Heavenly Position and Portion: Review of Pamphlets on Christian Standing and Condition
Alexander Craven Ord
Table of Contents
Introductory Remarks
Having been asked to put in writing comments which had been made on the pamphlet, entitled, “Christian Standing and Condition,” {by C. E. Stuart} I have reluctantly consented to do so. Many considerations would have made me prefer to keep silence. Feelings of deep regard and friendship for the author. The thought, too, that he has been in some instances charged with what he did not hold through a want of due care and consideration, occasioned me much pain and long prevented my touching the subject.
Had not the pamphlet been republished – without any apparent sense of the distress and offence which his views have caused to his brethren, after being entreated to withdraw it, evincing such insensibility to the confusion and the injurious effects everywhere threatened among saints by their circulation – I should not have felt called upon to notice it. But this gives a more serious aspect to the question, and the minds of saints are evidently being affected by them, and in every case, so far as I have seen to the weakening, or loss, of the heavenly side of truth.
Many, indeed, have felt this who could not dissect or point out what are the errors contained in these pamphlets, yet the strong feeling of resistance which they have aroused, arises, I doubt not from a sense of the importance of heavenly truth, even where the attempt to controvert them has not been free from mistakes. These mistakes have tended to confirm the author and his adherents in these views, and to confuse the simple who are thus led to suppose that the writer has been misunderstood, or that those who have tried to confute them are just as much in error themselves; whereas these mistakes in the interpretation or application of scripture are wholly different from an attempt to introduce a system of teaching at variance with what has been hitherto received amongst us, and which, if imbibed, will be found unconsciously to have undermined in the soul the heavenly place which God has given His saints. Mr. Stuart, I am sure, is far from intending this, and, probably, is quite unaware of any such effect, but I cannot conceal from myself that the enemy is using his views to the subversion of the truth and to the decided injury of souls, hence it becomes a duty, for his sake and theirs, to speak plainly, and to expose what is a serious danger for the church of God. God only knows the deep exercise of soul and conflict produced by esteem for the writer, and recollection of so many excellencies which the heart lingers over on the one hand and the paramount importance of the truth of God and the welfare of souls on the other.
The reader will have to weigh for himself what heavenly truth is worth to him, and whether he received it of God, and can now afford to relinquish it for a barren theory which is wholly inconsistent and cannot be held along with it; and he is entreated to give his earnest and impartial attention, and to seek light and help from God, whilst these views are brought to the test of the word of God, which is what indeed has been publicly and repeatedly invited by Mr. S. and those who uphold his teaching.
It has been supposed by many that all that is in question, is a different use of the word standing and other terms, but it will be seen that this is a very superficial idea and that different words convey very important differences of thought; nor is Mr. Stuart, we are well assured, by the way he writes, under any such mistaken impression.
A great cause of the danger to souls by this system is its deceptive and specious appearance, arising from the fact that it uses the same terms of scripture as others, but with a different meaning. Hence spiritual susceptibilities that have been rightly aroused, by the meagerness and poverty of what has been assumed to be the Christian standing, but which is as has been remarked, nothing but Jewish standing, have been allayed, by the mistaken supposition, that what is subtracted from the Christian’s standing, is given back to him in another way by Mr. S., when treating of Christian condition or being “in Christ,” and there seems reason to think this is Mr. Stuart’s own impression. But if it should appear that when Mr. S. speaks of being in Christ, he means something wholly different from what his brethren hold and what scripture teaches on this subject, and that the depravation of scripture and reduction of Christian position down to Jewish is still greater on this head, there will be loss of divine truth every way, notwithstanding the plausible and somewhat taking plea of greater accuracy. This ought to arouse those who are not wholly blinded by self-will and party spirit to discern the snare of the enemy and awaken jealousy for the Lord and His truth, and the welfare of His saints. At least we may hope this of those who have run well and desired the glory of the Lord, but who have had their minds temporarily beclouded by the darkening mists raised by the enemy of souls. May the unsuspecting author of them, through the mercy of God, have his eyes opened to discern them, and become by self-judgment the occasion of glory to God, and joy, to the hearts of his brethren.
It is remarkable that at the present moment, we should have to resist a double attack on the special privileges of the saints in this dispensation; Mr. Grant bringing us down, by what he teaches as to life and sealing, to the level of Old Testament saints, Mr. Stuart to the level of Millennial saints, as will appear in the following pages; each using for this purpose some of the same arguments as Mr. B. W. Newton when he made a strenuous effort to overthrow all dispensational truth, and thus fell into heresy. His assertion was that all saints were saved alike by the blood or work of Christ, and that to make a difference of heavenly position was to depreciate the value of that blood. Mr. S. uses the same argument, not to deny such difference, but practically to bring all down to a common level.
Chapter 1: Is Standing Before the Throne Christian Position?
The two main subjects which apparently occupy so large a place in Mr. Stuart’s mind and teaching; and which he considers of such importance, as to warrant his bringing them forward and republishing them in a second edition, and an elaborate reply to Mr. Stoney –are thus stated by himself.
We will now consider scripture teaching about the believer’s standing and about his condition as being in Christ (page 5).
Our standing then before the throne is seen in Romans to be complete before one word is said of our being in Christ (page 9).
He (who was unrighteous) is henceforth by God reckoned righteous, and so can stand before His throne (page 11).
The being in Christ forms no part of scripture teaching as to the believer’s perfect standing, or justification before the throne of God (page 12).
We stand before the throne of God, we repeat it, simply and solely by virtue of the abiding value of the sacrifice of Christ for us, and our standing there is viewed as settled, before one word is said about being in Christ (page 53).
The blood of the bullock and that of the goat were treated in the same way and sprinkled on the same places; so the standing of Aaron and his house, typical of Christians, and that of Israel, was the same (Letter to D. S.).
It will be seen from these statements that this standing is spoken of as equivalent to “justification” or being “reckoned righteous” and that it is common to all saints of all dispensations without exception. Compare pages 16, 17, Is it the Truth of the Gospel?
These two subjects Mr. Stuart so handles, as to do away with the proper position of saints in this dispensation, and the divine estimate of heavenly truth, so far as that position is concerned. By this means the liberty of the soul in its relation to God, and communion with Him founded upon it are also seriously affected. All this will be apparent as we proceed to examine these subjects.
In this system of thought, as presented to us by Mr. Stuart for our acceptance – of God, or the fruit of a mind astray from God and His word and the guidance of His Spirit, having lost its way through following and depending on its own reasoning powers. The mind of man is never an adequate measure of divine truth, and when it sets up to be can only fall into confusion, darkness, and error. Distrust of ourselves and deep dependence upon God can alone keep the soul in the discernment of His mind, which is really what is in question when we touch His truth. Oh for unshod feet to tread where all, though oft forgotten, is holy ground.
The first topic which occupies the foremost place in Mr. Stuart’s pamphlets is – a standing before the throne of God this, which he supposes all believers to have alike in all dispensations, he thus defines (Is it the Truth of the Gospel p.17)
By standing is meant, the title and ability through grace for a fallen and once guilty creature to be before the throne of God without judgment overtaking him.
This standing he takes as the measure or gauge of divine blessings bestowed upon us, not m erely as guilty creatures but as saints.
No higher position can the saint have than the standing before that throne; for there is no higher position except to be on the throne of God, a place or position which of course no mere creature can ever have. Many of course are the blessings that we possess through grace besides that of justification by faith. We are God’s children, His sons too, His heirs likewise, and joint heirs with Christ.
God’s purpose too is, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Yet none of these, nor all of them together, nor the being in Christ, who is the beginning of the new creation of God, the Head of a new race, can give us a higher position before God, than the standing before His throne which is ours now, in consequence of the death and resurrection of His Son (Christian Standing and Condition, pp. 8, 9 ).
These statements are very serious in their character. If Mr. Stuart is correct in making them, we have all been grievously mistaken in our belief, and in the teaching current, by those most approved of God in bringing out the truth among us, during the last fifty years; and the instructions gained, the lessons learned, the experience acquired, have all to be reversed or read backwards. If this standing before the throne, supposing it for a moment to be scriptural, which we are far from believing, equals the blessings which we have regarded as special and distinctive and among those marked by the Lord as having that character (above those enjoyed in millennial days under His government), the words addressed to Thomas – “Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed, blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” – have lost their meaning; and those who have been recognized as pioneers or guides in truth among us, have, in common with those they taught, been living in a state of illusion.
The following extracts from Either in Adam or in Christ by J. N. D., will show the entire contrast between the truth commonly received among us, and that which is now pressed on us for our acceptance.
Our guilt as responsible men has been perfectly met for God, but we have done too, in Him [Christ] as to our life and standing before God, with all down here by the cross. We are baptized to His death . . . If we are Christians, our only true standing is in Him as having died and risen from the dead (pages 41, 42).
I can well understand a Christian knowing only that as a sinner, as guilty, Christ has died for him, and so seeing what he can rely on before God as a judge, and he is blessedly right (Mr. S.’s standing); but his true standing, his place with God, is in Christ risen. “If Christ be not risen, ye are yet in your sins”: and in this is, for the Christian as quickened, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which makes him free. The standing and life of the Christian as such, rests in this: that is, he is risen with Christ in his place before God. All beyond the cross is not thus meeting our responsibility, but bringing in God’s purpose (pages 42, 43).
The result is this; the whole standing, condition, estate in life of the believer is changed, not outwardly as to the body yet, as is evident, but in relation to God, and that really by a new life (page 51).
Thus our being in Christ is the highest possible place as to standing and perfect (page 58).
Where in scripture is the authority for such a statement, that there is no higher position for a saint of this dispensation than a standing before the throne? We have Mr. Stuart’s word for it, and that is all. No such position is ever assigned to us as saints, either in the Epistles or in the Revelation. In the Epistles we are seen in heavenly places and blessed there, or to be presented “perfect in Christ Jesus,” or “faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,” or “holy and unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight”; indeed like Christ Himself, and in Christ, but never are we anywhere seen standing before the throne. Scripture, on the contrary as if to guard against the idea here expressed, specially speaks of us as “seated,” “hath made us sit together in heavenly places”; and this is carried on into the future (cp. Eph. 1:19, 20, and 2:6, 7), “that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus.” In the Revelation, where the throne and government of God are in question, and our relation to it is specially marked, the heavenly saints are invariably seen crowned, and seated on thrones round the throne of God, with which these thrones are associated, in the full possession and enjoyment of their dignities in the presence of God, in the knowledge of His mind and ways before whom they bow in intelligent worship and adoring delight.Other saints indeed are found in this position before the throne, those who stand before the throne of God and the Lamb in Rev. 7, exactly occupy the place described by Mr. S., so do those who stand on the Sea of Glass before the throne (Rev. 4, 15), and the hundred and forty-four thousand who stand on Mount Zion and sing before the throne (Rev.14); but none of these have the elevated position or rank assigned to the twenty-four elders, which seems to be purposely contrasted with theirs, the elders never being once seen throughout the whole book, in what we are now told is our specific place of blessing – “standing before the throne.”
This is also the position of angels, who never appear on thrones in the presence of God, a position apparently reserved for the most exalted of the redeemed, including saints of both dispensations. The angels in Rev. 7 stand round about the throne, and the living creatures and the elders; and again in Rev. 8, we read of the seven angels which stood before God (cp. Luke 1:19), and still more in Dan. 7, ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him whilst, if we accept the translation given by Mr. Darby in accordance with the Septuagint and the Vulgate, that the thrones were set or placed, we have the same position given to saints as in the Revelation, thrones associated with the throne of God when the judgment or the kingdom is in view.
Only in this way can we understand how the saints shall judge angels. The general expressions, “the judgment shall sit,” and “the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High” (or high places), confirm this.
The throne, indeed, represents the sovereign place and rights of God, and the responsibility of the creature, as such in reference to those rights. Hence it is that those who only stand in accordance with that responsibility, such as angels in their original righteousness as God created them, or millennial saints are so presented, but not those who are the subjects of purpose or union with Christ, or even Old Testament saints. In the Psalms we have the throne largely prominent, because its subject is God’s government and His earthly people who are in relation to it, but the heavenly saints are not named, except once, and then as in association or reigning with Christ (Psa. 45:7). Hence, where the special privileges belonging to these are in question, the throne scarcely comes in at all.
Mr. Stuart says (Is it the Truth of the Gospel, p. 24)
With all this outcry then, against the word throne, it is admitted that the word is scripturally correct.
Of course it is, who ever questioned it? Mr. Stuart knows very well, that is not the point at issue; that the word throne is not objected to, for every Christian owns it. But it is the relation in which he puts us to it, and to Him who sits on it.
He adds
Has God, as God, two different thrones, one of judgment and another of grace? Would not the mercy seat have been to Aaron a throne of judgment in a most solemn way, had he approached it in an unauthorized way?
Does God vacate His throne?
Is He not always on it . . . where God must only and always sit? (Is it the Truth, &c. p. 33).
God is, and always will be, on the throne, but the throne is not always viewed as the judgment seat.
That is, he admits that there is government as well as judgment connected with it. “There is the throne as well as the bench.” But if he means that God is always presented in that relation to us, it is a very serious mistake. True, God never surrenders His rights as Supreme Governor, for heaven is His throne and earth His footstool; but if we compare the great white throne, before which heaven and earth flee away and the dead stand, and that of the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7)sitting to judge the kingdoms of the earth, whose throne was like the fiery flame, and its wheels as burning fire (which are exclusively judicial), with His throne of government in Israel of old and in the millennium, we see the difference brought out. In the Revelation the ark of the covenant with the mercy-seat is the pledge, when His judgment is executed, of His unfailing connection with His people, for God dwelt between the cherubim (Psa. 89:14; 80:1; 99:1). “Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth . . . before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh [whose position was in immediate connection with the ark and the sanctuary], stir up thy strength and come, and save us” (Psa. 80:1, 2).
We shall see how widely “different” is this aspect of the throne in “judgment” and in “grace,” as well as God’s’ action from it. Mr. Stuart’s remark as to Aaron, confounds the difference which existed between the past and the present the type and the antitype, when God had only before Him the blood of bulls and goats, and not that precious blood which adequately meets and measures His majesty and glory.
