[Page 1]

Pages 1 - 146, Notes of Readings and Addresses in the U.S.A., 1939 - 41 Volume 152.

REPRESENTATION

Revelation 1:1 - 13; Revelation 22:16,17

I have the thought, among others, of stressing representation. Only God really is entitled to representation, and this is found in Christ, who is said to be "the image of God". It is a mediatorial thought, and extends from God to Christ, and from Christ to those whom He may select, and right down even to a righteous man, or to a disciple, for the Lord Jesus Himself says, "And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward", Matthew 10:42. Such is the extending chain of representation of which Scripture speaks, and I have selected this book because it affords copious material for such an address.

It is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, ... and he signified it, sending by his angel, to his bondman John", Revelation 1:1. You will notice by the pronoun His, that the angel belonged to the Lord Jesus; it was not any angel, for there are myriads of them; other angels are alluded to in this book. The bondman is His too; it is the bondman of Jesus, and he proves that he is indeed such, in that he "testified the word of God", as we are told, "... all things that he saw". The Lord made a selection on the ground of experience, as we might say. Of course He knows all, and needs not in one sense to have any experience in order to know things; but He puts the selection of servants on this basis, and He had that great experience with this bondman. The Lord allowed him to be very familiar with Him. Indeed one marvels at times at the liberty accorded by the Lord to His disciples. John had the

[Page 2]

liberty of being in the bosom of Jesus and of leaning on His breast. The preposition in implies acceptance. John would not have taken the liberty if it had not been there, it flowed out from what was in Christ; liberty flows out from what is in Christ. Moreover, he leaned on His breast, indicating support, which John also took advantage of. So that trustworthiness in John was of long standing; and if age is of any value at all, it is in this, that it affords long-standing confidence between the Lord and the bondman, seasoned confidence; confidence that has stood the test of every weather. So that the Spirit may well say of John, "his bondman".

Now as I was saying, the thought of representation is here in that sense, and John in his prefatory remarks, which run on to the end of verse 8, embodies this point, that there was good reason for the use of the word His. He would say, The Lord has indicated to me that I am His, not only through redemption, but through long-standing trustworthiness. So he says: "John to the seven assemblies which are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is, and who was, and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; ... and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father: to him be the glory and the might to the ages of ages. Amen", Revelation 1:4 - 6. What richness in the bondman!

Now I wish to point to the book as setting out this great principle of representation. This book is indeed a great holy and spiritual drama; it is unique. And, of course, there must be a personnel to set this out. So John, in order to bring the saints into it, addresses the assembly under the symbol of seven -- seven assemblies in a certain province. The whole book is written to them, to those seven assemblies; and the personnel in

[Page 3]

the scenes depicted is supposed to be understood by them. One would like to be drawn into the current of the book. Although one whole, it is a series of great prophetic subjects largely represented in persons; and what is set out in such a wonderfully symbolical way is already current. Indeed, from the time the revelation was given the actual scenes represented had a certain existence. The assembly is to be in this; it is a question of selected assemblies under a symbolic form, seven of them, designated by the Lord Jesus and made prominent throughout; a letter being written to each of them by the Lord, showing that the saints of our day are included. Thus we all are addressed, and this makes the book of special interest and importance. At any given time, it is the current saints that are in mind in this book. We belong to one of the assemblies, and hence the book is for us.

What John saw was to be written in a book and sent to the seven assemblies; each is to have a copy, as it were. So John puts himself alongside of us, saying in verse 9, "I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus", Revelation 1:9. That is how the New Translation reads. John is in isolation, he is on an island; but he is in "the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus". They are one idea: "the tribulation and kingdom and patience" are all governed by one article; your New Translation will show you that too. It is an idea that attaches normally to a true follower of Jesus, to a true witness of Jesus; although he may be isolated he is in "the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus"; not of Jesus, but in Jesus. These things are in Jesus; they are fixed; they cannot be affected by any public condition. The severest conditions are included in the first word, "tribulation"; and the kingdom in Jesus is immutable. Other kingdoms may fall, and some may rise, but this one never falls; it is immutable; it is in Jesus.

[Page 4]

Well, John puts himself alongside of us in that way, and he says, "I became in the Spirit on the Lord's day", Revelation 1:10. He is a real christian, a real follower of Jesus, a bondman of Jesus; but he is a fellow-partaker, a companion of the saints in these things. He is assuming that the saints are in these things: "the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus". It is the tribulation in Jesus, it is the kingdom in Jesus, and it is the patience in Jesus; and he is assuming that the saints are in them all, associated with him in holy bonds never to be dissolved. That is the position in this book.

Then he says, "I became in the Spirit on the Lord's day" -- recognising that the Lord Jesus has to do with time, and that He can select a day to call His own day. His own authoritative day. How can I recognise the authority of Jesus more than by being in the Spirit? He says, "I became in the Spirit on the Lord's day". The Spirit here and Jesus on high at God's right hand are correlative, and John was exactly in his orbit; he could not be more so than he was at this moment. He was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and in his orbit. You say, How could he move? He is limited as on an island, and no doubt in a prison, but he moves spiritually, unlimited by the island, or the prison, or the cell. That is what christianity is. And he says, "I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet". It is like Samuel called up out of his rest. Samuel complained, asking why he should be called up out of his rest. He came up to speak a word about Saul; he condemned Saul. John is called back here to condemn what corresponds with Saul in our own day, the man after the flesh in the place of rule. This book calls attention to that man and shows how he is to be dealt with finally, as seen in the man of sin; for that is what he is, the full development of sin. He is seen as taken, and the false prophet too, and cast alive into the lake of fire. That is what this book brings

[Page 5]

out; it is one of the last things you get before you get the heavenly city. John is called out from the holy enjoyment of the Spirit on the Lord's day, to see all this; very different from what he had been engaged with "in the Spirit".

That is only one feature of the Apocalypse; the book is enchased by the most glorious representations of divine Persons; also of the assembly and other families of the redeemed. And in this respect it is remarkable that the first thing John sees is the assembly. He says, "And I turned back to see the voice which spoke with me; and having turned, I saw seven golden lamps", Revelation 1:12. These lamps represent the assembly, Revelation 1:20. Someone may say. You are beclouding Christ; you are putting the assembly before Christ. Well, the Spirit of God does here, verbally anyway. The truth is that the assembly belongs to Christ, and if it is brought into view first, it is that Christ might be there. She is His bride and witness and she makes way for Him. God is bringing out assembly truth, and in order to make assembly truth practical He needs to get assembly material. Assembly truth is one thing, but assembly material is another; and then assembly material must be put into form and built up. When that is done there is a place for Christ.

So John says, "I saw seven golden lamps, and in the midst of the seven lamps one like the Son of man", Revelation 1:12,13. I need not say more about that, but if there is anybody here who does not understand assembly truth, I would advise you to make inquiry. There are a good many here who could tell you something about it, thank God! The next thing is assembly material, and if you began sincerely to inquire about assembly I truth, those who are in the assembly will conclude that you are assembly material, and they will soon make room for you. There is a place for you; it is waiting. Your seat is empty. There is a place for you, and as

[Page 6]

soon as you take your place you will see something of the Lord Jesus, that is, in the assembly. That is where He is to be seen. Of course, we see Him crowned with glory and honour at the right hand of God, but He is to be seen in the assembly. In this book He is seen in the assembly, not exactly sitting or standing, but walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks.

It is important in the understanding of this book to see that the first thing John saw was these seven lamps, meaning the seven assemblies, and in the next two chapters, the Lord writes letters through John to each of these assemblies. They are all written in the same book; it is all one book, but a letter to each assembly is in the book. That brings me to the end of chapter 3. And again I would appeal to any here who may not understand what I am speaking of, to inquire about it. If you are a christian at all, inquire about the truth of the assembly. You see, it is at the very forefront of the book, in the prefatory part, and now it is in the body of the book. In the beginning the first thing seen by the prophet is the assembly; and in the next two chapters it is addressed in the writing of the Lord Jesus to the seven assemblies. I do say, dear brethren and young people here, that this ought to be attractive to you. The holy scenes of which I have spoken are wonderful, and we all, as of the assembly, are essential to them. Why should you not be in this great scene? You are essential to it. The Lord comes to Ephesus and knows every saint that should be at the meeting. He knows every saint in Ephesus. If He comes there and misses certain faces, He takes account of that; they are essential to what He has in mind. Each one is essential to what is in mind, so that if there are those here who do not understand what I am speaking of as to the assembly, I would urge you to inquire as to the truth of it. The Scriptures are available, and the Holy Spirit, as we seek it, guides into all the truth. There are

[Page 7]

also books which He has aided others to write, which help in the understanding of the Scriptures. The next thing is, are you material? And then, Are you in your place as a stone in the building?

Now that is the end of chapter 3. In chapter 4 we have a new scene, or at least another phase of the book. Then chapter 5 is another one; chapter 6 another; chapter 7 another; chapter 10, particularly, another; chapter 11 another, etc. One scene after another is brought before your eyes in the most holy way; they are presented in persons; certain principles or things represented in persons. In that connection we have the angel of Jesus, and the angel, or angels, of the assemblies; and we have angels otherwise designated. Now that brings out what I am saying in a very specific way -- angelic representation. In speaking of the Lord, John says, "his angel"; and He says Himself at the end, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies", Revelation 22:16. Are the assemblies all to be dissolved? No. The final and great result is one great thought, namely, the bride. In all these varied glories in this book the result is that the saints in the assemblies are all saying to the Lord Jesus along with the Spirit, "Come".

At the end of the book the assembly is brought into view for a purpose different from that at the beginning. It is now the bride. When the bride appears there is no blemish; there is no reproof, there is no criticism on the part of the Lord; but in the early chapters we have criticisms. Nevertheless the assemblies are before the Lord, and He says each one has an angel, "I Jesus have sent mine angel", the Lord says, "to testify these things to you in the assemblies". Each of the assemblies has an angel, and that brings up a very important matter, as to whether I am representative of the assembly that I am in. If God be working in the city in which I reside I should come in for that, and for the very best

[Page 8]

of it. Why not? It is for me. Each assembly has its own distinction; but if that distinction is of any value, it is because of the work of God there. Character in a natural sense taken from the locality is of no value at all. If there is a distinctive characteristic in the town in which I am living, I am apt to imbibe it. That is detrimental. One great thought of the assembly is that it is heavenly, and that is what comes out concretely in chapter 21. It comes down out of heaven from God. I need to get that great thought into my soul if I am to get the gain of what is before us. And so, if I live in this town I must be representative of what is here. If there is anything of God in this town, I do not want to be behind in that; I want to be fully in it. Sometimes we hear brethren referring to those who are leading, those who are holding things for the Lord, as they and them instead of we and us. The sooner you begin to say we and us the more quickly you will come into the front rank in the work of God.

Now, I trust all understand that I am trying to make things practical. The Lord is seeking to bring us into the great idea of the assembly, and this book is remarkable as to how it presents the assembly. It presents it in concrete things; whether it is the local gathering in Ephesus, or whether it is the bride, the ideas presented are concrete. They are not beyond my understanding. A great city is not beyond my understanding; nor is a local company of saints; nor is a bride. These are all spiritual thoughts, but also practical, and I want to be in the current of them. If I am in this town in relation to the local company, I want to be representative of it wherever I go, but representative only of what is of God. What is the good of carrying anything else? Phoebe went to Rome; she had never been there before, I suppose. It was a long way. She went to Rome from Cenchrea, which was near Corinth. She is connected with the assembly in Cenchrea; that is the point the

[Page 9]

apostle makes. Who is she? She is in a sense the angel of the assembly there. Picture her in Rome, in the house of a spiritual sister, and another sister goes to see her. Will Phoebe bring out the latest social ideas in Cenchrea? No! She will not. She is a servant of the assembly at Cenchrea, and she will talk about the saints in Cenchrea. In Rome she will represent the assembly at Cenchrea; that is what she would wish to do, I am sure. She had the apostle Paul's recommendation. What better could she have? She was a representative; she was an angel, you might say, in that sense.

You will see what I am seeking to make clear. God intends the heavenly character of the assembly to be reflected in the localities where the saints are, and as each one in a given place reflects that, he is a representative of the work of God there. All that is embodied in the seven epistles. That principle runs through them all. If we link them all together we shall see how the golden thread of angelic representation is unfolded. When the Lord Jesus says, Mine angel, that is a literal angel that represents Him, but when He says "To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write": that is the assembly's angel, -- some person or persons in the town that the Lord takes account of in that way. If the representative is poor, then He will rebuke him. If the representative is acceptable and according to heaven, He will praise him. Alas! there are only one or two assemblies free from rebuke! I am speaking of representation, in this way, so that God might have, through His work in His people, representatives on earth at the present time. I believe He has them.

To confirm what I am saying, it is noteworthy that the saints in the beginning had the idea of representation. You see it in the house of Mary when Peter was released from the prison, a most interesting story. James was killed with the sword and Peter was put into prison, and the whole assembly began to pray about Peter. That is

[Page 10]

one encouraging thing about the present time, that the saints all over the world are praying about the same thing, and you may be sure God will do something about that. The assembly was praying unceasingly about Peter. Presently Peter was released and came to Mary's house. A maid came to listen and recognised his voice. Peter was there at the door. Those inside thought they knew better than Rhoda; they said, It is his angel. I speak of this in connection with angelic representation. Where did they get the thought? It is plain enough that the thought of angels in those days included representation. The Lord Himself says that even "little ones" have angels representing them in heaven. Rhoda said, It is Peter! Peter has just been speaking to himself; sometimes it is wholesome to talk to ourselves; it is indeed. We are told that he was asleep in the prison and an angel of the Lord came and smote him on the side. Why did he not smite him on the cheek? I suppose the angel was thinking about the side of the Lord Jesus, which had been smitten. Peter would understand that. He awakened Peter, telling him to put on his upper garment and his sandals, and follow; and he did. They passed one guard after another and nobody said anything. They went to the outer gate and it opened of itself; then they went down one street and the angel left him. Peter spoke to himself then. What a scene that was! What an experience! "Peter, being come to himself, said, Now I know certainly that the Lord has sent forth his angel and has taken me out of the hand of Herod", Acts 12:11. It was an accurate conclusion. He spoke to himself. He just says that and goes to Mary's door, and the people inside say, "It is his angel". They did not believe in such an intervention, although evidently they had prayed for it. This reminds us that we might pray for things we do not expect to get. In spite of unbelief God answered the prayers of the assembly, and Peter was at the door. Rhoda insisted

[Page 11]

that it was Peter himself, and it was. It was not his angel; it was the real Peter, that God had delivered. The Lord Jesus had sent His angel and delivered him out of the hand of Herod and from the expectation of the Jews. What triumphant thoughts these are at the present time! What God can do! Let us therefore continue to pray and expect answers. If we write of the general pressure to brethren hundreds or thousands of miles away, urge them to pray. Young men go up before the Tribunals and say, I cannot take a sword. They urgently need our prayers. That is the word for today: Pray! It is a time of isolation: we cannot move around to see the saints as we used to do, but we can pray. The assembly prayed concerning Peter in the prison, and Peter was delivered.

You will understand that I have spoken of Peter's imprisonment and deliverance in connection with the idea of representation. Now the Lord in His final word in Revelation 22:16 does not say anything about John. He says, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies". I suppose the you there would be the real ones. The Lord would discriminate most accurately in saying, you. "I Jesus ... testify these things to you in the assemblies". "He that has an ear, let him hear", Revelation 2:7. Who will hear that word; hear what the Lord is testifying to, giving us a full view pictorially in a most holy way of the prophetic history to come? There are hearers. He says, "I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star", Revelation 22:16. This is the last word, as it were, as to this whole matter. Let us wake up to the fact that we are right in the midst of all these things now, dear brethren, and that the Lord would say, I am testifying to you. That is a word for us all here. He would say, I have testified unto you, whomsoever it be, by Mine angel; that is, in the indirect way the Lord has been faithfully ministering to us all these more recent

[Page 12]

years in the assemblies. There are those who cut loose from the assemblies, free-lances, who profess to be servants of Jesus, but the Lord says, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies". It is in the assemblies. And then He says, "I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star". Where are we in regard of all this wonderful testimony that has been going on? The Lord says, I have done it by Mine angel. We are on prophetic lines here; it is not direct ministry to the assembly, such as Paul's; it is prophetic; but it is, nevertheless, "in the assemblies". Where are we in regard of it? If prophetic ministry does anything, it separates us from the world, delivers us from ourselves; it makes God everything, so that He has a place amongst us. It makes Christ everything, for in the new man Christ is everything and in all. He says, "I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come". That is what I wanted to finish with: the thought of the bride in this concrete way. There are seven assemblies, which is very simple; there is the great city coming down, which is in itself comprehensible, because it is measured; it is a measurable thing. It is not infinite, it is finite. Then there is this most precious thought -- the bride. The spirit of prophecy says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come". If someone has an ear to hear that voice, and say, Come, to the Lord Jesus, that is really the great end of this book; that the Lord has reached the concrete thought of the bride; the saints active in marital affection; and she wants Him to come. It is not simply to come for her, for His glory is her glory, and the come would mean coming out in display, when she is to be in display with Him. That is a great thought in the book, dear brethren, and the Lord would put it upon our hearts that we might be saying day and night to the Lord Jesus -- Come!

