THE MAN OF FAITH - HIS ECLIPSE BY THE SEED OF PROMISE
[p. 275] THE MAN OF FAITH — HIS ECLIPSE BY THE SEED OF PROMISE
Genesis 21: 1 - 13; Galatians 4: 21 - 31, and 5: 1
We were dwelling last time on a most important point in the history of Abraham, viz., that God formed a special link, as it were, with him by the name of Almighty, and by this name he was to know God. And, further, that God gave to Abram a change of name, which signified that which God was pleased to set forth in Abraham, and this was that he was “the father of a multitude of nations”. A third point was that God gave to Abraham the covenant of circumcision, which signified that he was in the world, apart from the flesh, for God. Before I pass on to the passage I have now read, let me say that Abraham is the typical man of faith, that is the feature specially characteristic of him. He is called the “father of the faithful”, the “father of all them that believe”, Jew or Gentile; and it is in that sense that he has become morally the “father of a multitude of nations”. I think, too, that he is typical of the heavenly man down here; not perhaps exactly of Christ, but he represents a man walking in the light of God; that is the peculiar testimony of Abraham all through his course. Of course we do not see very much of him in scripture; there are long gaps in his history, one of thirteen years, in which we get no account of him, but when he does come before us we see a man evidently not in the darkness of the world. The world was in terrible darkness in those days, the darkness of departure from God and of idolatry; but it is evident enough that Abraham was in the light of God, for he was a man of faith. Faith means light in the soul from God; faith is the gift of God, and if God gives a [p. 276] man faith it means that God gives him light from Himself. Light comes in to man by faith; and faith means practically that a man, instead of being in the darkness of nature, is in the light of God. And that is what peculiarly marked Abraham at the various points at which he is brought before us — when he parted from Lot, and told Lot to choose where he would go, he acted as a man that had light from God. So, too, when he believed God, and God counted it to him for righteousness, it meant that he had light from God. I think people misunderstand faith; they think that faith is that a man simply acts disregardful of consequences. I quite admit that a man of faith does not count the consequences of what he does; but I think that there is no real faith where there is no light; believing is the principle in man’s heart that appropriates the light that God gives and hence light and faith go together.
Now this connection comes out peculiarly in the chapters coming between the 17th and the 20th. In chapter 18 we find that God conferred upon Abraham a great favour. There was there a man of faith, a man prepared for more light, and when the light came he welcomed it; he appreciated light, and God gave him light. And it is so with us, if you want light you get it; if people do not want light they do not get it. Abraham was a man of single eye, and God gave him light, and it was in this way that He revealed to him what he was about to do in regard of Sodom, where Lot was. And having received the light, he begins to plead with God for the sparing of Sodom, and has a promise that if God found only ten righteous men there He would not destroy the city. In result there were not ten righteous men found there, and the only righteous man that was found there God brought out of the overthrow. The chapter brings [p. 277] before us a man who had light from God, and who acted on the light he had. And if God makes known His mind, that which He makes known becomes the subject of communion with Himself. This is always the case; the reception of light from God increases the area, so to speak, of intercourse with God. Thus it was with Abraham: he could and did venture to talk to God freely in regard of Sodom and the sparing of the city. The chapter reveals to us the confidence which God had in Abraham. It is most wonderful to see God reposing confidence in a man. God has pleasure in our confidence, but He has pleasure, too, in giving His confidence to His people. God gave His confidence to Abraham, and that unreservedly.
But another point comes out in chapter 19, viz., that if God reposes His confidence in a man that man must be transparent. You see there had been a subterfuge on the part of Abraham in regard to his wife, he had kept concealed from the king of the Philistines the relation in which he stood to her; and before God fulfils His promise that reserve has to be brought to light, for if a man has the confidence of God there must be nothing hid, there must not be the leaven and reserve of human prudence.
One word before I pass on to chapter 21. You will find that another man comes prominently before us in this history, and that is Lot. His history is a sad one; he began in an idolatrous country, he afterwards dwelt in a tent, he sat in the gate of a city, and he finished up in a cave — that was the history of Lot. On the other hand, the life of Abraham, after God called him out, was marked by two things, a tent and an altar. He held to the true pilgrim character, a stranger and pilgrim upon earth, but where he went he had an altar. Lot was a godly man, but do you suppose that he ever had an altar in Sodom; do you think Sodom [p. 278] was the place for an altar to be tolerated? He dwelt in the gate of the city, was a conspicuous man, a judge there, and he had to end his life in a cave, with disgraceful consequences, which resulted in trouble to Israel all through their history.
