RECONCILIATION
RECONCILIATION
JT I think it is well to keep in mind that reconciliation involves the order of man that is before God for His pleasure.
RSS I was struck with that when reading the chapter, and we were remarking this morning, that we should be for His pleasure. “We are zealous whether present or absent to be agreeable to him”. And then it goes on to say in the same chapter, “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again”.
JT Paul gives a lead in the thing in his own manner of life, and in his ministry; so that you have it concretely in a man, in one of like passions as ourselves. I think the principle of a lead is of considerable importance. In this connection the book of Judges helps. We have in Gideon the idea of one who gives a lead; indeed the allusion is to him in 2 Corinthians 4:7.
RSS “For we have this treasure in earthen vessels”. Gideon’s pitchers, you mean?
JT Yes. Gideon had directed that they were to look on him, and I believe that these epistles are largely on that line. You have the truth presented practically in the man who ministers, so that you have a lead given to the saints. It is very striking how constantly he alludes to the way he looked on things himself and to his manner of life. We have what his manner of life was enlarged upon in the next chapter; (2 Corinthians 6).
WB In the gospels we have what the Lord was, but in the epistles men of like passions as ourselves.
JT I think it is brought nearer to us, inasmuch as it is in one who is of like passions as ourselves;
[p. 363] so that no one can say it is not feasible. You have in 1 Samuel 13 the idea of a lead given in Jonathan. Saul was in the official place, but Jonathan acted in faith without a word of command. In fact, it was unknown to Saul and the camp that he was acting, but he acted from faith, and his armour-bearer, we are told, was fully with him. What he did, his armour-bearer did. That is, he gave a lead and the armour-bearer, it says, “slew after him” (chapter 14:13). That is the idea, I think, that we get in this epistle, the idea of a lead given, so that the thing becomes feasible, inasmuch as it is presented to us in one such as we are ourselves.
WCR If you see it worked out in one man, you say it is possible to have it worked out in others.
JT Yes, if it is possible in you, it is possible in me; and I believe that works out in our meetings and in those who minister.
AFM The idea of a leader is quite right. “Remember your leaders”, and “Obey your leaders”, as Hebrews 13:7 and 17 puts it.
JT Yes, they are alluded to three times in that chapter.
HG Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “for God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. What he himself learned in Christ really came out in him; first, in regard to the covenant, and then in connection with reconciliation? As to the latter, his labour was, whether present or absent, to be acceptable to the Lord.
JT That is it. He says, God “has reconciled us”, and then afterwards He has “given to us the ministry of that reconciliation”, as though he were rendered competent for the ministry in virtue of the fact that he was reconciled; evidently the thing [p. 364] was presented in his own person as well as in his ministry.
JB In that way both would be presented, reconciliation and the covenant as well.
JT I think as we were saying this morning, what was in accord with the covenant here was God-like. In order to be a minister of the covenant, one would have to be God-like. But the ministry of reconciliation requires one to be according to the order of man presented in Christ. Therefore, Paul presents himself here as one of those who had been reconciled, and hence had received the ministry of that reconciliation. I think the idea of giving a lead is of considerable importance in Christianity, because Christianity is an order of things established on the ground of precedent rather than on the ground of precept. Although precept is fully maintained, the thing is presented concretely in the gospels in Christ, and then in the epistles in the apostles. You want a thing shown.
JB Not merely told.
AFM Would you say that Exodus 21 suggested reconciliation?
JT Yes, I think so, but that was not Moses, you know. That was a “Hebrew servant”. I was saying that at Corinth the apostle evidently could not single out a man to whom he could refer as the expression of love. He has to speak of it in the abstract in chapter 13, but in this epistle he is presenting things concretely, but he appeals to himself largely. He is glad to recognise the information that Titus brought, but in the main, he has to appeal to himself.
JD Does God give one the consciousness of a lead today?
JT It is God’s way. Christianity continues on the principle of a lead being given. The armour-bearer [p. 365] follows; he does not take the initiative. If Jonathan slays, the armour-bearer slays; he “slew after him”.
GWH Jonathan’s guide was from within.
JT Well, he had faith.
