WHAT WE HAVE "OF FAITH" (2)
WHAT WE HAVE “OF FAITH” (2)
AFM How is it that the thought of new creation and reconciliation are found at the end of this chapter?
JT I suppose it is the apostle’s design in the structure of the letter. Things are introduced in a regular way. The letter is written on a definite plan and new creation is essential to reconciliation.
AFM Should the thought of new creation and reconciliation come in here to show what we have in the present time? We are awaiting this house from heaven; but already we are a new creation and are reconciled. Is that why it is brought in here?
JT I think that the new covenant and then reconciliation is the leading thought in the mind of the Spirit. But an element is introduced here which is not developed in the same way in Colossians and Ephesians. We are said to be “reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”, in Colossians, “to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”, Colossians 1: 21, 22. But in Ephesians 2: 16 it says that He had reconciled “both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby”; referring to the unity that God has brought about by the cross — the unity established between the Jew and gentile believers. Here new creation is introduced as an essential.
AFM The old state of man was irreconcilable.
ANW How do you understand verse 19? “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”.
AFM I suppose that was the character of things when Christ was here — that God did not view the world at a distance from Him.
JT That was the attitude of His mind.
JS “In Christ”.
JT “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”. That which pleased God was set out in Christ,
[p. 229] and He had no other thought for the world than that.
In Christ is set out what occasions the “good” pleasure in men, spoken of in Luke 2: 14.
ANW Does it read God was reconciling the world in Christ rather than God was in Christ?
JT I think it is the former. Christ becoming Man sets out what God delights in, and there could be no reconciliation except as all are brought into that. So in the incarnation the angels are delighted in the fact that there should be “good pleasure in men”. We often quote it as good pleasure in man; but it is “good pleasure in men”.
AFM Christ, Himself, was God’s good pleasure.
JT The thing was begun there; but there new creation did not apply to Christ; but it does apply to all else. “So if anyone be in Christ, there is a new creation”.
JS Perfect complacency as in Him.
AAT Is new creation something from nothing?
JT You might say that. We cannot speak of the material. The point is, that it is used. “Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new: and all things are of the God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”.
R S. It is hardly from nothing. “Has reconciled us”. He has the material before Him.
JT Surely, only that the point in new creation is that it is new.
AAT Adam was made from nothing.
JT He was made out of the dust. But, still, we cannot speak of the material. The truth of the matter is that God takes up what is presented in Christ and uses it in the vision of our souls, and our beings, so that it is wholly new but all evolved out of Christ.
BP Does a reconciled man retain his identity?
JT Yes.
AAT Are we reconciled now?
JT I think so. He has reconciled both in one body by the cross. It was a statement of a fact which covered the Jew and the gentile as they then were in Christ.
Rem Yet it says: “We entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God”.
JT The Corinthians were not practically in reconciliation, and it was for them to come into it, and the two letters were that they might come into conformity to Christ.
Ques What is the difference between the ministry of the new covenant and the ministry of reconciliation?
JT Just as he had been an able minister of the new covenant so he had received the ministry of reconciliation. The new covenant is what God is in Christ, and reconciliation what man is in Christ. So in Colossians he is aiming at presenting “every man perfect in Christ”.
Rem The idea of the apostle is that they should come into it. Is it a matter of light, or of faith or conformity to the teaching?
JT The apostle had received the ministry of reconciliation, and he had also the ministry of the new covenant. They are both involved in the gospel. Only the ministry of reconciliation would lead on more definitely to the ministry of the assembly. There are strictly but two ministries, especially in Colossians, the ministry of the gospel and the ministry of the assembly. Reconciliation, I suppose, might be said to be bound up in the ministry of the assembly; but, at any rate, they are distinguished here.
It would work out in this way. The apostle while in Corinth presented what God is in Christ, and then, on the other hand, he would present what man is according to God in Christ, and the ministry of reconciliation would involve that and the effect of it would be that a Corinthian saint would say, That is what I am to be practically. He would say, My exercise is that I might move about in Corinth agreeable to God — that I should be here for God’s pleasure in all my motives and movements. How is that coming about, save as I see the idea in Christ and work it out in my daily experience?
