THE LIBERTY OF SONSHIP (3)
THE LIBERTY OF SONSHIP (3)
JT In looking at chapter 1, we saw the ground of Paul’s apostleship, and the deliberation that marked him subsequent to his call, so as to assure the gain of divine discipline and education in going into Arabia, where, as we noted, the flesh had nothing to feed upon. The principle of starving the flesh is very practical, and that was in mind in going to Arabia. There, doubtless, he learned how to use the law, for it has its own use and its own service to render; and the apostle learned how to use it against himself; Romans 7 helps in this. Then his return to Damascus would be the recognition of his local responsibility; he had been converted, and received into fellowship, in Damascus. Then he went to Jerusalem, not to minister or to make any show of the special grace and knowledge he had, but to make acquaintance with the leading servant there. He knew doubtless by report what Peter was, what his history had been, and the place he had been appointed to by the Lord, so that we have the account of his sojourn for fifteen days with Peter.
In chapter 2 we noted the change that time effects, either for good or ill. Certainly it had wrought wonderfully in Paul; but the facts stated would indicate that the opposite was the case in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, his visit after the fourteen years was not to correct what was in Jerusalem, nor even to minister there. The point in view was the conflict, God shifting the ground for it from Antioch to Jerusalem; not only that the opposition should be met, but that the victory, which was assured in that God had taken on the conflict, should be more complete and far-reaching, indeed universal. Then, there was the sorrowful fact that, although the victory was complete through God’s intervention, and through the superior power and grace [p. 331] that marked Paul and Barnabas with Titus, the state of things at Jerusalem was not permanently improved. It was not the divine intent in sending Paul, to improve the state at Jerusalem, but rather to show the superiority of what was going on amongst the gentiles, so that full recognition of it might be obtained at Jerusalem. The right hands of fellowship were given to Paul and Barnabas by the leading men, and then the truth was ratified in the letter, in the sending out of which the assembly had part. But the sorrowful fact came out that the general state of Jerusalem was not altered; and that was manifested as Peter visited Antioch. The state at Jerusalem had been painfully evident, even to the extent of influencing the great apostle Peter in taking a false position and thus denying the truth; so that it was no longer a question of treating with him privately or sparing him, but of withstanding him, which Paul did; and, in doing so, he tells us what he said to him. He is not calling attention to the great victory or advantage he had over Peter, for he immediately tells us how he had died to the law, and that he himself no longer lived at all. He was not boasting in his victory. No doubt it was necessary to speak openly to his brother, but he says, “I ... have died to law, that I may live to God”. So that the position is made extremely clear through the faithfulness of one man; and he further says that the life that he lived in the flesh, he lived by the faith of the Son of God, who loved him and gave Himself for him. That was how things were worked out in his own soul. There was no thought of vaunting over Peter, far otherwise; it was for the sake of the truth; that the truth of the gospel might remain with the gentiles.
In chapter 3 we have the ground changed again. We are now contemplating Galatia, and what happened there, in the presentation of the truth of the gospel to those people. So that, in considering this chapter, we have to place ourselves in the position of the Galatians,
[p. 332] and see how the truth has come to us, and what marks its presentation to ourselves; whether there was any model and whether there was in the vessel of the presentation that which was exemplary of what was preached. The strong language used, no doubt, may be fairly taken as applicable to ourselves. The word “senseless” is used twice, a very reproachful word as applied to persons who had the Holy Spirit, showing how very far away from the truth of the Spirit we may get, notwithstanding that we have Him. The word “senseless” is also applied to the unconverted, in the New Testament, but Paul here in this chapter applies the word to persons who had received the Spirit.
EuR Would you say a word as to the Galatians being addressed district-wise, not locally or universally, and as to regions being taken account of, such as Achaia and Macedonia?
JT It is to bring out national traits, what may mark a province or a country characteristically, and how God meets it in the testimony He presents. Where a district is addressed, it is not in relation to truth relative to discipline, but more particularly as to doctrine. It will be observed it is not the saints in Galatia, but “the assemblies of Galatia” (chapter 1: 2); that is, the status of each assembly is maintained in the address.
WCG Would you say that verses 19 and 20 of chapter 2 are the setting before us of the true experimental state of christians, possible by the Spirit?
