THE NEW MAN

^[p. 178] THE NEW MAN

Colossians 3: 9 - 17; Ephesians 4: 17 - 25

Ques Could you give a short summary of what was before us yesterday for the sake of those who were not here?

JT Our subject in all four meetings is one, that is, it embraces the features of christianity that are spoken of as new under four distinct heads: the new cruse, which we considered yesterday morning; the new bottles, which we considered yesterday afternoon; the new man, which we propose to consider on this occasion; and then the new Jerusalem, which it is thought should be considered this afternoon.

At our first reading we dealt with the new cruse, reading from 2 Kings 2, part of Acts 1, and the closing verses of Mark 9, to bring out a little the preservative element in what was left here by the Lord as formed by Him. The vessel, or cruse, it was thought, was seen in Acts 1, and the new features were noted. Then the salt put into it was particularly enlarged on in a practical way, as showing how divine things are preserved in freshness amongst the people of God. Then, in the afternoon, the closing verses of Luke 5 were read, which speak of the parable of the new cloth and the old garment, the new wine and the new bottles, in conjunction with the opening and closing verses of Acts 2, to point out the strength of the vessels into which the Spirit came; how the assembly at the beginning was great enough, or rather those who formed the assembly, were great enough to receive the Spirit. There was no evidence of any incongruity in the away they behaved. With the presence of the Holy Spirit in them they were equal to the further increase, as it were, from heaven through the apostles’ ministry — the vessels were great ^[p. 179] enough for it — and great enough also for the influx of converts through the gospel. So in that way it was a question in the bottles rather of moral greatness and strength.

EJMcB The general impression in my own mind in the morning, was that we reached the thought of what was preservative, and the feeling in relation to peace among ourselves; and in the afternoon we saw the importance of there being a vessel here that would answer to any outpouring that God might give in relation to it, so that whether it was a question of increase of spiritual capacity it would stand it, or an increase of numbers in the saints it would stand that too.

JT Our subject on this occasion, as has been remarked, is the new man, which obviously presents a different line of thought, and I think what may be borne in mind to begin with is that the new man is what is for God in the midst of what is old and corrupt; first, as in Colossians in the way of freshness in the energy of life, and then secondly in Ephesians, as a creation, a positive creation marked by what stands in the midst of the corruption, and holds for God in that freshness. It is “created in truthful righteousness and holiness”, and the renewing in the spirit of the mind involves that that is maintained in freshness. The word, “being renewed”, would indicate that what is created does not grow old; it remains fresh.

ASL What is the thought of the new man in Colossians being spoken of as fresh, and in Ephesians as what is entirely new? What is the precise point? You said something about it with regard to life.

JT In Colossians there is that in the new man that is fresh as a child is to its parents — the freshness of life. The knowledge that marks it is of a different kind. The idea of youthfulness is not in that knowledge. “Renewed in knowledge” is not the idea of ^[p. 180] youthfulness, but knowledge that is different, whereas in Ephesians the creation is different. It is a new man “created in truthful righteousness and holiness”, and the renewal of the spirit of the mind is what conveys the idea of youthfulness. There is remarkable wisdom in the use of the words; perhaps you know that better than I do.

ASL It is very interesting and practical. It is new in Ephesians in the sense of that which never was before — the new man created new altogether, but then kept fresh.

JT Kept fresh. The “being renewed in the spirit of your mind” is the youthful thought in Ephesians, whereas in Colossians “renewed into full knowledge” is the thought of a different kind of knowledge.

EJMcB Then is the Ephesian thought to secure something that never gets old?

JT That is what I thought. There the word ‘new’ means it is different, whereas the renewal of the spirit of the mind is, it is kept youthful. There are two words used in the original in Colossians, the new man is youthful and the knowledge is different; “renewed” there is not the idea of youthfulness, because it is to the image of Him who created him.

GJE Was there anything in the reading of Colossians first?

