REDEMPTION AND FAITH
[p. 412] REDEMPTION AND FAITH
Romans 3: 21 - 26; Romans 8: 23; 1 Peter 1: 17 - 21; Ephesians 1: 7
JT It is thought that the subject of redemption seen in these verses will yield to us at this time. First the great general thought of it in Romans 3, redemption from the full consequences of sin, so that in that passage we have the great atoning work of Christ dealt with, as perhaps it is not elsewhere, in its bearing on us at the present time, the idea of redemption from the terrible effects of sin upon our consciences, we being awakened to a sense of sin before God. Then chapter 8 contemplates the redemption of our bodies, they too being released from the consequences of sin. We have the thought of adoption or sonship brought in there, showing that is its full result in resurrection, that we are not only raised, but brought into sonship in the full sense of it. And then, in Peter, deliverance from legal things, from the vain tradition that was handed down to the Jewish christians, and from which we now in christendom suffer. God’s people suffer much from tradition, from what is handed down from the fathers, as they are called, darkening our souls, even entering into our services in the assembly, sentimentality and religious things which hinder. Finally, in Ephesians, redemption showing the riches of God’s grace. That was what was in mind.
FD You speak of the subject in Romans 3 as general?
JT Yes, the full bearing of the atoning work of Christ as releasing and delivering us, redemption having that force, setting us, that is, those who judge sin, who fear its consequences, free from the consequences of sin.
HH Would that be in connection with God taking up His [p. 413] rights?
JT Well, it is so. The idea of it involves that someone has a right to do so, but it is seen in Christ as become Man. The right of redemption is, I think, seen, as we might say legally, in the fact that Christ has become Man; it is His relation to humanity that affords Him that right.
HH Because it was man that sinned?
JT Quite, and because He is related to us as having become Man. We learn from the book of Ruth that He has the right of redemption. He, as become Man, is related to us. It is a very great fact to take in that Christ has become Man. Simeon in the temple had that light, he took Him into his arms, he appropriated Him — “A light”, he says, “for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel”. He is God’s Christ, but He is also on our side as Man. The passage shows that He has come in as Man, as the apostle says, “God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that we might receive sonship” (Galatians 4: 4, 5).
JS Would it be right to say that “Jesus Christ” suggests that God secures that Man should be under His eye in perfection, and then goes on in connection with His blood and the mercy seat?
JT Yes, He was God’s Son, of course, and declared to be such from heaven. He is marked off as Son, according to this epistle, by resurrection of dead, according to the Spirit of holiness. He qualifies to take up this great work; God’s Son, but “come of David’s seed according to the flesh” — He is on God’s side, but He is on our side. God, it says in the passage in Peter, has taken up the One that is on our side, raised Him up from the dead and given Him glory that our faith and hope should be in God — He has regarded Him in that way. So that He is said in Romans to be delivered for our offences, raised again for our justification. He is available in that way. “Whom God has set forth a mercy-seat”
— [p. 414] God has Him, He has Him as Man, but He is on our side too.
HH How far would redemption go? I mean, it would not refer, I take it, to those who never will come into blessing.
JT It is said here to be “righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe: for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of his righteousness, in respect of the passing by the sins that had taken place before, through the forbearance of God; for the shewing forth of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just, and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus”. The redemption that is in Christ Jesus is available for all, but its application is only to those who have faith; the point is those who believe, those who are of the faith of Jesus.
EJMcB Is the thought that God has brought in this wonderful redemption, universal in its bearing, but applicable to those who believe?
JT Yes, that is how it stands — towards all, but upon all those who believe. I mean, the righteousness, as you say, is only effective to those who have faith, the difference lies in faith. The bearing of it is towards all, but the difference lies in faith.
JS Would “towards all” be like declaration, like the sun shining?
JT That is right, the difference lies in faith; so that the Lord says to the woman in Luke 7, “Thy faith ...” it is the person who has faith that comes into it.
GCP Is it great enough in value for all?
JT Quite so — the difference lies in faith. So that the point in our enquiry now is that, as to faith,
[p. 415] whether we are possessed of that quality, for that is what makes the difference.
FI Would it be the same principle as in 1 Timothy 2 where it speaks of the Lord Jesus giving Himself a ransom for all?
JT That is the thought, it is on the part of all. It is very simple if we see that the difference lies in faith; if that were not so anyone might say he is redeemed.
