THE KINGDOM OF GOD (1)
[p. 15] THE KINGDOM OF GOD (1)
Romans 1:1 - 7; Romans 5:1-5; Romans 5:20,21; Exodus 19:1 - 6
JT It is thought well to look into the subject of the kingdom of God. It may seem odd that in connection with the kingdom of God we should read from a book that mentions it formally only once — in chapter 14. References to the kingdom in the epistles as compared with the gospels are very few, but this apparent difficulty is because the epistles treat directly of the kingdom of God as it is in its present form, and that the thing exists, whereas the gospels contemplate it as in the future; that is yet to come. The Lord taught the disciples to pray, saying “... thy kingdom come”, Luke 11:3; and He preached that the kingdom of the heavens was at hand, Matthew 4:17 Later however, He told the Jews that the kingdom of God was in the midst of them, Luke 17:21; but this alluded to His own presence there. But the epistles, as was remarked, contemplate it as existent in the saints, Christ being in heaven and the Holy Spirit being on earth. That is the reason, it is thought, for the paucity of the mention of the kingdom in the epistles: that it actually exists, not only in Christ but also in the saints; not in name only but in substance and character, Christ being in heaven and the Holy Spirit being on earth. In no scripture is it more treated of than in Romans, and that is why these three scriptures in that epistle were read. Chapter 1 brings in the King Himself; that is, from the standpoint of His relations with David. In this sense it corresponds with Matthew, for Matthew begins with Him in this relation: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”. (Matthew 1:1). And when we come to the genealogy David is mentioned as “the king”. Romans speaks of Christ’s identification with David: “... come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the [p. 16] Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead”, verses 3, 4. So that His kingship is implied — the Son is King — which is according to Psalm 2; and then the epistle treats of the principles of the kingdom. In chapter 14 the kingdom of God is mentioned to bring out its characteristics — “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. In the early part of the book the principles of the kingdom are in mind. Much more is in mind than indicated in what has been read, so that we may need another reading on this book. It is thought now that practicalness of the thing should be seen, and that is worked out in the early part both as to sins and sin; how the principles of the kingdom are resolved — how sin and righteousness are resolved — making way for the Holy Spirit. And we shall do well, I think, to confine ourselves as much as possible to the initial thoughts indicated, especially as to the principles; for it is in these that we are defective.
ANW Will you link that with the verse in Exodus?
JT The working out of the kingdom in Exodus is, in principle the same as it is in Romans. The kingdom is assumed to be there in chapter 19. It is indeed assumed in chapter 15 where we have the celebration of victory in the overthrow of the Egyptians. Jehovah is formally alluded to as King there, but the song involves the kingdom; the effect of it is in what God had done. He was a Man of war and what He had done is brought out. War is waged. It needed to be waged, so as to reach the ground of the kingdom. We are out of Egypt, and then the kingdom is seen in the song, and in chapter 19 God says, “Ye have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, [p. 18] and how I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself”; and then He speaks of what His proposals are: much as to principle in the covenant and what follows, involving obedience. The whole point in the initial features is the question of [p. 17] obedience; and that greatly enters into our circumstances in this day and generally too.
DR You spoke of the help it might be to the young to consider this subject. Is it not remarkable that they are only three months out of Egypt when God proposes this to Israel?
JT That brings up the question of time, which is carefully observed in the types; whereas, in the New Testament time is not a prime matter; that is, the formal mention of it. It is remarkable how few actual dates are given; so that the idea would be that we are to know that the things mentioned have happened; not when a certain thing happened, but that it has happened. In Matthew and Luke, following the Old Testament, there are dates relative to the birth of the Lord and the beginning of His ministry, these being based on the lives of certain officials, but in the other gospels and the Acts and epistles there is very little said as to time.
RWS Do I understand there is a state amongst us, which at this time requires this ministry of the kingdom?
JT Well, it has been inferred that there is such a state — a state of disobedience, especially in the young, and in some of the sisters. But that will have to come up in time. You can see in the types how formally it was stated. The time is given; the third month after they came out of Egypt. They had departed from Rephidim, that is, after the incoming of the Spirit typically. They came to the wilderness of Sinai, which is to be heard of later, because the law is given there. They encamped in the wilderness, meaning they are taking up a position suitable for the moment. “And Israel encamped there before the mountain”, (Exodus 19: 2.) These things are to be noted. “And Moses went up to God, and Jehovah called to him out of the mountain, saying. Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I have done to the Egyptians,
and how I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. And now, if ye will hearken to my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then shall ye be my own possession out of all the peoples — for all the earth is mine — and ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shall speak to the children of Israel”, verses 3 - 6. Then, of course, we know what follows. The people profess to be obedient and God goes on with them on that principle. So it is always: if He is to go on with us there must be something in the nature of a covenant or agreement, or, as it were, a vow, a profession of fealty to God. I think all this is very important to keep before us.
