New Birth - a Fundamental Difference
Firstly, the fundamental difference. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". I want to lay my finger of emphasis upon what I have before called "the otherness" of the new birth. The greatest reality in the child of God, right on to the end of his or her experience, is this "otherness". Firstly, it is an "otherness" of being, that is, of entity. Something very closely related to us, and yet completely distinct from us. There is a malady from which a great many people are suffering in these days called neurasthenia. One of the features of that malady is the consciousness of secondary personalities; that is, the sufferer is constantly conscious of some other unseen presence, usually evil, dark, near them, following them, haunting them, influencing them, sometimes insinuating, suggesting, very real, and very terrible, and as that malady develops and progresses, that secondary personality seems to become more and more their own personality, until a great many who have had a religious background accept the idea of devil possession, and believe themselves to be now, in effect, devils incarnate. Now I use that by way of illustration; I know that it is bringing it on to the wrong side, and on to a very low level. But in the new birth there is that "Otherness" which is not ourselves, though closely related to us, but is from above, and is the greatest reality of the true child of God right on to the end. I by nature am one thing, but This is another. I would go one way. This would not go that way. I would say a certain thing, but This does not agree with me, and checks the saying of it. I would choose a certain course, but This makes me aware that It is not approving that. It is a very difficult thin to define and explain, but it is a very real thing. It is the basis and the hope of everything for us, this "Otherness."
So the first note, then, is that of distinctiveness of entity. It is us, and yet not us, and we know that very often these two work apart, and do not agree. I once coined a technical phrase to try to define this - if you cannot grasp the meaning of this do not trouble - I spoke of it as the subjective-objective. That is, something within but yet apart, other than myself by nature. You see the importance of even that technicality. (I would like to say that I am not trying to give you a lot of technical matter. I really am anxious to get down to the root of matter for you. I never think of anything except in terms of practical value, and I am only trying to get to the practical value of things for the sake of the Lord's people. Do not think of this as so much matter which I have collected and am trying to pass on to you. I want you to get the real value.)
Then, secondly, it is an essence not only of being, entity, but of constitution, nature, outlook; altogether different from ourselves, differently constituted. So complete is the difference of constitution that it contradicts - very often - our very best and highest ideas and judgments and thoughts. Different nationalities have different conceptions. When certain nationalities come into our country, or we go into theirs, we find that they would do thing we would never think of doing, and we do things they would never think of doing, and things done represent an altogether different conception and standard. We should say: That is a thing not done in our country; for that to be done in our country would represent something in the nature of a scandal; it is not so with you, it i the accepted thing. They would perhaps say the same of many things among us. Take the matter of language; the same words in different countries mean entirely different things. We in England think a great deal of our delightful word "homely." If you say that about things in America you find people frowning at you. We think it is the greatest compliment in this country to say a woman is a "homely" woman. That saying, in America, means she is very plain and ugly. There is a difference altogether in conception. Now in that sense, this "Otherness" is different from our conception, our ideas, our judgments, our standards; even our highest, our best are very often challenged by this "Otherness." It is an "Otherness" of constitution. To put it in a word, God is other than ourselves at our very best. A break has come, and there is no such thing as the continuity of God in the fallen race. Oh, a great deal is made of the continuity of God in the fallen race, in man. A great deal is said in certain realms about God in every man. Much is said about the Christ in us. But a break has come, and in man by nature God is not resident, and Christ is not present. God is other than man, and as utterly other than man as is possible for the two to be; so much so that God, rather than put forth a finger or speak a word to save, to rescue Himself in that creation, consigns the whole thing to destruction. God would not do that, if He were in it. He would be consigning Himself to destruction. If the Cross of the Lord Jesus was a representative thing in which the whole race died under the hand of God, then God slew Himself, if He were in the race. So utterly is the race without God, that God will not save it as it is. No, there is a break, the continuity has been ended. That is the "Otherness."
We have spoken rather in the impersonal so far, now we have to bring it to the personal, and say the essence of the new birth is God coming in, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. It is God Himself in Christ, by the Holy Spirit coming in where He is not. God is not in man by nature. Christ is not in man by nature. The Holy Spirit is not in man by nature. "The Christ in every man," of which we hear so much, is a phrase which makes Christ impersonal and speaks of Christ as some THING. But NEW BIRTH IS AN ADVENT NOT A REVIVAL. It is as distinctly and definitely an advent as the birth of the Lord Jesus at Bethlehem. That was not an evolution, and that was not a revival; that was an advent. Revival is not for unsaved people. New birth is the definite act of the Lord coming and taking up residence as the Lord, other than we are. You remember what the Lord Jesus said about the Kingdom, and its coming. "There be some of you standing here, who shall not taste of death, until ye have seen the kingdom of heaven coming in power." When did that take place? Its first movement was on the Mount of Transfiguration, its second movement was at Pentecost. The Kingdom came at Pentecost. But what was Pentecost? The advent of the Spirit! And what was the advent of the Spirit? The residence of the Spirit within the Church! It was an advent. Everything was in a state of suspense under Divine order until then. All the truth was apprehended, but if they had gone and preached the truth about Pentecost, they would have been in a false position, an unbalanced state; there would have been inconsistency, and that truth would have come back on them to break them, and not work for them. Pentecost, the Advent of the Spirit, was the cradling of the Spirit of God withing the Church. There were foreshadowings and indications of it before then; there were the principles of it clearly marked and defined before then. There was a parenthetical period in which everything was in movement, but the actual consummation of that did not take place until Pentecost. I mean the Upper Room was the Church representatively in being, and when the Lord breathed on them there and said: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit"; that was the Church constituted by the Holy Spirit figuratively, but it was not then allowed to move, neither could it function. Everything was suspended for a probationary period until the Advent of the Spirit, which made all that good. Now the law of the Kingdom of God is birth from above, which is the Advent of God in Christ by the Spirit in our heart, constituting an 'Otherness" which is to be our true life to the end.
~T. Austin-Sparks~
(continued with # 12)
No comments:
Post a Comment