GWH The armour-bearer followed him, but Jonathan had the faith to lead.
JT He could take the initiative. There are so very few that can do that. The armour-bearer says to Jonathan: “Do all that is in thy heart” (1 Samuel 14:7). He was with him in all that Jonathan would do. There was intelligent sympathy with Jonathan, and I think this letter sets before us a lead as to what is presented.
JD Is your point that we are influenced by a life rather than by what is spoken?
JT I am sure of that, and no one can lead a brother beyond where he is himself.
WCR I was going to say the lead had already been given in the apostle, and he expects us to follow. He says: “Be my imitators even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).
JT And one who gives a lead is very exercised about having children, because he has no one like-minded except a child; no one who understands him fully. It is a child that understands you fully. So Paul had Timothy, as his beloved child, to whom he could commit the thing in which he had given the lead. Timothy was to see to it that it was taken care of.
JD The child has “genuine feeling”, is that the point?
JT Yes, “how ye get on”, he says. “I have no one like-minded” (Philippians 2:20). Timothy had the same mind as himself.
AFM As a child he was the product of Paul’s ministry.
JT That is the idea. Paul had begotten him in the gospel. It is not only the idea in Scripture [p. 366] that one is converted. Your convert should become your child.
AFM Should be formed.
JT Yes. That is, he is really your child and takes character from what you have presented.
JB He would serve with him in the gospel, too.
JT Yes, and he was a ready help in Corinth. He could send him to the Corinthians on that very account, because he was like himself (1 Corinthians 4:17).
AAT Then as a general principle you would not accept a man’s ministry whose life was not consistent with it?
JT As a general principle, the author of what you read as spiritual ministry should be accredited.
AFM In regard to being “God-like”, is that the testimony before men; and is “Christ-like” being something for God?
JT That is what I was thinking exactly. What is presented to man is God. Hence in the gospels you will find the Lord makes the point that God was there; that was what He was concerned about, and indeed the testimony in “Emmanuel” was that God was with His people; God had come out. It was the presentation of God in Christ, but the other side is that man is to be for God. The revelation of God gives to us more than relationship. I mean it is more than that God is revealed as Father to Christ. The Lord says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). That is, the character of the Father was there. That is one side of the truth, and the other side is that there was a new order of Man, in whom God was well pleased. God announced that at the outset of the Lord’s ministry. Now it is that the apostle has in his mind in this chapter. The tenor of the chapter is that there should be that which is for God’s pleasure.
AB “What ye have both learned, and received and heard, and seen in me, these things do; and the [p. 367] God of peace shall be with you” (Philippians 4:9). Is that what you have referred to?
JT Yes, quite.
WLP That is in connection with leadership.
JT Yes, it is what they saw in him.
WLP Is it necessary to be a teacher or something in that line to be a leader, or can a simple believer in his spirit be a leader?
JT That is a very good point to raise. A leader is one who leads somebody. One could not put it more simply than that. It is not one who leads in teaching only. It is one who leads after Christ. And how did the Lord lead? He is the great Leader; the Leader of our salvation, of our faith. Hebrews 12:2 reads “Looking steadfastly on Jesus”. A leader in any sense is one who follows in His path, and it leads through death. That is where it leads. A leader has the greatest proportion of suffering. Those who follow do, too, but the leader has the greatest portion of suffering and hardships. Hence the apostle puts before Timothy in his second epistle what he would have to endure. He committed the thing to him. The apostle is retiring, and he committed the thing to Timothy, and pointed out what he should have to endure, and exhorted him to endure it as a good soldier.
AFM The same is found in chapter 6 of this epistle. The apostle records what he passed through — the sufferings connected with the ministry of reconciliation.
JT That is the idea of leadership, and, as we were saying, in chapter 4:7 - 12 he alludes to Gideon. He says “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us; every way afflicted, but not straitened; seeing no apparent issue, but our way not entirely shut up; persecuted, but not abandoned; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about [p. 368] in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body; for we who live are always delivered unto death on account of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh; so that death works in us, but life in you”. That is what I think comes out in leadership.
HG And it is marked by transparency.