Doubtless, “judgment would have overtaken” Aaron, had he not attended to the prescribed order of approach, but our failures, whilst drawing near to the mercy-seat or throne of grace, though they have to be judged before God, according to what He is, are met in a very different way. In Rom. 3 –in which Mr. Stuart says, “Man is viewed as a responsible guilty creature, who needs a standing before the throne,” and “is henceforth by God declared righteous, and so can stand before His throne justified” – whilst it is true that man, and indeed the whole world, is looked at as charged and brought in guilty before God, and having come short of His glory the throne is by no means brought into the prominence which Mr. Stuart gives it, but God’s nature and glory, rather than His government, and His attitude in relation to man as a Justifier from the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat. Not to question that the mercy-seat had the character of a throne, but having been sprinkled with blood, not of bulls and goats, but of Christ Himself, it has put on a different aspect, and from it God declares His righteousness towards all.
In Revelation, lightnings and thunderings and voices proceed from it, but here (Rom. 3) it is a blessed and privileged mercy-seat, where God sits in order to display His righteousness in justifying, before He sits on the throne of judgment to arraign and pass sentence on the guilty manifesting then, His righteousness in judgment. The veil also having been rent that the righteousness of God may be revealed, through sin having been dealt with in a manner due to the claims of His divine majesty, we never read of standing before the mercy-seat, as we do of saints, other than ourselves, before the throne. Even of old it was intended to be a place of privileged access. “There will I meet with thee and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony (Ex. 25:22). So in the Hebrews: the way having been opened into the holiest of all, and the blood carried in there, and sprinkled by our great high Priest on the mercy-seat, (Ex. 9:11, 12), this becomes the blessed and constant place of holy intercourse and worship for us. A throne of grace to which we draw near with boldness, and which we are invited to approach with full assurance, for God is acting in sovereign grace and blessing toward us, but there is no such idea in the whole Epistle, as has been imported into it, of this standing before it. The whole of this teaching in fact carries us, only as far as the brass of the tabernacle, of which the elements of worship in the court were composed, signifying God’s requirement of righteousness from man and in man, in contrast with the gold, which was the display of Divine righteousness; and where we, as priests, draw near, in contrast with the people whose place of approach was the door of the tabernacle.
This setting forth of divine righteousness and display of the character God, in relation to His own glory in the work of Christ, and the infinite worth of that work – though it includes the justification of the sinner, is far more than a standing before the throne without judgment overtaking him which is very much what characterized evangelical teaching before the righteousness of God was brought out or the value of Christ’s resurrection known, and still less the believer’s position in righteousness and glory in Christ on high and all connected with it.
Chapter 2: What Is the Scriptural Estimate of Height Conferred by God
This standing before the throne is insisted on, not simply as our introduction, or means of entrance, into blessing, in which sense, if limited to justification, it might be allowed to pass, but as our proper and constant position here and hereafter; and, above all, it is taken as the standard by which to measure all our highest blessings. Not only are we told that there is nothing higher than this imaginary standing; but it is weighed in the scale by Mr. S. against them all, and in his estimate it equals “all of them together.” Again we reply, that Mr. S. gives us no authority but his own fallible judgment for such a sweeping and all-important statement.
Now he affirms that both Old and New Testament and Millennial saints have this standing before the throne therefore it is only what everyone out of hell must certainly have, or be eternally lost, though he has none of the high privileges pertaining to saints in this dispensation; so that Mr. Stuart has reduced these exalted privileges to the millennial or Judaic level. This is his estimate of them taken separately, or “all together.” We know by this one statement to what point his system of leveling down has brought him.
Mr. S.’s comparison does not seem a happy one, that is using height in this way in the things of God, for where all is so great and so blessed, even what appears to be lowest in the scale, is wondrous grace toward man; but if it be allowable to speak of height, in judging of our blessings, it is evidently rank or dignity or elevation of position in nearness to God that is in question.
For the true heart will find with thankfulness that as God’s word presents it, height and nearness are inseparable because that height is a fruit of His love and special favor towards us, and is always so expressed in scripture; and though, the Revelation being a scene of government, this does not come out in the same way there as in the Ephesians it is clearly discernible, when the saints on earth render their praise to Him who loves them and washed them from their sins in His own blood and made them kings and priests to God and His Father (Rev. 1:5, 6).
We will proceed to examine the evidence of scripture on this subject.
What is the meaning of our being quickened, raised, and seated in heavenly places if it be not height {Eph. 2:6}? It is not merely resurrection that is in view, but ascension and heavenly places as our present position, and where we have our present portion. “The heaven for height,” we are told in the Proverbs. God has conferred blessing upon men on earth, and will do so again; but He is pleased, according to eternal counsels, to bless saints in this dispensation “with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ,” and this is by the manifestation of Himself in His blessed nature and in relationship, according to the place He has given Christ. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and we are looked upon as identified with Christ in His presence, for “He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” We have also the place of sonship, and are in all this, to the praise of the glory of His grace, of which we are favored recipients in the Beloved.
There is no mention of a throne here; it is the display of God’s nature in blessing of the highest order; the throne is not alluded to in this Epistle, any more than in the Epistles of John, where it would be quite out of place: to introduce it would mar the whole teaching of the Spirit of God in these Epistles.
It is what God is, as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; what He is towards Him as such, as He Himself said, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” The blessing with which He blesses Him as man, not as on the throne, but as “before him in love” in all that flows out as divine, as well as from the name of Father is unfolded in the richest way. God has His nature and character – relationship as a Father – quite apart from His formal position as Sovereign sitting on a throne. This is true even of an earthly monarch in relation to his family and household. Does he sit an a throne in his home? Was the Father on it when he “ran and fell on the prodigal’s neck and kissed him”! Has Mr. Stuart lost the sense of this and of its blessedness, or what becomes of his statement that “God is ever and always on the throne”?
We have it added, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches [not the glory] of his grace”; but this, all-important as it and corresponding with justification (see Rom. 3:24) is here – the door by which we enter into the heavenly blessings. Are we to say that Christ then has no place as man, but a standing justified before the throne without fear of judgment overtaking Him, excepting of course His place on the throne which is exclusively His own? What is being “in Christ,” seated, favored, holy, and without blame, and blessed in Him, if it be not our having His position as man before God, in the precious life which He communicated?
And yet we are told that to be “in Christ” is no higher position than this standing before the throne, common to all saints as justified (pages 8, 9).
Mr. Stuart admits “nearness” as proper to our place as sons, and this he also speaks of as relationship rather than standing, to which no objection can be taken; but does sonship give no dignity, or height of position, or rank? Is there no standing arising from relationship? Have not the children of the sovereign a rank and position as such? Are not hereditary honors recognized both in scripture and the world, as well as those conferred for services rendered or the distinguished conduct? “If children,” says the apostle, “then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17).
“I will make him, my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth”: as regards ourselves, “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt.13:43). So exalted is the position in which we are seen as the children of God. Thus what Mr. Stuart speaks of as high scripture does not so speak of, and those things he weighs in the scale against this standing – as only equal to it “all together,” and therefore, of course, outweighed by it taken singly – are precisely what scripture does magnify, and exalt as positions of especial honor and high in connection with God, and the dignity He confers, and above all other creatures. That is, Mr. Stuart’s weights and measures are not only unknown to scripture, but directly the reverse of it.
This standing before the throne, also, is said to be owing to the value of the sacrifice of Christ; and anything that would give us the value of the position of Christ is excluded in a double way; not only because our being in Christ is denied to be “position,” but in the following terms.
Further, the great importance of keeping this clear will be apparent, when it is seen that the making the truth of being in Christ to be an essential part of the believer’s standing, would be really to add something to the value of the atoning sacrifice; namely, our receiving the Holy Ghost to perfect our standing before the throne.
For it is by the indwelling of the Spirit that we come to be in Christ. Into this we will look presently.
Meantime it will be sufficient to say, that in proportion as we add anything to that sacrifice to complete the ground of our standing, we necessarily detract from its value as God has set it forth. People may not be aware of this, yet that is the evil of it (page 12).
Could any system be more effectually devised for keeping us this side of death and resurrection for our place, standing and position before God? We are told, that to bring our being in Christ or the reception of the Holy Ghost, into our standing before God, is to add something to the value of the work of Christ or even to detract from its value; a statement not withdrawn but repeated in the second pamphlet (p. 28).
This is stated in a very solemn way, and with all the authority of a judge laying down the law, in a case of which he is supreme arbiter.
Mr. Darby thus replies to the same objection as used by Mr. Newton
There is another point connected with this, that I would not leave untouched; namely, that, making a difference of position in glory is setting aside the value of Christ’s blood and making our place on high depend on something else. Now I meet this difficulty in the face and I say there is a difference in glory; and that difference does not depend on the precious blood of Christ; and to say that it does, takes away value from that blood. . . . It is quite clear that the saints on earth during the millennium are redeemed by blood, and yet as to glory, are much farther off than the crowned elders. . . . These differences of dispensation are the displays of God’s glory; and therefore of all importance; and most essential, because a positive part of His glory. . . . The more you succeed in leveling them to one thing, the more you succeed in stifling divine affections, and active human responsibility –destroying, as far as may be, divine communion, and frustrating divine grace – the more the glory and energy of faith is null and hence God’s glory in us (Examination of Mr. Newton’s Views, pp. 32, 33).
But not one particle of scripture does the writer {C. E. S.} give for this astounding assertion, for such it really is. What makes this statement so dangerous and subversive of the truth of God, is that it severs “the indwelling of the Holy Ghost,” and our position “in Christ” and all consequent blessing from their connection with the work of Christ, and denies their being an expression of its infinite value. How could we be “in Christ,” or “receive the Holy Ghost,” save by the value of the work of Christ, though as a distinct effect of it, higher and different in its nature from justification (Mr. S.’s standing), and giving a share in heavenly glory, which that does not give us, as we have seen? How can intelligent Christians allow of such statements, which show beyond question that the writer must have lost the heavenly results of the work of Christ and the position He has taken for us, or he could never have penned them. If a monument stands upon marble pillars or columns, how can it detract from their value that there should be a beautiful superstructure, crowned with an exquisite figure? It is just the proof, of the value and excellence of those pillars.
Now if anything has been inculcated and commonly received among us, with incalculable blessing to souls far and wide, it is that scripture teaches exactly the opposite, namely that the position Christ has taken on high as man, and our place “in Him,” are alike by virtue (not only of the excellence of His Person but) of the wonderful work, not only “for us” (Mr. S.’s constant limit of it), but in which He glorified God on the cross, In proof of this, we give some extracts from Either in Adam or in Christ {by J. N. Darby}.
The Holy Ghost the Comforter is therefore given us as soon as Christ went up on high; and thus we know, not only that we are risen with Him, but that we are in Him and He in us. This sets our standing, and consciously so, through the Holy Ghost in Christ; sitting in heavenly places in Him, accepted in the Beloved (page 45).
We are justified through His blood. But there was a value in Christ’s work for God’s own glory, His righteousness, majesty, love, truth, all He is and according to purpose. This done for us (good and evil being known) and in the way of redemption, gives us a righteous and blessed place in perfect love in the presence of God and our Father, according to a life and nature and in a place which Adam innocent had not at all. Our place in heaven is founded on the glorifying of God. Ephesians 1 brings this fully out (pp. 45, 46).
His (the believer’s) place before God is in Christ risen not in Adam in the flesh. But as he is there by the death and resurrection of Christ, he is there according to the value of what He has there wrought (page 52).
In this work, wrought by Him as Man, He has reestablished the glory of God before the universe, upon a sure and abiding basis; sin being dealt with in a way that all the rights of God, which had been infringed or trespassed on have been reestablished in the death of that blessed One and in the depths through which He passed for the glory of God; whose character is displayed in the way He dealt with it, when His Son took it on Himself, as it never otherwise could have been.
All this has given Him a claim on the divine glory which has now righteously responded in placing Him on the throne of God, and soon will put all things under His feet, giving Him a title over the whole universe, as Head in blessing, for which He thus tasted death, gaining (as man) a title to have all things put under Him (Heb. 2:8).
Inasmuch as this was done by Him as man, and for man as well as for the glory of God, He has also received the title to associate others with Himself, in the position He has taken in life, righteousness, and glory.
The apostle tells us “He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made [or become] the righteousness of God in him” {2 Cor. 5:21}. Our place before God “in him” is thus distinctly stated to be the result of His having been “made sin for us” and is the display of God’s righteousness in answer to His work – not only in giving Him this place in divine righteousness, “Of righteousness because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more” (John 16:10) – but in making us “the righteousness of God in him.” He Himself tells us, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone” (John 12:24). This passage makes our association with Him, as risen, the distinct effect and result of His death, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in and with us, is constantly presented as another blessed consequence of His death and the title He has to share with us the blessings He enjoys as man, having the unction of the Holy Ghost for the kingdom; “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows” (Ps. 45:7). It is the same oil of gladness in royal and priestly dignity; and He has His fellows, who are His companions, and partake with Him the joys and glory of that heavenly scene.
True indeed, that these wondrous results of His blessed work are not the same, as the value of His blood in clearing or justifying, in which all the redeemed participate; but though not the same in breadth or application, they throw in other ways a luster and glory on that work, and in the rights vested in Him as a consequence of it, and show how the eternal counsels of God repose on it for their fulfillment; counsels which existed in the mind of God before the world began and running on into eternal ages, “That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7). “To him be glory in the church throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Eph. 3:21). That man can be in such heights of glory with Christ, linked to Him as His body, is what scripture again speaks of as height; the same power working in us that has set Christ in this exalted position, giving Him a place over everything created, a place which the body enjoys as complement of the Head, not part of what is put under Him, but as part of Himself and sharing in His supremacy. Height and depth are also again predicated (Eph. 3:18), as belonging to this position, in which the church is placed with Christ; and not only so, but (Eph. 3:9, 10) as the means by which the most exalted beings are learning the admirable wisdom of God, in a way it never had been and could not be before unfolded, but was the deepest secret of His heart and mind hidden in the counsels of eternity. “That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye, being rooted and grounded in love may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye, might be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:16-18).
It has been noticed by Mr. Darby, that salvation or justification by blood, that is, clearing away of our responsibilities as fallen creatures, is never spoken of in scripture as the subject of eternal counsel or purpose, as the old Calvinists supposed, but that these are founded on another aspect of the work of Christ, namely, that of the accomplished glory of God, and connected with a special place and glory, given to saints with Christ. This is confirmed by another difference observable in scripture, in treating of justification and those who are the subjects of it and of purpose or blessing “in Christ” and those who are the subjects of it; namely, that the latter is always said to be before the foundation of the world, the former, as distinctly to be only from that event. And this is so often repeated in speaking of them, as to leave not the shadow of a doubt, that there is a divine meaning and intimation in it.
