READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (5)
[p. 217] READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (5)
JT A word on the “new man” in chapter 4 and being imitators of God in chapter 5 may help. The second half of chapter 4 evidently refers to our relations with the outer world. Up to the end of verse 16 the chapter speaks of what we are in relation to each other, but then the apostle says “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye should no longer walk as the rest of the nations walk”. So that it is a question of their outer conduct now, hence the “new man” is introduced. It may be noted that both in Colossians and in Ephesians we have the new man. It is not simply, as in Romans 6:4, “newness of life”, but a new man, and this new man is a creation. It is not simply the recovered man here, it is a creation.
FL Therefore it emphasises the truth as “in Jesus”. I suppose there is significance in the personal name of Jesus, it is what is set forth in Jesus; in that Man.
ANW You say it is not the recovered man, but is there not a reference made to what they had been here?
JT Yes there is, but then what is remarked is that the new man is created, which you do not get in Romans. In Romans it is that the one who is baptised continues here in newness of life, whereas in Colossians and Ephesians it is a new creation. What is seen is the new man. It is not what you were before continued on account of recovery, but a wholly new thing. I think what distinguishes Colossians and Ephesians in this respect is that there is a new man, and that he is [p. 218] a new creation.
ANW So the man who stole does not only cease stealing merely, but he gives. Is that the thought?
JT Yes, he is not simply restored to righteousness but he gives. There is increase.
JS The new man here is “created in truthful righteousness and holiness”.
JT It is that which stands the test in the sphere of unrighteousness and unholiness.
WB Your thought is that the restored man is seen in Romans 6; he reckons himself alive to God in Christ Jesus.
JT In Romans God has brought back what He lost, just as at Ziklag David recovered all. There was not, of course, more to recover than there was lost, but increase is seen in the new man. The new man is a creation.
RSS Is there any distinction between the way the new man is presented in Colossians and in Ephesians?
JT I think it is a fuller thought in Ephesians.
RSS It says in Colossians 3:9,10, “Do not lie to one another, having put off the old man with his deeds, and having put on the new, renewed into full knowledge according to the image of him that has created him”.
JT And in Ephesians it reads, “And being renewed in the spirit of your mind; and your having put on the new man, which according to God is created in truthful righteousness and holiness”. You might say the attributes are more pronounced here. In Colossians it is after the image of Him that has created him, without saying who created him, but here it is, “which according to God is created in truthful righteousness and holiness”. “Truthful righteousness” would convey that one is righteous in all due proportions, that there are no incongruities. Do you [p. 219] go with that?
RSS Yes, as I understand it.
WB Is new creation a subjective work?
JT New creation must be subjective; that is to say, it must be something effected in the believer. Of course there are not a number of new men. I do not apprehend that any believer could set out the complete idea of the new man in himself, it is a great thought conveying what Christ is, but especially as having to do with evil. It refers to what we are here. In chapter 2:10 we are “created in Christ Jesus”, but it does not say the new man there, because there it is a question of our place in the purpose of God in heaven. Here it is what we are among the nations in our walk, therefore the idea of “new”. In the new man I think you have uniformity. The complete idea of what Christ was on earth is presented in the saints. That requires the whole company of the saints.
FL So in the thought of holiness we would get the love of righteousness. I mean one can be righteous and be consistent because one feels compelled by his obligation, but with holiness there is a love of righteousness for its own sake.
JT In Romans you grow from righteousness to holiness, but in general the epistle does not go beyond the idea of fulfilled righteousness. Now in the new man you have completeness; you have righteousness in relative proportions; things are proportionate. And in addition to that you have the element that excludes evil; holiness abhors evil; it not only judges it, but will not tolerate it.
FL In connection with the new man as we get it here we touch what was seen in the meal offering. In measure that appears in the body, which expresses the new man, that is, everything is rightly proportioned.
JT It is what Christ was here as a Man for God. There was righteousness, but in right relations and [p. 220] proportions, and then in addition to that the absolute exclusion of evil.
ANW Is that suggested in, “Be angry, and do not sin” (chapter 4:26).
JT I think so. Being angry might be righteous, but holiness would save you from sinning.
RSS The new man is Christ characteristically, not personally.
