THE INHERITANCE, PRESENT AND FUTURE
[p. 260] THE INHERITANCE, PRESENT AND FUTURE
Colossians 1: 12; Ephesians 1: 13, 14; Deuteronomy 33: 4
There is that which we have in the way of inheritance provisionally and that also which we have eternally. It may help if we look at the subject in these two connections.
Would you give us an idea of what the inheritance means first?
The idea of the inheritance came in with Abraham, and it is connected with the gospel. The Lord said that those who believed should receive an inheritance, and it is that which renders us independent of what we may have, or what may be in prospect, as after the flesh, setting us up in spiritual independence. Ephesians speaks of our inheritance, meaning that we who form the church have something altogether to ourselves — a special portion that belongs to us; and besides that we have what others will have, and we have that in the meanwhile in a provisional way.
Is the inheritance a gift?
Well, in a way it is, but it comes in rather through relationship. “If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”. That is how we come into it; but then there is an inheritance which we come into through redemption; the Lord said to Paul when He told him for what purpose He had appeared unto him, “That they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance”, without specifying what it is.
Would the idea be that of the great woman of the Old Testament who said, “I dwell with my own people”?
Well, she dwelt among her own people; that was sufficient for her. We are wonderfully well off if we only knew it. One thing to be noted is that we know [p. 261] more about God giving than we do about receiving. It is what I receive that benefits me directly.
I was going to ask if you were referring, when you spoke of receiving an inheritance, to Acts 26, when the Lord said to the apostle Paul, “That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me”?
That is what I was referring to. That is connected with the gospel. I may have large estates, but unless I take possession, and work them, they do not yield.
You said just now that we receive the inheritance provisionally now, and, I judge, you mean that in the future we shall receive it in all its fulness?
Yes, that is it, and what we shall have in the future we have only the earnest of now — “the earnest of our inheritance”, Ephesians 1: 14. But the earnest is the Holy Spirit. Then there are things that we have not in the way of earnest merely, but in their totality — such as the covenant, the commandments, etc. The Holy Spirit sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts.
Was the birthright that Esau despised the inheritance really in figure?
Yes, it was. He despised it.
Is there such a thing as right to the inheritance? I was thinking of Jeremiah — “Thine is the right of redemption, to buy it”, Jeremiah 32: 5 - 15.
Well, I think the Lord has taken that up and has secured the inheritance for Israel through redemption. We come into it now in a spiritual way, for we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.
So in that way it would be a birthright?
It is a birthright, and there are evidences of the purchase. In Jeremiah there were the evidences of the purchase; there was that which was “sealed” and that which was “open”. Both writings of the purchase were to be placed in an earthen vessel. Everything is rightly secured, and what is open is [p. 262] for us and what is sealed is for Israel in the future, but both writings are in the “earthen vessel”, that is, we are in possession of the evidences of the purchase. We could not have purchased the inheritance; Christ has done that, but we have the testimony of the purchase, so that we have everything in possession in the earthen vessel. Now, what use are we making of that? We certainly can take up the open evidence that is not sealed, but really there is nothing sealed to us. We see that everything in the way of inheritance that there is for every family is already secured and we may make use of the things now, and yet we have a portion of our own of which we have only the earnest. Ephesians opens up the latter.
Would you say what is meant by the expression, “Holy Spirit of promise”?
I think it refers to what God had intimated in the Old Testament.
But that is not exactly the Holy Spirit personally, is it?
It refers to Him, of course. The apostle said to those Christians, “Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?” He refers to that. They said they had not even heard about it, and the apostle baptised them and laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a divine Person, and, of course, is much more than the earnest of our inheritance; but among the other great things made good in Him down here is the earnest of our inheritance.
He is presented as the Holy Spirit of promise in that connection. I was wondering whether the promise had to do with the inheritance?
Yes, I think it has. The Holy Spirit had been promised, and the Gentiles now had received Him. We do not know how wealthy we are, even in what belongs to others, to say nothing of what belongs to [p. 263] ourselves. The covenant belonged to Israel primarily and the apostle says, “Whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants ... and of whom, as according to flesh, is the Christ”, Romans 9: 4, 5. Now we have part in these things.
Is it as children of God that we have the inheritance?
I think so. “If children”, it says, “then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”, so that whatever comes to Him comes to us.
