars come in in relation to the Fish Gate. Peter was the apostle whose preaching resulted in a yield of 3,000 souls, and it is not without point that he was a fisherman. The Lord had said to Peter and Andrew, "I will make you fishers of men".

In verse 4 we read, "Meremoth the son of Urijah, the son of Koz. And next unto them repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah, the son of Meshezabeel. And next unto them repaired Zadok the son of Baana". It is very interesting to note the number of times the "the son of" is referred to. Whether there had been failure in the fathers we do not know. They may have been very successful fathers for all we know, but "the son of" suggests that there is something committed to the interests of God in the following generation.

Do we see a somewhat similar thought in the word of Paul to his son Timothy, "Faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2: 2)?

From the divine standpoint each one may regard himself as being the son of some brother who served the Lord and is now home with Him. Paul said to Timothy "My own son in the faith"; but we may have to say with exercise of heart, "can reliance be put upon me as one of the "sons" in relation to divine interests today"?

The thought of sonship adds dignity to the service; in this dispensation we are sons, and however small and obscure our service may be, it should be done in the dignity of our calling, the dignity of sonship.

Would verse 5 be the contrast to what has just been said? There were some who "put not their necks to the work of their Lord". It may be that they thought their position as nobles lifted them above this kind of work; worldly position could be a very great danger to any one of us.

We do not want to stress unduly the meaning of these names, but there are important touches in relation to them, especially in regard to the thought of serving with dignity. Meremoth-elevation; Urijah-the light of Jehovah; Meshullam-devoted; Berechiah-blessed of Jehovah; Meshezabeel-freed by Jehovah. All these are in the fourth verse, and surely they set forth morally the position in which we are found today. We have been brought into a sphere of light and liberty and blessing; and with an appreciation in our hearts of the love that has brought us into the place of sons, our service should be marked by devotion of heart and mind to the Lord.

Could you throw any light on the fact that these Tekoites are spoken of as a company? Also in verse 27 we read that they "repaired another piece".

It is good when we can move together in an exercise; these men evidently did so, and having completed one exercise successfully they are apparently quite happy to move together again on "another piece". They evidently regarded the work as their Lord's.

The word used is "Adon"-their Master; a divine Name. They did not regard the work as that of Nehemiah merely, it was the work of their Lord. If we view our service as being related only to certain brethren, we shall miss the mark; but if we labour in relation to God, and keep His interests as the object before us, we shall discover that we are labouring with others who have precisely the same exercises.

We could not class these Tekoites with their nobles, for the nobles "laid not their necks to the work" (verse 5).

Once we begin to think that we are socially important we shall miss the opportunity of helping in the things of God.

We have referred to the doors, the locks and the bars. When Noah went into the Ark, God shut the door; but in Isaiah, chapter 26, we read of a new song in the land. "We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in". There are two sides to this matter, the preserving of what is right, and the keeping out of what is not; the righteous nation comes in . It looks on to the world to come and the display of the glory.

The Old Gate in verse 6 or, as it might read, the "Old Wall", we have already referred to. The portion which had not been destroyed by the enemy may be in mind. The names are significant; Jehoiada-the Lord knows; Meshullam-devoted; Besodeiah-in the secret of Jehovah. It is good to be in the secret of what God is doing for the glory of His own Name, whatever may be the activities of the enemy.

In verse 7 we have those who have the "throne of the governor" in view. How vitally important it is in a day of ruin to hold fast the thought of right administration. The Lord would encourage us in our day to maintain what is due to His Name, and to seek to be faithful to Him in all our movement. All true service has in mind the furtherance of the rights of the Lord in the affections of His people.

Why do we get the individual Gibeonite and then the men of Gibeon, in verse seven?

The name Melatiah means "One whom Jehovah sets free", so that whilst as

Gibeonites they were under a servile bondage, God evidently came in sovereignly, and as this man's name suggests, set them free that they might be available for the work. The Gibeonites were hewers of wood and drawers of water, and they had to be set free from that to be available for this important work.

We could perhaps turn to a chapter like the twelfth of first Corinthians, and note the variation of gift which includes "helps, governments", and we are assured that true assembly features will not be in evidence where government is not maintained.

What do we learn in relation to the goldsmiths and the apothecaries mentioned in verse eight?

We may suppose that these men were not used to handling a trowel; they were men of refined occupations. Perhaps the gold would be that which was indicative of the divine nature, what was of God; and the apothecary would speak of the fragrance of a service devoted to divine interests. Whatever may be suggested it is evident that they, too, felt the necessity for this wall to be built, and they desired to have their part in the building of the wall.

It is a blessed thing to bring into the service precious thoughts of the greatness and deity of Christ; and alongside that the charm and sweetness of His Name. We need power for that; to speak of the greatness of Christ and maintain that which is due to His holy Name, and at the same time to be helped to charm each other with thoughts of His preciousness.

Doubtless these men had been working inside the city, perhaps on temple work, but if they were to go on rightly as goldsmiths and as apothecaries, they would feel the need of protection in the divine circle; hence the desire with them to have their part in the repairing of the wall.

The brother who is able to give us the most precious and most intimate thoughts of Christ and the truth that encircles Him, can also take his part in the defence of that truth. We see this exemplified in Paul. Who gives us sweeter touches of glory and intimacy than he does in his ministry? And who defended the truth more than Paul did?

We cannot cover all the details of this chapter, but there is an important word for us in verse 10. Jedaiah repaired "over against his house". Are there not many references in the New Testament which show the vital importance of the truth being stood for in the houses of the saints? After unfolding the precious truths as to the Person of Christ in the Colossian epistle, and then the truth of Christ and the church in the Ephesian epistle, the apostle in his exhortations to the saints refers expressly to conditions which should obtain in the houses of God's people. Do we not need grace and wisdom in order that our homes might be places where the precious interests of Christ are appreciated in holy separation from the world which denies His rights? We must have a sense of the sovereign rights of God if there is to be success in any work we may do.

Is there a suggestion in verse 11 that there were Gentiles working on the wall.?

It would seem that not only here but in other places also the sovereignty of God had made room for the Gentiles in relation to His interests. In 2 Samuel 8, David, after subduing the nations, brought in the dedicated things "of Syria, and of Moab", etc. Again, we have the devotion to the Ark of God of such men a Uriah the Hittite and Obed-Edom the Gittite. All this would magnify the mercy of God. We might also refer to Ruth being brought into the genealogy of David the king of Israel.

Would it not also be indicative of our place as Gentiles? We have our part in the things of God on the basis of sovereign mercy.

There was only one man named in relation to the building of Solomon's temple, Hiram; he was a Gentile. Indeed Zechariah says "They that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD".

Then we have the Valley Gate. We may be more interested in the Gate of the Fountain, but the Valley Gate has its place. It would seem from verse 13 that there is some link between the Valley Gate and the Dung Gate. The Valley Gate (and also the Dung Gate) is mentioned in relation to Nehemiah's activities in Nehemiah 2. It probably refers to the Valley of Hinnom, the place where the bodies of the criminals and the refuse were burned; so that it would appear to be definitely linked with the Dung Gate.

Paul uses this word "dung" in the epistle to the Philippians in connection with the repudiation of all standing and trust in the flesh. I have been arrested by the epistle to the Galatians of late. Paul speaks to the Galatian saints more severely than he does to the Corinthians. Judaism, in Paul's estimation, was the worst thing that could ever invade the Assembly of God, and it is a principle that the saints of God are in danger of cultivating today. In this way we may suggest that Paul insisted upon the necessity of the Dung Gate.

Perhaps there is no other epistle where the truth of the cross of Christ as the end of the first man is so clearly seen as in the epistle to the Galatians. We are slow to learn this lesson. We may prefer to live next door to a Galatian than to a Corinthian, but from the standpoint of the truth of God and the danger of corrupting it, Paul was very much alive to the reprobate character of Judaism as destroying the features of Christianity.

We read "Moreover Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, and at the Valley Gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them". 2 Chronicles 26: 9. Recalling what has been said concerning the association of the Valley Gate and the Dung Gate, it would appear that this is a feature of the truth in which we need to be strengthened, the casting out as dung all that has been judged in the cross of Christ.

Job would have arrived at the truth of the Dung Gate and the Valley Gate, when he said "I abhor myself" (Job 42: 6). Paul, too, accounted as dung all that he had before boasted in (Phil. 3: 8).

Would the Gate of the Fountain (verse 15) be indicative of the Spirit of God? "But the Gate of the Fountain repaired Shallun the son of Col-Hozeh, the ruler of part of Mizpah".

Yes! I thought the Fountain Gate would suggest the thought of the Spirit.

Why for the first time do we get in verse 15 concerning one of the gates, the added expression "and covered it"?

The only thought I have is that the covering would preserve it from defilement.

There are things which are not known in the world, things which we enjoy in the intimacy of the Sanctuary of God, and the choice communications of the Spirit are on that line.

Do we not also read "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him" (Matt. 12: 32)? He was to be guarded in that way. Thus whilst appreciating the refreshing character of the communications of the Holy Spirit of God, we need to be preserved in our estimation of their holy features too.

Nehemiah 3: 16-32.

It is of interest to notice that in verse 16 we have mention of the "mighty"-an alternative rendering is "Mighty men"; in verse 17 we have the Levites; in verse 18 "their brethren; in verse 22 the priests; and in verse 26 we have the Nethinims. These different persons may speak of various elements raised up by the Lord in the local gatherings in order that they might function for His pleasure. This word "mighty men" is that used to describe the warriors, the leaders in the battle, and perhaps they would suggest the features of the evangelist going out with the glad tidings into the enemies' territory, seeking to bring souls into subjection to Christ; potential material for the divine circle to which, through grace, we belong.

Is there an illusion to David's mighty men in this?

There may be! They were of the warrior character, although perhaps not always on the evangelical side, yet they were men who were set to defend the interests of God.

The house of the mighty men would suggest that a permanent place was found for them in the local setting. When the midwives in Egypt acted in a way that pleased God, He made for them houses, indicating that He would have that feature maintained.

Is it not your thought that this feature of the mighty men should be retained in every local Assembly?

Yes! It would be well for us to really get hold of that thought.

Do you think there should be mighty men in every local gathering?

Unfortunately in this day of breakdown there are abnormalities, and often we feel the need of certain elements that are deficient; but speaking of what is normal, there should be mighty men in every gathering, whether in relation to the preaching of the gospel or in the defence of the truth. At Antioch, which appears to have been a normal assembly, we have two mighty men mentioned, Barnabas and Saul.

These mighty men are not mentioned in this verse as actually building; it seems to suggest that their house was a point to be reached. Perhaps it would link with the Philippian epistle, where we see a great servant carrying on the work of the gospel, and others who had the same exercise and laboured with him.

In the order in which these men are given-the mighty, then the Levites, and the brethren, and finally the priests-there would appear to be moral progress in relation to divine interests.

In our previous readings we have observed that these men are not working independently one of another. One cause of division amongst the brethren has been the attempt to part asunder the exercise of gift, whereas these mighty men are alongside the Levites, who are seen working with their brethren, and with the priests and the Nethinims. Independency in the things of God is really self-will.

Individual service would be entirely different from independent service. An individual must move in relation to his own Master, but he would surely ask, as the apostle did, "Brethren, pray for us".

We each need to have an individual exercise as to service, and that would be why these various features are named, but as moving before the Lord and in fellowship with one's brethren and not independently of them, there would be definite help given. If we can see the outstanding difference between what is individual and what is independent we shall be helped. They builded together.

Why is the word repair mentioned so many times?

Evidently everything had not been destroyed, and applying the thought to our day, we know that about 140 years ago men of God were raised up to bring to light again truths that had long been forgotten. All truths had not been forgotten, but much needed repairing, that is, setting in its right place in the hearts of God's people in accordance with the Scriptures. Take for instance the great truth that Luther stood for, justification by faith; that had not been entirely destroyed, but it needed to be stood for in faithfulness. Later in church history other truths had apparently been completely overlooked, such as the truth of the one body and of the Lord's coming. These truths were brought in, so to speak, afresh; but such truths as justification by faith were put in their right settings.

In verse 17 we read "after him repaired the Levites". Their service would have to do with the general service and ministry of the truth, instruction for the saints; a service that we may thank God is ceaselessly carried on in the gatherings of the saints. In Deuteronomy 33 we read that the particular work committed to the Levites was, "They shall teach Jacob Thy judgments, and Israel Thy law". In 2 Peter 1, we read "And add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge". Virtue would suggest moral courage, a preparedness to stand for the truth, and it is well to know what we stand for, hence the necessity for the service of the Levites.

Is there the danger of regarding Levitical work as of less importance than it really is?

An element of weakness is introduced if brethren attempt to take up service of a priestly character in what we speak of as the "morning meeting", and yet fail to avail themselves of Levitical instruction.

To be practical, are you referring to the disparity between attendance on a Lord's Day morning and at the reading meeting?

Exactly! Many are defective in regard to teaching. We all need to come more under divine instruction in order that the service of God might be carried on according to the truth that has been given to us in the Scriptures, and not according to our own thoughts. This disparity between Lord's Day morning meeting attendance and week night attendance is something that really should be taken to heart by all.

That leads to another feature which is seen in verse 18, "And after him repaired their brethren". This would confirm what has been previously guarded against, that while individual exercise is needed and is of great importance, yet we are set together. It is good to see this feature coming in immediately after reference has been made to the Levites, the feature of brethren evidently moving together.

There seems to be a special feature in verse 20 which we do well to observe; It reads "After him Baruch the son of Zabbai earnestly repaired the other piece". Apparently he is the only man of whom that is said in the chapter. Looking at Baruch as he laboured, no one would have the slightest doubt as to what he was doing; and what is more, his earnestness was apparent, and has been recorded by the Spirit of God.

It links with what was said earlier, Zabbai's name means "purity". It is when our motives are pure that we are earnest in the things of God. If we have mixed or impure motives, we shall be dilatory; but purity of motive which has only the Lord's honour in view, will give us vitality in the work.

We might notice that this man's work was at a most important point of the wall-the corner of the high priest's house. The enemy would have been delighted to get in at such a point.

We have remarked that Baruch's father's name means "purity"; his own name means "blessed". What a privilege and responsibility rests upon Christian parents to hold the things of God in such purity, that the children might be brought into the conscious blessedness of them. That would definitely link with verse 23, where we have the expressions, "their house", and "his house".

The next to be mentioned are the priests, who would set forth another feature in relation to those who were engaged in the work.

It is important to realize that whatever service is carried on in the energy of the Holy Spirit, all is in view of promoting priestly conditions amongst the saints of God.

No one would have such an appreciation of the death of Jesus as the priests would have; the more priestly one is, the more one's affections would be softened and one's spirit subdued by the thought of the death of Christ. The reference to "men of the plain (of Jordan)" (New Trans.) may bear that application. In New Testament language it may suggest those who move sympathetically with the truth of the Lord's death, and who have an intelligent appreciation of what that death has established for the glory and praise of God.

Would there not be a necessary period of exercise before one could move in reality along the lines these various features represent?

We have remarked earlier that there appears to be a moral progression in these things, from the warriors to the Levites; from the Levites to the brethren; from the brethren to the priests. None of us learn these things quickly, but if we seek grace to go on, and if we do go on earnestly, we shall then be established in the truth and enter more fully into its privileges.

The "corner" is mentioned several times in the chapter. What is its significance?

In the construction of the tabernacle a double board was placed at the corners, just where it was liable to fall apart; and I think we know from experience that sometimes things come in amongst us, which if we are not careful could immediately divide us; and we need, as it were, extra stability and extra wisdom on such occasions.

One of the most acute angles that ever arose is seen in Acts 15; a matter which could have split the church from end to end on the question of Judaism. The brethren looked into it, and the "corner" was strengthened in a spirit of no compromise and yet of affection, and all was supported by Scriptural principles.

We see another difficulty as early as the 6th chapter of the book of the Acts; the outcry by the Hellenists against the Hebrews over the daily ministration. It needed careful handling, but the brethren handled it well, and the position was saved.

In verse 26 we have the Nethinims. These servants apparently came to light only in the days of the erection of the temple; they seem to have been a provision made by David, and do not appear to have had a place in the tabernacle system; but they were found in the temple. Their function was altogether to serve the Levites; they laboured for the Levites.

In Ezra 8: 20 we read, "Also of the Nethinims, whom David and the princes had appointed for the service of the Levites". In our day they would perhaps answer to those who do many services behind the scenes, as we may speak. Many things which are necessary, and have to be done week by week; things which may often be taken for granted, but someone has to do them.

What is there that is common to all these various classes that we have been considering? The mighty men, the Levites, the priests and the Nethinims; what simple thing is there common to them all?

Perhaps the answer to that would be devotion. True devotion to the work and interests of the Lord would surely bind the saints together.

What is the difference between "the King's Garden" in verse 15 and "the King's House" in verse 25?

"The King's Garden" would be that in which he walks in order to gather his fruits; the perfume and fruits of the garden are for the delight of his own heart. "The House" would speak of the place of intimacy, a place he shares with the one upon whom his affections are set. Both thoughts are seen in what the Church is to Christ.

What is the thought in the Nethinims dwelling at Ophel?

According to the marginal reading it could be "tower", and it is "over against the Water Gate".

The Water Gate would suggest a ministration of refreshment to the saints of God; and that is the result of the Nethinims supporting the Levites. Water seen in movement, as in the fountain, is generally indicative of the Spirit; water in its cleansing and refreshing capacity is usually indicative of the Word of God. As seen here its relation to the gate would suggest that there is power for the administration of the truth.

It says the Nethinims dwelt there. These exercises are to engage us constantly, are they not?

Indeed they are! It is remarkable that it was the Nethinims who were there as maintaining the source of refreshment for the people of God. That should encourage all those who may not be able to take on any prominent service. Many a simple service can be used to set the affections of the saints in liberty, and thus enrich the service of God.

In verse 28 we read "From above the Horse Gate (remark: another indication of power) repaired the priests, every one over against his house". If priestly service is to be maintained in power, how essential it is for each to see that things are right according to the truth in "his house". So we again read in verse 29, "After them repaired Zadok the son of Immer over against his house".

Another feature comes to light at the end of verse 30, "After him repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah over against his chamber". Apparently this man didn't own the whole of the house; it would appear as though he had one room only in the house; or, as the footnote in the New Translation suggests, "a lodging".

It would be an encouragement to people who are not heads of houses, and have not a house of their own. If we have but one room, we can hold that for the Lord. There would be nothing in that room which is contrary to His Name. In that way the work of the Lord would be supported.

The last name mentioned, Malchiah, means "God is king", which would suggest the end in view. The rights of God amongst His people secured.

There are two gates that have not yet been commented upon, the "East Gate" (v. 29) and the "Gate of Miphkad" (v. 31).

The "East Gate" is actually the gate through which the glory of the Lord will return to Jerusalem, according to Ezekiel; it is the gate that looks towards the rising of the sun and Ezekiel 43 and 44, speaks of the glory coming in by way of the East Gate. The keeper of the East Gate is Shechaniah, whose name suggests "continual dwelling", or alternatively, "The dwelling of Jehovah". It would perhaps indicate the sustaining of a company who would be continually on the watch for the return of the glory.

Throughout the centuries, including what is spoken of as the dark ages, there have been loyal hearts beating in anticipation of the moment when the glory will return. We, too, are looking for the Lord's coming. Doubtless there have always been hearts that in the breaking of bread have had His coming again in view, waiting for the moment when the glory will return.

Lastly, we have the "Gate of Miphkad", which means "The appointed place". It may also be rendered "muster".

That is the last of the ten gates mentioned here-the appointed place. It might suggest that the East Gate having come into view, with the looking for His return, the people have reached their appointed place, and the chapter ends on that note.

Two other gates are mentioned later, in Nehemiah 8: 16, "the Gate of Ephraim"; and in Nehemiah 12: 39, "the Prison Gate"; in this verse the Gate of Ephraim is mentioned again. That completes the twelve, but it is a happy thought, as we have said, that the last gate in Nehemiah 3 shows that the work is complete, they have reached this grand objective-"the appointed place". There is a very simple statement about Abraham setting out from Ur of the Chaldees with Sarah his wife. It says "And into the land of Canaan they came" (Gen. 12: 5). He might have set out, and yet not have completed the journey; but "into the land of Canaan they came". Let us be encouraged not only to have an objective, but to seek grace that the objective might be reached.

Nehemiah 8: 1-12.

The beginning of chapter 8 connects with the last verse of the previous chapter, "When the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their cities. And all the people gathered themselves as one man into the street that was before the Water Gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses". Now that the city was built, and the temple service was proceeding, there was evidently the desire to regulate everything according to the will of God. It is this matter of being regulated by the Word of God which we desire to stress.

"All the people", is an oft repeated expression; is there any specific importance in it for us?

There were certain ones specially named, as Ezra the scribe, the priest (he is referred to in each of these ways in this chapter); there was also the Tirshatha, Nehemiah; but the point is that they "gathered themselves together as one man", unity marks them as a company. I suppose there is a similarity to the second chapter of Acts, where we see a movement of God Himself, and believers moving together in accordance with it. In that chapter they are "all with one accord in one place", and in Nehemiah 8 they are gathered together "as one man" to be instructed in the Word of God.

It was necessary for the people to be adjusted in regard to the divine centre before they could really appreciate divine teaching. That is a very challenging matter for us today; unless we have the thought of God in connection with His interests on the earth before us, we shall not be freed from man's thoughts concerning those interests. As regulated in our affections in regard to God's own interests here, we shall value divine instruction.

That is an important point to press; if we are wandering about in the avenues that have been established and maintained by the will of man, we shall never appreciate God's thoughts as expressed in Christ. We must have an appreciation of the divine centre.

What is the divine centre today?

Well! it is not a geographical matter, nor a question of a meeting room; but it is where God is moving in the power of the Spirit in relation to the glory of Christ. If we find those who are subject to the movements of the Spirit of God in regard to the glory of Christ, and are appreciating the truth as it is in that blessed Man, we shall see the moral features of God's centre. It is a sphere where the working of the mind of man is excluded.

Does it not involve the recognition in a practical way of the Lordship and Headship of Christ?

Exactly! "Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity" (2 Tim. 2: 19 New Trans.). Iniquity in that connection is the intrusion of the mind of man into the things of God. If there is with us the recognition of the Lordship and the Headship of Christ, we shall be holding things in definite relationship to Himself, In that way we shall reach the divine centre.

We see in the early verses of our chapter that a way is prepared for the opening up of the Word of God, in order to bring divine instruction before the people, and it can now be worked out by them in the very place in which God gave it and in reference to both the temple and the city. That is the end in view.

Truth can never be worked out unless there is the recognition of the rights of Christ. Although Ezra is mentioned here as the priest, thus introducing the element of grace, yet at the same time we see that he is stressing the law and the commandments of Jehovah. In the epistle to the Corinthians, where we have an assembly functioning in a locality, Paul says "If any man think himself to be . . spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord". It is the Lord's commandment that regulates the functioning of any assembly in a locality.

How then can we determine when we have arrived at the truth of this so that it can be worked out amongst us?

There is not much difficulty with any honest affection as to knowing whether desires are according to God or not. In our hearts we know when we are really desirous of knowing the mind of the Lord. We may fail to carry it out fully; we may be very weak in our practical expression of it, but the heart knows when it is really set for what is due to the name of the Lord.

In other words that soul would be teachable?

Exactly! That would be the proof of sincerity; and you would find yourself in a circle where teaching was available.

It has been said in the reading that this recovery was partial, but I think we need to guard the fact that it was partial only as regards numbers; the features of the recovery were according to the mind of God. Whilst we are not able to walk with all the saints of God in any one place let us be thankful for those who as "one man" desire to be found together where the Lord would have them to be, and who are amenable to the teaching of Scripture.

As we go through this chapter we see that which was originally established being answered to. In Leviticus 23 the last three feasts are all in connection with the seventh month, and all stand in relation to Israel. The first one on the first day of the month was the feast of trumpets, and that is answered to in the people gathering themselves together; then we have the feast of atonement, and the answer to that is seen in the people weeping (v. 9); the last one on the fifteenth day was the feast of tabernacles, and this is reached at the end of the chapter where they are rejoicing before God. The recovery is thus seen to be in accord with divine instruction.

Referring to what was originally established, there is no reason at all why we cannot, in our day, "continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers". That is what marked the early days of the church, and all these features are available for us today.

Days appear to have an important place in the chapter. Doubtless because they were feast days, that is, they stood out as holy convocations to the Lord Himself. Should we not hold each day in relation to divine interest? The Lord's Day would, of course, have a special place as we gather for the breaking of bread; but there are other occasions for prayer, for the reading of the Scriptures, and for ministry of the Word; all these should have a controlling place in our lives.

What is the significance of the word being read in "the open place" (v. 2 New Trans.)?

It is "the open place that was before the Water Gate". In the Water Gate we have the thought of the ministry of the Word of God in its refreshing character, and there is in "the open place" a suggestion of having liberty of movement as in subjection to it.

Would you say something about "all that could hear with understanding" (v. 2)?

Every saint of God, as having believed the gospel, is sealed with the Holy Spirit; but although we have the Spirit we can be hindered from the understanding of the Word of God if we are lending our ears to what Scripture calls "fables". Whereas, if we are moving in the circle of truth there is developed with us an ability to understand the truth. We have already seen that the truth stands related to the divine centre, and that is where we are instructed.

"Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things"; is that the way of understanding?

The Holy Spirit of God with all the refreshing ministry from an ascended Man in glory is in us; do we give Him His rightful place that He might guide us into all the truth? A good many questions that are asked would never arise in persons' minds if they had recourse to the resources of the Water Gate.

Could you say who those "that could hear with understanding" would include? Would they include the young?

That may be so, but there were probably some that could not understand the language, there was a mixed company. Obviously there were those in the company who perfectly understood what was being said. It does say that "the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law". That is an important word for us all; ministry may be given and we may listen to it in a very careless way. You will remember that the Lord said, "Be careful what ye hear". We may think we can read anything we like, or listen to anything we like, and not be adversely affected by it; but we shall find that if we are listening to worldly things, we shall not have a ready ear for the Word of God. The Lord also said "Be careful how ye hear". It becomes us to listen with attentive ears because it is the Word of God.

In Luke 10, it says in the New Translation that Mary "having sat down at the feet of Jesus, was listening to His Word"; she was attentive. What these men read was the law of Moses, which would engage their minds with God's original word to His people. We need to emphasize these points; we are sometimes said to be old-fashioned, and that we should move with the times; but the Word of God is not only abreast of, it is ahead of the times. This would preserve us from any idea of fresh light, which is a thing to be guarded against.

This reading and the attention given to it lasted about six hours. That is a long time to stand. How many of us spend six hours reading the Bible in one day and then the next day are anxious for more? Of course it is not always possible to read for six hours on end; but the point is that these people had the time and they utilised it.

It must have been a great exercise for those who stood and listened all that time. The book of the law had been neglected for many years, but now they came back to it with freshness.

Although Ezra is named here several times it says, "and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law". It was the commandment of God that had its effect upon the people; the servant was used but their thoughts were directed to the law itself.

In this reading we notice that there was instruction also. In Nehemiah 9: 3 we read, "And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the LORD their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the LORD their God". The word was having a practical effect upon them.

In verse 8 we read, "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly , and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading". It is a very serious matter if the Word of God is read and a wrong impression given from it; all true ministry enhances the value of the Scriptures in the ears of those who listen.

There are two important things for us to notice in verses 5 and 6; all the people stood up-there was reverence; and "Ezra blessed the LORD", that would indicate a sense of thankfulness.

We see that before there was any regulation of the people through the Word, it was God Himself who came before their souls. It is a grand start to the understanding of divine truth if God has His rightful place in our affections.

Why do you get the remarkable expression here, "the great God"? "And Ezra blessed Jehovah the LORD, the great God".

It may be in contrast to the gods the people had known in Babylon and probably in Persia; Jehovah is to be supreme in their thoughts-"the great God". In Psalm 96 we read, "He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols".

"Idols" as used in that verse is a very remarkable word, it really means "nonentities"; and what is stressed in our chapter is the greatness of God Himself.

It is noticeable that before Ezra commences to read, God in His greatness comes before the people and immediately they say, "Amen, Amen . . . and they bowed their heads, and worshipped".

What is the present day application of the "lifting up of their hands"?

Paul uses the term in 1 Timothy 2: 8, "Lifting up holy hands". As coming into the presence of God we are conscious that we are speaking to Him and that He is listening to us. When we bless God we offer something to Him, our hands are filled with the excellence of Christ.

It is important to see that the Tirshatha is mentioned first in verse 9, "Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people".

Why does Nehemiah come before the priests?

One well-known verse in the gospel of John explains that. In John 13 the Lord says to His disciples, "Ye call Me the Teacher and the Lord, and ye say well for I am so. If I therefore, the Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet . . " ( New Trans.) You will notice that the Lord reverses the words. We do not get the gain of the Lord as Teacher unless we recognize His Lordship. The Lord again said, "If any man will do His will he shall know of the doctrine" (John 7: 17). Hence we have the governor first. Slowness in accepting divine teaching can often be traced to our not bowing to the Lord's authority.

The word which follows is, "This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept when they heard the words of the law". Weeping preceded the rejoicing, and doubtless the people were in a right state when they wept before the Lord.

It was the word of the law coming through the priest that affected the people. It came to them "Not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2: 13).

The teaching of the law of God had had its rightful effect upon the people, and the people's attitude of weeping was the proof that recovery had been effected. "Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared". May we just say very simply that it is as we enjoy in fellowship together the richness of the divine circle, that we have that which can be used in blessing to others.

Does eating the fat and drinking the sweet suggest discernment?

It would be the enjoyment of the very best that the divine circle affords. It is remarkable that the fat is included, because in the sacrifices the fat was reserved for God. Nevertheless we do read in Psalm 36, "They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house; and Thou shalt make them drink of the river of Thy pleasures".

It is to be noted that this was to continue after the meeting was over. It says in verse 12, "And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions". This enjoyment was not confined to the occasion of listening to the word, but was the practical result of that instruction; and as we go our ways we ought to be in the practical enjoyment of the things with which we have been occupied in these meetings.

The word in verse 12 is "great rejoicing" (New Trans.).

The end of the section already referred to in John 13, reads, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them" (v. 17). They were in the good of the teaching and hence there was great rejoicing. They were happy and rejoicing because not only had they heard the word but had understood it. May it be so increasingly with each one of us.

Nehemiah 8: 13-18 and Leviticus 23: 39-44.

In Leviticus we have the institution of the feast of tabernacles, and in Nehemiah 8, we have the last recorded celebration of this feast in Old Testament history. It is not the last mention of the feast, it is mentioned in the last chapter of Zechariah, but historically that preceded Nehemiah.

In this last celebration of the feast of tabernacles we see the fruit of this day of recovery, not only in the restoration of the city, but also in the restoration of that which ministers delight to the heart of God. "And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe". The exercise had strengthened, and we see others who were as desirous as Nehemiah was of restoring what was due to God. The leaders of the people, whom God had apparently gifted and officially set up to lead the people, appear to have arrived at a spiritual state in which they could answer to the mind of God.

Why are "the chief of the fathers" mentioned here, and actually mentioned first?

The fathers would perhaps suggest the thought of what is local, whereas the priests and the Levites would be more on the line of gifts as seen in Ephesians, Romans and Corinthians.

Do you regard the chief of the fathers as being distinct from the priests and the Levites?

The chief of the fathers would seem to indicate those who carry the responsibility of the local meeting. There are gifts to the assembly that cannot be confined to one locality, but it is good to see those whom "the chief of the fathers" represent working harmoniously alongside those of whom the priests and the Levites and Ezra the scribe would speak. Thus there would be a united exercise in regard to the things of God for His pleasure and for the blessing of His people.

That which is represented by the priests and the Levites would find better ground in the local meeting to work on if the features of the "chief of the fathers" were present in power. The successful functioning of what we may speak of as official, depends very largely upon the presence of what is moral.

In the New Translation verse 8 reads that they "were gathered together . . to gain wisdom as to the words of the law". There is not only the reading of the word and the giving of the sense as we read in verse 8, but wisdom is needed in the application of these things. Here were men who not only desired to hear what the word actually said, but they sought also the wisdom needed to translate it into right action.

We may not always find in the word exact details in relation to everything that may arise, but leading principles are given to us, and we need wisdom in order that we may be governed by these principles and thus be found moving in line with the mind of the Lord.

It is noticeable that when these leaders arrived at the mind of God as written in the words of the law, all the people unanimously answered to it.

Is it not important to see that those who were leading in the exercise, "the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites", all recognized that they needed to gain wisdom? It seems that the privilege of dwelling in booths had been lost sight of, and instruction as to the truth was available to those who sought it. Light as to this was given in Leviticus 23, but what was need was wisdom from God to apply that light to existing conditions. We also need wisdom from God to enable us to rightly apply the truth to the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.

In Ephesians 1: 17, Paul prays "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him". If we had the spirit of wisdom, that is the ability to understand and apply the truth, without the revelation of the truth itself, it would be valueless. On the other hand if we had the revelation without the wisdom to apply it, it would be equally valueless; but both the revelation and the wisdom to apply it are available to us in the goodness of our God.

That is exactly what we see in our chapter; this was not fresh light given to them, the light was there; what they needed was wisdom to apply the light to their present circumstances.

Paul wrote to Timothy, "consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things (2 Timothy 2: 7).

It would seem that this gaining of wisdom was a constant thing; at the end of the chapter we read, "also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God".

What they found was that "which the LORD had commanded by Moses" (v. 14). It was not by Ezra or by Nehemiah; He commanded by Moses, "that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month".

Although they had been carried into captivity, we find in this day of recovery features, doubtless maintained by God, which express themselves in a desire for the truth.

Why in Leviticus 23 are the people instructed to hold the feast at the end of the agricultural year?

The blessing of the corn and of the wine is first mentioned in Genesis 27, when Isaac blessed Jacob, but it is not until Deuteronomy 7 that we get the corn, and the wine, and the oil (v. 13). That order appears to be maintained throughout the Old Testament right on to Hosea, where we read "the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine and the oil" (Hosea 2: 22). The reason for this order is clear; the corn is the result of the harvest; the wine is the result of the vintage; and last of all comes the oil. In the dispensational ways of God there will be a "harvest judgment", a judgment between good and evil, followed by the "vintage"-the removal of every opposing element; eventuating in the outpouring of the Spirit of God, so that the blessing of God will be enjoyed in the power of the Spirit in the world to come. That is what we see typified in the feast of tabernacles.

One of the most remarkable things about this feast is the introduction of the "booths". It is as though God would impress the people with the fact that when He brought them out from Egypt, here was the end to which He had it in mind to bring them, and here they have reached it.

We need in our day to remember that we have been delivered from all that Egypt represents and we are to have it in mind that God has not only called us out, but this is (typically) the grand climax that God has in view, and we may thank Him that we reach it today in the power of the Spirit, of which the oil speaks.

When God brought the people out of Egypt, He had no thought that they should "dwell" in the wilderness. He had the inheritance of the land in view and here, in the meanwhile, we see them "dwelling" in booths, in the enjoyment of the corn, and the wine and the oil. Looking at this feast and the gladness associated with it, we can anticipate the end which is our portion, and we can rejoice in God as the greatness of His thoughts enters our hearts.

Why is it that a curse will rest upon Egypt and the nations if they do not come up to the feast of tabernacles (see Zechariah 14: 19)?

