READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, CHAPTER 3
READINGS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, CHAPTER 3
Would you say that the apostle in seeking to correct the saints took up all the positive truths of christianity, such as sonship, liberty, etc.? He seems to be on the positive side all through. They had got into a negative state.
Yes, I think so, but I am afraid they had got into a positive state or were in danger of it, they were taken up with something that was not christianity. In the [p. 30] present day we have not simply an abuse of the truth, but elements have been brought in that were never of the truth, that are entirely foreign to true christianity. I suppose there never was such an extraordinary mixture, as christianity so-called, is now: heathenism, Judaism, rationalism, and a measure of divine light, in inextricable confusion.
What would you say is a definition of christianity? Is it Christ displayed? Would you say it was the doctrine of Christ?
Christianity is a name given to a system of religion down here: it is a term not, I think, found in Scripture, but current in the world, to which men attach a meaning. I only spoke of that which is popularly known as christianity. Take the feasts of christianity, they are not even Jewish feasts, they are an adaptation of heathen festivals. The sign of the cross is said to be not originally a christian symbol; I have seen it made out that it is a heathen sign and existed long before Christ came, and I think there may be truth in it. I only refer to it as showing the tremendous confusion that exists in what is now known as christianity.
Now let us get on to what will take us out of the confusion.
The point was to put the Galatians on the line of Abraham, as inheriting, not the blessing of Adam, but of Abraham. In Abraham we get the first man who comes out distinctly in the line of purpose; therefore he is the father of all them that believe.
What is the difference between purpose and promise? Promise is the outcome of purpose. You will find in Hebrews 6, “God willing ... to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, etc”. Counsel precedes promise, promise is the declaration of it. The same word in Greek would mean either counsel or purpose.
Have they always the same meaning? I have thought of purpose in connection with bringing Israel [p. 31] into the land, that purpose was earthly and counsel heavenly?
But in Ephesians 3 we get “eternal purpose”, and that is heavenly.
Is counsel the idea of taking counsel “In the volume of the book it is written of me”, Psalm 40:7?
I do not quite like that. God’s counsel was an eternal counsel, it was that the Son should come. It was always there in the divine will, you could not speak of any commencement to it.
“With whom took he counsel”, Isaiah 40:14?
Human expressions are used to convey things to us. What does it mean, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way”, Proverbs 8:22?
That is wisdom. Wisdom is that by which God works out His purpose. That is why Christ is spoken of as the wisdom of God. He is the resource of God in that sense. By Him God works out His purpose.
In the promise to Abraham do we not get the idea of the purpose of God and the world to come first introduced?
First of all we get a man called out of his country, kindred, and father’s house, called to leave all natural ties and associations.
The first great step with a man is the call, then he is justified, and the next is he is glorified. That is as to God’s purpose. It is the line of His purpose. The forty years of the wilderness may or may not come in. If you take the dealings of God with Abraham, he was first called out from his country and kindred, next he is justified. He “believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3), but as yet he had not any name of relation with God. Then God reveals Himself to him by a name, and gives Abram too a name and the covenant of circumcision, and that is where he is in a sense glorified. I do not, of course, mean literally, but he is put in a new place with God.
[p. 32] What answers to the three things now? What is the call?
First, the effectual call of the gospel, then the believer is justified, then God’s name as Father is revealed to him and at the same time he gets a name. Then there is circumcision, the flesh has to go if you get a name with God. But you get God’s name first, that is, you pass to His side. That is, as you may say, you are glorified. Abraham is to walk before God and be perfect, he goes to God’s side: so it is with saints now, with the revelation of God’s name you pass to His side.
What is our name?
I know no name but Christ, the name which God has put upon us is Christ. The name given to a man indicates what God intends should be set forth in that man, what should characterise him. In giving a name God appropriates a man to Himself. The name by which God reveals Himself is, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, more especially Father; with Abraham it was undoubtedly Almighty, and with Israel, Jehovah. You are put in the line of Abraham here. The law was a temporary dealing, which brought in the curse. It goes on up to a certain point, then it gives way to faith, and faith brings in the light of Christ Jesus and sonship, and you come into the light of this. The blessing of Abraham is righteousness.
Do you say that the name of Christ is put upon us when we are justified?
When we know the Father, I think that is the point when you get the Spirit and when the great transference takes place from one man to another. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his”, Romans 8:9.