ANW Where is reconciliation in Luke 15? Is it in the kiss?
JT That is the covenant more. That is what God is towards the prodigal, that is expressing God’s heart.
A.N.W. Is it in the robe?
JT When he is arrayed, he sets out what man is in Christ. So as reconciled he is in the house without anything [p. 231] to cause displeasure to God — he is there in entire suitability.
JS Does it involve sonship?
JT Sonship is a question of liberty and dignity. The prodigal is not said to be brought into the house. The elder brother is invited in; but the prodigal is not said to be brought in; because as arrayed he is, in principle, the house. The house is composed of such.
AFM Is there a point where the covenant and reconciliation coalesce? In the covenant I learn the terms on which God is with me and the response is reconciliation.
JT I am exercised now as to being for God, so that it comes to this that I am a man in Christ. That is one of the most prominent features in this letter, not that it is fully developed; but the apostle says: “I know a man in Christ”. That is a point of knowledge that you want to arrive at.
AFM That is the full thing. Every one has touched the thing though it may be very feebly, like a babe or child in Christ, yet such a one is in the good of reconciliation.
JT A babe in Christ is not the divine idea. It is all very well to say “little children” but they are not the divine idea. His delight is not in children but in sons — those that are men really in development. It is one thing to say I know God in Christ; but it is quite another thing to say, “I know a man in Christ”. Perhaps that is a piece of knowledge which is the rarest of all. It depends upon what one is as new created of God.
God approaches me in Christ and removes all that lay upon me, the covenant involves that, it is the covenant in Christ’s blood; the blood atoning for all my liabilities, that is the covenant. But, then, on the other hand, you see what man is in Christ and God brings you to that.
AFM It is not only that the faculties are there, but they are developed.
JT Not a babe but a man. It involves everything that came out in Christ presented in the Gospels.
Rem You mean that as a man in Christ I am marked by righteousness. The Lord is said to have loved righteousness and to have hated [p. 232] lawlessness.
JT But, then, that is only one feature. You have to study the gospels to find out what Christ was under God’s eye.
Rem What are the marks of one in the good of reconciliation?
JT He would come out here like Christ as a lover of righteousness. You would look for all the marks of Christ in him. He has no less in his mind that that, and reconciliation involves that.
Rem Was the apostle referring to himself when he said “I know a man in Christ”?
JT He was referring to himself. Doubtless he would have referred to others had he known them; but he could speak of himself out of his experience.
Ques Does the apostle limit it to “That we might be made the righteousness of God in him”?
JT That is the full result of the death of Christ that he is speaking of.
AAT We know that what follows on new creation is reconciliation but are there other truths as a consequence?
JT The truth of the assembly necessarily hinges on it.
The assembly is formed of those who are pleasing to God.
AM You are referring to the assembly as the anointed vessel?
JT Especially as it is seen in Ephesians: “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3: 21. It is a wonderful conception! The assembly is the anointed vessel down here for the expression of the will of God; but, then, it is in the heavenlies for the setting forth of the glory of God.
H Where do you get the thought of “the anointed vessel”?
JT See 1 Corinthians 12: 12, “For even as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. For also in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body ... and have all been given to drink of one Spirit” — “So also is the Christ”, he is referring to the saints viewed as the body and the baptism of the Holy [p. 233] Spirit introduces us into that. It involves that I am here for the will of God. There is a vessel here for the will of God now and it is anointed as Christ was. But Ephesians is the assembly in the heavenlies, and it is a vessel of glory.
Rem Is the world getting any benefit today from reconciliation?
JT It is the line on which God is in the saints, as He was in Christ, so now the ministry of reconciliation is to bring all into that. So the apostle aimed to “present every man perfect in Christ”, Colossians 1: 28.
AFM You would expect from the anointed vessel that the glad tidings would go out. When Christ was here He was the administrator of God’s glad tidings so the same thing is continued in the saints.
JT It is not that the body preaches, but it is evangelical. At the same time you want to set before souls what man is in Christ. The apostle spoke about his “doctrine” and “manner of life”. What he was, was in keeping with what he preached.
