THE CHURCH APPROVED OF GOD
[p. 319] THE CHURCH APPROVED OF GOD
Address by F.E.R.
2 Corinthians 5: 12 - 21; Revelation 21: 9 - 27 The apostle unfolds in the passage in the Corinthians, in a remarkable way, the process by which his mind had arrived at a certain result.
He had said, “For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart; for whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause”. I should suppose that those who had detracted from the apostle had probably brought two charges against him; on the one hand that he was beside himself, and on the other that he was sober, that is, he was turning things to his own profit. Now the apostle takes up the challenge and says, “Whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God”. He admits and justifies the insinuation, and again, “Whether we be sober, it is for your cause; for the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge that 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. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature”.
I want to call your attention specially to the point at which the mind of the apostle had arrived, and the process by which he arrived at it. He says, “the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead”. That is [p. 320] a statement of the last moment, and one which I suppose man, as man, would be extremely unwilling to admit. I am sure the natural mind of man could not take it in, and I am afraid a great many christians do not fully accept it. It was not that the death of Christ made man dead, but it witnessed that men were dead. When Christ died every man lay under sentence of death, and even Christ died. There was nothing under the eye of God on the earth morally living when Christ died. He was here and life was in Him, but He died, and His death was the proof that all were dead. Well, what then? He rose again, and the apostle argues 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”. There is only one Man out of the ruin, and that is Christ. All else are under death; and it is most important to see that death is God’s judgment upon man; in the eye of God all men have died. God may prolong man’s actual existence in flesh in His wisdom, so that man may have grace presented to him, but in the eye of God all are dead and that is what the death of Christ proved; and hence it is that the apostle argues that there is but One risen actually out of the scene of death, One whom God has raised from the dead, and they which live morally should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for them and rose again. Properly speaking, we are “become dead to the law by the body of Christ” that we “should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God”. Christ has a full claim upon all those who take the ground of living; they have no title to live to themselves, but to Him who died for them and rose again.
That is the ground, and the apostle goes on to say, “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature”, for what is morally beyond death is new [p. 321] creation. The character of new creation comes out in some sense in Christ, for evidently in resurrection He is not what He was after the flesh. The apostle says, “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more”. It is not but what the Lord is still a man, so far as that goes, but all is of a different order. If any man be in Christ there is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new and we are not yet in new creation. I can understand that we are a new creation but not yet in new creation; but the truth of it is presented to us, and we live to One who is outside of the scene of death, and that is Christ. That is the position of the christian, placed in relation to Him whom God has raised from the dead. I think the idea is that Christ is to be before us what, in a sense, Abraham was to be to Sarah, that is, a covering of the eyes. I do not live to myself, but unto Him who died for us and rose again.
I make these remarks as introductory. I read the passage because I wanted to speak a little about reconciliation, and, in connection with that, the closing clause of the chapter, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”.
Reconciliation is a truth which, as far as I know, is little apprehended by christians; and I would be extremely thankful if the Lord would enable me to make it a little more plain to the simplest. The thought is simple, but at the same time it is extremely important.
I do not know if you have noticed that reconciliation is not presented in the Old Testament; and, on the other hand, I believe the original word ‘atonement’ is not found in the New. I do not mean to say but what you find the thought and reality of atonement in the New Testament, but I am speaking of the doctrine. It is not remarkable if you cannot find reconciliation [p. 322] in the Old Testament, because, properly speaking, reconciliation did not have place then. When God was dealing with man after the flesh, that is, the first man, the thought of reconciliation did not come in. Reconciliation appears in the New Testament because we have there the complete removal of the first man. The point in the Old Testament was that a man brought an offering to make an atonement; he was looked upon as a responsible man who had failed, and brought an offering for his acceptance, but that is not the mind of God in reconciliation. Reconciliation really means that the first man has been removed to the glory of God, that all may be for His pleasure in the second. That is the thought of reconciliation as I understand it. I will try and make it more plain presently; God has removed the man who brought in the distance, he has been superseded by another to the glory of God.