JT It is what Paul presents as to himself; but, first, “that I may live to God”, and then, “I am crucified with Christ”. One no longer lives, but one’s institution, so to speak, is held for Christ and He lives there — a very great fact! It is complete surrender to Christ; and not only so, but the believer in all that he is, is open to Him; Christ lives in the person. Then, the life “that I now live in flesh” is a question of faith, that is, one is not occupied with his own things in this life; his life is not made up of seen things, but of unseen [p. 333] things; one lives in relation to the Son of God as He is now; lives by the “faith of the Son of God”, that is, Christ out of the view of the natural eye, but apprehended by faith; it is really Christ as He is.
MWB What is the difference between the general statement in chapter 5: 24: “But they that are of the Christ have crucified the flesh”, and this statement in chapter 2: 20?
JT There is this difference, that “I am crucified with Christ”, in verse 20, and “no longer live, I”, is what one can say of oneself. The verse in chapter 5 is abstract — “But they that are of the Christ have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts” — whoever they are. This is what marks them as of the Christ; the flesh is not only mortified, but crucified. The judgment is deeper in applying the thought of crucifixion; that is what the thing deserves, that ignominious termination of judgment. It is a great thing when one can speak of himself thus. In chapter 2 it is not only my flesh, but myself.
MWB And the other is left in an abstract way to be taken up by those who are such.
JT That is the idea. Paul, of course, could say that; he was exceptional, but he was not referring to himself specially in chapter 5. It is “they that are of the Christ”, and we want to belong to those. There are such.
MWB And I suppose Paul mentioning his experience becomes the great illustration.
JT Exactly. You would like to see him. If you wanted to learn the thing you would like to see how he worked it out, and he tells us this here. It goes further as to deliverance than Romans. It is a judgment on what one is, applying this ruthless and ignominious way to oneself, so that, “no longer live, I”. It is not that one does not live personally, but that “I” — that big “I” — is not allowed. Living by the faith of the Son of God, I refuse myself in this [p. 334] way.
EG Do you make a distinction between chapter 1: “our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins”, and here: “the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me”? It is the Son of God here.
JT That is how Paul is viewing Him. The passage implies a precious personal link with Christ.
Ques Is the teaching of crucifixion a deeper thing than death?
JT Yes; “Cursed is every one hanged upon a tree”. It is that extreme judgment; it is not arbitrary, but what it deserves, crucifixion with Christ is the answer to God’s judgment at the cross.
RF Is that what you have spoken of as maintained in his own soul, the liberty that the Galatians had lost?
JT Yes; it is the judgment Paul had reached and executed. God had reached that judgment and executed it in His beloved Son, and Paul reached it in his own soul, so that he says, “I am crucified with Christ”. The “I” is no longer in its native position; instead of I, it is Christ; and then, while the person speaking is in an actual condition of flesh and blood, he lives by “the faith of the Son of God”. That is, he anticipates the heavenly life; it is in the wilderness, but anticipating the heavenly things in the faith of the Son of God, the apprehension of the Person as He is, in heaven.
AFM Is the thought of “Christ lives in me” the suggestion of spiritual formation?
JT It would be. You have made room for Him in crucifixion. The allusion in the early part of chapter 3 is abstract: “crucified among you”. We may say that the portrayal must have been in Paul. Doubtless it was, but it is abstract which makes the application fuller. It is first “Jesus Christ ... portrayed”, but “crucified among you” is further. The fact being presented abstractly makes room for its extension. It may be in you, or in me; but wherever it is the portrayal becomes evident, concurrent with the ministry of the gospel. It is the portrayal of Christ and His [p. 335] crucifixion, and that must be in the ministers. The dispensation should be represented in that way. In so far as it lies in you, you will see that there is seen the portrayal of Christ and His crucifixion. There is no need of a cross of wood if there be that.
ASL Does it mean that he himself was the expression of a crucified man, according to what he says, “I am crucified with Christ”?
JT That is a fair conclusion to arrive at, but we do not want to leave it all with him. It is abstract, and therefore may apply at any time, if it exists.
HFN Would you open up a little the scope of chapter 3?
