READING ON ROMANS 8
READING ON ROMANS 8
JT It might be well perhaps to link on the things we have already had before us in chapters 4 and 5 with what this chapter presents. I suppose chapter 5 sets out the position, founded on the facts previously presented, from God’s side, before we enter into the thing.
R S. S. Did you say the position?
JT Yes, the position occupied by Christians normally.
RSS Would that be the first part of chapter 5?
JT The whole chapter I think presents to us what has come in through Christ. It is, as you might say, a summing up of the reasons and of the facts previously presented, and has to be looked at in that way in order that the Christian may see what he is invited into. How he enters into it is developed later.
RSS We should see what is brought in through Christ. As you said, the word “through” is a characteristic word in that chapter. It is not exactly yet what is made good in us, but what is brought in through Him.
JT That is it.
GWH So in chapter 6, it is what we begin to say to Him. “What then shall we say?”
JT Yes, the question is raised now, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” Romans 6: 1. This leads to the development of our side of the matter, but the magnitude of the position is presented in chapter 5, and as we consider that, the greatness of Christ comes out so that He acquires a place in our hearts and becomes in principle Head in our souls.
RSS Mr. Raven, in Chicago in 1898, pointed out that in chapter 5 we have four things through Christ: the kingdom, the new covenant, reconciliation, and eternal life.
JT It is well to be reminded of it, and it helps in what we are remarking. The saint, the believer, has now to see the thing in its magnitude from God’[p. 165] s side.
WCR Does the latter part of chapter 5 present the last Adam, in contrast to the first, and what He brought in?
JT Quite so. So He acquires in that way a place in the mind and the heart, and becomes in principle Head. I think the gospels furnish us with examples of how Christ acquired a place in souls through what He did for them, as, for instance, the woman at the well. “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” John 4: 29. That is to say, she based her judgment or belief on what He did in her case. He told her all things that ever she did. One can understand what a place He would have in her soul henceforth. She would scarcely turn to anybody else to learn anything. She would turn to Christ as she had opportunity.
H G. You get in chapter 5 not only the place that He acquires with us, but His place as ordained by God in regard of every man. You get the scope of things presented in the word “all” in that section. When the application is brought in it is just “the many” — is that right?
JT Yes, quite.
HG So you get the full thought of headship, as well as the place He acquires in our affections.
JT So that according to chapter 5 He comes in as One who is able. I suppose leadership in the world came about in that way in the history of the human race, men acquired leadership and dominance over their fellows through their exploits, as for instance in Genesis 6. Then came men of old, men of renown, probably affording a basis for the mythology of the heathen. These great heroes being magnified, acquired dominance over men. Well, Christ comes in on those lines, and necessarily overshadows every man, not simply because He is the Creator, the Son of God, that is another matter, but because of what He accomplishes as Man before men.
R S. S. You were saying that here He is Head because of what He has done, and in Colossians He is Head because of what He is, whereas in Ephesians He is given to be Head. Is that correct?
JT Yes, that is correct, so Ephesians brings God into [p. 166] the thing, God making Him Head. It is a question of God’s counsel, but here He is the only available one. He has proved Himself to be the only one.
RSS So is He Head to you and me because of what He has done for us individually?
JT Yes.
GAT You said great men came on these lines. They have copied the lines from Him; He has not gone on their lines?
JT I spoke of what preceded Christ in the history of the race. Men arose (Scripture speaks of them) of renown, and through their exploits they acquired a place over the hearts and minds of their fellows that gave them leadership. I only referred to it as illustrative of what we have in chapter 5, that Christ coming in, by His exploits acquires a place that cannot be denied Him. Therefore it is on moral grounds. It is really the ground on which leadership exists today among the people of God, and indeed in all times.
GAT But He has not copied the lines from the great men, has He?
JT Oh, no, I am not speaking of copying. I just spoke of that as illustrative of what we get in chapter 5.
WCR In 1 Corinthians 11, He is presented as Head, but as Head of every man there. How does that come in?
JT That is the order God has set up in the creation. That is divine order I think. Christ becoming man is necessarily Head of every man. The Head of every man is Christ. It is what had then come about. He refers to what then existed, Christ being exalted to heaven. He is not spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11 as the head of the race, but as the Head of every man, as over against woman. He is not the Head of every woman, but the Head of every man.
JB Would it be right to say that Adam, as a figure of Him that is to come, is the figure in headship?
JT Yes, that is it. He was over everything.
RSS When Peter says in Acts a, that the One whom they had crucified God raised up and made both Lord and Christ, is it the thought of leadership rather than headship? In what connection does that come [p. 167] in?
JT That is what God has made Him. That brings in God’s sovereign rights. “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion”, Psalm 2: 6. It is a question of God, and I think “the Christ” is hardly the thought of head. Christ is head, of course, but “the Christ” is the anointed. That is the idea in it, so that God has found One by whom He accomplishes everything.
RSS It is not exactly the thought of headship there, is it?
JT It is more than headship. He is “the Christ” on God’s side because He is anointed. The principle of “the Christ”, I think, is that He accomplishes everything for God. God has found a Man by whom He accomplishes everything.
RSS Anointing largely indicates what God has in view for a man. David was anointed. Even Saul was anointed.