The beginning of it was the ministry of reconciliation. The apostle says, “God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation”. You will find two expressions used here. In verse 18 we have the ministry of reconciliation, and, in the end of verse 19, the word of reconciliation. I think there is a difference between the two expressions. The ministry of reconciliation is a wider thought than the word of reconciliation. The word of reconciliation I understand to be the testimony of reconciliation; it implies that reconciliation has been effected, hence we get now the testimony of it. But the first word is the ‘ministry’ of reconciliation, and I want to bring that before you.
I understand that the beginning of the ministry of reconciliation was the presence of God here in Christ. God brought Himself near to the world in Christ in view of redemption, and at the same time He found in Christ as Man entire complacency. That was the position of things when Christ was here in the world.
[p. 323] I think that for the moment things were presented to God on an entirely different footing. God was not dealing with men by law and prophets, but “was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”. In the presence of Christ there was that which was entirely to the satisfaction of God. That was the peculiarity of the moment when Christ was upon earth, and all that God had to say to the world as such was “not imputing their trespasses unto them”. It meant the complete supersession of the first man because God had approached man in the second. There was no other man under the eye of God; Christ was the Man out of heaven, He was the Man in whom God was presented. You cannot put Christ morally in the line of the first man. “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second Man is the Lord from heaven” and in the second Man it pleased God to approach man down here. Now you must take that in if you are to understand anything about reconciliation. It meant the introduction of another man in whom everything was to be taken up and that man entirely suitable to God.
I do not know if you remember the song of the heavenly host when Christ was born. It was “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”. When Christ entered Jerusalem to suffer, the multitude sang, “Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest”. All this came out in that Man; His presence on earth meant, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”. Now, by the very presence of Christ here, the first man was superseded. God was no longer dealing with the first man, that system of probation came to an end in the presence of Christ here, but God presented Himself to man in the Person of the second Man. The second Man was such an one as that God could present Himself to the world in that Man. And you can understand that if the second Man comes [p. 324] on the scene the first man has no place, there could not be two men before God.
But there is another thing; the old man was here. I do not confound the first man and the old man; the first man is superseded, the old man is removed. The reason is that the first man is not strictly a moral term; it is a question of an order of creation; but the old man presents a moral idea, and the old man is not superseded but removed.
I understand by the ‘word’ of reconciliation that the old man has been removed in the death of Christ. “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”. You get an idea of this in the sin-offering burnt outside the camp. The blood was sprinkled before the mercy-seat and on the mercy-seat, but the carcass of the offering was burnt outside the camp. That is, the old man was removed; sin was condemned in the flesh, and the old man crucified under the eye of God in the offering of Christ. He was made sin; He was put in the place of the curse, and in His death the old man was removed. So that for God two things have come to pass; one, the first man superseded, and the other, the old man removed, and God takes up all His ways in connection with the universe, not in the first man, but in the second. All the ways of God in blessing, and the accomplishment of His purposes, are brought to pass in the second Man, and the old man (it is the truth in Jesus) has been removed, and when the old man was removed, all that was connected with the old man was removed. Sin and death were removed as before God; they apply to the old man. The old man was the man of sin in a sense, and sin brought in death upon man, but sin, and the curse, and death were removed from under the eye of God in the removal of the old man, and hence the apostle could say, “And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation”.
[p. 325] Now we accept this — the removal of that man. We are privileged to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness of truth. We would have no title to put on the new man if it were not true that God had removed the old man. The old man is one individuality, and the new man is a new individuality. I speak, of course, in a moral sense.
The truth for the christian is this, that in the acceptance of reconciliation he has put off the individuality connected with sin, but at the same time he has put on the new man which after God is new created. The apostle could speak of himself in that way. “I, through law, have died to law, that I may live to God”. He says, “I am crucified with Christ”; that was the old man, the old individuality; nevertheless I live, that is the new individuality, “Yet not I”, that is the old individuality, “but Christ liveth in me”; there is a new man created after God. The same thing is accepted by saints. The ministry of reconciliation unfolds to us the mind of God in regard to us and it was that which the apostle was bringing before the Corinthians. I hardly think that they had accepted the truth, for there was among them a good deal that savoured of the old man, and hence it is that the apostle brings before them the ministry of reconciliation; that is, the first man superseded by the second. Christ is to fill the scene and the old man has been removed, so that it can be true of christians that they have put off the old and put on the new.
