MAIDSTONE - READING (4)
MAIDSTONE — READING (4)
Hebrews 5: 1 - 14; Hebrews 6: 1 - 20
JT Yesterday we touched on two important points in chapter 4, namely, the word of God and the priesthood of Christ, and it is well to be recalled to them. The priesthood of Christ is continued in the succeeding chapters, especially under the heading of Melchisedec, which the Lord will undoubtedly help us to speak on intelligently. The word of God is peculiarly presented according to what is said in verses 11 - 13 of chapter 4, “Let us therefore” it says, “use diligence to enter into that rest, that no one may fall after the same example of not hearkening to the word. For the word of God is living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to the division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is not a creature unapparent before him; but all things are naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do”. That is to say, the word here runs into the idea of God Himself; it is no less than God Himself — “his eyes, with whom we have to do”. We do well, therefore, to think of it in this way and to lay ourselves out for the searching character of the word of God, for it is no less than God Himself with whom we have to do.
Ques Might that particularly have to do with the Holy Spirit?
JT It is undoubtedly. It has to do with the Holy Spirit, because it is the searching character of it here, near us, as it were — beside us. It is the Spirit sent down from heaven really, but it is God Himself as viewed here: “all things are naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do”. It is the nearness of a divine Person that is implied, and the searching character of [p. 282] the word too.
PL In the word would you say God draws near to us, and in the priest we draw near to God?
JT Well, just so.
ECM In connection with the man convicted in 1 Corinthians 14 it says, “falling upon his face, he will do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you”. Would that be the result of the penetrating power of the word?
JT Just so.
RWS Would that likewise be the Holy Spirit?
JT It seems so, but, of course, we must not ignore too much the idea of God as God. Whether we are speaking of the Holy Spirit or speaking of God as such is a question to be determined, “To us there is one God, the Father”; that is generally the idea of God, when there is no specific word stated as to the Person who is speaking.
FCH Would it be right to say that there are certain passages where we can in our minds include the Holy Spirit in the thought of God, but it is a little difficult to make them exclusive to Him?
JT That is right; it is a question of discernment as to each instance in which the thought of God is introduced or spoken of. So that where it is God without any qualification, the context, I think, would indicate whether it is to be regarded just as God — God as such. The passage I have just cited is in 1 Corinthians 8: “to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him”. Of course, that is clear — the Father is mentioned — “and one Lord, Jesus Christ” but there is nothing said of the Spirit. The Spirit is not mentioned in that particular passage.
AW “A habitation of God in the Spirit”, Ephesians 2: 22. Is that the Holy Spirit, or is it God in the Person of the Holy Spirit?
JT That is God, but if the whole paragraph is read, you would get the full thought, I think the word ‘God’ is proper there. We say, ‘in the Spirit’ — the word ‘God’ remains in the mind. It is God in Spirit, of course, but “a habitation of God” is the leading thought.
CH Is the word of God intended to bring us into the presence of God?
JT I think so; that is the way it reads, “There is not a creature unapparent before him; but all things are naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do”. That is God — God as such.
EuR Would you say something as to the action of the Spirit or the word of God in penetrating to the division of soul and spirit. What does that involve?
JT Of course, it is just God, simply, and that we are not going to escape His discerning eye. The word is: “and penetrating to the division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow”, there we have come to figures — they are spiritual thoughts — “and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”. It is the power of God; we must not forget that God is God, and that is the great general thought when the word is used. There is always something to indicate it if the Spirit of God is in mind. I would think what we have here in this remarkable passage in Hebrews 4 is generally the idea of God Himself.
WmH Does the thought of the word of God come in to help us in the discernment of what is inward?
JT Just so. It is an inward thought; it is not an external thought. God sometimes deals with external thoughts — even our bodies, but here it is an inward idea.
WmH At the end of verse 11 it says: “that no one may fall after the same example of not hearkening to the word”. It would seem as if the word would come in to help us in discerning things in their springs, do you think?
JT Just so. The word ‘hearkening’ is stressed greatly in chapters 3 and 4. The great thing among the early Jews that we are dealing with in this chapter of the Hebrews is that there was a great danger of them falling away or turning away from the truth. You can see it in chapter 6, in the most striking way, how terrible the thing was, and there is really no forgiveness. Sin in Hebrews is generally unforgivable, generally unforgivable. It is apostasy, the Jew turning away from christianity to the old system.