FI You get the limit in Mark: “To ... give his life a ransom for many;” the preposition ‘for’ there really means ‘instead of’, in distinction from the preposition in Timothy meaning ‘on behalf of’.
JT That is a good distinction; ‘on behalf of’ means that the bearing is towards all, but there is absolute substitution, I think, when you come to “instead of”, but faith makes the difference.
GCS Is that faith exemplified in Rahab? It says she perished not with the unbelievers, not the sinners.
JT That is good, “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with the unbelieving, having received the spies in peace” (Hebrews 11: 31). What is in mind is that we might enquire about this matter of faith, lest we may be moving on with intelligent and mental appreciation of what is being presented to us in ministry and the like, without the article of faith, for that is what makes the difference. “Without faith it is impossible to please God”, we are told. How much Romans makes of faith. We might attend all the meetings held and read all the ministry written, read the Bible constantly, yet without faith there is no pleasure for God.
Ques What is the thought in “Elias was a man of like passions to us, and he prayed with prayer that it should not rain” (James 5: 17) and the heavens were shut up. Yet, on another occasion it says that God “is a rewarder of them who seek him out” (Hebrews 11: 6) — could you help us as to the difference? I am thinking of the things that we are free to pray for and as to how far our faith could go. Could we take a line like that?
JT That is a question of whatever the matter may be. For instance there is a sin unto death, and John says as to it, I do not say that we should pray. It is a matter of spiritual discernment of the mind of God as to what you should pray for, and what you should not pray for. If we pray for what is in accord with the will of God, we know He hears us and that we have the petitions if we ask according to His will. Evidently Elijah prayed according to God’s will; conditions at that time required that remarkable sign. Indeed Elijah says to Ahab, “There shall not be dew nor rain these years, except by my word” (1 Kings 17: 1). God was bringing out the idea of a mediator. Elijah was typically that; things would be at his word; he was a man who had authority from God. It would be a serious thing to have to do with a man like Elijah in apostate times, for God empowered him to deal judicially with the nation. But then, he could pray again, and he did with great exercise on the top of Carmel, and God gave rain. James indeed is stressing the importance of prayer.
Ques Does Abraham’s finding strength in faith as set forth in the next chapter affect this? It says he is father of us all.
JT That is what chapter 4 is to teach us, it gives examples of faith; chapter 3 shows the principles; chapter 4 gives us examples of faith.
Ques Is your point that the vast system of redemption as opened out by God is only available to faith? The day is coming when it will be outward and public, but the dispensation now is in faith.
JT That is the idea exactly. In the millennium death will be removed publicly and every one will [p. 417] get the benefit of that; now we come into it by faith, then it will be sight.
Rem So that it says in chapter 1, righteousness of God is revealed on the principle of faith to faith.
JT That is the principle of the epistle, the gospel is for the obedience of faith among all the nations.
Ques Is not faith in chapter 3 the gift of God?
JT Yes, it is; it is really the outcome of His work in us. That was what made the difference between the woman in Simon’s house and Simon himself, she had faith and he did not: although the creditor frankly forgave them both, forgiveness was for both. How solemn it will be for Simon in the day of judgment when he stands before God; the attitude of God was the same to him as to the woman. He may say, The difference between us was that she had faith and I had not. The Lord says to her, “Thy faith has saved thee” — not simply ‘faith has saved thee’, but “thy faith”. Here in Romans it is to bring out that it is on that principle, but it gives us also examples of persons who have believed.
HH She had the witness of a divine Person that her sins were forgiven, “For which cause I say to thee, Her many sins are forgiven”. Would the Spirit come in there at all in regard to the matter of faith as a witness?
JT That is what is said in Hebrews 10: the Spirit is a witness to us.
HH I thought perhaps, where there was genuine faith, it was supported by the Holy Spirit in the believer. Is that right?
JT Quite so, it is, we come into it on the principle of faith.
FSM Is it the same thought in Acts 13, remission of sins preached, and then, everyone that believes?
JT There it is again. We are, of course, going over the ground of the gospel, but it is, I believe,
[p. 418] very important now to do this to get the fundamental thought of redemption and that it is on the principle of faith, and that that faith is to continue and to grow, so that we are in the dispensation of faith. God’s dispensation is in faith.
AMH Does faith bring in the element of responsibility?
JT I think it does. What have you in mind?