JT And what God would set forth in him in the anointing. God has a vessel by which He sets forth what He is Himself — “the Christ” is on God’s account, hence nothing shall be left undone. Everything shall be done perfectly and according to the mind of God now that He has “the Christ”.
RSS Is headship usually on our side?
JT It is what He is on our side Godward, and what He is practically in the way of wisdom.
RSS And is it that in all three scriptures we referred to?
JT I think so, that we have found a head now, One who represents us Godward, and who is wisdom to us, so that we will not go to anyone else for anything.
GAT Therefore there is no mystery now to the assembly.
JT Things are all known to us, to the assembly, but the mystery remains as regards those outside. Those that are initiated know what is going on.
JB You could not have reconciliation unless you have the head.
JT No, I think that is it. It is what Christ is Godward [p. 168] and we come in under that, but it works out very simply in regard of a christian coming into the truth. Here is a Man that has told me all that ever I did. Now He is to be considered. The conclusion she arrived at on that basis was that He was the Christ. Is not this the Christ? If He could tell me all things that ever I did, He could do more than that. That is a fair conclusion.
GAT She would think He could forgive her all that ever she did.
JT He not only tells all, but He does all. He does everything for God. That shuts out man. It shuts out all human innovations, because Christ does it.
AL Does the thought of the head suggest one out of whom everything is evolved?
JT Yes, I suppose that would be right.
AL In the universe of bliss, as we speak of it, everything will be evolved from that Man.
JT As we have often remarked, Romans is the potentiality of the thing, and you see in this Man who has done so much for your soul that there is much more, and you get the expression here “Much more”. It is a conclusion worked up to.
AL A logical conclusion.
JT Yes, there is much more you see, and as you proceed on the line of much more (and you are entitled to) you arrive at wonderful results, so that the youngest believer need not be shut out from the principle of headship, because he begins with it. It is what this Man is to me. Well, there is much more, and the “much more” is to appropriate Christ in that light.
OJO Then you would say He should be to you what He was to Mary Magdala at the sepulchre — she was looking for Him.
JT Quite; also Mary the sister of Martha understood what He could do. “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died”, John 11: 32. She knew that. That is the principle, you see. It is what she has already learned as to Him that enables her to form that conclusion.
WLP Will you say something in regard to [p. 169] His being Lord, as headship here is connected with His being Lord and Christ?
JT The lordship of Christ is a question of God’s authority — that is rule. It refers to the subjugation of evil.
WLP It is higher than headship, is it not?
JT Oh, I do not know, it has reference to the subjugation of evil and the protection of God’s people against evil. The lordship of Christ is in that connection, I think.
WLP No one can call Him Lord except by the Holy Spirit..
JT It is the position He takes now against evil, and Satan never recognizes Him in that way. He never, if he can avoid it, recognizes Christ as Lord because he knows that He is against Him.
HG In our apprehension of things which do we learn first — lordship or headship?
JT Well, it is difficult to say.
HG “Who art thou, Lord?” Saul says, and, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” Afterwards he receives the Spirit. I suppose it is the Spirit of the Head, is that right? (Acts 9: 5 - 6).
JT I suppose that would be the way. It is just a question of whether the recognition of Christ’s ability is not already there too. That is, “What wilt thou have me to do”. He is doing something, and I suppose that would be the order.
GAT Do you not think we first have to recognize His rights over us as Lord?
JT Yes, I suppose so.
GAT And then you recognize His ability to lead you.
JB “Why persecutest thou me?” would be headship more, would it not?
JT That would bring in His relation to the saints, would it not?
JB As Head to them.
GWH But is not subjugation necessary before you can hear — before you come into that attitude of listening?
JT I suppose so.
WLP I suppose to recognize Christ as Head [p. 170] would need more spiritual intelligence than to own Him as Lord, would it not?
JT Yes, I am sure that is so in the full working out of headship but what is obvious here in chapter s is that the believer from the outset of it, in coming into what God has presented, what God has established, apprehends in this way that He is the One who does things and is to be looked to; He thereby acquires a dominance in the soul which develops into headship.
JB Does the illustration of Adam being head not fall short of what we have here?
JT Well, it does because Adam had very little opportunity to do exploits, to do anything. But you see the principle in that he named the creatures, and whatever he said was a creature’s name that was its name. That God did not alter it is indicative of the remarkable intelligence that Adam possessed from God. I think he qualified as head in that way.
RSS Would the names that he gave the animals set forth their characteristics?
JT The name would arise from what he observed in the creature.
ANW God made him head, did He not? And in that way he would be efficient.
JT He did, and I think the fact that he named them rightly proved his efficiency. He qualified in that way.
JB He also named the woman.
JT He did. He considered the facts and said, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”, Genesis 2: 23. That shows the intelligence he possessed.
JB That is the intelligence of the head?
JT Yes.
ANW Although his dominion was not to be exercised alone. Is not the thought “let them have dominion”.
JT Quite so. Genesis 2 is more Ephesians — his doing things. This is the basis, you might say, the fundamental principle of headship that I come to recognize Christ as the One who [p. 171] does things.
GAT In this epistle He is Head now. We come to learn that; is that the idea? We do not make Him Head — He is that already.
JT You come to discern that He is this because of what He has accomplished for you.
GWH Going back to Acts 2 again, I would like a little help. How do you distinguish between Luke 3 and Acts 2, between receiving the Spirit at His baptism and being made Lord and Christ?
