O.T., and also in some parts of the N.T. Paul's question, Is He the God of the Jews only?

(Rom. 3: 29) would be without point to-day; in fact, in many assemblies it would have to

be reversed, Is He the God of the Gentiles only? for the faithfulness of God regarding His

promises to Israel is discounted by many.

It is well for us to "remember" what our state as "Gentiles in the flesh" was. It must

not be thought that the alternative to that state is that the Gentiles have been made

"Israel," or have usurped Israel's promises. The hope of Israel remains untouched;

another hope figures in the epistles of the mystery. The citizenship of Israel remains

untouched; a citizenship of quite a different character ("in heaven") belongs to the church

of the one body. A promise dating from before times of ages, before the overthrow of the

world, is enjoyed instead of the covenants of the promise which pertain to Israel. Christ

is to the church of the mystery something very different from the Messiah of Israel. The

sphere "in the flesh" is changed for that "in the spirit," and in that new sphere every

conflicting element of flesh and ordinance has been removed as a result of the

reconciliation.

We must now direct attention to the second member of the structure (B) which speaks

of the present dispensational privileges as contrasted with the darkness and distance

which we have just considered. It appears that we may read on from verse 13 to verse 19,

putting verses 14-18 into a parenthesis. Verse 13 tells us that those who once were far off

have been made nigh by the blood of Christ, and verse 19 continues, "so then ye are no

longer strangers, but fellow-citizens." How this is accomplished is explained briefly in

verse 13 by the words, "by the blood of Christ," and more fully in the parenthetical

verses 14-18.

We have already called attention to the careful use of terms in the Scriptures with

reference to the offering of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the lesser aspect of reconciliation,

which is its wider aspect too, the death, not the blood, nor the cross are prominent. It is

exceedingly difficult to express oneself on this wondrous and holy theme without being

misunderstood. We, of course, know that the Lord's death was occasioned by the cross,

and accompanied by great suffering and the shedding of blood, and readily admit that

sometimes the death of Christ may be taken to include all that preceded and accompanied

it. Yet with such careful and elaborate distinctions as are given in the opening chapters

of Leviticus, we feel we dare not assert that the distinctions are mere hair-splitting. The

whole burnt offering consumed on the altar is a totally different conception from the sin

offering burnt without the camp, and both again differ from the passover lamb, yet Christ

at one and the same time by one offering fulfilled them all. The death of Christ, without

reference to the shedding of blood, or the cross, is the wide basis which includes every

son of Adam in the reconciliation (katallassõ). The death of Christ, viewed by itself,

answers to the death which passed upon all men through Adam, and removes it, for as in

Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive. To tamper with the inspired logic

and inspired words, "as. . . . so" and "all. . . . all," betrays a prejudice, a prejudice

fostered largely by the error that the death of Christ in this wide aspect is tantamount to

salvation and justification in their evangelical meaning. The reconciliation, is not related

merely to the death of Christ, but to the blood and the cross of Christ. While we are fully