AMH I was thinking that it is only right, man having turned from God, that faith should be in evidence and that he believes God and is justified.
JT That is what the epistle has in mind, I believe, to establish confidence in God in man’s heart. God has provided Himself, as it were, the Mediator, that is One on our side to make us assured, a divine Person marked out to be such by resurrection of the dead. He is raised from the dead by the glory of God, hence, in the end of chapter 4 He is said to be delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. “Therefore”, it goes on, “having been justified on the principle of faith, we have peace towards God”. Happy relations are set up between God and ourselves; we have confidence in God, and then the further thought is that His love is shed abroad in our hearts, another divine Person operating to effect that.
Rem So the tenth leper returned and gave glory to God.
JT Quite so.
AMH One has heard the remark that, faith being the gift of God, all depends on God, but we are responsible to believe, are we not? It lies with us, and if faith is put into operation, does it not open up to us all that God has secured through Christ on our behalf?
JT Quite so.
Rem Paul said. “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision”.
JT Quite so. It is for the obedience of faith to all nations, so the element of subjection must be there accompanying faith. Peter says God gave the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him.
Ques While it says in Ephesians that faith is the gift of God, here it says that faith comes by hearing; would that bring in the element of responsibility referred to?
JT Quite so, there is a testimony: the hearing refers to the testimony, that is the word of God.
Ques What should we have in mind in the preaching?
JT Well, as some of us were saying last night, much is put into what the apostle had to say in the opening of this epistle to bring out the authority of Christ to take up the matter. That is, He is marked out to be Son of God by resurrection of dead, without saying who the dead are; that terrible matter exists, that there are the dead. And death is the great enemy, the last enemy wielded by Satan. The Lord had qualified as marked off, not by the declaration from heaven at His baptism, but by resurrection of dead, dealing with that matter, and, in dealing with it, there is no surrender of holiness; it is in the Spirit of holiness it is dealt with. Now, that is how the matter stands at the outset, so that it is the gospel of God concerning His Son, with these additional things that he was “come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1: 4). That is the One; it is the gospel concerning God’s Son, but that Person so qualified. Now that is to be presented always, a thing to be carried forward, so that what is received in our souls is the divine thought, and valued accordingly.
Ques Does Hebrews 11: 6 emphasise the side of faith where it says, “He that draws near to God must [p. 420] believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who seek him out”? Is there the danger of our getting casual and the need to have God before us in reality?
JT Yes. We need to enquire as to this matter of faith, whether we are possessed of it, whether it is an active principle with us.
Ques Will you say a word as to having faith in His blood?
JT Well, there is a slight question as to the actual meaning of that verse, but it seems to me it is a question of how you regard the blood. It really emphasises the value of the death of Christ, the blood represents that, that I have faith in that. Generally it is faith in God in Romans, but there is, I think, that too, that I have faith in the value of the death of Christ and what it really is, I understand the bearing of it as dealing with this great matter.
Ques What would hinder us having faith?
JT Well, of course, unbelief is the opposite, and I think to see that unbelief is sinful will help us to judge it; unbelief in a man’s heart is sin.
Rem “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”.
JT Quite so. If God presents things clearly in testimony and I deliberately refuse to believe, it is sin, and seeing that helps one even in his own state of soul, his progress; any working of unbelief as to any matter is sin and has to be judged unsparingly. That, although negative, greatly helps the positive side, that I have a conscience all the time as to the allowance of unbelief as to anything. I may be fearful in a general way as to my soul’s salvation, but unbelief as to anything is sin.
Ques Would you say the word is linked up with the mind and heart? — If we believe in our hearts.
JT Yes. It says, “By faith they [that is Israel] passed through the Red sea” (Hebrews 11: 29). Faith is [p. 421] attributed to them as in that action — by faith they passed through the Red sea. That is the last act of faith until we come to Rahab. There is nothing said about faith in the wilderness in that chapter, but it is encouraging that what is alluded to in the end of Romans 4, “Delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification” is followed by, “Therefore having been justified on the principle of faith”. They did have faith in that particular matter: by faith they passed through the Red sea.
JS What would you say of the last verse of Exodus 4? Moses did the different signs, then it says, “And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped”. How would that come in?