JT Yes, and it would be manifesting the life of Jesus. It would not be Paul, but Jesus.
HG Would it be right to say, that in the way God makes Himself known to Saul it was God’s attitude, but in a Man? He approached man in a Man, in order that man’s heart might be affected by that Man. Saul of Tarsus was greatly affected by Jesus, by the way the Lord spoke to him. It was God, but in that Man, and in that way Saul says, as it were, I wish to be like that Man; and the Lord virtually says, Well, I will make you like Me. He gave him His Spirit, and the result of that is reconciliation. But the affecting thing was that God spoke to him in that Man.
JT That is what I understand exactly. The light shone, and then the voice, “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 26:14). Well, that was the kindness of God, really spoken through the lips of the Lord Jesus, and then Saul says, “Who art thou, Lord”? I suppose that would be the recognition of the authority of God vested in that Man. Then the Lord says, “I am Jesus”. That is the order of Man.
WCR The suffering Man.
JT Yes, quite so. “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest”. So you have the two things there combined at the outset of his career.
WCR So when the Lord gives him his commission He tells him of the great things he must suffer.
AFM I would like to raise a practical question. Are we [p. 369] reconciled?
JT The apostle here says that he and those who were with him were, as I understand it. But at the same time one would be guarded in that, and what I would say is that it is important to take up the truth abstractly. What I mean by that is to look at it by itself, without necessarily occupying your mind with persons, to see that God has reached an idea in some one as He has in Christ. He has reached every thought of His in Christ, and therefore we may all say, as believers, that we are reconciled. God has taken us up in Christ. It says in Romans 5:11, without any special reference to a spiritual state “through whom we have now received the reconciliation”. Clearly it is presented there as an objective truth received by faith. That chapter says also, if reconciled to God by the death of His Son, we should be saved in the power of His life. It seems to be presented as an objective truth in the gospel, but then the thought is, that the believer is to be for God’s pleasure; and I should say without hesitation that anyone who is of “the faith of Jesus”, as it is put in Romans 3:26, is reconciled.
AFM Why does the apostle at the end of the chapter beseech the Corinthians to be reconciled?
JT I believe it is abstract.
RSS “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”. “You” is in italics and is better left out.
JT It was the manner of his ministry.
AFM Would it not suggest that they were not in the good of reconciliation?
JT I quite admit, that it may imply that, but what he did beseech directly is in chapter 6:1, where he says: “We also beseech that ye receive not the grace of God in vain”.
JD The character of the ministry was: “Be reconciled to God”.
AFM [p. 370] Is the ministry of reconciliation worldwide or saint-wide?
JT It is what God has in mind for all men. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself”. The gospels clearly set that forth, and there can be no doubt that the same holds good now. It is the object that God has in presenting Christ in the glad tidings. You have in Romans 3:26: “that he should be just and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus”. There, I think, it is the Man; light in your soul as to that order of Man. That would bring in reconciliation, and it is world-wide. God has no other thought than that every man should be brought into accord with Jesus.
AFM My difficulty was that reconciliation involves a different order of man.
JT So it does, and Jesus is the Leader in that. “Looking steadfastly on Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2). He is the Leader of the race. We have all to learn from Him, but there has to be a beginning of it in the soul, and so He is presented. You will find that where things are effected for us it is by Jesus Christ. Where they are presented as effected and positioned it is Christ Jesus; but Jesus is the order of man, and where it is presented in that way I think God has in His mind reconciliation; that all men should learn reconciliation; in that Man.
AFM I thought we had several ministries in Scripture; the ministry of the gospel, ministry of the new covenant, ministry of reconciliation, and the ministry of the church. Do you not distinguish between those four? You could not go into the world with even the first three, could you?
JT The ministry of the gospel covers the covenant and reconciliation. Look at Colossians 1:21 - 23 for a moment: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death;
[p. 371] to present you holy and unblamable and irreproachable before it, if indeed ye abide in the faith founded and firm, and not moved away from the hope of the glad tidings, which ye have heard, which have been proclaimed in the whole creation which is under heaven, of which I Paul became minister”. You see his thought runs on from reconciliation to the gospel of which he was minister. They were not to be moved away from the hope of the glad tidings. So clearly, in his mind the glad tidings embraced reconciliation. In fact it was from a state to which the gospel applied that they were reconciled; from a state of enmity against God, and how can you understand what is stated here otherwise; “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing trespasses”? Trespasses were there, but He did not impute them.