JT I thought we might consider what is for God in youthfulness first. We have, I think, indications in the Old Testament of what God found, or intended to find, through the death and resurrection and ascension of Christ. For instance, in Genesis 1 the earth emerges from death, as you might say, and we have immediately the evidence of life, and, as is obvious, in peculiar freshness. The earth coming up out of the waters brought forth by the divine word grass, herbs, and trees. There would be nothing old there. The life obviously would be all fresh and new. A delightful scene it would be for any one capable of ^[p. 181] taking it in. I think in measure as the earth emerged from the deluge, there would be that also. Things began over again.

ASL And new in the sense of what never existed, coming out in freshness.

JT Then again in regard of persons — the Israelites coming out of Egypt: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him” (Hosea 11: 1). There God was taking account of the freshness of the affections that marked them as coming out of Egypt through the Red Sea. Then again he speaks of “the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holiness unto Jehovah, the firstfruits of his increase” (Jeremiah 2: 2, 3). There was that beautiful freshness in them that delighted God, and though He would have preserved them, Ephraim grew old and developed grey hairs: “grey hairs are here and there upon him” (Hosea 7: 9). So in Romans 6: 4 you have the same thought: “so we also should walk in newness of life”. The word there is not the same as here, I admit, but still there would be what was for God, the “newness of spirit” and “the renewing of your mind”. All these things, I think, lead up to what we have formally stated here as the “new man”.

ASL Newness of life would be a kind of life that had never been before.

JT Yes, in Romans, that is the force of the word “new” used throughout.

ASL “Newness of spirit” in Romans 7: 6 is the same word — quite a new kind of thing.

JT And so, too, the renewal of the mind in chapter 12.

PL Do you distinguish in that way between the words in Genesis 1? “In the beginning God created”. Would that go with the Ephesian thought? Then later, “God made”. Would that go with the Colossian thought?

JT It is interesting to note that you have not got the word ‘made’ in connection with the new man in Colossians, but you have it in Ephesians. In chapter 2 you have the word ‘formed’ in regard of the new man: “that he might form the two in himself into one new man”. He is not only created, he is formed. I think that the distinction would be like what we get in Genesis 1; that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Whatever there was we do not know; whatever there was for God is not stated, but when you come to the third day of creation, you have life for the first time, and it is in the sense that we are speaking of it. Then on the fifth day, you have animal life. In Isaiah 45: 18 we read, “he formed it to be inhabited”.

RB How do you speak of the new man as having the Lord Himself in view?

JT Well, it would only be as a pattern. I do not think it ever speaks of Him directly in that way.

RB Not personally.

JT It would be in the sense of the race. We have in Genesis the word ‘man’ as covering one person; it is used to designate Adam when there were no other men; then you find it as designating the whole race. The new man would refer to what Christ is in character rather than what He is personally; it could not refer to Him personally. True enough, He was a different kind of man, but He was not a creation. Of course, as come personally into manhood, He was necessarily a different kind of man, but then the new man is said to be created, therefore you could not apply it to the Lord personally, but you can apply it as referring to His character. The old man, as a race, took its character from Adam, and so we take our character from Christ, only that the new man is definitely a creation. It is not the idea of a ^[p. 183] person at all. It is the idea of the character of those who have put it on.

EJMcB The pattern from which life characteristically is formed is Christ.

FHB What came out in Christ as a Man is seen characteristically in the saints.

ASL You could not have the new man without Christ as model and pattern, any more than you could have the old man without Adam. It is a collective thought, is it not?

JT Yes, it is. It includes all the saints; it is not their persons exactly, but their character, what they are characteristically, as already said.

JJ Would the new man be illustrated in Acts 3? You have mentioned chapters 1 and 2 in connection with the other two points. The freshness of the man leaping up, walking and praising God, and then the times of the restitution of all things being brought to light.

