ELEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION (2)

^[p. 71] ELEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION (2)

Romans 8:1 - 17; 2 Corinthians 5:14 - 18

BTF Following on the first incident in 2 Kings 4, which we have considered, we get the Shunammite, the great woman, and her love for the testimony. Why did death come in upon her son?

JT It raises a question as to the teaching of the remaining part of the chapter. Gehazi discerned that there was a want with her, notwithstanding that she had means and a husband, and made no form of request. She was childless, and what follows suggests a maternal thought, which means that the Spirit forms Christ in the believer. He not only enables us to meet our liabilities, and to help others who care for the testimony, but He forms Christ in the saints.

GWH Would you say that is the Spirit’s normal work?

JT I think it is after our side is settled. The maternal thought is very interesting, and it runs throughout Scripture. It has been already alluded to; “the joy that a man has been born into the world” (John 16:21) — a Man. The disciples had to go through sorrow, and so did this woman; her sorrow was that the man child born is taken away in death. But she was to have him, not as born after the flesh, or given in connection with the flesh, but out of death. It refers to what takes place in the believer’s soul.

CAM The child is typically after a spiritual order when brought to life again. Were you referring to that?

JT The child dies. The thought is that Christ is to be before us, not as He was, but as He is.

AFM The second epistle to ^[p. 72] the Corinthians is helpful; we now no longer know Christ after the flesh.

JT You do not know Him in that way now. We know Him as He is.

PHP In connection with Israel, it is when the Child is born, but in Christianity it is a Man. We have to get the full thought, Christ in another sphere.

FL The birth of Isaac, and then his being given over to death and received back in connection with the purpose of God is a kindred thought. Everything is established in the one brought back from the dead.

ANW Both Isaac and this son were given of God even after the flesh, were they not?

JT I think they both refer to Christ as He was after the flesh. Mary Magdalene would have retained Him on that ground, but He refused her touch. He has to be known on other ground than that. He was to be known as risen and in heaven.

GWH The moment comes in the history of the soul when you apprehend Christ risen and glorified. A new day dawns to you.

BTF The death and resurrection of the child would occasion much exercise to the mother. In the Christian this would lead to Christ being apprehended as the heavenly One.

JT It leads to that. The child is given back to the mother. It says in verse 36: “And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. And he called her; And she came to him. And he said, Take up thy son. And she came and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground; and she took up her son, and went out”, 2 Kings 4:36 - 37. She has her son now in another way, and then immediately upon that you have the figure of the meal. That is Christ is apprehended now, although having passed out of death, as still a ^[p. 73] Man.

FL It goes somewhat further than resurrection. I mean there immediately comes in the thought of new creation. We apprehend Christ as in a new sphere.

JT The thought of the “meal” here is different from what we had in connection with Elijah in 1 Kings 17. That is Christ as He was here in the flesh. That was not the remedy for things, although He brought in all that is of God and every requisite for the recovery of Israel. Really the remedy is Christ as He is now. It is Christ as He is now that the Holy Spirit witnesses to and brings in here as the remedy.

AFM Nevertheless, all that He was morally in the days of His flesh is taken up in resurrection. Nothing is lost by His dying.

JT So the Gospels all have to be read in the light of the last chapter in each. His ministry had His death and resurrection in view. Hence the gospels are written from the standpoint of Christ risen and glorified, written really by the Holy Spirit come down from heaven, come down from that Man in heaven. Hence the Gospels become in that sense meal for us.

FL Mr. Darby had the thought when he said,

“There on the hidden bread
Of Christ once humbled here”. (79:3)

What He brought into manhood is everlasting. The manna was to be laid up in the presence of God in the golden pot. The thought is not to be lost.

ANW Was the main reason for Christ having come after the flesh to put an end to the old order?

JT So much was involved that one would scarcely undertake to say. In Romans 8 we have a very important feature. “God, having sent his own Son in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh”, Romans 8:3. But there was also, in the way of testimony, in His presence here, all that was necessary for the restoration of Israel. “How often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”, Matthew 23:37. Throughout the Gospels you have reference to that. “Behold thy King cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass”, Matthew 21:5. There was the testimony. He was there, with power to re-establish them, but they would not receive Him.

JS It was ineffective.

JT Because of their state it was ineffective.

