READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, CHAPTER 10
READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, CHAPTER 10
Does not this section begin at the end of chapter 7?
Yes, I think the point of change is verse 26. Down to that verse, the priesthood is all on the side of our infirmity, and from that point and onward it is on the side of our calling. He is able to save to the uttermost; that is evidently on our side, in respect of our infirmities; then you get a great change. “Such an high priest became us” (Hebrews 7:26), etc. (to the end of verse 28). The point in these verses is the height of the calling, not the question of infirmities; the calling is described in the Priest; the greatness and the characteristics of the Priest set forth the greatness of the calling. Such an One became us. No less an one would do, because he would not be at the height of the calling in regard to us. The high priest in Israel was the second distinguished man, the most distinguished next to Moses; the priest was like the people, in the sense that they were infirm and he was infirm.
When you say that the High Priest meets us on our side, is it not in view of bringing us over to the other side?
I think that is the great point in chapter 7:25, “He is able also to save them to the uttermost”, Hebrews 7:25. If He can do that, you do not want any more assurance on your side; now we turn to His side. I think the [p. 130] force of saving to the uttermost is, maintaining us down here amid the difficulties of the pathway and all that — saving us out and out.
Is this side of the priesthood our side, a side we shall need all the way along?
Always, but then it is all perfectly assured, which sets your soul free for the other. I think the sense you have of nothing to fear on that side, of a mighty delivering and sustaining power, sets you free in spirit, and you are at liberty to enter into His side. Then you get, “such an high priest became us”, Hebrews 7:26; One who is really the expression of the calling. In that sense the calling is revealed in Him. “Always living to intercede” (Hebrews 7:25) has reference to the deliverance, you do not want intercession in the sanctuary. Save to the uttermost is a very strong term; that is, looked at from every point of view.
There is a term which has been used a great deal; it is that the priesthood is according to the function of Aaron though after the order of Melchisedec. Is that true?
I do not think the word ‘function’ was used; it is analogy.
I thought Aaron never led the people in.
Hebrews is contrast, everything in the type fell short of the reality; the way into the holiest was not made manifest. There were two sides of Aaron’s priesthood: one was, he could have compassion on the ignorant and erring, and the other was, he had charge of the tabernacle, the sanctuary. I believe people have forgotten the latter sometimes, and yet that was by far the most important part of his office. It is therefore Aaronic; if you do not understand it from Aaron, I do not see how you can understand it at all. Aaron did not set up the tabernacle, but he had charge of it when it was set up. Christ is our Moses, and Christ is our Aaron, and He has charge of the worship of God: “Having a great priest over the house of God” (Hebrews 10:21) refers to that; the first thought in priesthood is to minister unto God: “That he may minister unto me in the priest’s office”, Exodus 28:1. Until within the last few years, the idea of many christians was that priesthood helped us along the road, and the other side was forgotten.
If Aaron’s sons had not failed, would he have led them into the holiest?
It is a most difficult thing to deal with suppositions: in the light of Scripture, I do not think it was the purpose of God to lead man in the flesh into the holiest. It is true that God works out His purpose through the failure of man, and what is worked out is the purpose of God. I do not think God had any purpose that Aaron and his sons should enter in, but He has a purpose that we should enter in; the great loss has been in not entering into our privilege. Aaron and his sons, undoubtedly typified Christ and the church, but what is enjoyed in the church is very different from what Aaron and his sons enjoyed.
Would you say that all after that verse: “Such an high priest became us” (Hebrews 7:26) is on the line of what He is?
You can never learn what your calling is by reference to yourself; you might examine yourself or others in vain, you can only find out the calling by the Priest, the High Priest alone expresses it. In our case it is the Son of God; He expresses it when the offering work is done, not till then. He is Minister of the sanctuary (chapter 8:2), and it brings in an important principle, viz., the connection of the sanctuary with the new covenant. The connection is in Christ: He is Minister of the sanctuary and Mediator of the new covenant. The new covenant, being expressly with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, refers to the future. We have now the holiest of all, and the Minister of the holy places, who is also Mediator of the new covenant. The state of things is abnormal. We have the blessings of the new covenant, but not [p. 132] the new covenant — that will be made with the house of Israel: we are brought into the spirit of it, it is the ground on which God stands with us. I think the interesting thing in chapter 8 is the connection of the present with the future, that is in Christ, the Minister of the holy places who is Mediator of the new covenant.