JJT The Lord Jesus, in the first temptation, said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word ... of God”, as though the living is the point there.
JT Just so. It is as if the word of God is food for the soul — “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which goes out through God’s mouth”. It is a most particularised thing — what comes from the mouth of God — pointing to the human body as a figure, and God is allowing Himself to be pictured in the thought of the human mouth.
WC Do we get an instance of the action of the word of God in Acts 5, where Peter laid bare the inward motives of Ananias and Sapphira? He says, “Why has Satan filled thy heart ... ?”, and then, “Why is it that thou hast purposed this thing in thine heart?” The inward motives were being revealed in the presence of God in the person of Peter.
JT So I would think it would be God in the full sense of it, as we speak of it generally.
JSE Would the virgin in Luke 1 give us an illustration of this penetration to the division of soul and spirit, when she says: “[p. 285] My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”?
JT Quite so. It is a sort of prophetic word. It is really, you might say, a word directly from God.
“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”. What have you to say more about that, please?
JSE I was thinking of the way that Gabriel came to her with the word of God — the full expression of the mind of God as to the incoming of Christ, and it had this feature of penetration with her, so that in her contribution she could speak of her soul as distinct from her spirit, and yet both of them were really feeling the value of the communication.
JT So that it was really an oracular speech, you might say. Although the angel is said to have spoken certain things to her, yet this was a word oracularly rendered by Mary. There are many such instances of these oracular words in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, and so the “oracles of God” refer to them.
JSE I was thinking of its bearing upon us in this way, that our greatest snare all the time is gravitation towards what is material. But does not the word of God tend to our liberation from that, so that we can go on with what is spiritual and heavenly?
JT Just so, and as I was saying, there is that which has the character of an oracular statement or address. I think Mary’s word was just that, and, of course, it is right that we should have it, so that even in ministry we may have such statements by the Spirit Himself operating in the servant’s heart. There may be such things as that, because we have come back to the truth of the Holy Spirit. He is really amongst us, and the ministry ought to take the character that the mind of God is conveyed in it.
AMP Would the penetrating character of the word of God lead to that self-knowledge and self-searching which would render us fit for our part in the divine system?
[p. 286] JT Quite so. The ministers in Ephesians 4 would refer to the gifts that have come down from (you might say) an uncreated condition. They have come down from what is above, so that the gifts which the Lord Jesus has Himself given to men have to be regarded as having a peculiar place as come out of such a relation, and there is peculiar power in the ministry, therefore. So it says: “He has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to the work of the ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ”. All that has in mind what is, in some sense, oracular ministry.
AJG Would you say such power is essential because of the greatness of the result that is to be brought about — “the body of Christ”?
JT Quite so.
FCH In connection with the word of God and the priesthood of Christ, is it in your mind that if we are prepared to accept the word of God in its penetrating character, we come into the gain of the priesthood of Christ?
JT We do; we should see that now as we come on to chapter 5, where the thing is enlarged on. It says, “every high priest taken from amongst men is established for men in things relating to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; being able to exercise forbearance towards the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is clothed with infirmity”. That is an ordinary priest, not Christ, but it is leading up to Christ. So it goes on (verse 3), “and, on account of this infirmity, he ought”, — the ordinary priest — “even as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no one takes the honour to himself but as called by God, even as Aaron also. Thus the Christ also has not glorified [p. 287] himself to be made a high priest; but he who had said to him, Thou art my Son, I have today begotten thee. Even as also in another place he says, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;) though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation; addressed by God as high priest according to the order of Melchisedec”. Now all this is, I think, most important, as coming very close to us, especially bringing the thought of priesthood in Christ Himself. There is what characterised Him in the flesh first, and then, of course, what characterises Him now, that He is a priest according to the order of Melchisedec.
AMP Is the reference to the order of Melchisedec to raise the level of priesthood to what is called for in the christian system?
JT Just so. It is a question of order. It is not the function in which priesthood is exercised according to the order of Aaron, but the general thought is Melchisedec, but Melchisedec really will lead on to the world to come, of which we speak. At the same time it is the order characterising Christ. It is not the function, not how it is exercised, but the order of it in Christ in heaven.