JT I think in Luke 3 He was constituted the anointed priest “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach glad tidings to the poor”, Luke 4: 18. The principle of anointing is that God has a vessel or instrument through whom He accomplishes things: whereas in Acts 2 He is made Lord and Christ in heaven. Therefore, the sphere of His lordship is universal. As Peter says in speaking to Cornelius (Acts 10: 36), “He is Lord of all” — of everything. So the Christ detains Paul in Ephesians 3, and the Lord detains him in Ephesians 4. In the third it is the working out of the mystery, and in the fourth it is the ordering of the saints — that we might walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called. He is prisoner of the Christ in the third for the reason that the Christ had had him brought there so he might work out the mystery. As he says, “the administration of the mystery” ending up with “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3: 9 - 21. That was what Christ was developing and Paul was employed for that, and he is detained, he is the prisoner of the Christ; but in the fourth he is the Lord’s prisoner because the Lord saw the saints needed regulation in the ordering of things, and therefore His authority was necessary, and so He detains Paul in that way. He is the Lord’s prisoner, and it is a remarkable thing in connection with the foundation of the assembly that it is not only “the Son of the living God” but “the Christ”. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, Matthew 16: 16.
HG As Head does He put his own impress on things, or the impress of God?
JT I would say His own. As “the Christ” He would put the impress on things. As “the Christ” I think He represents God.
HG Yes, I see, but I thought as Head it was simply our side of what He is as “the Christ” — that in headship it was rather our apprehension of the place God has given Him representatively of Himself. In headship He is more than “the Christ” — He is the anointed One who represents God, in a certain sense, as to what God would effect by Him, but in headship I come into that. Headship is more our side you said?
JT It is the same Person from our side.
HG And the point in my mind was whether in headship I would take colour from God, or whether it would be from Christ Himself. It is of course from Him, but is it God, so to speak, that He writes on things among men?
JT I think when you come to writing, it is the “epistle of Christ”, is it not?
HG Yes, it would be there.
JT He is the image of God.
HG But He sets forth God.
JT That is as “the Christ”, I think.
HG I see.
JT If He writes, it is the epistle of Christ, but it is the covenant that He is dealing with. He is the minister of the covenant and it would be, I think, to bring God in and write God, what God is on the saints. It says, “Lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them”, 2 Corinthians 4: 4. It seems as if “the Christ” is the image, is the One who represents God here, but then we have a Head. It is what He is as Man, and He brings in a race of men before God altogether of His own kind, and that is another matter, I think.
WLP You were saying a moment ago that Christ did things, did you not?
JT Yes.
WLP Well, does not the Head do things too?
JT Oh, yes, of course, you cannot say He does not. It is only just to get the main features of the different titles.
“The Christ” is obviously the anointed One; if God anoints a Man, He commits Himself to that Man, to the end that that Man should bring about all His thoughts, should accomplish things for Him. So in Luke 4: 18 He stands up in the synagogue, and says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor”. So that is the position. It isn’t that He is Head there, but He is there on God’s account to preach, and that is the light in which “the Christ” stands in scripture. So He is “the Christ”. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ”. Well now, that does not seem to be anything new, and yet the Lord says, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens”, Matthew 16: 17. So that it was light in Peter’s soul that this Man that stood before him was “the Christ”, and that would mean that Peter would not look to anyone else; he would not allow anyone else. Everything must be done by the Christ. That is an element of the foundation.
GAT In that way He becomes Peter’s Head, does He not?
JT You can understand that He would be that. It is not simply that Christ can do things now, but that God has anointed Him to do it. It is a question of God’s rights. As an illustration, you might get much abler men on the throne than the present occupant in Great Britain, but it is not a question of his ability but of the oil that is upon him. That is the idea in the Christ.
JB Is not that the distinguishing feature all through the book of Luke?
JT Quite so.
JB He does things on behalf of God, like God, and for God.
GWH But is not the oil an evidence of what is there No doubt, but we have to think of God in the thing. It is a question of God’s choice. We have to think of that.
RSS As in the case of Saul. That was why David would not take Saul’s life when he could.
JT He was the anointed. David would not [p. 174] touch him.
WCR The apostles were ignorant and unlearned men — yet the principle was there — they were anointed.
JT Quite so.
DR On the ground of the revelation of headship, is it in that way the company answers to the Lord?
JT I think the Head brings in the company to God.
RSS You made a significant remark a moment ago regarding Matthew 16, that the assembly is founded on Peter’s confession of Him not only as Son of God, but also as the Christ. That is the foundation on which the assembly is built. Now we understand that in a sense in regard to the Son of God, but in regard to “the Christ” how does that come in?
JT It is that you disallow human innovations. You disallow man’s activities. The Christ does everything. It is an element in the foundation. Not only is the thing set up in life; because the point is “the Son of the living God” but there is an exclusiveness in it — that man has nothing to do with this — it is “the Christ” — the One whom God has anointed. He is the One in this structure, so that it works in that exclusive way, to shut man out.
RSS Yes, and the foundation? It really refers, does it not, to “Upon this rock I will build my church”? It refers to the apprehension in the believer’s soul of that One, as the Christ, and as the Son of the living God; as the One who could accomplish everything for God, and, as we would say, a Man of the new order.