Is not the name of Christ put upon us when we are baptised?
Baptism does not go so far as that. It does say “As many as have been baptised unto Christ, have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27), but I doubt if the apostle takes baptism [p. 33] up in the way I have spoken of, or if that is quite the significance of it. It would be difficult to baptise children on that ground. It is as profession in Galatians 3; more baptised to Him as Lord, I should say. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism”, Ephesians 4:5. What you are speaking of is the inward work of the Spirit?
You could not bring in infants or mere professors, grown up or otherwise, as having Christ put on them as a name by God. One is sovereign grace and the other only profession.
Why does it say the promise of the Spirit?
The promise of the Spirit was ever in the mind of God. We read of it in the Old Testament. Everything had to be founded on redemption, the Spirit was the way by which everything was to be subdued subjectively. The Spirit is to be poured out upon all flesh. That is a passage I should quote. All looked on to the coming of the Spirit.
I have no doubt the effect of the judaising teaching was to take the Galatians off the line of faith, by attempting to make out that if they wanted to be in the line of Abraham they ought to be circumcised. The apostle shows that it is those who are of faith that are blessed with faithful Abraham. The blessing of Abraham was not circumcision but righteousness, he was accounted righteous before he was circumcised. The force of it is that he was approved in the eye of God for the scene and sphere of God’s purpose, it is more than being cleared here; he was cleared, but I think it will all come out in the coming day.
The promise of the Spirit is now fulfilled by the Spirit being here. It is in contrast with the promise made to Abraham. There was no mention of the Spirit in the time of Abraham.
In Acts 1 you get it mentioned as the promise of the Father?
That is the Spirit looked upon in connection with [p. 34] christianity. The promise in the Old Testament went wider than that. It is poured out upon all flesh. The blessing of Abraham is righteousness; the character of the name bestowed upon him depended upon the name by which God revealed Himself. If God reveals His name as Father, the name put upon you is that of Christ.
Does having a thing by faith imply that you have it in another?
It implies that you have the light of it. The revelation of God’s purpose has come out, but it is made known in another. I am justified in accepting the light of it. It is not God’s purpose to elevate the flesh, it is not by the elevation of the man that exists that we have the place of sons; we are sons of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. God made Adam as perfect as He could make him: if he had remained as God made him he could hardly, I judge, have been put into another place; the second Man is out of heaven. It is by the introduction of the Man that came out that we are sons. No one could properly have that place but Christ. It is given to us through Him in grace. You must have another order of things for man to be put into sonship.
Adam is said to be the son of God?
So are angels, and Israel was God’s son; son of God by itself is rather vague. You cannot hang too much upon the mere term. It is more there in the sense of offspring.
I suppose, according to verse 5, the apostle could minister the Spirit — does it refer to the preaching? to the one who preached?
I should hardly have thought so. I thought it was God. I doubt if it goes quite so far as to say that the apostles could minister the Spirit.
But you get following, “And worketh miracles”, Galatians 3:5. You could not say that was God.
It was the power of God doing it, “Even as Abraham believed God” (Galatians 3:6) follows immediately. I have referred it to God. What I think the apostle wanted them to see was that it was God acting, and God acting not on the ground of man’s responsibility, but for faith. God acted by a report, they believed the report and got the Spirit. It was not by law but by faith; by a report, but the source was God. It was the same principle with Abraham. He did not believe an apostle, but believed God; the real point was to put them in the line of Abraham.
Is it the question ‘who‘ ministers it? Is not ministering the Spirit, giving the Spirit?
I think so; their faith connected it with God, so as to put them in the line of Abraham. The testimony had come to them connected with miracles, and the giving of the Spirit, and in accepting it they had believed God; they had seen the hand of God. The apostle wishes to take them away from all teachers to God Himself.
What we see in Scripture is that blessing came in with Abraham; then, four hundred years after the blessing, the law came and brought in the curse, but that could not set aside the blessing. You would have thought that it might have done so, but instead of that, Christ bears the curse, and the blessing not only abides but goes out to the gentiles. The blessing of Abraham has reached the gentiles. Abraham personally was blessed, but his seed after the flesh were put under law; I do not think they ever came really into the blessing of Abraham or the promise. Blessing and promise were there, but the seed after the flesh never reached it. The promise to Abraham was unconditional and the law could not set it on one side, but Israel accepted conditions and failed, they came under the curse. Christ took the curse, and what now appears is that the blessing has gone beyond the natural seed: the gentiles really get it before the nation, and the object is that we might receive the Spirit.