[Page 13]

THE SERVICE OF GOD MAINTAINED IN DIFFICULT DAYS

Leviticus 8:31 - 36; 2 Chronicles 13:4 - 17

J.T. Before proceeding to dwell on the service of God in the difficult times of which the Scriptures speak, times illustrated in 2 Chronicles 13, it is thought well that we should look at it under normal circumstances. This chapter in Leviticus depicts the consecration of the priests; it is the disclosure of the mind of God as to Christ and the saints; Christ as the true Aaron, and ourselves as the sons of Aaron. The mind of God as to the priests is depicted in the chapter so that we might have understanding of the priesthood. As the consecration takes place, the verses read show that Aaron and his sons were to abide at the entrance of the tent of meeting day and night, seven days, to keep the charge of Jehovah. Then we are told in the last verse that "Aaron and his sons did all things that Jehovah had commanded by the hand of Moses". Thus we have the position from the divine side and the service inaugurated under favourable circumstances.

W.B-w. Answering to what took place at Pentecost at the beginning?

J.T. Yes. Aaron and his sons had charge of the service of God and they were to keep that charge day and night for the whole period, the whole spiritual period; there was to be no cessation in the service. Abijah's speech recorded in 2 Chronicles shows that the service went on in Jerusalem although the kingdom had become divided, and a state of rebellion existed. It is very beautiful to see how Abijah is able to set out the position, showing that the kingdom was set up in the hands of the sons of David. First he says, "Ought ye not to know that Jehovah the God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?" And then he exhorts the

[Page 14]

Israelites too, saying, "do not fight with Jehovah the God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper". God answered him, giving complete victory, and it is because the service of God is continued in spite of difficulties.

C.G. Why do you think the seven days is brought in in Leviticus?

J.T. I think it would be a complete period of testimony; it is to go on during the whole period, night and day; as with Anna, the prophetess, she departed not from the temple, "serving night and day with fastings and prayers", Luke 2:37.

C.G. You get the same thought with Joshua in the tabernacle, do you not?

J.T. Yes; he remained in the tent, Exodus 33:11. It shuts out the idea of optional feeling as regards the service of God. No one can say that it makes no difference whether he is there or not. He is to be there; the service is to go on. Trifles should not be allowed to hinder us.

C.A.M. It is a case of whether we are going on with God or whether we are fighting against God. If we really give God His place everything will be clarified, will it not?

J.T. Quite so. You can see the urgency of the word in the verses read in Leviticus. "Ye shall abide at the entrance of the tent of meeting day and night seven days, and keep the charge of Jehovah"; and "Aaron and his sons did all things that Jehovah had commanded by the hand of Moses". That is to call attention to the perfection of what God had inaugurated, and of course that is to continue.

Ques. Would you say, too, that in Leviticus the service is to go on in freshness?

J.T. Yes. The priests are provided for by boiled flesh. It says, "Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and there eat it and the bread that is in the basket of the consecration-offering, as I commanded,

[Page 15]

saying, Aaron and his sons shall eat it". So they have suitable food where they are, at the entrance of the tent.

R.W.S. What is the thought in the allusion to the handful? The note to the word consecrated at the end of verse 33 says, shall your hands be filled, and, took a handful.

J.T. "Ye shall not go out from the entrance of the tent of meeting seven days, until the day when the days of your consecration are at an end: for seven days shall ye be consecrated" -- that is, shall your hands be filled. They would be wholly occupied with God's service. You do not take on anything else; one's profession, or the like, should not interfere.

C.A.M. As to this charge and being wholly in these things, would not the fact that it is a charge, and that it is to be continued the entire period, emphasise that it is not optional?

J.T. I thought that the consecration means being wholly occupied with this thing, filled full. The apostles said, for instance, "It is not right that we, leaving the word of God, should serve tables", Acts 6:2. They had in mind that they should keep to the one thing; although Paul served tables, but clearly the apostles had in mind that they should be occupied with one thing, the word of God. Here, of course, it is the charge, "keep the charge of Jehovah".

W.B.W. The conflict is not contemplated here. The enemy is not seen working from without in this chapter.

J.T. It is normal. We see in the end of Exodus that as the tabernacle was set up every item in it was functioning; nothing was idle. In Eli's time they had beds there; the priests evidently slept there, which was never thought of primarily; day and night they were to keep the charge. So that we have in the psalms the word, "Behold, bless Jehovah, all ye servants of Jehovah, who by night stand in the house of Jehovah. Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless Jehovah", Psalm 134:1,2.

[Page 16]

The house of God is not a place for sleeping, nor is it a place for eating, except the Lord's supper; we have houses to eat in and houses to sleep in. The house of God is not for ministering to one's natural desires or needs.

R.W.S. "... that ye die not" -- is that the other side to it? As these things become our life there is life, but as we depart from them and become lax there is death.

J.T. I think there is too much optional feeling amongst brethren; we may be there, or we may not be there; it makes no difference in our minds. This chapter would reverse that thought -- "that ye die not", It is a most serious penalty; it alludes to one's neglect of the service of God, we being charged with it.

W.B-w. "Ye shall abide at the entrance of the tent of meeting day and night", verse 35. You would not be neglecting it if you were abiding there.

J.T. Quite. "Aaron and his sons did all things that Jehovah had commanded by the hand of Moses", showing the service was carried out as directed; and of course that standard is set up and is to continue; any deviation from it comes under penalty, "that ye die not", verse 35.

A.C. Referring to the food of the sons of Aaron; there is another scripture, Deuteronomy 18, that speaks of this, "the shoulder, and the jawbones, and the maw", Deuteronomy 18:3.

J.T. The shoulder is a question of strength; the jawbone is for mastication, and the maw is for digestion. That is general constitutional food for the priest, but this is boiled flesh; the flesh of consecration. It is a thing by itself, a higher suggestion as to food. It is the ram of consecration. Consecration means that I am devoted to this one thing for the whole period, and this food supports me in it.

A.C. One is impressed with the continuity of the service -- day and night.

J.T. The food here is boiled flesh, the flesh of the

[Page 17]

consecration offering, implying that the priests are absolutely devoted to the will of God. There is nothing optional in it. The priest is always ready to do the will of God; he is devoted to the will of God in His service, and if I am appropriating Christ in that way I shall be equal to the continuance of the service.

Ques. Would the idea of obedience enter into these verses?

J.T. Clearly; the Spirit of God tells us that Aaron and his sons did all things that were commanded by the hand of Moses; that is a fine tribute, that you do what is enjoined.

R.W.S. In addition to the flesh there is the bread in the basket. It says in verse 31, "Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and there eat it and the bread that is in the basket of the consecration-offering".

J.T. Bread in these connections is usually an allusion to the humanity of Christ, only it is not fine flour, it is actually baked; it is kept in a basket: "the bread that is in the basket of the consecration-offering", Leviticus 8:31 It is cared for in a utensil, showing that it is a special thing; both the flesh and the bread are special. The flesh is boiled. Except for some general references in Ezekiel 46 the word 'boil' in this connection is scarcely used save in this chapter and in Exodus 29, where the same subject is treated of. The bread with which the flesh was eaten was in the basket of the consecration-offering; this would mean I think, that it is of very great value, kept in a vessel; and if it is not all eaten, "that which remaineth of the flesh and of the bread shall ye burn with fire", verse 32. It was not allowed to be carried over; it is to ensure freshness in every eating.

W.B-w. What is the difference in the action of the fire between roasting and boiling?

J.T. The roasting is direct action of the fire, as we have often noticed, like Matthew and Mark; these gospels speak of the Lord saying, "My God, my God,

[Page 18]

why hast thou forsaken me?", Matthew 27:46. Luke and John omit that part. All the evangelists, of course, record the death of Christ; death is there, only you may have death in a modified way, so that less suffering is attached to it. So, spiritually, you omit what refers to extreme suffering at certain times.

A.N.W. Why is making atonement linked with the consecration in verse 34? It says, "so Jehovah hath commanded to do, to make atonement for you".

J.T. It is the exalted feature of the atonement as applying to priesthood. Of course that atonement applies to all christians, but then there is the exalted appropriation of it; that is, a priestly appropriation of it. The priests have a more exalted thought of everything, and God looks for a true appreciation of His things. Some are not able to appreciate them fully, but priests ought to be able to appreciate them. Paul's thought of the death of Christ would be of this character; he says, "who has loved me and given himself for me", Galatians 2:20; and, "as the Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it", Ephesians 5:25. These are exalted thoughts as to the atonement; not simply the appeasement of God, but all that enters into it, involving love; not only love to God, though there is love to God in it, as the Lord says, "On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life ... .", John 10:17. We love Him too.

Ques. Would you say then that from a priestly standpoint, deep pressure and suffering only bring out the holiness of God? Psalm 22 says, "thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel", Psalm 22:3.

J.T. Yes; only the boiling here would mean that the priests advance more to the Person of Christ and what is in Him; not only what He has done, but what He is Himself, what is in Him; because the consecration-offering includes the Lord Himself. We are linked up with Christ in this chapter; it is the consecration of

[Page 19]

Aaron and his sons, so that it is personal between Him and us, so to speak.

F.S.C. Is this word consecration the same as we get in relation to the Nazarite in Numbers 6?

J.T. There is a link; in Numbers it is separation; in Leviticus 8 it is "filling of hand". It is priesthood -- filled out before God, with Christ; typically seen in the chapter under consideration. It is spiritual positiveness, whereas Nazariteship is more negative -- what is to be refused. As the days of his separation end, the Nazarite comes into and is marked by great spiritual wealth before God, corresponding with the priest in our chapter.

W.B-w. Does the basket refer to believers individually, or is it collective, referring to what took place at the day of Pentecost?

J.T. It is the idea of a containing vessel. The Israelites were to borrow utensils, or demand them of the Egyptians, and among these would be containing vessels. You keep things in a suitable way. Hence the woman of Sarepta whom Elijah visited, had the meal in a barrel, and the oil in a cruse. The vessels are mentioned, as though God would have things properly kept; in many instances you get this. In John 2 there were six waterpots of stone; in chapter 4 you have the woman of Samaria taking in the thought of a vessel from the Lord's ministry: "the water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life", verse 14. In him, implies the containing vessel; so she leaves her waterpot and goes away into the city, meaning that she understood the teaching. She is the best example we can get of a person absorbing the teaching.

J.T.Jr. Would it be like the Thessalonians, learning how to possess our vessels in sanctification?

J.T. That is it exactly. Let each one know how to do it. Some have said that our ministry is made, perhaps, too plain. The Lord does not always make

[Page 20]

things so plain. In what He is saying, the woman of Samaria absorbed or discerned the force of His teaching without His having to say to her, You are a vessel. He does not say that; but He does say that the water He will give anyone shall be in that person a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. Inferentially, that person is a vessel, and the woman saw that without needing to have it explained.

C.A.M. That is very interesting. If we dwell on that in our minds we shall see the great value of being in the spirit of inquiry when the Lord makes a suggestion.

J.T. Yes; He says, for instance, to the disciples, "Have ye understood all these things? They say to him, Yea, Lord". Then the Lord immediately says, "Every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens" -- notice, it is one discipled; he is a learner, taking account of things, weighing them up -- "is like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old", Matthew 13:52. He keeps the things he has learned.

C.A.M. I was thinking of Luke 24, and the Lord making Himself known to the two on the way to Emmaus; the way He did it; the wisdom He used; the time that elapsed as He conversed with them; His going into the house; breaking the bread and giving it into their hands, etc., whether all that was not perfectly timed in accordance with their spirit of inquiry?

J.T. I am sure it was. The whole chapter is touching in that sense, the Lord coming down to where we are; so that He even goes in the wrong direction with us; that is, if we are in the wrong direction He even goes as far as that. If He has to do that, He is humbled in doing it. He went away from Jerusalem, but the two were brought back. They were turned back, not by His wonderful exposition of the Scripture, but by the impression left upon them when He broke the bread and vanished!

[Page 21]

A.P.T. You were speaking about optional matters. Is it not incumbent upon us to follow out the assembly service weekly, each meeting inclusive of every other meeting, as far as we are able to do so? Do you think that is the suggestion in the ministry this afternoon, that we should addict ourselves to the meetings on Lord's day and other meetings throughout the week?

J.T. I think that is, perhaps, the word for us now, whether each one takes it to himself. Even the announcements you make you yourself are apt to forget.

J.S. Is John 7 an exemplification of the working of the vessel? "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water", John 7:38.

J.T. Just so. They are under control; rivers are under control and have banks, so that the water is not lost; the idea of the banks is that the water is conserved, kept in a course so that it will be of use. This is God's thought; the river is moving and carrying fructifying power with it. It conveys the idea of influence for good. In John 7 the use of the word 'river' would imply that the water is under control, it does not issue forth just anywhere and become lost, spilt upon the ground. The allusion, I suppose, is to Genesis 2. The river flowed out of Eden, it entered the garden, and from thence it was parted into four heads. The word heads is the literal word and is, I think, what is meant; the water is under control, four main streams under control, and it becomes universally beneficial.

J.T.Jr. Would you say the believer thus is to have himself under control? Romans 7 bears that thought, that we are to have control over ourselves.

J.T. Quite so. If you have received anything in the way of help of that kind, the brethren are to get the best service from it. You do not say everything that comes into your mind; you are concerned as to what you are going to say, to whom you are going to speak, and you get before the Lord about it and control what you have;

[Page 22]

you do not have to say everything you know. It is just one thing at a time. Meetings for edification ought to be marked in this way.

Going on to our second scripture, Jeroboam had eight hundred thousand men under him and Abijah had four hundred thousand men, showing that those who had departed from the truth had the greater number; hence numbers do not determine anything. Abijah gives a clear account of the position. There is not much to say about this king; he is like a brother to whom God gives a place at a given time, and he does well under certain circumstances. If you inquire into his history in 1 Kings, you would not expect much, if anything, so that we are not to judge a man just by part of his history; we must get the whole of his history, and especially the part in which God used him. This chapter gives a remarkable account of a service in which God used this king, Abijah; he went up, we are told in verse 4, to the mountain of Zemaraim, which is in mount Ephraim. This is to his credit; he took elevated ground. He says, "Hear me, Jeroboam, and all Israel! Ought ye not to know that Jehovah the God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, to him and to his sons ... ?" 2 Chronicles 13:4,5. Jeroboam had eight hundred thousand warriors, but he was not of the house of David; he is disqualified at once. Other things, of course, modify this, but this is the truth, Jeroboam was not of the house of David. Abijah says: "But Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up and rebelled against his lord. And vain men, sons of Belial, gathered to him and strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted, and did not shew himself strong against them. And now ye think to shew yourselves strong against the kingdom of Jehovah in the hand of the sons of David; and ye are a great multitude, and ye have with you the golden calves that Jeroboam

[Page 23]

made you for gods. Have ye not cast out the priests of Jehovah, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made you priests as the peoples of the lands? whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, he becomes a priest of what is not God", 2 Chronicles 13:6 - 9. That is a very good setting out of the truth from the standpoint of the book of Chronicles, because it is a question of the house of David. Abijah is not saying anything as to his own qualities or those of others, but that the service of God is going on according to the appointment, and that the kingdom is in the hands of the sons of David. These are the important points; that is, the counsels of God and the service of God as over against a man like Jeroboam who is not of the house of David, and has brought in idolatry. The fact that he has a great number with him does not prove anything. Five hundred thousand of Jeroboam's chosen men were slain in the battle, 2 Chronicles 13:17.

C.A.M. The first thing he seems to emphasise is the matter of sonship in connection with David. "Jehovah the God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt".

J.T. Yes. I think it is a great point at the present time to keep the purpose of God before us, whatever has happened. Someone might say, David -- what was he? Think of this, that and the other thing about him that was discreditable! But we are dealing now with the purpose of God; Abijah is dealing with the purpose of God, that God made a covenant of salt with David and his sons. The true King is the Son of David, "I am the root and offspring of David", the Lord says, Revelation 22:16.

Rem. The covenant of salt is going through.

J.T. Yes. Salt means what preserves; it prevents corruption.

Ques. Did not Abijah appeal to the men of Israel -- "Ought ye not to know?"

[Page 24]

J.T. They ought to know; what he is saying is public knowledge; the Scriptures testify to it, and this is most important at the present time. The testimony of Scripture is always conclusive.

R.W.S. Is there something of the abstract side in verse 10 where he says, "But as for us, Jehovah is our God, and we have not forsaken him". Despite elements of forsaking, the general position was right; is that your thought?

J.T. I think it is in keeping with Chronicles, which gives the abstract side of David's history; David's great sins are omitted, or at least the worst of them are. This man must have come under divine influence for the moment, because his history does not agree with this generally, but his speech here agrees with the purpose of God. As you say, it is an abstract condition and unless we get to the abstract in a day of cloudy departure, we shall never get to the real truth of matters. The truth must go through, the Son of David is the ruler; it is a covenant of salt, it will never fail.

Ques. Would you say the house of Chloe and the house of Stephanas in Corinth were holding on to the abstract truth? The current conditions were challenging the Lord and His authority in Corinth, yet there were those who were true to the position and you might say holding in their affections what they had been brought into as the mind and purpose of God.