JT What we are now dwelling upon is important, as to what is set out in an exemplary way in those who minister; and then, the further fact that there is such a thing as the ministry of the Spirit current; “He therefore who ministers to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you”. At least, it was current in Galatia, and the working of miracles. It does not say who it was that ministered the Spirit, or who worked the miracles, but that there were such things. There were positive things there, and there are positive things now, and nobody can deny them. But on what principle are they ministered? The phrase “on the principle of” instead of the word “by” in the Authorised Version is a good translation of the Greek preposition in this scripture and is, in fact, I believe only found in this New Translation. It is an instructive phrase.
We have now come to the Galatians themselves, in their own country, and what was done there, which they would readily admit; there had been these things, even the working of miracles. The book of the Acts shows that there had been those things. On what principle were they done? This thought of the principle of things runs through the chapter; the things of God ministered in the glad tidings, are on the principle of faith. Then, there are the sons of Abraham, if you wish [p. 336] to go back so far, for the epistle deals in periods, years, eras, days. Well, God operated with Abraham on this principle. The law came in for another reason, really to help out this principle; it has its own service. Paul had understood thoroughly how to use it, and it has its own service, which we ought to understand, so as to use it. Then, God puts things on the principle of promise, not on the principle of a covenant through a mediator. It is a question of promise in this chapter, and all leading up to the application of sonship to those who have faith. “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus” (verse 26), he says. What I have said may be taken to be a sort of outline.
Ques In the verse quoted, it is “by faith in Christ Jesus”; is there a difference between that, and “on the principle of faith”?
JT “Ye are all God’s sons by faith”. The “by” there is instrumentality.
ASL It is a different preposition, you mean? “By means of”, instead of “on the principle of”.
HMS Why do we have so much in the chapter of Abraham and hardly anything of Moses, except that he is referred to as the mediator?
JT That gives rise to another suggestion that, in the next chapter, Abraham is not the prominent person, but his wife; and therefore the suggestion is important, that the Spirit of God occupies us with Abraham here. He is the progenitor of all who believe, and therefore it is not persons who keep the law. God gave the promise “in grace” to Abraham; the whole position is grace.
ASL What would you say as to the emphatic word, “a mediator is not of one” (verse 20) — that is clear enough — but “God is one”? What does that mean exactly?
JT God acts of Himself as one, and the only one under obligation; there is no mediator. Verse 15 is in the sense of disposition: “even man’s confirmed covenant [p. 337] no one sets aside, or adds other dispositions to”. God did it Himself, and nothing can be safer than what depends on God only.
HMS There is no other party.
JT No other party under obligation. Abraham comes in for the benefit, but the obligation is entirely with God; there is no mediator.
ASL A mediator involves three persons, but “God is one”.
JT Yes, the two persons making the covenant and the mediator between, but here God refers to none but Himself.
Rem God is absolute.
JT Quite so; He is one. There is nobody who can question Him, which makes the position infinitely solid. The covenant here is in the sense of promise, which God gave unconditionally to Abraham.
ASL There is no question raised about the Galatians having received the Spirit. How did you receive Him? is the question. And yet they were senseless.
JT The use of the word “senseless” to persons acknowledged to have the Spirit is very humbling, and how many of us have to accept that reproachful word!
WAW Is the phraseology suited to the national traits always, such as the fickleness of the Galatians? I am thinking, too, of Paul’s word to Titus, “Cretans are always liars, evil wild beasts, lazy gluttons”, Titus 1:12.
JT That is strong language. The Holy Spirit would not have used those strong words if less severe ones would have done.
EuR In these verses we are moving on towards sonship.
JT It is the end in view in the chapter, that is the terminus, and having used these strong expressions, the apostle proceeds to make clear the principle on which the gospel was administered. Before passing on [p. 338] to that principle, we ought to notice the fact that there was the ministry of the Spirit to them. They had received the Spirit. “He therefore who ministers to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, is it on the principle of works of law, or of the report of faith?” He puts it to them. How positive things were in the early days in the ministry, not only ministry of the truth, but the Spirit.
ASL In what sense would that be — ministering the Spirit?
