DEMAND AND SUPPLY
[p. 426] DEMAND AND SUPPLY
There are various lights in which it is possible to look at the Scriptures. For instance, one might look at the Old Testament as a book of types and shadows, while the New Testament gives you the substance; or, again, one might look at the Old Testament as the book of demand while the New Testament is the book of supply. All that is demanded in the Old Testament — and every type and shadow was in principle a demand — is answered in the New Testament, hence the latter is the supply. The one is in that way the contrast to the other; and I might take up this thought in all kinds of connection and prove it to you. But I confine myself to two or three points of what I have called demand in the Old Testament, of which you get the supply in the New. The particular points that are before me are very simple: the first is righteousness, the second resurrection, the third is the Spirit, and the fourth the kingdom.
Now it is not difficult to see that these things were demanded in the Old Testament; and the demand lay in the necessities of the purpose of God. The demand was not from man; in the New Testament you find the answer to all. If you take up the Scriptures in that way you will see increasingly the interest that attaches to them.
I hope to show you how the apostle Peter in this chapter gives the answer to every demand that came out in the Old Testament; and the secret of this was in that the kingdom had been established, and that is a point of the greatest moment to every one of us. If we have not an apprehension of the kingdom the defect is serious; but on the other hand, “we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace,
[p. 427] whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear”. We receive an immovable kingdom, a moral kingdom, and the result is that we serve God acceptably and with godly fear. I am now looking at the kingdom in that light, that is, not dispensationally, but morally, and in its effect upon the saints.
Now the testimony of both Peter and Paul is undoubtedly of the kingdom. You find comparatively little about the Church in the Acts, but you get the testimony of the kingdom; the book begins with it and closes with it. It speaks of Paul in the last chapter as “preaching the kingdom of God”. No doubt he took the truth of the kingdom from Peter, though with more light, and all through we find that he preached the kingdom of God. Now in this chapter we have the establishment of the kingdom, and the effect of it. One point of moment is this, whatever is of God’s establishment never grows old; the kingdom of God does not grow old. What is presented to us in this chapter remains in full force unimpaired; it is not affected by the ruin of the Church or the state of Christendom. The truth of the exaltation of Christ, and of the presence of the Holy Spirit here, remains unimpaired, it cannot be affected by anything; and if you go back to these two facts they will still have their proper effect upon you. We have only to come face to face with them for this end.
I do not think that anyone could serve God with reverence and with godly fear who did not apprehend the kingdom; that is the moral sway of God. And the sway of God must be in grace; there is no other possible on the part of God with reference to fallen man. It would be possible, of course, for God to judge man, or destroy him; but the sway of God over man, sinful as he is, must be in grace — any other would be impossible. We are accustomed to far different things in the world; for instance, in this land the rule is one of law, and those who infringe the law of the land [p. 428] have to suffer the penalty of their offence; but in the kingdom of God there is the sway of grace — not law. There is no imputation of sin in grace. Supposing one fails, grace comes in to show the point of departure — that is the way it works. Should there be will at work there may be need of discipline; but there is no imputation. “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin”.
Now I want to make clear the difference between demand and supply. As regards the first point, viz., righteousness. From the beginning to the end of the Old Testament you will find the demand for righteousness. I do not now speak of righteousness in a practical sense, but I refer to the righteousness of God. The law, though witnessing God’s righteousness, was a demand for human righteousness; but in general what marks the Old Testament is the demand for divine righteousness, a demand which was not supplied in Old Testament times. Every sacrifice that was offered to God was in a sense a demand for righteousness; had there been the answer they would not have continued to be offered. In Old Testament times there was not revealed the forgiveness of sins. God saw everything before Him, but there was no such thing revealed as righteousness for man. As I said before, the character of every sacrifice offered to God was a demand for divine righteousness.
Now in the New Testament we find the supply — the blood of Jesus; the great answer to the requirement of the Old Testament is the blood of Jesus; God has set Him forth a mercy-seat through faith in His blood, and in this is declared His righteousness, we have the righteousness of God revealed! It is now no longer a question of sacrifices having a typical force, but of righteousness revealed for faith. As I said, the demand for righteousness is in the Old Testament, so that in result there might be forgiveness of sins, and when you come to the New the demand is answered.
[p. 429] Now the next point of which I spoke was resurrection. You get the demand for resurrection in the Old Testament — Psalm 16, is a demand for resurrection, and not resurrection as a mere act of divine power, but resurrection as that which was the suited answer to a certain course down here in which God was glorified. “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” — undoubtedly that was a foreshadowing of what would come to pass, and thus a demand for resurrection to life. God might have raised men for judgment, but there would have been no life in that. In the New Testament the demand for resurrection is supplied — One went into death who could not be holden of death; and the reason of that was His own perfection. Psalm 16 is the setting forth of the moral perfection of a Man here upon earth, and if He went into death resurrection became a moral necessity. Now you have in Christ the answer to this. He was of course the exception to the universal rule of death in regard to man, but He went into death. Man must die, and he will see corruption; but One has been into death who could not be holden of death — “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses”. He was raised again from the dead in testimony of the power of God.