CAM You referred earlier to the King Himself, as seen in Romans 1; there is an expression in 1 Timothy, “King of the ages”, alluding to God Himself. How would you connect that with the subject in hand?
JT I expect that will need to be in the last reading!
CAM That is a long way ahead.
JT Do you not think yourself it should be put off?
CAM Well that impresses me with the fact that the passage is a very wonderful feature of our subject.
JT Quite so; but the reference you make to king-ship in Romans 1 is to be carried forward, because of the relation with David; “... come of David’s seed according to flesh”, meaning the line is there from that point of view. The line is to be set up in this Person. And then it says, “... marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”. The King is equal to the position. He is a divine Person, but a divine Person in sonship; in that relation He is King. But it is a question now of the kingdom in its present form and, therefore, it is not Jesus Christ our King, but Jesus Christ “our Lord”. There are those who own Him to be that; not simply that God says He is that, but He is owned to be that — our Lord. That is the profession every one of us should [p. 19] make, and when we are converted we do make it. We confess “Jesus as Lord”.
AR In Acts 2 Peter says God has made Him Lord and Christ.
JT That is what God has done, and then the Spirit has come down. “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”, (Acts 2:33.) That is the establishment of the kingdom here on earth, because the Person here on earth is equally divine. He is equal with the Lord in heaven.
CN The disciples asked the Lord, “Is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” His answer was, “It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority; but ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you”. Does that indicate how the kingdom is set up at the present time?
JT Yes. The stress is laid, as you have often observed, on the Spirit. The disciples wanted to know about the kingdom, whether it should be restored to Israel. They would be thinking just of what had been before; that is, in David and others. But the Lord’s word is, as seen here, “It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority; but ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you”, (Acts 1:7,8.) That is the point. They might have questioned the Lord and said. Well, we want to know definitely. We often hear such questions in readings, whereas it is not always wise to break things up. The Lord did not break up the subject that they introduced. He said that it is the Father’s matter. He could have said to them. You are thinking of yourselves and your own kingdom; whereas there is something else. It is a universal matter; the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of Israel. That is what is before [p. 20] us now.
ANW In that way, is “Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness” over against David’s seed “according to flesh”? Is that how it stands in Romans 1?
JT Just so. It brings in holiness; no doubt to lay the basis for the truth of the Son of God. He was “the holy one of God”, according to Peter’s confession of Him in John 6, which implies that He was the High Priest. And now it is the Spirit of holiness, which involves the service of God, opened up in Hebrews.
AR In Exodus 19 it is a kingdom of priests.
JT Just so. That was God’s thought. He told Moses to say to Pharaoh, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”, showing how these thoughts were in God’s heart, but we do not get everything at once. Things have to be deferred often, and that enters into what the Lord said to the disciples in Acts 1, but He added, “But ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”, verse 8. The point is “my witnesses”; not your kingdom, nor the kingdom restored to Israel, but what the Lord Jesus will do; what He is to say; what is to be said about Him. Therefore, our epistle reads, “Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to God’s glad tidings, (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings,) concerning his Son” — concerning Jesus; that is the point, and the disciples should start with that.
Question. Would the features of the kingdom come to light now in persons who are subject to the Spirit?
JT Yes; but that will come up in the first passage read in chapter 5. Before it we must consider the question as to obedience, “... for obedience of faith among all the nations, among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ” — the kind of obedience, the [p. 21] obedience of faith; not what will accrue from the millennial testimony. That will be a question of sight, but now it is obedience of faith.
ABP Do the principles of the kingdom apply to our every sphere and relationship of life?
JT I think so; that, I hope, will come out. As we open up the hortatory part of the epistle I think we shall see that the various spheres of responsibility are in mind. There is one thing one might say, and that is that the household position is not raised much in Romans, although the basis for it is there.
ANW How does the kingdom authority stand in relation to assembly authority?