J.T. Yes. If the abstract state were not in some sense corresponded to in Corinth you could not have the epistle at all, so that the apostle enjoins them to purge out the old leaven, and yet he says, "according as ye are unleavened", 1 Corinthians 5:7. That is the abstract. You cannot have the assembly without that.

A.C. The Lord says, "Ye are the salt of the earth", Matthew 5:13. In alluding to salt, would Abijah have in mind that there were some preservative features?

J.T. Yes. There is not only the stability of divine

[Page 25]

purpose, but also the great preservative element in the presence of the Spirit of God down here. The Holy Spirit has been here ever since Pentecost and so divine things have been preserved. That is the idea in the salt. The things of God go through, and will go through; the point for us is to be in that; then we are practically the salt of the earth. It says of Mary that she took "a pound of ointment of pure nard", without a word being said in John about the alabaster box. The box would preserve, but she herself was that, in keeping with John's gospel; like the woman in chapter 4, -- she was a vessel too. So that there is the power in the saints of God through the Spirit that preserves things and carries them down. Hence Jude, in order to carry the truth down, says, "But ye, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life", Jude 1:20,21.

R.W.S. In our chapter the truth is carried down. Each item Abijah mentions, he mentions as functioning normally.

J.T. Just so, that is what I was thinking. He goes on to say in verse 9: "Have ye not cast out the priests of Jehovah, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made you priests as the peoples of the lands? ... But as for us, Jehovah is our God, and we have not forsaken him; and the priests that serve Jehovah are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites are at their work: and they burn to Jehovah every morning and every evening burnt-offerings and sweet incense; the loaves also are set in order upon the pure table; and the candlestick of gold with its lamps to burn every evening: for we keep the charge of Jehovah our God; but ye have forsaken him. And behold, we have God with us at our head, and his priests, and the loud-sounding trumpets to sound an alarm against you. Children of Israel, do not fight with Jehovah the God of your fathers; for ye shall not

[Page 26]

prosper", 2 Chronicles 13:9 - 12. What a strong position that is! He cites the fact that the service is going on despite the conditions, and that "we have God with us at our head". It is like the remnant in relation to Emmanuel in Isaiah, as the Assyrian comes up and goes too far, the remnant says, "God is with us". If the enemy interferes with Emmanuel's land, God will deal with him.

C.A.M. A true priest really has everything. Abijah shows that Judah had everything pertaining to the service of God. Do you think the gospel of Luke shows that Jerusalem, whatever else could be said about it, was at least in a central position and that the service was there?

J.T. The Lord leaves the disciples engaged in the service; they were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. That is the end of Luke. In the beginning of the Acts we have at the end of chapter 2 the description of what was there; it shows the service of God going on whatever happens.

F.S.C. It says in 1 Kings in regard to Abijah that God gave him a lamp for David His servant's sake.

J.T. That is in agreement with the position here. It is a question of David. It is the purpose of God, what God has decreed must go through, and that is the point he makes here. I think this is the saving position of Abijah, that he can say this. He does not call attention to himself, but to David; he does not say, "the son of David", but, "the sons of David". It is the general position right down to Christ.

A.B.P. The chronicler records, "And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways and his sayings, are written in the treatise of the prophet Iddo", 2 Chronicles 13:22. That would bear on what is said in this chapter, it forms a basis for prophetic ministry in a sense.

J.T. Yes. That his life was recorded by the prophet is very suggestive. That service begins with David's life, of which Samuel, Nathan and Gad wrote. The acts of Solomon were also written by prophets, and now

[Page 27]

"the acts of Abijah, and his ways and his sayings, are written in the treatise of the prophet Iddo". A prophet discerns and is likely to record the doings of a servant according to his motives, and that is really how they should be recorded. What motives have you? You may fail in them, but the underlying motives are what God looks at. He looks at the heart.

A.P.T. Is that so with Zacharias in Luke 1? God was looking at the underlying motives -- he really had right thoughts in relation to the service of God.

J.T. Yes. There must have been something that God would carry through to bring him out in such a remarkable way at the end of the chapter, because he speaks wonderfully after his mouth was opened.

S.F. Was not Abijah's testimony rendered in the sphere of Jeroboam's influence -- in the territory over which was king -- in mount Ephraim? He rendered his testimony in the sphere of rebellion.

J.T. Quite so; it was in the territory of Jeroboam, where the testimony was needed.

A.N.W. The loud-sounding trumpets are there as well as the service of God, and as the attack is made by Jeroboam they are sounded; that is part of the service: "and the loud-sounding trumpets to sound an alarm against you", 2 Chronicles 13:12.

J.T. I suppose the allusion is to Numbers 10it speaks there of the use of these trumpets at such a time. It would confirm how the service of God is carried on even in the battlefield: "And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before Jehovah your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies", Numbers 10:9. They were doing that, they carried the testimony right into the battlefield; they did not neglect that part of it.

Rem. Would that not be encouraging, that in spite of all the pressure in Europe the service goes on?

[Page 28]

J.T. That is the whole point of our reading. Think of our brethren, many of them under great pressure, and how stimulating it is to hear from time to time that the meetings go on as usual! And they will go on, doubtless, by God's help.

F.N.W. Is the threat to the service of God at present largely political, and are we to expect the threat religiously according to this chapter?

J.T. Well, the present attack is not directly against the saints, though the enemy is evidently trying to dislocate the service of God. It is an international matter, it is a world matter, but it affects us as in the world, and the question is how we move. In chapter 15 God says to Asa, "Jehovah is with you while ye are with him", 2 Chronicles 15:2. We are to find out what God has in His mind in all that is transpiring, because the nations are under Him, and as God sees us exercised in that way He says, I am with you. That is the point Abijah makes here; he says, "And behold, we have God with us at our head", a very remarkable thing; not captain, but head, corresponding with what David had said, "thou art exalted as Head", 1 Chronicles 29:11. Who can stand against the wisdom of God?

J.T.Jr. You might say the highest point is touched in that reference of David; he says, "thou art exalted as Head above all", I suppose David there touches the highest point of his ministry.

J.T. I thought that Abijah seems to have been helped of God; it would seem he was taken out of himself; he was taken to the mount of God and God helped him to set out the truth in this striking manner, ending up with this remarkable statement: "And behold, we have God with us at our head, and his priests, and the loud-sounding trumpets to sound an alarm against you", 2 Chronicles 13:12. If Jeroboam had read Numbers 10 he would have known that Abijah must have meant that he was an enemy of God's people.

[Page 29]

Rem. Despite his testimony Jeroboam went on to make a desperate attack by ambush; it shows the hardening of the heart.

J.T. Quite so, and that is what is going on now; this testimony that Abijah sounds out from the mountain has been going on for one hundred years or more, calling attention to the purpose of God, that the rule is in the hands of David and his sons; and calling attention to the service of God, the priests of God and the Levites of God, and that God is with certain people. Well, what are the others doing? They are carrying on, and attacking what is of God, so that their position is most serious.

Ques. Do you think the remedy with us is to thoroughly judge ourselves?

J.T. Quite so. These trumpets imply that. We should hear them, they are loud-sounding ones, meaning that the testimony is sounded out.

W.B-w. We are to keep going on with the sons of David in the kingdom, in the public side; and with the sons of Aaron in the house, in the private side; is that how the service goes on?

J.T. Yes.

W.B-w. And when the crisis comes in the battle they cry out to Jehovah, verse 14.

J.T. You can see how lawlessness moves in verse 13. After all this wonderful speech of Abijah it says, "But Jeroboam caused an ambush to come about behind them; and they were before Judah, and the ambush behind them. And Judah looked back, and behold, they had the battle in front and behind; and they cried to Jehovah, and the priests sounded with the trumpets". They sounded at the right time. "And the men of Judah gave a shout; and as the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah", verses 13 - 15. It is remarkable, showing how the opposition has gone on in spite of

[Page 30]

the testimony God is giving, but that God is dealing with it and will deal with it. The book of Revelation, of course, opens up with this solemn fact of what God will do; what God will do with all the elements of opposition to Himself.

R.W.S. Is this ambush like the enemies of the truth going back to ministry of one hundred years ago in order to attack and refute current ministry?

J.T. Quite so; the ambush, I think, is the idea of encirclement. You see, there is no hope for Judah at all; the enemy are just getting around them and they are in the midst, but the men of Judah (and there you have the purpose of God) shouted, and God moved for them.

A.R.S. This scripture seems to throw a great deal of light upon all the divisions of the last one hundred years; it is rebellion that is at the bottom of the whole history. Why is it that though Abijah makes such a very clear statement, and seems to be a valuable man, yet he only lasts three years?

J.T. Well, this is his best year; this is the best bit of work he did. You would not think much of him if you confined yourself to the book of Kings; but I think it is wonderful that God can use a man who is not perhaps equal to what he is saying, but is saying what is right. We have already had it that there were things that Joab dedicated, and that Abner dedicated and that Saul dedicated. What is right is right, in whomsoever it is found.

C.A.M. Do you think that where there is a rebel condition, or some unusual situation, it would be like God to use an unlikely sort of man? As you say, there does not seem to be anything to say in favour of this man except what this chapter gives us, but evidently he was the right man for the moment.

J.T. You have an instance of it too in Balaam: remarkable prophecies, but the man not at all in keeping with them. So with a man like Jehu, greatly used against

[Page 31]

a certain evil and yet poorly formed. We must go on with what is done, if right, and value it because of what is in itself. So Abijah exposes Jeroboam's evil conduct; he exposes the evil, but he brings out the good in a beautiful way, and from an elevated position -- from the top of the mountain.

[Page 32]

CHRIST AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

Matthew 11:7 - 15; John 1:26 - 34; John 3:27 - 30

I wish to speak of Christ and John the baptist. In the first scripture Christ is speaking about John the baptist, and in the second and third scriptures John the baptist is speaking about Christ. As prone to speak of one another, we have a good example in these scriptures of how it should be done. To speak to one another is commended, that is, among those who fear the Lord. Those who do not fear Him may speak to one another unprofitably. There is much of that kind of speaking, but we are enjoined that our "word be always with grace, seasoned with salt", Colossians 4:6. Those who feared the Lord, it is said, spoke often one to another. We are not told what they said to one another, but they spoke often to one another. The conversation was not unprofitable, nor unholy, for it is said that "Jehovah observed it, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them", Malachi 3:16. Remarkably touching! We may be sure every word was profitable. If one of the saints not present who feared the Lord was spoken of, it would not be to traduce his character, or to criticise unreasonably. Jehovah would soon rebuke that. It is said that He hearkened and heard. His ear and His interest are called into attention as to what is being said. I believe we have but little idea how interested heaven is in the saints. As soon as one begins to repent of his sins, before he is a saint at all, he is causing joy in heaven; there is joy in heaven "for one repenting sinner", Luke 15:7. It has often been remarked that it is not only one that has repented, but a 'repenting sinner'. If a christian does wrong, as judging himself he causes joy in heaven; he is a repenting sinner. So that we can reasonably say even as to this that heaven is full of joy all the time; for there are many repenting sinners, not only those who are just converted,

[Page 33]

but those who were converted years ago, in that they are characteristically repenting persons. When the apostle Paul said to the high priest, "God will smite thee, whited wall", Acts 23:3 he did not know that he was speaking to the high priest, but he repented immediately. He recovered himself. He adjusted himself at once, and that is one of the most wholesome features among the brethren. We are not to carry unforgiven sins, but to deal with them immediately; thus joy is caused in heaven and reconciliation is caused on earth, and healthy conditions are maintained among the saints.

So we find at the mount of transfiguration that the Lord made a selection of certain disciples and took them up on to the mount with Him, and He was transfigured before them; His countenance became different. There were two men who appeared in glory speaking with Jesus. I That is a beautiful scene; spiritually we may visualise it. It does not say that He was speaking with them, but that they were speaking with Him. We are told what the subject was; they were speaking about His departure at Jerusalem. The original word is 'exodus', and it reminds one of the book of Exodus. The Lord was going out of this world through the death that awaited Him at Jerusalem. Moses and the children of Israel went out of Egypt through the Red Sea. Moses and Elias were speaking to Him about His exodus. What a theme! I would like to have heard just what Moses said, and what Elias said. I am only referring to it, because it is a conversation between the Lord Jesus and two of His disciples; heaven was listening to that!

At the time of our Lord's history as recorded in Matthew 11 John the baptist had been arrested and was in prison. He was a comparatively young man. Possibly some here picture John as an older brother, but he was beheaded when he was not yet thirty-five years of age; his work was done under that age. Now he sends a message to Jesus. The character of it was on account of

[Page 34]

the exceeding pressure that he was in. Why should he be cast into prison? Why should any of the Lord's people or servants be greatly pressed by conditions? It comes about in the government of God. Why should it be? The enemy would seek to cause such a condition to lead to scepticism. Unconverted people are constantly saying, If there be a God, why should He allow such things? Why does He allow such a man as John the baptist to be put into prison? We might just as well go back and say, Why should Job be attacked by the devil? or Why should there be a devil? Is God required to give an answer to us for all that He does? Does He regard Himself as obligated to us? Faith says, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25. This right attitude saves us from scepticism arising from the governmental dealings of God. These things are often a veil, but there is the holiest into which we can go through the veil to see all God's mind in Christ; though we must keep in mind that "his ways past finding out!" His way is in the sea, and His pathway in deep waters, so that we may as well humble ourselves and recognise that God is not obligated to us to give us an account of all His providential actions. Simple faith would say that God is right. This preserves us from speaking foolishly like Job's wife who said to her husband, "Curse God and die".

Well now, to come back to these verses in Matthew 11, the Lord had said certain things to John's messengers which were for John. He said these things to recover his faith. It must have been a sorrow to the Lord that John should have any question about Him, so He sent a word that no doubt revived him. Then He turns to the crowd and says, "What went ye out into the wilderness to see?" Now those of us who are in fellowship have professedly come out into the wilderness, and this challenge is a question that comes right home to every one of us. When you came into fellowship, what did you expect to see?

[Page 35]

Many have come out and gone back. In the Lord's own history many of His disciples went away back and walked no more with Him. This is a challenge to us. What did each of us come out to see? Those who went to John did not find a reed shaken by the wind; he was not a man that would listen to the whisperings of everyone who came to be baptised. Suppose one of those who came to John said, I want to tell you something; there are a lot of people in Jerusalem that do not like you. Well, John would not be shaken with that wind. He would say, Did you come out here to frighten me? There are some people who would try to disturb servants in that way. In Nehemiah's time people came and told him that some were about to kill him and that he should enter the temple to protect himself; but he said, "Should such a man as I flee?" No servant of the Lord is worth the name of a servant if he flees because of such rumours. The principle in service and military activity is that of "the lion, mighty among beasts, which turneth not away for any", Proverbs 30:30. John would not listen to such stories. John would say, Did you come out to be baptised? Well, this is the baptism of repentance, not the baptism of story-telling or accusation. John would stand his ground, he was not like a reed shaken by the wind. Then the Lord says again, "What went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?" If I come out to see a man like that I show myself in accord with the Romish church which makes much of religious vestments. The Lord says, those that wear such garments are in kings' palaces. You certainly will not see them in the fellowship marked by Christ's death, nor would you have seen them on John the baptist. He was clothed in camel's hair, with a leathern girdle about his loins. In truth, the questions the Lord is asking concerning John answer themselves; he was neither a reed shaken by the wind, nor a man clothed in fine garments. "But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto

[Page 36]

you, and more than a prophet". If they came out to see a prophet, there was more than that there. This is what the Lord would stress, and so it is today: there is more in the fellowship than any of us came out to see. The more we look into the truth of Christ and the assembly, the more we find to be there. John was a lion, he stood up against what Jerusalem represents. He says, "Offspring of vipers, who has forewarned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce therefore fruit worthy of repentance ... the axe is applied to the root of the trees; every tree therefore not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire", Matthew 3:7 - 10. God is dealing in judgment with the leaders of Jerusalem, but in John we find a man who is as bold as a lion, and who did not wear fine clothes; he made no show at all. I suppose he looked as though he never went to town to buy anything, he just appropriated what the desert supplied. His clothing and food indicated this -- his food was locusts and wild honey. He had been in the deserts, not just the desert -- it was the full thought. As to ordinary outward circumstances, such was John the baptist.

Well now, I want to bring out how beautifully the Lord speaks about him. "Verily I say to you, that there is not arisen among the born of women a greater than John the baptist", Matthew 11:11. There was none greater than he among those born of women, and then the Lord says, "if ye will receive it, this is Elias, who is to come". Doubtless they had never thought of that. They had thought much of John the baptist, but they had hardly thought he was Elias that was to come. It was a question of whether they could receive this. One truly affected by John's ministry would receive the Lord's statement. He would say, The Lord says that John is Elias; I believe that; he has brought the light of God into my soul, I received deliverance through him, he led me to confess my sins, he baptised me; to my soul John's ministry is no

[Page 37]

less, it is as great as that of Elias. In this way the servants of God are defended at all times.

What did you come out to see? Young people say, I would like to break bread. What have they in view? The Lord says, What did you come out into the wilderness to see? Some have come out because others have, persons of their own age. The devil has a good advantage over you and over the meeting you are in, if that is all; brethren are suffering all over the world from that very thing. So I stress the fact that John was a desert man. It was not that he lived in Jerusalem and went to the deserts to preach; he made no attempt to be a great man from Jerusalem, although at one time Jerusalem would have highly honoured him, John 1:19 - 27.