Now you will, I think, admit that you find the principle of demand and supply in regard to resurrection as to righteousness; there was in the Old Testament the demand for resurrection to set man outside the realm and power of death, and in the New Testament Christ is raised from the dead, for He could not be holden of it.
Now the coming of the Holy Spirit is referred to similarly in the Old Testament, in the nature of a demand. There was no pouring out of the Spirit there; He did come in power upon men, and influenced them. The prophets, for instance, came under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but there was no pouring out of the Spirit. It was foreshadowed there, and was thus in [p. 430] the nature of a demand; it was something to take place in the ways of God, and in the Acts “when the day of Pentecost was fully come”, etc., the supply was furnished. The demand in the Old Testament for the Spirit is instanced in the anointing of the leper, then again in the two wave-loaves presented fifty days after the sheaf of first-fruits. All these implied a demand for the Spirit, and in the Acts you get not only the fulfilment of the shadow, but the promise of the Father, of which the Lord Jesus Himself had spoken to the disciples. They were to wait at Jerusalem until they were “endued with power from on high”, and in one sense, when that had come to pass, there was nothing beyond it.
Now I think it will be admitted that to speak of the Old Testament as a book of demand is just, and that in the New Testament you have the supply. Righteousness is established, resurrection has come to pass, and the Holy Spirit is poured out.
I come now to the kingdom, on which I desired to speak more particularly. There are two points which come out in the Old Testament with regard to the kingdom; the one is that Jehovah dwells in Zion, and the other is that the kingdom is Jehovah’s. David reigned in Zion, but that was not the kingdom of God properly; and Solomon, David’s son, reigned in Jerusalem, but, whatever these might be in the way of types as regards David, or David’s son, it was not the kingdom of God. But how was Jehovah to dwell in Zion? In all that had come to pass in the Old Testament times, in the setting up of the tabernacle, or the building of the temple, there was not realized the idea of Jehovah dwelling in Zion. Then again, how was David’s kingdom to be the kingdom of Jehovah? How this can be is the enigma that the Lord proposed to the Jews when they came tempting Him — how could David’s Lord be David’s Son? And the truth of the matter is, that David’s Lord is David’s Son, and David’s Son, on the other hand, is David’s Lord; it is because David’s Lord has become David’s Son that Jehovah can dwell in Zion. Christ is the root and offspring of David, and thus while He sits on the throne of His father David the kingdom is Jehovah’s.
Now that is part of what I have called the demand of the Old Testament — a demand for Jehovah’s kingdom, and for Jehovah to dwell in Zion; a demand which was not fulfilled in Old Testament times, nor is fully realised yet. But one part is fulfilled, and that is, the kingdom is Jehovah’s: I could not speak of Jehovah dwelling as yet in Zion; in this the Old Testament looks forward to the millennium, but in the New Testament we find everything in principle fulfilled. Righteousness revealed in the blood of Jesus; resurrection come to pass, because of the moral perfection in which Christ went into death, and the Spirit poured out; then, too, the kingdom is established in the fact of Christ being set as Lord at the right hand of God, and the Spirit being down here.
Now just put these two things together — the demand and the supply. I want you to study the Old Testament in that light, to see what was necessary for the glory of God, and to apprehend not only the demand, but the supply in the presence of Christ at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit down here. I desire that you might see the effect of the kingdom of God in its application to us; for though the kingdom is not yet manifest, and is spoken of as in mystery, yet, for all that, the kingdom subsists, and the witnesses to it are Christ at the right hand of God, and the Spirit down here — that is what was announced on the day of Pentecost.
What I want to make clear is that the kingdom of God is a reality; it is not in word, but in power. People fail, I think, to apprehend that — Christendom does not apprehend the kingdom of God in what I might call its moral force. The kingdom of God is [p. 432] likened to a mustard tree, conspicuous in the eyes of men, but I do not see power in that thought; what I see there is corruption, not power. Shelter there may be, perhaps, but not power. But in the kingdom of God, in its moral characteristics, power is present — Christ is at the right hand of God in the place of supreme authority, and grace reigning there — the One who is supreme in the kingdom is the very One who died for our sins. Christ at the right hand of God is the witness that God’s righteousness is declared, and in going to Him, I am conscious of going to the One who has established righteousness, I approach boldly to the throne of grace to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Now the effect of grace reigning is that we even dare to look at righteousness — we do not shrink from this. There never was a man in the world who could look at righteousness until he knew grace. You never saw a man as such walk in self-judgment, and it is only as I learn that in the righteousness of God I am justified, that I can touch righteousness; I disallow what God has disallowed, and now being made free from sin, and having become a servant to God, I have my fruit unto holiness. A man who is in the pursuit of righteousness — who is seeking to maintain his own righteousness, cannot maintain it; but a Christian who is under grace can walk in self-judgment, and the sway of grace through righteousness leads to eternal life, and all is “through Jesus Christ our Lord”. The gain of the kingdom is immense — God has no other attitude towards us than grace. Then you are taught by grace — the grace of God “hath appeared, ... teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world”. A soul that is under the sway of grace accepts the teaching of grace, and it is taught to look for that blessed hope “and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ”. The kingdom is very great gain.