JT It is again abstract, but I think it would mean that God was operating Himself. The minister was used, but, properly speaking, God ministers the Spirit, and it is put in that way. The apostle is not occupied so much with the minister, with himself, but with the fact that such things as these had been there amongst them; and in a certain sense, the thing may be applied now — what has happened in your own country?
EuR This ministry is in contrast to the demands of law.
EJMcB Is the idea that certain things were before their very eyes in the servant ministering, and then the report of faith, and then the ministry of the Spirit? Is that the order?
JT Quite so. It is a question of the presentation of the gospel, in connection with which these positive things appear. They accompany the testimony among the Galatians. It is well for every christian to review his own history and see how the truth came to him; whether it was accompanied by any positive things, and on what principle it had come to him, and whether he had moved away from that.
MWB I notice there is also the receiving of the Spirit referred to in the same manner, as on the principle of faith — there is the ministering of the Spirit and the receiving of the Spirit.
JT That makes these things very personal. How did one receive the Spirit? One ought to be able to [p. 339] give an account of that. The ministry of that was more general. If I say I have the Spirit, then I must have received Him, but on what principle?
WCG And is not the coming into the gain of the Spirit equally on the principle of faith, as receiving the Spirit?
JT It is. This word “on the principle of” is good to keep in view, for it is how a man is to be built up as a christian so that he is a man of principle. The Bible is a book of principles, and that is what the apostle is labouring at here, to bring out the great principles on which God had been operating since Abraham’s time; and so much so, that the gospel was preached to Abraham; verse 8. Scripture is here said to have preached: “the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations on the principle of faith, announced beforehand the glad tidings to Abraham”.
JTS Have we the two points brought together in the close of Acts 10? They were hearing the word, and then it is said that “upon the nations also the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out” Acts 10:45 and later Peter says, “Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did?” Acts 10:47.
JT What a great example that is of God’s administration! Cornelius and his friends were in the house, and Peter went there by divine direction and preached, and, as he preached, the Holy Spirit came on those who heard the word. That is a marvellous thought! Peter did not minister the Spirit there, clearly; he ministered the gospel, he preached the word, but God ministered the Spirit. As a matter of fact, it is the Spirit’s own action; it is an energetic action by the Spirit. And Peter proceeds to speak, not the continuation of his gospel address, but basing his remarks on what had happened divinely before his eyes. So that our dispensation began in that way among the Gentiles, by God ministering [p. 340] the Spirit.
ASL Acts 10 answers the question fully — on what principle did you receive the Spirit?
JJ Would the twelve men at Ephesus in Acts 19 be another instance of ministering the Spirit?
JT There you have another thought. He “came upon them” Acts 19:6, as Paul laid his hands on them. The minister is recognised there, but Peter’s part in Acts 10 was the preaching.
HPW Do I understand you feel we are in danger of calculating in relation to the greatness of men, and the like; whereas, if divine principles were built into our souls, we should be preserved from this?
JT Just so; a man built up on principle is broadened. I suppose the idea of principle enters into the whole physical universe; all must move on principle; and I believe that is what God would do for us, to get us on to this ground. How did I begin? I received the Spirit on the principle of faith; I received the glad tidings on the principle of faith. Why should I alter? I must proceed on that line. In dealing with such a specious attack as the apostle is meeting here, you can see the force of getting the saints on to the ground of faith and principle, a believer should be rational and logical, so to say. Have I proved that what I began with is not a right principle? If not, why should I take on something different?
FSM Is the suggestion of the chapter, that there were persons who had received the Spirit, but needed to be impressed with the principles? Is the implication here that we need to be concerned that these foundational truths should be reiterated among us; we should not take it for granted that, even though persons may have received the Spirit, they are well grounded in these matters, such as faith and grace.
JT It raises the whole question as to ministry. God says, I will gather others besides those that are gathered, a very comforting promise; but how are we going to preserve those that are gathered? It is by the [p. 341] constant reiteration of divine principles, and truths. So Paul says to the Philippians, “to write the same things to you, to me is not irksome, and for you safe”, Philippians 3:1. He had no difficulty in saying the same things to them, not that he meant to lay down an example that we should preach the same sermons. I do not believe he meant that, but to say the same things in needed settings, bringing in other things at the same time. Saints generally need more than one conversion, because of our fickleness, the readiness with which we come under influences and change our outlook. So the Holy Spirit has to keep on and on at us. The most important service I see today is to preserve according to God what there is.
