READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (8)
[p. 94] READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (8)
BTF Would you say that what is developed from verse 5 to verse 14 has regard to the statement made in verse 4?
JT Verse 4 is the result that God had in His mind which should be reached; but I think there is more in the following verses than the fulfilment of “the righteous requirement of the law”; that is, there is, as we said this afternoon, the full result of righteousness in the christian on account of the Spirit — the Spirit is life in us. Then, that which follows the period of practical righteousness is resurrection, and that also is based on the Christian being indwelt by the Spirit — our mortal bodies are said to be quickened on account of His Spirit dwelling in us. “If the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among [p. 95] the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ from among the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit which dwells in you”. It is as if the apostle pursues the results consequent on the presence of the Spirit in the saints, first in the expression of practical righteousness and then in the quickening of the mortal body — all being dependent on the Spirit. “But if the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ ...”: the change from “Jesus” to “Christ” is suggestive.
A.F.M. Of what?
JT I think “Jesus” is the Man in whose personal walk God was pleased — glorified; as we have it in the meat-offering. Whereas “Christ” is more what He was as anointed for the testimony.
Rem “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you ... the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you”. If the Spirit of that God, who took such infinite pleasure in the Man, Jesus — if His Spirit dwells in you, He that raised up Christ, as Head of every man (I suppose that is the idea), shall also quicken your mortal bodies on account of His Spirit dwelling in you. Our mortal bodies will be taken good care of, if indwelt by His Spirit.
BTF I thought the connection was that in verse 4 you have “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”, and in verse 14, “for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”.
JT “Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”, refers to our walk, and brings out the thought of what a man should be here on earth according to God, such as Jesus was. But then there is another side to the presence of the Holy Spirit, that is, He leads us, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”. That is not a question of our walk, but rather of what we are in connection with the counsels of God; “these are sons of God”.
ANW It is “the Spirit of God”, not simply the Spirit here. It is important to pay attention to the forms of expression employed.
JT This chapter, one might say, is a treatise on the functions of the Spirit, and the different connections in which He operates in the christian.
Rem We get, “the Spirit of life”, “the Spirit of God”, “the Spirit of Christ” and “the Spirit of adoption”.
JT The last is written with a small “s” in the better translation, “a spirit of adoption” — showing that it is characteristic of [p. 96] the believer.
AFM It is rather a new thought to me, that we are led by the Spirit of God into divine counsels. I am thankful for it.
JT One is marked off as a son, by moving in that way.
Rem It is akin to Hebrews 2, “bringing many sons to glory”.
AFM Would you mind saying what it is to walk “after the Spirit”?
JT The thoughts are very much akin, only walk in verse 4 is more in the wilderness; but, then, there are great things which the Holy Spirit leads the soul into which suggest sonship, or our relations with God. “The righteous requirement of the law” is fulfilled in those who walk according to Spirit — that is a wilderness thought. Where the law broke down, it is maintained in those who have the Holy Spirit; but then the Holy Spirit has great things before Him, and He leads us into them.
AFM You might say that one results in righteousness and the other in counsel.
Rem Galatians 5:16 supports that: “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh”. That, I suppose, clearly indicates it is a question of our responsible walk down here.
JT “If we live by the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25), would refer to our relations with God, known inwardly; then, “let us walk also by the Spirit”, refers to our responsible life.
Rem A very important distinction.
TA “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness” (chapter 8:10). There is an advance on the possession of the Spirit, is there not?
JT I think so. That is a bit of Colossian truth. The thing is not designated of any special ones. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead”; if one thing is true another is true; but it is not stated as being [p. 97] true of them. If it were true such would be the consequence. It would be, I should say, an appeal to the consciences of the local company. If the body was not dead (that is, if the body was simply a vehicle of lust) then Christ was not there; He was not in them.
Ques Would it show there was a formative work of the Spirit there?
JT “Christ in you” is Colossian truth. It is said to be the mystery. In Colossians it is not ‘Christ in you’ only; there is an added thought, ‘the hope of glory’. It is Colossian truth, brought in here to complete the subject as to the Christ’s position. We were remarking yesterday about the sun being hot in the heavens (Nehemiah 7:3); I think the Holy Spirit brings Christ into the affections, just as the servant of Abraham brought Isaac, in the way of testimony, to Rebecca, so that he found a place in her heart. Christ being in the saint leaves no room for the lust of the flesh: “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness” (verse 10).
