1886 61 By creation God's "eternal power and divinity" should have been known to all men, Jews or Gentiles. In addition to this testimony, however, the Jews had the vastly more important one of the word of God, accompanied by His moral government (see Psalm 19). But, God Himself was revealed only in the person of Christ, "in Whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). He was the logos, the Word of God from all eternity, and as such His Spirit was that which gave life by the spoken or written word in Old Testament times (compare 1 Peter 1:11; 2 Cor. 3:17; Ps. 119:50, 130). In the first Epistle of John He is called the "Word of life." In the Gospel of John 1:1-2 we find the Divine and Eternal Being of the Word in distinct personality; in verse 3 we get creation by Him (Eph. 3:9), and in verse 4 the statement that, "in Him was life." This was always true. But the next clause, viz. that "the life was the light of men," became true only in Incarnation: — "I am come," said our Lord, "a light into the world" (John 12:46). "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world" (John 9:5). Now that He is in heaven that light shines, — at least to faith, — through the rent veil; to sight it should be seen in the members of His body, "Among whom ye shine as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:15). In Old Testament times God dwelt in thick darkness (Deut. 5:22), in other words, He did not reveal Himself. He gave His word, faith in which was the means of salvation to those who believed. Such therefore had life from the Word, — but life without an external object, Who was the life-giver, and consequently, without that subjective consciousness, and intelligence, which those born of God have now. The quickening of the Holy Ghost, and the knowledge of the remission of sins, are both distinct from, though to the christian necessarily connected with, the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1:5, 8; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12-13, 16).
Judaism was a testimony to the unity of the Godhead. The distinctness of the persons in the Trinity was rather implicitly than explicitly contained in the Old Testament scriptures. Hence the Son, as such, could not be an object of faith, for He had not been revealed. Sonship was doctrinally linked with Messiahship, — with descent from Abraham and David, — "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee" (Psalm 2:7; Luke 1:35), and was a matter of hope and expectation, not a present object to faith. When He came the Trinity was revealed, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell. As regards then the condition of souls, — the souls of the saints in different ages or dispensations, it is most important to keep to scripture and to the order of its teaching, for it needs scarcely to be said, that in it, there is no such thing as "a distinction without a difference." In reference to it, mere human reasonings, — logical processes, — are altogether out of place, and only make havoc of God's word. Only when subject to the Spirit shall we be able "rightly to divide the word of truth."
"In Him was life." He is the Author of all life, from the highest to the lowest, and in all its forms and phases; but this is no assertion either of the identity of life in all cases, or of the Pantheistic denial of a distinct personality, separate from the Deity, though not independent of Him. The mere brute has an animal soul, — a soul the existence of which depends upon the blood of the animal, and upon the air which the animal breathes. Man also has an animal soul, but he has a rational soul too, in virtue of God's inbreathing into his nostrils the breath of life. Man's soul therefore is immortal, his spirit is imperishable. Indeed all rational beings whether angels or men have an imperishable spirit, i.e. have immortality in this defined sense. Yet scripture does not call this "eternal life." The full import of this term goes far beyond the mere assertion of an endless life. It is a mode and phase of life in us, as we see it absolutely in the Incarnate, but now glorified, Son of God; and for which the only suitable and proper abode is His own immediate presence in heaven. In fact the character of life in men and angels differs. Again, as fallen, men need redemption and regeneration; and surely it will not be denied that the character of life, in virtue of which a man is regenerate, differs from that which our first parents had when first created. Life is not characterised as "eternal life," till manifested in the Son, and eternal life is, in scripture, predicated only of those who are sons, — only of those of whom it can be said that Christ is the "firstborn amongst many brethren." Again, life as given by Christ in resurrection w hen He breathed on His disciples, — a life which has passed through and is triumphant over death, was there in this, nothing new, nothing special and specific, nothing in advance of every spiritual privilege or condition which had gone before? Was there no difference in the spiritual condition of the apostles before and after our Lord breathed on them? Conversion and the remission of sins they undoubtedly had before. Was there no difference in the condition of the believers in Acts 10 before and after receiving the Holy Ghost? Our Lord's baptism by the Holy Ghost was quite distinct from His conception by the Holy Ghost, and so the gift of the Spirit to believers is quite distinct from the operations of the Spirit, whether in quickening souls, prophecy, etc. So little was the latter for their own personal benefit, that we read in 1 Peter 1:12 it was revealed to the Old Testament prophets that their predictions as regards our Lord, were for us, and not for themselves. But spiritual condition, privilege, etc. are dependent on the revelation which God gives, and according to which the faith is formed; it is this which gives distinctive character to the life. As Creator, God is the Father of angels and of men, — in this sense they are His sons; but is there no difference between this and the being made "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4)? or, between this and our being "the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26)? Difference between the Old Testament, saints, as being partakers of the divine nature, and our being the "sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus," is categorically stated in Gal. 4:1-7.