Ques You mean that some need converting several times?
JT I do. The most distinguished man we have spoken of here in Jerusalem needed it. The Lord said, “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32), and he needed another one, according to chapter 2. There can be no doubt that he was restored from the evil he fell into. He was a man that through grace could quickly recover himself.
JTS Does he also show the need of this when he writes his second letter? “Wherefore I will be careful to put you always in mind of these things, although knowing them and established in the present truth”, 2 Peter 1:12.
JT Yes; “always in mind”, and he speaks about stirring up “your pure mind” too; 2 Peter 3:1.
Ques Do you think ministry should be kept in constant flow, and young people should seek to appropriate it as applying to their state and need?
JT I think that is very largely what the Lord is doing; the importance of keeping what we have is manifest, not merely that they should be nominally in fellowship, but nourished and maintained in right principles.
JJ [p. 342] Is that the point in the addresses to the seven churches, the constant appeal to hear what the Spirit says?
JT That is right.
WW That would save us from Brethrenism.
JT Yes; we get into the habit of using certain terms and they lose their power. Spiritual ministry keeps us fresh and in movement.
PL Would these principles result in our being firmly established, so to speak, in the firmament of God? Would the “ordinances of the heavens” be the principles? Then, in the epistle to the Corinthians, “star differs from star in glory” 1 Corinthians 15:41 is brought in after the “commandments of the Lord” have been set forth.
JT So that there is a variety of shining. “Among whom ye appear as lights in the world”, Philippians 2:15.
PL It is not competitive shining as at Corinth, which was really darkness.
NKM In addressing the saints in the first verse, the apostle uses a strong word: “who has bewitched you ... ?” Why should that be?
JT It is in keeping with what we are saying. It was for them to look back and see who had influenced them. How distressing that christians should come under such darkening influence as to be so characterised! I have to see what it was that thus appealed to me and affected me. It certainly was not the principle on which I received the gospel and the Spirit.
LDM Is Matthew the great gospel of divine principles? In chapter 18 the Lord speaks of the disciples needing to be converted, following the light of sonship in chapter 17.
JT Just so; “Unless ye are converted and become as little children” Matthew 18:3. He was addressing the disciples.
AFM Does the passage in Malachi bear on what we are saying? “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, the statutes and ordinances”, Malachi 4:[p. 343] 4.
JT Quite so, what Moses had given at Horeb, and they were for “all Israel”.
WC Would the instruction of the father and the law of the mother in Proverbs deliver from senselessness?
JT I am sure they would. We shall come into the law of the mother in chapter 4, but the instruction of the father is more what came out in the apostle, what comes out authoritatively — and alluded to in this chapter.
MWB Would you say that in this chapter things are presented more on the objective line? The sons of Abraham are referred to, and “on the principle of faith” is dwelt upon, so whether it is righteousness, or the inheritance, or sonship, things are all related to the principle of faith.
JT All that enters into the paternal side of the truth.
MWB And the next chapter is more Sarah, and implies the subjective line — the mother?
JT Exactly. Abraham is the prominent personage here, and it is to bring out that he is the father of all believers, that as of Christ we are Abraham’s seed.
Ques Would you say another word in regard to knowing how to use the law?
JT “By law is knowledge of sin”, Romans 3:20. That is a terse way of stating the value of it as an instrument. “But the commandment having come”, says the apostle, “sin revived, but I died”, Romans 7:9. It was intended to be for life, for he that would live was to continue in all things written in the law; if anybody could do so, he would live. But instead of that, the apostle says, “but the commandment having come”, that is, having come to me in its spirituality. It is not the commandments there, but commandment, that is, “Thou shalt not covet”. That is the thing that kills you. After that, “sin revived”, because it only promoted what is innate in me, namely covetousness, and the law condemns that, so that I am helpless: “I died”, he says. But then, not only do I die, that is, become utterly helpless, but Paul says further, “For I, through law, have died to law”, Galatians 2:19. That is the thing; it has served its purpose. The law was the tutor “up to Christ”, but I am no longer under it. This chapter teaches how one emerges in one’s soul from the authority of the law, fully recognising its usefulness in its place.
