Simple Papers on the Church of God: of Whom Composed Concluded

But is there not, some may ask, anything in the Old Testament which refers to the church? Surely there is. For, although its then future existence was not made known, we can trace in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures typical teaching about it, both as the bride of Christ, and as formed of believers from Jews and from Gentiles: There are personages in the Old Testament history who shadow forth in some way or other the Lord Jesus Christ. Of these we would here mention but two, Isaac and Solomon; the former, the type of the Lord as the risen one, and the heir of all things that belong to His Father; the latter as King of peace, and the King’s Son who sits upon the throne of David. To Isaac Rebekah was brought as his bride, but not till Abraham had received him back, as it were, from the dead. Solomon had a bride—Pharaoh’s daughter—connected in the closest way with the king, yet distinct from Israel, and who lived in a house prepared for her biller husband. She had part with him, yet was apart from Israel. Isaac with his wife, and Solomon with his, are both typical of Christ and the church. The former shadows out that it is, as risen, Christ has His Bride. The latter delineates the King’s Son in His royal state in connection with Israel, yet in the closest possible way connected also with one, who has no part with the earthly people of God.
Besides this, we can trace out in Leviticus 23 something of the peculiar composition of the church which we have been considering. The feasts of the Lord therein described were important elements of Judaism; and Moses, in three out of the five books which bear his name, dwells at some length on them. In Deuteronomy 16 he describes the character of each of the three great feasts, as he sets forth the spirit in which they were severally to be observed. In Numbers 28:29 the special offerings for each Jewish festival, with their number, and accompanying meat-offerings and drink-offerings, are detailed at length. From this we learn, which of the feasts had reference only to Israel, and in which of them, that which they prefigured, concerned Gentiles as well. In Leviticus 23 Moses gives to Israel what may be called their ecclesiastical calendar, specifying the order in which the different festivals were to be kept, and the months and days appointed for their observance. So if we wished to understand the spirit in which any of the three great festivals were to be observed, we should turn to Deuteronomy 16 to find out. If any inquired about the number and character of the different offerings, Numbers 28:29 would supply the answer; and Leviticus 23 would be consulted as the sacred calendar, informing all of the time, and duration of each feast throughout the year. But to this arrangement there is one remarkable exception. Certain rites and sacrifices, connected both with the morrow after the paschal sabbath, and with the feast of first-fruits, are mentioned in Leviticus, but are passed over in Numbers. Now why is this? Is the omission intentional, or is it accidental? It cannot be regarded as accidental, because, though some offerings specially appointed for the feast of first-fruits are enumerated in Numbers, where we should have looked for them, the new meat-offering, only described at length in Leviticus, is just mentioned in Numbers, though without a word being added in explanation of it. Evidently the sacred writer supposed his readers were acquainted with what had been written in Leviticus about it. He had not forgotten it, nor, from the way he introduces it, can we suppose that he was reminding his readers of it. He mentions that with which he and they were perfectly acquainted; but does not enter at length on the subject. The omission therefore, of special instruction about it from that, the forty-first section of the law according to the Jewish divisions of the Pentateuch, must have been intentional. Naturally we should have expected an account of it in Numbers, whereas we only learn about it in Leviticus. Had the Pentateuch been a mere human composition, would this arrangement have been met with? Had it been written by Moses simply with an eye to Israel, and what then concerned them, would he have thus arranged it? Surely not. But, as God’s book, written under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the subjects are treated of in God’s order, and the wisdom of the divine plan becomes apparent. A glance at Leviticus 23 will make this plain.
And first, as to the new meat-offering presented to God at the feast of first-fruits. It was composed of two wave-loaves, as they are called, baked with leaven; these two loaves typifying those from Jews and those from Gentiles, who as Christians are together presented to God, a kind of first-fruits of His creatures (James 1:18). It was not the oneness of the body of Christ that they portrayed, but that of which the body is composed, the two companies which together make up the one flock of John 10. Baked with leaven, We learn that they represent saints still in their bodies on earth, and in whom the flesh exists. Made from the produce of the new harvest, we understand that they typify those, who are before God as risen with Christ; for the close connection of Christians with Christ is set forth in the fact, that the instruction about these two loaves is included in the same divine communication to Moses (Lev. 23:9-22), which contains the ordinance concerning the wave-sheaf, the type of the Lord Jesus Himself as risen from the dead. Waved before the Lord, we see that the saints are claimed for God. Thus these loaves typify what a Jew, as long as he remained a Jew, never was—a man on earth, yet risen with Christ. Typifying therefore those once Jews and those once Gentiles, brought to God on common ground, they speak of something really distinct from the earthly people, even the presentation to God of souls from Jews and Gentiles whom He can receive in connection with, and by virtue of, His acceptance of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that whilst the Lo-ammi condition of Israel as a nation (Hosea is 9) has not terminated.