JT It is important to note that. He can never be said to be the new man, because the new man is said to be created and it is after the image of Him. Christ is the image, Christ is the pattern, the new man is formed after Christ in that way.
RSS You could not speak of Christ as a creation.
FL Christ is the Second Man out of heaven.
WB Is the recovered man in Romans more individual, while here it is what the Spirit forms in the whole assembly, a collective thought?
JT The new man is a collective thought, and the old man is a collective thought too. The old man includes all sinners. I think it reached its height when Christ was crucified. The strength of it lay in that the system at Jerusalem had primarily divine sanction.
PHP You would not object to saying the new man was Christ, but Christ characteristically?
JT If you modified it in that way, although He is never said to be the new man. The new man is said to be created after the image of Him who created him, and I think in Colossians it is Christ that is alluded to. I think it is after the image of Christ.
AFM He goes on to say, “namely your having put off according to the former conversation the old man which corrupts itself according to the deceitful lusts and being renewed in the spirit of your mind” (chapter 4:22). Why does that verse follow?
JT Truth as in Jesus emphasises what we put off, but that would include His death. If He has [p. 221] had to die on account of sin we must put these things off. Our old man is crucified that the body of sin may be annulled, that is Romans; the body of it; that is to say, the totality of sin was annulled.
FL That is what Colossians required, our members put to death.
AFM Then you come to the expression, “and being renewed in the spirit of your mind”. How do you understand that?
JT I think that is how things are brought about in the soul. The mind is really the eye that takes in the light, and renewal in the spirit of it brings about a complete change in the way you look at things. You look at things entirely differently now.
JS So having put off and put on is an act of mind?
JT An act of mind precisely. Being renewed in the spirit of your mind you take up a new attitude; you have a new standard; “as the truth is in Jesus” (chapter 4:21) is that standard.
FL With the natural mind we look for right men in Washington, London, or Berlin, but with the renewed mind we look to Jesus.
JT That is the attitude of your mind. The putting off and on is undoubtedly an act of one’s mind.
WB There seems to be quite a difference between Romans and Ephesians. In Romans you are transformed by the renewing of your mind, while here it is the spirit of the mind. What is the difference?
JT I do not know that anyone can define a spirit, whether it is the spirit of life or the spirit of your mind, but it is easily discerned. It is discerned in one that the spirit of his mind is altered, as renewed.
TR I suppose the idea of the spirit indicates life.
[p. 222] As our brother said, the activities of the mind are controlled by the Spirit.
JT That would be true, only here I think it is the spirit of one’s mind. The spirit is the characterising thing.
TR That is better, that word characterising.
JT We were speaking of an act of mind, but I would add to that, that in putting on the new man there is the recognition of a positive creation, so that certain features are there. There are truth, righteousness and holiness. These may be said to be attributes.
RSS The point you are speaking of is not very simple and yet it is exceedingly important and I think quite a test. I believe it is really the test of conversion whether you are renewed in the spirit of your mind. Take a Christian Scientist, you would not find such renewed in the spirit of his mind; his mind is still what it was before. A friend was telling me that he was speaking to one who was endeavouring to persuade him that Christian Science was right. After he had gone on a while my friend stopped him and said, ‘You need go no further, you never could convince me. Are you aware that in nearly every sentence you have used a profane word?’ You will not find anyone who is converted given to the use of profane words.
JT That is very good, because it is in one s casual conversation that the spirit of one’s mind comes out.
RSS You were going to say something about “imitators of God as dear children”.
JT I think there you come to another line. It is not now the new man as answering to Jesus, but what God is. There was a conception of God in Paul’s ministry at Ephesus, he presented God to them. That conception brought about a generation, but a generation gives the parental idea. The thought [p. 223] is not of what is creative, but generative. Creation is chapter 4, but chapter 5 speaks of a generation, hence we are to be “imitators of God as beloved children”. Ephesians always gives the highest thought. The adjectives here usually convey the full thought, such as “beloved children”.
RSS Is God not a characteristic name in Ephesians, as Christ is characteristic in Colossians?
JT In John’s epistle you have the “children of God”, but they are a class there. The children of God are manifested. Here you have a strong expression; they are dear children. The connection with God is more intimate in that way. The two thoughts, the “new man”, and, “imitators of God as dear children” are, I am sure, most important features of the epistle.