ARS It has been said by some ‘christianity is a failure’. What would you say to a man about the world being reconciled, for the world has not been reconciled?
JT The principle is here. “The darkness is passing”, John says, “and the true light already shines”, 1 John 2: 8. The “true light” is reconciliation really. It is God’s thought for man. It is more than His attitude. There is here in this world in the assembly an answer to what Christ is as Man before God, and that is support for the gospel. It says of Christ: “And the light appears in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not”, John 1: 5. The darkness was untouched in spite of the light; but, in 1 John 2: 8 the darkness is said to be passing — men are being found after Christ so “the true light already shines”. So every man who is truly converted and formed after Christ is a light. He is “true light” and to that extent the darkness is passing. The passing continues.
AFM John 1:29 says, “Behold the Lamb of God, who [p. 234] takes away the sin of the world”. The sin of the world is taken away to the extent in which you have believers.
JT He “takes away the sin of the world” and “baptizes with the Holy Spirit”, John 1: 33. Sin is lawlessness but that which the Holy Spirit brings in is law abiding — it does the will of God. “The new man, which according to God is created in truthful righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4: 24), and that is “according as the truth is in Jesus”, Ephesians 4: 21.
Rem Is there an objective thought and a subjective thought connected with reconciliation?
JT The objective thought is, what Christ was personally on earth; and the subjective is, that I am brought to it.
AAT You referred to Christ as He was here; but the apostle said: “If even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer”.
JT That is a question of knowing Him, personally, by acquaintance, that does not set aside, however, that we are to know “Him that is from the beginning”, 1 John 3: 13. We are to consider what marked Him “from the beginning”.
You cannot know Him any other way now than as He is. What marked Him here was the divine ideal for man, as He was here under the eye of God.
ARS “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh”.
JT The apostle could say that. He only took account of men as in Christ. If he looked at a christian, he looked at him potentially, not as he was socially. The apostle says “We do not again commend ourselves to you, but we are giving to you occasion of boast in our behalf, that ye may have such with those boasting in countenance, and not in heart. For whether we are beside ourselves, it is to God; or are sober, it is for you. For the love of the Christ constrains us”. That was what he was. It was for them to take account of him in that way; not to take account of him as he was in Christ. They had the liberty of boasting in him, for no one walked nearer to Christ than he did. Then he goes on to speak of the way he took account of things: “Having judged this”. That is the way I take account of things. “That one died for all, these all have died”; that is the way I look at you Corinthians — “And he died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves,
[p. 235] but to him who died for them and has been raised”. That is how he took account of them and that is the basis of these letters that they should live to Him who died for them. And then he says, “So that we henceforth know no one according to flesh; but if even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer”. That is how I am looking at things, he says, and, to my mind, it is a great thing to get on these lines — to take account of the Lord’s people in this way. He may say, they are very much unlike all this; but it is a question of the potentiality of the people of God. And what I would say is, the best way to get results amongst the people of God is to pray for them and you will find out that God will give results. But, then, if I pray for them, I must be what I am desiring them to be, and that was what Paul was.
AFM I was wondering if this was apostolic, “we henceforth know no one according to flesh”, whether it was because of the peculiar way the apostle had taken up service for Christ. It is encouraging to see that we may all follow after this line.
JT He undoubtedly could say it in a more pronounced way than any other as he had no natural relationships; but, at the same time, in measure this is the ground that each believer is entitled to take, and should take. You do not look at what they are naturally but what they are morally.
Rem What they are to Christ.
JT God would look at them according to what He has in mind for them and bring it about in them. The nearer one is to God the more one can reckon this way — you are never daunted nor discouraged.
Rem Balaam was caused to see how Israel was viewed by God.
JT He “saw the vision of the Almighty”.
The apostle wanted to impress upon them what his thoughts were: “Whether we are beside ourselves, it is to God”. God was the supreme object of his affections. If he got outside of his natural reckonings, as he did at times, it was wholly to be to God; but, if he came back to natural reckonings, as he had to sometimes, “it is for you”. He loved them wholly. What a man he was under God’s eye!
That is the idea of reconciliation.