Ques Do you think Deuteronomy 5 helps in connection with first principles?
JT Yes. Deuteronomy is the reiteration of first principles; not in the sense of direct command, but rather the spirit of what had been commanded, given through a man who loved the people. In general it is what Moses says, in Deuteronomy, and that is a good word for those who minister the word; because Deuteronomy shows how a minister can say the same things but in different settings and in freshness. The speaker in Deuteronomy, in finishing his book, says, “My doctrine shall drop as rain, my speech flow down as dew” (Deuteronomy 32:2), which is very beautiful. You might say the same things, but you say them in such a way that they are fresh ministry.
Rem The link at the end of chapter 2 with the beginning of chapter 3 is very helpful. The judgment of the servant as to himself in chapter 2: 20, and then the way it is maintained in the minister and the effectual result of the ministry. The Galatians through faith have received the Spirit, and now it is a question of maintenance.
JT Yes. In our chapter the apostle opens the great foundational principles of christianity, including sonship.
FJF In connection with local crises it is sometimes very difficult to get a principle that would govern the position at that time. How would such be found?
JT Well, no contingency can arise in the history of a christian, but there is a principle to govern it. The principle is there, if you can find it. That is one great feature of a believer’s education, to learn to look at the Bible as a book of principles; so that when you need them, you know where they are. The accuracy of the Scriptures is wonderful, not only in a verbal sense, but in the settings of the subjects.
EG You would not act unless governed by a divine principle.
JT No, I should not.
HFN Would that be the importance of 2 Timothy — the following of principles, and would it not cover what has been referred to? No question can arise but is covered by the four things to be followed in that epistle — righteousness, faith, love, and peace, as calling on the Lord out of a pure heart. Would they not cover the whole of the principles that really govern our position today?
JT Quite so, only there are details, especially in the types and the prophets, that have peculiar force as circumstances arise to which they apply. For instance, we were speaking just now of how the saints are to be kept. Well, a psalm says, “Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron”, Psalm 77:20. That is a very important principle as regards the saints viewed as a whole; they are to be led like a flock; that is, they are to be kept under control. But by what means? By one hand, “the hand of Moses and Aaron”. Instead of saying, this brother and that brother, it is a combination.
HFN That is very interesting. Would you mind saying a word why Miriam is brought in in the Minor Prophets?
JT Micah 6:4 says that Moses and Aaron and Miriam were sent before Israel, it is just the leadership of the saints. “The hand of Moses and Aaron” is the unity or beautiful combination seen in those two men, the thought of authority and the mind of God in Moses, and priestly feelings and sympathy in Aaron. It is that one hand keeping the saints under control. For instance,
[p. 346] when they were about to go back into Egypt, according to Exodus 16, Moses could not save them; at least, he did not. He was there, and said much, but Aaron spoke to them, and when he spoke to them, they turned their faces toward the wilderness. It was not authority only, it was grace more. And they turned their faces toward the wilderness instead of towards Egypt; and then the glory appeared. Israel was saved by the priestly speaking. Then, you have another thing in the leadership of David, who “fed them according to the integrity of his heart, and led them by the skilfulness of his hands”, Psalm 78:72. In David, leadership was with skill and integrity. Then Miriam is introduced by God in the Minor Prophets. God says, “I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” Micah 6:4; it is not that they went before them physically. The point is that God had those three persons under His eye and formed them, for a period of eighty years or more, and when the time for leadership arrived they were there; God has them to be sent by Him before Israel. It is a question of what God provides in secret. Miriam is an additional thought, involving the sisters that God may use in leadership, so that the saints are kept as a flock. She is introduced by name, as a prophetess.
JRS Is that element learned in subjection?
JT Surely. How could Miriam become a prophetess, save as observing subjection to God?
Ques Does the combination of Moses and Aaron come out in Paul here in the way he deals with these saints?
JT Quite so; “and all the brethren with me”, as was referred to yesterday. So, in Corinthians the brother is brought in.
JJ Is there any book in the Old Testament you would couple with this epistle to bring out the details of the principles that Galatians contains?