JD Christ as Man is God’s point of departure. He left the temple and took up His residence in a Man.
JS I suppose reconciliation links us with a past history, but in new birth there is no past history, although they run together.
JT Yes, reconciliation according to Colossians is from a state of alienation by wicked works into a state of agreeableness to God.
AFM How is it we are so slow in getting into this?
JT I think it begins by having appreciation of that Man. You gradually get an appreciation of that Man and you begin to prefer Him to yourself. Young people as a rule like themselves; they have a great estimate of themselves, but gradually it dawns on them that the order of man presented in Christ is preferable. “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me” (Matthew 11:28,29). That is the principle of leadership. It is not like Mary,
[p. 372] hearing His words, nor receiving His commandments; the idea there is learning from a model. Therefore one fully in the good of reconciliation is imbued with the spirit of the four gospels. There is nothing lacking morally as regards Man in the four gospels; every quality is presented in the four. That was what God saw, and it is presented in the four gospels in the way of testimony, so that we should feed on them. A man in the full enjoyment of reconciliation is a man that meditates in the four gospels.
WCR We understand the gospels much more slowly than the epistles.
JT I think it is intended the epistles should come first. A child in school in some respects learns from another child more readily than from the teacher, because the child is nearer. So that we get the idea from one like ourselves, but then the strong meat is Christ. That is what is under the eye of God. He could not open the heavens on Paul and say, This is my beloved son. It is only on Christ the heavens could be opened, because there was nothing lacking there. All that God sought in man was there. The gospels afford the food for those who are reconciled. Colossians 1, I think, shows how the thing comes about, and the Person in whom it comes about. The greatness of His Person is first spoken of, and then it is stated that the Godhead is undertaking to reconcile all things to Itself by Christ. Then it goes on to say: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death; to present you holy and unblamable and irreproachable before it, if indeed ye abide in the faith founded and firm, and not moved away from the hope of the glad tidings”.
HG Why does he say, “If ye continue”? (Colossians 1:23).
JT Wherever you get an “if” there is a possibility [p. 373] of decline. In fact I would say the evidences of decline were there. It is not that an individual should ever lose it. The danger was that the company should disappear and decline, and I think the elements of decline were there; but it does not say that in Ephesians. In Ephesians 2:16 it is “Reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross”; there is no “if”.
JLJ Would you say the “if” is connected with a company, not with an individual?
LTF The moving away would be by individuals.
JT You could not of course disassociate the idea of individual conduct from the company, but I think it is the company that is in view.
HG The apostle speaks of God having committed to him the ministry of that reconciliation, but He had also put in him the word of that reconciliation. Was the word the actual thing itself and the ministry the setting forth of it?
JT I think the ministry is, in a way, wider and more official. In every country there is a “foreign minister”. There is only one. There may be many ministers under him, but one only has the portfolio. I apprehend that Paul had the ministry officially. The “word” would refer to the expression of it, how it is presented in formal communications. “Putting in us the word of that reconciliation” shows how the apostle was qualified to speak of it.
HG You see in Romans, Colossians and Ephesians different aspects of it.
BTF Would you say what the end of reconciliation is?
JT It is that God might be restful; that there might be no cause of disturbance anywhere.
BTF And was the point that the Corinthians should enter into God’s thoughts regarding them?
JT Undoubtedly he had that in view, although I think his statements here are wider. He is really dealing with the thing, more than making a local [p. 374] application of it. The objects of reconciliation is that God might be restful, in men first, and finally in “all things”.
BTF Do you mean that is the subjective aspect in regard to the people of God; that they should be restful toward each other?