JT Well, quite. The new man was there characteristically in Peter and John, and then, too, in the man that was healed.

Ques Does it connect with the second Man out of heaven?

JT That would enter into it, but the idea stated of the second Man is that He is “out of heaven”. It refers to the Lord personally. We take character from Him as heavenly. The idea of the new man has in view our being in the midst of what is still old. We shall not speak of the new man in eternity. Of course, when you come to new creation, you do not get any designations of contrasts, for all things have become new.

JJ What connection is there between the new cruse and the new bottles and the new man?

JT The new cruse involves preservation, as we have been seeing, and the new bottles, being containing vessels, refer to how things are contained here.

^[p. 184] It is how the things of God are contained — a vessel great enough to contain what came in. But in the new man it is not that at all. It is not either of those things. Of course they all run together, but the new man is what is for God, and what is here thus in testimony in contrast to the old man. It is put on, as the old is put off.

EJMcB Would it not be right to say that in the new man both of those thoughts of preservation and containing are conserved?

JT No doubt there is a sort of constructive line of thought leading up to the heavenly city, but you can see in the new man what is for God. The man is for God. I think if we bear that in mind, we can understand that ultimately it will be God and men. I think in the new man we are in the presence of what is for God, not exactly in the future, but now, in the midst of what is corrupt, in the midst of what is under death and decay. There is that which is fresh and which continues fresh and which is incapable of being contaminated or corrupted.

WCG Would you say that the new man is the testimony and in having part in the new man we have part in the testimony?

JT That is the effect of it, but I think it is what is for God first. I quite go with the thought of the testimony which the Lord may make clear, but I think we should see what is for God. Compare Colossians 3: 12 - 17.

WJH The cruse and the bottles, and indeed the new Jerusalem are vessels, but the new man is not exactly a vessel, it is a character.

JT Although we say it is not a person, yet it is a creation involving persons, and primarily that must be for God. It seems to me that if you think of man as a creation you must think of God “by him and for him”, we read. Every creature is for God’s pleasure. “For thy will they were, and they have been created” (Revelation 4: 11).

Rem That is the great thought in your mind — what is for God, for God’s pleasure.

JT I think we have to keep that before us — what is fresh, as in the energy of life, and different to what is around.

HH And it is what is on the earth. Colossians does not go beyond the earth, does it?

JT No, it is what is developed here, I think, in relation to Christ. Christ is the characteristic feature of Colossians.

HH Is there not a link between Romans and Colossians which would not come in in regard of Ephesians? I thought there was a sort of past history in regard of Colossians, that is, you could not really, so to speak, be a Lazarus unless you had come under the grace of Christ and divine support previous to that. Colossians would view the saints as risen, but on the earth.

JT Just so. I see what you mean. Christ is the dominating feature of Colossians. We are not exactly in the presence of the sphere of divine counsel in Colossians.

PL Moses in Psalm 90: 17 says, “let the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us”, and it says of him in Deuteronomy, that his eye was not dim nor his natural force abated. Would that be what is for God in freshness and life?

JT I think that is good. There was the work of God. Psalm 90 contemplates what man is as dying, and then what God would do. “Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy majesty unto their sons. And let the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us; and establish thou the work of our hands upon us: yea, the work of our hands, establish thou it” (verses 16, 17). There would be, I think, there the thought of what we have before us, the beauty of ^[p. 186] the Lord.

HFN You made a very interesting connection yesterday between the new cruse and Acts 1, and the new bottles and chapter 2. Is there any point in the history of the Acts where the truth of the new man is developed?

JT Speaking of it fully contemplates the Jew and Gentile. In Acts 3, as has been suggested, you have Peter and John going up to the temple together at the hour of prayer. They went up together. I think there was there God’s best, as it were — Peter and John, a beautiful blend of experience and love. They went up together, it says, “into the temple at the hour of prayer”, and then the invited the man to look on them. “Look on us”. I think that heaven would look on them with supreme delight at that time. In fact, if you take the closing verses of chapter 2 you have the features that we are dwelling upon, in the beautiful relation in which the saints were set; it is not what they were told to do, but what marked them, as it were, naturally; I mean, of course, in a spiritual sense.