JT I would say that really belongs to Corinthians. I believe we shall find that that is the way the truth stands there — how the kingdom affects the assembly. The assembly is the prominent thought. The kingdom is subservient to that, as we shall see in the Corinthian epistles. We hardly get the assembly in this epistle, except in the end where it is spoken of as a mystery. The assembly is just touched on. Otherwise it is only seen in chapter 12; as in the sense of “one body in Christ”; it is not exactly the body of Christ; the “one body” is seen later.
FSC Would there be a difference between what Paul preached in Damascus and what he preached in Rome? He preached in Damascus directly that Jesus is the Son of God.
JT He was not under commission then, although in Galatians he says, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”, chapter 1:16. That agrees with what he preached at Damascus, but you can hardly say he was under commission until he and Barnabas set out from Antioch as seen in Acts 13. But as we have said, his preaching in Damascus was in accord with his epistle to [p. 22] the Romans.
JTJr Is he a model subject of the kingdom in that he alludes to his bondmanship?
JT Just so. It shows it marked himself. The word ‘bondman’ conveys not simply a servant, but a slave.
AAT Obedience of faith in Romans: I can understand that in connection with the initial work of God in a soul, but do you apply it all through one’s life?
JT Certainly. Faith must run right through until the time of sight comes, which is after we are raised from the dead; when we are raised from the dead literally. Even resurrection in a spiritual sense is on the principle of faith in Colossians: “raised ... through faith of the working of God”, (Colossians 2:12.) So that the time of faith does not cease until we are raised from the dead literally. It is a faith period, and so in the beginning of Acts it is said that the disciples saw the Lord go up: “And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight”, verse 9. That is the beginning of the faith period. It is not sight any more; I mean literal sight: “they beholding him”; He is taken out of their sight. Now He is seen by faith. It is on the principle of faith by the Spirit.
JW Do you think Romans 16 gives a list of persons marked by obedience of faith? Paul says, “For your obedience has reached to all”, verse 19.
JT Yes. And so here his apostleship was for “obedience of faith among all the nations, among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ”, (Romans 1:5, 6.) This implied that the Romans had faith. They are addressed as already having faith, and hence in the kingdom. Now, you are quoting chapter 16: “For your obedience has reached to all”. That was a prime point; the thing existed that he was preaching. He is, therefore, simply opening up what exists in the principles of the kingdom.
DR What place has the Spirit in relation to this [p. 23] obedience? The Spirit is given to all that obey Him. What relation has that with the kingdom?
JT That leads to chapter 5. If the brethren are clear we will pass on to that chapter: “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us”, verse 5. It is a present thing. But it has to be understood. The epistle is to enlarge on what already existed. The kingdom was a real thing at Rome, but every item of it is enlarged on in this epistle.
AR “No one can say. Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, (1 Corinthians 12:3.) Is that the same idea?
JT That is the same idea only it is connected with the assembly in Corinthians.
FHL Are you considering this thought of obedience as to the King Himself? Psalm 45 brings out evidences of this.
JT Quite so. “He is thy Lord, and worship thou him”. We are not only to be subject to Him, but to worship Him.
FHL I was wondering if these features of obedience of the bondman take character from the Head of the kingdom. Are we to carry that in mind throughout?
JT I am sure that is true. Headship is worked out of what is exemplary. The Lord Himself was a bondman, and we learn bondmanship from Him, but I would say it is in the sense in which He is exemplary of the divine traits. So that it says, for instance, in chapter 15: “But we ought, we that are strong, to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbour with a view to what is good, to edification. For the Christ also did not please himself; but according as it is written. The reproaches of them that reproach thee have fallen upon me”, verses 1 - 3. That is the way we arrive at headship — what is exemplary in Christ, in me. Viewed as Man He is the subject One. He exemplifies subjection. He leads in [p. 24] it.
DR Is Peter speaking of this feature of the kingdom when he says the saints are elect by sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 1:2?
JT Quite so; it supports what we are saying. Now, before we get to the idea of the Spirit in chapter 5, we have to touch a little on righteousness, as leading in the principles of the kingdom; how the matter of righteousness is worked out. In the kingdom we have the solution of moral things and righteousness stands first as we see in chapter 14, as already noted. It is introduced in Genesis, and it is carried through here in Abraham and David. They are exemplary of this point and hence the whole matter of the gospel comes up in chapters 3 and 4, because it is a question of the solution of things; how the thing is verified in the kingdom and is enforced too, in power. It is seen by example; seen in Abraham and David, and now in the Roman Christians. They themselves are examples of it.