FL One is according to Jesus, the other according to God as He has made Himself known.
JT As Christ also loved us and delivered Himself up, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour: that is the model.
RSS The burnt offering.
FL The sweet savour comes now from God’s children, those that are imitators of Him.
RSS Would you say just a word as to why the relationships of life are now introduced in this epistle?
JT I think it is very fitting that they should be, and as we remarked yesterday, what is to be observed is that the weaker element in the relation is in each case mentioned first; that is, the wife in relation to the husband; the children in relation to the parents; and the servant in relation to the master. In each case the weaker element is mentioned first. This is in reference to the fact that sin came in through the weaker element, and to guard against it. Deception came through Eve.
RSS And would you not also think that God [p. 224] gives prominence to the subject ones, the wife, child, servant?
JT The one in the place of subjection is more exposed to the tempter than the one in authority. The one in the place of subjection is sure to have more grievances.
FL The end of the previous verse, “Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of the Christ”, is general, is it not? It would embrace us all.
JT Yes; viewed as a company, and no one is regarded as in the place of authority. In family relationships you have one in each circle in authority and one in subjection. The one in the place of subjection is sure to have more grievances, and the more grievances you have the more exposed you are to Satan. He is sure to take advantage of the grievances to incite sin.
JS And the Lord in building His assembly would not leave any weak points of attack.
JT That is the idea. I think it is put in the way of guarding.
JS The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
AFM That paves the way for the wonderful thought of Christ and the assembly; does it not?
JT The apostle’s heart is so full of the truth that if he touches the husband and wife he must present the great thought of Christ and the assembly. When it comes to child and parent, servant and master, he only deals with them as such, but the marriage relation being introduced, he cannot but go on and speak of Christ and the assembly; as he says, “I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly”. That was what was in his heart. I think we should specially note the end of chapter 5. It is introduced you might say incidentally, and the introduction of it shows how fully occupied the apostle was with the great subject of Christ and the assembly. You do not get it anywhere else in this way and yet it does not [p. 225] appear in the doctrinal part of the epistle but comes in under the exhortations.
RSS Is it not the scripture that sets forth the truth of union more than any other?
JT I think it is. Paul alludes directly to Genesis 2.
RSS You remarked about grievances, would not these in large measure account for various troubles amongst the saints? Our grievances are largely groundless, and no doubt Satan takes advantage of this. I am not only thinking of wives, but of others, although the passage begins with the wives.
ANW It is true also of children and servants.
JT I think it is very much true of children. Their grievances are very often imaginary, but the position of subjection suggests a grievance in itself. Unless the will is curbed the very fact that you are conscious of being in a subject place incites a grievance or a grieved spirit, whereas there may be no real cause for it in the person in the place of authority.
FL Satan suggested that subjection to God was irksome and lacking in privilege and dignity, therefore grievances on account of subjection are the result of Satan’s promptings.
JT It is very remarkable that he selected the woman for his attack. She was in the place of subjection. He selected her and suggested that there was no need for that either in her or in Adam, that God was holding back something from them, so that it is a very practical thing to inquire as to the grievances we may have, is there any real cause for them?
RSS I am thankful you have suggested that in connection with relationships.
AFM The word in connection with the wife is “submit” and in the case of children and bondmen “obey”; submission and obedience — how are these produced?
JT I think it is a matter of righteousness for a wife to be submissive. It is not a question of isolated [p. 226] cases here, it is a question of the attitude of her mind. If subjection is the attitude of the mind any specific cases arising are easily settled. The exercise should be as to the attitude of the mind, as to whether one is true to the relation in which one is set; and really one’s true happiness lies in accepting the obligation involved in the relation in which you are set.
FL It is not assumed that the wife always moves and acts under specific instructions, it is the general attitude, but the child and the servant receive definite instructions; therefore it is “obey”. There is a distinction.
JT There is, because it is not comely that a wife should require instructions or commands. Only she should understand her husband and carry out his mind. She knows it and carries it out as subject.
JS Subjection in the wife would pave the way for the truth of headship.
JT It does. She gets the good of the wisdom there may be in her husband, and very often there is much more than she may think if she gives him his place.