There were added three thousand on “that day”, and, as we remarked, there was no inconvenience. There is seen to be ample accommodation, and then the Spirit goes on to tell us what marked them, not in the way of obedience to a commandment, but what they did. “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2: 42). And no one counted anything they had as their own. They continued in a happy mutual state, and it says that they broke bread in the house. I think that there must have been a great many houses in Jerusalem. The wide reference to the house in the Lord’s ministry must have had in view what would come in as the Holy Spirit came down — the great influx of converts, so that they should be properly housed, that they should be under hospitable roofs, as it were, where family affections should be ^[p. 187] developed. We do not know whether there were any halls in Jerusalem large enough to accommodate such numbers; I do not suppose there were any such, but they were not without accommodation.

I think the Lord had prepared houses for the saints, so that there must have been a great many houses for the breaking of bread. They broke bread “in the house”, that is to say, not in any particular house, but house-wise, as we might say; the whole scene must have been perfectly delightful to heaven. It was the immediate result of the testimony of the Spirit here. Peter and John, I think, would be, as it were, the very cream of that in the way of intelligence, and experience, and love. They were perfectly united, for the Spirit says they went up together to the temple.

JBC-l It seems significant that the first great interruption to what you speak of was on the line of untruthfulness. The bringing in of the lie against the Holy Spirit was the first great interruption of what had been separated in the power of the Spirit.

JT That is a most important remark, because one has felt of late the peculiar influence of lying, which is, as you might say, the first mark, indeed, the characteristic feature of the old man. How it comes up in difficulties of local matters — a spirit of untruthfulness. You can hardly fasten it on anyone, and yet there it is. As soon as a local difficulty arises you have an untruthful spirit, and hence in Colossians it says, “Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3: 9), and in Ephesians, “having put off falsehood” (Ephesians 4: 25). I believe that the traits of the new man would be the antidote; “The law of truth was in his mouth” is said of Levi; Malachi 2: 6. It is not only that he says the thing literally that is true, but the law of truthfulness is there. He will not deceive you whatever he says to you. He will convey what is true, whereas a man who has not got that law in his mouth ^[p. 188] might say true things, and yet leave you with an untrue impression.

GWW That is the very opposite to what came out in Christ. When they asked Him who He was, He said, “Altogether that which I also say to you” (John 8: 25). There you have truth.

JJ So the new man would be transparent like the heavenly city.

JT And as was remarked, this beautiful thing that came in consequent upon the ministry of the Spirit was interrupted by untruthfulness. It was the old man working, as you might say.

RSS Untruthfulness and lying were immediately exposed in connection with christianity. In the Old Testament lying was passed over. Take Rahab, for instance, and many other instances of the same sort. But when the Lord came into the world, when grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, great account is taken of truthfulness, and so we get the new man “created in truthful righteousness”.

JT Quite. That is very interesting, and because, of the old man God bore with things then which are simply intolerable now, because we have now got the new. We have discarded the old.

JCS Is the new man God’s way of securing in a scene of falsehood and corruption those precious features presented here in Christ?

JT That is right; that is just what it is — the continuance of the features of Christ in the scene of corruption; and it is, I assume, what we should keep before us — that there should be, however small, at least that.

JCS How would it work out in regard of one another? The primary thought is what is there for the approbation of God.

JT That is what I thought. It is seen as it should work out amongst the saints, in the verses we have read; Colossians 3:12-15.

RB How does the word fit in to Laodicea?

“The faithful and true witness”. Does that stand related to what we are speaking of?

JT I think it would. Faithfulness is that you are true to what you say, or you are true to what you are entrusted with; it is a great feature. To be true is that there is no deviation from the path; you stand by it in all its features.

