THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN ROMANS
[p. 148] THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN ROMANS
Romans 1:1 - 7; Romans 5:20,21; Romans 14:7 - 18
JT The proposal is to look at these scriptures in order to have before us something of the kingdom, the kingdom of God. It is an ever present necessity to have it in mind, because of the need of rule; the need of it especially in young people, and inclusive of subjection to one another. Therefore, the first chapter is read because it calls attention to obedience, and the kingdom is suggested, too, in the allusion to David. It is said, “come of David’s seed”. And then chapter 5 was read because it speaks of grace reigning: “go also grace might reign”. And then chapter 14 is a formal allusion to the kingdom and what it is. That is, Revelation 14:16 says, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. And then it adds, “For he that in this serves the Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men”, showing how practical the thought is in this epistle. We are to serve in it. This epistle being addressed to the Romans is not without significance, because law had acquired a peculiar place in that empire as compared with the other three monarchies, and the Spirit of God would seize the fact to enforce law, only on the saints in the true sense of it. We are told in chapter 12 that love is the fulfilling of the law, but it works out in this wide way.
CAM You were going to stress the matter of obedience in chapter 1?
JT Just in relation to that, because it is found several times in the form in which it is seen here: “for obedience of faith among all the nations”, Romans 1:5. It is not simply that young Christians are instructed [p. 149] in the principle of law, for that is in mind in the schools and colleges and the like, but obedience of faith. The principle of law in the Roman empire would have subjection in mind but there was no idea of faith, so the kingdom of God is, therefore, introduced and it involves the obedience of faith.
CAM Would you say that speaking in a general way that stands over against the first act of displeasure to God? It was disobedience.
JT So that we have the contrast there in chapter 5, have we not? In Romans 5:19 it says, “For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous”.
AEH Does this idea of faith refer to the vital links with God, between God and the soul, and God in that way getting a great place — a supreme place in the soul, and the principle of reigning works out of that and the judgments are not formed by circumstances that might arise but, as it says in Isaiah, “He shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears; but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity the meek of the earth”, Isaiah 11:3,4? Is that the idea?
JT I think that is good. In Psalm 98:2 it is laid down that those in the kingdom would show that God is righteous. “Because he has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed”, Acts 17:31. This epistle clearly makes no excuse for itself. It is the introduction of righteousness by faith in us, but the rule is in God. It is God’s kingdom. What is required is the obedience of faith. It is God’s kingdom and the principle laid down in man is the obedience of faith. It is said that law came in, that is, law in the legal sense — the law came in that [p. 150] the offence might abound Romans 5:20. That is, that the exaggeration of lawlessness through the law might make it more imperative that God should rule and that it should be on the principle of faith, not of law.
FHL In Luke 4:18 - 21 the Lord speaks of having been sent forth to announce the glad tidings of the kingdom. Would that be in line with what you are saying as to being in God’s kingdom?
JT That is what I was thinking. Luke, I suppose, has that in mind — the kingdom of God.
GVD Would you say Abraham would be a good example of one marked by the obedience of faith as he is spoken of in Hebrews 11? “By faith Abraham, being called, obeyed to go out into the place which he was to receive for an inheritance”, Hebrews 11:8. Would that be along that line?
JT Quite so. He obeyed.
AR We have to learn everything from Christ — His obedience. He said in Matthew, “Not as I will but as thou wilt”, Matthew 26:39. That is the Model, is it not? Chapter 5 of Romans is the new Head.
JT Quite so. The Lord leads in everything for us, and certainly leading as to the principle of obedience. It is the crying need especially among the young. And then not only obedience to God and Christ, but obedience to one another; submission to one another, the whole system — wives being subject to their husbands and the like. The whole system is disrupted in the want of obedience, and this epistle is to enforce it; but it is the obedience of faith.
GL Abraham’s obedience is all the more remarkable because the law was not given yet.
JT Yes. And, of course, Abraham was accounted righteous on the principle of faith, so that he had a great advantage. It is not said of Noah he was accounted righteous by faith, nor of the others before him. This great principle of righteousness by faith [p. 151] came in by Abraham, but then that faith was accompanied by obedience, as has just been remarked.