JT It is “Jesus Christ” when you come to the new order. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3: 11). Not “the Christ” there, mind you; it is the order of man that is in the foundation, the kind of man. “The Christ” is a question of God choosing a Man, and no one can have anything to do here but the Man of God’s choice, the Man whom God has anointed.
RSS I think maybe we are accustomed to laying great emphasis on “the Son of the living God” in Matthew 16, but in at least one of the other gospels Peter confesses Him as “the Christ” and “the Son of the living God” is omitted, [p. 175] is it not?
JT In Mark it is “Thou art the Christ” (Mark 8: 29) simply: in Luke it is “the Christ of God”, Luke 9:20.
RSS In connection with what you have said, I would like to understand Christ a little better in that relationship.
JT Does it not commend itself to you that the apostles rigidly excluded any human innovation in laying the foundation? No one should have anything to do with things save those inaugurated by Christ. God anointed Him, and He anoints His apostles. So the assembly is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. It is a question of divine authority in it — a most essential thing — and that element controls, and it is rigidly exclusive of man’s authority in the things of God.
GAT In Peter do you get the kind of a man that is qualified to have part in it?
JT Yes, and so the Lord says, “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household ... ?” Matthew 24: 45. It is not anyone essaying to be there. The Lord puts His stamp on a man, and what is he there for — and what is he to be? A giver of meat in due season to the household. The Lord has put him there for that purpose. So the authority of Christ runs right through in that way, and the authority of Christ is the authority of God.
HG The centurion in Luke 7 seemed to apprehend the dignity of the position that Christ was set in. I mean to say, the Roman emperor must have had a great position in his mind, but he would not have gone to the emperor to heal his servant. He knew the emperor was as powerless as he was himself. So the dignity in which Christ was set was evidently great in his mind, was it not?
JT That is a powerful and striking illustration of what we are saying. He had light as to the power that Christ has. “Say in a word, and my servant shall be healed”, Luke 7: 7. That is what every christian here wants to get into his soul, that the headship of Christ is not something away in the distance. The principle is laid in your soul at the outset. He is the [p. 176] One that does things. Hence you go instinctively to the Lord.
GAT Would you mind giving us the difference between the three scriptures you referred to in connection with headship — Romans, Colossians and Ephesians?
JT I remarked several times that here it is a question of what He does.
GAT Excuse me, but what I wanted to know is, does it bring me to a different stage in my soul?
JT I think so. Colossians is an advance on this. There you come to a recognition of who He is. The truth is developed in Colossians from this point. He has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son, and then the Spirit goes on to enlarge on that Person, and in right of what He is, He must have pre-eminence in everything, so that He is Head because of what He is personally.
HG David was anointed first of all because of what he was in secret. His moral beauty marked him out; and then he acquires a place in the thoughts of the people because of his exploits; then finally he is placed there by God, publicly as head. Is that right?
JT Yes, quite so.
GWH And in 2 Samuel 5 they accord him that place at Hebron, do they not?
HG They do.
ANW Is not headship difficult to understand apart from associates? I was wondering why you were so hesitant to recognize lordship before headship. Do you not get greatly helped in linking yourself with others?
JT That is so.
ANW I thought to bring that to pass lordship must have its effect.
JT Only the individual from the outset of his knowledge of the things of God apprehends that these things have come in through Christ. Chapter 5 shows they had come in through Christ, so at the very beginning I see that this is the Man, because “the Christ” is the subject of the gospel, and that principle begins at the outset of your spiritual history.
GWH You said at Rochester that at conversion you get the germ of everything. [p. 177] Do you not?
JT Oh, I suppose you do.
GWH So in the soul of the believer there is a parallel with what is in the mind of God.
JT You see in the woman at Sychar’s well how simply it works out. There she gives her conclusion on what He did for her. That was capable of infinite amplification. “Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” John 4: 29. How much there is to be opened up in that. It was the beginning of her spiritual history.
RSS He told her all really that is in God’s heart, and all that was in her heart, and there is nothing outside of that.
JT Quite so.
DR In that way when the Lord begins to speak to the Samaritan woman He commands the situation right away. Lordship is arrived at in that way and she is prepared to, receive everything from Him.
JT One is more and more impressed with the fundamental character of Romans: how it forces the truth into the soul logically. If you acquire an apprehension of Christ as presented in Romans 5, you have an element in your soul that stays there, so you instinctively turn to Christ instead of turning to men in your difficulties.
GAT Like the woman you mentioned in John 4, you will impress others by what you see and by what you are.
JT Yes, quite so.
RSS The necessity of headship, as it is brought out in the close of Romans 5, is immensely great, from the fact that the human race was without a head. When Adam died, they were without a head, and it was necessary that a new head should be brought in. I was wondering in that connection (we are speaking of things largely from the way in which they stand now in connection with the Lord’s resurrection and when He took an abiding place) when He was born into the world, was He head? Could we speak of Him as head on the ground of His birth — who He was?
JT It would be only a question of what was in God’s mind. The announcement of the angel to the shepherds is very beautiful — “Unto you is born this day in the city of David” (He is born to them) “a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord”. It is very beautiful how it is put. It is not with headship, but lordship. “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord”, Luke 2: 11.
RSS He was that, at the moment of His birth.
JT That was of course the mind of God. Following on that, Simeon takes the Child into his arms. “It was revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ”, and he takes the Child into his arms and says, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace ... for mine eyes have seen thy salvation”, Luke 2: 26 - 30. You see the thing was all there.