JT If you are reconciled and I am reconciled, we, in measure, rest in each other. There are no hard corners! That is the idea. There is in the believer an ascending love, and a horizontal love. In Ephesians reconciliation is presented in one body. It is not here “in the body of his flesh through death”; it is “by the cross”. The thing is seen in one body. That shows the enmity has been slain, and Jews and Gentiles are brought together in love. How pleasing this was to God! Reconciliation in Ephesians, therefore, takes the form of unity in affection.
HG “Ephraim shall not envy Judah; and Judah shall not vex Ephraim” (Isaiah 11:13).
JT So God will be quite restful in Israel in the future. Everything is to be reconciled, principalities and thrones and all seats of government. All these things were created by Christ and for Christ, but they are occupied for the moment by persons wholly out of sympathy with God, and, therefore, God has no restfulness in the present rulers of the world for instance, nor in unseen principalities; but when Christ is the Ruler of the world God will be restful. There will be nothing to disturb. It is not that there may not be details out of harmony, but Christ is in supremacy and God is quite restful. Things are in good hands. That is the principle of it. In Colossians we have “you hath he reconciled”. The Spirit in Christian epistles is occupied mainly with the saints at the present time.
AFM In Colossians that was in view of the teaching of the body; whereas in Ephesians [p. 375] it was in view of the house. Reconciliation is presented in both.
JT Yes, it runs on into the house in Ephesians.
AFM So it answers to what you were saying: “This is my rest for ever, here will I dwell” (Psalm 132:14).
JT It answers to what I was saying this morning in regard to Jacob. One always reverts to Jacob in order to get a right idea of the house of God. It is formally stated that God appeared to him at Bethel; and Jacob arose from his sleep and he set up a pillar where God appeared to him, and he poured oil upon it, and he calls it the house of God. Now after he has been away from there for twenty years or so he returns, and God meets him on the way and wrestles with him till the breaking of the day. Jacob says, “I will not let thee go except thou bless me” (Genesis 32:26). I believe there was the beginning of Jacob’s history as for God’s pleasure. There is a man who wants to be blessed by God. He was alone and he clung to God until he got the blessing. Then his name was changed. God gave him a new name, Israel, which signified that he had power with God and with men. But his natural strength was curtailed, he halted on his thigh. The sun rose upon him as he passed over Penuel. All the natural greatness was left behind. That could never go into Bethel. His name, Jacob, signified that he was a man who would act against another from behind. This is descriptive very largely of things that go on among the Lord’s people sometimes, backbiting and the like. That is wholly unsuitable to the house of God, and anyone who is given to it has no part in the house of God practically. God taught Jacob in his wrestling that things were to be face to face. He saw God face to face. That is the principle of the house of God; looking at a brother, into his countenance, and being transparent. It is in that connection that he gets the name Israel. So that he goes up into the house of God now as a [p. 376] transparent man; (Genesis 35). You do not get power with men by acting behind them, but by speaking with them face to face. That is how you get power with the Lord’s people. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6). They are not from the back and not under the fifth rib like Joab’s attack on Abner.
WB Peter speaks of those things as to be laid aside: “Guile, malice”, etc. (1 Peter 2:1). They have to be laid aside before you go to the house.
JT You have the spiritual house after that; after coming to the Lord. “To whom coming;” “If indeed ye have tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Peter 2:3,4). Jacob tasted that the Lord was good, in His wrestling. Well then he goes out, and (passing over the sad experiences of Genesis 33 and 34), God said to him, “Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there”. He goes and “the terror of God was upon the cities” (chapter 35:3,5). There was nothing to fear. As your face is Bethel-ward the terror of the Lord is against your enemies. In Bethel the Lord appeared to him after he came back from Padan-aram. Jacob had asked for His name at Penuel, but the Lord declined to give it to him there, but at Bethel He opened up His name to him, and it says that Jacob set up a pillar where the communications were made. It was as if he said; Now, I am going to stand up here for God where the light has come to me, because really Jacob is to be the pillar. The assembly is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). But how? Well, he first pours a drink-offering on the pillar. That indicated that he had made headway; that he had come to reconciliation; he had come to know that he was pleasing to God, for the drink-offering was for God. Then he pours the oil over the drink-offering, so the one is for God, and the other, the oil, is for testimony here. The assembly is the pillar, but it is set up where the communications have been made to him. It is set up there, and it is to be for God’s pleasure. It is composed of persons who [p. 377] love God, and who love Christ, and one another. That is the drink-offering. That is for God’s pleasure. God anoints that, as it were.