Take again, any one of the Epistles, and try to apply its statements and teaching to Old Testament saints. The very attempt ends in contradiction and absurdity, not simply because they are not in this world any longer, but because their state and their status were so different to our's, when they were in the world. And the state in eternity depends on the state in time. There is (according to the divine will), a necessary and exact relationship or connection between them. Now, there is an order and a progress in divine revelation, at least till the time came when God was manifested in the flesh; — and a necessarily correspondent advance in the subjective state of souls, for that state is contingent on that revelation. There could for instance be no application of John 1:12 to Old Testament saints, "but as many as received Him … He gave the power to become the sons of God." They had previously been the sons of God as mere men, — they may have been sons of God in the yet higher sense of regeneration (using the word in its etymological sense), but they were not sons of God in the highest sense, — the sense of John 1:12; 1 John 3:1, or in the sense of Galatians 3:26. The teaching of the first Epistle of John has its origin in "the beginning" spoken of in 1 John 1:1, i.e. the beginning of christianity, the appearance of "the Word made flesh," the manifestation of "the Life." It is dependent not merely on the existence of the Life, but on its manifestation also, and is therefore distinctly and exclusively christian teaching, even as regards the "little children." It does not and could not apply to Old Testament saints. Quickened they certainly were, or they would not have been saints; but 2 Cor. 4:18 for instance, could not apply to them, — there was no such object (much less a heavenly and glorious object), for their faith; nor had they such nearness of position, such conscious relationship to God, as their Father, that we have as a consequence of Christ having revealed the Father to us, and associated us with Himself, as sons. There is, in short, difference of spiritual conditions and privileges, in every conceivable way, whatever there may be in common.
The attempt is not infrequently made, to reduce passages such as "he that is least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than John the Baptist;" and, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly," to a minimum of signification, yet these passages assert in the simplest of words, the truth we are insisting on. Everything in fact depends upon the Sovereign will of God, and if the privileges of the christian are pre-eminent it is not on account of any merit in himself personally, but because it is Christ, the revelation of Christ, and nearness to Him which confers privilege. A certain witness or record is given) 1 John 5:11-13), and what is stated in these verses is strictly true only of christians: — "And this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life," etc. There is no reference whatever in these verses to any who lived before the time of Christ. God revealed His Son in Paul (Gal. 1:16), and it could therefore be said of him, "he that hath the Son hath life," and so of every true christian; but if God's Son is revealed in us, it is because He is first revealed to us. For the christian, there is first the objective, and then the subjective. But so far from the Son being revealed in converted Jews of old, He was not even revealed to them. Christ, as the Eternal Word, gave them life, but without revealing Himself to them, and consequently such words as those of Paul in Gal. 4:19 could have no application or meaning, in the ease of Old Testament saints, — "my little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you." When this is the case it can be said, "he that hath the Son hath life," — in any other case the text is misapplied, and the subject is misunderstood. In short, the unfolding of the purposes and counsels of God has been a gradual process, the successive steps however being clearly defined in scripture; and the wisdom of God thus displayed, will, far from being hereafter obliterated, be marked to all eternity, not simply in a book, but in the living and intelligent subjects of His grace, as is very positively stated in Eph. 3:21; Heb. 11:40, and as seen in the book of Revelation.
Creature life then, whether in angels or in men, is quite distinct from that divine life in virtue of which a man is regenerate, or a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); and heaven is destined to be the abode of men, as the result of redemption and regeneration; it is in fact the true and proper sphere of eternal or everlasting life, "the righteous [shall go away] into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46). in scripture eternal life is generally looked at as a future thing. Twice in the Old Testament is it spoken of, viz. in Psalm 133:3, and Dan. 12:2., and in the New Testament also it generally refers to the life of the redeemed in heaven. Indeed, I think it will be found that "eternal life" as a present possession is, distinctly and specifically, spoken of only in the writings of John. I do not say that salvation as a present thing, is not elsewhere spoken of, but eternal life, he aionios zoon. Consequently, it is in the writings of John that we; see life in the highest and most privileged form in which created beings ever receive it, involving sonship with Christ (John 20:17), and the gift of the Holy Ghost, "And because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). It is there identified even with the Person of Christ, "he that hath the Son hath life," though Paul also confirms this when he says, "When Christ Who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory" (Col. 3:4). Whilst then it is perfectly true that Christ has been the quickener of souls, whilst it is perfectly true that all such will live for ever in heaven, it is at the same time true that life, in its highest and most privileged form, is the portion of those who believe in Him now, i.e. between the two Advents. For the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the greatest who lived previously; — and further, the privilege of the christian as a son of God, and a member of the body of Christ, is one which belongs to the christian only.