ANW Even the wise men presented their gifts to Him.
JT Yes, just so.
ANW The One born King of the Jews.
JT But then that would be all a question of how God took account of things, the mind of God, and certainly how everything was centred in that Babe.
R S. S. But it gradually developed and came out.
JT Quite so.
RSS Largely in His ministry, but above all finally in resurrection and ascension.
JT Yes.
DR In speaking of headship, you remarked a little while ago about the way it becomes power. In Corinthians He is Head of every man. Would you confine that to those in the assembly, or give it a universal application?
JT I think it is universal. It is the position He occupies in God’s ordering now.
AL You spoke a little about the appropriation of the Head, and I would gather from what you said that the apostle is seeking that we should lay hold of Him as Head in the apprehension of what He has been to us personally in our own souls.
JT That is what I think chapter 5 will do, and as you look into it you are impressed with the far-reaching character of His one act of obedience, as, for instance, there are [p. 179] now those reigning in life, as one result. Well, what an immense thing that is! Then, to refer to one or two points, justification of life, and then grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Think of the scope of it, and the far-reaching character of it. Well, if you have the light of that in your soul, you are restful, and you turn to the Lord. You do not turn to anyone else, because this is what He does, and He can do anything. As Job says of the Lord, “I know that thou canst do everything”, job 42: 2. That was what Job arrived at, and so one arrives at that in regard of Christ.
AL That is where Peter came — “Thou knowest all things”, John 21: 17.
JT That is the principle.
GAT The centurion said, “Say by a word”, Luke 7: 7.
JT Yes.
ANW Would you say the moral effect of knowing Christ as Head is in the confession of Him as Lord?
JT I suppose so. You are not afraid to confess One who can do everything.
ANW You do not own Him as Head of the world, but as Lord.
JT That is the confession, but He is known in your soul as Head.
GAT Why is it that we are not always so free to confess Him — not only young people, but some on the way pretty well are not always free when we get amongst the world. It is easy enough here, but not so easy in business.
JT The spirit of the world is against that. Satan is against Christ as Lord. He knows it is the overthrow of his kingdom and he puts it as far away from him as he can.
GAT But do you not think we should be beyond that?
JT Oh, quite. We are enjoined that now is the time for confession.
WLP You are apt to run into a legal way of confessing Him, are you not?
JT It should be by the Holy Spirit. In that way there is power in it. It is not legal.
[p. 180] R S. S. We are under the influence of Christ as here together, but when we are in circumstances such as our brother refers to, although we are still under the influence of Christ, we come to some extent under the influence of the world and the people with whom we are in contact.
The question is, which is the greater? I suppose that would account for our exceeding weakness, but the more the greatness of Christ is before us, the more we will be delivered.
GWH Is it not a very great advantage to see that in Romans 5, He is the Head of every man in the world by rights of redemption.
JT Well, quite so. Headship is available to all. The bearing of redemption, justification, and life, is toward all the human race. The whole human race is immensely enriched by this wonderful Man if He is apprehended.
RSS That is what I was trying to express when I said we were without a head, and the head we had brought us down and down into what? But now the new Head we have brings us up into what? It is inexhaustible.
JT It is a great thing to see things in that wide scope.
RSS Do I understand from what has been said that the Lord is Head of every man, even unconverted people in the world?
JT That is what it says in Corinthians.
R S. S. I thought you rather referred to His being Head of man in contrast to woman.
JT So I did, but if He is Head to all men He is Head to the women indirectly, because the man is head to the woman.
WCR Mr. Raven spoke of the great advantages in Western Europe and America which were due to Christ being brought in as Head.
JT I think that is so. The immense strides that have been made in what has been called ‘civilization’ are largely due to the emphasis given to the knowledge of Christ as Head here.
GAT Is His becoming Head of great advantage to [p. 181] men?
JT It is a sort of material advantage now, but look at the spiritual advantages in chapter 5. Reigning in life, having “justification of life” (that is, a life against which no charge can be laid), and then grace reigning through righteousness to eternal life. Think of that! Think of the immensity of the riches in that! And that is what is going to be displayed and the testimony will be that He has done this.
HG But meantime we can be discovering in Christ features which exhibit His greatness, as did the widow of Nain, and those who returned to John in prison (Luke 7). But is this not the work of the Spirit, transferring us constitutionally from Adam to Christ, so that we really come out in the character of that Man?
JT I am sure that is so.
HG The Sanhedrim could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which Stephen spoke. He was irresistible.
He not only confessed Christ as Lord, thereby recognizing His absolute rights over him, but as a man there in the constitution of Christ he is perfectly irresistible. They may kill, as they killed Christ, but they could not stand before him. One feels the need of being transferred constitutionally, so to speak, into the life of our Head, so that in that way one has ample wisdom, in the spirit of that Man, for meeting any situation.
JT You see in the gospels, on the one hand, illustrations of believers testing what Christ could do, and basing their conclusions on that. On the other hand, you have examples of men benefiting from Christ and getting no moral gain from it, as, for instance, in John 5. We were speaking of the woman in John 4 getting moral gain. She based her conclusion on what the Lord said to her, and answered to Him in that light with great results; whereas the man in John 5 who was at the pool of Bethesda was healed by the Lord but got no moral gain from it. He did not know the Lord. Rather he went to the Jews and really got the Lord, as you might say, into trouble. One just refers to the passage to illustrate it, “The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is [p. 182] not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day”, John 5: 10 - 16. He does not appear to have obtained any moral gain from the advantage of getting to Him. On the contrary, he brings persecution on the Lord by his course.