You mean that being children the inheritance is ours, but we may have but a small apprehension of the greatness of it?
Yes. Generally we have a very poor apprehension of the wonderful wealth we have come into as children of God. Everything that Christ has in the way of inheritance we share in it — “joint-heirs with Christ”.
John speaks of those who have the right to become the children of God; does he in that way distinguish between what we have title to and what we have really?
John introduces that at the outset. “He came to his own, and his own received him not”. Had they received Him they would have come into all this. He says further, “as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God” that is, the right to take that place. Then in the epistle he says, “Now are we the children of God; it doth not yet appear what we shall be”. I take it that our inheritance is connected with what we shall be, but the provisional inheritance comes in now in connection with our position as children in this world, so that we are wonderfully endowed. Everything that came to Christ (whatever family it belongs to) is now ours in a provisional way.
Will they revert to those to whom they belong?
Yes, surely; the types show that Israel comes into his inheritance in the year of jubilee. Everything [p. 264] reverts to its original owner, but in the meanwhile Israel has forfeited all title, and the inheritance is available to us. Of course, the Jews will come into a material inheritance — what we have is spiritual.
And that in a way is sealed, but is open for us?
It is sealed to them, but known to those who have the Spirit now. (Compare 2 Corinthians 3, 2 Corinthians 4.)
Is the thought included in the cup?
Yes, I think so. The Lord said as to the passover cup, “Take this and divide it among yourselves”. The principle remains, what we have is to be divided amongst ourselves. It is our heritage now. In Numbers 26 it is said: “Unto these shall the land be divided”. Then in chapter 33 Moses said, “When ye pass over Jordan into the land of Canaan ... ye shall take for yourselves the land as an inheritance by lot”. The cup suggests what we have as a common portion down here.
Do you mean to say that we have to get at what is sealed before we come into what is really open?
Well, I think for us they go together. We have the secret of everything by the Spirit. We know what Israel’s part is. We have part in it now, only in a higher way. We have the love of God shed abroad in our hearts. Wonderful portion! But then we have the “law”. That is the reason why I referred to the book of Deuteronomy, because there the law commanded by Moses is called “the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob”. You do not get the idea of the congregation in Colossians or Ephesians, because our heavenly portion is in view. The idea of a congregation is what we are down here; and as a congregation we prize the law — I refer to the law typically.
Deuteronomy is more the spirit of the law. Moses began to unfold this law — it is an unfolded law in Deuteronomy, meaning that behind it is the love of God. He says, “What great nation is there that [p. 265] hath righteous statutes and ordinances, as all this law which I set before you this day?” (Deuteronomy 4: 8.) It is not a question of the legal requirement leading to bondage, but of the love that is behind it.
You are connecting the law with the inheritance?
Well, you see, the scripture says it is an inheritance. If we take account of the nations of the world it is a wonderful thing to have a set of principles such as we have got. We ought not to be afraid of the word ‘law’. “Oh, how love I thy law”, one said. Psalm 119 confirms fully what we are saying, “Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage for ever”.
The inheritance of the congregation of Jacob is presented in Deuteronomy. This book furnishes motives to induce the people to love Jehovah and to go into the land of promise in a fitting way. The law was not against them; it was an inheritance. He through whom it was given was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together.
Do you connect it with the covenant?
Well, it is that, but it is also that which regulates us. The more you take up church matters and see what the congregation of Jacob really means, the more you will value this heritage. Let us take this country for instance — the law has been handed down; it is one of the greatest heritages. Society could not last a day without the law of the land, nor could the universe continue to exist without law; the principle of law governs. And so the congregation of Jacob was given a law. In regard of the multitude that came out of Egypt, what they needed was just what was given — the law.
What is the thought in “the congregation of Jacob”?
I think the saints viewed in their responsibility. What do you think of that?
[p. 266] Yes. I was wondering if the epistle to the Romans would bring in the individual.
I think so. I think that Romans is Jacob and Corinthians is Jacob. Romans is the believer in his individual responsibility up to chapter 12; Corinthians is collective responsibility. It is the congregation, but viewed as in localities and refers to our position here in our present condition. I think “the congregation of Jacob” refers to the saints in that light.
At the end of this chapter in Deuteronomy we have, “Thou shalt tread upon their high places”; would that be the assembly connected with the land? Is this the result of Moses getting his place as head among them? “The congregation of Jacob” recognises the need of headship and then you get the reference to our full spiritual portion.