AAT When David established his kingdom I suppose all the Israelites had the protection of it. Would faith enter in there?
JT That is the reason why I thought it should be introduced. It is introduced in the very outset of Romans; David represents not righteousness by faith but rule. He lays down for us the principle of the kingdom, the principle of rule. “The ruler among men shall be just”, 2 Samuel 23:3. Abraham had that principle, but David is raised up to enforce it. And, therefore, his introduction here as in the line of Christ is important; “come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power”, Romans 1:3,4. That is the Son is Ruler.
JTJr Matthew’s gospel begins, “Son of David, Son of Abraham”, Matthew 1:1, linking both together.
JT Very good. That helps, because the assembly is in mind in Matthew, and it is organised rule. Organised rule is in mind in Matthew. So that David is said to be king as he is introduced, and Christ is said to be the Son of David first. “Son of David, son of Abraham”.
AB Matthew would be the gospel that would help us in regard to our brotherly relations and the maintenance of kingdom principles would be known by us.
JT That is why, I suppose, chapter 18 introduces the need of adjustment if there is trespass and the assembly is the final appeal. Matters are concluded in the assembly; things are finalised, which is a most important thing, because the idea is organised rule. Of course, it is in God, it is in Christ, but authority is in the assembly, and even the brethren and the husbands — indeed all; we are to be subject one to another. I think David would represent the organisation. Of course, Moses does, too. He represents [p. 152] the kingdom, too. He was king in Jeshurun. That is to say, he was king among the brethren. There is the idea of consideration — king in Jeshurun.
AR There was certain territory that David took where he had to put garrisons. Why was that? Could the persons not be trusted?
JT Well, that helps as to what we are saying. He put garrisons in places, because it is a question of organisation. The garrison would be representative of the assembly. David is said to have established his rule or kingdom on the Euphrates. He went to the limit, the utmost boundary, so that we are not to be limited in the principle.
AEH I would like a little help in regard to this matter of obedience. The question naturally arises, obedience to what? And is the principle to which obedience is to be rendered the idea of the supremacy of God? “But his delight is in Jehovah’s law”, Psalm 1:2. Is that the idea — obedience to that great principle of the supremacy of God?
JT Well, quite. But I think what we have said is important, the thing itself, even if it begins in a brother; the idea itself, in whomsoever it might be righteously exercised; in a husband or even in a brother or sister according to what is there. The word ‘obedience’ here — obedience of faith is the thing itself; the idea itself exercised on the principle of faith. That is, that I am subject on the principle of faith.
AEH I am helped in my own soul, whether what I am obedient to is entirely in line with the idea of the supremacy of God or not. I am helped in my own soul on the principle of obedience, anyway.
JT That is what I am thinking. The idea of the kingdom is up, up, up, beginning at the bottom. Or you might reverse it and put it at the very top, but it is an organised thing, a systematic thing. So that there was the centurion who was recommended [p. 153] to the Lord by the Jews. He has built us a synagogue, they said; he is worthy that you should do something for him. And he addresses the Lord and says, You do not need to come to my house to heal my servant; I also am a man under authority. That is, it is delegated authority. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it. He put that on the Lord. He says, I know you are in that position. That is to be understood. The whole system is impregnated with the idea of obedience, but then corresponding with obedience, rule. There is no use talking about obedience unless there is rule and a ruler, so that we have the two things in this epistle.
AEH I was thinking about what the Lord says to certain in His day. They disregarded the moral proper relationship between parents and children by saying that if their parents were benefited in any way by them, it was on the principle of gift. They owed nothing to their parents. That is what the Lord was striking at there, this principle of disobedience and the setting aside of rule.
JT Quite so. I see your point; whereas we owe everything. I mean the system implies that God is supreme, of course, but He is supreme in the system, and what He is supreme in extends down to every person in the system. If it be a brother, according to his ability, he has power to rule. So it is in the army and so it is in business, more or less. The principles are there, but when it comes to children, wife, brother and sister and so on, the obligation is often not recognised.