WCR I was thinking of the demoniac, of the moral gain he got “Sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind”, Mark 5: 15. He was able to go into the city and publish how great things God had done for him.
JT Yes, he was an illustration on the other side. Then of the ten cleansed, nine of them evidently got no moral gain from it. I suppose these cases are illustrative of numerous believers now who get no moral gain from the benefit accruing to them, whereas those who follow the things up and see that Christ does things, and turn to Him, grow, and progress, come into the good of headship, and come out here in a constitution after Christ.
GAT Do you think that is the reason why so many fall away?
JT I think we do not go on from the beginning.
DR I was wondering if Stephen would answer to what we find in Romans 8: 2 — “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death”.
JT Well, I am sure he would, but then you see he goes much further than being free from the law of sin and death, does he not? I think Stephen answers more to what we had yesterday. That is, the Spirit of that Man breathed into him, because we have to distinguish between the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and the breath of Christ [p. 183] communicated to us. The latter is not what is in Christ Jesus, but what is in us. John 20 is what is in us — breathed from Him into us. This passage in the beginning of Romans 8 refers to the position of life. Life is in Christ. According to the end of chapter 6, “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”. It is the position of it. In the end of chapter 5 it is the instrument through which it has been effected: the end of chapter 6, the position of it; and the beginning of chapter 8, the spirit of that which is in that position “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”.
GAT And do I understand that John 20 and the last part of Romans 8: 9 is the Spirit of Christ in me — He breathes into us?
JT That would be it more. “If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him”.
A L. That is breathed into him?
JT It is.
AL That is distinct, is it not?
JT Yes.
WCR Is not the law of the Spirit of life more than having the Spirit?
JT You see it is “in Christ” and there is a law there.
WCR The law of the Spirit seems to suggest the believer coming under the rule of the Spirit. Many believers have the Spirit but are not subject to the Spirit and are not under the rule of the Spirit.
JT Yes, but it is the law of the Spirit of life. It is no doubt the Holy Spirit, but it is the thing that prompts the saints as living. The position is in Christ, but it prompts us. To illustrate what I mean, when we are together as we are now there is a Spirit prompting us, which in principle prompts all the saints, but you realize it more when together, and you see how that works out for deliverance to the very youngest when together.
ANW If we are going to speak of chapter 8 at all, would you tell us what the “Therefore” really refers to before we go on with the other part of the chapter?
JT I think chapter 7 is the condemnation of conscience that the law would bring in. I think that the state described [p. 184] in chapter 7 implies the man was condemned in his conscience, but is no longer condemned. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death”.
JB It is power.
GAT Would you say it shows he is in full deliverance from the body of sin?
JT Quite.
AL And is it not by way of contrast? There is a new law come in, while the old is not abrogated.
JT The old law stands. It remains and rules over a man as long as he lives, but he has died out of it, and, as to enjoyment, he is free in his soul because of the new law he is brought into.
JB This law has power to free one.
JT We have not time really to deal with these great subjects in these short readings, but we cannot afford to pass over chapter 6, even at the risk of taking the next reading for chapter 8. The position of the believer now, in the light of all these things, in regard of the world, in regard of what is outside of him, is what chapter 6 opens up to us, and so the chapter is developed from the question, “Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?”
HG It is sin viewed there, as you said, more like the world; the principle is in the world, do you mean?
JT Yes, I think that is what is alluded to, so the position is that baptism is immediately brought in and its meaning is taught. So it takes place in the presence of the world. It takes me out of the world as regards my interests and the like, but I am still in it literally, so that in Romans 6 I am dead to it. In Colossians it is dead from it. The thing is here yet and I am in the presence of it, so Romans 6 becomes a most crucial chapter in that way, as regards one’s public position.
RSS In Colossians you said, we are dead from it?
JT From the rudiments of the world. Having my back on it, I am going into Canaan; but Romans is not that. Romans is that I am adjusted in regard of God, and live here as thus adjusted in order to witness to the newness [p. 185] of the thing that I am brought into, newness of life, newness of the spirit, renewing of the mind. It is a new order of things witnessed to in my daily life before the world.
GAT So in this chapter I refuse to live in sin; I refuse to have it reign over me even.
JT Yes, sin does not reign over me, and I am dead to it, and that works out in every moment of my life as before the world. One has to have this truth in one’s soul, I am dead to that.
HG Dead to the world in which the will of man dominates, do you mean, and baptized to Jesus Christ?
JT Yes.
HG You were saying yesterday that “Jesus Christ” sets forth character. Is that the idea?
JT The order of man.
HG Yes, are you baptized to come out in the presence of the world in the character of that Man?