ANW Should we not read this in the light of chapter 1? We come back from above, so to speak. We come back to our ordinary responsibility from our dignified position.
JT In the first chapter Christ is said to be Head over all things to the assembly. That is the relationship between husband and wife. The headship over the household is set in them both, only she is subject and loses nothing by it. Even though she may assume that she has more mental power and ability than her husband, she loses nothing by retaining her subjection and never giving it up.
Ques Do you think that as the husband is subject to Christ as his Head, the wife will be subject to the husband as her head?
[p. 227] JT It is a question of whether the wife’s will is in action. She is said here to be subject to him in everything, as the assembly is subject to Christ.
WB It is a great help to see that the Lord Himself was subject to His parents. Although He was so immeasurably greater than His parents, He went down with them and was subject to them. The Lord Himself took that place. Although He could puzzle the doctors, yet He was subject to His parents. It has been a great help to me. You often get cases where the wife has more mental power than the husband, or where children have better minds than their parents, but the fact that the Lord having all these qualifications as no other ever had, was subject to His parents, should help us.
FL Children are put in subjection to father and mother equally; that is, the wife has part in the headship of the house, she has the charge of bringing up the children in a very large measure, and obedience to the mother comes in as well as to the father, which is an important fact.
RSS It is “your parents”.
FL It says, “honour your father and mother”, and “obey your parents in the Lord”.
JT The apostle does not stop with instructions to the wife; he says, “Husbands love your own wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and has delivered himself up for it”.
FL It is good for husbands to bear in mind the part Adam took, because he surrendered his headship.
JT The husband is to make the yoke as easy and as light as possible, so as to avoid all possible grievances and bitterness.
FL The spirit of this I suppose is set up in the Hebrew servant, “I love my master, my wife and my children” (Exodus 21:5). The husband’s part involves sacrifice. Hence the order in the household is brought about by love, not exactly by commandment.
[p. 228] TR It is not the rule of mount Sinai but of mount Zion.
BTF I think you said once that we are only enabled to carry out the relationships of life as we understand the truth of Christ and the assembly.
JT The standard is high in Ephesians. You have no light as to family relationships in Romans, or in Corinthians really; we get it in Colossians and Ephesians. It is the heavenly influence, that is the thing for the household.
FL And in Timothy you get a measure of it.
JT We do, because it is to support the order of the house of God.
WB The household seems to have an important place. Why is so much said of it?
JT I think it shows how much God thinks about His own institutions, and the household is an institution that existed before sin came in, and is seen under the Christian influence on an even higher plane than it could have been seen in Adam and Eve.
FL So every relationship in which we are set is literally a counterpart of what is established in the divine system; that is, parentage, husband and wife, and a system in which servants render obedience because of one universal Lord and Master. Therefore all these earthly relationships are the reflection of what is already established in the divine system. That gives dignity to them and helps us to carry them out.
JT As you were remarking about the parents, obedience refers to both, and I think what one may observe is that the children’s qualification for the testimony begins there, for if they are to live long on the earth, as it reads here, “that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest be long-lived on the earth”, it is to be a witness. The child really qualifies as a unit of the tabernacle in beginning to recognise authority in the parents. God has placed authority [p. 229] where it ought to be least irksome, namely, in those who love us.
FL I would like to suggest in connection with Christ and the assembly, that we all have a certain sense of subjection to God and to the Lord, but we are defective as to the authority of the assembly. I am inclined to think there is the idea in this obedience to father and mother of subjection to the assembly.
JT Quite so, and when a child who recognizes this injunction comes into fellowship the difficulty in dealing with him is not great. He has learned obedience already, there is subjection to Christ and to the assembly. It is quite clear that the government of the house of God requires authority in the assembly, as well as in Christ.
TR That accounts for many children not coming into fellowship, because they are lacking in this.
ANW I suppose the assembly is the highest court of appeal in the universe.
JT It is morally, the spiritual man knows no other really.
TR What is the idea of “in the Lord”?
J,T. I suppose it is that the child recognises the authority vested in the parents as from the Lord. It is therefore the authority of the Lord in a way.
AFM The truth of baptism underlies it.
PHP And would it not make allowance for a child’s conscience as well? He may have a conscience about a matter.