So I thought we might look at chapter 1 just because of the principle being there; the principle of obedience, without saying to whom it is, and that David is there and sonship is there — all the qualities that would enforce the thought of obedience. And then in chapter 5, “So also grace might reign”. It is not simply ruling but reigning. “So also grace [p. 154] might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”, Romans 5:21. The thing is finalised in eternal life. Eternal life, of course, involves all this. But grace is on the throne, because the word ‘reign’ implies a throne. The word ‘rule’ does not always imply a throne, because persons in the system do not all have thrones. But the principle in rule is according to our measure, but when we come to grace the idea of reigning involves a throne, supremacy.
JTJr Is grace to suggest that it is not an arbitrary matter? Grace enters into the position of rule in the house or any other position.
JT Quite so, and if the end in view is eternal life, well, there is a great moral weapon in that. Whatever measures are used to bring about the obedience, the end is eternal life; not to extol someone or elevate someone, but grace is a principle, not a person, and it is not, therefore, looking for honour. God has made it a principle on the throne and its end is eternal life.
AR That can be enjoyed in our houses as well as in the meeting.
JT Quite so. But you enjoy it more in the assembly. When the thing is finalised, it is the full thing. In this epistle it is the full thing, the full idea of blessing in which all are satisfied. There is no complaint at all. If eternal life is there, there is no complaint. Every heart is satisfied and grace is content with that, because grace is not looking for any honour. It is not a person; it is a principle, and God has enthroned it.
APT Abigail was not looking for any honour. She was satisfied that the right man should be at the top.
JT The right man; quite so. That is good. The right man happened to be the man she loved eventually, but that was not what was in her mind at [p. 155] first. It was that the right man should rule, and certainly not her husband. Nabal was his name; that is, he was a fool. We do not want that. Her concern was that the right man should rule, and, of course, David was that. God showed in time that it was that.
JAP When David said to the sons of Zeruiah, “What have I to do with you?” was that grace or was that weakness? Shimei had rebelled against David and the sons of Zeruiah were contending that he should be put to death and David said, “What have I to do with you?” 2 Samuel 19:22.
JT That was the point exactly, that he was king and God had ordained that. He had come back to that in fact. The sons of Zeruiah would defeat that. That is an important point because there are those that would defeat that, whereas the principle of the kingdom of God is that it has an end. The result is to be eternal life, but the thought that enters into that is, “Do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?” That is, grace would overcome the difficulties, may they be what they are. It is not mercy; it is grace. Mercy is sovereign but grace overcomes the difficulties and God has, therefore, put not mercy but grace on the throne. Grace takes account of the difficulties and meets them and, therefore, redemption or atonement is brought in to meet them, but the principle is there all the time. The sons of Zeruiah would not admit that, that Shimei could be forgiven and reinstated, but David would do that. He would overcome the difficulties attending Shimei’s position.
Rem The sons of Zeruiah were hard men.
JT David had said, “These men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me”, 2 Samuel 3:39. That is the kind of men they were, Joab particularly; but even when a man is hard, or a brother or sister is hard, grace attempts to take up the attitude of being able to meet that, and God is furnishing [p. 156] the means of meeting that. Redemption furnishes the means of meeting it.
GL “My grace suffices thee”, the Lord Jesus said to Paul; 2 Corinthians 12:9.
JT “My grace”, just so. If you put grace on the throne, it will do all in its power, and that power is infinite because redemption supplies the means of meeting conditions.
JTJr While you say it is not a person, does it not come out in persons?
JT Well, it does, but it is put as a principle that the thing might be rightly apprehended; because it comes out to meet you when there are no persons needed. The Spirit of God furnishes things in your soul when there are no persons to help you. The means is in yourself.
FHL Redemption makes it divinely right.
JT Redemption supplies the need so that the rights of God are maintained.
AR They obeyed from the heart the form of teaching delivered unto them.
JT Just so.
ABP Does the principle of justification being brought in in this epistle justify grace, in the sense that while grace stays the judgment, mercy has found a means for justifying the sinner?