WL So in the interruption that came in in the early days of christianity, what was said was true but was not the truth.

JT Just so; it was not all the truth.

HFN Does it work out in the close of Revelation, where it speaks of those within who have washed their robes and have right to the tree of life, and without is every one that loves and makes a lie? Is the Lord working with us in regard of local difficulties to make us realise what properly belongs to the within and the without, so that in result every one that makes a lie is found without?

JT It is very searching and solemn; wisdom is so essential in regard to those difficulties. “But wisdom, where shall it be found?” (Job 28: 12) and “Thus there is not a wise person among you” (1 Corinthians 6: 5). Wisdom comes into evidence, I think, in the locating of the offender, so that the least possible damage is done. I believe that one of the greatest things in discipline is that there should be the least possible damage and yet that the offender should be dealt with according to God. So, as you were saying, the one who loves and makes the lie is outside. It seems to me that the peculiar attack at the present time is in local eruptions. In these the features of the old man develop, and the antidote is in the development of the features of the new.

Now in 2 Samuel you have, I think, an antichristian uprising, first of a general character in Absalom (2 Samuel 15), and then of a local character in Sheba (2 Samuel 20). The latter would have made it a general thing if he could; he said, “We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, Israel” (2 Samuel 20:1). Many went after him, but happily the uprising became local. He was in the city Abel and apparently no other city was involved. Now Joab would have destroyed that city in dealing with the offender, having no thought of saving all the others. His one thought was to destroy the offender, but without any thought of the many that might go down with him. And I believe that is where wisdom comes in. It says there was a wise woman there and she went to all the people in her wisdom — mark, to all the people. In a local matter it is the responsibility of every person there, and you want every person to act, because it is in acting, in taking up the obligation, that one saves oneself and proves oneself clear in the matter. So it says that she went to all the people in her wisdom and they cut off Sheba’s head. They did it, and threw it over the wall, and the city was saved. The offender was dealt with, but the saints were all saved. There was the least possible damage; there was no damage in regard of anyone, but the evil was dealt with.

It is a question of developing what is new in dealing with these things. It is not certain ones in the company grouping together against others. That is simply the old method — the old man. We have to revert to new measures, and new measures are wisdom’s measures, and wisdom’s measures are God’s measures, and they are effective.

JS Hence the importance of having that which is new in the meeting.

JT It is so very easy to group, to take sides in matters, and the meeting become divided. That is not new at all. That marks the world.

HH The woman did not undertake to cut off the head of Sheba and throw it over the wall; she spoke to the inhabitants of the city and they did it. The ^[p. 191] principle is important. I must not cut off the head of a brother.

JT No, you must not. That is very important. Sometimes it is done. All the saints should be brought into such matters.

HH In that same scripture you have referred to, the wise woman said, “They were wont to speak in old time, saying, Just inquire in Abel: and so they ended” (2 Samuel 20: 18).

JT I have no doubt the allusion is to what is available locally. It says, “Inquire in Abel”, that is where the trouble was. For instance at Corinth — that is where the trouble was — they had the means of dealing with it. They might have inquired; they were “temple of God”. “Inquire in Abel; and so they ended”.

ASL The wise woman did not dwell at Corinth.

JT Apparently there was no wise woman there. The apostle says, “Thus there is not a wise person among you” (1 Corinthians 6: 5).

GJE The elements set forth in the wise woman, and her being able to influence the city, one would desire to be found in every local gathering.

JT That is just what I was thinking. 1 Corinthians develops wisdom, but it is called “hidden wisdom”, and I believe that is available in the temple, and it is wisdom that was predetermined before the ages for our glory. So we have resources that existed before the world; all will remember the well-known allusion to Hebron — that it was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt. His princes were at Zoan. It would appear to be the place of worldly wisdom, and I believe that many of us are there in dealing with assembly matters, bringing in the ordinary methods of the world in grouping together locally, one against another, instead of resorting to inquiry together as the temple. Then you get at the resources that were before the world, and so you are sure to ^[p. 192] undo what Satan is doing. They are the only methods, the only resources capable of undoing what Satan has built up in this world.

