ESTABLISHMENT IN THE SPIRITUAL FAMILY
ESTABLISHMENT IN THE SPIRITUAL FAMILY
Hebrews 10: 9; Mark 3: 31 - 35; Job 1: 18, 19; Job 42: 7 - 17
I have in mind, dear brethren, to speak about establishment, the state of being divinely fixed or established in the things of God. What is said as to this to the saints at Corinth may be mentioned at the outset, indicating what is in mind. “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ”, says the apostle, “and has anointed us, is God”. “In Christ” is fixity, and it is there that we are to be established, not in this world. What I have in mind as to this is specific — that is, establishment in the divine family. I read in Hebrews as giving the great principle, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second”, and I wish to apply it to the family. There is the first family and the second, but He takes away the first, as we have read in the book of Job, in order to establish the second; for any thought that God has introduced is never to be abolished, it is to go through, and one of the great conceptions in the divine mind is the family. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father)” — an only one with a father particularly brought out a father’s affections. The truth is presented in that way so as to impress us with the peculiar affection that flows out from the Father, and which belongs to the family.
Isaac is a type of Jesus in this respect. The word in regard of him was, “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest”. Abraham and Isaac, seen in Genesis 22, foreshadowed the passage I quoted from John 1. It is the setting out of the family thought;
[p. 2] so we are told later in John that the Father loveth the Son, and we are also told that the Lord Himself said that He loved the Father. Moreover it is stated in the same great family gospel, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. We have the idea of the family greatly stressed, and God would have us to understand it. It was a primary thought with Him, and every primary thought continues into eternity. The thought of the family is supremely such, for we are told in 1 Corinthians 15 that in eternity “the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him” (who is God and Father) “that God may be all in all”. All in all — that is, every created intelligence will be filled with God, but He will be Father as well; He is God and Father. The Son will be there, there will be the perfect radiation of affection between divine Persons, and the Spirit pervading all to make this good in every heart. That is not the first family, but the second. We are told “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual”, and this applies to the family.
Mark records for us an incident which brings out this great thought of the family and how it is experienced now — the moral element that enters into it. When I use the word moral in this sense, I refer to what has to do with time. It is the same family in mind, only viewed as constituted capable of overcoming evil and practising righteousness. There will be no need of these features in eternity, for there will be no evil there, and no need of the moral element in the sense in which it is spoken of in this passage. Evil will be relegated to its own place, the lake of fire, never more to lift up its head. The divine family is marked off, as the Lord says, by doing the will of God, and I want to show how the first family comes into evidence in this passage in Mark, so that you may see how this idea of the first family may even apply to a believer’s house. I hope also to show from Job how God works in such a house, so that the first family may [p. 3] disappear in the second. The discipline of God is to lead us to abandon what attaches to the first, so that we may be established in the second.
In this remarkable passage in Mark 3, we have the Lord’s mother, Mary, the most honoured of women; and yet here she is on the line of the first family — that is, on the line of nature. In this she erred more than once. For instance, at the marriage in Cana she said to the Lord, “They have no wine”, as much as to say, You are my Son, and I have liberty to call Your attention to this matter. He said to her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come”. He repudiated the introduction of nature in this way. Mary is adjusted at once, and sets an excellent example for fathers and mothers who would pursue the natural; she says to the servants, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it”. But here in Mark 3 she is on natural lines; the multitude tell Him that His mother and His brethren are standing outside; He is inside and they are calling Him. Think of who He was! Mary should have known — no one on earth should have known better who this Person was, but she is standing outside, and the brethren are inside. The disciples are sitting around Him, for He looked round in a circuit. If we are not in the divine family, if we are on the line of nature, we are really outside the circle of those who are sitting around the Lord Jesus, those who love Him. The relatives call Him to come out to them; they were His brothers and sisters according to nature, and they call Him as if they had a claim on Him. That is what enters into this; they were calling Him. Why did they not come into the circle, and sit down and listen to what He was saying? No; they did not, and the Lord scathingly rebukes them. Parents may expect such rebukes when they are on the line of nature and not on the line of the second family.