FL In addition to that, you would emphasise that for God it was a necessity that in the scene where man had failed under the power of Satan, man should stand for God. I mean that the fact that a man dependent upon God should answer to Him in the scene where Satan had previously overthrown man, is God’s side. It is very important in that way, I think.

JT The visits to the different points, Gilgal, Bethel, etc., by Elijah and Elisha, as referred to already, were to call attention to the fact that these features of God’s testimony, although witnessed to, had not been established on that line. Even the disciples say, “We had hoped that he was [the one] who is about to .. redeem Israel”, Luke 24:21. In that same chapter, we have the Lord opening up to them that He must suffer and die according to the Scriptures; but the exposition that He gave them in that chapter was from the standpoint of His position as risen. The Gospel necessarily depends on that. It is a Christ who came by water and blood that is presented in the glad tidings by the Holy Spirit come down from heaven. That is the remedy for the “death in the pot”, 2 Kings 4:^[p. 75] 40.

JS In Christendom they are going on with Christ as He was, and the testimony is not effective with them. They have no apprehension of Christ as He now is.

JT That is very true. It shows the ineffectiveness of what is about us, that nothing is remedied, whereas the true remedy is the meal. “Bring meal”, the prophet says.

AFM The point is the transference from the old side to the new. Would you say a little upon the difference between the expression “in Christ” in Romans and in 2 Corinthians 5?

JT I think in Romans “in Christ” refers to what we are here in the sphere of responsibility; one has a new head; whereas 2 Corinthians 5 says: “If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. And all things are of the God”. It takes in the whole divine thought; whereas in Romans, I am simply transferred from Adam to Christ, I apprehend.

WLP Referring to Christ here, it is very important that we become familiar with Him as He was here by reading the Gospels, is it not?

JT I think that is really the “meal” the prophet spoke of.

WLP That leads our thoughts to Him where He is, and that is where we get the blessing.

JT It is knowing Him where He is that enables you to appreciate what He was.

FL “Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone”, John 12:24. Up to that point you might say He was alone here for God. He was a Man who stood for God.

JS I think what you say about reading the Gospels in the light of the closing chapters is very helpful. We read them in the light of His death, resurrection ^[p. 76] and ascension.

AP What is the difference between the Last Adam and the new man?

JT Well, Christ is never said to be the new man. He is said to be the Last Adam and the Second Man. The Last Adam refers to Him as a life giving Spirit, and involves that He is divine. He is God really, for to God alone belongs the prerogative to give life, whereas the point in connection with the Second Man is that He is “out of heaven”. Hence the importance of the apostle’s remark that we do not know Him as He was, we now know Him as He is. That is the point of it, and the Holy Spirit has come down from Him there.

BTF Then what would you say regarding the contemplation of Christ as He was? Might we not feed on Him as manna, and in that way be helped?

JT The manna is for those who know Him as He is. It is as knowing Him as He is that you go back to what He was and feed on it.

AFM Is the meal a further development of the truth in the passage?

JT The meal comes in immediately and I believe it refers to our apprehending the heavenly Man, and then what follows upon that is the man from Baal-shalisha, which refers, I think, to the place where He is; “The Son of man who is in heaven”, John 3:13.

AAT What would you say the pottage referred to, in contrast to the meal? The meal was put in the pot.

JT It is what was there. The passage reads, “Elisha came again to Gilgal. And there was a famine in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him. And he said to his servant, Set on the great pot, and boil pottage for the sons of the prophets. Then one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered from it his lap full of wild colocynths,

^[p. 77] and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they did not know them. And they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out and said, Man of God, there is death in the pot! And they could not eat [it]. And he said, Then bring meal. And he cast [it] into the pot, and said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot” (2 Kings 4:38 - 41). I think, what may be noticed is, that it was the prophet who cast it in, he represented God. It is, I think, the way in which Christ is introduced in the ministry of the Spirit.

GWH In this fourth chapter do you get an account of the complete work of the Spirit in the soul?

JT It seems so.

FL I suppose we get a kind of climax in the concluding verses of the chapter, barley loaves and the full ears of corn.

JT The last paragraph typifies a heavenly scene.

FL New creation is spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5, and typically it is seen in this chapter in 2 Kings.

JT In 2 Corinthians we have the idea of a man in Christ, and that he was caught up into Paradise. That really fits in with these closing verses.