God will not only bring His people, whom He delivered out of Egypt, into the full realization of the blessing of that day, but He will make the nations to realize why He took this nation up, and what He had in view in so doing.

We have the booths in Nehemiah but no sacrifices; in Ezra we have the sacrifices and the booths. Why is that?

We need to learn from these omissions. In Leviticus 23 we get both thoughts; the foundation of the matter in sacrifice, and the subsequent increase in joy and gladness. Perhaps we are so occupied with the foundation, as to hardly touch the spiritual results. We cannot, of course, think too highly of the foundation, but we need also to move on in our affections to what was in the mind of God to effect, through the sacrifice. God would not only remind us of the foundation, but He would have us enjoy the effect. As appreciating the value of the sacrifice let us seek grace to go on to the full purpose of God.

This is the last time the feast of tabernacles is celebrated in the Old Testament. Our feast is the Lord's Supper, and it is good to see brethren, under exercise, understanding a little as to why Christ died, and what His death has brought to light, and consequently being able to respond to God in intelligent praise and worship.

In verse 15 we read of the various branches that were to be brought; "Olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees". The trees from which these branches were obtained all grew in the land; the only tree that flourished in the wilderness was the acacia, or shittim wood tree, probably a shrub. This was the only tree that could stand wilderness conditions indicative, as we know, of Christ as the only Man Who endured wilderness conditions without failure.

In the New Translation "pine branches" are given as "wild olive branches". Why does the "wild olive" come in, in addition to the olive tree?

Would the thought of the "wild olive" connect with the end of Zechariah 14, suggesting the thought of the Gentile being brought in?

Yes, it may be that!

The wild olive is mentioned in Romans 11, but there the nations are in reconciliation provisionally, in view of the time when God will turn once more to His earthly people. Gentiles will, of course, be brought into blessing in the world-to-come.

In the mercy of God there will be, even from the nations, that which is for His glory.

Then we read in verse 16, "So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths. It does not say the "chiefs of the fathers and the priests and the Levites", but the people "made themselves booths".

What are we to learn in regard to the different places in which they build these booths (verse 16)?

It is significant that the roof of the house is first mentioned. That would perhaps indicate the thought of public testimony.

As it was the responsibility of each householder to see that the booths were made on his roof and in his court, so it would appear to have been the responsibility of the priests to make the booths in the courts of the house of God.

The whole household was apparently to dwell in its own booths on the top of its own house; this, as already mentioned, would speak of public testimony, but their movements in "their courts" were to be in accord; the booths were to be there also. Then, too, the movements in the "street" were to bear the same features. Thus the subjective result of the truth would be seen in the activities of the people of God.

Why does it say "the street of the Water Gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim"? Why is this Gate mentioned here?

It may be that this gate is reserved for this moment because Ephraim speaks of "double fruitfulness", and the effect of this movement of recovery is being manifested; hence this gate is not mentioned until that objective is reached.

The last gate to be mentioned is the Prison Gate, Nehemiah 12: 39. Perhaps the moral lesson for us is that we either, in true exercise, reach the Gate of Ephraim with its suggestion of fruitfulness, or we reach the restriction of the Prison Gate.

This would not be the kind of prison that Paul was in; in the prison Paul was really at the Gate of Ephraim. Wonderful truth came from the pen of Paul in prison. He was not there as under the discipline of the Lord, he was there for the truth of the mystery; "the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles" (Eph. 3: 1).

Then in verse 17 we read, "And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths and sat under the booth". The leaders are seen in verse 13, and now we find the people are moving with them; they made the booths and they sat under the booths. Sitting under them would shew their appreciation of the feature of pilgrim character, which God had in mind when He called their fathers out of Egypt with the inheritance in view.

Is not John 7 an important chapter in relation to the Feast of Tabernacles?

Verse 18 would point on to that! But is it not sad that it had to be recorded that from the days of Joshua they had never celebrated this feast?

Would there be any connection between the "last day" in John 7 and what we read in John 20: 26, "and after eight days again the disciples were within"?

The seventh day speaks of the end of a process whereas the eighth day is a new beginning. The point is that Israel will not reach what is true of the eighth day until they are actually established in the truth of the seventh. We touch the eighth day as the blessed God forms eternal things in our souls. Israel will not know these things until they are established in and formed by the truth of the New Covenant. Eternal things are available to us now in the power of the Spirit of God.

Will it be in the world-to-come that Israel will really take up Thomas's word and say, "My Lord and my God". and will that bring them to the features of what is eternal?

The foundation of it is seen in the expression "shall a nation be born at once?" (Isa. 66: 8). There is something entirely new, as we see in Ezekiel 36 and 37; involving, too, the gift of the Spirit. The Lord said to Nicodemus, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Israel is to experience new birth (we use the term new birth, it really is that as born of God) which will prepare them for the New Covenant, and it is from that moment that they will be subjectively capable not only of understanding the features of the world-to-come, but during the kingdom period of receiving light as to eternal things.

We are learning now; they will not be able to learn anything until they are born of God. It appears that the first thing that will mark them as born of God is that they will go out with the testimony of the Messiah; that will take them back to the Old Testament and they will not have the New in mind until Christ actually appears.

All that is pre-figured in the end of Nehemiah 8. It is not so much the foundation of the feast, but the wonderful end that is yet to be realized. They had no knowledge of this end in their day, but we, through the Spirit, can appreciate its features now. We are born of God and stand in relation to Christ in glory; we have the revelation of the world-to-come and the revelation of our eternal place in the new heavens.

The end of the chapter speaks of "very great gladness". Does that indicate that in all this there was something for God?

"Very great gladness" is something that cannot be improved upon, and it is beautiful to see that that is God's thought for man, He would fill his heart with joy and gladness.

There is another feature in the last verse which is of importance. "Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God". These men were gaining in wisdom; they not only discovered from Leviticus 23 that they should hold this feast, but they saw from Deuteronomy 31 that the law was to be read during it. "Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing" (vv. 9-11) They have reached a very high note in the end of Nehemiah 8, but they still need the law of the Lord. Is not this a word for us today. Let us not think, however great our privileges and our enjoyment of them, that we ever reach a point in which we do not still need instruction in the things of God. Indeed in the enjoyment of privilege we should be better able to receive divine instruction than at any other moment.

Finally we read "And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly (a word which means restraint) according unto the manner". It is remarkable that the thought of restraint is brought in at this moment. There is nothing more wholesome for us as we increase in the knowledge of God and in the light of the glory of Christ, than to be brought to a sense of self-judgment, lest anything fleshly or natural should intrude itself into this wonderful sphere where everything is of the Spirit and everything is of Christ. Perhaps what is needed amongst us more than all else is this thought of balance in relation to the truth.

In Ephesians 2, we have the very height of Christian blessing, and in the beginning of Ephesians 4 we are exhorted to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering". The great apostle Paul in contemplation of the mercy of God says of himself that he is the chief of sinners, in contemplation of the grace of God in regard to gift he says, "I . . . am not meet to be called an apostle"; but in the light of the truth of the mystery he says that he is "less than the least of all saints".

In the enjoyment of the wonderful privileges which are ours in this day of recovered truth, let us cultivate low thoughts of self, and seek in all our movements the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians

Philippians

Readings with G. Davison extracted from "Precious Things" 1956-1990

Philippians 1

The epistle which we are about to consider was written while Paul was a prisoner, and is the complement of the other two prison epistles which we have considered in previous years-Colossians and Ephesians. In both of these we have an outline of the "mystery", in both its present and future aspects, and we understand that the working out of the truth of the mystery in practice comes before us in Philippians.

In writing this epistle to the whole assembly, why does Paul add "with the bishops and deacons"?

"Bishops" would be those who have experience in spiritual matters and would therefore be able to guide the saints into the truth; "deacons" would be engaged more in practical ministry, or in service to the saints. Special emphasis is laid upon the necessity for overseers, or those who serve, to take heed to the teaching of the epistle. We sometimes meet with the word rule; but ruling is by leading, that is the meaning of the word. This is not so much a doctrinal as a practical epistle, hence those who take the lead are called upon to attend to these things. In so doing, they would be able to lead.

The presentation of Christ in His various characters gives the key to these epistles!

Yes! For if in Philippians 2, Paul speaks of Christ Jesus taking the form of a bondman, he at once refers to himself and Timotheus as "bondmen" of Jesus Christ (New Trans.).

The Philippians appear to have been in some difficulty both from within and from without, and do not appear to have been an affluent company as the Corinthians were. Yet the apostle can say to them that he was filled with joy every time he prayed for them.

He tells us in verse 5 why he had such happy thoughts of them-"For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now". Not only had they made a good beginning, they had obviously continued. Each one of us may well ask, am I as active in the gospel today as when I was first converted? And this fellowship in the gospel involved not only their praying for it, they were active in it and apparently supported it practically. Paul does not speak of their preaching, but of their fellowship in the gospel; he was probably referring to the gift they had sent to him.

The apostle seems to put giving on a very high platform!

He does! In the second epistle to the Corinthians he tells them it promoted priestly thanksgiving. The gift to the poor saints was the cause of many thanksgivings to God (2 Cor. 9: 12).

I note that in verse 3 the word is "my whole remembrance of you" (New Trans.). He had regard for them in everything which he knew of them.

Yes! There appeared to have been a little disunity in the company, for it comes out in every chapter, but looking at them in a general sense he could constantly thank God for them. We need to take heed to this. How often saints meet with a little difficulty or disappointment in their dealings with other saints, and how easily some little personal thing can turn them aside, the minor difficulty causing them to give up the greater privilege of going on with the service of the Lord. Let us beware of this, and seek grace to look at the Christian circle as one whole.

Is the gospel here that which we have in mind when preaching to the unconverted?

That is only part of it! Here it includes all that had been committed to the apostle, and for the preaching of which he had been imprisoned. In sending this gift to him they had participated in the service, for the word "fellowship" means to share in the matter. Whatever we may do ought to be directed towards the general service of the saints. I remember sharing in a week's meetings which began by two sisters scrubbing the floor in order that we might have a clean hall to preach in. It was their very practical fellowship in the gospel. It showed how devoted they were in that service. One fears there is a sad lack of devotion to the service of the Lord in this day. It is amazing what can be accomplished by real devotedness to the interests of our Lord.

It was because of their continuance that Paul could say to them that he was confident that God Who had begun a good work in them would "complete it unto Jesus Christ's day" (New Trans.). He looked on to the final triumph.

Then the apostle assures them that so labouring with him, in whatever way they did so, they were partakers of his grace. He would have them to regard it as a divine favour that they were so permitted to share in the work.

What is the difference between the "day of Jesus Christ" in v. 6, and the "day of Christ" in v. 10?

The first may refer to the Lord's own personal place in the glory; it is His day as the answer to His rejection; while the "day of Christ" seems to suggest that when He does come forth in His day we shall come with Him. Both of course refer to the kingdom day, the thousand years reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle would remind them that the work which had begun in their hearts was not only for man's day, but had in view the world to come.

In v. 6, he speaks of the work as "begun"; in Philippians 2: 12, as continuing-"work out your own salvation"; then in Philippians 3: 21, he speaks of its completion, the moment when our bodies will be glorified by "the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself".

In v. 7, the apostle speaks of himself in a twofold way-as in "bonds" and as still being set for the "defence and confirmation of the gospel". His being a prisoner did not stop his service for the Lord.

It was obvious to all that he was a prisoner for Christ's sake and not an ordinary malefactor. His bonds were contributing to his defence of the gospel.

How did the apostle defend and confirm the gospel?

The defence is by word, and the confirmation is by walk!

In which way were they "partakers of my grace"?

In the difficult circumstances in which he was found he continued as defending and confirming the gospel, and he credits them with doing the same in Phillipi. The grace which sustained him thus in the prison was the grace which sustained them in Phillipi. It is useless attempting a verbal defence of the gospel if it is not confirmed by Christian character. Paul was not only prepared to give out the gospel as a theory, but also showed them how it worked. He had before said to the Ephesians "what manner I have been with you at all seasons". He spoke of this first, and then added "and have taught you" (Acts 20: 18-20).

One of the marks of the last days is "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" (2 Tim. 3: 5). How can we expect people to take note of what we say if we appear to be as worldly as those who make no profession? It was to Timothy that he also said, "Thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life" (2 Tim. 3: 10).

He then assures these Philippian saints (v. 8) that, if he was constantly in their affections they were constantly in his. He longed after them all. I suppose underlying this word "bowels" is the thought of deep-seated feeling, inward affections.

Would it be the activity of love?

It was certainly more than loving them from a sense of duty; it rather suggests a burning desire for them. Such a love would not be easily changed. It led him to fervent prayer on their account as he says next. Whatever they had attained to he desired that they might still go increasing in "knowledge and in all judgment", of intelligence as the word means. Maturity is the thought underlying these expressions. This would lead them to "approve the things that are more excellent" (New Trans.). Their love would be guided along right channels if they thus increased in knowledge and intelligence. Growth is the thing we all should covet. We need grace to reach out to the deeper things of God, the things that are "more excellent". They are there for all who want to grow.

What will the result be if we do make progress?

"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ". The test will be "the day of Christ". It would preserve one from attempting to do things which on the surface seem commendable but maybe underneath are not so commendable. That day will manifest all in light. Allied with this is, "without offence". If what I do is in the light it will carry conviction with it, and will not be something which will give cause for offence.

Would "pure" be internal and "without offence" external?

It may be! Perhaps "pure" would be in relation to God, and "without offence" in relation to man.

If these things did mark us we should be "complete", which would mean there is nothing lacking in the producing of the fruits of righteousness.

This is what he prayed for on their account. He was quite at liberty to tell them what he requested for them. There could have been things for which he prayed which he may not have cared to tell them, but he does tell them of these things.

What are the fruits of righteousness?

The things which are right in the divine estimation!

What is this fruit for?

First it is said to be "by Jesus Christ", for it could not be right apart from Him; but it has for its objective, "the glory and praise of God". If it is right in the divine estimation it will have this result. While all that is right is directed by Jesus Christ, and is in the power of the Holy Spirit, yet when we do what is right God gives us the credit for it.

Why are the prayers in the epistle to the Ephesians more spoken of than this prayer? Do you regard this as being on a lower level?

No! If the prayers of the Ephesian epistle are worked out rightly these are the characteristics that will be produced. If we needed a caption for this epistle we could take it from Ephesians 4-"walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called".

The apostle goes on to encourage their hearts by telling them that although he was suffering in prison, the things that were happening to him had turned out rather for "the furtherance of the gospel". If the apostle who brought this ministry to the saints suffered in so doing, we must expect our share of suffering too if we seek to follow up the ministry and work it out in practice.

The setting in which he puts his own sufferings, "my bonds in Christ", would encourage them as being the cause of their sufferings. He tells them this in verses 29 and 30 of our chapter. Here is a man who was so sure of the triumph of the testimony that he can view manifest opposition and be assured it was all going to work for good. The Lord he served was far more to him than the service. He was assured that if the Lord allowed these conditions, He was quite capable of using them for His own glory. We may think that the opposition today is greater than ever it has been, and are inclined perhaps to give way before it. The opposition has always been there, but the power to meet it is still available. Let us not give way before it; Paul certainly did not.

The opposition broke out against the apostle as soon as he reached Phillipi, but he went on. In the worst phase of the suffering we read of Paul and Silas rejoicing and singing, and in this epistle joy and rejoicing occur some eighteen times. The erstwhile Philippian jailer would appreciate Paul's exhorting the saints to rejoice, he had seen Paul doing so himself in the worst of circumstances.

A further result was that some rather timid saints, taking courage by what Paul was enduring, were opening their mouths more boldly. Paul's original bonds in Philippi had turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, and now here in Rome the same effects were produced.

Some who did not understand the gospel were making an attempt to discredit it, and yet Paul rejoiced. Some would perhaps hear the name of Christ from their lips who would not have listened to Paul; thus he concluded that they were doing more good than harm. Instead of adding affliction to his bonds, they gave him increased occasion to rejoice. When he wrote this letter Christianity was a comparatively new thing in the world, and these opposers were unwittingly spreading the testimony.

If Christ being preached under these circumstances was an encouragement to Paul, we too can take encouragement in our day in the midst of the many different motives which actuate those who preach. So long as Christ is preached we should rejoice; whatever the motive may be. Paul may have seen some fruit as the result. Some may have come to him to enquire more fully what it was all about.

When Paul was in Phillipi the girl with the spirit of Python was rebuked by him, but here he is encouraged. Why rebuke the one, and yet speak of the other as encouraged by it?

In Phillipi she said they were servants of the Most High God, and there was not one word as to Christ. He rebuked that; here it is Christ who is preached and in that he rejoices. The bringing in of the Name of Christ made all the difference; but let us also note that some preached out of love, and while we may not be free to associate with many we can rejoice that their motive for preaching is pure love to Christ.

In what way would it turn to Paul's salvation (v. 19)?

In that he would not break down nor give way when the supreme test came.

When he later wrote to Timothy he said that he had finished his course and had kept the faith, the evidence that he had kept on to the end. He was supported by their prayers, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. He goes on to say, as the result of these two things, "According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed". This to him was salvation, the result would be, "Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death".

We do well to notice his words here, "as always, so now". This desire had ever marked him. Had he waited until the crisis came before facing this it would have been hopeless, but as he had ever moved, so he desires to move right on to the end.

Why does he call it, "my earnest expectation"?

He looked on in the confidence that he would be a living witness to Christ in his trial, and so crown all his other service for Him. He did not face this with any self-confidence but with "the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ". He was a man of flesh and blood, but having consistently proved and relied upon the help of the Lord, he was confident the Lord would not fail to support him at the end. Paul, as converted, had ever been marked by self-abnegation. Christ had always been first in his life, and so with confidence he can count upon the Lord that it would be so to the end of the pathway. This is written for our instruction and we may well ask ourselves, Is this the bent of our lives-to be here altogether for Christ?

He apparently appreciated the prayers of the saints also in this connection. It may encourage us to keep on praying for the saints, especially those who are publicly serving.

What is meant by "the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ"?

It refers to what is most important. It was the Spirit which took Christ through in triumph in the supreme trial of the cross. Paul says, as it were, that is the Spirit I need to take me through in triumph if I am to be here for the will of God. It was the power which at all times moved our Lord in His perfect service for God. It is the Spirit in that character, as empowering the vessel to suffer in the path of the will of God.

One aspect of the Meat Offering, that offered by the priest, was that it was saturated with oil (Lev. 6: 21 New Trans.). Every movement of Christ in this world was "justified in the Spirit" (1 Timothy 3: 16).

Paul needed the Spirit in order to preach the gospel in power, and he also needed the Spirit in this character to enable him to suffer for the will of God.

Would this be in line with Hebrews 4 where we are exhorted to come with boldness to the throne of grace to obtain timely help?

We may come to the throne of grace in relation to our circumstances, but in this chapter it is in regard to what is personal to Paul. it was not circumstantial salvation he had in mind, but his own personal salvation in order that he might glorify Christ.

In regard to seeking help at the throne of grace, we can ask for three things. First, we may ask God to remove the difficulties; secondly, we can ask Him to take us out of the difficulties; but we can also ask Him to give us grace to go through the difficulties and glorify His Name in doing so. That is what Paul had in mind. He had seen the Spirit's power manifested in Stephen when he died a martyr's death, and Paul now seeks the same power for himself.

How blessedly this was seen in our Lord as recorded in John 12: 27, 28, "What shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name". This same spirit came to light in Stephen and yet again in Paul.

For Paul this was the consummation of that which had ever marked him; he could therefore say "as always". He had experienced the help of the Lord so often that he had no doubt of that help being available to the end.

Doubtless it had in view his release also, for whether by life or by death it was all one to Paul, Christ magnified was his aim. Only a man devoted to the will of God could speak as Paul does here. Whichever way matters went it was a supreme test. "For me to live is Christ, and to die gain" (v. 21). He had no regrets about anything in this world, he was quite ready to go if the Lord said so.

Can this be arrived at in any way apart from experience?

No! Asking a brother once about experience he said, "You cannot buy experience". How then do you get it?, I asked. His reply was, "By experience". There is no other way of obtaining it. We must tread the pathway to gain the experience of it. I am sure that if we were always devoted to the interests of our Lord, we could count on His support in times of trial, but if not so devoted we could not speak as Paul does here. "The supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" had in view continuance on that line. Whilst this was an individual matter with Paul, it is not limited to him. It is there for all who wish to move as he did, but we receive grace for circumstances only when the need for that grace arises.

Paul lived so near to the Lord that he knew whether he was going to live or die. He had confidence from the Lord that he was going to continue a little longer; but what will be the outcome? Christ will still come to light, and the saints will benefit thereby. What a wonderful life to live! It were better for him personally to die, but better for the saints that he should live. To be out of the body meant peace for Paul; to stay here meant suffering; yet because it was more needful for the saints, he chose to live. He desired to be with Christ-the better part. Mary chose the good part; to depart to be with Christ is the better part.

The Lord, too, had confidence in the service of the apostle, and so could leave him here a little longer. This was learned by Paul in the seclusion of divine love, in communion with God.

Would this experience be limited to the apostle?

No! It is open for all. It has been pointed out that when Paul had the experience of the third heaven, he was there as a saint, not as an apostle. It was the "man in Christ" who went there. It is open to all; but we all need the same spirit of devotion that marked Paul if we are to have the experience he had.

The apostle then speaks of their "boasting" (v. 26 New Trans.) as a consequence of this deliverance, for all was working for their encouragement. But while that would be so, he exhorts them to continue to conduct themselves as supporting the testimony. The word "conversation" (v. 27) is the same as that used in Philippians 3-"For our conversation is in heaven". Here he says that their conversation should be of a heavenly character, the manifestation of that of which we often sing, "Called from above, and heavenly men by birth". Boasting in the apostle on the one hand, but in their own lives also confirming the gospel.

It may be of interest to note that they were to be completely devoted to that service. We have spirit and soul mentioned here, and all would work out through their bodies. Their external activities would be the result of what was formed in their spirits and in their souls. Thus they would be seen as completely held for the service of God.

"Striving", the word used here, has not quite the conflict in view, but the race. The word could be rendered "athleticising together". There is a prize in view, and he exhorts them to strive together to obtain it.

This striving together could only be as the outcome of each one of them having the mind of Christ. No doubt that is why that exhortation comes in in the next chapter. If we are all seeking the glory of Christ, we shall do all we can to help in that way. It seems obvious that the one difficulty in the company was that they needed to be bound together in one mind. Energy was there, but it needed to be unified.

It is "the faith of the gospel" he has in view this time. I believe there are at least six things he connects with the gospel in this chapter. Christianity is a faith system and we need to strive together for this faith.

It was necessary that they all stood fast, or firm, "in one spirit". This involves more than an external unity. It means that we are of one mind and one spirit, and are thus striving together. It is more than a mere material unity, it is a unity of purpose and desire which would keep us together. It was an inward conviction which would produce outward unity.

They were not to be terrified by their opponents, but rather to count it an honour that they were allowed to suffer for the sake of the glad tidings. The apostle can add that what they suffered in Philippi was related to the same conflict which he was waging at Rome. They in Philippi, and he in Rome, all in the same conflict, and all partakers of the same grace.

The agony began for Paul, as we read, in the prison (Acts 16) but it had wonderful results, and this assembly in Philippi was born of these sufferings. All this is involved in walking worthy of the calling wherewith we are called. Conducting ourselves as heavenly citizens; striving as athletes, and fighting as soldiers, we stand shoulder to shoulder for the "faith of the gospel".

Philippians 2: 1-11.

We have already read of the experiences of the apostle Paul, seeing in them an example and an incentive to us, to the end that we might move through this world in the light of the heavenly calling. In the chapter now before us he is led by the Spirit to call attention to Christ Himself as the One Who gives to us the greatest possible encouragement to walk worthy of the calling wherewith we are called. We have in this exhortation a remarkable outline of the movements of our Lord as coming into Manhood; and we see also what effect these movements should have upon each one of us. Whilst the apostle begins by raising the question "if there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies", it is not as doubting that these qualities were there but rather that, the Philippians having expressed such feelings towards him, they were in need of allowing these things to operate among themselves also.

We have a threefold picture of the glory of our Lord in this exhortation. First His essential glory-"being in the form of God"; then His moral glory as seen in the seven steps which He took in subjection to the will of God, and which ended in the death of the cross. We also see his official glory, in that God has highly exalted him and has established Him as Lord of all. While we cannot share His essential glory, for that is Deity, we shall, in measure, share in His official glory in the world to come, both as to administration and as to headship. But we are privileged to share His moral glory now, and to be found like Him in this present world.

Whilst we cannot share His Personal glory, there is nothing in the movements mentioned here which is beyond us, for we too can make just such movements as in subjection to the will of God. We must note that His death upon the cross is not viewed here as making propitiation, but rather to bring out His subjection in Manhood. We cannot have part in His work as related to dealing with sin, that aspect of His work is not in view in this passage, but we can have the mind which is prepared to go right down in subjection to the will of God.

I suppose we could only take these downward steps as having the mind that was in Christ Jesus?

Hence the statement at the beginning of this chapter; and since such qualities had been operative towards him, Paul desires that his joy might be filled up by these qualities being expressed by the Philippians one towards another. That seems to be his point here.

Why does he omit to mention redemption? Is it because he is looking at it on the side of purpose?

I do not think so! If redemption were in view it could not form the subject of an exhortation to us. That is why the terms have been so carefully selected by the Holy Spirit, for while we could never leave the form of God, because we were never in it, we can go down in subjection to God's will.

I suppose we see in Adam the desire to go up, and that is natural to each one of us, but here we have a divine example in our Lord Jesus Christ.

One of the principal things leading up to this exhortation is seen in verse 3, "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory". This stands in sharp contrast to the following exhortation, and refers to the things which mark us by nature.

Does "in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" mean the better qualities in another?

The next statement in verse 4 does mean that, "Look not every man on his own qualities", as it could be rendered, "but every man also on the qualities of others". If we fixed our eyes on the spiritual qualities of a person, Christ shining out in that vessel, it would then become comparatively easy to esteem another as better than oneself.

I suppose this exhortation is outside the question of gift. It would mean taking a right place before God in relation to oneself, and thus be enabled to appreciate what we see of Christ in others. Would not the apostle have this in mind when he spoke of himself as less than the least of all saints? As to his gift and apostleship he said that he was not a whit behind the chiefest apostles, yet as a man he took his true place before God.

Would it not be in the power of the Spirit that these things are made effective?

That seems to be the point of the opening verses, and we shall not get the true meaning of this exhortation without considering them. It is in the power of the things to which he calls attention that we can reach this character. He seems to say, If you will allow these things to come out in your relationships one with another as they did come out in their exercise towards me, you will then esteem others as better than yourselves; you will be occupied more with their qualities than with your own, and the strife and vainglory of verse 3 will disappear.

Could we credit a fellow believer with these qualities even if we do not see them coming out?

That would be rather difficult, but we know the power for these things is in each one in the Spirit. If it were not so, we could not expect them to come to light. We can only take account of what is of Christ as it comes to light.

If we were more occupied with the effects of the truth in, rather than with the defects in the vessel, it would be a comparatively easy matter to give preference to another.

These exhortations ought to raise the question in our minds as to where we are to get the power to carry them out. It is as though the apostle says, It is by the allowance on your side of the state of mind which was seen so perfectly in Christ. That is how we shall be enabled to do it. This is not something which is natural to any of us, otherwise we should not have the word "Let this mind be in you".

Is this the way to achieve unity in the company?

It is! And all these exhortations have that object in view. That seems to have been the one thing which hindered the Philippians-the lack of unity.

The mind is an important factor, and it is mentioned some eleven times in this epistle, which suggests that if the mind is in a right condition, other things will be adjusted. The mind governs all we do or say.

The word for "mind" does not refer to an occasional thought, but to "a way of thinking".

We could not cultivate the same desires by natural processes. It is possible to have a company gathered together and thinking in the same way, but it can only be as everyone in that company has the mind that was in Christ Jesus. It is remarkable that this title "Christ Jesus" is used here. It is both a title and a name combined, and is used to express the place Christ has in glory. Does it not seem that we are called to observe that the One Who is seen in glorified Manhood at the right hand of God, reached that place as a Man by going down into death in obedience to the will of God?

It has been said that if Christ moved at all He must move downwards. He could not move upwards for He was in the form of God, and there can be nothing higher than that.

Does the Name of Christ Jesus set Him forth as the anointed Man?

It does indeed!

How good it would be to have local conditions like this, each thinking of the other as better than oneself. It involves a radical change in our way of thinking; as we seek to bring in the features of Christ, the perfect Man, the features of the first man will be displaced.

It does not exactly say that we are to pray that this mind should be in us, but we are to "let this mind" be in us. We may pray for grace that it may be so, but it seems as though we have to be submissive and allow this mind to govern us.

Whilst we must agree that this mind is foreign to us naturally, it is not impracticable. God would never exhort us to do something impracticable, hence this must be possible. We are to allow this mind to be in us, and the fault is on our side if it is not.

What connection has this with 1 Corinthians 2: 16, "But we have the mind of Christ"?

There it is in view of discerning the spiritual things of God. The word used there means the ability to think in spiritual terms, the capability of understanding the things of God; but here it is a state of mind to control one's actions.

What would produce this state of mind?

I should say, self-judgment in the presence of God. I think that is the only way it could be produced. If my mind is on the line of self-assertion-which is so natural to one-the tendency will be rather to scatter the saints than to unify them. We have both a negative and a positive matter here. Self-judgment is the negative, and the mind which was in Christ Jesus is the positive.

It is not contemplated that various minds are to govern us; each individual should seek to allow "this mind" to control him. If it governs us in our way of thinking, it will govern us in our way of acting. It is characteristic, for one's actions will betray what the state of one's mind is. I may pray about it; I may give a lecture about it; but the saints will know in my attitude towards them whether this mind is in me or not.

I suppose we must first have an appreciation of all the downward movements which Christ made before we can apply them to ourselves. They were movements which brought into manifestation the state of mind of the One Who made them. Before a single movement was made, that mind was there in the One Who was in the form of God.

Could it be said to be the mind of the cross?

That was the last step in this downward path. This exhortation is in two halves, His coming into Manhood, then His death upon the cross. He first emptied Himself as coming into Manhood, and then humbled Himself even to the death of the cross.

We can relate every one of these movements except the first to ourselves. If we look into these movements we shall see how the state of mind contributed to them. We know that the Lord, being Who He was, needed to empty Himself before He could be found here in incarnation. Whilst what comes to light here began in counsel, yet these verses relate to the actual movements. There must be a movement into incarnation, a movement in which we could not have part, but the movements He made as in Manhood should have a moral correspondence in us.

We could not know anything of that which marked the Lord when He subsisted in the form of God, but having emptied Himself of that outward form-what Mr. Darby calls "the insignia of glory"-He came into a form visible and understandable, and the movements which He made as Man were observed and appreciated by men.

I think we ought to stress that He emptied Himself of outward glory, for essentially there was never any change in His Person. Whatever His outward circumstances were there never was, nor ever will be, the slightest change in His essential glory. His Name is "The Same"; He abides the Same, and as you have rightly said it was the externals of which He emptied Himself. We are using the word in the New Translation-"emptied"-as expressing the real meaning of "made Himself of no reputation".

Would the Lord's washing the feet of the disciples be in line with the movements we have in this chapter?

Yes! For not only was He in the form of a bondslave, but He actually did the work of a bondslave when He washed their feet.

The Lord laid aside His garments, what He was officially, and in affection served His disciples. He then put on His garments before He began to speak to them. If we knew more what it was to shed any little external thing which may give us distinction, and to serve our brethren in love, then when gift was in operation the brethren would more gladly listen to us.

Another thing we need to note is that all these movements were of Himself. He is not viewed here as sent of the Father, but as making all these movements of His own volition; taking upon Him the form of a servant-a bondslave.

The movements of this divine Person in verse 7 were made before incarnation, but the subsequent movements were made by Him as in Manhood.

Why do we say "He veiled His glory"?

That is a term used in a hymn, and we understand it to mean that His personal glory was veiled in flesh, but there are Scriptures which tell us that His glory was seen. We have the words of John, "We beheld His glory" (John 1: 14). Again in 2 Cor. 3 His glory is unveiled, but doubtless what is meant is that it did shine out to those who had eyes to see it,

"Veiled thy glory, yet 'twas witnessed by Thine own while here below".

These verses in Philippians do not convey that He came to display His glory, but that this wonderful Person, co-eternal with the Father and with the Spirit, of His own will stepped down into the conditions of a bondslave in this world that He might accomplish the pleasure of the Godhead, and perfectly carry out that will to the glory of God. We see His own movements in love right on to death; God then moves and raises Him to the highest place in glory.

In verse 8 we read "being found in fashion as a man". That word "found" indicates that something was manifested to those who had eyes to see which was never here before. The word "found" seems to suggest that the discovery was made. It all came into manifestation in this world.

We read of a "bondman's form", and "in figure as a Man" (New Trans.).

There are three words used here-form, likeness and figure. The word "form" refers to His body, but the One who was in that body had every feeling and sensibility of a Man. He was not merely God in a body. Not only did our Lord come into the form of a bondslave but, as we read in Heb. 2, "He also Himself likewise took part of the same", which involves that He had all the feelings and sensibilities proper to Manhood. It is obvious that the form of a bondslave does not stand here as contrasted with the form of angels, but as in contrast to the form of God. The Lord was seen externally in a form other than that of God. Not only was He seen in that body, but the word "likeness", in verse 7, conveys the thought of moral qualities; while the word "fashion" or "figure", in verse 8, shows that He was in the actual physical likeness of a Man. Both these are of the utmost importance, for both His moral feelings in perfect Manhood, and His physical features have to be taken account of. We read of Him weeping, hungering, etc., and unless we see the truth of this we may regard these verses as expressive of a character of Manhood to which we cannot attain. He was in every respect a real Man.

Why does it not say of Him-He was in the likeness of God?

In Colossians 1: 15 we read, "Who is the image of the invisible God"; not likeness of God, because He is God. Image carries the thought of representation and presentation, and the Son coming into Manhood both represented and presented God to man. Being God, He did both perfectly.

What does the expression "He humbled Himself" convey to us?

That is the bearing of His taking the place of a bondslave, for He lays aside entirely His own will. If the will of God involved that He should go into death then "He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross".

Men tried to humble Him but He humbled Himself, and that is the exhortation given to us in the gospel. "Whosoever humbleth himself", not whosoever is humbled. Here is the great example of that. He took the place of a bondman, He was not made that.

The quotation from Hebrews 2 fully explains that-"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part in the same". Whilst that verse refers to the physical condition in which the Lord was, yet it implies that He accepted the moral conditions which attached to it, and He ever lived here in subject Manhood before God. In Philippians we are impressed with the marvellous fact that His obedience was such that He went right on, even to the death of the cross.

Do you include in this His attitude towards men, as well as His subjection to the will of God?

I do not doubt that that flowed out of His subjection to the will of God!

Could we have a word on the wonderful answer which God gave to all this and how, as flowing out of this exhortation, we work out our own salvation?

We work out our own salvation by having the mind that was in Christ Jesus. As to His exaltation we read in 1 Peter 5: 6, "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time". It follows that if I am content to take this lowly path, God will see that a fitting answer is given.