AFM It brings things to a climax. What about the expression, “If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him” (verse 9)?
JT That is a terrible word for any one in the christian company, because it suggests the possibility of one being outwardly there without the Spirit of Christ.
Rem You cannot disconnect that from the previous part of the verse, “But ye are not in flesh but in Spirit”, and then, the apostle seems to pause and adds, “If indeed God’s Spirit dwell in you; but if any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him”. All has to be taken together. It raises a serious issue.
WB “The Spirit of Christ” — is that different from the Holy [p. 98] Spirit?
JT I think it is the character — the Spirit of that Man. This translation seems to favour, however, the thought of the Holy Spirit, although the translator tells us frankly he is not sure always. The original does not help, it is a question of spiritual judgment as to whether it is the Person of the Spirit, or the character that shone in Christ as Man, and, it seems to me, the latter is the thought in it. It is a question of the kind of spirit one is of.
Rem Yes, rather on the line of John 14:30, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me”. He is of another order, of another spirit.
CAM In connection with the statement, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you”, how do you know you have the Spirit dwelling in you?
JT That is a very important question. I am sure it requires attention. The Holy Spirit, broadly speaking, makes Himself felt in the christian; it is a poor thing if one has to refer to the Scriptures as the only evidence that he has the Spirit. The Scriptures, of course, are full of teaching as to the Spirit being given to believers; but surely we are to be conscious that He indwells us. Galatians 5 gives a list of the fruits of the Spirit.
CB Love for the brethren would be one of the evidences, would it not?
JT The Holy Spirit would surely make Himself felt in the christian, and it seems to me, the facts recorded of His actings with Christ help us. It is said of the Lord in Mark 1:12, “The Spirit driveth him into the wilderness”. That is, He was impelled to go. He was led into that into which, naturally, He desired not to go. The Holy Spirit in that way was recognised. He made Himself felt. I am speaking reverently of the Lord; but He was there as a Pattern for us. Then, it says in Luke 4:14, “Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit”. As if,
[p. 99] in the first instance, it was the Spirit’s initiative, whereas, in the second instance it was the Lord’s initiative, and the Spirit was available for Him. He returned in the power of the Spirit. So, I think, the christian should look for those marks — whether there is a power in us taking the initiative, and we doing that which would not be done by us as left to ourselves.
Rem The word used in Mark is very emphatic in that way, “driveth him into the wilderness”. There was an impelling power to which He yielded; and as you say, would suggest Christ as Pattern for us. With regard to us, it would indicate the positive power of the Holy Spirit that drives, or makes way, against what is of nature. I think that is a very important point.
AFM It was Deuteronomy ground the Lord occupied, not that part of the wilderness which denoted self-will working.
JT The Lord referred to Deuteronomy. So His position in the wilderness corresponds with this chapter. Further, the Holy Spirit makes much of Christ in the soul, so that one discovers that one thinks of, and delights more in Him. Then, He makes much of the saints; that is a very good test, I think; the saints become interesting and invaluable to us. One sees it in young christians; they think more of the Lord; they read the Scriptures more; they pray more, and enjoy meeting the Lord’s people. All these things are evidences of the Spirit in the believer.
Rem Response to the knowledge of Gad, as Father, is a very marked sign of the Spirit; this is seen when the soul cries, “Abba, Father”.
AFM What about self-judgment?
JT It is another mark. It is, “By the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body”.
AAT [p. 100] When you are preaching how do you know whether you are preaching in the power of the Spirit, or from memory?
JT It is difficult to say much about it. I am quite sure that one may be conscious of the Spirit’s power in ministering. You feel led beyond what is merely natural ability, in the sense that Christ fills the soul — light comes in that has not been there before. One evidence of the Spirit is that divine things which you have had in your soul become expanded — that is one distinct mark of the Spirit in ministry.
JD-s We are in the Spirit’s day, and everything depends upon the place the Spirit is given.
