[Page 1]


Dr. Fairbairn is infected with the desire of setting up man's part in divine things, and so below grace. He works in the boundaries fixed by nature.

Page 15. 'When, in respect to things above nature, God reveals His mind to men, He does it through men, and through men not as mere machines, unconsciously obeying a supernatural impulse, but acting in discharge of their personal obligations and the free exercise of their individual powers and susceptibilities.' As regards Old Testament Prophets, this is not true, and even in tongues in the New, and is bad as really rationalistic. He says: 'It is within the boundary lines fixed by nature, and in accordance with the principles of her constitution, alike in the mental and the material world, that the work of grace proceeds.'

Page 22. 'Man, as surely as he is a rational being, is the end of his own existence; he does not exist to the end that something else may be, but he exists absolutely for his own sake; his being is its ultimate object, consequently all should proceed from his own simple personality.' But relationship with what is? This quotation from J. S. Mill is the poorest sophism. Because the question is not an end out of himself, but in what relationship his perfection consists, or whether there is any. It is not only what may be, but what is. Besides it is deifying egoism -- I must not care for my wife, nor for society -- for 'man' says nothing really -- we must say 'a man.' It denies all affections, or even common or social existence, otherwise it is not his own simple personality. But divine does not become human; for God is One, and lone man not. He says: 'The fundamental principle of morality may be expressed in such a formula as this, "So act, that thou mayest look upon the dictate of thy will as an eternal law to thyself." Thus the divine becomes essentially one with the human.'

Page 30. Referring to my paper 'On the Law,' he says: 'The Law, it is held, had a specific character and aim, from which it cannot be dissociated, and which makes it for all time

+"The Revelation of Law in Scripture," by Patrick Fairbairn, D.D. The third series of the "Cunningham Lectures." Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 38, George Street. 1869.

[Page 2]

the minister of evil.' But this is not so -- the Law is not 'the minister of evil,' but the Law "worketh wrath."

Page 31. 'Distinguishing between the teaching or commandments of Christ, and the commandments of the law, holding the one to be binding on the conscience of Christians and the other not, is plainly but partial Antinomianism; it does not, indeed, essentially differ from Neonomianism, since law, only as connected with the earlier dispensation, is repudiated, while it is received as embodying the principles of Christian morality, and associated with the life and power of the Spirit of Christ.' He here does not even know what he is talking about. It is not law 'as connected with the earlier dispensation,' but law as a principle and system on which man may be placed as contrasted with redemption, grace, and the gift of life. Further, it is not received as embodying the principles of Christian morality, but human morality. God and love having come in, the path of the Christian, as expressed in the life of Christ, goes on much higher ground -- not merely maintenance of human relations, however right, but "perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." And, further, he has not an idea beyond amount of requirement and form of obligation of law, whereas the question is: Is law the form of obligation? He avoids, and professedly, defining what law is, i.e., an undeviating course imposed by the authority or power of another, and asks, 'How far has it varied in amount of requirement or form of obligation, at different periods of the divine administration?'

Page 33. 'The Protestant churches generally stand committed to the belief of the moral law in the Old Testament as in substance the same with that in the New, and from its very nature limited to no age or country, but of perpetual and universal obligation.' This supposes a moral law in the New, which is the whole question, and confounds the principle of law and the substance or contents of a law. 'Of perpetual and universal obligation' then brings in the authority or else confounds the relations, consistency with which the Law insists on, with its authoritative insistence on it. This is what he constantly confounds, though forced sometimes to admit the difference, i.e., that there is no formal law in the New Testament. But, besides, a new relation with God is formed in the New Testament, and this changes everything; of this he knows nothing. "Herein is love, not that we loved him,

[Page 3]

but that he loved us." And "We love him, because he first loved us" -- not we ought, must. The Protestant churches have no doubt taken the Decalogue as the grand moral summary under which is all duty, and never really known the Christian position and new creation.

Page 34. 'Sin is but the transgression of law; where no law is, there is no transgression. So that when the Apostle again speaks of certain portions of mankind not having the law, of their sinning without law, and perishing without law, he can only mean that they were without the formal revelation of law, which had been given through Moses to the covenant-people, while still, by the very constitution of their beings, they stood under the bonds of law, and by their relation to these would be justified or condemned.' This, 'Sin is but the transgression of the law,' is a most mischievous heresy. Sin was there to take occasion by the commandment when it came. Of this I have spoken. 'No transgression,' no doubt. Hence we have here, 'can only mean.' All the account of man afterwards is as false and as mischievous as can well be. Impossible to conceive anything more bewildered, more complete following of his own thoughts without Scripture, than his view of Adam's position. He says: 'The original standing of our first parents must have been amid'! 'the obligations of law. And the question is what was the nature of the law associated with man's original state? And how far, or in what respects did it possess the character of a revelation?' A child could answer. They were formally forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Dr. Fairbairn tells us that it was 'in something else than what in the primeval records carries the formal aspect of law. It was mainly being created in the image of God.' Think of that being a law! And 'What does this import of the requirements of law, or the bonds of moral obligation?'

Page 37. 'Undoubtedly, as the primary element in this idea, must be placed the intellect, or rational nature of the soul in man; the power or capacity of mind, which enabled him in discernment to rise above the impressions of sense. Without such a faculty, there had been wanting the essential ground of moral obligation; man could not be the subject either of praise or of blame; for he should have been incapable of so distinguishing between the true and the false, the right and the wrong, and so appreciating the reasons which ought to make the one

[Page 4]

rather than the other the object of one's desire and choice, as to render him responsible for his conduct. In God this property exists in absolute perfection.' God had it always, he says, and so man must.

Now all this is excessive ignorance of divine truth, and in the teeth of Scripture, and shows he does not know what law means. It supposes man had the knowledge of good and evil before the Fall, which is false, that he had it to be like God in it. Whereas God says "The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil." God did give a positive law which did not require that knowledge, but required obedience. There had been no harm in eating the forbidden fruit, if God had not forbidden it. It was a formal law, but the thing forbidden not wrong unless forbidden. It confounds a nature producing its fruits with a law, i.e., an imposed rule involving the authority or power of another in its true sense. In page 40, he does not stint to say, 'In the permission accorded to man to partake even of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, though with a stern prohibition and threatening to deter him from such a misuse of his freedom.' It is hard to suppose a greater proof of where moral law-defending leads a man. A permission with a stern prohibition shows a strange state of mind, but the meaning is evident. It was not a simple forbidding as test of obedience, but called for the reflective quality of man's mind to decide, on grounds of judged good and evil, what he ought to do. It is hard to conceive greater error than this part of the book. It shows the author, or his principles, incapable of any real scriptural or right thought on the subject. It is well that the system of Adam's having had the law thus -- being only more fully developed at Sinai -- should be brought out clear.

Page 38. But, further, the 'destination of man' is this rational development in knowledge. This is false two ways. It was not the destination of man, but something infinitely higher, and his destiny was in the Second Adam not in the first. Hence, in this system, the Second is a perfecter of the first by better motives and power, with 'potential pardon.' This faculty, however, was to 'secure the good he was capable of attaining.'

Then, page 39, he must have a will to choose -- not obey. He says: 'For this there must be a will to choose, as well as a reason to understand -- a will perfectly free in its movements,

[Page 5]

having the light of reason to direct it to the good, but under no constraining force to obey the direction.' If there is really a will, he has chosen. But a will to choose is independence of God. Not obligation to obey a will of our own! We have a will, but a will which is not a will to obey absolutely, as Christ, and nothing else is a fallen will. He would have a will to judge for himself on motives, that is, independently of God. If God be thought of, obedience or sin is the only thing. Adam was left free, i.e., not restrained in action and allowed to be tempted. Confidence and obedience (shown by prayer and hearing the Word) were the right path, as in Christ in the desert in opposite circumstances; man failed in both. But the moment he chose when God had spoken he was a lost being. But an image in which one cannot err, and the other can, is no real image of that in which he so can. He says: 'While God never can, from the infinite perfection of His being, do otherwise than choose with absolute and unerring rectitude, man with his finite nature and his call to work amid circumstances and conditions imposed on him from without could have no natural security for such unfailing rectitude of will.' God never chooses.

Page 41. His statements as to immortal life are all wrong too. In the divine nature they are results! In man too they are results! Note "eternal life" is not noticed by him. He says: 'Blessedness and immortality are inseparable accompaniments of the divine nature, but rather as results flowing from the perpetual exercise of its inherent powers and glorious perfections, than qualities possessed apart -- hence in man suspended on the rightful employment of the gifts and prerogatives committed to him.' Adam was not immortal -- certainly a sinner. Now that is true as to bodily death as an effect of sin, but of that he is not speaking, for it would not apply to God. To show, too, how he does not get beyond the first man, the common idea of restoring the image is referred to -- 'the restoration to the image of God, in the case of those who partake in the new creation through the grace and Gospel of Christ' -- and 'knowledge is the product of illuminated reason.'

Page 43. Adam's state in innocence when fresh and pure is judged of 'from what we still know him to be' (not from Scripture). 'Sin, while it has sadly vitiated his moral constitution, not having subverted its nature, or essentially changed its manner of working.' (No wonder Dr. Fairbairn takes law!)

[Page 6]

This of course ignores the Scripture that he got the knowledge of good and evil in the Fall. Surely enmity against God is a subversion of our nature -- not being possible to be subject to the law of God is an essential change. This is the secret of the mischief -- no true sense of sin. He confounds responsibility, which arises from relationships, and in innocence were naturally walked in, with a law which imposes them, or rather conduct which fulfils them or results in punishment inflicted according to it by power. His quotation from Harless is right enough: 'There is something above the merely human and creaturely in what man is sensible of in the operation of conscience, whether he may himself recognise and acknowledge it as such or not. The workings of his conscience do not, indeed, give themselves to be known as properly divine, and in reality are nothing more than the movements of the human soul; but they involve something which I, as soon as I reflect upon it, cannot explain from the nature of spirit, if this is contemplated merely as the ground in nature of my individual personal life, which after a human manner has been born in me. I stand before myself as before a riddle, the key of which can be given, not by human self-consciousness, but by the revelation of God in His word.' But Dr. Fairbairn's inference to Adam's state is a denial of the effect of eating the forbidden fruit. Conscience, save in a figurative sense, is a law, because God has placed it as a monitor, taking care that when sin came in conscience should come in with it. But it is the opposite of true law -- nomon me echontes (not having law) is the word. And God describes it by man's becoming "as one of us, knowing good and evil" in himself, i.e., not imposed by authority to which he had to answer as responsible. To apply such a thought to God is absurd. I could say, God was a law to Himself, just meaning He was under none, but that His own perfection made Him always act so and so. As a fact, man has the knowledge of good and evil which is not a law, even so in the sense of a rule, for it may be vitiated, as in Saul and millions else. "I thought I ought." But it is the faculty of making the difference and holding one thing for good, another for evil, making the difference between good and evil in my mind, whatever my rule may be. But you cannot speak of being 'subject and accountable,' when speaking of God. Obedience, conscience, and law, or the rule of conscience, are all distinct things. Obedience refers to authority -- law to a rule imposed -- conscience

[Page 7]

to my making a difference between good and evil, right and wrong in myself, if there was no authority, no obedience, no law. For that is as God does. He says: 'We are compelled to regard the absolute standard of right and wrong as constituted by the nature of the Deity.' The nature of the Deity as the absolute standard of right and wrong is all false till I get the Second Man, and supposes evil, as does revealed law after the Fall. For in God I have sovereign love, learnt in Christ's sacrifice, and I have divine purity in a nature which cannot sin. But to make a creature have the nature of the Deity as his absolute standard as such, falsifies duty, because God cannot be in the relations man is in, and duty flows from it. Hence, when the Decalogue is given, there is no revelation of God's nature at all, but simply the obligations of man's towards God and his neighbour. Christianity says, "Be ye therefore imitators of God as dear children" -- when we are such, and gives Christ as the pattern -- "perfect as your Father" -- but He is it first. "God commends his love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." In Him were the two poles of perfection. Absolute self-sacrifice (not loving a neighbour as oneself, which is no divine perfection, and cannot be) for us -- that is purely divine, no worthy object, but divine goodness; to God -- that is absolute human perfection, divine indeed but still of and in a Man. The Law knew nothing of this, but man's duties where he was, but Christ was God manifest in the flesh, and that is our pattern. But he who so walks will have no law against what he does. Of this there is no thought in Dr. Fairbairn's mind.

Page 45. 'For what was the law, when it came, but the idea of the divine image set forth after its different sides, and placed in formal contrast to sin and opposition to God?' The Law being 'the idea of the divine image' is mere nonsense, if the Decalogue, as he says, is the grand display of it, for that image is not thought of in it, but man's duties towards God and his neighbour, which in the nature of things cannot apply to God. Much of, indeed all of it, in its nature supposes sin. And even when it is said, "Be ye holy," there is no thought of "as," but only "for," and perfection is "with Jehovah thy God," not "as." That is in principle in Christianity alone, because Christ was come, the Second Man, not the first. It is this that makes it so dreadfully false, and falsifies the nature of law. The first Adam is the history of responsibility in man

[Page 8]

innocent, and a sinner -- the last, the Second Man, the display of God in man, the perfectly obedient Man. He was born under the Law, but He was much more than that -- God manifest in flesh, and that is not law at all.

Again, 'Strictly speaking, man at first stood in law rather than under law -- being formed to the spontaneous exercise of that pure and holy love, which is the expression of the divine image, and hence also to the doing of what the law requires.' But man was under express law at first, and is so spoken of in Hosea 6:7 and Romans 5, which quotes it.

Pages 46, 47. 'The law of the Ten Commandments was written on Adam's heart on his creation,' etc. This is simple, but well known nonsense. How could "Thou shalt not steal" be a law to Adam? Or "kill," or "lust"? It all supposes sin and a fallen state, and in principle so does every prohibition of evil, and indeed a command to love God. 'Binding to obedience' is all very well -- that Adam's law did, but it did not suppose sin. The moment Scripture is owned, which expressly declares that man got the knowledge of good and evil by the Fall, and that this part, if they please to call it so, was acquired then, as Scripture expressly and in terms asserts, "The man is become as one of us," all this falls to the ground. He says 'God had furnished man's soul with an understanding mind, whereby he might discern good from evil and right from wrong; and not only so, but also in his will was most perfect uprightness (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and his instrumental parts (i.e., his executive faculties and powers) were in an orderly way framed to obedience.'

Page 48. 'Understood after this manner, the language in question is quite intelligible and proper, though certainly capable of being misapplied (if too literally taken), and in form slightly differing from the Scripture representation; Romans 2:14, 15.' It is well it is admitted it differs slightly from Scripture representation -- if it does, it is wrong, and wrong on a fundamental point; and Romans most assuredly, on which it is said to be built, does not speak of man before his fall. Again, wrong as he is, he is obliged to admit it is not 'properly a revelation of law in Adam.'

Pages 49 - 51. This is all imagination. 'Man possessed a sense of beauty as an essential ground of his intelligence and fellowship with Heaven. He was therefore to cultivate the feeling of the beautiful, by cultivating the appropriate beauty

[Page 9]

inherent in everything that lives.' Scripture history of development of art is Cain when he had lost God altogether. Why is this so given? The sense of beauty is of God, and finds it in its place in God's works, as Christ in the lily, not in Solomon. All this, too, makes the first man the object of God's designs and counsels -- a fatal error, and a denial of the Cross. He says, 'Man was to trace, in the operations proceedings around him, the workings of the divine mind, and then make them bear the impress of his own'!

Pages 52, 53. 'Man had the light of Heaven within him, and of his own accord should have taken the course, which his own circumstances, viewed in connection with the divine procedure, indicated as dutiful and becoming. The real question is, did not the things recorded contain the elements of law? Was there not in them such a revelation of the mind of God, as bespoke an obligation to observe the day of weekly rest, for those whose calling was to embrace the order and do the works of God?' How different the Apostle on entering into God's rest! But note the admission that there ought not to be a law -- 'there was no formal enactment binding the observance of the day on man, neither should it have been.' There were, he says, 'the elements of law.' The Sabbath was in no way a law. As Fairbairn justly says, 'law was not required while man was pure.' He would have enjoyed 'the sanctified day' with God, I do not doubt, if he had not sinned, but this just shows law was not the thing, save as test of obedience, till man was a sinner, and then, in fact, could only condemn. I have no doubt having part in the rest of God is the essence of blessing; but that is not the question, but law, and this he admits. it was not, but one of its elements, i.e., a thing law occupied itself about, but not law.

Page 55. 'High as man's original calling was to preside over and subdue the earth, to improve and multiply its resources, to render it in all respects subservient to the ends for which it was made.' This, again, is a totally false statement of man's calling.

Page 57. Speaking of the command respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he says, 'it served to erect a standard, every way proper and becoming, around which the elements of good and evil might meet, and the ascendancy of the one or the other be made manifest.' What elements of good and evil? This is talk.

[Page 10]

Page 59. 'If grace should interpose to rectify the evil that had emerged, and place the hopes of mankind on a better footing than that of nature, this grace must reign through righteousness, and overcome death by overcoming the sin which caused it.' How 'by overcoming the sin'? It was by redemption.

Page 61. Here, again, we have this civilisation process as the purpose of God with innocent man. 'The charge given to man at the moment of creation, would necessarily have involved a continuous rise in the outward theatre of his existence; and it may justly be inferred, that as this proceeded, his mental and bodily condition would have partaken of influences fitted indefinitely to ennoble and bless it.' But what follows is worse, because restoration is made progressive, not a work of redemption. 'The progression had now to proceed, not from a less to a more complete form of excellence, but from a state of sin and ruin to one of restored peace, life, and purity, culminating in the possession of all blessing and glory in the kingdom of the Father.' Revelation of redemption might be progressive, and steps preparatory to it. He speaks of progress from sin to 'restored peace, life, and purity.' It is all a fable. Where is the Flood in this progress? It was a world apart before which ended there, and then the ways of God began, and 'it is the enlightenment and regeneration of the world on the principle of progression'! Really, God had given man up to a reprobate mind, calling Abram out apart. Thus page 63 shows how utterly false the whole system is. The total developed corruption of man without law, and the destruction of the world is ignored -- a confirmed promise to one, to which law could not be added, which was the covenant of blessing in contrast with subsequent law, and the world, i.e., man apart from it, being given up. All God's ways are given up for a mere theory and fable.

Page 66. 'As regards the manner in which the call to imitate God's goodness, and be conformed to His will was to be carried out, it would of course be understood that, whatever was fairly involved in the original destination of man to replenish and cultivate the earth, so as to make it productive of the good of which it was capable, and subservient to the ends of a wise and paternal government, this remained as much as ever his calling and duty.' If so, Cain driven out from God did better than Abel. 'Man's proper vocation was not

[Page 11]

altered by the Fall,'! i.e., civilisation. "All that is in the world is not of the Father, but of the world." The rest of God was wholly lost in the first creation. Sacrifice, with death, was what God now owned. But, for Dr. Fairbairn, the rest of God remains.

Page 69. 'Somehow -- apparently, indeed, in connection with the clothing of the shame of our first parents by means of the skins of slain victims -- they were guided to a worship by sacrifice as the one specially adapted to their state as sinners. Here then, again, without any positive command, there was not law, in the formal sense of the term, but the elements of law,' etc. We have in the clothing of skins, and Abel, not law but death, and covering and acceptance in righteousness by grace through death, the very opposite of law, "for if righteousness came by law, Christ is dead in vain."

Page 70. This is a formal confession that there was no law till Moses. 'To speak of law in the moral and religious sphere -- law in some definite and imperative form, standing outside the conscience, and claiming authority to regulate its decisions, as having a place in the earlier ages of mankind, is not warranted by any certain knowledge we possess of the remoter periods of God s dispensations.'

Page 70. 'With the majority of men, conscience and motives failed.' Were there some then with whom it did not fail? It was 'the weakness of our moral nature, the upper part giving way to the lower.' Where is enmity against God, and all concluded under sin? And is flesh lusting against the Spirit this state? Note he quotes it 'the flesh lusts against the Spirit'


Page 74. 'The melancholy picture drawn near the commencement of the Epistle to the Romans, as an ever deepening and darkening progression in evil, realises itself wherever fallen nature is allowed to operate unchecked. It did so in the primitive, as well as the subsequent stages of human history. First, men refused to employ the means of knowledge they possessed respecting God's nature and will, would not glorify Him as God.' All this progress and 'First' is a simple mistake. The statement is that, having degraded the idea of God in idolatry, God gave them up to degrade themselves.

Page 75. 'Not for many long ages -- not till the centuries of antediluvian times had passed away, and centuries more after a new state of things had commenced its course -- did

[Page 12]

God see meet to manifest Himself to the world in the formal character of Lawgiver ... . A proof, manifestly, of God's unwillingness to assume this more severe aspect in respect to beings He had made in His own image, and press upon them, in the form of specific enactments, His just claims on their homage and obedience!' This is really too bad systematising. God, unwilling to be so harsh as to be a Lawgiver when He had destroyed all the world but eight! At any rate it is a confession there was not a law. Then the separation of Abram from all the world in idolatry, even Shem's family (Joshua 24) is ignored. There is no scriptural recognition of idolatry before the Flood. But if law is a 'painful necessity,' how is it 'God's image, universal and Christian'?

Page 76. 'There was no law till Egypt, save blood for blood, and circumcision, but principles of law became manifestations of God's character to attract confiding love.' Was ever such confusion? Were these 'a painful necessity'?

Pages 78, 79. It is remarkable how the statements of Scripture are lost in vague generalities. But that is was 'not to occupy an independent place,' etc., is all false. He says: 'The law could not have been intended -- the very time and occasion of its introduction prove that it could not have been intended -- to occupy an independent place; it was of necessity but the sequel or complement of the covenant of promise, with which were bound up the hopes of the world's salvation, to help out in a more regular and efficient manner the moral aims which were involved in the covenant itself.' It was not against the promises of God, but it was on a different ground -- doing, not faith in what Another had done. It was not to help out 'in a more regular and efficient manner' the promise. It was "added because of transgressions," came in by-the-bye "that the offence might abound," and it is monstrous to say that 'the ground of a sinner's confidence towards God, and the nature of the obligations growing out of it, remained essentially as they were.'

And (page 80) citing Exodus 3:6-17, he says: 'When appearing for the purpose of charging Moses to undertake the work of deliverance, the Lord revealed Himself as at once Jehovah, the one unchangeable and eternal God.' 'And as soon as the deliverance was achieved, and the tribes of Israel lay at the foot of Sinai, ready to hear what their redeeming God might have to say to them, the first message that came to

[Page 13]

them was one that most strikingly connected the past with the future, the redeeming grace of a covenant God with the duty of service justly expected of a redeemed people.' But in Exodus 6 He declares He had not revealed Himself by His name Jehovah. And Sinai made all depend on "IF ye will obey my voice" -- was not "of one" (Galations 3:16), whereas the promise was a pure promise, dependent on God's fidelity only to the promise confirmed to Christ. This distinction is ignored. Israel's receiving the Law after redemption from Egypt, might show to a spiritual mind that man could in no way have to say to God on this ground, but does not touch the question of the ground on which he was then set, which was his own obedience, and blessing if it was found. In fact it is sovereign grace, and gracious discipline (including millennial government) up to Sinai, and then all was changed. They were to worship there, instead of which they got the Law and fell in the wilderness -- for the same acts as before Sinai they were violently smitten. Even Moses, for one fault, could not go in -- a sign of its bearing.

Pages 83, 84. 'In the personal announcement which introduces the ten fundamental precepts, it is that same glorious and unchangeable Being coming near to Israel in the character of their redeeming God. Redemption carries in its bosom a conformity to the divine order, and only when the soul responds to the righteousness of Heaven is the work of deliverance complete.' It put, as to Israel after the redemption, under the repelling terrors of exclusion from His presence, life before them and blessing on the strict condition of obedience, and in Law this was right (death and malediction if they did not).

Page 85. Quoting Exodus 34:6, 7, he says: 'It intimates, indeed, that justice could not forego its claims, that obstinate transgressors should meet their desert, but gives this only the subordinate and secondary place, while grace occupies the foreground.' As to Moses -- his intercession spared the people for the time, but the revelation of grace would not clear the guilty (just what Christianity does) and the soul that sinned was to be blotted out of God's book, Moses not being able to make atonement for which he had gone up with a 'peradventure.' 'Justice could not forego its claims, but it gives this only the secondary place.' This is not Christianity, nor anything save governmental patience and goodness. Justice never foregoes its claims, cannot, but it is satisfied in Christ, not put

[Page 14]

in a secondary place, though grace reigns. To Moses governmental goodness was shown, but justice maintained its claims, and no atonement was made -- each soul had to answer for itself. There is no sense of sin in this book. He says, citing these verses, 'Was this to act like One who was more anxious to inspire terror, than win affection from men?' 'Win affection from men'! It was said to Moses, who had found grace -- if the people approached they died. Was not that terror? Yet, in page 86, he says it is 'a formal, stringent law.' It is not a question if there were promises -- there were plenty, but on the strict condition of man's fulfilling the Law and obedience.

Pages 87, 88. 'It has ever been the maxim of all judicious and thoughtful commentators on the law of the two tables, that when evil is forbidden, the opposite good is to be understood as enjoined.' 'Opposite good to be understood,' is making a law and adding to God's, and in a general way falsifying it. Yet on this is founded here the introduction of the principle of love, though this is all ignorance of Christianity, because it is only love as duty upwards, or to a neighbour as oneself, the duty of the relationship, not divine goodness known and shown, which depends on none. The good Samaritan is the converse of the question asked, and the exchange of the Decalogue goes no further than love to a neighbour, in one word fulfilling it all (and as this was done in grace, the Law not needed) but neither reach the Christian principle of imitating God and giving up self. Yet he says, 'The Apostles freely interchange the precept of love with the commands of the Decalogue, as mutually explanatory of each other. And thus, in part at least, may be explained the negative form of the ten commandments.'

Page 90. 'The negative is doubtless in itself the lower form of command; and when so largely employed as it is in the Decalogue, it must be regarded as contemplating and striving to meet the strong current of evil that runs in the human heart.' That is, the Law of the Decalogue supposes sin, and could not be in Paradise.

Page 143. "The true import of the Levitical code is not seen on the curt statutes.' 'The occasional access of a few ministering priests into the courts of that worldly sanctuary -- an access into its inmost receptacle by one person only, and by him only once a year -- how imperfect an image of the believer's

[Page 15]

freedom of intercourse with God, and habitual consciousness of His favour and blessing!' I have nothing to say to this. 'Imperfect an image of the believer's freedom' was a sign given by the Holy Ghost that they could not go at all; Hebrews 9.

Before going further, I state that no Christian doubts that the contents of the Law are good -- the Law, holy, just and good. Further, when God acts, He more or less displays His character, what He is, and, as a general principle, there must be goodness and lovingkindness, because these above all characterise Him. Even judgment will put an end to evil, be deliverance from evil, though in itself more purely righteousness. The Cross gives the whole truth fully. But all this is not the question, but what is, as such, Law? It is requirement from man, not the revelation of God. In its dispensation, a God who had delivered may have uttered it, but it is requirement from man of what he ought to do, or prohibition of what he ought not to do. In the Decalogue, save one commandment, or at most two (4 and 5) the latter -- i.e., it supposes, and, in eight or nine tenths of it, speaks of sin. Obligation does not rest on law, but on relationship. Law maintains these -- so does Christ, but on a different principle. God has formed men in certain relations to Himself and one another. A good nature -- and man was so formed -- would walk naturally in them, because it was a conscious relationship by Creation itself, and the communications connected with it. I add this, because always true with God, another being -- it was needed and existed. Law takes up these relationships, with some other things consequent as facts on the Fall. Hence the Decalogue is not arbitrary, but God's maintenance of the relationships He had placed man in -- in the circumstances in which he now found himself. It is a perfect rule for the child of Adam as he is, as a summary of positive duty, including all, we must add, what the Lord cites. But two things make the difference. It is law, not grace -- secondly, grace has, though sanctioning all this, changed the relationship. We are God's children in grace, not Adam's. Though in the relationship, the obligation remains. Hence duty, and measure of duty, flowing from, existing in the relationship, the rule and measure is different. Grace says not, 'man must love God' -- right, perfectly right, as that is as fact of duty, though hopeless for man in form -- but "God loves," and "we" (not 'must') "love him because he first

[Page 16]

loved us." It is a new nature and a new relationship. Law is addressed to man in flesh, and tells him his duty and no more. Hence useful to judge.

Page 148. Quoting Deuteronomy 4:7, 8, he says: 'Coming expressly from Jehovah in the character of Israel's Redeemer, the Law cannot be contemplated otherwise than as carrying a benign aspect, and aiming at happy results. Moses extolled the condition of Israel as on this very account surpassing that of all other people.' The Law being better to them as a nation than the heathen laws, and gods, has nothing to do with the question. The next class of passages he cites (Psalms 103, 119 and 147: 19, 20) is the renewed man delighting in the revelation of God's will and word, of which the New Testament even in Romans 7, speaks as clearly as these passages. But that is not being under law. The question is treated by Paul as the question of justification, and then of deliverance. But he does not really understand the question, nor any who take up law as he does.

Page 151. 'The people had just been rescued, it was declared, from Egypt, had been borne by God on eagles' wings, and brought to Himself -- for what? Not simply that they might acknowledge His existence, or preserve His memory, in the face of surrounding idolatry, but that they might obey His voice and keep His covenant, and so be to Him "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation."' This is a wholly false quotation on the whole point in question. He says they were borne on eagles' wings that they might obey His voice, citing Exodus 19:4, 6, but verse 5 says "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice," etc., "Ye shall be," etc., i.e., makes all depend on the people's obedience. This one sentence shows where he is Nor, further, is there a word about 'reflecting His character,' nor 'holy as He is holy.' Holiness was required, because God was holy; 'as' is only in the Gospel.

Page 152. 'If the law had been aught else than a real disclosure of the mind of God as to what He demands of His people toward Himself and toward each other in the vital interests of truth and righteousness, it had been beneath the occasion.' It was the mind of God as to what He demands of His people towards Himself and the neighbour in the interests of righteousness ('truth' is too much -- that came by Jesus Christ), but 'demands of righteousness on man' is not the reflection of God's character. So, when the lawyer asks: "Who

[Page 17]

is my neighbour," He does not say 'everybody,' but changes the whole aspect, and shows One who is a Neighbour towards another in grace, not who was his neighbour, but One acting in love to need -- what Christ became in grace. The Law, so given, is treated as a thing come in by the bye, till the Seed came. All the notions founded on this romance of general progress are false. God could only raise the question of man's righteousness, for that was the Law, in a people separated out of the world to Himself -- as progress with man, it would have falsified His knowledge of their lost estate (seeking the Lord did not) and that is just the root of this system. Hence it is given to a nation externally redeemed, and the question raised with an 'if.'

Page 153. 'It will not do to say, by way of explanation, that in rejecting Jesus they set themselves against the very Head of Theocracy, and so ran counter to its primary design; for it was not in that character that He formally appeared and claimed the homage of men, but rather as Himself the living embodiment of its great principles, the culmination of its spiritual aims.' It was just because the contrary was really true that He was rejected.

Page 155. 'Witsius finds in the precepts of the Decalogue the moral elements of the covenant of works; they only assumed somewhat of the appearance of the covenant of Moses to convince people of their sinfulness,' etc. This is just in the teeth of the Apostle.

Page 157. 'They' (Israel) 'were no more bound to seek righteousness by the law, than the young man was by our Saviour's saying to him, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' The Saviour in these words takes the Ten Commandments as the covenant of 'Do and live.'

Page 158. 'The law carried with it the bond of a sacred obligation which they were to strive to make good; and of any other meaning or design, either on God's part in imposing, or on their part in accepting the obligation, the narrative is entirely silent'! This is too bad. Their being a peculiar people depended on obeying His voice! That there were promises which faith could look to, and prophecy which preceded, accompanied, and followed it, is true, but this was not law nor determines its character, unless as being something else. The question is whether really we are to take the New

[Page 18]

Testament, or Dr. Fairbairn as the divine interpreter. To say that 'life took here precedence of righteousness' is too bad, when an Apostle tells us the righteousness of the Law speaks thus: "He that doeth these things shall live in them." I had rather have Paul than Dr. Fairbairn. The Lord does not say a word of the 'dowry of eternal life' -- "all live unto him" -- but proves the resurrection. It is a most mischievous perversion. He says, 'It carries in its bosom the dowry of eternal life; so that grace took precedence of law, life of righteousness.' To Abraham, further, it was unconditioned promise, and the uncircumcised was cut off from blessing which remained to others. At the Law, the covenant was absolutely based on the condition of man's obedience as its first principle. All this page is merely contradicting Scripture, and profound moral ignorance as to Scripture truth.

So page 163. 'Access continually lay open to them to God.' Quite the contrary. Individual faith in promise might go to God, but the law, tabernacle and all said, Death if you come near. God did not come out -- man could not go in. In Christ, God did come out, and -- blessed be God -- Man is gone in. The Holy Ghost signified this by the veil. We have boldness to enter into the holiest by a new and living way, consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh, and we draw nigh. And even in the sacrifices, they were in contrast with Christ -- a remembrance of sins still there -- now perfected for ever, never to be remembered.

Page 164. 'The moral barrier raised in defence of the truth by the Decalogue preserved the better portion of the covenant-people from the dangers which in this respect beset them -- preserved them in the knowledge and belief of one God, as sovereign Lord and moral Governor of the world.' That God called out Abraham to preserve the knowledge of one God is surely true, that that the Law was given to maintain this, but what was 'the better portion of the covenant-people'? Was it the Law made them so, or sent Paul to Mars' hill? The Law could have preached no such sermon. It had priests (because they could not go to God) not ministry. The captivity of Babylon was what ended Israel and took the throne away. Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection. This was his defence, not his sermon; and he refers not to law but to the judgment of the world by Christ, and resurrection as the proof. That the Jewish system preserved the knowledge of the true

[Page 19]

God, through grace, by its better portion, I do not deny. And of course, God was known by faith as the Redeemer, the Hope of Israel. It is not the question what Israel had, but what is law? The promise of the woman's seed, and even the promise of Abraham's was before law, and on their faith always rested, where it was more than governmental, where full grace was needed, else Moses and responsibility, and these are never confounded. Psalm 119 is the Law written in the heart (and prophetically, with all the Psalms, belongs to that time) that is on the face of it, and to quote it thus is to confound the new covenant with the old. The 'better portion' had it so written, but that is not law in the sense of Sinai. That was written on stone. All this is simply confounding grace and law, the old covenant and the new. We have other things too.

Page 167. 'The want of right views of sin cleaves as a fundamental defect to all ancient philosophy.' Yes, and to all modern philosophy too.

Page 176. Note. 'Philippians 3:6. That Paul speaks thus of his earlier life from a Pharisaic point of view, is evident from the connection; as he is avowedly recounting the things which had reference to the flesh (verse 4) and which gave him a merely external ground of glorying. It is further evident, from what he says of his relation to the law elsewhere, when he came to a proper understanding of its real import (Romans 7); and also from the utter want of satisfaction, which even here he expresses, of his former life after the light of truth dawned upon his mind (verse 78).' No doubt, but this is "We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." It is not only grace but Christianity alone which can speak thus. You never get 'flesh' thus distinguished from 'me' in the Old Testament. It is Christian knowledge learned through the exercises of Romans 7, and only fully, save in despair, or all but despair, when we have the Holy Ghost, through redemption, which Israel had not. Besides, the remark in the note is not true -- Paul was blameless as to the Decalogue, save when the tenth commandment came, spiritually understood. So the Lord with the young man.

Page 177. 'The covenant of Sinai -- taken by itself, simply as the revelation of law -- 'genders to bondage'; Galations 4:24. Paul does not say 'taken by itself'; he says it does so. Under age, sons did not differ from servants, had not the spirit of sons. And Dr. Fairbairn has to admit that sons are of 'the

[Page 20]

covenant of promise alone, not by that of law.' Why then so many words?

Page 178. 'The law which could condemn but not expiate their sin, cried for vengeance with a voice that must be heard, and wrath from heaven fell upon them to the uttermost.' It was the rejection of Christ, not the Law which brought vengeance on them. Babylon had done that, though none would come, but it is rejecting the Son which causes the labourers' city to be burned. It was stumbling on the Stone. "If I had come among them," says the Lord, "they had not had sin."

Page 180. Nothing can exceed the inaccuracy of this man's mind. He says: 'There can be no doubt that the law, taken in its entireness, and as forming the most prominent feature in the economy brought in by Moses, however wisely adapted to the time then present, was still inlaid with certain inherent defects, which discovered themselves in the working of the system, and paved the way for its ultimate removal. As an economy, it belonged to an immature stage of the divine dispensations, and as such was constituted after a relatively imperfect form.' The Law in its entireness, here only a 'prominent feature in the economy, was inlaid with certain inherent defects!' Now the Law of God itself had no defect in it. In the next sentence he says it is 'an economy.' Yet 'the institutions and ordinances were associated with it'! And 'a change must somehow be introduced into the divine economy'! What was changed? The Law as a moral thing, for the institutions were only associated with it? All his book is to prove the contrary. It is really teaching the Law, and not knowing what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But it is the natural effect of his system.

Page 181. 'Whatever the contents of law, simply as law, written on perishable materials, it has a merely outward and objective character ... without any direct influence over the secret springs and motives of conduct.' Well! some say, But how then was it to do so much good to man, save convincing him of sin?

Pages 182, 183. Which is true that 'law supposes the will of man inwardly obstinate, rebellious, averse to all obedience,' or 'the elements of good are all there, though existing in comparative feebleness, and by means of discipline are stimulated'? They talk too of the 'ancient believer.' The question

[Page 21]

is with man, not with the believer. A new nature delights in law, but it is new.

Page 185. Moses did not give 'intimations of its imperfect character,' but plain statements of Israel's wickedness, and of God's way for His own glory.

Page 189. Here the Law is 'considered as a national covenant'! I do not expect him to understand the Psalms or Ecclesiastes. In the latter, Jehovah does not enter -- it is man and God, till the last conclusion. In the Psalms, this varies prophetically, according to Israel's place. But all this part which refers to the subject of Hebrews, not Romans, Galatians, and 2 Corinthians 3, I say nothing of. The progress in the Psalms and Prophets, though Dr. Fairbairn understands nothing of their real import, no one doubts. But this has nothing to do with what is 'The revelation of law.' The Psalms contain lovely expressions of faith and confidence in God and Jehovah who governs, but the relation of a child with a father is never found, nor a feeling which distinctively belongs to it. The difference is sensible, and if piety has been nourished by them, Christianity has been Judaised.

Page 212. We have here the excessively low idea of Christianity, cause and effect too of these wretched views, 'a vivifying pulse felt through society, and humanity springing aloft into a higher sphere, a new career of fruitfulness in intellectual and moral action.' 'A real reform' though for, I must say, decency, 'salvation work' is named with 'the better spirit growing out of it.' It is all pleasing the spirit of the age. It was an 'undertaking, for which Christ seemed unfit'!

Page 215. 'The condition of affairs immensely aggravated the difficulty of the undertaking for Him; so that the wisdom, the resolution, the power to carry it into execution, was of God!' Is this really redemption in Christ?

Page 216. 'Not only were the materials for all provided by Christ in His earthly ministry, but the way also was begun to be opened for their proper application and use; and what was afterwards done in this respect by the hands of the apostles was merely the continuation and further unfolding of the line of instruction already commenced by their Divine Master.' This is partially true. Hebrews' truth takes this ground, and in some degree Peter. But then Hebrews puts all into heaven, and shows the contrast much more than the comparison; a veil -- but now rent -- to show that they could not go in, now

[Page 22]

that they can; sacrifice -- but then repeated, to show sin was not put away, now, not repeated, because it is; and so on. But, as to the Church, and the mystery, the Apostle declares they were wholly hidden, as they must have been. So, when Christ was on earth, He never calls Himself the Messiah, save to the woman of Samaria, and, once morally rejected, tells His disciples not. He is Son of Man, and Son of God. When He takes that character, He is not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and forbids His disciples to go to Samaritans or Gentiles. That He fully owned the Law and the Prophets is quite clear. But all the higher teaching of Christianity was not in the Prophets, as is distinctly affirmed.

Page 217. 'Identifying Himself with the Temple, He declared that when He fell, as the Redeemer of the world, it too should virtually fall.' It virtually fell! It is really a romance.

Page 219. 'It was in His memorable Sermon on the Mount that our Lord made the chief formal promulgation of the fundamental principles of His Kingdom.' Principles of His kingdom truly -- not of His Church, and chiefly the character of those in Israel who could enter. There is no question of redemption in it, but what characters could enter into His Kingdom -- doubtless, if entered, they guide us in it. But Christ was showing the king of people that suited His kingdom; but neither redemption nor the Church. He was in the way with Israel, and righteousness preceded entering.

Pages 220, 221. All this is excessively paltry. 'The difference in the external scenery alone, in the two mounts'! 'Sinai less perfectly a mountain than a lofty and precipitous rock'! The 'Alps unclothed -- stripped of all verdure and vegetation,' etc. 'When Galilee was a well-cultivated and fertile region, and the rich fields which slope downwards to the lake were seen waving with their summer produce,' etc., etc.

Page 222. Speaking of the giving of the Law from Sinai, and the Sermon on the Mount, he says: 'The difference between the new and the old is relative only, not absolute. There are the same fundamental elements in both, but these differently adjusted, so as fitly to adapt them to the ends they had to serve, and the times to which they respectively belonged.' What were the 'promises in the law'? Long life in the Land! Let anyone read the Beatitudes and see the spirit looked for in man for blessing (not required as law at all) and put the Ten

[Page 23]

Commandments beside them, and say if the same fundamental elements 'are in both,' but these differently adjusted.' In the first place there are no relationships referred to. A state of soul is described which the Lord pronounces blessed -- nothing is required. There is instruction, warning, no grace announced, but the character described which suited the kingdom, if they would enter, which was just going to be set up.

Pages 223, 224. 'Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfil.' This latter expression must be taken in its plain and natural sense. It means simply to substantiate, by doing what they required, or making good what they announced. 'The law is fulfilled when the things are done which are commanded,' etc. Then if fulfilled, it is not 'putting others under it,' and it is the sense. But he does not see that the Lord all through is describing the previous character among the Jews, to which entrance into the Kingdom should belong. That Christ maintained the authority of Law and Prophets no one doubts, and, as far as fulfilled, they are fulfilled in Him. The question is, Does He put us under the Law as law?

Page 226. 'The kingdom, as to the righteousness recognised and expected in it, was to rise on the foundation of the law and the prophets.' This is exceedingly vague, as his statements are, and hard to take hold of. At any rate, it is not said anywhere, and it is not Christian ground. Now "without law" (choris nomou) righteousness of God is revealed. As to the Decalogue, they are not 'the fundamental statutes of the Kingdom.' This is wholly false. The Law and the Prophets were until John, since then the Kingdom of God is preached. The Sermon on the Mount is Christ's giving to His disciples, when multitudes thronged, the principles of which any of the Jews could enter. There is not a word of redemption, nothing whatever of Christianity as such, nor of Christian doctrine, nor of grace -- not one word. The Jews had other ideas. These are His authoritative ones as to what characters suited His kingdom, and nothing more, including the heavenly part in case of persecution, which is supposed even in Daniel. Christ fulfilled the law no doubt -- He was born or came under it; that does not say He put us under it after He was risen and no longer under it, having borne its curse. And the kingdom had taken a wholly new form, the King being rejected and hid in God. And as no redemption, no grace is mentioned

[Page 24]

in the Sermon, but the rock is unquestionably personal obedience. It must be supposed that one may disobey a little and get in, only having a little place! Supposing a great one was disobeyed? If it is said 'shut out,' what is the ground and measure of Christian entrance into the kingdom? That Christ as I said confirms the law and prophets by His authority, for they can by Him be confirmed as they were by the Transfiguration, no one doubts. The whole law in every part is fulfilled -- ceremonies in the substance -- in Him; and He, not our obedience is the end of the Law for righteousness. Some things might be carried higher, but not broken. It is Christ giving the true character of what He will have for the kingdom, not grace and redemption. But he knows nothing of the different positions in which Christ stood as the Christ or as Saviour. Pages 226, 227 are a mere muddle of contradiction from the false position he has taken.

Page 228. 'After so solemnly asserting His entire harmony with the law and the prophets, and His dependence on them, it would manifestly have been to lay Himself open to the charge of inconsistence, and actually to shift the ground which He professedly occupied in regard to them, if now He should go on to declare, that, in respect to the great landmarks of moral and religious duty, they said one thing, and He said another.' But He says nothing of harmony but of fulfilling. What means 'His dependence on them'? One thing is clear -- personal righteousness is the ground of entrance into the Kingdom, and, when Christ is dealing with Israel as such, this is the ground He takes, and that He does in Matthew to the end of chapter 12. The disciples were to enquire who in city or village were worthy, and go there, not seek sinners, nor go into the way of the Gentiles or city of the Samaritans. Is this the Gospel? If a Jew had taught against any commandment of God, he was going against God's authority -- if it amounted to hating his enemies in given special cases, and, as such, was.

But it imports to give the true character of this Sermon on the Mount for its own sake, and as the stronghold of the legalist. That the Christian can learn there what is pleasing to the Lord, is not the question -- that is clearly so from even the Law -- but what is its true character, and whether it puts us under law? In Matthew, Christ is seed of Abraham, seed of David, Emmanuel, Jehovah the Messiah come into Israel,

[Page 25]

sent to the lost sheep there, and first even to the nation, born King of the Jews. It is not, as Luke, first the Jewish Remnant, and then the Son of Man traced up to Adam. It was Jehovah, the Saviour to save His people from their sins, before whose face John went to prepare His way, announcing the axe at the root of the trees, and the kingdom just going to be set up. And even he declared, not for Pharisees and Sadducees. The Lord then by His ministry having attracted the crowds, for chapter 4 gives the whole public ministry of the Lord, gives to His disciples, but in the audience of all, what was the character of those who would have a place in the kingdom. But, save supposing the kingdom announced, there is not a word of Gospel in it. It is those who already there amongst the Jews were fit for the kingdom. So chapter 5: 25, 26, is the history of the Jews. The Lord was in the way with them. If need were, the end of Luke 12 proves it distinctly. And He tells His disciples how they were to behave in taking their place. Every Jew knew there was the olam hoveh (this age) under the law, and olam habba (the coming age) under Messiah. These are the rules for having part in the latter, the Father's name being withal revealed, but the kingdom not set up. He was rejected, and redemption came in, but of this we have nothing here.

As to details. It is clear He was not, as Jehovah-Messiah, come to set aside His own law, and His own prophets. He came to fulfil them -- not impose on others in continuance, but fulfil them. As I have said, of all the ceremonial part He was the substance and fulfilment. Then as to commandments, personally of course He fulfilled the Law. But even when He says: "But I say," He is not taking up the Law to spiritualise it. In two cases only, He takes up one of the Ten Commandments, murder and adultery, but only as essential parts of His own morality, and given as applying to the state of a man, not his acts, as all through, for this is His subject. And where He seems to change it, yet He fulfils it. Israel was divorced for their sins, yet He returns to God's original institution which was in the Law too, and will own Israel as Ish (man) and Hephzibah (beloved of God) making good God's own institution, when the governmental force of the Law has run its course, from Babylon till He takes His power and Israel has paid the last farthing. And breaking or annulling "one of the least commandments" is the same maintenance of the Law in

[Page 26]

all its integrity, and "least" is merely fully enforcing it, for if Christ came to fulfil it, he went against it, was going against Jehovah, and the very thing He came for. But the word "least" is merely to answer to "least," for either it gives a measure and he who taught against the least would get in, beyond that not -- which is monstrous -- or else he who annulled a greater would be less than he, still in the kingdom. But this is not the thought. "Least" echoes "least," and it is maintaining every jot and tittle of the Law, even the smallest, which I fully believe, but to be fulfilled by Christ, not carried on, though many things in it may abide, but it must (genetai) never be set aside, but fulfilled by Christ as God's own word. But to say 'Christ only brought out the true contents of the Law,' is simply ignorance of what Christianity is, for grace and truth came by Him. The Law, as a rule, is what man should be for God -- Christianity is what God is for man, and God in Man, and that is our full pattern, and this in general character (not in redemption, and giving up self consequently man's part) -- we have in the Sermon on the Mount, far away from Law; chapter 5: 44-48. In this, Christ was in life before redemption. But for us the full character is also what He did in redemption; Ephesians 5:1.

The comment on 'To the ancients' is also quite wrong; Matthew 5:21 (for I read to the ancients," but it is only in words there the first time). He says 'Commentators are still divided on the construction here, whether the expression should be taken in the dative or ablative sense -- to the ancients, or by them. "It has been said," is clearly what is in the Law, though not all Decalogue. But Christ, though confining Himself to Jewish allusions, Sanhedrim, etc., gives His own full estimate, and, as I have said, takes up the person's state, not relative acts, which the Law did not, though the spiritual man -- "We know" -- may use the tenth commandment thus. If it was said by the ancients, there might be some ground, but Dr. Fairbairn justly takes it as "to," and I suppose the Lord alluded to glosses when He cited a commandment there is no ground for.

Page 230. "But I say unto you." 'Never on any occasion did Jesus place Himself in antagonism to Moses; and least of all could He do so here, immediately after having so emphatically repudiated the notion.' It has nothing to do with antagonism, speaking of the state and not merely the acts. Nor is it

[Page 27]

'clearer light thrown on the meaning of its precepts.' When the Apostle would take up the Law to probe, he does not 'spiritualise' the sixth or seventh, but quotes the tenth commandment. All this is fancy.

Pages 232, 233. 'The Decalogue itself, and the legislation growing out of it, were in their form adapted to a provisional state of things; they had to serve the end of a disciplinary institution, and as such had to assume more both of an external and negative character. It was only what might have been expected in the progress of things -- when that which is perfect was come -- that while the law in its great principles of moral obligation and its binding power upon the conscience remained, these should have had an exhibition given to them somewhat corresponding to the noonday period of the church's history, and the sonlike freedom of her spiritual standing.' All is dreadfully vague. How does 'the law in its great principles of moral obligation, and its binding power on the conscience remain,' when it was 'imperfect, negative and provisional'? Moral obligation was before the Law. The Law comes as a measure and rule of it. If the authority and obligation to obey were not there, the Law could not have been given. The Law does not produce it as a principle, but gives a measure of it in fact, and puts righteousness on the ground of man's accomplishing it. It is the poor man's ignorance of this which falsifies all his views, and it is not merely 'good to be done' scarcely once, and then only as imitating their Father -- it is the state of soul. He says, 'The mind is turned considerably more upon the good that should be done, and less upon the evil to be shunned.' The measure of the Sermon on the Mount is perfect purity -- no ill-will -- a single eye -- in a word, a perfect inward state and motive as to man, and then being perfect as to love, as God is, in dealing with others. It has nothing to do with comparative degree.

Page 235. He says the Sermon on the Mount 'places the Christian on a much higher elevation than that possessed by ancient Israel as to a clear and comprehensive acquaintance with the obligations of moral duty.' His mind cannot get beyond obligations of moral duty. Was it the obligation of moral duty made Christ give Himself for us? Yet it is made expressly a pattern for us. The free activity of divine love does not enter his thoughts. No doubt He obeyed in doing it, but was it 'legal duty and nought else'? As to the Sabbath,

[Page 28]

it was not instituted by law at all. Law took it up. The Lord's word is not 'It was imposed by law,' but "made for man." It was the sign of the covenant with Israel under the Law. At the beginning it was sanctified as God's rest. Man never entered in nature into that, and as he could not in nature, Christ passed the Sabbath in heaven or the grave, and resurrection, the base of our hope, became the base of the Lord's day -- earnest of a heavenly rest, not of the earth or nature, and that is most precious; but Creation-rest, or rest of God in Creation is impossible. This was proposed in law. Hence the Lord says, in a passage wholly perverted by Dr. Fairbairn, when they accused Him of breaking the Sabbath, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." God cannot rest in sin, but grace in the Father and Son can work in the midst of it, and that is our part. And He had just gratuitously made the poor man (whose case represented the poor man under the Law) carry his bed on the Sabbath. What is remarkable is this -- under law no new particular institution or system was introduced in the details of Exodus or Leviticus, without introducing and insisting on the Sabbath. The truth is, it is an immense thing -- the sign of God's people having part in God's rest -- while in the New Testament, the Sabbath is never mentioned but to cast, so to speak, a slight on it. In the Sermon on the Mount it is not mentioned. There is the fact -- Christ would not call Himself superior to morality, He does to the Sabbath. He proved they were hypocrites, on their own ground, but what gave occasion to this provoking them in taking pains to slight their respect for this.

Nor (page 237) does the Lord ever refer that I remember, to 'legal authority for the Sabbath.' However wise it may be to give 'one day in seven,' it was never the ground of the Sabbath, but God's rest, God's people then having a part in it. And to rest when God worked, and to work when God rested, and talk of 'one day in seven being due to God' is losing sight of all its import. If it be God's work, we ought to work every day. If it be part in God's rest, we must have it where God's rest is -- this is gone in corrupted Creation. Jesus has given it us in Spirit in His resurrection, not as a law but introduced by redemption and death. But 'important interests of men' (page 236) is all Dr. Fairbairn can see. Therefore 'Its sacred repose must give way to the necessary demands of life, even animal life.' But the Lord was not approving the Pharisees,

[Page 29]

but making them ashamed of their hypocrisy. Very likely they did right, but the Lord was making no 'enlarged intelligent rule' by it, but appealing to what they did, and was done, in the Temple itself. He never gives any instruction how to keep the Sabbath, only asserts "It is lawful to do good."

Page 238. 'The Sabbath yields, it must be observed, only for the performance of works not antagonistic, but homogeneous, to its nature.' What are works of men homogeneous to rest? "Made for man" then belongs to man! Why stone a man for gathering sticks then? But it is not 'for man,' but for One particular Person, the Son of Man is Lord of it to dispose of it. But would He say this of murder, stealing, parents, etc., in a word, of abiding moral obligations? And who is to put the limits? And what are the limits, if he has 'a right to order everything'? 'Made, as the Sabbath was, for man, there necessarily belongs to man, within certain limits, a regulating power in respect to its observance.' Where is it said 'The Lord transferred it from the last day of the week to the first'?

Page 239. 'It is a memorial of the paradise that has been lost, and a pledge of the paradise to be restored.' That is a joyous day, a hallowed rest! And if lost, never to be regained, no return to the tree of life, or entrance into the rest of God. This the Law proposed -- Do and live. Christ in death showed it could not be, and a heavenly rest could not be shown by God's rest in Creation, or founded on what ruled on that basis. But it was no 'memorial of paradise lost,' nor does Scripture ever hint, in any shape, at its being 'a pledge of the paradise to be restored.' And how the truth slips out! 'Restored' -- what Paradise could be restored? Is heaven and glory, a Paradise restored! He is in the first man on earth, and so looks for what can never be. Resurrection takes us into a new world, life, and scene. It restores nothing. It may be the base of an earthly rest of which the Sabbath was a sign, but that is another thing.

Page 240. 'Not only did our Lord affirm, that 'on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,' but that 'there is none other commandment greater than these' -- evidently meaning that in them was comprised all moral obligation.' A summary of law comprises all moral obligation! I refer to it as showing that the free activity of grace never enters into his mind, self-sacrifice never -- in a word, what is properly Christian, never. I admit that this comprises it all

[Page 30]

as mere legal obligation, and all the Law and the prophets hang on them, but not Christianity. If a man walks in the Spirit, he will do it -- that is the Christian assertion, but because he is not under law.

Page 241. 'Christ affirmed, in connection with the two great comprehensive precepts of supreme love to God, and brotherly love to man, that if the commands were fulfilled, life in the highest sense, eternal life, would certain be inherited.' Now Christ carefully avoids, on the contrary, saying eternal life, though the young man did. And the assertion 'if the commands were fulfilled, eternal life would be inherited,' is very serious. It is "the gift of God through Jesus Christ," and "He that hath not the Son of God hath not life." It shews that he is out of the doctrine of Christianity altogether. When they asked what to do, He says, "This do, and thou shalt live, if thou wilt enter into life." They did ask concerning things to be done. But the Lord takes care to correct one, and assure him that there was none good but God, and the other that a neighbour was not to be looked for, but exhibited in active grace. But to say that 'on fulfilling those commands all right to the possession of life in God's kingdom has been suspended' is very serious, and that, when righteousness is to be attained to ground a title to eternal life, Christ points enquirers to the Law, is really the denial of all Gospel truth. And if 'the revelation of law was comprehensive of all righteousness,' how came it Paul would not have it, but God's instead -- not get his own perfected but another instead?

Page 242. "The law made nothing perfect." But he has no idea of the difference between obligation being enforced as founded on relationship, and the sovereign grace of God in redemption which has brought in a new thing, a new life, God's righteousness, and glory its result. It was not 'faulty as to man's relationship,' and speaks of nothing more, but revealed nothing of God's sovereign grace, in God laying a new foundation on what He did, and making that the rule. 'Christ had a mission ruled by the prescriptions of law. The work of Christ as Redeemer neither was, nor could be anything else than the triumph of righteousness for man over man's sin.' This statement is monstrous. Christ's mission ruled by the prescriptions of law! And His work of Redeemer nothing but the triumph of righteousness for man over man's sin! Is it not striking that, in speaking of Christ's work and redemption, no mention

[Page 31]

of love or grace comes in? It is 'the prescriptions of law,' 'the triumph of righteousness over man's sin'!

Page 243. Save the fact of the sinlessness of Jesus, all Dorner's statement is false. He says, 'His spirit was full of peace and undisturbed serenity. He knew Himself to be committed to suffer, even to the cross, and He actually expired in the consciousness of having at once executed the purpose and maintained undisturbed His fellowship with God.' 'Jesus was conscious of no sin, just because He was no sinner. He was, though complete man, like God in sinless perfection; and though not like God incapable of being tempted, nor perfected from His birth, and so not in that sense holy, yet holy in the sense of preserving an innate purity and incorruptness, and through a quite normal development, in which the idea of a pure humanity comes at length to realisation and prevents the design of the world from remaining unaccomplished.' The design of the world was not in Jesus down here, but in Jesus risen and glorified, and Head over all. Here, and till He died, He was alone. He was perfect and, because He manifested God, rejected of men, and redemption was needed if any were to have a part with Him. And is it not singular that he can say 'undisturbed,' when the essence of the Cross was, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"?

Page 245. 'Could such an one really be subject to the law? Was He not rather above it'? 'When His work of obedience was reaching its culmination, He was ready to perfect himself through the sacrifice of the cross.' As to being under the Law, not a word is needed. He was genomenos hupo tou nomou (born under the Law). Is He now, is the question. It is now we are connected with Him by redemption. 'To perfect Himself' is a very objectionable expression, as is indeed, 'Not in that sense holy.' He was as holy when born as all through.

Page 248. That Christ bore the curse of the Law is unquestionable, but the statement here I reject altogether -- 'On what could the stern necessity rest, but the bosom of law whose violated claims call for satisfaction?' Has God no claims, no judgment of sin till He has imposed a law? Scripture is clean and diligently against it. And even with this it is far from all -- He glorified God by His death, and obtained glory with God for man, which no satisfaction of claims of law could do. Law never promised it, nor gave a title to it. It is deplorable and low system.

[Page 32]

Page 250. While holding the main point of a judicial act, and 'the cup that justice mixed,' and the real bearing of our sins, and holding to the importance of holding and expressing it as clearly and positively as possibly can be, it is needed for my peace and God's glory, making the mere curse of the Law, and its violation, the extent and measure of Christ's sacrifice, a most poor and lame statement. It is striking that the thought of a sacrificial victim, or the love of Christ in giving Himself for us, are wholly absent from his thoughts of Christ's death. A vague expression of the display of God's love in Christ is found, but the love of Christ the Victim, He who offered Himself up without spot to God, has no place at all, and, as a doctrine, this absence of all allusion to sacrifice, and only taking the curse of the Law (which is not immediately the idea of a sacrificial victim) makes the whole doctrinally most defective. The burnt-offering is lost -- the fullest, greatest character of sacrifice wholly gone, even the meat-offering disappears, and the sin-offering shorn of a vast part of its value, not alluded to at all, no sacrifice, nor the idea of sacrifice, but all that is alluded to only a partial fulfilment of the sin-offering. I repeat, the atoning, propitiatory, vicarious character of Christ's work, in presence of God's judgment of and against sin, His righteous judgment, Christ's bearing my sins there and consequently suffering, drinking the cup, cannot be too firmly held. All the fine-spun theories are only setting aside the truth. If Christ was doing atoning work for my sins, bearing them under the present judicial action of God's righteousness, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, are the most precious words ever uttered. But if it was 'personal state, and pattern of devotedness' merely, or the like, then they are saying that the One Just Man was forsaken of God at the end, and His faith failed when fully tried (a mere blasphemy) and Stephen's death and many a poor saint's is much more perfect and beautiful. But faith knows that they were, in joy, because Christ could only utter them as bearing their sins. Then all is in its place -- the Just for the unjust, and they brought to God.

Page 253. 'Whatever distinctly belongs to the Christian Church -- whether as regards her light, her privileges, her obligations, or her prospects -- it springs from Christ as its living ground; it is entirely the result of what He Himself is and accomplished on earth.' What is 'springing from Christ as its living ground'? Nothing from Christ surely, but from

[Page 33]

His death, i.e., all relationship between God and the first man, or effort to reclaim him closed, and he treated as lost. For Dr. Fairbairn, it is vaguely 'is and accomplished on earth.' Vagueness itself -- as different from Scripture as possible, but beyond ordinances, and the moral law, he is unable to get. The mystery hidden from ages and generations, or even what is heavenly he is ignorant of as the child unborn.

Pages 256, 257. Dr. Fairbairn, though he speaks of Paul at the end on the very lowest ground that he takes, the Galatians, never once gets on the ground of Paul's own teaching, and historically gets to the sheet and Cornelius (page 255) which did not touch the question of the Church. So 'The cycle of Christian instruction on the subject was completed by the explanation given in the Epistle to the Hebrews,' in which neither the Father nor the Church is ever mentioned (save chapter 12, as in heaven in time to come) and where Christians are seen on earth with a Christ (with whom they are not one in heaven) and the question is if a man can approach God, and it is shown how.

Page 264. 'Let a man examine himself (viz., as to his state and interest in Christ), and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.' All right in general as to ordinances. I do not admit his theory as to sacraments, de facto it is true of the Lord's supper; but even here his habits of thought have misled him, and he is as usual inaccurate. If "examine himself" is 'as to his state and interest in Christ,' it could not be "and so eat," but "see if you are to eat," but it is not our question here. No doubt his views of baptism are the Reformation view. But they are surely false. He says it is 'not absolutely originative, or of itself conditioning and producing the first rise of life in the soul, but bringing it forth into distinct and formal connection with the service and kingdom of Christ.'

Page 266. His quotations (Acts 15:7-9; Romans 6:4, 5; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:18-36; 2 Corinthians 10:17) have nothing to do with the matter, and do not speak of what he refers to, and those which do he cannot account for.

Page 267. He has no idea of the Gospel beyond 'the word of the kingdom,' and calls it 'the Gospel of Christ's glory.' He says: 'The grand ordinance, which has to do with the formation of Christ in the soul, or the actual participation of the life that is in Him, is this word of the kingdom -- the Gospel, as the apostle calls it, of Christ's glory'; 2 Corinthians 4:4.

[Page 34]

Page 268. It is curious how the work of Christ in redemption is left out in the citation from Hare's 'Victory of Faith' -- strikingly so. Thus he adds 'what springs from faith secures the imperishable boon of eternal life.'

Pages 269, 271. Nothing can be more striking in its way than the manner in which the Apostle seeks to put in the strongest contrast, law and grace, law and faith, one being man for God, the other God for man, and the manner in which this book seeks to mix them up. 'The law of faith,' an expression of which the force is evident, makes faith a law because people ought to believe. He cannot deny that Christianity is carefully put in another way, still it is this, and this by the deplorable principle that there is no obedience but by law. So that "this is the work of God that ye believe" is that believing is a law. I admit men are bound to believe, but to make therefore faith itself a law is deplorable ignorance. So that 'The provision of grace and blessing in Christ, and the way in which this comes to be realised in the experience of men, has the essence and force of law' -- consequently "worketh wrath" if we are to believe an Apostle. The consequence is natural enough -- Christ 'at infinite cost has wrought out the plan of our salvation'!

Page 272. 'The state of spiritual persons substantially the same under the Old Testament and the New'! 'Higher spirituality really in Romans 7'! 'Complicated and delicate relations between Moses and Christ, law and grace, through which the experience of believers may be said to lie.' The Apostle is not very delicate -- you are an adulterer if you mix them, he says, and try to have both at a time, to say no more.

Page 273. 'There is a gradation only, not a contrast; and as under the old covenant the law-giving, was also the loving God, so under the new, the loving God is also the law-giving.' If it is a gradation only, there is no full final pardon possessed, so that the person is accepted "perfected for ever." The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. Romans 3 does not speak of past remission, but of remission, passing over in forbearance, and justice in doing it now manifested. There could be no remission really of sins but by the blood of Christ, and the righteousness not at all revealed, and, if real remission was by Christ's blood, there was no gradation. There were figures, and governmental forgiveness in details, forbearance (paresis) if you please, but righteousness in it was not revealed

[Page 35]

at all -- it is, at this time. As to 'the transgression of the law being sin,' it is an abominable error against the most important declarations of Scripture. The call to holiness is not law, or if it be, a curse.

Page 274. 'St. Paul, in Galatians 5:13, 14, plainly identifies the love binding upon Christians with the love enjoined in the law.' Galatians teaches exactly the contrary. They wanted to be under law. Paul never showed such anguish as at this, and tells them that walking in love the Law was fulfilled, that they had to walk in the Spirit, and there was no law against it, and if they did they were not under it. The question is not whether the new man 'delights in the law and serves it,' but whether the Christian is under it, and whether it is by it he does love his neighbour.

Page 275. It is quite impossible to read Paul and believe we are under the Law. Nobody dreams we are not to obey, or may steal and murder. The question is, Are we under law? But it is not the Law which is dead. "We are dead to sin by the body of Christ," and that delivers us from sin, not the Law. We are sanctified to obedience. Paul gives no 'colour' to anything, but plainly and largely reasons on the point that the Law has power over a man as long as he lives, but that we are dead. Ephesians 5 merely appeals to the Law to show the importance God attached to that duty, motive and all. He does not say 'There is a sense in which we are not under it,' but that 'we are not under it at all,' and that we are under a curse if we are under works of law. And the passages are not isolated passages, but long reasonings as to the nature of Christianity, salvation, and holiness.

Page 276. 'That covenant of law, as actually proposed and settled by God, did not stand opposed to grace, but in subordination to grace, as revealed in a prior covenant, whose spiritual ends it was designed to promote.' This is bad. Either there are two covenants, the old and the new -- "the first" and "the second" -- or else it is the promise to Abraham, and then it is declared nothing could be added to it, that the Law had no place at all, came in by the bye, for an extra purpose, and there was an end of it.

Page 277. As usual, we have merely duty to man and God as the whole measure of Christian practice. But I notice it here because it is accompanied with what shows the total

[Page 36]

ignorance of the truth on these points, which characterises the doctrine of the book, 'that law of God which revealed His righteousness for their direction and obedience.' This betrays the whole system. Paul was not ashamed of the Gospel, because therein the righteousness of God was revealed; Romans 1, so chapter 3: 20, 21, in formal and express contrast with the Law (verse 20). "But now the righteousness of God without the law" (choris nomou) "is manifested"; so verse 26, "To declare at this time his righteousness." It is as plain as possible. And further (page 278), 'The heart's innate tendency to alienation from God continued still to proceed in the face of the commands and threatenings of law.' This is all ignorance of the essential truth of the Gospel. 'It is this great question that the Apostle chiefly treats in the larger proportion of the passages referred to.' But 'larger' or smaller, does not the Apostle also treat of the Law as to practical godliness, and deliverance from the power of sin? In the Romans this is far more fully developed in chapter 5: 11 to chapter 8. 'It is of the law in this point of view, that he speaks of it as a minister of death -- of believers being no longer married to it or under it.' As to being married to it being in its condemning character, it is wholly and utterly false. It is deliverance, not pardon, nor righteousness. It is expressly that we may bring forth fruit to God, we are "to another." A husband has nothing to do with condemnation. It is all the grossest ignorance of the truth. Working concupiscence is not pronouncing condemnation. The motions of sin were by the Law -- sin was dead, sin revived; there is nothing of condemnation. And even "dead to law by law" in Galatians, is not to escape condemnation, but that we "might live to God." These quotations and statements on the face of them condemn the whole system. 'The end of the law for righteousness,' he says, 'is its reaching its proper aim in Christ.' This, though I do not insist on it, is also a blunder on the face of it, for Christ makes us reach its proper aim, not it, but I do not agree with the interpretation, but I do not treat it here. Again 'The moral law is done away' -- the Law is done away for the sake of having morality by Christ. How our being 'delivered from it that we may be brought into conformity,' etc., proves its 'eternal validity,' is hard to say. It had to be set aside because it could not produce this conformity but the contrary. It required it, but the Law did not make it right (Adam's law did) but required it because it was

[Page 37]

right, but, being totally unable to effect it, was set aside, i.e., the Law had not any validity. Further, another thing was to produce what it could not do; but it is the common confusion of the writer. How being delivered from a thing can prove its 'eternal validity' is indeed hard to say.

Page 280. When he says: 'What was little more than hope before is realisation now,' is promise not law. Next, 'In a prior covenant of grace, it was linked to penalties, which admitted of no suspension or repeal.' Was ever such confusion? There was no covenant of grace. It was life on man's responsibility. Deliverance from Egypt was not only not a covenant of law, but no covenant at all, but a supreme act of power on God's part. All this is a fable. 'It was,' he says, 'educational; and in the same farm only that St. Paul, in various places, in Galatians, Ephesians 2:14-17; and Colossians 2:14-23 contended for its having been displaced or taken out of the way by the work of Christ -- he refers to the simply moral demands of the law as now, not less than formerly, binding on the consciences of men, to prevent any misunderstanding.' Here he refers to Galatians 5:13-22. It is a perverseness of mind which is extraordinary. The Galatians wanted to be under law. "Ye have been called unto liberty"; i.e., in grace, not law -- Sarah, not Hagar. "Only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." How to be got at? "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." And then, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." This sets, he tells us, 'temporary adjuncts and shows under the law, which maintains all its force as to moral things; Ephesians 6:1-9; Colossians 3:14.' Now here only moral things are spoken of, and we are not under it. We are to walk in the Spirit, and then what the Law condemned will not be there, but by our not being under it at all. Ephesians 6:1-9 has nothing to do with the Law, good or bad, except the passage already referred to. What Colossians 3:14, has to say to it must be left to Dr. Fairbairn to find out. The passage speaks of putting off the old man and putting on the new, which is just what the Law had nothing to do with.

Page 282. He is quite right as to 'how the practice was to be secured,' when he says 'the law's precepts could not do it,' for he teaches us it was not to be secured by law but by grace.

[Page 38]

Sin had dominion under law, and God's method was to make us dead, which put a total end to our connection with the Law, but, besides, adds an infinitely increased measure of godliness -- the character of God in redemption. But what follows here is monstrous. He says: 'Now there came the more excellent way of the Gospel -- the revelation of that love which is the fulfilling of the law, in the person of the New Head of humanity.' So sovereign love and grace in God and in Christ is fulfilling the Law! Where did the Law require a man to sacrifice himself for another, and bear his curse? Is God's love loving His neighbour as Himself? He says: 'Love was the reason of the law,' but love on a level or upwards, not love downwards, love to sinners, not giving up self. Again, 'Love is the best interpreter of God,' but it is God's free love, not duty, love to sinners. 'The law of eternal rectitude' -- but eternal rectitude is not law. It is the gross blunder of not seeing duty or obligation before law, and, in law, authority imposing it. Christ was no 'Head of humanity' till after His death. Perfect as He was, the Corn of Wheat abode alone -- no link could be formed; just as Adam was no head of a race till after his fall -- nor Christ till redemption was accomplished. But this closed the application of the Law, by the death of its willing Victim, for all those who have part in Him. It is this that Dr. Fairbairn is wholly ignorant of. God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, did what the Law could not do, no doubt, and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free, and thereby the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, but not by applying the Law, but in us who "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." That is, the Law, which was a specific, well-known system of imposed righteousness, could not produce the effect, and God did it in another way -- and that 'proves we are under it'! But even here, we have none of the higher forms of Christianity, but only that what the Law could not do grace did. The counsels of God are not in the doctrinal statements of the Romans at all, but only individual justification and life, save just one link at the very end of them, to secure the believer; chapter 8: 28-30. And here we have nothing to do with law, but God for us -- not what we ought to be.

It is wearying incessantly to repeat that law is not the good that law proposes, but a form of imposing it on man who will not obey it, flesh not being subject to it. He says: 'Subject

[Page 39]

to the good' -- to what good? It is simply bad in will, but is not subject to the Law of God, nor can be.