What is the new covenant?
JND used to say it was divine teaching and forgiveness of sins. Well, of course, we get the principles; we get divine teaching by the Spirit and we get forgiveness; we do not get the letter of the covenant.
Does not the new covenant include physical and temporal blessings which we have not?
The terms of the new covenant may involve it, but it does not state it. It can all be summed up in divine teaching and forgiveness. You do not get a word brought in of temporal blessings. A great point is, “They shall be all taught of God”. They shall not say, know the Lord, for all shall know Him. Really the church will be Aaron and his sons to Israel. What has come to pass is, that you have the heavenly part established before the earthly.
Some do not understand the church being Aaron and his sons to Israel?
What has been said explains it — the connection between the Priest and the Mediator; both are linked.
The church is associated with Christ when He takes His place as Mediator. I think the church is associated with Him in administration; I do not know whether it is just.
I never thought of it.
What is the difference between the Mediator in Hebrews and Galatians?
None; only in Galatians he will not have the mediator in that sense. There was no mediator in Abraham’s case. When God makes a promise there is no need of a mediator. God is one: but when a [p. 133] covenant is made you have need of a mediator as between two parties: it is impossible to conceive of a covenant without two parties. Promise does not involve two parties in the same way.
But in the new covenant there is only one. You do not want two parties.
There must be two parties; a covenant is distinctly a connection between two parties. That is just what is said in Galatians: “A mediator is not a mediator of one”, Galatians 3:20. When it is a question of promises to Abraham, it is what God engaged Himself to. The new covenant is made with the house of Israel — with them, there are two parties and Christ is the Mediator. It is between God and man, and Christ is the Mediator. I do not see how God could put Himself in touch with man without a Mediator, in the way in which He speaks. It all depends upon God, but it is a covenant made specifically with a certain people, and therefore a Mediator comes in. Under the first covenant Israel failed, because they were on the ground of their works. Moses was the mediator of the first covenant. You will find when God renewed the covenant and made known His name to Moses, that everything depended upon the mediator; “I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel”, Exodus 34:27. It was typical of Christ in that way.
How far is it true, or is it true at all, that under the new covenant He brings the people into line with Himself? He did not under the first.
It appears to me that mediatorship is God’s means of administration. I think there must be administration if it is a question of dealing with man in grace; I do not see how grace could reach man otherwise: that involves a mediator. I do not see how people are to know the forgiveness of sins without administration, in order that God’s mind may be made known to man, or how He could approach man in grace apart from a mediator.
[p. 134] How far does He bring them into line with Himself? I think He does: it is not only that they have forgiveness of sins, but they know God; every man knows God.
Would you say that administration necessarily follows mediatorship?
I do not see how God could approach man to make known His grace, except by administration.
Do we not find the thought in 1 Timothy 2:5, There is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”?
Yes, but you ought to quote the word that follows: “Who gave himself a ransom for all”, 1 Timothy 2:6. The Mediator has given Himself a ransom for all: then it is that God can approach all. It is the great problem of the universe, that God should satisfy Himself in that Mediator.
Do the terms of the new covenant suppose people formed by divine teaching?
The law is written in their hearts: we are taught in a different way, but man is always formed by divine teaching. Christ is written in our hearts, the Spirit is given, and I think what I said last night is true — the christian is formed by the relationships in which he is set; with scarcely any knowledge at first of what the relationships mean, yet he is formed by them.
The law written in the heart of Israel is in the millennial day; what will be the full result of that?
They will love God with all their heart, and their neighbour as themselves; there will be no such thing as a man bearing false witness, or anything of that kind; they will carry out the abstract perfection of the law. Love is the fulness of the law.
It is what you were saying — that which is presented to us as testimony from God, becomes the power of life in us.
Please do not put that down as my saying; it is the thought of another, but it is true. Christ presented in [p. 135] testimony, becomes the power of life in you. It is really the point in 2 Corinthians 3, Christ written in the heart.