FL Do you not think, that if 2 Corinthians 5 went on to show us the full product of the ministry of reconciliation we would have what we get in the end of 2 Kings 4? The product of the ministry of reconciliation is the barley loaves and the full ears of corn.

JT Of course barley loaves refer to what Christ is as the firstfruits. I suppose the barley was the first part of the harvest, and no doubt the sheaf of firstfruits in Leviticus 23 was the barley, so that it would all point to Christ as He is now.

BTF ^[p. 78] Are the firstfruits on the same line as the meal?

JT The firstfruits are for God, as we see in the sheaf being waved before Jehovah in Leviticus 23.

BTF The meal is the heavenly One?

JT I think the meal is Christ as He is now, the Second Man out of heaven.

JS Are not the barley loaves included in Christianity? Referring to the closing paragraph in 2 Kings 4:42 - 44, the man from Baal-shalisha would suggest Christ in heaven and then the barley loaves and corn would embrace Christianity, would they not?

JT I should say so. It reads: “And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack. And he said, Give to the people, that they may eat. And his attendant said, How shall I set this before a hundred men? And he said, Give the people, that they may eat; for thus saith Jehovah: They shall eat and shall have to spare. And he set [it] before them, and they ate, and left [thereof], according to the word of Jehovah”, 2 Kings 4:42 - 44.

PHP The bread in the end of the chapter is Christ according to Ephesians. The woman receiving the child again is according to Colossians, “Christ in you”.

AFM I suppose the prime thought is the greatness of the supply; “they ate, and left [thereof]”, 2 Kings 4:44.

JT So that the whole chapter taken together is a wonderful presentation in type of Christianity, the magnitude and abundance which mark it.

AFM There will be something for the Jews by and by.

JS So at the close it is not yet exhausted. We are first, but, as you say, we leave something for the ^[p. 79] Jews.

JT What has occurred to me of late is that, whilst we should surely be very much humbled on account of conditions that exist, the failure that marks the history of the church, yet the Spirit of God would emphasise the character of the dispensation, what it is from the divine side. It remains what it was, and the Holy Spirit being here, we may count upon an answer to God’s desires at the end.

FL I think we have the same thought of abundance brought forward in John 6. It was “five barley loaves”. Here where it is indicative of the day of the Spirit it is twenty loaves, beside the full ears of corn.

PHP What you were suggesting would culminate in a real heartfelt desire for the Lord to come, so the bride would say, “Come”.

CAM In John 6 it is the bread come down from heaven; and that refers to Christ personally?

FL Yes, quite so.

WHF Knowing Christ, where He is is not simply a question of faith as to where He is, although that is involved, but it is conscious knowledge by the Spirit.

JT I think the teaching of Colossians centres in the mystery, as the mystery is presented in that epistle, “which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”, Colossians 1:27. In Ephesians it is said that God “has raised [us] up together, and has made [us] sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2:6. We are in Him in heaven. Then it is further said in Ephesians, “that the Christ may dwell through faith, in your hearts”, Ephesians 3:17. It is a further and a greater thought than simply that He should be in us, but that He dwells in us.

CAM Would you say the passage in Colossians, “Christ in you the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27) is a further thought than Romans, having the Spirit of Christ?

JT In Romans 8 there is an “if”. “If Christ be in you”, although it was true, no doubt, of the ^[p. 80] Romans, at the same time it may not have been true of some of them. “If Christ be in you” the apostle says, “the body is dead on account of sin”. But in Colossians he says, “Christ in you”, without an “if”.

FL I think Colossians suggests the definite formative work. Ephesians goes further and gives the full developed result.

AFM Would you say that in Philadelphia we have the same thought in connection with recovery? The thought of the Lord’s coming is there too, and it is carried right through and found in Revelation 22.

JT Would you not think that in regard to Philadelphia, Christ is in them really, because everything is personal there; it is My word — My name — My God, etc. It seems to me that what has brought about Philadelphia is a presentation of Christ so that He has become the supreme object of the saints.

CAM To go back in the chapter for a moment, when this child was brought to life again in the image, as it were, of the man of God, would that correspond with “renewed into full knowledge according to [the] image of him that has created him”, Colossians 3:10.

FT I apprehend that the prophet stretching himself on the child, and putting his eyes on the child’s eyes, and his hands on the child’s hands, and his mouth to the child’s mouth, is the way Christ is formed in the saint. It typifies how Christ is presented to the believer so that a corresponding subjective result may be produced.