Pages 284, 285. These pages are just showing that law does not even answer the purpose, or meet the end Dr. Fairbairn proposes, and that the Spirit in His directive influence is Himself a living law. But here, as he states it, he is wrong, for without the written Word it opens the door to all fanaticism. But his principle of then bringing in law is directly against the positive assertion of Scripture -- as for example: "If ye be led of the Spirit ye are not under the law" -- and only an exhibition of the gross moral confusion of making duty and its imposition by law the same thing.

Page 288. 'This is the love of God, in order that we may keep His commandments -- hina tas enlolas autou teromen -- not that we do it as a fact, but that we may and should do it as a scope or aim. In so far as these are kept, does the love of God in us reach its proper destination.' He is wrong as to hina; John's use of it is wholly peculiar. The love of God will make us obey, and that is the genuine proof of love, but to say it is 'its destination' is most miserable. "We love him, because he first loved us."

Page 290. 'A condition of righteousness for which the law is not ordained, 1 Timothy 1:9. Not only not the world at large, but not even the most Christian nation in the world, has as yet approached such a condition.' It is not for a righteous man at all, and for every evil most useful for convicting of sin, and so used lawfully. But 'the world at large, or even the most Christian nation' -- what does he mean? His first point is not so and as the Law it works wrath. The second is all well. 'The Law provides what is needed to work conviction of shortcomings and sins,' etc.

The third is very bad. 'The imperfections too commonly cleaving to the work of grace in the redeemed, call for a certain coercive influence of law even for them, and for believers generally the two are thus mingled together. 'Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire.' Godly fear is not law, and fear and trembling, because God works in us in such a warfare, is not law.

Page 297. I do not much note this chapter. But 'The number of those within the Church whose preparation for the kingdom of God had been imperfect,' marks the same ignorance

[Page 40]

of grace and power. Also 'For centuries there was no specific theological training generally adopted for such as aspired to become her guides in spiritual things.'

Page 366. He carefully avoids defining law, but placet ... quoniam, etc., ante definire quid sit officium (as the whole discussion will be about moral duty, the meaning of the term must be defined beforehand).

I have given in these notes a definition of it. I repeat it in substance. It is the rule of a constant course to be pursued, imposed by competent authority, and in the case of a moral, subordinate being, where another will is or may be in question, and is tested, enforced by sanction expressed or implied. If the nature and the prescribed rule go unquestionably together, then a sanction is not needed. It is a law of liberty. The Law is in the heart; so Christ; so even the Jews under the new covenant. When it is applied to material things, then the constant rule is imposed by power. These variations come from the difference of that to which the rule applies. The truth is, the imposition of a moral law, as to enforcing existing relationships, supposes a resisting will.

When he speaks of the promise, on which individual believers rested, modifying the Law, he introduces a principle which falsifies his book from one end to the other, and destroys the power and value of law. His only resource then is to contravene the Apostle's urgent statements.

Page 368. He is wrong in everything. Referring to 2 Corinthians 3, he says, 'Passing over the two or three earlier verses which call for no special consideration, the apostle, after stating at the close of verse 5 that his sufficiency was of God, adds, "who also has made us sufficient to be ministers," (not, as in the authorised version, "made us able ministers"), that is has qualified us for the work of ministers of the new covenant.' The first verses are all important. They contrast the Law and the Spirit -- the very thing he will not do. He is obliged to come back to them, as essential, lower down. It is the whole point of the chapter, verses 7-10 being a parenthesis. But, further, the absence of the article is not 'the sign of a well-known thing,' it is its presence which is -- it makes the word characteristic. Paul was a new-covenant minister, i.e., the new covenant characterised his ministry. So, "not of letter but of Spirit." So gramma and pneuma are essentially contrasted. Dr. Fairbairn's remarks here are puerile. He says:

[Page 41]

'As letters are but the component parts of words, we may apply here what our Lord Himself affirmed of His words, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."' Hence without pointing to any contrast between old and new, or outward and inward, we find Justin Martyr saying, in proof of the essential divinity of the Son and Spirit, 'Hear the passage.' No doubt letters compose words, but "Not of letter, but of the spirit" so contrasted is essential contrast. One sees now why he skims over the first verses, because there 'outward and inward' are specifically contrasted -- one being writing Christ by the Spirit of the living God on the heart, in contrast with that on tables. I do not hold it to be 'merely Old Testament,' but letter and Spirit -- the kind of ministry and work. He uses the Old Testament here, but he is not a minister of letter in it.

Page 369. 'A contrariety between Rabbinism and Christianity. Christianity demanded conversion, Rabbinism satisfied itself with instruction; Christianity insisted on a state of mind, Rabbinism on legality,' etc., etc. Rabbinism or Christianity! It is curious how in this contrast Christ and the revelation of Christ (the whole subject of the Apostle) is wholly left out. 'The will of God a state of mind'! Anything but Him. And he does not see, while I agree it is not old in contrast with new, that letter, if more than a history, is always law, or claim outside us. The Apostle is using the Old Testament here, but making the contrast of Christ, whom Dr. Fairbairn leaves wholly out, and Christ graven by the Holy Ghost on the heart, with ink and tables of stone. Glad tidings never can be law, nor law glad tidings. The Law was ordained for life in saying, "Do and live," but man being what he was, when known as spiritual and not till then was death. In Christ, or the Gospel, when known spiritually death -- the letter always kills. Paul's ministry could be a savour to death, because to some it was rejected mercy -- a rejected Christ. But the Law, spiritually known, and, as I have said, so only indeed, was death in the conscience.

Page 372. He does not know where he is. He says, 'The law, contemplated in the spirit of Rabbinism, is called a ministration of death, because, in its native tendency and operation, certain to prove the occasion of death.' I agree it is as Romans 7, but if 'the law in its native tendency and operation was certain to prove the occasion of death,' it did not want Rabbinism to make it so. It is too powerful for him to

[Page 42]

get rid of. The criticisms here are immaterial -- 'the ministration of death in the letter, should be ministration of death engraved in letters.' Nor do I the least agree with the view of what regards Moses' face; Exodus 34:34 is, I think, quite conclusive, and indeed the whole passage. Dr. Fairbairn says, 'The shining gradually vanished away, till brightened up afresh be renewed intercourse with Heaven.' But it is immaterial. The Law as given of God, and His glory reflected in it as far as it could be, was a ministration of death and condemnation 'in its native tendency and operation.' And Moses was asked to hide the glory. But the Apostle's or Gospel ministry was righteousness, and the Spirit which was received by the hearing of faith, and the Law is not of faith.

Page 374. The Apostle (2 Corinthians 3:8), is clearly speaking of the Spirit, though in His power of engraving Christ on the heart, and giving its true power to the Old Testament in the soul. Dr. Fairbairn would make it 'spirit,' not 'Holy Ghost,' and cites Galatians 3:5. But there also it is clearly "the Spirit" itself; but of this Dr. F. can know nothing on his system. What is "The Spirit of the living God," verse 3? He says, 'He who ministereth to you the Spirit, points not to the apostle as a minister of the new covenant, but to God or Christ: it is He alone who can minister, in the sense of bestowing the Holy Spirit.' But, "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?" makes Dr. F.'s interpretation flat nonsense. And what is "The Lord the Spirit "by his own translation?

Page 375. This page is somewhat curious. He says, citing verses 9, 10, 'The law in the letter is here presented in its condemnatory, instead of its killing, aspect. Accordingly on the other side righteousness is exhibited as the counterpart brought in by the Gospel.' The Law, man being what he is, is condemnation as before death. The Gospel brings in righteousness. Dr. F. does not tell us what righteousness, but no matter. One brings death and condemnation -- the other, righteousness. Why, that is all -- we say. And Dr. F. cannot help it, for there it is. I only remark, it was not Rabbinism. That did not shine in the face of Moses. It was, as given of God, pure, and coming with all the glory it could have as coming from Him; and, further, with all the mercy that could come with it from sovereign goodness -- all God's goodness, not being redemption and atonement. The first time Moses

[Page 43]

came, we hear nothing of his face shining -- the Law never got, purely as such, into the camp at all. Now God retired into His own sovereign mercy (on Moses' intercession), speaks to Moses face to face, and then, making him go up again, makes all His goodness pass before him -- only He will not justify the guilty, as Moses could not also make intercession for them. It was still law. That is, all-patient mercy, and pardon as a present thing with law maintained, was condemnation and death. There it stands out, with no Rabbinism, no false interpretation, but law, set up by God in the glory it came in from Him, is death and condemnation. If I see the glory in the face of Jesus Christ, it is when He has borne my sins, and though the glory of God in all its brightness is the proof of my salvation and brings me there, that is what Dr. Fairbairn has not seen.

Page 376. Here is only to remark the laborious effort to get rid, from his own premises, as what could not be, of what the Apostle formally says was. It was the Law given by God -- no mistake -- were it not, it could not condemn, nor give death. The glory was shown in the face of Moses. It was not the relationships the Decalogue sanctioned, but the Law which sanctioned them which was done away, and specifically so graven on stones -- was not that the Law taking in, no doubt, the whole system, as he has often said that was the centre, for the whole system was what was to be done away -- it was not the Law, but law which was established by faith, but not as a system under which man was then put, for the Law is not of faith, and Christianity did establish fully its authority, but showed it was death and condemnation. And Christ bearing the curse, nothing could so seal its authority, and the claim and title of God in it, but did not put us under it, but took us from under it when we were. Now we are delivered from the Law, having died in that in which we were held, are dead to the Law by the body of Christ, the Law ruling only while life lasts. He says: 'The law if viewed in its proper connection, and kept in the place designed for it by the lawgiver.' What was its proper connection and character, if not when given by Moses directly from God, with his face shining? 'Moses declares,' he tells us, 'if the people hearkened to it they should live.' No doubt if -- but flesh is not "subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Christ told the young man so, then detected

[Page 44]

his heart, and, when His disciples wondering said to Him, 'Then no one can be saved,' He assented saying, "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Ah! When will man believe it? His reason is strange -- he says: 'The law could only be the occasion of more certain and hopeless perdition to men.' So that if a man kept a law of perfect love to God, and one's neighbour as oneself, why should not he live? Of course he would! But it could only be the cause of perdition, which the Apostle therefore calls "A ministration of death and condemnation." If it was 'imaged in Moses,' why was it to pass away?

As to law being established 'in relation to the antecedent covenant of promise,' it is a useless effort to argue against Scripture. A confirmed promise none can annul or add to. It could not be tacked on to it, says the Apostle; on the contrary, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son."

Page 378. 'The direct object of the veil on Moses' face was to conceal from the view of the people the gradual waning and disappearance of the supernatural brightness of his skin.' Besides what I have said, the whole argument of the Apostle rests on the glory being hid in Moses' case -- he veiled it that they should not see to the end of it. There is no veil on the glory of Christ. The rest is all immaterial, though all wrong. Moses was veiled -- the glory is not, in Christ the veil is gone, but is on their hearts. When the Jews turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away from their hearts, and the object of the Old Testament clear, just as Moses took it off when he turned to the Lord. It is a most beautiful allusion, and the force of the passage perfectly clear.

Page 380. His remarks on verse 14 are all nonsense. He says 'It was an imperfect state of things and involved a measure of blame; but the blame lay with the people, not with Moses.' Nobody says it was Moses' fault. The people could not bear the Law with the least revelation of God's glory, or that glory so revealed have rested in the letter, and did not see Christ in it. The glory was always, though an imperfect reflection of it, behind the veil, but, the system being legal, the glory of God in any way was intolerable to man -- the veil was hence on it -- in Christ it is taken away, but rests yet on Israel's heart, who see not the glory of Christ in the Word. But all he says is wrong -- the veil is not now on the glory, but on Israel's heart. 'Moses practising reserve,' is all nonsense. Israel could not

[Page 45]

bear to see, and the entire veiling of the glory is the statement. Now they are blinded, not the glory veiled. What is done away is shown by the open, unveiled face in Christ. No doubt the old covenant is done away, or the veil would still be there. But, alas! it is still sadly on Dr. Fairbairn. As to mere transition, I have no objection to 'not being unveiled to them,' that 'it' (the covenant) 'is done away in Christ.' But that is the Covenant of the Law. I believe verse 7 does refer to verse 6. And katoptrizomenoi, is not I believe a mirror, save in etymology, at all; but seeing fully into the glory as a man sees himself in a mirror, just as he is seen clearly and fully -- himself -- so we the glory. But on all this I have no contest. But the quotation from Philo (neither would I see mirrored in any other), fully proves the sense I give to katoptrizomai.

Page 383. 'The Gospel reveals what He is and has done, and thereby unfolds His glory.' 'What He is and has done, and thereby,' shows Dr. F. has not seized the present glory in which Christ is, as Paul saw Him, as the present thing revealed, result of work though possessed before the world was. He says, 'We are transformed into the same image, namely, of Christ's glory seen in the mirror of His Gospel' -- but it is "the gospel of his glory." Paul's doctrine Dr. F. has not an idea of.

Page 386. The sense of ean me as elsewhere, is 'nor in any way but.'

Page 388. This is all delusion too, 'Peter having gone as a sinner to Christ for justification, and still finding himself in the condition of a sinner, had fallen back again upon observances of law for what was needed. Could Christ possibly in such a way be a minister of sin? For, if failing thus to remove its guilt, in behalf of those who trusted in Him, He necessarily ministered to its interests.' Why if Christ failed to justify, did He 'minister to the interests of sin?' The Law failed to justify -- did it 'minister to the interests of sin'? Me genoito. It is what Dr. F. is writing against; and if that were all, I agree. The whole thing is plain. If he built again the things he destroyed, he made himself a transgressor in destroying them. If he went back to the Law after Christ, he was wrong in leaving the Law to go to Him, and Christ had made him do it and transgress. That was the horrid absurdity. As to ara, the ancient MSS. have not accents; it is a question of interpretation.

[Page 46]

Page 389. By law he died to law, but what does 'in the interest of the law he died to it' mean? The Law killed him, but then he was dead to it. Nothing simpler -- save me from commentators! But if that were all, he was condemned as well as dead, and the real way of it was he was crucified with Christ. So sin had died, for he, the sinner in flesh, was dead, yet he lived, but not he, but Christ who is risen in him. When will these people understand?

Pages 392, 393. We have now what shows one side of the total failure, in divine truth, of the whole system, where even persons little spiritually enlightened have seen it. He says the Law 'making sin into a transgression so that what was before not a transgression might now become one, is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, as if sin and transgression differed materially from each other.' Clearly the commandment turned sin into transgression. My child may have a bad habit of running out, but if I forbid him it is a transgression, a despising my authority. Thus sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful. It could not if it was not there before it. But there is no excuse here. He owns anomia means lawlessness, but says 'it equals transgression.' But lawlessness does not mean transgression, nor does anomia (lawlessness) mean parabasis nomou (transgression of law). So little is this the case that those who have sinned anomos (lawless) are contrasted with those who have sinned under law, and the result is different -- those are said to perish, these to be judged by law. Law cannot create sin, nor God do anything to produce it. But law does produce transgression, and it is positively said "the law entered that the offence might abound," and then to reach out where no law was, but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Where no law is, there is no transgression, but he carefully proves that sin was in the world until the Law, and it is his ground for insisting that grace must reach therefore where law was not, taking Adam and Christ, not Moses. Further, there is no real doubt of the sense of charin (for the sake of). He cannot insist on the explanation of the Fathers for the word, when he admits that the passage proves them wrong, so that he does not venture to take it so. The doctrine is what they are all afraid of foolishly. They would have it, 'The law was given, that the Jews might not be allowed to live without check, and glide into the extreme of wickedness,' etc., etc.

[Page 47]

Page 394. All these things are arguing against the Apostle. He says: 'While the covenant of promise was in a provisional state, travelling on to its accomplishment, the law was needed and was given as an outstanding revelation; but when the more perfect state of things pointed to in the promise entered, the other would cease to occupy the place which had previously belonged to it.' Added for transgressions till the Seed should come, and then no longer under it, says the Apostle -- means 'should cease to occupy the place which had previously belonged to it,' says Dr. Fairbairn. As to verse 20, he is substantially right.

Page 397. 'The Apostle had said that the covenant of grace or promise bestowed life.' But he had not said the promise gave life, but "The just shall live by faith," and in the previous chapter he says, "Christ lives in me" -- not promise -- and when he lives by faith on Him objectively; crucified with Him, not man living by promises. The nearest to it is 2 Peter 1: 4 But this only shows his confusion, the little sense of a real communication of life. It is a figure. What the Apostle is at is, if it could have given life, righteousness should have been by it. Dr. F. says: 'If a law were given which could have given life, means a law which could, or, a law such as could possess the power of giving life.'

Page 399. I doubt the sense of eis, but have no contest on it. He says: 'Verse 22, The eis, for, -- for the faith which was going to be revealed -- is to be taken ethically, denoting the aim or destination which the law, in this respect, was intended to serve: to the intent, that we should pass over into the state of faith.' But the point of the Apostle is that Christ being come, or faith, we are no longer under it at all, but under another person -- the Law being personified. It is not the fact of life or not -- they were heirs (believers under law) but no better than slaves who had their bidding to do. But they were under Another now.

Page 401. But here he is all wrong still. He says: 'The heir, during the period of his childhood, because wanting the mind necessary to make the proper use of the inheritance, is placed under guardians and stewards, in a virtual position of servitude, till the time set by his father for his entering on the possession. Of quite a similar nature, the Apostle affirms, was the state of men in pre-Christian times: We too, says he, identifying himself with them, when we were children, were

[Page 48]

kept in bondage under the rudiments of the world.' It is neither 'the state of men,' nor 'entering into possession.' We have nothing of the inheritance but the earnest. And it is, in either case, heirs -- believers; but the Jewish believer under law, and the Christian become a son. Judaism was altogether the rudiments of the world adapted to man alive here -- the Decalogue itself even -- but the whole system of days, sacrifices, ordinances, so that after the Cross, where the history of the first man was finished morally (at the end of the world) to return to them, when no longer figures, was to return to heathenism; Galations 4:8-10. Chrysostom and Theodoret we may leave in the sun and the moon; he says they held the festivals were 'ruled by the course of the sun and moon.'

Page 403. If ever a man knew how to ruin the beauty of Scripture, and the force of the Spirit's arguments, it is this man. He says: 'The threatenings of the Law against sin, relate to Gentile as well as Jew; and no otherwise was redemption possible for mankind than by our Lord's perfect submission, in their behalf, to its demands and penalties.' The whole gist of the Apostle's argument is that they, Gentiles, wanted to put themselves under law. The Apostle shows that not only was Christ born a man, for men, of a woman, where sin had come in, but under law to redeem and deliver them that were under it, where they were wanting to put themselves. And all is swamped in Gentiles being under it as much as Jews. It is really deplorable. 'The heart and substance of the requirements of Sinai, or the law, belonged to man as man'! A revelation -- and I suppose the Law at Sinai was a revelation -- belongs to those to whom it was sent. It was not sent to the Gentiles. So the Apostle says, "The Gentiles, not having law, are a law unto themselves." All this is nothing for the legalist -- he must have his theory, and know better than God how to deal with man. Besides, before, there was grace in it, God having redeemed Israel out of Egypt. Had he redeemed the Gentiles too?

Again, 'The spiritual union through faith of the soul with Christ.' Union is not through faith itself; but that is a common error, but one flowing from not believing in the Spirit -- one great spring of all this. It is not 'The Spirit of sonship' as he quotes, but "The Spirit of his Son."

Romans 3:20 says exactly the contrary to what Dr. F. says. Having proved all Gentiles sinners by other proofs -- Creation,

[Page 49]

and the knowledge they had of God -- he takes up the Law, and says (so Dr. F. admits, page 409, or rather proves), look at that character, "not one righteous," etc. Now by your own pretensions, what the Law says it says to those under it -- there is your mouth, and so every mouth stopped. If the Apostle had told the Jews that the Gentiles had the Law, and so were proved guilty, they would have laughed in his face, so much the rather that he had just been insisting on their privileges, and the chief, the oracles of God, and shown the Gentiles sinning without law, and so perishing, while those under it would be judged by it -- a distinction without a difference, and all labour in vain on Dr. F.'s theory. How easy, if only this theory had been set up, to convince the Gentiles and prove them without excuse! But God was too wise and holy to convict them by that which they had not got. God may use it now in wielding it as a sword to the conscience, but not hold guilty under it those that had not got it.

Page 404. Citing Galatians 5:13-15, he says: 'For ye were called for freedom, called that you might be free' -- epi with the dative, is the condition characteristic of the thing; but that is no matter. The only pity is that he did not go on to verses 16-18, which upset his whole argument, de fond en comble. He says: 'Though the external bond and discipline of the law is gone, its spirit ever lives, and the law speaks as much as ever to the conscience of the believer.'

Page 405. Romans 2:13-15, is a parenthetic paragraph by itself. But why add to Scripture. The Word and Spirit say absolutely "Without law" -- Dr. F. says, 'Without the written law' -- why add 'written'? Law does not bring in justification in the Christian faith -- we are justified by faith, not by works of law which bring a curse -- but that a man who keeps the Law is justified, of course he is, which a hearer and breaker is not, nothing can be more simple. That any kept it (save the Lord) is another question. The absence of the article in both cases makes it characteristic.

Page 407. 'Law-doing arises from the impulse and energy of the moral faculty, naturally implanted in man,' i.e., in those cases Gentiles acted under conscience not law.

Page 409. 'Whatever the law says concerning sin and transgression, it speaks or addresses to those who are in it; that is who stand within its bonds and obligations ... . Primarily to them, though by no means exclusively.' But it is carefully

[Page 50]

proved to be only to Jews, and clearly -- and then Dr. F. says, 'but not exclusively.' What a testimony to the system! Paul, the Word as he shows, refers it to Jews. Dr. F. reasons thereupon to show on his reasons why it is to others too. And it is monstrous that the charges of the Law should a fortiori be applied to those who had not the Law to enlighten them. It is impossible to read a greater moral perversion. He says, 'If the law could pronounce charges of guilt on those who had the advantage of its light, how much more (a fortiori) might like charges be brought against those who lived beyond its pale!' And just see the reason, 'What the Law says, it says to those under the Law' (i.e., not to others) 'that every mouth may be stopped.' And to make the absurdity more evident Dr. F. will have 'in order that every mouth may be stopped, Jew as well as Gentile, and Gentile as well as Jew, and all the world become liable to punishment with God,' etc. God has given His law to Jews, that Gentiles, who have not got it, may have their mouth stopped, and all the world become liable to punishment for what they had never heard! Could moral absurdity go further? I agree with "in order that," but it makes his reasoning absurd. Nor does faith in the Person of Christ need such preparation. Itself produces conviction, though the other be most legitimate and useful. Faith in His work it would. But John 16 proves the assertion false, and the reasoning that Gentiles are without excuse. Natural conscience, law, or Christ may all be used. He says: 'Where the law failed to produce conviction of sin, and a sense of deserved condemnation, there also failed the requisite preparation for the faith of Christ, and still continues to do so.'

Of course this sets him all wrong (page 410) as to the dioti (because); Romans 3:20. "Because" or "therefore" makes little matter. It is a resumption of the whole matter as the Apostle's illatives often are, and the real cause is summed up in the "for" (gar) which follows. His own mind resumes the whole with, "Because" (I tell you all this, applying the Law to those who pretend the most, and to have righteousness, and be justified by it, because) "by works of law shall no flesh be justified"; for just see what it does -- it is the means of knowing sin. Does making a man's conscience guilty justify him? Only it is law in principle, and as often shown, continually with the Apostle, because it is a principle, only the exhibition of the principle was essentially at Sinai.

[Page 51]

Pages 412 - 414. I have nothing to object to here, save the generalities of the system. Romans 5:12 to chapter 8, I can consider in its place.

Page 415. Romans 5:12. The "wherefore" connects itself, I do not doubt, with what immediately precedes, as verses 6 and 11. But it is, as constantly in Paul, a recommencing another part of the subject, or the general principle of what follows. Half his "Fors" (gar) are not immediately illative, but from the state of the general subject in his mind giving a new aspect of it. So "Wherefore" here (dia touto, for this [cause]). The point is to bring not personal faults imputable, but the state of men, to which individual faults have been added, and by law offences. It is not what I have done, but what and where I am -- "I know that in me," not "I know all have sinned." One is culpability, the other condition through the head (each adding his own sins). It is clear that Adam's sin is the procuring cause of death, not only it is said in Genesis, but clearly stated here, but that does not decide the sense of eph ho (for that), i.e., whether it is an additional thought, or only refers back. "For that all have sinned" may be in Adam (as Levi paid tithes in Abraham), or it may be what characterises themselves, though not the original cause. "For that" (eph ho) is not the original cause, or causa causans. We are called "to" (epi) sanctification, not the cause of our call, but what is involved in and characterises it. It has nothing to do with Pelagianism. What he says on verse 13, takes the ground he calls Pelagianism. He says: 'Plainly, it is the relation of mankind to Adam in his sinfulness, not their own personal sin, which is asserted to be the procuring cause of death to mankind; and hence the absolute universality of death, the sin that caused it being in God's reckoning the sin of humanity, and the wages of that sin, consequently men's common heritage.'

"Who had not sinned after," etc., is a quotation from Hosea 6:7. They, like Adam have transgressed the covenant; Israel had -- up to the Law they had not, but sin and death were there, all the same, from Adam to Moses, only it could not be specifically put to account (ouk ellogeitai) as transgression, when there is no law (me ontos nomou), no law existing which forbad it. They perished without law (anomos), and in their state, and acts, were without excuse. Law and ellogeitai are the correlatives. Sin was there and death proved it, law not

[Page 52]

existing -- they had not, like Adam, transgressed a covenant, nor like Israel. Dr. F. is simply, as usual, arguing against the Apostle. Why from Adam to Moses only, if it was not a question of law or not? Are there not children now, and under the law of Moses over whom death reigned? All this is theology. Hence, when he says, 'Before the law as well as after it' (page 418), he shows he has got off the Apostle's ground altogether, for he says "until the law," which has no sense but by contrast of law, and makes 'as well as after it' nonsense as to the argument. And the "nevertheless" (alla -- 'a strong adversative,' says Dr. F.) proves that it is not 'two reasons, sin and death,' but though sin is not put to account (ellogeitai) no law existing, nevertheless death proved sin was there. Man was ruined and perished in sin, far from God, though there was no law to make specific imputation. They were all guilty and without excuse. The "For that" (eph ho) referring to each is not affected by the question of children more than chapter 3: 23. The rest of this section is partly wrong partly right, but nothing to remark. Condemnation, or judgment, is for sins, not for sin -- these are judged according to the deeds done in the body, besides that we are all perishing, ruined, far from God, wrath on us, and just wrath. I do not doubt myself that all children dying, as such, are saved, but by Christ, according to Matthew 18.

Page 419. This is a mere sophism arising from taking 'reckoned' in two senses -- "reckoned sin" means considered as such, sin reckoned is put to account as such. But in the sense of Dr. F.'s sentence Paul does not speak of it at all. He says: 'Paul is speaking, not of degrees of culpability, but of what might or might not be reckoned sin, and, as such, deserving of death.' Instead of the difference of hamartia (sin) and parabasis (transgression) being merely verbal, it is of immense importance as distinguishing a principle working in us, which transgression parabasis) can never be; when used for an actual sin, it may or may not be, at least taking parabasis as being parabasis nomou (transgression of law). Sins may be without law (anomos) the Apostle tells us, or under law, en nomo; but hamartia (sin) is used for that which produces (kateirgasato) lust (epithumian). But of all this Dr. F. understands absolutely nothing. Nor is it a question of 'less culpable,' though that be in some respects true (Luke 12:47, 48), but of particular putting to account where there is no

[Page 53]

commandment or law. The only question here is, is hamartia (sin) simply the root or evil nature, as in the general argument of this part of Romans, or, this being then the general idea, that there is not putting to account as a forbidden thing, though the thing -- sin -- be there? More, I apprehend, the latter, but I leave the question there; compare chapter 7: 7, reading "But," not "Nay." It is not here a question of the government of God, as the Deluge, or mark on Cain, but the formal ground of God's reckoning with man. That all are guilty is clear, and have sinned, and will be judged, if not cleansed, in that day when God judges the secrets of the heart.

Hodge's statement, 'If there is no sin without law, there can be no imputation of sin. As, however, sin was imputed as men were sinners, it follows there must be some more comprehensive law in virtue of which they were so regarded and treated,' is a mere petitio principii, that there is no sin without law. Indeed there is no logic in the sentence, for he again takes for granted that sin was imputed, but the parts do not hang together. He really is proving that there is a law. His proof is -- 'sin was imputed' -- the other part should be, 'but no sin is imputed without law, therefore there was a law,' but that is not the other part, but 'there is no sin without law' which proves nothing, but assumes all in question, for all admit there was sin between Adam and Moses. Consequently, the second part is useless, for if sin proves law, there is no need to bring in imputation. Whatever it means, the Apostle says, "It is not imputed where there is no law." The reasoning is this: No sin without law, if no sin otherwise, therefore no law, no imputation, but there is imputation, therefore there is sin, i.e., there is law. But this first begs the question as to sin and law. Next the Apostle's statement is, "Sin was in the world, but no imputation, because no law" (me ontos nomou) absolutely. Further as already quoted, he speaks of sinning (anomos), justly translated "without law," for they perish anomos. Only Hodge, it appears, makes it Adam's sin. But Dr. F.'s answer is none -- 'all sinned in Adam.' It is no proof that sin was in the world from Adam to Moses, and since. That is a proof that they sinned out of Adam. But, apart also from them, death has reigned, but if it was for Adam's sin, it was no proof that sin was in the world, unless it were Adam's sin, with Dr. Hodge. It is the fruit of attempting to

[Page 54]

get out of or into a passage the contrary of what it teaches. Verses 15-17 are an appeal if grace should not be as large as sin, or larger, including offences brought in by law, but reaching out as by one offence to all (though not in result) by one righteousness.

Page 420. The middle paragraph is all well; also from verses 13-17 is the parenthesis. The result is this: the Apostle, here speaking of ways and dispensations, is insisting that you must go up to the two heads (the Law only coming in by the bye) that sin was in the world by Adam when the Law was not there, and that the grace and gift by grace must go as wide or wider. And this is used to show that the Law, or a law, must have been there all the time! Whereas the very point as to law is, that all really resting on the two great heads, the Law merely came in by the bye, for a specific object between the two, that object being, Paul says, to make the offence abound. Dr. Fairbairn says not. Paul, making carefully still the difference between the existence of sin and the Law, says the Law entered that the offence might abound, but where sin abounded (which was where every child of Adam was, and not merely under law come in by the bye) grace might much more abound. Certainly it was not to produce sins, but it was in order that (hina -- not merely a knowledge of its effect which makes indeed little difference) the offence might abound, and the conviction of sin more clear, and its character worse.

There are three steps in sin, all flowing from confidence lost in God, selfwill and lust, transgression (law) enmity against God, always true, fully proved in Christ's rejection, the refusal of grace itself. It is a mere effort to destroy the Apostle's whole argument. I repeat, sin becomes excessively sinful by the commandment, and must therefore be there before it comes.

Page 421. 'By the very faith which justifies him, the believer is vitally united to Christ,' he says. Faith does not unite to Christ, however death to sin and life in Him is our portion. We cannot expect Dr. Fairbairn to be clear on these subjects. I only note in passing (page 422), 'The law is the revelation of God's pure righteousness'; again, it is man's if fulfilled. And notice another thing running all through, that life is not really life but 'a general effect on the heart.' Hence it leads to 'ultimate perfection in holiness.' This is just Wesleyan doctrine. Romans 6 just shows that the Law being done with, obedience to God remains, or slavery to sin. It put

[Page 55]

the Law for practice in the strongest light as gone, and showing what takes the place of it, death of flesh or to sin, life in Christ, and obedience to God, in practical righteousness -- only there is no 'attaining righteousness' as Dr. F. says. Righteousness has its fruit in holiness. It is all muddy, but no matter. No doubt 'obedience supposes an authoritative rule,' but the Apostle is enquiring what it is when it is not law. And I wholly deny that 'sin is just a deviation from such a rule.' Sin is having a will of one's own instead of obedience. The Law may give the things in which we are to obey, and on certain principles, but obedience is to a person, to God, and righteousness. But if 'I am freed' (Calvin) 'from subjection to the law,' how am I under it? We have had dispensational law in Romans 5:12, to the end, in chapter 6, death to put an end to sin when not under law, and so free to give ourselves entirely to God, as alive in Christ. And now we come to experimental treating of law in chapter 7.

And here it is better to state the great principle of the chapter, to make the details plain. The believer, according to chapter 6, is dead, but the Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives; hence, we having died with Christ are delivered from it. This he illustrates by the law of marriage. You cannot have two husbands (The Law and Christ at once -- it is adultery -- two authorities, two masters) death has freed us from the first, and we are to Christ risen, not to law. Then we have the experience of the renewed soul under the first, or law, and only under law, in which state sin reigns, and he cannot do good if he would, and looks not for progress but deliverance, and finds it in Christ. Though the two natures still remain, chapter 8 is the state of liberty. Dr. F. would tell us that the reign of sin under law, captivity to it, and impossibility to do good even when we would, is a high spiritual state. What then is a low one? There is no lusting against the Spirit here; when we are led of that, the Apostle tells us we are not under law. Further the state described is "when we were" in the flesh, implying we are not -- not, mind, the flesh working in us, but we in it. The Christian state is contrasted in chapter 8, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." In chapter 7 we are captive "sold under sin" -- a high spiritual state, Dr. F. says; in chapter 8 "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free" -- a low one, I suppose And what the Law could not do

[Page 56]

(what we have exclusively described, in chapter 7, in the wretched man) God has done when Christ was made sin, a sacrifice for sin, sin in the flesh is condemned -- was then -- and we are really free. And note in chapters 6 and 7, we have nothing to do with justification, but death, life, and practice. Let us see the details.

Pages 426, 427. All quite true and clear enough; he says, 'The leading object of the apostle in this section (Romans 7) is to bring out precisely the relation of the believer to the law, with the view at once of establishing it, and of showing that he is n

ot under it (chapter 3: 31; chapter 6: 14), but, on the contrary, is freed from it, or dead to it?' 'But' (page 428) 'what in this connection is to be understood by the law? The law of which the apostle speaks is one that penetrates into the inmost soul, and one's relation to which determines the whole question of one's peace and hope toward God. It is of the law as the rule of God's righteous government that he speaks; the law as the sum of moral and religious duty.' Now it is hopeless to expect Dr. F. to get out of the routine of theology and men, but the Apostle is speaking, and is so all through (though the law of Moses be the grand example) of law as a principle or system of dealing -- thus "When there is no law" (me ontos nomou) and "Law came in" (nomos pareiselthen), and very many such passages. Of this Dr. F. does not understand one word, and it is the whole question. He does not speak of "the Law" at all, but of "law."

Page 429. All this page discusses history -- Paul, the principle of law. But it is not because 'it presents the terms to which men are naturally bound,' which it does do, but because it presents them under the form of law, and more than that here, not conduct but state. As regards the former and such righteousness of law Paul was blameless, but as forbidding lust, nothing to do with grace at all, but forbidding what man was now in nature -- this is the whole matter here. The Law might as well have said to man, a sinner, you must not be a man -- for man lusts. Give him redemption and a new nature -- then indeed there is deliverance, but without it, death.

Page 430. 'The law holds over men, merely, as such, an indefeasible claim to their fealty and obedience.' An indefeasible claim surely as long as they live. But the Apostle's ground is that they are dead, and the Law only rules a man as long as he lives. We do not live of Adam now. Then we were utterly

[Page 57]

lawless, or under law; but in Christ to God, and Christ's death, in whom we died, has wholly for faith delivered us -- we are not in flesh but in Spirit. But of this, of course, Dr. F. understands not one word, otherwise what he says at the commencement of the page is true, but we have ceased to be children of nature. And all is fair enough, except as to 'believers under law,' whom Paul does not put on the same ground, but exactly the contrary, and very carefully, in Galatians 4, on the very point in question here. It is the same perpetual history of not knowing what law means. The question is not whether we are in a state of mere nature or not, but whether we have the Spirit, or are we under the Law. A man simply in a state of nature is lawless, but a quickened man, an heir, under law is all the same as a servant -- thinks, or at any rate feels, he has to make out his own righteousness -- has not the liberty wherewith Christ makes free. It is not a question of flesh working in us -- that it does, if it lust against the Spirit -- but if led of Him we are not under law. Hence it is said, Ye are not in the flesh if quickened, but, "If the Spirit of God dwell in you," and "If Christ be in you the body is dead." This can only be said by the death of Christ. Till then the conscience is under law, and our relationship to God depends, for the conscience, on our state, not on Christ's work, and our being dead, as to flesh, in Him. In verse 6 we have the deliverance from verse 5, and what is that? "We are delivered from the law, being dead," or having died, "in that in which we were held." The Law could not set me free. The experience of verses 14-24 is law, law, law, and I under it. It is not merely Israel, it is the effect of law as such, when we delight in it. It is then not merely the state of fallen nature subject to the Law, for it fancies it can do it. The struggle is when I delight in the Law of God in the inner man, but can never do good -- find no means to do it -- which is not Christian liberty. It is neither mere fallen nature, nor Christian liberty -- is said not to be. Captive, sold under sin, is the opposite of liberty. Delighting in God's law is not fallen nature. Killed and crucified with Christ, is being delivered from law. Believers under the old covenant were not endowed with this.

To be in the flesh is not to be in a state of sin, as Dr. F. explains it; he says: 'To be in the flesh is merely to be under the influence or power of human depravity.' He confounds the mind of the flesh, walking after the flesh, with our position

[Page 58]

before God. It is total ignorance of the whole mind of God, and ignorance of the Apostle here. To be in the flesh is to be on Adam ground before God -- the flesh no doubt being evil -- in contrast with being in Christ, chapter 8: 1. The mind of the flesh is as bad in a saint as in an unbeliever -- worse, if there is any difference -- but he is not in the flesh. The Apostle states the difference: "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." The 'men of faith under the old covenant' were not in this sense endowed with the Spirit -- the Comforter was not come, nor could He, till there was a Man in glory, even Christ the Lord, and He tells us so. A man could not be in Christ before -- there was no Christ to be in. The Prophets gave the promise of the Spirit, but that was not its coming; they studied their own prophecies, and found it was not for them but for us. The ancients saw the things afar off, and embraced them, and were saved by faith, but Prophets and Kings desired to see what the disciples saw, and did not see them. Yet it was even then desirable that the Lord went, and that they did not see Him, for, otherwise, the Comforter could not come, "For the Holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified." What the New Testament calls the Holy Ghost, i.e., as dwelling down here, was not yet come, and they which believed on Him (Christ) would receive. Christ (Acts 2) received the Holy Ghost anew when gone up on high thus to send Him. It was not His gifts for prophecy, and miracles were done before -- the Comforter was not come, and what alone gave union with Christ and made the believer cry Abba Father; Galatians 4. "In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

All this part of his book is simple ignorance in Dr. Fairbairn of Christianity -- Christian deliverance. But to be in the flesh is not 'merely to be under the influence or power of human depravity.' We surely are when we are in it. But what the Apostle is teaching is that the Law could not deliver us from it, but the contrary -- that the motions of sin were by the Law. And being in the flesh is not 'the working of human depravity,' for this works when we are not in it but in the Spirit, and that it is when the Spirit dwells in us, not merely when it is actually working, but then we are not under the Law; Galatians 6. Hence, when he says, 'It is all one with being under the law,' he is right as to practice, but wrong as to its being the same as the depravity of the flesh, because that remains true of Christians

[Page 59]

as to the flesh. And he has no idea of law as a principle which the Apostle is insisting on. It is not merely historical, but true of a renewed soul now, when under law.

The great object of Dr. Fairbairn is to show the Old Testament believers with a measure of grace under law, and the New Testament believers under law with a measure of grace, only larger -- the Apostle's, the absolute contrast of being under law, and having the Spirit as delivered. Romans 8:9 (by mistake, Galatians in the text) is not true of believers under law in Old or New. They are here free -- there (chapter 7) captive; here delivered -- there crying to be so. The person described by Paul is under the dominion of the flesh and sin, and the reason of the contrary is given in chapter 6, "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace." And here, without the Law sin was dead; when the Law came. sin revived and I died. He is not speaking historically -- he was born under it -- but of Christian knowledge (we know) of what law is. In the Old Testament there was no knowledge of the conflict of flesh and Spirit, nor of two natures. No doubt there was temptation and conflict, but no knowledge of two natures, nor of flesh and Spirit, i.e., "We know" -- a technical formula for Christian knowledge. And if verses 5 and 13 be the same, which they are in the main but not exactly, then Paul is, in verse 13, describing (as he clearly is) a state in which he is not, for he says (verse 5) "When we were," which you cannot say when you are. And nothing is simpler, for verse 5 refers to verse 4, where he speaks of having had an old husband and then came a new one. When we were under the first, such was our state. And when he says 'before they come under grace' -- do men 'always hate evil and will good' before they come under grace? The Law produces no 'flowers in the human heart' -- it is not the sun, it requires but has no heat, and never produced a colour or a flower. He says, 'The law is like the sun by whose light and heat roses and flowers display their fine colours, and emit their fragrant smell; whereas by its heat the dunghill emits its unsavoury steams and ill smell. So the law, which to a sanctified heart is a means of holy practice, doth, in those who are in the flesh, occasion the more vehement motions of sinful affections and lustings.' I ask if the Apostle here ever speaks of the Law as producing anything (not causing surely, but as effect of sin) but motions of sins and death, sin surely being the source not law, but sin by the Law producing evil

[Page 60]

fruit and nothing else, all manner of concupiscence? Dr. F. tells us so, not the Spirit of God. We are delivered from it -- why so, if it produces flowers and fruit? It is all as false as it is ignorant.

He confounds quickening with receiving the Spirit. Whereas we never receive the Spirit till when we are quickened, and by faith sprinkled with the blood of Christ. It is a seal put upon a believer, not on an unbeliever, who is the person to be quickened. "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts"; and a multitude of passages, John 7, Ephesians 1, and others.

Page 434. He says: 'There is nothing here' (Romans 7:7), 'which does not more or less find a place in the history of every one who has come under the power of the quickening Spirit although some parts of the description belong more to the initiatory, others to the more advanced exercises of the believer, several again to those complex operations, those interminglings of the flesh and the Spirit, of which all believers are at times conscious.' Quickened of the Spirit, yes -- but there is not a word of the Spirit in the passage, nor interminglings of it, nor any thought of a soul which has deliverance, not one, nor ever does good. The last of all is a cry for deliverance, and a "Who shall deliver?" Then comes the answer. In Galatians we have not interminglings, but the flesh lusting against the Spirit, but there the man not under law which here he is.

Page 435. 'It is the principle of sin in his own bosom which was naturally at work there.' It is the principle of sin, not the acts.

Page 436. 'Verse 9. Such an experience, of course, belongs to the very threshold of Christian life.' Just so, but redemption and the Spirit unknown.

Page 439, verses 14-25. "We know" is Christian knowledge, as "We know that the Son of God is come" -- "We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle," and others. "I am carnal" is personal -- the consciousness of what one is in flesh. And the whole is the statement by a man who is delivered (verse 25) of what the process is by which we come to deliverance, but the principles at work under the first husband -- the Law -- and what is the actual experience of no one, for no one has his will actually always right, and never able to do what is right, and that is what is described here. It is the working of the Law on a soul renewed but not delivered, i.e.,

[Page 61]

under law, which will indeed recognise itself when described, but could never describe itself. It is from a delivered state, and by a delivered man that the description is given of the undelivered state. He can quietly describe it -- the undelivered man not, he dreads he is lost, i.e., the things pass in his soul, but the effect is different as to how he can look at it. A man out of a morass can describe how a man is in it -- in it, he thinks of perishing. Hence what Dr. F. says here is all false. It is not 'a settled believer' that is described as contrast in chapter 8. It is not 'a natural man' either, but a renewed soul, believing perhaps in the Person of Christ, but under law, not delivered. There is no proper conflict, but a man groaning under the folds of a chain which leaves him no liberty of action though he would be free, and may writhe under it. The proof that it is not the state of the Apostle is that he says, "When we were in the flesh," that he could do all things, that as a Christian he was not in the flesh -- not if he acted right, mind, but if the Spirit of Christ dwelt in him, if not he was none of His, i.e., it is not the working of flesh but a standing in Christ which makes the difference, the dwelling of the Spirit in us through redemption. Where He is there is liberty -- he is not captive to sin (sin is in him) but set free, and flesh condemned in the Cross of Christ. It is not that the statements are taken in an isolated manner -- there are none others beyond willing good and never able to perform it, till we come to "Thank God through Jesus Christ" on the cry (the true result) not "How shall I get the victory?" "How shall I make progress?" but "Who will deliver me?" I cannot get free from what I am captive in. The Red Sea was not progress but deliverance. The "We know" is not experience at all, but Christian knowledge.

Page 440. 'To wish sincerely what is spiritually good, and to hate what is of an opposite nature, plainly distinguish the regenerated man.' The will and hating do plainly distinguish the regenerate man, but they do not show deliverance but the contrary, and make the man cry out for it. They do not determine the place of the soul -- redemption, and the consequent possession of the Spirit does that. It is this there is entire ignorance of. He says: 'What the Apostle says on the other and lower side must be taken in a sense not incompatible with those higher characteristics -- must be understood in short of that other self, that old man of flesh or corruption, which was

[Page 62]

still not utterly destroyed.' There is no need to say 'must be taken of that other self, the old man.' The Apostle says so, "I know that in me, that is in my flesh." But it was when he was in that flesh, which always remained in him, but he was not in Romans 8:9, where he had the Spirit. It is learning three things by divine teaching under law -- no good in me, i.e., in my flesh -- it is not I, but sin that dwells in me, for he is renewed -- but, thirdly, it is too strong for the I that wills good. Then having learned this humbling lesson, but most useful one, he is cast not on progress but on a Deliverer, and finds all is done. Then comes chapter 8: 1, 2, 3, with all its blessed results, and the Spirit which is not in chapter 7 at all.

He says: 'Similar confessions of the dominancy of indwelling sin, and lamentations over it, have often been heard in every age of the Church, from spiritually-minded persons; and are to be regarded as the indication, not of the absence of grace, but of that tenderness of conscience which is the characteristic of a properly enlightened and spiritual mind.' It is this doctrine which has ruined Christianity, and made some, on the other hand, pretend there was no sin any more in them.

Of the presence of indwelling sin -- all Christians, not deceived, are conscious -- if they are of its dominancy they are not under grace but under law. This is positive; chapters 6: 14; 8: 2.

Page 441. As to 'the relative preponderance of the two counter-forces in the Apostle's representation,' no doubt the I of will had not a relative preponderance. The will was always right, but power none -- he did not find at all the means of doing right. All this is mere confusion, and neglect of the statements of the passage, and sorry ignorance of the true Gospel, at any rate in its fulness. One I, the true one, was wholly in good, but he had found no deliverance from the other. Again his conclusion is all wrong. He says: 'Though writing under the clear light of the Gospel, Paul has no fault to find with the law as a revelation of duty, or a pattern of moral excellence.' He does not find fault with the Law. Of course not. It was God's law. As a revelation of duty it was perfect. As 'a pattern of moral excellence,' Christ is the only one -- a living Example, not a requirement on stone. But 'required duty' from man could not make God the pattern, and life from Him and the reception of the Holy Ghost does, as in Ephesians, and in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ was

[Page 63]

God manifest in flesh, and that is our Model -- the Law, the child of Adam's rule with God.

Page 442. 'So far from there being any contrariety between the scope of the law's requirements and the spirit of the new life, the apostle rejoiced in the higher powers and privileges of this life, because through these the hope had come to him of gaining the victory.' Contrariety of course there is not, but this sentence shows Dr. F. is not out of Romans 7. It is in every way false. We do get the power of victory, but this is by the bye. We rejoice in God -- know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge -- rejoice in hope of the glory of God, and all the counsels of His grace for the glory of Christ. But the doctrine is just the opposite of that of the chapter. He found he could not gain the victory. Thinking to get rest by victory is bondage, because we cannot get free -- we are captive -- and, having learned this, we look for a deliverer, and we have this in Christ. And once brought to see that it is not progress, that we cannot get the victory, cannot deliver ourselves, the lesson is learned, and we find it is all done already in Christ, and then, and not till then do we get the victory. The natures remain the same. But instead of being captive and under the dominion of flesh, we are free, and the power of the Spirit is there to keep flesh as dead, because Christ has died, and we are not in it, and we alive in Him, sin having no more dominion, over us. We have flesh down instead of flesh having us down. We may fail, but we have liberty and power in Christ. The natures are not changed, but the state and condition are.

Romans gives none of the counsels of God as to the new man. It is responsibility, state, justification and deliverance. Is it not a singular thing that Dr. F., in speaking of what walk we are called to, only refers to Romans and Galatians, two Epistles where what is fundamental and essential is so fully given, to our infinite blessing, but where resurrection with Christ is never spoken of, and never to Colossians and Ephesians, where it is, and our heavenly place, and its bearing on our walk?

Page 444. I have not much to say here. He says, referring to Romans 10:5, 'It seems, at first sight, somewhat strange, that the Apostle should here refer to it in the way he does, or that he should represent the way of obtaining life as essentially different from, and in some sort antagonistic to, that under the Gospel.' He does, however, it seems. And no wonder! The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ -- that is not law

[Page 64]

at all. Indeed eternal life is never spoken of in the Old Testament but twice -- Psalm 133, and Daniel 12, and both times prophetically. One thing is sure -- law and faith speak differently as to righteousness; one was obtaining -- the other, a free gift. A law to give life was newer thought. It did not assume men to be dead, but responsible -- Christ does hold men to be dead in sin, and already lost.

Page 446. It is curious to see the incessant effort to undo what the Apostle is earnestly insisting on, only he cannot mean it from other passages. The Apostle asserts that if circumcised, they were debtors to the whole law -- James, that if offending in one point, they were guilty of all. They do insist on law. Dr. Fairbairn lets them down easy, and modifies the obligation by grace. But it is the principle which is in question. As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse. And the ministry of death and condemnation was 'the law mixed with grace.'

Pages 457, 458. I have not much to say on Ephesians 2:2-17. The defects are more from understanding nothing, than opposition to the Apostle, as in Romans. He says: 'That this enmity has a certain respect to the hostile feeling and attitude subsisting between Jew and Gentile, seems clear from the reference going before to that antagonistic relationship and its abolition in Christ. The enmity, which Christ destroyed in His flesh, or which He slew through His cross, naturally carries our thoughts up to the great breach in man's condition, and the great work done by Christ to heal it. The Apostle plainly identifies the removing of this enmity with the reunion of sinners to God.' The enmity as produced by ordinances, or middle wall of partition, has nothing to do with healing the breach with God. The Cross did that, too, as to both, but that part of the passage has nothing to do with 'the common alienation which sin has produced between man and God.' So all the end of page 456 is false. The whole view is wrong. So when he says that, 'The apostle represents the system of law as done away, in order that humanity might be lifted out of its condemned and alienated condition, and might be formed into a kind of corporate body with Himself,' etc., it is all mischievously false, but arises from total ignorance of the Assembly or Church of God.

Page 460. Nobody says the contents of the Law are in themselves condemned or abolished. It is their condemnation,

[Page 65]

or information by law, the law about them as Harless says, and this is absolute. Circumcision is done away, and all dependent on it, and if it be the contents of the Law by the Law's authority, only relatively done away, then all of it relatively remains, or else I am to choose some of it and leave the rest, and then where is its authority? for that is the question. And when he says 'the law is subjectively realised when we have access to God by Christ through the Spirit,' it betrays what the whole is worth. But this is not the point of Ephesians which gives Christian responsibility. That is from chapter 4: 17 as individuals.

Page 461. Here again we have the egregiously monstrous statement that law is the revelation of God's righteousness, and we have again 'uniting the divided human family into one new corporate body.' He says: 'The law's relation to men's responsibilities as the revelation of God's righteousness." And, 'That He might reconcile both of us in one body to God through the cross, this was the higher end of Christ's work on earth -- the lower, the uniting of the divided human family into one new corporate body.' The book is total ignorance of the doctrine and teaching of Ephesians and Colossians, a laborious argument against the Apostle's statements in Romans and Galatians.

More is not needed. But in page 466 we get an additional proof of the utter vagueness of his idea of the Christian condition, or of the idea of death (in sins) in Ephesians and Colossians. "Having forgiven us" is 'forgiveness secured as a boon ready to be bestowed on every one,' and this 'potentially' as he calls it elsewhere, 'the essential groundwork and condition of this quickening.' He has not an idea of the Christian condition, and not only takes Christianity on its lowest ground but carefully reduces the higher to this. The basis, as I have said, he resists.

All the statement that a seventh part of our time should be devoted to God, as if this was the command, is futile, I am sure it was the fitting time since God ordained it. But the point of the commandment was rest, and God's rest, though made for man, making Christ Lord of it, but religiously it is God's rest, and to make it a shadow (skia) of the Lord's day is to make it a shadow of what is not the substance. Justin Martyr says: How can we rest one day in the week, when we rest from sin every day? This Dr. Fairbairn partially sees, but if it was

[Page 66]

'abolished in Christ, as a mere shadow,' who authorised its change to the first day of the week? And what comes of the authority of the Law, if it is abolished, and what it ordains is changed by nobody knows who? I have no doubt that the Sabbath is the shadow of the earthly millennial rest -- the Lord's day, of the heavenly by resurrection -- but then it is not by law, because as such it is 'abolished in Christ.' Well! He did take away the first, but then why plead its authority? The first day of the week is not law, but New Testament practice on the model of the Lord's own actings after His resurrection, and called the Lord's day. He says: 'In so far as the Sabbath was a shadow of anything in Christian times, it was abolished in Christ; and the day which took its place from the beginning of the Gospel dispensation, and had become known and observed as the Lord's day, was changed from the last to the first day of the week.'

Page 477. He says: 'The proper use of the law is a plain, direct, and peremptory repression of corruption and vicious practices' -- only it does not repress them. It is then good when applied to the great moral ends for which it was given. But this was to 'repress vicious practices'; but this is its only use! How can it be 'a perfect rule of life'? There is just one condition, a single guiding principle -- it is not made for a righteous man, i.e., for a Christian (nomos ou keitai). Law is not made (keitai -- a technical word for those subjected to it) -- English law has its application (keitai) for Englishmen, not for others, cannot be applied to them -- and law (for it is law), but take it as exemplified in the Decalogue, but the only true translation is "law does not apply to," is not enacted for the righteous, cannot therefore direct God's people, it is 'to repress vice or anything contrary to sound doctrine.' This is explained by a ridiculous sentence, that 'it does not apply to the sanctified who have attained the end of the law.' Then they must be perfect, or the Law not, for if it be perfect it would apply till they were. That is, "The Law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient," etc., means it does not apply to the perfect because they do not want any law at all, as being perfect. This is satisfactory exposition! Then it is not only to repress and convict, but to bring to a better state. In page 479, he adds 'convict of sin,' which is its only true use at all.

We may see the low ground on which the system is by

[Page 67]

returning for a moment to page 338. He says: 'Scripture is a book for the sanctification of humanity,' and, page 340, 'The scheme reached its consummation in the appearance and kingdom of Christ.' It is curious how redemption, and the new and heavenly things in Christ practically drop out in the writer's scheme.

I add, it is of all importance to distinguish between the contents of a law and the imposition of them by law. But besides a law, as such, of real responsibility cannot go beyond the obligation and moral measure of the person on whom it is imposed as to his nature (not his state and disposition). If a law commanded things which it required the capacity of an archangel to do, they are no test of moral subjection. I do not mean that sinful flesh is de facto subject to the Law, but it must be adapted to man as man, to make it a measure of duty. Duty I may be, through my state, incapable of fulfilling, but the measure of duty as such. Hence legal duty can never be the measure of the display of God.

The Apostle's reasonings are almost always -- always save on special dispensational questions -- on law having nothing to do with continuance or discontinuance of Sinaitic commands, but of the operation of law as law, and what it becomes to man in sin. The dependence of morality on relationships, i.e., its being the fulfilling of the obligations the relation puts me under, is not considered by the author. He has no idea of a duty till it be imposed -- whereas it is never imposed till man is in a state to need it, and consequently cannot perform it. Why command love if love flowed forth spontaneously, and whoever loved by command?

But then the divine Law takes up these relations, and enforces these obligations, and in that sense is in no way arbitrary, not even the Sabbath entirely, because it pointed out a special relationship never yet fully entered into -- our entering into God's rest. This became a law, but it was not a law when instituted. The only law which was not founded on the maintaining any existing relationship, was arbitrary, and so simply tested obedience. Hence the contents of the Law existed before law -- law recognises them -- but law introduces authority external to the relation, imposing the obligation so as to enforce it, not as a relationship which carries it with itself, but as obedience -- introduces quite a new element. The relationship, evil being entered, does not maintain itself naturally,

[Page 68]

but is maintained by authority, supposing the need of such, and a will that has to be controlled as wanting, or likely to be wanting, to the relation which involved the obligation.

Note, not only the Law gives no life, but it reveals no object. As creatures it suffices not that we have a nature capable of certain affections, we must have an object suited to and which ever forms them. God alone can create, but has no need of objects. Now the Law gives neither. It says: Thou shalt love God, but who, what is He, save the terror of judgment if disobeyed? A rule, and the consequences of breaking it -- that is all. But it gives no nature to enjoy what is blessed, nor any blessed object to be enjoyed, and to form it. Christ is both -- revealing God as the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father.

[Page 69]


It is a great mistake to apply the Sermon on the Mount in its positive statements to the law of the Ten Commandments, as if it was a spiritualising of them. The Law, as a system, is spoken of, taken up in Matthew 5:17, 18, along with the Prophets. Prophecies, ceremonies, and all that is in the Law, were not set aside, or annulled, but fulfilled, the body was of Christ, and no doubt the Lord fulfilled its behests and precepts. It was to be kept till all was fulfilled. For faith, it was fulfilled in Christ, and, as to practical righteousness, is fulfilled in the Christian; Romans 8. But what the Lord goes then through is the contrast of an internal state of heart with Pharisaic outward formal righteousness. Only two of the commandments are mentioned as of the old times, and a subjective state is contrasted with a mere formal fulfilment of the letter. Duties to God are not entered on (never, I think, in Matthew, for God was revealing Himself in a new way). Man was not to think merely of killing -- if one hated his brother, was angry even without a cause, God took notice of it; so of adultery. You have thus the state of the heart judged. So, as to alms, and all else, it is a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees, as in verse 20. But in no wise a spiritualising of the Law. As I have said myself, eight out of ten commandments are not referred to. Verse 20 is the key to it; compare chapter 6: 2, 16. There, of course, you get positive directions.

Chapter 5: 1-16 is the whole character, and state, and position of the disciples as entering into the kingdom; verses 17-20, relationship to foregoing dispensation and revelation -- not destroy but fulfil. But then, as instructing them, taking it up on the side of man's responsibility (verses 19, 20) the difficult point is "these." It is to be remembered that all this was before redemption, and no mention of it in the Sermon. It is the character of the enterers. The rock is obedience. Now this would make it obedience to the Law, but seen as they all were by the Lawgiver who was there, by Christ Himself, who did look to the end of those things which were to be abolished -- the spiritual estimate of them by Christ Himself. The one who then in Israel, while the Law was in force, enfeebled any,

[Page 70]

the least, was the least in the Kingdom. Disobedience, and taught disobedience to the schoolmaster, was not obedience to the Father, nor the way to coming blessing, nor would Pharisee righteousness do. Then (verse 21) He gives not a spiritualising of the Law, but the two great principles of sin at all times -- violence and corrupt lust.

Verses 25, 26, are Israel's then condition; the reducing it to practice ever (verses 23, 24). To the second is added the question of divorce, not now to be allowed save in one case. Then the principle of human competency is judged, and mere human righteousness of the law of Talion. Grace takes its place as supreme, above law, in connection with relationship to the Father. The Law and Prophets were fully owned as of Jehovah to be fulfilled, but man's will and power negatived, and grace and the Father in sovereign goodness introduced. This was the Son's place perfectly, and exactly, upon earth. Not that He had not power, but did nothing of Himself -- was not making vows. In the first two, the two great principles of evil in man relatively, we have instead of unbroken violence of will, the lowly seeking of forgiveness, to be reconciled in the acknowledgment of fault seeking peace, and this applied to the Jews' then state, Christ being there, their present state the consequence then spoken of. In connection with the other principle, the most thorough self-judgment, plucking out a right eye, cutting off a right hand, at all cost maintaining purity and holiness. This judgment of self to maintain holiness of heart as against sin, as the other, grace in holiness. Then relationship with God and the Father. As regards God, not voluntary promising to Him, as a Jew would, but the just sense of His greatness, and our incapacity to do anything, restraining us; and then grace, not resisting evil in contrast with legal maintaining our rights, to the full measure of the Father now revealed -- a total change of dispensation, not the Holy Ghost revealing a glorified Christ, and, sent of the Father, the Spirit of adoption, but the Father fully revealed in the Son in grace. Thus, besides the blessed moral instruction, the fullest dispensational teaching in the revelation of the Father in grace in the Son. But it is wholly Christ on earth, "I have declared unto them thy name."

Verse 25. The Jews were with Jehovah (with Messiah) in the way, the precept being given morally. Here the Father is fully revealed as to His character in love in Christ. Man's

[Page 71]

ways before God, and the revelation of the Father before men, both in Christ.

Thus far subjective. But now the Father's name has been introduced, and is the basis up to the end of chapter 7: 12. It is the positive activity of divine life -- doing righteousnesses, alms, prayer, fasting, all to be with, as if true from, the Father. The incense was all burned to God, however the sweet savour might go forth. They were to trust Him as a Father, and not to be laying up, or having anxiety. Here the Father's name connects itself with what is subjective, still as the consequence of a true and right object. This is chapter 6: 19-34. Note too, though it be the revelation of the Father in the Son on earth, the Father is in heaven though they are on earth, and so viewed, but this sets their treasure in heaven, their motive wholly there, and it is wholly this -- God or mammon; compare chapter 5: 12. When they are the light of the world, the Father's name comes in -- it is grace -- verses 14-16. Verse 13, it is responsibility and so dealt with. (Note, this is the present difficulty, to unite both, to maintain being the salt of the earth and be light to it in love, to abide as Joshua in the tabernacle, and go with Moses into the camp, though having pitched the tabernacle very far off from it -- but that is what we have to do.) Compare the difference of verses 10 and 11, 12 and 9, from what goes before. Hence also in chapter 6, we have reward.

Chapter 7 gives, as before, subject responsibility and self-judgment, in contrast with man's pretention to judge others, though these were profane and reckless men, to whom the rich blessings of grace and truth should not be presented, but all this is not redemption. Then grace in the Father which closes the instruction. The rest is composed of warnings not to deceive one's self or be deceived, and obedience is laid as the foundation, and true wisdom. It remains a strait gate and a narrow way. In sum, the discourse belonged to that time (whatever instruction there be for us) is what Christ was as the Man according to God's heart, and Son of the Father, and they were called so to walk. It does not treat of redemption, nor love to sinners, but of responsibility as then specially developed, and the Father's name and grace -- they being on the earth. Do to others, grace doing, what one would wish one's self, reciprocal care loving one's neighbour as one's self. This is the Law and the Prophets. Is not this what they amount to? But the Law is "this" -- such is its true character;

[Page 72]

and the Prophets, not touto (this) but houtos ho logos (this is the word). God is in heaven, but the reward there, if we suffer for Him who came thence, and is there, but Man on the earth.

So the prayer. It is Christ's ministry, the manifestation of His mind on earth, and connected with the true Remnant, but with the Father.

The divisions in the Sermon come out more clear to me. It is clearly the characters suited to the Kingdom, and the circumstances and heart-duties of those who are awaiting its establishment in power. Chapter 5: 1-16, the character of those to whom the Kingdom belongs, and who belong to it, even reward in heaven if persecuted. It is a change of dispensation, as far as realised, havo ([the age] to come), and not hazeh (this [age]). Verses 17-37, the connection, and mutual bearing of the new and old, with the spirit engendered by the Law, and the Law itself; but going on to take up the great principles of sin in nature, violence and corruption, and God's power, and our nothingness in connection with it, and so subduedness. Verses 38-48, good in the midst of evil, and that doubly -- Christ's life on earth, not resisting evil, and grace, the manifestation of God in Him on earth. This closes one section.

Chapter 6: 1-34, purity of motive, not to be seen of men -- as to alms, prayer, fasting, all to be done to God. This world's good, moreover, not to be a motive at all, nor a matter of care -- cannot serve two masters -- and we are to trust God, and first to seek the Kingdom of God. Subdivided, verses 1-18, 19-34.

Chapter 7, general characteristics, directions, and warnings. Then, note, the name of the Father comes in, when good in grace, as it was in Jesus, comes in; chapter 5: 45. Previous to verse 37, it was, after the first characteristics, contrast with the old system with the Jews; those, also, consequently, who touched the commandments in that state of things, would be small in the Kingdom. This was the moral, not the grace side. The Law and the Prophets were of Jehovah, and were fully owned, and now, as far as they referred to it, to be fulfilled. This Jewish aspect brings in verse 25. They were passing from their dispensation to another, as indeed they expected. But from chapter 5: 43, 45, all is connected with the Father. Verse 38, as said, begins Christ on earth.

I find more than I remembered in 1874. Chapter 5: 1-16 is their character and place, and therefore the Father is brought

[Page 73]

in at the end. Verses 17-37, contrast or principles in reference to "of old." Verses 38-48, are really Christ in His double character -- as Man on earth, and revealing the Father. Hence verse 43 brings in full grace. Then the Father properly begins, or grace, and all from that is relationship with Him, and reference to Him now revealed in Christ. Religious duties, dikaiosune (righteousness). Chapter 7 is general, not special relationships, but truth and discernment in conduct, still in relationship with the Father.

The character of the end of chapter 5 is deeply important. After insisting on the subjective state and spirit suited to the kingdom, the putting down of will and unsubdued self, He takes up the principle of the Law, dealing with evil for its repression by the law of Talion, and then introduces the immense principle, known by Christ's coming into the midst of evil -- good entirely above evil, but acting in the midst of it -- takes notice of it, and as exercised against one's self, but above it, and acting from its own motives, and this is what God does, and here is made known to those born of Him, those connected with Christ. "As their Father," a totally new principle, they are to be like Him -- this was the perfect path of Christ -- a wonderful privilege, showing what, in this connection, "perfect" means. It is not reached by the evil, save to draw out the good, and make a new created but divine path in this world. It is not righteousness, in the sense of justice, not what presents us to God, but that wherein we are to be perfect like Him. What a place to put us in! But it is not holiness (though largely ministering to it; see 1 Thessalonians 4) not intrinsic purity though supposing it and inseparable from it, but as above evil and self, goodness, for such is God even our Father, evil would make it impossible -- it is goodness in the midst of evil. Goodness in the midst of good is heaven (but, in its highest character, result of redemption, for good and evil are now known -- in the Cross, absolutely and perfectly brought to an issue) but in itself, as result. Goodness in the midst of good, all answering to itself, and adoringly capable of enjoying it. This is. grace. Good above evil.

It is as clear as language can make it that verses 17 and 18 have nothing to do, good or bad, with our fulfilling the Law in our walk. Whatever "fulfil" means for the Prophets, it means for the Law. Verse 18 connects it more strongly with that sense than the structure even of the preceding verse.

[Page 74]

The previous dispensation and revelations of God, He came not to set aside as testimony but to fulfil. They were God's testimony, not for a permanency, but not as such to be made void. The righteousness of God is revealed wholly apart from law, but was witnessed by law and prophets. Whatever the Law and the Prophets put forth as that which God would have, that Christ met in all that concerned Him, for all is not fulfilled yet. Nor will one atom of God's testimony pass away as void in either -- all will be made good. Am I to fulfil the Prophets? Yet what is here said of fulfilling, is said of law as of prophets. Whatever is fulfilled it is, here, by what Christ came to do. The righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, because we are not under it, by those who walk after the Spirit.

Although taking up the Remnant as such, yet I think the Sermon on the Mount, and the tenth chapter must be taken as especially applying to the kingdom as then proposed, and the disciples as then called -- a period which practically ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. It may be resumed in a modified way at the end, and doubtless will, but they could hardly pray then, "Lead us not into temptation," for they are in it, and they have been delivered to the Judge. Jehovah will be hardly in the way with them as He was now. Doubtless it will be applicable to them in principle (as to us), but the direct application is to the Remnant then. Only there was suspension, by the Son of Man's not coming then, of the whole thing, the Church coming in then meanwhile.

There is a closing in chapter 9, as well as in chapter 12. And note in chapter 10, the Spirit is spoken of, as in the disciples. But the mission divides in a measure between chapter 10: 15, 16. Chapter 11 and 12 give a much more definite rejection, with its declared consequences as against Israel, and bringing in a new state of things, as the Father and the Son, the Son of man Lord of the Sabbath, and the unclean spirit entering into the generation with seven more, and the like. Up to the end of chapter 10, we get His then presence in grace, and even the mission in grace after He was gone, and passes this last over. Even the same blasphemy of the Pharisees is followed by calling for the prayer for labourers. He raises the dead Israel (Jairus' daughter) as well as on the way heals whoever had faith to touch Him. And, though the effect is intimated in result as the children of the Kingdom being cast out, and the swine rushing headlong into the sea, yet the direct

[Page 75]

dealings, the subjects of the teaching are grace -- the blessing the Gentile who had more faith than Israel, and healing Legion.

Chapters 11 and 12, the axe is at the root of the tree. There had been the mourning and the piping. In chapter 10, grace continues to Israel. In chapter 11, the Person of the Son in grace takes the place of His service there, to whomsoever He may reveal the Father, and in chapter 12, final judgment is on Israel because a greater than Jonah and Solomon was there unheeded. He knows only His disciples through the Word, not His relations in the flesh with Israel. This development of Matthew is very striking. After the Sermon on the Mount, in which what suited the Kingdom and those who would enter into it is stated, and the Father's name manifested to the disciples, we have in chapter 8, Jehovah cleansing but touching the leper. A wonderful testimony -- nothing in circumstance like it -- and the Gentiles received while the children of the kingdom would be shut out. Still the subject, as noticed, is grace (only for faith). Then Jehovah bearing, as Man, our sicknesses and infirmities, but the Son of man not where to lay His head. Obligation to leave all, even the dead to bury their dead, then storms, but Christ tranquil (asleep to man's eyes) but the disciples in the same boat with Him, and then casting aside Satan's whole power by a word, but the ruin of the possessed swine (Israel) and the easy world getting rid of Him. The whole picture of His presence in grace.

Chapter 9, we have the character of His mission. Again He is the Jehovah of Psalm 103 -- forgives and heals what Israel (as we all) wanted, but new wine cannot be put into old bottles. All is grace, but Israel rejects, cannot as such receive, but it is grace. He is come to call sinners. We have then the coming to raise really Israel, and those who had faith healed on the way. Still He has compassion on Israel as sheep without a shepherd, and sends labourers into the harvest, of which I have spoken. My object now is to note the character of grace in all these dealings, though it may with unbelief bring with it judgment.

In chapter 11, He is Jehovah, there testing John Baptist himself by the adequate evidence He gives of Himself. It is now counsels and judgment -- the Law and the Prophets were till John -- the Kingdom was going to be set up, and pressing into it with the suffering violence of faith was the path. If they could receive it, it was Elias, but the die was cast -- John

[Page 76]

had mourned but they had not lamented -- He had piped and they had not danced. He reproaches the cities because they did not repent, and the Father, as we have said, is revealed by the Son in whom rest and the easy yoke of submissive obedience is found. Then the sign of the covenant dealt with -- He is Lord of the Sabbath -- He continued in patient grace, but would not be known till He sent forth judgment to the Gentiles. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost comes in, and then the full judgment of the generation. In chapter 11, then we have the judgment, and the deaf ears of the generation, and the Father and the Son brought in to replace present ministry. In chapter 12, He is paramount to the old covenant as Son of man, and, on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the generation is given up to final judgment of the seven spirits worse than idolatry, only those who receive the Word are owned. He is now the Divine Word, not Messiah in Israel, nor Jehovah seeking fruit from His vine. Even here note the Father and the Son, as such, bring in pure grace (Israel being set aside as in John) the Word, responsibility in itself and when the Kingdom is set up. So that judgment applies to it at the end as it did to Israel.