Ques Is that to assert that the Priest is Himself a divine Person?
JT When we come to look at it I am sure we shall see that in chapter 7 which develops the order of Melchisedec. If we look at it for a moment we shall see. In verses 1 to 4 we have a description of a supposed person, and that he is assimilated to the Son of God, so that it becomes mysterious, and we [p. 288] have therefore to be reverential in alluding to it. The allusion, of course, is to the book of Genesis, first of all, and then Psalm 110 is quoted where Jehovah is swearing that Christ’s priesthood is according to the order of Melchisedec. We therefore have to look at it from all these angles so as to get the full thought of it, because what is presented in Genesis is figurative; the person presented is assimilated to the Son of God. It is figurative, really, of the Lord Jesus, but no one can say who the actual person is. We are not told in Genesis who the actual person is, because he is said to be without father or mother. It is a suggested idea just as we speak of the seraphim; it is a principle, it is not a question of a real person, but still the principle is there. Who can tell who the actual person, mentioned in the 14th chapter of Genesis, is? He is a figure, assimilated, according to this chapter, to the Son of God. We cannot say that he is the Son of God, but it is just put in that way, and, of course, it is the Lord Jesus that is in mind. The passage goes on to say that he has come from Judah, so it is the Lord Jesus actually in the figure — I mean to say, as we look at it as it is presented in chapter 7 — it is the Lord Himself.
WMB Would the Psalm stress the idea of His resurrection? It says, “Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies as footstool of thy feet”.
JT Very good. As I was saying before, it is Christ above in heaven, there for us. It is not the function that He exercises, what He represents in interceding for us, but to bring out the order of it.
AJG And especially, would you say, to emphasise that He lives, as it says in chapter 7: “but there one of whom the witness is that he lives”.
JT Yes, [p. 289] quite so.
JPH It says in chapter 7, “Without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life”. Does that refer peculiarly to the Lord?
JT It does, but the reference is to the actual facts recorded there, that there was no father or mother or genealogy mentioned as to this man that appears in Genesis. It is to bring out just the wording, but when we come to the facts we know that the reference is to Christ, because he is assimilated to Christ. He is not literally Christ in the figure, but he is assimilated to Christ.
Rem And he bears the characteristics of Christ; he is King of righteousness.
JT That is right; the reference is to the characteristics. He is said to be “King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from smiting the kings, and blessed him; to whom Abraham gave also the tenth portion of all; first being interpreted King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God”. The word ‘assimilated’ refers to characteristics given — the wording given. We cannot say who the actual person is; it is what he represents, and, of course, he represents Christ.
Ques Would you say another word as to “without genealogy”? We have the Lord’s genealogies in the gospels, but does this stress His Deity?
JT There is no genealogy given in Genesis; that is what is meant. If you attempt to give a genealogy for Christ, not as born in this world, but what He is in His Person, you cannot compass Him. You cannot get round what the Person is, in that sense. He is a divine Person.
GP Does the idea of mystery enter into it?
JT Yes, but it is a mystery that the Spirit of God would enable us to understand. Therefore in connection with the Lord’s own Person as born here, He has come from Judah, He has come through David.
Ques Would you say a word about the bread and wine which he ministered to Abraham?
JT Well, we often speak of it. You might say it re-appears in the Lord’s supper, although the ingredients of the Lord’s supper are never given to us; it is just the cup — the vessel that contains it.
PL “Who shall declare his generation?” Does that fit in?
JT Just so. “His life is taken from the earth”. Who can declare it? We are dealing with a divine Person, and we have to take our shoes from off our feet, lest we should say anything contrary. We must just take it as it is. “Who shall declare his generation?” He is God Himself.
AJG Is it not striking that the priesthood of Melchisedec is introduced in Genesis in connection with the one who was a picture, or a type, of the partakers in the heavenly calling, Abraham, and then we hear no more of him until Psalm 110; and then, in the days of the Spirit, the truth relating to him is opened up to those who are partakers of the heavenly calling?
JT I think that is very good.