We ought to note this word, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him". On the one hand we see complete self-abnegation, and on the other "highly exalted" is the answer of God to it. This is the only place in the New Testament where this word "highly exalted" is used. It is reserved for Christ.

Do we not have a corresponding thought in Isaiah 52: 13, "He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high"?

Yes! And no doubt all His work is in view there. He could not have gone lower, and now He could not be higher. In that exalted place He has been given a Name commensurate with the place of glory given to Him. Coming into this world He was given the Name of Jesus, a Name which expresses His lowly grace as in this world, and as having in view His work for mankind; but now that He is exalted and made very high He has been given a new name in relation to His place in exaltation.

If one has been helped to bear the reproach which goes along with His Name in this scene, there will be substance found in such an overcomer upon which His new name can be written. That is seen in a company not marked by Laodicean self-seeking and pride but in Philadelphia, a company which had just a "little strength", and who have kept His word and not denied His name-they are the people upon whom His new name will be written. Whatever that name may be, if we are marked by the spirit of overcoming today we shall be characterized by His new name in that day.

Do you look upon this as not exactly the name of Jesus?

We have thought it to be a name given to Him in relation to His place in glory, but not a name which supersedes the name of Jesus.

However, we must note that when the universe is called to bow to the One Who has that name, it is at the name of Jesus they will bow, for that is the name they have despised. It could hardly be said at this point that Jesus is a new name, but rather that His new name is something added in relation to His place in exaltation.

One thing we do see is that the name of Jesus has triumphantly gone through death. When Paul asked "Who art Thou Lord?" the answer was "I am Jesus". We can be sure that this precious name is going right through, for in the last chapter of Revelation we read "I Jesus", one of the most touching things for our hearts.

There is no suggestion that another name is to supersede a former name, but rather that the Lord now has a new name granted to Him which will mark His renown in the world to come. It is Jesus who glorified God here Who has that name.

I think that name will mark appreciation by God of the wonderful work of Christ, and we see that it is at the name of Jesus that the whole universe will bow, and the same Lord Jesus Who has done that work has been granted a signal honour which will be displayed by that new name. Hence in the world to come it will be seen that it is Jesus Who has this name.

A moment is coming when at the name of Jesus every knee is going to bow, including those of infernal beings. The word is "infernal" in the New Translation, and it appears to be the only place where that word is used.

We are yet going to hear demons saying "Lord" to Jesus. It affords every lover of Christ deepest joy to know that the devil himself and all his demons are going to bow and say "Lord" to Jesus. In the gospel records they did not say "Lord" to Him when He was here in lowly grace, but they must say it to Him in that day. How glad we are that in this day we have been taught to call Him Lord, and as a consequence we are brought into the blessings of God, and we shall share with Him in His public triumph in that day.

Philippians 2: 12-30.

In our reading yesterday we saw how the apostle had taken account of the affections of the saints expressed in the gift they had sent to him; he also indicated the need of these affections being expressed one towards another in the assembly at Philippi. With a view to that being brought about he speaks in vv. 5-8 of the great example of subject obedience to the will of God as seen in our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It was suggested that self-abnegation was the way in which this could be brought about, and where we begin this afternoon we see just how it could be worked out in a practical way in their midst. I apprehend verse 12 flows out of this exhortation, "Wherefore, my beloved" (or it might read "in view of this") "as ye have always obeyed". It was pointed out after the reading yesterday that obedience was the main thought in the passage, and perhaps we should have said more about it. This verse has often been misconstrued as though it said working for salvation, whereas what it does say is "work out". I think the verse refers to the difficulties which were present in the company at Philippi, rather than to what is individual.

It has been pointed out that the verb is in the plural, and when he says "your" he apparently has in mind the difficulties in the assembly locally. He had evidently observed this element of obedience when he was privileged to move amongst them; now he says as it were, having manifested this principle when I was with you, let it be manifest also amongst yourselves when I am not with you.

Salvation as referred to in this passage is not the salvation of the soul, which is obtained through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; it is daily salvation in regard to the many difficulties which beset us in our pathway. It is becoming more obvious as we pursue this epistle that disunity was marking them, and it is from this they needed to be saved.

It seems to suggest that the way of salvation out of the difficulties was for the contending party to go down in relation to self.

We might heed here the exhortation given us in Heb. 12: 28, "let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear".

That is right! We ought always to keep in mind what we are and what we are capable of; ever conscious of the weaknesses which mark us and the difficulties which surround us, so that we may walk in a spirit of fear and trembling lest anything of ourselves should spoil the unity of the position. Fear here is not craven fear, but reverential fear in regard to the things of God.

If the apostle was not there, God was still with them; it was He Who was working in them. These two principles, first being of one mind, and then working out their own salvation are most important. Is that why one-mindedness is stressed in this epistle?

They could not hope to be free of this collective difficulty, and be in the enjoyment of salvation as a company, apart from one-mindedness. Hence the great example in the preceding verses shews the mind that was to characterize them. They would be marked by "one mind" as each had the character of mind seen so blessedly in Christ. Hence the apostle exhorts them, "Let this mind be in you".

If obedience is governing us and producing in us this subject mind, we are bound to be doing all things according to the will of God.

Would that result in right conditions in which God could work in and through us?

Yes! And if I am marked by that subject state, this work will go on without hindrance, not only in my individual life, it will reflect upon the company also.

We may say again that it is the company which is in view in this chapter, and the difficulties which were there, but we need each one to take up this exercise if the company is to get the gain. It seems that, first of all, Paul would have right conditions in the company, then they would be able to go out in power in the public testimony, as we see in the latter part of the chapter.

It is encouraging that in spite of the low condition into which we may get, God does not leave His people; as it says, "For it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to (His) good pleasure" (New Trans.). God is still amongst His people, and if there is to be a full working out of practical salvation it is because God, in spite of our breakdown, has not left us. He is till working in us individually, but He is also working amongst His people company wise; and whilst He uses men like the apostles to carry on His work, yet God Himself is working, and that is why the evidence of salvation is wrought out in result. Had God left us to our own devices there could be no working out of our salvation.

When murmuring came into the early church, as we read in the opening chapters of Acts, it was men full of the Holy Spirit who were used for the recovery of the position.

What can more quickly produce disunity amongst the saints than murmuring? Working out this salvation depends upon unity being maintained; murmuring would bring in a spirit of disunity at once. The other thing we are warned against is disputings, a word which means to reason or argue. We are not asked to reason things out, but in faith to obey. We are not to rebel against the will of God, nor to reason about it, but rather to accept it and in faith obey it.

Then we are to be blameless and harmless, or simple. This does not suggest that we are subnormal, but rather unmixed as the word means; having the simple desire to go on with the things we know to be right according to the will of God. "Harmless" involves that we take care not to be blameworthy for wrongdoing; and as both of these features are seen in us we shall come out in the true character of children of God. The word is "children", not sons, and it conveys our character rather than our standing. This involves that we are not only children of God as the fruit of divine work in our souls, but we come out in this world as manifestly such.

Would it be as these things are seen in us that the good pleasure of God is secured?

It would! For if His good pleasure is being effected in us, we should be marked by the things mentioned here. They would stand out manifestly as being opposite to the features which are see in "a crooked and perverse nation". Here we come to that which is outside, but if we are not presenting a united front inside, we need not wonder if we lack power outside. We want blessing in the gospel; we want people to come into the circle where the truth is known and enjoyed, and if there was more of this unity, we should see more blessing and more people added to the meetings.

In Philippians 1 we read "stand fast in one spirit, with one mind" before we have "striving together for the faith of the gospel" (v. 27).

If there is striving inside, there will not be much power to strive outside. That seems to be his great concern about them.

The word "lights" is in the plural. Does that indicate that each had their individual responsibility in relation to this matter?

It does! The word used for "lights" is mentioned in one other place only, that is in relation to the holy city, "her light" or "her shining" (Rev. 21: 11). The light which will shine there is the light which ought to shine here.

Would it carry the thought of transparency?

That is the bearing of these things as we read in 2 Corinthians 4. The light is coming into evidence here, but in Rev. 21 it diffuses the whole scene.

Would this be the answer to the Urim, and the Thummim?

Some have developed that thought out of this epistle, "lights and perfections" as those words mean, and here they are seen together. We need hardly remind ourselves that this is what came out perfectly in Christ when He was here.

So we are to hold forth "the word of life", and the condition of the company will reflect either for good or otherwise on the power to do so.

In verse 16 the apostle evidently had the future in view when he speaks of the effect of his ministry upon these saints.

He allied himself with them in a most remarkable way. Whilst there was some distance between Rome and Philippi, the apostle was saying that if they maintained this character in Philippi, he was prepared to be associated with it as a drink offering in Rome. "Offered", or 'poured out', upon their faith has the drink offering in view.

Could more be said as to "holding forth the word of life"?

The character of the company underlies that. Whilst gospel preaching in our meeting rooms is an individual exercise, for the Assembly does not preach (though it ought to be done in fellowship with the brethren), nevertheless the preacher will not have much freedom or blessing if he is preaching in the midst of a disunited company. We must remember, too, that those to whom we preach are quite sensible as to whether a right character is seen in the company or in those who preach the gospel. Our conduct reflects largely on the success of the gospel.

You do not limit holding forth the word of life to preaching?

No! but it is mentioned here in relation to the company.

In another connection we read in Psalm 133 that where brethren dwell together in unity, there the LORD commands the blessing.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter stood up with the eleven; unity was seen there.

The opposite to this is clearly seen in Galatians 5: 15, "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another". It is sad when meetings destroy themselves through internal strife. Hence we all need the instruction contained in these verses. It would be a poor thing to preach salvation to the unconverted, and if one were converted and afterwards found we were not in the good of practical salvation. Being established in this practical salvation would give power to what one said as "holding forth the word of life".

Paul allies this with his own apostolic service, looking on that they may be his boast in the day of Christ. This agrees with the distinction of terms in Philippians 1, "the day of Jesus Christ" and "the day of Christ". We have thought that the first refers to His own place in that day, and the second refers to the fact that all will be associated with Him. So we have it here, "the day of Christ". It is of course the same period of time but regarded in distinctive ways.

Does not Paul manifest the character of esteeming others better than himself when he speaks of himself as being a "drink offering", that is a minor offering?

Personally, I have regarded the drink offering as the effect produced by all the other offerings, both for the pleasure of God and for the blessing of man. There is only one mention of a drink offering in Genesis; strikingly it was Jacob who offered it after the vision of the house of God in Genesis 28, and his restoration to that position as seen in Genesis 35: 14. The end was reached in his communion with God. It is only once mentioned in Exodus, and that is in Exodus 29 where it is connected with the morning and evening lamb. There again it is the last offering in that chapter, and sealed up the day of divine service. It is next mentioned in Leviticus 23, and is connected typically with the resurrection of Christ as seen in the wave sheaf. Seeing that it comes in each time at the end, it would appear to be not so much the offering that is in view but the effect that has been produced for the pleasure of God as the fruit of what Christ has done.

One has said it carries the thought of excess!

That is right! I have regarded it as coming in in Luke 15 after the robe, ring, sandals, and the killing of the fatted calf, when the father says, "Let us eat and be merry". In that merriment I see the answer to the drink offering. We read in Jotham's parable of wine as giving joy to both God and man, and that is the grand result.

Does the apostle speak in this way as counting his service to be less than theirs?

I rather think he speaks of it as the complement, not as a contrast! He is rather saying, You go on with your service in Philippi, and I will go on with my service in Rome. They had been secured by his ministry, and as now about to be offered he looked for this result of his ministry, his being poured out like a drink offering upon the sacrifice they were offering in Philippi.

The thought here is not the difference between these sacrifices, but the association of the one with the other. The apostle was associating himself with what they had done, and had this excess in view for the delight of the heart of God.

While we have pointed out that the drink offering is mentioned in Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, we also read of it in Numbers 15, and there it is laid down as a statute that whenever a burnt offering was offered it must be accompanied by a meat offering and a drink offering. This again suggests the effect produced.

Do we not have the thought of a drink offering in Timothy? Writing to Timothy, Paul said he was now ready to be poured out. He had served well, and this excess was there at the end; he was ready to be poured out, the same words as here.

Was it the kingdom he was looking on to when he spoke of rejoicing in the day of Christ?

Yes! And he was even then cheered by the fact that they were prepared to sacrifice. The drink offering is not a sacrifice, but poured out upon the sacrifice, their service and his combined; their sacrifice in Philippi and his death as a martyr at Rome. Their service was completed, his was still in prospect but was fully identified with theirs. If necessary he will pour out his life in order that there may be this excess for God, and this cause of rejoicing both for them and for himself. In the light of a martyr's death he uses the word "rejoice" twice in regard to himself, and twice in regard to their sacrifice; there we have the drink offering.

This is the pattern of the earlier verse now being worked out by the apostle himself. These features were seen in the Lord Himself.

We must keep relating all these verses to this great example, for all came out in Christ, even the rejoicing in the accomplishment of the will of God. Rejoicing occurs some eighteen times in this epistle.

As we move down the chapter we read of another who was set for the same things. We might have asked, Is this going to die with the apostle? No! for he now alludes to another who was to be his successor, Timothy. We have referred to this as true, apostolic succession. Here is one who will carry on that character of things after the apostle has gone.

Do you regard Timothy as the typical servant who will continue all that Paul taught, and will continue it so long as the church is in this world?

Surely! And Paul as it were lays his hands upon him here, even as when writing to him in the second epistle to Timothy.

Is it not said in that epistle, "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also"?

We have referred to that as filling out what was said in the Old Testament, to the children of the third and fourth generation. There are four generations in that verse, Paul, Timothy, faithful men and others also. We are not even said to be "faithful men and others also. We are not even said to be "faithful men", but "others also". We must see to it that we in our day hold these things and pass them on to others.

In sending Timothy to them it was in the great hope that when he returned to the apostle he would bring back news that this letter had secured the desired effect. This word "good comfort" means revived or refreshed, and we need not be surprised at his saying this. He told the Corinthians that he was burdened with both that which was without and with that which came upon him daily, the care of all the assemblies. It is a great thing to be able to orientate oneself in relation to the various assemblies. If they are in good condition so am I; if they are in distress so am I. How good to find our interest so bound up with the saints.

John said he had no greater joy than to hear that his children walked in the truth.

So while he intimates that some were not walking in truth some were, and we ought to be encouraged by that. Whilst we may not see all the saints walking in the truth, some are, and we do well to encourage them to go on, and seek to go on with them.

What is meant by this word "state" (v. 19)?

It really means, how you are getting on! State is a word sometimes used to describe the work of the Spirit in our souls, which is distinct from how one may be getting on. It has often been pointed out that three things are said of us; standing-that is what we are in Christ: state-that is what has been formed by the Spirit in our souls; practice-that is how we are progressing practically. I am sure neither our standing nor our state can alter, but our practice can at any time. I suggest we have standing in Romans 5; state in Romans 6 and practice in Romans 7. What is meant here by this term is practice, as J.N.D. translates it, "how ye get on". That, we can see, depends largely upon how they answered to this teaching.

It is encouraging to find that Timothy was a man of feeling, genuine feeling. Peter warns us against being busybodies in other people's affairs, but we can well do to be like Timothy, genuinely concerned about the spiritual state of the saints. Timothy went on in the face of great departure for Paul says, "For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's". He was the only one with Paul at this moment upon whom he could depend.

He was "like-minded", a word which means "united in soul with the same desires". Paul also alludes to Epaphroditus as having great concern about them.

How then could the apostle say "all seek their own"?

I think at that moment he was referring to the few that were of his company and who had been with him. Demas had left, they of Asia had turned away from him. They had turned away from a man who was suffering for Christ. It does not say they had turned away from Christianity; but in Timothy he had one who was knit together with him in soul in caring for the condition of the saints. We may thank God that he had such a one and could rejoice in that fact. We must regard these statements in relation to the time when they were made. He came to a point when he said, "no man stood by me".

This was stated towards the end of his first imprisonment, whilst the other statement was towards the end of his second imprisonment.

Exactly! That is why we need to note just when he said these various things.

Timothy was dedicated to the service of the Lord, he was not one who began to run well and slackened off. The apostle can say to them "but ye know the proof of him". Apparently Timothy had given every proof that what the apostle said about him was true, for as a son with a father he had served with Paul in the gospel. Character like this needs to be developed, it does not come about instantaneously, but is developed by long experience and devotion to the interests of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"As a son (or, child) with a father" would shew what went on in the soul of this young man. When Paul wrote his first letter to him he called him "my true child". When he wrote his second letter to him he called him "my beloved child". There is a process going on. Here is one standing in relation to the truth, and as he thus stands the effect is seen in his affections.

It may be a word to those of us who are younger, "as a child with a father". Once the young men begin to question the elder brethren as though they knew better, it is not good. I do not mean asking questions about the truth, for no one asked more questions than I did, but questioning them as though there was something wrong with their teaching. True growth will be formed alongside of a subject spirit, not a precocious one. If conditions are right, the elder take the lead and the younger submit, so Peter says in his epistle.

The outstanding word in this section is obedience, and what is enjoined upon a child with a father is obedience. It is the one thing children are told to do, to obey their parents. It appears to be the only injunction to them in the New Testament. That principle of obedience is seen here in Timothy and how better could he help the saints to practise what Paul is bringing before them in doctrine, than by being an example of it himself?

We see growth in Timothy in the references made to him. We read, "from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures". Then, "Let no man despise thy youth", and again, "But thou, O man of God". He is growing up in the truth.

Then along with Timothy, Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as "my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered unto my wants". He was the one to whom they had entrusted their gift to take to the apostle, and he nearly lost his life in carrying out that charge. He was prepared to risk his life to carry out that service. He virtually laid down his life for the brethren.

Often when we are in sickness it is ourselves of whom we think, but he was distressed because they were distressed on his account.

We have another example of the unity of this chapter here. The saints were concerned; Epaphroditus was concerned, and Paul was concerned; so much so that while he was going to send Timothy later he sent Epaphroditus right away, so that they would know that he (Epaphroditus) had recovered.

If we all served on the line of Epaphroditus would the truth of the body be more apparent?

It certainly would! Not only would it be better known doctrinally, it would be more apparent.

His physical condition would hinder him in his service and they were all concerned about it. He risked his life for the saints, Paul in particular, and it raises the question with us, How far are we prepared to risk our lives in service for the saints?

Would he be exemplifying the truth of God working in him His good pleasure?

No doubt! For it says here it was in relation to the work; he was so devoted to the task entrusted to him that he ventured his life in carrying it out.

What a binding together when Paul speaks of God having mercy upon Epaphroditus, and then regards it as mercy to himself as well. Here is a very practical setting forth of the previous exhortation.

The cost in bringing the gift became more than the gift itself.

That seems to be so in the appreciation of the apostle. There was first the desire which lay behind the gift; then the exercise of this dear brother in bringing that gift which stands out here.

Does it not shew also that God tempers the sorrows? Paul had sorrow, but God knew how much he could stand and did not heap another sorrow upon him.

Lastly, the apostle says he would have less sorrow when he knew how pleased the saints would be to see Epaphroditus fit and well again. So we have this remarkable regard for one another which would all contribute to unity among them. We shall do well to cultivate features and affections like these, and so evidence more clearly that we are governed by the mind which was in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 3: 1-11.

In our reading on Philippians 2, we were occupied with the lowliness of heart of our Lord seen in His movements in the path of humility, giving us an example and forming the basis for an exhortation that with our minds prepared for the same path, we might be instrumental in promoting unity amongst the saints. In addition to this exhortation, we also had before us three men who were evidently affected by this mind to go down; Paul, Timothy and Epaphroditus. We now turn to another side of the truth which we venture to call the upward mind; for if in Philippians 2 Christ is the Pattern, in Philippians 3 Christ is the Object; and in this connection we may see that the downward mind is in relation to oneself, whereas the upward mind is in relation to Christ. The apostle gives this as a final word, and exhorts them to "rejoice in the Lord". We are not to rejoice even in our humility, but in the Lord.

Would the recovery of Epaphroditus be the cause of this rejoicing?

It could be one reason! But the rejoicing would not only be on account of favourable circumstances, but also in the One who created the circumstances.

Did not Paul exemplify this himself in Philippi? He was rejoicing as being above his circumstances in that city. It was not the girl with the spirit of Python, nor yet the conditions in the prison, that were the cause of his rejoicing; he rejoiced in the Lord. He knew how to abound, and he knew what it was to be abased, but in both he rejoiced in the Lord.

I think we should relate everything, whether dark or bright, to the fact that, whatever the circumstances, the work of God is going on in our souls, and our relationship with the Lord will never alter with circumstances. We must relate all circumstances to the fact that, whether favourable or difficult, both are needed in our service for Him.

While we are seeking to keep the company before us in this epistle yet the truth must affect us individually, for one could not rejoice in the Lord for another.

Whilst that is true, it is an exhortation to the whole company. I think the pronoun "you" is collective; Paul also says "my brethren" (v. 1). He says that writing these things to them again was not irksome to him. This may encourage us, for we are perhaps afraid of repeating ourselves at times; but if we are moving simply under the hand of the Lord for the blessing of the saints, we can well afford to repeat ourselves so long as we are assured the Lord would have us to do so. It was needed at that time, for while to him to write was not irksome, for them it was safe. We need never be afraid of repetition, but we should avoid recitation. If we have a prophetic word from the Lord let us give it out, but do let us avoid reciting something we have learned by heart.

In these days we need to beware of supposed new light.

We may get some fresh light from the Lord by coming to meetings like this; it may be new to us, but not new in itself. If what is taught is clearly outlined in the Scriptures we do well to accept it, but the truth "was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), and we do well to avoid novelties. The word in Jude 3 is really once for all delivered to the saints. Truth does not develop, it abides as Christ, who is the truth, abides.

The apostle warns them to beware of dogs, that which is naturally unclean, and would refer to those in the Christian company who had never been born of God nor sealed by the Spirit, and who were incapable of taking in divine things. Peter uses two symbols as describing certain people-dogs and sows. The dog represents that which is unclean by nature, and the sow that which is unclean by practice.

What is involved in the term "See to dogs"? (New Trans.)

It would suggest that we keep our eyes open, and when we discern them we keep away from them. They will be known in relation to their movements; watch for them. "The wise man's eyes are in his head." (Ecc. 2: 14). When we see persons who are marked by unclean things we should avoid them.

As seeking to go on in unity, we need to have our eyes open, because these elements will soon destroy that unity if allowed to do so. The enemy has more than one weapon in his armoury, and we need to be constantly on the alert.

What is involved in the expression, "evil workers"?

Those who acted in a way which was clearly not of God, and who distressed rather than helped the saints of God. It would include those who sowed discord amongst brethren.

Would the word "Beware" lead to action?

I suppose if such were discerned among the saints we should refuse to have fellowship with them. We are exhorted in Romans 15 to avoid them; we are to be on the alert in case trouble is caused before we are aware of it. As to whether they are believers is not the point here, we are to judge them by their actions. Whoever may bear the character of an "evil workman" would be actuated by Satan and not by the Spirit of God.

Who are the concision?

That is a term of reproach in relation to those who professed to be the circumcision. They had received the mark of circumcision in the flesh, but were the very opposite of what that involved in practice.

The word "concision" is used here only; coined for the occasion. It carries the suggestion of a pruning. Instead of the complete cutting off which circumcision involves, this rather suggests a pruning of certain things of which men disapprove, and leaving the rest. That was what they were trying to do, prune off some of the things of Judaism, but introduce the stem of it into Christianity, hence he calls it the concision. It was simply the attempt to Judaize the saints.

In verse 3 the apostle turns from that which was reprobate, as seen in decadent Judaism, and asserts, "For we are the circumcision", the true circumcision, which means that we have come to a judgment of ourselves as in the flesh, and are not occupied with the ritual merely. In using the word "we" he speaks of the whole Christian company. The word is emphatic according to the New Translation, and is true of all the saints characteristically.

In Colossians 2: 11, we read, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ". In the New Translation it reads, "putting off of the body of the flesh". The result is we "have no confidence in the flesh". It is not a pruning as we have heard, trying to make ourselves more acceptable to God, but as the true circumcision we have put off the flesh in its totality, and we are before God in the Spirit. Whilst the statement here is "worship God in the Spirit", every right movement in Christianity is by the Holy Spirit, not by pruned flesh.

If one pruned a tree one would expect fruit from it eventually, and that is what the concision were doing, expecting something from the flesh; but if there is to be fruit for God in worship it can only be by the Spirit.

The concision prided themselves on having light from God, and as being the only ones with the right way of approach to God; but "we are the circumcision" and we know that the only way of approach to God is by the Spirit, not by ceremonial cleansing of man after the flesh.

Why does he connect worship with circumcision?

The whole Christian company is viewed as the spiritual answer to circumcision in the flesh, and stands in relation to God solely by the Spirit, not by any improvement of the flesh. Instead of boasting in Moses, we boast in "Christ Jesus"; the word "rejoicing" can be rendered "boasting".

We have worship mentioned in John 4, but the realization of what this chapter in Philippians teaches would remove all that Jerusalem stands for in that chapter, and also what the mountain stood for. Whether Judaism-the imitation of it as seen in the mountain-or paganism, all has to go. In Christianity the one way of approach to God is by the Spirit.

Would you say what worship really is?

Worship is the overflow of the heart when by the Spirit the majesty of God affects one. It is almost impossible to define it, but we experience it in our spirits. It is the recognition of what is beyond us in the realization of the majesty and greatness of God; and in so far as He has been revealed our hearts respond to all we are conscious of in His blessed person.

It is a wonderful privilege to be able to worship God, to rejoice in Christ Jesus, and to have no confidence in the flesh.

The concision had confidence in the flesh, but the true circumcision has no confidence in the flesh. They are opposed to one another, hence the impossibility of both going on together. Worship is more the state of the soul one is in than what one says. This ought to encourage us, for some perhaps are not very capable of saying much in what might be called an intelligent way, but we can all be in a right state of soul, and can then pour out our worship to God.

In a sense worship is inarticulate, whatever we may say in presenting it. It is more the state of soul, as we have said.

Worship here is the word for priestly service, and would involve all our movements of soul Godward. It has been said that thanksgiving is for what God has done for us; praise has more in view the way God has acted, while worship has more in view who and what God is in Himself.

It would also involve the presenting of Christ to God.

It would! But we need not only to be able to speak intelligently to God of Christ, but to have our souls in the power of it when we do so.

If we were asked for a concise explanation as to what Christianity really is, verse 3 of our chapter would give it. Each Person of the Godhead is mentioned; we read of worship to God, rejoicing in Christ Jesus, all being in the power of the Spirit, and confidence in the flesh excluded.

Worship would be the answer to revelation.

It must be! For it is God whom we worship as Father, according to John 4.

I suppose we can worship God individually and in our home?

Why not! If it were only to be realized in the meetings, what of some who are not able to get to the meetings? It ought to be in more volume and in more power in the assembly, but do not let us negative one thought by another. Each has its place, and whilst we know that in the assembly worship ascends to God, yet we must recognize that one can worship God at all times, providing the right condition of soul is there.

The next three verses, 4-6, give an outline of the flesh at its best, and show what the circumcision may become as concision, if the flesh is in view. Paul had much more to boast of in the flesh than his contemporaries, and who better than he could show us what can be attained by Judaism? Yet he tells us that it was but fleshly effort which he gladly abandoned; for what he had in Christ was far in excess of all else.

It would be religious flesh in these verses?

Yes! And we do well to think of that. The flesh comes to light in many distinctive ways, and this is one-religious flesh.

It is the Ishmael character of things, the flesh under divine cultivation. Some years ago in a meeting a brother remarked that Ishmael had to go, and the reply was, "Yes, but in Genesis 22 Isaac goes also". If the Ishmael character was to be righteously dealt with, it necessitated that Christ should bear the judgment which that order merited and remove it in death. This is the answer to the type of Genesis 22. We know that Christ came into the same condition as that in which the children were, sin apart; yet He took that condition in order to die and thus bring it to an end. As beyond death He brings His own into a new order, which is spoken of here as "in the Spirit" (v. 3). If we do not appreciate in some measure this bearing of the cross of Christ, we shall be continually hindered by the Ishmael character of things. There is always the danger of our going in for the very things which the apostle counted as dross. The remedy is to see their complete removal in the cross of Christ.

In verses 4 to 6 the apostle appears to put on these garments one by one only to take them all off. No one could have pointed the finger of accusation at Paul in so far as Judaism was concerned. He was at the top; others boasted, he could say "I more". He speaks of himself here as having been better than the best, but in the Epistle to Timothy as worse than the worst, because he had persecuted the saints.

In these verses he is speaking of a righteousness which he sought to attain by his own efforts; a matter quite distinct from the righteousness of God which he speaks of in verse 9.

The law could only take account of what men did, the state of their hearts through sin was not raised, they were judged by their actions. Yet it did bring sin to light, though sins were mainly in view. Paul was no mere adherent of Judaism, but was vitally active in it. He speaks of his manner of life before conversion to King Agrippa, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did" (Acts 26: 10). He was not a passive adherent, but an active promoter of Judaism. Of his own volition he tells us in this chapter that he counted all he had once valued as loss for Christ. The light of that glory which he had seen on the Damascus road eclipsed for ever his former attainments, and he looked upon them now as dross.

In what way had they been a gain to him?

Notice that he does not say gain to God, but "gain to me". Doubtless the adulation and approbation of others who observed him, ministered to his pride and to his fleshly satisfaction.

Being entrusted with the commission to go to Damascus would constitute him an important man, and would give him immense satisfaction. He was, however, not referring to these things that we might be occupied with them, but to show that Judaism at its best was but refuse compared with the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord. Only a similar view of the glory of Christ will free any one of us from the attractions of this world. Not one of us could have been marked by the things Paul speaks of here, but some other fleshly attainment may have marked us; in the light of the glory of Christ let us seek grace to relinquish it all. Desire for worldly gain will be removed by an appreciation of Christ in glory.

It was with the prize in view that the apostle pressed on.

We may ask ourselves, Do we consider "the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" to be a prize? A contender in the games contended for a prize, and used his utmost exertion to obtain it. Paul uses the same word-gain; having surrendered the things that once had been given, he now strives to gain Christ.

Was the prize a present thing, or was he looking on to the future?

I believe it includes both. He speaks of great compensation as a present gain, besides that which is in view in a coming day. He speaks of "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord". That word "my" is individual to Paul.

In verse 7 he says "I counted", but in verse 8 he says "I count". He was in prison because of his testimony, and yet was still counting "all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord". He had no regrets even though in prison.

He goes further than counting them loss, he counted them but filth that he might gain Christ. This is more than a preparedness to suffer for Christ. It not only involves leaving certain things, but judging them to be filth in the light of the glory of the knowledge of Christ Jesus. Such a judgment as this will only be reached by one who is in secret communion with Christ. Some years ago we read of a young man going out to preach the gospel in China, apparently an able business man. A firm offered him good terms to represent them there, but he refused the offer. They doubled their offer, which again was refused; yet again they trebled it, but he said he would not do it for a fortune. He considered that the winning of one soul could not be valued in terms of money, and he did not wish to be hindered in the first by the pursuit of the second.

Circumstances did not alter Paul's determination. He says "And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith".

Along with this is the unchangeable preciousness of Christ. It was this which Paul enjoyed and which underlay his desires. Circumstances may change, but he found unchangeable preciousness in Christ. That was part of the prize.

The statements in verse 10 are all in relation to those circumstances, and they will require careful consideration. He says "that I may know HIM". Not only to know about Him, but to know HIM; the pronoun gives point to these statements. "The power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death". Not only death, but "His death". No doubt this could mean that Paul was so anxious to know all he could know of Christ, and to experience the things he speaks of to the utmost degree, that he desired to suffer as Christ suffered, to die as Christ died, and to be raised as Christ was raised. It involved his giving his life for the testimony but be it so if it would but draw him as near to Christ as was possible.

In the New Translation verse 11 reads, "resurrection from among the dead". That would not affect in any way his outlook in relation to the coming of the Lord.

No! It is his labour and desire that is in view here. It appears that he was rejoicing in the fact that he was going to give his life for the testimony. If the Lord did not come before his decease, this was the way he desired to go, just as the Lord Himself.

Would the thought of "That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection" be a present thing, but "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead" be more the end? Was he experiencing the power of His resurrection then, and also looking on towards the end "the resurrection from the dead"?

I am sure he was moving in the power of the resurrection of Christ, but I do not think that is in view in this verse. He had moved in the power of that since his conversion, but here I think it is an allusion to His death as a martyr.

Are you saying this is not possible to anyone who does not die a martyr's death?

Yes! For I think all these statements stand together. The emphasis he lays upon His! His!! His!!! has in view an experimental entering into all that Christ suffered, apart of course from His being made sin.

While the power of these things may be experienced by the saints in a general way, this appears to be an experience personal to Paul.

Why is resurrection mentioned before His sufferings?

That is the object in view, the end to which he was striving; but he knew that if that were to be so, he must suffer as Christ suffered in order to arrive at such a resurrection. He desired to experience the actual power of resurrection.

We know from the epistle to the Ephesians and also to the Colossians, that we can live in the power of life in resurrection, a life made available for us in resurrection, but I do not think that is the meaning here.

Do you think the apostle knew that his martyrdom was at hand?

He had the impression from the Lord that he was going to abide, even though he did say "I shall see how it will go with me" (Phil. 2: 23), but what he is saying here is not so much when but how he desired to leave this world, he had said to die was gain, and he was so desirous of knowing Christ that he preferred to go through even a violent death, but it was better for the saints that he should stay with them.

Is there any greater power than that of resurrection?

Not according to Ephesians 1, where it is presented as the manifestation of the exceeding power of God. We know that power has worked in each one of us as that epistle goes on to show, and that it is true of all in the Christian company, but this is specific and individual to Paul. Others may experience the same thing, of course, providing they go the same way. I venture to add again that the emphasis laid upon "His suffering", "His death", "His resurrection" appears to me to make this a particular thing which few may desire to experience.

Paul is not saying that he would be raised before the rest of the saints were raised.

That is certainly not in view, but rather that when he is raised with all the rest of the saints at the coming of the Lord he would be raised as one who had given his life for the testimony.

The fact that he speaks of attaining to the resurrection proves what has been said. We know that all saints will be raised at the coming of the Lord, but Paul is looking at it as a prize to be won.

It would seem that all this was in view of "the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord".

What he desired here did not come about, and he is now waiting for the resurrection from among the dead.

"We which are alive" when the Lord comes will not know what it is to be raised from among the dead. Those who die before the Lord comes will experience a power which those alive will not. On the other hand, of course, we shall experience a change, but the full power of the resurrection will be experienced by those who have died. This thought has been a comfort to many.

Do you think the saints mentioned in Hebrews 11 had that in mind? It says they looked for a better resurrection.

Yes! That is in line with Paul's desire. They would not accept deliverance, preferring to have a better resurrection.

Why does the apostle speak so much in the singular?

When it comes to an experience he can speak of himself only. He knew there would be many saints who would not rise to this height, so he speaks for himself. In Romans 8: 1, he speaks of "them", for the standing of all believers is in view, but when it comes to the experience of verse 2 he says, "me", for it must be realized individually. This is a further example.

This then seems to be a unique desire of the apostle, wishing to be so conformed to Christ that he desired to be like Him in His death.

I feel sure that is the meaning of it.

Would this be open for any saint?

It certainly would! For while he does speak of it individually, there is no reason why he should be the only one to experience it. It is for anyone who has the same desire.