As people come into the wilderness as breaking bread, God would hold them there. Israel went out into the wilderness. What did they go out for? There had been much light and instruction in view of their going forth: "Let my son go, that he may serve me". They were to serve God in the wilderness; that was what they were to do, but not in Egypt's religious ways. These were refused; Moses refused Egypt's ways. The people came to Sinai where they were to be taught to serve, and where they were to serve; but as in the wilderness they soon began to complain. They said, We remember the good times we had in Egypt; indeed they began to tell each other lies! They began to speak about how well off they were in Egypt, and really they had just been slaves. "When we sat", they said, "by the flesh-pots, when we ate bread to the full". As sure as possible, if you begin to turn away from the truth, if you want to go back to Egypt, you begin to tell lies; you complain, and probably say something about the leading brethren. There is always some excuse for complaint, but it is just falsehood, it is unreality. Still, in such circumstances we usually find a hopeful side; some may be saved. We want them with the truth, but not on their terms.

[Page 38]

So Moses said to Aaron, "Say to all the assembly of the children of Israel, Come near into the presence of Jehovah; for he has heard your murmurings. And it came to pass, when Aaron spoke to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, that they turned toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of Jehovah appeared in the cloud", Exodus 16:9,10. That is like the gospel of Luke. Why should not Moses himself have spoken to the people? Moses from the very nature of his office would have been obliged to speak sternly to them, to rebuke them. Aaron represents the priesthood of Christ, and there was no rebuke as Aaron speaks. "Never man spake like this man", is said of the Lord Jesus. God said of Aaron, "I know that he can speak well". Applied to Christ, such speaking would be words of grace; they marvelled at the words of grace that were coming out of the Lord's mouth, Luke 4:22. So in our dealings with the young, they may have to be rebuked, but let grace have its full scope, for we must have them if possible; only we must have them on God's terms.

When Aaron speaks to these delinquent people "they turned toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of Jehovah appeared in the cloud". If that does not really hold you, nothing will. If you are kept by other influences you will be a continual trouble to the brethren and a detriment to the testimony. The ministry of grace is to be set before the young, but if you fail to be affected, there is scarcely any hope of recovery. Where grace is despised, the parting of the ways is come; they may as well go. It is mortifying to say it, but they will be a weight and disgrace to the testimony, they may lead others away too. It involves the fellowship; there is to be no provision for the flesh. You are not going to get anything outwardly but what is of the desert if you go out to John; but there is the glory, what the Spirit provides in the assembly. What holds you is the glory; there are the Lord's sufferings and His glories; it is from

[Page 39]

glory to glory every first day of the week. If that does not hold you, you should not be there.

Now we shall look at John speaking about the Lord. The two passages are well known to us, it is a question now of how John speaks about the Lord. It is of the very greatest importance that we should be able to speak rightly about Him. The Lord asks the disciples, "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" They told Him; they knew what men were saying about the Lord. It is an important thing to speak about the Lord in the ears of the people we meet. The Lord enquires, "who do ye say that I am?" Peter says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", Matthew 16:14 - 16. Peter, John and Nathanael were outstanding confessors of the Son of God. "Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" It is a question of what you say. John the baptist says, in the verses read, "I baptise with water. In the midst of you stands, whom ye do not know, he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to unloose". What a beautiful testimony! John the baptist's remarks about Jesus always affect the hearts of those who love Him.

Then we are told that John was baptising and he sees Jesus coming to him. John was baptising. The flesh might say, John, He is coming to you. Satan was there by the banks of the Jordan to inflate him, but John was proof against that. We are so ready to be inflated! If some great person should stop us on the street to speak to us, we would feel dignified, but John was proof against that sort of thing. He sees Jesus coming to him and says, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". That is a sacrificial thought. John did not know Christ naturally, although he was related to Him, John 1:31. Clearly John's link with the Lord was to be spiritual; he came to know Him spiritually. That is the only way to know Him now. Paul says, "if even we

[Page 40]

have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer", 2 Corinthians 5:16. In christianity it is not a question of what money people have, or what honour in this world, but of what they are spiritually. John saw Jesus coming, he knew Him by His walk, it was a sacrificial walk. It is a Person going down into death for others. Everyone of us has to die, either as carrying out our baptism or actually. Jesus was immune from death, but for the moment, in figure, John sees Him as a sacrifice. He is a Man who lays down His life for His own, for His sheep, for all. In truth, if we are to know each other rightly, it must be in a spiritual way. John says he did not know the Lord, but He who sent him to baptise with water. He said to him, "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit". And he saw and bore witness that this was the Son of God. God had prepared John for this occasion, and He gave him the privilege of seeing this wonderful sight. He was fortified by God so that the devil was shut out. John was told that the Spirit would descend upon the Son of God; he was fortified, and he saw this wonderful thing, heaven opened and the Holy Spirit descending as a dove. John was assured and satisfied; he says, "I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God".

The next time he sees Him walking, and says, "Behold the Lamb of God", a beautiful word! Yesterday he called Him the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and now he leaves out the latter part; it is just, "the Lamb of God". The more you speak rightly of Christ the more full your heart will be. There were two disciples there and they were affected by what John said; the disciples heard him speak; it was in the power of the Spirit of God, and about the greatest Person. No wonder they followed Jesus! The two disciples left John and followed Jesus.

There remain to be noted the verses read in chapter 3:

[Page 41]

"John answered and said, A man can receive nothing unless it be given him out of heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am sent before him. He that has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices in heart because of the voice of the bridegroom: this my joy then is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease". This passage indicates that as we speak well of Jesus and of what He says, we shall increase in light. We get from John what we do not get from anyone else, it is the outcome of right speaking about the Lord and the brethren. God honours it, and we shall be able to speak more than we ever thought we could speak. The Lord has said that the smallest one in the kingdom is greater than John the baptist, but at the end of John 3 I believe he is morally as great as any of them. God honours John by giving him to say these things in chapter 3, and his speaking here really runs into christianity. It is difficult to say where John the baptist's speaking ends in chapter 3; so advanced is he, that you might say, in this passage he merges among christians. He knew how to speak in the most spiritual and intelligent way about the Lord Jesus: "He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all ... He who comes out of heaven is above all, and what he has seen and has heard, this he testifies".

[Page 42]

THE LAST WORDS OF DAVID

2 Samuel 23:1 - 4; Psalm 72:20; 1 Chronicles 23:27

J.T. These closing words of David furnish us with three subjects: first kingship, then prayer, and then levitical service. The passages contemplate maturity, mature experience in the service of God. It is thought that, considering David and what he says from this viewpoint, we should be helped as to these points, and also as to maturity in the things of God. Kingship is a subject of very great importance now; always indeed, but particularly now when communistic principles are so prevalent and are consequently apt to affect the saints. It is not simply kingship here, but the kind of man that should hold the office of king. What David says has more an oracular character, as those of us who know the Scriptures will understand. "David the son of Jesse saith", 2 Samuel 23:1. It was such a one as that speaking; "And the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel saith, The Spirit of Jehovah spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, The ruler among men shall be just, ruling in the fear of God; and he shall be as the light of the morning, like the rising of the sun, a morning without clouds; when from the sunshine, after rain, the green grass springeth from the earth", verses 1 - 4. If we look at these verses as compared with what is abroad today, the anointing being known amongst us, we shall get help. We are so apt to fall under the influence of what is current in the world, and a passage like this calls us into the divine current of thought as to what is coming, and what should be held among the saints, as in the kingdom of God. The testimony of the Spirit coming down at Pentecost was, "God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ", Acts 2:36, and also, "This Jesus who has been taken up from you into

[Page 43]

heaven, shall thus come in the manner in which ye have beheld him going into heaven", Acts 1:11. When He comes back, He will be what He was when He left; and that is to remind us that there is no change in Him or in heaven. Whatever changes there are here, we have access to heaven, and the point is to keep in accord with that and reflect it.

P.H.L. Would you connect that with Psalm 45, "A Song of the Beloved"? "A sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom ... therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee", Psalm 45:6,7.

J.T. Indeed, I think the link with that book is helpful, because one of the verses read is at the end of that book. "The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended", Psalm 72:20. It is as if the king is already in evidence as the chapter indicates, and there is no longer need to pray. Everything is there infallibly in Christ.

C.A.M. What significance is there in the fact that the Holy Spirit put David's last words in this part of Scripture? They follow the words of the song in chapter 22, after God had delivered him out of the hands of all his enemies? God is his Rock. There is a striking difference between God's ways and men's ways, in that God would end with a song.

J.T. David wrote that song. It is a reminder of the history of Moses, the man who, as he was about to finish his testimony, wrote the song of Deuteronomy 32. He wrote it to order, apparently immediately, and then we have the blessing of the tribes in the next chapter. There seems to be a link between Moses and David viewed in their experiences, and it would challenge us as to whether we could do anything like that -- write a celebration developing our history, and then occupying ourselves with others. Moses occupied himself in Deuteronomy 33 with the blessing of the tribes. He had written his song first and recited it too. Here, chapter 22 is apparently so well liked by David himself,

[Page 44]

as a spiritual composition, that he includes it in the first book of the Psalms. It is Psalm 18. Only there is an addition in the psalm to show that love prompted the writing of it. Here it is, "David spoke to Jehovah the words of this song in the day that Jehovah had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul. And he said, Jehovah is my rock". In Psalm 18 he says, "I will love thee, O Jehovah, my strength", Psalm 18:1. The introduction in 2 Samuel 22:1, is beautiful. In the first book of Psalms, Psalm 18:1, "I will love thee, O Jehovah, my strength", is added to the song itself.

C.A.M. It is very interesting as to Moses' end being in a way parallel. Is it not important at the present time to stress how David followed Moses? Those two great personages stand out in a special way in the minds of the saints today.

J.T. Moses represents the ministerial side of the position in the testimony; he was faithful in all God's house, a very great tribute to him. Moses had to do with God's house and was faithful in all of it. David had to do with it too, but he fills the house with song. He is the sweet psalmist of Israel; so that when he is incorporating this song of chapter 22 in the Psalms, he gives us an added touch, the resolve to love Jehovah. You might say it is a vow in his soul -- to love Jehovah. We are reminded in these two men of the finish of a life of faith, of the importance of finishing well. However we have got on at the outset and in middle life in the service, we must look to the finish. That is what one sees in these three passages, what David was at the end, how he was engaged with what a king should be. He had been one himself, but he does not assume to be the standard king, although he is regarded as that later by God; he speaks abstractly here about the king, and what he should be. He is occupied with that after he has finished his course. Moses was occupied with the blessing of the saints; he

[Page 45]

was fresh at one hundred and twenty years, "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated", Deuteronomy 34:7. David was decrepit at seventy years of age, but the first book of Chronicles draws a veil over that; we have in David an active spiritual servant in the end of this book of Chronicles. He is occupied in his last words with the young men, that they might begin younger in their service than previously.

A.N.W. I suppose that, when he is speaking abstractly in the third person like this, he must have had Christ in his vision; whereas when he comes to verse 5 it would not apply to the Lord. He has to confess, "Although my house be not so before God".

J.T. Yes; he has Christ in mind in these four verses; and also, of course Psalm 72 has Christ in mind under the head of Solomon, so that David says, "The prayers of David ... are ended". Everything is verified in Christ.

F.S.C. Have you in mind the closing days of the assembly here?

J.T. I was thinking as to our finish, whether it be the assembly or each of us. These two men are set before us in clearness of vision and maturity of judgment at the end of their ministry -- David and Moses.

A.R. David and Moses were both morally greater at the end than they were at the beginning. Their whole history was cumulative.

J.T. Yes; that is the point, what we are at the end, and how accumulation of the fruits of the work of God ought to mark us, so that the very best is at the end.

J.T.Jr. Would Psalm 18 show how all must be worked out in individuals as having to do with God? David alludes to all the sorrows he had been through, and how God came in and took him out of them. "He reached forth from above, he took me, he drew me out of great waters", verse 16. Is that not the secret of ending well, that you have a link with God individually?

[Page 46]

J.T. The psalm depicts his own experience; and, as you say, it is full of the thought of what God was to him -- "Jehovah is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my rock, in whom I will trust; my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower", verse 2. The whole psalm is full of the deliverances of God, how God cares for His servants. It shows how qualified David was to speak of kingship, of what a king should be; that is, "the ruler among men".

F.H.L. Is it not because of the character of that rule that the young men of twenty can come into service, because peace has been established under such a king?

J.T. Just so; David would say in effect to the young men, You need not fear; I began as you are. He says in Psalm 37:25, "I have been young, and now am old". He would say to the young, God can make you what He has made me. It is a question of what God can do with us. This wonderful psalm shows what God can do with a servant. I suppose that is why we have a life-sized picture of David in the Scriptures, to show what God can do with a young man, because David started very young; he slew Goliath as a young man, and he says in effect to the young men. You need not fear, it is all a question of dependence upon God.

A.B.P. Would it be right to say that if any distinctive features develop in a saint, it is not necessarily with a view to having that saint prominent, but rather to create capacity to understand and express the features of perfection in Christ?

J.T. What Christ is, is thus brought near to us in one who is like ourselves. Of course Christ is brought near to us personally in the gospels; but then James speaks about men of like passions to ourselves, so that while young people are to look to the Lord and learn from Him, they are also to learn from saints more advanced than themselves; that is, in the sense of examples; and I think that a man like David is a model for the young men. He

[Page 47]

brings the features of Christ nearer and nearer to us, being a man of like passions to ourselves.

J.S. So that Paul would correspond to David, would he not, in the setting forth of Christ? He says, "Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ", 1 Corinthians 11:1.

J.T.Jr. Did he have that in mind in Acts 13? He alludes to David immediately as he and Barnabas move out in the formation of the assemblies. David was known to the Israelites as one who was lovely.

J.T. He is viewed as the man raised up in that chapter: God "raised up to them David". When David was little in his own eyes, God took him from the sheepfolds and from following the flock, Psalm 78. If God raises up a man like that, He may raise up any of us, and it is for the sake of His people. So that in Acts 13, it is said that David served his own generation by the will of God; not by his own will or ambition, but by the will of God he served his own generation. I think he is a striking model as representing certain features of Christ, especially kingly features; and that is why one suggested this chapter that we might aspire to service by the will of God. He served by the will of God.

A.N.W. He seems to acknowledge it here in verse 1, "the man who was raised up on high". That is not resurrection, is it?

J.T. Christ also is said to be raised up in Israel, Acts 13:33, but He is raised up too from among the dead. Acts 13:34. The raising up in this sense as seen in David is that a brother addicts himself to the ministry and progresses in it in the power of the Spirit. He is not ambitious to be great outwardly; it is a question of the will of God. God takes him in hand, so that he is one raised up.

C.A.M. Apparently there is a special meaning in this word, "saith", 2 Samuel 23:1. What you say would awaken a desire in our souls to be able to say something at the end.

[Page 48]

J.T. The word has oracular force. It is not only that it is an experienced man speaking; the word has an added force, signifying a formal pronouncement or speech, but it is this man saying it. Balaam uses the same word, "the man of opened eye saith", Numbers 24:15; he says, such a one as that. God is in this saying manifestly, as indeed in Balaam's case, because he could not have said the things he did if God had not helped him at the moment. David amplifies and qualifies what he says by saying, "The anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel saith, The Spirit of Jehovah spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue". He "spoke by me", David says, so that you are listening to a man who has experience; he has power to make this assertion, or address, in an oracular sense, and it is to the intent that it should come home with peculiar force to us.

A.B.P. Did David's experience as a king fit him to understand and receive this word?

J.T. I think so. He would revert to his own history no doubt. This word would be put into his mouth at the moment; but it is in the mouth of an experienced man. Balaam had no experience at all corresponding to what he uttered; it was a question therefore, of God holding him firmly, so that he could not say anything else save the word of God. David needed not to be held like that; he had been through the thing, and he is qualified to speak, but still God helped him to say this. He had already helped him, because it says, "The Spirit of Jehovah spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue".

A.R. Balaam spoke things he did not like to say, whereas David's soul is in what he is saying here.

J.T. You can see that. He judged himself as he continued; saying, "Although my house be not so before God ...". What he says earlier is abstract, pointing to Christ.

C.A.M. Do you think that is the beauty of the thing? Because in after years a man might give the impression,

[Page 49]

especially if he is long in speaking, that he is occupied with himself. But David, while to some extent occupying you with himself, really works in what he says to occupy you with Another -- Christ.

J.T. Yes; you feel he is not occupying you with himself; although you are very thankful to know that some of these features marked him, verses 1 and 2 applying directly to him.

F.H.L. Is that not the great divine end, that there might be the shining out of these features of Christ as formed in us, so that the presentation is really Christ?

J.T. That is the thought, and that He must rule; "the ruler among men"; not lording it over God's heritage. Every brother in the assembly ought to rule to some extent, because that is the divine thought, that brothers should rule; but then, how is he to rule among men unless he rules himself? That is the first thing; you are not lording it over the brethren, you are one of them, even as Solomon. The king according to Deuteronomy was to be a brother. Paul was a brother although he ruled; his letters to Corinth are exemplary of this matter. He would sit down among the Corinthian brethren and talk to them as one of them; still, he had a rod; he could rule. There is great need for rule amongst the brethren, because often when things come up no one appears to lead in reaching a judgment; and often there is want of subjection to one another, and dissension. The point here is a ruler among men. Let others rule as well.