Judah’s princes were at Zoan; there they would take counsel, but Jehovah said, “they are but fools, the princes of Zoan, ... their counsel is become senseless” (Isaiah 19: 11). The princes of this world do not know anything about the hidden wisdom; they crucified the Lord of glory, but the believer knows. He knows, or should know, and the appointed way is to inquire. If we ask of God, temple-wise, there will be a solution; I am sure of that, and we do not need to lean on any party. God will come in and there will be the locating of the offender, and all the saints will be with you in it.

WW Would the “wise woman” involve the formative work that would come to light in Colossians?

JT I think she does. Colossians is what was before the world morally. You have something that is of God set over against what is in the world, so that philosophy or human wisdom is rejected, not only because it is bad, but because it is not needed. You have got something better.

EJMcB So in a way you have got the Colossian thought in Antioch, where they were first called christians. I thought a totally new character of man was in evidence that you could not connect with either the Jew or the Gentile.

WJH And Peter and then Barnabas tried to bring in the old man through the principle of dissimulation. The enemy is always at work on that line, because he is a liar and the father of lies, and the old man was begotten by him.

JT Certain came from James, showing how we may influence one another in what is evil.

PL So that just after Antioch, Elymas the magician appears. Is that the element of the old man and opposition to the new man?

JT ^[p. 193] Just so.

HFN The brethren sending relief to the poor saints in Judaea from Antioch would be the contrast to that — the early working out of the new man.

JT I think in following the thread in Acts (we have been dealing with chapter 3) chapter 4 presents the climax of it in Jerusalem. Peter and John had rendered their testimony together, and the man “held” them. He leaped up and walked with them into the temple and praised God — a delightful condition that was in itself so pleasurable to heaven. Now chapter 4 shows that their testimony, as set out in these two chapters, being finished, they went to their own company, and they merged in it, for, as they reach the company they are no longer distinctively Peter and John. As together they represented something for God, they served in that connection, but when that is finished, they come back to the company and merge in it. So it is no longer Peter and John in the company, but the whole company and all the apostles having their place. The same features that appeared at the end of chapter 2, seen in that company in an intensified way, is the climax of the work of God in Jerusalem from the standpoint from which we are speaking. After that you have the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, and then the dissatisfaction of the Hellenists, which give, as it were, the end of a chapter; so that from that point God operates towards Antioch and the things that we are speaking of develop there. We get the assembly that was there and things are presented as wholly according to God.

JBC-l The introduction to the gospel of Luke seems to have this Colossian idea in view, I mean as to the divine pleasure. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men” (Luke 2: 14). I was turning over what you suggested as to the new man being for God first. It would really be the bringing to pass in the power of recovery of what was for the divine pleasure in the ^[p. 194] midst of corruption.

JT Yes; that is so.

WJH So untruthfulness in Ananias and Sapphira and the sectional spirit in the widows were the first efforts of Satan to get a footing in that which bore the character of the new man in Jerusalem.

JT Yes; the old showing itself in opposition to the new.

PL So as things were waning in Jerusalem the features of the new man are seen in Stephen — the shining countenance and the spirit of Christ.

JT Quite so.

FSM The expression, “Having put on the new”, in Colossians — would you say a word as to how that works out?

JT The idea has to be laid hold of in your mind. Putting it on would be an act of your mind, as I understand it; that is, you take it up as an act of your mind, being enlightened as to it. The apostle does not introduce it as something they did not know about. He refers to it as something of which the Colossians knew — something they had done; and I apprehend they had, on the principle of faith and in their minds, taken up the idea of the new man, which, I suppose, would have come to them, through whomsoever the light came, as the character of Christ. They were evidently lovers of Christ; they had received Him, it says, and they would, as loving Christ, put on the new man. But the taking it up in that way as an act of your mind does not mean that the thing characterises you, and so, I think, the apostle introduces it here that it might characterise them.