JT Yes; it is according to mercy. God saves us according to mercy; “but according to his own mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”, Titus 3:5. These are the means. Now, in chapter 3 of our epistle it is said, “But now without law righteousness of God is manifested, borne witness to by the law and the prophets; righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe: for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth”, Romans 3:21 - 24.
[p. 157] Grace is the active operational principle. Mercy is, so to say, static. It is a great sovereign element, but grace is the great operational element, and therefore, it is on the throne.
AEH Does grace involve the shining in or coming in of God, revealing Himself in an impossible situation and thus correcting the situation by that unfolding of Himself? Is that the principle of grace?
JT Just so. It is, so to say, the static idea in mercy. It is the greatest thing in a sense. But take Pharaoh in Genesis. He was supreme, but he said to Joseph, You will be second to me. Joseph was the operational head and, therefore, the whole system was set in movement, and the result was that all were brought into subjection to Pharaoh. Every person in Egypt was simply bound hands and feet by the operational wisdom of Joseph, and the whole nation and all the people in it were brought into subjection to Pharaoh. And now, if we apply that to Christianity, Christ is the operational Agent; a divine Person, of course, but He brings all into subjection; but it is not to limitation or bondmanship, although that in a certain sense applies, but it is in eternal life. That is, everybody is satisfied. There is no question about it. There is no complaint. Joseph, of course, does not altogether meet it as a type, but it conveys the idea that everybody is brought into subjection to Christ and everybody is satisfied. Everybody rejoiced, because it is not simply subjection but love, and so love is the fulfilling of the law. It is a question of love and love is satisfied.
AEH That is the idea of peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ, which involves a constant and daily and real touch in our souls with Christ.
JT That is what the verse says that we have just read. “So also grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”.
[p. 158] AEH Which is not the idea of a static thing or a channel or a conduit, but an operational idea through our Lord Jesus Christ.
JT That is it. Therefore, the idea of supremacy is in Genesis 1 in God coming into His creation. He takes a Name. When it is used first, we are not told, but it is Elohim. Jehovah is added to it, but it was the idea of supremacy, supremacy in the creation; and then the operation comes in. For instance, Noah is a great suggestion of an operator, but it was negative first but resulted in blessing through the burnt-offering, and the whole scene is in principle set up and established for ever in type. “Henceforth, all the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease”, Genesis 8:22. The thing is established. That will all be transferred into eternity presently, where God will be all in all. And the Son also is to be in subjection, so that the operational principle remains, but what we have to come to in our souls is the way this works out. We are not a burden to one another. We are a help to one another, and the principle of subjection is permeating everywhere.
CAM I was thinking of what you said about the beginning of Genesis. It was a great help to me when it was stressed in ministry years ago that the second chapter is the filling out of things. There is this static sort of set-up but then this filling out enlarges the whole sphere of things.
JT I am glad you brought that up, because chapter 2 brings man in. It brings affection into operation. It is Jehovah Elohim in chapter 2 and man comes in, and God is saying, I am going to ask him to name the animals, as if to give him something to do to show what he could do. God made a creature like that. Well, when that is applied to Christ, it is not a made creature but God Himself [p. 159] in manhood,
and everything is worked out on the principle of perfection.
APT “Happy are thy men! happy are these thy servants, who stand continually before thee, who hear thy wisdom! Blessed be Jehovah thy God who delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel!” 1 Kings 10:8,9. Is that a filling out of this kingdom idea of everybody happy?
JT Just so. The queen of Sheba is brought up. She saw that. They were her own words. She conveys to us what she saw. She is a witness to what was there, and what every one of us should be a witness to — what there is in the new system. “Happy are thy men! happy are these thy servants”.
FSC Does it seem we have to have the dark picture before we get the bright one? It is that way so often in Scripture. Sin reigned; the power of death is mentioned before grace reigning.
JT God allowed the dark thing to come up so as to justify the bright thing when it came in. It enhanced it. Why was the law added a great many years after? To intensify the idea of disobedience so that God is justified in setting it aside, and justified and glorified in bringing in the system of eternal life which makes everybody satisfied and happy.
CAM In that light, would it be right to say that God has allowed sin to abound at the present time, and we know that He is stressing eternal life in a very special way as against it all?