I only just make these remarks to show the connection of what will come before us now with what has preceded. We have done now, in a certain sense, with Abraham, and come to the accomplishment of God’s promise, to the introduction of the promised seed, which evidently is much more important in the ways of God than even the history of Abraham. Everything was bound up in the promised seed; and in this chapter God fulfils His promise, the promised seed is born, and I will dwell a little on the consequences of the introduction of the promised seed, for they are significant. “And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God had commanded him; and Abraham was an hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him. And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age”.
Now the special promise was of the birth of a son, in whom the promises of God were to be fulfilled; and when Ishmael was born, Abraham probably thought that he had got the son, just as when Cain was born, Eve thought she had got the man from the Lord. But Abraham made a mistake,
[p. 279] and the birth of Ishmael simply brought confusion into his house; just as Cain brought sorrow and confusion into Adam’s house, for he killed his brother. Ishmael did not bring in peace, nor what was of God. Hagar despised Sarah. But now the true seed is born. God, after keeping Abraham waiting, for good reason, for fourteen years at least, now fulfils His promise, and the child is called after the name that God had given to him. I do not know that God gave any name to Ishmael; but in chapter 17 you find that God had given Isaac a name, and a name in scripture indicates that which is set forth in that person, and hence a name carried with it a certain significance. The meaning of “Isaac” is “laughter”. The idea, I suppose, is that he was to bring in unexpected gladness, no doubt because he is typical of the true seed of Abraham — Christ. The name was not of Abraham’s devising.
Another point is that Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God commanded him. That brings out this important point, that Isaac was set apart to God from the outset. Probably he was the first child that was ever circumcised at eight days old. Abraham was circumcised when he was ninety-nine years old, Ishmael when he was thirteen years old, Isaac when he was eight days old: signifying, I think, that just as Isaac had a name which was appointed him of God, so from the outset, from eight days old, he was set apart by circumcision for God, and is a type of the true seed of promise.
It is very beautiful to see that Sarah was the first to realise the significance of Isaac’s name; “God hath made me to laugh”, she partook in anticipation of the gladness which was to be set forth in Isaac. It means this in principle, that she derived from Isaac and not Isaac from her. In natural things a clever man born into this world is almost un-varyingly the offspring of a mother of parts. But Isaac, as [p. 280] I said, did not derive from his mother, but she from him. The Lord Himself gained nothing morally from His mother, but she gained everything from Him, as Sarah gained in that sense from Isaac.
Now we come to the effect of the introduction of Isaac. “And the child grew, and was weaned; and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son”. It is evident that in the mind of Abraham the weaning was a great thing, it was then that Isaac was delivered from dependence on the natural supply, and from that time he stands out in his own existence and distinctness. The effect of the introduction of the child of promise was that it brought trouble for the moment into the house. Isaac was not the cause of the trouble, but what Abraham had tolerated, the Egyptian maidservant and her son, were the cause of the trouble. I think very often that when trouble comes people put it on the wrong shoulders, just as they might have said here that the cause of the trouble was the birth of Isaac, but it was not so.
Then, again, Sarah is more instinctively right than Abraham. He is greatly attached to his son Ishmael, and the strong natural link to a certain extent blinded Abraham. Men are blinded in that way sometimes by natural affection, as Isaac was blinded afterwards by affection for Esau, and would have blessed him because he was his firstborn, and that he ate of his venison. But Sarah insists upon the bondwoman and her son being cast out, because the child of promise had come, and the child of the [p. 281] bondwoman could have no part with the son of the free woman.