The Kingdom of God was present in the Person and power of Christ on the earth. The Kingdom of heaven is presented prospectively (at hand). The establishing heavenly rule with a heavenly character in those that were its children, poor in spirit, converted, becoming as little children, persecuted for righteousness' sake. By the rejection of Christ, the Kingdom became like (homoiothe) such and such, and not only the enemy sowed tares, but the fisherman's net gathered of every kind. But the good seed were the children of the Kingdom, and the object of the net was the good fishes. Next, the Kingdom of the Son of man is when Christ comes and establishes His power on earth. The Father's Kingdom is the heavenly part which is the source of all. So the Lord's prayer, so the explanation of the parable of the tares, introducing both these last -- when Christ will drink the wine, be their companion for joy in a new way. Now, as far as Christ was concerned, it was only good seed, and no one entered into the Kingdom by Him but the converted -- those whose righteousness exceeded that of Scribes and Pharisees. But in Israel Christ was gathering the wheat into His garner, His fan was in His hand. This testimony of the Kingdom of heaven at hand was to Israel, not to Gentiles,

[Page 77]

as in Matthew 10. They were not to go to them. The Sower, when Israel was judged, and the other parables in chapter 13, go out beyond this.

Then as to the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven; it is as thus presented as coming in, not reward in heaven -- that in Matthew 5, is a distinct thing -- but the least in the Kingdom (the then prospective Kingdom) was greater in the blessings he enjoyed, His place, than John the baptist.

The Sermon on the Mount is very interesting in connection with Matthew 10 and 24. First Matthew 10 and 24, when they speak of being hated for Christ's sake, do not speak of the final conflicts of the last three years and a half, but of that general mission which could be carried on even when Christ was there, and yet extended beyond it and continued when He was gone. In chapter 10 it applies to Israel alone, the lost sheep of the House of Israel. They were not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans. They were on the ground of the Matthew testimony -- the Father's name revealed to them, sent forth from Jesus announcing the Kingdom of heaven's being at hand. Only when brought before kings and rulers of the Gentiles, there is the additional fact of the Spirit of their Father helping them, and the ministry is carried on in the presence of a hostile people. They are Maschilim (the instructed). It is not redemption, or what we call the Gospel, but the proximity of the Kingdom -- not Christ's personal ministry, nor is the Holy Ghost presented as the Comforter sent down, though when sent down, He might act in this way. The disciples are placed in the revelation of the Father's name as Christ revealed it when on earth, and their Father's Spirit speaks in them. It is the kind of testimony, or position of rendering it, which is consequent on Psalms 1 and 2. They have to endure to the end. They will not have accomplished their service till the Son of man be come -- that brings us to Psalm 8. It is not laid upon the basis of a Son of man suffering, though most of the testimony went on after the fact, and led to all their trials, but they are a Remnant suffering from a hostile and wicked nation, and from perverse and rebellious Gentiles. They are in view of a coming Son of man whom God has made strong for Himself. As to the spirit of the nation -- "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." They are for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Jerusalem is not definitely part of the scene.

[Page 78]

In chapter 24, Jerusalem is definitely the centre of the subject. Her house left desolate, and not to see Christ again until she say: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. We have not the Son of man here, but the Stone which the builders refused become the Head of the corner. Hence the disciples suffer, from the outset there are false Christs. It is not a testimony, though it may be supposed, but they suffer for Christ's name's sake. And the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached in all the world for a witness to all nations, and then the end of the age comes. Then there is a specific time of three and a half years referred to in Daniel, during which Jerusalem is under special oppression through the abomination set up. Those that are in Judaea are to flee to the mountains. It closes with the coming of the Son of man. All Judaea is the subject of warning, but the occasion is the abomination of desolation in Jerusalem. To verse 14 it went on to the end. What follows is special, but the tribulation is not confined to Jerusalem, but it is intimated that its focus is in Judaea. The fact of the preaching in all nations is merely a sign of the end.

In Matthew 5-7, we have just these elements as to the character of the Remnant. It is, as often remarked, the character belonging to the Kingdom. But then we have suffering for Christ's sake, and going to heaven as the martyred Remnant will. The Father's name is revealed -- redemption in no way taught. The condition of Israel briefly but clearly told us in verses 25, 26. The Law and the Prophets not destroyed. They are salt in the land and light in the world. But here, as in chapter 10, the last trial is not found. It is a matter apart, even in chapter 24. The Lord's prayer is perfectly suited to that time. It goes on to that day; chap 7: 22, 23. Even false prophets are warned against, but they are discerned morally, just as the judgment in that day is on the same ground. Hence we have not the Son of man, because the subject is what is morally fit for the Kingdom, and to be applied then that He might not be rejected. He was propounding, as a present thing, the doctrine as to the principle of the Kingdom, only He brings in their consequences. While stating the change both as to Church and Kingdom (the Church by a special revelation, not what Christ was openly teaching) it is remarkable how Matthew keeps on Jewish ground; so there is no taking up to heaven at all.

Jehovah their Messiah was there as Prophet. It would go

[Page 79]

out to Gentiles (chapter 8: 11), who would be in the Kingdom of heaven. The Son of man had not where to lay His head. Christ is in the troubles with His disciples, but it passes on to His rejection as then (and from chapter 13, sowing, not looking for fruit), the definite rejection, yet of Him who satisfied the poor with bread in Israel. The nation judged in its rulers. But God, from His nature, blesses necessarily beyond, where so looked to, and the Remnant according to His own perfectness if not administrative fulness naturally. Then chapter 16, the nation is judged practically, and the Church brought in.

[Page 80]


We see the Spirit's work in Creation, in the Samsons, Jephthas, Sauls, and even Balaam -- then in the Prophets, calling back to the Law, and foretelling Messiah, suffering, and the glories to follow. But here though called the Spirit of Christ, yet it was a

divine Person working in a divine way to manifest power, or deal with God's people from without. This went on till John. He was Messiah's forerunner -- it was a transition time. Then on Christ, as Man, the Holy Spirit came down as a dove. He was anointed and sealed, but He only -- on this to be declared Son of God by John. And then the heavens opened, He anointed, and the Father owning Him as His Son, the Man that was there, the Second Man and last Adam, personally though yet alone. For, except the Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die, it must abide alone. Even then Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to overcome for us, fully tested here below. Through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God. But He was alone. But then, what no heart can tell or fathom, the blessed Son of God, the lowly One, and the Just, was made sin for us, and we can say: He hath borne our sins in His own body on the tree. Now He is risen -- all that is passed -- that wonderful atonement has been made, in the very place of our sin in absolute and perfect obedience and love to the Father -- God perfectly glorified. Sin, death, Satan's power, God's forsaking, and judgment against sin, all passed, and Man owned of God as to His work, and having glorified God as made sin, is passed into the divine glory to begin all afresh in a place, the consequence of redemption, and thence, having in that place received the Holy Ghost, has sent it down to believers -- not to man in the flesh, or the world (though the Gospel goes out to them by it) -- to associate them with and unite them to Him who, glorified, begins all afresh.

[Page 81]


1 Timothy 1:5. How very perfect this statement as to the result! In what an atmosphere of blessing it puts us, in contrast with the idle speculations of man's mind! The object of the commission is not idle speculation, but love (God's own nature) enjoyed and active, purity in the affections, a pure heart which sees God -- the conscience, with nothing on it, happy in God's presence; and then faith, the spirit of dependence on, and confidence in God. How bright a state in God's presence!

The three points of our present walk are very clearly brought out in 2 Timothy 2, in the well-known passage -- withdrawal from iniquity, as naming the name of Christ -- purifying ourselves from the vessels -- association with those (in the path of grace, righteousness, and peace) who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (whom I am thus called to own, as far as manifested, though owning the Lord only knows them that are His). I add then, courage and the Scriptures; and we have the special provision for the last days. The armour of God is for all times -- the sense of dependence our security.

The comparison of John 1 and 1 John 1; chapter 2: 1, 2, is full of interest. In John 1, the life is the light of men, but darkness comprehends it not. In 1 John 1, they have seen, looked upon, and handled the Word of life, and show the Eternal Life which was with the Father, and manifested to them; through the Word made flesh become a Word of life to them, they have fellowship with the Father and the Son -- the names of grace. Then instead of the light shining in darkness, and the darkness not comprehending it, they are in the light as God is in the light, where responsibility and test comes in. I only touch on the main elements to suggest the ground of what was in my mind -- the complete contrast of the Christian's place by redemption, and the world's on the presenting of Christ and His being merely in it. And I add, in chapter 2: 1, 2, provision is made for failure in detail. Jesus Christ the righteous, and the propitiation remain in full force -- we

[Page 82]

are in the light as God is, as to place and title. But darkness in act has necessarily totally destroyed communion, though righteousness remain, and hence He is not an Advocate with God, to restore righteousness, but with the Father, on the footing of righteousness and propitiation restoring communion. Failure is judged according to the light we are in -- as God is in it. And hence on the footing of what He accepts as putting away sin, I speak as I am, an ever present now, according to that light. The full enjoyment of the out-flowing of grace in communion is re-established. The whole comparison is full of interest.

I think it is remarkable how Paul contemplates the introduction of false brethren from the beginning and distinguishes the sacramental system as distinct from salvation, and man's work contrasted with God's -- while Peter does not, save as the fruit of positively false teachers like the false prophets of old; but as an ordinary fruit to be produced, he does not. The Christian work is Christ's work, is of God. He addresses the saints, not merely as positionally and rightly such, but as individually such; nor is any other work recorded or supposed. We may suppose such must have been, and such may have been the case in Lydda, but it is not supposed; they turned to the Lord. Simon Magus he detected, which confirms this. Paul's object, of course, was the same, but, like the fisherman's net, it gathered, and he contemplates its gathering of every kind. He contemplates wood, hay and stubble -- branches being cut off -- sacramental introduction and privilege -- but with many God being not well-pleased. This is remarkable. It is a vast system inaugurated on the earth, which Paul commences -- Peter's is a falling one there, but in its nature simply divine operation. I have already considered Matthew 16 in connection with this.

The two 'becames' in Hebrews 2:10 and chapter 7: 26, are striking, as showing the deep truth of God's dealings in respect of Christ, and the wondrous height of our heavenly calling. -- "It became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." The majesty of

[Page 83]

God was such that it became Him, if that Blessed One took up our cause, to make Him pass through the suffering to enter into glory. We can say that it became God, our sins being such, not to pass over them, or our state before Him, and Christ must suffer. Then when our calling comes, a High Priest becomes us who is separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens, for that is our place as called. Another kind of high priest, or place of exercise of his priesthood would not do, for that is our place and condition, called withal to the holy and harmless.

The first disciples saw and believed, but then fuller light came in. Between that fuller light and Thomas's confession, which represents Israel in the latter day, the difference is evident. In the message by Mary Magdalene, where it was faith by hearing, the testimony is of the Son of God going on high as Man, and placing His disciples in the very same position as Himself: "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." Thomas's confession of Christ is a remarkable one, owning Christ as his Lord and his God; but he looks up to Him in the divinity and glory of His Person. He is not associated with Him in His own blessed position in relationship with the Father, and the place He has taken as Man before God. This latter is Christ's own communication in grace to the disciples, as giving them part with Himself -- Thomas's, his recognition of His glory when it is forced upon him. And this is all in its place.

Note, Paul alone puts baptism, as far as I am aware, on the ground of death and resurrection with Christ. Thus it becomes the means of doctrinally bringing the Christian on to the point where, on the new ground and in a new position, he is united to Christ as Head. In Romans, he only carries it out to the individual position, but in Colossians he uses it not as union, of course, but as that which, by taking out of flesh into what is beyond it, is the inseparable introduction into holding the Head. It is only life, but life hid with Christ in God. But he introduces 'holding the Head' as the necessary and inseparable consequence, only the Holy Ghost is not brought in in

[Page 84]

this Epistle. The connection is in chapter 1: 18, not the same, but connected, so immediately in Christ. Hence it glimmers though not unfolded, as in chapter 1: 24, 25, and chapter 2: 19.

Note in 1 John 5:18, 19, we have the opposition of the new nature to the whole trinity of evil; whosoever is born of God sinneth not -- the will and nature of flesh; he that is born of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not; and, we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Note the remarkable contrast between John 1:5, "The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," and 1 John 2:8, "The darkness is past, and the true light now shineth." We get the full character of the living Christ in the presence of men brought in by redemption after the Lord's death. In life He was the Light of men, but men were darkness, opposite in nature, and the Light did not dispel the darkness at all. It remained, as before, darkness, and did not comprehend the Light. But redemption came in -- there was a new state of things -- Christ had overcome the power of darkness, and brought a new condition of men in resurrection into existence, and vivified according to the power and place of this life, which was in the light as God was in the light, and had left the darkness and the whole scene and power of it where it was, behind, the other side of the Cross. Thus those who had received Him, had received light in life in their souls -- cleansed by the blood, they walked in the light, and were light. It was not the strange phenomenon of light shining and darkness remaining, but the darkness was passing and already the light shone as light, not in darkness merely. This is an immense change indeed. It is then easy to see how it connects itself with "Which thing is true in him and in you." It shows the relative place of the Gospel and Epistle very clearly, and more, it shows very powerfully the difference between Christ's position and witness on earth, and the light brought in after redemption was wrought, and He was risen. It is a very important comparison.

[Page 85]

Note how carefully the Kingdom and our portion in Christ are everywhere distinguished when brought together, and both introduced so as to mark the distinction. First, in 2 Peter 1, the transfiguration is the plain manifestation of the glory of the Kingdom, indeed is so said to be in the Gospels, where it is visible and Christ appears with His saints. This is connected with prophecy. It confirms what the Prophets had said as to what the history of this world would end in -- was a light in this dark world -- but this is contrasted with another thing, the daydawn, and the Daystar arising in the heart. Next, in Revelation 2, we have the promise of Kingdom of Psalm 2 extended to the saints. Here in the full corruption of the Church (popery) the faithful are urged to hold fast, and the end looked at, "Till I come"; then the Kingdom of the rod of iron over the nations given (that is prophecy) but, besides that, the Morning Star, Christ, before the day comes. Then in Revelation 22, as at the beginning, the efficacy of Christ's forbearing known in the heart relationship of the saints, so when all the prophecy had been gone through, Jesus presents Himself as the Root and Offspring of David, the bright and morning Star. As the former He is the Source and Heir of promises, as the Morning Star the Hope of the Church. The Spirit who is down here animating the Church, and the Bride in the sense of her own relationship, looks for Himself to come, and the whole position of the Church meanwhile, as having the Spirit, is unfolded. And so we find it elsewhere. At the end of 1 Thessalonians 4, where it had been declared that those that slept in Jesus, God would bring with Him -- this is the manifestation in glory also, which is continued in connection with the day, in chapter 5; our going up to Him, so as to be with Him for ever, which answers to the Morning Star, is unfolded in the intervening parenthesis.

[Page 86]


First, the word psuche is clearly used for "life," as Matthew 2:20; chapter 10: 39; Mark 3:4; Luke 9:24, 56; John 12:25, and many other passages. Next, it is used for the general fact of conscious feeling and existence -- the activity of the inner man -- without defining whence or what it is. In this way, it is used even of God; Matthew 12:18; Hebrews 10:38. Thus: "With all thy heart, and with all thy soul"; "My soul is exceeding sorrowful"; "A sword shall pierce through thy own soul;" Matthew 22:37; Mark 14:34; Luke 2:35. It is used for persons, as Acts 2:41, 43; chapter 7: 14. But as "life" and "soul," it is in contrast often, or "life" is used for "the soul" in its higher aspect. The same word is used of what is profited and lost in the same act. Thus: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it;" Matthew 10:39, compare verse 28; chapter 16: 25, 26; Mark 8:35-37 (compare Luke 9:24-26, and John 12:25) and Luke 17:33.

We have then "the soul" used generally for the responsible part, in which we live with God, whose state and movings are expressed in the body's acts, as Matthew 11:29; chapter 16: 26, and the passages of contrast I have referred to. Matthew 26: 38; Mark 8:37, and like passages to Matthew; Mark 14:34; Luke 1:46 (passage cited from Luke); chapter 12: 23; John 12:27; Acts 14:22; chapter 15: 24; perhaps Romans 2: 9; 2 Corinthians 1: 23; Hebrews 6: 19; chapters 10: 39; 13: 17; James 1:21; chapter 5: 20; 1 Peter 1:9, 22; chapter. 2: 11, 25; 4: 19; 2 Peter 2:8, 14; 3 John 2. Here we find contrast with Jewish temporal deliverance.

It is contrasted carefully with "body," Matthew 10:28; Luke 12: 20 (stronger because of verse 19); Acts 2:27, 31 -- practically several of the passages quoted under the last head. Acts 20: 10; compare 1 Kings 17:21, 22. It is also distinguished as the mere living soul from the higher part in which it is in connection with God, through living in Him by the breath of life from Him; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12. Add to this Luke 16, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It is distinguished from the power of life in Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:45. Its distinct condition in man is originally founded on Genesis 2:7 -- never said of beasts; hence Acts 17:28. The "souls under the altar" confirm this.

[Page 87]

"Spirit" is used often for the soul including the higher part. So even of Jesus, "He gave up the ghost" (paredoken to pneuma). This word we must also examine. It is used not uncommonly for the spiritual part of man in contrast with his body, as Luke 8:55, "Her spirit came again," confirming the clear distinction between the two, as with soul. So where the two latter are also distinguished, spirit, soul, and body. But I think it has another force than "soul," though used in a general way like it, in contrast with "body," as the non-corporeal part of man. "Soul," as connecting itself with its action in the body, though clearly distinct, is more connected with life, and so used for it. "Spirit" is more the active, intelligent consciousness, or the seat of that consciousness, which belongs to the inner man; and just what distinguishes man from the beast is that the latter has merely a living soul connected with an organism, passions, habits, faculties, such as memory, affections; while man has received this state of existence through God's breathing into his nostrils the breath of life -- by the spirit of life he became a living soul. Hence in ordinary language the two may be used as one; because of the pneuma zoes (the spirit of life) he has a psuchen zosan (a living soul). The mere animal has a psuchen zosan, but not through a divine pneuma zoes. The mere breath of natural life is organic, and has nothing to do with this. Hence "spirit" is used for this active, intelligent, consciousness. In the Christian it is connected often with the Holy Spirit which dwells in him, as its activities are produced by it, not the soul. The Spirit and its fruit may thus also characterise the state of the soul. This character of the spirit of man, the connection of the term with active intelligent consciousness is frequently found; Matthew 26: 41, "The spirit indeed is willing"; Mark 2:8, "Jesus perceived in his spirit; chapter 8: 12, "He sighed deeply in his spirit"; Luke 1:80, "Waxed strong in spirit;" chapter 2: 40; chapters 10: 20; 23: 46; John 4:23, 24; chapters. 11: 33; 13: 21; (chapter 19: 30, used in general, so Acts 7:59). Acts 17:16; Romans 1:9; chapter 12: 11; 1 Corinthians 2:11; chapter 5: 3-5 (used in special manner for activity of the inner man and a power, not intelligent, thus contrasted with nous -- proof of the difference of mere mind from the active principle, though usually acting, in the present state of human nature, in it as the present form of its power; so that consciousness, not mind, is essential to it); 1 Corinthians 14:2, 14, 15, etc.; 2 Corinthians 2:13;

[Page 88]

chapter 7: 1, here through the mind, verse 13; Galatians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:22; Hebrews 12:23. In Thessalonians and Hebrews, the contrast with body is clear, and in the former with soul also.

[Page 89]


I think the Sacraments have a larger bearing than I was aware. They are (1 Corinthians 10) for the wilderness. One introduces into the wilderness, but it is Christ's death (Romans 6), not ours. Only I thereon reckon myself dead as a consequence -- place too in baptism -- in the likeness of His. But we have not in Romans 'resurrection with'; and even where we have, as I think, we must say in Colossians 2, no ascension, we seek the things above, in Canaan. Then the manna was for the wilderness only, and the spiritual drink. That is, one brings into, the other sustains in the wilderness. So we show forth Christ's death "till He come." I take my place in the world, consequent on Christ's death -- a wilderness. It is not the corn of the Land. But we are all One Body. Here, for myself, I have union with the saints, and my place is in virtue of union with Him, still as down here. We are the Body of Christ, as down here -- not as in this world without the Cross, for then I do not know redemption, do not enter into the holiest to worship. I am on earth, but in the consciousness of being member of the One Body, which implies union with Christ. But it is on earth I celebrate it, not in heaven, i.e., not as being there myself. I look at the humiliation as over with Him, but remember Him in it. Note it is not the Passover here; that went with the corn of the Land, Canaan, and circumcision. I am in the fruit of redemption, but in the wilderness, but in the unity of the Body. With the manna we must take in Christ's death, of course, according to John 6. Our service in it is simply owning the preciousness of His death, and till He come. Our state is in resurrection, but we are occupied with, and celebrate His having been once down here, and show forth His death. The question is, Where are we when we celebrate it? In the wilderness. What are we? Members of One Body, united to Christ in fact. In a responsible place in the wilderness, but by redemption, and really united to Christ, or I could not talk of "The Unity of the Body." [1865].

I think of the account of the Passover in Luke we have the sign of the passing away of the old system, and the bringing in of the new. True love to His disciples in, for the last time,

[Page 90]

eating with them -- a token of affection, but He will not eat it any more. Then the Passover cup -- fellowship and communion in joy then in it -- this He does not take at all. It was now to be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, and He does not drink this cup. They are to divide it among themselves; He will not drink of it till the Kingdom of God comes. Then He institutes the new thing in His body broken, the remembrance of a new and better deliverance, and the Cross the new covenant in His blood.

[Page 91]


It is striking, to begin with, that in his three acts of the mind, he only speaks of 'doubt,' 'inference,' and 'assent.' He makes 'assent' different from 'inference,' and there he is right. I have often said, an inference is only 'must,' or therefore never really 'is.' Belief of a fact never rests on an inference, but on intuition, sight, etc., or testimony. But a man's disbelieving is not believing the contradictory. Religion is revealed -- rather God and His truth; I do not believe it -- I do not think there is adequate evidence and do not believe it. But I do not believe there is none. If we put truth instead of revealed religion -- and the truth is -- this depends on a religion being in question as revealed. Now certain things being presented to me as revealed, my being unable to receive them is not my saying there is no revealed religion. And when truth is presented to me, it must be specific truth (and there can, if it embraces all our relationship to God, be but one) but if truth be presented to me, my disbelief of it, seeing it must be positive, is not saying 'there is none.' According to Dr. Newman there are three modes of holding and three ways of enunciating propositions -- each corresponding to each -- three mental acts. Taking free-trade as an example, he says: "These three mental acts are doubt, inference and assent. A question is the expression of a doubt; a conclusion is the expression of an act of inference; and an assertion is the expression of an act of assent. To doubt, for instance, is not to see one's way to hold that free-trade is or is not a benefit; to infer, is to hold on sufficient grounds that free-trade may, must, or should be a benefit; to assent to the proposition, is to hold that free-trade is a benefit." "And, in fact, these three modes of entertaining propositions -- doubting them, inferring them, assenting to them, are so distinct in their action, that, when they are severally carried out into the intellectual habits of an individual, they become the principles and notes of three distinct states or characters of mind. For instance, in the case of revealed religion, according as one or other of these is paramount

+Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent, by John Henry Newman, D.D. of the Oratory. Second edition. London: Burns, Oates and Co., 17 and 18, Portman Street.

[Page 92]

within him, a man is a sceptic as regards it; or a philosopher, thinking it more or less probable considered as a conclusion of reason; or he has an unhesitating faith in it, and is recognised as a believer. If he simply disbelieves, or dissents, he is assenting to the contradictory of the thesis, viz., that there is no revelation." This is quite false.

But his logic is wholly at fault too, the comprehension of the word wholly left out. In page 6, he says: "We cannot assent to a proposition, without some intelligent apprehension of it; whereas we need not understand it at all in order to infer it. We cannot give our assent to the proposition that 'X is Z,' till we are told something about one or other of the terms; but we can infer, if 'X is Y, and Y is Z, that X is Z, whether we know the meaning of X and Z' or no." Thus the "is" is absolute, i.e., X must be all Y, and Y must be all x to be always true. Thus, snow is white, white is a colour, therefore snow is a colour. This is nice logic!

What follows is sufficiently judged further on -- the confusion of effect from the thing assented to, and strength in the assent. But further; he says: "The only question is, what measure of apprehension is sufficient. And the answer to this question is equally plain: -- it is the predicate of the proposition which must be apprehended. In a proposition one term is predicated of another; the subject is referred to the predicate, and the predicate gives us information about the subject; -- therefore to apprehend the proposition is to have that information, and to assent to it is to acquiesce in it as true. Therefore I apprehend a proposition, when I apprehend its predicate. The subject itself need not be apprehended per se in order to a genuine assent: for it is the very thing which the predicate has to elucidate, and therefore by its formal place in the proposition, so far as it is the subject, it is something unknown, something which the predicate makes known; but the predicate cannot make it known, unless it is known itself. Let the question be, "What is trade?" here is a distinct profession of ignorance about "trade"; and let the answer be, "trade is the interchange of goods"; trade then need not be known, as a condition of assent to the proposition, except so far as the account of it which is given in answer, "the interchange of goods," makes it known; and that must be apprehended in order to make it known. There is no reason why our knowledge of the subject, whatever it is, should go beyond what the

[Page 93]

predicate tells us about it," but a proposition may where it is a complex idea to explain a word, or to render a vague idea definite and clear. Thus, "trade is the interchange of commodities." A child has read a book, and finds "trade," and says, 'What is trade?' "It is the interchange of commodities," is explaining the word by the thing expressed. Or I may say, 'Money is a mere conventional representative,' and, whatever the means employed, bills or gold, trade is really the interchange of commodities -- here it pretends to give the real character of the commerce I have seen going on in the world. Otherwise, a proposition relates to something known objectively, say, as Dr. Newman, lucerne. He states I need not apprehend the subject, and anything more childishly fallacious I never read. I will give his own words. "If a child asks, 'What is lucerne?' and is answered, 'Lucerne is Medicago sativa, of the class Diadelphia and order Decandria'; and henceforth says obediently, 'Lucerne is Medicago sativa,' etc., he makes no act of assent to the proposition which he enunciates, but speaks like a parrot. But if he is told, 'Lucerne is food for cattle,' and is shown cows grazing in a meadow, then, though he never saw lucerne, and knows nothing at all about it, besides what he has learned from the predicate, he is in a position to make as genuine an assent to the proposition 'Lucerne is food for cattle,' on the word of his informant, as if he knew ever so much more about lucerne. And as soon as he has got so far as this, -- he may go further. He now knows enough about lucerne to enable him to apprehend propositions which have lucerne for their predicate, should they come before him for assent, as, 'That field is sown with lucerne,' or 'Clover is not lucerne.'"

In the first place Medicago sativa is merely a change of names, and gives nothing at all, unless a genus, if I know botany. The class and order make me know it is a plant, if I have read Linnaeus, but, the subject, lucerne, not being known by sense, the passage, if I knew Linnaeus by heart, tells me nothing save that the predicate supposes, does not state, that a plant with a Latin name exists, but no more. "But if he is told lucerne is food for cattle," he can assent to the proposition on the word of his informant, as if he knew ever so much more about lucerne." And now we see the utter folly of the man -- he adds: "And is shown cows grazing in a meadow." How does he know that it is lucerne they are eating? He must know it is lucerne, to make the proposition anything at all to him. Suppose

[Page 94]

it is clover they are eating, he will call clover lucerne because cows eat it, or he knows somehow lucerne as an object of sense, which is just what Dr. Newman is proving he need not. The proposition must be, 'all that cows eat is lucerne.' Logically he has made the predicate of an universal affirmative universal, instead of particular. "Lucerne is food for cows" only means is one kind of food for cows. Hence, when he sees the cows eating lucerne, he only knows it is a kind of food for cows since they are eating it, but he does not know it is lucerne. If Dr. Newman merely means that seeing cows eating makes him know what the predicate "food for cows" means, it is ridiculous. If it is so, he has only learned that the name "lucerne" is attached to one thing cows eat, but he has no object at all before his mind to which the predicate attaches. If he must see cows eating to know what the predicate means, it is child's play, for then he must be told they are cows, and what eating is, or the predicate is nothing, and he understands that but nothing more of the subject, save the name. Say "Dollum is something cows eat." What do I know about dollum, save that cows eat something men call "dollum." But I should then say, "But what is dollum?" But this child's play is not what Dr. Newman means. For when it is said, "That field is sown with lucerne," it is only when he is told that field is sown with lucerne, if he has not seen lucerne, and known objectively, or now learns by seeing it, he knows no more. We know what lucerne is and hence associate the ideas. But supposing he was told lucerne meant "bread and butter," he would suppose the field, if he assented, sown with bread and butter, for cows might eat that. "Clover is not lucerne," he can know nothing about, unless he knows them both, for cows eat clover, too. It is talking of a known thing, and slily slipping in, "seeing cows grazing in a meadow," which deceives here.

Page 13, he says: "Yet there is a way, in which the child can give an indirect assent even to a proposition, in which he understood neither subject nor predicate. He cannot, indeed, in that case, assent to the proposition itself, but he can assent to its truth." "Thus the child's mother might teach him to repeat a passage of Shakespeare, and when he asked the meaning of a particular line, such as 'The quality of mercy is not strained,' or 'Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,' she might answer him, that he was too young to understand it yet,

[Page 95]

but that it had a beautiful meaning, as he would one day know; and he, in faith on her word, might give his assent to such a proposition -- not, that is, to the line itself, which he had got by heart, and which would be beyond him, but to its being true, beautiful, and good." "It is, indeed, plain, that, though the child assents to his mother's veracity, without, perhaps, being conscious of his own act, nevertheless that particular assent of his has a force and life in it which the other assents have not, in proportion as he apprehends the proposition, which is the subject of it, with greater keenness and energy than belongs to his apprehension of the others. Her veracity and authority is to him no abstract truth or item of general knowledge, but is bound up with that image and love of her person which is part of himself, and makes a direct claim on him for his summary assent to her general teachings." Now if he heard his mother say, "Virtue turns vice," he would have no idea in his head, if he did not know what "virtue" is; he might think it meant bad habits, or human nature, or taste, or anything you please, and he would learn nothing of what was meant to be conveyed. If he was sure his mother told him, his only real thought would be, "My mother tells the truth," but that that was true he could not say, he does not believe it. He has no proposition in his mind. And when Dr. Newman speaks of one assent being stronger than another, as when his mother's truthfulness is before him, it is a totally different matter -- feeling, caring for, not assenting -- and, if the mother was all wrong, would lead astray, because feeling is no real ground of assent, and may influence the heart contrary to the truth. Dr. Newman's mother led him up, I suppose, in Protestantism as true, and, as he now believes, brought him up entirely in error. God may act on feeling, conscience for the truth, then influence and truth go together. But that can be said of none else.

Dr. Newman partly distinguishes afterwards between inference and assent, but he has no idea of believing what God has said, simply because He has said it. Quoting from Locke's "Degrees of Assent,"+he says, "Where any particular thing, consonant to the constant observation of ourselves, and others in the like case, comes attested by the concurrent reports of all that mention it, we receive it as easily, and build as firmly

+Essay concerning Human Understanding, Book 4, chapter 16.

[Page 96]

upon it, as if it were certain knowledge, and we reason and act thereupon, with as little doubt as if it were perfect demonstration ... . These probabilities rise so near to certainty, that they govern our thoughts as absolutely, and influence all our actions as fully, as the most evident demonstration ... . Our belief thus grounded, rises to assurance." When we talk of "belief rising to assurance," with Locke, it is all very well, because it is mere human reason, and, for practical purposes, we must act on what is adequately proved as true though only "exceeding high probability," we have, save what is seen, nothing more. But all this shuts out divine faith. There is no rising to anything, no exercise of the mind to prove, no degree of anything, no possibility of human deceit. If God has spoken, it is the truth. But the whole of his reasoning in the chapter on assent, considered as unconditional, though he separates inference and assent, yet he speaks only of "the facts of human nature as they are found in the concrete action of life," i.e., men are certain enough to act on it, is all true. But on page 169, he insists that assent is "unconditional, and' that in 'subject-matters which admit of nothing higher than probable reasoning."

Page 171. He says, "None of us can think or act without the acceptance of truths, not intuitive, not demonstrated, yet sovereign." But some believe that things exist besides ourselves, "that there is a Supreme Being." He insists our nature is so constituted -- so do I. "Nor," he adds, "has any philosophical theory the power to force on us a rule which will not work for a day." Now we have here inference, and, besides that, convictions which flow from "the constitution of our nature," of which we have no doubt (till we reason, and which reason may cast into doubt, rightly or wrongly); I admit all this, but none of this is divine faith. That "England is an island" is no example, because visible. "An island" means what I see, or others do there. He insists (page 179) that all this "does not interfere with the pre-eminence of strength in divine faith, which has a supernatural origin, when compared with all belief which is merely human and natural." But still, it is only because it has its origin in grace and its motions. "The greater certainty is according to appreciation, not intuition, for natural truths are often more clearly perceived!" "The connection of knowledge with truth is more apparent than the connection of faith with the same!" And another

[Page 97]

author, he quotes, says: "The adhesion of the will is stronger." And again, "The difference of certainty from the difference of motives." This only regards an exterior difference, for every natural certainty, formally looked at, is equal. "There is a transcendant adhesion of mind, intellectual and moral."

Page 218. "A man is infallible, whose words are always true; a rule is infallible, if it is unerring in all its possible applications. An infallible authority is certain in every particular case that may arise; but a man who is certain in some one definite case, is not on that account infallible." "I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise, I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible until I am infallible myself. It is a strange objection, then, which is sometimes made to Catholics, that they cannot prove and assent to the Church's infallibility, unless they first believe in their own. Certitude, as I have said, is directed to one or other definite concrete proposition. I am certain of proposition one, two, three, four, five, one by one, each by itself. I may be certain of one of them, without being certain of the rest; that I am certain of the first makes it neither likely nor unlikely that I am certain of the rest; but were I infallible, then I should be certain, not only of one of them, but of all, and of many more besides, which have never come before me as yet. Therefore we may be certain of the infallibility of the Church, while we admit that in many things we are not, and cannot be, certain at all."

Infallibility, as I have remarked elsewhere, is wrongly used. Truth cannot be infallible, nor anything actually revealed. It is simply absolute truth. It is more appropriately applied to Scripture, so far as there is an immense mass of truth there which I have not discovered, and I am sure all is true there with divine authority, but this is only used in a secondary way, as Paul says, "The Scripture foreseeing ... preached before." But God is infallible, i.e., cannot be mistaken or deceived. Infallibility is not simply always speaking the truth, but the impossibility of mistaking, or deceiving, or shortcoming. It involves not mistaking in anything, as well as not deceiving. Now this is part of my idea of God, the true God. If He is not infallible, He is not God, He that is true, to whom all things are open.

Dr. Newman is audacious enough to say, "If I must be infallible to know the Church is such, I must be infallible to know

[Page 98]

God is such." This is every way false, and savours of blasphemy, and proves only one thing, as is evident from all he says, that he has never known the testimony of God as truth. It would have been impossible for him to use this logic if he had. But that is all it proves. And it is wholly without foundation, for 'know' has a different meaning. When I say, 'I know God is infallible,' though I dislike the expression, 'I know' is merely the intuitive conviction of what God is, not knowledge from proof -- it is part of the nature of God, necessary to His nature -- a fallible God is not what 'God' means. But I do not know whether an assembly is infallible. It is not so by necessity of nature, so that it is not an assembly if it be not. Nay! no assembly of creatures is or can be. It is the property of a creature to be fallible in itself. God may keep me right through grace, I will suppose, but in the sense it is used of God, I deny that the Assembly of God is infallible. Dr. Newman's argument is bad, because I have the proof that God has promised to keep it from all mistakes. But what has to be kept is not, per se, infallible, and it has to be proved that what is not necessarily infallible is made so in its judgments by Another. Of that I have to judge, and I may make a mistake, and I cannot say absolutely it is infallible. I may be certain, but that proves nothing, because I may be wrong, and it is a thing to be proved. I have not to judge if God be infallible -- He is not God at all if He be not. It is a necessary element of Godhead. I do not know God at all, if I think it has to be proved.

I see no sign of faith, or moral perception in Dr. Newman; and lowering God in order to exalt the Church, i.e., man, is a sign of deep moral alienation from God.

[Page 99]


The whole force of 2 Corinthians 5 is the power of life in Christ manifested in resurrection, and complete in glory, founded on death so as to put a total end to the first man and to sin (He having been made sin), and hence an entrance as out of the first into the new creation where all things are of God. As to this, it is a most comprehensive statement. I would show the principle of this briefly. Beside death and judgment, we have it applied to our course here. All were dead since Christ died for all -- they have to live to Him who died for them and rose again. But this goes very far, because Christ Himself, in so far as He came connecting Himself with men in the flesh, disappears. He came under law -- Son of David -- a minister of the circumcision -- of whom according to the flesh Christ came. All this is gone. He died as to this, and died for all -- all were dead. Hence the Christian knows no one after the flesh in his new nature; risen in Christ, he has nothing, no connection with the world of Adam the other side of death. That belonged to the life of flesh, and the link is broken in the death of Christ, and the life in which he lives does not belong to it. He is entered into, as risen, and is of the new Creation -- the old things are wholly passed away, he is dead, and has no more to say to them. The life he lives belongs to another order of things, and he is entered into them in that life, having died out of the others, or holding himself for dead -- Christ having died to and out of it -- and risen up from this in a new life, Christ. In this new Creation all things are of God (we the firstfruits of it), all entirely new. Two things are attached to this: we are reconciled to God -- we are made the righteousness of God. But how entirely new all this is!

Note, the point of connection between the beginning and end of the chapter is, that the love of Christ being in his heart, the thought of the terror of the Lord urged him to persuade men. Then this love of Christ, i.e., the way it showed itself, brought out the great truth of men's state and their bringing into a wholly new Creation which identifies itself with that power of life with which the chapter begins, while all is grounded, as to righteousness, on Christ being made sin for us. In the beginning, the power of this life, as to death and as to judgment, is remarkably brought out. On the whole,

[Page 100]

the deliverance is astonishingly developed in this chapter. It is a wonderful chapter.

Note further in 2 Corinthians 5, after, as already noted, speaking of our direct positive condition as flowing from divine power in life, bringing us into glory, death being wholly annihilated, he contemplates death for us, as having this life, and it is of course gain. Here oneself (not in an evil sense) is brought in. And this, note, is the motive for our seeking to be acceptable to Him, knowing we shall be with Him in glory, and even our souls, if we die before the glory come. We like to be agreeable to One we love when with Him, besides there is the solemnity as well as the joy of the Lord's presence. But then, in taking up the second part of man's lot -- the judgment -- we get a distinct difference of the great principle, and the effect, where Christ's love is truly known. In the latter case, a person does not think of himself at all -- the love of Christ constrains him, and he thinks of others. Thus responsibility and being manifested before the judgment-seat, and receiving the things done, is kept as solid ground of warning before the soul. And there is the active toil of grace to be acceptable and pleasing to Him. But when judgment comes as terror before his mind as it is, the Apostle only thinks of others through the constraining love of Christ. Perhaps Paul had been accused of being beside himself, but at any rate he distinguishes between his own joy and blessing in rising up to God by the power of the Holy Ghost, and the sober judgment of what was suitable. I apprehend he spoke of his condition as in chapter 4, and even in chapter I, for their sakes, still his doing it thus brought him to the point of responsibility and view of the judgment. But the effect of this on himself, as we have seen, was to urge his love to others. This love in Christ being in the death of Christ had a double effect. He did not know Christ as a living Messiah before His death any more. He was now not his own at all, but Christ's. So if any man were in Christ, he was of and in a new Creation, of which Christ was the first fruits in resurrection, where all things are of God who has reconciled us to Himself by that work. The whole of that is then set out, verses 19-21.

So, how very different the character (also noticed) of Philippians 2 and 3 -- the subduedness, readiness to suffer, watchfulness for God's presence and character in the midst of this world, in the first; and the spiritual energy which

[Page 101]

looks forward to the next, and glory in it, Christ in glory being before his mind to win in the latter. I do not know but the first is the deepest. In the second we win Christ and glory -- blessed thing surely -- but it is more what we get. In the former, we are like Him, and His love and character are more thought of, and we living in and according to them to His glory. But both are perfect in their place. So most gracious, divine affections come out in chapter 2, but earnest zeal against evil, inconsistent with the glory, in professors in chapter 3. Still, in love, weeping; still chapter 2: 17, 30, enters far more into saintly feelings. We are among the chasidim (saints) on the earth, not thinking with weeping of those who slight the glory.

In sum, we have in 2 Corinthians 5, the proper condition of the Christian. First, looking, God having wrought him for it, to having, according to what was divine power in life, what was mortal swallowed up of life. Death had wholly lost its power. Next, if he died, being so wrought, and having the earnest, being absent from the body and present with the Lord, these were his living, active motives as to his walk. Thirdly, as the judgment-seat of Christ was there, the effect of this on him was (and could not be with what went before, that he was wrought for glory), not to make him look on to being manifested, but his being now manifested to God. He was in the light really, walking in it in respect of that judgment, so that all was manifested to God now, before whom he walked, in the glory (for when we appear before the judgment-seat, we shall be in the glory, and glorified, and our hearts judge everything according to the glory -- so by faith, now). Then if he did think of the terror he thought of others; it woke up in his heart that love of Christ which had been shown in that which had brought him into that state, and proved all not brought in to be dead, turning it thus downward towards those who had no part in it. A blessed state -- upwards, in power over death, to God, all in perfect light -- or, according to Christ's own love, downward to sinners! What a chasid (saint) the Christian is, as to his position, by Christ! Nor do I at all say that this latter part is in any way inferior to the other. It takes more out of self into God's own nature. As I have noted as to Philippians 2 and 3, this leads more to God, that to glory delivering from the world. Still he would win Christ. It may be a lowly thing to work out our salvation,

[Page 102]

but it is in view of God's character, and God works in us. So we are sons of God, followers of His in nature and character. So, in Psalm 16, it is Christ's taking the place of humiliation with the saints, by which he finds Jehovah's presence fulness of joy. Psalm 17 is righteousness, and glory in waking up. So, in Philippians 3, not character but righteousness. But Philippians hardly goes on to the presence of God.

Note too the character of experiences in Philippians and 2 Corinthians, and what is practically such in 1 Corinthians . I have already spoken of Philippians, but I return to it here to compare it with the others. It is as walking in the Spirit, and filled with it, being above all that Resh could suggest. Flesh and sin are not at all recognised, thought of, or named, save as once saying "no confidence in flesh," and that is religiously. Hence we find he is not insensible to trial, but, by the wings of faith above it, all distress turns to his salvation. Self is so gone, and he so blessed he does not, for self, know whether to choose life or death, only as it is better for the Church he shall stay, deciding by faith his own trial for life. Careful for nothing, only doing one thing, pressing onward to win Christ and the prize of His calling, rejoicing in the Lord always, able to do all things through Him who strengthens him. Such is experience when laid by in the power of the Spirit. It was not his present engagement in the active service in the conflict, but his rising in the power of the Spirit above it all. In 1 Corinthians we have the Christian at the other extremity. They were going on, as we know, very badly. Paul would not even go there, and deals in earnest warning and reproof. But what is his own position as to them? Confidence in God. "Ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." God is faithful, by whom ye were called into the fellowship (knowledge) of our Lord Jesus Christ, who also shall confirm you to the end that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. From this point he can deal with them as connected with Christ. There is a reality in being a Christian, even when going on badly, though that is never allowed. So in Galatians, where he stood even more in doubt of them because it touched doctrine, "I have confidence in you through the Lord."

Now in 2 Corinthians we have experimental exercised faith in the conflict; not going on badly, yet one trusting in grace for those who did, not rising on the wings of faith above all

[Page 103]

the trials, but exercise of heart finding God in them; and this too is very precious. The trials are of various kinds. First, violent persecution, so as to despair of life. He had the sentence of death in himself (this is the secret of force in trial) not to trust in self but God who raises the dead; two things, carrying the sentence of death, the Cross on self, God sending it practically, so he says further on, but it is God meeting the man in the putting down of self. This is brought out beautifully in chapter 4: troubled man, not distressed -- God is there; persecuted man, not forsaken -- God there; perplexed man, not in despair -- God there; cast down man, not destroyed -- God there. Now this is the whole matter, and then follows the spiritual mind as to it, already quoted.

Then anxieties for the Church, could not go to Corinth, could not stay at Troas, no Titus. In Macedonia, without fighting, within fears -- doubted as to having sent the Epistle. God comforts those that are cast down. Poor vessel, but rich grace!

Then positive danger from flesh. He goes to the third heaven -- a man in Christ there, he can glory, but flesh would glory too -- a thorn comes. This he would have taken away, but looks to the Lord. It hindered his work, made his bodily presence weak, speech contemptible, tended to his being despised in preaching. But the Lord was there -- flesh, self, was put down, and Christ, strength and grace came in, and he glories in the infirmity. Now all this is power in weakness -- weakness felt as to the vessel, which we need, but therein God most blessedly and graciously meeting us, and making Himself better known. It is very instructive and sweet to the soul. How gracious of God, and wonderful!

But further, in 2 Corinthians 5, in turning, after the full positive condition of the Christian, to meet the natural portion of man by the same truth of life in Christ glorified, note that death is spoken of because a Christian may die. Death is not in itself set aside; it is a gain. Judgment is not, as to the Christian, at all. We must all be manifested there to receive the things done in the body. He knows the terror of the Lord, but the only action of this on his mind is to lead him to persuade others. We are always confident if we think of death, because we are formed for the glory into which Christ has entered in the power of life, and have the earnest of the Spirit -- it is, if we die, going from the burdening body and being present with

[Page 104]

the Lord. But judgment we shall never come into. We persuade others because of it -- we are manifested to God, that is its present practical effect.

In the experiences of 2 Corinthians as in Philippians we see how the fellowship and love of the saints are ministered to, and here connected with a difference in respect of ministry -- in Philippians not so, as the Apostle was shut up; a difference interesting in its character. There, "Work out your own salvation, for it is God who worketh in you" -- a word important in these days; here, "Death worketh in us, but life in you." Yet still there is the eventual working of grace, and all things, the Apostle himself, are for the Church's, the saints' sake.

I go back to point out that in 1 Corinthians 1, man is put down in himself. The power of God and wisdom of God is in what is foolishness for man. God's folly is wiser than man, and things that are not bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. Then the new thing is brought in. "We are of God in Christ Jesus," and all that clothes us and brings us into blessing is in Christ too. "Of him are ye," i.e., of God, "in Christ Jesus," and "He is, of God, made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification." It is in life and competency for blessing, and entering into all -- Christ -- the new thing. In chapter 2 he will know nothing else but Christ in his ministry, and that in the way it was folly to men, but in this, flesh must be put down. When a great work was to be done, he was in weakness, and fear, and much trembling, and his speech was not with persuasive words of men, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and in power.

Note also in 2 Corinthians 3 and 4 there is the having received this ministry (the glory of God in the face of Jesus), we use great plainness of speech. Having received this ministry, we faint not. The revelation of the glory, so that righteousness is in grace for us, and the glory its known place -- the glory of God is in righteousness, bringing us then into it gives a ministry as open as the unveiling of the glory. But then it is in a power which, overcoming death and setting Man in glory, hinders fainting, though the vessel be an earthen one. The heart, on the contrary, carries death in this, that the power and glory may be itself, or themselves, alone.

In chapter 4, death, as the utter setting aside of man (as well as atonement in Christ) has a far more important character than we are apt to think. It judges, of course, the flesh as

[Page 105]

hopelessly bad, but it ends it. It declares, as Christ's death, that no link could be formed with man. Divine, infinite love came down, and, while divine, suited itself to every want and sorrow of man; His whole condition, because the children were in flesh and blood, "he also likewise took part of the same," but remained alone till death. Thus, His death was the solemn declaration that there could be no link between grace and flesh. Hence, as His disciple, we must hate our father, mother, wife, life -- all that is a link here -- to follow Him; forsake all we have. It may be outwardly, always as regards the new life. It is not in the old relationships, though it respects them as formed of God, and all God's ordinances, but in it we reckon ourselves dead, crucified with Christ -- our life only a life which is of Him as risen; He, as risen, is our Life. But having taken our sins and died, they are gone, passed away with the life He laid down. Then, if we are dead with Him, we have not the nature, as in Him, which had to do with sin, the world, law -- I am not alive in it at all -- I am in Christ, alive by Him as a quickening Spirit. I eat His flesh, drink His blood, realise His death, non-existence as to this world, and so abide in Him, live dia auton (through, by reason of, Him) as He lived dia ton patera through, by reason of, the Father). How completely this sets aside the old thing! I am dead and gone as to flesh and all it had to say to. Yet, because I am alive, and this only is Christianity, I have to seek to realise it, may at first see only forgiveness by it. But except I eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, I have no life in me. If I do, I am alive in, and by reason of, and for Him. But it is death to all that was connected with nature, because of nature. No doubt it will contend against us, but we are not in it now at all. How immense and total a change is Christ's death to us! Then we have to seek, "always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal body.'

I have spoken of chapter 4 as giving the realisation of Romans, our being dead to sin, and so partly of Colossians, only it goes further; but we find the Ephesians and the other half of Colossians, as to our previous state, too, in chapter 5: 14. All were dead, or Christ need not have gone there. It is still practical, but not new position, but here also consequent duty. It does refer, in general terms, and necessarily, to the new Creation, but the point insisted on is the claim of

[Page 106]

Christ's death -- that we should live to Him who died and rose again for us. This is analogous to Romans 6, not as dead with, indeed, and afterwards to live to God as alive in Him, but, as I have said, Christ's claim by death. We were dead, had all died -- if we live (which is then a new creation) we are to live to Him who died and rose again. Still it is only life, not "quickened together with him." But it takes up the previous state, as Ephesians, and part Colossians, we were dead -- not we have to die, i.e., have died to the old man, in Christ, but it puts us into the sphere of the new Creation, as a man in Christ, but it is not here, any more than Romans, "risen with Christ," and God is referred to as in Romans 6, "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself" -- a new nature and state of things. Remark too how very clearly, in Colossians, the state and ground of it is laid before the walk, in each case. We are dead and risen -- "Be not therefore subject," etc., and "Set your affections on things above." "Ye are dead, and your life hid," etc. -- "Therefore mortify your members." "Do not lie, for ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new," etc. "Put on ... as the elect of God, holy and beloved." It is a recognised principle, but the ground work of exhortation comes out singularly clearly here.

Chapter 5 is interesting too in this way: after giving the full effect of the new power of divine life in Christ, reaching to mortality being swallowed up in life, it turns and meets the whole case of the full effect of the old thing, death and judgment; death (we having life) is "absent from the body, and present with the Lord" -- judgment makes us, knowing the terror of the Lord, anxious to persuade others, the love of Christ constraining us; compare John 5:24, and Hebrews 9:27. The power is in "God who raiseth the dead," or has risen, and given us Christ risen, in this power, as Life. It is founded on His being made sin for us, we the righteousness of God in Him; the practical result is, knowing no man after the flesh -- living to Him who died and rose for us, and seeking in all to be agreeable to Him. But it meets Hebrews 9:27, wholly and exactly.

Finally, note well the effect of the full operation of grace, in setting one in a new position, in the power of life in Christ, is to bring one to God. It is not natural conscience or law, but what suits God's presence which is then in question. This gives us, mark, the true sanctifying character of grace -- the

[Page 107]

effect of the full unclouded light of God on the conscience. Hence the Apostle speaks of the terror of the Lord, but note the effect -- he persuades men. Any alarm to him is out of the question; he has got there, being always confident by a share with Christ in the glory which is found there. But he sees its effect on man, and persuades them (he sees it, because he has a man's conscience, salutarily, even for himself, as to walk under the influence of this presence) but it has a wholesome and salutary effect upon him, not of uncertainty -- he is made manifest unto God; most wholesome and preserving truth! The grace then which has perfectly saved us, and brought us to God Himself, makes the presence and light of God, of Him who is Light, the measure of conscience and of right and wrong for him who is brought to be in it, and know it by grace. Nothing can be a greater proof of the perfectness of his position than that the effect of God's presence, of the terror of the Lord, was to push him to persuade others, the love of Christ constraining him; for this was the true result of all -- that he was possessed of this love. God's presence, we have seen, his place by grace, and in holiness, according to glory into which he was brought; but, as to man, it told another tale. The manner of coming there, what was clear to his soul, had passed sentence of death upon all that man was, viewed in the first Adam, for the Christ of his affections, whose love he knew, had died and risen again. If he had known a Christ in association with living men, yet it had been shown there was no possible link between them. He had died for all (borne the sin which made union in the flesh impossible; when the truth had come out -- what had been to his mind a Messiah, crowning joy of man in the flesh, was a dying Messiah for what was altogether dead in sin). Now he could only know Him thus -- men belonged to Him, if at all, as dead and risen. They belonged to a new Creation, of which He was Head as risen. Old things were gone, all things new, all things of God who had reconciled them to Himself by Christ. Hence he knew these two things -- Christ down here, not the culminating blessing of man in the flesh, and the Glory of Israel, but God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and as Man, He who knew no sin made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. We know then God as Love, in Christ, towards us as sinners. That is the way we know Him, active in love, and, if the question of

[Page 108]

righteousness be raised, we are the righteousness of God in Him. Wondrous result of Christ's death! God known only as Love -- ourselves God's righteousness in Christ! God in Christ Love -- man in Christ God's righteousness! It is a wondrous salvation, a divine work and wisdom.

Returning for a moment to Philippians 3, the more I read it the more clear the setting aside of the first or old man becomes. The Cross being the point of division, the resurrection, the beginning of the new, identified with the acceptance of the atonement. Knowing no man after the flesh is identified with this. Man had, with every advantage, both seen and hated both Christ and His Father -- the world was judged -- the Son of Man lifted up. This puts the Church too in a peculiar position, because the Man of God's counsels, the Son is not revealed till He come, "The Son of Man be come," "I will raise him up at the last day." Even if received then, this was the portion of him who did so; and the whole statement is connected with eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. Hence, too, the Cross is our portion, if we suffer with Him, for nothing is fulfilled, as yet, save the foundation work and the coming of the Holy Ghost; we are in a suspended time. But the Cross lays the basis of all. Every question of good and evil has come to an issue in it. But the first man is condemned in it -- condemned but gone, for faith that is -- crucified with Christ. There is an end of man morally, in every sense; judgment not executed. The second Man must take His power for that -- Son of God and Son of Man; but morally man's history is closed. It was the "end of the ages." Not only "he that believeth not is condemned already," but he is found to be "dead in sins," and it is a new creation beyond death, sins, Satan's power, judgment, through redemption and a new life. Not merely quickened by Christ, but quickened together with Him out of death, where we were lying, and He came down. The basis is what God is, and God Himself, "All things of God." The Law assumed the first, living, responsible Adam. See Colossians 2 and 2 Corinthians 5:17. There is the difference of the bringing in of death, man being looked at as living in the old man, which is in the Cross, and seeing we were dead in sins, and a new creation. Romans fully develops the former. It is found also in Colossians 2; 2 Corinthians 5:14 et seq; and Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2:14, the latter. [1874.]

[Page 109]


Emmanuel, Jehovah the Saviour, Messiah, but rejected and cast out, and His presence then in Israel, the Church, and Kingdom in glory take the place of. In chapter 8, Jehovah to the Jews -- grace, for faith, to the Gentiles, and bearing Israel's sorrows -- but the Son of man has not where to lay His head -- companion of His disciples, though seemingly asleep in the ship. He went with the godly Remnant to John Baptist. But note here, that in Luke it is not "When he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them," but when all the people were baptised, He also is baptised. He throws Himself in among them when so manifested. In the case of the sheep (John 10), He is going out. It is not so marked in Matthew. But this is that it is the Remnant, in contrast with the Pharisees and Sadducees, are accepted -- the feeble Remnant that had been astray, now returning, making ready a people -- those, the generation of vipers. The Jews rush to ruin -- the world will not receive Him. Chapter 9 has been noted. Here we have, as all this is grace, chapter 8, His Person, chapter 9, the character of His service. When the Pharisees blaspheme the continuation of grace (verse 34) they are taken no notice of; and praying the Lord of the harvest is our path, and, in this mind, He sends out (chapter 10) His labourers in Israel, and it continues. Chapter 10 divides at verse 14; verse 23, "Till the Son of man be come" (Church time, properly speaking, and Gentiles are passed over). Chapter 11 we have had pretty fully, only the testimony of grace is practically closed and rejected, both as to John and Christ, and Christ remains alone as Son unknown, revealing the Father, and to Him the weary are to come, as revealing the Father, and lowly and meek in heart, in obedience Himself. Hence the seal of the covenant is dealt with, the generation disowned and judged -- its last estate the power of Satan. Christ disowns His natural connection in flesh with Israel, and owns only those who are His by the Word. This brings in chapter 13, often spoken of.

In the end of chapter 13 we find the rejection of Christ by His own country; and, in chapter 14, the actual cutting off of John by Herod. Then we have the actual presence of Christ Jehovah, the Church viewed as to position, on His return, and His return to the world, i.e., satisfies the poor with bread.

[Page 110]

Then Peter walks on the water to meet Him out of the ship. Then He is fully received where He was rejected.

In chapter 15, we find the whole moral condition, and ground of relationship with God, reasoned out. Ritual, traditional tradition wholly worthless and vain. All that the Father had not planted would be rooted up. It was the blind leading the blind -- both would fall into the ditch. Then the heart of man -- what came out of it. Then over and paramount to dispensational curse (Canaan), hardened state (Tyre and Sidon), God's heart beyond mere faithfulness to promise -- a beautiful and blessed picture -- we have the selfishness of man's heart, disregarding even promise, in the disciples. Then the continuation of grace to the Remnant in God's supremacy above their evil, not twelve -- human administrative perfection -- but seven, what is spiritual, above failure in man. Then the Church, which Christ builds on the confession of His being the Son of the living God, and the disciples are forbidden to say any more that He is the Christ. (Note Christ is the Builder, and the Church is not built yet.) Then the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to Peter, and the power of binding and loosing. The Lord's followers must take up the Cross too, for their souls' sake and for the glory's sake. Then, chapter 17, the Kingdom of glory is revealed (we have not the going into the cloud, i.e., the heavenly part of it, as in Luke) but the Son of man must suffer. The disciples cannot use the power. Christ will soon go, but till then grace and power are exercised for the need of faith, as before. But He insists on rejection and resurrection. He is Son of the Lord of the Temple, and Peter with Him -- but "We will not offend"; He is divine in knowledge, but submits, as a present thing, to Judaism -- is divine in power, and disposes of creation, but "That take ... for me and thee," identifying now the disciples with Himself in Spirit.

In chapter 18 we find the spirit in which the disciples are to walk on the new ground on which they were set as to judging themselves, their own spirit and towards others; and here we get Christ's presence in the midst of two or three, taking the place of the synagogue as the sphere of discipline, and exclusion from the place of blessing. Finally, the spirit they were to be of developed in forgiveness. I have no doubt the unforgiving servant depicts (though a general principle) the Jewish people rejecting grace in their own spirit.

[Page 111]

In chapter 19 we find certain great elements of the principles of the new power brought into the world by redemption, and its connection with nature as God formed it, and man's actual estate, and the world, in which even the Law gets put on its full ground. First, God's natural order is owned and maintained in its binding character. Moses and Law adapted to men was no rule here. From the beginning it was not so. What was in the beginning was of God. That remains good. But a power has come in which takes a man out of the whole course and order of mere nature, verses 11, 12. Nature is owned, but spiritual power can raise above nature. So children presenting the confidence, and simplicity, and absence of evil lusts as to manifestation, present an object cherished by the Lord. But, in its actual and best forms, nature is really but sin and alienation from God. One comes who outwardly had kept the Law. The Lord first rejects all good in man -- "Why callest thou me good? There is none good ... but God." But there is an ordained way of entering into life (the young man had said eternal life, the Lord not) keeping the commandments. Then the Lord takes the ground of the entire surrender of self, and following Him. This detects the lust which the Law, as spiritual, brings to light. The upright, law-keeping man preferred his possessions to Christ. This tested his heart, his state. It was alienated from God presented in grace in Christ; and this was the real question as to being saved; hence it is impossible with men, but with God all things are possible. Then comes actual dispensational dealings. In the Kingdom -- the regeneration, when the new state of things would be come in in power -- those who had given up all would be on their thrones, and would have everlasting life, besides a hundredfold for all given up. Only the apparently most forward here might be last in the end, for we must act by grace, not take reward as a motive, though given as encouragement when all was given up for Christ. God does what He will with His own. We must trust Him, and labour. Agreement may get its penny (so dealt God with the Jews) faith gets according to the heart of God, and as He is minded to set people. This parable corrects what might be falsely taken out of the doctrine of reward. Further, it is ordained of God, "Given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." Christ only took the lowly place, and the Cross, not the patronage in His Kingdom. It was a divine ordinance, and sovereign grace by which any place was

[Page 112]

attained -- not Messiah giving places in His Kingdom, but what belonged to the new, in revelation and eternal counsels of God, founded on the Cross, and in connection with the Father. They must accordingly learn to walk in lowliness. Then chapter 20: 29 begins the history of the end.

The character of Matthew is not only transitional, but it seems to me preparatory, i.e., it looks, though disclosing other things, to the coming in of the Kingdom, and speaks, and gives directions to the disciples on the supposition of its coming in in

power, and that as a proximate thing. This is a very important principle; see chapters 10, 18, and even 13 and 15.

Note, the beginning of Matthew is exceedingly interesting too in its order -- Messiah, the Christ, and the Kingdom, and this giving place, on rejection by the people, to the Son of man suffering, and the Kingdom in mystery. But first we have the genealogy to David and Abraham. Thereupon we have the two titles of excellency (in connection with Judaism) -- Emmanuel, God with us, and then the Christ of promise, the King; and the Gentiles come to own Him in Israel. But thereon, the false king seeks His ruin, and, rejected, He recommences the new history of Israel, as God's Son called out of Egypt, and, on His return, He is a Nazarene from His brethren, and is in Galilee despised. Then John Baptist comes to announce judgment, and the Kingdom, as messenger before the Lord's face, and calls to repentance because the Kingdom was near. Christ then takes place with the godly Remnant, according to Psalm 16, who own God's testimony -- though more fit to baptise than be baptised, but thus both He and John accomplished righteousness in their place from God But what profound and touching humiliation! But, in this place, the heavens opened on Him -- He is sealed of the Holy Ghost, and the Father owns Him as the Son. Thereon He takes the place of temptation for His people, in the endurance of the Spirit, and use of the Word by which man lives, and binds the strong man, returns and spoils his goods, calls disciples, heals the sick, cleanses lepers, casts out demons, and then, chapters 5-7, gives the principles of His Kingdom. I add further what is not noticed, in what follows. In chapter 8 He proves Himself Jehovah in grace, of Himself, yet takes the ground of simple submission to the law of Moses. But then the outgoing of the Kingdom from Israel is evident -- there was more faith in a Gentile, and the children of the Kingdom would

[Page 113]

be cast out, and many come from East and West, and North and South, and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven. He identifies Himself with the sorrows and sicknesses of Israel (as indeed ours) but is utterly rejected, and as Son of man has not where to lay His head, but followed in giving up all and relinquishing every tie. Storms, and all might arise, He could rest in peace, sleeping in the ship -- rest among men He had never -- and surely His disciples were in absolute safety with Him. Still divine power having delivered those most under the power of Satan, the unclean (figure of Israel rejecting Christ, and rejected) rush headlong into ruin. Such a Christ the country would not have. The Lord was too near them.

In the ninth chapter we have Christ, the Jehovah of Psalm 103, who forgives sins and heals infirmities, but receives publicans, in grace and power; ministering in no way to the present pride of the Jewish self-righteousness, and, in not following their ways, shows the serious truth that the new wine of divine power and work could not be put into old battles. Galled to heal the dying daughter of His people, it is shown that whoever has faith is healed by virtue in Him, and then He raises the dead child, as in God's eyes, not dead but sleeping, and to be raised though dead indeed as to state and fact. Verse 27 begins rather another subject. The Lord shows His power to Jewish faith, according to the position He presented Himself in. He gives eyes and tongue to His blind and dumb people. The Pharisees blaspheme, but He continues His work in grace, without taking notice of them, because the harvest was great, and desires the disciples to seek that the Lord of the harvest would raise up labourers, and thereupon He sends out His Apostles into the field (Israel) only as Himself, and then, and authoritatively, securing all they needed, and themselves in it. In this chapter we have therefore a full exposé of the ministry of those sent of the Lord in Israel, as such, from beginning to end -- their sufferings, relationships with Gentiles, and effect of ministry, power of the Spirit, or rather inspiration, but all in Israel. It is an important chapter in this respect.

In chapter 11 He discusses His relationship with John, gives instead of receiving testimony from him (John, coming individually, owns Him on His own testimony) and then the reception, or rather rejection of John and Himself -- there was

[Page 114]

no heart to enter into the testimony of the Lord by them -- and reproaches the cities which had seen His miracles with their unbelief. He submits to the sovereignty of the Father in revealing it to babes and hiding it from the wise and prudent -- His spirit agreed to it, His soul submitted to it. And thereon His glory opens out to view. It was not simply Messiah, but the same before the rejected Messiah was: All things delivered to the Son by the Father, and no one knew Him, and no one knew the Father but He, and He to whom He should reveal Him. The Jews ought to have received their Messiah, and recognised Him who spake and wrought as never man did; but the truth was, what He was was entirely out of their sphere of apprehension. He alone could reveal the Father. His glory thus shining out, on His rejection, in its true full character, which they did not understand at all, He takes the place of full and tender grace towards need and weariness. In chapter 11 we have the rejected Son of David as Son of man, Lord of the Sabbath, and, in grace, liberty to do good. This broke, as to title, the covenant with the Jews, of which the Sabbath was sign. But He is there in meekness, and unobtrusiveness, till He send forth judgment, and the Gentiles should trust in Him, and the renewed blasphemy of the Pharisees is now depicted in its true colours. Jonah, or rather Nineveh, would condemn the nation; the queen of the south would condemn them. The unclean spirit (of idolatry) which going out had left the house empty, would return with worse ones, and the Jews be worse than ever. And the Lord disclaims all natural tie, and owns only those who do His Father's will which was in heaven. Then He begins the explanation of His service as Sower.


With regard to questions that have been raised: Matthew omits three kings between Joram and Uzziah (Ozias). As regards the pretended confusion through the term Ozias, there is not a shadow of ground for it. In the list in Chronicles there is no kind of similarity in the names.

Matthew makes Joseph take the young child and His mother into Egypt. Luke makes them return to Nazareth in Galilee, when they had presented Him in the Temple. Note, there is nothing to prove the same time. The magi may have come

[Page 115]

later as is probable, for Herod killed from two years and under, according to the time he had diligently (accurately) enquired -- this, or Luke's usual passing over events and time.

As to Matthew's and Luke's account of the birth of the Lord -- first, in the brief accounts given, we find nothing but what bears on particular points which the Holy Ghost had in view. There is nothing more opposite to the intention of the Gospels than what is called a harmony. They treat different characters of Christ, and what bears on that is given, and all give a very small part indeed of His history. This produces difficulties which are attached to our ignorance of a multitude of connecting links. Often facts having the same moral bearing are put together, especially in Luke, with entire indifference as to date. The moral point is all that is sought. That the event happened before or after, is all one, nay, the historical order is neglected to maintain the moral, or distant events linked together without notice of interval, if bearing morally one on another. This is the general method of Luke, and is invaluable for our instruction. In reading the account in Luke's Gospel of the interval between the ascension and the resurrection, an unbeliever would at once take it for continuing, and that the leading out to Bethany was the day of His resurrection, and the ignorance of Luke, and the absence of inspiration proved by the contradiction of other Gospels. Now, in this case, we have the proof of the contrary at hand. Luke knew perfectly, if we look at him as a human writer, that there was an interval, and so true is this that he is the only one who gives the fact that forty days elapsed before the Saviour left the earth. But the simple truth is, this was not the Spirit's object in the Gospel -- it was in the Acts. But we learn here that such a bringing of events together proves nothing of what it is alleged to prove.

Now, as to the passages in question. There is no proof whatever that it was at the time of His birth that Jesus was found of the magi. He had been born at Bethlehem. It is evident that at the time of His birth the star appeared, for Herod had enquired of the wise men the time. The star had disappeared (it is generally supposed it led them -- this is a mistake, for they rejoiced greatly when they saw it again). What time elapsed before they set out, no one knows. Time was spent, clearly, in their journey from the East; and Herod, who had exactly enquired of them, slays all "from two years

[Page 116]

old and under." No doubt he would make assurance doubly sure -- still "all from two years old and under." If there was only a month run out, or not, even that seems out of measure: so that nothing would show that they were not returned to Bethlehem at some feast. The only argument alleged is the enquiry where He should be born, but this merely is the natural enquiry on having seen His nascent star, and they would seek Him at His own city; so that He might have been in Galilee and come back. And note here, I have nothing to do with proving this to be true, but merely that it is possible, because, if it is possible, there is no contradiction; if any supposition renders possible that the two accounts subsist, there is evidently no contradiction, for they may in that case have both been true. It is important to remember this. The infidel argument is not that it was not so, but that it could not be so. Now if I prove it could, the argument of the infidel is good for nothing. Now it is clear that Jesus could have gone into Galilee and come back. The "When Jesus was born," in our English translation, is nothing -- it is literally, "Jesus having been born."

But the truth is, while I see no proof whatever that the visit of the magi was immediate, yet from the universal character of Luke's Gospel, I am disposed to consider probable that all the account of Matthew is left out as not to his purpose, and that when he has shown the accomplishment of the Law in the Temple, he passes over at once to the moral continuation of Jesus' life, without touching on what referred to His position as Jewish King and taking the place of all Israel. When the ordinances were accomplished in the temple, the youth of Jesus begins in Galilee. The royal flight into Egypt had nothing to do with this -- it was a parenthesis in His moral history. We have a case exactly analogous in Luke 4:13, 14. All John 2 and 3, come in between. But this was not the Holy Ghost's subject in Luke. The proof is found in Mark 1:14, and John 3:24. Biography is not a gospel. In each Gospel is the mighty and unfailing purpose of the Spirit of God.


Already in the first two chapters we have the position of the Lord characterising all the Gospel -- Son of David and Abraham, for the promises, but Jehovah the Saviour, Emmanuel, but, a Root out of a dry ground, going to Nazareth and a Nazarene;

[Page 117]

expected in the world where a star appears, but hated and rejected of Israel, and called out of Egypt to begin afresh; His personal position in Israel, and then the general relationship.


-- 16. Note there is no revelation of an object to Jesus for His faith, when He begins His ministry or public life before God. He receives power as Man (anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power) the testimony to Him giving the consciousness of being the Object of the Father's delight, or at least the public witness to that of which He was conscious; Luke 2:49. The testimony was afforded that He was the Object, but no object was presented to Him. He saw the Holy Ghost descending on Him, as did John; and He knew of the voice; John 5:37. This is a characteristic difference between the Lord's faith and ours. He was witness of, and leaned on, His Father, but we have an object of faith in Him, which occupies and sustains us. His was communion and dependence, ours objective withal, and we need it. He spake what He knew and testified what He had seen (it is what we needed) but it was not a Paul at Damascus, nor a Stephen stoned, nor the twelve accompanying Him as far as Bethany. Whatever association Jesus may put Himself in with us, He has ever His own place. How perfect is it!

I connect verses 16, 17, and John 15:26, in that we see the Trinity in their respective places in the divine dealings in grace in both; Christianity now, and so far as in Christ personally here -- there heaven is opened to Christ when He takes His place among the Remnant, i.e., men wrought in by God. The Holy Ghost descends on Him as Man. He is sealed and anointed, and the Father's voice owns Him Son in whom He is well pleased. There He stood alone. But the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are all revealed, each in their respective place. But He, on whom the Holy Ghost descended and abode, was to baptise with the Holy Ghost. Then we get a new order in this economy of grace. In Matthew, the Son is below as Man, to form man's place in His own Person, not only being Son, but the Father revealed as owning Him, as such, as Man down here, and Man in His Person sealed and anointed -- Man with the heavens opened to Him down here, owned of and connected with them. In John 15, the Holy

[Page 118]

Ghost comes down, sent by the glorified Man in heaven, to dwell in those who believe, by Him who has all power in heaven and earth to reveal, the whole truth of that glory, and where it put man in and out of Christ, the world, and who was its prince, and the Head of the new order and place of man as the fruit of redemption. The Holy Ghost is sent by the glorified Man, the Son. He is the glorified Man, and the Head of economical authority. But He sends Him from the Father. It is not a kind of independent thing, though now the glorified Man, as ever in John -- the Father has His own blessed place. The Holy Ghost is sent by Christ -- a wonderful place for man! The Holy Ghost, so to speak, takes up the service part, but from the Father -- He comes or goes forth from the Father. So, connecting us with Him, He testifies of Christ in this place, but we are in immediate association with the Father. He not only is sent from the Father (para tou patros) but He goes forth (ekporeuetai) from the Father, i.e., besides the economical authority of Christ, we have immediate fellowship with the Father through the Holy Ghost as come from Him. Sending from the Father is Christ's place -- a wonderful place! But His going forth from the Father is connected with the Father Himself. It is the glorified Christ, and He is the Truth. So the Spirit, so coming, is the Spirit of truth, and is even said to be the Truth. Men, though informed by the Holy Ghost (John 14) were the personal witnesses of what Christ was down here -- a human picture, though divinely given -- but the Holy Ghost Himself carries on the service of revealing Christ in glory, as so sent by Him to make Him known; but then this puts us in immediate relationship with the Father. With this we must connect John 1:33, and Acts 2:3, and John 7:39.