CAM Would it be right to ask now about the moral questions you alluded to — the matter of sins and sin?
JT Yes; they are involved in the principles of the kingdom. We have already touched on righteousness. We have it in chapter 1. Paul says there, “I am not ashamed of the glad tidings; for it is God’s power to salvation, to every one that believes, both to Jew first and to Greek: for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the principle of faith, to faith: according as it is written. But the just shall live by faith”, verses 16,17. Here the great principle of faith is brought up, known and witnessed to in the Old Testament. It is brought forward from Habakkuk: “The just shall live by his faith”, (Habakkuk 2:4.) Salvation is bound up with righteousness by faith, all working out in the glad tidings. Righteousness is revealed in the glad tidings. Wrath of God is also revealed — not in the glad tidings, but from heaven. We have to stop to think of those things. Chapter 2 is the [p. 25] question of man. That has to be touched on. “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, every one who judgest, for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things”, verse 1. In this chapter we have some light as to man; the race, not the Jews. It is, “O man”. They were given up to judging one another. The Greeks, for instance, became critics of the whole race and others were barbarians. All bears on the subject of the kingdom. This question of man is a matter of importance, because we have to preach it. We belong to the human race. We are not Jews. We are apt to be as natural men, given to judgment of one another; hateful and hating one another. The kingdom of God meets these conditions. The next thing is the question of righteousness; how every man is brought in guilty; the matter is solved in part in every one being brought in guilty.
ABP Do the glad tidings bring in a totally different character of righteousness, the righteousness of God being something entirely new, in the glad tidings?
JT Yes. And so the point of righteousness taken up in chapter 3 is after the Jew is brought in. We have, “If thou art named a Jew”, chapter 2:17. And in verse 29 we are told who the true Jew is. And in chapter 3 we have the enquiry, “What then is the superiority of the Jew?” That is a question to be touched on, too. It is important because the Jew has been thrust into peculiar prominence among the nations lately. In chapter 3 he is with every man brought in guilty before God. This makes way for the gospel, thus 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”, (Romans 3:21, 22.) So that this is the prime fundamental of the gospel — how this is effected. It is being resolved — the question of this kind of righteousness.
RWS Why is it ‘of’? It is not by faith in Jesus Christ, but by faith of Jesus Christ.
JT It is that kind of faith; the believer being in that. The faith is linked up with Jesus Christ. It is through faith in His blood. That is, the blood is an object of faith.
CAM In that way, our side of the faith question is dealt with more in the next chapter, is it not?
JT That is right, because in Abraham and David we come to the thing worked out, but in chapter 3 it is set out from God’s side, but the element of faith must be interwoven in the matter.
CAM Would you say another word as to the righteousness of God? It is one of the main thoughts that God has resolved this question of righteousness Himself.
JT That is right. It begins in verse 21. It can be said in the millennium that a person acquires righteousness and salvation just through Christ, without saying anything about the faith of Jesus Christ. That word ‘of’ and the faith connected with it is a feature of our dispensation. It makes much of our dispensation that this is stressed. This book especially brings that out; what this dispensation is, and how different it is even from the coming one. You have these ‘ofs’ and ‘ins’ to stress the element of faith, hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, but it is there, and now it is mentioned constantly in these chapters.
CN In the early chapters of Acts the teachings of the apostles constantly refer to the position of the Lord Jesus Christ and the things that were received and done in His name and by His name. Is that helpful?
JT Just so. “... The faith which is by him”, for instance.
AR It is faith in the blood; the fact that God has accepted the blood of Christ is the basis of all?
JT Well, yes; and then, where the blood is. Therefore, the types help us. It is not only the blood but [p. 27] where it is. And, therefore, we have the word ‘mercy-seat’ alluding to the position of the ark in the tabernacle. We are directed, in the reference to the mercy-seat, back to Exodus, and that God had in His mind the position of the blood; not simply that Christ shed it when the spear-pierced His side, but the blood was put in a certain place. The tabernacle helps us in that sense. The blood was shed at the cross without any thought where it was, but from God’s side the thing must be in a certain place. As it were, that precious blood will not be allowed to be spilled on the earth.