JT Just so. If there was no eternal life and no blessing in the end in mind, well, what would there be for us? There would be nothing but darkness. But there is light and a world of blessing.
AAT How do you distinguish between the assembly and the kingdom of God, because the features of the kingdom are presented this afternoon, but it is unto eternal life, and I understand that is in connection with the [p. 160] assembly?
JT So it is now. It will not be always just like that, although the principle of eternal life must continue, the principle of it, which meets conditions — death and sickness and all that, but the assembly is provisionally constituted so as to extend an opportunity for eternal life to manifest itself.
AB Verse 19 would help us in what you are saying in regard to it. “For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous”. The principle of the kingdom is the constitution; not what is written in the constitution, but what is indelibly written in the souls of the subjects of the kingdom.
JT Just so. It is what they are, so that life had to be brought in. That is one of the things set up here in this epistle; the restitution of righteousness and life.
ABP Would it be right to say that if you want to find a truly happy person you must find an obedient person?
JT Well, I would say that. The Lord makes a proposition in Matthew 11. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek, and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest to your souls”, Matthew 11:29. That was what He was. There was no dolefulness about Him. Of course, there was grief and that, but the general principle is the yoke is easy and the burden is light.
CAM Speaking of the happy man being the obedient man, the man in the first Psalm finds delight in meditating day and night in God’s law. If it did not act that way, we really would not grow; it would be irksome all the time.
JT Well, that is good, to bring up this matter of what you are saying just now, how the brethren are to be happy; but happy in righteousness, and this [p. 161] book is to do that, to bring about a condition of satisfaction, to resolve the question of righteousness and then life flowing out from that. Other things, of course — the Holy Spirit the power in it and so on.
FNW Does what we find in the Lord Jesus Himself and His position in subjection help us to be happy in the kingdom? In Genesis Pharaoh says Joseph is to have the second chariot, and then “Bow the knee!” Genesis 41:43, comes after he is given the second chariot.
JT Yes; quite so. And then, as we already alluded to Pharaoh, he represents supremacy in Joseph’s system. We may speak of it in that way. It was Joseph’s system and he was given a name which meant he would be the sustainer of the life of the world. Well now, he has brought all into subjection and evidently all are more or less happy. There is plenty of corn, plenty to meet the need of the body. And the question as to his brethren put them, too, in the general position, because we are in the general position and we shall be eternally in the general position although greater and higher than others. But still when the time comes for the supreme to ask something about his brethren, he selects five of them. He did not bring them all, as if he were to show Pharaoh what he could do; what his administration meant. So it is, I believe, that the Lord will bring us forward. He has His own way of bringing us forward before God, before the Supreme. And they tell Pharaoh just the truth, and they can be used because they tell the truth.
AB Do you think many of our difficulties are like those in Joseph’s father and brethren — the refusal to recognise in a brother the qualities that were there in Joseph? “Shall we indeed come ... to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” Genesis 37:10. It falsifies the position of the kingdom and we find that in our own hearts. The thing is there in [p. 162] a very subtle way, not ready to be subordinate to the brethren or to a brother.
JT And they all had to come to that. Quite so. These five evidently had come to it.
AB They had been despising that.
JT The sun, moon and eleven stars, advancing the sphere, the area of subjection, all would bow down to him.
JTJr The principle of regulation came in there. That idea is to be in the person. “According to thy commandment shall all my people regulate themselves”, Genesis 41:40.
JT “Regulate themselves”, very good.
ATD Their life depended on it. Would that be typical of eternal life?
JT That is apparently what his name was: Zaphnath-paaneah, Genesis 41:45, which means, ‘Sustainer of the life of the world’. It is accepted by those who should know to mean that and, therefore, the whole universe is dependent on Christ, but it is a question of obedience now. Sin exists, but the element of obedience must be there. So it is that Joseph brought all in on that principle.
FHL God will be completely vindicated in the millennium in relation to the One He has appointed.