FCH Is there not something very choice, that both these expressions are addressed prophetically to the Lord Himself and addressed emphatically, “Thou art my Son” and “Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec”.
JT There cannot be a single question about it. It is only that we should habituate ourselves to deal with things as they are dealt with in Scripture, because we are enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit. So that we may say we quote this and that and the other thing, but have we the ability to follow the thing out as it is given — the actual wording given in [p. 291] Scripture? Of course, when we come to these passages that you have already quoted as given here, we may well follow it throughout chapter 7, but then we are dealing with chapter 5 and chapter 6, and we might as well go back to those now, especially to bring out what the Lord’s priesthood is, how it is depicted in chapter 5. We need to see how it worked out practically and actually in the Lord’s own history here upon earth, and now in heaven.
PL Is He the only one who has been called to the priesthood? Are we priests because we are sons?
JT It is the high priesthood that is in mind; it is not ordinary priests, because Aaron had sons, too, that were priests, but it is the high priest that is in mind, as it says, “every high priest”.
PL Yes, I meant we are not called to the priesthood. Does He not stand out alone in having been called to it?
JT We are certainly not called to priesthood, although we might say the facts indicate that we are priests; our calling involves that — I mean to say the full thought of calling has to be considered.
PL What I meant was that I thought we were perhaps like the sons of Aaron. We are priests, because we are sons.
JT I am not sure that that is literally right. Anyway the idea of calling applies to us as christians: “Consider your calling, brethren”. It is a question of the use of the word ‘calling’. We might say it includes priesthood to be literally right, because we are priests. We are priests because we have the Spirit and because we are sons.
JSE Our Lord Himself is priest by way of His sonship, is He not?
JT I think it would be hardly correct to confine it to that because what we have here does not confine it to that, although sonship is mentioned. If we read again verses 1 to 14 of chapter 5 we shall see [p. 292] that we have the priesthood here given to the Lord as called. As has been said here already, although sonship is regarded, in a certain sense, as the basis, yet when we come to the facts, the Lord’s Person is the basis of it. It is a question of what He is personally, but especially what has been said as to “without father, without mother”, and so forth. It is a question of what He is personally.
AH In verse 10 of chapter 5 the writer says: “addressed by God ...” Does that support what you have in mind as to the magnitude of the priesthood of Christ?
JT “Addressed by God”, yes, quite so. But then we cannot just pass over what is said there — “addressed by God as high priest according to the order of Melchisedec”. That is to say, the priesthood is stressed in the fact that He is according to the order of Melchisedec, and then it goes on to say: “Concerning whom we have much to say, and hard to be interpreted in speaking of it, since ye are become dull in hearing”. That ought to speak to us, as to whether we fully understand, or whether we may be dull of hearing in the facts presented to us in this remarkable chapter, as indeed in all these chapters in Hebrews, up to chapter 8, particularly. So that we ought to keep to the facts mentioned, and the actual context of them.
Ques The unchanging character of the priesthood seems to be stressed in relation to the order of Melchisedec. Is that the great advantage of christianity, that there is no change of priest?
JT Just so. There had been a change, and that has been pointed out, but He is established in the power of an endless life, as the later passage will tell us.
EuR Does not “become higher than the heavens” also emphasise that?
[p. 293] JT Just so; it is a divine Person. Only a divine Person can become higher than the heavens, because it is an uncreated condition. Of course, we can speak of the heavens which are visible, but what is higher is left open; we cannot describe it really.
Rem So that this Person is the guarantee for the continuance of the operation of the divine system.
JT Yes; quite so.
AJG And there is no discrepancy between the way God has come out in Christ as the Apostle and the way we approach in Christ as the High Priest.
JT Quite so.
PL Is that prefigured prophetically in connection with the Exodus? “This is that Aaron and Moses, to whom Jehovah said ...”, Exodus 6: 26. Is there a prophetic allusion to the Person of Christ?
JT Very likely; it is to make sure that there is a certainty about it. “Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” — that is the Lord Jesus, and He includes the two ideas of Moses and Aaron. One is authority and the other support — support in the way of priestly power and grace.
AJG In view of the personal greatness of Christ, is it not particularly affecting that He should have learned obedience?
