THE BALANCE OF TRUTH
[p. 198] THE BALANCE OF TRUTH
Truth is things as they are in the mind of God, It is not one side of them nor another side, but the whole as they stand in the eye of God. The exposition of any subject according to man’s mind is true to his mind; that is, it is stated that it is seen, or can be seen by him. But this is not in itself truth, for if a thing be capable of presenting a different view when seen from God’s side, then, however true it may be to the human conscience, it is not in reality truth; and thus the view of a subject which might appear to be true to man would be one-sided, if the light in which God sees it were not apprehended. This accounts for the partial and one-sided view in which doctrines or subjects of Scripture are spoken of; the truth is not grasped. The great mistake in every age, and the great cause of difference about doctrines and subjects in Scripture, is attributable to this one-sided view of them. If any subject be clearly seen from God’s side, there must be accuracy and perfection in it; it reaches as far as He has designed it, and it springs from Himself. Whereas, if it be limited to man’s view of it, it is only seen as it affects man, and he at best can only trace it from himself upward, instead of seeing it from its source as it is with God, and reaching downward to man. There can be no balance if the grace of God be measured by man’s gain from it or his need of it, because then it is made a thing entirely confined to man, and man is made the measure of it. This must be one-sided, because it is the lesser side that is made the range of it, and not the greater side, and that too from which it springs.
Man in the garden of Eden was the object, and he appropriated everything as given of God in relation to himself. But to fallen man, with judgment resting on him from God, how different everything is; he is at enmity and shuns God. If Cain thinks only of himself [p. 199] and forms a judgment from his own mind as to the way in which the distance between God and man will be repaired, he is all astray. The necessity of offering is admitted by Cain, but he confines his thoughts so entirely to himself that God’s thoughts as to him, a sinner, have no place, and surely there is no balance there. Abel by faith sees what God requires in an offering, and here lies the great difference between them. Abel had the truth and Cain had not. The righteousness of God required a victim, not chargeable, but bearing a judgment undeserved by it. That was the truth. The mind of God as to righteousness is answered to, and man is accepted with God. Thus both sides are fully provided for, while Cain, who thought of his own side only, secured neither.
Lot, while retaining the true position of being in Canaan, limited the truth to himself, sought his own interest, and ended in Sodom. If he had regarded his position from God’s side he would have been preserved, like Abraham, and in the end he would have found that what was the right thing, the thing honouring to God, was the best thing for himself. He only thought of himself, the balance was lost, and thus he forfeited the high privilege in which the truth had set him. If he had kept his eye on God, he would have found out that his own side was well secured. This is very important for us to know, that whenever we limit a doctrine or a revelation to ourselves, we lose the value of it; but when we maintain God’s side, we always ensure our own.
King Saul could never see any side but his own, and consequently he was always losing the blessing. Whether it be in subduing Amalek, or in keeping a feast, or in battle, he never could see anything as it was in the mind of God; he viewed everything from his own side, never from God’s. The fact is, the more I insist on God’s side, the more emphatically I secure what is perfect and good for man. On the other hand, the great thing with David always was God’s side,
[p. 200] even in his failures. He sees things from God’s side, and acts accordingly — acts in truth, for that only is truth which is as it is, and nothing is really as it is, but as it is with God; anything else is but a false view. It is a great thing when God comes first to one’s thoughts, and not oneself; and this was the difference between David and Saul.