HB Do you think then that reconciliation is so difficult for us to understand because we know so little of what is the other side of death, resurrection?
JT You have resurrection brought in, in this epistle, more frequently and earlier than in the first epistle. In the first he is labouring to bring about order and holiness amongst them so he does not come to resurrection, really, until chapter 15, and then he treats of it as a subject by itself. Whereas in this letter he brings in resurrection in chapter 1. He says “that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead”. He brings it in immediately because the first letter had brought about a state in them which warranted him speaking to them in this way. It is only as we are prepared to leave the earth that we appreciate resurrection. “If one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”.
WB Do new creation and reconciliation follow upon that?
JT That is how it stands here. The apostle works it out from his own exercise, and point of view, so he says “we henceforth know no one according to flesh; but if even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer. So if anyone be in Christ, there is a new creation”.
AFM It is simple to see in chapter 12 how such a man goes up. The idea of ascension — all that is pleasing to God must go up.
JT He was not moored to the earth — no moorings here.
Rem That is all that will go up.
JT The question is whether I am deferring it in my mind — whether some things I am thinking of will happen before the event. A man in Christ is ready to depart on the morrow, so to speak. He is quite in keeping with the event.
WB Enoch would be an illustration.
JT “He had this testimony, that he pleased God”, Hebrews 11: 5. One would like to be in keeping with the event.
WB This does not bring you as far as that, does it?
JT He is labouring to bring about the great fact of reconciliation.
WB It does not give you the going up.
JT It shows the adjustment that is necessary in the soul so that we should be equal to the event when it comes.
Ho So here the judgment-seat of Christ precedes the teaching of reconciliation. The prodigal had to have things cleared from his conscience before he entered the house.
JT The judgment-seat of Christ is the element here that adjusts things. Things are adjusted by it.
WB That is the end of the responsibility, whereas what follows is not a question of responsibility at all.
JT You would not like to shut out responsibility.
WB I thought it was more the work of God.
JT It is; but leading up to reconciliation, and reconciliation is a practical thing. Whilst God brings it about, yet, you have the word here “Be reconciled to God”. That is, that I am practically conformed to Christ so I am like Enoch — I have the testimony, that I please God. So I am prepared for the event when it comes. It was not a surprise to Enoch, he was equal to the event. There is nothing more practical than that. We all look forward to the event — the rapture — but is one equal to it, or will it be a surprise?
JB What is the difference between reconciliation in Colossians and Ephesians?
JT Reconciliation here is set down as a question of God’s mind — “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” and He had committed to Paul “the ministry of that reconciliation”, and Paul was aiming at it in the Corinthians so he besought them to “Be reconciled to God”. But in Ephesians he does not beseech them, he says that both have been reconciled unto God in one body by the cross — it is already effected. That is, the practical unity that existed between the Jew and the gentile in the [p. 238] power of the Spirit was pleasing to God. But that was not seen in Corinth.
AFM The ministry of reconciliation is still being carried on? The apostles were especially gifted in view of it, but still there is a ministry answering to it today.
JT The minister must be in agreement with the ministry. What we have noticed in the first letter is that he was in keeping with his ministry. He saw the Corinthians were in danger of worldly principles so he “determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling”, 1 Corinthians 2: 2, 3. He was in that array according to Christ so that they might have the thing before them.
ANW I was thinking that viewing the saints potentially did not prevent the apostle from writing the first epistle.
JT He even says: “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened”, 1 Corinthians 5: 7. That is how he took account of them — “as ye are unleavened”. And, although they were babes, he says: “I speak as to intelligent persons”.
WB Do you not take account of the whole world in the same light?
JT In Romans it is said that the world is reconciled: “For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world” (Romans 11: 15), and that is, perhaps, something least understood of all. God has taken up the world in Christ, and He is not imputing trespasses to the world now.
The line He is on is to bring all into conformity to Christ; but when you come to the saints it is “And you ... hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”, Colossians 1: 21 - 22.
JS Does it depend upon the point of view from which we view the world; “Now is the judgment of this world”.
JT That refers to the world centred in Jerusalem.