[p. 36] Israel will not receive it until they receive Christ?
No, they will not really. I daresay you have often noticed that Balaam does not come in until after the brazen serpent. Man, and behind him the enemy, raises the question of blessing and curse. Balaam is compelled to bless. The secret is that the brazen serpent had come in, he cannot curse and unwillingly has to bless. Satan is outwitted. The brazen serpent was the answer to the broken law. The prophecy of Balaam is one of the most beautiful pictures of Israel’s blessing. And really it gave an entrance into purpose, life comes in and the Spirit. He would have cursed them with the law if he could, but he has to say, “How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed?”, Numbers 23:8. Balaam was looking in the vision at the elect Israel, the people of God’s purpose, not those after the flesh. He saw them in divine order. God had not cursed them but had justified them, and Balaam could only pronounce their justification and their beauty and order.
Gather the people together and I will give them water, Numbers 21:16.
That comes after the brazen serpent; it was a foolish thing to think of cursing after the brazen serpent had been lifted up. It comes in to show that God had not departed from His purpose of blessing. The law went on for 1500 years, but now the Lord has come and the curse is gone, and the gentiles have been made to partake in the blessing of Abraham, and a great deal more because of the Spirit. The great importance of it to people affected by the law was to show them that they were in the line of Abraham by faith. He was blessed on the principle of faith, and on the principle of faith you partake in the blessing of Abraham.
I suppose the conflict with these judaising teachers began in Acts 15?
With regard to the Spirit, you first get the rock smitten and the water gushing forth; that I suppose [p. 37] was a type of the Spirit, and then subsequently the lifting up of the brazen serpent and the springing well.
If you take it typically you must connect the Spirit with Israel from the time they were brought through the Red Sea. The moment they are on resurrection ground you must connect the Spirit with them on God’s side, but not as characterising their state. The water from the smitten rock is one thing and the well springing up into everlasting life is another. In Romans 8, you have God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sacrifice for sin, and then you have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit.
Everything was complete in a way when they got over the Red Sea?
Everything was complete on God’s side, but not on their side; when you come to our side we properly begin after the brazen serpent. We get rid of the man. Jordan comes in on the experimental side but it carries you further. In 1 Corinthians 2 the apostle says, “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2) — the brazen serpent aspect of Christ’s death.
The brazen serpent comes in after the thirty-nine years of testing?
Yes, and that is why Balaam cannot curse them, because in type the flesh is gone. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”, Romans 8:33. That answers to Balaam. “He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him”, Numbers 23:21.
Galatians 3:1, “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you”, is the brazen serpent, is it not?
He takes the same ground in Galatians and in Corinthians. The blood in Egypt, the Red Sea and the brazen serpent all point to the one death of Christ. In a full gospel all three may be brought in, but in [p. 38] Scripture they are given in detail for our apprehension. Under the eye of God it is all one, but all does not come under our eye at once. The fact is some of us have had a good many years’ experience and have taken in very little.
I do not see how you connect the powerlessness of Balaam with the brazen serpent and not with the Red Sea?
In the ways of God He took up the seed of a wholly right stock and tested it after the flesh. He saw fit to do that. God does not do that again, and it only brought out this, that, let the seed be as good as it might, it was after the flesh, and then the brazen serpent comes in to answer that. If man were not perverse you would not want the brazen serpent. You would want the blood in Egypt and the Red Sea. God requires that He must declare His righteousness and break the head of the enemy, but if man is perverse, you want the brazen serpent, the condemnation of man’s state in addition, in order to enable God to give the Spirit. God must reach the root; man must go.
But then there must be the experimental knowledge of the flesh in me?
I will tell you how you found out the perversity of the flesh — by its opposition to the Spirit; at least, most of us did so.
But in Romans 7, the man has not the Spirit?
Most of us have found out the flesh by its opposition to the Spirit.
What! not under the law?
Not strictly.
We have to go through a sort of experience analogous to Romans 7 in some way?
There never was a man who went through it exactly. I think you have to learn how powerless you are, to learn that not only is death upon you, but death is in [p. 39] you, you have to learn how dependent you are upon the Spirit of God.