If persecution breaks out we might find we can reach this.

I only speak for myself when I say I do not feel quite up to this. We must avoid any idea of being heroic in laying down our lives, for this is far removed from that. It is the attraction of Christ which alone can produce desires like this.

If we have grace to live we shall be given grace to die.

That is true, but if, as has been suggested, death as the result of persecution comes our way, shall I welcome it? That is the point here. If Christ is as real to me as He was to this great apostle, I can have the same desires.

Philippians 3: 12-21.

Our reading today is obviously connected with the verse that we finished on yesterday where the apostle, having spoken of that which he was reaching on to, now assures the saints that he had not yet received the prize. He was pressing on to what he speaks of as "perfected" (New Trans.).

Verse 12 reads "already perfected" in the New Translation, which rather suggests the end of the pathway, not only that which he was acquiring on the way.

You do not then look upon "perfect' as suggesting maturity?

I do not doubt it is the word for maturity, but I think it has in view full maturity and full conformity to Christ at the end of the pathway. We know that similar terms are used in the fourth chapter of Ephesians where the ministry has in view the perfecting of the saints, but it does seem that this word "perfected" looks on to the end of the pathway. It is something more than that arrived at morally by divine teaching, it is actual conformity to Christ when with Him for ever.

Do you mean that so long as the work of God in our souls is not completed we could not speak of ourselves as "perfected"?

Yes! I believe it is the end for which God has called us, the end realized when we are actually there. And, until we are there we are to pursue, that we may know that for which God has apprehended us.

As long as we are down here is there something more to gain?

I think that is the whole point. We could ask our elder brethren if they think they have reached it fully yet, and I am certain all would say "No".

Don't you think that the other part of the phrase gives us a clear understanding of what we are pursuing? "Not that I have already obtained the prize" (New Trans.), which I suppose is the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord.

In calling attention to that we must note that it is not Paul's service, but his growth that is in mind, the knowledge on his own side of the very things he was ministering to others.

Do you think that sometimes those two things are confused in our minds?

There is, I do not doubt, a point reached when some activities must be given up, but as Paul remarks here, we never reach a moment when we can give up learning more of Christ Himself. The apostle does not assume to have reached a place where he does not need any more light or instruction as to divine things; at the end of his pathway he does not say that he thinks himself to have got possession, to have fully apprehended, but there is one thing he is doing-he is pursuing.

How long does it take to reach the point of which he says "That I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus"?

I do not think we can set any time, but I think there is this constant enquiry about it; what is it, and why am I here, and what is the end to be? I don't think there is a limit to it as long as we are in this world.

The point that is stressed here is that there are unlimited resources available to those who are in Christ.

The word finality has been used. What is finality in this connection?

The last verse of Philippians 3. Quite obviously he was pressing on towards that, but had not yet reached it.

In connection with out moving on step by step towards the goal, do you not think that it is an encouragement to know that love is operating in all our movements? We cannot tell what circumstance is suited best to our education, but on the other hand we can be sure that infinite love will so guide in the path that we shall be in exactly the right circumstances for the learning of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes! The important point is the Person; and looking back over our pathway, there was perhaps a certain line of truth which occupied one's mind, we were exercised and asked questions about it, and found that God graciously gave us light as to it. Then we began to be exercised about another line of truth, and that is what is suggested in this Scripture. Paul here did not desire to improve in the knowledge of what he ministered, but in regard to the Person whom he ministered. It was Christ he had before him.

Paul's expression, "For me to live is Christ", would cover what you are now speaking of.

It was because he had that one thing in view that he wanted to know Christ more and more.

You have spoken of the exercise about one line of truth and then a further line of truth; do you think that in all our circumstances it is not only a line of truth we need, but the increased knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord day by day?

Whatever line of truth Paul is engaged with, his objective is the same, he is looking towards the prize, "the high calling of God in Christ Jesus". The full realization of it is seen at the end of the chapter, when we shall be with and like Christ for ever. As "God's high calling" it does not refer to things down here, it stands in relation to Christ up there. A calling away from earth altogether.

What are the things we are to forget (verse 13)?

I think Paul was referring to those things which gave him a place in man's world; personal attainment, etc.. He was not even thinking about them any more, they were left completely behind.

Do you think that it includes the thought that he was no longer taken up with the mile posts that are being passed?

It could be that too. It is not that we discard anything that is divinely learned, but we do not rest on what is past, we pursue.

Does it then indicate to us the importance of present blessing?

I think so! And in line with that you will remember that Gehazi stood recounting to the king the wonderful things that Elisha had done. Gehazi was living in the past, he had neither present nor future possessions, and that is the danger if we settle down without exercise as to these things of which we are reading.

Whilst progress is important, it is not in itself the objective; if progress is the objective we shall fail in progress, but if Christ is the objective progress will be maintained.

We sometimes venture to suggest that a true appreciation of the holy calling would keep us separate from sin, which is abroad on every hand; the apprehension of the heavenly calling would lift us above earthly things; but the apprehension of the high calling would carry us outside of man's world altogether. We need the energy which presses on towards an object outside of this world, Christ Himself.

In verse 15 Paul uses another word, "As many as be perfect"-that is, fully grown; having reached a state of maturity in regard to divine things. to such the apostle says "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded".

Do you think that the apostle still has his mind upon the divergence of thought in the Philippian assembly? In effect he is saying that if all get their eye on Christ and are pursuing, then the differences will disappear. And in that regard does he not deal very gently with those who are "otherwise minded". He says very simply "God shall reveal even this unto you".

Paul did not assume that all in the company to whom he wrote were fully matured in divine things, but he was thankful that there were some such persons. Timothy and Epaphroditus, two full grown men in the things of God, were "thus minded" with the apostle as he had said in Philippians 2. Where there is true desire and one comes to God about it, He will shew what is hindering any one of us from reaching this maturity, and will afford the necessary help. It should be an exercise with each of us if we feel that we are not getting on in the things of the Lord. God wants us to get on; Christ wants us to get on; the ministry is here that we might get on.

Isn't there something exceedingly gracious in the attitude and desire of the apostle? He sets before us the precious objective which had gripped him, and then says, "Let us walk in the same steps" (New Trans.). The apostle having set himself to pursue to the end, says in effect "I don't want to go alone, I want you to come with me". So that what he says here would influence others. Surely that is a word for all of us, that by example and by doctrine we should be an encouragement to all to tread the same path.

The emphasis here is not upon the degree of attainment, but on the objective that is commanding the soul. We might all say that we have made but poor progress, but it is on the right objective that emphasis is laid.

The next statement has that in view, "But whereto we have attained, let us walk in the same steps". There is but one path; whether we are getting near the end of it, or whether we are just beginning, let us keep together in it. That would produce the unity the epistle has in mind.

The apostle says, "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample" (verse 17). He thus encourages the younger brethren and those who had not got on so very far in the truth, assuring them of the right path in which to walk.

We cannot read this section without being impressed with the fact that there is nothing static about Christianity.

Would this be true Christian ambition?

Very good!

It is important to see that before Paul exhorts them to fix their eyes upon himself and others as models, he has already brought before them the true objective. Paul and the others were not the objective, they were moving towards the objective, and it is because of this that the eyes of the saints were to be fixed on them.

We do not desire to set the saints of God on too high a pedestal, but certain outstanding servants of God have inspired us to go the road they were going.

Many years ago an old brother was once asked in a meeting "What is the best way of helping others to go on well?" He answered "Go on well yourself".

What is involved in "Let us walk by the same rule"?

As we have said, I may not have got on very far in the Christian faith, but I can make Christ my Object, exactly as Paul did. That is the same rule.

Do you suggest then in connection with the rule that it is for us to be in exercise to say, "For me to live is Christ"?

Well, that was positively true of the apostle, but how many more have ever been able to say it is a question.

It is obvious that if Christ is not my Object, Christ will not be my life practically.

We must not lower the true standard of Christianity to our abnormal practice. We may not be prepared to say it of ourselves, but it is normal that Christ should be everything and all to us.

If we do not reach this, is it due to lack of capacity, or lack of desire, or is one dependent on the other?

I think it is lack of desire. I am persuaded that wherever there is a right desire, and exercise to carry out that desire, that will develop capacity and give one the knowledge and power of these things.

"One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after"; the Psalmist pursued his desire. The contrast to this is seen in Proverbs 13: 4, "The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing."

If the desire is there, the capacity will be assured, because we have the Holy Spirit, Who "will guide you into all truth". Hence capacity does not in any way depend upon natural ability.

There is an important word for us in this very section in that regard; that is, we are dependent upon revelation from God. "God shall reveal even this unto you". We can only move in relation to what has been revealed but so much has been revealed consequent upon the coming here of Christ, and in the realm of the Spirit, that we have a tremendous amount to pursue.

Paul then refers to those who walk contrary to these things. "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ"; the cross that would end man and man's world entirely for us, as the first chapter of first Corinthians assures us. The apostle adds "Whose end is destruction", a tremendous difference from the end to which Paul was pressing on.

Why does it say "Enemies of the cross of Christ", not enemies of Christ? I think one would be involved in the other, but why is it put this way?

Because the cross not only puts man himself out, it also puts out entirely the world he has built up in wisdom.

Does this refer entirely to the unconverted?

Well! I could never think that any saint of God could be marked down for destruction; I know it has been said that these are earthly minded saints of God, but that construction of the verse has never appealed to me.

But they would be in the Christian company?

They are!

Does it not involve the thought that if one is on this road the end is destruction?

I think that is what is here; I know some have thought that they might be earthly Christians but that is a terrible character to put upon the saints of God.

The fact that they are in the Christian company would be what produced the weeping in the apostle?

I would have thought that.

Does it not say plainly "Whose end"?

It also says "Whose glory is in their shame"; they had no apprehension of the calling of God on high. They were minding earthly things. We don't want to take the edge off this verse.

We shall not know much of the calling on high in Christ Jesus if we are minding earthly things. They are incompatible, you cannot have one with the other.

This comes very close home to us all. We might escape worldly things, but these are earthly things.

Some may not be very clear as to the difference between worldly things and earthly things; will you please explain?

We all know what the world is and the evil of its attractions. We should disdain the thought of joining in with what Peter has in mind when he says, "They think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot" (1 Peter 4: 4). But, earthly things could be anything that would hinder us in our affection for Christ, not necessarily evil in itself.

We are touching things that are very testing!

Indeed we are! One of the most dangerous and subtle things is earthly-mindedness. It is the very opposite of the high calling to which we have been referring, and the apostle goes on at once to say, "Our commonwealth has its existence in the heavens". That is the sphere to which we belong.

If our commonwealth has its existence in the heavens, it is "from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ". People may tell us we ought to be putting in our time doing what we can to improve things down here, but we are just waiting for Christ to come and take us away from the things down here.

J.N.D. says that although he uses the word "commonwealth", he is not satisfied with that word; "associations of life" seems to be the best translation.

Do you think the easiest understanding of this word comes in the realization that Philippi was a Roman colony of people who were extremely proud of their Roman citizenship? But we can be thankful and rejoice that our citizenship is a heavenly one.

Our commonwealth, our citizenship, the place to which we belong, links with the tenth chapter of Luke's gospel-"Your names are written in heaven". And again the twelfth chapter of Hebrews, the "church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven".

Does this mean that we come now under heavenly influence instead of under earthly influence?

That is what ought to be true of us.

Would Abraham be a man who was intelligent as to his citizenship, he looked for a city "whose builder and maker is God"?

Very good.

He gave practical expression to his faith when he left his country and his kindred and his father's house.

It is a remarkable thing that throughout Scripture heaven is usually put before the earth. We do need to grasp God's original thought, "God created the heaven and the earth"; and when He creates them anew it is again "a new heaven and a new earth", which indicates that God had in mind that earth should be influenced by heaven. And heaven is to govern us now.

It would appear that one of the marks of heavenly citizens would be that they are awaiting the Saviour.

Yes! Fully expecting Him and looking for Him.

We can obviously see that in this section we are very near to the ministry of the new covenant; occupation with Christ in glory and hence changed into the same image from glory to glory. The consummation will be when He changes our bodies.

Do you think that the word vile here (otherwise translated bodies of "humiliation") is wholly due to the entrance of sin?

Yes! Even the word "humiliation". I cannot help but think that in the creation of both Adam and Eve there was no feature of humiliation in their bodies; they stood supreme in the whole creation. Disease and all its consequences could never have marked them had they gone on in innocence. It is a body of humiliation as the result of sin.

Let us guard the fact in relation to what is said in Philippians 2, where we read that the Lord humbled Himself. We have been brought into humiliation by a power outside of ourselves, the power of sin. The Lord was not brought into humiliation, He humbled Himself.

Are they spoken of in the better translation as "bodies of humiliation" (not "vile bodies") because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? That is the reason given in Romans for the raising of the Christian's body.

The body is never said to be sinful in Scripture, so far as I am aware. It certainly is guilty of many sinful practices, but the body itself is not sinful, otherwise it could not be used in the service of God. This body of humiliation in which we serve God by the Spirit today is called a mortal body in Romans 8, but it is to be fashioned a glorious body in conformity to Christ, and the very power by which He will subdue all things unto Himself is the power by which the saints will be conformed to Himself. What a tremendous demonstration of power!

Is this looking for the Saviour practical?

We verily believe it is! It is fully expecting Him. The presentation of the Lord's coming in the New Testament is always practical.

It must be. In the three references to the Lord's coming in the last chapter of the Revelation, the first is in relation to His sayings; the next in relation to His works; but the third time He says, "Surely I come quickly, Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus". How practical that is.

Philippians 4.

In the final words of the apostle in this interesting Epistle we discern the reasons for which he wrote it; first, he puts his finger upon the local difficulty, and secondly thanks them for the gift they had sent him which expressed their loving fellowship in the service of the gospel. We might have thought that in a letter of thanks for their ministration to him he would have overlooked the difficulty that was in the meeting, but his interest in the saints spiritually rose above whatever they may have ministered to him; he speaks of the difficulty in every chapter, and actually names it at the end of the Epistle. But first he speaks of the place they had in his own affections, "My brethren, dearly beloved and longed for my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved". It has been pointed out that the term hold fast indicates that we do not give up; whereas the term stand fast indicates that we do not give way.

Say a little as to standing fast in the Lord.

No one can stand fast in the defence of the testimony apart from the supply of power by the Lord Himself. It involves subjection and obedience on the one hand, but those qualities being there, the power of the Lord to defend the position is available.

The little words "so stand fast" would give us a link with what has already come out in the Epistle.

Yes! Then Paul names the difficulty, a thing we may very often be afraid to do. The apostle was not afraid to name these two sisters (we understand they are both female names), and it may be that the difficulty existing between them was the very thing that had divided the meeting.

This question of naming things is most important; if the thing is named and brought out into the daylight then it shows that the motive is pure. What he exhorts them to do as a company-"stand fast in the Lord"-is also the remedy for individuals, for one could not expect two sisters or two brothers who had previously been at variance to be of one mind except as each was subject to the Lord.

And Paul avoids any question of partiality in the very way in which he writes; he does not say, "I exhort you Euodias and Syntyche", but he gives a personal exhortation to each of them.

Then he also exhorts the "true yokefellow". We may not be able to say who he was, but he was someone whom the apostle could so name, and the saints would know to whom he was referring.

We have thought that it could refer to Epaphroditus; others have thought that it might be the jailer, but what I like about the reference is that the saints would instinctively know to whom Paul referred. This brother must have given definite evidence of this feature in his association with Paul. So that he simply says "True yokefellow", and all would know the brother in view. The characteristic qualities of the man are stressed, not his name. He was one who had definitely gone on this line, had laboured at it consistently, a "true yokefellow".

To be true the motive must be right, and the motive being right and his service acceptable, he would not desire to be named.

There is another interesting thing here that we do well to notice, "I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured (athleticised) with me in the gospel". Is there not perhaps a tendency, when failure in persons comes in, for us to forget the usefulness of those persons? Paul did not; they were valuable sisters, and had evidently had their part in the conflict of the gospel, and Paul is not unmindful to mention it.

Have you any thought why Clement is specifically mentioned by name?

Perhaps it is in line with the way in which the Lord sent the message to His disciples, and to Peter. It may be that Clement had also failed in some way and would not think that he was worthy to be included in the general commendation.

The important thing is that all had their names in the book of life. "My fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life".

Is that the book of responsibility?

It is the book of responsibility! And the fact that their names were still in the book of life shows that they stood in right relation to God Himself.

There is apparently a difference between the Lamb's book of life. There does not appear to be any thought in Scripture of names being blotted out of the Lamb's book of life. Names would be there on the basis of redemption, and nothing can touch that. But there are passages which suggest the possibility of names being erased from the book of life; if the name is still in the book of life, however, it shows that responsibilities in relation to God have been fulfilled. Thank God the inscribing of our names in the Lamb's book of life can never be altered.

I think that the name of every responsible being that has ever been born into this world is in the book of life.

There are two books of generations in Scripture; there are many generations, but only two books of generations. One is the book of the generation of Adam, and the other is the book of the generation of Jesus Christ. One refers to responsibility and the other to that which has been secured on the basis of redemption.

Did I understand you to say that each name of the generation of Adam was in the book of life?

I think so! It is man's responsibility before God.

It is the book which will be opened at the great white throne, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". They are judged according to their works; had their names still been in the book of life they would have escaped the judgment, but they have failed in their responsibility; they are judged according to their works and they find their place in the lake of fire. Their names are only erased on that basis, that they have failed in their responsibility. There will be those who will not stand there because their names are in the Lamb's book of life.

But that which we have in our chapter is an assertion that their names are in the book of life. Paul is not viewing them so much on the side of the redemptive work of Christ, as on that of their right relations with God, and on the fulfilment of their responsibility. That is what we really need to get hold of; the other side is negative; here is the blessed fact that there were those who were worthy to have their names retained in the book of life.

I am persuaded that the names in the Lamb's book of life stand related to the counsel of God, who marked us out for this place of blessing which is procured by the work of Christ.

In other words there will be no searching for the names of believers at the great white throne.

No! We must never forget that we stand related to God as the fruit of redemption and hence our names are in the Lamb's book of life; but we never cease to be responsible creatures in this world. Every one of us must give account of himself to God.

When the Lord said, "the men which Thou gavest Me", He knew the record was there before He came.

Yes! He could add, "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me" (John 17: 6).

Now, again, the apostle exhorts them, "Rejoice in the Lord alway; and again I say, rejoice". It is similar to the expression we have in the book of Nehemiah, "The joy of the Lord is your strength".

We have a similar expression in Psalm 34, "I will bless the LORD at all times", and in the rest of the Psalm you get the steps by which the soul is brought into that condition. Amongst other things we read, "This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles".

That is what we have in verse 5 of our chapter, "Let your moderation (or, gentleness) be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand". The word means He is near, ready to deliver.

That verse came home in power when, in a meeting where two brothers had got into a very unprofitable argument and it was obvious that both were determined to win, a brother quietly quoted, "Let your `determination' be known unto all men". Both happily accepted the rebuke, and the argument ceased.

The apostle has apparently had the company of believers in view throughout the Epistle; why then does he speak of all men in verse 5?

I think he has every sphere in mind. If we realized that the Lord was at hand, and trusted Him more, relying less upon ourselves, we should be out of the difficulties sooner than we expected, whatever the sphere in which the difficulties were.

Again, if we did but appreciate the fact that the Lord is at hand, it would enable us more easily to yield to others. The word is "yieldingness" in the New Translation.

Three words may be used, "yieldingness", "moderation" and "gentleness". But perhaps "yieldingness" is best of all.

In 2 Corinthians 10: 1, we have a parallel passage. "Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ". The word there for gentleness, as referring to Christ, is the word that is used here. Meekness would perhaps be an inward heart matter, and gentleness that which comes out in relation to all men.

Even when we are right and are misjudged, it is well to accept it. "The Lord is near".

In Isaiah 50, it is prophetically spoken of the Lord "He is near that justifieth Me"; that is the word in our chapter "The Lord is near", and He will always justify what is right, even if we have to wait some time for Him to do so.

There is a further exhortation in verse 6, "Be careful for nothing", or it might read, "Be not over-anxious about anything; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God".

What is the difference between prayer and supplication?

Prayer is asking for things, you come to God and you voice your request; but supplication is a continual appealing to God. There are two words which are translated supplication, but it is the constant appeal to God that we have in this verse, and coupled with that a note of thanksgiving to God.

It is not the theoretical knowledge of these things that tests us, it is the practical working out of them. That is what one is feeling throughout these readings. If, through the reading of this Epistle, we are exercised to be more in line with what the apostle is presenting, what a wonderful effect it would have on our gatherings.

It says of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1: 10, that she "prayed unto the LORD" and then in verse 12, "she continued praying". Again in James 5: 17, it says of Elias that he "prayed earnestly".

Along with the exhortation to prayer, the apostle directs their minds away from failures and difficulties, to that which is positive and blessed. "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true . . . think on these things" (v. 8). The result is "and the God of peace shall be with you" (v. 9).

Why is the guarding of the heart put before the guarding of the thoughts in verse 7 (New Trans.)?

If our affections are right our thoughts will be right. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life".

The word for "guard" is really garrison, it is like a strong tower around us, preserving from every attack.

It has been said that peace is a condition of things which nothing can disturb.

We not only get the peace of God garrisoning our hearts, but the One from whom that peace proceeds, the God of peace, comes to us Himself.

Does the thought of peace convey the idea of being unruffled? If we are in the good of what the previous verses suggest, if we have committed everything to God, we shall be unruffled.

Is this peace founded upon the efficacy of what Christ has accomplished?

o! I do not think it is judicial peace, that is peace in relation to the question of our sins; but this is peace in relation to our daily circumstances. Peace as to our sins is consequent upon what Christ has effected, and is the possession of all those who believe on God in the way we have presented to us in the end of Romans chapter 4.

Two Scriptures seem to bear on these two points, "Having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col. 1: 20); that is judicial. "My peace I give unto you" (John 14: 27). As the Father sent Christ into the world so He sends us, that we might know in the circumstances of life the same peace that He knew as Man in relation to God. The chapter in John goes on to say "Not as the world giveth, give I unto you". The world might attempt to give me peace by a change of circumstances; but that which the Lord would give me is not dependent at all upon circumstances, but springs from the confidence that I am still in the hands of God.

Mr. Darby must have had this passage in mind when he wrote that memorable statement, that "the secret of peace within and power without is to be occupied ever and only with good". That is the bearing of verse 8 of our chapter.

It is very blessed to know that the God of peace has operated in the past, is operating at present and will operate in the future. In Hebrews 13: 20 we read, "Now the God of Peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Great Shepherd of the sheep". In Romans 16: 20 we read, "The God of Peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly", and in 1 Thessalonians 5: 23 we have the present action of the God of Peace, "And the very God of Peace sanctify you wholly".

In verse 10 the apostle continues, "But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now however at length ye have revived your thinking of me, though surely ye did also think of me but lacked opportunity". In writing to them of other matters Paul would not have them think that he had forgotten their giving, he certainly had not. It had been a very practical expression of their love toward him.

He says, "Not that I speak as regards privation, for as to me I have learnt in those circumstances in which I am to be satisfied in myself"; in saying to them, "Be careful for nothing", or be not over anxious about anything, Paul would assure them that he was free from anxiety himself.

The apostle is desirous of assuring them that whilst he valued the gift, he valued more the exercise and affection that were behind it.

His rejoicing in the Lord was due more to the fact that they were thinking of him, than to the gift they sent. He was a prisoner, and they were thinking of him. We may perhaps have written a letter to a bedridden saint, and in reply he or she has said how the thought of someone thinking of them had been a cheer and an encouragement.

Is not that the force of the little clause in verse 9 ?, "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do"; the apostle would not have the saints merely to appreciate and talk about these things, but do them. What a practical word for each one of us! "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them".

The apostle was very thankful for their gift but more thankful that fruit was abounding to their account. In other words a yield for God was in view.

Paul then says "Not that I speak in respect of want". He was not seeking any gift, but was appreciative of the downright sacrifice that lay behind their gift to him. It was surely an odour of a sweet savour, a sacrifice acceptable and agreeable to God.

The gift will be of very little value unless there has been sacrifice.

"But we make known to you, brethren, the grace of God bestowed in the assemblies of Macedonia; that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty has abounded to the riches of their free-hearted liberality" (2 Cor. 8: 1).

You would not expect much from deep poverty, but it abounded to riches.

Verse 18 reminds us of Christ personally, "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God." A gift from a few saints to another saint was so Christlike, that the Spirit of God uses these words about it. How it would encourage us along the same lines!

Then on the other hand Paul can say to them "But my God" (One whom I know and have proved), "My God shall abundantly supply all your need according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus". Notice, it is what is needed, not what is wanted, or desired.

You would say then that you cannot take verse 19 out of its context; that it is true of us only so far as the previous verses are true of us?

That is what I was suggesting! Just as they had made this sacrifice in the way they had ministered to the apostle, he can say of them that he is confident that any need on their side will be abundantly met by God.

And then at the end of the chapter we read "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me salute you". Whilst it was mainly his own experiences of which he had been speaking, he is conscious of standing in happy association with all the brethren.

The "brethren which are with me" would probably be those who are called in the Acts, "Paul's company".

May the moral characteristics of that company mark each one of us.

Reconciliation

Reconciliation

2 Cor. 5: 17-21

Readings with G. Davison

Our subject for the reading is reconciliation and it may help to point out that the subject is mentioned at least four times in the writings of the apostle Paul — Rom. 5; 2 Cor. 5; Eph. 2 and Col. 1. In Romans it is an objective thought; we receive reconciliation on receiving the gospel. Here in 2 Cor. 5, it subserves new creation. In Eph. 2 it is brought in to prepare for the mystery, Jew and Gentile both reconciled in "one body". Then in Col. 1 the ground of it is shown to be both the blood and the body of our Lord, dealing with our guilt and state when He died upon the cross. It is also described for us in Luke 15, in the well-known threefold parable of the activities of the Godhead in redemption to bring man back for Its pleasure.

You made an important remark that reconciliation is subservient to new creation. Will you open that out?

Two things are in view in this chapter; the complete answer to the breakdown through sin coming in, and the opening out of a completely new order of things in our Lord Jesus Christ as risen from the dead. First, by His death He has reconciled us to God, removing all the enmity and moral distance which existed between our souls and God. Then God has now introduced us who are reconciled into a completely new order which never needed the death of Christ because sin will never defile it. Had we not been reconciled, God could not have righteously introduced us into that new order. I do not think new creation is the outcome of reconciliation but rather, when we are reconciled, God can proceed with His work and bring us into it; reconciliation having freed us from the old, we are righteously available to God to bring us into line with His purpose by bringing us into new creation.

So that while we are waiting for all things to be made new, we have already been put into that position. This has in view the day when new heavens and a new earth will be in existence. While the new heavens and the new earth are not dependent upon, nor the outcome of, the death of Christ, we should never have been there apart from the death of Christ.

We have tried to trace out the work of Christ and have found that it is always in relation to the breakdown through sin, and by it He has recovered everything for God. On the other hand when we come to new creation, so far as we have found, that is always the work of God. Christ works to recover all that was lost, then God brings in something entirely new. Another place where that is clearly seen is in Eph. 2 where in the first ten verses we have the work of God. He quickens and creates us "in Christ Jesus" which, of course, is new creation. Then from v. 11 to v. 17 we have the work of Christ, He redeems and reconciles us. The remaining verses speak of the work of the Spirit, He gives us liberty of access and builds us together for an habitation. We have the work of Christ dealing with that which is old and affected by sin, but God brings in that which is entirely new.

Is new creation seen in two ways — material and moral? Material in the new heavens and new earth, and moral now "in Christ Jesus".

Yes! What we are brought into now in Christ Jesus will really be established fully in the eternal state. That is its eternal home. That whole scene will bear witness to the fact that God has brought in something entirely new. Already we have been brought morally to that position before God. We now are fitted for that new scene which will then be brought into being.

I would like more said about the distinction between the work of Christ and the work of God. You have said that Christ has dealt with all the failure that has come into that work which began with the re-ordering as seen in Gen. 1: 3, and as a consequence God has introduced something new. I understand that it is not exactly because of the work of Christ, for it was in His mind before the breakdown came in. I wanted to make that clear.

While it is said in 1 Cor. 15, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural", yet have we not learned that if the natural did come in first so far as the time ways of God are concerned, the spiritual was there first in the mind of God?

In the first creation God forms it then puts in the man, but in the new creation God has the Man first and He is building everything round Him.

"New", then, is according to His divine workmanship.

Although it is new, it is only new relatively to that which is old. God ever had it in mind before the old was created, that is historically.

God had in mind in purpose that men should be there in that blessed scene where all things are new. There is no comparison between what God has purposed and what was there when Adam was created. He had no intention of ever taking that man in innocence into that new scene, but it was known that the breakdown would come in; Satan would intervene and it was counselled that Christ should come in and deal with the breakdown, then remove it, so that God could fulfil the purpose of His mind. Is that it?

That is what we are trying to suggest. Perhaps the difficulty to our minds is found in the fact that two things are running on together in each one of us. God is working out in us what He has recovered on the one hand, and yet forming in us something entirely new on the other, which will never need recovering. In this very chapter we have that clearly seen. The first thirteen verses deal with "in the body". From v. 14 to the end deals with "in Christ". In the body is the life of responsibility which will end at the judgment seat, but the life we have "in Christ" in new creation is that which goes on eternally. Then, the sphere in which we move as "in the body" comes under the Lordship of Christ, while "in Christ" comes under the Headship of Christ. In the first section we have mention of "the terror (fear) of the Lord", but in the second we have mention of "the love of Christ". We are moving in both of these spheres today.

That is a most important remark and I do hope the saints have really got it. There are these two spheres, under His Lordship, and "in Christ". In the latter there is no responsibility. Every question concerning our responsibility lies in the realm of "in the Lord". A simple illustration of this is "Children, obey your parents in the Lord". There may be breakdown in that realm and we know, alas, that there is breakdown there, hence the many exhortations we are given in relation to it; but "in Christ", I cannot trace any vestige of failure at all; it is something which is wholly new and morally fitted to adorn the day of God. That is the difference between those two spheres.

Is it because new creation is in view here that the thought of enmity, which is in the other Scriptures dealing with reconciliation, is not mentioned?

Yes! Reconciliation is brought in here with the object of bringing us into new creation. The other Scriptures have more in view what it has delivered us from, hence the thought of enmity, but here it is more to show where it has brought us to. Being reconciled, we are free to be brought into this new order. The old ground must be cleared ere God could have us in the new. As human beings we may attempt to effect something and failing to do so may throw the material away; but we cannot think that God will do this. Recovery first, then the introduction of something entirely new. In 2 Tim. 1: 9 we read of "purpose and grace . . in Christ Jesus before the world began". Purpose is spoken of first then grace, but if the grace was needed in view of recovery it was to fit us for the place God had marked out for us in His purpose. It is worth noting that while grace provided for our salvation and purpose for our calling, we have salvation mentioned first in the verse to fit us for that calling. From our side it must be so, but we read that the purpose preceded the grace from God's side. It is of interest to note how these two things are turned round in the verse; salvation and calling from our side but purpose and grace from God's side.

One has helpfully said, "Death was the womb of new creation and resurrection was its birth", both of course referring to our Lord in His work and its results. It was ever in the mind of God for us but only came into being at the resurrection. That is why our Lord came in responsible Manhood prior to the cross, but He brought that to an end for God in His death, with a view to introducing something entirely new in His resurrection and here we have it. "Therefore if any man be in Christ". There has been this development in the working of God. It did not come to light during the life of Christ, though He was moving on to the accomplishment of the purpose of God, but in His resurrection is the scene where sin and death can never come.

Is that which is physical to be reconciled?

Yes! that is what we saw in Col. 1. I am afraid we have said more about new creation than reconciliation which really is our subject. We do have the reconciliation of all things taught in that chapter, and this will be brought about by power whereas we are already brought into it by the Spirit. By power I mean the rule of Christ in the kingdom.

That it is possible for us to know this today is clearly stated by the apostle in 2 Cor. 12 where he says, "I knew a man in Christ". That is the completion of the gospel of the glory and in its realization he said he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body.

Is it not right to remember that the body is not yet brought into it?

Yes! the body is still subject to earthly conditions and perfectly right in its place. If the body is held in relation to the Lordship of Christ as outlined in the first thirteen verses, then while there is not yet full conformity, it is not in question.

Is it right to say the body is not yet reconciled?

My body did not need to be reconciled. We have often pointed out that the body is never said to be sinful. The man who dwells in that body is sinful, in a state of alienation called the "old man". That is what needed judging in the body of His flesh through death, but the body itself is never said to be sinful in Scripture. I may have used the body for sinful purposes but it is not itself sinful or it could never be used in the service of God.

"Glorify God in your body" is what is expected of us now.

The body is recovered in the fact that the man who dwells in that body and uses it is recovered. Once we used it in the service of sin but now we use it in the service of righteousness.

It is remarkable that now I can prove in the movements of my body what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Shall we not have a body fitted for that scene in the eternal day?

Yes! that is mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, "our house which is from heaven".

Will you say a little more about the reconciliation of all things?

None of us can read our Bible without seeing there are evil influences in the heavens, perhaps Satan as the chief, but other beings like him. We understand these beings were assigned places of authority by God to use them for Him but instead, in some way, they have attempted to use their power against God in rebellion. If for some reason God allows this at present (not that they in any way hinder Him from effecting His purpose), the day is coming when as the fruit of the shedding of the blood of Christ, the spheres they fill will be cleansed and they will be ruthlessly expelled from them; the spheres of authority will be taken up by Christ in that day and will be used for the pleasure of God. In that way they will be reconciled and used for the glory of God.

In Job it says the heavens are not clean in His sight.

Eliphaz said that and maybe those men had already discerned that evil influences were operative in the heavens. This is what we read of in Eph. 6. We are going to occupy those places, but the beings who fill them now have to be expelled from them and in the reconciliation of all things every principality and authority, every throne and dominion will be in the hands of Christ, and in the world to come every one of them will be used for the pleasure of God.

You have said the administration will be put back into the hands of Christ. One has noticed for a long while that when you come to "all things" in Scripture they usually stand in relation to the Christ. This seems to be so both in the Gospels and the Epistles, though in the gospel by John they are said to be in the hands of the Son, the same Person of course. The One Whom we appreciate as the anointed Man is the Son. You remember in John 4, "Messias cometh, which is called Christ . . He will tell us all things". Even a Samaritan woman seemed to know that all things lay in relation to the Christ. Again, God is going to head up all things in the Christ (Eph. 1: 10 N.T.).

We read there, then, "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself". We ought to note that phrase, "to Himself". You remember how God said to Israel, "I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself" (Ex. 19: 4). This seems to describe for us the effect of reconciliation, to bring a people to God for Himself.

The truth of reconciliation is in many places in Scripture even if the term is not used. Peter says, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins" — propitiation; "the just for the unjust" — substitution; "that he might bring us to God" — reconciliation. It seems to be the highest thought we can reach in regard to the work of Christ in recovery. In Heb. 12 the list of all that stands in relation to Zion, the topstone is, "God the Judge of all".

While He has reconciled us to Himself, we read, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself". It seems that both persons and things are involved in this, persons being the object of this ministry as it is there for all.