You will observe that he goes on to point out what marks the new man which they had put on, that he was renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him. There was no room in him for Greek philosophy or anything of that kind. It was the kind of knowledge, as it were, in God Himself,

^[p. 195] the Creator. Then he points out that there is no distinction of nationality, nor is there anything there that marks men in this world. He states first what this new man is, and then he says, “Put on therefore, as the elect of God”. That I think is what confirms what we are saying, that the new man is for God. As having put on the new man they were God’s elect. “Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth!” (Isaiah 42: 1). They corresponded to Christ. He had elected Christ. It is not a question there of what the Lord was in His own divine Person, but what He was here as a Man — that He was delightful to God. He was God’s elect, in whom His soul delighted, but they would give delight only in the measure in which there was this beautiful freshness in what they were to put on. As it says, “holy and beloved, bowels of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering”. These are the things that God has delight in.

WCG The hymn we sang helps us in that connection, ‘Lord Jesus, source of every grace’ (114:1).

JT Just so.

FSM While having put on the new man, they still needed the exhortations that follow.

JT The exhortations indicate how it works out in you. You are regarded as having taken the thing up as a matter of light by faith, but now you put on all these things and you are perfectly delightful to God. One would love to get the thought into one’s soul in “Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth!” — God speaking of what He found in Christ, and, in measure, what He finds in the saints also as His elect.

FSM You pursue the things so that they may be true characteristically.

JT The things are illustrated by the green grass, herbs and trees — which the renewed earth, the earth as coming up out of death at the beginning yielded to the Creator. Everything was fresh, and so it is with the saints. It is one thing to come up out of ^[p. 196] death, but then the earth might be bare. You might have the earth coming up out of death without grass. It is the grass and the herbs and the trees that make the thing delightful — the evidence of life is there.

DLH I was going to ask whether, having put off the old man and having put on the new, does not correspond with what we have in the previous chapter in the thoughts of circumcision, burial, risen with Christ, and quickening. Do not these thoughts of having put off and having put on correspond with those statements in the previous chapter?

JT I should say that fully. Chapter 2 is, as you might say, the doctrine.

DLH And that is how it is applied, because, if they were buried with Christ, where was the old man? And if they were risen with Christ, there was the new.

PL Would not the half-open flowers in the temple, within and without, answer to the thought? The within for God and the without in testimony for men.

JT The half-open flowers are the evidence of fresh life.

ASL Would you say a word on the remarkable expression, “As the truth is in Jesus”.

JT Well, in Ephesians you come to the complete thought involved in the new man and in the old. The truth as in Jesus is stated there as involving the putting off of the old and the putting on of the new, so that it would involve His death and resurrection.

ASL The personal name is striking — Jesus. “Bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus” (2 Corinthians 4: 10).

JT Do you not think this would link on the idea from Colossians with the new man in Ephesians, in that he begins with Christ in the passage? “But ye have not thus learnt the Christ, if ye have heard him and been instructed in him according as the truth is in Jesus”.

FHB Why does he say “in Jesus”, rather than “in Christ?”

JT Christ is the One in Ephesians who does things for God. What I learn, I learn from Him. I have heard from Him because being anointed He instructs; but then, what the apostle is at is to bring out the connection between Jesus, which is what He was here as a Man and what He is now too, and the new man. What He was personally as here, we are as a creation; that is, we are “created in truthful righteousness and holiness”. It is the difference, I think, as to the kind of man, between Adam innocent and Christ. Innocency will not do, and that shows what this word ‘new’ signifies. You might have another Adam like the first one. God could do that; it would be new in the ordinary sense of the word, but it would not be a different one. The point is to see that it is a different one. The difference is that Adam was created in innocency, not in righteousness nor in holiness.