That is what the Galatians had to learn!
But before he talks about the conflict he puts them into the full light of the purpose and seeks to put them in the intelligence and power of that. It is only after you have accepted the light of the purpose that you are prepared to enter into the conflict. It was after the Lord had received the Spirit that He was driven of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Of course, all depends upon what is meant by conflict.
Do you mean that Galatians 5:17 becomes a kind of Romans 7 to us?
No. Romans 7 is for those who know the law, though we may learn it after we have received the Spirit.
But a good many do before they know redemption, that is Romans 7,
Take the case of the Galatians; there was a good deal of flesh about them, and yet they had the Spirit, they had not come to the end of the flesh. In Galatians 5 the apostle sets before them in a naked way the principles of the flesh and of the Spirit. They were biting and devouring one another.
It is the normal conflict of christians in that verse, is it not?
It may not take that shape, the apostle states what is true in principle but not necessarily all realised in experience. I should think the apostle learnt pretty much what flesh was before he came into peace. Most of us learn the contrariety of the flesh afterwards. We have been converted under a gospel which gave us a sense of the grace of God.
That may be true of the most part, but some learn it in another way; Romans 7. In my own case it was so.
What is stated in Galatians 5 is always a true [p. 40] principle, flesh and Spirit are opposed. Two armies always opposed but not always fighting.
There is always opposition, not however, of two equal combatants, that will not do; the Spirit is a power entirely superior to the flesh, and it enables you to put off the flesh. The Spirit has a more blessed object than keeping under the flesh. Another thing is that the flesh is not myself now, I repudiate it, I am in the Spirit, identified with the Spirit, it forms me, is closer to me than the flesh, I put off the body of the flesh by the Spirit. They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts, Galatians 5:24. People are disposed to look at the matter as though there were two forces, and it was uncertain which was to be eventually victorious. The communication of the Spirit is that you may be delivered from the control of the flesh. It is the superior power, a well of water springing up, there is an energy in it. There is no excuse for the flesh. You have a power superior to it which sets aside the natural will, you mortify the deeds of the body, lust is not allowed to control you.
What is the thought of the flesh in Scripture?
The flesh is the natural generation of man from Adam, what we have inherited from Adam. “After the flesh” is man’s natural line, not exactly sin though sin has come in; man was in the flesh before the fall in Eden, but sin came in. Christ did not come out as the glorious man, but came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Sin is the principle dominant in the flesh. Flesh is not necessarily evil; it is necessarily evil now but not at the first. Sin brought in the evil, the natural man was not always evil. “Not in the flesh but in the Spirit” (Romans 8:9) shows that we are of a different generation and on new lines.
I have my standing naturally in Adam and my state in the flesh?
I do not care about the standing; I have the reality now, if in the Spirit I am in Christ.
[p. 41] Still it is important to remember that Christ is our righteousness?
The nature of man now is sin, but Paul could say, “In that I now live in flesh, etc”, Galatians 2:20. We have natural relationships, they belong to the flesh, they are all right. It is important to distinguish between what is condemned and what is recognized. For God, the whole thing is gone in Christ.
The brazen serpent brings in not only the fact that sin is gone but the state is gone, and in that connection you could bring in the Lord’s words speaking of the resurrection of the just, “They neither marry nor are given in marriage”, Mark 12:25.
In new creation even the natural relationships disappear, the brazen serpent is very broad. The whole order with regard to man in the flesh is gone to give place to a new order.
“The end of all flesh is come before me”, Genesis 6:13. It has been said that all was either drowned in the waters of the flood or covered up in the ark. In 2 Corinthians 5:14, we read, “If one died for all, then were all dead”. When Christ died there was not a living man here under the eye of God, and the first that comes out is Christ. You get new creation starting from the point of resurrection, and in Christ Jesus risen one can see the range and order of all things. He is the beginning. Then we get our place in Christ in sonship; you can have nothing beyond sonship, it is impossible. Inheritance is very small compared with sonship.
Is sonship equal to our being in union with Christ? It is greater; when it is a question of sonship we are with Him, we are companions, sonship comes first, and then our being the body of Christ. You must have sonship first. I do not see how Christ could be expressed in us unless we were in His relationship with God. If the church is to be His fulness, I think we must be in His place with God, “I ascend to my Father and your Father”, John 20:17. We must be in His place [p. 42] if we are to set Him forth here. When you come to heavenly privilege He declares the Father’s name, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”, Hebrews 12:2. You cannot get anything greater than that. He praises God in every circle: in the great congregation, also among the nations, but it is a very different thing when He says, I will sing praises in the midst.
