p239 BELOVED BROTHER, - I reply at once to your letter. I did receive your letter, which lay a good while on my table from constant occupation both of writing and ordinary service at Geneva, where I spent two months. I enter into and enjoy the first part of your present letter and profit by the connection of the passages with the seventh; as to the latter part, it is remarkable that the question you put had occupied me independently of these questions in a particular manner for a good while back and I had added a long note to a tract on Romans 11* on other points which discussions here had given rise to, and I feel that I brought out the point very precisely. And it is precisely on this point, much more clear than heretofore in my mind, that I feel that Plymouth has lost, or for the most part never has attained, the idea which seems to me essential to the church - that is, which essentially distinguishes it in its privileges. I knew that the system which prevails there placed the church on the same ground as Israel in the millennium, and it was one of the things which convinced me that the notion of the church was entirely wanting. Israel will have many things which we have, but had not all that which distinguishes the church - those who have προηλπίκασι "pre-trusted in Christ," (Eph. 1:12.) Israel believes when they see, but "blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed."
{*["Collected Writings," vol. 1, p. 472, new ed.]}

But my answer to your question, Has the church any spiritual things which it has not received through Israel? is - ALL that is properly essential to it as the church. The church can be looked at as coming in under the promises and grafted in on the spiritual things of Israel, but it is only the lowest form in which those who compose the church can be considered (nor is it then ever called the church that I am aware of) and only in respect of its administration down here; and in this point of view it will terminate and be cut off to make place for something else. But is that all the idea we are to have of the church, and are those who believe in Christ, when He is not seen, in no different position from those who believe in Him when He is seen? Is union with Christ when He is hid in God the same thing as belonging to Him when He is seen in the exercise of judgment in the earth? Though His life [be theirs] the knowledge of Christ is quite other, as well as the position of the faithful. Will they suffer with Christ; are they conformed to His death having the fellowship of His sufferings; are there no sympathies, no knowledge of Christ which is connected with this which cannot exist when He is reigning? Even the very term Son has a different force here; when God sets forth His Son as King in Zion, He calls on the kings of the earth to kiss Him, and gives as basis of the [decree] which places Him there that He is His Son; "this day have I begotten thee." Is this the way we know the Son? I admit the truth of what is stated at Plymouth. The evil is this, that all the higher part of truth is left out, and everything which expresses it reduced to this level. Does "To us a son is born, to us a king is given" satisfy the desires of your heart in your knowledge of Christ?

And now let me take up certain expressions which bring this out. You speak of union with Christ risen: well, it is clear that it is with Christ risen, and not with Christ alive after the flesh or in the grave, that I am united. But I do not believe the scripture ever speaks of union with Christ risen simply as our portion; at least it is not what is habitually set forward as the acme of the glory. We are set down in heavenly places in Him - will the Jews be that in the millennium? Our life is hid with Him in God - will He be hid in God in that day? The fact is that the highest privileges of the church are no matter, not merely of Israel's spiritual privileges, but of promises at all; because union with the Son of God one with the Father is no part of promise, but the basis of a mystery hidden from ages and generations, which gives a body to Christ independent of all question of Israel and Gentile, which knows the Son of God as its source above all distinction of Israel and Gentile. In the administration of the promises, I find Jew first and then Greek - in the church, neither Jew nor Greek; in the administration of the promises, I find Gentiles grafted in who were a wild olive, and natural branches never grafted in at all: but all this relates to the administration of promises here below so that I find the seed of Abraham in the church, the Gentiles fellow-heirs and partakers of His promise in Christ. But I know not where union with the Son of God is promised, where to be loved by the Father as the Son is loved is promised, the result of which is to give us a place with Him in the kingdom - the immense privilege of suffering with Him now, to see Him as He is, to be like Him.

If it be answered that this will be the result, after the millennium, for Israel during the millennium, I answer: first, there is no such revelation in the word; and secondly, it cannot be, because the Son will have given up the kingdom and be subject that God may be all in all; and further, the distinction of Jews and Gentiles is kept up in the millennium, so that there can be no body of Christ, nor the Spirit, or consciousness in their relationships of the body of Christ which depends on union with Him hidden in heaven in virtue of a life which in its power, thus revealed in heaven, knows neither Jew nor Gentile. I do not recognise that resurrection shuts out distinction between Jew and Gentile (though there be in it the power of a life which does, when its full result is revealed), for "the sure mercies of David" are founded on it - but the church union with Christ hid in God does. If you examine the epistle of St. Peter writing to the Jews he never names the church; indeed St. Paul alone does. St. Peter sees Jesus to the cloud, and sees Him when He is [manifested] out of the cloud again - St. Paul only in heaven and the church united to Him there, to Him who said, "Why persecutest thou me?" St. Paul justifies in its administration by the prophets, a system whose principle and root was above all that they had said. Union with a Saviour hid in God formed no part of the revelation committed to them, nor of the promises made to Abraham, though those who have this union are heirs of the promises, because one with Him who is so. But union with a Saviour hid in God, the Son one with the Father Himself, so that we are one body with Him, of His flesh and of His bones, is of the essence of the church; and I cannot see that this forms a part of Israel's privileges in the millennium, for then there could not be Jews, and Gentiles their servants and dependants. They will enjoy the fruits of His resurrection, but they cannot be said to be risen with Him; they will enjoy the results of His having gone and received the kingdom from the Father, but they will not be sitting in heavenly places in Him, for He is not there.

In a word, all that is distinctive to the church is lost in this system, for that which is distinctive to it is not the subject of promise; though the church is heir by her union with Christ of the promises which are in Him as the true seed of Abraham; for "to Abraham and his seed were the promises made." But is that all? Where is the promise which conveys to me, "In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you?" And even in administration, when all things are united in one head in Christ for the administration of the fulness of times it cannot be added for them "in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who works all things, after the counsel of his own will." These words are the Spirit's contrast of the church - "that we should be to the praise of his glory," etc. Many, many are the consequences which flow from this: to be ignorant of it may be loss, but to set it aside - I will not say oppose it - is more than loss. I can only give you the outline of the principle. It is a matter of faith and divine teaching which God gives according to His sovereign goodness; but if this be a part of the glory of Christ, the privilege of the church, and the glory of God in the church throughout all ages, it is a serious thing that Christ should, in the minds of saints, be shorn of it, and their condition, and consequently their affections, reduced to those of Israel in the latter day, and deprived of Christ as He is given to the church. That is where I see the evil, and I trust, carry it to God.

I rejoice in all the joy and blessing of the saints, and I trust that a true apprehension of the relationship between Christ and the church will be manifested in holy and patient love, that others may profit by it if so it be. May the abounding of the Lord's peace and grace be with all the brethren. "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated … without partiality and without hypocrisy; and the fruits of righteousness are sown in peace to them that make peace."

Ever very affectionately yours, beloved brother.

Lausanne, November 14th, 1844.

[53194E]