JT The new man in Colossians 3 is “according to the image of him that has created him”.

CAM I was struck with the idea of image.

AFM In verses 32 - 34 of 2 Kings 4 the expression child is used, and afterwards he is called son. “Take up thy son”, Elisha says, and she “took up her son and went out”, 2 Kings 4:^[p. 81] 37.

JT Evidently the desire of her heart was to have a son and now she has him as risen from the dead. Compare Isaiah 9:6.

WHF Christ dwelling in your heart by faith is the exalted Christ. That would take account of Him in relation to the divine system, as “the Christ”.

AR Referring to 2 Corinthians 5:16; when we come together to remember the Lord, do we remember Him as He was or as He is now?

JT As He is now I should say. He does not exist as He was.

AR Do we not contemplate Him as the Man down here when we come together in that special way?

JT You recall the circumstances, but it is Himself you call to mind.

AR He is the glorified Man now.

FL So if a man goes away from home for a year his wife looks at his photograph, it is to bring him to mind.

JT Morally what Christ is now He was when here on earth, and really it is by our knowledge of Him now that we apprehend His manner of life when here; but it is a mistake to think that the Lord’s supper is meant to be a remembrance of what He was. “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) was given out from heaven. It is the Person that is to be remembered, and, of course, He exists only as He is now in heaven. The apostle says: “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more”.

AFM We do not remember a dead Christ exactly?

JT The Lord’s supper recalls Himself, the living One, who became dead; death is the proof of this love. I think we feed on a dead Christ. His flesh is truly meat and His blood is truly drink. We need ^[p. 82] such food as that whilst we are down here. That is John 6.

AFM But that is not the Supper?

JT Only there is the idea of food in the Lord’s supper. It has been remarked that there are two ordinances in Christianity; baptism and the Lord’s supper; one introduces me into the wilderness, and the other sustains me in the wilderness. You do feed on what is presented. The thought of food is present. “Take, eat; this is my body”, 1 Corinthians 11:24. Surely there is spiritual sustenance in that. It is Christ come down from heaven and dying. That is a very solemn thing, but it sustains our souls as we feed on it while we are down here.

AP Why is it called “Supper?”

JT Well, it is the last meal of the day, but it is a meal, and so involves sustenance. The idea in Scripture is you eat to live. This is taught in John 6.

AP It is to sustain us down here in our wilderness journey, but I was wondering why it is called Supper.

FL And not dinner, you mean. I suppose dinner is connected with the introduction of the millennial day, John 21. The supper comes when the work of the day is over. We sit down restfully at supper; we have not a day before us.

JS There is nothing to disturb, so you are free to enjoy it.

ANW And we regard the Lord just about to come.

AFM Would you limit John 6 to the Lord’s supper?

JT No, but the thought enters into it. What we have before us in the emblems is a dead Christ. The blood is separate from the body. That is a solemn thing. It is death that is before us, but it is death as the evidence of love. That is what it is.

AFM ^[p. 83] So we recall Him as He is, but feed on Him as having died.

FL I think the Lord’s presentation to John personally helps us in that way. John says, “I became in [the] Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10) and then the Lord presents Himself. “I am the first and the last, and the living one; and I became dead, and behold, I am living to the ages of ages”, Revelation 1:17 - 18. Now as we are in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, He discovers Himself to us as the living One, who was dead, and is alive for ever.

JS Had you any thought of dwelling further on Romans 8?

JT It is the variety of ways in which the Spirit is available to the believer. It says: “ye are not in flesh, but in Spirit, if indeed God’s Spirit dwell in you”. There the believer, as having the Spirit, is entitled to regard himself as in the Spirit. It is a matter of light as to the Spirit.

CAM And a man in that condition would be able to say “When we were in the flesh” (Romans 7:5) as a past thing, would he not?

JT Yes. You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if so be that God’s Spirit dwell in you.

BTF “A man in Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:2) goes further than that?

JT Yes. Here the believer is entitled to regard himself as in the Spirit and not in the flesh. It is a delivering thought. The flesh is a present thing with us and asserts itself, and we are at times baffled, discouraged and dejected, whereas this comes in as a matter of light and comfort. As having the Spirit of God, you are entitled to ever regard yourself as in the Spirit.

WHF Would you call that the divine side?

JT It is the ground the believer is to take, as corresponding with his position ^[p. 84] in Christ.