Twice it is recorded of those who do not wonder at and will not worship the beast, that they are “written in the book of life”: the words of “the slain Lamb” are added in one instance, clearly denoting justification by His blood but it is “from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8 17:8). These, moreover, are a special class who suffer for their faithfulness, and even have a share in the heavenly part of the kingdom (Matt. 24). Those also distinguished as the sheep in Matt. 25 are called to inherit the blessings of the earthly kingdom, but this also is “prepared for them from the foundation of the world.” Of those who are associated with Christ, on the contrary, it is said, they are “chosen in Him before the foundation of the world,” and His purpose and grace were “given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” for we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He may be the Firstborn among many brethren (Eph. 1:4, 5, 11; 3:11 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 8:29, 30). Now this purpose, involving conformity to Christ in glory, who was the object of the Father’s love and delight before the world was, dates not from time, as with those who are only justified (“no higher blessing, as we are told”), but before time, and all that relates to it existed. For in eternity these special counsels of love were planned {so to speak}.
What affection and adoration should the thought of such grace awaken in our hearts, and what lowliness and self-renunciation, it should produce likewise. This is always the effect of nearness to God.
The more Thy glories strike mine eyes
The lower I shall lie
Thus whilst I sink, my joy shall rise
Immeasurably high.
The elders, quitting their thrones, take off their crowns and cast them before the throne, whilst they prostrate themselves before Him who sits up on it; for the more they are honored, the more they delight to exalt Him who has conferred so much upon them, and to attribute all to Him and to His sovereign grace, in the sense of their nothingness and unworthiness. To bring souls, therefore more into the consciousness of the presence of God and nearness to Him, is the way to produce true lowliness and self-emptiness with real self-judgment. Man seeks to effect all this in his own way; a Calvinist, by his ideas about the throne; the Arminian, fearing to rely upon grace, by retaining souls under the law. Both alike, as with this system, keep them in the place of distance, and hinder the glory of God in His saints, and the results which flow, both from the affections being engaged and the sense of responsibility, which is deepened according to the blessing conferred and the love displayed in it.
Chapter 3: Standing and Position Before God and Acceptance
The right use of the word standing has to be examined. As a substantive (standing) it does not exist in the New Testament; as a verb, to stand (ËFJ0L4), it is frequently found, but never is it applied to ourselves, in the sense so often repeated by Mr. Stuart. Not only the idea of our standing before the throne is wanting, but the application of it to our justification, has no foundation in the word of God.
We may have so used it, perhaps all have done so harmlessly in times past; but when it is attempted to construct a system of doctrine, out of a conventional meaning attached to a word, of a character injurious to the souls of saints, it becomes necessary to examine if scripture warrants such a use of the term, or whether it is merely human. With such a system of doctrine, so carefully and elaborately built, and stated so repeatedly, and with such positiveness and authority, as exclusively apostolic teaching, on the subject of “standing,” we should have expected to find not a few clear definite statements of the word of God for its foundation.
But all that Mr. Stuart can bring forward in support of a theory, of such moment as regards the truth, is one passage which he repeats in innumerable instances, but which, when carefully examined, as will appear, gives not the very slightest support to his cause.
Before turning to Rom. 5, we shall cite other passages where the word occurs as a verb. “Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standeth by faith” (Rom. 11:20).
“Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4). “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and wherein ye stand” (1 Cor. 15:1). “For by faith ye stand” (2 Cor. 1:24). “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” “Take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand, Stand therefore” (Eph. 6:11, 13, 14). “That ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God” (Col.4:12). “Exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein we stand” (1 Peter 5:12). In all these passages there is no question of justification, nor of standing before the throne, but of the soul’s adherence to, or stay upon the truth or firmness in its position, or in conflict here in the world, or with Satan. We are looked at as believers, who stand in the revealed truth of the gospel, or by faith, or in grace, or as soldiers exposed to the attacks of evil, and having to hold our ground and to rest firmly upon the grace of God. Even of Satan, the Lord says, “He stood (ËFJ06,<) not in the truth”(John 8:44).
In the passage in 1 Peter 5, after speaking of the God all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, the apostle adds, “This is the true grace of God wherein ye stand”; for grace and peace flow to us, as we are constantly reminded, from God the Father, here moreover called “The God of all grace.” It is in “this” grace the apostle calls upon us to stand, for it is what God is towards us, in His own blessed character till we reach the glory, and here there is no question of justification, but firmness in “this grace” is what alone enables us to stand. Does Rom. 5 differ from this, and from all other passages, in which the word to stand is used? By no means; it corresponds, as we shall find, with them all. “By whom also, we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” Not only may it be questioned from the use of the same word in 1 Peter 5, whether “this grace” refers to something before, but the word “also” appears to specify something additional. The apostle is speaking, not, merely of grace that saves, but besides our other blessings, we enter by faith into this grace in which we have firm and constant repose, for it invariably flows out from God, and is exercised towards us, whatever the weakness, which constantly calls for its display, till glory be reached, for God gives grace and glory. Had this verse occurred in Romans 3, there might have been more reason for Mr. Stuart’s asserting that our justification is intended by it, but coming as it does, after the close of Romans 4, there is not the smallest ground for it.
The apostle has got quite upon another part of divine truth –the blessed force of the resurrection, as the witness how God is for us, and has acted for us in power, in raising Christ after all question of sin and its judgment is passed, so that we are not here called upon to believe in Jesus or the blood, as in Rom. 3:26, but in God, “who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification.” Resurrection always brings us into a new region, and we can rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
This is a distinct advance upon Rom. 3, and differs from it, as much as the position of the children of Israel in Egypt sheltered by the blood on the door-post, did from that they occupied, when they raised their song of triumph on the other side of the Red Sea {Ex. 15}, in which God had taken their part, bringing them through it as on dry land, and Himself overthrowing all their enemies. For the Red Sea typifies, as is well known, the death and resurrection of Christ for us, in its blessed effect before God. This force of the resurrection of Christ, is constantly omitted by Mr. Stuart, indeed it is not consistent with his thought of standing before the throne without judgment overtaking the saint. Hence, when Mr. Stoney refers to acceptance in Christ, Mr. Stuart invariably returns to the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice, limiting to this our acceptance as well as our standing.
. . . We are accepted by virtue of His sacrifice” (page 19).
Souls are accepted on the ground of, and when identified with, the accepted sacrifice . . . My standing before God’s throne, as accepted before Him, does not rest on my being in Christ, but on God’s acceptance of His sacrifice on my behalf (Is it the truth of the Gospel? p. 35).
Mr. Stoney tells us, that he, as a believer, is placed by Christ in the same acceptance as Himself. Is not the acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as our sacrifice the measure of every Christian’s acceptance! Mr. Stoney tries to make a distinction where there is no difference (page 15).
Acceptance in Him is not scripture in Ephesians 1:6 nor does the word that I remember ever so speak of acceptance (Answers to Inquiries).
The sacrifice, blessed as it is, by no means gives what is found in Christ’s resurrection, for it always supposes the man who is identified with it, to be alive in the flesh, whereas the resurrection, founded as it ever is on the value of this sacrifice, shows us Christ accepted for us, where sin never has existed and never can be found, in the infinite, eternal favor which that act of God displays, and in victory over death, the first-fruits in that new life of those that are His and to be conformed to Him in glory. Hence, after the Passover (figure of justification and redemption by the sacrifice of Christ), in Lev. 23, we have the wave sheaf which was to be waved by the priest “before the Lord” on the morrow after the Sabbath, “to be accepted for you.” It is Christ as the risen Man before God accepted for us eternally, the offering being waved to show the delight of God, to have Him before Himself in resurrection; whilst the meat-offering and the burnt-offering which accompanied the wave sheaf, tell us that He carries there all that was precious and acceptable in His life and death, “to be accepted for us.”
In the mitre also of the High Priest (Ex. 28:36, 39) which he wore upon his forehead, with the face of blue, and the golden plate, with “holiness to the Lord” engraven on it we learn how Christ bears the iniquity of our holy things now that He is exalted on high. This holiness is based upon divine righteousness (the golden plate), and connected with what is heavenly (the lace of blue). It was to be “always upon Aaron’s forehead,” that the children of Israel “might be accepted before the Lord.” Thus, again, we have our acceptance secured in the Person of Christ in heaven, for it is there He exercises His priesthood. “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). The Old Testament scriptures therefore connect our acceptance: first, with the burnt-offering (Lev. 1:4); secondly, with the wave sheaf and, thirdly, with the position and office of the High Priest.
The fact is that acceptance is not taught, as a doctrine in the New Testament, though many passages blessedly involve the truth of it. The same expression used of the Virgin Mary, “hail, thou that art highly favored,” or much graced, translated by some, graciously accepted, is used concerning the saints in Eph. 1:6, much graced or favored in the Beloved. This is not a doctrinal statement of it, but certainly implies that the person is accepted, who is so favored. So also when it is said that “as Christ is so are we in this world,” this certainly includes the acceptance that He has; or, if we are “complete in him,” we have everything in Him as to nearness to God – position and favor – that we could desire.
Sacrifice never goes so far as the death of the individual who offers it, whilst owning that he had incurred and deserved death, the life of the victim being substituted in his stead; this supposes him always to be a man living still in the flesh, for he lays his hand on the head of the victim which takes his place and is available for him, either in judgment or acceptance; but as the sacrifice never lives again, it cannot carry the offerer into resurrection, even in figure, nor bring in new creation. Israel will be accepted on this ground, as we see from Lev. 9, where the sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering, being offered for them, the glory appeared to them, but they have no place in the glory as we have, nor in Christ either, though blessed by Him as King and Priest, when He comes out (ver. 23) in glory, the whole scene being typical of their future acceptance. This necessarily leaves creature position still existent, for the man as such still exists, though his responsibility may be met by the sacrifice. Hence Mr. S. does not see creature responsibility to be ended. “We are, and shall be whilst on earth, responsible creatures as regards walk and service, and we do well to remember this” (Is it the Truth? &c., p. 20).
For our freedom can only be realized when our position in Christ is apprehended. It is then, our new and higher responsibilities as in Christ, or as sons, commence; but these are founded on privilege, and are of an entirely different nature, for our responsibilities as creatures are held under the law and its requirements, but those which belong to us as in Christ throw us back upon what He is, and not what we are at all.
The statement is made that the
real standing of the people of Israel, as Lev. 16 portrays in type, was on blood-besprinkled ground before the mercy seat, which was in the holiest of all.
Now that is really where every individual Christian stands, formerly typically set forth, now fully declared.
For what was true of them nationally is true of saints now individually. Much, of course, we have, which they had not. But if the teaching of Lev. 16, distinctly referred to in Heb. 9 and 10, is to instruct us, the standing for all saints before God’s throne rests solely on the sacrifice of Christ” (page 16).
This is another instance of how scripture is strained to support a theory. “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins, and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation that remaineth among them, in the midst of their uncleanness.
And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement for the holy place, until he come out and have made an atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the children of Israel” (Lev. 16:15-17). It does not portray their standing nor anything of the kind, for they could not stand there at all either “nationally” or individually, but it shows how God as a holy God could dwell in the midst of Israel, though He did not allow their approach beyond the door of the tabernacle when He was not manifested, but hidden behind the veil.
Whilst we learn from Rom. 3 that God declares, now that the type has been fulfilled, in the blood being on the mercy-seat, how His own character has been justified and displayed in His dealings with sin, and not merely that of Israel, but of Old Testament saints since the fall – that says nothing of their standing whatever, but shows the ground on which He could act toward them. This appears even more distinctly on referring to Ezek. 45:17-20, where the future reconciliation of Israel and of the sanctuary is given, by means of the same sacrifices; yet the blood is not brought into the holiest for them at all, but put upon the altar of burnt offering and the posts of the house and of the court. The gold has been replaced by brass or wood (Ezek. 41:22). The ark, with the mercy-seat on it, has disappeared (Jer. 3:16 17), and the most holy place is shut up with doors (Ezek.41:1-4). So that this use of the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat as conveying “the real standing of all saints,” as if all were upon one level, has no foundation whatever. As priests ourselves, we are looked upon as risen. The frequent repetition of the words “with him” (Lev. 8:20; Rev. 20:4 6), shows how we are associated “with Christ,” whether in His present priestly position within the veil, or in His manifestation in the future as Melchizedek, King and Priest in public glory.
We have, strange to say, statements of Mr. Darby’s brought forward referring to the blood put on the mercy seat and its effect in display of the glory of God, and in bringing the saints of this dispensation into the holiest, as if this were the same as the ordinary justification of all saints, and rendered their standing identical. To mark in italics, the words which show the contrast, will be sufficient.
The bullock, whose blood was employed as one of them (referring to the goat’s), is lost and set aside by Dr. W, and the bringing us to God in the holiest (not merely clearing the world) dropped – the HIGHEST and ESPECIAL blessing of the saint; and this done not by forgiving His people, but by presentation of the blood to God, by whom the excellency of this sacrifice in which He has been glorified in respect, yea, through the very means, of sin, is justly estimated (Bible Witness and Review, vol. 2, p. 22).
Again Mr. S. says
The blood of the bullock and that of the goat were treated in the same way, and sprinkled on the same places, so the standing of Aaron and his house, typical of Christians, and that of Israel was the same . . .Hence all saints stand before God’s throne on precisely the same ground.
Again Mr. Darby writes
Finally, the people were not represented in the blood on the mercy-seat and holy place; their sins gave occasion to its being done, but the cleansing was of God’s dwelling-place, that that should be fit for Him, and what He was, perfectly glorified by Christ’s death – to be ever before Him as eternal redemption (Words of Faith, 1884, p. 224).
In reality, if we use the word “standing” where scripture does not, and where its use is partly misleading, as a mere human notion always is, there can be no doubt that their national standing, or justification, dated, not at all from the day of atonement, but, as has been observed, from the blood of the paschal lamb put on the door-post, whilst they were yet in Egypt. After this, God could look on them as His redeemed people and go along with them in the pillar of cloud.