Rem I recall that Mr. Wigram remarked that it was when he became conscious of God as Father that he knew he had the Spirit. He had the sense of being able to say, “Abba, Father”; it was the Spirit of adoption.
JD-s That is one of the characteristics of the babes in John’s epistle, they know the Father.
JT Another thing may be noted here — the word ‘dwell’. You may have the Spirit; but He may not dwell. It is very different for one to come into your house out of the cold — you extend a shelter — to inviting and preparing for one, and making him perfectly free and at home in the house. Many christians give very little room to the Spirit, that is quite evident. The idea of dwelling is not simply that you are under the roof — it is more than that — it is that you are restful, that you are not disturbed by contrary elements. So Galatians 5:17 contemplates an abnormal state in the christian, “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh”. That is not proper christian state. If the Spirit is always contending, I do not think He is dwelling.
AFM He abode upon [p. 101] Christ.
JT Quite; all was infinitely complacent there.
Rem There is a great difference between contending and witnessing. “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”. That is very different from Galatians 5:17.
JT It is like a loving visitor speaking with all gentleness and tenderness to the children of the family as to their place with their father. He “bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”.
TEH If I do not allow the Spirit to dwell in me, do I defeat the object of God in principle?
JT Yes, for dwelling in or with men is the great thought with God. It is that which He had in mind from the outset. This is not Ephesians where God dwells in us Spiritwise; but it leads on to Ephesians. If the Holy Spirit does not dwell in us, God does not dwell in us; that is evident.
ANW There is another scripture, “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). That is unchangeable, is it not?
JT There is the sealing, the earnest and the witness, all that; but I think dwelling is the great thought. It is what God has in mind.
Rem Referring to our brother’s remark, do you not think the epistle to the Galatians indicates the way in which the Holy Spirit was grieved? They were on a line which was destructive of the truth and, it seems to me, that it illustrates what it is to grieve the Holy Spirit.
JD-s Is that what you had in your mind in the use of the word ‘contending’?
JT I referred to the passage, “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh”. The figure in Galatians is Isaac and Ishmael. They could not continue together. If Ishmael is retained — amiable, religious, cultivated flesh — the Spirit of God is grieved. Sarah, who [p. 102] represents the energy of the Spirit, says, “The son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son”. She demands that he must be cast out, and God supports her.
Rem Is there not a difference between “receiving” and “dwelling”? The Galatians had received the Spirit.
JT The question of His being there was indisputable. It is assumed they had received the Spirit by the hearing of faith; but, then, the things which they were admitting were incompatible with it, so the apostle brings in the figures of Hagar and Ishmael and Sarah and Isaac to show that Christ, and the man born after the flesh, must not be allowed in you at the same time. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit is disturbed, and so combats.
Rem That comes out very clearly. “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”. They had received the Spirit — the apostle does not dispute that. “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”(Galatians 3:2,3). The issue as you say, was Ishmael and Isaac. He does not dispute that Isaac was there.
BP When the Spirit dwells in a believer, is it possible for the Spirit to be grieved so that you could not say He is dwelling?
JT I should say it is. One may sin, and the like, and get away from the Lord; but if restored, he is restored to what he left.
JD-s The original idea was that the Spirit was to dwell. That is what the Lord intimated in regard to the coming of the Spirit (John 14:15 - 17). The normal condition is dwelling.
JT It shows that God would not only be complacent in us, but restful. The dove that Noah sent out is a type of the Spirit. She found no rest for the sole of her foot, so she returned. It would indicate [p. 103] the conditions obtaining in Old Testament times; there was no one to whom the Holy Spirit could come and abide. He could come upon this one, and that one; but not to abide. But, when Christ becomes Man, there is a point of restfulness: when He was thirty years of age, “the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon him” (Luke 3:22). It meant that the Spirit was wholly there. No believer could receive the Spirit in that way in entirety. But He dwells in the saints — in measure in each one, according to the measure of self-judgment.
JEH Would you say the Spirit dwells consequent upon fulfilling all righteousness? Is that the point? The Lord had just said regarding His baptism, and immediately before the Spirit came upon Him, “It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).