In chapter 9 the great point is that Christ has entered in. He has entered in in two ways: first, on the ground of redemption, He has cleared the ground for us, He did not want any clearing for Himself — that we should all admit — but He acquired the ground for God’s glory and for us; and He has entered in representatively.
That is, in view of our entering in. Do you refer to verse 24?
Yes. He has entered in having obtained eternal redemption, but also representatively, “Now to appear in the presence of God for us”, Hebrews 9:24.
Will you explain the difference between the ‘sanctuary’ and the ‘holiest’?
I do not think you get the expression ‘sanctuary’ in Hebrews; “Minister of the sanctuary” is “Minister of the holy places”, Hebrews 8:2. There was in the tabernacle the ‘holy place’, but that has no present standing. All in the ‘holy place’ was connected with Israel’s things, what God will establish in Israel: the table and candlestick and shewbread. They represent Israel connected with Christ; that is not fulfilled in the present time. All that you have in the present time is the holiest; you have no holy place. Christendom has tried to make a holy place, but apart from the holiest there is nothing at all. It is really the same word.
Do you mean that “Minister of the holy places” is future?
No. It takes in the whole range of Christ’s service. He is charged with the worship of God in the millennium; it is not limited to this time. All the worship of Israel will be ordered by Christ. I do not see how you can get the table, or the shewbread, or the candlestick, apart from Christ. It is one great principle of the gospels, that Christ has superseded Israel; God [p. 136] takes up the history of Israel afresh in Christ: “Out of Egypt have I called my son”, Matthew 2:15. Elect Israel comes in under Christ. Even the law is presented to Israel in Christ to be written on their hearts, not as formerly on tables of stone. The Psalms is the great book through which Israel will get the law written in their hearts, because it brings in the Spirit of Christ all the way through.
“Minister of the holy places” (Hebrews 8:2), then has no present significance?
Boldness to enter into the holiest, involves the setting aside of all connected with Israel; it is clear the first tabernacle can have no standing now; it had its standing when there was no boldness to enter in. It is a moral or spiritual tabernacle, not the material; Christ has come by the greater and more perfect tabernacle: it is not the material. I do not think God cares a single bit about the material; Christ has come in connection with a better one not made with hands, the great spiritual tabernacle. What God concerns Himself about is what is in the saints. What is material will end in the apostasy, the man of sin. You get the truth coming out at the close of Isaiah: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me”, Isaiah 66:1? He does not attach any importance to it at all, but He says — with him will I dwell, the man that is of a contrite spirit. Isaiah is quoted by Stephen in that very connection, in view of the opened heavens. That address of Stephen is one of the most wonderful passages I know: there is the survey of Israel’s whole history, and he shows that there never was a single thing that came up to the mind of God; the patriarchs died, Joseph and Moses were rejected, the people set up idolatry from the outset, and as to the temple, “The most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands”, Acts 7:48. Then he looks up and sees the great answer to it all, in the glory of God and Jesus.
[p. 137] Does he stop at Solomon, the brightest thing on earth, and then turn to the brightest thing in heaven?
He shows out the poverty connected with the brightest thing on earth, even of the most blessed thing connected with Israel — the temple. The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. They had the material, but not the moral. Finally he, full of the Holy Spirit, looks up stedfastly into heaven, and there he sees everything made good in Jesus. It is interesting to notice that he begins with the “God of glory” (Acts 7:2), and ends with seeing the “glory of God”, Acts 7:55. We get in Stephen the first proper example of a christian.
What about the two ways in which Christ has entered in?
It is very important to apprehend, that He has come in connection with a new order of things: the first is, that He has entered in having obtained eternal redemption, Hebrews 9:12; then, another thing, He has entered in representatively.
Why, in the first instance, does it say, entered “into the holy place”, Hebrews 9:12?
I think it means the holiest. There is no other word for the holiest; you must take it in its connection.
Did not the rending of the veil bring the holy place and the holiest together?