JT Just so. He has appointed the day, and the next thing is the Man, and He has given assurance to all men so that we know about our vote. God has given assurance. If God were to give assurance to this country — so many millions of people are casting a vote next month — if God were to give assurance, I mean, if any man were worthy of it! God has given assurance to all men in that He has raised Jesus from the dead. The Man who is to rule — you are assured that He is the Man and is to succeed in the ruling.
WWM “Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ”, Ephesians 5:21. Does that suggest [p. 163] a subject state in us — the state that is right for the kingdom?
JT That is the idea, I am sure. It is in the fear of Christ, not the fear of the Lord. It carries with it the idea of grace.
I thought with those few thoughts we might look at chapter 14, where we get the account of the kingdom. “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that in this serves the Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men”, Romans 14:18, showing that the thing is to permeate; approved of men. What you are doing is not only approved of God but approved of the brethren. You cannot despise the brethren in whatever you are doing. This matter of days is in this chapter, which calls not simply for literal rule, literal regulations. The thing treated calls for a wide open mind in the brethren, and each being persuaded in that mind. There is room for the use of our minds; not simply legal regulations but the use of our minds. It is in the end of the epistle and this matter of persons who are weak in the faith — you are to receive them, but not to the determining of questions of reasoning. And then one man is assured that he may eat all things but the weak eat herbs. “Let not him that eats make little of him that eats not; and let not him that eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him”, Romans 14:3. “Who are thou that judgest the servant of another?” Romans 14:4. The brethren are to be respected and we have to be careful what we say about them, and what we think about them. The word ‘master’ here is strong: “To his own master he stands or falls”, Romans 14:4. Then it goes on, “And he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man esteems day more than day; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind”, Romans 14:5. I was thinking of that; the mind of the Christian — [p. 164] what scope there is in it; how the Spirit of God operates in it without any formal regulation. “He that regards the day, regards it to the Lord”. The Lord has His place anyway. “And he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks”, Romans 14:6. That is to say, the apostle comes back to real Christianity in this instruction. “And he that does not eat, it is to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself”. So that the very thought of dying brings in this principle. We do not do it ourselves. We are not selfish in it. We do it to the Lord, so that the Lord in this sense is dominating our every sphere and, therefore, it is said, “For both if we should live, it is to the Lord we live; and if we should die, it is to the Lord we die: both if we should live then, and if we should die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ has died and lived again, that he might rule over both dead and living”, Romans 14:8,9. There is the extension of the thing; there is the Person. We have been speaking about the principle, but now it is a Person who rules in the realm of death. He rules over them there as He does over the living. “But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? or again, thou, why does thou make little of thy brother? For we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, I live, saith the Lord, that to me shall bow every knee, and every tongue shall confess to God”, Romans 14:9 - 11. So that now we come to Persons in the rule and the mention of giving Them their places, at the same time making full room in each other for the Lord having His place with each other. If it is a question of the day or meat, then make room for judgment, for a right judgment about it; for there are some things that are not stipulated in the instructions.
AEH I have been thinking over of late that what makes me break down as a good kingdom man [p. 165] is a lack in my soul as to the apprehension and appreciation of the One that I have to do with, so that the great regulatory principle or Person is God — the supreme idea of it in verse 12: “So then each of us shall give an account concerning himself to God”, Romans 14:12. If we could get an increased apprehension of the majesty and greatness and supremacy of the One that we have to do with, it would all help to make us better kingdom men, would it not?
JT Very good; so that whilst we speak of each one having influence according to his measure, yet we are not constituted gods. “There are gods many, and lords many”, 1 Corinthians 8:5. We are not gods. There is one God; He is supreme. And then we are told who He is. He is the Father. That is to regulate our minds as to worship, to save us from idolatry. We are to call no man father, but God. “There is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. That is, He is the great operational Person; the great Operator. There is one Lord. Therefore, we are now brought down to the realm of supreme Persons — God; the Trinity really. We have to learn to respect the Trinity and revere the Trinity and worship the Trinity.
AR Cornelius was going to worship Peter. Peter says, I myself also am a man.
JT Quite so.
ABP Was Satan’s first effort to break the line of rule? “Ye will be as God”, Genesis 3:5. Was that a subtle motive of the enemy to break the line of rule?