The new man is created in truthful righteousness and holiness, and that is what Christ was as become Man, and if you have a creation in truthful righteousness and holiness, that creation is going through. That can never be dominated by Satan and that is the reason why Ephesians presents the full thought — that God has got something capable of standing in the corruption. It is a creation, but it is a creation in truthful righteousness and holiness, and then the renewal of the spirit of your mind keeps it in freshness, because the word for renewal is that for freshness. It is ever fresh and untaintable. It never grows old.

ASL Does not the thought of the introduction of the personal name of Jesus take you to the cross, where the old man had been dealt with and removed?

JT Quite. I think it is a question of what has come about in one Man, in Christ as a Man, ^[p. 198] in Jesus.

DLH But is it not the moral features that were set forth in Jesus as a Man here?

JT I think it is, only the truth involves His death. There could not be the putting off of the old without that. It is to be noted that in Ephesians the new man is created “after God”, as it is said. The new man reflects what God is morally as revealed in Christ.

JJ In Ephesians it is, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and chanting with your heart to the Lord”. In this connection, I suppose it would save from all local difficulties.

JT What precedes what you have quoted is, “but be filled with the Spirit”, so the saints are preserved in being filled with the Spirit; all that goes to make up what we are speaking of. There is the preservation of the new thing in freshness, so God’s delight is in it, and one would particularly like to keep that in view, because God looks for His own part, and if we love God, we shall not deny Him His part. So I think we want to preserve these beautiful traits of Jesus in our relation with one another.

ASL “Ye have not thus learnt the Christ”. Did you think that the expression “the Christ” would involve the new man — Christ Himself and this company associated with Him? Because there is a difference between Christ personally and the Christ.

JT I think “the Christ” is a question of the anointing. There is that which God anoints. As anointed, He has set forth what God is, and the new man corresponds with this; he is created “according to God ... in truthful righteousness and holiness”.

AM “If the Lord delight in us”. Would not that be the commencement? If God delight in us as expressing the new man, we shall have the consciousness of it.

JT He creates what He delights in; He creates “^[p. 199] Jerusalem, ... And I will rejoice over Jerusalem” (Isaiah 65: 18, 19). Enoch had the testimony that he pleased God. There was that there for God in the midst of corruption.

HWS Would there be the possibility of the acceptance of the truth of putting off the old man without having the qualities of the new?

JT I think that is what is intimated here. He brings in these qualities that they should not be lacking. You may sow your field and it is potentially the crop, but you have got to wait for the springing up of the crop.

JCS God will accept no human substitution for these qualities.

PL Would you think that the expression in Proverbs 12: 11, “He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied”, goes with it? Satisfaction is in the tillage.

JT Quite. A divine thought received into an honest and good heart and understood is the seed. Then there is the needed care that the desired fruit may come.

JCS Would you say a word how the assembly, the body, and the new man are presented in Colossians?

JT They run together. Colossians does not go on to the full thought of the assembly. You do not get the full thought of God in Colossians. What is emphasised is life in the way in which we have spoken of it, and one can see how that bears on the truth of the body. He is Head of the body, the assembly. That is a general thought in Colossians, which is worked out in Ephesians. It is brought in in the former epistle to show His greatness, but the truth of the mystery is not really developed in Colossians. It is a question of the greatness of Christ and the saints having life. It really resolves itself into this, do I love Christ? If I do, then Christ is everything to me, and the more I know Him, the more I know I have everything ^[p. 200] in Him. That is how I understand it. Everything comes out of Christ, but the main thing is to see that He is my life, and that in the new man He is everything. “Christ is everything, and in all”. You want nothing outside of Christ.

As said before, Ephesians presents the full thought of the new man, he is created after God; he reflects the character of God — righteousness and holiness of truth.