In the book of Acts. Luke refers to “all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach”. The Lord here in Mark 3 exemplifies what He is about to say, in that He [p. 4] looks round upon those who were sitting around Him; He was doing that as if to say, My heart is set on those who are sitting round Me, they are delightful to Me, and I must not be called outside. It will not do at all to give up the second family for the first. No doubt Mary and His brethren were thankful in after years for this rebuke, as, for instance, when they were found in the upper room later on. If you were to ask Mary, What did you think when Jesus said that to you? — she would say, ‘Oh, how foolish I was, and how faithful He was! I feel this, as recalling that He was inside with His brethren and I was outside’. She was a true believer and a highly honoured one, but she was on the line of the first, the natural family, and she was rebuked. The Lord looked round on those who sat about Him, and saw them listening, not merely as curious and interested persons, but listening. The heavenly family is a circle of affection, for John says as we love the brethren we know we have passed from death unto life. The Lord looked round and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother”. Young people, come into the second family! You do not want to be taken away by the government of God. It says that He “taketh away the first”. Many have been taken away by death, others through worldliness, so that they are morally dead. The point to understand is what the first represents — the flesh in the believer is to be taken away. How? Through the efficacy of Christ’s death — by self-judgment, by self-renunciation and the avoidance of all that goes with the flesh, by the washing of water by the word. If I put my son to the university I want a name for him; I want him to be distinguished in this world; that is the first family. The jailer, believing in God, was at once baptized with his family; that means that he was at once going in for the second. So with Lydia also, at Philippi. They were remarkable cases, they started with the idea of the second family.
[p. 5] Now I go on to Job to illustrate what I am saying, for the Old Testament always helps in this way; it gives us details. In chapter 1 you will find that Job’s sons and daughters are specifically mentioned four separate times, and in every instance — except the first — they are mentioned as meeting in each others’ houses. That is, they are viewed from the very outset as constituted to carry on as brothers and sisters without their father. Young people very often like to get relieved of the father’s authority and influence. It does not exactly say that here, but it does say that they met alternately in their brothers’ houses. Very nice, you say. Yes, from their point of view. On the last occasion they are drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house; not a word about Job and his wife. On every occasion Job sent and sanctified them, and he rose up early in the morning and offered sacrifices for every one of them. But why send? Why not go? Why should he be exempted from these occasions? There is not a word about Job being present at those family gatherings. This was not written by accident, but with purpose to teach us. Although the father was unique as far as he went, he did not take part in what his children were going on with. Was his life rather tame then? No, Job was a man of great affairs, but there was never any word of his children having part in his affairs.
If you read chapter 29 you will be impressed with what a man he was in his district. He says, “When I went out to the gate through the city, ... the aged arose, and stood up. The princes refrained talking ... The nobles held their peace”. He was the leading man in his district, perhaps a wide one, but there is no mention of his children. I have no doubt that Job was known far and wide. He lived in the land of Uz, and was one of the most distinguished men of his time. His was not a tame life, but a life of affairs; “I ... dwelt as a king in the army”, he says as to his public life. But I am speaking now about his children. He sent and did things for them, but that was all. No doubt it suited them that he did not come;
[p. 6] there is not the slightest hint that they missed their father, or were at any loss owing to his absence from these feasts in their houses. In the last instance the feast was in the eldest brother’s house; they were on the line of nature, and they moved in that way; but a wind came from the wilderness and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men and they died, and the messenger says, “I only am escaped alone to tell thee”. Is not that a solemn lesson to children who disregard parents and are content to go along by themselves, who want to go on the line of the first family! A solemn warning, too, for parents who allow their children to do these things! It came from the devil — God gave him leave; but there is no word of him after chapter 2. It was the Lord who allowed these things — it was a question of the governmental dealings of the Lord. Job was a converted man, but godliness may be only up to a point, not going far enough. How terrible is the thought that He taketh away the first! All that is on the line of nature fails. He gave it abundance of time to prove itself, but now it is exposed. He taketh away the first, and what for? that He may establish the second.
So I come to the last chapter, in order that you may see how the discipline of God brought Job to the second family. Forty wonderful chapters intervene, chapters of education, bitter experiences for Job, but well worth the while, as we see when we read this forty-second chapter. You will notice what is said in verse 7: “And it came to pass after Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, that Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, Mine anger is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken rightly of me, like my servant Job. And now, take for yourselves seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept”. God had spoken to Job. I am here tonight that God may speak, and all meetings of this kind are intended to give God opportunity [p. 7] to speak. The point is what God says. Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “Mine anger is kindled against thee”.