Chapter 4: Headship of Race; Its Nature and Extent
The second leading subject in Christian Standing and Condition is – Headship of Race, and this which principally occupies the latter half of the tract, is thus presented
It is a condition of saints that they are in Christ and Christ in them. And this is made the more apparent when we remember that, “in Christ,” is used in contrast to being in Adam, the two heads of races under which those belonging to each are ranged” (p. 18).
Being in Christ and our being joined to Him, members of His body, are shown to be distinct by the use of the term “Christ’s” when speaking of the former, and “the Christ” when speaking of the latter (p. 15).
Is not the truth of being in Christ sometimes, if not often, confounded with another truth – the being united to Christ as members of His body? (p. 30).
We could not be in Christ without being there (in the heavenlies), for He is there. But, as members of His body, we are viewed now as being on earth, not in heaven, though united to the Head who is in heaven (p.16).
It will be seen, that if the teaching of the tract, on the subject of our standing, lowers us to the level of the millennial position, Mr. Stuart’s treatment of what he describes as our condition in Christ has just the same effect. He knows nothing, as his statements tell us, of our being in Christ beyond Headship of race, for to this he limits the expression “in Christ,” and he will not admit that it has any application to Christ’s Headship of His body, the church.
I believe “in Christ” always speaks of race and Headship of race, never of the body (Extract of letter from C. E. S. to D. S.)
The consequence of this is that we have no present title or place in the heavenlies at all, for Headship of race could never put us there, and the disastrous effect of this view is clearly discernible, throughout the whole of the pamphlet.
According to the result of Mr. Stuart’s teaching, we have now neither heavenly standing, nor heavenly position of any kind.
Headship of race which is unfolded in Rom. 5, is the widest and most general term used in scripture, denoting connection, either with Adam or with Christ. It involves the unity of the human family, the members of which are of the same sort or kind, for “God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the whole earth.”
Adam is thus presented as “the figure of him that was to come,” affecting the condition of those connected with him by an act exclusively his own, and hence becoming a fountain of death and ruin to his race (Rom. 5:12-14). Christ also, by His “one act of righteousness,” is the author of life and righteousness to the many who come under Him as Head. It is descent or derivation that is in question, and the Head stands as the responsible representative of the race. “By one man” is used in contrast with the individual acts of each.
This headship involves sin and death on the one hand, or grace reigning through righteousness and life on the other the same position, in these respects, but not necessarily the same external condition; and more extensive effects follow which appear to go beyond, in their aspect or results, the race ranked under the Head (Rom. 5:17, 18). “He shall see his seed,” and “He shall see the travail of his soul,” is said of Christ in the millennium, but the millennial saints are not in the same glory with Christ. A man may sit in the House of Commons, but his children do not sit there with him, nor in him either, nor do those whom he represents in parliament nor can a man be said, at least after he is born, to be in any sense in his father, though he has derived natural life from him. Hence the preposition in [¦<] is never used, nor with [FL<] in Rom. 5, but always through [*4"]. In Rom. 6 we have association with Christ, starting with being identified with Him in His death and burial (Rom. 6:4-8) and in life “alive unto God in Christ Jesus risen” (Rom. 6:11, 23) which puts us on wholly other ground, and that which is distinctively Christian. The only passage which appears at first sight an exception to this, namely, 1 Cor. 15:22, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” – is not really so. For the preposition [¦<] is constantly used for by.
“By [¦<] whom also he made the worlds.” “By [¦<] him all things consist,” or to give Mr. Stuart’s own translation of the word in another place, “The phrase means by, or in virtue of, the one . . . and by, or in virtue of the other.”
Indeed, it appears to include the resurrection of the wicked also by the power of Christ, for in the preceding verse we have, “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead,” {1 Cor. 15:21} that is, of dead persons; not the resurrection from among the dead, which is the way in which the resurrection of saints is invariably spoken of. The construction of the sentence also supports this thought; it is not all in Adam die and all in Christ shall be made alive, but “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”; and the context shows the power of Christ running on in its display to the final overthrow of death, in the raising of the wicked out of it. (Compare vs. 25 26, and Rev. 20:13). This would give the passage a range far beyond headship of race, extending the rights of Christ over all, and even death itself and the grave, by virtue of His having submitted to them as man, for the glory of God.
But if being in Christ involves our receiving the Holy Ghost, as Mr. Stuart says, that of itself shows that headship of race is a totally different thing, for the presence of the Holy Ghost is a glorious result of Christ’s being on high, and of His own title as ascended there, whilst the connection of headship of race is through representation or impartation of life, and there is not an allusion to the special presence of the Holy Ghost to be found in connection with it. It is the Holy Ghost who brings us into all the special privileges belonging to this dispensation, for “he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit” {1 Cor. 6:17}.
Headship of race indeed includes all who are saved Jews and Gentiles in the millennium, who certainly are “not in Christ” – or the national distinctions, any more than those of male and female, or any other differences in the flesh could not exist. “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free, there is neither m ale nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27 28). “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11; contrast Ezek. 44:9 Zech. 8:23). Nowhere do we find such a term {i.e., in Christ} used with reference to millennial saints, for the seed of Israel will regain their ancient preeminence above the Gentiles, as the prophets and the Psalms everywhere tell us.
But the serious nature of this statement that we are in Christ only as Head of the race, becomes apparent when we remember, that if true, it would put all the millennial saints into heavenly glory as well as ourselves, whilst we shall be reigning over them, and they the subjects governed; we, in glorified bodies, with Christ and like Christ, they earthly and suited to the earth in its new condition of blessing, as reigned over by Christ and His saints.
What confusion does the human mind introduce into scripture by the special pretension to accuracy of thought and in seeking to make scripture bend to a scheme of its own instead of bowing to its teaching in the sense of its own incompetency.
Chapter 5: What Is Being ?in Christ?? the New Man
In scripture, the term “in Christ” in its full signification as regards saints, is used in a double way.
First, as regards our position and condition in Christ, the risen Man, Firstborn from the dead, the beginning of the creation of God.
Secondly, as Head of His body, the church. And both these uses or significations put us into heaven in title and enjoyment, and give us our present place of privilege before God.
The first looks at us as individuals, in a common life by the Spirit, though associated with others; the second as in a corporate condition, and linked to the Head; the first is specifically the new man, and dates from the resurrection morning, when Christ appeared in the midst of His disciples and breathed on them, communicating His own risen life in the Holy Ghost {John 20:22}. This was not conversion or the new nature, which they were partakers of already; nor was it union by the Holy Ghost in one body, but Christ as the risen corn of wheat {John 12:24}, bringing them into all that in which He then stood, as man before God and as Son of the Father, the Firstborn among many brethren. It is evident that when He says, “My God and your God” {John 20:17}, He speaks as man, and gives them the same place which He has in righteousness, life and blessing in the presence of God and in nearness to Him; and though the Holy Ghost had to be given as power {Luke 24:49; Acts 2}, and in distinct personality, in order to bring out this place of privilege in its distinctness and fullness, yet it is important to see that this new and risen life and new creation-place date from this point, or the new man will not be clearly apprehended, nor the privileges connected with it, and in association with Christ as the risen corn of wheat either.
This figure {John 12:24} evidently represents Christ as man, including within Himself in resurrection, those that are so linked with Him in this new life. He had said, “Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more, but ye see me because I live ye shall live also,” which is an evident indication this new character of life would be in an abiding connection with Himself, flowing from, and continuous with His own. This He now fulfils. Of all the actions of our blessed Lord, when manifest here in flesh, this seems to be the most precious, tender, and significant. He had often touched them before (Matt. 14:31; 17:7; 1 John 1:1), and John had even rested in His bosom, but never had there been anything so sweet and tender as this breathing into them (¦<,NLF0F,) {John 20:22}, and giving His own life in the power of the Holy Ghost, as the “Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” {Rom. 8:2}. Only in this way could we be “in Him and He in us,” and share His thoughts and feelings in the sympathy of a common life, enjoying thus what He is, and having the capacity also for enjoying what He enjoys, in a way that far surpasses the nearest of human ties relationships, or kindred nature. But for this, even the full blessedness of the words “My Father and your Father, my God and your God” {John 20:17}, would not be fully understood or realized. If these words convey a sense of heavenly title, and of the intimacy of His relationship with the Father, this act introduces into the depth and reality of the whole, in a way which could not otherwise have been known.
“I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it, that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” “In that day” they were to know that Jesus was as the Son, in the Father, and not only that, but their own nearness also, “ye in me and I in you.” This corresponds with the “opened understanding” (“the mind of Christ,” though not power of testimony), described in Luke 24:36-40 evidently the same scene. In the Epistle to the Colossians also, as has been noticed, we have much more of the life of Christ developed, than of the distinct power and presence of the Spirit as in Ephesians, though as here we learn from the words, “your love in the Spirit,” that the Spirit of Christ is necessary to the activity of this life in us, which is really Christ, for “Christ is all and in all.”
In this we see what partly accounts for the defectiveness of Mr. Stuart’s system. If Mr. Grant can see nothing given to the disciples personally when the Lord “breathes on them and says, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” {John 20:22} but only their public commission; Mr. Stuart only perceives here the ecclesiastical or collective position assigned to them, and nothing individual. Now we do not question that both these are included in this scene, and that the blessed act of Christ here described, whilst emphatically though not exclusively individual, characterizes along with His presence the whole scene, confirming also the message sent by Mary Magdalene which gathered His disciples together. Mr. Stuart’s words showing all that he apprehends in it, are as follows
The breathing on the disciples in John 20 was, I believe, to give them His Spirit to act for Him during His absence, as He immediately says, “Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted,” &c. This gift the saints collectively share in still, and it is their authority for receiving into their midst. But it was not the giving them the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 1:4). This last is given to each individually. God gives it. The power was bestowed on them collectively, to act for Him in His absence (Some Answers to Inquiries, Feb.24th, 1885).
With these views it is easy to see how impossible it is for Mr. Stuart to understand what the new man really is, or being in Christ either, which he connects only with the descent of the Holy Ghost. As an illustration of this, he seems quite unable to comprehend what Mr. Stoney means when he distinguishes the old man from the old nature, the new man from the new nature. We cite his words
I have spoken of the need of keeping truths distinct else confusion will arise. An instance of this is furnished us in the statement, “hence every believer who never had any locus standi in the old man.” The old man, if scripture terms are to be used in a scriptural sense, is in us all, whether believer or not. It is our evil nature. We have not, nor could we, nor could any child of Adam, have a locus standi in the old man, nor be in the old man, for it is inside of us (p. 33).
Now a confusion is evident here between the new man created after God, which is the new nature in us, and new creation, which as in Christ, all believers are (p. 53).
The confusion here is in the mind of the objector, rather than in the one he corrects, for whilst he says that scripture terms are to be used in a scriptural sense, it will be seen that scripture never speaks in this way. Neither the old man nor the new man are ever said to be “in us”; the flesh is, but these terms, the old man and the new man, are always used in a general abstract sense, the old man as put off, and the new man as put on, by the believer in Christ. It is in this way exclusively that the word of God uses the term, “Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col.3:9, 10). On this Mr. Stuart remarks
Speaking of the truth connected with practice, saints are viewed as having put off (like a garment) the old man and having put on (as a garment) the new. This, of course, is descriptive of what our life and habits as Christians should display – true Christian profession –a different thought from that which Mr. Stoney expresses (p. 46).
You put off or put on a garment, and it is the same with the old and the new man, as Mr. S. justly says, yet you cannot have a garment inside of you; moreover, it is looked upon as a whole, a completed act, and as done for us in Christ. It is not merely “descriptive of what our life and habits as Christians should display, true Christian profession,” words which again betoken the defectiveness of Mr. S. ‘s view, but far more, what has taken place before God in the death and resurrection of Christ, and our identification with Him in all this. It is when this has been realized in the soul, that Christian practice alone can follow, and it is on this the apostle founds, that which should be displayed in the Christian’s life, who has to put off in detail what is inconsistent with the new man as seen in Christ, and to put on all that He manifested (Col. 3:8-12).
In page 7, Mr. S. insists
That if the new man is not implied in the Romans believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not viewed as having a new nature at all, that is, that they are not viewed as born of God. . . . The new birth, on which the Lord insisted, must be a mistake; [and] We are shut up to these, must we not call them monstrous conclusions? if it be an error to teach that the new man is not implied in Romans.
We are not shut up to any such monstrous conclusions, for the new man did not exist when the Lord spoke of the necessity of the new birth. When it is said that no passage of scripture can be found which speaks of the new man being in us, it may perhaps be replied that Christ is emphatically the new man, and He is in us; the reply is obvious that the abstract idea of the new man is dropped when Christ is said to be in us, and what is personal in Christ Himself introduced.
This new man “in Christ” is variously represented.
Sometimes it is viewed as giving us a new standing or position before God, as freed from all condemnation in Christ who is risen, after having borne, not only all our sins, but the judgment of sin in our nature, as in Rom. 8:1. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Sometimes it is looked at according to the blessed place of righteousness, life, and glory, which Christ now occupies, for we are “made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). In the Epistle to the Philippians – which adds the actual conformity to Christ in glory, and makes the whole future, looking at us as here on earth until Christ comes, and salvation, righteousness, and glory, as all realized then – it is to be found “in Christ,” “having the righteousness of God,” that is the object of the apostle’s desire, and to gain “the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” This is that for which he regards all besides as worthless, for which he was apprehended of Christ Jesus. How inconsistent is this with the idea of seeking to attain to a place, in a race composed of all the redeemed, many of whom have only an earthly portion given by God to them. It involves a height so magnificent, a glory so exalted, a heavenly position so blessed, that he looked on earthly things as unworthy of a thought, and could only weep when he thought of such low things, occupying the minds of heavenly saints. When he relates what he saw of the blessings belonging to “a man in Christ” (2 Cor. 12:2), of which he was the witness and sample, as translated into the third heaven, he could only “glory” in the title and privileges which are attached to such an one. Again, he speaks of it as new creation, and that he only knows Christ now in these new and wondrous associations {2 Cor. 5:16, 17}; showing us distinctly the estimate he formed of the new and heavenly place that belonged to man, which Christ had now taken, not according to the place man once had on earth, but according to what Christ Himself is entitled to, and claims for us also, as the result of the work accomplished by Him on earth on our behalf. Thus, in John 17, after speaking of His work as finished, He says, “Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am.”