Now, in the application of this, we see that there is nothing at all in common between Christ and the flesh. It is a most solemn lesson to learn, however you reach it, that though flesh may be of the most estimable character it has no natural appreciation of Christ. Christ came into the world, and the flesh was tested by His presence; but what came out was that the flesh had no kind of appreciation of Him — a terrible thing, but only too true. And I think I can understand it, because Christ necessarily brings in the light of God, and the flesh does not want the light of God. His ministry down here upon earth was all light from God, the pleasure of God prospered in His hand; whatever He did or said was an expression of the pleasure of God, the light of God coming in. He was not a man acting in his own intelligence or independently, but everything was the effulgence of divine light. If He touched a leper, it was the pleasure of God that the leper should be cleansed; if He raised the dead, it was equally the pleasure of God. We read that He was “anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power”, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him, He “went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him”. He was anointed at the outset of His ministry with the Holy Ghost, in order that He might set forth here upon earth the pleasure of God in regard to man. This was grace; it was of the pleasure of God to relieve man from the pressure that sin had brought upon him. And what was the effect of this presentation? It made manifest that man did not care for Christ. Israel loathed the light bread. Man would have the world as it is, with all the ills that are in it, rather than have in it the light of God. And that is still true. Do you think that the cultivated [p. 282] and refined want the light of God? But, after all, it was impossible that Christ could be here to support man as he is, for, by reason of what He is, Christ must bring in the light of God, and so expose man. Wherever He was, there was a halo, so to speak, of moral glory, an effulgence of God; but men do not want that light; the best of men after the flesh, the most refined, the most advanced, want the light of God the least; they do not care for Christ, they believe in man, and if they believe in man they do not believe in God. If man were not fallen, he would not have to believe in God at all; Adam did not need to believe in God; and if man were not fallen, the link that originally existed between the Creator and man would remain, and there would be no necessity for faith. All would be of sight. The very fact of faith being here is evidence that man is fallen. But, alas! men, as I said, do not believe in God, but in man. This is very marked in the present day; man has great confidence in himself and in his powers, which do go very far, for God has given to him great ability, and powers of investigation, collation, invention, and the like; and man uses these for himself and is proud of them, but does not care for the light of God. The light of God is not pleasure nor gladness to him. But to a man who is conscious of the pressure of things down here, of sin, and death, and Satan’s power, with judgment to come in view, what greater gladness can there be than to have the light of God’s grace brought to him? All of us feel that when sickness and the fear of death and the thought of eternity come upon a man, that which alone can give him joy and gladness is the light of God’s grace; and that is what Christ has brought. He shed the light of God on every step of His pathway down here. But the flesh does not care for that, it is not going to be set aside for Christ if it can help it. And so [p. 283] at every step of His pathway the Lord had to meet antagonism and self-assertion on the part of man; men did not want the light that He brought, and did everything they could to discredit what He did and said.
It is a great point to apprehend that there is nothing in common between Christ and the flesh; and, practically, that means that every bit of the flesh has to go, not this bit or that bit, but the whole. There are two great principles in the operation of God which go together, the one being consequent on the other; one is Christ crucified, and the other is the gift of the Spirit. In John 3 the Son of man must be lifted up; and in John 4 Christ gives to the one that asks the well of water that springs up in him to eternal life. In other parts of the New Testament you will find the same sequence; for instance, in chapter 1 of 1 Corinthians, we have Christ crucified, in chapter 2 the spiritual man, the flesh judicially and completely set aside, it is possible that you may fail to carry this out in practice, but I want you to accept it as a truth, that there is nothing in common between Isaac and Ishmael, and if Isaac comes in Ishmael must go out; if Christ comes in, the legal man must be set aside, every bit of him. He that is after the flesh persecutes him that is after the Spirit; Christ was after the Spirit, was full of the Spirit, and was persecuted by man, who was after the flesh. That was the history of Christ down here, and the principle remains good to this day; the flesh will not tolerate the Spirit, and, on the other hand, the Spirit will not tolerate the flesh, there is no compromise. God, in His grace, saves my person, but has condemned my state; He does not save one single bit that is of me morally, the flesh has to go completely.
One word as to the application of this to Israel. When the child of promise came in, Ishmael had [p. 284] to go out with his mother. And when the true Isaac, the Christ, had come in, what came to pass then in result in the history of Israel? Jerusalem below had to go, and her children. That is what we are taught in the Epistle to the Galatians; Jerusalem and her children were in bondage, and they had to be cast out because the seed of promise had come in. The fact is that they first put Christ out, but they themselves had to go out — that was the divine way. Men are short-sighted; they think that they have carried their point, but they only pave the way for their own overthrow. So it was with the Jew. On the other hand, though for the moment outside the camp in the place of reproach, Christ has gone to the right hand of God; and when He comes again the man after the flesh will not be tolerated, nor the legal system. Jerusalem represents the legal system; and there was the progeny of Jerusalem, those who were educated in that school after the law, and they have to be cast out with the system, because the child of promise has come in.
Now, the apostle says to the Galatians, “We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise”. Christ was the true promised seed; and, as partakers of the Spirit of Christ, we are children of promise. But, then, if we are the children of promise we are not in bondage, we are children of Jerusalem above, and Jerusalem above is free. It is not the divine thought about saints that they should be in bondage. If we apprehend Christ as the true expression of God’s purpose in regard to us, it is sure that the flesh will have completely to be repudiated. Many a Christian tolerates the flesh in measure, but it is because he has never entered into the revelation of God’s purpose about him, in Christ. I think it is exceedingly possible to enjoy the grace and light of God to a certain point in its application to us as men down here, and yet after all, to a very large [p. 285] extent, allow the flesh. But, on the other hand, if God has given to us any light of His purpose in Christ concerning us, and that is what God has done, then we see that flesh has no part in that purpose. If we apprehend our priestly place, as sons of God, and thus companions of Christ, and the truth of the assembly, and realise what it is to have boldness to enter into the holiest, we have to give up all that is of the flesh, and then it is that we have “put off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ”. We realise that we are buried with him in baptism, there is no more of the flesh tolerated. We are continually hindered and baffled by the flesh; but all has to go in the light of the divine purpose concerning us, and that is what I should call the introduction of the child of promise.