The ground taken is that the first tabernacle has no standing; you have nothing left except the holiest. Chapter 9 is how Christ has gone in, and chapter 10 is how we go in. It is beautiful to see how He goes in, not on the ground of His personal perfection, but to give us a place there; we get there consistently with all that God is. Christ is there representatively, but also on the ground of eternal redemption; you have to take in both thoughts; He could not be there representatively, if He had not obtained eternal redemption. It was necessary lest the glory of God should be compromised, and that cannot be; God must maintain [p. 138] in integrity what He is; therefore Christ has entered in, having obtained eternal redemption. We never could have boldness to enter in, if we did not see that. If people do not apprehend chapter 9 they will not apprehend chapter 10. I am sure they will not, because you could not entertain the idea of taking such ground as that with boldness, if you did not see that Christ was there on the ground of redemption, and also representatively; you must have those two thoughts first — chapter 9:12,24.
Does verse 11 refer to Christ coming by death, or by incarnation?
I do not think it refers to one or the other; it is in connection with these things He has come in; such is often the force of ‘dia‘ with a genitive; His coming was in the power of, or characterised by these things.
What does our entering into the holiest mean?
I think, in order to understand it, you must see that Christ has entered in. The idea to me is this: He has actually taken up His place in the presence of God as Man; it is not the Apostle or speaker now — that is a question of declaring God — but He Himself has taken up a position in the presence of God; it is not from God, but towards God. If He had simply come out from God to declare God, we never could have stood with Him; He takes up His place in the presence of God for us, perfectly suited to God.
People talk about being always in the holiest, as if it were possible while down here.
I fancy we talk a good deal about things we know but little of, and I am far from excluding myself.
If we do not understand Christ’s entering in, we shall never have the slightest idea of our entering in.
It is one of the most important thoughts that have of late become prominent, that on the one side there was in Christ the perfect declaration of God, all the fulness pleased to dwell in Him; but that on the other side He takes up a position as Man; the whole [p. 139] economy of grace depends upon that, that He is Apostle and High Priest. It is apart from all question of this scene and the circumstances here; it is another region. He has entered in, and it is the special privilege of christians to enter in. The coming out holds good for every one.
Is it not because we look at it in a material way rather than a moral, that we have difficulty in understanding what it is?
It is because we have not spiritual power for it. I do not think we are up to it.
Is it not one of those things we must enter into to know?
It is not so much what people know, as that they have to be built up for it; you have to get the moral texture of the man completely changed. A prominent object of the epistle to the Hebrews is to conduct you into the holiest; if you apprehended the place Christ has taken on your behalf you would not have much difficulty about going in to God. It all depends upon knowing Him, or the sense you have in your soul of knowing Him there.
And along with that, we must not ignore chapter 10:22: “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience”, Hebrews 10:22. In chapter 9 we have the door opened, in chapter 10 we go in.
Yes. He has gone in, opened a door for us, obtained eternal redemption; but more than that, He appears in the presence of God for us. “Boldness to enter into the holiest” (Hebrews 10:19), is the same as unhindered approach to God.
It says here, “Let us draw near”, Hebrews 10:22; is that what we have in chapter 4?
No. That is the throne of grace, it is the sense that grace is dominant, not approach to God in the sanctuary. Grace reigns. Coming boldly to the throne of grace is the sense of that; it is not a throne of judgment but of grace. It is individual approach to God [p. 140] revealed in grace, not entering into the holiest. I think it is that the individual may approach the throne; when you come into the sanctuary you do not approach a throne, but Him that sits upon it.
Have we not confounded being in the light of God fully revealed, as in 1 John 1:7, “we walk in the light, as he is in the light”, with being in the holiest, and is not that the reason why it has been said we are always in the holiest?
There are many people in the light of revelation but not in the enjoyment of what is revealed. They are satisfied with knowledge, without seeking to enter in. The light of God has come out and reached man where man is, and in a certain sense the man may remain there. It is a very different thing for a man to go in and enjoy the place where the light comes from; a large proportion know little more than the former, the light comes out to them where they are. We are dependent upon the Holy Spirit to make it good in us. It is for every soul, and you cannot go in, it is true, until you have the light; you must have that first, but it is another step to go in to enjoy the scene where the light has come from. We need to be built up by the work of the Holy Spirit.
I should like a little more light upon entrance into the holiest. Can we go in as individuals?
Well, each one must realise his title to go in.
As to fact, it is difficult to separate yourself from the consecrated company.