In Eph. 1, being in Christ gives us, not righteousness and what is connected with it, but all the sweetness and depth of blessing bestowed on us, according to God’s delight in Christ Himself, and our being before Him in love, holy and without blame. In Notes and Comments on Scripture, part 6pp. 215-217, Mr. Darby thus puts it
Salvation is essentially in resurrection – of course through Christ’s death; no doubt, as regards the counsels of God, the raised are put in heavenly places but resurrection is the new estate. He “hath quickened us together with him, by grace ye are saved”; then comes the fruit and accomplishment of counsels (Eph. 2). So in Romans we have justifying and presenting in righteousness to God. And the Lord could say, “I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.”
The counsels of God set us individually in heavenly places, and besides that, as members of the body of Christ; and Jew and Gentile are raised up together, so as, de facto, to involve the unity of the body (p. 216).
Hence, Christ’s resurrection issues in justification of life in Romans, and quickening with Christ in Colossians and Ephesians; and resurrection with Him in Colossians involves, as part of that same plan and work, our being blessed in heavenly places, and the body of Christ.
But resurrection, after the effectual death of Christ clears us, and puts us in a new place in a new life. It saves us. We have died to sin, and are alive to God . . . The FL<,.T@B@\0F, (quickened together with) involves our being in the same glory further on.
The scripture last quoted shows that it is our position as saints, that is unequivocally in question. “Before him” is as certainly “position,” as “seated in heavenly places.” In the Gospel and Epistles of John, we have rather another aspect of this blessed truth; it is life and nature, and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in connection with life. “One as we,” “One in us.” “We are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 5:20); and again, “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit.” Now we are far from saying that Mr. Stuart denies all this, but his system is inconsistent with it, and practically excludes it. The making “in Christ” to be Headship of race lowers it to the level which that admits of; it can rise no higher, and all that is precious in it is thus lost. Then we have the refusal to allow, that “in Christ” means position; it is only condition, and the new nature is confused with the new man; so much so, that Mr. Stoney having said that the new man is not found in Romans (?), is charged by Mr. Stuart with implying that it is the old nature which produces fruit for God.
If the new man is not implied in Romans, man in nature then, can produce fruit well pleasing to God. So the ruin of man by the fall in that case is a myth, and the necessity for the new birth is all a mistake” (p. 59).
What are we to understand by “the complete newness of the man introduced by the Lord Jesus Christ? . . . If it means the new man in the believer, I am not aware that the Lord introduced that, though only in life on earth have we the perfect manifestation of it (p. 18 ).
The Lord did not bear the judgment of a nature, but the judgment due to individuals. All those whose judgment He bore, will undoubtedly be saved. It will be joy indeed, when we are for ever freed from the presence of sin within us – the old man. It would subvert Christianity to teach that the old nature has been atoned for; we should never be freed from it then (p. 23).
Mr. Stoney writes, “It is a denial of the work of Christ as to the annulling of the old man, to allege that we could be justified and retain it.” It would be a denial of the truth of God’s word, and of fact, and certainly a misconception of a very important section of the Gospel in the Romans, to teach that we have got rid o f the old man (p. 37). . . . Has not the man of Rom. 7 the new nature?
Unquestionably. And this Mr. Stoney admits (see p. 49), where he calls it the divine nature (p. 58).
Mr. Stuart’s system in all this is diametrically opposed to what most of us have learned from the word of God; so much so, that he cannot even comprehend that our Lord on the cross “bore the judgment of a nature,” or “terminated the old man, judicially or otherwise,” still less “the complete newness of the man introduced by the Lord Jesus.” He inquires “if it means the new man in the believer,” &c. He will not have a standing in the old man, nor in the new, nor position either, nor that the old man is “got rid of” in any sense.
What, then, is the meaning of our old man having been crucified with Christ {Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20}? If it was nailed to the cross, identified with Him there (and the Holy Ghost by the apostle, so states it), and Christ has died, was buried and is risen, surely it was judicially terminated. Certainly death brought it to its end in the cross of Christ; it cannot rise again out of His grave. So God regards it, and faith takes the same estimate of it as God does, and rejoices to do so. How many a believer has found freedom and liberty of soul in this very fact, denied by Mr. S.! No doubt, the flesh or the old nature is in us, and practically we all have to watch against it, as every Christian knows; but scripture does speak of the nature being judged in the cross, for if the “old man” “is crucified,” surely that is its judgment, and sin in the flesh has been condemned {Rom. 8:3}, that is, dealt with judicially– not in our persons, but in the death of the Son of God. If we do not keep that in view – as the place where its character was shown, and what was due to it, and God’s own dealing with it, and making a full end of it there (where, so to speak the battle was fought on our behalf), we shall never be free for the battleground is transferred to the place of weakness and defeat, our own hearts or experience. This is not denying that evil has to be resisted within, but the power of God is seen, as for us, in the cross, even when dealing with sin in the flesh to the uttermost. It has had its full sentence not only passed, but executed upon it there, and this apart from ourselves and our own efforts, and therefore the practical means of deliverance. “I am crucified with Christ,” says the apostle, “nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20). Where else but in the cross has the “I” been judged, or “crucified,” the old man been put off {Col. 3:9, 10; Eph. 4:22}, and, if put off, left, so to speak in the grave of Christ? “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ” (Gal. 4:27); for baptism is death, and in it we are risen with Christ, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead; and so have put on Christ; and again, “Putting off the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,” which is effected in His death (Col. 4:11, 12).
We have a remarkable figure of this judgment, both of the person and the nature, in the association of the stones taken out of Jordan, placed at Gilgal, with the circumcision of the people. These stones were set up by Joshua, both in Jordan and at Gilgal; the twelve stones evidently represented Israel, for their death and resurrection could only be in figure, but having passed through Jordan – which was death – they set up the witness of this at Gilgal, where they were circumcised, as having put off the body of the flesh, which as we have seen, was judged on the cross, and annulled there for faith. Hence they always returned to Gilgal after their victories, and there the reproach of Egypt was rolled away.
In the sight of God the flesh is gone, and only Christ is seen otherwise the soul would never be clear from the distress produced by its actual presence, and the consciousness of what it is – enmity against God {Rom. 8:7}. How otherwise, could it be free from the responsibilities flowing from its existence in the flesh, or at liberty before God, if the old man were not “judicially terminated” in the cross, and so “put off”? We are not only dead, but buried also (Rom. 6 Col. 2), to show the end of the old man, and of all that we are by nature, that the body of sin {Rom. 6:6; cp. Col.2:11}, that is, sin as a whole, might be brought to nought that henceforth we should not serve sin.
But all this, (says Mr. S.) is spoken of Christians, not of their evil nature, which is anything but terminated judicially or otherwise. We are to be dead to it precisely because it is not dead. Now it is very important, if we are to be clear on such points, to keep distinct in our minds the difference between person and nature. Statements are made at times, as if the old man our evil nature, derived from Adam by the fall, is dead and gone (p. 37).
Sometimes Mr. S. appears to admit what at others he denies on this head, namely, the condemnation of the old man. “If by judicial condemnation is meant its being condemned . . .I could quite accept it.” Why, then, find fault with it? – to most minds that is exactly what the expression conveys, but though in the scripture, it does not agree with Mr. S.’s system, as is evident from the passages quoted above, and hence the contradiction. He adds
Condemning the old man, or crucifying it, conveys to me a different thought from judicially terminating it. Such language distorts the gospel” (p. 36).
He crucified our old man with Christ. But Romans 6 treats of that which is to be made good experimentally in each one of us.
True, but we are brought down thus to experience, instead of apprehending by faith what God has done for us as the basis of all experience. How can Mr. S. say that it is “spoken of Christians that they have died”? It is certainly not the Christian as such, but looked at as in the flesh that the individual has died, and his old nature, position, and condition ended before God, and for faith. “The real question,” and “an important one, Am I practically dead to sin?” (p. 37) – Mr. Stuart’s great point – is just confusing and perplexing souls when put in this way. We are declared to have died, and our old nature to be crucified, or dead and gone, and that is the “real and important question, according to divine teaching.” To make it thus consist in, “Am I practically dead to sin?” is to weaken and destroy the effect of the truth as God has brought it to us in His word, throwing the soul back upon its experimental state, instead of upon what God has wrought for it on the cross. No one but a rampant heretic would say, as to fact, that his evil nature was “dead and gone”; but to teach that our Lord did not bear, on the cross, “the judgment of a nature,” where scripture speaks of sin in the flesh as condemned {Rom. 8:3}, and our old man crucified with Christ {Rom. 6:6}, is very-serious denial of scripture truth. To imply, also, that this is the same as, or has even any resemblance to, “atoning for the old nature” (p.23), is really throwing dust in the eyes. The former is a blessed truth, the latter a revolting absurdity.
The new man is seen in Christ Himself, and the “man in Christ,” subsequent to resurrection, for blessed and perfect as He ever was in every association or position, He is now no longer connected with earth as once in the days of His flesh but has commenced life in a new order and character in resurrection power and condition, being raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, is no longer in any way accessible to temptation {testing} (Rom. 6:4, 9-11), having death and resurrection between Himself and it, which is true to faith of ourselves likewise. In Rom. 7 it is life, and the aspiration of for {sic} life, and to this Mr. Stoney refers, in contrast with our position in Christ, described in Rom. 8, though, no doubt, there experimentally realized. It is in Ephesians and Colossians we are said to have put off the old man, and put on the new man, but Christ is all, and in all {Col. 3:9, 10 Eph. 4:22}.
Thus, not only the position and existence of the new man, as an abstract thought of what we are in Christ, is wanting in Mr. S.’s scheme, but the fact that he makes the being in Christ to consist exclusively in the reception of the Holy Ghost, fully accounts for his being unable even to perceive, what is in question. Now we see these blessed realities in our Lord Himself, as presented in type, in the meat-offering. In the fine flour is depicted the pure and perfect humanity of Christ, mingled with oil, the type of the Holy Ghost in living energy, acting in and from His birth but the anointing with oil followed, indicating the descent of the Holy Ghost (Lev. 2:5, 6) personally upon Him at His baptism. The same things, in measure, are true of us, but just as the fine flour, the growth of this earth, or the green ears of corn, and the wave-sheaf, set forth the perfect human nature of the Lord, which formed the foundation, in every case, of the offering, so, when the Lord speaks of Himself as the risen corn of wheat multiplied {John 12:24}, we have, in reality, the new man introduced by Christ, which gives the characteristic position of the believer, though it could not be known in its full power and personal display till Pentecost.
We know, from Acts 1, that, through the Holy Ghost, He gave commandments to His disciples, after His resurrection proof of the action of the Holy Ghost in the new and risen Man before ascension, and its blessed and further results for us.
The apostle tells us that the object of his instruction warning, labor, and conflict, was to “present every man perfect in Christ Jesus”; thus, indeed, we shall be presented through grace, and we have to grow up to “a perfect man,” “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” {Eph. 4:13}. This looks onward to the future, and how we are to be presented before God, but whether it be the future or the present, this is “the ground on which He has set us in His presence” – we are before Him in love. And again, “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30), the last having in view the complete accomplishment of all in glory, that “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” So that Christ is the measure of the Christian standing, in the place in which He is found before God, for this is not His exclusively personal place on the throne. When He says Himself, “My God, and your God”{John 20:17}, He speaks as man, and speaks of a place, or standing which He has acquired for us. We must either conclude that Christ has only representatively this standing justified before the throne, or that the believer has no standing, or position, in Christ before God at all. Mr. Stuart may say, “I reject the latter” (p. 36), but what has he not lost? – the true Christian position in Christ is entirely gone.
Thus he himself declares
We are told, “This Man’s – that is, the Lord Jesus Christ’s – standing determines the Christian’s standing.”
Is this so? . . . We are accepted by virtue of His sacrifice. If we apply the word “standing” to Him, we must mean the ground on which He is for Himself in God’s presence. His standing – to use Mr. Stoney’s term – cannot of itself determine the Christian’s standing. That would be, on the one hand, to ignore, or reject, our need of atonement; or, on the other hand, to teach that He had need of it also, which last would be blasphemy. It is His sacrifice which determines our standing (Is it the Truth of the Gospel? p. 19).
Without adopting the word “standing” as one to be preferred in speaking of our blessed Lord, the effect of this reasoning is evidently to shut out the vast range of what belongs to Him, and is conferred by God on Him as Man, in which we can have a part, according to the thoughts and counsels of His love, but which Mr. Stuart excludes by limiting us to the two alternatives, namely: the standing of the believer before the throne, justified, which Christ could not have; and secondly, to that place on the throne which is absolutely and exclusively His own, and one, therefore, in which we could not share. He ignores, in all this, what it is hardly possible any one, who has been even slightly conversant with what has been elicited from scripture through the writings of brethren, can be ignorant of – the fact that there is this middle place (if such an expression may be allowed) between these two, which the Lord has taken, because, as His love assures, He would not abide alone {John 12:24}. Now, to say that our Lord had a place in heaven by virtue of His own blood, would be to imply that He needed that blood (as we do) to be there; but to say that in doing His (that wonderful) work, in which sin was put away, He, being what He was, so glorified God as Man, that He could take a new place as Man, and for man, in heaven, in which we share as men in Christ, is a totally different thing, though, to Mr. S., it seems impossible.
It is impossible to have our standing in the righteousness of God. I cannot have a standing in God’s consistency with His character; I can, however, have my standing in harmony with it, and I can be an illustration of it (p. 32).
Constantly, alas! does Mr. S. submit scripture, when it militates against his views, to this sort of intellectual puzzle, which needs to be dissected, or the meaning is lost to those who accept it. Now we read that we “cannot have a standing in God’s consistency with His character.” But it is God’s acts in righteousness which are in question, both in dealing with sin in the cross, in giving Christ a place before Him, according to what He has done, and giving it to us in Him also, so that “we are made, or become, the righteousness of God in him”; and this is displaying divine righteousness; thus we can have a standing in this divine righteousness, Christ’s own position, ours in Him being founded on it, expressed in these blessed but righteous acts; not only the wall, but “the street of the heavenly city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.” The next verse (2 Cor. 6:1), where the apostle beseeches that the grace of God should not be received in vain, shows that this position “in Christ” is a present one. Eph. 1:4, 5 are also relegated to one future, “as our calling, of which we are now to know the hope” (p. 24). “God’s purpose is, too that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love” (p. 8); thus again are we deprived of our present blessings.