WLP The Spirit of Christ would be that which is produced in us, I suppose, by the Spirit of God?

JT He characterises you. The Spirit becomes characteristic of you.

FL What we get here is very largely a question of title, while Galatians 5 is more what is worked out subjectively; the fruit of the Spirit. You are entitled to reckon yourself that way.

HC Is this statement, “Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit” true of every believer from God’s side?

JT Every one who has the Spirit of God, and then we have the Spirit of Christ: “If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him” and then, “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin; but the Spirit life on account of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ from among the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit which dwells in you ... . If ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live: for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”. There are the different connections, and it is most important for each believer to see that he has the Spirit and that is power, as indicated here.

ARS What is the difference between “in Spirit” here and in Revelation where John says, “I became in [the] Spirit on the Lord’s day”, Revelation 1:10.

JT There, I think, he is wholly under the control of the Spirit, in a state of blessed abstraction, whereas Romans is light for those who have the Spirit, they are no longer in the flesh. They are thus fortified against the flesh.

ARS What you are saying recalls to me what I heard a great many years ago. Mr. Stoney spoke of standing and state. Now this is standing, ^[p. 85] is it not?

JT No, this is state, only it is presented abstractly. In virtue of the possession of the Holy Spirit you have a state corresponding with your standing. According to chapter 6 I reckon myself alive to God in Christ. That is a reckoning, you see, but then this chapter supports the reckoning, so that in it you find the support of the Spirit and you are entitled to regard that as qualifying you subjectively for the presence of God. This helps one, too, against the inroads of the flesh. I know it helps me. Under all circumstances I hold to this one thought. I know I have the Spirit and, as having the Spirit, I am entitled to regard myself as in the Spirit and not in the flesh. It is a great stay to the heart.

Ques Do you call Romans 8 light?

JT It is light, just as what we get in 2 Kings 4. Elisha represents the light of God. Now Romans 8 is light in regard to the Spirit.

ANW I thought light refers to what is objective.

JT Yes, but you need light as to what is subjective. The widow needed light as to what she had in the house. That is light as to what is in the house, so to speak.

ANW Corresponding with chapter 5, which is objective?

JT I think so. The epistle is divided into two parts, as we know, at chapter 5, and I apprehend that what we get up to that chapter is what has been effected in Christ outside of myself; but I want to know what is “in the house”, what I have. I have the Spirit, and chapter 8 is light as to this. So it is in that way that I am guided. Even the resurrection of the body, the quickening, is by the Spirit in this chapter, whereas the Lord does it elsewhere and God does it. Here it is “on account of his Spirit which dwells in you”.

JC Will you speak of: “If any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him”.

^[p. 86] JT That disqualifies a great many. The question is, Have you the Spirit of Christ? That is how a man is marked off.

Rem You can see it if a man has the Spirit of Christ.

Ques Would Stephen illustrate it? He is spoken of as being full of the Holy Spirit, and at the end of Acts 7 he is marked by the Spirit of Christ.

JT That is very beautiful. You mean that he prayed for his enemies.

AFM You do not unchristianise a man if he has not the Spirit of Christ? You would not say he was not a believer?

JT You do not know. What have you to go by?

AFM No, but he is not of Christ’s order or kind if he has not Christ’s Spirit.

JT It means that he has no part in Christ.

FL The only thing we can go by is fruit. Beyond that we have to leave it. If proud, haughty and pleasure loving, we are checked by this if we profess to be Christians.

AFM There are many weak believers that stumble at that verse and wonder if they are believers at all.

JT It does not refer to such. In this same epistle it says, “him that is weak in the faith receive”, Romans 14:1. One may be weak in the faith and yet a brother; so it does not refer to people like that at all, but to pretentious people with great light and natural intelligence, but not a right spirit.

AAT I once heard you remark that nobody could judge himself unless he had the Spirit.

JT Not rightly and fully without the Spirit of God.

WLP Others have to judge by the fruit if you have the Spirit of Christ.

JT Yes, ^[p. 87] quite.

FL The distinction in the New Translation is important. In the authorised version it is, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his”, but the language rightly should be, “If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him”.

HC Speaking of the Spirit of that Man, Christ, is it the result of formation that is referred to here; as we are formed by the Spirit, the Spirit of that Man comes out. Is that not what this refers to?

JT Yes.