JT It is, indeed. I was wondering whether we have taken it in as it was read — so as to acquire the full meaning of what is said there. It really refers to the Lord in Gethsemane. So that if we look at verse 7 of chapter 5: “Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;) though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation”. The sufferings are very affecting, and should not be [p. 294] passed over lightly. It is remarkable that the word, ‘save’ should be used in verse 7. These are most remarkable statements and very touching, and yet the literal truth of them cannot be questioned; the reference is to Gethsemane; it was before His death.
Ques Does the expression, “offered up both supplications and entreaties” suggest anything priestly? Is there any priestly suggestion in that?
JT He is not a priest to Himself; it is simply the power of it that we realise. He was not asking for anybody else, He was asking for Himself: “having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death”. I would not like to apply the idea of priesthood to the Lord Himself, for His own support. I think it would be very unwise to do it. It is better to take the wording here, and bow to it, and then be affected by it, that He actually endured these things. I believe the allusion is to Gethsemane.
Ques The expression “His flesh” implying how He felt things truly?
JT Well, quite, but it was before He died; it was before His death, not after. These things happened in Gethsemane, really. They may have happened elsewhere, but they are not recorded, but they are recorded as in Gethsemane.
AJG And He went through everything on the principle of obedience, so that there is a moral link, is there not, between the priest, Christ, and those who obey Him? It is those who obey Him who get the support of His priesthood.
JT Quite so; very good. And I am sure you will agree with what I said, as to these things requiring our deepest feelings as to the Lord Himself in what happened in Gethsemane; and that it should be recorded in view of leading up to the thought of high priesthood — not priesthood, but [p. 295] high priesthood.
NKM Is the thought here of obedience closely linked up with piety? “Having been heard because of his piety”.
JT Just so. That is what is meant.
AJG Is it not remarkable that we get a threefold account of Gethsemane in three of the gospels, with slight differences as though to impress us with the scene?
JT You feel it is a moral necessity to be impressed with the Lord’s sufferings, including, of course, that they lead on in Matthew and Mark to the forsaking. That is not mentioned here, but they do lead on to it in the gospels of Matthew and Mark. So that Gethsemane is especially in mind, and it should be in our minds, so that we should be genuinely affected, to come into accord with what the Lord suffered — the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.
PL Would the horns of the golden altar typify that — the strength in suffering? He was heard for His piety.
JT Quite so. I think that is a good remark, because it is quite right to use the word ‘piety’ in connection with the Lord. He prayed to God, He besought God; the fact is the Lord exercised faith, I believe, fully, for He is the Author and Completer of faith. He exercised faith so as to become near to His brethren — “in all things to be made like to his brethren”. It is very touching, I think, and very instructive and encouraging, too.
JPH Would you say another word about verse 8, please — the remarkable expression: “He learned obedience from the things which he suffered”.
JT I think it is that He had been in the form of God. We know that: He was in the form of God, and, of course, He was not in obedience in the form of God, but as in the form of man He learned obedience. While He was in the form of God He [p. 296] was not under obedience, but as having become Man He did obey. That is the idea of it really, that He learnt it; the word ‘learnt’ is remarkable. He actually experienced the thing, not in the sense of learning to obey, but in the actual experience of it.
AJG In becoming Man He enters, for the first time, into circumstances to which obedience applies.
JT Very good. That is well put, and should be well understood too.
JSE Would Philippians 2 bear upon this for our meditation — “emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form, taking his place in the likeness of men; and having been found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death”. Would that fill out this in some detail?
JT I think that would be covered, pretty much, in what we said as to the form of God. It says in that chapter in Philippians, “Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself ... becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of the cross”. That is, in the form of God He was not in obedience; there was no question of obedience then, but in becoming Man He takes the place of subjection to God, and of obedience.
FCH Is that remarkably brought out in Mark’s account of Gethsemane? “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: take away this cup from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt”.
JT Very good.
ECM Would you say a word as to “author of eternal salvation”.
JT Well, “author” there implies that He is the Beginner of it and Establisher of it. It is not temporal salvation, but eternal salvation. The word, ‘eternal’ is a peculiar word [p. 297] in Hebrews.
Ques What is involved in the expression, “having been perfected”?