Now there is a further point which I want to dwell upon in connection with this, which will bring us to the passage in the Revelation 21: 9 - 27.
I only read the passage in the Revelation, but will try to show you how it is an illustration of the passage in Corinthians. We read there, God “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. There was an end to serve for God, that we might become the [p. 326] righteousness of God in Him. It is the church which is spoken of there, that in it might be set forth the righteousness of God. God condemned sin in Christ, so that the church in Him might answer every demand of divine righteousness. And it means that the church is before God, under His eye, apart from all that came in in connection with sin — from the old man, from sin, death, and the curse. It was to be for the perfect satisfaction of God and for the expression of His righteousness — that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. I think this is the answer which God has given to the cross. Christ was made sin, who knew no sin, but that the church in Him might answer every demand of righteousness.
Now if you turn for a moment to Revelation 21: 10, 11, you get there the bride, the holy Jerusalem, which is no doubt a picture of the church, coming down from God out of heaven; not going to heaven. The ministry of Paul had carried the church to heaven and John brings the church out of heaven. Paul carries it to heaven as the church of the firstborn and John brings it out of heaven as the holy city, the new Jerusalem, to take a place in relation to earth. That is the great idea in its coming out of heaven. It is not that it comes to earth, but it comes from God, out of heaven, as a testimony on the part of God; for we find that the nations of the earth walk in the light of it.
Now in verse 12 we see a wall and gates, then later on you get the measurement of the wall, and the description of the foundations, and also of the gates. The measurement of the wall is not exactly the substance of the wall. Everyone understands measurement. Measurement takes account of the dimensions of a thing. As to the nature of the wall, it was of jasper. But my point is the measurement. The height, and breadth, and length are all equal. It is presented of [p. 327] God to the universe as answering every requirement of divine righteousness. There is not a single bit there of what came in by the first man; nothing that is obnoxious to God. The distance, and the sin, the curse, and death, and everything that came in by the first man are gone, and the city answers every demand of exact righteousness. It fulfils what you get in the epistle to the Corinthians, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”. The righteousness of God is God’s expressed approval of it, for there is not a single trace of what came in by the first man.
You get brought out there what was effected for God in Christ being made sin; everything offensive to God was removed for God. The great answer to, and witness of it, is in the heavenly city, which is approved of God, and God sets it forth as His satisfaction. There is not in it a trace of what was condemned in the cross of Christ.
I have no doubt that for faith what I have said is true now. It means the acceptance of reconciliation. Faith apprehends that we are before God apart from the old man.
Now just a word about the construction of the city. You first get the walls, which are of jasper, and then the foundations, and these are garnished with all manner of precious stones; and in the precious stones you get the idea of variety. They are not all alike, but I rather cherish the thought of variety. I think anyone can understand the significance of a precious stone; it is not a source of light; it gives off light, but it is refracted light, and there is all variety of precious stones in the foundations of the city. I think all indicates the presence, morally, of Christ in all there; they are in all the variety of Christ. When you break light up you get a variety of colours; you do not see that variety in Christ Himself, for in Himself is perfect combination, and Christ is simply light;
[p. 328] but in saints you get the light broken up, and see all the detail coming out in variety. I do not think that saints are all alike, one characteristic of Christ is seen conspicuous in one, and another in another. John is not exactly like Peter, nor Peter like Paul; what comes out in each is some particular trait of Christ. But in Christ there is no trait, for in Him every quality is so blended that there is only light. The detail comes out beautifully in the men and women who are presented to us in Scripture; but all are traits of Christ; hence saints shine not by their own light, but they reflect the light of Christ in the same way as the moon reflects the light of the sun. The source of light is in the sun, and the moon shines by reflected light; and so it is in the church; and that may account for the variety which you find in the foundations of the city.