All will be seen fully in accord with God in the world to come. It is a necessity for God to be thus glorified where all has been besmirched by sin. In the eternal state, it is not so much the vindication of the character of God as the satisfaction of the heart of God.

We read in v. 18, "reconciled us" and in v. 19, "committed unto us the word of reconciliation". Are they the same company?

No! It is the Christian company in v. 18, and the apostolic company in v. 19 to whom this word of reconciliation was given to preach it in the gospel. The ministry began when Christ came into the world, so far as I see it, "God was in Christ". The elements of reconciliation are seen in the acclamation by the angels when Christ was born. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men". Here is the Man Who is going to glorify God and effectuate peace, and God is going to find His delight in His creature. Sometimes brethren quote that Scripture as "good pleasure in a Man", but I am sure if you do that you miss the force of the expression entirely. Certainly God had great pleasure in the Man Christ Jesus, as He testified both at the banks of the Jordan and in the mount of transfiguration, but this means that God is going to find His good pleasure in men as the fruit of the work of Christ.

So that is a prophetic utterance, the result of which is seen in Rev. 21, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men". God pleased to dwell with His creature.

We often quote for the ministry of reconciliation such Scriptures as, "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3: 17). While all this came out in testimony during His life, we have to learn that only in His body through death could that reconciliation be made effective. I have long thought that the ministry of reconciliation began in the life of Christ, but the word of reconciliation going out subsequent to His death is to assure us that the work has been effected.

The word of reconciliation waited for the death of Christ and the coming of the Spirit.

That is what our brother has called attention to, "committed unto us" the apostles, that it had been effected.

How thankful we are that we are not excluded from the "us".

I have not yet grasped the distinction you are making between the "ministry" of reconciliation and the "word" of reconciliation.

It says about the first that God was in Christ, and I judge that in the testimony of Christ in this world He assured man that God was not bent upon his destruction but upon his recovery. "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee"; "I will, be thou clean"; "Neither do I condemn thee", all show this to be so. His coming into the world had this object in view — to bring man back to God. The angels declared it at His birth and He testified to it in His life, but in His death He effected it and now the Spirit comes down using the apostolic band to beseech us to be reconciled to God. The whole blessed principle was exhibited in all that Christ said and did, but before we could come into it the coming of the Spirit was necessary. Only men filled by the Spirit could announce to us this word of reconciliation.

The most simple thought in reconciliation is, where there was distance there is now nearness. The wonderful effect in one's soul is, that while one was very conscious of moral distance from God, one can now come to God conscious that that distance is gone and be at home in His presence.

I wonder if everyone caught the meaning of your reference to 2 Tim. 1? We are told God "saved us, . . . not according to our works, but according to His Own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ" — this is the ministry; "Who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel". Then we read, "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher" — this would be the word of it.

That is why I said, historically we have been saved and called with a holy calling, for the holy calling could only take effect with us after He had saved us; but when we come to God's side about it, it does not say "grace and purpose" but "purpose and grace". Primarily purpose precedes grace, or the calling precedes salvation, for God could not call us apart from salvation. It is remarkable in that verse how the two things are turned round.

We may get quite interested in the theory of this and miss the blessedness of it in experience such as we read of in Luke 15.

It has been suggested that almost the whole of the Pauline ministry can be found in the gospel of Luke, and much of it in chap. 15. Could the younger son have any doubt as to his welcome in the father's house? Would he ever again have in his soul the feeling of distance which he had in that far country? Nor could I imagine the son talking about the far country; I think he would be more inclined to talk about his father's house. The chapter is almost taken up with the activity of the Shepherd, then the woman, then the Father, quite in line with Col. 1 where the Godhead is seen active in reconciliation. I have long held that the best robe, which to me speaks of new creation, is the fruit of the work of the Father. The ring suggests relationship, and that speaks of the work of the Son. The shoes suggest sonship, and that is the fruit of the work of the Spirit. I believe we all bear the marks of this threefold work which has been done for the pleasure of the Godhead. All things are new.

One has often heard the statement that reconciliation bridges the distance between God and men but does that statement go far enough?

No! Reconciliation removes the distance, not bridges it. If you bridge a thing you connect the old with the new, but the old thing is removed by the death of Christ.

Is not reconciliation a fact accomplished?

Indeed it is. We have seen that in Romans we receive it, but like every divine blessing we knew little of it when we first believed the gospel. We come on to this divine teaching because God wants to bring us into the light and power of it, that we might be moving pleasurably to Him in the enjoyment of it and in response to it for the delight of His heart of love.

Would you say a word on the eternal state and the fact that reconciliation will not be required there?

If we break up the word a little into re-conciliation, we gather that the conciliation between God and man which was established at his creation was broken through sin. Now, as the result of the work of Christ and the complete way He has removed sin, He has brought man back in such conditions that he can be happy in the presence of God. Things in the eternal state will never need reconciliation for sin will never bring in distance or estrangement. A remark we heard some years ago may be of help here. In the garden of Eden we do not read of a wall, and the result was — sin got it. In the Holy City, in the world to come, we read of a wall great and high — sin will not be able to get in. Yet, in the eternal state we do not read of a wall for in that day there will not be any sin to get in. Seeing there will never be failure, the idea of recovery is not there at all. We see then in this passage that while God recovers us out of the old, He has put us into something entirely new where reconciliation will never be needed.

There is no thought of reigning in the eternal state because there is nothing to restrain.

The word "new" used in relation to the eternal state does not mean revivifying of what has become old, but the introduction of something which is entirely new. One has been interested of late in noting that word for new — kainos — it is something of a new character entirely. While it will be brought in in that day as something entirely new, yet it was in the heart of God eternally. We do not speak lightly of the world to come, it will be a wonderful time. One has said, In that day God will explain Himself in His actings, for all will be seen clearly in the light. A touch on the same line comes out in Rev. 10 and 11. We read in Rev. 10, that in the day when the seventh angel will begin to sound, the mystery of God will be finished. That mystery is the enigma of God's allowing so much evil to go unchecked today. We often wonder why God allows so much to happen even to His people, but the angel says here that veil is going to be rolled away and we shall see clearly in the light. We turn to Rev. 11, and read, "the seventh angel sounded"; here is the moment of revelation. What happens? The first thing is, the whole heavenly company fall down on their faces and worship God saying, "We give thee thanks". When God does roll the veil away I believe the very sorrows and apparent disasters which give us such concern today will be seen in that day to have worked for His glory and our blessing, and we shall thank Him for them all. That is the world to come and we do not want to under-estimate it, but the amazing thing is that God still has something better for us in the eternal state.

In the spirit of that today we are exhorted, not only to give thanks in all things, but to give thanks for all things. The world to come should be the subject of our conversation as the apostle says, "the world to come of which we speak".

That is why so little is said about the eternal state. We cannot take in much relative to it, for all things are new. It is just the same in relation to the glory. Peter says that if we are reproached for Christ's sake, the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon us. But then we are to have an eternal weight of glory which we could not endure in our present conditions; our bodies would collapse under it, but in that day we shall have bodies capacitated to sustain that glory.

We are not told what those bodies are like except that they will be like Christ.

We have Scripture for that, "What we shall be has not yet been manifested". Christ has been seen in His body in resurrection for He manifested Himself to His disciples, but what we shall be has not been manifested. There is something beyond what they saw. We must remember it is the same Person, whatever form He may have been seen in. "This same Jesus".

At the end of this chapter we read, "He hath made Him to be sin for us". That is the groundwork by which we have been reconciled, but this is a verse I do not pretend to understand apart from the fact that He took our place in wonderful grace that He might bring us into His place before God.

Is this appeal, "be ye reconciled to God", practical?

No! it is what the apostles preached in their testimony. The work was done and they came out with the appeal to men — "be ye reconciled to God". So he says "we pray you in Christ's stead". It was presented to men in the gospel.

Romans 5, 6, 8 and 12

Romans 5, 6, 8 & 12.

Readings with G. Davison

Romans 5: 1-11

In Romans 1 we read, "the just shall live by faith". From that point, the Spirit of God describes the depravity and desperate need of the whole human family as seen in the three sons of Noah — Ham, Japheth and Shem. It is in that order their moral history is brought before us from Romans 1: 18 to Romans 3: 20; all the world guilty and all needing justification, the law having failed to supply it because of the weakness of the flesh. God has set Christ forth as the propitiation through faith in His blood. It is a Person, Christ Himself, Who is set forth by God. Having accepted Him as our Saviour, the One Who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification, we now come to a wonderful summing up, in Romans 5, of all the blessings which accrue to those who have trusted Him in faith. It begins with peace as we see, followed by all the blessed results in the pathway along which we are going, and, so far as our section is concerned, ending with boasting in God. We shall see, I hope, something of the wonderful favour in which we stand and the certainty of a place in the glory in the world to come.

I think you were speaking previously about this peace; would you please repeat those remarks?

In Romans 1 we have peace from God; in Romans 5, peace with God; and in Romans 16, the God of peace.

You are referring to the salutation, "grace and peace" from God the Father! That is touched upon here in regard to the company who have trusted Christ as Saviour and who are now justified by faith and have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We note again the importance attached to the Person, not only the gospel, though it is by the gospel the testimony reaches us.

These verses are based upon the concluding verses of Romans 4. Our Lord is brought in there, the great Administrator of the bounty of God.

He was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. That is, the One Who died for us upon the cross has been raised again and is in the glory, an Object for faith to fix upon.

Will you please say what it is to be justified! There are many young ones here today who may not understand what it is to be justified before God.

We have a statement in Romans 8, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?"

Now that word charge, "Who shall lay anything to the CHARGE of God's elect?" shows us what justification deals with. First of all we have forgiveness, God forgives the individual. But in regard to the charge that was against us, so efficiently has Christ dealt with it, closed that history, that even the devil himself can never again bring a charge against the saints of God. I may forgive a person but God has not only forgiven us personally, He has removed the guilt and the offence in the cross of Christ, so that never again can an accusing finger be pointed at the saints of God.

Could anyone else in the universe justify besides God?

There could not be anyone else.

Does justification involve the resurrection?

The end of Romans 4 says, "Raised again for our justification".

Sometimes the definition of justification is given as, "Just as if I'd never sinned at all", but it rather looks from the concluding remarks in Romans 4 that it goes beyond that. Resurrection brings into being a new order of man on a different platform. The question of our state is not gone into till we come to verse 12, and I think it has to be seen in regard to man's guilt, so far as God is concerned, He has so successfully dealt with it that He can forgive that man, justify that man who had committed the sins.

So that, while the stain is removed our identity remains.

It is the identity that I am trying to hold to. When we come under the headship of Christ in a new spiritual order, then that is worked out subjectively by the Spirit's work in us. I am the man who needs peace with God.

Would it be right to say we must see that it is God Who is justified first?

Yes! Wisdom is justified of all her children, for we must remember that righteousness and justification are practically the same word. God is justified in all His sayings. Everything God does and says is on a righteous basis. I suppose the blood on the lintel is the type of Romans 3; the power in the Red Sea the type of Romans 4. That brings in the sphere of peace in Romans 5.

It is rather surprising to discover from Romans 4 that those whom God justifies are classed as the "ungodly". "To him that worketh not but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly".

There are three things in this chapter teaching that when we were without strength, ungodly and sinners, God justified us. But this involves that we have accepted Christ as our Saviour and the wonderful result is, we know all that history, so far as God regards us, is ended for ever. That is why we have unqualified peace with God. This is unchangeable, it is not a question of how I might feel. This is a question of conscience here, isn't it? For peace of conscience I need the work of Christ in its complete victory and God's valuation of it. For peace of heart I need the Person of Christ.

If we think of the summing up that has gone before, the greatest test that God ever gave to the sons of men before Christ came was the giving of the law. Think of one labouring under that. Look at the man in Romans 7. What peace had he with God in a struggle like that? The gospel is presented; Christ is accepted in faith; there is peace with God. In this chapter and the following chapters you get several times the full title of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think I begin to understand a little why the full title of the Lord is involved. The transaction was so tremendous and the results are so far-reaching.

Could you differentiate between being, "justified freely by His grace" in Romans 3; "justified by faith" in Romans 5: 1; and "justified by His blood" in verse 9?

Well, justified by His grace shows the wonderful disposition of God toward us. And to bring us into that place of favour God in infinite grace has justified us. Romans 5: 1, is my reception of it, because in faith one has been wise enough to accept Christ as Saviour. As the result of that all the blessings that accrue from His death become mine, primarily here peace. And then, if I want to know how it is all worked out, it is by the blood of Christ. That is the key to it. God could not have done it; I could never have had it, had it not been for the shedding of the precious blood of Christ.

I have found out, haven't I, that the safest place of all is the presence of God? That is the result of justification. The very place that I avoided is now the safest place for me.

"How excellent is Thy loving-kindness O God, therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Thy wings". That is God's salvation alright.

One cannot grow into this!

No, that is what I was just keeping in the back of my mind. You do not grow into this. The point is, this is brought to you immediately, no doubt by the sealing of the Spirit suggested further down. This is the immediate effect of believing the gospel — peace with God.

Would you say that everyone has immediate peace? I mean Godward, conscious peace.

No, it may not happen immediately, but in the reception of the Saviour in faith, as the mind and the heart get clear as to what that transaction really involved, I think it is bound to bring one to peace with God.

The woman in John 4 got the benefit of the teaching without actually knowing the terms of it.

That is right and many saints may have it today who may not know the terms.

It says we have peace with God. It doesn't say we always understand it. It depends a good deal on instruction, doesn't it?

She was able to say, "Come see a man, which told me all things that ever I did". So quite evidently she had peace because she was drawing others to the Saviour.

It is not quite by divine teaching. We rightly put great importance on divine teaching, but here it is "by Whom also". We, however, would not know it apart from divine teaching, yet it is through the Person we get it. "By Whom also we have access". We are not dealing with effort yet. It is what faith has brought us into, this grace, this wonderful favour in which we stand and which causes us to rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

What is meant by the glory of God here?

I apprehend it to be the divine standard which would take us back to the thought of man made in God's image and likeness. There was a measure of divine glory stamped upon man which has been lost because of man's failure; but now the day is coming when, in relation to all that Christ has done, God is going to be glorified in a Man, Christ Himself, and every one who belongs to Him is going to share in that glory. Therefore we boast in hope of the glory of God. It looks on to the world to come for its display. It is a very blessed thing, that when the glory of God is in display, we can stand in the very presence and centre of it and not one speck that is contrary to God will be discovered in us. That will be the manifestation of the fact we are already justified. Indeed it says later on that God justifies us having in view that we should be glorified.

I think it is an axiom of Scripture that God cannot glorify anything that is unrighteous. We see the assembly having the glory of God in Rev. 21, but in Rev. 19 we see she has something before that, a garment which we are told is the righteousness of the saints, and she comes down from heaven from God. She could not have been there had there been a single mark of defilement.

You remember when Stephen was being stoned to death, he looked up steadfastly into heaven, it says he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

That chapter opens with the God of Glory and almost ends with the glory of God, and Jesus comes in between. It is not that the glory of God has been manifested when the chapter quoted starts with the God of glory, but the glory of God is to be manifested and there are to be men in it. The outstanding feature of the section is that it starts with the call of Abraham by the God of glory, and ends with a Man in the glory of God. It is very important to see that what Stephen said is a little different from what he saw. He looked up steadfastly into heaven and said, "I see . . the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God". That is to say, the One Who suffered, indicating that the only way in which man could be brought into the glory which is manifested, is by the sufferings of Christ. The first comment is by the Spirit, Who tells us that what Stephen saw was the glory of God and Jesus, but the second comment is by Stephen himself who says, "I see . . the Son of Man".

There is a difference which we ought to note, the saints may have their own personal appreciation which God gives to them; their testimony may be a little different. The servant does not always give expression to everything he sees. There is that which he enjoys in his own soul, and Stephen looking up had his own special portion, but he also had a testimony given to him for others.

It is into this grace we have access now while we wait for the glory and, instead of having any fear in relation to it we can make our boast concerning it.

Is it not encouraging, especially to the young people, that there is nothing indefinite in this, it is our standing, and there is something very comforting about it. God gives us a standing where we are firmly established. It is the thought of God that we are brought into something that we can stand on. It is like getting the ankles into the river mentioned in Ezekiel 47; we go on towards the East, towards the coming of Christ, and the river gets deeper, but at the commencement there are waters up to the ankles, "grace in which we stand".

This is a little different from what we get in Ephesians, "taken into favour in the Beloved"? That would be waters to swim in.

It eventuates in that.

These verses altogether shew what we have been brought into. We often say it is better to talk about what the Lord has done than what we do, but it is as well to look at these Scriptures to see what has happened to every one of us through the wonderful power which has come to us through the gospel.

The three things which are mentioned of us here speak of the three ways God has been revealed in the previous chapters. Without strength, we need the power of God; ungodly, we need the righteousness of God; and as sinners, we need the love of God. Those three states have been met by those three revelations of God and they have all come to us through Christ.

This word glory is really boasting.

That is why I mentioned that one could stand in the full blaze of the glory of God without any fear of a single speck of sin being detected. We boast in that; it is God's own work.

Whatever the testings may be which cross our pathway (we often remind ourselves of how little we know of tribulation) yet, however small these may be, we are assured that God is using all for our spiritual education, and so we can boast in them.

Is it normal Christianity to pass through tribulation? I was thinking of the words of our Lord, "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world"

One has light from God about the pathway, and while the world looks at these things as being unfortunate, we know we are in the hands of God and He has control of all. We have peace towards God, and anything that crosses my pathway now only works for good.

Do you think we have an example of it in Acts 16, where the apostle reached his man after being in the prison?

Indeed, a good example.

This is not boasting about tribulations after they are passed, but boasting in tribulation at the present time. People of the world boast in experiences they have passed through after they are passed, but the Christian can boast while passing through them.

Is this tribulation only from those who are opposed to Christianity?

Only partly, for God Himself may pass me through it knowing I stand in need of it.

The apostle seems to conclude that this is normal Christianity, normal experience, hence the principles of the kingdom are here brought out.

Do you think there is progression here? Supposing tribulation does not work patience, do you think we could reach the point of joying in God through our Lord Jesus Christ?

Not as a fact. I may believe it as a Scripture, but I fear we know many Scriptures which we do not experience as facts. It seems to me that these first eleven verses are to shew us just where our faith in Christ has brought us, and the wonderful possibilities flowing out from that, while standing in the midst of a hostile scene, with the enjoyment of the blessing of God in our souls.

I suppose one cannot experience these things without knowing something of the deliverance which is worked out in Romans 6 and Romans 7?

We will see how this progression is worked out when we reach those chapters, but it is as well to take note just what is said about us in these verse. The great value of experience is before us here, and when we do get things into our souls experimentally, we have them for good. Then, this begets hope in our souls and gives us to realize more and more that we are not connected with this world at all, but with another world where Christ is all in all. Every true experience in the Christian pathway makes this world recede and brings heaven nearer.

Why is it that only now in this progression do we have the love of God mentioned?

We need that to sustain us inwardly in the midst of all the trials we experience in this wilderness journey. Does it shew we cannot appreciate doctrine without appreciating divine love? I suppose we come to the fact that behind all the trials is the love of God. We are assured of this in our hearts.

One cannot shew this, it is in one's heart; but if we see someone going on, increasing in these experiences, we can be assured that it is the love of God in the heart which is sustaining that person.

We are exhorted to keep ourselves in the love of God, and I believe the love of God is the great power which helps us to make progress in this journey. You reminded us some time ago that this word "shed abroad" means deluged.

It is the same word used in Acts 10: 45, and translated there, "poured out", in reference to the gift of the Spirit to the Gentiles. It is poured into our hearts like a flood from all the mighty reservoir of the love of God.

It is worth noting that in connection with this great matter the Trinity is brought in. It is the love of God, shed abroad by the Spirit and demonstrated by the death of Christ. And we are told in chapter 8 that nothing can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If oil made the face of man to shine, the love of God in the heart makes our faces shine today.

Then we have one of these "much more" statements. If I have been justified by His dying for me, what is there He cannot now do in living for me? Surely He will complete this work which has begun and save us every step of the pathway.

Say a little more of being justified in the "power of His blood", as Mr. Darby renders it.

Is it not all that His precious blood speaks of in meeting the righteous claims of God? I say "speaks" as this is what is said of it in Hebrews 12, "speaketh better things than that of Abel". In the power of the blood of that One of Whom already we have read that He was marked by the Spirit of Holiness, offering Himself without spot unto God — it is the blood of such an One that has secured for us justification.

Would you say it is provided for us in grace, justified by grace, procured for us by the precious blood of Christ, and possessed and enjoyed by faith?

A very good way of putting these three things which are all stated in regard to our justification. Rom. 3: 24; Rom. 5: 9; Rom. 5: 1.

In referring again to the thought of the precious blood of Christ, I have long been interested in a thought in Heb. 9. We read there about Aaron entering into the holiest with the blood of others. That word "others" is blood of a different kind for it was, as we know, the blood of bulls and goats. We have ventured to call it inferior blood, for it was lower in value than the blood of Aaron himself as a man; the blood of a man is of more value than the blood of a bullock. All its significance lay in its typical character, but intrinsically it was inferior to his own blood. "How much more shall the blood of Christ" etc. Superior blood on our account, the blood of such an One as the spotless Son of God, has cleansed our consciences from dead works to serve the living God.

There is one verse of Scripture which gives a value to the blood of Christ which perhaps no other verse does. "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son" (1 John 1: 7). That brings us back to what we began with in these readings, it is the Person; it is the power of the blood of such an One which has cleansed us. We do get a very precious verse also, in Acts 20: 28, "the blood of His Own" (as it ought to read), but that is in relation to the personnel of the Assembly. In general, the great truth is, that cleansing and justification and forgiveness have come in through the power of the blood of such an One — God's Son.

That thought is emphasized again in v. 10, where we are said to be reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The greatness of the Person is so much emphasized in these opening chapters.

What is the difference between justification and reconciliation? They are both mentioned in this chapter.

Justification deals with the charge which was against us, Christ has discharged this by His death. But, reconciliation means that as the result of this, we are brought back to God, and as we often say, quite rightly, in suitable conditions. These conditions are seen under the headship of Christ further down, for I believe reconciliation prepares for the further teaching in the second half of this chapter. I think v. 11 is the connecting link between the two parts of this chapter.

Would it be right to say justification has reference to our guilt and reconciliation to our enmity?

That is quite true. Both are seen together in v. 10, enmity and reconciliation.

It is a great thing to be made to feel that we are righteous in the sight of God, but it seems to me to be a more marvellous thing that God can banish that hatred which was in my heart and replace it by love.

In very simple language, is not God beginning to get something here?

We have suggested that the first half of this chapter is what God is to us; now we are beginning to see what we can be for God.

Reconciliation is not developed here, we should have to turn to Eph. 2 and 4, or Col. 1 for that, but we are told here we have received it, no doubt in believing on Christ; it is an objective thought held out in the gospel and we have received it. The subjective result of having it is, we boast in God.

I once listened to an intelligent discourse between two brothers as to whether the younger son was reconciled when his father kissed him, or when he had on the robe, ring and sandals. I was asked at the end as to what I thought about it. I said to the brother who held it was in the kiss — "I think you have been reading Romans", and to the brother who was stressing the robe, "I think you have been reading Colossians". Both are true, in the one reception; in the other fitness. Here we have it on the line of covering him with kisses, all the distance is gone; but in Colossians we see how it did go, it was in the "body of His flesh through death"; and a new state has been brought in. Reconciliation here is more in regard to guilt; in Colossians it is state.

I notice a little word coming here more than once, it is "now". All this, then, is for present enjoyment.

We may ask a person, "Do you know that your state of alienation has been ended in the cross of Christ and new creation brought in for you?" Perhaps they may say, "No, I do not understand that". "Well, is there anything between your soul and God?" "No, thank God". So, however little they may understand the doctrine of it, it is perfectly clear they have received it. That is why we do well to keep each Scripture in its own setting. I knew the blessing of this verse, knew that I had no longer any need to fear God; knew that I was in happy relationship with God, long before I knew anything about a state of alienation.

We had better say that this word "atonement" in v. 11 ought to be "reconciliation", as in the margin. Some might be wondering where we are getting the word from. It is striking that the translators put "atonement" here when it ought to be "reconciliation", and in Heb. 2: 17 they put "reconciliation" where it ought to be "atonement", or rather "propitiation", which is a much better word than "atonement"; as to the correct meaning of the work of Christ.

What is the outcome of all this being worked out?

As you realize the wonderful blessing God has brought you into as the fruit of your receiving the gospel, you will be like the younger son joying in the Father. An old brother used to say that, had we met the younger son after his reconciliation to his father, he would not be talking about his experiences in the far country but rather, what a wonderful man his father was. That is what it leads to.

It has been said that a justified man boasts in hope of the glory of God, which has the world to come in view; but a reconciled man boasts in God and the eternal state is in view. Reconciliation in itself hardly touches the eternal state, but the man who is reconciled is in eternal relationship with God. A justified man can look on to the display of the glory without fear that the work of Christ has sealed that; but in the eternal state God will be all in all and we are brought to God, right home to God Himself. I can now boast in the blessed Person Who is going to fill the new heaven and the new earth. I am already conscious of nearness to and intimacy with that blessed Person, I cannot imagine anything more wonderful.

So we reach the topstone of this wonderful section beginning with peace with God and ending with boasting in God. It began from our side when we were marked by the "obedience of faith", and this is what we have been brought into as the result. Moving with God in possession of these blessings, and if it does mean great experience born of patience, we have the hope bright in our souls that God has begun a good work in us, and is training us for the place we are to fill in the day of the display of glory in the world to come. We have every encouragement to go on; every support we need, rejoicing in nearness to Him, and His love filling our hearts.

Romans 6.

In the second half of Romans 5, from v. 12 to the end, the question of sin is dealt with — not now sins only — and our transfer from Adam to Christ. There are three principles which marked us in our standing in Adam and three which answer to them in our standing in Christ. In Adam — sin, condemnation and death (verses 16, 17). In Christ — righteousness, justification and life (v. 18). In our new standing in Christ, we pass out of the one into the other and are now constituted righteous in the presence of God. We repeat, that is our standing.

In this chapter we may say, if that is true — and thank God it is true of every one of us — what is the answer to it going to be? In Romans 5 it is not what we do, for there it is all what God has done for us, based upon the work of Christ in this chapter there is much said of what we do, much that we have need to do for here we learn how we can work out practically what we are in our new standing for the pleasure of God. It is following the truth of our standing in chapter 5, that the apostle now says, "What shall we say then?" (v. 1).

Does this chapter divide itself into two parts, the first part referred to, "What shall we say?", and the second from v. 15, "what shall we do?"

It certainly goes on to that, but we may thank God that before our doing comes in, we stand before Him on the ground of what Christ has done.

In these opening verses is it the Christian declaring himself for Christ?

That is a good way to put it. If I apprehend by the power of the Spirit which now dwells in me that I have been so transferred, I realize there are now to come to light in me the features of the Second Man, Christ, and no longer the features of the first man, Adam. It has been pointed out in the language of 1 Cor. 15, that Christ is presented in chapter 5 of this epistle as the Last Adam and in Romans 6 as the Second Man. If the features of the Second Man are to come to light in us, it can only be as we are under the headship of the Last Adam.

The power for it has been indicated in the previous chapter, where it is stated that the love of God has been shed abroad in the hearts by the Holy Spirit which He has given us. There is no power in ourselves to carry out this moral correspondence to the position into which we are brought in Romans 5, but we have it in the Spirit.

I have long thought that the introducing of the Spirit in Romans 5 underlies all that comes out now, right on to the end of Romans 8 so far as the doctrinal part of this epistle is concerned, and right on to the end so far as the practical details are concerned. I doubt if anyone could go through the experiences of these chapters without having the power of the Spirit to help him.

In that way it is blessed to see the full way in which the Spirit is referred to in that verse (Rom. 5: 5). There is no stint, for the word really means "deluged" into our hearts. Whatever may be the problems of the exercises which confront us in the doctrinal part of this epistle, the power to act according to God in those exercises has been given to us in the Spirit. I think we ought to make that clear from the outset, otherwise the attempt to carry out the injunctions which face us will bring us in bondage.

Would you say that sin is viewed objectively as the dominating principle in the world?

Yes, as to living in it. There is a system around us which is governed by "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life", but I also find that in me there is something which desires to go after these things which are objectively in the world. The question is, if I am to keep out of it, where am I to get the power to keep this evil within me in subjection? I suppose that is the teaching of this chapter. I have the power to keep away from this manifestation of sin and, consequently, the sinful sphere in which I once walked, for Romans ever regards us as being once alive in sins. There is an interesting feature worth noting about that. In Colossians and Ephesians we are said to be dead in sins and offences, but in Romans we are regarded as being alive in them. In Colossians and Ephesians, where we are said to be dead in sins, God operates towards us on the principle of life — quickened. In Romans, where we are regarded as alive in sins, God operates towards us on the principle of death. That is what immediately comes before us in baptism, the figure of death.

What is it in us which answers to this sinful world?

Sin in the flesh, epitomised further down in the chapter as "our old man".

You have touched upon a very important point when you say God operates towards us on the principle of death. That touches a very valuable matter in this chapter.

It does. You will remember at the end of 1 Cor. 3, we are told — death is ours.

You are referring to v. 6 where it says, "Our old man is crucified with Him".

Yes, not crucified in us otherwise he would never bother us.

I suppose here it is a judicial matter; God has done it at the cross, crucified our old man with Him.

Yes, and now death becomes the avenue of deliverance out of the one state into the other, thus delivering me from the power of the one that I may walk in the other.

There are many revolutionary thoughts in this epistle which we can expect, as moral issues are raised, and this is one of them. Instead of death being a terror, it has become a servant. If we see that, it will greatly help in the understanding of this chapter. Death through the death of Christ has become a servant instead of a bondage to the saints of God.

What is meant by, "baptised into Jesus Christ"?

The preposition is better rendered "unto", and has in view association with Christ. In passing through the waters of baptism we professedly identify ourselves with Christ in death that we might come out in the new character of life. There are two thoughts connected with baptism, association and dissociation. Baptism is the way professedly out of this world by association with Christ in view of walking here in newness of life.

Is it a question of discipleship?

I do not doubt that is in view. We were reminded last night of the two who followed Jesus. If I have intelligently apprehended that Christ once moved through this world for the pleasure of God then left it by way of the cross, I shall desire to follow Him in this. Water baptism is given us here as a figure in which I can show the Lord I want to join Him where He is and so come out here like Him in the place where He has been.

Do you think this is what the Ethiopian eunuch saw? The life of Christ had been taken away and he said, as it were, I want to be identified with that man whose life has been taken away.

We not only get the power of the Spirit brought in , but all the wealth of attraction brought in by this one Man. I think we need those two points before us in baptism. An attraction in the heart to that one Man Who has brought in all the wealth of the compassions of God, and the power of the Spirit to follow that Man. The eunuch had a Man presented to him — "Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"; and then it says, "Philip . . preached unto him Jesus". It is His preciousness in Manhood that is stressed. A Man Who came into this world in obedience (Heb. 10: 7); a Man Who passed through this world in obedience (John 8: 29); a Man Who left this world in obedience (Phil. 2: 8). It is that blessed Man, unique in His obedience, Who walked in separation through this hostile scene, that attracted the heart of the eunuch and he wanted to be associated with that Man in the realm where He is honoured and not dishonoured. That is the underlying truth of baptism.

Were it not that we have the knowledge of a life in another scene, we should not be prepared to give up life here. Hezekiah was not prepared to surrender his life here as it was the only life he knew of, but we have another sphere before us and are prepared to give up life here, so far as this world is concerned. Life is three times mentioned in Romans 5, and unless we have this in view we shall not be prepared to accept death here.

That would be the new sphere which is the theme of Colossians, where we move in the power of the Spirit as risen with Christ. We have noticed in this epistle that we are not said to be raised. Rather we are given a new life which is marked altogether by new features, so that in the power of the Spirit we may walk in newness of life in the very world where once we only served sin.

I have power, not only to see that and appreciate it, but to live it.

Is being baptized a state of obedience?

It is obedience to the truth. Baptism is never said to be a command; it is a privilege, but surely, when we see it in the Word we bow to it in obedience.

I like the thought of obedience being brought in. That is why I stressed the threefold obedience of the Man Christ Jesus. How can we be here in newness of life which is a life in moral correspondence to the life of Christ, and not be in the path of obedience? I repeat, he came into it in obedience, walked through it in obedience, and left it in obedience. If then, I am to live here in correspondence with such a life, I must be marked by the principle of obedience.

What did you mean by bringing in burial in connection with baptism?

Twice in Scripture we have the statement "buried with Him". Here, and in Colossians 2: 12; and no one is ever said to be buried with Christ till they are baptized. It is sometimes said that baptism is the outward sign of an inward work, but I do not think you will find that borne out by Scripture. We are not buried with Christ till we are baptized, and that is not an inward work. In the thought of God, in purpose, we are viewed as dead, risen and glorified with Christ as Romans 8 assures us, but when it comes to the experience of these things, and the power and enjoyment of them, I am only aware of two places where the believer is said to be buried, and in both cases it is by baptism, not by faith. Burial means not only that we have died with Christ but that we have left the sphere in which we once lived.

It has often been said that the first time we get an element mentioned in Scripture we get its full meaning. The first time burial is mentioned we read, " . . that I may bury my dead out of my sight". That is the point we have to come to; we have to go out of sight.

What is it to be true to our baptism?

To walk in newness of life. Here a beautiful expression comes in, which we touched upon a little yesterday. Immediately preceding those words that we should walk in newness of life, we have "the glory of the Father". It seems to me to suggest that there is a realm in which everything is according to the glory of the Father. That is the realm in which Christ is. He has been raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father; obviously, God taking account of a Man Who would fill a realm that is according to His glory. It suggests to me that if I am walking in newness of life, the objective before me is the glory of the Father.

I thought you had that in mind when you spoke of that life which Christ lived, altogether for the glory of the Father, being approved when He was raised by the glory of the Father. As though God would say, That life which has been lived for My glory is to go on.

Our Lord said, "I do always those things that please Him".

That is why it is brought in here. When in this world Christ ever lived for the glory of the Father; and if we are planted together with Him, growing up with him, the same thing is bound to come out in us. "Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit" (John 15: 8).

The very idea of testimony is that men see it and glorify the Father.

The chapter gives our side of it, reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God. Paul in 2 Cor. 4 gives the practical answer to it when he says "Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body".

That is the only way the glory can come out.

We have the doctrine here, "our old man is crucified", but in Galatians Paul takes it up experimentally and says, "I am crucified" (Gal. 2: 20). That is where the power lies, when we are able to take that which is doctrinal and apply it practically to ourselves.

Ruth gives us a nice picture of this, "Where thou diest will I die" etc..

We have another one in Ittai who said, "As the LORD liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life, even there also will thy servant be" (2 Sam. 15: 21). It is not a question of, Is this right or, is that right? but, Where is my Lord the King? His place determines my place. What is His place in relation to this world? Rejection! Then that is my place in the world. Where is He in regard to the Father's glory? In acceptance! Then that is my place also. Death comes first in Ittai's committal, I cannot enjoy the one unless I accept the other.

That, then, is what is meant here by "in the likeness of His death" and, "we shall be of (His) resurrection"; the two go on together?

Yes! "we shall be of (His) resurrection" (New Trans.). Resurrection is future, as we said, for we are still on the earth. We are going to lose the full teaching of Romans if we do not.