JT Having attained or reached the idea that was in mind for salvation; that is to say, the accomplishment of redemption. As risen from the dead, He is perfected. He spoke of it Himself, saying, “the third day I am perfected”, Luke 13: 32. That would mean that He was risen from the dead the third day, and the idea of redemption was accomplished.
AJG Would it also include the thought of His exaltation?
JT I think it would, so that the Spirit would come down.
AJG I mean the position in which His priesthood is exercised now.
JT Just so; He is a priest on high. It also says. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father”, but that is not exactly priesthood; that is advocacy, although it is very like it.
RWS What is the difference, please, between advocacy and priesthood?
JT Advocacy is the authority or power you have to do a thing; you are in the place officially to be able to do it. “An advocate with the Father” is simply that the Lord has power to address Him, and is enabled to get deliverance for the person who has sinned. The word ‘priesthood’ is further; it is the full official thought, as we get it in this chapter. The epistle to the Hebrews is full of the thought of priesthood, not of advocacy. John speaks of advocacy in his epistle.
JSE The word ‘advocate’ is ‘paraclete’ according to the note in 1 John 2.
JT It is the same word.
AJG Would it be right to say that priesthood is for those who obey Him and advocacy is for those who [p. 298] sin?
JT Well, just so. It says: “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father”, but the Spirit is here too as an advocate. He is our Paraclete, not in the sense of securing immunity from judgment but to help us and look after things for us.
Ques Is priesthood linked with the “elements of the beginning of the oracles of God”, (chapter 5: 12)?
JT It is linked verbally in the chapter; the ‘for’ links it up. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have again need that one should teach you what are the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God”. That is, all of us need this teaching; the idea is presented in the chapter in the plainest language.
Ques Perhaps the question is, Is priesthood one of the elements? What are the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God? Is priesthood one of them?
JT The beginning; it is the beginning of christianity. That is what the Lord taught, we might say, before He died. The gospels are full of the Lord’s teaching — the beginning of what He taught, and then the apostles, of course, taught it too. It is what begins the thing. The inauguration of christianity implies the beginning of christianity, which would be the full sense of the oracles of God. The epistle to the Romans in chapter 3 speaks of these oracles, too, but I would like just to understand what you have in mind. Have you any other thought than what we are saying?
Rem The expression, “the elements of the beginning”, would appear to suggest that something is contained in them.
JT Surely, there are elements; I would say, new birth, for instance, and all the instruction that comes as to it before redemption is understood or known. There are some things which people have an understanding about before they get the Spirit even.
AJG [p. 299] The beginning of chapter 6 rather exhorts us to leave the beginning of the Christ — “the word of the beginning of the Christ” — and go on to what belongs to full growth.
JT Just so; that indicates what is meant. It applies to some in whom God is working, like a person born anew. Well, he has not got the Spirit, and he does not know redemption, but the elements are there, though. I think that has to be followed up.
AWGT Does it mean, too, that instead of remaining in the initial epistles like Romans and Corinthians, we should proceed to the higher epistles. Is that contained in it?
JT I think it is rather the initial epistles; it is what is more initial, especially what relates to new birth in a believer’s soul, because “The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes and where it goes: thus is every one that is born of the Spirit”. Things are not very clear; hence the first thing is, unless one is born anew, he cannot even see the kingdom of God, and then again it says, “Except anyone be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. The word ‘cannot’ there in both cases would be indicative of the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, implying that they have to be understood initially.
EuR Christianity proper is characterised by full growth; we are exhorted to go on to full growth.
JT That is chapter 6. What we are dealing with now is chapter 5, because our brethren here that are enquiring as to the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, are referring to chapter 5. So that in chapter 6 we probably touch it, but we have to go on to chapter 7.
NKM Would you just say a word about the “word of righteousness”, in chapter 5, verse 13: “every one that partakes of milk is unskilled in the [p. 300] word of righteousness, for he is a babe”. We have had reference made to the word of God in chapter 4. What is the word of righteousness?
JT We are speaking now of babes. “Every one that partakes of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness”. He is hardly initiated into it; he is just a babe; he has got to learn everything. That is what the passage runs on to, “but solid food belongs to full-grown men”. So that the contrast is solid food, which belongs to full-grown men.