There are two sides to the gospel; there is the side connected with the grace of God, and there is the side connected with the love of God. There is the grace of God which brings salvation to all men, as in Titus 2, and I do not doubt but that many a Christian follows that line; but there is not a word in the passage about the purpose of God as to man. It is “the grace of God which brings salvation to all men hath appeared”, and it has its teaching in those who appreciate that grace, and the teaching is that “we should live soberly, righteously, and piously in this present age, looking for that blessed hope and the appearing of the glory”. But there is another line of things that God has revealed in Christ, viz., the counsel of His love, which is that we should be before Him as children according to His nature; and that is what comes to light in the child of promise. And if you apprehend the true Isaac, and the light of divine purpose in Him, then you learn that God has “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in [p. 286] love, having predestinated us to sonship through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”.
Now, if the child of promise in that sense, and what is revealed in Him, should take possession of your heart, the practical effect will be that the flesh will not be tolerated, for it is nothing but a hindrance. The flesh will be continually clinging to this thing and to that thing down here, like certain creatures which cling so tenaciously to a rock that it is most difficult to remove them. The flesh clings as tenaciously as ever it can to the world and to what is seen; and that baffles and hinders many a Christian, so that he enters to a very small extent into the light of God’s purpose about him. If it please God to give you the light of His counsel in the child of promise — and all the counsel of God is revealed in the child of promise, the true Isaac — then you will realise that Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother — we are all the children of promise; and then the flesh, Ishmael, is cast out, and we stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and are not entangled again with a yoke of bondage. That is the path marked out for the Christian who gets the light of God’s purpose in Christ.
Many Christians are, alas! in bondage; and there are two reasons for this. The first is that they have but a very poor apprehension of the counsel of God’s love; and the other hangs upon this, that they tolerate to a large extent the flesh, and what they tolerate becomes their scourge; they find the flesh continually clinging to something natural; they perhaps give too much place to objects of natural affection, and that may hinder the soul and keep it in bondage. The contrast to this comes out here in type; Isaac is weaned, he is separated from the natural, and then it is that the counsel of [p. 287] God is revealed in him. And so, too, all God’s counsel in regard of us is revealed in Christ apart from the flesh; and God has given us the power by which that counsel can be effectuated in us, the well of water which springs up in us to eternal life, and as the well of water springs up, the rule of the flesh is refused.
God has thus given to the believer a power that is superior to the flesh. You cannot get rid of the flesh by any effort of your own. If a man were to shut himself up in a monastery all his life, he could not get away from the flesh, nor really from the world. In a babe there is no image of the world yet formed; the principle of will is there, and as the child grows up and comes to years, the image of the world is formed in the heart, and it can never get rid of it. If a man shuts himself up from the world, he has got the image of the world in his heart, and can no more get free from it than from the flesh. No power can free you, nor anyone, from the flesh except the Spirit of God. He is the well of water in the believer that springs up unto eternal life. You are entitled to be free from the flesh, for God has condemned not only sin, but sin in the flesh, in order that He might impart the Spirit. And the practical benefit that you will gain will be a full entrance by the Spirit of God into God’s purpose concerning you, and you will not get it otherwise.
It is wonderful to have these things set forth in type hundreds of years before the actual things came to pass. And it is to my mind exceedingly beautiful to pass away from Abraham, who is no longer prominent, to the child of promise; Abraham, as I said before, represents to us the man of faith, the man who walked here in divine light; and Isaac the true child of promise, and that is Christ.
One word more, have you real enjoyment with God? I think people sometimes mistake light for [p. 288] enjoyment. Many persons read, for instance, Romans 5, and mistake the light of the chapter for the enjoyment of what is presented. What you need for enjoyment is state; to be brought into liberty in the power of the Spirit, as the apostle says in Romans 8, “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death”. I think it is of importance to distinguish between the two things. Ministry may help you as to light, but it cannot give you enjoyment. In the Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle can enlighten, but he cannot give people state; when it is a question of state he has to pray about them. He gives them a great deal of light in chapter 1 as to the gospel, and in chapter 3 as to the mystery; and when he has enlightened them to his utmost he sets to work to pray for them (that is as to their state), that God will give them the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Himself, that they may get enjoyment. God might even through me give you a little increase of light, but I cannot give you enjoyment. It is a great thing to get light; you get light first, or else you would have no title; and the Spirit of God gives you the state for enjoyment, liberating you from the flesh. He brings you thus into the enjoyment of all that He has presented to you in Christ. May God grant to you to know it in yourselves.