But further. The feast of first-fruits was typical of the whole Christian era, which, commencing with the day of Pentecost, goes on to the rapture of which 1 Thessalonians 4, has apprised us. It prefigured therefore the time between the rejection of the Lord by the Jews and their being gathered again to their land, to await His return previous to the commencement of millennial rest, of which the feast of Tabernacles is the type. As a feast of the Lord, it had its place in the sacred calendar; that is clear. But this chapter in Leviticus, besides serving as a sacred calendar for Israel, gives us an outline God’s dealings with souls from. Exodus to the eternal state; hence God’s ways on earth, when Israel nationally are disowned, but the godly remnant saved, are fitly traced out in this portion of the Word. And had they been here omitted, there would have been, we can see, a gap in the prophetic outline of God’s ways. But who, at the time when Moses wrote the book, could have discovered that? God alone, we may surely say, then knew it.
The church then, we again see, was in the mind of God before it was presented to the eye of man; and as He divided to the nations their lot on earth with reference to His future dealings with Israel, so He guided Moses in the writing of His Word with reference to that subject of revelation, kept secret till revealed to Paul—the church of the living God (Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:25). And when the wave-loaves were brought to Him and waved before Him, God looked on to that of which the Jews could never bear to hear—the presentation to Him of some, once Gentiles, on common and new ground with some formerly Jews. We may glory in this grace; yet let us remember that the thing waved was thereby publicly acknowledged as belonging to God. There is grace in being brought to God; there is responsibility in belonging to God.
C. E. S.
Expository Papers on the Romans
In the three first chapters of this epistle we find all the dreadful guilt and condition of man brought out. He has no righteousness of his own; his mouth is stopped, and he has become subject to the judgment of God. But now, in Romans 3:25, God sets forth Christ Jesus as a propitiation (mercy-seat, same word as in Heb. 9:5), the ground upon which He can meet the vilest sinner, and at the same time declare His perfect righteousness in justifying the believer. The word mercy-seat here is an evident allusion to “the great day of atonement” in Leviticus 16, when Aaron went into the holiest once a year, and sprinkled the blood on the golden mercy seat. In that chapter we have distinct things; the blood on the mercy-seat in verse 14, and the sins confessed over and borne by the goat in verses 21, 22, showing forth the double aspect of the death of Christ—propitiation, and substitution; or, as we get it in verses 8 and 15, “the Lord’s lot” and “the people’s lot.” It is most important for the soul to be clear upon this point; and the consequence of not seeing the difference between these two aspects of the death of Christ has been great confusion in the minds of many of the Lord’s people; therefore I do not think it would be out of place here to dwell a little upon the distinction between the two. Propitiation is Godward, “the Lord’s lot” —all the holy requirements of God’s nature perfectly met and satisfied by the work of Christ on the cross; and Leviticus 16:14 is a beautiful type of this.
The mercy seat was of pure gold (Ex. 25:17) and Aaron on that solemn occasion was to enter the holiest once a year, in a cloud of incense, which typifies the acceptableness and sweet savor of the person of Christ to God, and sprinkle the blood upon the mercy-seat. Gold in Scripture generally typifies divine righteousness; so how beautiful is the figure! the blood and the gold meeting. That is, divine righteousness fully met and satisfied by the blood. How true that was when the Lord Jesus offered Himself “without spot to God,” and His precious blood was shed at the cross. There all God’s holiness, His righteousness, the holy claims of His throne, were fully satisfied; and on the ground of this work the gospel can be proclaimed to every creature. The blood is shed, God is satisfied, and you may come; nothing could be freer or fuller. But now there is another side—substitution; that is, Christ bearing the sins of those who believe, and answering to God for them. We find this prefigured by the live goat in Leviticus 16:20-22. Aaron was to bring the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions, and all their sins, putting them (the sins) upon the head of the goat, and the goat was to “bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited” (vs. 22).
Do you believe, dear fellow-believer, that Christ answered to God for all your sins upon the cross 1800 years ago? Do not speak of past, present, or future sins; for when Christ bore them they were all future, and Scripture never speaks in that way. No, if one of your sins was borne, they were all borne; not up to your conversion, as some would say, for in that case what about the sins committed after conversion? Christ would have to die again. “For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world” (Heb. 9:26).
This truth seems to me to be so blessedly brought out in verse 21. We find the word all mentioned three times: “all the iniquities,” “all their transgressions,” “all their sins,” putting them (that is, all the sins) upon the head of the live goat. How wonderful! to think that if you are a true believer in Christ, you can say on the authority of Scripture, “God laid all my sins upon Christ 1800 years ago, and Christ bore the judgment of them in His own body on the tree.” This truth realized gives it a wonderful power for walk; for could you think of this, and then go and commit sin? God forbid.