God has ended the old man once for all judicially in the cross of Christ. It is in order that the body of sin might be annulled in me. God has said His last word to it and now gives me the power to annul it in myself.

It is all with this objective in view "that henceforth we should not serve sin" (v. 6). Not sins this time but sin. It is the state of man here, not guilt.

Say a word on the difference.

Sins have been forgiven as the earlier part of this epistle shows. Sin, the evil principle, abides in every one of us, but thank God we have the power to keep it in the place of death. That is the "reckoning".

We have, then, that rather abstract statement, "For he that has died is justified from sin" (New Trans.). That is the real meaning of the word "freed".

"Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him". It is as well to consider these two things, that resurrection and living with Him, while looking on to the future, are in view. What would be the use of giving up life in this world and walking in this path, were it not that we know that this newness of life, which we have now, really does belong to another sphere into which we are going at the appearing of Christ?

If that were not so, it would only be misery for us and defeat for God.

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Cor. 15: 19). Identification with Christ is what we need to press in this meeting. Surely affection will put us in the same place as Christ has.

We want to get rid of these ideas — Is there any harm in this? The standard is Christ. We do not find people devoted to Christ and seeking to please Him daily ever asking questions like that. Accepting association with Christ frees one at once from these things.

One has been interested in noting in verses 10 and 11, we have the Feast of the Passover fulfilled when Christ "died unto sin once". "In that He liveth" would be the answer to the Feast of Firstfruits. "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin", would be the Feast of Unleavened Bread. "Alive unto God through Jesus Christ" would be the New Meat Offering. The wonderful thing today is, the value and gain of all these things are made good to us in the power of the Spirit of God. Seen in Christ first, and then in ourselves. In Leviticus 23, from which we are quoting, the Feast of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread come under the same heading, i.e. "The LORD spake unto Moses". They are co-relative; the one is the outcome of the other, in Christ first and then in us. Along with this is the thought of being true to our baptism. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is the normal outcome of the Feast of the Passover, that is, the outcome of the death of Christ for me, He having died to sin. It does not say in the Feast of Unleavened Bread, put leaven out of your houses but, "eat unleavened bread". It is not a matter of what I expel or keep away from, but that I eat unleavened bread, which now means, Christ is my food. It was for a complete period.

We may try to keep a fast instead of a feast.

Yes, no one can live in a vacuum. It is not much use my talking of giving up this and that if I am not feeding upon Christ. Going on in communion with Him is the way to do it.

That brings us to our second leading word, "Reckon". If, then, we have been identified together with Him, the One Who died unto sin and now lives unto God, what else can we do but reckon ourselves to be in exactly the same sphere, dead here and living to God!

Alive to God in Christ Jesus, as it should read, ought to be an attractive proposition to every one of us here. We who once were alienated from the life of God are now alive to Him, in Christ Jesus.

What is there for God in this?

Fruit. As we manifest this newness of life, the features of Christ come to light in us and that is ever fruit for God.

We are reaching on now to the third word, "Yield". I notice, from a footnote in the New Trans., that the word has two different senses. In the first, it is moment by moment, and in the second it is done once for all (v. 13). "neither be ye yielding" is the sense in the first instance, and "yield" as an accomplished act is the second. The first clearly refers to our members and the other to ourselves. This we shall see more fully if allowed to reach Romans 12.

Sin reigning means that sin has the upper hand, has dominion. "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof". "Neither be yielding", as it should read. If we begin with this definite movement to yield ourselves to God, that will solve these other matters, for if I have yielded myself to God I shall not be yielding my members as instruments of unrighteousness.

These members are not members of a congregation but the members of my body, my hands, my feet, my ears.

In the sanctification of the priests and the cleansing of the leper, the ear, the thumb and the toe were all cleansed by blood then anointed with oil, thus securing them for the service of God.

That is a great help in explaining what is meant here by yielding our members in the service of God. The ears come first, so let us take care what we hear. We sometimes think it does not matter what we listen to — but it does, hearing can soon defile us.

The anointed ear is prepared to take in what God wants to say and to keep closed to other things.

Would the answer to the oil be seen more in Romans 8?

In its fulness, yes, but as we have said, the Spirit is underlying all these chapters as the power by which we take these things in. We began with that; there is not power for any of these things apart from the Spirit.

The complete marks of the new spiritual race do come out fully in Romans 8, but all these chapters are leading up to that.

Romans 8: 14-30

We have seen in the earlier part of this chapter something of the accumulated benefits of all that has accrued in the three previous chapters, in the work which has been effected both for us and in us by the Holy Spirit of God. We have seen how we are able to move in this world for the pleasure of God as walking no more according to flesh, but according to Spirit. In the section now before us we have some ten marks of the new spiritual race to which we all belong as being no longer in flesh but in Spirit.

In regard to the statement, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God", I would like to ask, is that co-extensive with those mentioned in v. 1, "in Christ Jesus"?

Surely it must be. Someone has used the phrase "Under a divine tutelage". It is the Spirit of God regarded as a tutor to all who stand in this dignified position of sons of God, teaching us, controlling us, that we might come out rightly in our conduct as sons of God.

Some have thought that v. 14 is only true of an advanced company. Do you think that?

No! I am sure it is true of all who are in Christ Jesus. We do not grow into sons of God, we are that from the moment we receive the Spirit; the fruit of being in Christ Jesus. The Spirit is the liberating power to lead us forward into the enjoyment of the purpose of God.

Not only are we said to be sons of God here, but also children. The Spirit in taking up this new line not only liberates us from all that held us in bondage, but as already said, leads us on into the purpose of God.

Sonship in Galatians stands in contrast to a former position of bondage, but here it seems to be the thought of dignity in those who have been liberated from the flesh and are able to walk for God.

In Galatians the inheritance is connected with sonship, while here it is connected with children. There, sonship is looked at as an advance from infancy, but here it is looked at in the light of the dignity which goes with it and the inheritance secured for those who stand now in this relationship to God.

Would the children of God set forth those who have the nature to enjoy the love of God?

We are children by birth and sons by adoption.

Underlying the enjoyment of divine love is the knowledge of the dignity which that love has brought us into.

I am still thinking of our brother's remark about liberation, and as liberated we are led on to that which characterizes the sons of God, and the result is, "we cry, Abba, Father". Obviously, that must necessitate the possession of the Holy Spirit.

It is good to note that the Spirit is not only regarded as operating in a negative way, liberating us, but in a most positive way as leading into all the benefits outlined in this chapter.

We see the Spirit as a distinct entity in v. 16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God". Note the word "spirit" is in the singular. Had it said "spirits", it would have meant the company, but, being in the singular means it is true of every one of us individually.

Does it mean "along with our spirit" or rather "to our spirit"? Some have interpreted this as a double witness.

No! I think it is the witness of the Spirit to us, innately, and no matter where we are we never lose the consciousness that we are children of God.

It is on the line of confirmation. It is not possible to have the consciousness that we are children apart from the Spirit of God.

As children we are born of God and have life by the Spirit, but "our spirit" is the individual who is the subject of that work, for though we are born of God and thus have part in the divine nature, we do not lose our individuality.

Would you say a word on the cry, "Abba, Father"?

I have never fully understood what those two words imply. They appear to be untranslatable words. I believe they come from two languages. One has heard quite a few suggestions as to their meaning, but seeing that the Lord Himself used them both in the garden, one is baffled as to just what they convey.

This may be said about it: we are given to address the Father in precisely the same way as that in which the Son did. We do, of course, understand the term Father. It is this double cry that has one baffled as to why they are both used together. It does seem to be a special term of endearment.

If it is true, why do we not use the word "Abba"?

I do not know why we should not. Perhaps one has not exercised oneself enough about it. I do not see why we should not, seeing it is a cry of endearment. It is perhaps more for individual use than collective. It may do good to have called attention to it.

I notice all these relationships are spoken of in a collective way — sons, children, heirs. We do not have them in a singular way, do we?

No! We share them in the company. Some have got into the habit of speaking of a child of God or a son of God, but these terms do not appear in Scripture. The nearest we have to that is in Galatians, "So thou art no longer bondman, but son; but if son, heir also through God" (Gal. 4: 7 New Trans). But it is obvious these terms are used in a characteristic way, and not merely as relationship. I think it is important to keep in mind that while the Son had these relationships with the Father individually as Son and Heir, we only share them in the company. Yet, while that is the way Scripture speaks of them, we do realize them individually as having the Spirit dwelling in our hearts.

So we read that we are joint-heirs with Christ. This involves suffering with Him that we may be also glorified together. It is remarkable that while we are sons in the favour of God and bound thus for glory, we are said to be suffering in the very place where Christ has suffered. Not suffering for Him but with Him. There is a wonderful balance of truth here. If we are brought alongside the Son into this intimate address to the Father, "Abba, Father", which are the very words which He Himself used, we are also introduced into a realm of suffering more intimate than any other aspect of suffering in Scripture. It is not suffering for Him; I have long enjoyed seeing that these two intimacies are brought together. We have this wonderful approach to the Father, but we are called into a pathway of suffering with Christ.

It would appear to involve having the ability to enter into His own feelings, always remembering the fact that He is perfect. Yet it is His own feelings in approach to the Father, and it is also given to us to enter into His own feelings in relation to conditions around.

Are these sufferings here what the Lord suffered in Person?

His groaning in spirit, and His suffering in His pathway were all in relation to the distress which sin had brought upon the creature. We get so hardened to these things that often they fail to affect us as they ought to.

When Jesus groaned in spirit, no one would see that; but when He wept, all could see it. So that outward expression sprang from that inward feeling.

It seems as though this is connected with v. 18, "the sufferings of this present time", and the apostle contrasts this suffering with the glory which shall be revealed. We feel things as sharing with Him an outside place so far as this world is concerned.

What is this "waiting for the adoption" in v. 23 ?

That is when we receive our glorified bodies. We have the Spirit of adoption now, but it means we are to be glorified, conformed to the image of Christ.

So what we really have here is first the Spirit of sonship, and then the expectation of sonship.

Yes! and we may add we get the experience of sonship in the midst of this groaning creation.

I think I see three things here. First, dignity; then intimacy; then suffering. We first realize the dignity of the position of those whom God had in mind to conform to the image of His Son. Then, as we experience the wonderful intimacy of approach, knowing God as Father, we begin to have kindred feelings as to things here which are contrary to the mind of God, and we suffer with Him.

You suggest, then, that the more we experience the privilege of this wonderful position, the more we shall be prepared to suffer with Him? Yes!

I see here what is objective, then that which is subjective, then that which is practical. That is the order and you cannot reverse these things.

We have but to read the Gospels to learn how much of this marked the Lord while here. Not that which He suffered on account of sin, in the garden and on the cross; but all He endured in His pathway as ever seeking to do that which was for the pleasure of the Father. In this chapter, having the Spirit, we too can feel things that are opposed to God and can in a sympathetic way suffer, in measure, as Christ suffered. You may remember Peter in his epistle speaks of this.

Then, we have what is within, as well as what may be without. Twice in the chapter we are said to groan. It is interesting to note that twice in John 11, Jesus is said to groan; twice in 2 Cor. 5 Paul said he groaned; and twice here we are said to groan. I do think that we need to apprehend something of the glory and groan for it, if we are to groan intelligently as to the state of things around.

Then we have the help of the Spirit in our prayers. There are times, we read, when we know not what to pray for as we ought. Perhaps the fact of having the Spirit makes us more conscious of the weakness within, and it is just there the Spirit comes in to help.

Going back a moment, was it Adam or God who subjected the creation to vanity?

It was God. One has said it would have been unthinkable for the head to have fallen and the creature to be above him; so, when Adam fell, God subjected the creature to the same vanity as its fallen head. It will be liberated publicly when the sons of God are manifested in glory and must wait till that time.

Meanwhile, here we are in the midst of a groaning creation and, at times, we know not what to pray for. I gather this word "intercession" means "entreaty" (v. 26) for, if we do not know what to ask for as not knowing the need, the Spirit knows and makes entreaty accordingly.

The New Translation renders it, "the Spirit joins also its help".

There is only one other place this word "joins" is used, and that is in Luke 10, where Martha says, "bid her therefore that she help me". The word really means, "take hold of the other side". How wonderful that the Spirit will "take hold of the other side". It involves that we take up the matter in prayer, however perplexed we may be, and the Spirit helps by "taking hold of the other side". How can the Spirit take hold of the one side if I am not taking hold of my side? It is when we pray that He joins His help, and thus the matter is rightly presented to God in spite of my inability to do it of myself.

There may be a slight difference between the word "intercession" in v. 26 and that in v. 27. In v. 27 it is more the thought of one coming in between. So as I pray, at times in much perplexity, the Spirit joins, entreating for me, and now God who knoweth what is in the mind of the Spirit — note that, not my mind in all its perplexity, but the mind of the Spirit — gives an answer. It seems in v. 27 as though the Spirit interposes His mind between my perplexed mind and God, and the Searcher of hearts answers accordingly. What a comfort and an encouragement to go on for God!

So this Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, is with us all the journey to see us through till we are glorified.

We have, then, in this chapter the wonderful advantages which are ours as having part in this new spiritual race, in order that we may move through this world as those who are beyond condemnation before God in Christ Jesus, and can come out for the pleasure of God as being "in the Spirit". One is the outcome of the other, and it will be seen that we are a new spiritual race as we are walking no more according to flesh but according to Spirit.

Romans 12.

We come now to the thought of a definite committal in answer to the movements which God has made towards us, and to that which He has effected in us to secure us for His pleasure and His glory. This movement comes from our side as willingly presenting ourselves a living sacrifice, devoted to the will of God for His pleasure.

Do you think it is more dedication here than consecration?

I am sure that is right! I do not doubt we have that which answers to consecration further down, but the first two verses are dedication — "given up to" — the service of God.

Would you give us a word on the three things often mentioned in our meetings — sanctification, dedication and consecration?

So far as I understand them I think SANCTIFICATION means "set apart to the service of God". DEDICATION means "given up to the service of God". CONSECRATION means "filling of the hands". That is the order in which they come. We must begin as sanctified by God as the fruit of the work of Christ. Then comes a moment like the one in this chapter, when we have the privilege of giving ourselves up to the service of God, and this in turn necessitates that we should be equipped for this service — the filling of the hand. The truth of sanctification has been before us in the first eight chapters of this epistle. At the beginning of this chapter we have the privilege of dedication, followed lower down by the distribution of gift, which answers to consecration.

It is our intelligent service!

Yes! The assumption being that we have intelligently understood the preceding chapters up to Romans 8. We have often noticed that Romans 12 links on to Romans 8. The other three are parenthetical.

It is an axiom of Scripture that exhortations are based upon preceding doctrine; and one of the things which has been so blessedly seen in the doctrine of this epistle is that behind it all is the love of God, and it is by the compassions of God that we are besought. Any service which flows from obligation is bondage, but this service flows from an appreciation of, and response to, love.

There must be an answer on our part to these wonderful things which the love of God has brought use into; redemption, righteousness, life, deliverance, peace, and above all, the gift of the Holy Spirit. These speak of the compassions of God, for in His love He has provided them all for us and we may say in the light of this, "If God has done all this for me, what else can I do but yield myself to Him for His service?" Hence the motive of this service is the love of God, while the power is the Spirit of God. This decision which may be quite unobserved by anyone else but God, must precede any active service.

Will you say something about a living sacrifice?

The clearest type of this in the Old Testament is seen in the sanctification of the Levites in Numbers 8. They represent the rights of God in redemption. They are given up to God in place of the firstborn, and were offered unto God to accomplish the work of the tabernacle. They stand thus as a manifestation of a living sacrifice. It is interesting to note in that chapter that neither blood nor oil was used. Water only is used, which typifies the cleansing of the Word. We have noted both blood and the gift of the Spirit in the earlier chapters of Romans, but for living sacrifices it is the Word which sanctifies.

A living sacrifice is going to involve cost. A brother was raising yesterday the matter of the difference between a gift and a sacrifice. There are gifts which are not sacrifices, as Hebrews says, "Both gifts and sacrifices". For instance, the children of Israel dedicated much of their substance to the construction of the tabernacle; but I do think sacrifice suggests an element of suffering and the giving up of something which appeals, in order that God may be served. It may be losing one's life, losing it in one sphere to find it in another. It is a preparedness for loss as regards ambition and outlook or anything personal which would hinder devoted service to God.

Once we have offered our bodies, I suppose they cannot be retracted?

I think that ought to be pressed. "When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools". The element of sacrifice does not enter into anything which betokens compromise. A sacrifice is something which is offered absolutely once for all, and if it is a sacrifice it cannot be retracted. It must be free of all entanglements.

A young man some years ago drew me to one side after a meeting and said, "I am going to devote myself absolutely to the service of God". My reply was, "Look out for trouble, for God will take you on and test you". I received a letter from him the following week; he was in hospital after an accident. He thought of those words in hospital and said to himself, "This is it", but he added, "I am just as determined in my resolve"; and I need hardly add, he is going on well today.

It is important to see that before the various gifts are itemised this underlying resolution must take place. From this move flows every service if it is to be acceptable to God.

It would seem that because it is "your bodies" it would involve suffering.

It is worth noting that the body is never said to be sinful in Scripture. If it were so God could not use it in His service. I have been interested in noting how much value is placed upon our human body by Divine Persons. In this chapter, it is for the accomplishment of the will of God. In 1 Cor. 6, it is a vessel for the Spirit, "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit". In Phil. 1 it is for the display of Christ, "For me to live is Christ".

I have often connected this with Heb. 10. You remember how our Lord puts two things together there, the will of God and a body. Here is our side in line with that, the will of God and a body presented to God. Christ came to do God's will; now it is our privilege to do God's will.

I am glad of the reference to Heb. 10 for it illustrates what has often been said, that there is nothing enjoined upon us but what came out in perfect example in the Lord Himself. He was devoted absolutely to the will of God.

I suppose that word in 1 Cor. 6 is in line with this, "glorify God in your body" — the result of being bought with a price.

Being a living sacrifice involves the body being used in the world for the pleasure of God. The word acceptable means well-pleasing to God.

It is wonderful to think that, after all God has said about us in the opening chapters of this epistle in relation to our sinful state, He can now, through His own work and the work of Christ and in the power of the Spirit, cause men in their bodies to come before Him in the way Christ did. He was the Man in whom God was well-pleased and the possibility is that I can be here, in my body, well-pleasing to God.

We have two prefixes in verse 2, "con" and "trans". Con, as a prefix means "together with"; trans, "apart from". Hence, I am not to be together with this world but wholly apart from it, if I want to accomplish the will of God.

Does the word "conformed" refer to what is outward?

The idea of the word is "fashioned", of the same mould. It is a form of the word used of the ministers of Satan in 2 Cor. 11: 15 and called there, "transformed". This is metamorphosis, a change of form or habit, while the word translated in 2 Cor. 11 as "transformed" means a change of face. Such are the ministers of Satan. So we have not to be of the outward appearance, of the same face as the world, but altogether different from it in form and habit.

This world is used three times. On the mount of transfiguration; in 2 Cor. 3: 18, translated "changed", and here, translated "transformed". Perhaps transfigured gives the clearest meaning of it. If my service is to be right it can only be in relation to the truth, hence it is "intelligent service". The more I learn what God has done for me, the more able I shall be to serve Him intelligently, and God does not ask us to do something we are not able to do. The commendation of Mary was, "she hath done what she could". If I have taken in the doctrine of the previous chapters, the greater will be my scope for intelligent service.

Transformation then does appear to be some exterior change, while the renewing of your mind would be the interior motive.

So long as we keep in mind that any exterior change should spring from some interior change, all is well. Putting on the garb of a monk is hardly it; but if I put on the character of Christ as the result of the Spirit's working within, that is true transformation. The various circles we are bound to touch ought to be touched in a way which shows some interior change, for we are to come out as saints.

It is well to call attention to that. It is easy for me to say, "Oh well, my heart is all right"; but my outward movements ought to appear all right and so transformation become evident.

I understand this "renewing of the mind" means a new way of thinking; a completely new way of looking at things. There are two words for "new" in the New Testament, one which means a renewing, and the other word used here, involving an entirely new way of looking at things, and entirely new motives.

I suppose the first thing we prove is "what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God". Is not that will seen in our movements with one another?

It is, for the truth of the body comes in lower down, not so much in its corporate character but in its collective bearing. It is not the body of Christ here but the one body in Christ.

We need to learn then intelligently what our place is in relation to all believers. The will of God may sound a very abstract term. We need to see what it really means, for if I do not learn these things I shall have a distorted idea of what my place is.

In v. 1, we learn that the presented body is acceptable to God. In v. 2, the will of God now becomes acceptable to me. I do not doubt the will is acceptable in itself but the wonder is, it becomes acceptable to me; but only after I have devoted my body to Him for service.

When the will of God is acceptable to us it makes a tremendous difference to our outlook. If we merely accept that will, that is another point entirely. We have to accept the will of God, for we cannot do anything else; but when the will of God is acceptable to us, it means we love the will of God, which is very much more than merely bowing to it.

We now have the details of this service as outlined in the distribution of gift. We are warned not to think too highly of ourselves, but we are exhorted to think soberly. Do not let us be found not thinking at all.

There seems to be two principles connected with this service, grace and faith. If I am to move for the will of God there must be an appreciation of grace; and faith would mean I have God distinctively before me in all that I do. Faith would give us confidence that we are in our right place. It would mean that I am assured that this is the service which God has given me to do.

That is why the different gifts are brought in. It has often been pointed out that we have first seven distinctive marks, then that which is general or constitutional, which ought to mark each one additionally to any special gift.

There are two things which we all ought to avoid in this exercise of the faith which we have been given — over-estimation and under-estimation. In the first, it is thinking too highly; in the second, not thinking wisely. We do not want to have an inflated opinion of our ability, neither do we want to under-value what God has given us for His service.

Is not the great point here that we cannot do without one another?

The distinction between this list and that in 1 Cor. 12 is, here it is to check independency; there, it is to check clericalism.

The word office here would mean function, not position.

Indeed it does. All are needed, small and great, if the company is to move rightly for the pleasure of God.

What does prophecy mean? It seems to be distinct from teaching.

Perhaps our Bible readings are on the line of teaching, and the open meetings more for prophecy. A prophetic word is a direct word from the Lord to meet some immediate need and I am sure we have heard that this week. It is the mind of God for the moment, not so much foretelling as forth-telling. The Old Testament prophets and the book of Revelation were all given originally to have an effect at that moment. John wrote originally to the seven assemblies to affect them at that time. We may be very well taught in most of the outlines of truth yet be rather slack in our movements here for God. The prophetic word keeps us consciously in touch with God, and would stir us up as Paul said to Timothy, "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee" (2 Tim. 1: 6). We must not separate these unduly, as one could be contained in the other, but they are stated to be distinct gifts in this list.

That is why in relation to prophecy "faith" is mentioned again. It confirms what has been said, that faith is the ability to keep God Himself distinctively before one in the service. You have not so much the brethren before you in this service but God, and that would give you the ability to bring the mind of God before them at the moment.

That would preserve us from holding back a word when, perhaps, we see someone in the company whom we fear might take offence. It is a great difficulty at times. It looks as though one is throwing stones, as we say, and had we not the confidence which faith gives us, we might be tempted to give it up instead of giving it out. On the other hand, to stand up and see someone there and then give them a word that I think they need is equally wrong. That would not be according to the proportion of faith but according to one's mental deduction, which is quite wrong.

Does the proportion of faith go along with the grace?

They must run together. Grace would be the impression, and faith is needed to express it according to God. Grace means "free favour" and all gift is free favour, but I also need a proportion of faith to use it helpfully for God and for my brethren. My supply of faith will only be to the limit of my gift, and I shall not have confidence for more.

The word "ministry" means waiting upon. It is used first of the angels ministering to our Lord in the wilderness. Standing by to help is the idea.

Exhortation really means encouragement. It does not mean, "give a lecture to", which may rather tend to discourage. The word means encouragement; let us, beloved, "encourage one another", as we are exhorted to do in another Scripture.

This, then, is the way in which we are to be helpers one of another, each with our measure of grace and supply of faith. We need the help of each other, so let us present our bodies to God, that He may use us for His glory in the effecting of His will. This is bound to work out for the blessing of the saints, as we serve Him by serving one another.

Vessels

Vessels

Readings with G. Davison extracted from "Precious Things" 1956-1990

Vessels of Ministry: Exodus 40: 1-17; Hebrews 9: 21.

It is clear that the "vessels of the ministry" referred to in the 9th chapter of Hebrews are the vessels we read of in Exodus 40, where we find them assembled in the dwelling-place of God. We might enquire together as to what these vessels were, and the use to which they were put, and seek to see the spiritual answer to them today. Spiritual ability had been given in particular to Bezaleel and Aholiab in order to produce these vessels according to the mind of God; and the moment had come when the vessels, having been formed according to the divine pattern, were put into their respective places by the mediator of the system, Moses, with a view to the service of God being carried on for His pleasure.

We have here a suggestion of something entirely new, "On the first day of the first month shalt thou set up the Tabernacle", or the "Tent of Meeting". It seems to be a new beginning of the divine service that was to be rendered to God, and every detail was to be under divine control.

The object of all true service is epitomised at the end of verse 13 in connection with Aaron, "that he may minister unto Me in the priest's office"; and in verse 15 in relation to Aaron's sons, "That they may minister unto Me". There must be an aspect of service manward, but the grand end is that God Himself is served.

In verse 3 we see that before reference is made to the vessels, the ark is put into its place.

Is there a spiritual structure in mind in which there are vessels, anti-typically the saints, in which God would secure everything for His own glory, for the blessing of the saints, and for the blessing of the universe? Is all that in view in these vessels?

Perhaps we could keep those three thoughts in mind during this reading; vessels committed to the service of God first for His glory, then for the blessing of His people, and also the eventual blessing of the whole universe.

I suppose we gather from the first few verses here that the order is complete from the divine side. We have the Ark itself, and then these vessels, all connected with the service of God today.

The first vessel mentioned is the "Ark of the Testimony", the name given to the Ark in the book of Exodus. The testimony was in the Ark, the two Tables of the Covenant which are called the two Tables of Testimony. Thus in these verses we see first of all Christ as the One Who maintains every feature of the will and glory of God; then that which the Spirit maintains in the service of God, and finally the foundation of it all in the Altar of Burnt Offering.

"And thou shalt put therein the Ark of the Testimony". Whilst this speaks of Christ personally, it is obviously God's intention that there should be formed in the saints an appreciation of all that Christ is as bringing to us the revelation of God. The Hebrew epistle commences with the thought of God speaking in the Son, and if there is to be any response for the gratification of the heart of God, it must spring from an appreciation of Christ as the One Who makes Him known. Hence Hebrews 1 leads up to Hebrews 10, "Let us draw near"; we draw near in appreciation of the way in which God has been revealed in the true Ark of the Testimony.

Would the Ark of the Testimony speak of what is seen personally in Christ in relation to the will of God, that which eventually will be seen in display in the universe?

I think it would!

What is the thought in the Ark being covered with the veil?

It suggests that it was kept in the secret of God's own presence where, as you know, Aaron entered but once a year. Would not Hebrews 10 give us some light as to that? It speaks of our approach to God through the veil, "that is to say, His flesh". The glory of God is centred in Christ, but it could only come to light in His incarnation. God has come out in Christ, and we go in to God through Him. These things are not yet in public display.

We need to ever maintain in our thoughts and affections a sense of the outstanding uniqueness of the holiness of the Person of Christ. The incarnation of Christ is not a subject for discussion; we accept He is God, and we accept He is Man; we accept all that Scripture says, and refuse the intrusion of the thoughts of man. It is a subject for worship, not for discussion.

The next vessel is the Table, "And thou shalt bring in the Table". The three vessels in the Holy Place indicate food, light and priestly intercession, and all are seen in function today as in the hands of Christ as the Minister of the Sanctuary. This is the first mention of a Table in Scripture, and it would bring before us the thought of fellowship, a fellowship sustained in the Holy Place. The twelve loaves were placed on this Table, speaking of a company which, by the Spirit, is maintained in nearness to God in a spiritual fellowship based upon the revelation of God in Christ.

We then read "and set in order the things that are to be set in order upon it". There is a divine order connected with this Table.

What is the anti-type to the Table and the order connected with it?

We know from the epistles that if saints are to move together in the enjoyment of this holy fellowship, there are divinely given instructions which have to be observed. The Corinthians had drifted away from divine order, and had to be adjusted in their practice; the Galatians had also drifted away, and they needed adjustment in doctrine.

In 1 Corinthians 1: 9, we have two remarkable things connected with the fellowship; the fellowship of "His Son", which would carry the thought of all that is involved in Christ as the Ark of the Testimony. Then we read "Jesus Christ our Lord", and it is the acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ which produces order according to God, ruling out the will of man.

There is no instruction given as to setting the Ark itself in order, but all else is relative to it, hence the need for all to be set in order.

Is there some connection between the ordering of the Table, and the shining of the Lamp?

It's light is over against Itself. The service of the Holy Place is to go on, and hence the light of the Spirit of God is shed upon it all.

Do you think that, as helped of God, we are justified in refusing anything but this order?

We walk into disorder if we do not! There is light given for every movement in the divine service, and if we want to move in that service we must move in accord with the light. If we do depart from the order that is set before us here, God will not depart from it; He will maintain it. We may be set aside, but God will support those who maintain things in accordance with His will.

Along with the Lampstand are the Lamps. Are not these the vessels through whom the Spirit of God is shining that light today?

They would be the saints of God who are under the headship of Christ, and in the power of the Spirit of God. These are they whom the Spirit can use today to maintain this light in the Holy Place. If we are in the good of the truth of this dispensation, then the light shining from us should be a light far exceeding the dim light of the past dispensation.

We have now to consider the Altar of Gold, or the Altar of Incense. It indicates the priestly intercession that is constantly going on. It was not in the Court; it was in the Holy Place. Christ is available as Saviour to the cry of any sinner in the whole wide world — we all are a witness to the truth of that — but the Golden Altar speaks of the constant intercession of Christ in the Holy Place. It was "before the Ark of the Testimony"; certainly the Veil was in between the two, but it would seem to be set with its bearing towards the Ark of the Testimony.

Your thought then is that the intercession in regard to our need should move us in our affections toward the Holy of Holies.

I think so! "Before the Ark of the Testimony" seems to indicate that the intercessory service of Christ is in view of sustaining the service of God in the midst of the saints.

In verse 6 we have the Altar of Burnt Offering, which is said to be, "before the door of the Tabernacle of the Tent of the Congregation". the Golden Altar is said to be before the Ark, and we now find this Altar before the door, that is before the entrance. If anyone is to enter that door, or enter through that Veil, it can only be upon the basis of what Christ has accomplished as the true Burnt Offering. It is Christ as wholly devoted to the accomplishment of the will of God. It was impossible for anyone to enter through that door until the claims of that Altar had been met.

Then, as we know, God has connected acceptance with the Burnt Offering, not with the Sin Offering. The greatest of all the Offerings was on the great day of Atonement, but there is that in the Burnt Offering which goes further, in that it brings us into divine favour; not only does it give God a righteous basis on which to bless us, but it brings us into the very place that the Son has Himself.

The Door of the Tabernacle stood to the eastward, when the sun arose it shone upon it.

Very good! It suggests the appearing of the glory.

The next vessel in verse 7 is the Laver. The Altar of Burnt Offering was toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, but the Laver appears to have stood between the Tent of the Congregation and the Altar. "And shalt put water therein". If cleansing by blood and acceptance in the Beloved is suggested in the Altar of Burnt Offering, the need of moral cleansing before we can enter the presence of God is typified in the Laver.

The reference to the exact place in which each vessel was to be put would remind us again of the necessity of holding the truth in its right order in our minds and in our affections.

If we are to enjoy our place of nearness to God it is vital that we should have an appreciation of what the Laver suggests.

The remarkable thing is that this Laver was related to men who were active in the service of God; they were not busy with the depraved conditions outside, yet they needed this moral cleansing, indeed, they needed it more than anyone else. "Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD".

The nearer we are to the service of God, the more we need the moral cleansing of the water.

"And thou shalt take the Anointing Oil, and anoint the Tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof; and it shall be holy". We have all noticed the mention in John's first epistle of the three witnesses — the water, the blood and the Spirit. We need judicial cleansing; we also need moral cleansing, but even so there could be no power in the service apart from the Spirit of God; hence we have the Anointing.

Along with the anointing of the Tabernacle and its vessels, Aaron and his sons are also anointed. In our dispensation it would suggest that the Spirit of God has taken us up in association with Christ in view of the service of God.

Has the servant himself to be in moral accord with his service?

That is the whole point!

It is important to see that Aaron was morally clean in himself before his priestly garments were put on; what we are outwardly in our service ought to be a reflection of what we are morally.

Is that what the apostle had in mind when he said to Timothy, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine"?

Yes! Very good!

The anointing is an empowering. "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts" (Zechariah 4: 6). So that divine service is to be carried on by divine power. The Holy Spirit is operating in a realm where the glory of Christ alone is known, and persons are anointed to serve in relation to that anointed sphere.

Vessels of Ministry: Haggai 2: 1-9

We have considered the vessels of ministry set, according to the divine pattern, in the Tabernacle system, so acceptable to God that ultimately the cloud of glory filled the house; God had pleasure in dwelling amongst His people in the sphere which was in accord with His holy mind and will. Now in turning to Haggai we have in mind to see the other side of the truth; not now the house in its original order, but conditions of much weakness, sorrowful proof of the failure of God's people. And yet we see a remnant desirous of answering to God's mind. As they move together in relation to the service of God, we see the way God encouraged them in their desires.

Haggai was raised up of God to stir up the people who had made a good beginning, but had lapsed in their service in the house of the Lord; and as the fruit of the prophetic word of Haggai and of Zechariah, the people resumed their efforts and this prophecy was given to encourage them in the work of restoration. It may be that we too have known what it was to lapse in our service for the Lord; but wherever there is a true desire to take up afresh the work of the Lord we are assured He will give us every encouragement.

When there is breakdown there is no question that the quality of the service should be altered, or the standard reduced. We may have to be reduced in numbers, but there is no reason whatever that the quality of the service should be reduced. There may be restrictions and limitations, but what is done in those limitations must be according to the Word of God and in the power of the Spirit.

Haggai means "festive", suggesting that the prophet God had raised up at that time would encourage the people in realizing that they were living in joyous days, if they had faith and energy to respond to God's Word, which came to them as we read "by the prophet Haggai".

It is a very blessed thing that in a day of darkness and departure there is still the Word of Jehovah to His people. If the exercise of these meetings produces vessels morally capacitated to receive a word from the Lord in the broken conditions in which we live, we shall have had a profitable time together.

"Speak now to Zerubbabel" — he was the Governor — "and to Joshua the son of Josedech" — he was the High Priest. It is important to notice that the Governor is addressed first, and then the High Priest. Zerubbabel would represent the kingdom aspect of things; Joshua would represent the House; not one of us can function aright in relation to the House of God if we are not moving in accord with the principles of the Kingdom of God. If we are subject to the authority of God, we can be sure that the privileges of the House will be enjoyed, and that in conditions in which we can answer to them.

Shealtiel means "Asked of the Lord", and Josedech means "The righteousness of God". So that in a day of brokenness what we have before us is that God will maintain His own standard of righteousness, and He will be enquired of.