We find also three arguments on 1 John 4:17. The first is as follows
Mr. Stoney finds fault with my writing, “By standing is meant the title and ability, through grace, for a fallen and once guilty creature to be before the throne of God without judgment overtaking him.” Now he tells us the true standing is “as Christ is,” I will quote the whole verse to which he refers us. “Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17). It is plain, then, if we get in this verse the true Christian standing, that it has some connection with the thought of the throne, since the Christian is to have boldness in the day of judgment by that which he knows is true of him now. Simple folk would probably conclude that, if this passage defines the true Christian standing, connected, as it certainly is, with the thought of the day of judgment, there can be nothing, after all, so radically wrong in that which I wrote, but to which Mr. S. here takes such exception (p. 28).
How far this is from the apostle’s thought, that our standing has some connection with the throne or the day of judgment will appear, by observing that he looks at the most solemn moment that can ever occur in the history of man, when the heaven and earth flee away, and others, even the wicked dead, are raised, to stand before the great white throne for judgment (the angels also, being reserved to the judgment of that day); and he says that love has wrought so wondrously for us even here, by making us, even now, as Christ is in this world, that we can have boldness in view of it. How destructive of the force of this most lovely passage, to make it teach that it is a question of ourselves, and extract from it the notion of our standing before the throne, because others then will do so in that most solemn day. What follows still further perplexes the passage.
Second argument I can say, I have a standing; I could not say, I am a standing. Now John here expresses what we are, not what we have.
But the apostle is speaking of what gives boldness, or confidence, and the excellence of that title in God’s presence on which it rests. Now this title, though Mr. Stuart cannot see it, does consist in what Christ is, and we may, and do stand before God in what He is, for His title to be in God’s presence, after having borne our sins, and the judgment of them, is now righteously ours. It should be observed, that the apostle has already given us divine life and the value of the sacrifice, the propitiation for our sins, as that which love has provided to meet our guilty condition. He then proceeds further, and speaks of love, further assuring us, in that God dwells in us, and we in Him; then to show how love is made perfect, he rises to the high and blessed thought of Christ’s own place of righteousness, nearness, and acceptance, and says, “As he is, so are we in this world” {1 John 4:17}; that is, even though in the midst of sin and death. What I am therefore, shows what I have, since it what He is, and has, as God’s accepted One.
Third argument
The apostle predicates something as true of the believer in this world. “As Christ is, so are we in this world.”
Now when we think of our standing before God, as scripture treats of it, we think of being before Him who sits enthroned in the highest heaven, not of what we are in this world, though our standing before Him in heaven is to be known by us whilst on earth.
Can anything exceed the poverty of spiritual vision to which this would-be exactitude of the human mind brings its author!
Mr. Stuart, indeed, can only think of a standing before the throne, not merely as a title, as he has told us abundantly, but as a locality. The apostle John’s spiritual apprehension happily, has no such narrow limit, and though not occupied with position so much as the apostle Paul, yet, including this he gives us here the range of our position, whatever may be in view with reference to the future, drawing his conclusion from what we now are, before we have the glorified bodies which will witness, in another scene, to the perfection of the place already given us. For, wherever we may be, as Christ is, so are we in God’s sight, and that, even now: all this is effaced by this narrow notion about the throne. How completely, alas! is the truth eclipsed on these all-important points of divine revelation, acceptance in Christ, and the nearness consequent on it, in what being in Christ consists the position before God it gives us, the primary end of the old man, the putting on of the new, the very meaning of these terms, with the substitution of Headship of race for them, so that on each distinctive point the truth of God is subverted.
Chapter 6: ?in Christ,? As Membership of His Body
Another great branch of the subject is the bearing of our position as members of the body of Christ. Mr. Stuart denies that we are in heaven as such, or that the term “in Christ” refers to this membership.
It is not easy to see the ground of Mr. Stuart’s denial, in page 47, that he had taught that being in the heavenlies was condition.
Being “in Christ,” as the opposite to being ranged under Adam’s headship, is state or condition, who can gainsay it? But being in the heavenlies was never said by me to be condition, as the reader may see by a reference to page 22. So now we are there, that is, the heavenlies; but as in Him, that is, in spirit – not in person. In that region, in which the Head of the race actually is, all ranged under His headship are viewed as now being, but in Him; and the order in which this truth is expressed, “in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,” is corrective of mistaken thoughts.
Contrast this with page 13, Christian Standing and Condition
For there are two lights in which the sinner is viewed.
In the one, he is seen as a responsible, guilty creature who needs a standing before the throne, but has it not in the other he is seen as one dead in sins, who needs quickening. Romans 1:11 treats of the former; Eph. 2:1-7, of the latter. Now, where being dead in sins and quickening are treated of, condition or state, not standing before the throne, is the theme, and the truth of “in Christ” is then made prominent. This we see in Ephesians.
This seems to state plainly enough that our being in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in Eph. 2:6, is condition, not position besides which, in pages 17, 18, we have the condition of the divine Persons in the Godhead brought forward to prove that in Christ Jesus cannot mean position.
Could we speak of His [the Son’s] position as in the Father?
Condition, then, or state (though we should scarcely like to use the word, state of the Father or of the Son) is the thought implied by being in Christ and this is stated without any exception in the first pamphlet.
Of course the absurdity of denying our being “seated” to be position is obvious enough, but what then becomes of the theory that being in Christ is not position, which is an essential basis of this system? Yet Mr. S. himself finds it difficult enough to make this term, as applied to divine Persons and ourselves, identical; strangely as he endeavors to force it, as an argument, upon his readers.
As members of the body, on the other hand, we are viewed as, and have a service, as such, to do upon earth. “Union” connects us with Christ in heaven, but does not now put us into heaven (pp. 48, 49).
How important is the truth in question, whether the members are so connected with the Head, as to share in His present place in consequence, personally and consciously, the body of course excepted!
It has been already noticed that we are looked upon as individually in heaven in Christ in the early verses of Eph. 1 and collectively rather than corporately there in Eph. 2:5, 6 where we are said to be “quickened together with Christ,” “raised together” with Christ, and “made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Now there is no such word as together in Eph. 1:1-6, thrice repeated in Eph. 2; nor are we there said to be “seated” in the heavenlies. We are, on the contrary, spoken of as “before him in love,” which is quite a different idea, that is, that of presentation and position before God, for which we were chosen as individuals before the world began; brought nigh to God in Christ, the risen man, and seen as accepted, or graced in His sight, in the Beloved – but when it is said that we are “seated,” it can only be in Him as members of His body, sharing in the present rest, and exalted position of the Head. This is brought out at the end of Eph. 1, where the greatness of the power which God wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and set Him in the heavenly places, is said to be the power exerted toward every one of us. “What is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ,” when He raised and exalted Him. This power not only includes resurrection, but ascension, and ultimately, exaltation over everything, as a part of the position of the body of which Christ is the Head. Moreover the power is one and the same, beginning with its first manifestation in the grave, and carried on until its complete effect is seen in this glorious position given, whether now or in the future.
The connection of the next chapter, which further particularizes the natural condition of Jew and Gentile, and the way God came in in mercy, to meet it and give us this place in the heavenlies in Christ, even now is shown in the words, “And you hath he quickened,” &c. This quickening with Christ, or, according to the power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him, only spoken of in Ephesians and Colossians, appears to be special and distinctive of the members of the body, and commences with the point of death, where Christ, and those who are to be so linked with Him are found; Christ, through grace, coming into it, and we, through our natural state of ruin. Nowhere else is this power applied in like manner to ourselves with Christ; nor exaltation or position with Christ, whether now or in the future, so exactly described. It is all, moreover, according to the plan and purpose of God, for “the ages to come,” in which we are to be distinguished from others by this wondrous association and position in which His special “kindness” and “riches of grace” are shown {Eph. 2:7}. It is also according to that great love which looked on us when in our natural condition of ruin and depravity, to link us in every step and for eternity, “together” with the object of His unutterable affection. The word seated implies, not only position, but conscious possession and enjoyment of all the blessings and advantages of that position, so much so, that the most exalted beings of God’s creation, principalities and powers in heavenly places, are, by this means (that is, the place of the church as the body of Christ), learning, at the present time, the admirable wisdom of God (Eph. 3:9, 10) whilst, for the same reason, our conflict is with adverse principalities and powers, also in heavenly places {Eph. 6:12}. Were this only “Headship of race,” all this special blessing for ages to come, as well as all that angels are “now” learning, would be made void or nullified.
Certainly Eph. 2:1-10 views us as Christian saints, and not there as members of the body, for the teaching about being in Christ is in question. The figures scripture uses are helpful, and the doctrine of the word about the Body, and about being in Christ proves it.
Shall we say we are viewed in Ephesians 2:1-6 as the body of Christ? But the body had no existence till after the Lord had ascended. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Was the body dead in trespasses and sins? Saints were; we who are Christians were. To hold such a dogma, we must surrender distinctive teaching about the church of God. Besides, the being in Christ, as Galatians 3:29 teaches, brings us into association with Abraham – we thus become his seed. Was Abraham a member of the body? (Is it the Truth? &c. p. 57).
The argument that all this in Eph. 2 cannot apply to anything more than Headship of race, because the Holy Ghost alone unites us to Christ as members of His body, is answered by the fact, that the time when the individual members, most of whom were not even in existence when Christ was raised, are brought into this, is not in contemplation (any more than the moment of their faith or conversion, equally needful and subsequently spoken of), but the new creation-act and power of God, as a whole, towards those whom He makes members of Christ, from their death in sin, “quickening them together with him.” The entire work is God’s own; and if He quickens and seats them thus in heaven, He knows how to bring them individually, as members, into the enjoyment of it, according to what is wrought in the soul by His quickening power, and by the Holy Ghost personally. But here we have God’s view of the whole work in its completeness, for “the ages to come” must include the body also, though not so stated, any more than the place of the Holy Ghost in the accomplishment of this purpose.
Another of the miserable arguments made use of to weaken the force of scripture teaching, in this passage and elsewhere, as to the identification of the members with the Head, and the use of the term “in Christ,” here applied to them as such, is that the members of a man’s body cannot be said to be “in the Head,” nor the Head either in the members.
In Christ is not union with Him. The figures used in the word are instructive. No one ever saw a human body (for that is the figure) with its members in the head, but joined to the head (Answers to Inquiries, by C. E. S., March 3rd, 1885).
Now the word of God does speak of the members being in Christ, and it is, as Mr. S. avows, “a perilous thing” to “contradict flatly” the word of God, even if he had the consent of all the Christian writers in the world to support him in it. The Holy Ghost, writing by the apostle, states “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ and every one members one of another” (Rom. 12:4, 5). No language can affirm more distinctly than this, that the members are looked upon as “in Christ.” Nor is it true, as Mr. S. affirms that it is commonly agreed that we have not union of the body with Christ, contemplated in Romans; but the practical effect of union among ourselves is treated of (Christian Standing and Condition, p. 30).
It has indeed been truly said, that “being in Christ and the body, though recognized as common Christian knowledge form no part of the teaching of the Epistle” ({J. N. Darby} Notes and Comments, part 6, p. 217); and the same remark has been made as to the ascension of Christ. These subjects are not “treated of” in this Epistle; but to declare they are not “contemplated” is quite another thing. Mr. S. might as well say, that “Who is even at the right hand of God,” did not mean Christ’s present position, because it is only mentioned once, and not treated of in the Romans.
But the teaching of the Holy Ghost is constantly the opposite of Mr. Stuart’s, for we have, “As the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is the Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:12, 13). Here Christ, or “the Christ,” stands for the whole, and all are included in Him, and this is seen still more distinctly in Eph. 4:15. “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.” Now, they must be in Him as members, to grow up into Him who is the Head. Again, in Colossians, where the apostle is showing that saints are, as united to Christ, above all ordinances in the flesh, and angels, and everything in a lower region than Christ Himself, in His nearness to God and place of exaltation, he says, “Ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power” {Col. 2:10}. It is not as Head of a race that He occupies this position, but as “Head over all things in heaven and earth” (Eph. 1:1019-23). Nor can we be higher, either as regards relation to God, creation, or heavenly powers; nor more blessed as to our relation to Christ Himself, the Head, for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily {Col. 2:9}. So in Col. 1, He, by whom all things were created, who is before all things, and by whom all things consist, is the Head of the body, the church, “who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence,” for all the fullness of Godhead was pleased to dwell in Him. Here we have the same relation of Head towards the body in His preeminence of position over all things, and personal, divine fullness, bringing the members into a place above the reach of the vain efforts of man to raise himself in his own way, and by his own speculations which arose from “not holding the Head” {Col. 2:19}, in whom God has given us a place of blessing so wondrous, and who is “in us,” the hope of glory.
Being “in Christ,” therefore, does properly belong to and is descriptive, not only of that which is connected with the new man, but of the members in their connection with Christ as Head; and though the members are not spoken of as in the Head, the Head being properly the distinctive appellation of Christ, in contrast with the body, they are spoken of as “in Christ,” because the term “the Christ” stands for the whole mystic man, the Head and the members together. (1 Cor. 12:12). And all that the Head enjoys is necessarily partaken of by the members, though the body, in its corporate character, as has been long accepted among us is regarded as on earth; for when we speak of the body, we do so distinctively, as contrasting it with the Head, whilst the members have their existence and are certainly in the man seen as a whole, and both together make up the complete man (Eph. 1:23). “Thus the bubble” (as Mr. S. expresses it), “for it is one, bursts at once.”
But Gal. 3:29 is used to drag Abraham into Eph. 2:1-10in order to dispose of the thought that this passage teaches union with Christ, because the apostle declares that being in Christ, “we thus become his [Abraham’s] seed.” “Was Abraham a member of the body?, it is asked. Now, it is being identified with Christ, and in Him, the new man before God, who is the true Isaac, or seed of Abraham, to whom the promises were made (Gal. 3:16), that we become the seed of Abraham. Those who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and thus come into His heirship, as the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29); but this is far from measuring what we have, as in Christ, who introduces us, as associated with Himself, into those heavenly blessings, which were never promised to Abraham at all, who was only “the heir of the world,” and does not share in the other titles of Christ which we enjoy. Beyond all question, Abraham was not, and never could be, Abraham’s seed, nor was he “in Christ,” as we are, either. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” {Gal. 3:28}, is directly in contrast with distinctions, that had their commencement and foundation in Abraham’s position. Nor is “of Christ,” or belonging to Him, identical with being “in Christ,” but far more general, as may be seen by reference to 1 Cor. 1:12and 2 Cor. 10:7, though the two expressions may be used of the same persons and their connection with Christ. But all this is a painful illustration of Mr. Stuart’s views and way of handling scripture. First, Gal. 3:27-29 is used to lower the term “in Christ” to the Abrahamic level, and then forced into Eph. 2:1-10 to reduce that beautiful passage also to the same standpoint, namely, headship of race.