ANW You have led us along from chapters 1, 2 and 3. Is it at that point God comes in and resorts to His own rights in mercy?
JT Yes. In Exodus God is saying that He has taken account of what men of faith, as seen in Genesis, did toward Him; what they did in the way of offerings and worship. But in Exodus He is saying. All are to know that I have My own thoughts about these matters, and these must henceforth govern My service, hence the elaborate instructions of the typical books. In these the blood of the offerings is placed in a certain position. This entered into the service of the priesthood. In the early services in Exodus the blood of the sacrifices was put in vessels, as in chapters 12 and 24. This evidently implied a general principle. Thus when our Lord’s precious blood was shed this principle would apply; heaven cared for it. The priestly instruction of the New Testament takes infinite care of it — “precious blood ... the blood of Christ”.
AR I always thought that Romans 3:25 linked on with Leviticus 16 — the day of atonement.
JT It does link with it; it is the antitype of it. The blood was sprinkled upon the mercy-seat and seven times before the mercy-seat — sprinkled on it and before it.
AR There could be no gospel preaching without the blood being sprinkled before God.
JT [p. 28] That is how the importance of the types comes in and how important it is to read them. We come to the mercy-seat here and it is in the resolution of this question of righteousness. So we have, “... for the shewing forth of his righteousness, in respect of the passing by the sins that had taken place before, through the forbearance of God”, verse 25. These words are all to be noted carefully. “For the shewing forth of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just, and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus”. There you have the ‘of’ again, showing faith is stressed, but the kind of faith, and how righteousness is linked with it. It says in the end of chapter 4, referring to the types, “Now it was not written on his account alone that it was reckoned to him, but on ours also, to whom, believing on him who has raised from among the dead Jesus our Lord, who has been delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification, it will be reckoned”, verse 23 - 25. Not only do we have the mercy-seat but the resurrection of Jesus. We must come to that for the resolution of righteousness. It is a question of imputation; that is, this kind of righteousness — imputed righteousness. It is imputed to us, it says, at the end of verse 24; that is, by believing. The apostle is stressing that: “To whom, believing on him who has raised from among the dead Jesus our Lord, who has been delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification, it will be reckoned”.
AR Would you say a word about being raised for our justification?
J T It is to touch us, I think; as if wholly for us. Of course, it will be applied later to others, but it is for our justification.
DP Would it be right to say that every tenet of the truth that you have been speaking of should be held in the mind of the believer and carried forward?
JT Yes. Carrying forward the truth, as learned, is most important. How shall we ever learn this book if [p. 29] we do not? It is cumulative. We have to come to that side here to get the word ‘our’. It is a very precious thing to have it, too.
JTJr Do we not have to learn the constitution of the kingdom in that way?
JT That is a good word to bring in at this time. I suppose it applies to any kingdom, but here we are not alluding to what happened in the revolution in this country when a nation was born in a day. The kingdom is already established here. It is known and realised to be established. But its principles and moral bearing are being unfolded here. So that we will suppose that refugees from eastern Europe land in this country (as they once did, in hundreds of thousands) and seek citizenship. The officials would raise the question as to the constitution. If they are to be citizens here, they must be instructed in the constitution of this country. That is the idea in this epistle. Believers are obligated to become instructed in the kingdom of God — the varied features of it.
ABP Is that the setting in Exodus 19?
JT Yes. When Israel set themselves down before the mount they virtually said. We are here now to learn and obey, and God says, I am ready to teach you. And we know how much there is to be learned in that book.
JAP Where does the law — the ten commandments — come in, in connection with the constitution?
JT They come in immediately. “But now without law righteousness of God is manifested”. That is stated in Romans 3. You do not need the law for justification, but the chapter does not open up what the law is. We learn that later. But we do not need it for justification. The early part of the chapter, however, tells that the Jews had a great advantage in being entrusted with the oracles of God, and verse 20 says that, “by law is knowledge of sin”. We shall need all this when we come to chapter 7. It will come up there in full; but we must [p. 30] bear in mind that justification is without the law, as we have said.
ABP Speaking practically, when we commit ourselves to fellowship and break bread, are we, in a sense, committing ourselves to covenant?