Yes, exactly. Hence, in the passage in Deuteronomy, Moses was king in Jeshurun when the heads of the people and the tribes were gathered together. Jeshurun means the “upright people”, I understand. Every upright person rejoices in law and rule. If you meet a policeman, to use a figure, he is not your enemy if you are an upright person. It is a great thing to have a law and a law given by no less a Person than Christ, whom you love. He is King in Jeshurun. He is King in our affections.
Would you carry the thought of the law as far as Timothy?
I would. 1 Timothy is included in the law — “the law of the house”.
It is, as it were, the law of his mouth, which is better than thousands of gold and silver; Psalm 119: 72. Nowadays there are legislators, but primarily the king made the laws. Moses became king. By the direction of the lawgiver the well was digged; Numbers 21: 18. As indwelt by the Holy Spirit you value the expression of the will of God. The righteous [p. 267] requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.
The law brings about subjection, so that room is made for the Spirit. The well was dug by the direction of the lawgiver. You come into the gain of the Spirit practically in the acknowledgment of the will of God in that way.
What is the difference between “the congregation of Jacob” and “the tribes of Israel”?
The tribes represent the family side. Though in the division of the inheritance each was to receive a portion according to his requirement, according to the size of his family, yet that was to be balanced by the land being divided by lot, according to the names of the tribes. Each tribe was to get his portion so that the tribes were to be maintained intact. In that way even if a tribe were small he must be recognised. See Numbers 26: 52 - 56.
Would John 14 come in in regard to this: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”?
Yes, that is right. It runs with the first epistle to the Corinthians.
I think all you have been saying with regard to the moral meaning of the law is of the utmost importance. Believers are not lawless. The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit; they delight to do it. It is no hardship, for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. Those who love God seek to do His will; “His commandments are not grievous”, 1 John 5: 3.
You said something just now that I do not quite understand — that Jacob was the responsible man and that it was with Jacob and not with Israel that the inheritance of the law was connected. I wish you would make that a little clearer.
Romans takes you up as you are — just as you are in the world in your ordinary circumstances — and [p. 268] justifies you, but then as justified, and as having received the Spirit, your responsibility remains. As seen in Romans, you are set up in relation to God and to others like yourself; it is as thus set up, as I apprehend, that saints are referred to as the “congregation of Jacob”. We are responsible in our locality, we are responsible in regard to all the saints in the locality, and we can go to any of them and say, “We are given a wonderful heritage”. In 1 and 2 Corinthians we have principles given of God by which we are to be governed and held together, so as to become independent of the social and political elements of this world. The first great thing is to look into these and see how we can be regulated by these principles. Josiah found the book of the law. Jeremiah, referring to this, says, “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy words were unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart: for I am called by thy name, O Jehovah, God of hosts”. He was being regulated by the word, as he further says, “I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor exulted; I sat alone because of thy hand”, Jeremiah 15: 16, 17.
Would you say that if saints take up their portion as individuals, as unfolded in Romans, it would lead them on to Corinthians?
Yes. In Romans 12 we are said to be “one body in Christ”, meaning that we are not bound together in the flesh nor are we so many units independent of each other. Romans thus prepares us for the principles taught in the epistles to the Corinthians; these are intended for the assembly during the absence of the Lord.
What an inheritance these epistles are!
It is a great thing to see the working out of them — how if a few of God’s people are together, the principles of the house of God may govern.
Is there any connection between what you were [p. 269] saying and the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus?
Every relation in which we are set is governed by a law. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets us free from the law of sin and death.
“The assembly of God which is in Corinth ... with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”, 1 Corinthians 1: 2. That would bring in the King in Jeshurun; every truly upright person in the world will set his seal to the first epistle to Corinthians, but there are, alas, many of God’s people who disregard it. They are not governed by the law that is to govern the saints that the King in Jeshurun has formulated; and there is no use in professing to love Christ unless His commandments are kept. “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”.
Would what you have been saying be governed by the lordship of Christ?
Yes; when the heads of the people and the tribes were gathered together. I think this is seen in 2 Corinthians. The first letter brought about repentance and a return to the recognition of the authority of Christ as represented by the apostle. Paul was greatly encouraged over it. (See chapter 7.)