FL It is rather a serious responsibility for parents to let children grow up in insubjection. It disarranges the order of things in the assembly.
WB It adds, “for this is just”. What do you understand by that?
JT It is right. The child should know that subjection to his parents is morally due them.
RSS It is a thing that speaks for itself.
[p. 230] JT Yes. It is very beautiful that in the commandments provision is made for a child. A promise is added, “the first commandment with promise”. God graciously encourages the young heart. There must be something in the way of hope for the young heart, so the yoke is not irksome, there is hope in it.
RSS It is the one of the ten commandments that is enjoined today, and I suppose because of the promise.
JT Yes, it can be used in the Christian household because of the promise attached to it.
WB It is good for a man to bear the yoke in his youth.
Ques Will you say a word about fathers now?
JT “And ye fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord”. That is the obligation of the parent, he is not to provoke. His position would give licence to his will. Those of us who are fathers are quite conscious that the position of a father gives a certain licence to the will, which we are apt to use unfairly.
In closing, the apostle says, “For the rest, brethren;” this corresponds with Philippians 3:1, and the fact that you have these expressions in both epistles helps you to discern the difference between the two. In Philippians, “For the rest, my brethren”, is in the middle of the epistle; that is to say, the apostle says as much after it as before it, indicating I think that he was more free in writing to the Philippians. Now in writing to the Ephesians, “For the rest, brethren”, is followed only by the question of armour and warfare. I do not think he was quite so free in writing to the Ephesians, the epistle is more official, whereas in Philippians he speaks of things in a more intimate [p. 231] way.
JS Is the addition here to protect all he has said before, in that he had presented the whole light of the heavenly position?
JT I think that is it. It is all before you, and now you are to stand.
JS You are immediately put on the defensive.
JT You are in the centre of everything, so to speak, and are, therefore, to “stand”.
PHP The way it opens is characteristic. “Be strong in the Lord”. It is “Rejoice in the Lord”, in Philippians.
JT There was much to be contended for in view of the light contained in this epistle, and it really has a voice for the whole assembly. It is a question of standing for what has been committed to us.
Ques What would you say the whole armour of God is?
JT It is whole armour; there must be no part missing. In Romans you have certain features, but in Ephesians you must have it all.
TR There is no vulnerable point.
JT God has come out, as it were, into the conflict, so you are to take His armour. You see it is not the idea of what we call “trench warfare”, which is modern, nor is it a position in a citadel. It is open field warfare.
ANW The new translation has the word “struggle”.
FL This is written in the light of the assembly in its completeness. The Thessalonians were a young assembly and so not all the parts of the armour are mentioned. We have only the breast-plate and the helmet there.
JT The whole man is to be protected; even the feet are mentioned. The armour is all moral, it refers to what is effected in the believer by the Spirit.
JS It shows how the apostle feels the truth of [p. 232] all he has presented here, and how he would put us on the defensive for it.
FL There is the suggestion that as the assembly began to take form Satan began his attack, and his attack was according to the light that came out. Therefore in Thessalonians we get less, but in Ephesians we get the whole truth, and that is why there is need of having on the whole armour, as the attack might be on any part.
WB The apostle says, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood”. What does he mean by that?
JT “But against principalities”. I think it is an allusion to what the Israelites had to contend with in Canaan. They had to contend with flesh and blood, they had to deal with literal men. We have not to deal with such, our warfare is spiritual.
WLP Satan would be more against the heavenly side of the truth.
BTF What are the enemies and how do they assert their power?
JT That is an important thing to find out, what they are and where they are. The Spirit makes it very clear “Against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies”. That is to say, it is not typically the Amalekites, nor Sihon and Og, it is the inhabitants of Canaan. The seven nations in Canaan are the type. They typify wicked spirits in the heavenlies, not isolated units, but principalities and powers. They are organised.
AFM And they affect us on earth.
JT They have means of attack here, but the centre is in heaven. Satan himself is there, as we know. It is important to know they are organised, principalities and powers.
BTF How do they exert their power?
[p. 233] JT That is not so easy to define. One thing has to be noted in this epistle, that Satan is the prince of the power of the air. It seems as if the very air is influenced against us. I believe too that men are used, and their teachings, to dislodge us from the heavenly position we are set in.