The moment you come to the threshold you will certainly find yourself in company with others. It must be apprehended individually, but we realise it in the assembly when gathered together; individually, you come to the assembly with the sense that you have boldness to enter; you are an individual but not isolated. I think we have much the same thought in Ephesians 3:18. “Able to comprehend with all saints”.
Can you realise it apart from being in a meeting?
[p. 141] You may have a sense of boldness, but you cannot really enter in except when gathered together, because all is dependent upon Christ; upon the place which He has taken. “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”, Hebrews 2:12. That is, He does not sing with you individually. You sink your individuality in the assembly. His presence makes it the holiest.
What a very little sense the assembly has of that truth!
We must remember we are greatly affected by the state of the professing church. I am more and more sure of that. To think that we could return to apostolic days would be to ignore that we cannot have things now as at the beginning.
Would two or three represent the assembly? If two or three are able to go into the holiest would that help the whole company?
I daresay. The assembly is composed of individuals, and it comes to this, how far is the truth wrought in individual souls? The state of the assembly is the effect of the state of individuals. The assembly brings in the truth of the body; Christ is the Head and we are all bound together in one Spirit. That is what is brought out in Ephesians in connection with gifts.
Would the enjoyment be individual?
I suppose every individual would enjoy it as he realised it, but not apart from the company. You must think of the sons of Aaron. You do not think much of yourself or your own enjoyment in the holiest; if you have any sense of it, you are so supremely happy that you do not think of aught else. Paul could say: “Whether in the body... or whether out of the body, I cannot tell”, 2 Corinthians 12:3. It is an evidence of being there that we are lost to ourselves. When we are with the Lord in heaven we shall have very little consciousness of ourselves. Generally, when ‘sons’ and ‘children’ are spoken of in Scripture it is in the plural. The two exceptions are Galatians 4:7 and Revelation 21:7.
[p. 142] We are generally viewed in relation to others, where it is a question of occupying the place God has for us; here, it is the priestly company; Revelation 21:7 is the only place in which John speaks of sonship. We have “sons of light” (John 12:36) in chapter 12 of his gospel. The holiest is the only place where we come into Christ’s companionship; we must be where He is to have that.
We get “sanctified” in chapter 2 and in chapter 10? Christ has come out to do the will of God. He lays the basis on which to effect God’s pleasure, setting aside the whole system of sacrifices which existed in connection with man in the flesh: the man has been set aside and therefore the sacrifices are set aside; Christ’s body is offered. The man that offered under the law has gone in the death of Christ, and therefore the sacrifices are gone. It is important to see that we are sanctified by the offering of His body. The thought of sanctified brings you back to chapter 2. You are gone; man after the old order is gone in Christ. That is the force of the offering of His body, and the consequence is that when you come to take up the priestly position, you can only take it up according as you are formed in the divine nature. The man accustomed to offer sacrifice is gone, and if you have to say to God in priestly function it must be as a man of another order; it is in the divine nature. It is akin to 1 Corinthians 13. “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9) holds good as to this.
Is the offering up of the body of Jesus Christ the same as the lifting up of the Son of Man?
It indicates that the whole condition is gone; what is a man without a body? He is no longer a man in that sense. In the same way we have become dead to the law by the body of Christ. Death has been brought in upon that condition; we are apart from it in that connection; so it is here.
If that truth is seen, the conscience must be perfect;
[p. 143] offences cannot be imputed if the condition is set aside by death.
The sanctifying is greater than the perfecting of the conscience. He has removed the condition, and that involves that the offences are gone.
Does Hebrews take you into the holiest?
No, it only shows you your title, and it encourages you; it says, “Let us draw near”, Hebrews 10:22.
The Hebrews were hardly in a condition to go in: they were not built up.
The writer has encouragement about them; he speaks in chapter 6 of their work and labour of love. He had seen the fruit of love.
All christians have the title to go in, but only a few do so.
Well, I feel it for myself. I go in so little myself; still it is the will of God that there should be a worshipping company; in giving this privilege to us, Christ has secured the good pleasure of God, so that you must admit the title of all christians in that sense. The enjoyment is a different thing. I am certain that we do not enter in, except as we are formed in the divine nature. With us, deliverance and being formed in the divine nature go together. I see thus, in Colossians 2:12,13, it first says, “Ye are risen with him”; then, “quickened together with him”. “Risen with him” is the realisation of deliverance; “quickened with him” is made alive in the divine nature.