The great evidence of Israel’s departure from God, for which they suffered seventy years’ captivity in Babylon, was that they forgot God, in the sabbatical year, for four hundred and ninety years; and surely, in forgetting God’s side, they in a marked way forfeited their own blessing. The sabbatical year was a most remarkable evidence of God’s favour and presence; but they thought not of God, they forfeited their high privilege, and entailed on themselves a grievous captivity. Thus with the captives in Ezra’s time; after enduring much in returning to the land, and after commencing the rebuilding of the temple, being hindered, they ceased for sixteen years (Ezra 4: 24), and excused themselves by saying, “The time is not come ... that the Lord’s house should be built”, Haggai 1: 2. While they sedulously cared for their own things, God’s side of things was overlooked, and the consequence was, “Ye have sown much, and bring in little ... and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes”. The cause of grievous loss to the saints in every age is just this, that they are thinking of their own gain in connection with the revelation of God in the first instance, and thus God, the Source, is lost. Paul says he withstood Peter to the face, “that the truth of the glad tidings might remain with you”, Galatians 2: 5. Peter did not mean to give up the gospel, but for a moment he looked to man’s side, and thus lost the balance, and the truth, which is always balanced, was imperilled. Plausible, doubtless, were the arguments used to excuse the conduct of Peter; even Barnabas was carried away, and he betrayed the side [p. 201] on which he was acting by insisting on taking his kinsman Mark with him and separating from Paul; Acts 18: 39. In the later epistles (2 Timothy 1) we read that all they of Asia turned away from the apostle Paul; it was not that they had turned from christianity itself, but from the truth. They could keep God’s side no more than could Lot or the returned captives under pressure, or even Peter when man was too much before him. The loss of balance is in making man the object. When Jacob at Shalem (Genesis 33) built an altar and called it El-elohe-Israel, he connects God with himself, instead of seeing himself as connected with God. This is the way it begins; the first love is lost. Christ as the simple object is lost, though there may be, as there was at Ephesus, a hating of what is evil, and trying of false clerical pretensions; Revelation 2: 2. The force and scope of the truth is lost the moment the eye turns from God, and the revelation of Himself to man primarily; so that in the last days, as we find in 2 Timothy 4, their ears will be turned away from the truth and they will have teachers who will suit their tastes — vitiated tastes that have turned away from the truth. Hence that which characterises the faithful in the last day is, Thou “hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name”, Revelation 3: 8. Christ’s side is insisted on by the overcomers, and hence the rewards are all marked with the word “my”. A pillar in the temple of my God, the name of my God, the name of the city of my God, my new name — all is from God’s side. The truth has been preserved, and the rewards are in keeping with it. Every servant of God in the present hour finds, as he is careful to maintain the truth, how easily he could be drawn aside to make man prominent in the matter of truth he is presenting; and the more distinctly he insists on making God first in it, the more will he be weakened by a Barnabas, or forsaken by a Demas.
If the gospel which is preached be that which pleases the taste, it must be entirely occupied with man and [p. 202] his need, and speak only of the benefit conferred by it. There is no question but that it does confer benefit on man, and this is its first word to him; but it is not balanced unless the relation be shown in which it places him with God. The Philippian jailor is told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”. He believes and rejoices in God. The popular gospel dwells on the benefit to man, the relief and ease which it imparts to him. It does not insist on the nearness to God to which the ransomed one is brought. It occupies him with the good, and benefit to himself, instead of founding his joy on the relation in which he is now with God through Christ. In a word, God is not made prominent to the soul, but the benefit. Acceptance with God is not the gain that is presented, but the ease to myself. I repeat, there is no question of gain; but there is a great difference between having before one the Person who accomplished the gain and the gain merely as one feels it. Scripture puts the Person first, and then the gain to the believer; and the result is that his heart becomes occupied with the One who confers the gain, and not merely with the gain. Now if one is exclusively occupied with the latter, there must always be a turning in on oneself — an occupation with the gain which does not increase it, and tends to make one merely a favoured individual instead of one bound to Christ. Hence souls are not rooted and built upon Him, and there is no balance, for the truth has not been apprehended.
There is no balance in the gospel which occupies the soul exclusively with the relief it will enjoy, instead of with the Person by whom the relief has been secured. Can that be truth where God does not consciously and prominently get a place? Surely there is no balance there. It is not only the sinner’s freedom from condemnation which the gospel proclaims, but that God has found him a Saviour; not only that he is safe, but that as forgiven he is now near unto God. The [p. 203] step between the right and wrong is often very small, yet it is plain that if the gospel be limited to the benefit it confers on man, then man is before the mind rather than God. Surely that is not according to the balances of the sanctuary. The gospel sets forth the grace of God to man, but it presses on man what the God who has this grace is — not merely the effect on man’s heart, but a sense of Him who confers it; not the relief only, but the One who relieves; not the deliverance only, but the Deliverer.
It is the same principle as to all truth and all teaching. If the saint’s benefit, or happiness, or order be looked at and sought apart from Christ, or as making Christ secondary, it will soon be seen that the truth has been lost; there is no balance. And this is not readily seen, because what is addressed peculiarly to oneself, and for one’s own special benefit, seems so good and useful, and comes so within the comprehension of the natural mind, that many contend for the practical usefulness of it. The evidence of every failing dispensation is the attempt to exhibit in externals that which is lacking internally; and hence ritualism and Pharisaism will always crop up when the heart is not occupied with Christ, like Saul destroying all that was vile and refuse, and sparing Agag (1 Samuel 15: 9), or the Pharisees in our Lord’s day, or the Laodicean leaven in our own day. Man’s side is dwelt on, but God’s is overlooked. All is one-sided, and the balance which marks the truth is lost.