FL I think it is a counterpart of what is secured in the assembly as in the power of the Spirit. You can hardly define how it is worked, but it is a spiritual power in the assembly. Now there is a spiritual power exercised by Satan to divert the saints from their heavenly position.
ANW Would the Lord’s temptation in the wilderness serve as a figure?
JT Only of course that was the wilderness, but it indicates how the thing is carried on.
Ques In regard to the different parts of the armour, would the breast-plate indicate that we are reached through our affections, the helmet through the mind?
JT I think it is essential that we take the whole armour of God. Have your loins girded about with truth; that is the first element presented; that is for the protection of the affections; that is, the loins. We are all very apt to be loose as to what we listen to and what we read, and we get defiled by these things because of not having our affections tucked up. That is really the idea; it is the tucking up, not of the heart, but of the loins; they are to be girded about with truth. So that you are protected from listening to and reading and seeing evil things, things that would defile the affections. If your affections become corrupted through these things your heavenly caste is gone, that is how Satan would take it away. And then following on that you would have the breast-plate of righteousness, that is for the conscience; that keeps the conscience right. Satan cannot assail you through the conscience if [p. 234] you have the breast-plate on; that is to say, if you are righteous.
WLP You were referring to what we read?
JT There are things presented, especially in literature, that corrupt the lower affections of a man. The loins refer to the lower affections of a man.
FL In art, pictures, literature, and the like.
JT We have to be on our guard against those things, and the point is to have the loins of your mind tucked up. You do not allow them to be straying around loosely, as a garment flowing on the ground.
JS They had been previously delivered from these things, as pointed out in the beginning of the reading. They burned the books at Ephesus, and now are to have the affections tucked up.
JT But people acquire a lot of new books, a lot of new libraries are built up. Saints give up the library used in unconverted days, but they may have a more select one, which is nevertheless corrupt. Hence you must have your loins girded with truth, you test every book, everything you read, by truth.
Ques Is there any more direct way in which we are attacked than through these things, through literature.
JT I think Satan has a way to attack us directly. You may find it in prayer even, an opposing force you could not very well account for, and you may find it otherwise.
FL Satan hinders.
PHP “The combat I have for you”. That would be combat with spiritual powers.
JT And it would be perhaps while in prayer. As it has often been said, there must have been great opposition or there would not have been such great conflict. Paul had great conflict for the Colossians and as many as had not seen his face in the flesh.
JS [p. 235] Does the apostle not allude to his experience at Ephesus? “If to speak after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus” (1 Corinthians 15:32).
JT Yes. And the angel sent to Daniel was hindered for a certain time by the prince of Persia.
AFM With us, is the struggle defensive or aggressive?
JT Mainly defensive, because you are seen here as having acquired the territory. You do not contend to get new territory, but to occupy that which you have already secured. It is standing here. On being saved from Egypt the people were told to “Go forward”, and in the wilderness it was a forward movement, but in the land it is that you stand, you do not let go what you have. We have had a wonderful heritage allotted to us. Now the question is, are we going to let it go or are we going to stand for it? And if it is to be contended for and preserved amongst us we must have the armour on, otherwise we shall be overcome.
FL That would be suggested in 2 Corinthians 10:4: “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds”.
JT I think that raises another question, namely, that the apostles’ warfare was an aggressive warfare. They had to go forward and overthrow evil. “For the overthrow”, he says, “of strongholds”. Everything must be brought down to the obedience of Christ. Now the apostles did that, so far as I understand, just as Joshua overthrew the seven nations; the testimony of the apostles brought down the world-system. I think the narrative as regards Ephesus in the Acts shows that the whole world-system was brought down there by the testimony. The weapons Paul used were not carnal, but they were mighty through God for the overthrow of strongholds. One of the strongholds was typified by Kirjath-sepher, the “city of the book”, (Joshua 15:16). That was a very important place, because it is that which holds men’s minds. Now the superiority of the testimony through Paul at Ephesus brought that down, so that those who owned the books burned them; and they were valuable, they were worth fifty thousand pieces of silver.
JS And as a result all that were in Asia heard the word.