Thus we have seen these two sides of the work of Christ—propitiation, and substitution. There might be propitiation, and not a sinner saved, for it is all God-ward; God’s holy nature satisfied. This we get in verse 25 of our chapter (Rom. 3); in chapter 4: 25 we get more substitution, which we may look at again, if the Lord will. In verses 25 and 26 we have unfolded in the fullest way this “righteousness of God,” which is the subject of this part of the epistle. First, God sets forth Christ Jesus as the mercy seat; then to declare His righteousness—that is, what God is in Himself, His perfect consistency with Himself. This righteousness is declared in a double way. First, for the remission (“passing over,” see margin) of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. This does not mean past sins of believers, as some have taken it; but that God passed by (or pretermitted) the sins that were committed before Christ had died; for instance, the sins of Abraham, David, Daniel; and the cross of Christ showed that He was righteous in so doing. The sins of Old Testament saints were passed by, on the ground that Christ was going to suffer.
Secondly (vs. 26), God’s righteousness is declared at this time (that is, since the cross), not in forbearing with sins, but “that God might be just, and the justifier of Him that believeth in Jesus;” a thing unknown in Old Testament times. What a wonderful truth this is to lay hold of; and yet one not generally understood. It is not said that God might be merciful and loving, and thus save the sinner; that is the human thought. Truly, God is merciful, and He is love; but here it is “that He might be just” (or righteous), and yet justify the one who believes in Jesus. Many a one has the thought, though they may not have expressed it, that God is a merciful God, and hence that since they have prayed earnestly for forgiveness, and rest upon what are called “the promises,” such as, “Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” they may entertain a humble hope that they are forgiven; but at the same time they have a sort of fear that if they do not walk well, God will: again bring their sins to remembrance.
If that is your experience, dear reader, I would ask you to weigh prayerfully the wondrous truth contained in verse 26, that God is now “just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” God is truly love, and He so loved the world that He gave His Son to die; and on the cross, during those hours of darkness, the cry came to His lips, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Why indeed? What was the meaning of it? A righteous man at His life, forsaken: of God in His death? Ah! He was bearing the wrath and judgment of God against sin, and that to the very uttermost. God was satisfied, yea, glorified, by His atoning death; and now, on the ground of that death, God is just (just to the person and work of Christ), and yet justifies Him that believeth in Jesus.
How full this is. Suppose Christ had not died? God’s justice (or righteousness) would have been our utter condemnation; for who could stand and be judged by such a standard as the perfect righteousness of God? But now that Christ has died, God’s justice instead of being against us is in our favor; for God’s holy, righteous, claims have been so fully met at the cross, that God can say to the one who believes in Jesus, “I have nothing to lay to your charge, I have nothing against you, you are righteous.”
Suppose you owed a large sum of money, and had nothing to pay it with, and a kind friend paid it all for you, would it be just if your creditor was to come to you for the money again? Certainly not. So, if Christ has paid that mighty debt of sin on the cross, and you are a believer in Jesus, will God come and require it at your hand again? Impossible. His justice would be at stake; and what is more; He not only justifies the believer, but He delights to do it. Why it was the love of His own heart that provided the Lamb for the sacrifice, so that there might be a way by which He could justify the believer in Jesus. But there is no glory due to us; for it is all on the ground of the death of Christ; and God does not justify Him who does this or that, or tries to keep the law, but one who comes as a poor, worthless, hell-deserving sinner, having no righteousness of His own, but believing in Jesus.
It is beautiful to see that this is the ground the Apostle Paul takes in Philippians 3:8,9. After speaking of his counting all things loss, and suffering the loss of all things, he counts them but dung that he may win Christ, and be found in Him. On what ground? Because his was such a good walk? or because he was such a good servant? No. “Not having mine own righteousness, which is by the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” He takes the ground of Romans 3, no righteousness of His own, but found in Christ, on the ground of having God’s righteousness; the same ground upon which the thief on the cross, the woman of Samaria, and the vilest sinner that ever lived, and you and I, will be in glory. “Where is boasting then? It is excluded.” (Rom. 3:27) Of course it is; for who could boast upon such a ground as this? “By what law (or on what principle)? Of works? Nay: but by the law (that is, principle) of faith.”
In verse 28 we have one of those magnificent conclusions drawn by the Apostle (or rather by the Holy Ghost) from what he has before been proving: “Therefore we conclude”—what? —a most important, weighty truth— “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” How astonishing it is, in the face of such a plain Scripture as this, that there are to be found some who say that the way to be saved is to keep the law. It is equally true of the Gentile as of the Jew, that both are justified by faith before God. The great distinguishing feature of the Jews was, that they had the law. But this justification was “without the deeds of the law,” and it was by faith; therefore it would admit the Gentile as well as the Jew. “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also;” for both Jews and Gentiles are justified before Him on one common ground, that is, on the principle of faith: “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (vss. 30, 31).
It might appear that the principle of justifying by faith would set aside the law and make it void; but, on the contrary, it “established the law:” its claims are fully recognized, and it is upheld in all its holiness, justness, and goodness; for the principle of justification by faith supposes what has been brought out in this epistle; namely, taking the place of being condemned under law, proved guilty, the mouth stopped, and owning the just sentence which the law pronounced on the sinner. Surely that would be establishing the law in all its force, and so much so, that, before we could be freed from its condemnation, the Son of God must die, and this is what faith owns.
F. K.