We may note that it is His public position as Son, not His birth -- He is publicly owned -- such is His place. The principle of humble but perfect and simple obedience, which follows in the Temptation, is only so much the more remarkable.

I find great beauty and instruction in the connection of the end of this chapter and the beginning of chapter 4. The Lord takes His place with His people, the Remnant then of Israel under the influence of grace, though He stands alone in the present realisation in both cases of the consequence. They, under that influence, go to John, and, though of course He needed no repentance, in Him it was fulfilling righteousness, like John's ministry, as He says, in lowliness, "It becometh us."

[Page 119]

Yet in that first right step He goes with them; as soon as He takes this place heaven is opened, the Holy Ghost descends on Him, the perfectly applicable Man, and the Father's voice owns Him as the Son in whom He is well pleased. Man, though only then in His Person, is brought into that place. It is His place as Man before God -- that into which He brings us; though, for that, redemption must come in. No doubt we shall have it fully in heaven; but this is the position man is brought into, and brought into on earth, manifested in Him before God even His Father. Then He, and still all alone, to deliver us, as all alone there in this place before God, takes our place (at least the place we are brought into when associated with Him) in respect of conflict in this world with the power of evil; only He had to begin and accomplish the work Himself. Still it is the conflict in which we have to overcome, and in the same way. In both respects with God (Father) and with Satan, He takes the place as Man, only perfect, into which we are brought, and in which we have to walk and act. This is most lovely and precious.

But besides Christ's standing as the Model of blessing in man, and there overcoming for us, we have, through His taking His place as Man, a full revelation of the Trinity, and that in, and in connection with, man through Christ's becoming one, and His being perfect. He was the Son, the Holy Ghost descends and abides on Him, and the Father's voice then must make itself heard, owning this Man to be His own beloved Son. This is a wonderful development of the counsels of God, and of grace in counsel.

The testimony of John the baptist I have not sufficiently noticed. The general testimony is known -- repentance, for the Kingdom of heaven was at hand, and they were baptised, confessing their sins. The spurious righteousness of the Pharisees, and the selfish infidelity of the Sadducees, are alike utterly rejected. God must have realities; all repent, fruits showing the reality. The plea of privilege by descent disowned, however true -- the individual state was in question; for God was coming to deal with souls and His vineyard. Sovereign grace withal belonged to Him. He could of stones make real children of Abraham. The axe withal was laid to the root of the trees. It was not warning and forbearance -- the time of divine dealing was come. Judgment was there at the door. If a tree did not bear good fruit, it was to be hewn down and cast into the fire. This was

[Page 120]

individual. But then comes in the revelation of Him that was to judge, the Person whom John preceded; he baptised with water to repentance, but One mightier was coming, He would baptise with the Holy Ghost. This was blessing and liberty, the promise of joy fulfilled, but also, with judgment, sifting, and purifying if true life was there, everlasting punishment if only evil; but, in general, judgment. Power and joy, and judgment. Further, there was that which was not individual; He was going thoroughly to purge His floor, the Jewish floor, gather the wheat, the true Remnant, into His garner -- at the time into the Church down here, but really the heavenly garner(the 'here' being temporary, and the calling heavenly) finally in every sense so, and the chaff utterly and finally judged, the difference completely and finally made.


Privilege, trial, in obedience (according to that place), service, and then others called to serve; but here absolute, essential perfection in all. And, in the call, nothing dependent on previous qualification according to man: "Follow me, and I will make you," etc. (verse 19 was the secret of this service and calling. So, "They followed him"; compare John 12:26.

-- 13. Compare Luke 5 and Mark 1. It is to be remarked that Jesus, having left Nazareth, came to dwell at Capernaum, and the four disciples already knew Him from John's baptism and heeded His word. The Lord's walking by the sea was no unusual thing. It is also to be remarked that in Mark the call is before His going into the synagogue, and healing Simon's wife's mother -- in Luke, the miraculous draught is after, though, in general, they have the same order of events. The circumstances are quite different. In Luke, the Lord was sitting in the ship after teaching the multitude out of it. Matthew's and Mark's object, and the Holy Ghost's there, was only to give the broad fact itself, that the four disciples left their business of fishing at that time, and followed Jesus in His labour and ministry, which He began at that time formally in Capernaum. I suppose then that Jesus, dwelling at that time at Capernaum, walked by the seaside when they were actually fishing, two of them, the others mending their nets, and that He called them, and they left their nets and followed Him. After this, He went into the synagogue and

[Page 121]

taught, cast out the demon, went into Simon's house and healed his mother. After this, very likely when He had been preaching some time about Galilee, the multitude were pressing on Him to hear the Word, and He entered into Simon's ship, and told him to thrust out from the shore, and then happened what is related in Luke, and they finally and wholly left all, and wholly attached themselves to Him in His ministry, and did nothing else. In Luke, the account is after preaching in other towns around.


The manner in which the attraction of multitudes gives occasion to the exposition of the principles of the Kingdom is remarkable; and how profoundly new in Israel must that instruction have been! And, as they said, what a character of authority it carries with it! And I add now, does inspiration in the communication of it shine through it! Yet after all, however sweet and perfect are the instructions of the Lord, and surely they are, still it is Himself that has the real attractive power, and which commands the soul.

With this chapter compare Deuteronomy 14 and Galatians 3.

-- 12. This verse shows clearly, I think, a heavenly place held out (and in connection with the coming Kingdom) when the Church is not yet thought of, for so verses 17, 18, look to the change of dispensation from O-lam ha-zeh (the present age) to O-lam ha-ba (the age to come) not having yet come. But it is a new position, as waiting for it, the Remnant -- disciples as distinct from the multitude. But then the Kingdom of heaven is looked on as carrying the true character of God's children, as revealed in Christ, with it. This is the revelation of it -- what suits the Kingdom. Nor is the result in power yet come in (verses 45-48) but the revelation of the Father's name, through the Son's being there, is very striking. But it is connected with goodness, and secret communion, or prayer at least.


The prayer taught the disciples by the Lord, is clearly the prayer of the Remnant, but it is not for the Kingdom of the Son of David as such, and supposes, like the Beatitudes, heaven. The Father's kingdom is looked for, which is the heavenly part spoken of in chapter 13, the earthly part being called the

[Page 122]

Kingdom of the Son of man. It is to be remarked, it is all for the wants of him who prays, and those in like position, as associated in the same place -- "Our," no individuality, and no intercession, nor in this the love and power of the Spirit, but common wants, of course perfect in the expression of them. They are contrasted with the Gentiles. But these are everlasting principles of righteousness, not in merely dispensational questions. God's righteousness, not here justifying, but moral principles accordant with His nature.

It is also worthy of note, that though the Father is addressed in heaven, yet the petitions in the Lord's prayer refer all to earth. The desires are holy; the utmost desire is that the Father's Kingdom may come. Heavenly influence owned, a heavenly Father's Name hallowed, but no heavenly hope. Heaven is looked to to bring its influence on earth, to give it its character, but no taking man up there (the doxology has no fit sense). It is assumed that God's will is done, and perfectly, in heaven, and it is desired that it may be so on earth. It allies itself perfectly to chapter 24. It is the time evil is in the world (not Adam in Paradise, even in thought), but the desire that it may be gone out of it. Luke is more personal: Father, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come; give us our needed food for each day; and forgive us our sins, for we forgive every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation. This is personal, as to the Father, and personal need as to us, not a Remnant dispensational thing as Matthew ever. We have His name hallowed (in the personal relationship) His kingdom to come, then for us our personal daily wants met, forgiveness for we forgive, and avoiding being tested by God -- a terrible thing, used where humbling and self-knowledge are needed. That is all.


-- 6. This is a very remarkable passage. It is not the largeness and universality of the Gospel, yet always to be observed. There is no reference to the Holy Ghost here, no asking for it; but judgment is in verse 19.

-- 19. This verse shows the Lord's words to be preparatory to another state of things, as, indeed, verse 20, too.

-- 24, et seq. Doing is the rock here. There is therefore that which is intrinsic, as entering into that which God is

[Page 123]

setting up -- the state of man's heart with God, or in itself rather as seen of Him.

The Father is referred to, but the child is on earth, and no question of the Holy Ghost, or Christ at God's right hand, but the Father's kingdom is referred to as coming, and some of them being in heaven; all associated with God revealed fully to the soul, but not the Holy Ghost, nor a rent veil. And if some may be in heaven, the earth is to be inherited. Purity of heart, and goodness without motive, but reference of heart to a Father, and derived from Him. It is perfectly clear that what is said of the Law has nothing to do with our fulfilling it. It is its authority, like the Prophets, whatsoever it said was to be made good, not set aside. Christ did not come setting up another system which condemned that, but made it good, and all it said would be made good in one way or another; but it supposes its passing away when it was fulfilled, and another system, the Kingdom of heaven, set up. Only the principles announced are generally eternal, as connected with man as he ought to be before God, or God's original institutions, though much applies to Israel's then state, passing into the Kingdom, but that which is yet to come.


In this chapter we have Christ's Person, and in chapter 9, His principles of grace. So, in chapter 11, we have His Person rejected in Israel, as John's, but set up as Son of God who alone could give rest, and in chapter 12, being such, and so setting aside Jewish legalism, it becomes the rejection of Israel. In fact (chapter 11) His rejection opens out grace in His Person. Chapter 12 is in judgment on the nation, but this on the blasphemy of the Spirit. But in chapter 12 He is Son of man; in chapter 11 He is Son of God. Yet He is greater than the Temple in chapter 12. Chapters 8-12 complete the Gospel properly speaking. Chapters 14 and 15 are actual dealings with Israel, according to the principles previously shown. Chapter 13 was His real service -- sowing, not fruit-seeking, and the Kingdom as it is. Chapter 17 is in the glory.

-- 1-13. Though this be divine, and the second part go beyond the limits of Judaism, it does not go beyond the Kingdom. And note, here we have authority for regarding the coming Kingdom as the Kingdom of heaven, though

[Page 124]

developed into the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son of man as the heavenly and earthly part.

-- 2. The Lord shows Himself above the Law in grace, in touching the leper; according to the Law, He would have been defiled in doing it.

-- 6, et seq. This grace extends itself to the Gentiles, where there is faith.

-- 11. The general truth in this verse is clear -- the admission of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of heaven, and the exclusion of the Jews. But the question arises how and when are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob seen in the Kingdom. We must compare Luke 13:28, 29, which is more general.

-- 14. He is still in the midst of the Jews sympathising with them, and bearing their infirmities.

-- 19, et seq. He is in the lowest place on the earth, and in order to follow Him there, one has to abandon all alike. He is the Lord who disposes of winds and sea. The end of the chapter shows the condition of the Jews in contrast with the Remnant.

We have here, before the historical dealings with Israel, an introductory display of the power come in, and its effect. It was Jehovah cleansing the leper or leprosy in Israel, and sending the cleansed one to the priests. It was, since it was Jehovah, that which reached over, in power, the limits of Israel, and showed that, while Gentiles would come in from East and West, the children of the Kingdom would be thrust out. Next, He was come down in gracious participation in all their sorrows and infirmities, but hence, withal, having no place amongst men, but in the midst of the tossings and heavings through which those, who were content to identify themselves with this rejected One for His own sake, must pass. They were secure by that very fact in all being in the same boat with Him who was there in divine power and counsels, however low He might be come. This was the place of the Remnant. As to the nations, they would turn Him away, but Israel, left to the power of Satan would rush, as unclean, headlong into destruction. Such is the whole history of the coming of Messiah, Jehovah Jesus. Note here we have not the man sent back to tell of the power which had healed him, for it is the ministry of the Lord which is pointed out, and its course, reception, and effect. Hence this is the moral connection of these events, in order to present the moral history of the

[Page 125]

Lord's presenting Himself. In Mark 4:35, we have the historical time of it, I apprehend. This chapter is therefore in a certain sense complete in itself.

We have then, in this chapter, very distinctly, first the power in which Jesus was present in Israel as Jehovah Messiah, reaching out to Gentiles, and, rejected, leading to rejection of the children of the Kingdom, and this presence in grace and kindness to all their sorrows. Next, the position in which this rejection would place those who would follow Him -- He seeming to neglect them too, but in truth secured by His security as associated with them. Next, the power of Satan nullified by a word, but the effect on Israel as rejecting Him (in the swine) and the quiet influence of Satan by the spirit of the world depriving them for ever of His presence.


In this chapter it is grace -- forgiveness, and reception of sinners made good by power. The result is then taught as to the nation, individual faith, final deliverance, when all was over as to nature. Then, the character of His sight and speech giving power to Israel -- and the result in the Pharisees -- in the patience of grace. Chapter 8 is more external, this more internal. However He is the Messiah and Jehovah who pardons and who heals upon earth. He was come in grace. He was there in mercy -- a Source of joy as the Bridegroom with His friends, but who was going to be taken away from them, and the new things could not suit the old. But He gave life, and meantime those who had faith found it already. He gives sight to the blind, as Son of David to Israel, and, acting in grace, He again passes over the blasphemies of the Pharisees. But the mission of His disciples is a final testing of Israel. The nature of His presence is fully discussed and set forth.

In this chapter we have (as in chapter 8, the Person so acting) the ways of the Lord in Israel, acting in grace as above all sin, forgiveness and healing according to Psalm 103. Then His coming down in goodness to sinners, not requiring them to come up to God in light but coming out to them where they were. But here, note, the veil is yet unrent. The Law required from man what man's conduct ought to be, if he was to subsist as man even on earth in divine acceptance and favour; redemption and the death of Christ rends the veil,

[Page 126]

and puts away sin for God's presence, and enables us to enter into the holiest by the new and living way, through the veil, but we have to walk in the light as God is in the light, and wrath from heaven is revealed against the whole state of man, enmity against God; sin takes its true character as opposed to God's nature, as the breach of His Law in its acts. The true light now shines. But Christ as alive on earth, and present in Israel, was neither of them exactly. The veil was not rent, nor did He come requiring anything in man as Law rightly did. He veiled His divine glory in flesh, but was Light in the world, and was Love. But it was not God remaining hidden behind the veil where man could not come, but God come down to man in goodness, requiring nothing, but, as above sin, bringing goodness to man in it, and proving by mercy and power to man, under its effects in government, that He was there who could forgive the cause of it too. The Son of man could forgive sins. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them. Still the veil unrent hid God come in grace -- hiding Godhead in humiliation to bring grace to sinners. He brings goodness to man, requires nothing. But this, in the power of that which He was bringing in, could not be put in the old bottles of the Law, or of human nature fitting itself for God -- ordinances to quiet a troubled conscience, and eke out man's want of intrinsic righteousness. New wine must be put in new bottles. Christianity must be itself. The Bridegroom was there, looking at Messiahship. But besides that, the incoming power could not be attached to the old system -- one was trying and ekeing out man, the other revealing God. Next, the Lord was coming really, when He restored it, to find Israel dead. But they were not accounted dead till they had put Christ to death. But He had to bring them really to life by divine power. But, as to dealings on the way, and whoever touched the hem of His garment was made whole, when all human means could not hinder the progress towards death, virtue, divine power, went out of Him. The effect is eyes to the blind to see, the deaf ear unstopped, the dumb mouth opened, the devil's power gone. This brings out the blasphemy of the Pharisees, that He casts out devils by Beelzebub; but judgment is not what we have here (as in chapter 12), but grace, and He, only as seeing the multitude scattered as sheep without a shepherd, is moved with compassion towards them, and the harvest is

[Page 127]

plenteous, the labourers few. The effect of the perception of evil, and the evil estate, say of the Church (then of Israel) is only to show that grace which is above the evil, for that is what we see here -- grace in every case above the evil. And you cannot get a state of things which grace, the grace that is in Christ, is not suited to, and, note, which in grace does not draw out the gracious consideration, and grace in power suited to the need. This is very gracious and very precious. Remark how complete the statement is, and how the grace is above all the evil, for all this is grace.

32-39. There is an instructive testimony here to the Lord's ways. The Pharisees attribute the Lord's miracles to Beelzebub, as in chapter 12, but here, instead of telling the end of the nation in judgment, He goes on through the cities and villages, and, seeing the multitude, is moved with compassion, and even sends out His disciples to call to repentance. The evil, the same evil, the one not to be pardoned, was there, but there was still room for the operation of grace, and, while this can have place, He moves on in the sense of man's need (Mark) and His own love. The point of departure is from Himself in service, and while the door is open, His heart is, and moved only by the desolation in which He sees the multitude, through their chiefs' evil. This is instruction for us in these last days. Yea! even when He pronounces judgment, He continues in sovereign goodness, though then bringing out the evil, and ground of judgment, controversially, and showing what was to replace His present rejected service. But here the state of things draws out His love, quod nota.


The distinction at verses 15, 16, is plainer than ever to me. To the end of verse 15, it is the presence of Emmanuel upon earth, disposing of everything on earth for those He sends out; compare Luke 22:35-37. From verse 16 the Lord is away, and they are left to the effects of the Cross themselves. In the first fifteen verses we have a divine Person dealing in grace with the Remnant in Israel -- seeking them; afterwards, the Spirit with sheep among wolves -- hostile, Gentile rulers -- three against two, and two against three in one house -- hated of all men, and enduring to the end, but cared for, and that by their Father, and not to fear. In the first part, Emmanuel gives

[Page 128]

power, seeking the Remnant in Israel; in the second, the Son of man is coming. The difference is striking and clear. In chapter 11 is given the Lord's discussion on this state of things, i.e., the presenting of Himself in grace, and its result. John, owned fully by Him, has to come in on the evidence He gives of Himself; what that is is clearly stated -- power in goodness, but in humiliation as regards the flesh. Still, the Kingdom of heaven was preached, though not come, and the fire was kindled.

-- 26, 27. I think this gives a blessed privilege and position of the saints. They are called upon to be open, on the part of God, in grace as to all that comes from Him, when the publicity of everything is only pressed upon the conscience of those that resist the truth, or rather the upright comforted and strengthened with the thought that it will be. It is evidently a desirable, right, and good thing, in the judgment of an upright soul, that all should be in the light, but here we have more.


The difference between this chapter and Luke 7, is that it is, as the Gospel, more dispensational, and, therein, all important. It is the Father revealed in and by the Son, and the Son a subject Man, instead of the Law and the Prophets till John, and then the Kingdom of heaven preached by the forerunner. In Luke it is subjective, and how any sinner, however great, has part in what God has sent in Christ as a Saviour -- our side through Christ.

-- 20-30. First, responsibility under the miraculous testimony to the glory of Christ. Next, sovereign grace, but acting in moral fitness though sovereignly. Then, the new place of Christ. No man knew, nor knows the Son, but the Son reveals the Father. He, and He alone, knowing Him as such, i.e., primarily, and as such. Then, those weary and heavy laden, in a world which knows not the Father, are invited to Him, and, secondly, to take His place as the meek and lowly One, that they may have rest. It is the whole change of place, and the new one in its divine and human characteristics -- not the Church.

In this chapter we have this character of grace, that it is Christ inviting to Himself not only when sin and the breaking of the Law was there, but when the warning and smiting

[Page 129]

testimony of the Law had been given, and, as far as man's heart went, rejected. They must now come and find goodness in Him as there was none in them.

Note. -- Is not the end of this chapter the closing of Israel's history in grace, and chapter 12 in judgment? But this may be looked into further. Chapter 11 is more personal, both as to Christ and as to man. Christ can reveal the Father as Son, and the weary and heavy-laden are invited to Him, as giving rest, and, in taking His lowly yoke, finding it for their souls. Chapter 12 is the more dispensational setting aside of the nation, and what replaces it is them brought out, in chapters 13, 16 and 17, whilst Christ still continues acting in sovereign goodness, as long as He is here. What is in chapter 11 was then and always true, for it was Himself in contrast with the unbelief which rejected Him, saw no beauty in Him to desire Him. Chapter 11 is the separation of the Remnant individually to Christ in Person, when the nation, as a whole, had been deaf to John Baptist and to Christ. Chapter 12 is apostasy and blasphemy in their chiefs, and the final effect in judgment.


In this chapter the nation is finally judged.


In the parables of this chapter, the first three of the last six take the Kingdom up simply and wholly before the Son of man has taken His great power to reign, and give what passes in the world. In the explanations to the disciples He has taken it, and the rest of the communications to them is the purpose and mind of God as to it -- the result in view, not the external state in time.

This chapter shows the mysteries of the Kingdom, but on the earth, save the garner.

-- 24, et seq. As regards the field and the net, note the parables suppose no continuous time and successive generations for the Church or Kingdom. The wheat are the seed originally sown. No time or succession is thought of, nor was the Lord's coming ever put off by an arrangement suited to such a prospect. So (verse 48) it is the one and only haul. The principle is there

[Page 130]

of the fishermen's work. The angel's is another matter -- they occupy themselves with the wicked, as long ago remarked.

If we note that the parable itself is the manifested scene on earth, it is evident that that must close with the taking the wheat into the garner. And so it does. The display afterwards, and the execution of judgment is the introduction of the new scene.

Note too, further, that in the parable of the net, there is no manifestation of the just in any way, and this is in full connection with the character of the parables. The first, we have often seen, are the manifestation of the outward appearance of the Kingdom in the world. Hence, at the last, the Son of man sends forth His angels, and gathers out of His Kingdom. It is a display of His power, and the righteous shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.

The second series of parables are the Kingdom as seen by spiritual sense -- the secret of the Lord, not its display. It is appropriation of what is known to be good. The field is bought to have the treasure; the Church, the pearl of great price is bought, all being given up for it. The good fishes are the only object of the fishermen who know what they are seeking, though they gather a netful of all sorts, and they occupy themselves with these. Hence there is no display, no manifestation of the just. It is what Christ is seeking for Himself. The wicked are gathered out, and cast into the fire by the angels; and there the matter ends. Again, in the former, they gather out of His Kingdom, but no mention of the just. In the second series, there is no mention of the Son of man and His Kingdom, but there is of the just. The angels sever the wicked from among the just. These just are left where they are; the wicked are taken away from among them.

-- 52. Note here that every scribe instructed into the Kingdom of heaven brings out of his treasure things new and old. The name of Christ, on which the Church was built, was a wholly new revelation of the Father. So, in the manifestation of the Kingdom of the Son of man, Moses and Elias disappear -- the Beloved Son, in whom the Father was well pleased (not merely a faithful Messenger) was to be heard. Now Peter was entrusted with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. What was administered on that ground did not exclude the old things thus. This again, though given in a voice, was the Father's revelation. Individually, Peter in both cases was as yet fully under the prejudices of the Kingdom.

[Page 131]


After the presenting Himself, and the principles of His kingdom in the midst of the people, and then, on rejection, declared that He was a server (not a fruit gatherer) and the character of His kingdom as thus set up on His rejection, what follows chapter 13, and on the actual rejection, and death of John Baptist, is the retirement of Jesus, and a testimony against the nation, but of continuous, sovereign goodness to the poor of the flock, whether then or hereafter, as in the double feeding, and then the Church and the Kingdom in glory.

There is also a looking out to the full millennial blessing, not only in the satisfying the poor with bread, but in the looking out to the Gentiles -- yet these owning themselves as inferior to the Jews, dogs compared with the children, yet having to say to God in grace, having all their desire in connection with Him.

This chapter brings out distinctly John's rejection (and the apostate king thus) but the Lord still in fact waits on Israel, though appreciating this act; verse 13. But the real bearing of all this, and result, is figured forth clearly in the close of the chapter. This itself connects the present state of the Jews, as rejecting and set aside, with the close of the dispensation. The interval is Christ on high, and the disciples toiling below, but they do not lose their Remnant character on earth. All is willingness on the other side, as those in the ship own His personal glory. The moral history of all this is given in the following chapter, and the manner of introducing the worst of the Gentiles in grace -- the Jews being still owned in their place, but this by faith -- chapter 11: 22, in outward government. In the close, while still in fact dealing with Israel in Jehovah blessing, it is after rejection.

After the rejection, often remarked, of the Jews on their rejection of Christ in chapter 12, and the sowing and likeness of the Kingdom of heaven in chapter 13, we get the working of the principles of this process of rejection or breach between Messiah and Israel, and then, after the statement or exhibition of the new thing (the Church and Kingdom) the principles of the Church and Kingdom as regards those in it. This makes the middle part of Matthew most clear in order, and interesting. The series begins with verse 54 of chapter 13. He is the carpenter's Son for Israel, rejected in His own country.

[Page 132]

Chapter 14 begins the active and violent rejection -- John is put to death. Christ takes notice of this, and departs into the wilderness. Still, as long as could be, the grace of Christ exercises itself towards Israel, and, in the perfection of His divine and perfect human rights, He satisfies the poor with bread, and "the twelve" is the perfection of human governmental power -- as in the twelve tribes of Israel. All this He came to present, knowing He was to be rejected, but sends the multitude away, and takes His priestly character, goes on the storm in which the disciples, the Remnant of Israel, would be, enters the ship, and the wind ceased. Peter's position is apart -- the state of the Remnant before Christ gets into the ship, but then He is received where He had been once rejected when He had shown His power over Satan, but Satan his over the unclean. In chapter 15 we get the moral ground of all this breach -- God would have real righteousness, the Pharisees, hypocritical outside service, drawing near with lip-service but in vain. All would go into the ditch together -- the inside must be clean -- but mercy reached on the other hand, in the very nature of God, beyond Israel, to the most reprobate of nations according to flesh, but not on the ground of being Son of David and promises, but of grace. Then Christ, in divine perfectness, not in connection with present Messiah government, feeds the Remnant and poor of the flock, who glorify the God of Israel. In chapter 16, as heretofore remarked, we have the generation rejected, and their spirit warned against, and the Church set up, for faith, on the Christ the Son of the Living God. But here the path was the Cross. He was no longer to be proclaimed Messiah to Israel. But not only the Church built by Christ, but the administration of the Kingdom of heaven confided to Peter. The Son of man was to be not merely as in Daniel, but to suffer, and come in glory. This Kingdom of glory is then shown in the Transfiguration. Elias was come already, had suffered, and so must the Son of man. The reason for His leaving that generation was their unbelief -- even His disciples, so that if He were not there they even could not cast out Satan, dispel that evil power which hung on man; with a word He could. There was not in them that nearness to God in which this power was exercised in abstraction from nature, and its force was wanting. However, by faith the mountain could be removed, and so it was afterwards. Then the Lord (who revealed the Father) shows that He and the

[Page 133]

disciples (Peter) had the place of children (Peter specially represented the Kingdom) with Jehovah. But then, not to offend, they were to take the place of servants and pay tribute. The character in which, for faith, Christ is to be heard is not Son of man nor Christ, though He be both, but Son of God.

Thus, from chapter 13: 54, to the end of chapter 15, we have the principles working connected with Christ's then relationship to the Jews, and its being closed; chapter 16 we have the Church, the Kingdom of heaven, and, chapter 17, the Son of man coming in His Kingdom (till then, Son of God to be heard). From chapter 18 we have the principles which belong to the Kingdom of heaven and Church, when they are set up, down to chapter 20: 28.

The order of this chapter is more complete and full than I had remarked. The first parable is not the Kingdom of heaven, though it be "the word of the Kingdom" -- it is individual; still the outward effect on the sowing of the word, not the question of grace, or how produced, but the fact and the hindrances, what operates morally, i.e., we have the effect of the word in individuals. Then the Kingdom, the effect of the word in the world, and then God's part in the matter in purpose, or spiritual understanding.

I have not sufficiently noticed, I think, that this chapter comes after the rejection of Israel, on their rejecting Christ and the Kingdom of heaven in chapter 13. Hence we have the apostate King, and, that for which I now notice it, Jehovah, in His beneficence, unchanged according to Psalm 132, satisfying the poor with bread, and perfection of administration in Man -- fragments gathered, but the twelve baskets full. Then the intermediate scene. He sends the disciples away, lone as the waves (the Remnant, when He is gone) -- He sends the multitude away -- goes up on high -- is perfect Master of what tosses them -- and, with the episode of Peter (which is more Christian place, going out to meet) rejoins the ship, all is calm, and the world that had rejected Him receives Him with joy, and He brings power in blessing.

I pursue the chapters a little. In this chapter, we have the false king, and Jehovah who satisfies the poor with bread according to promise, to be accomplished in the last day (manifested then) when He will gather up the fragments, and make a perfect human order and ministration out of it -- twelve -- as often noticed. Promises here will be fulfilled, and the

[Page 134]

Jehovah of old present in power. Then He dismisses the disciples on the sea of this world, while He is on high. Peter comes out of the ship, to walk on the sea where He was. Then they are at land, and the world, which once rejected Him, receives Him gladly. In chapter 15 He goes deeper. It is not promise with a people, but man with God -- man's religiousness against God's commandments -- hypocrisy contrasted with righteous obedience in what was real. But there was more than commandments -- the state of man's heart, and revelation of God's out of reach of all dispensations. Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts, etc. Then we have Tyre and Sidon -- models of hardheartedness, and Canaan, the accursed race; what would the Son of David have to say to these? Then faith, working in wants, makes its way through all these things to goodness in God, above and independent of them. He had something for dogs. Dispensational promise is, in itself, maintained, but God is seen in Himself behind and beyond it all, and cannot deny Himself -- is revealed in Christ. Evil was out of man's heart -- good, above all, out of God's. Then though they glorified the God of Israel, yet we have not the twelve baskets, connected with accomplishing promise, and measured perfection in man -- seven baskets, God in His own displayed perfections, above mere human order, One and indivisible, but displayed as the highest sent. This, though recognising promise, evidently goes deeper, bringing us to what man is, and to God.

I have been occupied with chapters 14 and 15, for they occupy evidently a special place between the mysteries of the Kingdom, on the judicial rejection of the Jews at the end of chapter 12 (which, note, goes on to the end of the age) and the Church, and Kingdom glory in chapters 16 and 17. The contents are naturally special, for the Kingdom is set forth in chapter 13, after the rejection of Judaism, and the Church, and glory of the Kingdom come after. What is this special place? It is plain that chapter 13 gives the Kingdom of heaven in the peculiar character it assumes when the King is in heaven not manifested, and, as Mark says, it grows and springs up, He, seemingly, knows not how. What then is brought out between this and the revelation of the Church on earth? It is the actual proof of present rejection, and the incapacity of the disciples to avail themselves of His then present power -- the moral darkness of the scribes and Pharisees,

[Page 135]

the intrinsic falseness of their religious principles. But the disciples really got no farther. The Pharisees were not plants of God's planting at all -- the disciples, blind in many things as they, were. The Lord is here getting on strong moral ground -- what God had planted, and the human heart being the source of evil. Note the force of this -- God, not Judaism, nor tradition, was the Source and Guide of good, and man's heart only of evil. But Christ, still in His own place, takes only His service in Israel, but He goes where one of the old accursed race, and of wicked Tyre, has access to Him, and owns Him as Son of David. As such He could not help her, but this brings out that which must go beyond those limits -- the goodness of God. This, to faith, He could not deny. Thus, while man's heart, even in the Jew, was only evil, God's was, could not but be, good, to faith. But He had not given up Israel, though all this were true, and the hungry multitude of Galilee are again fed, but the disciples are not now called upon to do it -- He takes the loaves and does it Himself. The Remnant is not now the number which was the sign of perfect government in man, but of spiritual or divine perfection -- seven, not twelve. It is grace above promise, not simply divine power able to fulfil it.

This leads me to say a few words more in detail of chapter 14. The work of rejection begins. John is beheaded, and Jesus retires, but only to find a multitude, and He meets them in grace. He then shows Himself as the Jehovah that was to satisfy the poor with bread, let Him be rejected by the nation as He may. But He expects the disciples to understand and use this power, but they do not -- they judge by sight, "Give ye them to eat," "We have five loaves." Then He sends the disciples away while He is on high, and joins them still in the ship, connected, I apprehend, with Judaism which He had left to cross the world by divine power (our part). But Peter cannot -- only that he was helped he was sinking -- and the Jewish Remnant re-enters the ship, but with Christ. The walking on water was, I apprehend, in principle, Church position -- walking simply by faith to meet Jesus, with no known fold, only by faith. When He rejoins the ship they own Him, not as Messiah in a carnal way and expectation, as even the disciples had done, but as Son of God, which was just what the nation would not do, and the disciples practically never did, though God taught individuals so. So the country of Gennesaret,

[Page 136]

which once rejected Him, now received Him with open arms. It is a divine Person then here, where not only Israel but the disciples could not own, or at any rate profit by His manifestation to Israel. We have then, as noted above, the moral judgment of Israel's state, and of their teachers, but again the disciples are without understanding. Yet in this very chapter, where essential divine principles of sin and grace are brought so clearly out, there is a special recognition of Israel. The Canaanitish woman not only called Him Son of David, but owned Israel as the children and herself as only a dog. The Lord takes this ground, though necessarily owning God to be good to others, and the people glorify the God of Israel.

On the whole, we have Israel rejecting the witness of God, Christ present as Emmanuel, the disciples, unable to profit by it, left and rejoined, moral principles of man's heart, and God's overflowing goodness, Israel rejected but owned. But plants must be of God's planting or rooted up. Still the Lord distinguished the disciples as possessed of personal faith (save of course Judas) -- plants of the Lord's planting, and, when He now simply leaves the Pharisees, He appeals to that faith. Ignorant as they were of God's ways, and incapable of availing themselves of what Christ was, yet the enquiry addressed to their personal faith brings out the answer, given of the Father, of that on which the Church should be built. They clung to Him, to His Person, when the nation rejected Him, and when even they could not profit rightly by His presence in Israel. But then, when Israel was for the time rejected, this Person became the foundation of every thing. And the Lord who had put the question to draw out this distinctive faith, however prejudiced and buried in traditions even they were, at once recognises the direct teaching of His Father. On this, now Israel was gone, the Church would be built. The contrast of verses 1-5 then 6-12, and what then follows is very striking. Read, in verse 18, "And I also say unto thee," in contrast or addition to the Father's revelation, and also to Peter confessing. He had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" -- Christ says, "Thou art Peter," but this was authority, the really divine (or divinely given) title to give a name. The rest of the verse is a kind of parenthesis. By the revelation of what Christ was by the Father, he partook of the nature of the foundation, as all true believers do, though not distinguished as Peter. But the building of the Church comes out as Christ's

[Page 137]

new revelation, consequent on the setting aside of all preceding, leading up to the Father's revelation of His Son (to Simon) triumphant by His divine Person and nature over death, whence Satan's power could not prevail against it, though Israel's hopes in flesh were ended by His death, even the disciples'. But the Son of the living God would, on this title, build a Church over which Hades' gates could have no power to prevail. But Christ builds the Church, not Peter, but Peter does administer the Kingdom. Nothing is said to him as to having anything to do with the Church, save a name which shows his confession, put him into connection with it, for, if the Church was built on that truth, and he had confessed it as taught of God, he was (though the Church was not yet revealed or begun) in principle on the footing of it as to his acknowledgment of Christ. Hence they are now charged not to say He is the Christ -- the Father has revealed Him in another way. The Kingdom of heaven he was to administer.


This chapter gives a fuller and clearer statement of the great question between man and God, than heretofore noticed. The Word of God was set aside by man's tradition and commandments, and the worship of God too -- what was from Him denied, and for gain, and what was to Him false, their hearts far when their lips were near, and there is no true worship not founded on the Word. Then we see how traditions, when educated in them, pervert moral sense -- the disciples cannot understand. Next we find what the heart of man does produce, and then how Christ, manifesting God on the earth, and not promises, is the ground on which men can have to say to Him. Tyre and Sidon were typical of hard-heartedness, the Canaanite an accursed race, not only no righteousness but no promises to rest on, but God Himself there, and that, while owning this promise was to others, the woman rests on, goes right to the heart of God revealed in Christ. In chapter 14 moreover, we get the whole scene. After the rejection of the Jews in chapter 12, and the closing the Messiah testimony, the Son of man comes in, for, chapter 13, the Son of man sows, and the Son of man judges. He is passed from Psalm 2 to Psalm 8, as rejected (so all through); John Baptist is actually rejected. The Lord feels it and withdraws, but in grace ministers to the

[Page 138]

multitude, sends the multitude away, and the disciples (Remnant) on the sea, and goes up to pray, takes His priestly place apart from the disciples, rejoins them on the sea, Peter taking a place of faith outside the Remnant place, and Jesus, all the storm being over, is received with joy where He had been rejected (chapter 8), the world. The Remnant own Him Son of God when He rejoins them. In chapter 16: 13, He formally appropriates the title Son of man -- the name He ever gives Himself (He never gives Himself the title of "the Christ," save outside the Jews to the woman of Samaria). But the Church is not built on this (Son of man) but on "Son of the living God," proved in resurrection. The Son of man judges, the Son of man comes in the Kingdom. The Son of man returning in glory to the unbelieving Jews (chapter 26: 64); compare John 1:49-51. Our Name is specially "Son of God," or "Son and Lord." Thus, Christ Messiah, is rejected, and was no more to be testified of, Luke 9; Matthew 16 and 17; Mark 8 and 9. Then the name He ever takes Himself, i.e., Son of man, passes from Psalm 2 to 8, as in John 1 above and John 12:23, 24. He must suffer and die to take up this Name fully; God's glory (Hebrews 2), as our need, required it. Then He comes again in that Name, judges because He is Son of man. The Son of man comes in His own glory, as well as of the Father and the holy angels; Luke 9. But we come between the rejection and the coming in glory, for in this indeed we come with Him, and the Church is built on the Name of the Son of the Living God, and so is based on the resurrection, belongs to the new world and new creation, is created in Christ Jesus, for it is resurrection proves Him Son of God with power.


Note as to the Church, where, as often remarked, we get the new ways of God introduced on the entire failure of man (proved definitely in Israel) the Church and the Kingdom of heaven are both introduced distinctly, but it is as to their administration and forming that they are spoken of. The first point is the Person of Christ. Every one had his opinion as to Him. Peter had certainty (faith) by divine teaching -- the revealing of the Father, not of flesh and blood. This was, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This

[Page 139]

is the introduction of divine life in the Person of the Son. It was proved in resurrection; the Son was given to have life in Himself, but it was as Son of the Living God. On this rock Christ builds His Church; but the faith of Peter made him of the nature of which the rock was, Christ being the Son of the Living God. The revelation of this to him by the Father, made him partaker of the nature of that which he believed in. He had share and part in this, but no authority or place in the building work, as such. It is not the point here at all. He is a stone, not a builder. Christ is the builder, and here it is a matter of building -- "I will build my Church upon this rock," viz., the truth that Christ was the Son of the Living God -- on Him. The revelation of it made Simon a stone, a living one -- it may be the first that was laid, though in point of time there was no difference. The Father had revealed this immense fact, that nothing is like the new thing -- a Man that is the Son of God, the Son of the Living God. This was to be the foundation of the new thing, not merely salvation but an assembly. Christ also ("and I also say" is the right reading) had a right to give names. It is the place of authority, as God named Abraham, Adam named the animals. So Christ named Peter -- He had authority to do it, and to call things what they were -- God made him such. Adam named them rightly as they were made. Christ constituted Simon Barjona this, gave him this place. The Father had made him for it by revealing who Christ was to him.

Note further, Christ here builds the Assembly. Hence it is real; however man may outwardly spoil it, still Christ builds, and secures the building. If it be in the power of the Son of the Living God as life (which was shown in resurrection) what power could the gates of Hades (Satan as having the power of death), the whole power of the adversary, have against it? He had done his utmost, when permitted, in Christ's death (though, in reality, as to Him he did nothing, and had nothing in Him) but the life of resurrection was beyond all of it. Adam could be prevailed against -- the Assembly not; one stood in created life, responsible -- the other in divine life, victorious over the power that was hostile to it. Hence Peter, in speaking of the Church, as far as he does, speaks of living stones being built up on a Living Stone, a holy temple, a holy priesthood. Hence, though built together, and the priests a company, all are individual stones. It is not a body, nor is the dwelling of the

[Page 140]

Holy Ghost there spoken of. The divinely-living individuals are brought together. Christ builds -- He has not a body here -- He is a Builder -- He is not a Head.

Remark now, for it is with this view that I have particularly referred to it, that here the House (Assembly) to be built, is connected with individual life. It is not the Body, or union, nor the dwelling place of the Holy Ghost -- that is Paul's revelation. Individual life by individual faith, the Father revealing the truth to the soul. This constitutes the quality fit for building with, and Christ makes an assembly with these stones. This is the nature of what it is built of when Christ builds, in contrast with flesh, or flesh and blood's thoughts. It is divine life and revelation.

Before I pass on to Ephesians, I add here another system in which Peter is given a place of authority on earth -- not the Church at all, but the Kingdom of heaven. The keys not of heaven, not of the Church -- there are no keys of the Church, there is a Builder, Christ. Nor are there any persons bound here at all. Anything formally enacted by Peter was warranted and sanctioned by heaven. He had the administration of the Kingdom confided to him. "The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder," is said of Hilkiah. A housekeeper, or intendant has the keys, and administers, as a trust, the household affairs. Peter did so in the kingdom and with full authority. Though in fact he did let in the Jews, he did let in the Gentiles, a most immensely important act, for it was changing the whole divinely constituted order -- an uncircumcised man was received into the Kingdom. Chapter 13 shows us prophetically this would be spoiled, but that was prophecy, this administration. Simon Magus did not escape Peter though he did Philip. Philip admitted him, but he was soon detected when Peter and John came. This was not solely Peter, but the admission of Jews and Gentiles was the full power of the keys. It was not the Body, nor the revelation of the Body. The giving of the Holy Ghost was no way Peter's act. He was anticipated by a witness of God. I do not mean that admission was the power of the keys, but Peter was administering the Kingdom -- I should apprehend when Ananias and Sapphira fell dead also -- thus, in one sense, binding and loosing would refer to sins, but in judicial administration as on earth. Binding in heaven is the divine sanction.

As to the Church, we have then Paul's revelation, Ephesians 1.

[Page 141]

Christ is glorified -- not merely has and is Life -- and the Church is united to Him as His Body. This is not building. No doubt it is in the power of life, but it is more -- the Assembly has this character, when being baptised with the Holy Ghost it thereby becomes one Body. It is, even for the individual as for the whole, union by the Holy Ghost, so that he is a member of His Body. Now Christ, on being glorified, could then send down the Holy Ghost as received in righteousness on the right hand of God, and we made God's righteousness in Him. This He did on the day of Pentecost, and the Lord added the Remnant of Jews daily to the Assembly, but the doctrine involved in it was never taught till Paul was called by the revelation -- after the Holy Ghost was finally resisted in Israel, and Stephen taken up -- that all saints were Jesus Himself. He then, sent to the Gentiles from a glorified Christ, when the Jews had nationally rejected the Gospel, and from heaven, and by the Holy Ghost to every creature under heaven, becomes thereupon a minister of the Church (Assembly) to complete the Word of God. Here it is not divine life contrasted with flesh upon earth, but union with Christ -- the Church is heavenly, the Body of Christ sitting in heavenly places in Him. In Ephesians 2 we have another character -- the same unity, but Jews and Gentiles builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. This is upon earth, founded on the Cross, but characterised by the presence of the Spirit dwelling in it as a house on earth -- as God had been in the tabernacle or temple. He dwelt in this house by the Spirit. Chapter 5 gives us a supplementary instruction on this point -- the special and blessed care that Christ takes of the Church on earth as His own Body, and here the true members of His body, known of Him, are spoken of -- it is as man's own flesh to himself.

In this chapter, the generation is formally rejected, and the Kingdom, and the Church brought in, but the Church, I judge, on earth, only in the power of life against which he who had the gates of death would not prevail. After this revelation, the Lord begins to relate historically to His disciples what, as Son of man, was going to happen to Him, and the portion of suffering and glory with Him, developed in the Transfiguration. The close of the chapter shows another and more intimate reason for leaving not merely the evil of the nation, but the incapacity of the disciples to use the power that was there to surmount the evil, under which they were lying, by faith in

[Page 142]

Him. The close of the chapter shows the true relationship on the earth of Himself and the disciples with Jehovah, but His acquiescence in condescension with the Jewish nation yet.

-- 22. Matthew has here the Son of man coming in His Kingdom, to contrast the Transfiguration of chapter 17, or future actual Kingdom of heaven, with the Church mentioned in chapter 16.

-- 25, 26. Note how very distinctly life and soul are, as to the reality, contrasted here, making the annihilation theory of its being only life, a nephesh chay-yah (soul of life) mere folly. From this chapter on to chapter 20: 28, we have the substitution of the Kingdom of heaven and the Church (as well as the Son of man) to the terms and evidences of Christ's relationship with Israel, as a present thing proposed. After that, verse 29, commences His own final royal and Jehovah testimony to Jerusalem herself.

-- 27, 28. These verses make it evident that it cannot be taken simply as one final judgment of men as raised, for "The Son of man shall come," and some standing there should not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom. Now, be itas alleged, the destruction of Jerusalem, which I do not believe, important as that was, but the Transfiguration; but be it so, the passage refers to it -- that is not the final judgment. 2 Peter 1:16-18, shows it was the Transfiguration as a momentary presentation of the Kingdom as seen on earth. This leads to the sense of "ashamed" in Mark 8:38, for it is the parallel passage. But this makes it to run over the whole period of the glory of the Son of man, for He rewards every man. Yet it includes His coming in His Kingdom (they say, the destruction of Jerusalem). It is to be remembered the Transfiguration follows in each Gospel. Luke adds nothing more to the passage, save that his language is simpler as to the Kingdom. Matthew 10:32, 33, is thus very simple. The only difficulty is John 12:48, where judgment is spoken of as in the last day, at which, it is said, He will raise up those that believe. John only has this expression, as in Martha also, "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." It is a peculiarity of John, that, while he speaks of eternal life far more than others, it is his subject, and in his Gospel treats the Jews always as reprobate, yet he lives in a Jewish sphere of thought more than all, never, till once or twice at the end, speaking of ascension or heaven.

[Page 143]

"If I will that he tarry till I come," says the Lord. "The last day," I apprehend, was the close of the Jewish "this world," and the bringing in of the "world to come," or state consequent on the manifestation of Messiah. The Church never appears, nor is hinted at in John. Hence, "the last day," goes over from the then time dosing providentially with the destruction of Jerusalem, but really when the Lord comes, Antichrist being the sign of the last days of the present time, for the present time on earth does not close, nor Daniel's weeks, till the Lord comes. Hence the word judging is Christ's word made good against Israel as rejecting Him, when the Lord comes. But, in fact, it will be made good, morally speaking, one very disobedient soul, but the direct application of "the last day" is not made there as it introduces the whole thought and condition of judgment.

"The last day" is the last day of something, and what was it to a Jew? Clearly not the end of the world, but the close of the present age. We see in Martha's word that it was a well understood Jewish term -- not that I take their thoughts without divine light upon them, but when the Lord uses their language, I take the consideration of their language in with His light by the Holy Ghost upon it. No doubt it is enlarged into more general thoughts, but who can doubt for a moment that the form of Lazarus and the rich man is from Jewish habits of thought? The introduction of the Church opens out, and modifies the use of the language, but does not destroy its first intention. Eternal judgment and resurrection came in rightly, but they were additions to the dealing with men in the world proper to Judaism. "The last day" then is that great change which would take place when the probatory condition of things, and the life of faith would be closed by the incoming of the power of God, and the manifestation of His glory in Messiah. Nor do I believe there is anything more precise in it. Just as the testimony of Messiah (Hebrews 1) was in the close of those days, the coming in of the Church has postponed the clearing up of all till that is over. But this parenthetical introduction does not change the reality of the judgment, but explains what seems difficult in fulfilment and expression. So for the Jew, all this time is the time of the High Priest being within the veil on the great day of atonement. They cannot tell the acceptance of the sacrifice till He comes out. We know it by the Holy Ghost being come out thence.

[Page 144]

In this chapter we have, then, very definitely, the passing away, and non-recognition, warning against what the old had become, and the substitution of the new thing. They could not discern the time, they are distributed into two classes -- ritualists and nationalists -- the death and resurrection of Christ in result, meanwhile His preaching (both are spoken of, though not here) and He leaves them and warns His disciples against them. Their teaching was leaven. Then comes the confession of His Person, on a new ground. He is Son of man, "I, the Son of man." He takes this place Himself, not Son of Abraham and David, as given at the beginning. Vain opinions disappear before faith, by the revelation of the Father. Simon owns Him not only Son of God -- that He was by the second Psalm, as King of Zion -- but as born in this world, though divinely, and divinely owned, but He who was Son of man, as of man, and, in the title of Psalm 8, was the true Son having life in Himself, the Son of the living God, the Eternal Son, personally the Son, though Son of man, and as Son of man here. This, though ever true, and nothing else could have been true without it, had never been revealed before. There is one Son, as the ancients said (yet doubly Son) and on this rock He could build His Church, in the power of a life proved in resurrection beyond the power of Satan, which had been wholly destroyed through His death. This was a new ground thus confessed, His Person, and the gates of hell (Hades), the power of Satan, should not prevail against it. Christ would build His Church. This is not Pauline work. Christ builds, and it is not built yet. That is connected with "Son of the living God." Then there was the Kingdom of heaven; this is connected with the Son of man, "His Kingdom." This is administered on earth, and the management of it committed to Peter, and the authority of it confided to him, and what he should establish sanctioned in heaven. Here were the present substitutes for the place He held on earth as Messiah, Heir of promise, and Son of God, as here to be set on God's hill. And hereon He charges them strictly not to say that He was the Christ any more; that was over. From that time he began to tell them plainly of the Cross; it was the only way into the new thing, and they must follow Him in it. Peter stuck to the old, the flesh, not being dead up to the point of the revelation he had really received from the Father, but that was only Satan now, not the things of God but of men, for God had

[Page 145]

now no more place in this world, known only in the Cross. The world and nature were over. The soul therefore comes in, and what this world is, compared with it. But more: the Son of man, now taking up His Cross, would come in the glory of the Father (Son of the living God, both names being thus taken up) and some standing there would see it before they should taste of death, the Son of man coming in His Kingdom -- the actual revelation of the then displayed glory, still as Son of God. And both these are given in the next chapter.


The Son of man is here seen in resplendent glory; and now mark another thing -- the saints in full association with Him (and in like glory with Him -- this is not in Matthew) talking with Him. But, though He thus appears as Son of man, and the saints familiarly with Him, when Peter would associate the Old Testament witnesses with Him, as if alike in that, they wholly disappear. They had been God's witnesses, and faithful as such, but this is the Son of God Himself to whom they bore witness. The bright cloud, the sign of Jehovah's presence in Israel, came over them, as once over the tabernacle (it is the same word as in the Septuagint) and the Voice came out of it, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." In Luke we hear of entering into the cloud, not here, because it is the substitution of Christ as Son of God (compare Hebrews 1) for all the old testimony, and Jesus remained alone there. But all this belonged to the new state of man, and could not be revealed till that state had effectually begun in the resurrection of Jesus. The present work of Jesus on earth was only, so to speak, a provisional work, as He came to accomplish a far greater one, the atonement, "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"; so, as to Elias, one had come (for here it must be another person) in the spirit and power of Elias, who should surely come and restore all things, and he had suffered at their hands, and so must the Son of man, for Son of man He was in nature and Person, though the purposed and official glory was not to come as yet, the Church and Kingdom of heaven was first to take the place of the old covenant. But then the rejection was to rest on the responsibility of man, though God fulfilled His purpose by it; and this follows. Christ continues His grace

[Page 146]

in spite of all, but the incapacity to use it makes it hopeless to bear with the existing state of things -- incapacity even in the disciples. There was no link, by faith, to the power that was present. It is this that closes a dispensation, not the presence of evil in the world -- that, where grace wrought, brought the Lord in. But it was separation of heart to God which alone realised this power. Where there is faith, the power and grace is in Christ, whatever the evil and unbelief around. But all this, though it leads to final setting aside of the existing position of men with God, bringing in rebuke of disciples in that relationship, for, as Son of man, His provisional presented place in connection with man's responsibility passed away, yet His personal relationship with the Father could not, and into that, as relationship, He brings us. And this is what, in the most precious grace, He brings us at the end of the chapter.

-- 8. There is a peculiar beauty in the way in which, Moses and Elias being set aside, Christ rests alone with them, as the One to be heard, because He is presented to be heard, as One who is the beloved Son who wholly, and alone, reveals the Father, and that to the exclusion of all other testimony; and thus telling of Him, as He knows Him, places us in the same relationship. Death and resurrection, however, are necessary for bringing out this.


We have here the Spirit which characterises the Kingdom, and what belongs to the Assembly, in duty and authority. Unless, as a little child, they should not enter (for it was not yet come) and the most like a little child should be the greatest. What is most opposite to the spirit in which men, accustomed to evil, make as much of themselves as they can -- the world. The child is simple, has no consciousness of place or self-importance, and, in the practical sense, is guileless and confiding, unhabituated to evil. Then as to self, the ruthless excision of everything that would be a snare to lead one into this, or to one such little one believing in Christ. Offences there would be, but woe to the world because of it. But Christ did not come to seek what had a place in this world or its esteem. He came to save the lost. These little ones had great value in His Father's sight, were honoured by and present to Him. There Christ's heart could, in a certain sense, find

[Page 147]

complacency, rest; to Him the spirit of the world was a wearying thing. It is strongly expressed morally in this passage. The application of the parable of the lost sheep is very striking here.

Next, if a brother offended, what was to be done? Grace -- gain him personally, if possible. If that could not be, take two or three. It would not then be mere personal complaint, but persevering wrong proved. If he would not hear them, tell it to the Assembly; if he would not hear the Assembly, they might treat him as a stranger to it. The direction is to an individual, how to deal with an individual, but, in doing it, the Assembly, as locally constituted, replaces the synagogue. Remark here, we have the Church, as Christ builds it, not yet built, and an assembly, not the Assembly as known to and established by Paul, but a local body, though from other Scriptures we fully learn they act for and in the unity of the Body, as 1 Corinthians. But the assembled two or three to Christ's name, have Christ with them, and here only, as to the Church, have we binding or loosing, not the Keys, they, as we have seen, are of the Kingdom of heaven. Christ's administration from on high, of and by the Word. So, as to prayer here, the agreeing of two or three obtained the request, for Christ still was there. This provision so graciously meets the Church in its ruin, but that has been spoken of elsewhere. It is the element of order before the public body was formed. The unity has not to be given up, but the resource for its practical ruin, as to its full development, is here. We have the general principle that, when two or three are gathered together to His name, Christ is there. Then comes the spirit of forgiveness, though I doubt not that there is allusion to the Jews being forgiven on Christ's intercession, and coming fully and completely under the guilt of rejecting Him by refusing the grace which went out to others after His death. I am not afraid of taking the broad ground of not measure in "as," but principle, just as one not poor in spirit will not have the Kingdom of heaven. I doubt not that grace makes him poor in spirit, still he must be it. This last is the principle of the administration of the Kingdom, and hence is individual. After Peter personally, binding and loosing belongs only to the two or three assembled. Paul may make good his claim in power, but in the orderly administration of what took the place of Israel, this it was. Paul stands alone.

[Page 148]

The connection of the Kingdom is this, that when the Word which is now the instrument of the Kingdom begets and orders the path of the soul according to the spiritual nature of the Kingdom, it is God's mind to gather them in one around Christ. Then comes the action of the Assembly, having Christ there. The Holy Ghost alone can conciliate individual responsibility to Christ, and His Word, the first claim to it is absolute, with the suited action and walk of the Assembly, and by His individual action in grace and truth, forms them for their common action together. For the Spirit leads according to the mind of Christ. But the Kingdom always is individual, and regulated by the authority of the Word. They are the two things developed in grace -- saving the individual, and then gathering together in one.


In this chapter we have the clear introduction of a principle noticed elsewhere, i.e., a power which does not exist within the sphere of nature at all. Though nature be ruined and corrupt, God owns what He formed of nature, but He has introduced a power which is not of it, and takes us out of the reach of its legitimate action for flesh or the world -- "left all." Only in chapter 20 it is shown that this must be taken up on the principle of grace. Where this power is, God does what He will with His own.

-- 16, et seq. We have first the Law in its national provisions, and it is, behind God's primary order, suited to the state the people were in. In the beginning it was not so. Then when we get beyond this, we find still amiable, conscientious nature keeping it as a code of outward human morality, and if men did, surely they would see good days. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," but in this character it does not reach the soul, nor awaken it to its state at all, leaves it thinking man is good, which is a delusion Hence the Lord comes to test the affections by the revelation of God -- by goodness, as contrasted with selfishness in man, and following Christ; his heart was elsewhere. Note the Lord does not take the spirituality of the Law to test evil and conscience, but raises the question of where the affections were, of goodness, and of Himself. The man did really lust,

[Page 149]

not after another man's, but selfishness ruled and had its object, and this the Lord detects. "There is none good but one, that is God." He leaves the young man's statement as to keeping the Law, even to loving his neighbour as himself, where it is. But entering the Kingdom of heaven raises the question of where the heart is.

Note further, with what wonderful perfection the truth of the Lord sets the matter. God's nature, what was from the beginning, fully restored and maintained (verses 1-9). Then sovereign grace bringing in power which is above nature. These two form the character of Christianity in this respect. In its order, as old as the Creation, God's order; in its exercise of sovereign power, God's power above nature (verses 10-12). Nature, as uncorrupted practically by the world and its lies, again owned (when corruption is not developed), verses 13-15. In its actual moral state, as morally developed, none good at all, God only; this detected by lust, when the outward prescriptions of the outward Law, man's perfect rule as he is from God, had been kept. Christ detected this, as contrasted with the objects of lust, and, note, not man improved, but a new Kingdom set up, into which he had to enter, and heaven held out before man -- Christ, who came from heaven, being the present test of the affections suited to it down here. The assertion of sovereign, but needed grace, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." The additional question of reward for labour is then spoken of, but with the careful testimony that all is grace. First last, and last first -- goodness in it, but sovereign goodness. Indeed goodness, though not sovereign in a creature, is always free, the heart acting voluntarily, or it is not such. Hence, we are not said to be love in the Lord, though we are light in the Lord. It is free, but in us a duty, "Walk in love." In God properly sovereign. Even Christ, who loved us, identified with obedience, "That I love the Father," and "As the Father hath given me commandment, so I do." Yet He, preserving ever the divine title, whatever His humiliation, could say, "Therefore doth my Father love me" -- give a motive to His Father, glorified Him as Man, so that He is glorified with Him.

In this chapter, then, we have the natural relationships God established fully confirmed, as it was at the beginning. God had joined husband and wife, and it could not be broken legally, or by man; but if sin had broken it, then it was not

[Page 150]

"might be" but "was." But there was the introduction of a power which took above nature. God's order sanctioned, but, as evil was come in, power comes in which lifts out of nature altogether. So with children. That, not as to sin in nature, but as to manifestation, was of God, was not, as to the world, corrupted. Then we get the Law as the way of life. If a man will enter into life, he must keep the Law. But a vast question is behind this. First, none is good but One, that is God -- for man, keep the commandments and enter into life (the Lord does not say eternal life). Externally the young man had kept them, but God searches the heart; he was an upright, loveable young man -- his heart all wrong -- he loved his wealth According to the flesh, who does not? For the Kingdom of heaven, the heart is tested, and the rich man has a poor chance -- where his treasure is his heart will be; but the wealth of this world is not in heaven. Nor does the Lord stop short of the principle: "Who then shall be saved?" With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. But the time will come, the regeneration, when the Son of man, blessed be the Lord, will sit on the throne of His Kingdom; then all will be changed, bringing all things into God's way of ordering them, i.e., right. Then, he who had sacrificed all in this world of disorder, and ruin, would reap the fruit of God's service in God's reward. The Twelve, Christ's followers in humiliation and rejection by the world, would reign with Him, judging God's peculiar people in glory in the Kingdom, and whoever had given up this world for Christ, and what nature tied him to, would have a hundredfold, and inherit everlasting life. But, as the following parable shows, it must be on the principle of confiding in the Lord and grace, not as earning so much. How thoroughly, while there are dispensational effects, man is thoroughly searched out here, and every relationship put in its place! But all dependent on grace where sin is come in, and yet power come in, quite above and out of nature, to act above it and the world, when evil is come in. But though sure reward followed sacrifice of self (for self it is) for Christ's name, yet there may be those who, when earthly things ordered place, were first, who in God's Kingdom would come in last, and those last and despised there would be first in His. And this is true even of religious place according to man. It is grace, and serving according to grace, which makes the difference. This is followed out in the next chapter.

[Page 151]


The first sixteen verses of this chapter belong to the subject of the previous chapter; verses 17-28 put the Cross instead of the crown, and warn the disciples of it; in verse 29, we begin, as in all the first three Gospels, the history of the dosing days and scenes of the Lord's life. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard gives the price of grace as contrasted with reward for so much work; these will be rewarded a hundredfold, but it is not so much pay for so much work -- that was law -- and the young man showed that really man could not stand a moment on that ground. But, as in the answer to Peter, there is reward, but the principle of labour is not so much pay for so much work, but confidence in Him who takes us in to labour. Verse 16 answers to chapter 19: 30, only the former is on the side of grace, the latter in view of man and the religion of the world.

It is to be remarked that all the workmen, except the first, come in under grace. They trusted to "Whatsoever is right," though that grace might be most definitely shown in the last, whereas the first came for stipulated wages. The principle is contrasted in this, long ago noted as the object of the parable, that reward should not enfeeble the sense of grace, while the encouragement of reward is given.

-- 22, 23. The second "And be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with" is better expunged, as we see the body of authority, which retains them, have, which looks like a mere copy from the mind following the use of it in Mark.

-- 29, et seq. We cannot too distinctly mark the change in the Gospels which takes place at the arrival at Jericho, and blind Bartimaeus. The Lord is there, Son of David, presenting Himself in prophetic title to Jerusalem in that right, though in the Person of the Son of God. But Psalm 2 gave Him that as part of that truth on earth. He is not the suffering Man, not the divine Healer in grace, though that in Person He could not cease to be, and His deepest sufferings were closing in. He comes in kingly and divine right judging all that was to be judged.


Note the difference of judgment here on the nation, judging it, and destroying their city, putting an end to the whole

[Page 152]

dispensation of man under law, and setting aside the people under the old covenant, as rejecting their Messiah, and that on the ground of the refusal of the grace which He presented to them (the grinding to powder comes afterwards, in connection with their antichristian place). This was present judgment by Titus. Then, when the mass are brought in of Christendom, the judgment is individual, fitness for the place they were brought into, the partaking of the Son's joy. What is added shows there would be many such, many called but few chosen. But the judgment is individual.

It seems to me that this chapter supposes invitation before Christ's death (verse 3), and after it (verses 4-7); then (verse 9) to the Gentiles, and the judgment of professing Christendom. Luke (chapter 14) as usually, more generally in principle. But I think it begins after His work is accomplished, when all things were ready, as Matthew 22:4. Then the chiefs having rejected it, He calls the poor of the flock (Luke 14:21), then the Gentiles. But save the national exclusion, we have not positive judgment; it is the dispensation of grace. Neither is the city burned up, nor he who had not the wedding garment cast into outer darkness.


According to the character of the whole Gospel, as notably chapters 16, 17 and 18, this chapter presents, on the general question connected with the end of the age, first, the destruction of the Temple by itself, then the general state of things for the Remnant, and the closing scene; all is on earth. Then the Church, with the position and responsibility of Christians, and then the judgment of the nations in the Kingdom, all of course seen as where responsibility is. It is historico-dispensational. In Mark 13 it is only asked, "What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled," i.e., destruction. The general character of verses 1-31, Matthew is there, only service is specially considered as ever in Mark 13:11; then goes on (as in Matthew) straight to the end, and from verse 28 to 37, general warning, not dispensational dealings. In Luke, the times of the Gentiles, not Israel, are the great object; hence the first and second taking of Jerusalem are mentioned, and the abomination of desolation is not. The difference, if not of

[Page 153]

very great importance, makes the passages clearer, and is interesting as falling in with the characters of the Gospels.

The division in this chapter has not been sufficiently noticed. The parenthesis of warning during the absence of the Lord, from verse 32 to chapter 25: 30 has been, and that, at verse 45, the Church or Christian matter properly begins, but not definitely that verses 32-44 are definitely the exhortation, or word to the Remnant, or disciples in the midst of Israel, in view of the Lord's appearing there. It has to do with that generation, and the revelation of the Son of man, and the things coming to pass which concerned Israel. It is thus definitely the warning and exhortation to the disciples, according to what precedes, and then come Church or Christian matters -- the general responsibility of Christians in His absence, at verse 45.

-- 34. The force of "This generation shall not pass," is strongly confirmed by its use in Luke. The taking of Jerusalem by Titus is distinguished from the end -- the times of the Gentiles distinguished from Jerusalem being trodden down; and verse 32 comes in connected with the last times. Verse 28 takes it up generally, but it certainly includes the last days, as contrasted with the taking of Jerusalem by Titus.

It seems to me that the end of this chapter does not go beyond the Jerusalem Church, and hence goes no further than setting the servant over all His goods. The proper character of the Church is first found in the Virgins -- they go out to meet the Bridegroom.

-- 45, et seq. It seems to me that the parable of the good and evil servant is rightly connected with this chapter. Though it refers evidently to Christendom, it is here taken up in connection with the continued service, i.e., the Christian service is viewed as here pursued through the lapse of time which followed Christ's rejection, linked on with that in which Christ had engaged His disciples; hence can, in principle, go on till He appears for earth.


-- 21 and 23. "Enter thou into the joy of thy lord" -- it must be remembered, as I judge, that when it is said the joy of his Lord it is the joy of the Kingdom.

[Page 154]


Remark the exceeding beauty with which the beginning of this chapter brings out the good in contrast with evil. The Lord, in perfect peace states what is coming upon Him -- in perfect peace. This is inward power and life -- communion with God. The chief priests and elders consult together to accomplish the wickedness of their will, but would not have it on the feast day. Their will is accomplished as far as it ministers to the accomplishment of God's purposes, but it is on the feast, for so it should be. Then Christ has the sweet and blessed testimony of attachment to Himself, that He was precious to some, when the disciples, judging (at Judas' instigation) after the sight of their eyes, count it waste, and Judas covenants to deliver Him up. So Mary, by her attachment to Christ, enters into the full mind of God, for value for Him makes everything to be rightly judged, and the very power of evil rising up, without knowledge of its plans and counsels, but guided by divine light, acts so as exactly to meet the thought and purpose of God in His love to Christ, and is approved. The resurrection of Lazarus, the riding in on the ass, the coming up of the Greeks, were God's vindicating testimonies to Jesus, but this is, after Christ's perfectness, the guiding of the disciples; the Christian's mind, perfectly connects it. Satan indeed leads Judas to meet the mind of the chief priests. What a scene it is! But, in such an one, how infinitely sweet to see that there is a soul so guided in it!

-- 16. It is to me quite evident, as regards this verse, Mark 14 and John 12, that Matthew and Mark give parenthetically what led Judas to go to the chief priests, and the only question is, did he go directly or four days after? He may have gone off at once, or waited until some good occasion offered. This question hangs on the judgment whether the consultation of the priests was how to use the occasion offered, or whether the offer met their consultations. The days in Mark are quite clear -- six, before He had the supper -- five, before He goes in -- four, before He curses the tree -- three, before they see it withered and the discourses take place, and then comes chapter 14 two days before the Passover.

-- 57, 58. On the whole, on comparing the Gospels, I think we have two sessions of the chief priests and elders, etc. First,

[Page 155]

on the blessed Lord's being brought there (to Caiaphas) -- He is then questioned and examined, buffeted and ill-treated. When it was day they met formally in council, to give it regularity. There were now no witnesses, but, in virtue of what the Lord had said during the night, they put the question to Himself which He answers affirmatively; on which, their judgment being pronounced, they lead Him away to Pilate. It is only this last part we have in Luke who, on the coming in to Caiaphas, only gives the history of Peter. It is very likely they had retired meanwhile. It was early in the night when He was brought in. He had gone out to Gethsemane at the close of the day. Matthew, as usually, gives it according to the purport of his Gospel; he does not distinguish the morning council at all, but gives Peter's history, after the examination of the Lord, as a distinct history by itself. In Mark, we have the consultation as a distinct thing, as well as the previous examination on the Lord's first bringing in, when they were, I suppose, waiting for the result of the sending the band to take Him; Mark, as usual, having Luke's order, with much of Matthew's materials (as to fact), John 18:28, gives the simple fact without the council; there is no "Then," save as "Therefore" -- it is often wrongly put in in the English version. Matthew 26:57, 58, shows that the examination was at Caiaphas's, the high priest's, palace.

-- 64. Note we have, besides the being the Christ, the Son of God, which He was as come among the Jews on the earth, living amongst men, the double position of the Son of man -- sitting at the right hand of power -- and coming in the clouds of heaven.

-- 69. I see no difficulty in what people give themselves much trouble about, in the accounts of poor Peter's denial. Matthew, as indeed Mark, gives the three simply and plainly -- by the fire, out in the entry, and third time it is not said where. The first was "a damsel" (paidiske), the second, "the damsel who kept the door" (John 18:17), hence he (the), but it was not the one who spoke to him at the fire but another, she spoke to the men there. Then, for the thing had spread, those that stood there charged him probably returned into the quadrangle where the fire was, for the Lord looked at him. Mark 14:69, "And the maid saw him, and began to say again." "The maid who kept the porch" -- she said it not to him, but to those who

[Page 156]

stood by. Luke says just the same, only that chapter 22: 58 is not the porch maid who said it to the men, but one of the men who then said it to him. The last is the same as Mark and Matthew, only Luke only mentions, after his manner, the Lord's turning and looking on Peter. In John, we have but two, chapter 18: 25, 26, after the enquiry as he came in. Here only seeing him in the garden is noticed. I think they are the first and third times. In the three Gospels, his speech betraying him is the third time. Though I believe the Spirit of God wholly guides the statements, yet as a history it is quite probable that John who was, we know, intimate in the house, did not go out into the porch. The only question is: Is the first denial in John meant to be that "the damsel, the doorkeeper" said it at the time Peter came in? Having seen him come in, let in by John, she might very naturally, when he went out into the porch, have pointed him out as a disciple too -- when John was not there, far more likely than when he was.

Observe in this chapter the divine grace with which the blessed Lord, knowing all the unfaithfulness to be manifested by Peter, and warning him of it, goes in perfect calmness through all that was of the Spirit of grace in what He was doing, and takes Peter into the garden with Him to be favoured with such nearness to Himself. He could not watch an hour, much less die for Christ. But all is grace above the evil, and meekness, and carrying out His own thoughts, i.e., the Lord, with the perfect knowledge of all we are, carries on His own purpose and exercise of constant grace. But, on the other hand, He searches out the heart and lets none of the evil which has produced the unfaithfulness remain unjudged. He proves the heart of Peter, by His repeated question s, till Peter fully judges it, and so restores his soul. This is very instructive to the soul, and a solemn warning, because the carrying on the ministration of grace to us and by us, however a witness of unspeakable goodness, is never in itself a measure of its actual state, though I do not doubt that the neglect of that state tends directly to diminish the blessing. But how full of grace these ways are! And that, as a general rule, spiritual unction in service depends on our spiritual state. There is another point in connection with this -- the attractions of the world may have ceased, so that the heart has no taste for them, but this is not all. There is consistency and power in respect of actual conflicts with Satan. I may have ceased in heart to go back

[Page 157]

after Egypt; it may have lost all attraction for me, but this not enough. I must walk, and especially as to the state of my soul, so as to have power for victory in Canaan.


-- 1. The Council meets, when it was day, for form's sake (Mark 15:1) to give Him up to Pilate. It was then early. He was crucified the third hour (Mark 15:25), nine o'clock -- having been to Herod and back. From twelve to three (verse 45, also Mark and Luke) there was darkness, i.e., sixth to ninth hour; all from six in the morning. Thereafter, He gives up His Spirit, and is laid in the tomb before six o'clock, when the Sabbath came. John's "about the sixth hour" was, I suppose, six o'clock in the morning, counting from midnight; Pilate then brings Him out, and delivers Him up, and at nine o'clock He is actually crucified. His Name be praised!

-- 5. It certainly is a very singular thing that Judas cast down the money in the temple (en to nao). He could hardly have been a priest, nor does it follow that he went into the temple (naos) when he threw the money there. But I do not think naos is ever used for the outer buildings, so that he must have gone in where the priests were, before the naos, through intimacy with them on this dreadful errand. But, if so, what a picture it gives us of the evil ways of men! I find no case where naos is used for other than the house.

-- 51, 52. We have the double power and effect of Christ's death -- the rent veil or free access, and the resurrection.

