(Concluded from page 313.)
“If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” is another idea; he is a new creation, and belongs to an entirely different state of things. In Gal. 5 it is more applied to the individual. It is the thing so many will not have. Some men openly ridicule the idea of two natures; but “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” Methodists always took wrong ground, having no thought of being born again at all, and this has run very much through all the body of the evangelical world. New creation takes in everything, new birth is my having a nature that is fit for it. New creation, if you take it in its full sense, leaves nothing else. If you say, I am the same man after I am born again, I do not doubt you are, but you will find a difficulty in saying what “I” now is. I have life from Adam; that is never mended one atom, but I get a new life from Christ, a totally new thing— “He that hath the Son hath life.” Adam had not that, but I have the life of the second Adam. Adam innocent had not that life one bit more than Adam guilty. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and Adam was not born of the Spirit, but God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. But this is a new thing, that eternal life which was with the Father, and has been manifested unto us. That is the Christ who becomes my life through the operation of the word, and is a totally new thing, it does change the man.
As to the Old Testament saints, eternal life was no part of the Old Testament, even if the Old Testament saints had it; “life and incorruptibility are brought to light by the gospel;” not that they were brought to existence, but “brought to light.” And. when He in whom life is came down, and died, and rose again, then a totally new thing is brought out. Eternal life is twice found in the Old Testament, but both passages are prophetic of the millennium. And therefore you never get conflict between flesh and Spirit, in the Old Testament. You get “born in sin” (Psa. 51), but no thought of flesh lasting against spirit.
“I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me,” and so you get a contradiction twice over, and somebody else put in instead of you, So, in Rom. 7,” What I hate I do,” and “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,” but in the verse before he said he did do it. All that the psalmist can say is, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” He there takes this ground, if God wash him he will be whiter than snow. It is not washing with the blood of Christ in that passage, and what I insist upon is, not to put into a passage what you cannot get out of it..... The Father raises up the dead and quickeneth them, that is, those who are dead in sins are quickened, it is not the simple fact of receiving a new life; it is not the way scripture speaks, to say, “There is a living man, and I quicken him.” “Quickens” refers to both soul and body, as for the last in” quicken your mortal bodies.” But it is always a dead man when you talk about quickening. And “quickened us together with him” involves a great deal more. He was lying in death, where we were lying, and there was quickened; but that is a great deal more than life.
A man is changed, the flesh is never changed. In the history of the flesh I get it as an outlaw, and under law, but it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; again, I get it having Christ presented to it, and man crucified Him; then I get it with the Holy Ghost come, and find “ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye;” and then I get it in the third heavens, and Satan tries to puff Paul up about it. In the Old Testament dealing with the nature was no part of the dispensation, though saints were quickened, or born again; but eternal life they ought to have found out, and the Pharisees had picked it out. The young man came to Christ, and asked, “What good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” But the Lord, in answer, takes the law upon its own footing, and says, “This do, and thou shalt live?”
In John 20:88Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. (John 20:8) the other disciple “saw and believed.” What was it he believed? That Christ was risen, only he believed when he saw, but had no knowledge of the scriptures (ver. 9) that Christ must rise; so he saw and believed that He was risen; did not know it by faith in the word of God, but believed when they saw. Peter only gives it us in hope. The seed here is the divine life, but it is by the word, which is the seed of life. In verse 23 we are born of God, but by this word instrumentally. It gives you the character and source of the thing, but the instrument is the word, and so the word is the seed. It “liveth and abideth forever,” and it is a great thing to see that clearly in the word; “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” The word is the revelation of what is in God, in His nature and character, His love, His ways—in short all that He communicates. And it is what God uses to quicken. “Forever,” in verse 23, is left out by the editors.
Is there any difference between λὀγος and ρὴμα? λὀγος is the deeper word, and the ρὴμα is the giving of it out. λὀγος is that which is known in the mind, and known by expressing it. I cannot think without having a thought, and λὀγος is used for that and the expression of it, but ρὴμα is the mere utterance, and that is it which by the gospel is preached unto you. Then the word of the Lord is that which is in mediatorial communication, I suppose—that is all. It is a great thing to see that character in the Word, for if I have not an inspired word here in this book, the inspiration of God's mind, I have not got it all. The Bible is the ρὴμα written down. And the Lord gives importance to it, “If ye believe not Moses' writings, how shall ye believe my word?”
It is not Christ here, but it is Christ written down. You get the two thrown into one in Heb. 4. And “Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live;” so it is God's own mind, of course. In the middle of a world that is away from God, and has rejected Christ, as it has rejected God, you have one thing, that is of God and from God, and that is the word of God, and this is all. God Himself is here, of course, but the word is the only thing that is of Him. And, when everything else has passed away, this will remain until it is shown that everything it said is true.
“The word of God is living.” That is the very thing; it is divine, it is not merely a word that I give out, and it passes, but a word that comes out from God, which abides, and never changes, and never can change. It comes down into my heart, and shows me everything that is in it. In these days it is a great thing for saints to carry with them the conviction that the word of God is the word of God, and can never be broken, but endures forever. It is, and will ever be, the truth. Many of the things spoken of old have passed, and many others may pass, but the word will be the truth hereafter, just as much then as it is now. But as for this world, and the infidels and their reasoning, there will not be one atom of them left. Man's breath goeth forth, and his thoughts perish.
Then comes another thing in chapter 2, and that is growing by the word to salvation. It is the only thing here which is positively of God (in one sense all the creation is, of course, but that will all be burnt up); but that which is of God nourishes. There is a sense, too, in which we are all new-born babes, and it is the new life in simplicity and purity that desires the sincere milk of the word; whenever I come to the word to get nourishment, I come as a new-born babe.