Does the "former glory" bear on the thought of the right standard.

Yes! The former glory; and then God speaks of the smallness of what was present, but refers also to the "latter glory" which was to come in.

There is only one house?

Yes! That is important to notice. It would be well to point out that the right translation of verse 9 is "The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former". Whatever the prevailing conditions we should be governed by the truth of the House of God; if defection has come in it is due to lack of obedience to the truth, the truth itself is unaltered.

In verse 2 we have, in addition to the Governor and the High Priest, the "residue of the people". What does that convey?

One of the things we discern in reading the epistles is that the gifts are still in the Assembly today. We might have thought that in Haggai's day there would be no Governor or Priest left, but they were still there. And today we can thank God that there are men who take the lead amongst the saints, and as found amongst the "residue" who appreciate such a lead we can enter into the present joy of the things of God, and be found responsive to Him.

Would you think that those responsible for the lead might answer to the angel of the Assembly in the addresses to the churches in Revelation, and the "residue" or remnant be suggestive of the overcomers?

That is very good! Once we disregard what the Lord has established by way of lead amongst His people, we shall be losers, and may soon be marked by disintegration.

Lead amongst the saints of God consists in the communicating of the Word of the Lord by those who are themselves governed by it in a practical way. It involves the living expression of the Truth.

We could not have a better demonstration of that than Haggai 1: 13, "Then spake Haggai the Lord's messenger in the Lord's message".

Do we need, in a moral sense, to see the former glory of the house?

We see it in the opening chapters of the Acts and we should allow the truth of what is seen there, before the ruin came in, to govern us in our day. That is why we considered Exodus 40 first.

"Is it not as nothing in your eyes?" is the solemn question asked in reference to the former glory of the house. We might challenge ourselves as to what we really think of that which was set up in the power of the Spirit in the beginning of the Acts; is it nothing to us? Or is it something that has a dynamic effect upon our lives, something which has been manifested here in the power of the Spirit in which the interests of Christ are enshrined? That is where our interests should be today.

The first word of encouragement given to them is, "Be strong" (verse 4). When things appear to be "as nothing" — be strong because, thank God, that which is outwardly small and weak has, in the Spirit, the power of God Himself.

On the divine side things today are as filled with joy and power as they were in Acts 2. There has been no diminishing on the divine side, a divine Person is in charge, and if the Spirit of God is still in charge then morally things must be just as great as they ever were.

If we view it rightly, the distress of the old men and the rejoicing of the young men were both right according to their particular outlook.

Why does Haggai, in speaking the Word of the Lord, repeat this word "Be strong" to Zerubbabel, to the High Priest and to the people in the land?

He looks at them as in the exercise together. One was not to be more strong than another. The thrice repeated word, "Be strong", would really put them in fellowship, especially as he adds the exhortation "and work; for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts".

Is that the way in which the house would be rebuilt?

They had resumed the building, but were looking at it and might have paused and said, "Is this worthwhile?". When we find ourselves in very small meetings we may be inclined to say, "I wonder if the thing is worth going on with". If we think like that we shall be marked by defeatism, but if I am able to say "The Lord has put me here, this is my place, divine resources are available, and with the help of God I desire to go on", then I shall know the blessedness of the exhortation "be strong".

Having completed, so to speak, those exhortations he then proceeds to add the most definite encouragement. Sometimes we miss out the gem of these encouragements; we quote "The word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so My Spirit remaineth among you", but we perhaps overlook that He says first, "I am with you". What encouragement there is in that ! He is with us.

"I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts", but He is with them now on precisely the same conditions as He was at the beginning. God does not change, nor does His work change; God had spoken to them in covenant when He brought them out of Egypt, and His word abides. The word that governed them originally has to govern them still.

Does this mean then that the word which governed the Assembly at the outset has to govern the Assembly now?

There is nothing else! If we do not act according to that word, where are we going to find other instructions? It is all we have, and it is all we need.

Anything not in the Word that was covenanted is a spurious matter, and carries no weight. All the innovations that man brings in to help, as he thinks, the service of God are but a hindrance. It is tantamount to saying that what God has covenanted for the maintenance of His testimony is not sufficient, and we must add something to it. It is a very serious matter.

We have first the word of the Lord which is unalterable, "The word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt", and allied to that we have "My Spirit remaineth among you".

The Word of God is available to us today and if there is a desire to walk as subject to that Word, then in the Spirit we have the necessary power to do so.

If we know what it is to have the living Word of God in our hearts, then we shall experience the power of the Spirit; the Holy Spirit will never attach Himself to man's word, He will always support what is of God amongst the saints.

Another rather interesting matter is seen in verse 6, particularly applicable in the day in which Haggai prophesied, but of equal importance today. "For thus saith the Lord of Hosts" — a sentence appearing many times in this book — "Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land". The people had been subjected to the decrees of one who had seized the kingdom by subtlety, pretending to be the rightful king; but in relation to these external conditions the Lord of Hosts makes known that He is in full control of them all.

God would assure us that every adverse power in the heavens, the earth, the sea or the land will one day be shaken, for He has them all under control.

If the moral power of that holds us it will set us completely free of a system which God will entirely overthrow, and we shall not be interested in man's schemes to put the world right. In verse 7 we read "I will shake all nations and the desire of all nations shall come". It might read "the desirable Object of all nations shall come". We know the blessedness of this now, for we know the glorious Person who will reign in all His splendour in the world-to-come.

The verse goes on to say, "and I will fill this house with glory". We could not say exactly that the nations are looking for Christ to come and fill the scene with God's glory, they are looking for the thing itself in an abstract way; but thank God we have the knowledge that God will establish it all in relation to Christ.

Was it not very gracious of God to say "and I will fill this house with glory"? It was a small thing in the eyes of men, but God says, "I will fill this house with glory". We have to own the smallness of things today, just a few brethren meeting together; but as seeking to make room for Christ in our midst, what blessing is possible! Thus the exercise was to bring wood; "wood" in Scripture speaks of manhood, and it is a blessed occupation to bring in amongst the saints of God the features of Christ.

That "wood" would stand in contrast to the silver and gold of verse 8, "The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, saith the Lord of Hosts". Why did He not give it to them? He could have given to them all the gold of Solomon again if He had so desired. Why are we not restored to where the brethren were a hundred years ago? It is not God's present thought. If the power of those days is not seen now, it is not because God could not bring it in, He could at any moment; but if God wants us to go on with what is outwardly small, be assured He will support us, and we shall discover the preciousness of the present position as making room for Christ.

It is good to think that a few faithful hearts, with everything against them, would nevertheless build a House for God; Solomon had an abundance of material in his day, but the probability is that there was more pleasure for God in the devotion of these few faithful hearts than in the days of Solomon's temple.

Would you suggest that we today, in all our weakness, can hold to divine principles, and can come together as having the Lord before us, and with our hearts truly stirred?

It is that which is real and true which God values, rather than that which is outwardly great.

Lastly, we read in verse 9 "The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, saith Jehovah of Hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith Jehovah of Hosts" (New Trans.). Peace can be brought in on a righteous basis only, and in accordance with the mind of God. From this verse we see that all will be to His glory, and in absolute accord with His holy mind, and hence peace will characterize the whole scene.

Vessels of Mercy: Isaiah 6: 1-8; Romans 9: 23.

In the present reading we have before us the thought of "Vessels of Mercy", and with a desire to learn how God can produce these vessels we have turned to the prophet Isaiah, where, in seeing God's dealings with the prophet we shall see certain divine principles that mark God's dealings with us who find ourselves today, through the goodness of God, "Vessels of Mercy fitted for glory".

The prophet Isaiah, whose name means "the salvation of Jah", in the Scripture we have read is being prepared for service in righteousness and in holiness in a typical way, showing that if one is to be usable, prophet though he may be, he must pass through this process of judicial cleansing ere being fitted to take up the service of God.

Would it not help each one of us, as taking up any service for God, to have a deep sense of what Paul could say, "the Lord had mercy on me"? Paul never forgot that he was a subject of the mercy of God.

Would you say that Isaiah's prophecy brings in the thought of mercy?

It was bound to, as leading on to the truth of the salvation of Jehovah. The only ground upon which God brings in salvation is that of mercy, "Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2: 9).

There is something very blessed in the fact that before the display of mercy seen in verse 7, we have the threefold exclamation as to the holiness of God. Mercy is dispensed on a solid basis since the holiness of God has been fully maintained. The cross is the witness that the holiness of God has been upheld, and it is through the work of Calvary that mercy can be dispensed.

The Seraphim are the witnesses of the holiness of God, whereas the Cherubim speak of His righteous claims. Both have been met in the work of Christ, and God is free to move in sovereign mercy. The first time the Cherubim are mentioned is in the Garden of Eden, and as far as I know they are not seen again until the setting up of the Tabernacle. The Seraphim are mentioned here only. In Revelation 4 both Cherubic and Seraphic features appear to be combined in the Living Creatures.

Why do you think the Seraphim come in here when what is in view is the moving of a man into the service of God?

As already mentioned the Seraphim have to do with the maintaining of the holy claims of God, and if a man is to serve God not only is he to be marked by righteousness, but he must also function in that service in accord with the holiness of God.

We may sometimes be in danger of losing a real sense of the holiness of God. It is easy to slip into the use of irreverent phrases, and perhaps to adopt irreverent attitudes. We need to feel more the holiness of the presence of God. A real sense of the holiness of God is a very salutary matter for every one of us.

Something of the majesty and of the mystery of divine dealings is seen in the movements of the Seraphim. There is that which even they do not understand, and as being in the very presence of divine glory, they themselves needed a covering. There is a contrast to be noticed in the dispensation in which we are living. We read in verse 2, "Each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face". Now in 1 Timothy 3: 16 we read, "God was manifest in the flesh . . seen of angels"; suggesting that the wings are now off their faces. "With twain he covered his feet". The purpose of God was unknown to them; they were swift to carry out His will, but they knew nothing of His purpose. In this dispensation they now see the demonstration of the ways of God, and His all-variegated wisdom as coming to light in the Assembly. The wings are off their feet. "With twain he did fly". In Hebrews 12: 22 we read of "myriads of angels, the universal gathering" (New Trans.); but the world-to-come is subject to a blessed Man and no longer to angels, and as looking on to the world-to-come their wings for flying are no longer needed. These are but suggestive thoughts.

Is there a moral challenge in the conversation of the Seraphim? If these mighty creatures, who have never been the subjects of mercy, converse one with another as to the holiness and the glory of God, how well it becomes us who are the Vessels of Mercy to be engaged in our conversation with such matters!

Would not the heart be the governing factor in these thins?

It certainly ought to be! But we need intelligence together with affection. Certainly our affections ought to be in accord with the holiness of God, but we need also to be divinely instructed as to these things. If we are so instructed, and in heart are set to answer that instruction, all will be well.

In verse 4 we read, "The foundations of the thresholds shook . . and the house was filled with smoke" (New Trans.). The other reference to smoke filling the temple is in the 15th chapter of Revelation, where the righteous and holy claims of God are about to be vindicated, and the seven angels are seen with the seven last plagues. No approach to God at that moment could be made, for He was acting in a judicial character. It is, therefore, a striking thing that as smoke filled the house, that is, God seen in a judicial character because of His holiness, it had the right effect upon Isaiah. There should always be with us a sense of reverential awe as we come into the presence of God, but here it seems to be the sense of his own sinful state as in the presence of the majesty of God.

I was thinking, by way of contrast, of Sinai. There was a sense of awe there, but it is difficult to say whether they got as far as Isaiah did here.

It is proper that the sense of holy awe in the presence of God should continue with us.

"Jehovah is in His holy Temple. Let all the earth keep silence before Him!" (Habakkuk 2: 20 New Trans.).

That is the reverential attitude that should mark every creature.

If God was about to dispense mercy, why is this judicial matter of the shaking and the smoke brought in? We read in Romans 2: 4, "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance."

One comforting thought derived from that is, that when God moved toward us in mercy in order to bless us, He did it without surrendering one iota of His holy claims. Had God lowered His standard in order to bless us we might well have felt insecure, for Satan would quickly have found that loophole.

Holiness is connected with the nature of God. It has been said that an appreciation of righteousness would hinder me from doing wrong, whereas holiness would give me the desire not to do it.

There is a very close link between the thought of holiness and the thought of love, both relate to the nature of God.

In Psalm 24 we read, "Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in His holy place?" The stipulation is that he must have "clean hands" — that infers righteousness; and "a pure heart" — which indicates holiness. The pure heart governs the movements of the clean hands.

So that when God says in His Word, "Be ye holy; for I am holy" He is speaking to our hearts.

The effect of the vision upon Isaiah is that he says, "Woe is me! for I am undone", or it might read "I am put to silence". "I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips". But what has brought about this confession? "For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts".

Why are the lips mentioned specifically?

That was the very part of the vessel God had it in mind to use, "Go, and tell this people"; he was to use his lips, and hence they must be cleansed.

What is the meaning of this mediatorial action of the Seraphim?

If the Seraph in verse 6 was one of the Seraphim who cried "Holy, holy, holy", it is obvious that the feature of holiness must have been maintained in the cleansing of the prophet.

Why did he use the tongs to take the glowing coal from off the altar, and then apparently carried it in his hand?

These tongs were connected with the lampstand, it is the only place in which we find them. It would appear that the Seraph took the tongs from the lampstand, flew out with them to take that live coal, and then with his hand touched the lips of the prophet. Doubtless it was to bring him into line with the light that was shining in the Temple. Thus his prophesying would be in accord with the mind of God.

Is there any connection between the live coal and the smoke?

No! They do not appear to be connected. The glowing coal was outside, but the smoke was inside. We may just add a point here which may be helpful in the study of the types. Whenever the Golden Altar is in view, it is always so called, but when we have just the word "altar" it always refers to the Brazen Altar. There is a statement in Leviticus 16 — "The altar before the Lord" — and there is some question as to whether that is the Golden Altar or not, but when we have the term "altar" merely, it is always the Brazen Altar.

It was remarked that this experience was necessary to qualify the vessel for the service of God. No man who goes through an experience like the one through which Isaiah passed would ever again have high thoughts of himself.

What would characterize the speech of a man whose lips had been touched with a glowing coal? What kind of conversation, what kind of ministry would mark such a vessel, a man whose lips had been brought into line with what the altar would speak of?

In Galatians 2: 20 Paul, one of the greatest servants of the Lord said, "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and 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".

How well the prophet used those lips! amongst other features of his ministry, he gave us that wonderful 53rd chapter, which speaks so wondrously of Christ Himself.

Who has the first claim over our lips?

The One Who died on the altar in order that they might be cleansed!

The word "purged" in verse 7 is the word used for atonement or covering, "Thy sin is covered".

I was thinking of that verse, the "fruit of your lips, giving thanks to His Name".

Then we read in verse 8, "Also I heard the voice of the Lord" (the word there is Adonai, not Jehovah of Hosts), "saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? then said I, Here am I; send me". Mr. Darby points out that the emphasis is on the "send" not on the "me".

Why do you remind us that this is Adonai and not Jehovah?

Jehovah is the covenant name of God in His relationship with His people, but we understand the name Adonai is, "The Lord in blessing".

Does that mean that a service commissioned by Him carries blessing with it?

That is the point; as a matter of fact in almost every case in the prophecies of Isaiah, and of Jeremiah, where we get the term "Lord God" it is not Jehovah Elohim" but "Adonai Jehovah". These very prophets who are announcing the sins of the people show that the God from whom they receive their commission is yet ready to bless His people. A most remarkable matter in view of the message that Isaiah was to deliver to them.

One further word; before Jehovah says to him "Go and tell", Isaiah says "Here am I; send me". Does this show his willingness for the service?

Surely! He had been cleansed for it — the doctrine of which we see in the early chapters of Romans up to Romans 8; then Romans 12 raises the question of response.

Does John touch an important point in Isaiah's history when he says "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him" (John 12: 41)?

That is important. "For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts". That is divine illumination, a most necessary equipment for the service of God.

Chosen Vessels: Jeremiah 1: 1-10, 17-19; Acts 9: 15.

From the verse read in Acts it will be seen that our subject for this reading is a "Chosen Vessel", and in the call and preparation of Jeremiah we see how the Lord deals with His servants in sovereign selection. The name Jeremiah suggests that which is established by God, and it was in the midst of a very broken state of things in Israel that this chosen vessel was raised up of God. He had probably one of the most difficult ministries ever committed to a servant of the Lord, and probably shed more tears than any other prophet.

In choosing this vessel God began a long way back, exactly as He did with Saul of Tarsus, as we see in Galatians 1. The choice of God in relation to His servants is not haphazard, nor is it determined by existing circumstances; the circumstances in which Jeremiah and Paul ministered occurred long after God had chosen them, but He chose them for those circumstances.

Jeremiah was actually chosen before his conception; which clearly shows the great importance of the sovereignty of God apart from every human agency. Not only are we Vessels of Mercy, but before we were the recipients of that mercy, and before we understood anything about it, God had His eye upon us in view of His service.

We cannot doubt that the circumstances surrounding our birth, and our growing up in those circumstances, have been ordained of God in view of the service into which He would call us, just as He did with Jeremiah.

This matter of the chosen vessel seems to have been of singular importance in the closing days of a dispensation; although attention has been drawn to Paul it comes to light also in Timothy in whom the lineage of faith is well traced. What will enable us to go on in face of opposition, similar to that which Jeremiah himself faced, is the sense that we have been chosen of God.

Why does the Holy Spirit tell us here that the words of Jeremiah continued "unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive"?

On the one hand it would show the refusal by the nation of the testimony that he bore, but on the other hand that he did not give up his testimony, he kept right on to the end. It was the Word of the Lord that was to continue, not so much Jeremiah personally, but what Jeremiah had committed to him — the Word of the Lord. The Lord could do very well without any one of us, but He pleases not to do without us, and if He entrusts us with His Word we should seek help to go on in spite of the captive condition of the testimony today.

Now we have Jeremiah's call in verse 4, where it says, "The Word of the Lord came unto me". There comes a time with every one of us when we have to move from the general to the particular, as having an appreciation of one's individual history with God Himself. Thus these things are to be answered to.

It would be an amazing thing to Jeremiah to know that God had him in mind before he was born; but what an encouragement it would also be to him!

What an encouragement too for us today, in the midst of present difficulties, to realize that before we were found in this world we were Chosen Vessels. It would encourage us to go on in spite of the weakness of the position. Whatever the day and the external circumstances may be, God is still calling and still fitting whom He will in order that His testimony might go on.

It is important to realize, in the secret of one's soul, that God has a communication for each one according to the service that He has in mind, and each of us must have to do with Him in particular if we are to be formed for that service.

That principle is seen in connection with Joshua before he went into the land, when he said, "What saith my Lord unto His servant?" (Joshua 5: 14).

It is important, too, to see that Jeremiah was known by God before he was appointed; God says, "I knew thee".

Jeremiah did not know that at first, but God knew it before he was born, and there came a moment when the Lord made it known to him.

It would perhaps be well for us to consider now what his ministry had in view potentially. We might take up verses 4, 5 and 6 in relation to his call; verses 7 and 8 in reference to his commission; and verse 9 in regard to his consecration. Then in verse 10 we see the result of his service. There must first of all be the clear apprehension of the call; not one of us can take up divine service unless we are absolutely sure God has called us to it. It can be embarrassing at times when brethren say, "I thought you would have been the very man to do that", when conscious that one is not the man to do that. There is considerable danger in thinking servants of the Lord can do everything. It would be well for each of us "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" (Romans 12: 3). If I think soberly in relation to God and to the call that He has given to me, I shall not be trying to do things for which I have no ability.

In that connection will you say a little regarding the word to Timothy, "Do the work of an evangelist"?

Well, I hope there is not one of us that is not prepared, if the opportunity arises, to do the work of an evangelist; but if we begin to think from that that we are evangelists, we might do a lot of harm.

It has sometimes been said that God can use any brother to give a prophetic word. He may use me to give such a word, but if from that there is the assumption of being a prophet, the next time I give a word the saints may think it would have been well if I had held my tongue. Do not let us fall into the danger of transferring these things; a brother may have the gift of an evangelist, if so that is his work; but he should not think that that constitutes him a prophet. It is good to be kept in right balance.

When Jeremiah said "I cannot speak; for I am a child", was it humility or was it lack of faith?

I think it was humility!

The point is, that while the call had come to him, there may have been a moment similar to that in the history of Moses when he said "I am slow of speech". It may be with every one of us that when the call to service first reached us we felt immediately how far short we were of filling it out. But we do well to ponder the reply of the Lord to Moses, "Who hath made man's mouth?".

If I am conscious that God has called me, can I not be sure that He will commission me to that call?

Yes! And whatever we may realize as to the call, let us wait for the commissioning and above all, as we shall see, wait for the consecration too.

"Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold I cannot speak; for I am a child". That is the right attitude in which to respond to God's call, a sense of absolute inadequacy to answer to it in oneself. "But the Lord said to me, Say not, I am a child; for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak". There is nothing more to be dreaded in the divine sphere than self-confidence. These are very testing matters. Some of us may have been ministering the word for many years, but if we rely upon our past service or our own ability, there is bound to be failure.

In the commission, where he was to go and all that he was to say was indicated by God, all was to be under divine direction.

Does this apply in the same measure to all of us? The servants we have mentioned were outstanding men with outstanding commissions and a particular work to do. How far does it apply to the everyday saint?

Divine principles never alter, and whilst we speak of these servants as being outstanding because of the public character of their service yet every service for God is outstanding even though much of it may be unseen by men. Men like the apostle Paul are not exactly duplicated; they had their own particular place, but the features which marked them must, in a lesser measure, mark us today. Whatever the service is, whether small or great, we are to be as fully commissioned by the Lord for the service He gives us as Jeremiah was.

Is there a little word of encouragement here in that he was a prophet to all nations? Looking at Jeremiah's circumstances, he seemed to be linked to a sinking ship, the nation was just at the point of being carried away captive, but evidently his links were not limited to Israel but the "nations" were in view. Is there not a certain amount of parallel with our own day? If we are but near enough to God there will certainly be an open door, and we need not be contracted in our horizon. The thought of all nations might have been a cheer to Jeremiah, and I think it could be a cheer to us as well.

There is that! Jeremiah, of course, had a distinctive service involving all nations; but from the verses before us we see how God prepares His chosen vessels.

Would there be a link with Acts 1: 8 where we read, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth"? That would involve the thought of all nations, would it not?

It is good to see that in the commission not only is the servant under the hand of God but all the opposition too. God's hand is not only upon those who serve Him, but also upon every one who opposes. How plainly this is seen in the last few verses of Jeremiah 1.

Zedekiah is an outstanding example of that. He refused "the words of the LORD" (Jeremiah 36: 2). His two sons were slain before his eyes; his own eyes were put out, and he was carried away to Babylon. His name means, "The justice of Jehovah", and the justice of Jehovah fell upon him because he refused the word spoken by the prophet. It is an encouragement to us to see that if there is opposition to the truth, although we may not be able to deal with it, God can; He can hold the opposition in abeyance, and what is not held in abeyance He destroys.

Both Isaiah and Jeremiah were touched on the mouth; is there a moral link in the two incidents?

Isaiah's lips were cleansed, Jeremiah's were opened. The touch that Isaiah had was one of cleansing, whereas the touch that Jeremiah received was one of power, as verse 10 would indicate. The positive words of Jehovah were put into the mouth of Jeremiah; He definitely put His own words there. That is important. We might get help from a concordance; we might get help from written ministry, but that is not necessarily the Word of God put into one's mouth. We each need, as servants, to have a fresh word put into our mouth; it would thus be a prophetic word.

The touch of the Seraphim brought Isaiah into accord with the holiness of God, and linking again the two incidents we see how God can use a vessel like that and put His words into his mouth.

The point in mind is that this man was a prophet, and was to speak on behalf of God; that is why we venture to call verse 9 his consecration. Consecration means the "filling of the hands"; in other words it is divine equipment to carry on the service of God, and we each need to be so equipped. "Then the LORD put forth His hand, and touched my mouth"; but He touched his mouth with this objective in view, "And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth".

It is marvellous grace on the part of God that He should put His words into our mouths; but it is also a challenging matter. Peter refers to men speaking as "oracles of God"; and Isaiah says, "My word shall not return unto Me void". It does not say our word; it is God's own Word. We may be assured that if God has put His Word into our lips, and His Word is spoken, there will be results for His glory and for the blessing of the saints, for God has said it "shall not return unto Me void".

This would encourage us to read the Scriptures more so that we might get the Word of the Lord.

That is where the equipment lies no doubt, but one may have a good knowledge of the Scriptures and yet not have a specific word from the Lord. We have experienced that in meetings, and we do well when we bow to it and accept it. To speak for the sake of speaking can bring in a destructive element amongst the saints of God, and it is well when those features do not obtain. Waiting until one is conscious of a definite word from the Lord will result in an atmosphere of power and blessing.

It is apparent from verse 10 that the word of the Lord in Jeremiah's mouth was to have a twofold effect, "to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant". A merely destructive ministry we need to avoid. In his letter to the Galatian saints Paul spoke scathingly of Judaism — he was on the line of pulling down; but it was in view of building them up in the liberty of Christianity.

Even Peter came under the force of that. Paul said he withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed, but there must have been the feature, too, of building up because Peter said of Paul that he was a "beloved brother".

Would you say that the words of a prophet who had received his words from the Lord would be easy to understand?

That is not an easy question to answer! Much depends upon the state of those listening, as well as upon the word given. It is, of course, useless to get up and say a lot of things which no one can understand, but if the word is from the Lord then the Scripture in 1 Corinthians 2 would apply. There is a spiritual capacity formed in each one of us, and if that spiritual capacity is allowed to function, then spiritual things communicated by spiritual means would find a response.

Paul's instruction to Timothy is important. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed".

We see something of that here. If Jeremiah had sought popularity with men, he would not have gone on with a service which was completely opposed to the movements of the nation. Had he not desired "to show himself approved unto God" he would have given it up.

There was a way in which he could have been confounded before the people, and the way to avoid that was simply to "speak unto them all that I command thee". If our own thoughts are introduced into ministry, we must not be surprised at failure but if, in the power of the Spirit, God's own word is ministered He will stand by His own word.

When the Lord sent two disciples to bring the colt, they were to say certain things. When questioned they said exactly those words, neither adding nor subtracting, and the service was successfully completed.

If we underestimate the opposition, failure will result; but God is ready to strengthen His servant in furnishing him with the very words he should speak.

In verse 17 Jeremiah is told "Gird up thy loins". He had been fully commissioned, fully consecrated and furnished with the words of the Lord. Now, thus equipped his work was to commence.

In verse 5 we read that before he was born he was appointed to be a prophet; that was divine selection. Now in verse 18 we have the divine confirmation, "Behold, I appoint thee this day" (New Trans.). He was not only to know God's mind for him, but to have the power to fulfil his appointment.

What is the significance of the city, the iron pillar and the brazen walls?

They speak perhaps of the hardest things to be overcome. Iron is the strongest of all metals; brass is used in Scripture to denote divine righteousness. The prophet was called in relation to the preservation of the things of God in that city. The city speaks of administration, and we need to be strong in relation to administration; the pillar speaks of support, we need to be strong in support of all the interests of God. The walls speak of the exclusion of all that is contrary to the mind of God and the enclosing of all that is precious to Him. We need in ministry to be marked by strength in all these things.

In the last verse Jeremiah was warned, "They shall fight against thee". We may not be afraid of the difficulties that come across our paths, what we may be afraid of is our reaction to them.

In regard to our reactions, if we were established in the truth of what has come before us in this chapter, should we not be helped? How vitally necessary it is to have the certainty of our call, our commission and consecration. If there is deficiency in any one of these things we may very well weaken in our reaction to temptation and difficulty.

Earthen Vessels: Ezekiel 1: 1-14; 2 Timothy 2: 21.

In the beginning of this book Ezekiel is seen in a very difficult situation among captives, captives of war, by the river Chebar; as to circumstances in the very worst place possible, and yet having this wonderful vision of the glory of God. All was in view of the prophetic word reaching these captives who had lost their right to the possession of the land because of their rebellion. In many ways the position in which Ezekiel was found is similar to that of John on Patmos in the book of the Revelation, hence the similarity between the two books; but whilst Ezekiel is seen under a Gentile power and in captivity as one of the people of God, yet the heavens were opened upon him.

The heavens being opened here would be in order that the prophet might get a vision of the glory of God. As an earthen vessel in all its weakness, Ezekiel must of necessity be strengthened by what he is shown. Hence the reason for the heavens being opened is given, "and I saw visions of God". They were opened so that a man on earth might see what was established in heaven.

Isaiah saw his vision in the temple; is there anything for us to learn in the place where Ezekiel saw his vision? It was not in Jerusalem nor in the land.

In Isaiah's day Jehovah was still connected with the people in the land, but in the book before us they had been publicly abandoned by Jehovah and were under the heel of a Gentile monarch.

Is there any significance in the fact that this vision was by the river Chebar?

That would perhaps connect with what John said of himself, "I John . . . was in the isle that is called Patmos". It refers to what we often speak of as "local conditions". Being by the river Chebar he was no longer in the land of Palestine; he was not by the river Jordan; he was by this Babylonish river amongst the captives. The position is mentioned several times in the book.

Do you think the dates here are significant?

There is a good deal of contention about these dates, but we are not so much occupied with the date of the prophecy as with the moral formation of the prophet himself as a vessel.

I was thinking of our own day; we have the light of the revival of the past century, but we are also found in present conditions of great weakness; if we can hold these two things in right balance, we shall perhaps get more benefit from this chapter.

We read in Proverbs 29: 18, "Where there is no vision, the people perish", and here where the people are in weakness we have visions of God brought into evidence. No help could be expected from the conditions obtaining amongst the people; the prophet was entirely dependent upon "visions of God".

We must remember that while God in His governmental dealings had allowed His people to go into captivity in Babylon, He still had universal supremacy.

Is that why Ezekiel was strengthened by seeing the throne?

We see that God attaches His Name and His power to that which is true to Him. Whatever else there may be God does not attach His Name to it at all.

It is evident from this chapter that whilst things were in a deplorable condition, yet everything on earth was being controlled by heaven. The remarkable chapter gives us a vision of "the appearance of a man" in heaven, which is strictly a New Testament matter; and in relation to that "appearance of a man" all the conditions on earth, deplorable as they are, are seen to be under the control of God.

Is not that the vision we have today? A vision of Christ in glory?

Each Person of the Godhead is mentioned in this chapter; first the Spirit, then the Almighty, and lastly a Man; showing the governmental dealings of God amongst the nations and with His people. Today we have been apprehended by something higher which is connected with the glory of a risen Christ, but God is still the Sovereign Ruler in the universe, and hence the value of our attention being called to the book of Revelation. We know that the major part of that book has to do with the nations on earth, but the whole book is written to the seven assemblies; and whilst we are not to be occupied with the politics of the world, God would assure us that He has everything under control with a view to sustaining the testimony until the day of display. The tendency with us is to pick up the newspaper and to find that this thing has collapsed, and the other thing has collapsed, and we are in danger of thinking that things are in the hands of men, whereas they are as much in the hands of God today as they have ever been. Let us thank God fervently that He has all in control, but do not let us get over-occupied with the conditions themselves.

In the midst of the chaotic conditions prevailing both in the professing church and in the nations of the world, we have the light of what God is doing for His own glory, and hence we can go on, strengthened with such a vision.

We have four things here — an open heaven, a vision of God, the Word of the Lord, and the hand of the Lord. All are available to this vessel in order to strengthen him in view of the testimony. The opened heavens would attract his attention and it is certain that God would have our attention centred upon heaven, and not upon the conditions around us. Anyone seeking to serve the Lord, and keeping his eye upon conditions on earth rather than having his eye fixed upon heaven, will very soon be in difficulties.

It is a principle from the very beginning that "the heavens do rule" (Dan. 4: 26). We cannot shape our course according to events upon earth, but must be controlled by events in heaven, and it is certain that God desires to attract our attention to the vision of an "opened heaven".

It is a principle of very wide application that the secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him. God could say of Abraham, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" Again, the young man who came to Elisha said to him., "Alas, my master! how shall we do?". Elisha, being in touch with heaven, could ask, "Lord . . open his eyes, that he may see". His eyes were opened to see "the mountain full of horses and chariots of fire", the evidence that heaven was in control. There is nothing more calculated to strengthen our faith than "visions of God".

As a priest it must have been a very testing thing for Ezekiel to see the holy things of the service of God carried into captivity, but when looking through those opened heavens his faith would be renewed by the "visions of God". Then, too, we read "The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest". That would be preparation for his mind in view of what was to be communicated to him; and then in verse 3, "the hand of the Lord was there upon him". That would be for the encouragement of his heart. So that being encouraged and strengthened in faith, in mind and in heart, he was a vessel formed for the service which lay before him.

We are in the same circumstances in some measure; we have seen that which answers to the vessels of the sanctuary being carried into captivity; what Babylon speaks of has made havoc of the church in responsibility. This is seen right through the book of the Revelation until the false system is finally judged.

How blessed it is that there have been those who have been brought into the light, and have received "visions of God" which have sustained them in spite of every opposition and every break up. When we read church history and think of the saints of God in Spain during the Spanish inquisition and in similar difficult times, we hardly know what such days were like as compared with our present conditions, yet God maintained the vision right down. He may have enlarged it through men like J.N.D. and others, but He has maintained it right through.

In Ezekiel 40, when carried by the hand of the Lord to "a very high mountain", the word to him was, "Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall show thee". This is what God has in mind in the vision, that Ezekiel might be enabled to "declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel".

Why does God call Ezekiel "Son of man" so many times? Does that connect with the thought of the earthen vessel?

Perhaps it does in one way! On the other hand his link with the Gentile nation may be in view. The title "Son of man" is given to Ezekiel and Daniel as prophets, and both are seen in Gentile territory. Daniel is thus referred to once, Ezekiel many times.

We know also that it is the tile of Christ in relation to His universal administration in the coming day. In that connection it is worth noting that both of those prophets are called "Son of man" without the article; they are never called "the Son of man"; that is a title reserved for Christ Himself.

In verse 3 Ezekiel is called "the priest", and whilst idolatry was rampant throughout the land, there had been a true seed preserved for God, priestly seed, men who had gone on with the service of God.

That would be confirmed in the 1st chapter of Luke where we see that the priesthood had been maintained, and a priest is seen serving "before God in the order of his course".

It is well to see that faithful men have been available in the service of God. We do not speak much of men like Luther, who was perhaps one of the most outstanding of these men, but if it had not been for the perseverance and faithfulness of such men, our present privileges would never have been known, nor should we have the divine enlightenment we enjoy. We need to be very humble as to our present position in the testimony, because if these men had not stood out in their day what should we have today?

Would you say that the vision given to Ezekiel in relation to the glory in the heavens was to have an effect upon him similar to what we read in the Corinthian epistle, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us?

In the J.N.D. Translation the previous verse reads, "Because it is the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ". The glory of the vision shone into Ezekiel for the outshining as a testimony to the people of God amongst whom he was found.

In the following verses the details of this vision are given to us, and they are calculated to help and to encourage us all. "And I looked, and behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself" (verse 4). These are but the externals of the visions that God was going to show to him. It is a whirlwind which is in view, a wind the direction of which it is difficult to follow. It seems to suggest circumstances so bad and so stormy that externally no one could quite see what was happening. Unless we were able to see the inside of that whirlwind we should be completely perplexed as to its object, and so we are dependent upon the unfolding of it. We in our day must avoid being governed by what is external; it is when we are enabled to see what God is doing at the centre of the matter that we are encouraged to move on in faith.