Now another truth comes out, and it is that the city is perfect from the foundations to the gates. The foundations are the beginning, and the gates the completion of a city; and when you come to the gates you find no diminution in perfectness, but each gate is one several pearl. It indicates that all is the work of God and all divinely perfect; and the gates in a sense are looked upon as unique; God does not make the city splendid in the foundation, with inferiority in the gates, but the whole is perfect from beginning to end, from foundation to gates. The gold, the precious stones, the pearls, are all new. They never were in the first man. The first man did not reflect light from Christ. That is reserved for the heavenly city; hence Christ comes out in the heavenly city. Perhaps otherwise the light of Christ would be too bright for earth. Christ comes to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe; the light is modified and comes to men on earth in the heavenly city; and it is in the heavenly city that the connection is maintained between heaven and earth, and I suppose [p. 329] the link is Israel; the names of the twelve tribes are written on the gates of the heavenly city. There is a correspondence between the holy Jerusalem and the tribes of Israel; and, in regard to the city, the nations of the earth walk in the light of it. They have not need in the city of the sun, neither of the moon; the city does not need natural light. It is so illuminated with heavenly light, with the light of God, that it does not need natural light. Man’s mind will not have a place there; what comes out in the city is the light of grace. It fulfils what we read in Ephesians 2: “That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus”. That comes out in the heavenly city, and is the assurance to the universe of the grace of God. It is the triumph of grace. God is there, and without a temple. Everything is found there. It is the city of rule, and at the same time, the place where God dwells. The city itself is the temple, for there is no temple in the heavenly city. The heavenly city is enlightened with the glory of God, and, at the same time, is the display and expression of His grace in the presence of the universe; hence it is that the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour unto it. That is what the city will be in the millennial day.
It is remarkable that the first time you get the description of the city it is in connection with the eternal state; and then afterwards the angel who had shown the evangelist the seven last plagues takes him to a great and high mountain and shows him the same city, but as connected with the millennium. Hence you find here certain features in the city which are not found in its connection with the eternal state. In the eternal state you do not find a throne, but you do find this in connection with the millennium, for the millennium is a time of government. But in the eternal state the kingdom is given up, and God is all [p. 330] in all; but then you get the idea of the tabernacle of God being with men.
But my thought in referring to it was in connection with the righteousness of God, as you get this in 2 Corinthians. God made Christ sin for us in the presence of the universe, and God means to give the answer to it to the universe in the church, being apart from everything that came in by the first man. All that came in by the first man has been removed for God in the death of Christ. The city meets every demand of divine righteousness; and it is true in principle now; what comes out in the heavenly city in the future comes out in the saints now. God made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be entirely for God’s satisfaction, apart from everything that came in by sin.
I could enlarge upon this, and show you a beautiful picture in Ephesians 3, where the apostle prays that the saints might be strengthened with might by God’s Spirit in the inner man; “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God”.
There you get the precious stones and the pearls and all that, and at the same time all is of God, all is new creation; there it is that every requirement of divine righteousness is met, and the church is entirely approved of God.
It is that which I wanted to bring before you. It only carries me back to what I started with, that is, the importance of reconciliation. Reconciliation is essentially a New Testament truth. It goes out wider than the church, because God will reconcile all things to Himself; but it has its peculiar application to us, and where God gives us grace to accept it, what it [p. 331] practically means is, that Christ is everything, and that you have no title to live to any but Christ; you are before God apart from the old man, and all that the old man brought into the scene. I think christians are for God; it is the divine thought about them. They are a peculiar company, the church of the firstborn, written in heaven. But if they are for God, they are apart in His eye from the man who brought in the distance from God, because that man has been removed in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.
May God give us to understand these things. I cannot pretend to make them plain to you. I can only commend them to you, and bring before you how the church will come from God out of heaven, having the glory of God and her light most precious.