Peter looks at salvation as ready to be revealed, and means by “if so be” that he is supposing you have tasted, or else you will not desire. It is the knowledge of the graciousness of Christ that makes us desire to get more and more.
In chapter 2: 4, 5 follows the house that Christ builds, and in contrast with the house in 1 Cor. 3 There you get the house built on the ground of man's responsibility, “according to the grace of God which is given unto me,” &c. (Vers. 10-15.) There is man in responsibility building the house. But in Matt. 16 the Lord says, “I will build my church,” and that is going on; the house is not yet built.
Here, in Peter, you have no responsibility of man, but the living stones built together. In Ephesians Paul says, “groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; groweth, is growing yet. Matt. 16 answers to Eph. 2:2121In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (Ephesians 2:21), verse 22 being a matter of fact; one is “growing to a holy temple,” the other is a habitation of God through the Spirit. It is the confounding of these two together which has brought in all the pretensions of popery and high churchism. A house is not a body; the two ideas are totally different. It is Christ's body, and God's house. In Heb. 3 it is “Christ as on over his [God's] house.” I believe the “own” ought not to be there. A person may be in the house, and not in the body; wood, hay, and stubble will be burnt up, but no members of the body will be.
People often ask if Christ is precious, but the terms, “elect, precious,” are His character, not my estimate of Him: the words are connected with the corner-stone.
The Jews were appointed to stumble at Christ—that was to be their judgment; but they were not appointed to be disobedient. Judas was not appointed to be a sinner; but, being a sinner, he was appointed to be a betrayer of Christ.
“The wicked for the day of judgment” means in this world; there is a day of judgment that comes upon them here in this world. “Ordained to this condemnation” is not condemnation as people think; it is to this condemnation. The Stone of stumbling was such to the house of Israel.
You see we are all lost, to start with; not that I believe in what is called reprobation, for I do not, but God brings about His own way. Israel was appointed, as I said, and prophecy had declared that they would do this when Christ came, and then they stumbled upon Him; it was the form that their wickedness took in the purposes of God.
In Rom. 9 you have, first, the sovereignty of God, and if He chooses to make vessels for distinction, nobody can say “No” to Him; you cannot help it. Then be takes up the ground, “What if God,” &c., in verses 22, 23—another thing. And when he comes to the good side, God prepares them; when he is on the bad side, God endured the vessel fitted to destruction. Is that “fitted,” fitted themselves? He found them fitted you must not bring in what is not there. He finds things fitted for destruction, and He exercises endurance. Rom. 9 is simply absolute sovereignty; people talk about national election there, which is the very thing he is denying. You are the children of Abraham, are you? Very well, then, says the apostle, if you plead that, you must let in the Ishmaelites, for they were of Abraham. But they were slaves! That ground is gone. Then take Esau and Jacob: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Then come to Israel, but if God had not been merciful, all of them would have been cut off, except Moses' own children. God is sovereign, then, and if so, He can let in the Gentiles as well. It is a smashing argument to them, for they had broken the law, and they could not deny it. Ah! but, says the Jew, I have got the unconditional promises, and so have a right to have them. And then the apostle takes up that principle, and says, in rejecting Christ, they had rejected the promises too. And then he takes up this national election.
When I was young you might have found an infidel or two, but now you may almost say people are appointed to infidelity, though they were as bad then as now, one way or another. Infidelity is often according to the increase of light, and the increase of light often according to the infidelity. Now, it is like that in our Lord's time. The Pharisees are the Puseyites, and you may find as well Nicodemnses and Josephs, or Nathanaels even.
Then come verses 8, 9. Two kinds of priesthood here, “holy,” and now “royal.” The holy is a kind of Aaronic priesthood; “royal,” more Melchisedec. “Going in and out” (John 10) is liberty. One “fold” is a sad piece of error in translating, to keep up an established church; it should be, “one flock.” You get three things there: eternal life, never perish, and saved; going in and out; and finding pasture. Salvation, liberty, and feeding of God's sheep are thus before the mind of the Lord, and now made good to us. They are not shut up in a fold, but under the care of a good Shepherd. He keeps them safe. So it takes the image first of the Aaronic priesthood; and we are the epistle of Christ in our life, and words, and everything.
We have to offer our bodies, but he is not speaking of that so much as of praise, and thanksgiving, and adoration. It is in the man, the same character as in Heb. 13, and that is Aaronic. To show forth the praises is somewhat of Melchisedec. It all refers to Ex. 19, “a kingdom of priests, a holy nation,” and it is putting these despised believers in the place given to the nation Israel. And they will be it by-and-by. Melchisedec comes out with blessing up and down, and not intercession properly at all. In Hebrews Paul takes Melchisedec as the stamp which was to mark out Christ, but there was another priesthood, that of Aaron, and this offered sacrifices, and so on. “Darkness” is always ignorance of God, and light is the knowledge of God.
It is never said that Christ presents our worship, but in the midst of the church He sings praises.
Advocacy is a definite thing, but the priesthood in Hebrews is as for grace to help in time of need. But Christ presenting, as though we could not go in, is not the fall character of Christian worship at all. It is “the Father seeketh,” &c. I do not talk of a priest with a Father—priest over the house of God—and so draw near. I know He is there, and so draw near with boldness. But that is not Father. Worship of the Father is peculiar for the Christian, but there is a tendency to bring worship down merely to Hebrews. There is no Father in Hebrews. “The Father himself loveth you;” could you bring in a priest there. In John you got the obligation and necessity, and it is also the Father; so our fellowship is with the Father, and that is the necessity of His nature, “God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."