To the Editor of the Bible Treasury on "Sonship And Eternal Life."
1886 80 Dear Brother in the Lord,
Will you kindly allow me space to state some difficulties I have as to accepting several statements in the article on "Sonship and Eternal Life," in your last issue?
The writer says, speaking of O.T. saints: — "Such therefore had life from the Word, but life without an external object, who was the Life-giver, and consequently without that subjective consciousness and intelligence which those born of God have now." Where does our brother get scripture for this statement? Has he not mistaken the reason of that lack of "subjective consciousness and intelligence," as he terms it? Surely it arose, not from the absence of "an external object," but from the fact that O.T. saints had rather the full revelation of God or of His mind in Christ which saints now have, nor the Anointing by which we "know all things," nor the Spirit of adoption by which we cry Abba, Father. These most wondrous and blessed privileges, which they had not, fully account for it, without asking us to believe, for instance, that Enoch, who "walked with God," and had the testimony that he pleased God," had not the Life-giver as an object — nay, as the object before his soul. Was not God Abraham's object — his "exceeding great reward"? Had Moses no object when he "endured as seeing Him who is invisible"? Or the Psalmist when he said, "I have set the Lord always before me"?
Again, still speaking of O.T. saints, he says — "They had plainly been the sons of God as mere men — they may [does he then doubt that they were born again? or what?] have been sons of God in the yet higher sense of regeneration; but they were not the sons of God in the highest sense, the sense of John 1:12, 1 John 3:1, or in the sense of Gal. 3:26." What can all this mean? John 1:12 and 1 John 3:1 speak, not of "sons of God in the highest sense," or in any sense, but of "children of God," — that is, the nearness of relationship as "born of God," and not the dignity of sonship — "which were born not of blood, nor of flesh's will, nor of man's will, but of God:" (John 1:13) "every one who practises righteousness is born of Him" (1 John 2:29). And in what "higher" sense can any mere creature be a child of God than as "born of God"? And is not this true of O.T. saints as well as of saints now? That they had not the enjoyment or consciousness of it, all admit, for they had not the Spirit of adoption; and that the child whilst under tutors and governors has not the dignity and place of the son come of full age is plain enough to the simplest reader of the fourth of Galatians, though the life he has as son be the same as he had when a child.
Our brother need not have thought that your readers require to be informed that the life a saint possesses is not the same as that which Adam had before he fell; or that immortality, as possessed by men and angels, is not called eternal life in scripture or that the character of life possessed by men and angels differs. Indeed one is at a loss to discover the object of a great part of the paper; but I am slow to believe that our brother really means to teach what at times seems implied, viz., that there are two kinds of divine life: one which O.T. saints had, which made them partakers of the divine nature; and a "higher" kind of life now, which makes us sons.
The Lord once said to some of old who denied the doctrine of the resurrection (though the word be not found in O.T. scriptures) "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures," for the doctrine was there, though the word was not. And our Lord's rebuke might perhaps apply to any who assert that O.T. saints had not eternal life because of a certain characteristic way in which the term is used in the New Testament. For we must not forget that in O.T. days, even as now, men were by nature dead in trespasses and sins, and that God, in His sovereign grace, quickened souls then as now out of that dead state. Quite true that then the full extent of man's lost state as a dead sinner was not known to him because not revealed, and that now it is. But this ignorance of it did not lessen or in any way alter the fact of their dead condition. Quite true, too, that then the full extent of God's love and grace was not revealed, the Father was not manifested, the Holy Ghost was not come, nor was life and incorruptibility brought to light. But it is well that saints should clearly see that all this change in dispensation — vast and important as it is — does not at all touch the life which God from the first imparted to all who were born of Him. That life — divine and eternal as it was, is, and ever must be, — blessed be God — changes not with changing dispensations. Yours affectionately in Christ, T. W. Dublin, April 5th, 1886.