JT Quite so; and to dissipate the idea of the deity of God in the minds of men. That was the devil’s aim, and while what he said was right in some sense, as the Lord says, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” that is, there was authority there, as judges — they have that place in a certain [p. 166] limited way, still there is the idea of the deity of God. Whoever used the word first, we cannot say. There are more terms to express the Deity in the Old Testament in the Hebrew, than there is in the Greek. But anyway, we have words enough to show that God is supreme and God is the Judge of all, so that we are preserved and worshipful in regard of Him, and yet at the same time maintaining the thought of obedience and exercising authority in so far as God gives us title to do it, so that the system is maintained. I think chapter 14 is intended to work this out in us, because it is not so much as in chapters 12 and 13 what is told us to do, but what is in the system and how there is room for our minds. Each is to be persuaded in his own mind, so that the apostle says, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God”, Romans 14:22. You say, Why should I have it to myself? Faith is to God and the brethren ought to know. But that is what it says here: “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God”. So that the thing is there and at times not spoken about, but it is there. It is to impress the idea of the system we are in.
CAM I think it is very interesting. So many things come into your mind as you speak. I was thinking about such great men as Daniel and Ezekiel and Jeremiah. They were all contemporary. You could not say that all had to do the same thing, or behaved in the same way. They had a God and they had power before God.
JT Quite so. There were twelve apostles. They were all contemporary. They each had commissions and each had to work his commission out. Paul said, I am persuaded. We must make room for that, having persuasions, and that is to be recognised in every one of us, so that there is a certain latitude left open for love to work in.
AEH The great liberality and magnanimity of a Christian’s character comes out in Romans 15:7, “Wherefore receive ye one another”. That word really has a very peculiar meaning to it, suggesting being thrown back on the person who does it. It suggests what the system will do in receiving one who does not act just as I say he should act.
JT I think from this point on the epistle opens up in affording latitude in the Christian. So the salutations — whom I salute; that sort of thing. It branches out to make room for the Source. So that it is said to have love in this epistle. I do not know that you find it just that way in any other epistle. The apostle speaks of the love of the Spirit in Romans 15:30: “But I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit”, showing what a scope there is for us in this book; how much latitude there is opened up.
CAM That is a very remarkable verse in the last chapter, Romans 16:23: “Gaius, my host and of the whole assembly, salutes you. Erastus, the steward of the city, salutes you, and the brother Quartus”. They are all in one verse, but apparently live in a wholly different sphere of things. They all have their individual place.
JT It is certainly fine to get into the realm of salutations to the brethren, because then you see who is who; who is worthy of it. All the saints in Rome are not saluted personally.
ABP In a metropolis there would be a sort of polyglot condition, and would this be the basis on which grace would operate, as having learned grace? Being a metropolis such as it was, people of various nationalities would be there, but the environment would be different. Grace would operate in the presence of this. It is not exactly licence, but according to the enlightenment of the conscience; having a good conscience before God.
JT In what we are saying it is important to [p. 168] bring up the matter of conscience, because God has given it a place of late years; what a place it has in relation to the claims of the government.
AR Would you explain to us the love of the Spirit? I have often wondered about this verse.
JT I thought it was remarkable that it should be found in Romans. We have the fellowship of the Spirit in Corinthians. I have not examined it carefully enough to say any more, but anyway it is found here in Romans 15:30, “But I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit”. The idea is that you know that, because if he beseeches you by something, you are to know that something that he uses. For instance, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God”, Romans 12:1. You should know what he means, and if he speaks of the love of the Spirit you should know what he means; something we have realised in our meetings today.
APT The Colossians seemed to have it. The Colossians seemed to be able to move on this line.
AR That is love in the Spirit; this is love of the Spirit.
JT It is the personal love of the Spirit that I am speaking of now. Love in the Spirit is another thing.
APT Do you mean this is the Person Himself?
JT Just as if you were to say the Father’s love or the Son’s love; but the Spirit is out of sight generally, but Paul brings Him in here.
ATD “The Spirit itself makes intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered”, Romans 8:26.
JT That is in Romans, too.