JT It is very plain they believed; what is brought out there is ministerial power; you get that touch in the ministerial books. What these two great ministers did led to worship; that is always a mark of true ministry; it leads the saints to faith and worship. So, when you come to chapter 12, Moses epitomises what Jehovah had said to him about the passover, and again it says that they worshipped — “And the people bowed the head and worshipped. And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they”. There you get obedience. In the earlier passage, based on ministerial power, you get faith; here you get action taken, keeping the commandment. Now both these incidents refer to ministerial power, that is to say, how the testimony is presented by those who present it, that it is presented in such a way as to affect people, that they believe and worship. Moses might have repeated everything Jehovah said to the people, but he did not, he just gives us seven verses conveying Jehovah’s instructions to him. There are about [p. 422] twenty verses in the original instructions relative to the passover, but he confines himself in speaking to the people to seven verses. And that is a good suggestion as to the ministry, that we are condensed and concise in what we present, so that faith and the obedience of faith are induced.
Ques Is faith the same as trust? You believe God and you trust Him for the path.
JT They are cognate words, but faith is a remarkable word. It is not used in Scripture in the casual way men make use of it; Hebrews 11 ought to be studied as to it; it is something I cannot please God without — I have to understand what it really means.
Rem It is a practical thing.
JT It is; it induces trust, of course, that I rely on God.
Rem It meant a lot to the man in John 9, he became a worshipper by believing.
JT Quite so. After he had gone through much in his soul, the Jews hating and persecuting him and casting him out, the Lord finds him, as much as to say, That is the man the Lord is looking for — the Lord found him, he did not find the Lord. He was valuable, a rare man, and the Lord says to him, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” — not ‘Do you believe your eyes are opened?’ for that was an historical matter now; but “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” And he said, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him, Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he. And he said, I believe, Lord”.
Ques Would that be the result of the obedience of faith? He was sent to the pool.
JT Exactly — those two elements of faith and obedience; it is really the obedience of faith and how beautifully he shone, as our brother has called attention to.
[p. 423] Ques Is it important to see that faith is a continual matter? It says in John 2 His disciples believed on Him.
JT Yes, they had that status outwardly; we may have it too and not really go the whole way. It is believing on Him now — “Jesus ... manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him” (John 2: 11).
Rem The work of redemption must precede the ministerial power for testimony.
JT That is good, if it be a question of redemption. In the case of Moses and Aaron it had not yet happened; the point is they believed what was presented to them. The thing is, do I believe whatever is presented to me on God’s behalf?
Ques Does ministerial ability enter into the way a thing is presented? Suppose the minister presents it feebly?
JT Well, we may, and yet find God working in spite of that. But do not put God to the obligation of working in spite of your feebleness. It says in Acts 14 they “so spake” that a great number believed. Then we have a practical case, the man at Lystra; the apostle looked on him and saw he had faith to be healed. Think of his discernment! And he said, “Stand upright on thy feet”, and he did. It is the power of the ministry that affected the man.
Ques Would you not rather say that the work of God would be the inducement of faith, and ministry would be as God may give a measure of gift?
JT Just so. I should not like to cast a shade on the presenting of this truth itself, but the question is raised as to Exodus and there you are on ministerial ground, and therefore the point is for the ministers, those who preach, and the apostle says, “How shall they preach, except they be sent?”
AMH It is a question of the power that is in the preaching. The preaching should correspond with what Paul could say of his preaching: it is a savour [p. 424] of death unto death, and of life unto life (2 Corinthians 2: 16). That is, you can find no fault with the ministerial side.
JT Yes, and “If also our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those that are lost” (2 Corinthians 4: 3). It is really God’s message and rightly presented.
EJMcB Then the point, I judge, at stake is that the preacher has faith in God being in the matter in spite of his feebleness, or the lack of belief on the part of the hearers, is that so?
JT Quite so. We know well enough that the best preaching we hear now is only feeble compared with what we have here in the apostles, but still I think there is a voice in it and that preaching is on the principle of gift. Everybody cannot preach: “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” Thus Peter stood up with the eleven — not the twelve, as we have often remarked — and what a preaching that was, three thousand affected!
Ques He says, “Give heed to my words”. Would that bring in the authority referred to?
JT Quite so; a man speaking who knew he had something from God.
Ques Does the expression, “Faith of Jesus”, here imply the need of trusting the Person as well as the work? Or, it might be, instead of the work.
JT I think it brings Jesus in in this matter of faith.
JS Does that expression, “Justify him that is of the faith of Jesus”, suggest a generation?