WCR Luke 15 was alluded to this morning as typical of reconciliation. That is, the younger son returning from the far country and how he is received, and how he is for the father’s pleasure.
JT I think that is very beautiful. Luke’s gospel really is the great gospel of reconciliation. It is announced at the Lord’s birth, “Peace on earth, good pleasure in men”. But first there is peace in heaven. Now peace in heaven involves the Christian dispensation, because Christ has gone in, and the assembly is there anticipatively. The prodigal is brought to this. So that chapter 15 is the climax as regards the effect of the gospel. The prodigal is in the house with the “best robe” on. You can understand how the father would be delighted in that son as at home free and happy, and in every way suited to the place.
HG The servants put on the best robe, indicating, I suppose, the place ministry has.
JT The servants evidently knew where the best robe was, when the father told them to bring it forth. There is such a thing as a wardrobe in Scripture, and doubtless in it are other robes besides the “best” one, but the best one is for Christianity, for the present time. So that I suppose God has more pleasure in the heavenly company than in any other company, because they are characterised more by Christ; there is a greater similarity to Christ in members of the assembly than in any other family.
WB The whole creation eventually shares in reconciliation.
JT Yes, quite. I think I would put it in this way, that the new covenant enables us to be at home in the presence of God; reconciliation enables God [p. 378] to be at home with us. There is nothing to disturb Him, so He comes in to dwell with us.
GAT Do you get the sabbath reached in that?
JT It is the same idea, only of course the sabbath does not suggest dwelling, but rest. Dwelling implies affection and family relationships. So that reconciliation in that way is that God is pleased with us, but after that there is the development of family affections. These belong to the house.
JB Distance must be distasteful to God.
JT Distance is intolerable to love. Therefore God hated darkness. He commanded that out of it light should shine.
HG Going back to Jacob, it is very beautiful to see that it was God with him at the beginning, but he was with God at the close.
WB In the book of Leviticus the position God takes is suggestive. He takes His place among His people, figuratively, I mean, and then after that there is the offering to Him in worship. That is, He comes among His people.
JT Leviticus is on that platform. He speaks out of the tabernacle in Leviticus, so He is already dwelling there. He sets Himself to be approached by men. But I think you can see in Exodus 19 to 21 how God proposed to prepare for the dwelling and that the covenant precedes it. The idea of reconciliation is seen in the offerings of the people for the tabernacle.
AP Why did Jacob call Bethel a dreadful place?
JT Because he was not reconciled then. He did not call it a dreadful place when he came back to it in Genesis 35. He was suited then to the house of God. He did not even know the covenant in the first visit. If you know God’s heart toward you, you will not think His house dreadful. You will be at home [p. 379] in it.
Ques So you need justification before you can touch reconciliation?
JT Oh, you do, quite. From the outset Jacob had faith. He learned the manner of faith from his grandfather. I have noticed particularly of late that the responsibility of a father does not cease with his immediate children. According to Scripture, it runs on to the grandchildren and great grandchildren. So by faith Abraham dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob. Now he was not long with Jacob, but whatever time he was with him he took account of Jacob, and so far as in him lay he helped Jacob. He set the right principles before him; he dwelt, not in houses with him, but in tents, and hence it says of Jacob at the beginning, that he was a plain man and dwelt in tents. He had learned from Abraham how to live. So he had faith from the beginning. But his natural traits were stronger than his spiritual, as it is with most of us. Therefore he has to go through the painful experience of twenty years in Padan-aram, but when he comes back God settles the matter. The natural is crippled, but he has spiritual power.
RSS Would you speak of the new covenant as world-wide, as toward all men?
JT I think not; it is “as regards the house of Israel” (Hebrews 8:8). It is between God and His people.
RSS I was thinking of the Lord as Mediator between God and man; that is world-wide, but Mediator of the new covenant is a more limited thought.