-- 63. It is a striking fact that Christ never announces Himself as the Christ except to the woman of Samaria, out of Judaism. He says at the close, referring to other times, "Because ye are Christ's" -- owns it as revealed to Simon Peter, but never presents Himself as such. He forbids the disciples to do it before the Transfiguration. It shows how His Person, or moral claim was ever put forward, though no man knew the Son or received His testimony, yea, had done so many miracles. Nor even does John Baptist call Him the Christ, though it be implied. This is the more remarkable because, as heretofore observed, we have not the heavenly place in connection ourselves either, i.e., High Priest, or Head of the Body. After His rejection, in controversy with the rejecting Jews, He confesses

[Page 158]

Himself such, and shows that there had been plain adequate testimony that He was so, as is shown in this verse, and in John 10:25. But we have no presenting of Himself as such.

Matthew 28

-- 1. The word epiphoskouse (began to dawn) in this verse, and the word egorasan (had brought), Mark 16:1, have led me to new apprehensions as to the visits of the women to the sepulchre. In the first place, it is to me beyond all controversy that several things, supposed to happen in the morning, happened on, to us, Saturday evening. The Sabbath closed at six, as is known, and from Saturday at six in the evening the women were free to buy their spices, or to do anything else.

First epiphoskouse does not mean solely nor properly "dawn." Luke 23:54, kai hemera en paraskeue, kai sabbaton epephoske (and it was the preparation day, and the Sabbath drew on). Here the Friday is sabbaton epephoske, translated "drew on." It was the day which preceded the Sabbath. Hence, Matthew 28:1, Opse de sabbaton te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton (In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week) is properly what we call Saturday, but that being Sabbath it was only at the close of it, i.e., when it was over, that they went. However opse and hespera differ -- opse meaning "after," and even often "a good while after," see Wetstein on this verse, but it is given as bradion (late). I learn also from Marsh (whose reasonings on the passage are unfounded) that the Syriac has translated Luke 23:54, and John 19:31, which is certainly the evening, by the same word, i.e., for epei paraskeue en (because it was the preparation) the same word as Luke, and this word has the natural signification of epiphosko, the Syriac being the Apostles' language.

"And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid," Mark 15:47. The Sabbath over, the two Maries and Salome buy spices, i.e., Saturday evening -- "bought," not "had bought" -- and Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, after this go and see the sepulchre in the end of the Sabbath (opse de sabbaton). It was thus late, sero, bradion, after buying the spices. But Mary Magdalene was absorbed with thoughts of Jesus, and, not resting at all, while it was yet dark comes to the sepulchre, i.e., Sunday morning before day, runs and tells Peter and John who come and

[Page 159]

examine the sepulchre, and return home. Mary remains, and sees Jesus, and then goes and tells the disciples in general (not 'to go to Galilee' -- that was not her message but) that she had seen Jesus, and that He had told her that He was to ascend to His Father and their Father, His God and their God, i.e., their new, divine, heavenly relationship according to His own, through His Person and work.

Mark, who relates the message of the angels to the women as to Galilee, states also that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (of which John gives the detail). Mary Magdalene's occupation of mind is evident all through, and John, to whom she went, gives the detail of this part, in accordance with the subject of all his Gospel. Mary Magdalene did not wait to see anything at the sepulchre. Seeing the stone rolled away, she set off at once to Peter and John -- those specially attached to Jesus -- to tell themthe sepulchre was empty. The risen Saviour appears to her with the message cited. Jesus Himself drew her as an object of affection.

The women in general came to anoint Him; it was all well. It was the manner of the Jews to bury, and they would pay their crucified Lord honour thus. But there is no such hurry with them. They set off early, but are there only at sunrise. The scene with Mary Magdalene was all over. To them angels appear, a gracious but ordinary Jewish intervention on God's part, and Jesus is associated with Galilee -- His place of connection with the poor Jewish Remnant. There they would see Him, as indeed they did. They are rejoiced and alarmed at the same time, and go off from the sepulchre, and as they go they meet Jesus, who also tells them to say that they will see Him in Galilee -- the same association, and they touch Him; to Mary Magdalene this was not permitted, for He was not returned to take the Kingdom, and be bodily present here yet. The close of Matthew connects itself with this Galilee position.

The only passage here which presents any difficulty is, "They said nothing to any man," Mark 16:8. But from verse 7 it is evident that, in result, they told the disciples; only in going (fleeing) they said nothing to anyone on the road till they reached the disciples. Matthew indeed does not say they executed their commission. Christ met them in Galilee in a mountain He had ordered them to meet Him in. Note, the last words of this Gospel take up distinctly this Galilee place, and, showing that He had now power given Him far

[Page 160]

more extensive, sends them out to all nations with a new mission, but the point of contact with His old mission was Galilee -- the poor Remnant, and according to Isaiah 8 and 9.

I have here omitted Luke, because always in his Gospel he gives the general, broad, moral facts, without occupying himself with the order or connection of them in time. This is universally his character. He is perfectly exact, and gives much additional moral light on many points in this way, but occupied with this. It is not the purpose of the Spirit in this Gospel to narrate historically. He will take from many periods what will bring out, in common, the same truth, or single out one fact which shows it forth, without heeding the other accompanying ones, or name them without reference to their order in time, if their moral order be different, as in the temptation in the wilderness. So he passes over the flight into Egypt, and says, things being accomplished in the temple, He went to Nazareth, because he was not to take up the Jewish character of Christ but the contrary; and hence, when obedience to the Law was personally accomplished, he gets at once into His Nazarene character. It is the same in principle in the history of the resurrection.

The women that followed Him, "who accompanied him from Galilee" (that is their character in general) see the sepulchre, and where they laid Him. Returned, they prepared spices and myrrh. He does not say they bought, nor when they prepared -- perhaps they did Friday night as well as Saturday; I doubt it, however, for 6 o'clock the Sabbath began, and it must have been about, if not quite that, when they returned. "And they rested the Sabbath" -- but the kai to men gives it a moral character, and not the date after the buying.

So chapter 24: 8-10, we have merely the general fact as to all "the women who came from Galilee" without any detail, and "to the eleven, and to all the rest." "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the others with them" told these things to the Apostles. It was the affair of the women -- when, and where, or who, to each or to several, or collectively, is entirely passed over. It was not the object here of the Spirit of God. What he does tell us is the fact, and gives it a moral character, and some additional particulars which are not elsewhere, but no details. It is very possible that more than one party of women went to the

[Page 161]

sepulchre, that, learning from the first party, or through their means, they went down (I see no object in supposing it, however -- verses 22, 23, would rather say otherwise, as also verse 1; I do not speak here of Mary Magdalene) but this the Scripture was not concerned to tell us. Each word of what it does tell us bears truth in it for the soul. So verses 23, 24 -- it is all put generally together, for we may well suppose that verse 24 refers to Peter and John, though most likely the two that went to Emmaus only heard this as a general report. Verse 12 also is thus given as a confirming fact after the very vague general statement of all the women telling "to the Apostles and all the rest." They were about 120 men and women. These preparatory facts are really introductory almost to the account of the journey to Emmaus, which is also alluded to in Mark. The general effect of the women's statement is given in verse 11. However, there was exception, for instance Peter (it is not "Then Peter," as in English, but "But Peter") arose, and went, and saw, and departed, wondering at what had happened, but as John tells us, for he had no scriptural understanding or faith in the resurrection. See the remarkable confirmation of this character, at the close of this account of Luke, where, verses 43, 44, and 50 seem all continuous, and they are morally. An infidel might say Luke clearly did not know that there were forty days -- he supposed He went up to heaven at once. Now Luke is the person who tells us, in the Acts, that there were forty days.

Thus, "In the end of the Sabbath," i.e., when ended as obligatory rest -- Saturday, at 6 page m. -- Mary Magdalene and the other Mary come to see the sepulchre. They, as soon as the Sabbath was past, bought sweet spices; they had already bought some beforethe Sabbath. The first who came before sunrise, the first day of the week, to the sepulchre was Mary Magdalene alone. She runs off at once to Peter and John, and they go to the sepulchre, see that Jesus is risen, and go home. Jesus reveals Himself to her, and she goes off to execute the Lord's commission, declaring Christ's going to His Father and their Father. This was on her return. Then the other women come, bringing the spices, and, not finding the Lord, go into the sepulchre, and see two angels who tell them Jesus was risen, and recall His words. They go out of the sepulchre in haste. Their message from the angel is quite a different one from Mary's -- the disciples were to go into Galilee, the

[Page 162]

place where He was connected with the Remnant. They meet Jesus on the way, who gives them the same message. They go and tell the eleven, and all the rest. Mary carried her message to the disciples. In John we have only Mary. She came "While it was yet dark," but Jesus was risen -- when the others came, the sun had risen; Mark 16:2. The first verse there refers to our Saturday evening, Sabbath being ended. Mary Magdalene does not seem to have had anything to do with bringing the spices; her going alone to see after the Lord, took her out of the whole after-scene of spices, and angels, and Galilee. Luke throws, as very often indeed, the whole into a general statement; only note "Then arose Peter" is only in the English, not in the Greek. He says, "The women." Where the moral instruction in grace is expressed, there he enters into details. Matthew gives it historically. Thus verse 1 stands by itself -- the evening, as I judge; verse 2 happens before the women come at all, as is evident from all the accounts. Mark 16:10 refers to Mary Magdalene's case, and to her going to the disciples after she had seen Jesus; John 20:18. This résumé brings out the case of Mary Magdalene very interestingly, and presents it more clearly than ever. Nor is there any difficulty in the order of events; the only one which might be raised is making chapter 28: 1, the evening of Saturday, but it is certain, though isolated, verse 2 comes after it. When the women came in the morning, even the first of them, the resurrection was passed. Verse 5 also is an account by itself -- it assumes the women to be there -- more fully given in Mark. The two messages are the great thing.

I think it is clear that we have divers visits of the women to the sepulchre. First, as to Mary Magdalene, it is clear she came early, while it was yet dark, and went away without more to Peter and John to tell them. Mark also notices the Lord's appearing first to Mary Magdalene. The angels were there all the time -- at least, appeared repeatedly; one sat on the stone as the women came up -- one at the right, when they went in -- two, in Luke, speaking to others than Mary and Salome, but these give no message, only say He was risen -- and two are inside, at head and feet where Jesus had been laid, watching where Mary's heart was. I apprehend Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Joanna were much together. Mary Magdalene goes alone, then Mary and Joanna, and then others come up; all these last probably went away together.

[Page 163]

I take verse 1 to have been our Saturday evening. They came only to see the sepulchre.

Verse 2 begins the whole history of the first day morning, before day, when the angel rolls away the stone, and the keepers are overwhelmed. Jesus, it appears, was already gone. Here the statement as to the women is quite general; to them, whoever they were, it was said not to fear as they sought Jesus; Mark, more definitely, the other Mary and Salome -- Mary Magdalene had gone off on seeing the stone rolled away. Jesus Himself met them on the way with the message to the disciples to go and meet Him in Galilee. All this is apart from John and the second part of Mark. The main point is angelic power, and the Galilee revelation of Christ. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, always together, merely appear, in their personal anxiety as to the Lord, Saturday in the fall of the evening to look at the tomb. There was nothing of resurrection here. When Mary Magdalene came, Sunday morning before twilight, the stone was rolled away, and Jesus risen. The history of the rolling away of the stone is given in Matthew 28:2, and then what the angel says to some of the women, which was clearly, from all accounts, a subsequent circumstance. The stone was gone before even Mary Magdalene came. In Mark, we learn that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, when the Sabbath was over, bought spices in order to go and anoint Him, very possibly after having visited the sepulchre and seen all safe. At sunrise, some of the women (Mary Magdalene had already been there) come to the sepulchre, and find the stone rolled away, and Jesus not there. They go in, find a young man sitting on the right hand, who gives them the message as to Galilee. This we have had in Matthew. Then comes, in Mark, a wholly different part -- an appendix -- the appearing to Mary Magdalene, who tells it to the disciples. In Luke,we learn that already, on the Friday evening probably, they had bought spices; at least chapter 23: 56 would seem to say they had done this. Mark 16:1, does not forbid this; egorasan may mean "had bought." It was when the Sabbath was past they were going to use them. Only Mary Magdalene is not in verse 2. It is general "they" the women "come," with which Matthew 28 coincides, and then we have verse 9. In Luke 24 we find the women generally, who, having prepared spices already, come to the sepulchre; he throws them altogether (verse 10). Here, two men stand by them, and here

[Page 164]

we have nothing of Galilee, nor of the message to Mary Magdalene, but the general truth of His resurrection, as indeed Luke gives ascension from Bethany, not Galilee. Some bought the spices, probably Joanna and the other Mary, but this is very general, and takes in all, but there were others who came. Those who first came with spices went in and saw the angel sitting, and get their message as to Galilee; this was a special case. Others came and were there with them -- came up -- and the two angels stood there and told them of His resurrection. The vision Mary Magdalene had was quite distinct; all is far more quiet, orderly, and detailed, and there are two angels, sitting where the Lord had lain, who speak to her. All the women did not go into the sepulchre, probably only the other Mary and Salome, and saw one angel sitting; the rest, outside, got the general message of His resurrection which we have in Luke. In Mark, we have, leaving Mary Magdalene out, only the others, i.e., Salome, and Mary who go into the sepulchre, and see one angel sitting there. The other women are only mentioned in Luke. So that we have three sets -- Mary Magdalene -- the other Mary and Salome -- and various other women who came. The first is quite distinct, and sees, on her return, two angels, one at the head, the other at the feet; Mary and Salome go in and see one angel on the right who gives a message as to Galilee; the other women see two angels standing outside, who merely tell them that Jesus is risen. But the object of any of the Gospels, as to any of the women, save Mary Magdalene, was not the details as to them, though there are degrees of communication as to all. I suppose all the women, except Mary Magdalene, met the Lord as they were going away, and told the twelve of what had happened.

The last verses of this Gospel confirm the idea of the Lord's speaking in view of a proximate establishment of the Kingdom, or, as overleaping all the interval in which the Jews rejected were left out. They go from the resurrection into Galilee, the place of His intercourse with the Remnant in grace, when the mass would not have Him. Hence this Remnant being accepted (in the disciples), He sends them to the nations and is with them to the end of the age which is to continue.

The result of the whole Gospel is undoubtedly that what is said is said in view of the following establishment of the Kingdom in power, but looking, at the close, to a Remnant slighted and persecuted as followers of a rejected King, and hence

[Page 165]

overstepping all that went beyond the Kingdom, and taking all in as belonging to "this age."

We have a distinct commission, not merely as if the Remnant were seen gathered because the disciples were with Jesus, but that we have in chapter 10 a complete mission to the Jews as such, to the coming of the Son of man. That mission, note, is in the Land. It divides at verse 16, in a general way; what follows going on to circumstances true only after His death.

In this Gospel we have the Kingdom of heaven in chapter 13, consequent on the rejection of the Jews -- the Church in chapter 16, and the Kingdom in glory and power in chapter 17. But there are some important remarks connected with it, though I am not quite master of all its hearings. The closing rejection of Israel in chapter 12, on to their final state under Antichrist has been fully noted -- Israel looked at as that "generation," i.e., that had to do with Christ in unbelief. But then the Kingdom of heaven is continued from the sowing of the Son of man on the earth. It was not the Christ with Israel, and seeking fruit in His vineyard, but sowing -- out of the house -- on the seashore; but it was the word of the Kingdom, as Christ preached "Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Then the Kingdom of heaven, the King being rejected, takes the form described in the parables, but it was not a direct, but still a continuance of Christ's work when here (like Hebrews 1:1, and chapter 2: 2). In the tares and wheat, the sowing is by the Son of man, but the field is the world. The first parable is Christ's true work, i.e., bringing what was to produce fruit, but he has no character as the Sower, but the fact. It was an outward thing, then substituted in the world for the outward Jewish thing -- the carrying on in the world of the Lord's work in Israel, i.e., sowing (not seeking fruit) with its effect de facto, and then God's mind in it. In chapter 16 it is different; it is the Person of Christ the Son of God (proved in resurrection) and His building the Church on this. The sign of the prophet Jonas (death and resurrection, which was the cutting off of Israel on its own old ground) the only sign given. God had revealed Himself as in nature beyond dispensation, in chapter 15, in the case of the Syro-phoenician, but divine grace in love to the people in spite of all. The moral rejection, under law, had been shown in the beginning of chapter 15 -- the evil of man, verses 18-20; then God Himself in goodness, in the Syro-phoenician. Then

[Page 166]

comes the Jonas sign, and the Person of Jesus as Son of God (proved in resurrection, and victory over Satan) and the Church built on that; but this was the Cross here. Then comes the Kingdom in power. This is the Son of man coming in His Kingdom, i.e., in the Transfiguration; compare 2 Peter 1. So that we have the Son of man sowing -- the Church, a divine thing -- the love of God, the Rock and Builder -- and the Son of man, in the glory of the Kingdom, coming.

It is further of the greatest importance to remark that the keys given to Peter are not the keys of the Church -- Christ builds that -- (hence in 1 Peter 2, we have not any one building -- in 1 Corinthians 3 we have) but the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, i.e., the outward thing on earth, as we have seen, consequent on Christ's sowing, following up even His earthly sowing, which might or might not produce fruit, and certainly produced in result a mixed thing which could not be mended, had a treasure in it for which Christ took the world, a-gathering of good and bad fishes. Doubtless Peter's authority in establishing it was authenticated in heaven, but the result was not other than what Christ predicted. But then it is evidently personal. The Church the Son of God builds. The being with His disciples to the end of the age has nothing to do with Church matters. It is discipling the Gentiles. It is from a risen Christ in Galilee, not, as in Luke, ascending. It has the world for its field, but to disciple the nations, the Jews not being in question. It is really chapter 13, not chapter 16. In this mission Christ will be surely with those He sends, to the end of the world, even when the Church is gone. So far as the history of Acts goes, and Galatians, the mission to the Gentiles was given up to Paul and Barnabas. At any rate this was an extension consequent on Christ's receiving all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 10); not the Body of Christ nor the building of 1 Corinthians 3. Matthew 10 goes to the end of the world too, but excludes Gentiles. It is connected with Christ as then present, and will be renewed at the end, when the Church is gone and the Kingdom of heaven, properly speaking, closed. When risen, and having all power in heaven and on earth, the nations were to be discipled. In chapter 10, the starting point was from Christ on earth -- the Kingdom was at hand; in chapter 28, the starting-point is Christ having all power in heaven and on earth, now risen, the

[Page 167]

Jews not included, and the nations are the object. It is the truth of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- not anything at hand.

In chapter 24 the Gospel of the Kingdom is to be preached to "all nations" -- "this Gospel" -- what Christ preached. This specifically is the extension of chapter 10 to the Gentiles, and then the end comes. Chapter 28 is in contrast with chapter 10, a ministration by itself, and which I suppose fell through; the Gentiles were committed to Paul who brought in the doctrine of the Church. With this mission, baptism was connected, with the Church not. Mark is personal -- Luke, as to the Gospel, is clearly Pauline; chapter 24 is more dispensational than Mark 13. We have Christ's coming, and the end of the age. It gives more the external state. It takes up the mission of chapter 10 as existing, and extends it to Gentiles, and looks, all through, more exclusively to the end, though open, as to Jewish ground, to present application. Still it is properly Jewish, reaching out as a witness to the nations, as it will at the end. Hence we have nothing of the Holy Ghost; in Mark we have, because the present service of the Apostles is more in view; this is found in Matthew in chapter 10. Mark 13 is more present service, until verse 14, hence we have the Holy Ghost brought in there, which in Matthew is in chapter 10, where all their service in Israel is in question. Chapter 24 is, as I have said, more prophetic and external, and has the end more in sight all through, though it may have to say "the end is not yet"; verse 9 puts them more amongst the Gentiles than Matthew 10, though the language be very like, and it is the Jews still who "deliver up," and the proper going out among the nations is only with this Gospel of the Kingdom. Chapter 28 is evidently another matter. And remark that in Matthew 10 it is a search for the Remnant among the Jews -- "Enquire who in it is worthy"; not so in chapter 28. It may well be there is a break at "Behold I send," in verse 16.

I would look a little further into the missions in this Gospel. First, chapter 10, where we know they are sent out to the cities of Israel, and were not to go to the Samaritans or Gentiles; but they would be brought before kings and rulers for Christ's sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. The immediate testing mission seems to me to end with verse 15; verses 16-22

[Page 168]

go together, and reach out into what is more general, and in fact guide them when Christ was gone and the Spirit come, but this leads them to the end, "He that shall endure to the end." This it is that gives its importance to the destruction of Jerusalem, that, though it were not the end, yet ended necessarily this mission to the cities of Israel. Thus verse 23 comes in, i.e., they should have acted on it then, but it runs over to the time the Son of man comes. From verse 24 it is general; verse 23 connects itself on, more directly, to verse 13; still the verses 14-22 connect themselves with it as a continuation in fact to the destruction of Jerusalem, and in its contemplated times on to the end. But though verses 14-22 include the history after Christ was gone, the whole applies wholly to ministry among Jews, if it were not speaking as prisoners before the authorities. Next, the mission is to Israel (not the Jews) but to the Remnant. It takes up, like the Sermon on the Mount, those who are worthy, and there peace was to rest, and the Kingdom of heaven was at hand; that was what they were to preach. This part is the then present power of Christ (Emmanuel) there. This testimony therefore is pretty plain. The starting point of this (though it may continue to the end, and have a peculiar character when He was gone -- yet only generally intimated) was Emmanuel presented to the Jews, though He may be so before it closes, as the rejected One.

In chapter 24, it is not the cities of Israel, but Jerusalem, nor exactly the message of grace with the harvest great, but judgment on the rejecting Jerusalem, as the end of chapter 23 shows, and the sorrows (throes) of the Jews. It answers in character and time to chapter 10: 14-22, with the same declaration: "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." But then we have the additional truth that this Gospel of the Kingdom must be preached to all the nations (Gentiles) and then the end should come. This gives the full general history consequent on the rejection of Christ; verse 14 is a special addition, by the bye, so to speak, verse 13 closing the reference to the Jewish testimony; verse 15 then takes up the special case of Jerusalem, and is an instructive sign for those who shall see it when it does come. Verses 4-13 only gave the character of the times as a guidance, and could be applied as soon as the troubles began, but goes on to the end in similar circumstances in Palestine, only the Gospel must go out to the nations as witness before the end could come. Then,

[Page 169]

as I have said, the special portion of Jerusalem who had rejected Him, and the great tribulation, when the abomination of desolation has been set up, is brought in. Thus verse 5 would apply generally; verse 23 only to the last days. But it is all one class (as chapter 10 also shows), the testifying Remnant; see verses 15, 25; so of the nation, chapter 23. The result will be immediately after the tribulation (verses 29, 30); and then all Israel is gathered into one. Verses 32-43 refer to the signs and character of the coming of the Son of man, and refer still to the witness character of the Remnant. Verse 45 begins abruptly with Christian ministry and the condition of the professing Church, which is not our subject here. It goes to the end of chapter 25: 30; verse 31 begins then the judgment of the Gentiles according to the way they have received the messengers. In fact, chapter 24: 15-44 is a kind of parenthesis as to what relates to Jerusalem, and the coming of the Son of man there. No doubt chapter 25: 31 refers to chapter 24: 30, as to epoch, but the judgment of chapter 25: 31, refers to chapter 24: 14; verses 15-44 being the specialty of final things at Jerusalem, and therein to chapter 25: 30, ecclesiastical and Christian care of His household -- the virgin companions of His marriage, or His servants who had gifts while away. He is back again to the world in verse 31, as He was to the Jews in chapter 24: 30. The term "brethren" is that which belongs to the disciples after His resurrection, and Oh! what grace!

Thus in Matthew 28:10, "Go, tell my brethren," which I quote the rather as it is in this Gospel. It is used also in John as their present state in connection with Him risen before, and in announcing His ascension to His and their God and Father. But this last was to Mary of Magdala attached to His Person -- she was not to touch Him as personally back for the Kingdom -- He was putting His brethren, then already owned such, with His God and Father in the same relationship with Himself. In Matthew they are to go into Galilee -- they hold Him by the feet, i.e., do touch Him, and are allowed to do so, i.e., He is there in this character of association with the Remnant for the earth. Hence they are to meet in Galilee; that which is connected with Isaiah 8 and 9 -- the people that sat in darkness, seeing a great light, when the testimony is sealed among His disciples, when God is hiding His face from the house of Jacob, and faith is waiting for Him, when they had stumbled at the Stumbling Stone, but when it goes on to

[Page 170]

final deliverance, when the disciples are exactly in their present position in Matthew, only in Isaiah applied to the Jews. Matthew goes further, or rather the object is different. It is not now putting the brethren or Remnant, the children which God had given Him, into relationship with His God, His Father, nor making them signs to both houses of Israel till the battle with fuel of fire came. All power is given Him in heaven and earth. His rejection had sent Him into this place of heavenly power over all things, and they were to go and make disciples of the Gentiles, teaching them to observe all that He had commanded, as we have read in Matthew, bringing the Father's, Son's, and Spirit's names as the ground and character of association. It is this I would yetmore especially enquire into.

Note first, the missions in Matthew, Mark, and Luke have their character from the place and position, and close the scene of Christ's ministry, as in the particular Gospel. Not so in John; there there is no scene or close. It is Himself, a divine Person (though incarnate, and always taking the place He was in towards His Father) and the mission is from His Person, not from resurrection (as Matthew) merely, nor from ascension (as Luke) nor His exaltation from service (as Mark). He bestows peace on them as He had made peace for them, sends them out on this ground, and as His Father had sent Him He sends them, and gives them the Holy Ghost as the power in which they lived and wrought, carrying forgiveness with them (administratively) as He had, on earth. Then Jewish and millennial truth comes after; but verses 17-23 are the present condition and service in grace consequently on accomplished work, and from Himself as he is now (though then there) but all along here (from chapter 13, save chapter 15) as giving them a part with Himself where He is. It is not Bethany nor Galilee, but the Son going to His Father and their Father, His God and their God, and revealing Himself in their midst.

We have, in Matthew, "the end of the age," as previously, and it is dispensational in its character as a question of the age, the Gentiles, Galilee, which is the subject of prophecy, and the Lord's service; He is the prophetic and promised One though the rejected One. It is not, as Mark, preaching the Gospel to every creature (pase te ktisei) and then "he that believeth and is baptised" -- a personal question; nor is it ascension, as in Luke, and repentance and remission of sins

[Page 171]

beginning indeed (as Paul) from Jerusalem, but testimony in grace, calling to repentance, from heaven to all nations. It is not, as John, "as my Father hath sent me, so send I you." Still, though it connects itself with dispensational and prophetic position and dealing, yet it takes up the present exaltation of Christ, and acts from that. Jerusalemis looked at as rejected, as to its state, I mean, Christ having all power in heaven and in earth. Chapter 24 dealt with Jerusalem in the last days, and in judgment, and Christ's return, though as Son of man, this of His present possession of power, but of given power. And the relationships brought out are those of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This refers it to the epoch (not the sphere of labour) of chapter 10: 16-22, where the Spirit of their Father speaks in them. But the service was that of Galilean disciples, not preaching the Gospel that individuals might believe, but discipling the nations (the Gentiles) and teaching them. The fact is that, as far as Scripture history goes, this commission was never acted on. Of Luke's we have the formal history in the Acts, and then Paul and the Church came in. Mark's is general, and in principle its accomplishment stated to have taken place in the same general way. To the end of verse 8 we have the Remnant Galilee character, from verse 9, the heavenly one to gather souls, and save them as Christians. Further, the discipling all nations, and teaching them is a different thing from a testimony to all nations, and then the end coming. That referred to the end as a testimony to be borne before judgment -- the Gospel of the Kingdom as Christ preached it. This is a bringing in an order of things consequent upon Christ's having all power in heaven and on earth. As far as anything is at all like it in result, it is Christendom. The Paul service comes by itself, the pillars at Jerusalem having given up the Gentiles to him. He was delivered from the people and from the Gentiles, out of all human ties, to carry the message of and from a heavenly Christ, and found the Church (properly speaking) as a system, in which neither Jew nor Gentile was, here below. We find him with Luke's mission; we find him with Mark's; Acts 20:21; chapter 24: 18; Romans 2:9, 10; Acts 13:38; Colossians 1:23, etc. And so both, in general, in many places, as Peter, Acts 2, for and really to Jews, having waited for power from on high. At Athens he takes Peter's ground with Cornelius, Jesus' resurrection, judgment given to Christ. This is striking. It is the

[Page 172]

most elementary of Paul's preachings, not exactly, I think, Matthew's. Though he went to the Gentiles, it was not discipling the nations but gathering the Church to its Head -- minister of the Gospel "to every creature under heaven," which last is Mark's; see Colossians 1:23-25. But is not this the present Gospel of Christendom in contrast with Paul's full revelation of the truth, or rather the ecclesiastical estate of Christendom? The evangelical party preach, though generally very muddily, the elementary Gospel of Paul and Peter, but John 3, or Christ's statements on earth still more. This will remain current when Paul's is gone, which needs an ascended Christ, into union with whom they are called. But though a call into union may not have then closed, yet Christ will have all power in heaven and earth, and even be just then about to take possession of it in effect and reign, and the brethren, the preserved Remnant, will disciple the nations, and the knowledge of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, will remain (quod nota) but I suppose the Father and Son as revealed by Christ on earth, and the Holy Ghost as poured out afresh, as the latter rain) and the prescribed ways of the Kingdom as here, though given here as Jehovah being then in the way with them, but it is His mind for their walk. It was a then present commission, but reaches on to the end of the age, but never gets into Paul's Gospel (according to Colossians and Ephesians), which was really a substitute for it. And that is the question now. This really is the basis of the corruption of popery (even as far as Scripture can be alleged for it) and Protestants have never got out of it really, though they have corrected it. But how this makes one feel one is cast upon directions for this time in Scripture!

Even Peter's sermons to Jews or to Gentiles (Cornelius) follow in the main Luke's commission, and very distinctly. The only point of connection with Matthew is its beginning in Galilee when speaking to Cornelius. But even this refers to Christ's ministry on earth, and then there is no ascension. Peter dates his commission from the risen Jesus only -- from the Prophets declares by Him remission of sins. So Christ is Lord of all, and you have in every nation "he that fears God and works righteousness" -- as with Paul at Athens, Christ is to judge. In sum, Peter's Cornelius-sermon is pretty clear; previous (through grace) fear of God and working righteousness is acceptable (dektos) in any nation -- Christ's personal

[Page 173]

ministry beginning from Galilee as a Man anointed with the Holy Ghost and power, resurrection, judgment of quick and dead by Christ, the forgiveness of sins, announced by the Prophets, to be had now by His means. Paul to the Jews preaches more salvation by resurrection, repentance having been preached by John, and remission, and justification from all sins from which Moses' law could not. In Acts 2, while accounting for the presence of the Holy Ghost for which they had been waiting, and giving what led to it up to the exaltation of Christ, he preaches repentance and remission of sins. This, as I said, is Luke's commission. Repentance, remission, and Christ's present return if they repent, is the testimony of Acts 3. Peter to Cornelius does not speak of repentance; he does of remission. Paul at Athens speaks of repentance, and not of remission. In Antioch (Acts 13) it is Luke's mission simply.

Thus we have the Luke testimony clearly carried only in act by Peter, in terms by Paul, including verses 44, 46 -- only by both judgment by Christ is added. In Acts 15 we have the visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for God's name, according to the Prophets. And we have Peter's ministry in the case of Cornelius, and Paul's and Barnabas's actual work in gathering the Church among the Gentiles, the foundation of it. These were Gentiles on whom God's name was called; and this testimony of Acts 15 is very remarkable. It is an individual calling, purifying their hearts by faith, and so sealed by the Holy Ghost, from which James draws the conclusion that God has taken out of the Gentiles a people for His name, which was to be called on them (Moses being left to his own influence, i.e., you have Jerusalem left to its own influence, and a gathered company of Gentiles left free -- save some necessary things) so as to lay ground for the unity of the Body, save its being broken, but Matthew 28 wholly dropped. But then note, if taken up, it is taken up before the end of the age, for the Lord sending them forth says, "Lo, I am with you to the consummation of the age," i.e., the promise in view of this mission ran on from giving it up to the close of the age. As regards the Jews, that age was suspended by the taking of Jerusalem, and in fact the Pauline Church, declined into a Peter state, and far worse had then taken the place of it -- declined, I mean, in doctrine, for in practice it was soon the very seal of iniquity. Already in Peter's time, the time was come for judgment to begin at the house of God. But

[Page 174]

supposing the Church, the Body of Christ, gone, the personal title of Christ, as having all power in heaven and on earth, remains, and the service, whatever the result (shown in Matthew 25) will be discipling the Remnant, and bringing them into association with that Remnant, the brethren. And note, consequently they inherit the Kingdom as blessed of the Father. The age is ended already in verse 31. And He who has had all power in heaven and earth has been with His brethren, still owned such on and for earth, consequent on resurrection, though in John 20:17, they are led on into better things. This makes the place of this service very clear.

This gives additional insight into the Epistle to the Romans. No doubt the doctrine of justification, as we well know, is richly unfolded, and the effect too of the presence of the Spirit, and the power of life in Christ; but as to the form of the Gospel, as to its statement, it is Luke and Acts. It lays resurrection as its starting point, though owning ascension (mentioned only, chapter 8: 34) incidentally. But the Gospel, Christ declared Son of God with power, by resurrection, Son of David withal, then judgment to come (chapter 2: 16), and to the Jew first though not beginning at Jerusalem -- that was all over for Paul, the Lord sent him away thence; his testimony was more than Luke's, beginning from a Christ actually in divine glory, and owning the saints as Himself. But here it is resurrection, and in the Gospel to us down to chapter 5: 11, ascension is not spoken of. Even in our place before God, our resurrection with Christ is not spoken of, though in chapter 8 we are assumed to be in Him, and His ascension is also, as noticed, referred to first. But, as to the basis of the Gospel, it is Christ's resurrection, repentance, remission of sins, judgment.

The difference between grace towards us down here as sinners when God is fully brought out, and our being before Him in Christ, from chapter 5: 12, often noticed, comes out thus clearer than ever. The Gospel properly is up to chapter 5: 11. In Ephesians we have the absolute work and counsels of God -- a new creation. We are raised up together with Christ. This is the wholly new thing, not only from heaven, but we begin as dead -- so Christ -- and there is a new creation in Him; no justification, which applies to those who need it, which God's new creation does not, the glorified Body of the glorified Christ, though not yet there, and duty being the

[Page 175]

showing forth of God, not what suits in a preliminary way to getting into the Kingdom. We are there, in the same power in which Christ is at God's right hand, from death, Himself.

I add yet another word as to the commissions. Matthew links on, it is evident, to the Lord's power and service shown in Galilee; specially compare Isaiah 9:1, where clearly in the desolation and judgment of Israel, and the separation of the disciples, and the Law and the testimony being sealed amongst them, its utter desolation, the light, as distinguishing it from other desolations, is shown to spring up, to have a Remnant just because it was utter desolation. This is applied (Matthew 4:15), to the Lord's sojourn in Galilee. The Kingdom of heaven is declared at hand, and repentance called for then, according to the prophecy. On the smiting of the Shepherd and the scattering of the sheep as so held together by Him, He tells them that when risen He will go before them into Galilee. Jerusalem having rejected Him, He returns into His own prophetic title in which blessing is to flow from Him. He is to be the Centre and Source, whatever blessing may hereafter be conferred on Jerusalem; hence according to Isaiah, and His service in Matthew, Galilee was the place for this; so chapter 28: 10. But when there it was no longer a Messiah in the flesh presenting Himself the Gospel of the Kingdom to the nation according to the Prophets, and to Jerusalem. All power was now given Him in heaven and in earth, and they were to make disciples to Him all the Gentiles. It was the extension of what was His Messianic power, connected with the title of power over heaven and earth He held as risen, to the whole world. It was not establishing His reign over Israel; He had been rejected there. The Remnant had the testimony sealed to them, Jehovah hid His face from the house of Israel (though to be waited for), and the testimony of Galilee, so rejected, was now identified with all power in heaven and earth, and sent to bring all nations into discipleship. It was power and authority, but of this character, but with the further revelation of what now, Jesus being risen, was necessarily brought out -- the common name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- common yet distinct, and Christ's injunctions were to be the rule of the Gentiles so discipled. With this is

[Page 176]

connected the promise to be with them "to the end of the age," so that this connects itself with the age and the service rendered till it closes. And we get the important principle that the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is continued "to the end of the age," or at any rate the service which declares it is supposed in duty to continue.

Next, Mark, we have the Gospel carried on. Christ had served in the Gospel. Mark's account is the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God. Here this Gospel of the Son of God, now risen, is carried on, and he who believes and confesses it, in being received into the Church by baptism, will be saved, and he that believes not would be lost. The fate of every creature is attached on hearing it to the preached Gospel. It is a general principle and commission as a matter of life -- eternal life and salvation attached to the Gospel of the Son of God, thus sent out by His messengers, and to which the Lord gave testimony by signs. In John it is another thing, as in all the latter part of that Gospel; the Lord puts them in His own place, deriving it from Him only, as He from the Father, "As my Father hath sent me, so send I you." It is intrinsically connected with their position, and that as united to Him. It is derivative identification with Him, not authoritative mission merely here which constituted the commission. Hence, He first pronounces peace, then sends them from Himself, as the Father had sent Him (also He is in the midst of the gathered saints). Hence He breathes on them, and communicates to them the Holy Ghost, not now merely natural life breathed of God in to their nostrils, but the Holy Ghost in living power from Him, giving them spiritual competency to take and as taking His place, and thus to effectuate in His name that remission of sins which the Holy Ghost can administer down here in the name of Jesus, as He did as Son of man in His place. There was real administrative forgiveness, as Paul and the Church of Corinth with the incestuous man. It is a living spiritual Church commission, putting them, by receiving one Spirit with and from Him, in the place of service according to what He had accomplished, in His place, only with what He had done and was as risen as its source, but to do it for Him in His place and name looked at as in the Church and the Spring and Source of union, and the Giver of spiritual power; not as sending down in power, externally declaring what He was, Son of man, but spiritual competency from and by

[Page 177]

Himself who breathed the Spirit, His breath upon them, that they might act by it.

In Luke it is different. There is not properly a commission. The Lord first presents to them His real resurrection in flesh and bones, eating before them; then shows how, according to His words, all things which Moses, etc., had written concerning Him were to be fulfilled. Next, He opens their understanding to understand the Scriptures, and how, according to the mind of God there revealed, these things should have been, and the Gospel preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Here then we get thus far the counsels of God as to this matter revealed, and their minds brought to rest on and draw from these counsels as so revealed, and which they now understood; so Paul uses Isaiah 49. It was then intelligence of the mind of God in the Scriptures opened to them by Christ, and His words confirmed, and they acting on this intelligence, and this being their intelligent service. The source from which they acted -- "It behoved" (compare chapter 24: 25, et seq., where the Lord expounds, here He opens their understanding). There was a further thing before they acted publicly by this knowledge, namely, power; they were to tarry at Jerusalem (they could not go out of this circle, as it were) till they were endued with power from on high. It is not then properly a commission, but the opening the understanding to understand the Scriptures, and connecting them by Christ's teaching with "the Christ," and then power enabling them to act upon it -- this by the Holy Ghost coming down as the promise of the Father.

The same general truth specially as to power, and, further, the return of Jesus, is found in Acts 1. This power we need. The commission in verse 8, or rather what the Lord says is to happen in them so endued with power, has the same character as to order. It recognises the administration first -- Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, the ends of the earth. This is what we find in the blessed Paul's ministry. The Jews first and also to the Gentiles, and the knowledge of the mind of God. From this he both speaks and acts. We have the mind of Christ. He speaks from Christ's glory, and this is what we are led to as the terminus in Luke 24 (knowledge and power) and the power of the Spirit is Paul's whole spring and power (and so for others); only this that while it substantially remains the same in these two points, the beginning at Jerusalem

[Page 178]

has no place -- this had been done. He receives his commission from Christ on high and nowhere short of it, nor does he return there nor go up, but he goes on from the point of starting, Christ's heavenly glory. It is the Just One that is the link with the Jews, the Righteous Jew is maintained, but he is a witness of what he has seen directly from the Lord. It has no other root or connection as such for him; only he receives the Holy Ghost in the Church, because He was there now, and thus the link with the previously existing Church, and its recognition. Hence we have two points in Paul's ministry -- the glory of Christ and so universality, and then the one that is in Christ; see Colossians 1.

The glory (i.e., the glorification) ended Peter's; it begins Paul's, and the unity of the Church is a fresh revelation.

[Page 179]


-- Chapter 1. "The Word" -- eternal existence -- personality -- divinity -- eternal personality -- (what He was) Creator -- and "nothing created without Him" (here we begin Genesis) -- Life in Him -- "That life the light of men" -- "The light shines in darkness" -- "The darkness" (de facto) "comprehended it not." Note, life was light.

This is the full abstract statement of the nature and personality of Christ, as the Word. Verses 6-13, we have the witness given to it, and its reception or the contrary, and the effect of its reception. How man comes to receive the Lord. Man's state, and how changed. The divine Word and man, and how he receives it. From verse 14, we have quite another subject. The Object of faith, and One, who being made flesh, becomes in His fulness the Source of communication to others of the fulness of blessing in Him. Not what He is, but what He is as made flesh, and fulness in Him, and fulness for others. He is made flesh, is full of grace and truth as a living Person down here as a Man, and of this have we all received. The former part was nature, witness, and how received; this fulness communicable as a source to others, and the Object of their faith, declaring God, withal the only-begotten Son as in the bosom of the Father. This is important in John, for while showing He was I AM, yet we always find Christ personally as Man, the recipient of all from God; we always find Him as made flesh, and speaking as such, whatever that Man might be. "Glorify thou me," not "I will glorify myself." Himself the Object of faith, fulness of grace and truth in Him, of which we have all received, and declaring what God was, as the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father. The former part testimony (and how received) this grace, as chapters 8, 9 and 10.

It is a wonderful chapter, this first of John. What grace to have it! That He whom none knows but the Father, One with the Father, should come and reveal the Father here! God manifest in flesh, He, the Lamb of God that takes away wholly, finally, the sin of the world which no more will be in it (heaven and earth) before God. Then, that great work being accomplished, He baptises with the Holy Ghost -- makes

[Page 180]

us capable of knowing Him, and of entering into what is heavenly. Then we find Him making Himself a present Centre, and putting His divine fiat on what each one was as knowing him divinely, knowing all before they came, though brought by human means, knowing and pronouncing on what each was before He Himself was known, and thus the prejudiced Remnant owning Him, and His larger but human place, with serving angels, of Son of man, revealed. It is a great thing to say, "Henceforth ye shall see heaven opened," but greater to see Him who is there, as in fact Stephen did; to know Himself, the same here and there -- only here God in grace, there Man in glory. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Note here in Peter's case we have no such confession as in Nathanael's (who represents the Remnant for the end) -- he came to find the Christ, but was given a name which we know elsewhere was connected with the building of the Church on the rejected Christ's being the Son of the living God. (This Man was the Son of God, besides being the eternal Son of the Father.) But then John does not bring in the heavenly part, but the Son manifesting God down here, and then the revelation of Him at the end. Only we get the Comforter come down, while He is there on high; but here, man baptised with it. But it is His Person -- neither Head of the Church, nor Priest, nor Christ, as said elsewhere, but Himself. The second chapter is plain, as often noticed.

John's place is very beautiful, and how close to Christ, though before Him! And how at once, in John, we get the real internal thing in contrast with mere nominal faith, in the third chapter, beginning at chapter 2: 23. The Lord's reply to Nicodemus is infinitely striking and absolute. No circumlocution. Man is not to be taught, but born. It is a wholly new thing, so that a Gentile could have it -- it is spirit, though Ezekiel 26 ought to have made Nicodemus know it. But Christ's testimony went further. He spoke of what He knew and had seen, a heavenly Person, and then the whole truth is brought out. It could not be otherwise in John. It is God with man, not dispensational, nor, as to those under law or promise, probatory, but absolute truth, and the truth of men's state as having to say to God. Christ spoke the words of God. But this state is one wholly judged. A man must be born anothen (anew). It is a wholly new thing, but then man was responsible, and so in order to have this eternal life, new (to

[Page 181]

us) in its nature, but in its full, accepted character, atonement must be, the Son of man lifted up as Man before God, the Son of God given, that love may be known, but to death and wrath -- wondrous word! -- "Made sin." Then comes, not guilt, which is already supposed in atonement, but responsibility, in connection with the presentation of the Son of God, of Light to men -- presentation in grace, but as Light. But the main point is, it is wholly a new thing -- in nature, born of the Spirit, and involving death and the putting away of the old, but this in grace, by Christ. But then what He reveals is heavenly, and, as such, no man receives it; where received, it is faith in the Word of God -- a great principle. The Word of God is come into this world -- all else is man. "He whom God hath sent" is emphatic in verse 34. There is what He has seen, and the Spirit acting in Him as Man, and that not by measure (ek metrou). It is, though in Man, wholly divine and infinite in its source, as absolutely heavenly in its character. This is as blessed as it is wonderful. The Apostles could not say this of heavenly things. The Holy Ghost was there to give divine certainty, words of divine certainty, but they had received the Spirit, that they might know. He took the things of Christ, and showed them to them -- did not speak of (from) Himself, but revealed what was in heaven of the Father and of the Son. But it could not be said of them, "What he hath seen and heard that he testifieth" -- "We testify that we have seen." When Paul was there, he could not utter what he heard -- it was not natural to him, man, as to Christ. This too gives a special character to Christ in ministry. It was not that the Holy Ghost was not divine in certainty in what He revealed by them, but it was acting in, and speaking by them whatever was to be revealed. It was not their own knowledge of the things, as that from which they came, and in which they abode. Besides this, the Father has put everything into the Son's hand. The whole of John brings out the new thing, beginning with chapter 4: 23, 24, and that according to verses 10, 14, adding, at the end, the coming of the Holy Ghost.

In chapter 3, the principles on which the new thing rests are stated abstractedly in their nature and truth -- born of the Spirit, and the Son of man lifted up (the Son of God given). The connection of both with the Person of Jesus is given in chapters 5, 6 and 7, going on to the Holy Ghost on His rejection. But here men are recognised as dead, and sovereign

[Page 182]

grace is exercised by the Son. As the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, so the Son whom He will. Death was his state, but he passes from death unto life; hence, Christ being Judge, does not come into judgment. Responsibility is in man, because Life was there and they would not have it. Life was (is) in Christ, and He quickens, as the Father raises up the dead and gives them life. That was then, as now, and He will finally raise both just and unjust -- the former to resurrection of life, the latter of judgment. In chapter 6, we have as in chapter 3: 14, the Object of faith, but still the Person of the Lord, but as Man, the Bread come down from heaven, and still to give life; but then, morally and righteously, death must come in that there might be life, for here responsibility stands in the front -- in quickening, not at all, He quickens whom He will -- only responsibility is referred to there, as we have seen, because life was in Him, and they would not come. But here, though the Bread come down from heaven, they must eat the flesh and drink the blood, or they have no life in themselves -- the full recognition of their own guilty state and death in sin, and of the work of grace by Him, in that He had met all God's claim as regards sin. We must know a Christ who has died and shed His blood, or there is no life in us, or to be had. Incarnation will not do, because we are sinners, and the claim of God as against sin is to be maintained in righteousness, and His grace fully known. The result is a heavenly place where He was before. The quickening power of the Son of God become Man, and the embracing His death as the way of life -- these are the two great principles before us.

In chapter 7, the whole state of things, and the need of His death connected with it, made His manifestation to the world impossible then, and the Holy Ghost is given as an outflowing stream of blessing from the believer meanwhile. In chapters 8 and 9, as often remarked, we have His rejection as to word and work, and then the sheep.

It is to be noted that the life-giving resurrection power comes before the Messiahship and Headship of the Gentiles, in the testimony rendered at the end, and the Messiahship is His royalty, the Gentiles the glory of the Son of man. Only death then evidently had to come in. The whole Gospel thus assumes death, i.e., no spiritual life to be there, and more than that, in a very striking way in chapter 11, in saying, "I am the resurrection

[Page 183]

and the life." So, from the beginning, they had to be born anew (anothen). The Father raises up the dead and quickens them, the Son quickens whom He will. He comes to give life to the world, only He must die for this. He gives His sheep eternal life. He is the Resurrection and the Life. Yet responsibility, as in chapter 5, is fully maintained as to this, as the Law elaborately develops that principle. Chapter 12 gives, as we have seen, the Son of David and Son of man (for this death) and then, chapter 13, the place He takes on going on high, and the present consequence as having glorified God and finished the work He had given Him to do. From the end of chapter 20, it is after His return. Only in chapter 14 we have both what He was personally on earth, what the disciples really had in having Him, and, secondly, what they would have in consequence of His obtaining the Spirit for them from the Father. All as Man here. Chapter 15 what He was dispensationally on earth (Israel set aside); but from the end of chapter 15, and in chapter 16, the Comforter sent by Him from on high, when exalted, and so here on earth. Chapter 17, the whole status of the disciples as replacing Him on the earth, and finally with Him, and then displayed in glory when He is. It is remarkable, though long ago remarked, how John is occupied with manifestation on earth.

Note, in chapter 5, the Spirit begins with the incapacity of man, and in Israel, and rises to the life-giving power of the Son, and judicial authority of the Son of man. In chapter 6 He begins with Jehovah satisfying the poor with bread, and descends to the dying Saviour come down from heaven, and His blood shed, but it is a descent which rises in divine love. In chapter 16, the Holy Ghost convinces the world of sin, not of sins, quod nota.

A word as to the order of chapter 1: we have what Christ is, and what man is; what Christ is abstractedly in Himself, and the effect when this is placed before man. Then, before we have Christ historically as a Source of grace, we find man in a state in which he is of God -- born of God -- now capable of knowing Him (and note the being born and receiving Christ, or believing in His Name, is all one, because it is by the Word through the power of the Holy Ghost, "Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth"). Then the source of fulness for those born historically -- the Word made flesh, full of grace and truth, and of His fulness have all we received.

[Page 184]

Next, the Object -- God revealed by the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. Collaterally with this, we have the title to take the place of sons, yet He, the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father. Yet thus, as sons, learning there what the love is, and by His being in us. In chapter 17, we take His place, but we learn what our Father is, and what a Son in His bosom is, in Christ. Thus the Law deals with the responsibility -- not with receiving; it is not a Person in whom fulness is. Grace and truth are come by Jesus Christ. But the full responsibility is in verses 4 and 5, 6 and 7.

What I have remarked as to God connected with responsibility, and Father and Son when grace is unfolded in the body of the Gospel is found even the first chapter of it, in the introduction. You have God and Light first, as in verse 8, and then from verse 14 actually exercised in grace. His glory is then "As of an only begotten with a father," and this is more fully drawn out in verses 17, 18. Then, when no man had seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. This indeed lays the foundation of the whole matter. This gives fulness and importance to the distinction, as characterising the Gospel. Note that verse 14 is the source of grace; in verses 17, 18, He is the Revealer and Object, as the Father by Him.

The ground of God's first relationship with man was innocence; the next, sin, in which He has developed all His attributes, and glorified Himself in grace and divine righteousness. Hence it leads to what is heavenly, because it displays God as He is there. In the new heavens and earth, His relationship will not be innocence, nor of course sin, but righteousness. This is through Christ, the last Adam. It is secured in righteousness which is past evil and all its power, but in those who have the divine quality of the knowledge of good and evil. This it is that is marked in John 1, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." Without that, God could not have set it on and been in relationship with it on the ground of righteousness; but thus He is.

I return to chapter 4. False systems rejected, traditional blessing of no avail, true system left (ground of pride, not truth to conscience -- Christ in grace, the test of this). But more, the flesh cannot receive what is spiritual. Then we get God giving, the Father seeking, and man, as often remarked,

[Page 185]

reached by conscience. But then I had noticed often that "God" is used in John in connection with responsibility, "the Father and the Son" in connection with grace. This must be so far modified as to be confined to the latter applying to the positive and personal objects of grace. We have God's character as Love. God so loved the world -- not relationship, save to the Son Himself. It could not be said, "The Father loved the world," for it would be relationship, and yet the world not in it but the contrary, for it rejected the Son. God here is God, as such, in His character and nature. How exquisitely beautiful to see the Lord, rejected by Judaea to whom He came so far, in the measured grace of promise, only giving occasion, in the deep sorrow of His own heart, to the full, divine outgoing of love in itself, and service in the gift and power of eternal life, and His heart, refreshed by the fruits in a poor Samaritan sinner, was to open out on the whole scene of blessing, fields white for harvest, just when He was rejected! How truly He is Man here, yet God to give God's gifts, and to act in love with God's love! And how, if we carry with us this grace, we constantly find this fulfilled with us too!

There is a point of much interest, not heretofore noticed, in John 4. The Lord says, "Salvation is of the Jews," yet He leaves Judaea, really driven out by the jealousy of the Pharisees. He abandons God's own institutions, the place in which covenant and law and promises were found (Himself as Minister of the circumcision) and is Himself, as the humiliated Son of God, God manifested in the lowliness of flesh, the Giver and Gift of all blessing, in the power of the Holy Ghost. It is a present thing. Jerusalem and Samaria became alike here. Jacob's well, all traditional descended blessing is nothing; God gives the well of water. He is personally face to face with the sinner to communicate life in power, only to give understanding the conscience must be reached. But though it be in the lowest form of revelation, still He is there, the then present thing, bringing it in His own Person: "I that speak unto thee am he." All our service depends on what we bring; all its true power, that is. And even those farthest from the true institutions of God are nearer the truth than where these are taken as matter of boast. Samaritans, not Jews, call Christ the Saviour of the World. Our emptiness is the place of truth. But what a blessing it is that present power in life is there,

[Page 186]

when false pretentions on one side, and iniquity and enmity to Christ where God's institutions and promises are, so that hypocrisy makes the heart sick, and throws the true and anxious but unsettled heart into doubt about everything! The Father is seeking, to worship Him. And here it is when those who possess the institutions and promises, the root and fatness of the olive tree, are rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, the heart of the Saviour finds its relief and joy -- "meat to eat" even His disciples (as still looking to blessing in the place of promise) knew not of, and "the fields white to harvest." How blessed it is to see, when Jesus was rejected as Messiah, and weary as Man, the former only drives Him into His own absolute fulness in grace, coming out (never weary in service) pure from all inferior elements in its own pureness, and absolute grace bringing in the power of a new life to God! In chapter 3, You must be born again." Here "The Gift of God." How blessed to see the rest of His heart in the fruit of the actings of His own grace! For that the fields were white for harvest though Israel knew Him not. But no moment could be more solemn than that when God thus (come in goodness) forsook His own institutions, the place where He said salvation was. All was given up, as to man, but only to bring in the power of eternal life in the free gift of God. In this aspect the chapter is one of the deepest import.

All divinely founded institutions in connection with man of which Christ could say, "Salvation is of the Jews" -- all tradition referred by man to a supposed source of descended blessing which guaranteed their position -- "our father Jacob" -- wholly set aside; future expectations set aside by a present living Saviour. We may add responsibility, ending in judgment superseded by present gift and salvation -- eternal life.

Note in John 6 we have incarnation, death, and ascension to come. But if it be applied to the Lord's supper, we are as much called upon to eat Christ living in incarnation, as we are Christ dying and shedding His blood on the Cross. The only thing we are not called upon to eat is Christ as He is now -- the only way they would make us do it as it is now taught. And in truth it is a Christ humbled and dying on which the soul feeds. We shall be like Him as He is, and are transformed into His image by the Spirit in contemplating Him; but feeding on a glorious Christ is wholly unscriptural.

I do not think in John 6:51, that phage (shall have eaten) is

[Page 187]

what is past, and ho trogon (he that eats), verse 54, continuous; one is fact without time, the other is character -- he who eats. But the latter does suppose it is not done once for all, or it would be, I suppose, ho phagon.

I have long ago remarked that the Spirit and the flesh, the Son and the devil, and the Father and the world are in opposition in Scripture, but the opposition between the Father and the world is much more developed than I had remarked. It is stated in 1 John 2, but in chapters 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Gospel, it will be found brought out in very various aspects. One sees a complete world, so to speak, a stream of blessing flowing down of which the Father is the Source and Spring -- a system of positive blessing in relationship with Him, and taking its character from its Source, the whole of which is stamped with that character, of which Christ, as Son, is the immediate Revelation and Centre, which then takes in the saints brought in, in and with Him, and into a whole scene of blessing in the light of the Father's countenance. In these Christ secures us now by the Holy Father's keeping. The world is looked at as a system wholly outside it, having no part in it, distinct, and indeed opposed, being not of the Father. The personal glory connected with this Christ had before the world was. He came into it from the Father, was sent into it, and so are we as of the Father by Him, being not of it as He was not of it. This world is what is grown up from the fall of the first Adam -- a system thus connected with man (fallen) but not of God at all, though He may overrule it. But then the Father introduces an entirely new thing by the Son, in connection with a subsistence and a glory which existed before the world ever was. He has this here as Son, but He is thus also, as Man, to set it up -- a Second Adam. These chapters should be more studied in this view.

Although not that which is first put forth, on the contrary the solemn closing ground, yet, as opening out the condition of saints, I would refer to what is said at the end of chapter 17, "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared," etc. Now here the world is put in direct breach with Jesus. He had displayed the Father in the world -- they had seen and hated both Him and the Father, thus not really knowing one or the other, yet what They were was manifested, and this they hated. But Christ (the Son)

[Page 188]

was loved before the foundation of the world. The Father's delight was fully and completely in Him before the world was. Hence, the world having rejected Him, and seen no beauty in Him, the Father and the world were in complete opposition. Christ is taken out of it, and set at God's right hand in the glory He had with Him before the world was; this, on two grounds -- His title as Son, and His work. Thus a completely distinct scene is for us, in contrast with the world. We are associated with Him who was the Father's delight before ever the world existed, and is returned into it as Man, so as to bring us into it. Then Christ declares the Name of the Father -- puts us into the relationship in which He is as Son -- gives us the words the Father gave Him when down here, i.e., all the communications which filled up in blessing and enjoyment the measure of the relationship down here. Thus the joy is full, Christ's joy fulfilled in ourselves. Then the testimony is given. We, thus associated with Him in the Father's delights, are not of the world as He Himself is not of the world. We belong to the other system with the Father, in the Son whom the world has rejected, but who was loved before the world was. We are chosen out of the world, too. Such is our position in the world, and as absolutely not of it, but of the other system of the Son's relationship to the Father who delights in Him. Thus we are sent into it as He was sent into it -- the best proof of our not being of it. But how brought practically into a condition capable of this? First, we are to be sanctified by the truth. The Father's word is the judgment of everything that is according to His mind -- is the expression of it. All things are put in their true light by it in reference to what He is. But this is not all. Christ has set Himself apart -- the Man, as we have seen, exalted into glory which, as Son, He had with the Father before the world was, and this becomes, in its communication, the truth to us. We get not only the truth by the Word, so that all is estimated rightly, but the positive excellency, the affections engaged in all that tells this truth. Christ has sanctified Himself that we may be sanctified through the truth. The Spirit takes these things and shows them to us, and we are in heart associated with those things in which the Father delights, and which are indeed ours, and thus are separated from the world. The bearing of the chapter will thus be clear, however imperfect the expression of it may be.

[Page 189]

It is remarkable how the Gospel of John refers entirely to earth -- Christ on earth, and the saints on earth. It is the Life and Son of God come down here, not the children of the first Adam going up to heaven; and nothing of the Church, while the Jews are wholly set aside; only it is the "Son of man who is in heaven" -- the divine life and nature upon earth. The exceptions only confirm the general view. In chapter 3, He alludes to heavenly things -- in chapter 6, to the possibility of His ascending with "what and if" -- in chapter 13, it is laid down prospectively as the ground and objective measure of washing. The disciples are comforted with it prospectively, chapter 14, and Himself is to be glorified, chapter 17; so chapter 12, and to Mary Magdalene, who is to tell that He is ascending. But all these are to give a character to those on earth, a heavenly character like the Son of man who is in heaven. Even these takings of the Lord up to heaven are used to bring out in them the heavenly thing upon earth. This is beautiful. It is a glorious thing that Adam's children, who belong creatively to earth, should be taken up to heaven, and have their reward there. It is another thing that the eternal life that was with the Father, the Word made flesh, shouldbe displayed in a Man (as an only begotten with a father) and we now, having this life, be so set to display it on earth, being united to Him who is in heaven, quickened with His life, as He on earth was perfectly associated in heaven. Hence the great aim of the close of the Gospel is to place us in the same place as Himself on earth, not to take us out of it. When He comes again, of course this will be the ultimate result, and that He tells them. Hence too, all the close of the Gospel is occupied with showing them that they belong to another system which is not the world, but the Father's, and they are sent into the world as He was, as from that home to bear its character in that relationship, and if He be gone there as Man, it is that having thus set Himself apart as the heavenly Man, we should be found, after Him, as heavenly men upon the earth.

Note too, in Ephesians 1:21, in connection with what I have remarked as to our association with the Father in a system entirely without the world, in association with Christ, loved before its foundation, not of the world as He is not of the world, and sent into it as He was, brought out in chapter 17, and indeed chapters 14-17, and the Epistle, that as that was for the individuals, so here Christ is raised above all the

[Page 190]

created powers, not only now but in the whole hierarchy in the world to come, and there it is the Church is united to Him.

In John 1 we have already Christ before the foundation of the world (compare what is said of John 17, and Ephesians 1 and 2). The other Gospels give the proving of Adam, or the Jews, by the coming of Christ; not so John -- the Jews are treated as reprobates in starting. He came into the world and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own and His own

received Him not, but He had been in the beginning before ever the world was, and created it. But we do not receive life from man, or what is born in the world, but of God. And then the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we have received of His fulness, i.e., of Him who was before the worlds. It connects us with what was before the worlds -- that eternal life which was with the Father.

The connection, John speaks of, with the Father and which we have seen connects itself with our having a life which, in the Person of Christ, existed before the world was, runs on into the principle of light also. The living God is Light. Of Christ it is said, "In him was life" -- in that Word who was in the beginning, and who made the worlds -- "And the life was the light of men." As man was made in the image of God after His likeness, so Christ was in nature the Light of men (not of angels as such) He is the Image of the invisible God. But we are born of God, and "He that hath the Son hath life," God having given to us eternal life -- quite a different thing from simply being immortal. It is the possession of that divine life which, in Christ, never had a beginning, that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, and of which, in its moral qualities, it is said, "Which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light now shineth." Hence it is said of us, "Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." But in us this partaking of the divine life, or nature, is dependent as it is derivative. And though it is a nature which, in se, does not sin and delights in God, as the eye in light, yet we have to walk in the light. We have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ in that life which is from Them (and that through the Holy Ghost) but then "God is Light," and fellowship with Him out of the light is impossible. It is not 'If we walk according to the light' -- that is the practical consequence in this world, even when we are not directly

[Page 191]

enjoying communion, but we walk in the light when we walk with God fully revealed to soul and conscience. It is a real thing in life -- we walk, but more than walking according to light. It is a walking in the presence of a fully revealed God, the conscience, and spiritual judgment, and apprehension being in the light as He is -- what God is, perfectly seen, and everything by it, and all clear as it is in light and for the soul. If we walk thus with God inwardly, all is judged inwardly, and our life is only the expression of the working of God in power in the life which we have of Him, of Christ in us (wisdom and power). Then temptations lose their force as snares or attractions, because all is judged in the light and according to it, i.e., the communications of the divine nature in us with God Himself as Light, and Object of the affections, Centre of them -- as of the city, the glory of God lightens it, and the Lamb is the Light thereof -- the phronema (mind) of the Spirit is the active element in us, and this is the true principle of obedience, the divine will being added, and thence a law of liberty. This is the reason why the flesh is not found in the Christian experiences of Philippians. "To me to live is Christ." Temptations to go through are found, i.e., hostile difficulties, but not temptations to enter into.

There are still one or two points I would remark in chapter 1. First, this abstract part is light, and while such in se is thus for condemnation by opposition of nature, and speaks of God and light, whereas, verse 14, His actual coming in grace in flesh is grace. Hence we have the Father, and Christ as Son; as we have seen heretofore in chapters 8, 9 and 10, so chapters 3: 19 and 17: 3, and all through, as often noticed. But further, we must look at what Christ was thus abstractly as His divine place no doubt, but also as the Source of blessing for us, when grace does work. He was not only God, so that we know God, but He was with God (pros ton Theon). All He was, a distinct Person, He was towards God. This is an all-important truth, because when incarnate and returned into glory this does not cease, ze to theo (He liveth unto God) here not pros (with) -- that "was" (en) in His nature -- here the object and end of life, as such, in its purpose, as well as its character; ze (liveth) is the activity of what was, and now in manhood.

Then downwards He is the Light of men specifically and specially. Both thus are true when by grace He is our Life;

[Page 192]

only we cannot say esmen pros (we are with), but zomen to (we live to) we can; and hence, as is Philippians 2:15, 16, the same place comes out for us. Then we have life, object, reception from His fulness, and privilege of taking the relationship in which He stands. The first nature is ignorance or opposition; hence a new one in receiving Christ, but this in relationship with the Father. Note, too, light is of "every man," reception "as many as," and they "born of God," not of man's will. Truth is more than light, quod nota. Light is simply that which God is in His nature, which, manifesting everything, is avoided by him who does evil, though and because it is perfect in itself. But truth cannot be separated from grace; it is the entering in of grace, so as to show what everything is indeed, but as grace because it reveals God in goodness, or it would not be the truth. Light does not say "the Father and the Son"; it just shows good and evil with divine authority, but the great truth is, "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour." No doubt it tells us the truth about our sins, but it tells it me in grace by Jesus coming into the world about them, by the presence of Jesus in grace. It reveals the Father sending the Son in grace, and the blessed perfectness of Jesus in grace here, though our state therewith, but in goodness and attractive power towards us, whatever the result. It does not require -- that Law did, which therefore was not truth. It tells, and cannot tell, with Christ in the world, without telling of grace, though, as I said, it tells us the truth about ourselves. If the grace were not there, the truth would not. Blessed truth!

I have long remarked that "From the beginning" in 1 John 1, means from the beginning of Christ's path down here. But the importance of this is very great. It is the true beginning, not, I need say, of that which has none, nor, what is important to notice, of the provisional and first presented scheme of creation (though what abides was first in purpose) as to that. In the beginning "was" and then came Creation; this is the historical statement of the Gospel, before declaring what the Word, the Creator, was in Himself, and as made flesh. But here the history, before speaking of the communicated effects in us, takes up exactly what the Gospel has brought out -- the manifestation, the first manifestation, of God Himself, of a divine Person as the Beginning and to be the Centre of all that is eternal. God manifest in the flesh then first "was."

[Page 193]

Jehovah had given a Law, and sent Prophets in connection with the responsibility of man, but now the Son of God appeared. God was manifested, and, as to the Person of Christ, not our connection with Him, the foundation of the new, first purposed glory and system was manifested and began. Christ's Person -- His work gives us a portion with Him -- was the beginning of the whole system of the revelation of God. God had acted; He was a Creator. God had spoken, and made man a creature responsible; but God, such as He was before there was a creation, or a morality founded on a creature's relationship, was now first manifested. This was the true beginning. Our having part in it was not the beginning -- that was by redemption and Christ's work as to righteousness; but it was the beginning of that manifestation of God in the Person of Christ, in which we have part, in its full display in glory, by redemption.

It is worthy of remark that 1 John 1 is wholly objective. Further in the Epistle he speaks of life communicated, but he begins with life manifested, and what communion is with, not how. There must be life, and the Holy Ghost, but that is not touched on here. This particularly in the first part; but even in the second, we are in light, not "light in the Lord." Nor is what follows properly subjective, but the discussion of what concerns communion.

Christ is not only eternal life but the Word of Life. All He said was the expression of what He was (John 8). Then it is communicated as a seed of life, spiritually received by faith. We have fellowship in life with the Father and with the Son. Those who had known Him, as the clay on the eyes of the blind man, knowing Him thus personally revealed by the Holy Ghost as the Sent One, became by the Word the instrument of bringing others in. So onward by the Word; we are formed by the Word after Christ; sanctified by the Word; and Christ has now sanctified Himself in heavenly glory, that we might be sanctified by the truth. Now Christ was this beginning of manifestation of God, and of all His counsels as to the new but really oldest thing (for here the world is only by the bye) which He was setting up. His Person was the power and substance of it all, for us, however, it is true, becoming true in us, as in Him, consequent on redemption. It is old as the beginning in Him of the manifestation of God when He was incarnate -- new, as introducing it

[Page 194]

into us by redemption. Then he who keeps His word, i.e., the spring of all his thoughts and inward life is the Word in which all the form and parts and reality of this life in Christ are found, in him the love of God is perfected -- the flesh has no part in this, but it is practically out of sight and movement when the Word is kept, and thus the whole being of the believer is in relationship with God in love, and God who is Love being really what is thus communicated, and, there be ing nought distracting in the mind, the man being morally this, i.e., the Word formed in Him, God's love is revealed perfectly in him. The divine nature communicated enjoys the full perfection of the love which has communicated it, and which has no hindrance in, nay, cannot but reveal itself to, the nature which flows from and is the communication of itself, and able to enjoy, flowing without hindrance when the Word, which revealed it, is kept. The snare of mysticism, which has no place here, is carefully guarded against in 1 John 4.

We may indeed, well note in 1 John 1 the exceeding blessedness of life being made an object, so that it should be presented to us in all its source, power, and fulness -- that eternal life which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us. Yet it is ours; hence, what qualification (for the Holy Ghost becomes power -- a subject not introduced here, where all is treated as life -- He has given us of His Spirit) what qualification for communion! And how wonderfully and essentially intimate that communion must be! It is that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, and becomes our life. "He that hath the Son, hath life." Yet it is presented to us in its own perfectness and fulness, objectively in Christ, so that we lose nothing of all its perfect fulness; and note herewith that, in virtue of this, we have a revelation of the Father in the Son livingly, and the Son known in life, and the Father in and by Him. So we have fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through Him who, in the power of life, reveals the Father, and in whom, as the Object of the Father's delight, we have communion with the Father's thoughts, as with the Son's as so manifesting the Father. All flows from life being presented to us objectively in the Person of the Son.

As to this point -- that life is objectively before us in Christ -- it is of the highest interest; not only we have it in all its perfectness and proper power, but "As the Father hath

[Page 195]

life in himself, so he hath given to the Son" as down here "to have life in himself." That eternal life which was manifested, was so in the Person of the Son. God hath given to us eternal life, and that life is in the Son. "He that hath the Son hath life." Hence, in knowing Him, and receiving Him as life, we receive the Son, and in the Son the Father; and this being in a life which has the nature and character of Christ, we have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. The power may be, and is, of the Holy Ghost, but the nature of it is found here. The whole of it lies in seeing Christ as objective Life, and yet our life.

There are three points in 1 John 1, but the first is general as to the witness of what God is by the revelation of Him, and communion we have in Christ -- "If we say we have fellowship with Him"; "If we say we have no sin"; "If we say we have not sinned." In the first case, "We lie and do not the truth." In the second, "We deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." In the third, "We make God a liar, and His word is not in us." In the first, there is contradiction between our walk and our profession. God being Light, the pretension to communion with Him and a walk in darkness is a practical lie. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves"; it is a judgment we pass falsely on ourselves, self-deceived, and the truth is not in us. Were the power of the truth in us, we should recognise the true character of the principle of darkness in the flesh. The power of life and truth and light are not in us. "If we say we have not sinned," actually "we make God a liar," for He has said we have; and His word, in which He has declared it, is not in us, though we may pretend to receive it outwardly. On the other hand, "If we walk in the light" -- the Christian standing -- the other parts of that standing are then, "Fellowship together" and "The blood of Jesus cleansing from all sin," so that "In the light as God is in the light," we are pure, though we cannot say we have no sin. We can say that we are cleansed by blood as in the light. And if we confess our sins, He forgives them, and cleanses from unrighteousness (actual sin) though we cannot say we have not committed any. It is the abstract truth, power and position. Verse 6 answers to verse 3, in connection with the revelation of what God is; verse 8 to 7 and verse 10 to 9.

I do not know whether I have clearly pointed out the completeness of the introduction of the Epistle, chapter 1: 1-2: 11.

[Page 196]

We have first the full blessing of communion with the Father and the Son in life, 'That our joy may be full.' Next, the true character of this communion flowing from the nature of God, and the means and their completeness, which makes it possible for a sinner. Thirdly, the means of its practical restoration, if interrupted by our fault -- means, whose employ is founded on righteousness (or the righteous One) before God, and propitiation made for us. In the fourth place, there is the practical character and evidence of the life in us, by commandment, which while maintaining authority (which must be to have what is right, because it is right) yet is perfect liberty, because the thing commanded is true in us as well as in Christ by the communication of life, and of the Holy Ghost as its power and consciousness in communion. The two parts of the evidence are obedience to God's will and love to the brethren. Then the Apostle gives his motive for writing, and proceeds to unfold from chapter 2: 28, the whole condition and character of this life going on through the nature we have received as born of God, and the presence of the Holy Ghost, to dwelling in God and God in us, and the consciousness of it, and the perfectness of love in our position in Christ and as Christ Himself before God. But this is not my subject here.