G.V.D. Is it significant that Israel is mentioned two or three times, as if the saints themselves are princely?

J.T. That should mark our care meetings. God is honouring these meetings; they have a much greater place now than they used to have; and I think it is from the Corinthian standpoint that the thing has been developed: "If then ye have judgments as to things of this life, set those to judge who are little esteemed in the assembly", 1 Corinthians 6:4. Let such judge business

[Page 50]

matters, matters of controversy; that is to suggest to us that the younger brethren, or those least esteemed, come into this matter of ruling among men; so that it is a question of having moral weight amongst the brethren, and in this we must be just in what we may say, "ruling in the fear of God", verse 3.

J.S. In the world, we often see the spirit of antichrist. We should see the opposite to this, the spirit of Christ, amongst the saints.

J.T. I think that is what the Lord is effecting; although we are extremely obscure in the religious world, hardly known, still God has something of this kind where there is righteous rule. The brethren sit down and talk about things and arrive at a righteous judgment. Well, God has that over against all that is going on in the world; so the words here may be rendered as the note states, 'a just ruler over mankind'. As I am among the brethren, I exert an influence for good over them. This marked the Lord with the disciples.

A.P.T. Would David give the lead to this thought of the care meeting when he came up from the sheepfold? He was very little esteemed; the other brethren want to shut him out apparently, but the kingly features were being developed there.

J.T. That is very beautiful. The first account we have of David is evidently by a young man, a servant of Saul. He says, he is "of good presence", 1 Samuel 16:18. That would mean that he was influential in his presence; not only in what he said, but in his presence.

Eliab questioned him on the battlefield, as to why he came, saying that he came to see the battle. That is a sort of chiding to be expected from an elder brother who rests on his years. David says, "What have I now done? Was it not laid upon me?" 1 Samuel 17:29. As a matter of fact, his father had sent him. And then his brother says, What have you done with those few sheep? Well, he had left those with a keeper; he cared for the

[Page 51]

sheep; that is what marked David in his early days. His history is certainly most instructive, especially as to the sense of obligation to care for the saints. When general meetings come about, a brother arranges to go here or there, often without any inquiry as to who is not going; who is looking after the local affairs. The saints that cannot go have to be cared for. David is exemplary in that way; he left the sheep with a keeper.

A.P.T. How are we to know who is to stay behind?

J.T. We ought to find out from one another. We cannot leave things at loose ends in the city in which we are. The word in Timothy is, "How shall he take care of the assembly of God?" 1 Timothy 3:5. You cannot leave it without care.

A.N.W. As to that word 'among', the apostle in Acts 20 reminds the elders that while they are over the flock, they are among them: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers", Acts 20:28.

J.T.Jr. Would the will of God come in, in that connection? "If the Lord will", I will go to such and such a place. David ministered to the will of God.

J.T. James adds to that, "if ... we should live", James 4:15. I suppose we have to put something more than mere physical life into the word "live", for we could not move at all if we did not live in this sense. But associating life with the will of God lifts it to a higher plane. If a man says, I will go to sell and buy, leaving God out, that is his own will; there is no true life in that at all, but his saying, "If the Lord should so will and we should live", shows there is life in the movement.

A.A.T. I notice David says, "ruling in the fear of God". Is the idea that he brings God in?

J.T. Clearly, because we have come "to God, judge of all", Hebrews 12:23. The Judge of all the earth does right. So that we have to reckon with God in what we are doing.

[Page 52]

A.A.T. Is there any connection with Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them"? Would that bring in the fear of the Person?

J.T. Quite so; we are gathered to His name, which would mean that what the name implies must govern us.

A.A.T. It is quite a contrast to the kings of the world who generally have no fear of God before their eyes.

J.T. That is the point here. These truths are disregarded in the world, and of course those seeking to maintain them are hardly known, but still God has His own way of making things known "for a testimony to them". If there are a few of His own in any town. He has them in His mind, and would help them to carry on according to these principles, and thus there is "a testimony to them".

R.W.S. Psalm 2 says, "And now, O kings, be ye wise, be admonished, ye judges of the earth. Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling", Psalm 2:10,11.

J.T. That is good. And then it says something more: "Kiss the Son", verse 12. That is the thing, bringing love into it. The Son is the King set in Zion, all the kings of the earth must come into that. It is not simply bowing down, perhaps with the heart far from Him, but kissing Him.

T.W. Will you say something more about that opening verse of Psalm 18"I will love thee, O Jehovah"? Why was that necessary?

J.T. I think it is an adornment. David had resolved that he would love Jehovah. What a fine thing it is to come through an experience such as David depicts! It is not love for God in the ordinary theoretic way, but through experience, because of what you have found Him to be to you. It is an assertion, I should think, in

[Page 53]

view of the character of the book of Psalms. He prefaced the whole psalm with that word, "I will love thee, O Jehovah".

T.W.H. It is spoken to Jehovah personally.

J.T. Quite so; the psalm is a psalm "of David, the servant of Jehovah, who spoke to Jehovah the words of this song in the day that Jehovah had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies and out of the hand of Saul". It is in the day that he experienced his deliverances granted him by Jehovah; that is, he is recounting his experience, but he prefaced the psalm with the thought, "I will love thee, O Jehovah, my strength". How can he refrain from saying that in the light of what is in the song, of what God has been to him?

C.N. You did not read verses 6 and 7. I just wanted to inquire as to the sons of Belial. There are those who rule among men without the fear of God.

J.T. "Although my house be not so before God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in every way and sure; for this is all my salvation, and every desire, although he make it not to grow". This is David's unalterable confidence in God on the ground of an everlasting covenant -- "all my salvation, and every desire". "But the sons of Belial are all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands; and the man that will touch them provideth himself with iron and the staff of a spear", 2 Samuel 23:5 - 7. That is the sort of thing that is current. They cannot be taken with hands; they are as thorns thrust away.

C.N. "And they shall be utterly burned with fire in their place".

J.T. That shows how utterly worthless they are.

C.N. In view of this, the moral qualifications in the first two verses are of the greatest importance. Would you mind saying a word about the God of Israel and the Rock of Israel in verse 3?

J.T. "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel

[Page 54]

spoke to me". The God (Elohim) who created is now the God of Israel, according to the history entering into this. He is the One to be worshipped. The word Rock has a great place with David and particularly in these chapters. From the New Testament we know that that Rock is Christ; it is a foundational thought; the whole position of Israel is on that firm foundation.

J.T.Jr. The word 'saith' here suggests the help we need in the ministry meetings. "The God of Israel said", verse 3 -- "his word was on my tongue", verse 2. In the ministry meetings, there should be evidence when a brother is speaking, that he has something from God; it is coming from God, there is no doubt about it.

J.T. It ought to bring in the sense of reverence and supremacy in our souls if it is a word from God. "The Rock of Israel spoke". As the Rock is speaking you are made to feel that you are on a firm footing; you are on firm ground; "The firm foundation of God stands".

C.A.M. Would the allusion to the Rock in Corinthians connect with what you were saying earlier about ruling among men? It seems to be quite a test to us as to our influence over others. In Corinth, while they were reigning as kings the apostle Paul took a totally different attitude, so that he conveyed an impression of God. You have connected what the apostle wrote in Corinthians with the use of the linen towel in John 13instead of wearing the cloth, as the clergy do and as we are likely to do, there is a way of exercising an influence that really gives an impression of what the Lord did in His great service to the disciples.

J.T. Quite so; thus it is there, when Judas went out, that you get the statement of the Lord, "Now is the Son of man glorified", John 13:31. That is moral glory shining as Judas was going out to betray Him. The chapter is full of moral glory, the glory of the Son of man; but the acme of it would be that He was about to suffer death. Judas going out was the signal that that was about to

[Page 55]

happen: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God also shall glorify him in himself, and shall glorify him immediately", John 13:32; that is, that Man must be glorified at once. It is the lowly Man, who goes down. His greatness is seen in going down. He is sure to have influence wherever He goes, as the soldiers said, "Never man spake like this man". If a sister is sick of a fever, she is sure to be difficult to get on with. He stands over her, that is. His moral greatness is to impress her, and the fever leaves her, so that she arises and serves. That is what is so needed, moral weight amongst the brethren, so that you acquire power with men; power with God too. You are not asserting yourself, it is simply what you are; that is what is needed -- influence for good among men. God gives it to you, and what you are with God, you are with men.

J.S. I was thinking of Pilate whose rule was without the fear of God. The Lord put him in his right place: "Thou hadst no authority whatever against me if it were not given to thee from above", John 19:11.

J.T. Quite so; Pilate had no moral authority, nothing in himself at all. It was only official.

A.A.T. In connection with the ruling of ten cities, is that the kind of rule we are speaking of now?

J.T. I think so; according to what you are now you will be then. Rule in the millennium will be on that principle of influence.

A.B.P. You spoke earlier about the least esteemed having part in the judgment of a business matter; is that because the least esteemed is assumed to be grounded in righteousness?

J.T. Yes; there may also be some allusion to their manners at Corinth. The leaders were big men, ruling as kings. They were likely to say of a lowly brother not in sympathy with them, He is nothing, he is of no account at all. You do not like to hear that amongst the

[Page 56]

brethren. Paul would say of one, they so regarded, Let him rule in this matter.

A.N.W. As having no personal motives, he would be unprejudiced and unbiased.

J.T. He would not belong to one of the cliques at Corinth.

F.N.W. Would the anointing come into this?

J.T. Yes; that is God's side. It means that God loves the man David and trusts him, so that He commits Himself to him. God is committed to him in anointing him, so that He says, "I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will", Acts 13:22. He committed Himself to him so that you cannot set that man aside; God will stand by him.

C.N. Does verse 4 show how great his influence would be?

J.T. That is good; "And he shall be as the light of the morning, like the rising of the sun, a morning without clouds; when from the sunshine, after rain, the green grass springeth from the earth", 2 Samuel 23:4. That is what he is like. It is really the Lord Himself. What a beautiful metaphor it is! All this points to the coming day of glory that we ought to be intensely desirous of seeing as loving the appearing of Christ. It will all come out there. As we had earlier, He sits on the throne of His glory. Glory is the foundation of that throne; the moral glory of Christ is underneath; so in Psalm 72, where Solomon is seen as a type of Christ in millennial glory, we can understand why it says that David's prayers are ended.

A.A.T. You are emphasising prayer.

J.T. Well, he was a man of great prayer. Prayer of course, arises from need; so that it would be prayer in regard to influencing things rightly amongst the saints.

A.P.T. Would Joshua, Solomon, and Timothy be like this in exercising influence? The psalm begins, "O God, give the king thy judgments, and thy righteousness

[Page 57]

unto the king's son", Psalm 72:1. I wondered whether there was any thought of this being carried on amongst us.

J.T. That is the whole point running through the Psalms; "He will judge thy people with righteousness, and thine afflicted with judgment. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the hills, by righteousness. He will do justice to the afflicted of the people; he will save the children of the needy, and will break in pieces the oppressor. They shall fear thee as long as sun and moon endure, from generation to generation. He shall come down like rain on the mown grass, as showers that water the earth. In his days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace till the moon be no more. And he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth", Psalm 72:2 - 8.

A.C. Referring to David as a man of prayer realising his need, what is the significance of "The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended", coming in at the close of this second book of Psalms?

J.T. Although the king is mentioned in the first book very strikingly, the second book brings out the king reigning in the Solomonic feature of kingship. It is perfection of royalty and rule, so that it has Christ in mind, and there is nothing more to pray for. You have everything there, you cannot add to what is there. Verse 15 -- "prayer shall be made for him continually" -- indicates how the king is regarded by his subjects, and would not weaken David's estimate of Christ.

A.C. In closing the first book David said, "Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, from eternity to eternity! Amen, and Amen". Psalm 41:13.

J.T. The end of the second book is more full. "Blessed be Jehovah Elohim, the God of Israel, who alone doeth wondrous things! And blessed be his glorious name for ever! and let the whole earth be filled with his glory! Amen, and Amen. The prayers of

[Page 58]

David the son of Jesse are ended", Psalm 72:18 - 20.

J.S. Is it because David has the glory of Christ so before him -- the whole earth filled with His glory -- that he can say his prayers are ended?

J.T. I think so. We may apply it to our own apprehension; all is perfect in Christ above. The second book finishes in this way; it would refer to what is in heaven; you cannot add anything to what is in heaven. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit came down from a perfect condition of things up there, but then the believer looks around on Jerusalem and on the earth generally, and sees how awful conditions are, how perfectly incongruous with what is up there! You need prayer down here, Asaph is overwhelmed by the way things are: he says, in Psalm 73:3 - 8, "For I was envious at the arrogant, seeing the prosperity of the wicked. For they have no pangs in their death, and their body is well nourished; they have not the hardships of mankind, neither are they plagued like other men: therefore pride encompasseth them as a neck-chain, violence covereth them as a garment; their eyes stand out from fatness, they exceed the imaginations of their heart: they mock and speak wickedly of oppression, they speak loftily". This is all going on now, and how are you going to reconcile this with the previous psalm where the prayers are finished? Well, the man is overwhelmed till he finds in the holiest that which corresponds with what is above. He says, "Until I went into the sanctuaries of God; then understood I their end", Psalm 73:17. It is in the sanctuary that I get what corresponds with what is up there. Perfection is up there; you do not need to pray for anything up there. I get into the sanctuary and see that God is going to bring everything down here into accord with what is up there, and that sets me at rest in my mind.

C.A.M. All David's anticipations of glory are realised in Solomon -- the Son -- typically Christ. When

[Page 59]

we reach the end of all this experience, these prayers, etc., a question arises, how is the purpose of God to be reached and continued here livingly in a suitable way?

J.T. Book 3 of Psalms shows us that what is down here is incongruous with what is up there; wicked men are flourishing and the psalmist says, I was overwhelmed about it until I went into the sanctuaries of God. Then I understood. In truth, Book 3 means that everything down here is to be brought into accord with what is up there; but we have to go through the thing and get to God. We have not yet finished our prayers on this line; so that we go into the sanctuaries of God and understand there the end of all the present violence; all that is going on today must come to an end.

F.N.W. Would 2 Corinthians 3:18 correspond with what you have said? Looking on the glory of the Lord we are transformed according to the same image; but later in the epistle, sad conditions are contemplated in the assembly, some walking according to their own will.

A.N.W. You would not want to hear prayer after the Supper. Is it not after the Supper normally that we touch conditions like this?

J.T. I think that is right. We have gone into heavenly places.

F.H.L. Would not Hannah touch something like this when a son came to light? She exulted in God.

J.T. That passage you allude to is poetical, beginning with "Hannah prayed" 1 Samuel 2:1; but there is not a word of prayer in it, evidently, because she is on too elevated a plane for prayer. There may be some suggestion of prayer in principle, but it is rather a song; it is a remarkable contribution to the service of God. In the assembly we rise to the heavens: "... and has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus", Ephesians 2:6. In this part of the service it is not the time for prayer, but for worship,

[Page 60]

and you go out on that note into the sphere of ordinary responsibility. Going out thus we have power in the world.

Rem. How beautifully the apostle ends up in Ephesians! "To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen", Ephesians 3:21.

A.P.T. At the Lord's supper, is there an anticipation of the millennium in our hearts? Everything has been secured in Christ.

J.T. That is the thing. One great feature of the service in the assembly is to come to that in an experimental way; thus you go out as a man of power. In the service you come to perfection; you come to everything finished immutably in Christ.

A.B.P. Is that a result of the covenant?

J.T. The new covenant comes into the Supper and tends to liberate us; but our being raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus implies the status we have up there.

A.B. Is that in the sanctuary?

J.T. It involves that. It is only those who have the power to enter the sanctuary who come to that. The power to enter the sanctuary underlies all assembly service; it is an individual experience you acquire. Like Asaph, in Psalm 73, he was oppressed until he went into the sanctuaries of God. How he came to go into them is not stated, because he was not a priest; he was a Levite. I suppose he was a real priest in his soul. This ability to enter the sanctuaries of God underlies all the service of God.

A.R. I thought Psalm 73 included the prayer meeting.

J.T. It would. The prayer meeting involves that we have access to God.

A.N.W. The word used is the plural, sanctuaries, Does that include the holy of holies?

[Page 61]

J.T. I suppose so. I suppose he alludes to what then existed.

C.A.M. You have emphasised that the connection with the Minister of the sanctuary really involves heaven; and this matter of peace, of millennial conditions entered into in our spirits in the morning meeting, is really prior to our entering into what is wholly heavenly and eternal.

J.T. That is right. It is "from glory to glory".

A.R. Do you not think we touch perfection in Christ, in the assembly? The more that affects us, the more we seek to bring the saints into it.

J.T. Just so; we were speaking of it the other day, and one was impressed with the fact that the first day of the week begins with glory. The first "first day of the week" began with the Father raising the Son by His glory. What a suggestion that is, governing that whole day! But then all the saints must be brought to that, and the Lord goes out to do it. He appears to Mary Magdalene, a most devoted woman, but she has not the light of the glory in her soul; yet the day begins with that. So also the two on the way to Emmaus are brought back to that; the whole day is filled out with bringing all into the light of the glory. The last service in John 20 is late in the evening; the day is finished, you might say, and it is the brightest part of the whole service.