JT I think so. It is well to look at it as it reads: “What then shall we say? Should we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far be the thought. We who have died to sin, how shall we still live in it? Are ye ignorant that we, as many as have been baptized unto Christ Jesus, have been baptized unto his death? We have been buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, in order that, even as Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life”, Romans 6: 1 - 4. We are baptized to him, but that is not what he is dealing with. That was already admitted, but he says, “As many as have been baptized unto Christ Jesus, have been baptized unto his death”. That is the point to get hold of. So that, He has been raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. It does not yet say that we should be raised, for baptism in Romans does not prefigure resurrection. It does in Colossians because it takes us into the land. There is no wilderness in Colossians, the Red Sea and Jordan coalesce, as has often been remarked. In Romans there is no Jordan, only the Red Sea, so I am not raised. It is Christ that is raised and the bearing in my case is that I am here in newness of life.
[p. 186] That is, my manner is changed. I am in the same old place, with the same kind of work as I have always done. My surroundings remain what they always were, but I come up out of death different from what I was. My spirit is different; my manner is different.
ANW Is newness of life walking as Christ walked?
JT It would amount to that. It is very individual, you see. It is simply newness of life, without saying what the thing is. In Colossians we have the thing concretely presented — new men.
ANW Not Egyptian slavery any more — is that the thought?
JT No, you are in liberty.
AL Is Romans 8: 2 not much on the lines of Romans 6:14?
JT Now what is your point?
AL “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law but under grace”. Many a soul reads that and says, there it is in the Scripture, but it has dominion over me. It does have dominion until the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is apprehended, does it not?
JT Oh, quite, but I am quite sure that chapter 6 necessitates the Spirit. However, I think so far it is the workings of what is objective. That is, we are told it is the new system and not the Spirit that is in me that is treated of.
It is what you are under. You are not under law, but under grace. It is not what is in you but what is over you that is brought in.
AL Then would you say what is over you is greater than what is in you?
JT You see it is the system, the new dominion. It has the effect of liberation, so sin has no power over you.
RSS In connection with continuing in sin — “Should we continue in sin?” — I believe Mr. G. made some remark in regard to the world. Is this sin in me or is it the whole character of the scene that you have to do with?
HG I said I thought sin in Romans 6 referred to a principle in the world, not to something in myself. I would base that on the fact that it says “For in that he has died,
[p. 187] he has died to sin once for all”. The Lord did not die to something in myself. Consequently I think it is viewed in that way.
RSS And sin is lawlessness, as we understand. That is the character of the scene we are in, and it is death to that something outside you — is that so?
H G. I thought so.
JT The body of sin. The more the human race multiplied, the greater the power of sin became; and then, added to that, the education that accrued from the light of God as given to the Jews increased the power of sin in the world, and the greatest evidence of the strength of sin was when the Lord Jesus was crucified. Sin had developed its greatest strength at that moment, so that the crucifixion of Christ involved the crucifixion of the old man. But then the power of sin in the world is not a bit changed. It is only that our old man, the body of sin, is annulled in christians, because christians see that in the death of Christ the old man was crucified.
Ques Is that where reckoning comes in?
JT Quite, that comes in afterward. “Reckon yourselves dead to sin”, Romans 6: 11. That is, to the working of this thing in the world. Reckon yourself dead to that, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
DR Would it be right to say that we have in chapter 6 what we ought to be, and chapter 8 gives us the power to be it?
JT The eighth is the Spirit, you see. It is a treatise on the Spirit; what the Spirit is to the christian; but the sixth chapter treats of the elements of the gospel, what is presented today objectively, and it is a reckoning. The presentation of light refers to God.
Rem One brother said we are actually dead.
JT If you were actually dead you would not have to reckon. The reckoning has to be maintained, and chapter 8 comes in as power to do that, but the epistle is worked out logically, as we have remarked, and chapter 6 is based on baptism, which is a public thing. It is a question of my public position and conduct here.
HG This is not baptism exactly, as you receive [p. 188] it when you are baptized, is it, but the teaching of it?
JT It is the teaching of it, and the apostle is evidently greatly encouraged because they had obeyed from their heart the form of teaching in which they had been instructed.
ANW However much more the Israelites had to learn after crossing the Red Sea, on crossing it they had a right to disown the reign of Pharaoh.
JT That is so, but they were never changed themselves.
ANW That is open to everyone that has benefited from the death of Christ surely, to reckon that.
HG The trouble is their tastes were not changed. Their position was changed, but their tastes were not.
JT There was no answer in murmuring. That is a common thing in the world.
GAT And they long for the leeks and garlic.
HG It is a very important thing to change the position of a child, or a household, and to have the tastes changed.
JT That is the point. The Israelites, you might say, retained their old tastes in the wilderness, so there was nothing new. Nothing new in murmuring, nothing new in longing for the leeks and garlic of Egypt, and certainly nothing new in setting up the golden calf and worshipping it. These were all elements that were old and wicked; the point is to bring in what is new, and what is new is of Christ.
HG I judge the manna would suggest the formative principle for the continuance of life. You are baptized with a view of coming out in the life of the manna.
JT I think that is beautiful. They say, “What is it?” Exodus 16: 15. It was something new — no Egyptian element, and as it was understood it was Christ according to what He was here. That is the new thing. So I have to consider in all my movements now, ‘Am I presenting this new thing, or am I what I was before ?’.
GAT Now in the seventh chapter he has the desire, but not the power. How does that affect us now?
JT It is the new nature of a christian. It seems he [p. 189] delighted in the law of God after the inward man, but, as you said, he had no power. I hope we are all clear about chapter 6, because it is the crucial chapter as regards our public position in this world; whether I am walking consistently with my baptism, and to do that I have got to pat on something new. My manner must be changed.