Note the connection in 1 John 3; first, as often remarked, Christ is seen as one Person -- God and eternal life, manifested in the Word made flesh. Hence He appears in chapter 2: 28, i.e., is Man (in glory); we are born of Him, verse 29, and so He is God and we sons of God. And as He as Man in the world was not known, as the world did not discern He was the Son, "knew him not," so it does not know us who are sons (children) also. That we are, and here we are in His place in relationship with God as Father, and He being our life we are so completely associated with Him, that we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. Thus we are fully like and as Christ, He being our Life, in the presence of God, with the Father, in the house, entered with the Son into the excellent glory. This grace has called us to, as alive in and by the Second Adam, the Son of God, as having eternal life, our calling as associated with Him our life.

What I would now note is that we see how the Apostle turns to the other side of man's position -- his responsibility as child

[Page 197]

of Adam, having shown his place as child of God. "He that hath this hope in Christ," i.e., of being like Him, "purifies himself as he is pure." But there is no limit between this and lawlessness. If he is not in the divine calling to glory of the Second Adam, he is in the absolute selfwill and lawlessness of the first. It is not, of course, transgression of law, but a difference of nature, the being born of God. And this difference enters into the whole force of the passage, for law proves the old man to see whether it is good. This contrasts divine life in the Second Adam -- our being really born of God, and Christ Himself our life -- with those, as to their nature, the children of the devil. Making an applied rule the question, destroys the whole force of the argument and teaching. The traits of the two families are brought out, not transgression.

All hangs here, in John, on Christ's being eternal life, here first manifested, then communicated -- He who is, and is not here separated in thought from God, and yet who is our life so that we are associated with Him in unity of place and nature -- "True in him and in you"; just as death put away the old thing, and resurrection brought us into acceptance in the Beloved, in the new estate, so we are dead to the old thing and alive according to the new. The difference between Romans and 1 John 3:9, is that as Romans brings in man as a sinner, it leads him up to the point of death to that, and life to God through Jesus, whilst John speaks of the Life come down from God in its nature becoming our life, and John knows nothing but that as life in one born of God, though he well knows we cannot say we have no sin.

But the character of divine righteousness is very distinct and definite, if we think of Christ. If I keep the law, I fulfil the obligation of a man. But Christ's work, though He did that, was a very different thing. He by His work on the Cross glorified God, which brought Him as Man into God's glory. All that God was, Righteousness, Love, His truth, His majesty wholly compassed by sin (really to be glorified) was perfectly glorified on the Cross. Otherwise, if justice had its way, no love; if forgiveness simply, no justice, but, sin or not, all alike. This was not God -- but through the Cross, Christ offering Himself through the eternal Spirit, God was perfectly glorified in the place of sin -- what God was. Hence it was divine righteousness, keeping the Law, made good man's place; the work on the Cross made good God's. Hence He enters

[Page 198]

into the divine glory, and we rejoice in the hope of it. But this is divine righteousness. The difference is very simple. Righteousness is consistency with the relationship in which we stand, and practically, we may say, consistency with the obligation in which we stand to God. Only that in God consequently it has the character of His judging according to this. Now keeping the Law would be man's righteousness, because the Law is the perfect measure of the obligations of man in the relationship in which man stands to God, and, we may add, to his neighbour, as placed in this relationship by God. Christ's keeping the Law would fulfil this obligation -- and no more, or it would not be obligation or righteousness; but in offering Himself through the eternal Spirit without spot to God, and dying on the Cross, He glorified all that God is in Himself, His own nature -- hence this accepted of God was divine righteousness. Accomplishment of the Law could be no more than a justly measured obligation, measured by the relationship -- if it were more, it were not righteousness in it. It is human righteousness consequently. But glorifying what God is is not human righteousness -- it is, as to its measure and ground, evidently divine -- the righteousness is shown in the conferring of divine glory, according to John 13-17.

198 Note also the connection of 1 John 3:5, 6, "In him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." No doubt the whole passage depends on life being Christ, as life in us, on which is founded the assertion, "He cannot sin," for, our nature being of the seed of God, that is impossible; yet Christ is objectively considered here too, and as in Him is no sin, he who abides in Him, whose life, affections, thoughts, dependence, have their existence by and from Him, does nor sin. There is the living abiding in Him, as well as His being our life, or being born of God, in this passage.

Although I have noticed the principle elsewhere, I remark here that though in 1 John 4:9-19, the Spirit of God shows that the soul looks to the action of God in love to know it, not in us, yet in the end it turns back fully to the way in which we become livingly Christ, so to speak. As He is -- we have had identity of relationship through communication of life, and, in result, our being like Him when He appears, declaring we shall see Him "as he is." So here we are "as he is," in this world, founded on the same truth, only known to and realised by the soul now.

[Page 199]

Though it is not a new apprehension, yet it is worthy of all note -- what a place of blessing the comparison of 1 John 4:12, and John 1:18! How the revelation of God by the Son, as in the bosom of the Father, is known and realised by His dwelling in us, in connection with a communicated life -- with His being our Life (compare 1 John 1:1, 2, and chapter 2: 8), so that we possess, live in, are acquainted with, enjoy, draw from, and abide in, so that it is the atmosphere of our moral existence, all that God is revealed to be as the Son knows Him, as dwelling in His bosom! (See, too, the effect in John 17:26.) But what a blessing is this! And how it makes one know what the blessedness of heaven is! For what can be more perfect or sweet, or more absolute, than the knowledge of the Father by the Son as in His Father? 1 John 4:12 shows it to be in connection with the possession of the very nature of God Himself. "If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us." This love has been manifested to us in Christ (see verse 10, and chapter 3: 16); but it dwells in us, i.e., God who is Love. And it is perfected in us. Remark here that we have "perfected in us," of which I now speak, and "with us," in verse 17, where our position before God is spoken of in connection with the day of judgment, that, through this union with Christ, "as he is, so are we in this world."

But I return to the great principle flowing from the comparison of John 1:18, with this 1 John 4:12 -- that the perfection manifested in Christ is now our portion through the dwelling of God in us, as partakers of His nature, and so he says, "of his Spirit," not "his Spirit" here. It is a wonderful place, and shows, as I have said, what our heavenly joy is.

Remark too the connection between 1 John 4:17: "as he is, so are we" as to our position, and chapter 3: 2: "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." In the latter, He appears, and we are "like him"; in the former, we have boldness, because we are "as he is."

But as we have already seen in verse 12 -- how the Epistle of John develops the life in us, of which the perfection was displayed in Jesus! Chapter 3: 16 has struck me in the same sense. How wonderfully does it set us (of course atonement is out of question here) in the same place as Christ, i.e., the very same life unfolds itself in us as did in Him in all its perfection! It displays itself in us in exactly the same traits,

[Page 200]

qualities, actings, feelings, motives, as in Him, even as giving Himself. He laid down His life for us -- well then, we ought to lay down our lives too! This is unspeakably blessed. What a fund of capacity it gives us (through grace) of enjoying Christ who is all this in its perfection! And what a place down here! What a hope -- when we see Him as He is! This is an unspeakable source of joy, a character and capacity of joy, which is most blessed and intimate. Nor is this left out in the passage in chapter 4: 17, "as he is," even "in this world." It is before, but it is not simply forensic, as men speak, but we have part in the perfectness of Christ, forensically, because we share His life in fact. It is not this life in us which is the perfectness, but this life in us is the way that we have to say to Him, in whose perfectness we stand before God. Paul tells the same truth in the way in which truth was committed to him, through the power of the Holy Ghost, as Hegave the forensic place for it (and so we need it to be freed from law) and then shows its connection with life, as in Romans 6, and end of Galatians 2. He says, "Therefore I endure all things for the elects' sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Christ could say that, of course, in a sense in which Paul could not, but, as regards the working of the same love, it is the same truth as John gives to us. To him I return, for this communion of life gives us a wonderful nearness, and power of enjoyment.

Note as to dwelling in God and God in us, we have it presented in a triple way, and inverse order. First, when the great truth of God's dwelling in us is presented, of which the consequence is that we dwell in Him; thus, "Hereby we know that he abides in us by the Spirit which he has given to us," and again, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God." The latter being the consequence of the former. Now the consequence of God dwelling in us is that we dwell in Him. He is our dwelling place, in heart, we are sheltered, protected, at home in God. We abide there as our hiding place and perfect joy. But thus we realise the spirit and power of that in which we dwell, and this realisation gives an active, living character to the dwelling of God in us, so that we are said to dwell in Him first in this case, and He in us because this last is in power and grace. Hence it is said: "If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us." "Hereby we know that we

[Page 201]

dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit," and "He who dwells in love dwells in God and God in him." He abides in this power and source of joy and blessing, and thus the power and blessing of Him in whom he dwells is reproduced in him. We have already remarked the astonishing power and reality of this truth, from the comparison of 1 John 4:12 with John 1:18. The dwelling of God in us being an answer to the difficulty of having never seen God, as to His manifestation in the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, i.e., in Him in whom the whole love of the Father centres in the most intimate nearness. We may add chapter 2: 5, where observing His word, His love is perfected in us, and thus "we know" we are in Him. The fruit, by His dwelling in us in power and grace, is not followed out, but the responsibility of walking as He walked, for it is specially connected with Christ here, whose Person is identified with God in this Epistle, as manifested in Him; compare chapter 5: 20.

Thus, in chapter 4, we have first God -- His love manifested for life and propitiation; then His dwelling in us and so we in Him; and thirdly, love perfected with us in placing us as Christ before God, while in the world. As to what we are, there is first nature -- we love, therefore are born of God, and know God; next, God's dwelling in power, to fill, quicken, and animate this nature.

There are also one or two points to be noticed in 1 John 5, besides those already seen. We have the Spirit, the water, and the blood, agreeing in the witness, purifying, expiation are come, through the death of Christ to all association with man alive in Adam, and the Spirit too. He witnesses, the water purification by death also, and blood cleansing the conscience by blood. Death is sealed, even in grace, on the first man. Yet it is grace. God has not mended or reformed man in the first Adam -- there is death to that -- but the witness is that He gives eternal life. It is not derived from the first Adam; the way of having it is by death to that, not by Law -- that is no wonder. But grace does not act in leading on what was in man; it acts by death on it and for it. God has given, not wrought in what man had. What He has given is eternal life -- new, divine life to be enjoyed for ever with Him. What God has given must be blessing with Him, and it is for ever, but it is not life given to men in man -- a life to the fallen Adam in

[Page 202]

himself This life is in the Son, not in the man who receives it but in the Son. But this puts him in the relationship of the Son, and his life is in Him. The believer has it, but has it in the Son, not an independent eternal life in himself; hence, "He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Thus, as at the beginning, it is the eternal life, which was with the Father, manifested and communicated, true in Him and in us now; and then, when He shall appear we are to be like Him. How simply Scripture teaches it! But what a wondrous place!

Note further in 1 John 1, there is more, as regards fellowship, than the fact of life suited as being from Christ, to give us capacity for fellowship. That eternal life was WITH the Father, as it is said in the Gospel, the Word was WITH God, i.e., we have the Son as Life, personally distinct from the Father. It is that which was with (pros) the Father, which has been manifested. The Father has life in Himself, but here is Life WITH the Father. Hence, when manifested, we see the revelation of the Father in Him, according to that nature in which the Life was, and receiving of this Life we have communion with the Father with whom it was, and with the Son in whom it has been manifested (and so the Father livingly, and in Him; compare John 1 and 14). This is important here as regards the fellowship -- it is in Christ manifested down here; nor can anything thus be more intimate than this communion.

Remark, too, that in John it is never, 'Hereby do we know that we believe' -- it is not a subjective fact -- "we know him," and "are in him."

I return to John 14:15, 16; it is this -- both refer to the point of His going away and their desire to keep Him. This is met by two considerations -- If ye love Me do not desire Me to stay, but keep My commandments. Besides, I will, by and on going, pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, who shall abide for ever. Both refer to their anxiety that He should stay as proof of their love, and as taking their trouble away. If it was love, prove it is genuine; trouble would be relieved. Thus, chapter 13, "clean" for heaven -- a "part with Me"; chapter 15, to produce fruit. But though on earth, chapter 15 very distinctly points to His removal.

Again, in chapter 13, we have evidently not position but

[Page 203]

fitness for position -- hence, cleansing; in chapter 17, much more position -- hence Christ's finished work, not washing, privilege we have. But then we have another enquiry, which suggests itself. We have keeping from evil in the world, and sanctifying by the Word according to the setting apart of Jesus (as exalted). And note, up to verse 24, chapter 17 refers wholly to their place in this world, only their setting apart in it was according to Jesus' setting apart to God -- always true, but now fully made good as separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens. In chapter 13, Christ is viewed in His abstract perfection and conferred glory, as gone up, and the disciples washed for a part with Him; whereas, in chapter 17: 1-23, He puts them, representatively, in His place in the world, but in the place of sons with Him who, to Christ, was "Holy Father," with the words, and the Name given and revealed. Hence, first positively in the place in relationship, and then representatively, because verses 6-8 are what He had done. Hence, here note there is not the thought of washing when I look at "come from God" and "gone to God," and "a place with" Christ there. Even though I may not need for any particular thing the washing of the feet at a given moment, yet, as a principle, we need washing, and by Christ, to have a part with Him, for, in any case, there is that, save in the principle of the new nature, which needs washing, and, hence, it is feet not hands, walk not acts; while in chapter 17, it is being kept from evil such as there is in this world -- a state of soul preserved according to God from the evils, opposite to His nature and will, around. Hence also progress on towards Christ, in knowledge of what He is by the truth, formed more into all the motives and character which the Word, and the Word revealing Christ, gives. I have a good conscience if I live up to the light which I have acquired in truth of heart, but I may yet need cleansing and purifying into the fulness of what He is, and what is in God's presence. I purify myself as He is pure. He washes my feet when I have picked up defilement, but I need purifying -- Christ's washing -- as a principle, continually; so we -- "He that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, as he is pure," for "We shall see him as he is," i.e., according to chapter 13.

Note again, too, in chapter 17, the chapter passes really from verse 6 to verse 24, i.e., Christ passes into glory, and then takes us up there. It is never death or suffering on His part

[Page 204]

in John -- He has glorified His Father, finished His work, and then goes into glory; but verses 6-24 is all on earth. Communications of grace have placed them in relationship with the Father -- where He could, as in it -- and then with the world in testimony, but explicitly as left on earth when He was gone. As to the unity, no doubt it is founded on divine life and the Holy Ghost, but still, I think, whatever universality in principle may exist, and I admit it, yet the literal application to the Apostles of the first, as contrasted with those through their word, gives, as noticed elsewhere, the thought of absolute unity of counsel, thought, purpose, plan, as living in that glory of the Father's name by the Son, apart from the whole thought of the world, though in it. Whereas, as to those brought in, it was only in derivative communion the unity was according to 1 John 1:3. Verses 22, 23, bring all into the fully unity. It returns to the perfect unity of the Father and Son in themselves, not introcession, as it is called, one being in the other, to which communion through the connecting power answers in us, because in glory all saints will be one, according to perfect and like grace. This is in manifestation. The Father manifested in His perfect glory in the Son, and the Son in all the saints, so that they have evidently been loved kathos ('as' is not exactly the meaning) He has been loved. But this, of Christ's being in them, makes them perfect in one according to what He is displayed in, yet not apart from the Father being in Him, without which it would not be perfect. Hence we have first, the absolute and essential unity of the Father and the Son, which makes them absolutely One in all that they are essentially, and what flows from it; then mutuality of being in one another, the source and object of joy and blessing in an ineffable way; thirdly, display -- the Father in the Son (compare beginning of chapter 14.) To the first answers the wholly absorbed mind and action of the disciples in the power of the Holy Ghost; to the second, that into which all were brought by the Holy Ghost; to the third, the perfect display of glory in all the saints -- Christ (in whom the Father was) in them, and here no difference, all appear loved kathos (as) Christ was loved.

There is a point in John's Epistle which I had not noticed hitherto, and which is interesting; from the beginning of chapter 3 the Father is not mentioned -- it is always God (theos). It is His nature as God. We are children of God

[Page 205]

(tekna theou). We may remark that in the first chapter, there are the two points; first -- "Fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ," then it is stated that God is such, namely, "Light." The following part follows this. Chapter 2 gives relationship with the Father, and the acknowledgment of Him through the Son. Chapter 3 to the end, it is always God. But the way in which Love is introduced is remarkable. The whole doctrine of the Epistle flows from life. The not keeping of the commandments of God is a proof that we do not know Him, but if we do keep them, His love (which is His nature) is perfected in us, flows in us, in its own true nature and character, and in the consciousness of it. Thereon, God being thus known in the obedience of His loved creature, this love flowing forth is necessarily exercised towards the Author -- he abides in the light for he walks in the nature of God. Hence, when developed, it is introduced as the fruit of the Father's love, through "We are children of God" (tekna, children, as begotten, not huioi, sons), i.e., born of Him so as to be partakers of His nature through the sovereign bestowal of the Father. Hence he speaks of the love bestowed upon us, because, though the communication of a nature, it is the sovereign love, and bestowal of grace. Hence the world does not know us having this nature, more than Christ who was the manifestation of it in life. Hence the likeness to Him is carried on to perfection. The characteristic development of this nature (manifested in its perfectness in Christ, chapter 3: 16 is then pursued, connected with faith in Christ, as the proof, and the presence of the Spirit as the power of it. The truth in acknowledging Christ is the grand test of false spirits. Hence, as it is the participation of the nature, God alone is spoken of in this part, save in the one testimony which brings men into it; chapter 4: 14.

We have seen how the love of God is introduced in chapter 2; His Being, as such, is introduced only in speaking of the love of God, the word of God, the will of God. So that it is a different thing from Himself in His nature, though the first is closely connected with it, so far as revealed in us, and communicated to us. Appearing before God is quite a different thing -- there He is judicially viewed as righteous.

In 1 John 2 we have some interesting points not noted. The Father's things in contrast with the world, of which Satan is the prince -- brings out the way in which we live in them.

[Page 206]

The things are 'of' the Father (all that is in the world is 'of the world -- an immense system built up to develop and suit flesh, and that by Satan) -- "We are of God." "Of God are ye" -- partakers of the divine nature. All the Father's things are Christ's, and delivered to Him; they are His glory, and He the glory of them. This nature finds its natural objects in them; the Life is Christ, and the things the things of Christ, for all that the Father hath is His -- we born of God, and He our Life. Then the Spirit takes the things and shows them to us. We have an unction from the Holy One and know all things. We do not then look on the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen. Our nature, we have our life and development in these things. The unction of the Holy One has introduced us into them all. Then we have to abide in what we heard from the beginning -- no Church-teaching (the Church does not teach -- it has heard and believed) no development of it. We are called upon to abide in what we heard from the beginning -- but Christ is that. It is truth, but it is a Person who is that truth (as is confirmed further on). Now Christ is in Himself full perfection. The Church can develop nothing, unless it is going to make Christ more perfect. If it has anything else, it is apostate, in principle an Antichrist. But the moment it is Himself who is the whole of what is to be revealed, the very test of faithfulness and of the truth is 'abiding in what was from the beginning.' It is thus a Person, living Truth, holy Truth. The Truth makes us free, but the Son makes us free. There is a Person I am attached to, and who has an absolute claim and authority over me, and all truth becomes, not knowledge that puffs up but, part of my life, for Christ is my Life, and the Object of divine affections in me, because it is in Christ. Christ the Son, my Life! Christ, the Object of it, revealing, as Son, the Father! Yet all this is by the word, the truth, "that which we have heard" (the full consequence of the opposite is Jewish unbelief, and apostasy from Christianity, which is the form of Antichrist), if what we have heard from the beginning remain in us, we remain in the Son and in the Father.

But further, the anointing remains in us, and the teaching is personal and immediate. This characterises our state: "They shall be all taught of God." Having the Holy Ghost, we have the divine teaching which is the truth, and being in living power in the Holy Ghost who communicates the Truth (i.e., Christ

[Page 207]

the Son) we abide in Him. This connection of "Him" and "It" is made certain by what follows, for it goes on, "When he shall appear" -- it is all one, if we read "it" or "Him" in verse 27, though I receive "Him" -- and all this, remark, addressed to "Babes in Christ," verse 18; verse 28 begins with all Christians again.

I have remarked in 1 John 2:28, 29, and chapter 3: 1-3, how the Lord, looked at as one Person, is spoken of as God and Man alternately; but note, what is so deeply interesting, that we are also entirely associated with Him -- not then as one Person, of course, but as partakers of one nature with its consequences -- we, as born of God, are sons (teknia, of the family). The world then does not know us, as it did not know Him. What we shall be has not appeared, but this identification of position is so clear that we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him -- that cannot but be -- "like him, for we shall see him as he is" (compare John 17:24).

The only thing which we have to do with this world is the way (now I have the heavenly things, it is a wilderness) through and out of it. But there is more, and we say, Exodus 33, "Show me THY way, that I may know thee." "He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." It is the path of God in the desert. This also is Christ. He is the way to the Father -- goes before His sheep -- we have to walk as He walked. It is the word too which is the expression of His life. "Who art thou? Perfectly that which I have said unto thee." He is the Word, and His words express Himself. This must be if He is the Truth. See John 8:25-27. Ten archen ho, ti kai lalo humin ("Altogether that which I also say to you"). This passage, I doubt not, means (the chapter, we may remember, speaks of the word of Christ as testimony -- chapter 9, of His works) that He was in the principle of His nature, and altogether, that which He also said to them. They could in no other way really understand Him but by His word. He had said they were to believe that He was (ego eimi, I AM), that it was He. "Who art thou?" then say they. "In my nature and Being," answers Christ, "that which my discourse, my word expresses me to be." His word was the expression of Himself. This is the force of ten archen -- more commonly with a negative, but also without it -- that is, what a thing is altogether, or in its origin and nature. That was His present life and service. He had much to say and judge of them, but

[Page 208]

that was not His then service. But He that sent Him was true, and He then spoke in the world what He had heard from Him.

I think I see in 1 John 1 a difference between "seen" and "heard." All clearly goes together as to the Person of Christ known of the Apostle in the first verse, but then we have the manifestation of eternal life in the Person of Christ, seen by the Apostle, in verse 2. And then after saying that they declared both to them that they might have fellowship, he turns to what he had heard in the fifth verse. Christ was what He spoke, and spoke what He was; ten archen ho, ti kai lalo humin. So "Thy Word" (the Father's here) "is truth." "I sanctify myself that they might be sanctified by the truth." And thus while Christ is the living Word, the written Word gives us divinely the truth. How the written and living Word run into one another is noticed elsewhere, as in Hebrews 4. It is the same, but still in its expression here, the seen Word is more grace for affection (though we have that in the written Word, and so only now, but then, as looking to His Person, One with and the Revealer of the Father) the written Word here, exigence from the nature and authority of God. Hence in the latter case, we have "God," in the former, "Father" -- a distinction noticed as running all through John. In Hebrews it is always God; hence the living Word in chapter 4 is scrutinising, not grace. The priesthood goes on with grace there. The Advocate is with the Father for communion, only we must remember that John always sees God and Christ, subsequently to this, in One Person, and passes from one to the other as the same One.

I return again to 1 John 3:5, et seq: "In him is no sin" is not merely a dogma, important as it is as such, but the blessed rest of the new nature. All around I see and grieve at sin; I know it works in my flesh. My new nature, like Noah's dove, finds no rest, no real rest; in Him I do, "In him is no sin." God is holy, He judges and repels all sin. Angels, as creatures, have been kept; but how could my heart rest there? But Jesus has loved -- loves -- me, the Man of God's delight, of my delight, and He whom I have learned to love and look to. In Him my spirit can rest -- He is sinless. What a comfort! Sins He was manifested on purpose to take away. Blessed be God, He has done it! These hateful things are gone; but in my new nature I can rest in, delight in His Person. Then see

[Page 209]

how our likeness of Christ is wrought out in full! There are three points of the divine life: practical righteousness like Christ's, love, and confidence through obedience. As to the first, "He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." Love was known in that "He laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." He says He knew He was always heard. The Father did not leave Him alone, because He always did such works as pleased Him. So "Whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight." What a place we are set in! It is not 'He has no sin,' but "he cannot sin." It is all connected with the divine nature -- Christ being our life, and the Holy Ghost with us and in us. Note the connection -- "He was manifested to put away," that we might have done with this horrid thing, the fruits of anomia (lawlessness) working in lusts. But "In him sin is not." Then it is a consequence that he who abides in Him does not sin, for there is no such thing in Him. He who sins (is so characterised) has nothing to say to Him; for there is no sin in Him. But then it is a real nature -- born of God, does not, cannot, sin but then it is maintained by abiding in . Him, the Source and Perfection of it. It is not independent competency even in that nature. It is obedient, dependent -- was so in Christ -- and has in us its rest and strength in Christ. What an infinite blessing!

[Page 210]


There seem to me three very sufficiently distinct parts in this Gospel, besides the history at the end. First, the general history of His actual ministry in Israel, making them responsible for the reception of Him; this goes down to the end of chapter 5. Secondly, the development of His rejection, on the one hand, by Israel, i.e., of His testimony, and the preparation of His disciples for another order of things, on the other, in which His death consequently and rising again are pressed upon them. This includes His transfiguration as a preparative testimony to them of glory to come. This part closes at chapter 10: 45. Then comes His actual presenting to Jerusalem as King, and His going through the judgment of God with the different classes there -- Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. In this comes the warning to the disciples as to their consequent position in testimony as regards Jerusalem, only reaching to the Gentiles. This reaches to the end of chapter 13, His warning to His disciples closing it. Then comes the history of His final rejection, and resurrection, down to the end.

Note in the brief account in the beginning of this Gospel how the Lord is brought forward in the double character of His Person! First, He is Jehovah who comes withal after John; he goes before Him to prepare His way. That is the starting point of truth as to His Person; He who comes after John is Jehovah that was before him. Then we come to details but great truths. He baptises with the Holy Ghost -- glorious individual competency to send Him, but for us through the fulfilled work, and glorifying of Man in His Person. But then He is baptised with the baptism of repentance -- the first step of His people in the path of grace and truth, now sin was come in. Blessed truth! He, the Holy One, associates Himself with them in their path from the first, to them, needed step on. Then the heaven is opened to Him, the Holy Ghost comes down upon Him (sealed and anointed) and the Father's voice Himself owns Him as His beloved Son. Then He goes to be tempted of Satan, and to overcome for us. Wonderful scene, and wonderful grace! Other most important points I have already noticed, as the work through which we could have it -- Christ in His own perfectness, Christ's having no object but being it Himself to heaven, we having it as in the

[Page 211]

place where heaven is opened to us. But the point I now desired to note was how the two were brought together. It is very striking, and how much flows out of it as to His place and ours! And how He entered into all our difficulties, perfect in all, and a Redeemer!

In Mark, after the Lord has taken His place, generally stated at the commencement, amongst men, i.e., the Remnant going right, and Man thus entered into the true full blessing with God, but here alone in His Person, heaven opened, Himself anointed with the Holy Ghost, owned Son with the Father, and the Trinity revealed, and then not the particular temptations but the desert place of Man here tempted by Satan (contrasted with Adam and Paradise) but angels serving Him from God, we have the various characters of His ministry -- chapter 1: 14-20, the fact, the time is accomplished, the Gospel of the Kingdom preached, and disciples called of the poor of the flock to be fishers of men; verses 21-28, authority of word, and power over demons; verses 29-34, the fruits of sin, sicknesses of all kinds, as well as devils, disappear at His word; verses 35-39, He is a praying Man, but sent to preach, and again we find demons driven out; verses 40-45, the outcast leper, man's state, a defiled sinner touched and healed. Here He is Jehovah, can say, "I will," yet touching man, and defiled man, undefiled. Chapter 2: 1-12, power to pardon sins, as Psalm 103, in Israel, proved by the other part, healing infirmities -- here too Jehovah; verses 13-17, the Searcher of and Friend of Sinners; verses 18-22, His mission cannot be mixed up with Judaism, and, further, the Bridegroom was there, it was not the time to fast, but He would be taken away. The Sabbath (sign of the covenant) Messiah being rejected, has lost its Judaical title, and He takes the place of Son of man, and is Lord of it as belonging to man for good in grace, being Heir of all man's titles from God in grace. Chapter 3: 1-6, further, grace is at work, and it is right to do good on the Sabbath, He is there to save, not to kill -- they, their enmity drawn out by God being revealed thus, seek to kill, they are Satan's seed. This closes the character of the Lord's mission, and we have then the results. The testimony was in every way spread abroad (verses 7-12), the rumour of it, so that they came from every quarter, and, as ever noted in Mark, the evil spirits forced to own Him, but not allowed to speak. The message is sent out by Apostles whom He chooses, and He gives them power

[Page 212]

(verses 13-19), but the Pharisees commit themselves to unpardonable sin (verses 20-30), and then (verses 31-35) He rejects His connection with Israel according to the flesh, and owns those who have really received the Word. This effect, and the sowing of the Word, its result in the world, He then enters on. God had set up the truth to give light, and they were responsible to give it out, and all should be made manifest, and their service judged according to what they had received. Then, at the beginning, the personal service of the Lord was engaged, and at the end, at harvest; meanwhile it grew up as of itself. Further, it would be in the world as a great power. They would be tossed about, but the Lord was in the ship with them, and faith should understand and own this, though, for man, He was asleep. But winds and sea obey Him. We have then the general present result -- power there to bind Satan wholly, but rejected by the world -- the Jews rush to ruin, and the healed and delivered Remnant sent to announce the deliverance received. Then He comes to Israel to save from death, but the real case is death, but faith in the Word saves from the deadly state by the way. Power used by faith. But He will quicken the dead. But a prophet is not received in His own country. This closes the moral history, so to speak. He sends out His disciples, and the enquiry is raised, "Who is He?" But this introduces rejection, in the spirit of murder in the case of John His forerunner. Still He shows Himself the Jehovah of blessing according to Psalm 132, but dismisses the Jews, sends the disciples away alone, and goes up on high; He rejoins the ship and all is calm, and the world, which rejected Him before, receives Him gladly and is healed. Here the ship is rather the Remnant before His presence in Spirit with us -- He is in the ship.

We then come to another section -- the moral question with the Jews (chapter 7), then, deeper, the heart of man, and then the heart of God in supremacy towards even Canaaneans who had no title, promise, or ought save the curse -- divine grace meeting need and faith owning its true position. But for this it is God, and not the Son as David, though this He fully owned according to promise. Now His dealing with Israel is taking one deaf and dumb away from the multitude, and opening his ears and tongue in grace; still He is here in divine compassion on the multitude. But it is "I have compassion," not 'Give ye them to eat.' It is not seven but twelve. It is sovereign goodness not promise, and order in

[Page 213]

power. But His disciples too are dull of heart to understand; they see men as trees walking -- they see, but nothing clear as yet. But here too the man is taken outside the town. He is getting out of the mass of Israel in His work of power, not presented to them; and, when Peter owns Him the Christ, charges the disciples strictly not to tell it, and then begins to tell them of the Cross and resurrection -- the new starting-point of man. Peter earns the title of Satan, for savouring the things of man, not of God. The Cross and denying self are insisted on, on the double ground of the folly of exchanging one's soul for anything, and the glory to be revealed. This is now shown to the three. Moses and Elias disappear, and Jesus remains alone. The rejection of John is referred to as intimating the rest. But He descends still to man's misery, but, though intimating He was not to remain long with them, shows the same grace and power meanwhile as ever, but returns to the Cross with His disciples. They still cling to the Kingdom, and greatness, and the Lord shows the practical spirit they are to be of, connected with the Cross, and the world utterly hostile -- shows judgment to come, and then warns them as to abiding consistency. Judgment would try all in some way, purifying power those consecrated as an offering to God, but if salt lost its savour, nothing could salt it. This they were to have in themselves -- separation from evil, with others at peace. We are here, evidently, on wholly new ground. The Lord now shows God's full sanction and maintenance of what He had instituted, and that the creature, as such, was good from His hand, but that the heart of man was wholly departed from Him -- none could but He -- and for man salvation impossible, but not for God. To this, present blessing and persecution is added. And again He urges the Cross upon them and, in contrast with the Kingdom, the spirit they were to be of. Then commences the last history, and presentation of the Son of David at Jericho and Jerusalem -- the power of grace in the place of curse, but judgment in the seat of the Throne and of the Temple. In chapter 10, deliverance to the Gentiles is added to the fact of the Cross. The first is the change in the position of Christ, and the nature of His service in that chapter.

In this Gospel I have only to notice what has been long remarked, only strikes me more strongly, how thoroughly it is the exercise of ministry, and characterised by it, and briefly and rapidly brings this out.

[Page 214]


John the baptist baptised to repentance for the remission of sins. This has led me to dwell more on the Christian character of forgiveness -- non-imputation of sin, and the revelation of God's righteousness. It is of moment to keep both clear; a positive, actual present forgiveness, so that my soul knows God has de facto forgiven me, but it is equally important to know what it is to have no more conscience of sins, as perfected in perpetuity (eis to dienekes), Christ having obtained eternal redemption -- put, out of the whole condition of alienation and guilt, into a new place of perfect, divine favour. I must come for actual forgiveness as guilty; but in Christianity, where the work is accomplished, and Christ, when He had made the purification (katharismon) of our sins, sitting down at the right hand of God, it is a new creation and no imputation. Now this is known only in Christianity. I do not believe the other, administrative forgiveness, could have been had without atonement, but then it was the dealing of God in His present dealings with men, and so it may be now, as in 1 John 5, James, and 2 Corinthians; in the governmental ways of God. If Christ had been received, no doubt the past had been forgiven. Nor was more as yet revealed; the righteousness of God, for the remission of sins that were past, was not. Men sinned, and divine displeasure was there, and they were forgiven. But now the work that puts away sin has been accomplished, and we know it, and stand in its efficacy as a new creation, our sins being borne and put away, having access into the holiest, and, more, brought to know, and have fellowship with the Father, cry, "Abba, Father." We are brought to God according to this favour and love, and the worth of Christ's sacrifice -- a wholly new place. The "baptism of repentance for remission of sins," though it has led us on further, yet did not, I apprehend, go beyond the present dealings of God. No doubt when accomplished as to Israel, it will be based on the same great truth of atonement, but it was brought in as a present dealing with Israel, and so will be, at the end, but then manifestly based on the sacrifice of Christ. But "eternal redemption" is a Christian doctrine exclusively; the veil marked the previous state of things, though there was more than that. Man comes for forgiveness as responsible in his relationship with God, but he finds himself introduced into a new one,

[Page 215]

unknown till Christ had ascended on high -- "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light."

-- 16. They were called long before, personally, but this is question of ministry -- "The beginning of the Gospel."

-- 19. "In the ship" (en to polio) -- afloat." It is the universal idiom; so eis oikon (in the house); so in English, too, because it is appropriated; so too eis polin (into town), verse 45.

-- 21-28. The character, and the position and experience, if I may so speak, though briefly yet therefore more powerfully, has been set before us up to this, and the brief accumulation of characteristic points is what characterises this Gospel, and this character and reservoir of ministry has here been wonderfully, and so perfectly, declared. We now come to its exercise. He took it as presented to Him amongst those among whom He came to minister. He was sent -- acted His own way among them. As to His word, it flowed from the source -- it was not questions or subtlety of admired genius, but of authority. It gave rest when received. It was the communication of the mind of God, with the consciousness that it came from that source, and was that. He began in ministry from Galilee. This was after the first three chapters of John. It was His public ministry, for then John was not yet cast into prison, and the call of the disciples was to companionship in ministry; they had followed Him from John's baptism. But it was not only the authoritative power of the word over conscience, manifestation of the truth of God, so as thus far to set aside the evil of Satan, i.e., to natural conviction, or more, but the manifestation of power by His word (of authority) over the evil spirits when outwardly manifesting their power over the bodies of men -- he was there in their synagogue, and there was no power against him, though the man might hear many things, and exercise his understanding on their reasonings. These two characters of the power of His doctrine are remarkable.

We may note the phrase "Possessed by an unclean spirit'; the unclean spirit was in possession of his mind, and faculties -- absorbed by in their source, not merely led by presented temptations, though this was just as morally bad, and ruinous in some sort as to present sin, and responsibility more so. But this was an existing character of Satan's power, and an occasion of the manifestation of Christ's. The power over the intellectual and physical faculties was such, that the man spoke as if it was himself, while in truth it was the demon. This was a different

[Page 216]

thing from demoniacal prophetic spirit, though that might be connected with the former, and man may be "in the Holy Spirit," in the blessed sense of it. Here "he cried out"; it might be difficult to know which to refer it to -- man or demon -- but in fact, and really it was the same thing, the man cried, yet it was "by the unclean spirit," and therefore it was really the unclean spirit so using him, and here speaks so, and is as such answered by Christ. The complete possession of him by this evil power is manifest in the identification with all the evil spirits; "What have we to do with thee?" It seems to me, however, the despairing spite of a forced confession. They had, as between them and man, full and conscious possession and they were vexed, and forced out by the presence of the power of a mightier Spirit, and another and mightier Person -- a Man, a despised Man -- Jesus, the Nazarene. And then the spite, which yet redounded to His glory, for the lower, the more was their inability to contend with the lowest form in which God could be manifested and the new Man act proved. There was a Man with the Spirit of God, for so he is met here -- Jesus the Nazarene, the Holy One of God! God indeed, blessed for ever -- but here met on his own ground. This was the terrible thing for Satan, met where his power in right was, but by a thought which he could not grapple with -- a Man in whom he had nothing, and who in the power of the Spirit had proved an influence over the soul, which trod on the darkness of his kingdom, bringing light in which forced forth the confession of what was tasted and understood then. All he sought was to be let alone; he had nothing to do with, nothing in common with Him, but the full presence of the good continually -- yea, I believe ever when in power -- forces out the evil of the enemy, because he feels it, and cannot bear it, as the saint is oppressed by his power too. "Jesus, the Nazarene" was the terrible thing. Till He take away the children, he reigned there among them, only increasing the demonstration of his power, but here he was met in the scene of his power by Beneficence which had humbled itself thus. "Jesus, the Nazarene," was the hopeless terror of Satan and his evil: "Eh! what have we to do with thee?" was all he could say -- nothing in common, and a power he could not grapple with. "Art thou come to destroy us?" adding, "I know thee." All his knowledge was the consciousness of what was before him -- not divine -- He was "The Holy One of

[Page 217]

God" -- he knew this wondrous Man -- he could not help it -- His presence called it out, but doubtless the teaching had not lost its effect there; the reasoning of the scribes produced no such extorting effects. The man had stayed quiet enough in the synagogue till then; if ever Satan's malice had been shown in the midst of them, it was not in saying, "Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene?" -- there was no Jesus the Nazarene there then. But now he must submit -- that, as we have said, was all he could say, save the expression of his spite. This was no holy acknowledgment of the blessed Jesus as the Lord in love, his heart found no refreshment in it. It was no action of His word in grace -- His spirit was grieved, and His power repressed it, and subdued it. What a contrast! What a picture! Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him." Who could resist the word? Power against Satan, the adversary, closes all. But what a thing is the human heart to deal with!

The unclean spirit in his last expression of vexation and rage tearing the man, with a great cry, came out of hum. It was a wonderful sign of deliverance. They were astonished, saying among themselves, "What is this?" His fame spread abroad.

-- 30, 31. Immediately after, with the same disciples alone, yet called, another form of inflicted evil is presented -- sickness, violent sickness. It neither repressed His love, nor escaped its exercise -- the energy of good in that blessed Minister of the Father, for so He appeared now; on being apprised, He does not avoid the evil, but it flows forth, removing the barrier and unaffected by it, save as evidence of the power which remained unaffected in its display, not the subject of its action, but acting on it. He took her by the hand, and the fever left her. Evil fled before His touch, which, being in power, contracted no evil, and she arose and ministered to them. And (verses 32-34) as we have said, not in self-displaying wonders, but in an overflowing patience of untiring good, allowing no mixed testimony from Satan, He ministered the witness of God's goodness come amongst them.

-- 35. Here also we have the dependence of the Lord witnessed in all this. We must modify this by no specious pretext, as if the Lord's prayers were the only untrue ones ever offered among the assembly of saints. His arm was not shortened; He clothed the heavens with blackness, and made sackcloth their covering; He dried up the sea, so that their

[Page 218]

fish stank; He could do what He pleased, but this state of things is easily and blessedly explicable. The Lord God had given Him the tongue of the learned, that He might know how to speak a word in season to him that was weary. He wakened His ear morning by morning. He opened His ear to hear as the learned, and now, with this early-wakened ear He went forth to hear, and to hold that blessed communion with the Father, where, in a world of evil, alone His soul could find delight and refreshment, and where He renewed the strength of His joy -- the conscious ground of His coming forth into the world, and in the apprehensions of His soul all passed in intercourse with His Father. The most blessed, perhaps the most interesting part of all our Saviour's life, and where He brings us in Spirit with Him, into His Father's presence, into His Father's bosom, where He pours all His requests, and passes through the evil in the strength of it. (Oh, it is a blessed portion! Are we to suppose the Saviour the only Man who never had it?) And so to be an example. How, withal, does the Holy Ghost intercede in us? Far different as we are from Him. He had His own portion in, and He loved to be alone with, God, though always the Servant of all. Blessed Jesus! May our hearts follow Thee there! It is a good thing to see Thy perfectness. This was His way in ministry; may it be ours!

-- 36-38. We see Simon's eager and leading character soon show itself, and, so to speak, the beginning of that intercourse between the servant and his Lord, which was shown afterwards in so many blessed passages between them. He had not scorned to go and lodge with His poor disciple, and though His Father s house and His Father's bosom, even here below, were His natural home, He took all in grace that thus was presented to Him by His poor creatures. He was among them as One that serveth -- their Companion, and their Friend -- a blessed and meek example. Still to His Father He returned, apart from all -- the first, the earliest there. Then, when amongst men, their Servant again, but His therefore in it. Simon, and they with him, followed Him, and having found Him, now beginning to feel the importance of His ministry, expresses it! "All men seek for thee." This (in such a case) was nothing to Jesus. He sought not where He had importance; He had His Father's will to do. He came ever fresh from His Father's heart -- the goodness of God manifested in the perfect

[Page 219]

sympathy of a Man bearing all, come down amongst them. Surely this had connection with this hidden intercourse with the Father (and how does it strengthen -- of who has sent us -- and that we in our place come forth from Him, in whatever inferior, but at least fully responsible sense), "Therefore came I forth," and what was on His heart, "That I may preach there"; He does not say, "Do miracles." Intercourse with the Father always makes us the servants of men. And what blessed and adoring familiarity with Jesus, does His life give us!

-- 39. "And he was preaching in their synagogues throughout all Galilee"; there His ministry began. And this, drawing Him into conflict with Satan, His power shown in casting out devils. We must remark it is ever "their synagogues." He went among a people He was separate from, and that was their state. He was a Servant, but in His own power among them.

-- 39. "The demons" -- those known too well as such -- curing and meeting this well-known sorrow.

-- 40 et seq. We have then the hopeless and repelling case of leprosy; so noticed under the Law as a characteristic evil, the very type of sin, for which there was no proposed remedy, and whose cure was the act of Jehovah Himself, and to touch which by man was defilement at once, and he who touched set apart with the leper. The priest's recognition of the cure was the recognition of Jehovah. Won by the goodness displayed to all other evil, the leper, who should separate himself from all, and warn them with dust on his upper lip, as unclean, comes to Jesus -- a bold step, but who could not be bold with Him. And wretched defilement arrests His love no more than sorrow, danger, and trial. The poor leper fully convinced of His power, and humbled in the sense of his own need and misery, only distrusted his claim on the Lord's attention. He knew, if the Lord was willing to do it, He could cleanse him. But it was more an application of power to his need, suggested by that need, than the excellency of that power in Jesus Himself which occupied him. He said He had power, but power is usually distant and high in man; he came, uncertain of His will, and falling on his knees to Him, and yet after all insensible of the power of Him who really was there. "Thou canst make me clean," was his thought, "if thou wilt." But in meeting with this deadly, and sorrow -- bringing evil, there was greater power and greater grace than he thought, which met indeed all the need of his heart, for so God does ever in His

[Page 220]

grace, but manifested a great deal more in the glory of His Person -- that glory which fills all things. Man met in his extremest misery, and God manifested in His highest glory in grace, and all Satan's thoughts more than baffled. For, indeed, this case of the leper was a crowning case in the synagogue -- the place to meet God instead of reasoning and the presence of Satan. Authority in the Word, and Satan cast out. Authority over the mind of man by the Word, and Satan cast out by this ministry of the Father in power, going forth in perfect humility into the world, entering withal into the local trials which were consequent on this state of misery, and the Servant of all the crowd about them. And as He was simple, though astonishing all (for He was the Truth and the Lord God, and had no exaltation to seek) so He returns to Him (as one of us might have need) whom He sought ever to glorify, that all might be done with Him -- yea, as Man in exercised dependence on Him, and then pursues His work, without reference to the opinion produced by it. "For therefore came I forth," I and He fulfilled it perfectly (His mission). But when thus sought by the most abject, then to accomplish mercy, there was One only could meet the case; who could it be? The great secret burst forth to faith. This crowning act of meeting evil, revealed One who alone could do it unsoiled. "He had compassion and touched" -- Ah! who could do) that, and say: "I will"? He stands manifested to the secret eye of faith, though yet hid, perhaps, yea, in one sense, concealing it, or acting in the ordinary train of service to man -- "Go show thyself to the priest, and offer what Moses commanded," etc.

-- 41. We have just here our Lord's way of meeting with our entire and manifested (confessed) wretchedness -- "Moved with compassion," that blessed feeling, God -- feeling, for it was looking down on the sorrow, but feeling as Man come thus amongst them. Then stretching out that hand of power, and yet to touch the evil in unsoiled purity (which if another had touched but that hand of sin, repelling power, they had been soiled and shut out too by the evil) but He was not repelled. He touched him, and not only that, but communicated to the Man His interest in his sorrow, His meeting exactly his request; but this withal, though it told His heart towards him, was a word of princely, divine power: "I will, be thou clean." The answer of peace, but a divine one. It was Jehovah's act; He had now done and wrought the thing. But He returns to

[Page 221]

the quietness of existing circumstances, not yet broken down by His death, and to personal insignificancy when it concerned Himself, and sends him forth, charging him to tell no man, but go to the priest, and offer what Moses commanded for a testimony to them, that Jehovah might be glorified, for His power had done it -- the leprosy had instantly departed. But he spread it, for His glory could not be hid, so that He could not come openly into town (eis polin; there is no article -- in fact any town), but was in desert places, and they went to Him there.

Thus the full character of His ministry by word, and against the power of evil was manifested, dosing in the manifestation that He was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Healer of leprous Israel, in the manifestation withal of compassionate love. He was willing to do it. He had come for the purpose. He was not deterred by their sins. Satan had no right against Him, though Israel might be subject to his power. He would take the diseased by the hand, and touch the leper, and command demons away by a word. And though He might be getting the tongue of the learned, His arm was not shortened at all, that it could not save. That was not the reason of their putting away, but "There was no man." Though His glory was such, He was obliged to be as a Stranger in the city. The leper came, the previous evidence being given (and, as the Remnant, healed was a testimony to the rest) so the paralytic -- he was brought and was forgiven.


The exceedingly striking and rapid succession of illustrative facts in all this part of this Gospel is very remarkable. It is not even character, but acting continuously flowing from the energy of the will of God, passing on either at the call of others or evil, finding streams of its own benevolence -- a constant activity of blessing suited to God -- a manifestation of all this in the world -- active goodness displayed of God towards the evil and sorrow, and in help laid on the Mighty, so blessedly expressed by Peter in that very epitome of the Gospel: "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were

[Page 222]

oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." This perhaps struck me the most of anything on commencing to read this Gospel; let any one only read the first few chapters with attention to this, and, by the Spirit, he will see how this divinely shines forth -- I say "divine" yet was it as anointed of God -- but, "For God was with him." Who knoweth the Son but the Father?

-- 1. He returned after some time, many days, into Capernaum, and it was reported that He was in the house, and then we have a history which, as to the nation, shall only have its accomplishment when He returns. From this verse to verse 12 is a very, a most important character of the ministry of the Lord Jesus -- "Power on earth to forgive sins." In verses 14-28, the character, morally and relatively, of His ministry is shown by the circumstances; verses 14-17, 18-22, 23-28. Also, with the character, the reception of His ministry begins to develop itself. This develops itself in chapter 3: 1-6; verse 7 recommences again.

The attractive effect of Jesus' ministry had been shown in the previous chapter, so that He could not come into the city for the attention it had excited. Its vindicated truth, and power on cavil is shown here too, and then the chapter (its fulness having been briefly shown) gives us its reception, and, in a few brief statements, the transition to another economy. John and the Pharisees, the best outwardly, used to fast -- first then the Bridegroom was going to be taken away -- next, there was no putting a piece of new cloth into an old garment. Again as to another and more apparent form of righteousness, the Lord takes it off Jewish ground altogether. There could not be a more complete setting aside of the Jewish economy, for it was the seal and sign of that covenant as the place of God's rest -- "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath" -- the true Lord, as Son of man, of God's rest, into which we shall enter. This took up the whole thing on a higher and deeper ground -- God's rest with man -- through the Son of man. As the forgiveness (shown to Israel), the principle of grace in calling the publican had been laid as the characteristic basis of His new ways, so the newness of the dispensation in its nature and power, and the fasting in the Bridegroom's absence, and the new and full width and scope of God's rest came out from all this.

[Page 223]

-- 2. "He spake to them the word." This was His business, and His sheep hear His voice. The rest was merely confirmatory or condemnative.

-- 5, et seq. "Jesus, seeing their faith, said, Son, thy sins are forgiven thee." This very term was paternal, and divine kindness. Israel was His son, and it was in mercy, and mercy to declared sin -- the real great need -- for indeed Israel's sin had brought them very low. Become helpless, they were now -- alas, for the truth -- made slaves to Gentiles instead of princes with God. He was meeting them as their Lord. But reasoning could see no such mercy, no such power in God, in spite of all the evidences afforded of who He was. "Who can forgive sins but God only?" An abstract truth, where there is not the knowledge of the Person of Jesus, is always ruinous. Mercy is not understood in the human heart, nor when the blessed God comes in it. He proves to them His divine character in knowing the thoughts of their hearts. "Why reason ye thus in your hearts?" And then, alluding to Psalm 103, which showed both Jehovah's task of mercy to Israel -- that being Messiah's song of praise for the mercy to Israel -- what He, Jehovah, was to it, He asks, "Whether is it easier to say thy sins are forgiven thee," or "Arise and walk?"

-- 8. "Knowing in his spirit," precludes all doubt as to the divine knowledge by which He perceived their thoughts, as also, "Why reason ye in your hearts?"

They could not understand mercy, nor the divine presence of Jesus, in discussing Him and His Person, but they could apprehend the evidence of that mercy in sensible things -- hence miracles not converting, though they may attract attention, but leaving with out excuse, as they also confirm and convince. Therefore the "But that ye may know that the Son of man." Here was a great truth of all importance -- the divine Person of the Son of man (yet serving in ministry, being such). It was not merely the Messiah supplicating, or praising Jehovah, but the Son of man exercising divine authority, and proving it by divine power in His acts. Moreover (quite another thing) that HE was the Son of man was all important. "I say unto thee, Arise," was a word of simple authority . Mercy, divine power met in the Person of the Son of man. Divinely competent, and humanly interested and sympathising, yet God in that sympathy; not merely, as we have said, Messiah claiming, or praising for, but Jehovah in the Person of the

[Page 224]

Son of man accomplishing these things in mercy, because they were ruined -- meeting the very Lord they had to look to for forgiveness of the sin against Him, in deliverance -- the consequences of it, yea, in then giving proof of the mercy that was come. This was what was presented to Israel. It was come down -- the Son of man on earth was there restoringly, in the power of that mercy, and proved it, and they owned, and had to own they never saw it on this fashion, but they glorified God, and so were attracted and impressed. But it does not appear they apprehended the Person of the Son of God, and this was the whole question of real present deliverance. It was addressed to Israel, a ministry to Israel -- while the Church learns the grace and excellency of the Lord in it, the ministry was to Israel.

-- 10. Note, "Son of man" is the title Jesus gives Himself in this Gospel, too, as in Matthew and Luke. It is true also of John, when He speaks of Himself, but there He speaks constantly of His Father, so as to draw attention to His being Son, and owns it is calling Himself "Son of God." But it is as Son of man He speaks, and this is to be much noted. Still He speaks of Himself as "Son of God." Note too the words "On the earth to forgive," are very material. We are so accustomed to assume Jesus to be the Christ, that we really do not weigh the force of these things; they seem concentrated from inference, or peculiar design, in this Gospel, so as to give us them in their simple power.

-- 13-16. This ministration and testimony to Israel ended, He goes forth out of the city by the sea -- a time which leads forth to a wider range -- and calls, and associates Himself with, that which was even an abhorrence to Israel. He went and taught the multitude, and, passing by, He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the receipt of custom, called him to follow Him, and went and dined at his house -- perfect familiarity with this reprobated character, tantamount in principle to His going forth to the Gentiles, to Jewish feeling the same thing, but He pursues His course of love and grace on His own principles of righteousness (for which in se among men there was not one) but doing His Father's will, and manifesting His Father's name, which was His righteousness. Publicans and sinners were with Jesus and His disciples -- such was the company, stranger to them really than to Him. He knew why He had come, separate as John for righteousness, but divine

[Page 225]

in grace for outcast reprobate sinners. "With the publicans," the Holy Ghost classes them, and indeed the publicans were signs that Israel was lost, and God on their grounds (being wicked) did not interfere. But, in pride, there was no sense of this. Satan addresses himself, in the pride of the Jews, to His disciples, casting the question, for them to answer, on their master. Why not go to Him, if desiring a reason, for instruction or enlightening. But there was an ear which watched His people's temptations; He would lose none of them, and, standing up in their behalf, gave the reply with the simple but unanswerable wisdom of simple truth. Often we see men acting thus; the folly of man's wisdom! But what an answer! But note, it amounted to this -- grace was not understood, and this must produce all; otherwise, folly as to God's dealings with sinners. All hangs on this.

-- 17. "Not to call the righteous, but sinners." There is no "to repentance" in the original. This is important and interesting; not as though the other were not true, but it comes with more decisive and emphatic force thus.

-- 18. They then come to Himself as to the point, not of His conduct, but why He was more negligent in what He permitted to His disciples than those who had the character of righteousness, even John. This seemed a fair ground, still total ignorance of the dispensation. They inquire first on the petty consistency of Pharisaism, or in the grosser ignorance of the very testimony John himself gave. As they were ignorant of grace, so were they ignorant of its power, and of joy. The Bridegroom was there; what was a Pharisee then? They cannot fast while they have the Bridegroom with them. How sad the ignorance of human wisdom! When it comes in contact with what God has actually done, it knows nothing of it. But there was a solemn warning to them which they were equally ignorant of -- the Bridegroom would be taken away; for, having not understood grace to a sinner (and they were sinners) grace which would let in a poor Gentile too, and resting, even after, on the rotten righteousness of their own nature, and pretended sickness, and turning even John's calls to repentance into a sanction of it, the Bridegroom who was with them, and whose presence or the meaning and joy of it they could not understand, would be taken away from them, the Jews, presuming on their own grounds and righteousness. Still the disciples must partake of this sorrow. So, if Israel

[Page 226]

turn to go round the wilderness, Caleb and Joshua, though quite separate from the evil, must go round with them. The faithful Remnant may be separate from the evil but cannot be separate from the sorrow. So with the Church, so Daniel in Babylon.

Such was the end of His ministry among them. Still the Lord was going, however rejected, to bring in new wine, new cloth, and then the terrible judgment. Their bottles were no good for it. Their dispensation must be broken up, their garments had lost their texture, they could scarce cover them, and could receive terrible judgment -- nothing now could be mended by what God was to send by blessing. It was too full of blessing. The new wine He was about to send must be put in new bottles. Such was the solemn judgment on the state of the dispensation under the Lord's ministry, and the effect of this upon it. It was really judged from their reception of it -- its state, alas! alas! discovered. It had been His beautiful flock -- He spared, at any rate, no pains upon it. But how simple and solemn the judgment on this foolish, wise, self-righteous question put to Him after His answer to the question to the disciples?

-- 21, 22. I cannot doubt the genuine application of this is the confinement of the energy of the ministration of the Spirit to the necessities of Jewish forms, though I have seen other interpretations of it. This really closed the discussion on His ministry, presented fully in its character as it had been, as before their eyes, or rather God's estimate of the relation they stood in towards it -- their reception, the nation's, of it. The way in which it was presented as a present responsibility is marked from chapter 1: 15, and this was His service, verse 21; verse 38, after prayer and communion with the Source of service, and verse 39. It was His ministry through all its processes of application. Man, God as Man, entered into conflict with Satan, in mercy, but making it His business by testimony to draw men back to God, though His glory, hidden as it was, broke through in so many instances. In chapter 2: 13, He turns to the multitude; so in chapter 1: 44, He sends the man for a testimony to them. Thus rapidly is the varied constancy of His ministry brought before us in this short account. It was a wonderful testimony; the result we have seen. He had been manifested, to faith, as God to the leper, though He might retreat into His obscurity and renouncement

[Page 227]

in sending him to the priests as a testimony. But, even so, as a necessary testimony of who He was; and He had been manifesting that the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins.

-- 23. The general rejection under the ministry was manifest. But there was another point -- the sabbath had been given them as a seal and sign of their covenant earthly blessing -- creation rest to this people. They held to it for their own glory and righteousness in the flesh. There was nothing evil in what the disciples did. They condemned the guiltless, but the Lord did not here take it up on this ground. The anointed, rejected King of apostate Israel had, in His rejection, a title to rise above the order of the system which rejected Him, in faith in a higher Power and higher hopes -- so Christ in Person. They having rejected here the ministry so wonderfully addressed to them, in which the glory of His Person, Jehovah there as a Man touching them in compassion, and they perfectly stupid as to this, He takes His own character and title as Son of man, without reference to them -- sorrow and rejection having forced Him to His own place and estimate of where God had set Him. How often is this the case! How actually strengthening the rejection, when God is known, and His thoughts towards us! So Christ.

-- 27. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." This, after all, was a very wonderful truth. But when we get Christ, truths come out; for He, the God that made, and the Man that takes up the blessings, has a right to teach them. God sanctified it because He rested in it, yet was it made for man. Here was He who made it, and who was a Man. But what a truth! Compare Proverbs 8. If God works and rests, even in His own delight, it is for man. No wonder man is exalted -- and, no wonder, degraded and ruined, if he departs from Him. Christ takes this up, and fulfils it, takes up all these rights of man in God, in Himself in righteousness. "The Son of man is" therefore "Lord of the sabbath also." It is not only, then, as God He has gone beyond any Jewish expectation of Messiah visiting them, and in grace, but as Man passing, beyond all Jewish conventional appropriation of it, into the portion of man as of God, and in God's own thought, and entering, as we have seen, by their rejection of Him in that, into the full title and glory of this. The despised, rejected Son of man is not under (His own institutions) but

[Page 228]

Lord of the sabbath as Man. It was made for Him, as well as by Him as God, and, for the first, being who He is, He is Lord of it. "The Son of man is" -- this is a wonderful truth -- most wondrous!

But the test of doing good was still to be put to them on this. If there was any likeness in them to the God that made the sabbath, and did it for beneficence, and could have no rest while man was in sin and misery, here it was not a sabbath to Him. But they knew not God. But the blessed Lord, if He remedied the sorrow, grieved at the evil, at this utter ignorance of the very character and nature of God which, under the influence of the enemy, they pretended as righteousness and zeal for Him, as afterward s they would even kill His servants to do Him service, because they knew not the Father nor Him.

After all, this is, indeed, a most important and deep -- reaching statement of the Lord on this subject, and makes its way through much of the argument on both sides, and clearly throws us entirely on the ground on which Jesus places us on this subject, whatever may be the source, etc., of obligation.

-- 28. Even "of the sabbath," which had been made so very central a point of the Jewish religion, and strict traditional observation. Let all the words of this sentence be fully weighed, I cannot sufficiently admire the fulness of their bearings. This sentence also gives us deep and important insight into the term "Son of man," relative to our Lord, as comparing it with Hebrews 2:9. Who, indeed, can read this sentence, unmoved and unastonished?

Note the end of this chapter, the whole of chapter 3, and almost all chapter 4 (with other matter, as John's message) are introduced in Matthew, see chapters 11, 12 and 13, between what corresponds to Mark 6:13, 14, or between verses 6 and 7 of Luke 9. It is the phase, in Matthew, of the condemnation of the Jewish estate, and at the same time, in consequence, Christ rendering testimony to John believing for himself, instead of John prophetically rendering testimony to Christ. Hence we learn also that the Holy Ghost, in Matthew, though more consecutive in facts than in Luke, orders the matter according to the intention of the Gospel, i.e., the testimony to, and condemnation of the Jewish estate by reason of their rejection of their Messiah. Mark is the most simply historical of all, and passes with the greater rapidity therefore from fact

[Page 229]

to fact, for, though brief, nothing gives the events and circumstances, with such striking historic force as Mark, or such a mass of miracles and service of Jesus; see chapters 6: 33, 54-56; 1: 32-38, 45.


Although Mark leads us into the same main thought as Matthew, closing with Israel at the end of this chapter as Matthew at the end of the twelfth, and then in each the Sower, yet there is a great difference besides the leaving out the birth, and the like. There is no dispensational development. It is historical, to the same effect of what was then taking place, but no developed principles of relationship, nor what will be true in the last days. You have no Kingdom, as it is now developed, after the parable of the Sower, but we have Christ personally active at the beginning, and, at the end, the harvest. Meanwhile it grows up, as though He knew not how. You have the simple fact that externally it would grow to a great power in the earth. It is much more historical. We have the facts as they then occurred, with their then bearing on His rejection, and Israel's state.

-- 2-6. On this rejection, He asserts Himself, and in grace proves Himself Lord of the very seal and sign of their covenant -- the sabbath; but earthly rest, when Israel knew not its God even in mercy, there was none. But mercy was taking its place, and would have its way. The Lord was angry, being grieved, but acts now in defiance of all this in their synagogue. It is in the synagogue, He does not shrink from the public avowal of the character in which He had come, and His rejection of their notion of iniquity. Yet, it was done in grace, and an act of grace. He puts the case plainly before them, makes the man stand forth for the solemn adjudication, and manifestation of the character of their God, as in question between them. It was not enjoining strict silence now -- they were silent -- and He shows publicly the power in which He acted. Would God do good on their sabbath in a world of sin and ruin, or let the ruin stay when He could righteously hinder or remove it? All the man did was to stretch out his hand -- often they had done infinitely more -- then the instant act of beneficence meets it, and it is publicly healed before them all. God in power, as Christ in service, proved them wrong publicly. But now, as

[Page 230]

before they rejected, they show their hatred and enmity in their conviction -- they would not do good, but they would be active to do evil -- not "save on the sabbath," but hold a council on the sabbath how they might destroy Him. And the openest enemies could take counsel together for that -- union in opposition to Christ is a well-known truth in Scripture.

-- 7-12. His character was now fully displayed, His ministry exercised and put in question before man, and man's judgment passed on it, i.e., indeed his own, of enmity against the presence of God in grace come in power for his own mercy. But there was an evil will, hatred against the Lord. Man had rejected Him -- His character was settled in the world, publicly settled among the leaders. They had been put upon their trial. They might carry on their schemes in private, for the thing was completely concluded and decided, but their plan was to get rid of Him, as a public nuisance to them -- they could not bear His presence. The Lord might order His preservation as His Servant whom He upheld, His Elect in whom His soul delighted, He might exercise the glory of His divine power in ministry, but, as between Him and the body, their position was settled, and the Lord so acted. He departed with His disciples (so Paul we find acting) -- they, as His slayers and enemies, pursued theirs, keeping up the credit of their own system, but withal really bent upon getting rid of Him. But while He went away with His disciples, this did not arrest His career of good. There might be trial as between Him and them, which had ceased, but the service to which God pointed His heart and love in doing good, was still all before Him, just because of these things. He pursued it because it was the expression of God's heart to man's need, and displayed God, even His Father. The rest seceded into their own place, left behind, and took their own character; that was all (so must it ever be expected). Divine glory went on on its own errand -- all this was behind. He had nothing to do with their consultations, but He pursued His own course clear from them. He went to the sea with His disciples, and a "great multitude" followed Him from Galilee, from Judaea, from Jerusalem, Idumaea, beyond Jordan, and Tyre and Sidon, so that a little ship was His only resource. So much for the mere hindrance of human opposition or malice until God's time was come for greater things! The demons, in like manner, were forced to own His glory when they saw Him, but He would not allow them to tell who He was, leaving

[Page 231]

it to the testimony of grace, so that it should be real acknowledgment, as of God by grace.

-- 13-21. Thus labouring, after the public manifestation of the nation's enmity against Him, the Lord now withal takes a public open part in using all formal means for gathering. He calls whom He would, and they came to Him. Such was His power also in this service of ministry -- divine power, it was not of man. This was done apart; He went up to the mountain, and called them to Him. It was not for the multitude, but done separately, as in intercourse with the Father, or from it at least -- not displaying it to the world but acting efficaciously in Himself. It was entirely between Him and them, calling to Him whom He would, whom He should send from Himself to stand, as sent by Him, before the world, or rather the Jewish people, but before men -- first to preach, then to heal, and cast out devils. Of these, in the same sovereignty directed by the ministry of Christ, Peter, James and John held the most distinguished place, each according to his known qualifications, known and thoroughly appreciated by the Lord (though even these, when a further ministry came out, though they seemed to be pillars, made no difference at all -- God accepteth no man's person -- they added actually nothing. But now the Lord was acting within the Jewish range, though rejected by the rulers and apostates -- the nominally righteous, and the lovers of worldly authority), the rest also in their order. This done, the Lord returns to the house. He is now thoroughly and publicly embarked in blessing to Judaism, but in a thoroughly independent mission and calling. He had been rejected and refused by the rulers and religion of the nation, and He must act for Himself; a separate and independent part of which, as its independency, was seen, so the consequences were soon felt or supposed -- thus, not only preaching and doing miracles, but sending chosen servants to preach and call men to the same truths which He came to present in His Person, and to teach. This gave it a clear character everywhere, for it was an active step, testifying that all were wrong, and that they must look to Him. On this (and it is no wonder, if one sees the principles they acted on, and He acted on) His friends pronounced Him mad, so that they went out to get hold of Him. And thus called out by the multitudes, which thus roused by their jealousy, the scribes blaspheme, the active enmity of Satan, hopeless where mercy, active mercy comes, is drawn out

[Page 232]

to discredit what He would do, from feeling what He was doing, though by a charge which contradicted itself and condemned them. Where truth is active in mercy (therefore supposing and charging sin in all) Satan's constant hostility is to be looked for.

-- 22. His friends might preserve their natural character, and think Him mad, but Jerusalem, the people who had the character of the Lord's people nominally ("who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie") and as nominally nearest the Lord, really the highest in pride, and furthest from Him, more immediate instruments of Satan, and more deadlily opposed to, because their real character proved by, the presence of righteous grace. So it always is, and hence ecclesiastical wickedness is always much the worst. Others may follow, be open rebels, perhaps be swallowed up, but the gainsaying is the "gainsaying of Kore." Ahithophel is the subject of David's complaint in the Spirit, more than Absalom (see Psalms); and this we have to note. His friends might think it folly, these men knew it was not -- they must call it wickedness, and ascribe it to Satan to conceal their own. The scribes, the instructed Jews, who came down from Jerusalem said blasphemously, "He hath Beelzebub." But what meekness, calmness, yet what simple, and clear, unequivocal judgment from God! As wickedness proceeds by the rejection of God, the word of God proceeds in judgment. All is in testimony; therefore the power is viewed as of the Spirit, and the judgment is pronounced on their blasphemy of it. Christ was as a Servant, the Holy Ghost as the power, for He ministered by it, as He plainly testifies. So they -- "He casteth out" -- it is not "It is all false, he is not the Christ, crucify the Son of man," or "Who is he," but "He casteth out devils by Beelzebub." The act of power is recognised, Jesus here was but a Man, and God is blasphemed in His own act of power, for power was admitted in the Person of the Holy Ghost in Jesus come to manifest power in grace against Satan (for Christ came to suffer) to deliver man by destroying the works of the devil, in this wonderful conflict in man's nature against Him; Hebrews 2:14. For though the Son worked, yet was He only known such by the Holy Ghost, unless one special revelation to Peter, and the Holy Ghost in this sense not yet given; and though the Father that dwelt in Jesus did the works, yet He could not be known but by the Son. These blessed relationships in the divine

[Page 233]

nature were yet hidden, at least almost completely so to man, and Jesus therefore stood before them as a Man, as Messiah, saying He was the Son of God. But they owned the Spirit, as doing wonderful things aforetime, as a power working in and by Man; this then was veritable blasphemy of God in His known, and even, I may say, national operations, and now in special mercy, and in Him who was working, in the full manifestation of it, for the very wants of burdened Israel, His dear people. How hard is the human heart! What a picture when under Satan! That Spirit had spoken by prophets, had wrought by Moses, for He had put His Spirit within, and had shown many mercies and benevolences, but now He did what He had not done before, for it was in the Person of the Son. The Son of man forgave sins, and cast out devils; the first they disowned and slighted, and the last, which they could not deny -- awful word! they ascribed to Satan himself. There was no remedy, or judgment alone remedied this evil. "In danger of judgment" -- then would be known in power, not merely by the Spirit, who that Son of man was, the Son of God. They might talk of Beelzebub, to meet the prejudices, and weaken His influence among the people, and account for what they could not deny, but there it was. The Lord, while they threw it on the natural prejudice against this god of the Philistines -- the Lord took it up on their real condition with God, and asks: "How can Satan cast out Satan?" It was making Satan good, and not ascribing, when clear good was done, that good to God. This was the fullest and clearest blasphemy, and wilful though blind; for the act of beneficent Satan-chasing power was admitted, and confessed. But these scribes from Jerusalem were to teach the people; but there was no reproach, but an exhibition of the folly on their own statement, and the judgment on the blasphemy -- man's folly, on his own reasoning. The blasphemy was Satan's, of which, for his own interest, man became the creature and slave. They said He was destroying Satan's power who was doing that. Alas! for man. When Adam sinned he was disobedient and seduced. Satan manifested the character against him which these now manifested against the Second, and when that Second was exercising the full divine energy of the Spirit to cast Satan out. There was no forgiveness. Now the Holy Ghost is the Servant rather, and the circumstances are different. Christ is above the reproach, save

[Page 234]

in His servants and people. If it were not Satan against himself, then it was a stronger than he.

"But verily I say" -- here was the judgment pronounced. It was not ignorance of His Person, but calling the Spirit that was in Him Beelzebub, which was the evil. This point is not then a question of His Person, but of the recognisable power in which He wrought, and it was nearer their conscience, in outward acts of beneficent, Satan-destroying power, to recognise the Spirit than the Son or the Father. These were brought out in the subsequent dispensation -- there the irreclaimable state was apostasy, not the irremediable sin, blasphemy, though that might come in as a consequence too. The consummating sin of a dispensation is always sin against that of which it has the light, not merely evil practice, though that leads to it, nor obscurity as to a hope leading to another, as the proposal of the Son of man here, although that proved darkness, nor the ignorance that He was the Son of God, which supposed fresh revelation and showed their blindness. Though these things alone could remedy the state of things, and in the communication of the Father's name gathered a people, the consummating sin was the denial and rejection of the light they had, in ascribing to evil a power and working which, in their own dispensation, they ought to have recognised. And this is applicable to the present dispensation; the Father and the Son are revealed -- denying them is an Antichrist, and wherever the liberty of the Holy Ghost to act in what He gives, without further authority, in grace is hindered or opposed it seems to me the principle is there, though perhaps restrained and not bearing all its fruit. There may be many other things evil, but not to this. Things which could alone remedy, which may not exist or be received, hopes which could alone recall, or the rejection of which showed the ruined state of the Church, but did not constitute this opposition of apostasy to the glory of Christ in the dispensation, and therefore did not constitute its fatal and final sin. We may assist the ruin practically, as in Hebrews 6, but it is denying the Father and the Son which constitutes its public actual manifestation.

-- 31, 35. In this the Lord clearly passes, on what we have seen (verse 30), to the rejection and refusal of all His natural ties -- the cessation of them, that is, to the Jewish people, and the assumption of those who did the will of God, His disciples, into the place of this relationship; this, even while the multitude

[Page 235]

were all around Him before He went away. It was a testimony also to them, now plainly, openly given, and given on ground which reached the conscience of the lowest (quod nota), when, if listened to, it would in grace bring him on to full principles and their understanding. "For whosoever shall do the will of God" -- His disciples, soon they would be there. He might plainly state the great principle of apostasy in the clearest light, but He would, in the rejection of all formal connection with the place where it was found, use the first principle for the simple ones that would draw them out of it. His mother and His brethren were not only a type, though they were that, of the Jewish people, but the principle -- it was knowing Israel after the flesh, Christ after the flesh -- all this had failed, had apostatised in Jerusalem; the power presented in witness to it had been ascribed to Beelzebub -- for Satan will give his own name to the Lord to drive men from Him. Further, this was no particular affection for such or such disciple, though this might exist, but He looked round about them in a circle who sat around Him, and said: Whosoever hears me, and so does the will of God.