Is that why it says: “Let us draw near with a true heart”, Hebrews 10:22?
Quite so. The majority do not think to approach God except by prayer. I think outside ourselves, christians know hardly anything about worship; they do not understand the place Christ has taken as Man. We little realise the awful state christendom is in: there is but little real sense of the resurrection of Christ. Do we not learn where they are, by what we are ourselves?
[p. 144] If you pin them in a corner, you will see bow little sense they have of the resurrection of Christ, that He is a Man risen.
Also, how little sense they have of the meaning of His death.
But death comes within man’s cognisance, the resurrection does not: I believe resurrection is the real test of people’s faith.
Tell us a little about the new and living way, Hebrews 10:20.
I think it all refers to the place Christ has taken in the presence of God in resurrection. Apart from death it would not have been a new and living way. Had He gone back the way He came, it would not have been a new and living way; but having gone in through death and resurrection, it is a way by which we also can go in. We have death upon us, Christ had not. The only way for us is death and resurrection; so He came into death, and has gone in through resurrection, and thus has made a way for us.
It has been said that there is no rent veil in Hebrews, and many have found great difficulty in that statement.
There is this to be said, that Hebrews recognises the veil. There are two places in which the veil is alluded to: chapter 6, “Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul ... which entereth into that within the veil”, Hebrews 6:19; that contemplates the veil, and here (chapter 10:20) It is not that the veil is said to be rent, but that we go through it.
Is it not called a new and living way, because it is through Christ Himself?
The type in Hebrews is the tabernacle, not the temple; the veil of the temple was rent. The rending of the veil of the temple meant that the whole Jewish system was completely set aside; God having come out in such a way in the death of Christ. If God comes out, it stands good for everybody, but the going in is another thing.
Is not the veil His flesh, and the rending the veil [p. 145] the ending of His condition here in flesh and blood? Had He gone in apart from that we could not have gone in. He has gone in through death and there is no veil. He has not taken up that condition again.
I doubt if Israel will go in.
In that sense, Hebrews is looking on to the future; it is not only christianity that is in view, and that accounts for the way the veil is recognised.
The great point is that man in the flesh cannot enter; you must go the way that Christ went. People have an idea that the veil is rent and thus anyone can go in. There cannot possibly be any entrance for the flesh.
It is a very real thing to go in through the veil; if rent, there is no veil to go through.
It does not speak of our going through it, I think.
The veil being rent is true on God’s side, but not in the same way on our side, that is all I mean; it is the difference between revelation and approach. I do not think approach equals revelation. Revelation is perfect and complete, and stands good for everybody. The approach is good for us, but I do not think it will be for an earthly people. In death God was revealed; you do not get the full revelation of God till Christ’s death. That stands good for everybody, but when we speak of approaching God in the full sense of revelation, there is a certain special way in which Christ has entered in, and we draw near in that way. I do not believe you can have part in the worshipping company, except through deliverance on the one hand and the divine nature on the other. Though the revelation is complete, yet the entering into it depends upon our state, and the work of the Spirit in us. Take a worldly christian; he is not in a condition to go in, he neither knows deliverance nor is be formed in the divine nature. I do not say that such a man has not to do with God, but that is different from entering into the holiest..
[p. 146] It is the same order, in a certain sense, in Romans. In chapters 3, 4 and 5 you have the full display of God. In chapters 6, 7 and 8 it really tells us how we can enjoy the revelation; there is the same kind of principle in both epistles. It is very plain we cannot go in by will or effort.
There was no going in while the first tabernacle had its standing: “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest”, Hebrews 9:8. The whole system connected with flesh had to go. The veil was rent when Christ died, the way was made manifest. This would be the case with souls, they cannot go in unless flesh is judged. The way is manifest because God has come out.
They could not go in while the first tabernacle was standing.
We have liberty to go in; we have to go in by the way which is according to God, through death morally. Christ has gone in first.
How are you to be in company with Christ in that scene?