Well now, the verse in 1 Chronicles should not be overlooked. It is to bring in the young brothers and sisters. David, an old man passing away, is so full of the service that he says in effect, All the young people must be in this. Here we are at this meeting; called a special meeting. Young people predominate as to numbers. What are their motives in coming to these meetings? Is there any social side to it? Do they come to see one another? Have they in mind to see the old brothers and old sisters too, or do they just come as young people to see one another? May be they wait

[Page 62]

until the meeting is over, thinking that is the best time. Well now, David would say, I have you in mind for levitical service. These are my last words about it, and all the twenty-year old ones are to enter into this. There must surely be some spiritual thought in a man like David saying this, because it is not said that he got a word from Jehovah. According to what is written, it is what David says; it was not, Thus saith Jehovah. It is what David says in his last words. It is a man of great experience in the service of God, reaching to a type of Christ, saying, Bring the young people into the light and power of spirituality in service; make true Levites of them.

F.H.I. What does the age twenty suggest?

J.T. It suggests that at least you have the Spirit. Numbers says that for levitical service you must be at least twenty-five; but the general age for this service in Numbers is thirty, which means more than having the Spirit. Numbers says the military men are to be from twenty years old and upward, but the Levites must be thirty; only there is a clause in Numbers 8:24, that lets them in at twenty-five. David says, Bring them all in at twenty. What does that mean? That is an experienced man talking, and he tells us he has been young and now he is old, and he says in effect, Why should you not bring them in? It is their opportunity; but let them be among the old people. Solomon was sitting on the throne with David; he was quite young. It is not the young with the young, and the old with the old, but the young and the old together.

A.R. Like the ass and the colt, in Matthew 21:2.

F.H.L. Did Moses have this in mind when the youths were sent up to offer to Jehovah in Exodus 24:5? He would be with them.

J.T. Quite so.

A.R. 1 Chronicles 23:28 says, "For their place was by the side of the sons of Aaron for the

[Page 63]

service of the house of Jehovah". It is not only that they might serve, but to be by the side of the sons of Aaron, the priests.

J.T. It is remarkable instruction. The scholar and the teacher are put together in 1 Chronicles 25:8.

[Page 64]

THE SERVICE OF GOD MARKED BY SYSTEM

1 Samuel 21:10 - 15; 1 Samuel 22:1 - 5; 1 Samuel 23:1 - 6; 1 Samuel 30:11 - 15

I wish to make clear in what I have to say that systematic conditions are essential in the service of God. We use the word system much in regard to what men have religiously, and we use it rightly, because, generally, system is made the leading essential feature with them, for they have to labour without the Holy Spirit in these humanly devised institutions; whereas in divine service, while system is essential, it is pervaded by the Spirit of God and controlled by the Lord Jesus, all emanating from the Father, love being basic in it. Hence the introduction of the idea of twelve, the twelve tribes, the numeral denoting love in systematic operations.

Observation of creation leads to the assumption, aside from revelation, that God wrought systematically in framing the worlds. The principle of balance enters into the creation, and unseen elements working in relation to it; visible elements too, but the holding elements are invisible. Much has been discovered as made by God. He knows all that He has placed in the creation, and there is far more in it than any creature mind can take in. The further the investigation, the more baffled the human mind becomes; even figures fail; and the elements at work, some of which are now harnessed for man's use, are invisible, but felt as there. All are perfectly regulated structurally, indeed the word is "framed": "the worlds were framed by the word of God", Hebrews 11:3. "He who has built all things is God", Hebrews 3:4 we are told. The word 'built' is first applied in Scripture to woman, not to the world. In either case systematic framing or ordering is evident.

When we come to the moral system of things, what has been called the moral universe, this idea is obviously there. There is what is visible, namely, persons, and what is invisible. Our Lord Jesus Christ has come into it

[Page 65]

visibly. He has part in invisible Deity, but He has come into manhood, in incarnation. The Lord worked systematically from the very outset of His labours, selecting twelve, that they might be with Him as Mark says, Now we are dealing with moral things. In order to have part in this, the first requirement is divine selection; I cannot volunteer. The Lord went up into a mountain and called whom He Himself would, Mark 3:13. He made His selection, appointing "twelve that they might be with him, and that he might send them to preach". The system was thus sovereignly inaugurated. It is a question of divine selection, wisdom and love being there, infinitely; dear brethren, the Father, the Son and the Spirit were all there. The Lord spent the night in prayer before He appointed the apostles, Luke 6:12. He prayed to His Father. In Acts 1:2 He is said to have charged the apostles by the Spirit.

I have said all that to make the subject clear. I had in mind a word from the Psalms which refers to Genesis, and shows how God even then, in the days of the patriarchs, said, "Touch not mine anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm", Psalm 105:15. That is the book of Genesis; but when we come to the book of Exodus, systematising becomes a leading thought. God in sending Moses to Pharaoh said of Aaron, "it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God", Exodus 4:16. Not, a god, but God. That is God's way in systematic testimony. Then at mount Sinai and at Horeb we have the most elaborate system inaugurated; angels were there, but Moses and Aaron were there too. Moses was doing things much by himself at first, but God did not intend that there should be one-man ministry. It is true that Christ is Head, but still it is not one-man ministry, for the Lord associated the apostles with Himself in it. So that as Moses was doing all of a certain service, Jethro his father-in-law advised him to appoint others to help

[Page 66]

him, which he did, Exodus 18. These should look after tens or hundreds or thousands, so that the people should be served in a systematic way.

At mount Horeb in the light of the covenant, the system is appointed and arranged, that is to say, God is going to do His best; that is the principle. The principle of the covenant is that God does His best for us in any given circumstance. The circumstances vary and God may vary what He does, but He does His best in the circumstance. So that we have to understand our circumstances and to see how God can do His best for us. "I have borne you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself", He says, Exodus 19:4, and I am going to constitute you a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. Israel was to be a nation of priests, that was God's thought, not simply one priest and four sons, but a nation of them. Could He have done better than to suggest this? Hence Peter says by the Spirit, Ye are "built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ", 1 Peter 2:5. As I said, Exodus, and particularly Numbers, set out the systematic ordering of God. Every male in Israel was needed, whether for military or for levitical service, from twenty years and even less. Levites taken from a month old are all held for service, although they did not enter into it until they were twenty-five years old. I am speaking now to the young ones here; you are held for service. I will come to that later in the last scripture read, but now I wish to show how this matter of systematic service developed in the history of David -- a wonderful man taken on by God -- and to speak of the system formed in relation to him.

I read 1 Samuel 21 because it points to persons whom God proposes to use, but who through unbelief find themselves in the most incongruous associations. It is futile to attempt or to assume to serve unless one's associations are right. To present

[Page 67]

oneself for service while you are in unsuitable associations is an insult to God; He preserves His own rights in these matters. So when in the history of God's people we come to the rebellion of Korah, we find a Levite, one very near to a priest, but still not a priest, aspiring to priestly service. Because a man can preach he is not thereby constituted a priest; a man may preach and still be unconverted. God says, 'That will not do for Me'. God reserves His rights in His own house. Abraham says, "Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!" Genesis 17:18. He wanted to push him in because he was his son; that will not do for God. The religious systems around us largely expect that kind of service from those who have natural ability and education; the ministers are very largely drawn from that class. But God says, 'That will not do for Me. I am looking for true conversion and for the possession of the Holy Spirit in those who serve Me;' "I will be hallowed in them that come near me", Leviticus 10:3. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire, and they were slain. Another man makes a cart to carry the ark of God, 2 Samuel 6:3 - 8; Abinadab might have thought, I have had the ark in my house for years, and my sons surely know how to care for it; but his son Uzzah, not being a true priest, erred as to it, and he suffered death.

Now according to our chapter, 1 Samuel 21, David had got into a very false position; three times here he is called a madman. Think of an anointed man being called a madman by the uncircumcised! Why? Because he is acting like one; his whole position here is false. Of course, he acted as if mad to save himself, but the Spirit of God records these things for our learning. The passage goes on to say, "David departed thence", and I would say to anyone in bad associations in any degree, Flee them, otherwise you are ostracised from the holy service of God. "David departed thence", it says, "and escaped to the cave of Adullam". Notice

[Page 68]

that he departed from the false position. I want to show how Adullam is a symbol of independency of worldly things and of Philistine influences. On the battlefield David would not be afraid of Achish king of Gath. There never was any such thought with David on the battlefield as cowardly fear of his enemies; but in Gath he is afraid, he flees, and rightly so. Now at Adullam he is where God can support him. I want to make it clear that we must flee evil associations, however we have got into them, and reach the cave of Adullam where God can support us, can add to us, and lead us intelligently into His system of things. In this position David acquires a prophet. Gad, a leading element officially in the system. He then acquires a priest, Abiathar. The Lord Jesus in speaking of David as seen in these chapters calls them "The section of Abiathar, the high priest". It was no mean system that was developed there. I want to say to every young person that if you are in any evil association, God is waiting for you to leave it so that He may set you up in the most august of systems. We are living in a great high-priestly time. One has often wondered at the Lord calling these chapters "the section of Abiathar the high priest"; he was a young man here and hence could not possess much experience, but he came to David, and David was in the cave of Adullam. It is called a stronghold. The true king was there apart from worldly or Philistine influences; he becomes attractive there, and influential. I would say to all, that, as there, you are where God can support you. David is now a type of Christ and people of all classes come to him; I cannot go over the list; I suppose every one of us could put ourselves into it. However discontented, distressed or bankrupt a person might be, under the influence of David he is changed; there is no idea of these four hundred men continuing with David as bankrupt and distressed people; they are in the process of being changed. As in the Philistine country

[Page 69]

with Achish, David is a believer in a false position, useless to God and to His people. Now in the cave of Adullam his anointing is showing itself; he is a type of Christ as the rejected King, and he becomes a captain over those who came to him. We never hear again of those people as discontented; they came into the realm and under the influence of David.

Then there is another thing; as in Adullam, the king is interested in others. He is not neglectful of his parents. One of the crying discrepancies today is disregard of parents by young people, forgetfulness of what they have been to us. David provides for his father and mother at cost to himself, I should say; getting the king of Moab to find a haven of rest for them. Young people need to be reminded to obey their parents in the Lord that it may be well with them; that is the first commandment with a promise, "that thy days may be prolonged in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee", Exodus 20:12. Then we have the prophet: David is doing right now and exercising divine principles, and the prophetic ministry comes in to help him; Gad comes in. It is the first mention of Gad, he is called David's seer. Why should David be so honoured as to have a seer? It is a question of the kingdom. I have been speaking of David as a failing believer, but now he is restored, moving in righteousness, influential for good, caring for his parents, and he is provided with a prophet; he needs prophetic ministry to guide and keep him. But in a greater sense, David is king here; although rejected, he is inaugurating a kingdom, and for this a prophet is needed. Christ is King, Priest and Prophet.

The prophetic ministry applies peculiarly at the present time. The more we take up this attitude the more we shall find prophetic ministry at our side. Gad would say what was needed to be said; he could tell David what to do, that he should leave the place where he was. The path of faith is a movable thought. In

[Page 70]

the world there is walking in the counsel of the ungodly, standing in the way of sinners, sitting in the seat of the scornful: when we turn away from God that is what we find, but as turning back to God, putting ourselves where God can use us, we are added to by persons who can help us spiritually, and these are added in a systematic way. So that the prophet Gad says to David, "Abide not in the stronghold; depart, and go into the land of Judah. Then David departed, and came into the forest of Hareth", 1 Samuel 22:5. It is movement. Am I ready for such a prophetic word? Gad, David's seer, served him well; later, when David did something wrong, he served him well again. I speak of him now as an element of the systematic state of things God would have His people in. I want the ear of every young person at this time. God is building up a system; He has been building it up, but He is building it now in connection with current circumstances, for there is a new set of circumstances today. Sets of circumstances necessitated the addresses to the assemblies in Revelation. What are our circumstances? Can God introduce this systematic idea into ours? That is the point. He is doing it in the passage before us, and we have the moral course pursued in David. Gad is used for this purpose, and his advice is, "Abide not in the stronghold; depart, and go into the land of Judah" That word is to be noted. In reading any scripture we have to observe the vocabulary. Every word has a meaning. What gave rise to this word "Judah"? In Genesis 29 you will find its meaning: it is praise. Jacob touches on this poetically in Genesis 49:8; and other references, such as Numbers 2:3, show that Judah represents sovereign purpose or counsel. It is now not simply that I am moving in circumstances that are morally right, but I have a place in the divine purpose; I was thought of before the worlds. I want to get into that line. It is a resting place for my soul, that I have a place in the divine purpose, and I never can be

[Page 71]

robbed of it. It is fixed: "For the gifts and the calling of God are not subject to repentance", Romans 11:29. So David goes to the forest of Hareth; there is something in that too, here, no doubt; a forest hides and protects.

I go on now to the attack of the Philistines against David, not against him directly, but against a city. To make a present application; a matter looms up in some local company, and a believer asks, Am I interested? Is it my business? Or he may say, That matter belongs to someone else. Perhaps it does, more immediately, but it certainly belongs to each one of us; as being an Israelite, every tribe belongs to me. The Colossian saints, we are told, had love "towards all the saints". However far away from you they are, in Australia, or South Africa, your love is toward them, their affairs are yours. David says to Jehovah, "Shall I go and smite these Philistines?" He prayed about it, that is the next point. David in prayer becomes a priest himself, for in truth we have the prophet, priest and king in these chapters. The prophet is Gad; David himself is a prophet too, but he is here a priest. Something is happening in a city that does not come immediately under his control; he had an army of only six hundred men; he had better leave that matter, it might be said. But if he is to be king of Israel, it is his matter; he is already anointed king, he is kingly in his affections; thus he would save the men of Keilah from the Philistines. He enquired, "Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And Jehovah said ... , Go and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah". David smote them and saved the inhabitants of Keilah. Then it is mentioned that Abiathar with the ephod is there. I wish to show you young people how this systematic thing spreads out as you do something for God and for His people. God may tell you the work is your matter, or you may ask Him about it, showing your interest. David succeeds in this service and God says, I will add another to enhance your system,

[Page 72]

namely Abiathar. He comes in with an ephod. You are acquiring priestly power, such a person is added, and added contributively, for he came with an ephod. He was a refugee, but he is the high priest here, so that he is dignified in this section; the Lord refers to these chapters as "the section of Abiathar the high priest", Mark 2:26. I want all to see that on these lines you are coming into the most dignified system conceivable. It is our High Priest that is in mind; it is high-priestly time; our High Priest has "become higher than the heavens", Hebrews 7:26.

Abiathar having come with an ephod, David immediately uses it, showing he is now entirely in the divine way. Whatever God gives to him he makes use of at once. He preserves God's people in Keilah, but the citizens of Keilah are ungrateful and would deliver their saviour to his enemy. Persons who serve must sometimes come in for the basest ingratitude; we have to face that; but God is there and the ephod is there, a priestly state contributed to by Abiathar, and David is able to get the mind of God. See how the truth works out: there is complete dependence on God, David is set up supported by God, so that Saul is unable to overcome him, though he has only a handful of men, a small army as compared with that of Saul, nevertheless there is a touching word in this passage, that "Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand", 1 Samuel 23:14. Why should it be put that way? How critical conditions were! Even public conditions God may turn this way or that way for His own ends. Saul was there, near to David, destruction was thus very near him, but God did not deliver him up. It is to bring in complete dependence; it may go that way or this way in a moment. It is a question of God. The heavenly warfare is always critical and we can never afford to withdraw from an attitude of dependence on God; it is needed at every moment. The peace of God only garrisons my heart as I make known my requests to God

[Page 73]

by prayer and supplication -- not simply that I have prayed about it, but that I pray about it. It enters into my prayer and supplication. "Be careful about nothing; but in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses every understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts by Christ Jesus", Philippians 4:6,7. Night and morning, midnight and midday -- it is the state of my soul. I need God every moment; and this includes public affairs, especially as they are the present time, for they are most momentous. If I have prayed about them I shall have assurance; and we need constant assurances. God gives this too, taking account of our weakness. You can see what I am speaking of, this matter of a system in divine things. David had already the sword of Goliath, the best in the world, none like it; then he has Gad the prophet; now he has Abiathar with an ephod.