This chapter closes the general presentation of Christ in this Gospel (as in Matthew 12). We have then the general idea of the Word (as in Matthew 13) and the personal work of Christ at the beginning and end -- seed time and harvest -- and the general public display and diffusion of Christianity; but all in parables expounded to the disciples, for it was the new things of the Kingdom. He seemed asleep while it was going on, but He was in the ship with His own, and commands the waves. Chapter 5 gives the delivered Remnant, (to become a witness) the Jews, and the world -- their relative positions. Then, called to hinder the death of Judaism, faith gets the blessing by the way, but He has to raise from the dead, though kept and owned as alive in a certain sense -- has no honour, and can do little in His own country, sends the closing message, and the false king beheads His forerunner. But He is the Jehovah of Psalm 132 in Israel, and full administrative power in Man in His power, dismisses Israel, goes up for intercession, rejoins the disciples, and there is a calm, and the world now receives Him. In chapter 7 Israel is morally judged, man's heart shown, but He reaches out to the Gentiles where there is faith, Israel being owned, but cannot deny what God is in grace for any, if faith reaches to it -- a beautiful witness and

[Page 236]

picture -- (this truth came in not in quite so lovely a way -- title more than goodness -- at once in Matthew 8) but He does open the deaf ear and loose the tongue of Israel, but He takes him now aside out of the multitude. It was grace but not a direct testimony to them. Then you get the seven loaves -- divine perfection with Israel in itself, not human administration; the disciples even only get their eyes gradually open; the blind man, too, here was taken out of the town. This closed His association with Israel. They had many opinions -- He, the Cross (the living God and the Church have no place here) and so His must follow. The glory of the Kingdom is shown to them in connection with it, but it was not to be told till He was risen from among the dead. Rising "from" the dead is distinctive here.

In Christ we have not merely miracles as proof of personal power, but the setting aside evil, universally healing all that were oppressed of the devil, universal setting aside of his power, and his goods seized. Next, they were miracles of deliverance -- the power of God. Next, He can give this power. This is met by the spirit of the world; His friends think Him mad -- for the unclean spirits who bound man's heart did not -- and in the ecclesiastical body wicked malicious opposition -- they preferred attributing good to Satan and throwing the people into his hands, to owning Him. Lastly, He rejects connection with Israel, or any, as to the flesh, owning only moral subjection to God.

I do not know how far the beginning of Mark is made clear, as a whole, in the Synopsis, but I give it here with a view to resting somewhat on a particular part of it. Up to chapter 3: 13, we have a picture of the Lord's ministry after the introductory matter. The details thus: John's preparatory ministry with water -- Christ to baptise with the Holy Ghost; chapter 1: 1-8. Christ associates Himself with the Remnant being baptised, is anointed and sealed with the Holy Ghost, and owned of the Father; then meets the adversary who held man captive, is tempted in the wilderness with wild beasts (not Adam's place), served by angels (verse 9). Thus (chapter 5: 13) all prepared, and John cast into prison, He begins His ministry, preaches the Kingdom of God at hand, and repentance, gathers round Himself persons who leave all to be with Him. His doctrine with authority -- with power, for the demons own Him and are driven out. Next, He heals the diseases of man himself,

[Page 237]

brought in by sin -- it is not exceptional or occasional, the crowds came and were healed. He retires and prays. All men seek Him, but He came not to have crowds, but to accomplish His service -- He must go to other cities to preach, He is sent for that. He goes, doing it round the country. Next, He shows that He is Jehovah in the midst of Israel, in mercy -- the leprosy, which none but Jehovah healed, and which, if one touched a leper, made him who touched him unclean, He not only can but wills to heal and touches the leper, undefiled but driving away defilement in a grace which the defilement of man did not drive away, but draw. It was in Israel -- for by their pronouncing on the leper, the priests were witnesses to themselves, that the power of Him who could heal the leprosy was there in Israel; chapter 1: 14-45. But grace took a more positively developed character. He forgives sins (and proves, according to the government of God in Israel, He can, by healing the paralytic; see Exodus 15:36, and Psalm 103:3), He receives sinners, and even makes an Apostle of one; came to call them, as a Physician to the sick, not the righteous.

But further, as to His ministry, the disciples cannot fast while the Bridegroom of Israel is there -- besides He cannot put the new power into the old vessels of ordinances. The sabbath tells the same story. To an outcast David, and surely an outcast Messiah, where was a Jewish covenant of rest? Freedom was there -- all should be for Him. Besides the sabbath was for man, the Son of man, the Heir of all man's rights and blessings from God, and therefore Lord of it. The scene in the synagogue tells the same story as to doing good. How clearly this tells all the characters of His ministry! The Pharisees and the Herodians seek to kill Him, but the crowds from all parts follow Him, so as that He should have a little ship to wait on Him, for He had healed, and the unclean spirits were forced to own Him. He forbids their telling it. This closes the characterising His ministry and service.

Two points I would yet remark; first, the Lord so far from distress or uncertainty in His place with and relationship to God, not only sees the heaven opened, but has the direct witness of the Father, besides the descent of the Holy Ghost, to His relationship with Him, and delight in Him. This was the position in which in the course of His ministry Jesus was certainly set by God, not one of distress, anguish, indignation and anger. This is not true as of God, most surely not as of

[Page 238]

unbelief in Jesus. He did come into the later state when the hour of the power of darkness came first, and of wrath in substitution afterwards, but His living place of service on earth was in conscious favour, revealed by God the Father Himself, and sealed by the Holy Ghost. That He may have at any time anticipated another state is quite true.

Further, Satan attacks Him, as he attacked Adam. This is true, but, led of the Spirit, He freely offers Himself to the attack, as He did to His final suffering from God's hand as a sacrifice on the Cross.

Note, this chapter which closes the relationship of Christ with Israel as in ministry to win the nation, unites the choice of the Apostles with the rejection of the nation. Chapter 4 presents the connection of the responsibility of those who heard with the propagation and witness of what they heard, at the judgment of God which referred to it -- that the Lord seemed to let all grow up as it might, but He only watched the time of harvest, and then acted again Himself immediately -- lastly, that we are in the same barque with Jesus, foundering in the storm, though He seems to sleep, and as to perfect peace care is out of the question. Chapter 5, I judge, in this respect gives more details on the breaking up of the connection of the Lord with Israel, and its true character on its renewal -- a Remnant, under the power of the enemy, healed -- Himself expelled, and the healed left behind Him as a testimony. Satan hurries Israel, unclean, to ruin. The child whom He goes to heal, has really to be brought to life, though the Lord looks on it as only asleep. On the way faith, in the woman, heals -- a principle which lets in Gentile, Jew, or any.

In following merely the dispensational bearing of these passages, we have the Lord scarce received, as being the carpenter's Son, in His own country, and thereupon He sends out the testimony of His disciples, urgent on the cities of Israel, bringing judgment, if rejected, worse than Sodom. Then the sin of doubting Israel summed up by the violence of Herod against the witness of the Lord as far as it had gone. So that Jesus and His are in the desert, but, the people thronging in their need, He shows His Jehovah power of blessing to the people's need, and, dismissing the multitude, He goes apart to pray (on high) and returns to His disciples walking on the sea. They perceive, and are alarmed, but He gets into the ship, and all was calm, and they astounded, though the previous testimony

[Page 239]

ought to have sufficed to make Him known. He then brings blessing with Him when He arrives. This all gives us His rejoining the Jews in the latter day. Peter's walking on the sea to meet Him is, on the other hand, going forth to meet Him before He enters the ship. In chapter 7 the moral part of this question is raised, and the pretention of what man was contrasted with the reality of what God was. The heart of man being contrasted with his outward religion which set God's word aside, and then the most distant, dispensationally, from God -- a cursed Canaanite, of unrepentant Tyre -- if there was that faith which knew how to count on what was in God's heart, overleaped all dispensation, had all it could wish according to the power in Christ only. The heart was reduced fully to recognise not only its need but what it was. After this He opens the deaf ears, returning, I apprehend, to Israel according to the grace in which He had visited (but now unstopping the deaf ears) not at Jerusalem, the rejected nation, but in Galilee, where in outcast Israel the light shone in the trouble and darkness; Isaiah 8 and 9.

After the miracle of the seven loaves and the four thousand -- proof of His abiding love and care for the poor of the flock -- and the obstinate and stupid unbelief of the rulers and leaders of the nation, it seems to me that the condition and unbelief of the disciples comes on the scene. Do you not see, though having eyes? When He did open eyes, it was sometimes only as trees walking, that men saw. He instructs them in His sufferings, and Peter rebukes Him (for He spake it openly, and what was prudence, when things were so?). But the Lord presses the Cross, and confession of the Son of man, in the face of that generation, and then shows the glory. Then the rising "from the dead" (not "of the") puzzles the disciples. The Lord continues to open the real state of things to them as to Elias and John the baptist for example, and the unbelief of the disciples again meets Him, and the question of faith in the people, in whose unbelief as to full power the disciples are here involved, is plainly put. The power of Satan was there, and of old, and the power of the Lord now come in grace, and the man says, "If thou canst ... have compassion" -- for indeed the unbelief of the disciples ministered to that of the poor man. The Lord, in a few plain words, declares the question of power lies in that of faith. The "if thou canst" is "if thou canst believe." "Have you power to believe?" But indeed nearness

[Page 240]

to God was needed for power. The Lord again presses His rejection on His disciples -- this was His ministry, as it were, now. They dispute for greatness. He presses (touchingly identifying Himself with them) lowliness, and the rejection of His name, but anything done for His name to them, done to Him. The spirit of a true disciple is then further and fully developed in lowliness, self-judgment, in hatred of sin at all cost, a judgment would try all -- the severe energy of grace be found in every true sacrifice to God (devoted person) -- this they were to have in themselves. If THEY had not, where was good to be found? With each other, gentleness and peace.

On the whole, the disciples even had not the faith which made available His then manifestation of power. The nation therewith rejected Him. They must therefore take part with Him in that rejection -- reject and cut off everything which put a stumbling block in the way, and manifest the energy of grace in self-sacrifice, for the energy of divine judgment would apply to everything. Hence, again and again, in all this part of Mark, He insists on His sufferings and rejection as a central point in all their position, and the implicit reception of the Kingdom as a little child. All these chapters are exceedingly important for the dispositions of relationship.


Chapter 3 closes the direct picture of the ministry of Christ, with His friends counting it folly, the rulers of the people blaspheming against it, and His own renouncing the ground on which Israel stood with Him, and taking that of the Word and its effects. What follows gives a general exposition of what was going on -- sowing, not fruit seeking, responsible hearing, the Kingdom with the personal presence of Christ at seed time and harvest, and what the public effect of the sowing would be -- not merely letting grow -- but seeming overwhelming danger, though Christ was in the ship but as asleep. The whole history of the dealing with Israel, and the service of the Remnant after Israel was gone, and then finding Israel really dead before He reaches it, though He came to it as sick, but everyone who touched Him on the way, with faith, was healed.

His teaching accordingly assumes this character -- parable -- and giving an account in this way of His ministry, and similar, rather than exercising it (by direct declaration, "The Kingdom

[Page 241]

of God is nigh," etc.). The transition is now remarkable, His ministry being not merely parabolic but descriptive of ministry, and its effect brought in just when in fact the seed had fallen on the roadside -- alas! that it should be so -- of the Jewish religious people. But it was now to take its course as ministry. It was not a formal proposal to the authorities -- that had been done -- but a going forth to sow, a scattering it abroad; it fell where it might. If they had rejected their own proper mercies, no wonder it often proved way-side and stony ground. But this was its character now indeed. The Lord throws it back retrospectively. Their ecclesiastical or national rejection of Him had reduced them to the place in which this could be predicated of them. It assumed this character now, on the cessation of presenting it as their right in promise, from the "Minister of the circumcision," their blasphemy against Him, but they assumed their place under it. He had returned to the sea with this announcement: "The sower went forth to sow." But He announced it now in a parable; it ceased to be a direct national proposal, but he that had ears to hear was to hear. We have this judgment of the matter in verses 9-13.

We have in the parables the state and character of the dispensation, with its source, in ministry acting on men's hearts responsibly or efficaciously, not the prophetic history in detail as in Matthew, but its character as ministered.

"He began again to teach by the seaside." He went out there -- this general public place as we have often seen before, and, Himself separated from the multitude, tells them how it was. For while He returned to the multitude which was on the shore, we have the additional circumstance that He was separated from them, isolated, not amongst them. He then gives, as we have seen, this character to His ministry -- casting forth seed, let it fall where it would -- good seed, but often in effect coming to nothing in the heart it was sown in. As to the isolation of Christ, we see it is no mere fancy, for He now begins at "those that are without," quod nota. As to much, it was labour in vain, this sowing. But note, this very fact of sowing, whether by Christ, or similarly since, is entirely a new thing. The Jewish dispensation had properly no sowing ministry, and John the baptist was only to Jews, and therefore was not the true light as not lighting every man in coming into the world. A Jew was a Jew born, and by birth without any sowing at all, and his business was to preserve himself a Jew.

[Page 242]

The Law was to be kept, and the Prophets only recalled them to the Law (see the last even, Malachi) though they might promise other things which sustained the faith of the elect Remnant when the people would not keep the Law, but departed from God. And even the Lord, as a Prophet, was sent as a Minister of the circumcision, the middle wall of partition in the flesh not yet broken down, but owned by Him as to the Syro-Phoenician woman. But then it was "To the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and this principle really at bottom introduced that principle which let in a Gentile, and recognised a Jew as on Gentile ground, as lost. And this was fully brought out after His death and resurrection, but not in all its light till the mission of Paul after Stephen's death -- not of man, nor by man; see Galatians 1, etc. And you may remark that Paul, whenever he mentions his apostleship, always introduces the name of God which Peter does not. But while John the baptist introduced something new, the kingdom of God as coming in, and so was the pivot of the two dispensations -- not in, but announcing the Kingdom of Heaven, and therefore the least in it greater than he -- still he himself had nothing which went beyond the "floor" of Him that was coming. He stood in the desert, and cried in the desert, for desert the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts had become. But he did not go forth to sow; he came in the way of righteousness, and pointed onward, but sowing is an act of fresh grace, introducing a new seed by which life not there is to spring up. Therefore "Behold the sower went forth to sow." I say an entirely new act of life, bringing goodness, not expecting to find in the field, nor looking for fruit there. It is thus brought out now, for the first time, in parables, for it was, though exercised by the Lord within the old, really a new, to be understood by those to whom He could say "But to you," on the originating principle of the new or Kingdom of heaven, exercised also towards the old, but producing the new, not a similitude of but a principle introductory of, and indeed in fact to be exercised in the Kingdom of heaven. The consequence of this indiscriminate sowing, instead of looking for fruit amongst a supposed righteous people already planted, was that much was lost. First, much remained on the surface, and the devil took it away -- it never entered, it was but on the wayside -- civil conversation, or speculation on the discourse, perhaps admiring it, was the devil taking the seed away, for He is not speaking of

[Page 243]

opposition here. Other sprang up immediately, because it had no depth of earth; much of the Lord's sowing in fact did not spring up, had no effect till after His death. One sowed, another reaped. He went forth to sow with tears; a day is coming when He shall return bringing forth His sheaves with Him. Much light affection being attracted for a moment by the promise of association with the wonderful Person, the word springs up, but because there was no deep work, nothing weighed, it reached not the conscience -- there was no deep distressing work which made them feel that all was wrong, and obliged them to condemn the whole state of all that was around them. This gives gravity, pain -- we hesitate to do it, there is delay -- we are right; can we take upon us to say all is wrong until the conscience is brought to a bearing on it? Judgment, in this case, is never pronounced, for it humbles, and we shrink from judgment, in sorrow, and in its weight on our own state. But the sun rose -- tribulation sprang up after the seed sprang up, and as they had immediately received for the external satisfaction, they were immediately offended (verse 17) for the discomfort. They had no root at all -- they were not in the question in their consciences -- there was no life putting them in a position of understanding with God, understanding of themselves and Him. Then the thorns choke the next; cares well understood and groaned over, perhaps justified, but unnecessary, for so giveth He His beloved sleep. It was lost labour, and real selfishness of the flesh. Then there was the deceitfulness of riches -- mark that word, for men say they can do good with them -- and they gradually come round the affections; habits, ease, consequence, independence of others, and a thousand other principles which choke, because the word is a plant of God, and they cannot grow together. All that is in the world beside is dismissed as "the lusts of other things," thus taking up all, for "after these things the nations of the world seek." These enter in sorrow for us if they do.

-- 5, 16, 17. Hasty entrance into the joy of Christianity is far from a sign of any true work of God in the heart -- there is a deep inwrought sense of alienation which waits for joy till it be given in full personal reconciliation with Him from whom, in ourselves, we are departed by sin unto death. The other is not our own joy -- it is a mental view of the joyfulness of the thing as proposed. Such, I believe, may have been felt, and

[Page 244]

by after experience found to have been false as regards ourselves, and worthless, and the whole internal real work of restoration to God by Christ have taken place afterwards by deep and abiding convictions of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Nevertheless we must remember that the immediate and necessary result of seeing the atonement by faith is peace, and eternal joy, but there is the trial of the soundness of that joy; and it may be immediate, and, if things were in order, would be much more so.

-- 9, 23, et seq. Hearing is receiving, and what we receive we receive for communication in love. We are answerable according to the measure of what we hear, which is God's measure towards us, and, accordingly, it being given for communication in love, our faithfulness and love is tried by the comparison of what we receive and give. We are unjust towards God and man, if we are not, in life and word, witnesses of whatever grace has been dealt to us. Moreover, whoever has this faithfulness in receiving, increase shall be added to him -- confided. "It shall be measured to you." Hence grace, in the parable, is rested on use of the talent without other authority, and so indeed here, the moment I have heard grace receives the word, and, being grace, understands it in grace, as a light lit up in the person, it is true, but to give light; see 2 Corinthians 4:6, where the expression is very clear. It depends on our really having it, the sense of the grace, in our souls, its real value to ourselves, and our understanding of it as grace, i.e., our understanding and having it at all. And thus, he that has, and he only really has grace communicated who communicates in grace, "To him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." This was true of the Jews who had the oracles, etc., but who indeed had them not, for they did not recognise Him of whom they were conversant. But to the disciples who had, all the glory of the Holy Ghost dispensation of Christ glorified would be given. From the Jewish rulers would be taken away even that which they had. This was a new principle, that what was given was, in its nature, communicative, for it was grace and light, and therefore impelled, and diffused itself, which was not true of Judaism; but, as to them even, what they had, but had not, would be taken away; and there cannot be a more important principle, and as essentially characterising Christian responsibility and grace in this dispensation, and

[Page 245]

knowledge of, and communion with, the mind of Christ who came as this Light. The love of Christ constraineth us, and, withal, that in spite of opposition, for we also believe and therefore speak. Therefore it is "Take heed what ye hear; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you." The Lord will deal according to your dealing in this. Such are the principles of confided ministry. If man meddles to authorise, he meddles with the responsibility of grace to Christ, though he may encourage, own, and be blessed and bless, and labour in according to his place, and "To him that hath shall be given: and from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath."

-- 11. Compare Ezekiel 3:26, 27, and similar passages in that Book.

The term, "He that hath ears to hear" is, in principle, just answerable to "The sower went forth to sow," for, though addressed to Israelites, it is not addressed to them as such in a given position, but in the discrimination of gracious workings in their own minds and souls. "He that hath ears," for then was sowing a word to be received, and it was a solemn matter, for many would slight, and choke, and deceive the word or themselves. But then, in principle, whoever had ears, this being so, it applied to and was for profit too; and here any Gentile, or any, whose ear God opened, came in. And it is as a solemn warning on the sowing of the seed, saying: "All is ruined -- God is acting in grace, taking this pains actively before judgment on the objects, 'He that hath ears to hear let him hear.'"

When He was alone came enquiry, and explanation to the disciples, not merely the twelve but those around Him or with Him. And here comes the distinction noticed, not merely of the Apostles but of the disciples, that all else were now looked at as "them that are without"; but to know the mystery was the portion of "those about him with the twelve." To the rest it was all parables. This distinction, and its origin, is important, and sets this matter in a very clear light. There are still "those about him" -- what marvellous grace! And "them that are without," alas! We must not be surprised if all be parables to them. Still, after all, we stand on another ground, for, the glory having been revealed, if it be preached really, we say: "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." There is no veil on the glory now; if there be, it

[Page 246]

is a mind blinded by "the god of this world, lest the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ should shine unto them." Thus the "within" and the "without" are formed by those who did greater things by Christ than Christ did, because He went to the Father, saying, "Glorify thy Son that thy Son also may glorify thee," having power over all flesh to give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him, Jews and Gentiles. Still, within the limited sphere, answering to what we have seen of the sowing, there was a "within" and a "without," here formed by the testimony on the nation and its effect -- the privilege of those within to know how things went on, and the principles of the Kingdom. It was recognised the sowing had produced it, but the recognition proved the constant truth morally, not dispensationally, "all things are done in parables." In fact, from the time prophecy had begun this was the message, and whenever God sends a testimony at all it must be on this principle, or it would not be needed. As to Israel, the Lord was but the filling up of this -- God had "yet one Son," and we find accordingly the same separating, electing principle of grace, but introduced suitably prophetically, "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me are," etc.; and this founded on "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." His message having been to the nation what is here quoted (though in it was to be a tenth) a message which hung suspended till God had tried everything, even to the gift of His own Son. But there was no remedy.

In the testimony to the Gentiles it is the full testimony of accomplished glory meeting the world in its pretences, and therefore, if hid, hid to them which are lost, in whom the God of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not. Here it is the diligent grace of this testimony, but acting within the limits and order of that which was sentenced under the prophecy, and now, all means having been employed, left to its full application -- though, even then, the testimony of the Spirit was afforded, as Acts 3, where this special ministry is afforded of His return to that people; chapter 2 being the Gospel for the Church, or bringing it in, chapter 4 what shall be rather; see chapter 3: 18 to the end. This proposal is an extraordinary act of grace, of a very wonderful character; it did not, in fact, finally close in dispersed Israel till the application of the same passage by Paul (Acts 28), and was consummated in their refusal to allow the preaching to the Gentiles,

[Page 247]

this sowing of seed in grace, as we see (Acts 22:22), and the sum of which is specially taught in that Epistle which teaches the Church to look up, as of God the Father, to its portion in Jesus and His coming to receive her to Himself; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. In verse 11 of our chapter we have first the distinguishing grace, according to the dispensation of God; and in verse 13 the reproof for the want of spiritual intelligence -- they could not discern this first, and so simplest parable, which described the first principle of all that was to be unfolded in all the parables. They were the accounts of the Kingdom in its relation with the Jewish people. How would they enter into them, if they did not understand that primordial principle from which all flowed, and was the connecting link with the old system, and therefore thus addressed to the multitude? The spiritual thoughts which gave the key, while the parable gave the form, were not in their minds; so with types. But the Lord gives the clue, explains it to them.

-- 21-25. Not only is Mark the Lord's service in testimony, but responsibility is also directly connected with this, as here with the parables, and also in chapter 13 at the end. These verses, connected as they are with what precedes and follows, connect in a remarkable manner hearing with responsibility of communication. The Word has been sown, but men do not light a candle to be put under a bushel. It is sown, not to lie in the ground, but to rise out of it and bear fruit. Nothing was secret but to be made manifest; hence, "Take heed what ye hear." It is a responsibility; "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you"; "To him that heareth"; and this evinced not in its remaining hid in supposed knowledge, but in the fruit bearing witness of effectual testimony ("Holding forth the word of life.") To him that is thus known to hear shall more be given; for this is to have. To hear then is to have, but it is to hear so as to have. The force of the passage is very important, and, when it is acknowledged as a responsibility, very plain.

The good ground brings forth fruit, thirty, sixty, a hundred fold. The word is the seed of one grain; one soul, quickened and vivified by the power of the inwrought word, becomes the living source or producer of an exceedingly multiplied effect, not only of righteousness but of testimony, and of souls brought to righteousness to be the vessels and depositories of grace and truth by the testimony, and themselves to hold forth the word

[Page 248]

of life. To this the Lord accordingly applies it. First, as to Himself as the Light, and then to those who received it as the instruments of its holding faith. And He said to them an additional principle in this discourse -- "Does the lamp come that it should be put under a bushel or under the couch? Is it not that it should be set upon the lampstand?" Such was God's purpose -- such would be true of Him, and the glory of His Person, low and hidden and humbled as He had come, emptying Himself for God's glory and man's good. But this was true of evil as well as good; the day would declare it. It was not the intention of God in the good; He would not permit it in the bad. Some might go before in their manifestation, and others follow after, and some good works be manifest, and, if otherwise, could not be hid. All that had ears to hear were to mind this. It may have had its conception and existence in this hidden way, but it would come out. It may be hidden, but it is that it should be manifested. As I said the main truth is Christ's hidden ministry, and Sonship, and glory; but it is the application of a great general principle which is behind the gracious intention as of God, as regards the Lord in verse 21 -- gracious, but vindicating, and putting us first under the responsibility of blessing; secondly, security and peace when labouring in the presence of secret hidden evil -- craft; and thirdly, the check against all hypocrisy in ourselves. Again the Lord adds, it being given to them to know, "Take heed what ye hear." It is seed to produce fruit. "With what measure ye mete," in diligent use of the word.

-- 22. apokruphon (secret thing) the nominative to egeneto (takes place) gives the force nearly.

-- 24. "Take heed what." Note the force of this! "With what measure," if, as it should seem from its connection with what goes before, applicable to the use of grace in ministry, is deeply material. And see what verse 23 is applied to! Compare Matthew 10:16, et seq. And see verse 25 introduced as in Matthew 13:12, and Luke 19:26; and we may see it used besides in its general application, Luke 8:18, in connection with this parable. Nor ought we to pass over the force which the use of this in the Sermon on the Mount gives. He, to whom grace is committed, is as much committing an injury, using an evil measure, as the unmerciful, a measure unanswerable to the goodness of God. It is unbelief operating either in regarding the persons of men in fear, or in faithless

[Page 249]

distrust of God's making good, as it were, the obligation in which we involve ourselves by the avowal of His Word in our hearts. That which we have not in the power of faith for real use, we have not in deed and in truth.

What follows is really instruction as to the character of the Kingdom, and its work, and therefore it follows here. But, as it was de facto not addressed merely to the disciples, it is not said "to them," but merely "He said" (verse 30). But they are brought together for the simultaneous instruction of the company on the subject. Yet it was for the disciples' profit, and, while addressed generally, explained apart to His disciples. He describes, having stated the principle -- active sowing, and the responsibility in those that received the seed -- the apparent character as regarded His care, and the great general public results of this now despised seed sown, as carried on by this ministry which acted by grace in the heart. He being away, the Kingdom of God, instead of being under His immediate and personal ministration, and active power upon earth, would be the way a man sows corn, and rose, and slept, and did not regard it, and it grew, and increased, the earth bringing it forth (apparently) spontaneously, and so really instrumentally -- blade, ear, corn, but, as soon as the fruit is come, immediately He interposes again, for the harvest is come (here, again, paresteken, is come, as in 2 Thessalonians 2). So would it grow up in apparent disregard by Christ; but when the harvest was ripened, He would interfere. Moreover, rising from this smallest hidden seed now, it would become greater than all herbs, so that it would be a great corporate system with branches, not merely a plant, and could receive and protect what was foreign to its character and object, like the princes of the earth.

-- 33. This, compared with verses 11, 12, is very remarkable. It was adapted to them perfectly, so that he that had ears to hear could receive it; but it was darkness to the wilful and disobedient. To the disciples all was made clear besides in private, for they had, dull though they might be, given up their will to His.

"With many such parables he spake ... to them"; here we have "to them" again, because He has not been exclusively speaking to the disciples. But they are looked at here, however, as still the objects of the word, not as blasphemers. And to His disciples particularly He solved all things apart.

[Page 250]

"As they were able to hear it," shows, I think, that though He had begun, on the blasphemy against the Spirit manifested in the rulers and scribes, to speak in parables, yet He continued doing it in mercy, patient mercy (wherein He never failed) to suit it to them, so that whosoever had ears to hear might find what was suitable to them

"He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear." What blessed and patient mercy! How worthy of divine dealing -- of Jesus, according to the grace in which He came -- acting not according to the good in them but in Himself, yet therefore laying Himself out exactly to meet their circumstances, even under the effects of evil, though, and even when, His conduct was a judgment upon the evil which had produced the effects! How thoroughly worthy of what we have learned in Jesus!

We have now the trials of the little company, and the folly of unbelief, as its principles and its apparent position in what preceded, and that in circumstances which acted as the test of their estimate of their safety, founded on their being identified with Jesus, if they had felt God's concern in His glory, the glory of His Person -- the absurdity, if He really came as the Son of God, and if there were divine purposes to be accomplished in Him, and He having all power over evil and Satan here, of supposing that He should be thus lost by an accident, they could not have been thus alarmed. It is a blessed thing to be able thus to trust that though, to our eyes, great and perilous circumstances may arise, and Jesus seem to be asleep, unless He and God's purposes in Him be to be nullified, all His blessing and order towards His people must be accomplished.

It was now late. The shadows of a dark and gloomy night were shutting in on the unhappy people of God, and not only were the rulers condemned, but He leaves the multitude also, and becomes the companion of His disciples in their passing over in the ship they had. He enters, as He was, without rest or further care, into the ship. There were more interests than even the disciples, concerned in the storm which Satan was permitted to raise against the precious Burden of that little ship. All the enmity of Satan against the Church is against Christ and His glory, and that is our comfort as a consequence; for if he could destroy that, then we might sink, not otherwise. But what selfish folly thus to turn to self while Jesus, and all these other ships too, the objects of His care, if He were the

[Page 251]

Lord, were concerned in the storm. But Jesus was at perfect peace. He was asleep -- His power hidden in this apparent removal from and insensibility to all that was going on, in apparent weakness -- His power and glory, and that as involved in the circumstances, apparent only to faith. Their word is: "Carest thou not that we perish?" For unbelief is always selfish, and so will be found, and this was pure, wretched, stupid unbelief, seeing who Jesus was. It was, however, merely for His glory, even in them, though for their shame, He rebuked the winds, etc., "And there was a great calm," and their fearfulness and stupidity "How is it that ye have not faith?" Thus too is the Church launched forth to reach the other side, and encounters the storm; and many other interests are concerned of the world in the storm which Satan raises for its destruction, but in it Jesus is, though apparently insensible, and whether for Himself, it or them, we should account our safety in Him. There was nothing to hinder the other ships perishing, for He was not in them, but the blessing of an awakened Jesus shall produce peace for all; and all interests ought to show us that Jesus, whatever the appearances, cannot be lost in what is going on, and is concerned in it. And this applies to all mediately, to us directly, for we are in the ship with Him, or rather He with us. That we perish, is wretched when Jesus (and indeed so many else) was there. What do we think of Jesus, and of what concerns Him? It is astonishing, yet how often the case! We have Him in the ship, and He is perfectly at peace, whatever we are governed by the fear and storm which Satan has raised in his folly, instead of the peace which Jesus in divine wisdom and security gives. Satan makes the storm to destroy Jesus, and we take his power as if he were able to do it, thus owning, and as it were worshipping Him in fear -- it having its effect on our mind, not Jesus, who if to man's eye, and really hid from the scene, asleep, is ever nearer them than all that man's care could effect for his comfort and safety. Oh! that we could ever look to Him! But the winds and the sea ever obey Him, when He rises up to rebuke them, and with them the unbelief which credits them more than His power and security, and thus wonders at what manner of man it was. Thus indeed has the Church been launched when Jesus left in it, though apparently asleep, that unhappy and now deserted shore, long the garden of the Lord for beauty and for delights, where He walked and found His delight among

[Page 252]

men on the earth, we now have Him as He is, His glory still hidden, though by faith we know what it is, and He seems asleep and insensible to all, but He knows the end from the beginning, and no storm troubles and disturbs Him, let Satan, the adversary, do what he will, and terrify us through our unbelief.


In this chapter we have an actual blessed display of Christ's power, and an evidence that the quiet influence of Satan is as fatal as the violent power he may display, and deliverance rests not on that but Christ's exercising His power, for the Legion was delivered, and the body of the Gadarenes sent Christ away. So, I apprehend, we have the account of what is consequent upon Christ's coming over, as it were, to the other side of this dispensation -- the deliverance of a Remnant. The ruin and destruction of the swine, the filthy ungodly, by the presence of Christ Himself, given up to Satan, and then the Remnant spared, not allowed to go with Jesus, but sent back to say what He had done for him. But as Jesus really left the Jewish people then, so it had its effect then indeed too, for the Remnant were delivered, saved, let them have been the worst of all, it matters not then, and judgment and ruin coming on the Jewish people, the delivered Remnant were sent into all the country (first addressed to their own house, the Jews) to declare what Jesus had done for them. The opposition of those delivered proved nothing. Satan may have the most actual power, short of destruction, over those whom God is going to deliver, and the Lord may permit it, that his delivering power may be manifested for man's help. There cannot be a more instructive moral lesson of the manner and effects of Christ's delivering power moreover than this -- its application to an individual soul, from the divine power which has preserved him, from the first thing which the demons did with the whole herd, though man could do nothing of it, to his desire to be with Jesus, and the duty set upon him by Jesus, on his deliverance, is most deeply and fully instructive; and also its effect on the unbelieving world, not themselves the subjects of this deliverance -- this, in the view of Satan's power and bondage.

In spite of the rejection of Christ through the disturbance he makes -- which Satan makes and is allowed to make, for

[Page 253]

Christ does not yet bind him, though He may deliver from him, quod nota -- they prayed to be let stay there, and they were, but they use this permission to raise prejudice against Christ, and this was not hindered. But, though sent away by the world as Jesus was, because it created disturbance, or Satan did by these swinish enemies, the patient Lord of all grace having delivered from Satan, again introduces the Church, as it were, as the instrument of ministry in the midst of the world out of which He has been compelled to depart, sending it as the witness of what He has done for it. He says "God," and Legion justly says "Jesus." Such is the place of the Church on Jesus' departure from the world -- lose this, and it loses the sense of its obligation to Jesus, as we have before noticed. First sent to His house, the Jews, but going in zealous sense of Christ's benefits and glory, throughout the region, then sent (the Church's office), and that as delivered. It is a beautiful picture of this grace. No evidence of grace in answer, without grace changes the heart. Loss of swine is more than deliverance of Legion, and the presence of God, even in deliverance, is painful to them that know Him not. The whole is a most perfect and instructive picture of Christ's brief presence in the world, its operations, and effects, and what they will be. I apprehend too that these two passages give us a picture of the Church in its trials -- the storm when Jesus seems asleep, but they are to know that in divine security He is in the ship with them; hence the security of the Church down here in Him, and that in its greatest difficulties, tossed on the sea, cast, a little remnant as it were, among the waves of the sea which it cannot control. Secondly, in its duties -- not yet allowed to be with Jesus, but sent back to the Jew as primarily thence (and the world) as an actual consequence to testify what God has done for it, though the world may have already rejected Him that did it. Also, I apprehend him that had been possessed by Legion, and those in the ship to be the Jewish Remnant which became the Church, the nation being condemned. The other ships "with him" (verse 36) might note the place of the other Gentile assemblies engaged in the storm, and brought to rest by the calm, though no further mention of them is made here. I have already noticed the latter day application of the Legion, and abstractedly it would apply to the ship too. Christ secures the elect, separated Remnant, though apparently entirely out of the way and asleep. And so in the Psalms and Prophets

[Page 254]

the Lord is often called upon to awake. In both instances they come to Him, first in unbelief, then counting His presence only a torment, and begging the Lord not to torment them, and adjuring Him by God not to torment him.

And note, we have a fresh instance here of the "possessed by an unclean spirit," and how the Legion of spirits identified themselves so with the man, that he speaks as himself though it be them. If the reading be right we have: "he besought him that he would not send them away." It is called, though many are confessed to be there, and therefore his name, Legion. "And he said to him ... because we are many"; "And they besought him, saying." It is deeply and solemnly instructive this, and shows the power and complete possession, where Satan has possession. They are his goods, not the saints, though the latter may be tempted, and delivered to him "that they may learn," etc., and their spirit be saved. But he is in the world, and his power, as we see in the Gadarenes, is just as great though it be quiet; so we see in the unhappy Jews. He may, as in Legion, terrify to make men think that is all and remain quiet in their supposed difference (and perhaps just that one be the delivered one, though with the only effect on the world, to cry "Jesus"), therefore to go away and prove themselves the same as the first, only more open confession in him to whom Jesus was, because it was not their deception but "torment me not but I know thee." Look at the Jews, unwilling to go into the judgment hall when they had been accusing the Son of God before Pilate, and the name and nominal righteousness of God just blasphemed before a notoriously bad heathen by such pretence; they had bought His blood, knowing really the sin, seeing too and hating Him, and ready even to kill Lazarus, that the proof might not exist. But they could not go into the undefiling judgment hall to accuse Him. How horrible is the mind of man under this influence! So Judas -- he was no Legion, no untamed madman, evil as he was before the Lord. "One of you is a devil," said the Lord.

-- 5. Satan's power is paramount to nature, though ordinarily he may act on it, and we may quietly act under him with a reason, or follow our evil bent. But Satan tempting is a very different thing from Satan's power. There is sin in the former, because we follow the bent that God condemns; but the

[Page 255]

latter is paramount to nature -- not sin but misery. This may be seen a little in despair, when the inclination to sin may be quite gone, and the power of Satan, even if used as chastening, much more seen. So here, the natural causes of fear were lost upon the man. The energy in him was paramount to the feelings of the flesh, even in what was connected with the fall. He wandered amidst death and desolation night and day; I do not say he did not feel the death and desolation. He seems to have been miserable, "crying and cutting himself with stones." That may be, still there was the paramount power, yet restrained. Had Satan done the first thing uncontrolled, as he seemed to, and uncontrollable as he was by man -- had he done the first thing he did with the swine when permitted, the poor maniac had never seen or met Jesus. But there was a hand that held him in spite of all his power, and the raging display of it. But measured power is more confessed subjection than doing nothing, though it may show power and evil; so Jannes and Jambres -- none but God could control that -- it was "the finger of God." But Jesus was the manifestation of this power, and they knew Him, and asked His permission. It was He that had restrained them before too the same power. How blessed is this! Though humbling to see where we are, yet what a sight to see where Jesus is, and where He has brought in power! "If God be for us, who against us?" Power manifested in and for us, and that, though with divine power, His own power, yet in circumstance in dependence. Yet our joy is to see it in Him, for evil is, and the permission of its full exhibition, and that absolutely restrained in its highest exercise, uncontrolled apparently, always restrained by the power that now in humiliation for us, and that, by its worst effects in us, absolutely casts it out. There are wonderful truths (of grace); but what is not wonderful in Jesus? But in this state of things, there is no pretension to fellowship with Jesus. It is really a safer, more healthy state of things than being blindly led by lusts, or tranquilly following the world, thinking the possession of pigs in quietness better than the presence of Jesus, though His gracious, powerful deliverance was manifested. Yet how much of this remains in our hearts! There is a despair like Judas, when Satan has possessed us by our lusts against Christ after knowledge of Him in the flesh -- that is, of course, a different thing.

[Page 256]

-- 6. It does not appear that our Lord was ever in the country of the Gadarenes before.

-- 12. No doubt this, their will, was under divine control, for the purpose of exhibiting the real agency of the evil spirits.

-- 21. We have here, I apprehend, the ministry of Christ with the Jewish people (all His ministry on earth was with the Jewish people -- He speaks to us from heaven, from an accomplished work, though there may be many analogous circumstances and identical principles, such as the sowing but here with the Jewish people), and here on two principles, saving from death, and revivifying when dead. He was by the seaside, as we have seen before, on the border of Gentile waters as an outcast from the Jewish earth, holding thus His place as not one of them (now) but come to them. But, having passed over again, the Jewish condition is fully before Him. The proposal of the ruler of the synagogue was to come and heal his son, and Jesus went to do it. So He came to Israel, not as dead though found so, though Christ might, and did, and had to speak in vivifying power, but as to be healed. The great multitude were with Him, and they followed Him. He was going to heal this sick little daughter. What He will do when He really comes is to raise dead Israel. He did come to heal her, but she was found dead. But in the way, while the multitude were about Him, while in the way, there was one -- this poor woman -- one who had spent all her substance on physicians, and was only worse, where there was the sense of evil and ruin, and the discovery that help from man was hopeless, where there was also faith in Jesus while He was in the way in the midst of the crowd which followed, and, in the exercise of personal faith touched though it were but His garment. Thus did she now; and this was the way of their safety -- individual believers among the Jews -- and virtue went out of Him. The crowd were about Him, but one individual touched Him in the active exercise of faith. Here is the plain distinction as to means. They were saved from death; all was dying around them. The Jewish nation was now witnessed as a body of death. They might crowd around the Saviour (even after the scribes, etc., had blasphemed Him) but there still was not what alone now was of avail -- the personal exercise of faith (through grace) and consequent identification with the life and the power that was in Christ. But some did touch Him, and were made perfectly whole. And this, in principle

[Page 257]

therefore, would apply to the Gentiles, for it is one God who justifies the "circumcision on the principle of faith," and, therefore, the "uncircumcision by faith" -- a principle which at once brings them in, as the Apostle argues in the Romans, or rather the Spirit of God. But, in fine, the Lord reaches the one He had set out to visit, and she is actually dead, but He knew the power of life in Himself, and therefore calls it only sleep, and knew it in His sense to be so. But there was the manifest power of death on her, as far as all man's power, or thought, or skill went, and the Lord raised her, saying, "Damsel, I say to thee, Arise," and straightway she stood up and walked. All this paragraph, however, is the instruction of faith in the Lord's intercourse with the Jewish people, though necessarily therefore bringing in the Gentiles "by faith." And the ruler of the synagogue presents to us the exercise of that spirit of faith which watches over the condition of the dear Remnant, which in fact constitutes and is identified in such a mind with the nation. And thus is there exercise of faith which first seeks restoration, recovery, and so life, "so that she may be healed, and may live." Jesus goes with this, and in the way the exercise of individual faith finds His power wasted, ruined, hopeless as to itself, but, through grace, in earnest. Then, this passed -- this instructive lesson of the individual energy of hidden faith, ashamed of itself, of its condition, but soon brought out of it and manifested in blessing -- it is discovered to this faith which sought Jesus for recovery, and among the Jews, this was answered to see if anything could be found in man for recovery, to act upon; there was nothing -- it was dead, whatever thoughts of Jesus might have been in hope before. It was let know to this faith that hope of this sort was gone.

Note, Jesus is sometimes found of them that seek Him not, and so with the Gentiles, when those to whom He went as to recover are found past hope. It was an ill-arranged hope, not the faith of the centurion which was Gentile faith not found in Israel, who felt some right in Messiah, but had none for she was dead. Jairus says, "Come and lay thy hands upon her." This was desire indeed, but feeble because it expected something, as having some claim; he was a ruler of the synagogue. And such must for the centurion to bring Christ to heal his servant. Satan soon sends in, on this ground of unbelief, the sentence of hopelessness, "Why yet troublest thou the

[Page 258]

teacher?" All savoured of Israel, and the world, and its worldly state. How different the centurion! "Thy daughter is dead." Here the Lord steps in at once, and sustains the feeble but faithful faith of the poor ruler, "Fear not; only believe." Thus the need having once fixed on Jesus, raises the character of the faith higher. Jesus must come in in resurrection or not at all now, but He ministers in grace against the machinations of the enemy suggesting it was too late. And then, for it was as yet no public testimony, one may almost say against, or at least closingly to the nation, but confirming the faith of those who leaned on Him, and who were to be witnesses, taking the three Apostles (who afterwards seemed to be pillars) and putting the rest out, He raised her by His word, and taking care for her life, as well as giving it, commanded to give her meat. The calm exercise of saving power in the midst of, or shutting out this lamenting and hopeless unbelief. Thus will His power be shown in the resurrection of the Remnant of that people whom He in vain sought alive. It was pure power, without any help in her, yet ministered to and answered that Gentile faith which had loved her and sought her restoration to health (such we find in Lazarus, such we find, even such we find in Jesus Himself in His resurrection).

-- 28-34. Nothing could be more beautifully touching than the artless simplicity and thorough confidence as to Him, and humility as to herself, of this poor woman, and the Lord's instant and necessary recognition of the least act of faith. Let the crowd be ever so great, His occupation ever so, to us, absorbing (for He was above all things) or the sorrowful pressure upon His spirit of the circumstances and state of them, He loved the Jewish people. He was alone, but He entered into all things.

-- 36. What gracious haste to intercept the effect of the word from sinking the ruler's heart in unbelief. See chapter 9.


We have then the view discussed of the effect of near relationship of mercy on the human heart. We have seen that, viewing after the flesh, it esteems itself, as in the poor ruler, though faithful, and moreover despises what is like itself;

[Page 259]

why should it be so much more than itself? They may not and cannot deny the wonderful things the Prophet may do, but they do not like the superiority. This was the secret of the position of the Jewish nation, "he knew that for envy they had delivered him." He was the carpenter, the Son of Mary. Why should He be thus distinguished? This was the history then of the unbelief of His country. The Scripture saith, not in vain, the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy. He wondered at their unbelief, but "a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." So He found it among His own to whom He came -- "They received him not." But His mercy, though astonished and driven back as regards them, only was so to flow forth, thus pent up, on a wider sphere. Still, as we have seen all through this Gospel, with this great object in view, He went teaching, nor was He hindered in His mercy towards the Jews, even in His own country, who were glad to find, and who felt the need of His mercy and power. He healed a few sick folk, not leaving Himself anywhere without witness. Here this scene of ministry ended.

-- 6. There is nothing more striking than the power of habitual circumstances in rendering null in effect, and so causing unbelief as to the operation of all moral evidence whatever.

-- 7. "He gave to them." It ought not to be forgotten this has an authority quite peculiar, and standing on ground above even working miracles, in nature and evidence. The Apostles had it subordinately and partially, and seem thereby to have been distinguished from the most abundant gifts, but they had it as a gift in miracles. Our Lord told them they should do greater things than Himself, but in this they were wholly dependent and subordinate. The Lord gave, they laid their hands on, and the Spirit divided to every man severally as He would. That this was specially apostolic I have no doubt from the twelve at Ephesus who are introduced, I doubt not, as evidence of Paul's being fully an Apostle. Indeed, miracles only minister as evidence to the glory of this authority.

How blessedly, on this rejection of the "Prophet in His own country," does the Lord rise in the widening, and paramount, and therefore patient love still pursuing its purpose, of His glorious Person, and so more glorious character! Yet what could be more glorious than His service, the love of His

[Page 260]

service -- but at least in the manifestation of the Person of Him who served? No wrong nor injury stayed His love. It might be the occasion of overflowing -- for the source was inexhaustible -- the banks which thus kept or pent it in. "And he calls the twelve to him; and he began to send them out two and two, and gave them power over the unclean spirits." This was much more than a prophet. Who could give authority over unclean spirits, not merely cast them out, though that itself was the Lord's specially hitherto, a new work of deliverance as He did it, but gave others this authority, commands them to take no supply? Yet they lacked nothing. Sends them to remain wherever they were received, for they came with a blessing, and if not, to shake the dust off their feet, for they came with the paramount authority of the Lord, and in His name. It was mercy in the Lord to make this distinction in the present state of the Jewish people (and, we may add, the world). He was claiming now for His own coming in blessing, and warning of the consequences of rejecting the messengers of Him who now showed Himself, in this, the Lord Himself, as they would not receive Him as their Servant and Prophet, after all He had done. If they would not receive Him, as little for their own interest, He must show Himself great to accomplish the purpose of His own love -- if rejected, at least the solemn testimony is given against them, but, if so, for others, and in just maintenance of the glory and dignity of His Person.

Such was the ministry, the authoritative ministry now sent forth. If the world, or His own people rejected Him, He must act more in the power of His own character; He is thrown back, as it were, upon Himself. But the testimony was in principle still the same, and treated, with this greater evidence, the people all as lost, in a state of ruin. Going forth, thus sent, they preached -- this was their business. Though Christ's authority in sending them was shown in His power over all the power of evil which, as the Lord come amongst them, He could give, and His control of providence, in taking care of all that they might want, they preached the same sore-needed errand, that they should repent. The evidence followed, confirming the word, casting out devils, anointing and healing many sick. But, though despised at home, yet His fame went much abroad withal.

But there was another secret brought out by this which altered the case of the Jewish people in position and principle.

[Page 261]

Herod the king -- not of Jerusalem perhaps, but it mattered not as to this -- had heard the testimony of John, had recognised his truth and righteousness, had feared even when offended and when he had been seized, because all men took him for a prophet; but, at the instance of his lusts and pleasures, and to save his character with his attendants, he had sacrificed John to those lusts, or to that of others who by them had power over him. This was a gloomy, dark blot in their history -- a dark passage (of the same spirit) in this preparer of the Lord's way, and the Lord notices it, and takes it up here as such. The roaring lion had tasted blood, as it were, had found his way to this first victim by the passions of this unhappy people; it would not be long before they satiated it in their Lord's, "Likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them." It was time to take His own place and character (among this dead people -- and He took it in death) and this in grace, blessed grace, but in true and holy, humble glory, never leaving His humiliation, He begins to do. There is a perfection, a divine perfection in the Lord's ministry, and yet divine in Man, which there is nothing at all to be compared to, which has its own divine character, and yet in humiliation -- "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself," Scripture alone can express it, the divine word to man -- and is example, and nothing else, which may communicate but derives nothing, but shows itself for all to learn and none to reach, because it is set, and sets itself, as an example, stands forth to be learned and followed, produces itself, and therefore has the stamp of the hidden yet manifested God in it -- the more humbled, the more exalted in everything and all that He was, I AM, and yet a Servant of all, and yet serving only so as divine power and divine grace could -- who could walk in life through the midst of the evil.

-- 20. "Herod feared John." What power is there in that word, for it was from his communion with God that that fear came! A man that has communion with God is, though in perfect grace, a fearful thing. And yet what power it has on the conscience, "He heard him gladly." Such was the state of this poor unhappy people -- want of simple faith had plunged them in thick darkness. Divine light was to their eyes but the glare (and that of judgment) that dazzled them, or the self judgment of an evil conscience.

-- 22, 23. Wine, pleasure, and the pride of circumstances

[Page 262]

make conscience and the wisdom of the king as folly for the devil to serve himself of.

262 -- 24. The bitter, lasting hatred of a guilty woman living in sin and guilt.

-- 27, 28. Such was the story of Israel's king, as they had him (now) and Israel's more than Prophet (for "It could not be," etc.) as they had been so were they -- the terrible note of preparation, as I said, for what was to follow. Such was his end, and then the scene of this blessed man closed -- if in sorrow, through Israel's sorrow, yet glorious as the Lord's faithful and bold witness in righteousness -- and now his joy fulfilled hearing "the Bridegroom's voice." He must give willing, though it be in sorrow and compulsion by Israel's sin (and so Christ willing) place as to his heart to One who was greater than he, whose righteous exaltation he delighted in. He was a blessed character, "Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater"; but one wondrous, and humbling, subduing thought, if we look at anything but the blessing and place -- we made greater than he! How came the blessed minister and prophet to leave the wilderness? We find that he was in kings courts.

-- 29. Besides its direct operation as a ministry ancillary to our Lord's, I cannot but feel that this was a sort of initiation of the blessed Apostles into the service whereunto they were called, while the Lord was with them in the world, keeping them in the Father's name. It is true the energy of the Spirit was poured out upon them, but this was not directly the support of their practical patience and faith; compare Luke 22:35, 36.

There is one thing strikes my mind more almost than the particular points in this Gospel -- the rapid and marvellous succession of characteristic facts and circumstances, so as to present our Lord in the full display and tenor of His ministry in those detailed points which constitute the whole -- its power and character. But here I rather desire to note the instruction than what I feel about it, reserving that more for the Lord.

-- 31, et seq. The Lord had now to bind up the testimony and seal the law among His disciples, for He and the children which God had given Him (this may also apply to the Church) were for signs and for wonders to both the houses of Israel. They come to Jesus and tell Him all things, and, accordingly, He occupies Himself with them in tender consideration --

[Page 263]

"Come ye yourselves apart, into a desert place and rest a little." Now, Israel having given Him up, He can spend the gracious care, the leisure of His heart, in caring for His disciples, for they had, with the many coming and going, time "not so much as to eat." "And they went by ship to a desert place apart." But it was not that the people ceased to frequent the Lord, or that He ceased -- He could not -- to be gracious, but He now stood, as it were, at a distance from them, and dealt with them as at a distance, not as amongst and one of themselves. As He had come and been rejected, He went away -- they had to seek Him now -- He had sought them; they followed Him, and came to Him out of all the towns.

-- 34. "And going forth" (i.e., I take it, public from His privacy where He had gone with His disciples). "When he went forth, he saw a great multitude," and where did His soul see them? They might have rejected Him in His humiliation for their sakes when He was getting the tongue of the learned, to speak a word in season, but it was only to rise into the gracious mercy of His own place.

"He had compassion for them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd," and who was it that could have these compassionate thoughts of Israel? Who was afflicted in their affliction? Was His arm shortened, or His ear heavy? His glory might rise above His own, but never above another's, sorrow. These "coming and going," though still showing the Lord was the point of attraction, was not the people pressing on Him to hear the word of God. It was distraction, not service, and He left them to attend to His disciples. His service was now of a different kind, as we have seen, but though their foolishness might have changed this, He served still. When He saw them thus followed after Him there, He had compassion on the multitude -- they had none to guide them -- His heart was towards them, and flowed out, never restrained for good, it needed but a channel -- and in one sense He made it through and, in spite of sin (not of unbelief) in His death. "He began to teach them many things." They now in some measure appeared before His soul, as "the poor of the flock," and He would feed them. Blessed Master! How lovely to have Thy character to rest on, to study, to feed on! Oh, may we feed richly on it, that when we meet Thee, it may be a known Jesus, and the sympathies of Thy Spirit may be with what Thy Spirit hath matured in our hearts -- that when we

[Page 264]

see Thee as Thou art, all the inward depths and springs of Thy character may be known in the glory -- the glory be their glory, and have its brightness and beauty from them as its source! For so it will, though the glory be fully and plainly displayed.

But thus was His heart, though differing in circumstances, explaining and teaching these poor shepherdless sheep, or those that were really as such -- as we have seen all through this Gospel -- teaching them "many things." But the disciples, previously full of all they had been doing, though justly communicating to Him as the source and spring of their mission, and authority, and responsibility, can now advise the Lord (verses 35, 36); they felt as men with human estimate and feelings. The Lord was occupied with the moral desolation of these poor people. He felt it too much to have it set aside, or, in one sense, think for Himself of the hour or the want of food. He was teaching them "many things," for His heart was full; He had "compassion on them." But they, with human prudence and feeling (foresight) coming to Him, propose His sending them away. It was late, a desert place, and they would buy themselves victuals which they would want. But if the Lord had kept them, in compassion teaching them, His glory would shine forth in further considerate blessing -- the manifest glory in compassion of that Lord whom they, as a nation, had rejected and stigmatised. They had blasphemed the Holy Ghost. He could still work as Son of man among them, though the nation now could not be forgiven thus, at least those guilty ones, until as Son of man He was cut off, was lifted up -- then they would know, His disciples indeed blessedly, but they fatally know it was He. Unhappy people! When they had completely resisted the Holy Ghost testifying of this, then other scenes of mercy would open, founded on the union of the Church with that blessed One in glory, and He would say, not for Himself but for them, to the rebellious nation in the person of Saul its agent: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" But now the Son of man, not yet lifted up, was dealing at least with some of the flock (His covenant was not yet broken with the people; Zechariah 11 seems to show that Israel were reckoned united by the Lord, in some sense, after Babylon -- now gathered together, but in prophecy viewed apart till they find one head) and satisfying her poor with bread, though through their sin, their rejection of Him their

[Page 265]

Jehovah and their David, He could not take this His rest for ever, nor dwell there, though the place He had desired. Still He manifested Himself as the One who could do all this that nothing might be wanting to fulfil, and present to the soul all that could reveal and attract in Him, though He should take nothing, though He were He whose enemies should be clothed with shame, and upon Himself His crown flourish.

-- 37. The Lord, in reply to their proposal to send them away because they had nothing to eat, proposes to the disciples that they should give them to eat. They were to be the ministers of His glory in the time of His glory, and they ought to have reckoned on this, and so acted on it now, for He was the same Lord and Jehovah that could do it, for all through here He acts and speaks in the character of this glory, though hidden -- acts in it in proving facts for the multitude, and expects the understanding of it from the disciples, to whom it was given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. But He must prove it to them too. Still He here uses them as the ministers of His glory in the arranging, ordering, and distributing that in which He displays it. Himself thus acting, in principle, in His glory, He gave to the disciples, and they glorified Him before the multitude.

-- 42. "And they did all eat, and were filled," and there was abundance over -- the evidence of the ample satisfying of the whole company. The whole scene is a little picture of authoritative and instrumental order and blessing, actual blessing.

-- 45. Having thus shown His future royal and real Jehovah glory, and called the disciples into action, He shows the circumstances in which they would be left; and as before, when the seed sowing was spoken of, and the secret operation of the word, and other things shown "as if a man slept," the Lord was presented as sleeping, indifferent and inattentive in Providence to the difficulties from without -- the storms which would seem to sink the whole concern -- so here, when the disciples had been sent forth (not merely the word sown by Him, and left to grow) and in activity, then His absence, and occupation while absent, and return to them, is proposed to us. Accordingly He sends them off, compelled them to get into the ship -- ever the picture of their being thus isolated, and cast on the world as confusion but sustained there; so with Jesus Himself, for we have the ship often in this Gospel -- they were

[Page 266]

to go before Him to the other side. He having long "taught many things," and now shown the sign of His glory to the multitude, dismisses them -- this is Christ's act. They, the disciples, were to do His bidding, and go by ship across the sea. He does send them away, so was the Jewish nation dismissed, Christ having done everything possible in compassion, and Christ takes His intercessional office on high. And, when it was late, "the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land," so is He that land of rest, and yet was His eye not off them. He sees them tormented with rowing, "for the wind was contrary, " exceeding difficult to make head against and carry on the ship, and, "about the fourth watch of the night," for thus all night He had let them toil on their way, as to themselves alone, but thus late, and towards morning indeed, "He comes to them, walking on the sea, and would have passed by them." So do saints, thus troubled, lose their sense of Jesus, that they are ignorant, stupefied and affrighted at His return. But, seeing it is so, Jesus reveals Himself, tells them to take courage for it is Himself so known to them by previous intercourse. And He went into the ship, and all was calm. This has a more particular application to the Jewish Remnant, I doubt not, whom He will rejoin as they were first sent forth, but, in its general truth, the whole Church comes in. They were astonished at His presence, and that His presence produced the calm, for they had not understood that witness of His royalty and Jehovah power which they had seen in the waves just before, for their heart was stupefied. Alas! how much is it so! But with Him they passed over, and came ashore in the land of Gennesaret, that world outside Jordan, where Jesus had made the delivered Legion, not allowing Him to depart and be with Him, go and tell how great things God had done for him. Jesus now returns here, and as, when it was question of the sowing of the word, He in apparent neglect had gone there and sent the man forth, not allowing him to return beyond this sea of Jordan with Him, so now He returns thither with His disciples, having displayed not the sowing but the royal Jewish divine glory. Having dismissed the nation, and having finished His intercession, rejoined the Remnant across the troubled waters which to Him, wind and all, are the same, He passes with sure and governing footsteps over them all, and, when He returned to them, the wind ceased. Thus His royal power was manifested with intermediate intercession, but

[Page 267]

they were dull to understand what He had done before, and all this divine, royal power was grace and blessing for every supply, paramount to trouble, and bringing sure and commanding rest.

Note, the intercession of Christ does not necessarily give peace to the Church while He is absent. The wind remains contrary, and they were toiling with rowing, though going and working according to the Lord's will. Nay, often doubtless being in the place the Lord sets us in, and labouring by virtue of His intercession, causes the opposition of the adversary, until He enters in His power, present power, into the ship and the adversary himself is silenced and bound; otherwise, it is toiling against a contrary wind. Opposition, troubles, and also confusion in the world, often trying to the saint, yet good for sifting the saints together, may be the effect of intercession. When the smoke of the incense arose up with prayers of saints out of the angel's hand, the angel took the censer, etc., and there were voices and thunderings and lightnings, and an earthquake; and the seven angels prepared to sound, all for blessing, all to exercise and instruct, but not all for ease or pleasantness. I repeat, a contrary wind and Christ's intercession go together.

-- 54. Upon His going forth to the shore again we find Him healing all. When the Lord went forth the former time, He only left a testimony in the midst of them of His saving power, and committed the testimony to his hand, but now there is universal healing, even by the hem of His garment. Thus this order of testimony closed that which was afforded to the nation of His connection with the Jewish people, its replacing by the Church, His connection with it, and His return to the disciples. But things were, as it were, done in parables.


Now the actual terms of the controversy, and the plain state of things in question between Him and the Jewish people is brought out. The Pharisees and some of the scribes coming from Jerusalem are gathered together, and the question of principles, as of two opposite parties, is brought out between them -- a question turning on what is ever the hinge of the question between corrupt forms used as glory to the possessors, ordinances, and righteousness as of God, not sanctioned by

[Page 268]

their authority at the close of a dispensation -- tradition and the Word of God. When I say "corrupt," their having been actually instituted of God does not alter the relative position of the question. "Washing of pots and cups, and many such things which they received to hold" -- this is the Spirit's estimate, in the lightest way, of what it is all worth. But the Pharisees, for such systems are blind in this, and will always, having honoured themselves, rest on this honour, put it forward on its own ground: "Why do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?" These things delivered to hold, such harmless things -- and why offend, and not submit to reverence and authority in the persons of the elders? It is just self-will and self-exaltation. Such is man's judgment, because he honours himself -- the Spirit, ever the authority of God and His Word, and that only, as authoritative direction: "Man lives by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

We here find man's religion the form of piety (rejecting the Word of God, its result) and man's heart -- the outward and the inward. Then God, absolute grace to the most distant (by faith), Tyre, Sidon, Phoenicia (though come among Jews), and power in grace to open the ear to the Word, and give a tongue to praise, bless and recount received mercies and manifested power.

-- 5. This verse is evidence that epeita (then) is used in the most ordinary sense, without reference to interval of time.

Note, in this chapter we have ecclesiastical hypocrisy, and natural wickedness -- man's side; and then, God above hardness of heart (Tyre and Sidon) the devil's power, wickedness to a curse and spueing out. And where faith took the place, as such, owning this, God could not but be it, for He was it -- and thus, when His people were deaf and dumb, sighing over them He makes them hear and speak. God is above evil. It is a perfect picture -- take Gentile, absolute wickedness, or hardened nearness to God.

This chapter is very complete. First, obedience to God contrasted with observances of human will -- tradition. Next, the human heart and its state -- the real question, not what is external, but the testimony that out of it comes evil. Lastly, that even if in the ways and dispensations of God a limit was placed to those ways in God's dispensatory wisdom -- it was the children's bread -- yet that God's heart, who was Love,

[Page 269]

necessarily met the farthest from Him -- could not deny itself (He is Love) when a want was presented by faith honestly taking its own place. Where man is in the truth as to himself, God must be in the truth of His love. He will open Israel's ears, and loose his tongue in due time, but He cannot deny Himself when a want appeals to what He is.

-- 6, et seq. It is a most important principle on an anxious point, for the child of God driven, by the selfishness of an apostate system, to act on his own responsibility -- for a child of God dreads selfwill above all things -- and when this is pressed on him, if feeble in light and conscience hereon shrinks. Thus, therefore, the Lord puts it in all its apparently gracious force, and judges it. "Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders?" Then, first, they did not. Next, it was an indifferent thing washing their hands before they ate bread -- a thing of excellent signification, for what more important than moral purity, or more agreed in as a representation of it? The simple answer was: it destroyed the integrity and importance of the commands of God. If I can add, and a person should do it, the completeness of God's revealed will is questioned, and mixing other things with it like obligation, nullifies the distinctive obligation on the soul of the will of God -- the habit of reference, hearty single-eyed reference to the will of God, and taking that as a guide given in mercy, because we were in a labyrinth, to guide us through; add man's, and the whole recognition of the mercy of giving us a guide, because we were wandering in a wilderness where there was no way, is lost. The principle is clear, but the Lord has settled the point. The thing was a thing indifferent -- of excellent signification, and commanded by the elders. His disciples did it not -- and here is His judgment on those who minded these directions: "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." It rendered the worship of God vain, produced hypocrisy, for it exalted man in his approach to God, as if he could come with beautifully arranged things for God, instead of a convicted, humbled heart, and, where it was thus arranged, enabled the unconvinced unhumbled to come with the same appearance, expression, and worship, as he who was nullifying the distinctive power of the Spirit of God. And the worship was vain; it was man, petty man's self-exaltation, -- even when it might have the form of piety, and it was vain -- indeed, in this high worship,

[Page 270]

the heart was far away. The Lord had taught the neglect of it, and judged the use of it, and solemnly even in indifferent things.

Here was the first point: "They teach commandments of men" -- their worship is vain. "As it is written" judges all this, and the Lord pronounces on it. His disciples know where to turn to. The next point the Lord takes up, for "No man can serve two masters," is that these things become substitutes for the commandments of God, for the natural man can do man's commandments, but he cannot do God's, and he can acquire more credit from man by the former than the latter. Here is the charge: "Leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." And what does it come to? Washing of pots and many such things! Now the Lord goes farther, not to make remarks on what they presented, but to show the real force and extent of their ways, and where the principle went and led. "And he said to them: Full well ye reject the commandment of God." Man never learns the commandment of God, thus pretending to be righteous, but, inasmuch as the perfection of guiding truth is in God's commandments -- and it must be that therefore or wrong -- when man adds as he may call it, he always opposes and makes void God's commandment. It places man always instead of God, and exalts man and not God; now the will of God directs the Spirit, and humbles the flesh, exposing it. The direction of man hides and glorifies the flesh, and these commandments therefore are found to militate in principle against God and His holiness. There is another reason now emerges. This has the character of religion. Now true religion puts a man into immediate relationship with God, detecting his whole state, taking quite out and putting him into the truth before God (to which the Gospel is the answer of grace) but false cannot hear this -- it has no reality of relationship with God, and therefore it constitutes an intermediate priesthood which is the consummation of what is false, when the true light has shone. Then by the authority of nearness to God thus reposed in, which, they being priests and the others not, is taken for granted and cannot be entered into, they act in the dark, indulge themselves, and crave from others, or "He that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey." If I be asked: How then do you say of the Jewish priesthood which God Himself appointed? I answer: That is exactly the point.

[Page 271]

Then God did dwell in the thick darkness, the way into the holiest was not made manifest, the veil was upon God's presence, which is now rent and done away in Christ, and therefore on Christ's death they that come to God are entirely in a new position. They must meet Him in personal responsibility, and that met by the blood of sprinkling, in the shedding of which the veil was rent; so that grace and holiness necessarily go together. The flesh used this, not even for the terror of judgment against sin, but to use God as their instrument of influence, yea, cultivated sin that they might have sin-offerings. Such is its full effect, the real character of priesthood in man's hands. But the principle of all human righteousness leads to this, for it never brings into the presence of God, and the teachers of it flatter, and minister to this, and therefore you will ever find human righteousness, human will, and priesthood go together, as divine righteousness, the divine will, and a divine priesthood in Christ, and all believers in Him, respectively, go together. But here it is rested not on the priests but on the principles and the teachers, which is important for us to see -- "Ye say," but it ministered to this. The Lord for conscience seizes on the evidence, the actual evidence of the effect of these principles; but "in vain do they worship me" applies to every form of it. Indeed the Lord ever does this, waits in patience till sin is filled up to judge, and takes hold on the plain manifestation of it to convict, but we are called on, by the knowledge He affords us of the fruits in conduct, to mortify and have done with every root and branch. In convicting others, we may state the principle on the Lord's authority, as in verse 7, and convict the offenders, if we are spiritual, by the plain effects and facts, and that on their own principles and showing, which is needed to convict though not to guide us.

Further, we may observe that the guidance of the principle is constant, the conviction, which is by the grosser facts, is occasional, or minds would be continually occupied with evil, and much defiled and infused, and the wicked and infidels can find that out. It is the sign of evil and ruin when the infidel becomes more righteous than the Church (professing); then judgment is near, i.e., when the place of nominal and assumed privilege is more corrupt than natural conscience, so that mere natural conscience can judge it. It cannot then be a witness really to the world, even by profession, and is good for nothing. Here, further, a reproach often made -- infidelity and the truest

[Page 272]

religion, the Lord Himself, seem to, and in a certain sense do, coincide. For the Lord to vindicate His own name condemns what natural conscience condemns, but in the unconverted man in only haughty hatred. The Gentiles and the Lord concurred in pulling down Jerusalem, but they condemned, in careless indifference or dislike, the Lord too, and He wept over what He had to judge. Our part is as plainly as possible to deny the association of the Lord with it, walking in righteousness that it be not blasphemed through them, and to separate not from that only but from all evil, following Him who, when He puts forth His own sheep, goes before them; and we go bearing His reproach. We find from Jeremiah's case that we shall always be treated by those who would have Jerusalem and the abuses, as traitors to Jerusalem. Be it so -- we know our Master's mind.

Further, the excuse of such things being only abuses is nothing to the point. They are the occasions of the conviction by the Lord of the falseness of their whole principle. They are the effects of adding anything to God's commandment, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." And the saint with understanding knows, and judges, and rejects the principle, "the tree is known by its fruits," and the Lord has described it here. It is a most deeply instructive, and comforting, though humbling and sorrowful chapter, because it directs and strengthens with the authority of God by His Spirit and word, just where the saint would be anxious and troubling lest selfwill should come in.

Thus the Lord continually deals in watchful, thoughtful grace with His poor but loved truth-seeking disciples, and strengthens their inner man against reproach and condemnation. They know their Master's mind, and are content, and do not wish or need to look beyond it, save in love. It is most exceedingly instructive. Where is the subtle light, avoiding division, of unscriptural and anti-scriptural, in the presence of this passage? What thorough wretched wickedness that is! Here we have the whole principle, from such a simple thing as washing the hands to the fullest result of priestly wickedness -- the substitution of themselves for the plain, happy, blessed and honourable duties in which God, in loving-kindness and His supreme will, has placed us; for the devil indeed defiles everything he touches. Note when the Lord would reprove, He speaks within about the things which are evil; when He

[Page 273]

would separate and judge, from without as a Prophet. But when He speaks, there must be reformation or judgment.

But there is a further point, not yet noticed, not only: "Ye reject the commandment of God," but "making the word of God of none effect through your tradition." Not only was a particular, or any particular commandment set aside that they might keep their tradition, but they rendered null, and rejected, nullified the authority of the whole word of God by this. If I break one, I am guilty of all; but in setting up another authority, I displace and render void and null the whole word of God which claims all authority. If another can direct, I am not sole master, and the man is not my servant; and not only is the servant misled but the master is set aside. God's authority, and His revealed will as authority is entirely set aside by one who adds one tittle. If it be only to wash my hands, another can meddle and claim obedience -- the word of God is not the sole authoritative rule. God may be patient, but it is entire apostasy from the whole mercy and will of God saving the soul, He in mercy having taken the pains to take it into His hand, and to guide us. So was Paul jealous as to Titus. God, therefore, is jealous of His word, for whenever we get out of it, we get into the darkness and bondage of Satan. It is the only light and guide we have -- the fulness and truth of the light of creation being embodied in it in all its clearness as far as an evidence to the conscience and soul. "Many such things," adds the Lord, "ye do." This solution of God's will was found in and by many things as well as tradition. Man, be it under the form of godliness, desires it everywhere, and everywhere to be without God; and the enemy can provide religion for that, as well as anything else, provided it is for nature worship, for nature is just what Satan does provide for, that we may not feel the need of grace, and man then can be zealous for that against the truth, for it is something of his own -- ours, not God. The Lord then goes straight to the thoughts and purity of the heart -- the plain direction for the whole multitude. He answered the enquiries (and therein us) as to all the principles of judgment against their tradition -- a special subject before. Yet the disciples could not understand this plain principle. And here we have the further evidence of the deadly evil of the system, that so entirely does it rest the mind upon what is external that so plain a principle as this is darkened to the mind, even of those

[Page 274]

who are sincere, and had been led as followers of Jesus with unfeigned intention. They had not sense enough to see that it was not what went into the belly, but what came out of the heart, that defiled a man. There was that which "purged all meats." What a reproof! But the great principle of all Christ's dealings and ministry, the great ground of plain moral righteousness making the real difference, was brought out; at least the great principle on which He rested His controversy with them, for grace they did not understand. And the Lord, by their own petty objection, came now to the direct question of righteousness, and showed how, in their selfish and self-sufficient traditions, they set even their own law aside. The Lord looked, when asked by His disciples, to the heart, and showed what came forth out of it. He had addressed the great principle to the multitude carefully, that all who had ears to hear might hear. The Pharisees had been convicted on the law as it stood, in which they boasted, while the Lord withal judged them Himself. He left them, and turned to Gentile quarters.