Ephesians 1:1-8, is greater than what follows. The apostle comes down after that to forgiveness, etc.
It begins at the top and drops down.
The mystery includes more than the body, does it not?
No, the mystery is the body simply. It is the idea of one body composed of Jew and Gentile. How could you explain how the gentiles can be joint heirs and joint partakers of His promise in the gospel? The question is answered by the fact that they are brought into common heavenly privilege; it hangs upon their being brought into sonship. The mystery hangs upon sonship but then the mystery has no reference to heaven, it refers to what has taken place upon earth. In Ephesians 2 we get nothing about the mystery, the mystery is in connection with what is set up on earth. In Ephesians 3 it is that we may be filled with the fulness of God. The church is the vessel down here for that; that is, there is to be a complete setting forth of God in the church. There was to be a setting forth morally of what was of God before the eye of angels. No single thing which came out in Christ, even the very power which came out in Christ, nothing was to be lacking, it was all to be set forth in Christ’s body. The first hint of the mystery came when Paul learnt that Christ was in His members down here. A good many people take up the latter part of Ephesians 2 — Jew and Gentile builded together for a habitation of God — as a mere dispensation. But God is to be seen there. What is the good of the [p. 43] habitation if God is not to be seen there? It is that God may come out in the house.
In John 11 we have “gather together in one”, but they are children first. Is that one body?
I should say rather one flock, one company.
Is not the thought of children somewhat more intimate than that of sons, though not so high in position? John always speaks of children, for instance. The son is in contrast with the servant, but in children is it not more intimacy?
The thought of sonship is that we should be holy and without blame before God in love Ephesians 1:4, but there is a peculiarity about ‘children’ that there is not about ‘sons’: it contemplates saints sharing Christ’s rejection, sons brings you to glory; you are children now. Children are connected with the Father’s love. In the end of John 17 the Lord says, “I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them”. That is down here. Here, in the midst of a ruthless scene, the children are objects of the Father’s love and they are bound together by the tenderest love to one another. ‘Children’ gives the thought of sweet and blessed relationship with the Father. Sonship is more in relation to Christ in glory.
Now are we the children of God; 1 John 3. The point is now. The world knoweth us not, 1 John 3:1. The great point in John’s epistle is that you get His place. What is spoken of in reference to Christ in John’s gospel is said of us in the epistle. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”, John 1:18. “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us”, 1 John 4:12. That is being filled with all the fulness of God, the setting forth of God in the church. Does it not strike you how great the departure is from the truth? “God dwelleth in us” is collective. But look [p. 44] at christianity! I feel almost afraid to speak of the greatness of what was to come out in the church if one contrasts it with the state of things around us and with what we are ourselves. We are to be exponents of the truth. The church is the vessel of testimony. I do not ignore the gifts, but we must not ignore the church as the vessel of testimony. “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world”, John 17:18. Nothing that came out in Christ should be lacking, but all come out in the church.
The gospel is to bring that out.
Christ left a little company here in His place, so that in principle it was brought about before the gospel went out.
The evangelist is really for the body?
If I went into a place to work I should be careful to work in connection with the church. The evangelist is to go to the regions beyond, but he looks to be furthered by the church and to have the fellowship and sympathy of the saints. I think his spirit would be in fellowship with what exists. If you do not go in the light of Scripture you cannot set up to be what you see in Scripture, and if you do not go upon that you have no light.
How would you dislodge from the mind of men the idea they have of setting up something here?
Well, it means pretension, viz., that you are going to do better than those before you, but it is only to have the same failure or worse. If we could be set up again we should only break down; perhaps more speedily. The same power is with us as with the saints at the beginning, but it is working so as to open the eyes of the saints that they may get to the Lord who is above the ruin; we can act upon the principles of the Scriptures, they abide. But then you do not set up anything.
A man must get his orders from the Lord?
[p. 45] Never a man got orders from the Lord but the spiritual were with him. I rather doubt a man having a mandate from the Lord when nobody else sees it.
I am rather sceptical about it myself. Paul and Barnabas went forth from the assembly.