I now come to chapter 30. David loses everything. It is a terrible experience, his loved ones all taken, the families of his men lost too! That brings us to a most momentous crisis: what is David to do? Well, he has been using the ephod, and he uses it again; it is the way out; priestly access to God. We must never omit that; whatever happens let us have recourse to God; the door is open, thus the priestly state in self-judgment is to be maintained. God's door is always open to this man. He likes a man that trembles at His word; so "David strengthened himself in Jehovah his God", 1 Samuel 30:6. This history is well known to most of us; I just touch on it now for I want to come to the "young man", verse 13. The crying need of the time is for exercised young men. The book of Genesis gives a great prototype of the young man: at seventeen years old he flees youthful lusts and follows righteousness, 2 Timothy 2:22; that is Joseph. "David strengthened himself in Jehovah his God", we are told. He inquired of the Lord, "Shall I pursue after

[Page 74]

this troop? shall I overtake them? And he said to him, Pursue; for thou shalt assuredly overtake them and shalt certainly recover", verse 8. How beautiful is this direct intercourse with God! Think of waking in the middle of the night and being able to have intercourse with God! Your heart becomes full of peace instead of trouble. But what about the need of young men and young women in the systematised state of things inaugurated by David? That is what I am coming to. His men are with him to weep "until they had no more power to weep", verse 4. How salutary is this in such a day as ours! The present moment is a crisis for the assembly! The history of the assembly is, we may say, a history of crises. There is the present one, and how am I to pursue in it? Can I move systematically or am I a free lance, an unattached person? God will attach you at once if you are suitable for the fellowship. David is pursuing under the direction of God, and now we are told that they found an Egyptian in the field. Well, we may say, he is not much, an Egyptian in the field is not much spiritually. Let us look into his history; he gives it himself, and one is of but little value unless he can give an account of himself. What is your history? What are your associations? Well, those of this young man are not good, but still there is intelligence in him. There is something remarkable about him. Why is he left behind? Why is he rejected? We are told of the man in John 9 whose eyes had been opened, that they cast him out. This man says, "I am a young man of Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick", verse 13. That would mean spiritually that he was complaining, conditions were not right where he was. Many come into fellowship just to imitate others, they are not sick at all, not dissatisfied with what they are professedly leaving. Happily this young man was not pining over what he left. Some young people come to the meeting, and while there keep

[Page 75]

looking at the clock; it is the meeting on the street they are looking for, a car ride, or something like that after the meeting. They are more sick of the meetings than of the circumstances outside. This young man fell sick in the service of the Amalekite, and he was left; this fact would make him all the more useful and interesting to David, but then, he is not only sick, he is starving; but suitable food is immediately provided. Are you young people here reading suitable books, absorbing what will bring you out from Amalekite conditions -- conditions in the world? They supply this man with food. David did not do this directly; such services belong, under the Lord, to the brethren; He said to Peter, "Feed my lambs". Here they "gave him bread, and he ate; and they gave him water to drink, and gave him a piece of fig-cake and two raisin-cakes, and he ate, and his spirit came again to him; for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, for three days and three nights", verses 11, 12. This matter of good spiritual food as building up a constitution is most essential, especially because we are faced with serious conditions among the young, sometimes seeing them turn aside without any excuse. What is the secret? It is a poor constitution built up on unspiritual food. Here there is basic food in bread and water, and the fig and raisin-cakes are stimulating. Young people need stimulation spiritually. When we can pray about a young man in the meeting who is set up constitutionally there will be special energy in our prayers; but when the things of the world are sought, we have very little confidence in praying. It is with heavy hearts the brethren turn to God as to those thus marked. The secret of it is the poor food.

This man is brought to David and he questions him. He answered, "I am a young man of Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick". David is going to add him to his system, that is my point. God has a remarkable system,

[Page 76]

a spiritual system, with needed features added as available, including places for young people. The man further says, "We made a raid against the south of the Cherethites, and against what belongs to Judah, and against the south of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag with fire". What intelligence this young man had! At times it is painful as coming in contact with so-called christians, to note the ignorance that comes out; sometimes they can hardly find a book in the minor prophets! Well, look at this apparently ordinary young man, a private in the army, see the intelligence he had! He had the knowledge of a leading officer as to what was going on. When young people who are interested in the things of the Lord meet a man who can instruct them, they ask him questions, so that they know, and if they meet a brother who travels, they ask him about the saints in other localities. Information thus received enables us to pray for the saints intelligently. This young man says, "We made a raid against the south of the Cherethites". Who are the Cherethites? This young man knew something of them; some of them it would seem were closely linked with David, as mentioned later; the first notice of them in Scripture is here. The man says they also invaded what belonged to Judah. Who was Judah? I have already referred to the meaning of this name, 'praise'. Through David, who was of this tribe, "the praises of Israel" were arranged. The Amalekites would damage all this; that is Satan working through the flesh. This man refers to all in a knowing way; see the intelligence he had! I am seeking to show through him how young men and young women may acquire needed knowledge; if you do not know, make enquiry and "the Lord will give thee understanding in all things", 2 Timothy 2:7. I need not say that there are wonderful things to be known. It is said in the prophets, "we shall know, -- we shall follow on to know Jehovah", Hosea 6:3.

[Page 77]

It is further said that the raiders went up against the south of Caleb. Who is this Caleb? A most interesting man, having no equal in a certain sense; he is a man of "another spirit", Numbers 14:24. He had another spirit in him -- the opposite of that which marked those who refused the heavenly land. Spiritually, these Amalekites hate that, they hate all that refers to the service of God. This young man knew something about these groups of persons who were linked with the people of God and the service of God, which, as I said, is quite remarkable. And as he can lead David to the marauders, the man becomes an important adjunct in David's system; but on the solemn condition that he must not be put to death, nor delivered into the hand of his master. The spiritual meaning is that he is going to be in a new system of things set up by David. In this chapter we get David's spoil, David's legislation and David's affections for his old friends. No one is forgotten in this new system of things. Two hundred people stayed behind; they stayed behind by the stuff and they are considered for, too. It is a circle of administrative affection and everyone is rightly cared for, especially the friends where David used to visit; he sends them presents. This young man is added to such a system: "And David said to him, Canst thou bring me down to this troop? And he said, Swear to me by God, that thou wilt neither put me to death nor deliver me up into the hand of my master, and I will bring thee down to this troop", verse 15.

The chapter is full of precious typical instruction as to the new system of things into which we as christians are brought by God through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit. We are richly and affectionately cared for, and nothing in the way of service you have done will be forgotten. That is our system of things, and we invite all not in it to come into it. As worthy, you will be added to the system, you will know something

[Page 78]

of those who are already in it, and you will never be killed or delivered to your previous Amalekite master. You will be in a blessed system where what is of God prevails.

[Page 79]

TRUTH LEARNED IN LOCALITIES IN COMPANY WITH CHRIST

2 Kings 2:1 - 11, 2 Kings 4:29 - 37

I wish to speak of how the truth is developed and valued in the localities where saints are walking as governed by light that governs the assembly. Unless we are controlled by that light we shall make room for man, and the Lord may have to say unto us, "your house is left unto you". That is how the Spirit of God records this remark of the Lord in Luke 13.

The book of Revelation teaches us as to local responsibility. We do not get, in the Lord's remarks to the assemblies, the Pauline doctrine governing them all; Paul's epistles suffice for that. The Lord in His remarks to the assemblies commends all possible from His point of view, and, as I might say, condemns as little as possible. He enlarges in dealing with us on what is good, and whilst maintaining what is right, minimises what is bad. He leaves the good to shine in its glory; that is what He does. The Lord selected seven of the assemblies from the province of Asia to set out what He had in mind, and He tells us that He walked in the midst of them, "of the seven golden lamps". So that He comes to them, and it is only as He is in a locality that we really learn how the truth should be in that locality. That is why I read these verses in 2 Kings 2. Elisha would not leave Elijah; if he is to know Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho and Jordan, it is to be in the company of Elijah. So that one's efficiency and value in a locality is not simply that he is there: he may be there without any efficiency, or with very little; or he may be a burden. To be there rightly he must learn something of being there in the company of the Lord; realising that in that company, however short the Lord's visit, there would be some impressions as to His thought of the place and of what there is in it now.

[Page 80]

The Lord comes to this town, we will say, and there are those who used to be connected with His name here; they are no longer here in that position. He takes account of them in their changed attitude. He will have to say to them as to it in due course; later on when everything is brought into the light, He will say as setting out the true side of the matter, "thou knewest all this" -- a most crushing word from the Lord in Daniel 5:22. There will be no answer to it except for each one involved to bow his head and own to his shame that what he knew was the truth he failed to walk in. Elisha would not be in this class, and he is a good example for us as to our localities.

Elijah began the movement; he started from Gilgal with Elisha, meaning that a brother or sister in a particular locality is in his mind. He is assuming that some locality is in his companion's mind, we will say Gilgal: Elijah would start with him there. The book of Joshua teaches us about Gilgal; so does the epistle to the Colossians. It is a place of sharp knives, where sinful and worldly traits are dealt with in detail, sharp knives alluding to thoroughness in dealing with them that they might never appear again. That is what Joshua would teach us, and that is what Colossians would teach us, as Paul says, "in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ", Colossians 2:11. This is the matter dealt with in full reality, because the circumcision of the Christ is the thing in the absolute meaning of it; in His dying for us on the cross all this was effected. He was made sin for us, and thus sin in the flesh was utterly judged and set aside to God's glory. The Lord Jesus was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners", Hebrews 7:26. He thus could be our substitute in effecting circumcision -- the putting off of the body of the flesh. It is a question not only of the sins, but of the roots of them. It is the body of the flesh, the totality of the flesh; the putting off of it in the circumcision of Christ.

[Page 81]

Elijah typically would be in Gilgal in relation to this truth in an exemplary way. He and Elisha are there together. Elisha is a young brother; Elijah is an old one, an experienced one, an honoured servant of God. And we are told before anything is said about these places that God is going to take him to heaven. His race is finished, an approved one here, and so he is an example to be followed. As he moved about Gilgal, Elisha would be near him; he would not be away from him; any absence from Elijah in those movements would be an irreparable loss. It was the learning time for Elisha: it was the teaching time for Elijah. The moments were precious, as they are now. So Elisha would never be away from his master, a remarkable suggestion, because so many are given to absenting themselves from such privileges, thinking nothing of them, some turning their backs on them. How solemn that is! But Elisha did not do this. As he says to Elijah, "As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee!" 2 Kings 2:2. Elijah tested him; Elijah here is heaven's representative; he is going there and he is already a heavenly man in his mind. Christ is the heavenly Man, "the Son of man who is in heaven". He comes in amongst us and conveys what Gilgal means; He is teaching us. This is preliminary, but really it is the basic part of what I have to say. It is a question of Gilgal, of where they were, and Elijah says, 'I will go with you from here'. Elijah did not wish to leave Elisha, he went with Elisha; that is, he conveys the idea for the moment that he is ready to go with him, to give him all the benefit of his company, and he does. I would say to you young people, the Lord is ready to give you all the benefit of His company; and Elisha would have that. Elijah says, "for Jehovah has sent me", verse 2, because it is a question of God's will right through here; no question of the prophet's will, but of God's will. Any one who is moving apart from God's will is, I need not say, lawless. The will of

[Page 82]

God must prevail. Elijah says, "for Jehovah has sent me to Bethel" -- but you stay here. Well, will he stay? He went back there afterwards, after Elijah was caught up, but he had been there before with Elijah. No one can be in these places rightly save as he has been with Christ in them. So Elijah says, I am going to Bethel and you stay here; but Elisha says, "As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee! So they went down to Bethel", verse 2.

There were sons of the prophets at Bethel; there were not any at Gilgal, so far as the statement goes. The sons of the prophets in these chapters are very uncertain people; they may say the right thing, but it is just as likely that they will say the wrong thing. They are at Bethel, and they would render information to Elisha; but he says, "I know". The brother that is with the Lord in the locality is the one who knows His mind best. These sons of the prophets are not presented as with Elijah at all; they can talk very freely as to what is going on and they know a little; but presently we shall see that they are very, very wrong. Elisha says to them, "I know". They said, "Dost thou know that Jehovah will take away thy master from over thy head today? And he said, I also know it". His very movements showed it, but what about theirs? Yet they can talk and tell Elisha something. It is the brother that is in the place with the Lord who can judge things and knows; visiting brothers have to be extremely careful; God has placed the responsibility as to His interests on those in the locality. He will work it out in the locality and through those in the locality, that is what He will do. Elisha represents these; he is with Elijah there, but the sons of the prophets are not; you cannot trust what they are saying. It is an important thing to be able to correct such persons: he says, "be silent", you are not telling me anything that I do not know. How did he know? He was with Elijah. If it be a question of the international

[Page 83]

position in this world, any one with Christ in the assembly can say, I know; I may not put it into words, but I know; I know intuitively what things are, what the trend is, what the outcome is to be, that God's will must prevail. The sons of the prophets may be there, but they are not with Elijah; they know something, but do not trust it, because presently you will see that they are telling Elisha that Elijah may not have been caught up into heaven at all. How serious that was! In a typical sense, they were questioning the whole truth of Christ's present place in heaven. These men are at Jericho, but they have not been with Elijah there. So that it is the brother who is with Christ in the locality, or the brother with whom Christ is, who knows. Sometimes certain brethren in a locality are eliminated from the councils of the brethren: that is not right; the "least esteemed" in the assembly must be recognised as capable of taking part in its affairs, 1 Corinthians 6:4. A group of brothers looking after things is not of God; the one who is with Elijah in the place is the one that will know. The sons of the prophets did not know, they are not characteristically with Elijah at all, they are onlookers.

It is at this juncture, at Bethel, that Elijah calls Elisha by name: "And Elijah said to him, Elisha", verse 4. I love that thought, a believer having his name announced, as it were, by the Lord in the locality. You are there specially. This is the only time Elijah says it. Earlier we have, "Moses, Moses"; he is addressed by name on a most important occasion when he is to enter into all that is coming out of the burning bush. Moses is peculiarly distinguished at that point. And so with Elisha here, his name is sounded out at Bethel. Each of us as taking his place in the appropriation of his privileges at the Lord's supper is noted in heaven; he is worthy, if he is truly there as one who washes his robes, Revelation 22:14. But this is something more than that; this is a brother who is clinging to Christ, as you might

[Page 84]

say, one who will not leave Him. How the Lord loves that! He will give you all of His company that you want, but He values your taking it. It is at this juncture that Elijah says, "Elisha". How lovely that word "Elisha" would sound in his ears as spoken by his master! He greatly revered the prophet; he never had any thought of displacing Elijah. No, he poured water on his hands, as if to make them even more effective; he loved to work with him and walk with him. In Revelation the Lord speaks of making the overcomer a pillar in the temple of His God. That particular overcomer is known characteristically as a temple man, as Elisha is a house man, for it is a question of Bethel -- the house of God. He is a man like that, he is not a man that would build a big home for himself; when he did have an abode of his own it was just one room on the wall with a bed, a table, and a candle. But he was a man who valued the house of God, he was characteristically that; his name is spoken of there; his name is called there by Elijah. He says, "Elisha, abide here, I pray thee; for Jehovah has sent me to Jericho", verse 4. We get the same reply as before from Elisha: "as Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee! And they came to Jericho", verse 4.

What Elijah and Elisha could say to each other in Bethel! What a history Bethel had! How much Elijah could have told about Bethel and what happy seasons they could have in speaking together of the house of God! But it is in that place that the sons of the prophets join in to say to Elisha that his master should be taken from him that day; and Elisha says, "I also know it: be silent!" Elijah undoubtedly approved what Elisha said to them. At Jericho they say the same thing to him: "And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho drew near to Elisha and said to him. Dost thou know that Jehovah will take away thy master from over thy head today? And he said, I also know it: be silent!"

[Page 85]

verse 5. He did not care for their remarks. What good is the voice of brethren of this kind? They are not with Elijah; they are in the locality, but they are not with Elijah there, and they have not the mind of God as to it, but Elisha has, and they cannot tell him anything; he knows.

Then we read, "And Elijah said to him. Abide here, I pray thee; for Jehovah has sent me to the Jordan"; Elisha replies as earlier -- "and they two went on", verse 6. A wonderful journey this! In every place Elijah is conveying the mind of heaven as to it, and Elisha is drinking it in. So they went on together, there is not a jar between them, those two great servants. They are thoroughly one in enjoying the truth. Elijah is surely enjoying the young man's desire to be with him; wherever he is going, Elisha says, I am going there. The Lord loves that. As I said before. He will afford you all of His company that you wish; if you wish it you will get it, and it is the true way of progress in the things of God -- companionship with Christ. Especially, He would impart to you what you need to know that belongs to your locality, what feature of the testimony He would set out in it. Later on, Elisha can go to any of these places and talk to the young brethren and say, I was here with Elijah; you were not. He can tell you the truth, he has received true impressions from Elijah, and you can have them. That is the true idea of service, imparting true impressions of what you have received in companionship with Christ. Of course we read the Scriptures and study, for we are enjoined to do it, but companionship with Christ is the chief thing, getting His mind about things.

Jericho also has its sons of the prophets. They stood to view afar off. Well, they will never get much light because they are remaining at a distance, "afar off". It is a question of being in the place with Christ -- that is the thought. One of the most interesting features of the

[Page 86]

truth was revived in a pertinent way about twenty-nine years ago in England: a bad state of things arose in a certain town and many knew the trouble; many letters were written and everybody was told about the trouble, but hardly anybody knew the real state of things, for the reason that they did not go there. They stayed away and wrote and never got the thought. Not that one could not set out the principles without going to the place, because principles are eternal and universal, but if I have to deal with the position locally I must go there. I must be there characteristically, though I will not do the thing that is to be done there; I will let the local people do what is needful. That is the principle. Why should they not? You say. They do not know what to do; they will make mistakes. But the Lord will make them understand.