HG I feel what you say cannot be over-emphasized, in view of the increasing lawlessness everywhere. The question is, what kind of spirit are we presenting in the midst of it? I am sure that is the test today and the only thing that will be really testimony.
WLP Will you say a little more about the constitution we are to develop, because if the constitution is right then our tastes will be in accordance with that, will they not?
HG Exactly so. It is a serious thing to put people on the Arabian side of the Red Sea in baptism. It will not do, for they will still desire the food of the land they have left behind; I thought manna met them at the outset to form constitutions for a wilderness people. They said, “What is it?” It was something new. If they had fed on that it would not have formed Egyptian constitutions, but Christ-like constitutions, so they would come out in newness of life.
ANW Yet the depths of their hearts were learned in the despising of the manna, rather than in hankering after Egypt.
JT Yes.
JB Did not the manna bring that out?
JT It brought out that they had no taste for Christ. They had not developed new tastes.
JB That was really the worst thing brought out with regard to the manna, was it not?
JT So my position here, according to chapter 6, is that I am dead to sin. That is the ground I take by reckoning myself dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. That has to be maintained every moment of my life.
GAT Now sin presents itself, and how does that work out?
JT Well, I am dead to it.
GAT Yes, you say so, and the scripture says so, but how am I going to apply that?
[p. 190] JT It is a good thing to turn your eye from it if you see it. You go into the world in the ordinary affairs of life, and the temptations are terrific. One feels it, especially for the young, because we know what the power of the flesh is. In the young it has greater power than in the older ones, and safety for the believer lies in turning from the thing. You have not got to go in and test it out. Solomon did that before you. You gain nothing by testing it out and going through it. Solomon has gone through it and tells us what he found in it. You do not have to. You judge it and turn from it. So we can all understand the prayer the Lord taught the disciples, “Lead us not into temptation”. If you are in it, turn from it. Do not look at it.
RSS So sin in Romans 6 is lawlessness — that which is outside of you, so to speak — but when it is a question of sin in us, is that what is spoken of in chapter 8 where it says “condemned sin in the flesh”?
JT Yes, the seventh and eighth, I suppose, take up the subject of what is in me.
RSS Yes, that is what I wanted to understand.
JT But the sixth is outside of me and my reckoning of that, so, as I remarked, the sixth is I am dead to the thing. In Colossians we are dead from it. I think there is a point in the two words. But here I am in the presence of it, and the thing is to turn away. I have nothing to say to that — I am dead to that.
WCR The body of sin having been annulled, what does that mean?
JT That is in the old man. Our old man having been crucified, I am entitled to disregard all the tendencies of the old man, because God has condemned it; He has crucified it. It is a remarkable word. Not simply put to death, but God shows His abhorrence — crucifixion.
HG Would you say, emphasizing what you have said in regard to reckoning ourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord, that you can only reckon yourself to be dead indeed unto sin as alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord? It is a retroactive thing, that involves the Spirit, and not only the Spirit, but [p. 191] you have used the Spirit so you are constantly and increasingly in the life of the Man who lives to God.
JT It would be a poor thing if we only reckoned all the time.
HG And you have new power.
GAT If I see sin acting, I have the right and privilege to turn from it. It is very simple.
JT The one who dwells on high is the one who closes his eyes from seeing evil, and stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood (Isaiah 33: 15, 16). That is a good principle.
GAT Did the apostle have the same thought, “Touch not; taste not; handle not”, Colossians 2: 21.
JT No, that is the radical. The radical tells you not to do that.
JB Is it not wonderful “in that he lives, he lives to God”, Romans 6: 10?
JT Yes.
GWH So chapter 6 is inseparably connected with chapter 8, although it precedes it?
JT Yes, the things overlap you know, but when you view each thing by itself, chapter 6 is rather the public position.
GWH Baptism is largely in view in chapter 6.
JT Yes, baptism has nothing to do with what is inside me, but what is outside me. The Holy Spirit deals with what is inside.
AL Would that scripture in Proverbs 4 “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” be like turning away from evil? Supposing when I go away from here I see something evil in the world, that would still be what is in me, how am I to turn away from it? Am I to go down the street with my eyes shut?
JT It is a good thing to turn your eyes away sometimes.
AL You have sometimes to feel your absolute weakness. You may turn from evil but the whole scene is that.
ANW Does not the truth of headship, as you have been presenting it to us, enable you to turn from what you have [p. 192] been speaking of?
JT No doubt.
WLP Is it not possible to be occupied with Christ in such a way that these outward things will not appeal to you?
JT I think so, and I think as you develop self-judgment you increase in power in dealing with evil. It has less and less weight with you.
ANW I suppose the gain of being under bondage to God is revealed to one.
JT Just so.
AL Hence that scripture, “This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting”, Matthew 17: 21.
JT Just so, all that comes in, and the habit of self-judgment is so important. As it says, “Ye put to death the deeds of the body”, Romans 8: 13.
AL And by the Spirit.
JT Quite.
AL What is self-judgment?
JT Oh, well, it is that if you are to judge the world you have to learn to judge yourself. One has to begin with oneself, and disallow the things that God has disallowed in the cross. You take sides with God, I think, in that way.
AL Do you mean I have to recognize I have been a part of that system?
JT Just so. You have part in the old man and God has crucified him, and you disallow him.