JT I think so, it is that sort of person, for God has Jesus now in mind; the idea of Jesus comes into the faith, what is believed.
FI Is redemption brought in so as to enable God to move? It is presented here as in Christ Jesus, but is not the basic thought in relation to it that it enables God to move in relation to those in whom He finds His pleasure in every way?
JT Quite, “Whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood”.
FI Is it right to say that the great work of redemption was a transaction between divine Persons independent, so to speak, of those They were moving in relation to?
JT Yes. Then Exodus 25 is alluded to in the mercy-seat, “Whom God has set forth a mercy-seat”. It was there the atonement was made, on the mercy-seat; it is in Christ risen, so that He is an object of faith in that way; He is set forth a mercy-seat.
HH As regards the preaching of the gospel, would it not be connected with repentance towards God? In Acts 20 Paul says, “Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ”. Are they not integral parts of the gospel?
JT Quite so. In Romans it is generally faith in God.
Ques Would that not be the effect of the way the testimony was presented?
JT Yes, it is what God has effected. These great qualifying thoughts introduced in the fourth verse of chapter 1, are to bring His Son before us, declared, or marked out “Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”, so that He is clearly before us as the Man whom God is using.
Ques Would Anna in Luke 2 help in preaching?
JT She spoke to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. She spoke of Jesus; she sought out the ones who would be interested, a very touching thing. “She spoke of him to all them;” she knew all of them.
AMH Would you take redemption to be more limited than the thought of the mercy-seat?
JT I should. The mercy-seat is, so to say, a public thing in the gospel: “Whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood”.
AMH And that is “to declare ... his righteousness”, is it not?
JT Exactly.
Ques Peter in his epistle alludes to some who deny the Lord that bought them. Do I understand that redemption alludes to the thought that all men are bought?
JT They had taken that ground as professing to believe. What we are saying refers to the real matter, but such persons have no part in it at all. They had part in it in a sense, according to Hebrews 6, part even in the Holy Spirit without reality, so that they are taken up on that ground. The Lord might exercise His rights too in saying, I gave My life for you; on the ground of profession and even in the preaching that may be true, but then they are cast away at the end, showing there is nothing in it.
Ques Is redemption not such a wide thought as purchase?
JT Redemption means a person has a right. When it comes to the matter of purchase, anyone might purchase a thing if it is purchasable, but redemption means that only a certain one has a right to do that. That is where Christ comes in as the only One who could undertake to die for men, because, as become Man, He had a right; it brings in a link with Him in the matter. So “God ... raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory;” as we are told in Peter, “that your faith and hope might be in God”, because He is on our side.
AMH Would you say, in a sense, that both apply to all? For instance, in the parable, He bought the field for the sake of the treasure. Has that any application?
JT I think God may take that on to give Him a sort of right-of-way in the matter, but it does not touch what we are speaking of. The only thing that gives me a real part in redemption is faith.
[p. 427] Ques I would like to be clear on this in regard to the lost finally. Did redemption ever have any reference to them? Or would the mercy-seat alone be in reference to them?
JT It had reference to them if they professed to appropriate it. As was quoted, “The Lord that bought them;” if they took that ground the Lord would say, I have a right to you; and He may administer accordingly in christendom, and indeed among the Jews too. The epistle of James, I think, is on that basis, it deals with persons who are not christians at all, but they are taken up as having a certain profession; but what we are speaking of is that faith alone is what gives us part in redemption.
Rem We get the idea in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: “Recollect that thou hast fully received thy good things”. Is there a suggestion there of the ground taken by the rich man?
JT Quite so. It gives God a certain advantage in dealing with men if they take up that ground, but if it is not real, it leaves them where they were, ultimately.
WC Why is it said in 1 Corinthians 6: 20, “Ye have been bought with a price”?
JT It is just to bring in that thought, that there is ownership. Purchase means that I have acquired ownership, but redemption really implies that the person who takes it on has a claim — something has happened that took them away from him. Man was God’s on creatorial ground, but something has happened to turn them away from Him, and He wants them back, and He brings this about on the ground of redemption.
Rem Like Boaz who had the right of redemption.
JT Quite. I think Ruth helps very much on this point. So in Mark it is, “Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation” — there is a link between God and His creature, but [p. 428] there is something needed; something has happened, and that has to be met by God taking up a right to redeem, and that opens up an immense amount of truth that links us with God and with Christ.