[p. 433] But I return to the thought that the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. There is supreme authority at the right hand of God, but there is also power equal to that authority down here, and that is the Holy Spirit; so that the kingdom of God is not eating or drinking, but “righteousness, peace, and joy in [the power of] the Holy Spirit”, and it is important to see the mighty power that is maintaining righteousness, peace, and joy in a scene of sin and restlessness, of death and of sorrow. There is no peace in a world of sin and death, and death must bring sorrow in its train, but in contrast to all that, the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the power of the Holy Spirit; so that the kingdom is not in word, but in power. The kingdom of God is established in the soul of the believer in the power of the Holy Spirit; and righteousness, peace, and joy are the characteristics of the kingdom. It is an immense mercy in the midst of this world of turmoil to enjoy peace; to be delivered, too, from the sway of sin in the knowledge of righteousness, and in the midst of a scene of sorrow to know joy that will never fail you. The greatest force in the world could not bring this about. For this you need a power completely superior to every pressure here upon earth. For the establishment of the kingdom you must have supreme authority at the right hand of God — authority in grace too. There may, of course, be a measure of discipline connected with it, but, at the same time, it is authority acting in grace; and with that, divine power here upon earth — a power commensurate with the authority that is at the right hand of God.
I thank God for the grace in which His word has made one’s soul acquainted with principles which otherwise one could not have known anything of — such as righteousness, and love, and grace. Do you think a man of the world, or even a philosopher, knows anything at all about such principles? Why, he would [p. 434] scoff at the idea of peace, or goodness, of righteousness, and of love as of God. The plan on which he goes is to take the best of what he can find here intellectually, and to make the most of that. But the truth of God makes known to me beautiful, holy principles which I never could have known apart from God. Nothing that is in the world can touch these things; they are established in power superior to every force that is here, and thus the kingdom of God is maintained.
Now I just call attention to one or two verses in this chapter (Acts 2: 40 - 43); and what I would say is that these principles remain unimpaired. The demand for separation — “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” — is as urgent as ever it was. But you may say, Is not the world a Christian world? I admit that, but for all that there is an “untoward generation”, and hence the demand for separation morally is as forcible as ever it was; one cannot go on in the life of this world, we are separated from it by the waters of baptism. I no more have part in the Christianity of this world than in Judaism, or even in heathenism; the principles of these things find their place in the Christianity of today, and baptism separates me from them, I am identified with the death of Christ, and accept the obligation to separation from all that is of the world down here. I could not stop in these things to help them; the principle is, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation”. If we look around and see a generation governed by the principles of this world, it is to us an untoward generation. If you are governed by the love of Christ, you will be content to be identified with His death.
There is another point that I would like to bring before you from verse 42, “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”. What I point out is that all these things are unimpaired. We have not got apostles living today, but for all that we can continue in the apostles’ doctrine; and do not take that second-hand — take it first-hand. The great systems on earth would have you take it second-hand, but that means the ignoring of the Spirit of truth. Then those who believed did not accept the doctrine and refuse the apostles; they continued in their fellowship, so as to be not only in the light of the truth, but in the fellowship of those who ministered the truth. So we, too, have to see to it that being in the light of the truth, we are also in the fellowship that is formed on the truth. This scripture leaves no room for those who would accept the doctrine, but not have the fellowship, though reproach may be connected with this.
Then, as to the coming together of saints, two things are mentioned, the breaking of bread, and prayers; these two things are recognised as special occasions of our coming together. The doctrine of the apostles, and their fellowship, have not reference exactly to our coming together; the first is not a question of meeting at all; and the second, though a question of fellowship, does not speak of coming together — we continue in the doctrine and fellowship always, but we come together to break bread, and in prayers. Both these are collective; and then we read “fear came upon every soul”.
Peter was the great apostle of the kingdom; he was the first to announce it. The burden of his testimony was Christ at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit come here; and the benefits and effect of the Spirit’s presence were for those who apprehended these things. Those who received the kingdom were in peace and in power. Then they accepted separation, and, having accepted it, they went on in the doctrine of the apostles and in the fellowship formed on the truth, and at the same time in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. I should not care for a fellowship based upon unity of mind and judgment, such as would be required by some particular system of doctrine or interpretation. Of course unity of mind and [p. 436] judgment is important, but any basis of fellowship apart from the acceptance of the apostles’ doctrine would be too narrow. What one looks for now is a fellowship in which there is not resistance of the truth. It may be that every soul is not in the full light of it, but it is not refused. I doubt if all the three thousand who believed were in the full light of the apostles’ doctrine, but at the same time it was there.
Now I would again press that every great principle in this chapter remains unimpaired. The Holy Spirit is here, and the kingdom established, and I know of no reason why we should not have all that properly lies in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The point is to get back to first principles — not to be governed by what is around, and not to be confusing these principles with what is around, but to get back in soul to what was from the beginning, and for this you must begin with separation.