JT The Spirit of God is not going to dwell in any house where there is not practical righteousness. So practical righteousness comes first, then you have the idea of dwelling, and then what there is for God, “ye have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. Not ‘He cried’; but “we cry, Abba, Father”. In Galatians the Spirit cried; but here the full thought of God is stated; that is, “we cry, Abba, Father”, by the Spirit. That, I suppose, is what the Father seeks from the Christian. He loves to hear that cry.
BTF Is the thought that sonship is reached in the soul?
JT That is the way it is stated here, “For ye have not received a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye have received a spirit of adoption” (or sonship), “whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. So that we are brought to Christ’s platform here; these are the exact words He used.
AAT In one place the apostle says, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25). What is the difference between “living” and “walking”?
JT I think what came out this afternoon was that “living” refers to the relation of your soul with God, “the Spirit is life”. It is in the power of one’s relation with God that one walks here. You can walk better for God after a good meeting or after prayer or communion with God. The nearer you are to God in the power of the Spirit, the more power you have in walk.
AFM Even though the Galatians went back, the apostle states of them as a fact, “ye are all God’s sons”.
JT “By faith”. It is well to remember that sonship is a matter of light. We are sons of God by faith; but then, it says, “Because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”.
Rem Sonship is a matter of light. That is, the full manifestation of it is a matter of light; but we have the Spirit of sonship now.
JT It is a matter of light as justification is. I am a son by faith. I get the Spirit on that ground. I do not get the Spirit to make me a son; but because I am a son.
AFM Here, is it not rather the consciousness of sonship? The Galatians were recovered by the truth of sonship; but here we are conscious of being sons, so we cry. As you were saying, the Spirit cried in Galatians; but here it says, “We cry, Abba, Father”. That seems to be the highest point reached.
JD-s Yet there is something beyond this later in the chapter, beyond the Spirit of adoption, we get adoption.
JT “Awaiting adoption, that is the redemption of our body”.
JD-s It shows that, as to the actuality of the thing, we have to wait for it; but we are in the light of it, and because we have the Spirit we are able to speak in the way indicated here.
[p. 105] Rem In comparing Romans and Galatians it is, perhaps, helpful to see that we do not exactly have failure presented in Romans. It is rather the line of teaching which brings individual saints up to the point of what there is in store for them. There is such a thing as being “in Christ Jesus”, and what they have in store in connection with sonship, the one body, the purpose of God, and so on, and then it leaves them to find the development of these things. The Galatians had had the thing, but were slipping back from it in a very serious way; so their recovery is in view in the presentation of the truth.
WB In Romans 8 it is, “We cry, Abba, Father”. Was it a slight on the Galatians to say the Spirit cried, “Abba, Father”?
JD-s But they were not behaving as sons, were they?
JT Anyone under the bondage of the law, could not be in the good of sonship. I suppose that was so with the Galatians.
Rem They had the Spirit which involved sonship, but were going back to bondage; that was the drift.
JD-s The apostle reminded them of what was theirs, but what they were not enjoying.
JF-r Would you mind mentioning the difference between “sons of God” and “children of God”?
JT The term “children of God” refers to us as here in this world. We are not children of God by faith, if you understand me. It is not a term that applies to God’s counsels, but, rather, to us in an adverse scene, where we suffer. So, immediately, you have, “And if children, heirs also: heirs of God, and Christ’s joint heirs; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him”. It refers to us as here, where Christ was and suffered, and where we suffer. Did you have any other [p. 106] thought?
JF-r I think it has been said that it is God being with us as children, and we being with God as sons.
JT That is true. John’s epistle develops the subject of children: “Beloved, now are we children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). We are that now. As children of God we are marked off by certain traits in this world.
Rem So in 2 Corinthians 6 God assumes the place of Father to sons and daughters here in this scene. The idea of sons and daughters would never come into sonship; it would in connection with children. I suppose that to which you referred in John’s epistle, “what we shall be has not yet been manifested”, has reference to sonship.
JT Quite. You would not wish to be other than like Him; that is enough.
JD-s I suppose the idea would take in what we have in Ephesians 5:1, “Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children”, as well as the place we are in, and the suffering involved as a consequence.