Now what is to be observed is, that the root of the matter was in Job, and that the second family as worked out today is not merely a second family of persons but a second family in principle. Children, of course, are born on the line of nature, but the second family is the idea. The first family is there — that which is natural is first, afterwards that which is spiritual. Circumcision came in on the eighth day, indicating the second family, that is, the spiritual. So it is with baptism; household baptism came in under Paul and is a great thought in christianity. At Philippi, the two leading believers have their households baptized, and the baptism of the household implies the thought of the second family. Why should I bring in death if the first family is not to be removed? There is no point in anyone having his household baptized unless he has the second family in mind. The idea in the mind of the believing parents is that the child is dead and buried, and is to be brought up in the light of the second family — in the light of Christ risen from the dead. So you find the principle in Moses; he is laid in the water. Indeed, you find the principle as early as Seth. When his son was born, by the name he gave him he said, He is a poor dying creature; he called his name Enosh, which conveys this thought. The babe, however delightful, is born to die, and the parents say that he must die, and baptism means that. It is taking away the first so that the second may be established. So the eunuch says, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” So with Paul; Ananias says, “Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins”, Acts 22: 16. The “first” has sins attached to it, and these must go, the person and his sins all go in baptism. It is a question of baptism to Christ — “as many as have been baptized unto Christ Jesus, have been baptized unto his death ... so we also should walk in newness of life”. Room is [p. 8] made for the second. The point in the early verses is to bring in Job as the head; he is regarded as a priest also. The second family here illustrates any family brought up on the line of baptism to Christ as Head, risen from the dead. The Lord indicated to Eliphaz and the two others that Job would intercede for them. “My servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept”. He is a priest. The new order of things is to have such a man as this leading. How we can apply this to our Lord Jesus! How God has accepted Him! Job is a type, though perhaps a dim one. The Lord Jesus is the only Man acceptable to God in His own Person. He is Priest to God for all His people. These three friends of Job are brought in and saved because of this man.
We are told the Lord accepted Job, and thus he was set up again with twice as much as he had before, except that his sons and daughters were not increased in number. There is the passing over to the second, for in truth the second is reached in the same individuals. Romans takes up a man responsible to God, and the “second” is worked out in him by the removal of the first. Job has twice as much as he had had in cattle, but only the same number of sons and daughters. See what a man Job is! How different from his friends and neighbours and brethren! He is set up, not only in acceptability to God, but to everyone. God has been doing this ever since Job’s day, working out His thoughts with us in severest discipline, so as to put away the first and establish the second. Job’s friends bring him money and earrings, and set him up as if he were the centre of affection. He had seven sons and three daughters, and in all the land there were no women so fair as the daughters of Job. It is not the natural now, not a question of physical features, the beauty of these women is typically spiritual. The second family is marked by this. It would be well to consider these women and others who are mentioned, holy women of old, women of faith. The women of the New Testament form one of the most interesting studies as [p. 9] one works out in each the transfer from the first to the second. What a group you find standing by the cross of Jesus, the Marys, which imply that they knew suffering! Where are there women to be compared with those delineated by the pen of the holy writers in the New Testament! There are not any so fair, as is said of the daughters of Job. In the first chapter no names were given, for names indicate character, and their characters were evidently not worth naming. No doubt they were “society people”, distinguished among men, but God took them away with a terrible stroke, to make room for the second. Now the second family comes into view; their names are given, and the daughters are specially mentioned; but there is not a word about feasts in their brothers’ houses in this last chapter. It says Job gave them an inheritance amongst their brethren; they are in subjection in their own right positions. That is where all true christian sisters should be — amongst their brethren in the assembly, in the family of God; and that is what the Lord had in mind when He looked round upon that circle that were sitting around Him. What a holy place for young sisters! Instead of the dance hall and all that kind of thing — to enjoy an inheritance amongst the brethren, an inheritance handed down from their parents and given by God Himself, for Job is here representative of God. God is the Father of all the spiritual families; they are all named of Him, and to each He has given a rich inheritance amongst the brethren.
So the Lord looking around in Mark 3 indicates that those round Him were morally right, they were doing the will of God, not their own will. The place in the divine family is based on this, not doing one’s own will. I suppose each of these feasts in the brothers’ houses was a matter of the will of the brother. Their father is not there, he has other matters, and they are quite content to be without him, and Job is seemingly satisfied to let it be that way. For this reason they are taken away. In Mark the second family is composed of “whosoever shall do the will of God”; in Luke of “these which hear the word of God, and do it”; and John gives, from the Lord’s own lips, the glorious position accorded to us, saying, “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. That is the heavenly family, the family that God is to have before Him, and we shall be in it throughout eternity. May we be established by God in this great family!