All tradition, though the tradition of the elders so designated by the word, and so even called by man, for it has authority with him, is called by the Lord "your tradition." Man's religion glorifies man; it is his. God says: "From within, out of the heart, proceed" -- what a catalogue there is when God's religion begins! A man, such as he is, can wash his hands, and say "Corban," but it is a terrible thing to see so laid bare -- quite another thing. First, it is "tradition of men," then "your tradition." A Mahomedan likes Mahomedan tradition; an Establishment person that of the Establishment; a Roman Catholic that of the Romanists; a Greek that of the Greeks; it is his own, and it has that value to him. Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption, or so full of Satan's power as false religion. This is true even in the worst of apostasy, the chief priests and Pilate, the prophet and the beast. Next, if I add anything, God is imperfect in what He has given as a guide -- actually, I ever substitute, in fact I must, for the guide is perfect for the man of God, and this is the subtlest substitute of the man of nature. But, if God has been imperfect in one tittle, I can reckon upon Him in none of the rest; but indeed, on the contrary, "in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The word of God to man, as he is, becomes purely a detective, a

[Page 275]

pure detective as the light, whereas the traditions satisfy the natural cravings after religion by what the flesh can do, and there fore are the worst securer against, and barrier of light, besides making void the sole authority of God's word, and therefore all of it, as well as rejecting the actual commandment. It is the arranged religion of nature, and therefore the stronghold of Satan; compare verse 21, taking man as he is, the light entering into the heart, and He was the light. They break through Moses, worship in vain, make void the word of God -- whereas God's commandment detects man as he is; so of all true religion.

-- 6. We may observe here that, whereas our Lord with consummate wisdom throws upon the questioners the onus of any difficulty they sought to impose upon Him when it was merely captious, ever speaks with the most unqualified decision when any principle is involved.

-- 22. Folly (aphrosune); so often in the Septuagint. "The fool hath said in his heart." He that is uninstructed, I suppose, and disregards both counsel and instruction. It borders therefore, as to both man and God, upon impiety, flowing from groundless independence of will, with no independence of understanding and knowledge. This in act or habit is, I suppose, folly, showing itself in recklessness of conduct -- conduct inconsistent with the real relations and obligations under which we are. This as to God, it will be observed, is practical atheism. The Psalms and Proverbs are full of matter connected with this. It is sometimes put for the vile person -- Nabal (a fool) but moros is used for that. It is intimately connected therefore with self-confidence and assumption; it may therefore have here moral connection with haughtiness (huperephania) and then we have great light upon Paul's use of it in 2 Corinthians 11. But it does not, nor ought to lose the weight of its simple sense, though this may lead us to the moral sources of it.

-- 24, et seq. The Lord had left the Pharisees and their haunts, and came into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon -- a country in fact allotted to Israel, but possessed by Gentiles, their enemies amongst the Gentiles. It was really Israel in title, but actually Gentiles, so that He had left what practically constituted Israel now. There He would have been alone, not out of the territory of Israel but away from Israel, standing in the counsel of God as to it, but separate from the state of man

[Page 276]

in it. But His patient, gracious power had too widely spread His name. "He could not be hid." A woman heard of Him. Thus grace to the Gentile shown by abounding grace to the Jew, while the Lord strictly kept Himself as sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But, if unbelief was sadly manifested in Israel, sorrow and Satan had their power over the Gentile also, and there the Lord's compassion had its way. The woman had a daughter who "had an unclean spirit, and coming she fell down at His feet. She was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by race," one entirely an outcast, a dog. The Lord's heart had not at all left Israel, in spite of all their evil and rejection. "Suffer the children to be first filled; for it is not right to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" -- curs, vile dogs. But she said, "Yea, Lord," or "Nay, Lord; for even the dogs eat of the crumbs of the children, under the table." Most blessed answer! How true -- how full of understanding of God's ways! How honouring to His glorious counsels in exalting whom He would, and counting them exalted whom God had in spite of all; though to her own dishonour! What persevering confidence in the character of God, and in Jesus as the minister and exhibition of it! Owning all the dispensations of God actually, yet seeing through them all to the depths of His character of love and grace within, and pleading with Jesus on it, and all through the sense of need. What an instructor, through grace! That is, God having opened His heart in Jesus, but this woman saw through rejection, for the Lord was to be sought here in Israel. How blessedly was He led! How by divine power was she led also! And as the Lord stood the witness of patient love, but in the secret of His own glory, so she brought by being humble and utterly self-abased to the deep and gladdening knowledge of divine dispensations -- for God had children there He loved as such -- and that yet deeper knowledge, that secret of divine love which gave her power, if one may so speak, over the springs of the heart of Jesus, because it was in the divine nature and perfectness of which He was the witness, and thus He was glorified in His wider and supreme glory. How blessedly, while in perfect obedience here as a Servant to these rebellious Israelites for the Father's sake, did the light break forth, the light of the glory of that Father break forth in Him! Yet what glory (by being utterly self-abased) to be in the position which should draw forth, and be the object on which all the best

[Page 277]

glory of the humbled Son of man, the Lord Jesus, should shine! This poor outcast woman vindicated His glory when rejected; so every poor, humbled sinner -- such is his place, not in exalting himself, but in his humiliation he is the exalter of a rejected Jesus as the displayer (as the object) of His character and glory, otherwise that glory would be lost in His humiliation; but here it is displayed. It is a glorious place -- yet the lowest of us of Him. And how do these extremes, the poor manifested sinner and (the drawing forth) the glory of God in its highest character, meet here! May we have real humiliation, even in taking our true place, and, herewith, clear understanding of the dispensations of God, and the glory of God in them in spite of the wickedness of man, while man in them only finds his own glory to prop up and maintain his wickedness, and secure him from the charge of ungodliness on his conscience!

The Lord's mercy necessarily flowed forth; had it not, it would have been a denial of Himself. This is the force of faith acting on what the Lord is, according to His mind and will. He is necessarily so manifested, or it would be the denial of Himself. "For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter." She did actively believe His word, the answer of faith, and departed to her house, and found the devil gone out -- further witness of power and mercy!

-- 31. The Lord returned to this "Galilee of the Gentiles" -- His habitual resort after the beginning till the end. "To the sea of Galilee." The Lord is now, in all these particular miracles, the Object of faith; He is sought. This man, I should apprehend, presents the Remnant of the Jewish people that -- while a poor Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by nation (that evil and rejected race) could discern the glory of God's love, the position of His people, recognise it in grace in spite of their wickedness, through the glory of the Person of Jesus their Head, the Lord of glory bursting forth in glory on the Gentiles -- when He returned to His own people and into their quarters, He finds them deaf and scarce stammering what none could understand. His eye turned to heaven -- the resource of every sorrow -- and where all glory was understood, the dwelling place of that which made sorrow understood, and He groaned. But if He did, looking to heaven, looked to mercy and loving-kindness, and the groan (for heaven itself produces a groan while we are here below) turned, from an eye that rested there, into deliverance, and "Be opened." Such was the course of

[Page 278]

His patient love! And when He spake, as heaven drew out His word, and all the evil and wretchedness of His people drew His heart to heaven, power produced relief, the hearing was opened, and the tongue of the poor example of the effects and power of evil spake plain and rightly. Such was the state of that poor Remnant! Deaf actually, and what remained of traditionary knowledge of God was the stammering of an unintelligible, untaught heart -- the occasion of sorrow and groan, not the answer of any praise to their God. In all these cases, the Lord charges to be hid, though He refrained from no mercy and deliverance. He was now more hid with God, and not presenting Himself publicly, as before and after.


Notice how very perfectly the turning point of the world's rejection of Jesus, and His glory in another sphere is brought out here. The Jehovah satisfying the poor with bread, in the double character of full government and divine perfection of patience, warning the disciples against both parts of Judaism -- its religious and its worldly character -- the taking the blind man out of the town, and His entire separation from it as a testimony -- first on the disciples seeing only obscurely -- then the full doctrine of the Cross, the soul's value, and the coming glory consequent on death and resurrection, the flesh in Peter judged only in that, and savouring what is of men being Satan's power.

But although there might be evidence of the deaf and stammering tongue of the happiest in Israel, yet the actual public evidence of the interference of the Lord's power was plain, and blessed, and a seed was sown by the patient grace of the Lord which was to ripen into a future harvest, and the Lord repeats this testimony of His grace. He shall satisfy the poor with bread, in His compassion for the long want of the multitude, for after three days He will revive them. Already had they been so long waiting on Him, and had nothing to eat. The former was when He went forth to them; here He had already had them with Him, these poor of the flock, three days, and had compassion on them then because they were as sheep without a shepherd; here, because they had nothing to eat, and how could they be satisfied with bread from the wilderness? For indeed many had sought Him from far. Such is the

[Page 279]

character of these blessed heirs -- they had come out from their homes to seek Him. He had compassion, but the disciples saw no means of providing. Unbelief never reckons on a past mercy, for a present mercy ends in the boon received to it and therefore is forgotten as to God in it who is the same for ever. Well might the Lord groan over the last of the Remnant as deaf, and their speech worse than none. Yet it stated the difficulty, and that is something for the Lord. Bread in the wilderness is the great point -- an old occasion of God's display of Himself in Israel, yet more in the true Bread. In God's hands there is sufficiency and perfection in whatever circumstances, and yet something over, for His riches are unsearchable.

There is remarkable difference as to the typical import of this and the former similar miracle. There, the Lord goes forth and finds the multitude, having been previously hid -- finds them on His first going forth, and has compassion on them because they were as sheep that had no shepherd; here, they had been three days waiting on Him, and had nothing to eat. Then He is apart from His disciples in the former, praying -- they, on His rejoining them go forth to land, and He shows His abundant present power. Thereupon arose the question of tradition and righteousness between Him and the Jews, and, in the Syro-Phoenician, and the deaf and dumb, the great question of the relationship to Gentiles and the Remnant of Israel. Here we have not, as to this, this primary Jewish character, the result of His visit to them at the outset, but a detail of what was consequent on His stay amongst them. Not the first abundant display and more over than originally, but His patience towards this waiting Remnant, supplying enough. There, it was "when it was late" the disciples proposed dismissing them, and the Lord, through their hands feeds them, and leaves abundance in the hands of each of them. It was the picture of His day in Israel. "He taught them many things," and then the different position of Him and disciples took place; here, at the close, on the ground of their having nothing to eat, after the relative way of grace to Gentile and Jew was manifested, sovereign grace, He shows that still He does not despise the Remnant, but will feed them. How this seeking Remnant was to be fed in the wilderness or from it, the disciples knew not. It was no proposal now to send them away. It was not: "Give ye them to eat," but He told them to sit down, thus watching over them. There, the Lord was

[Page 280]

revealing His sustaining absence after full manifestation in power in which He could minister by others, saying: "Give ye them to eat"; here it was the full compassionate sufficiency of His presence. The former, therefore, would in some sort apply to the condition even of the Jews during this period, but here He goes with His disciples -- His compassionate sufficiency, and, on dismissing the nation after satisfying this seeking Remnant, though multitude of the poor, going with the disciples -- there is no toiling, or rowing, or fear, or difficulty. As we have seen, after the former, on the one side, tradition ministering to iniquity and clericalism met by the convicting moral righteousness of the Lord Jesus, and thus the nation's resting-place condemned. (His going forth then had led to the full blessing to the world, as on His return.)

Here, as with His disciples, the question of a sign is raised -- a sign from heaven. Such they asked from Him, such men announced before the great and terrible day, which was now in the Lord's mind and understanding really lowering over their heads. They take now the active enmity of unbelief. But He had come in grace -- ample evidence of it had been given; signs from heaven were, in God's mind, signs of judgment preceding that great and terrible day. Every sign of grace had been given on earth, where it had been wanted, and where mercy brought it and produced it, to show there was deliverance in grace. Well might the Lord groan at this generation seeking a sign, rejecting all He had done, and the evidence He had manifested in grace, and asking for what would be signs of judgment. Whatever individuals may be, the public actings constituted before the Lord's eye "this generation"; compare Deuteronomy 32. But God would not minister to their unbelief, though He afforded every ground of faith; He would not meet their evil will which would be satisfied only with their own glory, though He would amply display, notwithstanding their sin, the graciousness of His own sending forth even His Son. It was the solemn pronouncing of divine authority: "Verily I say unto you, no sign shall be given to this generation." The generation was judged. They thus requited the Lord. Their spot was not the spot of His children -- "A perverse and crooked generation." The Lord that had pronounced His knowledge of them then, now, after the exercise of indefatigable and unwearied patience, pronounces it in Person, thus come humbled, if anything could

[Page 281]

turn their hearts. But they were "this generation." What weighty words! A sign, after He had not spared His Son which He yet had! How were they judged! Yet with a groan in spirit, for He came Himself in love, if anything could be done, was the force of this needful judgment thus solemnly pronounced. But how affecting, a judgment so pronounced! It was the righteous judgment of where Love searching, Love itself could find no hope. The solemn utterance of the righteous despair of Love! Why a sign of judgment, when all had failed to avert it? It was too, too hopeless and bad. He left them. It was all that was to be done, for He judged not: for "He came not to judge ... but to save." But what a judgment it was! He went forth on to the sea again, and the hope of testimony closed on them. He left them. He has only to warn His disciples, with whom He was, against the righteousness and royalty of His own people -- the two great things in which Messiah was to be manifested, the most calculated to have a snare, by their Jewish pretention, to His disciples. The Pharisees and Herodians we hear of tempting Him.

The Remnant, then, was now distinguished -- His companions. And the Lord proceeds to warn them against the nominal position and righteousness of the nation, presented in contrast with Him the righteous One, and their Jewish king, such as he was.

Note, the Sadducees opposed the Apostles, Satan raising suitable instruments against the testimony of resurrection; the Pharisees and Herod against the righteous royalty of Christ, alive amongst them. He warns them against them.

It is not material here to show on what ground He was separating His disciples from all they (the Jews) had to boast of, and warns them against them in their principles. It was leaven -- corrupt, fraudulent principles -- the sour, corrupted dough, which would corrupt all. But was their state really one of intelligence? Far from it! The patient grace of the Lord had attracted them, and kept them, and they had the saving point of attachment to and love for Christ. But neither did they understand; natural things had power over their hearts. They could see that the Christ that they trusted was averse to the Pharisees, and that He distrusted Herod, but they went no further than what concerned the body, or any distrust as to their evil conduct connected with that. They had taken no bread, and they were to be afraid of the leaven of the

[Page 282]

Pharisees and Herod. (The Pharisees were the principle of Judaism morally, and therefore at Jerusalem. Herod, over Galilee, witnessed the extent of royalty.) But if they understood not the Lord who cared for them, He understood their hearts, and kept them. They rested on circumstances, not breaking through them to divine power in His Person, and therefore their faith in the miracle ended in each miracle, and was not, as by a supply of the Spirit, a fresh apprehension and planting in the soul of divine power which answered for all circumstances, and was the joy of hope in His glory. They did not understand, for indeed the manifestation of this power had put the Lord at utter variance with the Pharisees and Jewish power, and it was evident how their leaven hindered their apprehension, and others apprehending the glory of Christ's Person, asking a sign just after such special signs. The disciples were to be warned against this, for the glory which it hid was theirs. They did see something of Christ, so as to be attracted to and knit to Him, but their understanding was all dim to be identified with His place. Their hearts too were darkened; they too had eyes and did not see, ears and did not hear. They partook of the darkness that was around; so strong is the effect, even upon the sincere, when the glory of Christ has not full sway, and is not revealed in power over the flesh in what we are akin to; compare Paul's deliverance on the road to Damascus. They did not remember, for it had not been the communication of God to the soul, and therefore they could draw no other conclusions from His power by it. The Person of Jesus was not revealed to their souls by it, though they saw Messiah's power by it, and were attached to Him who was so. Therefore they were, and because they were hardened in heart, and that even as to the analogous circumstance of the supply of bread. If they had had bread, they might have had to feed five thousand, but they understood nothing of all this.

The Lord then in the case of the blind man illustrates the double process by which the Remnant of the Jews were delivered from their total natural blindness. It was a thing with which the village (the nation) had nothing to do. He took them by the hand, and led them out, took them when blind, and first leads them forth, for, though they could not see Him, He could lead them, and lead them safely, even the blind, by a way that they knew not. And He led them forth from the crowd, that there He might make them see apart from them. The first

[Page 283]

effect was indeed to give sight, but all confusion; so with the disciples from Jesus' action on them while on earth. He led them forth, acted on their eyes in a human manner, yet divine power was there, and they saw, but men were as trees walking. All was seen through a medium, which put men in a false position (you would have thought him alone with Jesus) but the man still or now saw the men, but they assumed an exaggerated importance in his mind connected with this very act of Jesus' power. And this will be the effect when the Holy Ghost is not in power -- the very persons whom Christ withdraws us from, to have us for Himself, assume an extraordinary importance as connected with religion, when the conscience is awakened by the act of the Lord, but clear sight not acquired. So it was even with the disciples, because religious obligation has more power, and divine judgment is not acquired. But all this is confusion; but when His hand then touches the eyes, then they see all thing s clearly. The Lord had laid His hand on him before, so that virtue went out, but not on his eyes; when He did that then he saw clearly. The first was the Lord's intercourse with the disciples Himself, the latter, the power of the Holy Ghost -- they judged all things. The same is in principle often true of any soul, but Saul is more strictly the pattern properly for that.

Though He still exercised the mercy, it was not the Lord's object now to be known by these miracles, for He was now severing and discriminating in a nation that had rejected Him, or rather itself. So afterwards, they should tell no man of Him. They confessing He was the Christ, morally as Son of God in all His grace they had rejected Him. He was not now to take reputation as Christ, when they were morally bad and rejecting the Lord, and had no taste for what was true in it.

-- 27, et seq. The scene of ministry was now really closed among the people, and indeed commented on in what preceded, and He now takes up the ground He is upon with His disciples to explain His real position, and what was coming -- the deeper truths which belong to them as separated. The language of the Lord was remarkable. "Whom do men say that I am?" All were classed under this title (men) now. A Jew was just a man. Otherwise it was, "Ye, whom do ye say?" It was not moreover ecclesiastical judgment was in question, but the opinion raised. There were various suppositions, as people's

[Page 284]

minds had been affected by previous instruments of God. There was no faith in His present living power sending His Son, the Christ Himself. This, though there might be possibly in some cases a seed of enquiry sown, came to nothing as regards separation to Himself. They own Him here, not merely as the Prophet, nor, on the other hand, is the point here given by the Holy Ghost "the Son of God," but "the Christ" -- a full Jewish recognition as He had come amongst them. This, as we have seen, they were to tell no one, for He had been indeed already rejected, though He had given every proof, and He was to be received not by the bruit of His renown, but by the grace of the Father seen (however dimly by dull eyes) in Him.

-- 30. This charge seems to occur more frequently in Mark than in the other Gospels.

But owning Him as the Christ was their own glory too. They had Him specially as owned by Him as His. And He began to tell them what was to happen to this their Christ, giving Himself a larger, more humble title, yet a title connected with all His future glory. He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by all that had authority, learning, or strict religion, and be killed but rise again. The great mystery of a better world, a better life, a new thing that was to come in entirely of God, when man's rejection (of Himself, in his rejection of all that was good and blessed, as sent of God) was manifested. He who came in this character (whose the glory was) Son of man sprung among themselves, yet the true and blessed Offspring of God, sent by Him, and the pattern, crown, and source of all proper human blessedness would find no link in the condition (save their misery) or even religion. Though come according to it, and its brightest crown, learning in the Law, though He was the end of it all, nor righteousness though He was the only righteous One, and He who could alone have been, had there been any good, the very centre, and power, and source, and glory of all this, was rejected in the midst of it, and cast out as One that could have no part. But God had deeper thoughts, and a new thing to bring in, and the disciples having owned Him in the professed suitability of character He came to them, they are, on this being set aside (in man's sin) to know this far deeper, and intrinsically true and necessary counsel of God, one which might be brought about by dispensation, but was

[Page 285]

above it all, and flowed from the truth of God's own eternal character in relation with men.

Our Lord looking towards the Father, and seeing the power and importance of these dealings with the Son of man, and not seeking Himself, speaks openly of His own humiliation and degradation. To Him it was the condemnation of these poor priests, elders, and scribes. He was occupied with the truth, and told it plainly for man to know. It put man really in his place. It was the truth of that which His disciples had to go through -- the great and deep, and eternal truth which was breaking out now, through His rejection. But Peter, forward to own Him as Christ, was yet all fleshly in his thoughts of this glory, and, He having said it quite openly, fearing the loss of influence and effect on the minds of the people, in his wisdom began to rebuke Him. It dishonoured his (Peter's) position, and what would the Jewish world say? It would hinder the people believing on Him. So does the truth of God's grace where it is not a savour of life. But Christ's heart was now on His disciples to strengthen and guard this separated flock, for the separation really was made; and, turning and looking on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, calling him Satan, for things must be spoken plainly, and put in their true light now. To exalt the importance of these scribes and Pharisees and priests was to plunge the disciples really into Satan's hands. God and man were at variance, and all the religiousness of men was the stronghold on the mind against God, and to set it up was to endanger the souls of the disciples by that which had the greatest hold on them. It was exalting man, the worst and highest pride of man -- religion without God (for He breaks down the conscience -- this built up pride, like the offering of Cain), and showed that, as the Lord was entering into the mind of God now in His great purpose, therein man being proved to be clean opposite to God, he was savouring the things that were of men, not those of God, and these were now proved opposite. It was not of Jews; all was now gone. It was God, and man was in question. And, as we have said, if of man, his religion is the worst part, and the strongest shutter -- out of his conscience from God. And where we screen the form of religion under plea of not offending men, we are doing the work of Satan, who in this has power over our hearts, savouring what accredits man, and man against God -- the cover, in pride, of his apostasy. All these things are of men,

[Page 286]

and what is man? Wherever in such a question I can say "of man," I can say "Satan," "For thou savourest not," etc. The whole depth of the things of God was in what our Lord had been saying of this discrediting in death, and so the thoughts of hearts were revealed. It is a very solemn and instructive truth. But the Lord was determined to make it plain, and He called the multitude with His disciples, and said to them: "Whoever wishes to come after me, let him deny himself," (there are no saving terms for man in this world -- the Son of God is rejected) "and take up his cross, and follow me." He can follow Me in no other way. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospel's, shall save it." How with what weight and solemnity this comes, when the Lord had just been telling His own portion! But what a change in all His relationship, all that was Jewish upon earth! Yea, it was now man and God, and, if he saved his life, he must be conniving with those who were proved against God to save himself. This was after long patience, and their rejection of Him. It was a plain, moral, human, eternal question -- something wonderfully beyond Judaism -- what will a man give in exchange for his soul? So only could he follow Jesus (and He was dying for sin) and what would be given in exchange for his soul?

-- 33. "And seeing his disciples." There is something deeply affecting in these little touches, as giving an insight into our Lord's mind; they seem to abound in Mark's Gospel. Every instance of the Lord's severe reproof has connection with jealous love for the weak ones of His flock. It is this which seems to draw out the urgent denunciation of anyone who would turn them aside from the path of faith. So Paul with Elymas, and the Galatians. It is therefore the perfection of charity. Here it had also other bearings perhaps, and therefore assumes another character. He seems to have waited as to the disciples, till their faith was manifested, and grounded, too, though indifferent to its getting abroad, or perhaps more then as regarded others, quod nota. And it was this which seems now to have occasioned His rebuking Peter thus severely. All the circumstances are to be weighed here, as composing the force of the passage.

Judgment was then passed on the generation altogether, and the glory of Him who announced it, and whose humiliation they had despised, declared as to come. And so foolish was

[Page 287]

their rejection of Him, be it as Christ, be it as the grace and truth of God come in His own Person, so foolish in their haughty pride, so truly was He all that He spoke of, and could claim their hearts, and secure their happiness, so near was it all to them though they knew Him not. There were some standing there at the moment -- for if He announced the humiliation openly for His disciples, so also (this being discredited, and the false glory set up by one of them) must He countervail this sin in mercy to the multitude by the plain testimony to the glory which was His, and to appear, thou gh He took none outwardly from man, because He had taken humiliation for man and for God's glory, and would take the glory for the same too -- but some were standing there, who would not taste death, that death which He had spoken of as the portion of His people, till they had seen "the Kingdom of God come in power." All this was a very solemn announcement of a most important change in the position of the Lord towards the people. It was quite new ground, steadily as the history progresses to this, quite new ground to take, whether we look at the intrinsic truth as regards souls, God and man, or the dispensation of the glory connected with the actual rejection and humiliation, and sure and purposed manifestation of the heavenly glory, the glory of His Father, not merely Messiah with Jehovah as He stood in the flesh then, though ever the Son, by which eternal truths and dispensation would come together, and He, as Son of God, as Christ the Lord, and Son of man with attending angels would, to the full vindication of God's character and relationship with man, appear to the manifestation of that glory, and the vindication of the poor and condemned Remnant. It was now ready, as it were, and could be shown, for the rejection had come in, much as might be to be done for the accomplishment of all purposes connected with it. The Kingdom of God would be seen come in power. It was a complete transition this, whatever patience God in His goodness of salvation might have. And, in looking at the circumstances in which it stands, the point of the Lord's history here partly noticed, nothing can be more striking than the connection in verse 33, of Satan, God, and man. The spirit of pride, apostasy and its form, and, in some sort, root, worldliness, is thus so shown in this its very form and character, Satan. It is all adversary; compare the fall, the temptation, Ezekiel 28, the king of Tyrus, and Isaiah 14, Lucifer. We

[Page 288]

have it in Herod, Acts 12 -- a remarkable type of all this. It will be accomplished in the latter day. Out of it we must take Christ's portion, death, so only, for our nature is allied to it. They are "the things of man," though Satan's power, if not. He had none really. And thus we enter into a new -- the heavenly; for all that is in the world, etc., our righteousness, knowledge, place of religious approximation to God is all heavenly and immediate, all true and real in the sight of God, in the rending of that veil (to wit, Christ's death and flesh) which opened the holiest, and all that God is and was, no veil being upon Him; compare, for practice, 2 Corinthians 4 and Matthew 5 at the end.

The form of apostasy and the love of the world are wonderfully united: "All these things will I give thee"; "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world." And note how much lighter a thing Peter is thus addressed for here; for He was judging the root in its workings, and that which was fair in the world was now proved. The least sanction of them was to be denounced as Satan. Note, too, how the flesh in Peter rested, not on glorious, divine and saving power in the resurrection, but the rejection by these wretched chief priests. Alas! how often this is so in principle indeed in all unbelief! In verse 27, He was just drawing them out to His real position.

There were, in fact, two judgments passed on the nation; one on the form of righteousness and royalty, which was corrupt and false -- the Pharisees and Herod. The second was of that which was in a certain sense legitimate, and this was found in opposition. It was the respectability, and authority, and religious learning of the nation; all proved in opposition to the Lord Jesus. And, as we have said, the Son of man, man, and Satan brought out in their real place and character, their true place. Man's condition, essayed in every advantageous dispensation, having been proved hopeless, his righteousness, and royalty, the two great grounds of Israel's sustainings false, and the authorities which might be recognised, adverse to God. The former warned against, but the accrediting of these therefore, as more dangerous, denounced as "Satan" by the jealous care of the good Shepherd for His little ones.

The rejection of the Lord had made it necessary for Him to declare, to fortify the souls that might be hindered by it, the glory that was His, in which He would come, that there was a

[Page 289]

time coming when "Woe be to him" that the Son of man was ashamed of And those that were special witnesses to Him, He would now show this glory to, to confirm their faith; compare 2 Peter 1. It was a wonderful sight, if we take the simple fact, not of this world. Oh! how blessed, when this shall be the sight! When it shall not be of this world! My heart sighs for the time. It was not the inheritance here, but the glory with the saints, His personal glory. How blessed when this vile body shall be fashioned like His glorious body! How transporting, and what liberty of glory! My soul does sigh for the time. None can know what it is but by the Holy Ghost. It is not of this world, nor what man conceives or enters into.

-- 38. Note its connection. And it will be true, not merely of personal confession but of acknowledging our belief in anything which is part of the teaching of the Lord.


-- 1, et seq. And surely Jesus was more at home there than in the world, though love, always a stranger till it has wrought its own, its great effects, might make His home the resting-place of His love, where home He had none, save the need and sorrow of those He came to. And though, where love is perfect, this is its conscious and blessed place, yet still is it sorrow, and a burthen, and makes it feel more sensibly a stranger. All this passed apart, apart He conversed with this Moses and Elias, or rather they with Him. It was He was thus transfigured. It was He whose glory filled their minds, though the others -- blessed and wondrous grace! -- were with Him in it. There Jesus could let His heart dilate itself -- there converse at ease. And what a privilege for us, for this is our place in that day; yea, blessed Jesus, now in Spirit, for Thou hast conquered. The glory is ours now, for it is our Head's, and we are one with Thee. There their joy and converse had no restraint, for sin was not there, and Jesus was fully honoured. All owned and reflected His true or real glory, and that glory was in Man there.

The Father's infinite delight drawn out by the presence of Him who was daily His delight, and His saints therein in the same glory with Him. The Father's heart could express and show itself in ineffable complacency and delight, due to Him

[Page 290]

who had perfectly glorified Him on earth, and fulfilled all His good pleasure, in whom all the fulness was pleased to dwell, by whom, and by whom alone, the divine character had been vindicated and exalted in man (by and in whom it had been dishonoured), and the great mystery of godliness accomplished and displayed, there His infinite oneness with the Father, understood and displayed, the debt due to the Son eternally paid, and that to the joy of the Father by the glory He ever had. Yet the glory He had acquired, and blessedness secure now, and divine ways, and benediction out of the possible reach of the enemy, yet in the infinite joy, and by union, communion even of the creature, there His oneness with the Father known, yet in Him that suffered (yea, that connected with it), and then the reverse of the suffering. There Jesus could speak of His decease without being rebuked. And what blessed ease of conscience do we see the saints to be in with Him! How interested in His ways! How occupied and conversant with them! How familiar with the glory! And in what peaceful understanding is the decease spoken of, yet how plain the fruit of glory!

The three Apostles admitted to see this, that they might be pillars, know also Moses and Elias there. Peter proposes to make three tabernacles, i.e., places of meeting, where the communications of God's mind might be found. It was to him a grand thing to see his Master in the same glory as Moses and Elias. There was no abiding sense of who Jesus was, and they were sore afraid -- propose to honour them all. This then was the point to which the previous testimony of the Father came. "This is my beloved Son: hear him." And then none was found but Him -- more blessed than Moses on the mount, or Elias returning to the same, the hopeless witness of the same evil which Moses had found on his descent. The Father's voice on the holy mount pointing out the Son Himself to be heard. Moses and Elias were alike set aside as to this. Moses might give the Law, Elias might call to repentance, because it was broken (and return in despair to Horeb) but the Father now points to the Son whose rejection and death had been just testified of, as the One for the disciples to hear. This was a great secret, and was to be kept by those who had seen and heard, until the resurrection should be the manifestation of the power and value of His intervention; and sealing up the prophecy should in establishing indeed, yet end the

[Page 291]

Law, for Jesus' death, in this sense, ended Law and Prophets. It was God's righteousness "without law." It was now Jesus alone with themselves. This was the manifestation of the power and coming of the Lord Jesus. Its effect was to leave them alone with Jesus, to follow Him in patience, as He was, because of the known glory, in hope, and take His word as their guide in every thing. Note, our hearing the Son is in connection with the Father's perfect delight in Him. This is a most blessed truth. To Him all our attention is to be given in the consciousness of His Person, and of the Father's love to Him. This love of the Father to the Son is a blessed point of knowledge, and communication to our souls, and what we know specially.

It is not merely Messiah and Jehovah, as in Zechariah, for example, but the Father's love to the Son. The Jews' confidence rested, if it was just, according to the full truth of the word, in Jehovah's reception of Messiah in faithfulness and truth; the Church's was the Father's love to the Son. What a blessed portion! For the word to us, "Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me," and "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." But this indeed is anticipating what is contained indeed in this word as to the Object but is known in communion only through the blessed power of the Holy Ghost. Jesus received as Messiah, known in communion as Son, the Son, and Jesus, company with Jesus as Son of man in the glory of the Kingdom are the three steps. Here they saw the latter, having owned Him Christ, and the Father's voice testified as to Him. The second, their own communion with Him in that place was known only afterwards, and very specially by Paul's ministry, and also John's. But this was all de facto consequent on His death; meanwhile, He only was to be listened to. The resurrection formed the cardinal point therein, "declared the Son of God with power," and entering on the whole of that new world "whereof we speak," and putting the Church into the place of that communion in redemption which His being on high warranted and effected before God and the Father. It was different from owning Him as Christ, and was to be spoken of only after resurrection. This communion in unity with the Son has special force in that deep identity of interest which gives a confidence and communion peculiarly its own. How blessed

[Page 292]

is it! See what a common interest there was between the Father and the Son; I mean as doing His Father's will upon earth. What a sense of drawing all from Him, of doing all for Him, whose soul delighted in Him, as He could say, "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee," and then adds, "and these!" What obedience! What knowledge that the Father heard Him always, that it was a delight without flaw in the essence of His own perfectness! And indeed He delights in us in Him, according to His perfectness. What confidence in the heart of Christ, let the circumstances be what they may! It was the expression of His communion, and, in His love to us, His desire of our communion in it. He must, in truth, have loved us wonderfully, to put us in the same place with Christ.

-- 2. Note their faith of His being the Christ, the Son of the living God, was not founded on this, but the Father's teaching. This rather followed that, and the declaration of His rejection and death, quod nota; for the time is peculiarly, as not commonly nor without purpose, marked. It was, however, only to the three.

-- 4. The two who were in glory with the blessed Lord on the mount are of a remarkable character. Not only were they the Law and the Prophets, which testify of and give place to Christ who, Son of God, is to be heard, but Moses stood alone from God with the people when faith had to be implanted in them, and Elias when, as a body, they had abandoned it, so that Elias came back to Horeb on the failure, as far as man could say, of the Law. (Elisha's ministry came from heaven, and was, in its nature, of the risen Christ.) So Christ was there, when all that His testimony, and all that He was connected with dispensationally, was over, but when His rejection here brought in the glory and the Kingdom. Only in Christ it was absolute, and an eternal redemption, but there was no connection in their ministry with what was when it was set up. It acted from God on all that was around them. It was not as the Prophets in the system in which they were. So also they wrought miracles, the Prophets not.

-- 9. The reason as to this was stronger than the miracles. Did it include the other Apostles? Possibly it did. It is remarked elsewhere, that they talked of His decease, with which connect verse 2, and previous note. The first apprehensions of

[Page 293]

both run much together. It was, I suppose, altogether for their, and, through them, the Church's sake, and note verse 12. "From among the dead," is the correct rendering.

-- 10. "From among the dead" (to ek nekron). Note in connection with the end of the previous verse. This shows clearly the emphasis on the "from among" (ek); they wondered what "rising from among the dead" could mean. The resurrection of the dead they were familiar with.

-- 11. There was then a question as to the scribes' teaching as to Elias coming first. We hear in the force of "the scribes in Moses seat" -- they had the Scriptures at command, and presented what they contained, as ready scribes; here, perhaps, to object against the truth. Here what they said was the truth. The Apostles readily bring it back to this doubt and difficulty, not being filled, though impressed with the glory. And this was natural, because the difficulty had been put in their minds; Satan using, quod nota, a truth, to make a difficulty. And how easily, when the glory and mystery of God in the suffering of His exalted Son was not understood, could the difficulty be made available! How was John Elias? He said he was not. But God's children are taught of Him, and given understanding. But their thoughts turn back to the point of His being this Person at all, of which the glory seen so strongly was evidence, and this very conviction brought out the difficulty which had been planted in their hearts. This the Lord at once meets plainly. Elias coming first, restores all things. This was entirely a solution on Jewish subjects. Elias, they said, was to come first; so he was coming first; he restores all things. This is a remarkable testimony. The work of Elias is to call back, and, as we have said, he returned to Horeb as the place of the character of his mission. He acted on the Horeb, or Sinai ground; recalled, and returned thither to hear the voice of God -- then the answer of supreme grace. And when he is promised it is "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, the statutes and judgments." Elias comes and takes up Israel for Israel's portion. But Jesus, coming as Son of man, must suffer many things, and be set at nought; that was where He drew back their minds. His heart saw and felt the ruin of all Israel. He was just about to break His staff, Beauty, and He therefore says, "Elias truly cometh first, and restoreth all things" (taking them on their own ground). Then He

[Page 294]

would appear to them in glory now, the Son of man -- a real (not of dispensation merely), a wider character -- must suffer, and be set at nought, for things were all in confusion. "But I say unto you that Elias also has come" -- now speaking of him who came spiritually as such, as Jesus came then rather spiritually, i.e., only so understood, though really He -- "and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed." The ruin of all things, and dreadful, the totally ruined, state of Israel -- all Israel -- has been shown in him also. They have followed their own will against God and their own mercies, "as it is written of him." This is a very remarkable passage. I am not aware (there may be) of any direct passage, i.e., in open terms speaking of this, but then for this reason it shows a depth of application of Scripture that is most deeply interesting and instructive, and deeply affects my mind. In such case, such passages as Isaiah 59:15, would have their application, even by Him who saw all things in their principles, and full force according to the mind of God. Then the verses which follow would be the application of God's judgment to them, to which the Prophet passes on at once. What should happen to the Son of man is more precisely spoken of.

But the lot of His faithful though despised servant was not disregarded by Him; he was in His mind. It was written of him how honourable he had been noted in God's book. The restoring of all things was then here perfectly Jewish, though in principle, as repentance, it was of all, but in character Jewish and earthly, but applied to the root as to this portion, or possibility of portion in God's blessing -- repentance. This itself really was grace -- a new principle -- for the Law was, "Do this and live"; here, "repent," because they had failed. It was, therefore, as the Apostle argues in Romans, though not yet developed, the righteousness of faith. The Law and the Prophets all went on to this. This really was a hinge to other things. The Kingdom of God was preached. John was soon rejected by the hearts of the sons of men, though coming in a strictly Jewish way. The principle was in John. But it was true Elias would come; he who had despaired and gone to Horeb, though very faithful, would come and restore. So it was written. But it was equally written that the Son of man would suffer, and that they must expect therefore. And indeed Elias had come, and they had fulfilled what was written of him, i.e., he who had come in the spirit and power of Elias.

[Page 295]

The will of man hitherto had had its full way; for mercy and grace in power, i.e., setting aside evil, had not yet come.

This total failure of power against evil (without Him) was then fully manifested, and therein the state of the disciples as well as of the Jews, as to the recognition of His power (for all things were possible to him that believeth) for indeed His power was present there. However, unless to faith, He was away in the glory, as it were. Whether to disciples or to the rest, He had to say of them as a generation, "Oh, faithless, how long shall I be with you?" Their unbelief was driving Him away; even in the disciples was this shown, but still He was with them in power -- His glory, and so the scene of their unbelief still, so to speak, fresh in His mind. This presence of His glory from which He was just returning, brought the whole state of the nation before Him, pictured in this scene. His disciples, without faith as to the energy of it, unable to help; the power of Satan cruelly manifested in the young man, and with the misery of the father, the people just running in helpless curiosity, to know what was the power; and where was it without faith in Him? The sufferers miserable, cast only by misery on One they knew not really; they had no faith. "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" And such, though doubtless there be deep instructions in principle in it, such seems the intimation in it, that without the presence of Christ, that unhappy nation could not be delivered from the power of Satan; and this upon His return from the glory. "After the glory hath he sent me" unto you. Then they will receive Him, and receive Him with astonishment, not understanding this manner of God's dealings with Israel. They had not, long as He had been suffering them, learned His way, and interest in them, and power towards them in Jesus -- no, not even His disciples who kept HIS commandments and had His testimony. In the sense of this power Jesus returned to them. They did not understand this separation, even from His disciples, and return. He returned, however, whatever His glory may be, in the prosecution of the same mercy as in power to deliver. And this had been Israel's character, too, from a child. It was not merely moral evil was now in question, but the power of Satan. Israel -- though it might be there was no deliverance from this -- it came to him from a child; One only could do it, and that was proved in resurrection. Yet, though it had often cast him into fire and

[Page 296]

water to destroy him, it never had after all. Wretched as was the power unbelief held them into -- Satan -- a superior hand restrained him, and now he was to be cast out. The man, as we have said, cast himself, in the sense of misery, in hope on the Lord. Let what evil would have happened, God's power had not been limited -- the being able was in the believing. The Lord, in no wise seeking widespread popular display, but the suitable exercise of the power of God, that the evidence of it might be clear, by a word of power ejected the spirit, and restored the young man. The working of Satan in the presence of Christ all turns to the witness of His superior power. This deliverance, when Christ returned to deliver, was final; for, from the state described when taking seven others, and entering in, the last state was worse than the first. It is only in real abstraction from self to God, real denial, or, rather, abstraction from self and drawing close to God, that God is so known as to have this power identified with His interests, conscious of His glory concerned in it, sensible of the excellency and power of the extent of that glory, and that God is near, and interested in everything because He is God -- able to detect the presence and power of Satan, and apply the power of God in judging him, so as that he must recognise the power which detects him, and which walks abstractedly for and with God in the world, and so by His presence with Him can, in the power of this union and communion, act for Him, for His glory is in it.

-- 14, et seq. His absence was seasonable for the proof -- His presence for the timely support of His disciples. Can one doubt that divine wisdom ordered the admission of these to the Transfiguration, and left those to that exercise? And His return to them -- and it may be observed that it does not appear by any means that our Lord left them at the foot of the mountain -- it was the next day He came to them. Nor does it appear that it was at the foot of the mountain, indeed, He came to the disciples; but if He did, the ground of their wonder was evident, for they looked not for Him then at all. If we are not so gifted as to qualify us for the Transfiguration, perhaps the next best mercy may be anxious exercise, by which our defect of faith may be discovered, and the Lord will doubtless come in aid to His own glory. Yet it is a sad thought, this strange unbelief.

It was the Lord's absence brought the trial of faith, but it was the feebleness of that faith which seems to have occasioned

[Page 297]

them thus to be left. Thus, often, in daily life does the weakness of faith bring its own punishment by exposing us to the situation in which its defect is evinced.

The remark as to the people's wonder -- I think just, they did not know what was become of our Lord, absent not with but from His disciples in an unusual way.

-- 19. No doubt of the father as well as of the disciples.

-- 21, 22. The father's distrust seems partly to have arisen from extreme anxiety increased, no doubt, by the failure of the disciples. But, note, the cause for it is an abiding one, whether painful or joyous; he felt more about himself than the Lord. Here was the germ of unbelief. "Have pity on us"; he was full of the object, not calm reliance on the Lord's power in respect of it. This fills with the sense of the apparent difficulties; we do not see where the "if thou canst" lies. This accordingly is the point our Lord brings the man's mind to; he says, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us." It is not merely uncertainty as to the Lord's seeing right to interfere, for that is consistent, quod nota, with perfect faith. "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst. And the Lord said, I will, be thou," etc. Here is no reference to Him as "Lord," but "If thou canst." The Lord therefore answers, 'The point of its possibility lies in your belief.' The "If thou canst," which was applied to Him, properly rested in others' faith. There is the whole "if," for "All things are possible to him that believeth." The question of ability, etc., is (are you able) to believe? Note, when we are anxious for some immediate object, we may apply for aid to what has the credit of being able to help, without any just faith in that which we apply to. Just faith recognises, so as to have moral power over the soul, the real character of its object, for it dwells upon it, not me rely on what one would gain from it; see Hosea 7:14, and Psalms 78 and 107. And therefore it never reaches anything of willing obedience. "Who is the Lord that I should obey him?" See, when there was some measure of faith really in the case of Jairus, how our Lord anticipated, as observed, the effect of the news of her death, by holding him to the apprehension of the power, not of the difficulty -- "all things are possible," etc.; and, God being indeed manifested, the being able is in the believing. The observations here are intimately connected with our seeking spiritual comfort, in our getting ease for ourselves. A burthened soul cannot but

[Page 298]

seek it, but a truly humbled and distressed soul is led much more to contemplate God, and wait upon Him, as one unworthy, than to seek ease selfishly for itself, faithlessly as regards Him. Such a soul rather wants deeper convictions of sin generally. There may be dealings of God with souls beyond these observations perhaps; see Jonah, the Israelites lusting for meat, and the answer of the three children to Nebuchadnezzar.

-- 23. The question of power is in believing -- "All things are possible to him that believes."

-- 24. There was the confession of unbelief which is, so far, recognition, that it acknowledges the duty of faith which could not be but on the existence of the object, but avows a defect of moral ability. It here manifestly, as to occasion, arose from the same undue possession of mind by the anxious, selfish action about his son; nor was there, though he obtained his desire, and so often, that free manifestation of willing grace on the part of the Lord, which is the blessed power of affiance and communion in us. He saw the multitude running together; the instruction and suggestion was given here as to the power of faith, because it was wanting. There was no want of the Lord's doing all for the man He could do; he obtained his desire, but he did not gain that light of the Lord's countenance and acceptance, which others did who believed simply, and looked to the Lord. He did not contemplate it; it was not "According to thy faith be it unto thee," but "Jesus, seeing the multitude running together." It is surely an instructive lesson. The Lord's grace (while we are humbled and warned) shines most brightly.

But while the Lord showed there was abiding mercy, though He had thus to bear with them, He returns to instruct and fortify the poor of the flock, and seal the law among His disciples. Before, He taught them that the Son of man was to suffer and be set at nought; here, further, that He was to be delivered even by those with whom He was then dealing, into the hands of men, and they would kill Him. This was a further step, as in man's sin, so in the strange relationship of things which sin had brought in. The Son of man taking the title in love, and the Head and Glory of man is delivered by those in direct, divine association with whom He came, into the hands of men -- those whose nature He had assumed in love, and to their glory, and they would kill Him. Death was to be His portion at the hands of men. But, being killed --

[Page 299]

here was the wonderful purpose of love and glory which permitted it, even sin and darkness and folly to the uttermost -- that, being killed, He would rise again, putting away the sin, and conquering death. But they were quite ignorant of the Word. It was very simple, but it fell in with no previous ideas. It was therefore unintelligible. So ever -- the statements of God are very simple, but they are not accordant with what we have received, and they are therefore difficult to the mind. "How is it that ye do not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word." If we hear what God says, there is no difficulty in understanding it. It was not surprising that they should not understand the humiliation (that deep glory) of the Son of man, when they were disputing who should be greatest in a kingdom which they had settled according to their own views, and ideas, and desires for themselves. Yet the resurrection glory was founded on this humiliation. The Cross, if God was holy, must be passed through for it. Yet, what a picture of the heartlessness of man! Just while the Lord was explaining His humiliation, and the new and blessed truth of His victory in resurrection, they were at that time disputing in selfishness as to the portion of each in that Kingdom. What a disclosure of their insensibility and selfishness! The glory of the Kingdom had but aroused it. Anything special for the three, seems to have left them on a par with all the rest, and the Lord's account of His betrayal to death into the hands of men seems to have left them where they were. The Lord, who knows their thoughts, asks them, but there is, at least, the silence of shame. Conscience had begun to work upon it, whether through His discourse or not, but they had disputed enough what they were ashamed to confess. It is before the Lord things assume their true character. But how sad and sorrowful is the picture of man! But the Lord takes the occasion to instruct them further in the spirit and character of His Kingdom -- humiliation. He was a good example of it in all patience, for it was done to His Father. Whoever would be first should be last and servant, for it was self, and just so much distance from and want of the Spirit of Christ. Our Lord pursues this character of Christianity, self-humiliation and self-sacrifice, thus entirely brought out by Christ's death, and valuing Him and everything by reference to Him thus rejected would be the great test of this. It was not the vain glory of the world, but the links of God's love; His love rested

[Page 300]

on such, whoever received one of these despised and, to the flesh, unimportant little ones in His name, received Him, and whoever received Him received not Him -- to the eye of the flesh a despised and rejected Man -- but Him that sent Him. The glorious links of God's love!

Another form of this selfish, human, fleshly aggrandisement among His disciples (in the Church even) then discloses itself through this remark. He did not enlarge and accredit their party -- this man that cast out devils in Christ's name; John thought it doubtless well, as he did not go with Christ, but he was casting out devils in Christ's name -- the good was done in the power of His name, and no one who could use power in His name could readily speak evil of Him. If they loved the glory of His name, not their own aggrandisement and credit, they would be glad of it, as the blessed Apostle. "Some preach Christ of contention," "yet every way Christ is preached, and therein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." And they need not hinder him, they would have plenty of opponents; to bear the name of Christ would turn the world against them, for the question between Christ and the world under Satan's power was fairly raised, and they were to find this on His death which was now before Him, as the very connection of this opposition, the manifestation of this enmity. Whoever was not against them was on their side. "Us" was the word on the Apostle's mind, he had a right, he thought, to use Christ's name to make people go along with them. Christ used it only for good in humiliation, and they would be in this warfare, and have plenty of it; wherever Satan was cast out by that Name, it would be so much force and reinforcement of their service for Christ. If they were looking for the fleshly importance, that was not Christ's name really, and if all the world and Satan's power were against them, whatever validated the power of Christ's name against the power of Satan would be for them -- would actually and relatively strengthen their service. It was value for Christ evidently. It was recognised by Him, and so were they identified with Him, that if anyone gave them but a cup of cold water in His name, His name would be recognised -- the great test, for indeed the whole mind of God was involved in it, and the moral state of the individual, for it owned God, for the love of Him as humbled, despised, and rejected in a world of sin -- the man would not lose his reward, on purpose to put down the false view of man.

[Page 301]

The Lord had come, completely despised and outcast even to death, on purpose; so all that view, pro tanto, was got rid of for the sake of that very Name which conveyed all that. The kind act was done, and in that act God's view of Jesus and His work was taken. I say pro tanto, for I do not see that it is here brought to a question of salvation; but it was recognised, and not forgotten of God. He owns the truth, and reflex of His grace and truth, wherever He finds it, and acts on the presenting of it to Him. On the whole, the thing they were to value was simply His name -- the great test, as He had His Father's -- and so entire was, and would be, the opposition, whoever was not actually against them, they might reckon as gain and on their side. On the other hand, whoever should slight this Name in the least -- the least and most insignificant believer -- he had joined the world and Satan, in this great open conflict, in that in which the Lord was most interested. His feeble weakness showed his malice, and evil malignity, the baseness and cowardly spirit, yet acute malignity of evil, and that just in what was nearest the opposite feeling in the Lord's heart -- His tenderness and watchfulness over the feeble, the poor, the weak, the lost; he had touched one of Christ's little ones -- it were better a millstone were about his neck. But the real thing was the value of Christ's rejected name; that attached the greatest value to the least thing, to the feeblest. The glory had been brought out in the Transfiguration. His total rejection by the world rested on the mind of Christ -- owning Him was owning all that the world had rejected. All hung on the consciousness of how He had come, and been sent, on owning Him.

-- 38. The point of connection rests "in my name" (verse 37) and so in what follows.

-- 40, 41. Remark with what singular beauty the Lord says "us," identifying Himself wholly with the disciples, after rebuking the selfishness of the "us" in verse 38.

I think this holds out in the strongest light the universal opposition of the world to the ministry of the Gospel; on the contrary, the perfect waiting on the weakness of those who, however weak, are willing towards the Gospel, and then, especially in ministers, the obligation of the maintenance of their own consistency in grace, for indeed they are subject to the same liability in stumbling, and the rather as the exercise of service is peculiarly apt to lead their mind off the frame of

[Page 302]

their own spirit and internal power of grace, and they defraud not only themselves but others.

-- 42. Christ is everything -- value for His name tests all. A cup of cold water for His name's sake, shows value for Christ. So a believing child is of all account; so what would turn us away from Him must be sacrificed, be it what it may. It is now an eternal question. The salt must be kept salt; and the judgment of God will test every thing. It is more testing, but less characteristic than Matthew 18. The principles are the same so far.

But as the Son of man had come to seek, and save what was lost, and His coming had proved how totally lost they were, as the principles of His kingdom were found at total variance with all that was in man, so really as God had set forth all that was attractive, all He had in Him, not merely Jewish hopes but eternal destinies hung on the rejection of and not following Him. He saw also how many things hindered the human heart from coming to Him, how many things got power over it, but if it cost a right hand or a right eye, it was better to enter into life. How solemnly and urgently the Lord repeats it! There was no offence really in Him. If it was in them, better to lose anything here, even what was good and given in nature, than eternal life, and go into Hell, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." The unquenchable fire is its character, for that is God's judgment, but there is that which belongs to the place, a gnawing which characterises it, and is of them, and ceases not, and is lasting as they, their worm -- worse, because theirs. It characterises the place, and as to this judgment of God, it is universal; everyone shall be under its influence. It is His nature, His necessary and blessed nature, on which the stability of all things hangs, which is connected with the very being of God, as God; He could not be so else, but to allow of sin. Our God, blessed be His name, "is a consuming fire"; He allows it not in us -- thanks be to Him! It is our joy. He cannot allow it anywhere; "Holiness becomes his house for ever." It is our portion; and what perfect delight and joy to our souls! Our portion for ever! Hence what deep, deep consolation, that God knows everything in us! Then, on the knowledge of this, there is the activity of holiness spoken of here. It is addressed to the disciples only, all this, and is instruction to them -- activity in rejecting all outward occasions, and stumbling

[Page 303]

blocks which nourish and cultivate the flesh, for we have the Spirit already; for, though not said to them when they had, it is said to them on the footing of His death which introduced all the principles of God's holiness, sentenced (though a sacrifice for sin or God by it, as by Christ's life and nature) sin in the flesh, and was that through which, as sin was judged, so we are made partakers of the Holy Ghost.

Now fire is just the application of the holiness of God in judgment; "Everyone shall be salted with fire." Christ, having taken our place, was salted with fire, and if our sin was entirely consumed by it, He Himself was therein an Offering made by fire, a Sacrifice of a sweet savour, an Offering made by fire unto the Lord. Coming into a world of sin, He must put Himself here, go on with the sin (at least in others) and go out of it again, i.e., in fact He must put Himself here. It was the only place He could put Himself into -- yea, in this wonderful mystery of love, holiness, and wisdom -- this mystery of God -- of godliness, for sin had come in. But this shows necessarily that sin cannot pass at all, for it was the intervention of God about it. It was the great proof of this. But looking at it illustratively, if He did not escape putting Himself in this position, who shall? God's holiness is certain, and sooner or later vindicates itself, whether as an action or not. Everything is tried, and passes through the ordeal of this holiness; "Everyone shall be salted with fire." God's active, judicial, and, in one sense, avenging holiness, shall try everything. Everyone then shall be salted with fire, every sacrifice, everything offered to God shall be salted with salt -- the preserving and enduring savour of grace. The salt of the covenant of our God must be, shall be in every sacrifice, every one offered to God. There is a process of judgment, even for the saints -- the fire tries them, but in them it merely purges the evil, chastens them for the inconsistencies, and, removing the soil and hindrance, the new life moves unhindered and unobstructed, healthily, easily, and happily. When that is not, of course, it is mere judgment and condemnation. But every sacrifice, everyone really offered to God, he in grace shall be seasoned with the salt of the covenant of the God of His people. This is according to the measure and character of the offering, i.e., it is quâ offering, he may, if careless in walk, undergo, and with the judicial process as another, perhaps more severely because of the position -- he is in a nearer position to the consuming

[Page 304]

fire -- but, as an offering, every saint, and in measure as actually offered, is salted with the salt of the savour of God's grace in communion with Him. For the whole of this indeed hangs on being brought completely to God, that all the figures of the Law had their realities now, Christ, the Lamb, the Gehenna of fire, everything. God Himself was revealed; questions had ceased to be Jewish. His rejection by them had rejected all questions into questions between sinful man and God. The last Hope of the Jews having been rejected by their evil nature, when really God, their God, was amongst them, who would have gathered them, and being rejected in His formal character to them as Jews, His character and theirs, as God and sinners, became manifested, and in juxtaposition. Hence the discoveries and truths in the previous passage. And in this nearness no sin could be allowed; the fire of God's holiness, dispensed mercy being rejected, must try everything. They must be salted, consecrated by this. This would be in nothing but judgment of men -- unrenewed sinners -- everlasting destruction from His presence. But, on the other side, in grace, this nearness to God was the power of real savour, and being spiritual consecration to Him, this consecration had its power in this nearness. There the savour of salt is; and it is impossible, further from God, to enter into the power which is nearer to Him, for the power of grace is of Him, and we are offered so far as the flesh is put down and sacrificed, and we are alive to Him in that we live in our place, and every energy of our mind as servants. This, as regards position; if in that position the flesh rises up, the fire will only, so to speak, burn hotter, because of its inconsistency with the position. Thus, suppose I were in the position of an Apostle -- self-sacrifice to God -- my work must be in the savour and power of that nearness, and so only could be; but any inconsistency we may expect to meet the fire for, according to the nearness of that holiness.

Then as to the Church -- the salt of the earth is its position and character. It holds the place of grace, of the revelation of God's unveiled character in the earth. It holds His place. "Be ye therefore perfect as," etc. And so of light to the world. "God is Light." "Ye are the light of the world." Well now, this which was brought out in Jesus, God manifest in the flesh, is good. "Salt is good," but if that which holds this place lose its savour, "wherewith shall it be seasoned." It remains in its position, nor, when really Christian, does it

[Page 305]

cease to be salt, but it has lost its savour. There is no hope of recovery held out. It is not, as salt, spoken of for its security for heaven, but its savour for earth as a witness, and witness of what the Lord is on earth. Thus the Lord traces, synoptically, the effect of His rejection and the manifestation of deeper principles, which was to be the effect of that rejection. Though short, the statement of principles is of the very deepest possible importance, arising from the full manifestation of God, on the discovered impossibility of any dispensation with man, as such, and the principle of grace therein, brought out and manifested in the Church, and in it in responsibility on the earth; for man, let his security for heaven be what it will, is always responsible on earth -- or whatever may strengthen him in that responsibility.

-- 49. Is it not to be looked on as a promise, though in form and truth a warning? "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit." He had been recommending the putting away, at all cost, the occasion of sin, "For," says our Lord, every one shall be fully counted and purged, and that by judgment, for God will, if possible, mark more decidedly, in His people than in others, that it is and must be "so of a truth" to them, indeed all of grace; and then the reference to the Romans has full application, and many passages in Corinthians may be referred to. The "for" (gar) then is obvious.

Is it not also, for every one will be exercised in the fire of trial? The fire shall try every man's work, and indeed every individual's work in his own soul. "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." "Every sacrifice," i.e., every one devoted to the service of God in the Gospel of His Son -- crucified with Christ. This can only be effectual and real in the power of genuine grace. "Salt is good," there seems to be a conjunction here of the instrumental power or means, and the person in whom it operates, as in the parable of the sower: "These are they which are sown," etc. Then of the salt (ye are the salt by the power of the salt in yourselves), "If the salt becomes saltless, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." This connects it with the circumstances from which the discourse sprung. The result is simple and powerful -- "salt in yourselves ... peace with one another." The more real power of grace there be in us in truth, the more recognition of the Name of the Lord Jesus,

[Page 306]

the more genuine apprehension of nothingness in ourselves, more of the communion of the power of His Person, and so the more peace among ourselves. When real grace fails, though there be gifts, there will be jealousy and self-seeking even by those very gifts, and the Name which is the bond of power and unity will be disregarded, and division follow. They are most important as substantive directions, but have the utmost connection one with the other. Though peculiarly strong as to ministers, it is, as all other such places, true to all disciples.


This chapter continues to verse 45; from verse 46, the Lord enters afresh into Judaea as Jehovah and King, Son of David.

The Lord now put Himself, as it were, close to Judaea, but in contrast with it, outside it, in connection with it but now not within -- a picture of His real place in dispensation as we have seen. But though now in principle without the camp, other glory and other revelations having come in, yet still His own mercy and patience unexhausted, the multitude come to Him there, for now they were to go out to Him, and, "as his custom was, he taught them." But this soon brought into question His relationship with the law of Moses. The Pharisees came to Him with this much-discussed question: Was it lawful to put away a wife for every cause? He refers them to their own authority: What says Moses? He permitted a divorce. To the lawgiver first -- their own authority -- but not their discussions, the question must be taken. But the Lord hereby assumes entirely a new position -- a Judge of the Law itself, not condemning it, but accounting for its character in such provisions, and assigning it a temporary place. There could not be a more important principle in His controversy with them, nor one more consistent with, and flowing indeed from the place, which we have seen Him so distinctly assume, of the great moral principles of relationship with God. "Moses, for the hardness of your hearts, gave you this commandment, but from the beginning it was not so." What an account of their dispensation! Its stability and consequence! It hung on principles different from what God had instituted in blessing at the beginning, because of the hardness of their hearts now fully manifested. "Moses gave YOU this commandment, ...

[Page 307]

but God made them male and female from the beginning of the creation." He was settling things now according to God's institution of them, not acquiescing in temporary arrangements of dispensation. Taking up God's institution at Creation into His own Person as Second Adam, the law entered; in this light God now returns in this place of Christ to His own thoughts; the hardness of man's heart had exhausted itself in evil, there was no more use in provision, patient provision for it, for the greatest provision, even Christ, had been rejected. God returns to pursue His own thoughts, dispensation being useless. I cannot but think Christ here treats the Jewish Remnant as His father and mother, and the Church as His wife. Thus, turning to this original creation purpose, one founded on deeper and more eternal things than anything in the law, for the dispensation of the Church is the manifestation by the Holy Ghost of that which the Church in the mind of God shall be when united to Christ, when its blessedness is complete. Hence the heavenly Jerusalem is looked at beyond the millennium; Revelation 21. The Church are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones, which is never true of the Jewish people, though, in a general sense, married to Jehovah. It is not a real union, as the union of the Church with the risen Jesus. This is God's act and work, the plan of His new Creation as of His old. But so far from sanctioning Moses' law whoever does it commits adultery, and if a woman (which Moses' law never sanctioned) did it she committed adultery. It was from the nature of the bond of God. And we may add, never had He rejected and given up the Jewish people. They had rejected Him and committed adultery, but He had been ever and unfailingly faithful to them. If He gave them up, it was that they rejected and refused them -- this as to their responsibility; He will show His faithfulness in grace much more. As Second Adam the Church was His spouse; as Jehovah they had rejected Him; and, Head of the new Creation, the Church was His Bride. This was now brought out by their rejection of Him. As Second Adam He was never Bridegroom of the Jewish company -- as Jehovah He was. They were unfaithful to Him then, not He to them. As second Adam, now just brought out, He takes His own real place. They had now on their lips: "We have no king but Caesar." They were an adulterous generation. All Jewish pride, wisdom, and learning was set aside too. A child, and its simplicity, was

[Page 308]

what was wanting for, and to enter into the Kingdom of God; "of such is the Kingdom of God." If a man did not come to receive, if he did not come with the simplicity which found the truth there, he could not enter. Man was a mere sinner; good must be found elsewhere. All the learning, and wisdom, and information of Moses and discussions of his principles and meaning, was all just hindrance, unless it brought to the discovery of the utter ignorance, evil, and ruin in all this, because of sin. Then would a man the rather come as a child. Christ had to confound and confute, or reprove and set aside the doctors. He had only to receive the child; what did the child find there? What did he not, in the riches of God's own blessing in the Mediator, in whom all fulness dwelt, in grace and supply to need? This was clearly the way to come. All He had to do here was to warn them of the truth -- a truth present circumstances brought into such relief -- and then to call, take them in His arms, lay His hands upon, and bless recipients as received. But we have then the question raised on more detailed ground, and the principles on which the conscience rests. Here we have had mind, and knowledge, and pride, contrasted, as hindrances, with the sweet and blessed grace which receives these little ones, that they may receive blessing; now the question of conscience, righteousness and goodness -- what was to be found of it in man -- or where goodness was to be found, and what temporal advantages and race availed to these -- the things to the now position of the Kingdom of God, i.e., its real truth; for to a Jew they were promised blessings. This also was a hindrance. All natural (apparent) advantages were a hindrance. So Christ judged, and teaches, for God's thoughts are not as our thoughts.

-- 17. And as Jesus went forth into the way, one attracted by the gracious goodness manifested in Jesus, His ways, and His teaching, and His Person, came and running to Him with alacrity -- the hasty feeling of the flesh, no sense of His own nothingness, but what was most amiable as a creature, thought he had nothing to do but just to get the instruction required from One so evidently marked by grace, and to sail with full sails in race and willingness, as he was, into the enjoyment of eternal life. He had mistaken the whole matter; his nature was all wrong; the hardness of that did not come into his calculation. Conscience was unawakened -- the only real instructor of the state of all things, because, when taught of

[Page 309]

God, it knows it in itself. "Good Master," saith he, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" What a willing mind! would we have said. How encouraging, and amiable! How to be drawn on in such a course! There was ignorance of the first principles of truth now brought to light. He knew nothing and speaking only under the delusion of the enemy, though in the amiableness of the flesh, he knew not himself. The Lord stops him quite short. He came to Him as a Teacher, setting Him up Jewishly as such, in this ardent flow of youth. "Why callest thou me good," says Jesus; thus casting all this hope down in the young man's estimate of himself, and goodness -- he must reject it all. It would have been contrary to God. "There is none good but God." Had He answered to the young man's mind and question, Jesus would to him have denied the first principle of truth, the very point the young man needed -- we ALL need. The law had said, "This do, and thou shalt live," but it included all. The young man, taking this principle on the assumption of his own goodness (which, if it had existed, could not have wanted the law) not the conviction of sin by it, asks what the good thing is that he should do, seeing Christ's holy wisdom and walk. The Lord, having stated the principle that none was good but God, takes the second table, so-called, and proposes these commandments to him. The young man, anxious to evince his desire to do right, and his avidity for eternal life as proposed as a portion of God for the soul, arrests the Lord with the answer: "All these have I kept from my youth." There was something exceedingly amiable in all this -- it may be without knowledge of himself, but this alacrity of heart -- the flowers of a weed are often fair, and if they bear no fruit it, as to nature however fallen, God, who has so clothed the grass, He who made it and could look with that separated eye of goodness which could rise over the sin, and separate the creature in His own holiness, could recognise this. His heart was not unaffected by it; looking upon him, He loved him. It was very attractive. It is not to be above sin always to be occupied with the evil; he who lives in his mind in good, will congenially recognise the good handiwork of God, marred and ruined as it may be and is. It was the same thing, the same intimacy with what good was which made the Lord say: "There is none good but God," and love the young man. Nor did the ignorance of his judgment arrest, but rather draw out the compassionate love of the Saviour.

[Page 310]

Still He did not fail to apply the probe: "One thing thou lackest. He must know his own heart. Of this he knew nothing, and nothing really of God in the claim he had on it. Outward evil to his neighbour he had not committed, and there was no doubt of his natural sincerity. It was the fairest possible specimen of the natural man in the flesh under the law. It had no common term, amiable as it was, with the kingdom of God. That, in discovering the heart, and going deeper than nature's judgment, bringing in God, good indeed, but alone good, found and demonstrated all sinners. There may then be the fairest natural exercises of heart, fulfilling in responsibility that in which we stand related to man, but when it comes to a question of the soul with God, and a heart resting on Him, according to His estimate of things all may be wanting. For this point the Cross is the test. In self-relinquishment, "Go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor." The principle of selfishness must be got rid of, and be replaced by love, "And you shall have treasure in heaven." Here the real character of the desires was tried. "And come, follow me"; here, the giving up the glory, honour, judgment of the world entirely closing with this plain truth, taking up thy cross -- that is where I am leading hearts here, at least it is all I can put before them. If they prefer Me, it is in following Me they will find this. Thus love, heavenly-mindedness, attachment to Christ, and by and in that giving up and despising the world and its judgment, taking up the cross -- these were the things proposed. And the young man, who outwardly was righteous enough -- that was not the thing wanting -- went away; he was grieved at that, and "went away sorrowful," for he had great possessions. That one thing contained in his heart the opposite of all Christ proposed -- love, heaven, Christ despised, and the cross.

-- 18. This verse seems strange to some minds, but we are apt to take words from Scripture out of connection. The fact is they strike precisely at the moral root of the whole evil in the young man's mind as regards his internal moral judgment, or rather blindness. And see Griesbach's text of Matthew 19:17: "Why askest thou me about the good? One is good." See note on Psalm 16.+

There was doubtless gracious acceptance dispensationally. As far as he went, the man was seeking goodly pearls, but he

+"Notes and Comments," Volume 3, page 70

[Page 311]

was not prepared to sell all things for a pearl of greater price; it is knowledge of its value when brought before us leads to this -- men rest upon the language; see Matthew 19, in thus case, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments."

-- 21. Lo, the fruit of the Lord's love! Does it pre-eminently show (except the coveting, which was a question of the power of grace) the man had kept, in act, all the commandments, and lacked one thing, which one lacking kept him out of the Kingdom of heaven? I see not what they gain by such a testimony as this. It is hardly necessary to observe that it is not "What must I do to be saved?" The force of the passage is as simple and plain as possible. Two things are wanted -- apprehension of the Object, and faith in the power of the offerer; they will be found practically identical.

-- 27. I cannot doubt the Lord's answer refers to those words among themselves, which drew our Lord's look upon them: "Who then can be saved?" "All things" -- what ground does this set it upon? And then recollect, "All things are possible to him that believeth."

The principles of the Kingdom were now coming more clearly out, and its heavenly character; none therefore good but God; heavenly-mindedness, suffering with Christ, and taking up the cross, love to the despised poor, characterising it here. And the disciples were now to be accustomed to this; their Master was now really Jewishly rejected. They must be familiarised with, and instructed in the new principles of the Kingdom. Looking about upon His disciples, He said: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God!" It is not in the shape of eternal life or salvation it is put here, though both may be involved, because in that light it is pure gift; but here, because of its nature and character, for the actual hindrances acting upon men's minds on its proposal, are noted of God -- a warning and deep instruction to His saints. He cannot, and we may say that in every sense, compromise His principles for man's passions; He could not in them be called their God. To a Jew He was their God in riches in their basket and in their store, but their sin -- the sin of all men in truth -- brought out in His hand deeper truth. The detection of sin by the law then was the last thing the flesh thought of in it. The disciples were themselves astounded with the idea that one with the best advantages, and favoured most, fairest to the eye of the flesh, could hardly enter into the

[Page 312]

Kingdom they had before them. It baffled their thought, and the Lord answered them to bring down to their apprehension as children, their childish thoughts. Yet in His gracious affection, yet with much deeper rebuke to them -- for grace ever rebukes most deeply, for it is not in anger, but puts the pure evil in its true light -- "How hardly shall they that trust in riches enter into the Kingdom of God." Now it was evident, though perhaps in ignorance, the flesh still having such influence over their minds, that they did by their astonishment. It gave the cause of the difficulty without modifying the statement, and therefore the Lord adds at once, stronger almost than before: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." It is a strong and solemn statement, and alters the character of the Kingdom wonderfully to men's minds, and stamps it most significantly as contrary to all their thoughts. We have a constant tendency to get practically off this ground. They felt the force of this, that it struck at all human calculations, and said: "Then who can be saved?" The Lord's answer settles the whole question between the flesh, law and grace: "With men it is impossible." There is the whole matter. The most favourable circumstances do not alter this, except in some sense for the worse, because the flesh cherishes them for itself. But then it is not so with God -- blessed be His Name -- because He can act in creating, changing power, and therefore let us be ever so bad and hopeless, here is our resource, and our hope: "With God all things are possible." There it all rests. It is wholly impossible with man. When God acts, He can do what He pleases. He is wise, holy and powerful to produce His own effects. Here the whole thing rests. It is a change of the very nature of the question -- man quite set aside, what he is, what he can do. And then a new thing, God in His own power in grace acting there, what could He not do? How deeply, though as yet little developed, are the principles of the Kingdom brought out in all this passage! There cannot be a more important one as to the nature of the Kingdom -- "Who can be saved?" For there it is taught, let a man be ever so lovable, and in all apparent willingness, it comes to nothing when the test is put. Look at that young man, and the solution that it comes to, and all is settled -- all to condemn us as ungrateful, and utterly worthless, and to exalt God as alone good, and the only Source of good and

[Page 313]

blessing to us in our souls. Then, let it be the worst, and He can make them what His own life-giving and communicative goodness produces. So, often we see the last first in this, and first last. The consequences of this principle of grace in the Kingdom then follow here -- its introduction into the blessed power of God's grace towards us, and so to the chief of sinners.

[Enough of Mark remains to nearly fill the next part, in which, the Lord willing, it will be continued.]