Ques In walking through the wilderness, have we the consciousness of being sons or children?
JT I think both.
ANW I thought being led by the Spirit of God, being sons of God, was rather across the Jordan.
JT Yes; but there is the other side, what the Spirit is to the christian here. There is no time in one’s experience when one is not free to enjoy the great fact that he is a son, that he has a place in the counsels of God. It is a question of the fact as light in your soul; but you need to be in the circumstances to go in for it and to enjoy it as it can be enjoyed.
AFM I suppose the same thing would apply to eternal life. It is enjoyed in the land — -in that [p. 107] sphere, but you always enjoy the fact that you have it.
ANW It has been remarked, the wilderness is more God with you, and the land, you with God.
JT A man enjoys the fact that he has a family, for instance, although he may be away from it. You cannot take eternal life out of its setting; nor can you take sonship out of its setting. All these things are in their place; but I have light about them, and I have always got that light.
Rem When we come to types, we have to be very careful to remember that they will only serve us a certain distance. When the children of Israel were out of Egypt, and in the wilderness, they were not in Egypt. When in the land, they were not in the wilderness; but for us, we touch the sphere of the world, we are in the wilderness, and, in a moment of time, we may have passed into the holy of holies — to know what is inside there. While each sphere is distinct, and is capable, in a way, of spiritual analysis, yet we ourselves are in very close contact with all at the same time.
ANW In Joshua 5:12 the Spirit is very pronounced in saying, “The manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land”. There is a point at which we pass from one sphere into another.
JT There are certain conditions upon which the enjoyment of christian privilege depend. As I was remarking, in natural things you would always enjoy the fact that you have a home and a family; but you have to come back to the family to actually enjoy it. This holds good in regard to divine things: one may always enjoy the knowledge of the fact that he has a place in the counsels of God, but he has to come to the assembly to have the enjoyment of the things themselves. The manna supports one individually; but when you come to the collective sphere,
[p. 108] which necessarily depends upon the saints, you have another order of things, a sphere of affections and all that. I believe that is what the Lord has sought to make very plain in recent years. These things were made to be available to the individual, without the conditions; whereas it was insisted upon, by the Spirit of God, I believe, that the enjoyment of divine blessings and privileges are dependent upon those conditions.
Rem Hence the warning in Hebrews 10:25. If you do not respect, and appreciate, these conditions you are in danger of apostasy.
BTF Would you say we have the affections of sonship in the Spirit?
JT Yes. The relationship is as true now as it ever will be. The word here “awaiting adoption”, does not refer to the relationship; but to the condition of the sons; to “our body”.
JEH If one enjoys the thought of being one of the children, can it be apart from being one of the sons?
JT The two things go together. One refers to what I am with God; the other to what He is to me here. The Spirit witnesses to me that I am one of the children. It is really a question of the comfort one has in adversity. God is Father to me and I am one of His children. Heirship is brought in so that one is sustained in adversity by such knowledge.
Rem They had the principle of being children even in Old Testament times. God took that attitude towards them, and it was a great thing for them.
JD-s Was not that of a national character?
Rem “Will be a Father unto you” is the basis of an appeal to us, and it was true, in principle, to them and He dealt with them accordingly. “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him” (Psalm 103:13).
JT [p. 109] It is not here simply a matter of light. The point is, what the Spirit does for us. He witnesses with our spirit — a most blessed experience — that we are the children of God.
ANW That agrees with John’s line.
WB Do we enjoy the privileges of children or sons in the house of God?
JT In the house you enjoy the privileges of children; but in the assembly the privileges of sons. Whilst they are interchangeable expressions, in a sense, “God’s house, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) — the assembly conveys a different thought from the house. You find it in the type of Aaron and his house, and Aaron and his sons. Now, the idea of the assembly does not go with the house, but that of affection; when you come to sons it is counsel, interchange of thought, and so on. So, I would say, the assembly is the place of supreme privilege.
WB It is a higher thought.
JT The idea of the “house” in 1 Timothy is extensive. It covers a wide area; but, then it says, “Which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth”; it suggests counsel, so the Lord says, “My assembly”.