To us there is one Lord. The full acknowledgment of this does away for ever with religious independency; we cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons, we cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. The principle that governs us is that we are not to do anything that is inconsistent; inconsistency carries its own reprobation; and we provoke the Lord to jealousy. Are we stronger than He? The Lord can enforce His will and He will enforce it. Paul says, “If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema”. A terrible word!
[p. 270] I gather that you make a very strong point of the lordship of Christ in connection with law, as you are speaking of it?
Certainly. He is the One who formulated the law. He was typically King in Jeshurun, and that is what 2 Corinthians effects. 1 Corinthians asserts His rights, and in the second letter we see that the saints came to recognise them.
We may see in the first letter to the Corinthians that they had not valued the inheritance brought to them in the apostle’s ministry. “I have received of the Lord”, he says, “that which also I delivered unto you”. They had been disregarding the instructions he had given, and so he was forced to repeat them, adding admonitions and warnings. The first letter made room for the Spirit. It is at the direction of the lawgiver that the well was digged; Numbers 21. The Holy Spirit came down, but the springing up is the result of the Holy Spirit working in us. Apart from subjection to the Lord there can be no possibility of entering into the inheritance.
Psalm 119 should be studied if we really love to do the will of God. The Lord came out of heaven with that: “I delight to do thy will, O my God”, Psalm 40: 8. The true cry of the believer is, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man”, Romans 7: 22. It says in Psalm 119, “Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them”. What was in the heart of God for man in giving the law is there still. What was behind it was the love of God.
Psalm 119 brings us to the Songs of Degrees. I do not think any one begins to ascend until he is adjusted on the earth. The Songs of Degrees lead up. “The tribes go up”.
You really do not reach the thought in the tribes unless the Lord is known as Head. The tribes are in family relation. The inheritance is divided by [p. 271] Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun. But part of it was given by Moses. The latter would answer to Romans, but that given under Eleazar and Joshua corresponds with Ephesians. What comes under the authority of the Lord is that part of the inheritance that Moses gave. What Eleazar and Joshua gave is wholly spiritual. Ephesians speaks of the earnest of our inheritance. That is, to my mind, not to be defined — it is to be enjoyed. We have been speaking about things that are our own — eternal things. The scriptures do not define them strictly — they are to be entered into. You cannot define love, so far as I can see. What I see is that the Holy Spirit is the earnest and He opens the heavenly door and brings you to it.
Is there any difference between “our inheritance” and “the inheritance of the saints in light”?
I was going to make a remark about that. Colossians is entering, Ephesians you are in. The word ‘inheritance’ I think in Colossians is “portion”, but the difference is very little, because it refers to the same thing, only the point is, what is in the light. You are made fit for the portion of the saints in light, which is an important thing in view of entering — that is, everything has come under the light. God will not admit anything that is inconsistent with the light.
So in that way we have our inheritance allotted to us?
That is it. The Lord Himself spoke about Jehovah being the lot of His inheritance. He says, “The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places” — “lines” meaning the measures by which the land was divided. The Lord said further, “I have a goodly heritage”. He does not define what it is, but we know it must be delightful.
So we have an inheritance while we are here and waiting? Our rich portion here is to have the light [p. 272] of God to direct and control us, also the love of God?
That is it.
So you speak of the love of God as being the provisional portion?
Well, it is an eternal portion, but you are not said to have the earnest of the love of God — you are not said to have the earnest of the Father’s love. We have these things actually, so that the inheritance of which we have the earnest must be one that is ahead of us. It is wholly spiritual because we are constituted spiritual. Material things cannot form our inheritance. If spiritual we must enter a spiritual portion.
Is the inheritance in Colossians a present portion? I think Colossians contemplates that you enter on it now and the Father makes you meet for that; it is the portion of the saints in light. It is connected with the translation of the saints from the authority of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of the Father’s love.
There is an undoubted connection there with the King in Jeshurun. This refers to the place He has with us; the Son of the Father’s love speaks of the place He has in the Father’s heart. One point in Colossians is thanksgiving; there is a power of appreciation, and so there is thanksgiving. It is a very important matter that thanks should be given to the Father. There is no true thanksgiving apart from appreciation.
Pages 273 to 387 — “The Work of God”. Belfast. April, 1923 (Volume 60).