EJMcB May not the point be stressed that the devil has no right to men, and God asserts His rights in the field of redemption?
JT That is right. God has a creatorial right, and that is assumed in the gospel. If I go into all the world and preach the gospel to all the creation, that is man looked at abstractly as God’s creature. But he can never be saved solely by God’s creatorial right over him for “Without shedding of blood is no remission”.
Ques Is not the mercy-seat given a very wide bearing in John’s first epistle? “He is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole world”.
JT Just so. ‘Ours’ there is probably a Jewish reference. Of course, we might say it is christianity, but it is to bring out the bearing of the mercy-seat.
Now, as regards chapter 8, the thought goes on to the future, the redemption of our bodies. Our bodies are still mortal, and whilst they are mortal, they are not redeemed. They are the Lord’s, but they are not fully brought back from the effects of sin so long as they are mortal and capable of corruption. We must have bodies like the Lord’s glorious body to see the full thought of redemption as applied to us. Then the next point (of which one had thought as much as any) is in Peter, namely, the effect of tradition on our souls in our service to God. That is the point Peter makes, and one can understand it in an epistle written to Jewish christians. He says, “Ye have been redeemed, not by corruptible things ... but by precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot”. That is, I am not to be harassed by these things, by tradition — whatever it may be now [p. 429] in our times. The Lord has died in order to rescue us from all these things that are abroad religiously and which hinder the service of God.
EJMcB So that faith really would be the first principle and then the Spirit in the believer would give him the first-fruits, the present enjoyment of what he will have when he has a glorified body, and then liberty from the system of bondage around us would be by being brought to God. If you were near to God you would be free of them all.
JT That is the thought. They have a hold on many, but the Lord would say to me, I died for you to redeem you from all that. He is asserting His right to us in the assembly, and He wants us without all that; He has died to relieve us from it.
PL “Then are the sons free”.
JT That is how it works out.
Ques Why does Peter refer to silver first and then to gold? He referred to silver first in speaking in the book of Acts to the man at the beautiful gate of the temple, too.
JT I do not know, except to keep the rich thought for the end. However rich I may be, it is of no value at all in these things; it is to bring out that it is of no value at all. But I know that the brethren are greatly hampered by tradition, even in our assembly meetings, and the Lord would say, I died to deliver you from that. It is a burden, an obligation brought in, and the Lord has died to release us from it.
PL Is its awful character seen in, “We have a law ...”?; it was used to slay Christ. Is that the true character of tradition? — “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he made himself Son of God” (John 19: 7).
JT I think it is important to have that verse before us as bringing out what is meant here, how tradition may affect us to that extent. The apostle [p. 430] is dealing with Jewish christians, he is dealing with the burden of tradition by which they were affected and by which christians are affected now too, and he is bringing in the death of Christ, the blood of Christ, and this was in mind in the Lord’s death, to release His people from tradition that they might not be burdened by it, but be free of it. Indeed it is said in Colossians, “having nailed it to the cross”. So much does God think of this, how it interferes with our service, that He speaks in those strong terms as to tradition.
FI So to be clear on that line, it does not do to take up the thought of redemption as that which we have at the start and can leave? The more we enter into it and dwell constantly on the truth of it, the more we shall be clear of these things.
JT Yes. So it is before us even as we sit down to the Lord’s supper, Am I free of traditional thoughts? The blood of Jesus is to release me from all that.
Ques Would the practical effect of that be the purifying of our “souls by obedience to the truth”? He follows up with that.
JT It reads, “Your vain conversation handed down from your fathers” — we are redeemed from that — “but by precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ, foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but who has been manifested at the end of times for your sakes, who by him do believe on God, who has raised him from among the dead and given him glory, that your faith and hope should be in God. Having purified your souls by obedience to the truth to unfeigned brotherly love ...” (1 Peter 1: 18 - 22).
The final thought on this line is in Ephesians, where redemption is said to be in Christ, the Beloved — that is where it is. It is maintained in its proper level there in Ephesians, and it is according to the riches [p. 431] of His grace, so that we are to have it in that sense, expressive of the riches of God’s grace.
PL Would that be illustrated in David — the beloved — that the people have been redeemed in view the service of God?
JT That is what his name means, is it not?
PL The whole service is based on redemption in Chronicles.
JT Quite so, and it is “in the Beloved” — how that thought stands out in the service of God!