The ruinous effect of this system will now be apparent not only on the apprehension of our heavenly position and privileges, but on the vast amount of scripture affected by it.
For it is again and again reiterated that “in Christ” and “Christ in us,” refers to headship of race exclusively(Christian Standing and Condition, pp. 18, 30); so that wherever these terms are used – Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans – all is brought down to the millennial level, though those Epistles which present the heavenly side of truth, are most seriously affected by it, unless indeed we except the writings of the apostle John; for even in explaining John 14:20 – “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you” – and reasoning on it, in reference to the Persons in the Godhead, we find
This passage then throws light on what being in a person, and that one reciprocally in him, must mean.
It is a condition of Godhead, since there are plurality of Persons in the Godhead, that the Son should be in the Father, and the Father in the Son; it is a condition of saints through grace, that they are in Christ, and Christ in them. And this is made the more apparent, when we remember that in Christ is used in contrast to being in Adam – the two heads of races, under which those belonging to each are ranged” (Christian Standing and Condition, p. 18).
So that this most blessed and divine association with Christ in life, nature, and communion, in the power of the Holy Ghost – which has its analogy in the unity of the divine Persons, and even that unity itself – we have deeply deteriorated by this headship of race; and this, of course includes John 17 and the Epistle of John, where the expression “in Him” is so often made use of, for it is on the same ground as John 14:20, and the same truth is applicable, on which Mr. S. gives utterance to these miserable arguments about the divine Persons.
Where can Mr. Stuart have got to in his own soul? we feel constrained to ask, for his own sake, and for the sake of others. Alas! he lets us know, only too distinctly, to what extent injury may be done by allowing the human mind to work in its own way upon divine truth. Three passages from his writings will illustrate this.
It (the Bible) is a revelation from One who has not revealed all that He knows, but only all that is good for the creature to know. So in studying the written word we are brought into intercourse with the thoughts of Him whose mind is not fathomed by the revelation He has vouchsafed, though He must always speak from the height of His own knowledge and purposes (p. 3).
How different this is from the language of the apostle when speaking of the nature and extent of the revelation made to us, or the means and power of its communication and enjoyment, “The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things [or depths] of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things which are freely given to us of God” (1 Cor.2:10-12). Again, the Lord tells His disciples, “When he the Spirit of truth, is com e, he will guide you into all truth. . . All things that the Father hath are mine, therefore, said I, that he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you” (John 14:12-14). And when, speaking of the place of confidence and intimacy into which He was introducing His disciples, and which the Holy Ghost would make known to them fully: “Henceforth, I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends: for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15). Mr. Stuart has lost the true Christian place, and has got back into the place properly belonging to “the creature,” or servant, the Jewish position as such, for the master communicates only “what is good for his servant to know.” Was this the Son’s place with the Father? This is the “creature’s” place, but it is exactly the opposite of what the Lord states and the apostle, when he quotes, “Who [that is, the creature] hath known the mind of the Lord? . . . But we”(he replies) “have the mind of Christ” {1 Cor. 2:16}, and the Holy Ghost knows the deep things of God, and reveals them, as the spirit of man the things of a man. Not, of course, that we cease to be creatures, but the place of intimacy and nearness and friendship we are taken into Mr. S. has lost. “All things that I have heard of my Father” – how different from, “All that is good for the creature to know”!
Again, Mr. S. writes
We rejoice, too, in hope of the glory of God. The day of the display of God’s glory, when the king shall come forth in power, and establish God’s authority on earth by the execution of judgments, the saint no longer fears, but on the contrary, looks forward to it as a hope” (Christian Standing and Condition, p. 8).
This is (like the last passage) exactly the hope of the Jewish remnant: “Then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh” (Luke 21:28). Mr. S. tells us “he did not say it was confined to this.” No, doubtless but the scripture tells us, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”; and if Mr. S. had not brought himself down to the level of a Jewish saint, he never could have penned such a comment on the apostle’s beautiful statement of the joy flowing from a place in the divine glory, nor have added to the supremely blessed passage
We joy also, or boast, in God – knowing (too) that He will listen to no charge that may be brought against us however true such a charge might be” (Christian Standing and Condition, p. 8).
The introduction of the word “too,” now that attention has been called to the defectiveness of his apprehension of these blessings, will not suffice to conceal that all this is the natural outcome of his views, and may well serve as a warning to those whose spiritual sensibilities are awake and who have learned to “try the things that differ.”
“Surely, in vain is the snare laid in the sight of any bird.”
Well may he say, “No higher place can a saint have than a standing before the throne,” for it is evident he has nothing “higher,” and knows of nothing “higher.”
Chapter 7: New Creation
The last subject brought before us, of importance, is that of new creation. We have seen that Mr. Stuart’s system corresponds with that of the old Puritans or early evangelicals, upon these great branches of their teaching namely, justification by blood or by sacrifice only; headship of race, which was all they knew with reference to association with Christ and what they constantly and largely insisted on; and thirdly, we shall find very similar views touching new creation or a new creature – that being held by them to be exhibited in the regeneration of the believer, “or a spiritual race, different from everything that had been ever before produced,” so that, as Mr. Stuart says, “he looked on everything in a new light”; but they had no idea of any new material creation, or sphere, though, perhaps, they might not have gone to the length of denying it, as Mr. S. Thus Mr. S. expresses himself on this subject
A complete change comes, as it were, over the scene consequent on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The man who in Christ is a new creation is still, as to his identity, the same person he was before his conversion. But things are to be seen by him in a new light.
So the old things can pass away and become new. Individuals are the same now as before. Things are the same, relationships are the same; but all are viewed from a new standpoint. The relationships which existed before exist still. . . . Hence new creation is not a place or region into which he [the believer] will one day enter . . . He [Christ] is the beginning of it, and each one in Him is a new creation. This creation then is spiritual not material, like that of old (“New Creation,” Voice to the Faithful, May, 1879).
It was brought out by leading teachers among us, some forty or more years since, that the ordinary teaching on this subject was essentially defective, that Christ was foundation and Head of a new creation, which was the display of the power of God in heaven and earth; that it was a new sphere or region, as a result of the manifest power of God where “all things” were “of God” {2 Cor. 5:17, 18}. Well does the writer remember the first effect of realizing what it was to be brought into definite association with this new sphere of created existence, instead of the old view of being “a new creature”; and “viewing things in a new light,” and then looking within to see what corresponding effects of divine life were produced. Identified with a new system of power which was all of God, it seemed to lift the soul out of itself; whilst the unfolding of that system, entirely new to the mind in its grandeur and blessing as a fresh creation of God, gave additional interest, expansion of soul and spiritual strength being coupled with the apprehension of divine righteousness upon the same ground. A new “position,” and not merely a new condition, or state of apprehension; for it is evident that the same principles are at work in what is denied here, as in other parts of Mr. Stuart’s scheme.
First, as to the old creation, Mr. S. tells us that man was a creation of God, but that the earth “was not re-created for him,” but only “made,” for Mr. S.’s idea of creation is limited to what is brought into existence out of nothing, but he again gives us no authority for this but his own, though as elsewhere, he states it as if there could be no possible question touching what he affirms, and no appeal from it.
Scripture, on the contrary, constantly speaks of creation very differently, that is, not only of God calling matter into being that had no previous existence, but when He produces forms of organic life and beauty, whether animal or vegetable, out of dead, inert material, or introduces into matter already existing, a new kind of life and power.
Man was created on the sixth day after earth emerged by divine fiat, from a state of chaos, into which, for causes unknown to us, it had been allowed to get, for God created it not a waste (Isa. 45:18). Was earth re-created for man? No. It was made in those six days for him, (Ex. 20:11), and he, a fresh creation of God appeared on the scene, and found earth was the appointed sphere for him as man (Psa. 115:16.) Hence the creation of a race does not of necessity involve the recreation of a place or sphere in which that race is to find its home. As it was then, so it is now. The one in Christ is a new creature, and the heavenlies are the sphere in which that creation can find its home, and has its proper place according to God’s appointment (Christian Standing and Condition, pp. 21, 22).
Man was “created” and the rest, we are told, in contrast, was “made,” because formed out of matter previously created but this is completely upset by the express statement of scripture, that the peopling the waters with animal life, and the air also, was an act of creative power (Gen. 1:21), or we are shut up to the absurd conclusion, that whilst the fishes and the birds of the air also, were created, the beasts of the field and cattle were only made.
The word of God, speaking of man’s physical form in its origin, “Male and female created he them,” tells us that he as well as the lower animals, was “made” (Gen. 1:26; 5:1) or “formed” out of pre-created material. “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7), so that this notion of creation’s being only applied to what is called into being out of nothing, would be equally destructive of the idea of man’s creation, as applied to his body, concerning which the statement of scripture is absolute. Hence we see the very same language used concerning the formation of the animals as of man. “But out of the ground the Lord God formed (Heb. 97*) every beast of the field and every fowl of the air” (Gen. 2:19). Thus scripture speaks of the whole scene formed and fashioned out of chaos, as creation, and that “God rested on the seventh day from all his work that he created and made” (or to make, Gen. 2:3); and it is added “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4). This evidently is not the original creation of matter, but the scene of life, order and beauty which God had caused to spring forth out of that chaotic state, by creative energy, as the connection of the verses, speaking of the rest of the seventh day, makes apparent, and the word “generation” (comp. Gen. 5:1), for here the inspired writer goes on to specify that this creation embraced every plant and every herb before it grew or was in the ground, as included in what was made or created (Gen. 2:5), which accords with what the apostle tells us, that “Every creature (6J\F:") of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:4).
The word created is mainly used, as we have said, for a new and special display of almighty power; thus Moses, in predicting the earthquake which swallowed up Korah and his company, says, “If the Lord make a new thing in the earth” – the Hebrew, as in the margin, is, “create a creature” (Num. 16:30). Again “I have created the waster to destroy” (Isa. 44:16). “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil” (Isa. 45:7). We have then destructive evil and darkness, when it did not previously exist, spoken of as created by God. Moral and spiritual effects and scenes of blessing are similarly described, where new life and power from God are in operation. “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psa. 51:10). “I create the fruit of the lips” (Isa. 58:19). “God will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of valleys; and make the wilderness a pool of water, and plant in the wilderness, the cedar, the shittah, the myrtle and the olive, that they may see and know that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it” (Isa. 41:18-20).
Sometimes moral and physical creation are brought together as corresponding effects of divine, creative power and we have similar expressions – “Life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15), “regeneration” (Matt. 19:28), and even resurrection itself in the figure of the dry bones (Ezek. 38) – used as descriptive of the change that will ensue in the condition of Israel, and the whole moral state of things, now become the sphere of Christ’s power and glory: “Be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create; for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” This is given as an illustration of the same power that will create the new heavens and the new earth. “Behold,” God says, “I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind.” This strong language “that the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind,” shows us plainly enough that the Spirit of God has the complete change in view, spoken of by the apostle Peter and in Rev. 21, when, the first heaven and the first earth being destroyed by fire, God “makes” or “creates,” for both words are used as elsewhere, taking, it may be, the same material as the basis, a new scene for the abode of men and His dwelling-place with man. Creative energy is even applied to the fresh putting forth of divine power in the ordinary operations of nature. “Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created, and thou renewest the face of the earth” (Psa. 104:30). “The people which shall be created shall praise the Lord” (Psa. 102:18). (Compare also Isa. 48:6,7).
Creation is ascribed to each of the divine Persons, but specially to the Son. In Col. 1 He is thus spoken of as Creator of all things in heaven and earth, and by Him they are all to be reconciled, having been defiled by the presence of sin. He sustains them all, they also were created for Him – but how does He take them? In the power of His resurrection and victory over death, thus introducing new-creation-life into the whole scene, for He is the "BP0 or beginning {Col. 1:18}, the Fountain-head of the whole scene of power, as the Firstborn from the dead, as well as the Firstborn of the whole creation. This is repeated in Rev. 3:14, where He is again called the "BP0, or beginning of the creation of God, which could not be said of the old creation, for it is His relation to it as Man, and as risen from the dead, that is in question. Certainly, in resurrection only is He the foundation and source of this new creation; for “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more: therefore, if any man be in Christ, [there is] new creation” {2 Cor. 5:16, 17}. Here we may apply the apostle’s word on another subject, “in that he saith, new, he hath made the first old” {Heb. 8:13}; and we have seen that this scene is called the regeneration {Matt. 19:28}, or birth again, for the whole state of things is morally new in the millennium, like the new-born joy of Jerusalem; and Christ takes it, and fills it with His mediatorial, life-giving power and glory, exalted as Man over all. “He that ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:9, 10). In Eph. 1:23 also we are told, that He who is the Head of His body, the church, is the One who, as Head over all, “fills all in all,” which corresponds with the thought of the Spirit of God in Col. 1 that He who is the beginning, or the Firstborn, in the whole sphere of the divine action and display, has the supreme preeminence in “all things,” because He first created, and now sustains, and will be the Head and Center, in new creation power and heavenly glory, for all the fullness of the Godhead bodily was pleased to dwell in Him {Col. 2:9}; so that this preeminence(BDTJ,LT<) is not merely what the heart of every Christian delights to render to Him, but the necessary and entire ascendancy of His Person over all. It has been remarked, that the nearer we are brought in relationship to Him, the more the soul loves to honor and adore Him in His own personal and exclusive supremacy.