That world was judged; but this, the gentile world, is taken up in Christ as the Head of it. That is the secret of God going on with it today. Were it not that Christ is [p. 239] Head of it, provisionally, God would not go on with it at all, and He does go on with it until it sets up a rival head — antichrist.
WB The ministry of reconciliation would extend beyond the Corinthians.
JT It was the attitude of the apostle. It was necessary that he should say it to them; but it was his general testimony to all men; “We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God”.
WB Mr. Darby leaves out the word “you”, I notice.
JT Wonderful position! To be an ambassador to the world.
Rem What you would present is, that God is now favourable.
WB Will you explain what you mean by saying Christ is the Head of the world now?
JT That is the ground on which the gospel is presented to the world now. It is, perhaps, the least understood of any truth; but, when you do understand it, you see the magnitude of God’s attitude. He is not saying, If you do not do such and such a thing, such will happen. It is a question of grace reigning and that is absolute. God has raised up a Head for men and presents in that Head all they need, and it is for men to appropriate it.
The world is in reconciliation in that way; but it is the gentile world and they will receive it. So the apostle says, “The offering up of the nations might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit”.
AM What world is it in John 3: 16?
JT That was the world that then existed, as centred in Jerusalem. It is put in the past tense. He had taken it up in David and Solomon.
ANW “Whosoever” could scarcely be limited.
McN. Reconciliation is not then confined to the people of God?
JT They are the only ones who come into it practically. The reconciliation of the world belongs to Romans — so the magnitude of God’s overtures to man. It does not alter man’s state at all; but it brings into evidence what God is in Christ in grace. God makes it so easy for men to draw near. He is not presenting an ultimatum. He presents grace and in such a Man as Christ.
ANW Where does this stand: “All the world may become guilty before God”, Romans 3: 19?
JT That is obviously necessary. It is a mercy that God has so arranged things that men should judge themselves. J.S. It is only by leaving the world that we obtain salvation.
JT It is not the world in a bad sense. Christ is Head to it in that sense. Forgiveness is presented in Him. Satan is not outwardly the centre of it yet.
Ques Where does John 12 come in?
JT John 12 is Jerusalem. The Lord is speaking of the world which crucified Him. As it says in the Acts 4: 26, 27: “The kings of the earth were there, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed”. The world as it then stood was the world that was set up in David, although politically the Romans had the power, still the temple was in Jerusalem and Satan arrayed all against Christ in Jerusalem; but now that God has presented Christ as Head to the nations, the nations have accepted Him formally.
ARS Is there not a sense now in which we can say, “Now is the judgment of this world”?
JT That is right for faith; but, at the same time, God has not changed His attitude towards it at all. What we want to see is the magnitude of God’s grace. No question of condoning the sin of the world; but bringing in what God is in His grace.
WB Every head set up prior to Christ failed; but now He has set up one Head in Christ and every one is responsible to bow to that one.
JT That cannot be ignored, but you are not presenting an ultimatum. Grace reigns, “through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord”. That is the attitude. It is not [p. 241] an ultimatum.
WB If they refuse Christ, there is only one alternative.
JT “God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel”, Romans 2: 16. Romans makes that very clear. What you want to get in your mind is what God is in Christ. We take in so little the magnitude of God’s grace as presented in Christ. It reigns. He makes it absolute.
H Would you in presenting the gospel exclude the idea of “judgment to come”?
JT I would not. It is simply said that “he reasoned”. It is not that he pushed it under men’s noses.
AFM “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men”, 2 Corinthians 5: 11.
JT He knew it and he persuaded men; but he would persuade them to be reconciled — he would persuade them on the line of the gospel.
WB Is this testimony, “God ... in Christ”, greater than the testimony of Christ in glory as in chapters 3 and 4?
JT I do not know. You see, there could be no reconciliation unless Christ had died and was glorified. The ministry of reconciliation involves all that. I mean to say, you could not be as Christ was, unless you know what it is to be in Christ there as He is. We reach reconciliation, practically down here, by the knowledge of our place in heaven, because it is a heavenly man that is reconciled really. How can I be here for God’s pleasure unless I am in the sense of my relationship with Christ?