JT I think that is the way it worked out in the types. The people undertook to carry out what God would say. He made His proposals to them in the passage read in Exodus 19; what great advantages there would be for them: a kingdom of priests; a holy nation. But then they were brought to God; Jehovah says, ‘I brought you to Myself’; but the mediator brings them out of the camp to meet God. He brought them out to meet with God; that is, as it were, officially. Here there was formal distance. But at first Jehovah says He had borne them on eagles’ wings and brought them to Himself. That is another matter. But as brought to Him through the mediator there was awe and distance.
RM John says, “To him who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father”, (Revelation 1:5, 6).
JT That is another thing. He has made us a kingdom. It is not the kingdom there. We have also other expressions such as that. That is not what we are dealing with. That is not the kingdom of God. It is what we are. He has made us a kingdom. But there is a good deal in that that has to be learned. What do you say about it?
RM What you say helps me; we are the kingdom there.
JT “And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father”. It is not a kingdom of priests. In chapter 5:10 you have ‘kings’. The point in chapter 1 is that He has made us a kingdom, priests to His God. That would mean that we are able to deal with things on the principle of authority. This would enter into our care [p. 31] meetings.
JS Do the first four chapters of Romans clear the position so that we can be built up in the faith system?
JT The question of righteousness through faith is brought out in chapters 3 and 4, and then the consequences in the blessed possession of the Spirit. He recapitulates, you might say, in the beginning of the chapter. That word ‘therefore’ is to be noted. “Therefore having been justified”. It is a settled matter. “Therefore having been justified on the principle of faith, we have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom we have also access by faith into this favour in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also boast in tribulations, knowing that tribulation works endurance; and endurance, experience; and experience, hope; and hope does not make ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us”, verses 1 - 5. That is where all the “Amens” will come in, in this subject. All the “Amens” to God’s overtures will be through the Spirit. He will work in our hearts, so that we might celebrate, which is what they did in Exodus 15: “Jehovah is a man of war; ... Thy right hand, Jehovah, is become glorious in power”.
RWS Is it right to say that obedience and righteousness are principles received into the soul by faith? Faith takes them on as light, but when it comes to the love of God it requires more than faith — a divine Person.
JT Yes. The Holy Spirit. That is the greatest thing we can have before us. He is not greater than Christ, but as great. Abstractly, divine Persons are equal. The Lord received the authority above and the power is in the Spirit down here where it is needed.
AR The Holy Spirit operating in our hearts keeps them subject.
DR Is it the heart with the love of God shed abroad in it by the Holy Spirit that God speaks of in Deuteronomy? “Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments continually, that it might be well with them and with their sons for ever!” chapter 5:29.
JT Yes. He purposed such a heart for them, and He says in Ezekiel that He is going to give it to them. That is the thing here. The power is the Holy Spirit in it, the love of God shed abroad there by the Spirit. That is the kind of heart the Christian has. It implies new birth, as seen in John 3.
RWS Is the love of God another item in the kingdom?
JT That is what is meant, involving joy in the Holy Spirit. It is what the believer needs in his heart to make him a real man according to God, in view of the assembly.
CAM When it speaks of the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, is it right to look at that as objective, or subjective, or both?
JT It is subjective; but what is stressed is what is in your heart. The Holy Spirit has put it there. It is a wonderful fact that God is so caring for us that He has deputed such a Person, as a Person in the Deity, to put that love in our hearts.
CAM It is so marvellous that I asked the question on that account. The formation in the Christian at this stage seems hardly equal to the immensity of the thing.
JT God is giving us the greatest thing where it is needed, and it is needed that we speak of it thus in connection with the closing verses that we read — the last two verses of this chapter. It requires the Spirit to touch our hearts so that we might apprehend the idea of the throne, that grace is on the throne; not the Spirit on the throne, but grace; not a person, but a thing, an element. That is worthy of consideration. We have come to the end of our subject for this time, but that is the idea in these two verses, that grace is on the throne.
CAM If you find a person who does not have [p. 33] the Spirit or any features of the Spirit, he has no peace with God in his soul.
JT He needs grace; he needs to understand that grace reigns. It is not judgment that is on the throne; it is not even mercy on the throne; it is grace. It is an element in God and in the saints too; but it is an element that the Holy Spirit operates in here that overcomes every possible difficulty in the exercised human mind and conscience.
ANW Grace is allied with righteousness. Grace reigns through righteousness. That is wonderful!
EMcK Is it peculiar to the Spirit’s day?