Actually this wind which "came out of the north" is a reference to the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, resulting in the captivity of God's people and the carrying away of the holy vessels of the Sanctuary. Externally it appeared that God had been defeated.

There was something of a national disaster at this point, but the privilege of the priest is to get an inside view of what was really happening under the hand of God. Verse 27 shows us that above all circumstances is a blessed Man!

At times we may find ourselves liable to be controlled by external circumstances, perhaps even thinking that they are circumstances of which God has not the control, but He has the control of everything.

"Elisha sat in his house" (2 Kings 6: 32). He was not at that time perturbed about what was around him, even though the king sought to kill him.

The children of Israel witnessed God's acts, but Moses knew the reason for them. We may say, "why has God allowed this thing?" We may not get an answer to everything that is happening in the world, but we know that behind it all God is working out His sovereign mind and will.

It involves the formation in our hearts of the moral characteristics of the Man of God. God made known His ways to Moses; Moses was a Man of God. It is one thing to see the external elements of the vision, but we must wait for the vision to unfold itself, and that for us means the understanding that everything is secured in the hands of Christ.

We have often reminded ourselves that the Man of God comes to light in a crisis. There are twelve of them in the Old Testament but only one in the New — Timothy. Timothy would be an encouragement to the young men and women to acquaint themselves with the Word of God, that is the way the character of a Man of God is formed.

In Psalm 148: 8 we read, "Stormy wind fulfilling His Word", a truth which we need to be well established in today.

The word in verse 4, "Infolding itself", may have other meanings but it certainly suggests something within. It has sometimes been said that the world-to-come is within the infolding, and one of the simplest explanations of that was given by a brother who said, "In the word to come God will explain Himself", but the wonderful thing is that we can see what the inside is before it comes into display. That is in line with what Ezekiel sees here.

Something similar is seen in Daniel's prophecy regarding the Gentile powers. In the first six chapters these powers are viewed from man's point of view, whereas in the last six chapters they are viewed from God's point of view, and in the latter we are introduced to what is secret.

In verse 5 we read, "Out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures". The wind may blow as hard as it possibly can, but whilst those four living creatures are inside that whirlwind we can be absolutely sure that God is in supreme control.

What is the significance of the amber mentioned in verse 4?

There is some little doubt as to its exact meaning; it is said to be a kind of polished brass, which would indicate the righteous claims of God. The people had completely failed in their representation of God, and He had to come in in righteous judgment. Hence their captivity.

One of the features of Christianity to which we are said to have come, in Hebrews 12 is "God the Judge of all". It is well to be established in the knowledge that everything that is contrary to God will be brought into judgment, and the whole scene will be maintained according to the righteously accurate judgment of God.

In the history of the Church we hear the Lord saying to Ephesus, "I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick" (Rev. 2: 5). Divine rights must be vindicated in regard to every public testimony in this world.

Before the varied details of the living creatures are referred to (verses 6 onwards), we have the general description that they had the appearance of a man (verse 5). Why is that?

It would seem that the reason the man is brought in is that these creatures are not only marked by power, but they are marked by intelligence too.

Is it to intensify the thought that the whole of God's resources are in a Man?

That is true today! But it is hardly the thought in this chapter. These living creatures would speak of the resources of God which are around the throne, but if there is the desire to relate these features to Christ, well. They are there, because He ever moved in the will of God.

We could not suggest that these four living creatures were typical of Christ personally, because the expanse was above them, whereas the man was above the expanse. "They had the likeness of a man", suggesting that they were intelligent beings.

It would not appear that we exactly have a figure of Christ in these verses, but what we do have figuratively are the powers that are under His control in order to effect the will of God.

Do I understand that the four living creatures are connected with the four standards mentioned in Numbers?

Yes. We have been told that! Four standards with three tribes under each standard. Ezekiel would therefore probably have some little understanding as to what they meant.

What is the meaning of "They went every one straight forward" (verse 9)?

Generals fighting a war would have what would be called "a major plan". If that failed, they would fall back on "a secondary plan"; but there is no secondary plan suggested here, "they went every one straight forward". God needs no secondary plan. They are invincible; they cannot be deflected or turned aside. Nebuchadnezzar with all his power could not turn them aside. He, himself, had to learn "He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?".

What are we to learn from these four living creatures as to the formation of vessels today?

In 2 Corinthians 4: 7 we read, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels" and what we have in view today is to see that we have light as to the glory of God, the government of God, the purpose of God, and the will of God in order that we may be strengthened to go on. We not only have the light of these things, but are quite assured of the power God has at His disposal, and so we can go steadfastly on in our service for God.

We are not looking at these living creatures as vessels themselves; but as the resources that would strengthen the vessels.

In the 6th verse it speaks of their wings, and in the 14th verse we read that they ran.

It says of those wings in verse 9, "Their wings were joined one to another"; there was concerted movement, they were not flying off at tangents; they were not moving independently of one another; all was under the control of God Himself. As "joined one to another" nothing could come between them to disrupt their movements.

What are we to understand from the expression "Whither the spirit was to go they went" (verse 12)?

In that verse the Spirit would appear to be the subjective power in control of them; then in verse 24 we read, "And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty" — He was commanding them. Finally, the One Who had administration in hand is seen in verse 26, "the appearance of a man above upon it". So that while all springs from God Himself, administration is in the hands of Christ and the subjective power to affect all is the Spirit of God. These are truths which we have learned from the New Testament, and they give us a link with the vision that we have here.

Could we have a word as to the description of the faces in verse 10?

These would show the distinctive features of the living creatures; man the most intelligent, the lion the most powerful, the ox having the most endurance, and the eagle perhaps the highest or the swiftest amongst the birds. However intelligent the forces of opposition may be, these creatures can outwit them on every occasion. However strong the opposition may be, the lion would suggest that God would completely overcome it. However long the opposition may last, the steadfastness to endure is seen in the ox, and however tenacious the opposers may be in seeking their objectives, they will be outlasted. Finally, however far-reaching their schemes may be, what is typified in the eagles will outdistance them. There is complete supremacy over every opposing power. Whatever intelligence and power may mark men as actuated by Satan, God is supreme above all.

In Ezekiel 41, where the living creatures are seen again, two faces only are mentioned, the face of a man and the face of a lion. The face of the ox and the face of the eagle are not in view. It would perhaps suggest that God has reached His objective, and hence there is no longer need of patience, endurance or rapidity; but intelligence and power will abide and will be manifested in the world to come.

There are two things we need if we are going anywhere; we need intelligence to know where we are going, and also the ability to get there. We have both in the Spirit of God, He fully knows the way, and He has unbounded power to complete the journey.

Sanctified Vessels: Daniel 1: 1-21; 2 Timothy 2: 21.

We have considered the thought of Vessels of Mercy, Chosen Vessels and Earthen Vessels as seen in the three prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. There would seem to be a moral line connected with these prophets commencing with the thought of a Vessel of Mercy. As such, we see that we were in the mind of God as Chosen Vessels before time began, and with a view of fulfilling the particular service entrusted to us. Each in our measure has been given a vision of the glory. All these men were Vessels unto Honour, but the distinctive character that so obviously comes to light with Daniel was not only that he was a Vessel unto Honour, but also a Vessel "sanctified, and meet for the Master's use". It is this feature of sanctification, practical separation from all that is opposed to the will and to the claims of God, that we hope to consider together in this reading.

The prophet's name again gives us an indication of the general character of the book, "God is judge". The setting of the book is in the realm of the captivity, a distinctive realm from that of Jeremiah, but it is not with the prophecies themselves that we are now occupied, but rather the vessels whom God has used to give us these prophecies as seen in Daniel and his three companions — Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. They were all of the seed royal and had an outstanding place in the nation of Israel but were now, in the governmental ways of God, found as captives in Babylon. God having allowed this captivity is going to use it for His own glory, and ultimately for the blessing of His people, and we should keep that thought in mind. Whenever darkness or difficulties have existed in the history of the Church of God, men and women have been needed to stand in relation to the testimony, and if we are to stand in our day the characteristics portrayed in this book are those we shall need.

Whilst these four men were actually in Shinar, it is obvious that they were not morally of it. The vessels had been brought in by Nebuchadnezzar to be used for the enrichment of his own treasures, but he could not find anything in these vessels that could be used for such purposes.

We see from the Scripture in Timothy that much of what is really divine property has been carried away by the stream of departure, but there is also the suggestion that vessels "unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use" are available.

We, of course, cannot bring about recovery. We can be assured that if God allowed these vessels to go into captivity (as when the Ark was captive in the Philistines' land), he could look after His own interests there; and so in our day God has the whole matter in hand. Our part is to seek to maintain what is due to God, and to stand against that which has caused God to move governmentally in the way that He has done.

Nebuchadnezzar was a mighty potentate, but there was something in these men that was morally greater than anything found in Nebuchadnezzar. We read of them in verse 4, "Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the King's palace". It is evident that there was moral formation in these men before they reached Babylon.

They are said to be "children of Israel", not of Jacob.

If we are to be usable by God in relation to His interests it is essential that this moral formation has its place in each one of us.

The circumstances actually brought to light the kind of vessels they were, and served to further the work of God in their souls, so that they were enabled to stand for God in those circumstances. The difficult circumstances that confront us in the testimony today really furnish an opportunity for the showing of what there is of God in the saints.

Having been appointed to the service of the king they later say "Our God whom we serve" (Dan. 3: 17); so that whilst as captives they were the servants of Nebuchadnezzar, they were in fact serving God.

They were determined from the very outset that they would not accept the king's meat. The determination of these men ought to be an encouragement to everyone of us.

They are introduced by their names according to the stock of Israel, not by the names given to them by the prince of the eunuchs. Hananiah means "the grace of God"; Mishael, "who is like God"; Azariah, "whom God supports". There is the secret! The realization of the grace of God, the conscious sense in spite of Nebuchadnezzar's power that there was no one like their God, and the known support of God Himself. They were true to their names; moral formation was in them, and we see the kind of material that can go into the fiery furnace, and in the fiery furnace find the presence of God with them.

Coming under the rule of this Gentile monarch, he gives them names relating to his own realm. We also have names by which we are known in this world, but we have names which are "written in heaven", and it is a challenge to us as to which are the more valued by us. If all our ambition centres around our names amongst men, we shall find no lasting satisfaction at the end.

It is striking that when they are numbered amongst those that stand before Nebuchadnezzar (verse 19), and the question of their moral superiority over all the king's magicians and astrologers is apparent, it is their names according to Israel that are given to them. It says, "And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore stood they before the king". As the king spoke to them, he would doubtless use the names given to them by the prince, but when the Spirit of God points out their superiority, He gives them their names according to the stock of Israel.

These men, whilst standing true to their names according to Israel, are yet actually found "in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them", to be "ten times better" than others. How important and challenging that is!

Further on in the book we find in relation to Daniel himself, that there was absolutely nothing in his administration that was hurtful to the king, all that the king put under Daniel's hand was perfectly safe; his enemies could find no occasion against him on that account. There is something sadly wrong with us as Christians if this is not true of us.

If we refer to the verse in Timothy, vessels which are "sanctified, and meet for the Master's use" would be those who are also marked by faithfulness in man's world.

It should be noticed that it was in "all matters of wisdom and understanding that the king inquired of them" that they excelled.

Now we might notice in verse 8 the stand these men took. In the later verses we see the way in which they are tested in relation to their stand. We see too the blessed result of it all in the end of the chapter.

The important thing to notice is the purpose of heart mentioned in verse 8. We shall not stand in relation to divine principles merely because we have read of them in ministry, or because the brethren talk about them in the meetings. It is as they have the first place in our hearts that we are fitted for the test that will surely come.

As marked by this "purpose of heart" we can be assured that nothing in the Babylonish Empire would move them.

We see that whilst this was Daniel's individual exercise, his three companions are brought into line with him. If we are set for His things God will show to us, as He did to Timothy, that there are others who will move in company with us.

In the second chapter we find Daniel sharing the exercise with his three companions, with the desire that the matter should be carried in prayer, and mercy sought from "the God of heaven". What power there would be in the prayers of such men!

We see the features of a Sanctified Vessel in Daniel's purpose of heart, and in his request to the prince of the eunuchs "that he might not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank".

A very beautiful feature comes to light in his attitude. He did not say he would not eat, he requested that he might not. It was not will but conscience. Sometimes we may approach such exercises with our wills at work, and have to experience the discipline of God; whereas if we approached them on the line of conscience God would stand by us. The matter in question was not necessarily one of evil, but something not consistent with their position as Israelites. In those eastern courts there were many evil practices, but it was not from such things they were seeking to be delivered; but from things which were not convenient to a Sanctified Vessel.

What is the application of these things to us today?

In our secular occupations, and perhaps in our family links there may be certain things which conscience tells us would hinder us from functioning as Sanctified Vessels meet for the Master's use. If so we have to refuse them as Daniel refused them in his day.

If the request had been refused would it have involved an absolute refusal to eat on Daniel's part?

It is certain that had the request been refused they still would not have eaten that meat; but we see in verse 9 that God had already moved providentially, "God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs". Daniel's heart was right before God, and God moved the eunuch's heart in relation to the protection of His servants.

It is important to see that although the request was made to the chief of the eunuchs, it was God who caused that request to be granted.

Proverbs 21: 1 says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water; He turneth it whithersoever He will". Even Nebuchadnezzar himself had to experience that.

This exercise would relate to other things besides food for our bodies, and would raise the question as to what we are feeding upon for our souls.

If we are feeding on the things of this world, its amusements, politics, television, etc., our spiritual constitution will be impoverished.

We see in verse 12 that these men, these Sanctified Vessels, were prepared to face the test. "Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days". There certainly was a venture in this. It says of Barnabas and Paul that they "hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15: 26), and these men had sufficient courage and trust in God to make the venture. Give us ten days for the matter to be proved. They had wonderful faith in God. They were bold enough to propose the terms, and their terms were accepted.

Further, they were perfectly certain that the food they asked for would produce the right results. We need to take that to heart. They did not question what they should eat, but definitely said "Give us pulse to eat, and water to drink".

Food was needed if they were to say at the end of the ten days in which they had refused the king's meat, "Let our countenances be looked upon". For us the necessary food is the Word of God.

Feeding upon Christ in the power of the Spirit is what the pulse and the water would speak of, and whilst the food would appear to be the same day after day, yet we need never get weary of it. Christ assimilated by us in the power of the Spirit will produce that which is morally "ten times better" (v. 20) than anything the world can show.

Only the moral formation which results from purpose of heart and communion with God could give anyone of us an appetite for this kind of food, but it is the only food convenient to "sanctified vessels".

What do you mean by moral formation?

Our minds and affections are influenced by the things we feed upon, and there is a practical result seen in what we say and what we do. This is the way we can truly be "followers of God, as dear children", we are formed after Christ.

It is true that if we are not feeding on Christ we shall be attracted by the world. There is no vacuum; if we are not feeding on spiritual food, that is upon Christ, we shall be found feeding upon things in the world and spiritual leanness will result. The substance formed in these men as the result of the food they fed on, was apparent to all around. If we are feeding on Christ not only will our spiritual growth be seen by our brethren, but our testimony to men in the world will be strengthened.

It is remarkable that this pulse was available in Babylon; and as we think of the condition of things in this world, and in Christendom particularly, how thankful we should be for the spiritual food which is available to us. A day will come in which there will be a famine of the Word of God, but today that precious Word can be our daily food. How good it is if we are found feeding upon it!

It is evident that during the ten days in which Daniel and his companions were being proved they would not be found seeking other food.

There is, in that connection, an important word for us in the book of Ruth, "Go not to glean in another field . . . at mealtime come thou hither" (Ruth 2: 8, 14).

In addition to the pulse, there was the water to drink. The food available to us, which is Christ as the Bread of Life, is ministered to us in the power of the Spirit of God.

With the manna the children of Israel were given also the springing well; both would be fresh morning by morning.

The ten days would suggest that the test in relation to what we are feeding upon would cover the whole period of our responsible history, so that it is a word for the oldest of us as well as those who are younger.

We see how these desires welded these men together and enabled them, as together, to stand firmly for God. And we see, too, how fully God answered them. "As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom" (verse 17).

There is an important point in that verse. Whilst God gave this knowledge and skill to them all, in His sovereignty He specially endowed Daniel, "And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams".

For the testimony they had to render they were given the necessary qualifications; Daniel, who was to serve in a more prominent and larger sphere, was given this extra qualification.

As we are feeding on Christ, God will commit Himself to each of us, but He will reserve the right to give distinctive gifts to some.

It is apparent that the special wisdom given to Daniel was the means by which all their lives were preserved. Can we not thank God for those whom He has specially gifted, and through whose service and ministry we have been preserved from error and kept in the path of life?

Although Daniel had the more prominent place, when the test of the fiery furnace came his companions had to stand upon their own experience with God. Daniel was not actually with them. Doubtless he would be praying for them very earnestly, but they themselves had to stand before the monarch. They had probably learned much from Daniel, but it was the moral formation in their own souls which was being tested.

Referring again to verse 17 where we read that "Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams", it would seem that this special gift was to furnish him for his outstanding service for God in Babylon. He was the one vessel through whom God was going to bring matters into manifestation. He had, as his name signifies, the judgment of God as to things.

Would there be anything in our day which answers to the special gift which Daniel had? Joseph also had a somewhat similar gift.

Paul refers to something like this in 1 Corinthians 13. "Though I . . . understand all mysteries and all knowledge". He is speaking of it there negatively, but there is the suggestion of understanding "all mysteries". This would suggest a special gift for a particular service. Of course, Paul here shows the absolute overriding necessity for love in the exercise of gift, in which connection we might remark that Daniel himself was a man "greatly beloved" (Dan. 9: 23; Dan. 10: 19).

In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul says "It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord". The effect upon him was "of myself I will not glory".

The result seen in verse 15 is that these men have the stamina necessary to face the tests ahead of them as truly Sanctified Vessels.

The verse that follows the one we have read in Timothy contains instruction in relation to a good deal of activity. Timothy was to flee certain things and he was to pursue certain things. Spiritual stamina is needed for this. We cannot flee from what is wrong, nor can we pursue what is right, unless we have the spiritual strength which results from a purpose of heart to refuse all that is not of Christ Himself. Paul could say "I have finished my course". And we read that "Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus" (verse 21), and in the last verse of the book it is said of him "thou. . shalt. . stand in thy lot at the end of the days".

Thus we see the true features of "Sanctified Vessels" —  purpose of heart to refuse all that which would weaken them in their fidelity to God; the ready acceptance of the sustenance which would produce the moral strength and courage to successfully stand every test; and, as supported and blessed of God, to continue faithfully to the end of the pathway.

A Dispensational Vessel: Zechariah 6; Acts 10: 11.

We began these readings with the consideration of Vessels of the Sanctuary as seen in Exodus 40, and we saw in them typical features which are to characterize the saints as Vessels of Service today. Following that we saw in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel the necessary formation in order that we ourselves might function worthily in the service of God. For this last reading we are to consider the dispensational dealings of God. In Acts 10, we see that the time had arrived for the gospel to go beyond the confines of Israel to every nation in the whole world; showing that, consequent upon the failure of Israel as recorded in Romans 11, God has a word in blessing for every nation, a testimony which is going out today in the gospel. In Zechariah we have an Old Testament picture which projects our minds on to the world to come. God has in mind to bless not Israel only but also the Gentiles, and we shall see in this chapter the thought of blessing in heaven and in earth, and also the manifestation of the glory of God in the world to come.

What is conveyed in the thought of "the world to come"?

The world to come is the day of display, called in the book of the Revelation, the thousand years reign of Christ. It is not the eternal state, which is the day of God; the world to come is in contrast to this present world where man's will is so apparent, but in the world to come there will be seen one will only, and that will be the will of God administered by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the day when the earth will "be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Habakkuk 2: 14).

In the first eight verses of Zechariah 6 we have a prophetic picture of the four world empires of which we read in the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel especially. It is the second half of the prophecy which we wish to consider, but we get a link in these first eight verses with that which came before us both in Ezekiel and in Daniel that God, having given dominion into the hand of the Gentiles, is using these empires, has used them, and will use them, as having in view the establishment of His own will in a realm where Christ will reign supreme. If we are to serve God as "Sanctified Vessels" we must know what God is doing and what God intends to do, and hence the importance of this chapter.

In verses 2 and 3 we have the red horses, which refer to Babylon; the black horses to Persia; the white horses to Greece, and the grisled (or, bay) horses to Rome. It will be observed that two kinds of horses were in the last chariot. This would refer to the two phases of the Roman empire. That phase which the "grisled" speak of has gone; that to which the bay (or, "strong" as in the margin) refers is yet to be seen, that is the revived Roman empire.

The fourth empire, as to one phase of it, has ended but in its entirety it has not. J.N.D.'s Translation gives us the word "strong" in verses 3 and 7, showing that the revival of the Roman empire will be characterized by a greater strength than its previous phase.

The reason for suggesting reading the first half of the chapter is contained in verse 5, where we have the important word, "And the angel answered and said unto me, these are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth". The word "standing" involves the thought of "presenting themselves" before God. When we see that these great spirits are obliged to present themselves before the Lord of all the earth, showing that the empires of men are made to further God's purpose in the earth, then we have no need to be anxious as to anything that is happening on the earth.

If we really see what the Holy Spirit is drawing attention to in these movements our spirits will be restful in God.

In Hebrews 2, we read "We see not yet all things put under Him, but we see Jesus". With the light we have in the New Testament we know that there is One Who will yet come out and will Himself rule over the whole universe for the pleasure of the Godhead.

As far as we can see from Scripture, neither the Father nor the Spirit will ever be visible to creatures, but the Son has become visible in Manhood, and He will be the visible link between the Godhead and the whole creation, and will sustain all for the pleasure of the Godhead for ever.

The first time we have the term, "The Lord of all the earth" would appear to be when the Ark crossed the Jordan. "The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of all the Earth", the intention being that God would take possession of the earth through Israel. Israel failed, but the One of whom the Ark speaks will not fail, and He will yet establish God's rights as the Lord of all the earth.

The patience of God in relation to that is wonderful. He has waited through the times of these four dominions; knowing the end from the beginning He knew they would fail, and not only fail but would be marked by opposition to Himself. He nevertheless waits in patience for the bringing in of the one Man who will establish everything for His glory.

The word used in verse 6 is Adon, the Master, or Controller, of all the earth. The same word is used in Joshua 3, which has already been referred to.

We have a similar thought at the end of Zechariah 14: 9, "The Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one LORD, and His name one".

Consequent upon the visions in the first half of his prophecy, Zechariah now has a divine communication of something he did not see in the visions. He is given to see by the word which comes to him in the movements of God in relation to these world empires. Should we ask ourselves — "Why has God allowed these four empires to arise?"; "Why has He allowed some to fulfil their course, and yet another one is to fulfil its course later? We learn that all is for the purpose of God reaching the end which is in view from verse 8 to the end of the chapter. God ever has His own purpose in mind, a matter which the name of this prophet would confirm, "Jah remembers".

Certain men of the captivity apparently had visited Jerusalem and the word of the Lord is "Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon". Not only the empires themselves, but the people of God who stand related to those empires are in mind. Babylon as a kingdom had gone, and here were people who apparently had not yet availed themselves of the restoration by coming back to the land, but they pay a visit to Jerusalem and God takes the opportunity of giving Zechariah this communication.

What is the moral significance of taking gifts from those of the captivity? (v. 10 New Trans.).

We read in the last verse, "And they that are far off shall come". It doubtless looks on to the world to come, when the Jews will be free from captivity and will bring gifts; and along with that the Gentiles, as brought into blessing through the Jews, will also come with their gifts and will be found working in relation to the temple.

The gospel, as we see in Acts 10, shows the disposition of God to bless the Gentiles as well as the Jew. This was not obvious in the days when these prophecies were given, but that movement has already begun in the gospel, and so we read in Ephesians "Peace to you (Gentiles) which were afar off, and to them that were nigh". That is a quotation from Isaiah 57.

Was Simeon somewhat in the good of this in the beginning of Luke?

No doubt he was! And speaking by the Spirit he could say, "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel".

Is the statement in verse 11 something like Isaiah 60: 6, "they shall bring gold and incense"?

That is a picture of a future day! We have often compared that with Matthew 2, only there the myrrh is included. Today we can appreciate a little the meaning of the myrrh, but a day is coming when they will bring gold and incense without the myrrh; the days of suffering will be past.

Verse 11 reads, "Take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the High Priest". They are not set upon Zerubbabel the Governor, but upon Joshua the High Priest. The reason for this being clearly seen in the next few verses. Joshua the High Priest, as crowned, becomes a type of the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ in the coming day of glory.

In Zechariah 3 we see Joshua in festival garments, and the fair mitre on his head. In that chapter he is seen in relation to Jerusalem and its recovery in the world to come; here he stands as representative of Christ.

In verse 10 the crowns are put on the head of Joshua only, but later others are brought in to show that there will be those associated with Christ in the day to come. "And the crowns shall be to Helem and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen". The crowns are to them because they stand in relation to this crowned priest in the house of Zephaniah, and they represent that kingly priesthood which is typical of that into which we have been brought — "A kingdom, priests to His God" (Revelation 1: 6, New Trans.).

Would the fact that it speaks of the silver before the gold set forth the value of redemption?

Two things will come into manifestation in the world to come, the display of what God is Himself as well as the redeemed sphere that Christ has recovered for His pleasure.

Whilst having the world to come in view, God would also give us to know what He is effecting in His dealings with men. We have no need to be agitated because of what is happening among the nations. Whatever the upheaval may be, empires rising or empires sinking, the Lord of all the Earth has all in control, and is using everything in view of carrying His own thoughts to completion.

Whilst God commences with the remnant from Babylon, has He not full recovery in mind?

The remnant of the Jewish nation today is in the church — Romans teaches that clearly. There is no remnant of Israel outside of the church today, but there will be after the church goes to heaven. For the moment Joshua becomes the type of what the Lord speaks of from verse 12, "And speak unto him saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts saying, Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH". Six times we have the BRANCH referred to in the prophets; Isaiah refers to it twice, chapters 4 and 11; Jeremiah refers to it twice, chapters 23 and 33; Zechariah refers to it twice, Zechariah 3 and Zechariah 6. Isaiah presents Him officially — the King; Jeremiah presents Him morally — the righteous BRANCH; and in Zechariah He is presented personally — "Whose name is the BRANCH". Only in this prophecy is it definitely said, "Whose name is the BRANCH".

What is the thought in the words, "He shall grow up out of his place" (verse 12)?

I think it would speak of the Manhood of Christ, and represents His rights as Messiah when He first came — which rights were refused!

It goes on to say, "He shall build the temple". But there is a tremendous break between the two happenings. He did not build a temple whilst He was here, but He will do so. There are two thousand years at least between those two statements.

Why is the temple brought into view before it speaks of ruling from the throne?

The temple has in view the display manward of the glory of God! And so the thought of building the temple looks on to the vessel through which the glory of God will radiate to the uttermost parts of the earth.

Why is it so importantly said, "He shall build the temple of the Lord: Even He shall build the temple of the Lord"? Why is it intensified?

It will no more be committed to human hands at all, but will be in the hands of One Who will do all for the pleasure of God!

What is this temple that the Lord is going to build?

Ezekiel gives us a description of it! We have often indicated that in the construction of the Tabernacle two builders are named — Bezaleel and Aholiab; in the construction of the Temple of Solomon only one builder is named — Hiram; but in the construction of Ezekiel's Temple not a single human builder is named.

Would you say in connection with this temple which we are considering that the materials will be stone, gold and silver, etc., but the heavenly temple, that which groweth "unto an holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2), will be composed of living stones?

Yes! That is altogether spiritual, it is called a spiritual house.

There is an interesting point in Zechariah 3, where the Branch is mentioned, and then immediately the stone is referred to, "My servant the BRANCH. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua". Why is mention made there of the stone and not in this chapter?

It would appear to be the foundation of the matter that is coming to light. Christ is both the Foundation Stone and the Headstone of the Corner, and when they bring the Headstone forth they cry, "Grace, grace unto it". The point is that He is going to grace the whole building and glorify it.

Whilst a material building is in view in our chapter, the glory stands related to a Person. Attention is called to the Person Who bears the glory, not exactly to a glory system (except as it reflects from Him), but to Himself in the glory of it. Hence we read in the last verse of Ezekiel, "The Lord is there".

Then we read, "And He shall be a priest upon His throne" (verse 13).

This, of course, refers to the Melchisedec order of priesthood. As priest He will sustain the whole scene, and as King He will control it. It is interesting and encouraging to see that not only is He capable of controlling the scene but He will also sustain it. It has been suggested that as Priest He will supply all the power and energy which is necessary to obey His dictates as King.

"He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne". It is not sitting upon the throne that gives Him the glory, the glory is in the Person and is spoken of before it says that He sits upon the throne. In earthly kingdoms when a man sits upon the throne it is that which gives him glory; but Christ brings the glory to the throne.

That is doubtless the reason why no Ark is mentioned in Ezekiel's temple — the Lord is there in Person.

What throne is in view here?

The throne of God in Israel!

In the temple?

Well, they are put together here, and I do not doubt it will be in the temple, as we see from the prophet Ezekiel. If the glory left this world by way of Bethany and the Mount of Olives, then it will return by the same way. Coming in through the East Gate of the court of the Temple, through the door of the Temple; and once more the cloud of glory will be at the centre of Israel. God will be upon the throne and Christ is the One Who will bring it all about.

Will you please say a word as to the difference between the administration by the Lord in the world to come through the Church, and the representative that is in Jerusalem, the Prince of the House of David?

There is no such term in Scripture as "the Prince of the house of David". There is mention of the Prince, and we do not doubt that he will be of the lineage of David. There will be an earthly representative, but there is something greater than that, for the glory of the Lord will fill the Temple. The Prince comes in to sit at the East Gate, but he is not allowed to go through it; One only will ever go through that gate — that is Jehovah Himself. Those doors open only to let in the Lord of Hosts.

Would it be one and the same Person that sits upon the throne and is priest?

It refers to the King-Priest, the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ; but Joshua is taken up at the moment to prefigure that, which suggests that priesthood is before kingship. Doubtless the reason is that while the rule of God is manward, priestly service is Godward, and hence it takes precedence here.

The Melchisedec order of priesthood is in view here. It has been pointed out that with Aaron there was an administration manward for succour, but all was with a view to what was for God. The Melchisedec priesthood is not exactly one of sympathy, succour and salvation; it brings in the blessings of "the Most High God, the Possessor of heaven and earth". Melchisedec brings forth bread and wine. Bread is the result of the harvest, and wine is the result of the vintage. Both are seen in the book of Revelation, the harvest judgment and the vintage judgment, and then the blessing of God.

As Melchisedec then He is the great Blesser?

Yes! The first battle in Scripture is indicative of the last. There were five kings against four, and Abram is seen returning from the slaughter of the kings. It prefigures the day when Israel will be delivered from all their enemies. "Beloved for the fathers' sakes" (Romans 11: 28). God's covenant with Abraham will triumph at the end.

"And the counsel of peace shall be between them both" (v. 13). This would refer to Jehovah and the Branch?

Yes! If man is brought in here, there would be failure, but this counsel is between divine Persons, it cannot fail.

The "counsel of peace" would speak of that which existed between the Father and the Son and which has been made effectual through the Cross, so that the silver is mentioned as well as the gold. In the display of the world to come the whole recovered sphere is in view, "Having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself . . whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven" (Colossians 1: 20). Probably the silver refers to that.

Is not the Personal glory of Christ enhanced before us as we think of the wonderful counsel that existed between the Father and the Son, now maintained by Christ in Manhood?

It was one of the outstanding reasons for which He became Man.

Will you say something in regard to the memorial in the temple (v. 14)?

We are coming on to that. We have this wonderful Person, in the perfection of His Manhood, sustaining the counsel of peace between Himself and God. We are altogether on divine ground here; it is divine Persons and what they will do (verse 13). But how wonderful to see the two classes of people who are brought into the blessing of it. We read in verse 14, "And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD". Perhaps the additional names in this verse might suggest the uniting of the two tribes and the ten. We know that as soon as the kingdom is established the rest of the ten tribes of Israel are going to be gathered.

Importance has been attached to the meaning of the names of these four men; the first one, Helem, is "the Smiter", and you get the whole twelve tribes taken up in the smiting of their enemies — Ammon, Moab and others. Then Tobijah — "Distinguished"; Jedaiah — "the Praise of the Lord"; and Hen, "Grace".

As having considered various features of "vessels", are we considering today their service in the world to come?

Yes! In this reading we come to the finality of that which we have before considered.

What is the connection of all this with the verse we read in Acts 10, "A certain vessel"?

It was a "great sheet knit at the four corners", which gives us the thought of what is universal. The "certain vessel" would attract Peter's attention to the fact that the gospel was to go out universally.

That vessel was received back into heaven?

Yes!

Revelation 21 tells us that "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it".

If, as has been said, the four names in verse 14 are a picture of the twelve tribes in the coming day, what would the three names in verse 10 refer to, seeing that two of them are amongst the four in verse 14?

They are representative of the remnant that came out of Babylon in whom these things will first take shape. That is, Judah and Benjamin.

The remnant will come out of Judah and Benjamin, but what we have in verse 14 is not only their coming out as the remnant, but the kingdom established and the whole nation gathered together.

The memorial would suggest that they have a place constantly before God in the blessing into which God has brought them. We have been reminded that the name Zechariah means "whom Jah remembers", and there they are in continual remembrance before God.

In the last verse we read "And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD". This refers to the Gentiles, who are so spoken of in Ephesians 2, "You which were afar off", which is a quotation from Isaiah 57. They will "come and build in the temple of the LORD. This has its beginning in the gospel and today, whilst we must not confuse the earthly company with the heavenly yet today, God has in view blessing for the Gentile as we see in the chapter we have referred to in Acts.

While the Lord Himself is said to be the Builder, He very graciously brings others in in relation to it.

Referring again to the thought of obedience (verse 15), the Gentiles are being brought in as obedient to the gospel, and the Jew will be brought in as in subjection to Christ in the day to come.

In Psalm 110 (the Palm which speaks of the Melchisedec priesthood) we read "Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power". It will be through the gospel of the kingdom that they will be brought in in the coming day.

When we speak of the gospel of the kingdom, we mean the Messianic kingdom in relation to the Son of David; the gospel of the kingdom is being preached today. We use that term in relation to Israel in the world to come, but Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom of God. What is really meant is the kingdom of their father David.

The word for "obey" is rendered in the New Translation as "diligently hearken to". The two words are brought together in 1 Samuel 15, "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams".

As the Lord of Hosts He has every resource at His disposal for the carrying of all to completion, and He whose Name is the BRANCH will be the great Administrator of it all.

Zechariah, doubtless referring to himself, says, "And ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me unto you"; but does it not also speak of what will be made known to the nation in a coming day? As they refused the word of Zechariah so they refused the word of the Lord, but in that day they will know without a shadow of a doubt that He was the sent One of the Father.

That is when they will use the words we have in Isaiah, chapter 53, and they will then be in the good and truth of it. they shall say, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us; this is the LORD; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation" (Isaiah 25: 9).