JT No, I would not venture to link it with any special book. Genesis is the book that is dealt with [p. 347] here. Genesis is the root of things, and it is always well to take a soul to Genesis when you do not wish him to be under demand, for Genesis deals with the work of God by itself.
Ques You spoke just now of Abraham’s sons in verse 7; would they stand over against the word “senseless”, the way we are brought intelligently into the thoughts of God on the line of principle?
JT Yes. Abraham’s sons would not be senseless, nor are the sons of God, characteristically; they are wisdom’s children, in that sense, which is the very opposite to what came out here.
CSS Do you connect the recognition of these divine principles with spiritual instinct? He says, “having begun in Spirit”; does he contemplate carrying on to completion?
JT “Having begun in Spirit, are ye going to be made perfect in flesh?” Why not go on in Spirit? If I do, what will not the Spirit do for me? He is here to open up the treasuries of the Bible, the great highways of God, so to speak, that lead to Zion. The thing is to get on to those roads. “The roads were unused”, Deborah says, before her time; Judges 5:6.
ELM In connection with the thought of treasuries, and Paul and Peter being great vessels, are we carried back to Abraham on the one hand as the great vessel, that the blessing of Abraham can go to the Gentiles; and then, the thought of the blessed Lord, the seed to whom the promises were made, so that the great vessel of all the blessing of God is before us — the seed of Abraham?
JT Beginning with Abraham we have his sons but then there is the Seed, which is one only — not seeds but seed. That is the one great Person through whom everything is carried out, and that leads up to the paragraph; verses 15 to 20. We have the covenant made by God to Abraham, and then it goes on, “But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his [p. 348] seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ”. We have now definitely before us Christ as the One to whom the promises refer, and who effectuates them all. This paragraph is to bring out the basis of the gospel, that it is a question of God Himself; it is not even dependent on the believer. It is God, and “God is one”. The apostle in Timothy says, “For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one”, 1 Timothy 2:5. That is not the point here, but that God acts from Himself and is under obligation to no one; that everything He promises depends on Himself.
Ques Does that come out as principle in the verse following the one you have referred to in Micah 6? “My people, remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him, from Shittim unto Gilgal, that ye may know the righteousness of Jehovah”, verse 5.
JT That is right. In Exodus, He comes in according to what He was to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, on the ground of promise, to fulfil it. Well, the question is raised, What about the law? It came in by the way; it has nothing to do with the primary thought of God. It came in four hundred and thirty years afterwards, and cannot disannul it.
Ques The Lord in John 8 is insistent on Abraham, while the others speak of Moses.
JT It was a question of the Lord’s own Person there: “Before Abraham was, I am” John 8:58.
COB What is the relation between the principle of promise and the principle of faith?
JT The promise is effective on that principle. The promise has to be regarded by itself. It is made unconditionally; there are no conditions attached to it. But how am I coming into it? On the principle of faith: Abraham believed God. He is honoured here in a beautiful way: “believing Abraham”. He came into the promise and embraced it, although it was not fulfilled [p. 349] in his day; it was far off as to its fulfilment, but he saw it afar off, and embraced it on the principle of faith.
FCH Would you say a word as to the connection between the promise to Abraham on the principle of faith, and the promise to his Seed, which is Christ?
JT That is to show that a divine Person is in mind who would come in later. The Seed is Christ, who effectuates it; but the promise stands, and Abraham came into it in that far-off day, four hundred and thirty years before the law, on the principle of faith. He is honoured as “believing Abraham”, and the father of all believers. So that the point is that these promises are available on the principle of faith.
JJ And it is in that very connection that James calls him the “Friend of God”, James 2:23.
ELM Do you connect the expression, “God is one”, with the line of promise, and make any distinction from the thought of covenant which would involve two parties?
JT What we are speaking of here, is called a covenant in verse 17, but not a covenant between two parties making each responsible. The point is, “God is one”, and the promise is by one person who is not under obligation to others, and being God, it is absolutely sure to go through.
HES It was a promise in the form of covenant, God engaging Himself to perform what He said.
JT Quite so. In Genesis 17 it is called a covenant, and a sign is given to it — the sign of circumcision. A promise given in the form of covenant is to assure the believer — God binding Himself to it in this well-known form.