Only by the way He went. If you are to be in that scene, you must be completely set free from the things of this scene; and further, you cannot touch the Father nor the Son, save in the divine nature.
What is meant by “Hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”, Hebrews 10:22?
You are perfectly clear of everything — have a sense of expiation; you are clear of everything connected with responsibility, you are also clear of the pollutions of the world. I think we have a very poor idea of what it is to have to do with God — I mean in the way of approach. I can understand a man praying to God; I do not see any difficulty about that. That is not intimacy and companionship with Christ; people have a poor sense of that. You cannot enter into it, except as in touch with Christ, and you can only be in touch with Christ in the divine nature; you cannot have to [p. 147] say to Him in any way after the flesh. He says to Mary: “Touch me not”, John 20:17. You cannot have deliverance from the scene in which He died, except by His death. The Lord’s table is the way to the Lord’s supper, the way to the sanctuary.
There must then be appropriation?
You must be in touch with Him if you are to enter into the sanctuary in His company, and have your mind in concert with Him, and that can only be in the divine nature.
Which passage do you refer to in speaking of the divine nature?
You are “quickened together with him”, Colossians 2:13.
“Ye are clean through the word”, John 15:3.
Yes, it is that which has made you clean; it is what is in the divine nature; a man is not clear from the pollutions of the world, except in the divine nature. There is a reference in the washing to the consecration of the priest.
Why is it, “Having a great priest over the house of God”, Hebrews 10:21? Why is the house of God specially mentioned?
I do not know, except to remind us of the place Christ has taken.
How do you connect the word with the divine nature?
You are formed into the divine nature, your texture is changed; it is expressed in Scripture by the “renewing of the Holy Spirit”, Titus 3:5. There is also the washing of regeneration, that is outward.
Does the renewing of the Holy Spirit go on continually?
I think so. I have a very strong impression that we grow in the divine nature; spiritual growth is in the divine nature. It speaks of being renewed in the spirit of your mind, Ephesians 4:23.
Peter, speaking of the precious promises, says: “That by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature” 2 Peter 1:4. It is all on the same line.
Yes, “Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust”, 2 Peter 1:4.
You come to the Living Stone, or rather coming to Him as the Living Stone, you are recognised as living stones, and built up a spiritual house. The point is, that you may be in touch with Christ as worshipping the Father.
Another great point is, that holiness and love characterise the place and the people that are there.
The thought of God is that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love Ephesians 1:4. You cannot possibly be in touch with Christ except in the divine nature. You can have no sense of it otherwise.
We shall have the full sense and measure of it when with the Lord in heaven.
I should not like to be taken into the Father’s house as I am.
There are two things the Spirit of God is bent upon — the divine nature, and deliverance; if risen with Christ, you are quickened with Him, if quickened, you are risen.
Which of these is deliverance?
Risen with Him.
Why would you not like to be taken to the Father’s house as you are?
I should like to be divested of what is not according to the Father’s house; Scripture gives us the idea of ‘putting off’ and ‘putting on’. The two go together, it does not suppose the putting on of the new man without the putting off of the old.
What is the difference between the Father’s house in John 14 and in Luke 15?
Luke 15 is moral and is present; John 14 is literal and future.
How far are we responsible to be built up by the Holy Spirit; why are we so little built up in the divine nature?
Because we are not sufficiently affected by the divine revelation. If you let the light in, the Spirit will soon [p. 149] work by that. See how the minds of saints are occupied with business. I pity people much, seeing the great demand which business makes upon them; the consequence is that most of them are so taken up with the things of time, that the light of God affects them very little.
But people say: You must be diligent in business.
It is not a right quotation.
It has nothing to do with it; see how people are overborne by business; but then, there are many out of business who do not make much progress. And then there is the state of the church, people are so affected by that. There is another thing which hinders: people are often fussy, they do not sit at the feet of Jesus and hear His word; they are restless.
I suppose if people are not occupied with Christ they must be occupied with something: business, self, pleasure, etc.
It is most beautiful to see the way in which God has come out to us; His great object in the gospel is to make Himself known. There could not be a greater testimony to the grace of God. He lays Himself out to gain the heart of man, not only to save man, but to engage the heart of man with Himself. If He engages man’s heart it is not difficult to understand that man becomes a worshipper.