JT Paul’s testimony at Ephesus was such that nothing could stand before it; it was the superiority of the thing — nothing could stand before it. The Ephesians had to stand in that. They had not to be aggressive, their responsibility was to stand, to maintain the ground.
RSS The armour sets forth what is subjective, it is a question of the work of God in our souls.
JT You have salvation, so that you lift up your head; you are not afraid. And then the sword of the Spirit is the word of God; not simply the Bible, but that which in the word to the “young men”, “abideth in you” (1 John 2:14).
RSS But would you not say that was aggressive?
JT It may be aggressive, but it is necessary for defence. The Lord used it for defence.
Ques Would you say a word about the feet being shod?
JT It is evangelical, your feet shod with the preparation of the glad tidings of peace.
FL According to Isaiah 52:7, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings”.
JS You carry Christ with you.
CHB Jude 3 says, “contend earnestly”.
JS Has there not been a good deal of warfare in the last hundred years in connection with the recovery of the truth?
JT But that is because the truth was given up.
[p. 237] The position had been lost and had to be regained. Had the saints stood by this there would have been no need for that. Our position now is very much like that at Ephesus, it is a question of our contending for what has been recovered for us. As our brother remarks, “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered”. We cannot but see that it has been delivered to us.
ANW Paul was not deterred, he declared the whole counsel of God. Has it all been recovered?
JT One does not like to assume too much, but certainly the headship of Christ and the place of the assembly in the counsels of God have been made clear.
WB I was thinking about Naboth, he was offered recompense for his inheritance but he declined to give it up.
JT That is the thing, we need to be like Naboth.
JS The armour would be God’s provision for us.
JT Yes. It is the armour of God. It is not an armour like Saul’s, that you cannot put on, it is an armour that fits you because it really is what you are by virtue of new creation. You do not feel like David when he put on Saul’s armour, that it is too big for you or unsuitable to you.
WB Afterwards we have prayer and supplication in the Spirit (verse 18).
JT You feel how befitting that is, that there should be dependence.
INH It says, “all saints”. How wide is that circle?
FL I suppose it takes in all that belong to Christ on earth at the moment. I think that when we get to the Supper and contemplate the loaf and the cup the whole number of the saints comes before us.
JT You feel the absent ones, you miss them. So that Ephesians is not simply local, it is universal;
[p. 238] they had love for all the saints and here they are to pray for all, and especially for those ministering. Paul says, “in order that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery of the glad tidings”. That is what Satan is against, it needs great power to open it up.
JS So that the testimony might have a free course.
JT Yes, the mystery. That is what Satan is so especially set against, “the mystery of the glad tidings”. As we were remarking the apostle had great conflict for the Colossians that they might know the mystery, and not only for them, but for all who had not seen his face in flesh. He was exercised that they might have ability to know it, but here that he might have ability to make it known.
FL If we look at the departure from this in Revelation 2 it is first of all loss of first love, and then it is the corruption of leaven one might say, and then we read of Satan’s seat. Terrible results from an opening and loosening of the armour!
AFM Is prayer part of the armour?
JT To use a military figure, through it your communicating lines are not cut; they are kept open through prayer. The enemy would cut your lines of communication.
JS Tychicus is introduced in that connection, he maintains the connection.
JT He was a faithful minister and beloved brother.
Ques Do you think Stephen had on the whole armour of God?
JT Yes. It is well to keep up the lines of communication. You see, no matter how good your armour may be, if you have not supplies there must be surrender sooner or later. There must be supply and the supply is through [p. 239] prayer.
TR The apostle did not want them to starve. They might be well armoured but if they starved it would be all over.
RSS We just touched upon the decline, that Ephesus lost her first love; what do you understand by losing first love?
JT They left it. It was apostasy in principle; leaving, going back, falling back. The affections that had been originally begotten in this assembly through the presentation of Christ in Paul’s ministry had been left. They had not apostatised altogether, but had left their first love, “thou hast left thy first love”.
RSS That would be in keeping with all in Asia turning away from Paul. Asia would include Ephesus.
PHP The last verse of the epistle reads, “Grace with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption”. That suggests first love, does it not?
JT Yes, they had not been corrupted yet. He had been exercised about the Ephesians that they should not be corrupted as Satan corrupted Eve.