It is as a consequence of connection with Christ that we are linked with, and brought into, the new creation. Such is the force of the apostle’s argument in 2 Cor. 5. He has spoken of the death of Christ for man, as having its judicial effect upon all, owned distinctly by those that believe; but if Christ Himself is in this new position, so that He is no longer known as once He was in His relations in the flesh, however perfect and blessed He was in them, having died for us because our state required it, He has necessarily passed into relationships of a higher order than Jewish associations, or His title as Man on earth, could give: “We know him,” thus “no more.” Hence the abstract nature of the declaration “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, [there is] new creation” {2 Cor. 5:16, 17}, for it is in that connection that he (the apostle) so stands associated with Christ, and not in the old one, as an Israelite, who might claim relationship with Him as the Son of David, and, as the apostle was a Jew, he naturally speaks of (J .BP"Ã") ancient things as passed away, however sanctioned and honored, as they had once been, even by God Himself, in a former dispensation. “All things have become new,” or, according to the reading adopted by some, “New things have come in,” or, “taken place.”
All things are of God, also, in contrast with man in the flesh and all his surroundings, not only divine life, position and righteousness but the whole range of the display of God’s power and glory in Christ, starting from resurrection right on into the new heaven and earth. We ourselves also are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 2:10), which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them; for new creation supposes the action of divine power, and here in the place of death, where we were found {Eph. 2:1-6}, when He thus wrought in quickening power to bring us out of the old creation. It is again and again stated that it is in the new man – the commencement of this new creation in righteousness and holiness and truth {Eph. 4:24}, that God has begun this display of His power.
There would be something strange and incongruous were our souls brought into this association with Christ, as Head of the new creation, and not our bodies. Mr. S. indeed, says, that to “affirm recreation of the body, we must deny its resurrection, which is a very serious matter indeed” (p. 53). Mr. S., however, first assumes, that creation is only to bring forth out of nothing; and then, proceeding to reason from a false premise, can only draw a false conclusion. If new creation is the introduction of new life and power into what previously existed, it may be applied, as it is, to the soul first, and afterwards to the body. If we can see no difficulty in applying new creation power to the soul, without its personal existence or individuality being annulled by it, it may be equally applied to the body, without its identity being at all affected.
Since in the original creation of man, and of sentient life or in the future creation, God chooses to make use of existent material, and to give it life and organism, which it did not possess before, He may equally take up matter which has crumbled to dust, raising “it” spiritual, powerful, and in glory, in new organic form, totally inconceivable in our present state (1 Cor. 15:42), or He may produce similar effects on our present animal organism, as wonderful, and perhaps more wonderful as a display of creative energy, than anything that we have ever known of or believed. Interesting as the change may be, of the caterpillar or chrysalis into a butterfly, yet analogies are proverbially misleading, and certainly have no authority in this case. For the life is the same throughout, though varied in its form, being only the development of powers inherent in the chrysalis, by means of natural laws, which we see in its transformation into the butterfly. The analogy, therefore, which Mr. S. considers conclusive in his favor, however beautiful as a figure, breaks down entirely, for the resurrection of the body is a totally new application and introduction of the mighty power of God into dead, inanimate matter, altogether diverse from any inherent forces or powers of nature existing within us.
It should also be remarked that the heavenly city, the dwelling-place of God, the new Jerusalem, is a creation of an entirely new order, which corresponds with the apostle’s statement concerning the “greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation” (6J4F4H, Heb. 9:11); and this accords with Isa. 45, “Drop down ye heavens from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness, let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring forth together. I, the Lord, have created it.” Hence, both heaven and earth, being then filled with blessing, the heavenly city the abode of righteousness, and Israel and the nations of those which are saved, walking in the light of it, with righteousness, like streams, springing up out of the earth in the desert. Jehovah says, I have created it, and the Spirit of God connects with it, as we have seen, the subsequent physical recreation of the new heaven and earth.
How opposite is all this to the theory, that the new creation consists only in “a spiritual race, different from anything that had been before produced.” We, indeed, are in Him who is the origin, and commencement, and Head of it; “to create [6J\F0] in Himself of twain, one new man”(Eph. 2:15).
PAGE 64 (70) IS MISSING
Chapter 8: the Summing up and Conclusion
The entire divergence between these views and Mr. Darby’s is so evident, that the attempt to make out from his writings that they are in accordance, would be as unaccountable as it is dishonorable, did we not know the blinding effect of partisanship. This, however, has compelled repeated reference to Mr. D.’s works. We add also, some extracts found in close juxtaposition to those on which it is sought to base this supposed agreement.
Extract of a letter in the Christian Friend {edited by Ed. Dennett} for April, 1885, on “Justification of Life,” and the difference which has been noted between the teaching of Rom. 5, and “in Christ” in chapters 6 and 8.
As to “justification of life,” it is that justification we have as being alive in Christ; that is, it goes beyond mere forgiveness of sins as in the old man which are put away. It is the clearance of all imputation which we have as alive in Christ; but the passage gives us something more specific, it refers to verses 16 and 17.
Verse 16 is of many offences to justification, which of itself goes farther than clearing the conscience of sins.
Verse 17 further adds that they who have received abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life. This, while based on the clearing brings us into a new place in life, and reigning in it.
Hence we have “justification of life.” “By one offence towards all to condemnation.” “By one complete righteousness towards all men to justification” (v. 18) but then “in life,” a new life in Christ; not merely, that is, the old sins cleared away negatively, but in the new place by the work of Christ, which God had fully owned. He had finished the work which His Father had given Him to do, and was in virtue of it in a new place, as Man, in life – life (in us) and justification went together. I do not know if I have made myself plain. It does not go quite so far as the “in Christ,” but it does identify our justification and a new life in Him.
As to the first part of the Romans to chapter 5:12, the following passage has been quoted
I repeat, the first part {Rom. 1-5:12} is complete in itself; the man is a pardoned, justified man, enjoying God’s favor, His love in his heart by the Holy Ghost given to him, and rejoicing in the hope of glory. It is judicial.
The next paragraph thus continues
Our state and standing out of Christ and in Christ, is another and distinct point, but when “in Christ,” the sealing of the Holy Ghost is here also assumed and developed. It is specifically taught in Ephesians and 2 Corinthians, but always as that of believers, that is of those who have life already, and are washed in the blood of the Lamb. Christianity is not known in its real character where this is not. The starting point of this as to our standing, is – we have been baptized to Christ’s death, our old man is crucified with Christ, so that we should not serve sin. It is done with for faith we are set free . . . To stand before God on this ground is therefore a hopeless matter, but the question is, in this part of Romans, our standing before Him (Collected Writings, vol. 31, pp. 405, 406).
Again
In Romans, the mention of the Holy Ghost comes in when forgiveness and justification have been made known, as in chapter 4, and indeed in chapter 3, and before the experience of what we are and our being in Christ is entered upon.
Next paragraph
Some Christians would oblige souls to have the experience of Rom. 7, in order to the salvation of Rom.5 being true. It may come before. When it does, and acceptance in Christ is seen in simplicity, all the subsequent Christian life is one of assured grace, save cases of special discipline. But the acceptance of chapter 5 may be known by itself first (but then justification is forgiveness, applies to what we have done, is not our being the righteousness of God in Christ); but if so, self-knowledge and our place in Christ must be learned afterwards (Collected Writings vol. 26 pp. 216, 217).
The truths, moreover, for which we have been contending are those which God has given to us in these last days, before the return of the Lord, for the recovery of His saints, and to recall them to a heavenly position in waiting for that blessed event. The responsibility for their maintenance becomes therefore very serious. The object of these covert attacks of the enemy by sap and mine is the more apparent; nor will the plausible assertion of jealousy for the work of Christ (the same plea that was put forward by Mr. Newton, when resisting the spread of heavenly truth), prevail, save with those who willingly allow themselves to be deceived – when it is remembered, that the full value of that blessed work has been brought out (not by those who insisted on justification federal headship, since reformation times, nor by those who now plead for them), but by those who have recently been gathered to the Lord, and who specially insisted on, and were the means of, unfolding our position in Christ, and corresponding heavenly truth.
The wells in Canaan, type of the heavenly country which had been dug by Abraham when he sojourned there whilst the Philistines were yet in the land, had to be subsequently recovered and redug by Isaac and his servants and that not without great contention and resistance from the Philistines, as the names of Ezek and Sitnah witness. Yet God, in the end, gave success and blessing at Rehoboth and Beersheba, where He appeared Himself to encourage and assure by His presence. Though there was not the energy of Abraham’s faith, yet his earnestness and persistence met with its reward (Gen. 26:18-25). It is a time of contention now for the precious truth God has given us, and the result will be the same for those who hold fast. For we have to “overcome in the evil day, and having overcome, to stand”; and our conflict is not with flesh and blood, but with wicked spirits in heavenly places. As to those who may be the leaders in these new schools of thought, which are yet not new, but old theological views revived, embellished with a few new ideas borrowed from those we are all so indebted to, we have to bear in mind that no excellence, or piety, nor scholarship either, though accompanied with the best intentions of the authors, if the mind be not kept in lowly dependence, will save from the snare of the enemy, or from becoming his instruments, to the great injury of souls; nay, these very qualities will expose their possessors all the more to this influence. Peter would have sought, out of sincere but misapplied affection for his Master, to turn Him from the cross which led to the heavenly glory, and was rebuked by the Lord as Satan, the real originator of the suggestion and of its utterance at that moment.
Nor should we think the less of the effort now made to deprive us of heavenly truth, because what is ordinarily considered fundamental is not in question, for Christ is “the truth” – no lie is of the truth – and the Spirit is the “Spirit of truth” sent down from heaven, to guide us into all truth, truth which could not be made known before His ascension; nor do we ever know, in giving up a part of the glory of Christ where it may lead us, for there is a unity in the truth which we cannot afford to overlook. The scripture, however warns us that “there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” {1 Cor. 11:19}.
If we are to judge by the teaching of scripture, as regards the value of heavenly truth, we shall see that the Spirit of God regards with great jealousy any effort to weaken its effect. The indignation of Moses was greatly aroused (Num. 32) when the two and a half tribes first proposed to settle on the other side of Jordan; he reminds them that, when the spies discouraged the children of Israel from going in to possess the land, promised by God to their fathers, they were destroyed, for it was really rebellion against the Lord, and brought His wrath upon the whole congregation. He adds, “Ye are risen up, an increase of sinful men, to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel.” For it was turning away from “after him,” instead of following Him fully, as Caleb and Joshua had done nor is Moses pacified until assured that they will go into the land, and fight all the battles of the Lord, with their brethren until they are in full possession of the inheritance the Lord had promised them, and, if not, he says, “Ye have sinned against the Lord, and be sure your sin will find you out.”
Error spreads, and influences gradually deteriorating the soul, by affecting its communion with God, if not resisted rejected, and departed from. Many who, at first, as they have owned, in reading these pamphlets, felt a chill something benumbing their spiritual senses or feelings, and did not then receive their teaching, are now found defending it, or to have wholly adopted it. Where there is first insensibility and indifference to error, and continued association with it, there will soon be acceptance of, and adherence to, it. Such as we are, we cannot afford to be neutral, nor does the value of the truth, or the glory of God admit of it.
A solemn responsibility rests, therefore, upon those who are upholding the teachers of false doctrine, for “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” {Gal. 5:9}; and if it is not the truth of God to build up souls, it is surely error, which weakens and damages them. The apostle tells us that, even in those who were appointed by the Holy Ghost to have the care and oversight of the flock, there would arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them {Acts 20:30}; and those who caused dissensions and offences and stumbling-blocks, contrary to the doctrine saints had learned, were to be marked and avoided {Rom. 16:17}.
Upon such must rest the burden of the scandals and divisions caused by the introduction of these doctrines among the faithful, as well as upon their adherents and those who link themselves with them. They have demanded the examination of these views, and it is for them now to go into the presence of God, and, laying aside their own self-will, which is sure to becloud the mind, ask themselves what they have gained spiritually by these speculations, and what they have lost. “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father” {1 John 2:24}.
Confusion and darkness will surely be the result in the end, of giving up that which has been received from God.
Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness. But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears because the LORD’S flock is carried away captive” (Jer. 13:16, 17).
“Italics” are mostly the Author’s.
Appendix “in Christ”
{Quotations from J. N. Darby, old editions}
This presence of the Spirit, all real as it is, is spoken of in a manner which has the force rather of character than of distinct and personal presence, although that character could not exist unless He was personally there. “Ye are in Spirit if so be that Spirit of God dwell in you.” The emphasis is on the word God, and in Greek there is no article before Spirit. Nevertheless it plainly refers to the Spirit personally for it is said “dwell in you,” so that He is distinct from the person He dwells in . . . (Rom. 7, Synopsis, vol. 4, p. 194).
He dwells – Christ having accomplished the work of deliverance, of which this is the power in us – in the man and the man is in Christ and Christ in the man . . . This is the Christian’s standing before God. We are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of dwell in us.
There is no other means (ibid., p. 195).
This Spirit dwells in us, acts in us, and brings us in effect into this relationship [the position of Christ] which has been acquired for us by Christ, through that work which He accomplished for us, entering into it Himself (that is, as man risen) (ibid., p. 195).
But here the power of the Holy Ghost comes in which dwells in us . . . and to this, though not yet separating Him from life as its power, the change from the old position of Adam standing is distinctly referred. “Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you” “On Sealing,” Collected Writings, vol. 31, p. 411).
While His work is the basis, it [deliverance] is possessed and known, and our place in Him, by the Spirit dwelling in us which Spirit we receive on believing in the efficacy of Christ’s work for the forgiveness of our sins. We are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in us (ibid., p. 413).
The blood of sprinkling having made us perfectly clean in God’s sight, the Holy Ghost comes to dwell in us, the seal of the value of that blood, and consequently, so coming to dwell in us, gives us the consciousness that we are in a new place before God – not in the flesh, not in our natural Adam state but in the condition in which the Spirit sets us in God’s presence. This position belongs only to those who have the Spirit. It is the Spirit of Christ {Rom. 8:9}. If any man has not this he has not the proper Christian place, is not of Christ, does not belong to Him according to the power of redemption, which brings us before God according to its own efficacy, of which the Spirit’s presence and indwelling is the characteristic seal and living power, that by which those who have entered into this place are distinguished (“Exposition of Romans,” Collected Writings, vol. 26, p. 250.)
The believer is in Christ by the life of Christ and the Holy Spirit . . . The new life and the Holy Spirit give to the believer his place in Christ . . . A converted man, as such, is only in the Christian standing when he has been anointed (Meditations on Romans, p. 88.)
The presence, and as to the individual, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost constitute Christianity, and the Christian state of the individual (On Sealing, p. 1).