JT It is. We are not dealing with the millennium. We are dealing with the present dispensation, and God would have us honour it and see how magnificent it is. Grace is on the throne; not righteousness. Righteousness is an accompanying thing, as just remarked. It makes it effective. Without it you could not have grace reigning.
Question. Would you say that this last verse is a reference to the kingdom of heaven as referred to in the gospels?
JT Well, we will come to that. The kingdom of heaven is a term proper to Matthew. It is a question of the rule of heaven. This is not just that. This is the rule of grace. We are not under law, but under grace. That is what this book tells us.
AR It does not speak about grace reigning in the millennium.
JT No; quite so.
TM Does grace bring about the propitiousness of the present moment?
JT Yes. That is a rich suggestion.
RWS The abundance of these matters you mentioned — the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, and then the over-abounding of grace — is it not to indicate to us that these kingdom blessings are not rationed or limited for [p. 34] us?
JT That is right. I think we really learn the Christian outlook properly in Paul, and thus we are to follow Paul: “Paul and his company”. We want that thought in our minds. We are not ignoring Peter nor the eleven, but the Spirit notes Paul and his company. That is. God has helped on to his line at this juncture in the testimony. This epistle contemplates all that preceded it through the twelve, but now Paul has taken the matter on, and we get completeness. He completes the word of God.
JAP Does the Lord Jesus exemplify what you are saying as to the use of words? It says of Him, “And all bore witness to him, and wondered at the words of grace which were coming out of his mouth” (Luke 4:22).
JT Yes. It is not simply ‘words’, but “words of grace” That is the point there.
JHE Would John help? “For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”, (John 1:17).
JT Just so; grace by itself is what we need first. Truth, of course, is necessary. Truth is never said to be on the throne, nor mercy, nor righteousness. It is grace. One wonders how much it is understood.
RWS Would you just distinguish between grace and mercy? I get a sense that I do not deserve mercy. I do not merit it, but still that would apply to grace too, would it not?
JT We have to distinguish between them. They are not synonyms. Mercy is sovereign. The idea of sovereign grace is hardly scriptural. Mercy is the word that should be used in dealing with sovereignty on these lines. “But according to his own mercy he saved us”, (Titus 3:5.) “Saved by grace” is how the thing is done, but it is according to His mercy. That is. God acts sovereignly. You have no merits at all; you have no claims at all. Your conduct renders you utterly unfit for any clemency on God’s part. Grace comes in there as operational. Grace can take you up, whatever your [p. 35] conduct has been. Grace can take you up and bring you into the divine thought. Grace is operational; mercy is hardly that. Grace can work notwithstanding the worst conduct or conditions that anyone can have. So with Paul; he was an insolent overbearing man, but mercy was shown him and in due course grace became operational in his case. It is a longer story. Grace involves a longer story and, therefore, it is largely the theme of the gospel.
AR Are the acts of the good Samaritan grace?
JT I would think so. That is on the service side; and he had what was needed.
AR He came to where he was.
JT Just so; he had what was needed to meet his case.
ABP Does it not say, “He that shewed him mercy”, Luke 10:37?
JT Well, that must be there as the motive underlying the action. That is an element that must be there in the operations of grace.
DR The Scripture says, “... who before was a blasphemer and persecutor, and an insolent overbearing man: but mercy was shewn me because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief. But the grace of our Lord surpassingly over-abounded with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus”, (1 Timothy 1:13, 14).
JT That helps us greatly.
CAM Would it be right to say that one principal thought in relation to mercy is the terrible condition of need, and grace emphasises the gloriousness and blessing in view of which it will operate?
JT Yes. It is a slower process. Grace undertakes to do what mercy proposes — in spite of the adverse conditions.
RDG Was it not really grace in which David moved when he said, “Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” (2 [p. 36] Samuel 9: 1).
JT Quite so. Grace effected all.
ANW Mercy seems to be linked with a seat; there is a mercy-seat, but grace seems to have a throne in mind. Grace reigns.
JT Yes. The throne lends authority.
EMcK Do the operations come out in Luke 4, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”, verse 18?
JT Yes. It shows how the anointed One would work. Grace involves application — how need is met. Mercy is behind it. The anointing represents grace. It is the operational side that has to be borne in mind. The gospels are full of it — how the thing was done; in spite of adverse conditions the need is met.
JHE Paul sums his case up: “But by God’s grace I am what I am”, (1 Corinthians 15:10).