The Lord is very jealous about this matter. It is the assembly period we are in. The book of Revelation speaks of seven assemblies and the Lord is concerned about each of them; He holds them in esteem, and it will never do if the local brethren's affairs are handled by others. It is contrary to the mind of God. The Lord will give them understanding, and what is to be done they must do; as they are subject and seek His mind the Lord will not leave them. If they cling to the Lord as Elisha did to Elijah, they will get His mind; not these men who are looking at the matter through spy glasses! What is there in their advice? We are told they said, "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha", verse 15. Very good, so far! "And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground" -- very good! -- "and said to him. Behold now, there are with thy servants fifty valiant men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master". Now look at this! Look at these 'valiant' brethren, these men that are respectfully looking on at what happened at the Jordan, but did not go there. Look now what they are saying. "There are with thy

[Page 87]

servants fifty valiant men" able to co-operate in this matter. But what help did they convey? They were, really, infidel about the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Typically, that is what verse 16 means. It says, "lest perhaps the Spirit of Jehovah have taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some ravine". Look at the misrepresentation of Christ in their words! As if the Spirit of God would take Him and cast Him upon some mountain or into some ravine! The truth is, they did not go down to the Jordan; they "went and stood opposite afar off", verse 7. They did not rightly see and understand what happened, they did not take it in. But Elisha did, experiencing the whole matter with Elijah, and he saw him go up in the chariot of fire.

Well, that is all clear enough. It is for all of us to see what the Lord is going on with at the present time -- local companies. He is forming them, He is schooling them, He visits them to serve them in this way. Principles can be enunciated by brothers residing elsewhere, for God gives gifts to men and these are to be used universally, and among these are gifts of government, 1 Corinthians 12:28, but elders are never seen serving save in their own localities. How can an elder know the brethren in a locality unless he lives there? Think of Matthew 18 being carried out by telephone! Personal contact is enjoined; "Tell it to the assembly" -- that is the idea. We are told in our chapter that the sons of the prophets urged Elisha, stressing the fifty strong men; they urged him until he was ashamed, he succumbed to them. That will not do; Elisha failed. We must learn from this incident and refuse such unholy influence in the things of God.

Well now, to proceed with my subject; we read earlier, "And it came to pass as they went on, and talked, that behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire; and they parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a

[Page 88]

whirlwind into the heavens", verse 11. Elisha had previously asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit, and this was the condition for it. He will not get that at a distance, he will get it as he is there and sees him go up: "if thou see me when I am taken from thee". If Elisha were there with the others at Jericho, would he see him? No; and they were infidel about what had happened. Go to the place, that is the idea. "If thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee; but if not, it shall not be so. And it came to pass as they went on, and talked, that behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire; and they parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into the heavens", verses 10,11. One man saw that and hence was a witness to it; these men at a distance are not witnesses, when they do witness, they witness lies. A witness must see the thing that he witnesses to, otherwise he has no authority. As the Lord says, "and ye too bear witness, because ye are with me from the beginning", John 15:27.

I go on to chapter 4 now, just to finish; I wanted to show how Elisha himself had to learn this again. Here is a child given to a wealthy woman, a Shunammite. The child grows and dies, a very humbling thing; he dies at noon. He had been out with the reapers, a boy taking some interest in the work, but reaping, not sowing. Sowing is the first and more important thing -- ploughing, harrowing and putting in the seed. The Lord says, "others have laboured, and ye have entered into their labours", John 4:38. It is largely a time of reaping now and very important, of course. But this boy was with the reapers and his head got sick and he died. His father could not do anything and sent him to his mother, and he sat on her knees until noon and then died. How very solemn! A child of promise, a gift from God, but he dies. This is a most searching matter, but I am not speaking now of the state of things in the house; what I want to finish with is that Elisha himself has to learn

[Page 89]

more fully this matter of being where the need is if he is to help. He is at mount Carmel. Mount Carmel is a somewhat general idea, not a locality in the sense of a local meeting; it is where Elijah did his great work and slew the prophets -- overthrew idolatry. Now the mother of the child who died would go there; she knows where to go. I want you to bear in mind that Elisha's local position was Shunem, that is where he lived; this woman afforded him an abode, one room, as Scripture shows. That is where he resided, but he is not there now, he is away at Carmel. Well, you say, if anybody knows everything about that Shunammite and her house, it is Elisha, and he can settle the matter even at Carmel. But can he? Here is Gehazi, his servant, and the sequel shows that he was not a spiritual man: "And he said to Gehazi, Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thy hand, and go thy way". Go as fast as you can, he says, and he gave him all the regulations that would shut out unspirituality. Gehazi uses the staff, but that in itself is of no advantage, and Gehazi comes back again to the prophet saying, "The lad is not awaked". There is no life in that staff, although it represents Elisha's experience; but there is no life in it any more than in a letter written as to a local matter, the writer ignoring the necessity of being in the place.

I knew an old brother in England who was regarded as an assembly specialist. He tried to settle certain matters in this country and yet he lived on the other side of the Atlantic. Letter after letter came, but they never settled anything; they did harm. I know, for I had to do with the whole matter. Thus Elisha must go to Shunem. He has sent Gehazi, saying, "If thou meet any man, salute him not, and if any salute thee, answer him not again", verse 29; he is able to tell him how to keep out unspirituality; but Gehazi comes to tell him that nothing has been accomplished. The mother of the child knew that the prophet must go himself, and she

[Page 90]

said, "As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee!" These words he had used himself and hence would understand the urgent character of them. He is the local man, a man of God; she calls him earlier a holy man of God, the only one I believe that is so designated. She says to him, "I will not leave thee", she knew he was the needed man, but he must go to where the need was. He was a prophet of God, but he was also a local man at Shunem, he lived there. And so we are told that he followed the woman. She is a spiritual woman, she has need in her heart, her dead child is in her house, and any true man of God will follow her as she seeks him. The Lord followed Jairus to his house in similar circumstances. So the prophet went.

We must now consider what he does as he reaches the house where the lad is. There is no change; the staff has effected nothing. See what exercise there is with Elisha! No doubt he profited by the earlier experience of his master Elijah who did something very much like this. The passage says, "And when Elisha came into the house, behold, the child was dead", verse 32. How solemn that is! There is no change at all. It is a question now not of refusing to salute by the way, but of shutting the door; he shut the door on himself and the child. This is a very intense matter, it is most urgent, for it is a child of promise. Think of a child of christian parents, prayed for, brought up in the truth, turning his back on them and dying morally! That is the position -- he is turning his back on his parents, he is dead morally, he is in the world. I do not say this child went into the world, but he is dead, he had trouble in his head. "And when Elisha came into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed", verse 32, as much as to say. This is your matter; the Shunammite's mind ran thus, and the man of God seemed to accept this. He shut the door on them both and prayed. He

[Page 91]

prayed to Jehovah first; then "he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and bent over him; and the flesh of the child grew warm", verse 34. Where did that heat come from? Not from I the staff! It came from God, but through Elisha, a spiritual man. He is identifying himself with the locality and with that dead child in the locality, and the dead child becomes alive. It is through the local man; that is the point I want to press. It is an important matter, because the enemy would becloud the whole position by not allowing the principles governing local assemblies to work out; so if the Lord would do the best He can in the locality, let Him do it.

We are told, "the flesh of the child grew warm. And he returned, and walked in the house", verses 34, 35. Now it is a question of what is in the house. Maybe there is bad reading there; what is the effect of that upon the child? That is the suggestion I think. "And went up, and bent over him. And the lad sneezed seven times, and the lad opened his eyes", verse 35. That is wonderful! This is the matter to come to: that you have the local man and he is acting on right principles; he is identifying himself with the dead child, and the dead child is made alive. Then Gehazi is brought into it, a poor kind of man, but still, he is the prophet's servant and he uses him while he is a servant. "And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. And he called her; and she came to him. And he said, Take up thy son", verse 36. What a beautiful thing that is! "Take up thy son. And she came and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground; and she took up her son, and went out", verse 37. Shunem was never before such a town as it was then. This lad had been brought back to life there; the whole family, as I may say, is affected. The lad is brought to life on these principles. May God help us to maintain them!

[Page 92]

STRANGERSHIP

Exodus 18:1 - 3; Hebrews 11:13 - 16; 1 Peter 2:11,12

I wish to speak about strangership, and I think I have selected the most suitable passages for such a subject, believing they will aid me in what I have to say. The first scripture speaks about Moses in this respect. He represents the service of God, the ministry. Of him God says, "he is faithful in all my house", Numbers 12:7. Having part in the house of God tests us much; the apostle was concerned that those who served in it should know how to behave; saying to Timotheus that he wrote to him, pending the time of his coming, "in order that thou mayest know how one ought to conduct oneself in God's house", 1 Timothy 3:15. Then, so as to make clear what that meant, that the house was not like the temple at Jerusalem built by Herod or Solomon or Zerubbabel, he says, "the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth". Such is the great and glorious designation of the house of God; and so great, correspondingly, is the necessity for knowing how to conduct ourselves in it. For in truth it is composed of the saints, not of stones cut out with hands, but of living stones, who are marked off as coming to Christ who is the Living Stone; and as having come, they "are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ".

So that Moses fittingly comes in at the beginning of the subject I have chosen, and he brings in this question of strangership as soon as his first child is born. It is very significant that this characteristic of true believers is written in indelible letters on the household of this great servant of God. Previous to this Moses had not been the head of a house. He had been brought up as a foster-child in the leading royal house of the world, really as a son in it, and was sophisticated according to the learning of that house, skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

[Page 93]

I suppose he could shine in any court of this world in that period; he could represent Pharaoh in any court or diplomatic circle. He was an unmarried man. Pharaoh's daughter really had become his saviour. He had been laid in the Nile by his mother, and could have only subsisted there a short time, as you can understand, but Pharaoh's daughter came down to wash herself, which is not without significance. Not that such personages should not do so, but it is not without significance that she should come thus where this babe was lying in the Nile. It was in the sedge, not out in the stream where he would have been carried away to the delta, but in the sedge where he was held and protected, but still in the water. Household baptism was wrapped up in that fact. Pharaoh's daughter found the babe in the ark that his mother had prepared for him, and the babe wept, portending something of value in the service of God, namely sympathetic feeling, of which Moses was never short in his time of service.

Well, he was nursed by his mother, under the wisdom of God; for his sister was wise, and his mother was wise, and through their skill the real mother of the child became his nurse. So that he is under good influence, living by his mother when he should do so, showing how children are to be brought up under a mother's care, not only physically, but morally. The mother has the means and place of influencing the child when he needs influence. The secret of many departures later has been in the lack of this. New-born babes desire milk; spiritually they are to desire the sincere milk of the word, the pure mental milk; for a child soon begins to use his mind and that mind has to be ministered to, and the mother is the vessel for that in his early days. Moses remained in Pharaoh's house for forty years, until he became great. Forty years is quite a mature age, although Moses lived three times forty; but at that age he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, hence qualifying for this

[Page 94]

great office of service that marked him, particularly during the latter forty years of his life. He chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God. Whoever they were outwardly, in whatever station in this world, they were the people of God -- the greatest distinction -- and Moses whole-heartedly identified himself with them. There may be some here who have never thought of identifying themselves with the people of God as such; maybe you are a society person; but then, what is your society? Moses says, Mine has been Egyptian, but it is not so any more; henceforth it is the people of God. What a fine resolve! Heaven took account of that resolve.

Well, Moses occasioned the wrath of Pharaoh and fled the country, "not fearing", we are told, "the wrath of the king", Hebrews 11:27, not fearing it. You say, Then why did he flee? That is to be understood spiritually. Faith is never marked by fear of man -- never! And it was by faith that he selected his society; faith was active. The Lord Jesus says, "Fear not those who kill the body and after this have no more that they can do", Luke 12:4. That is all they can do. The most powerful man on earth, now or at any time can do nothing more; he cannot go beyond that; a limitation that is placed upon people of power in this world. The Lord says, Do not fear them, even although their attacks may be direct, do not fear them. They can only kill the body. "But I will shew you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who after he has killed has authority to cast into hell; yea, I say to you. Fear him", verse 5. That is a great word at the present time; and I suppose it explains why it says Moses did not fear the wrath of the king: he feared God. He fled into Midian and sat by a well, as much as to say, I have been a powerful man in Egypt according to the flesh, but the Spirit of God must be my power henceforth. There he watered the flock of Jethro's daughters: he knew how to use the well: he

[Page 95]

used it unselfishly for others first. He is qualifying to be a great servant of God, and from that time till the end of forty years he is occupied in caring for sheep. A great Egyptian prince, as he was according to man's estimate, is now just a shepherd; he is working evidently for whatever his father-in-law is pleased to give him. There is never a word said about salary with Moses, though he fed the flock of Jethro for forty years. Think of a man like that! What a discipline! What a school! And what a graduation! God graduated him from that school into the next school, forty years later. He called out his name, "Moses!" You understand that, you young children here; this very hall is used for just that purpose. His name was called out, "Moses, Moses!" Why did God call out his name twice like that? God was in the bush; the bush burned and the bush was not consumed, and Moses turned aside to see why the bush was not consumed. God says, There is a man of interest; he is interested in what I am doing, and that calls forth My interest in him. And He says, "Moses, Moses! ... loose thy sandals from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground", Exodus 3:4,5. God says, so to speak, You are graduating into a much higher school than you have ever been in before. And Moses obeyed God -- he was a subject man.

I have exceeded what I intended to say on this part of Moses' history, but it is to reach the thought of strangership. The first forty years in Midian he tended the flock of Jethro, and during that time he married one of Jethro's daughters whose name was Zipporah. It is said that he "was content to dwell with the man", that is, with Jethro; content to do it. You may say, Why should he not be? But think of who he had been in this world! Were he not converted to God, would he have been content to dwell with a Midianitish priest, and marry one of his daughters who was a shepherdess? No! He would have married some

[Page 96]

princess in Egypt. But he did not; he was content to dwell with the man, not simply with his wife, but with her father. It may be assumed that thus he was quite at home, but no, he was not quite at home; no man of faith is quite at home in ordinary human circumstances, however much he may accept them. He is a heavenly man, his home is elsewhere; and so as this babe is born he names him Gershom. "And she bore a son, and he called his name Gershom; for he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign land", chapter 2:22. Moses would recall how as a boy he had wept in the ark; he would carry down the history which doubtless his mother would have told him. It is most important that fathers and mothers, as bringing up children, should remember; as one says, "I have been young, and now am old", Psalm 37:25. We can never deal with the young rightly unless we revert to the time and experiences we had when we were young. We must sympathise with the young, or we shall not influence them.

Moses, if asked why he named his son Gershom, would say, Because I am a sojourner in Midian; I am in a foreign land. He is speaking by faith. This is not the language of an ordinary man; if he were only an ordinary man he would not be in Midian; he would be in Egypt, shining as a leading light, as people say, in the world, in the court of Pharaoh. He is not an ordinary man, he is a man of faith; and morally no one who is not of faith, is of any value in the sight of God. So that this is a matter of faith. Now what I want to show is that as years went on he arrived at the point I have already alluded to, when God appeared to him in the bush. Let every one of us recall in his history, every man of faith and woman of faith and child of faith here, when you had a direct transaction with God. No one is of any consequence in the testimony of God until he has had such. God appeared to Moses in the bush, and he turned aside to see. It was a remarkable thing: the bush burned and

[Page 97]

the bush was not consumed. He turned aside to see why that was, and God says, "Moses, Moses!" Then He told him to take off his shoes, etc., as I have already remarked. That was one great turning point in his life, and it was at the mount of God.

And now in Exodus 18 he is at the same mount, forty years after he went to Midian; and Jethro having heard what God had been doing for Israel, came to Moses there. Jethro was "priest of Midian", he was not an Israelite, nor, as you might say, did he belong to Moses' religion. People like to think of their religions. I am satisfied with my religion one says; it was good enough for my father, it is good enough for me. That is one of the poorest things one can say. The question to decide is, What is of God? "And Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done to Moses, and to Israel his people; that Jehovah had brought Israel out of Egypt. And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back, and her two sons, of whom the name of the one was Gershom -- for he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign land", Exodus 18:1 - 3. Then verse 5 says, "And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came to Moses with his sons and his wife into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mountain of God". That is the same place to which he had led the sheep of Jethro when God appeared to him at the mount of God. Now let everybody challenge his own heart as to whether he understands the mount of God. Whatever your religion may be, does it represent the mount of God? The mount of God means that God provides all that is necessary for His service -- for His people who are His house. It is the place of divine resource; and if I am not there, I had better get there. Religion in itself according to this world is nothing; it is a question of whether the mount of God is there. Abraham originated that idea, "On the mount of Jehovah will be provided", he said,

[Page 98]

Genesis 22:14. And that is the principle; everything that is needed, that is requisite for the service of God is provided by God on His mountain. Moses is there now, encamped there with Israel, and Jethro comes there. Was he ever at the mount of God before? I cannot say, but he is at it now, and it is to his great advantage that he is. If there is anybody here who has not come to that place, then I would urge you to look into this matter and see why you are not at the mount of God, where God provides things for man. God will never provide you with a cathedral, or a choir; not with that sort of thing at all; not with things of man's art and device to be used in His service. Everything that is provided comes from the mount of God and is according to Himself.

Jethro came there, and he brought Moses' two boys and their mother. It says of the other boy, "and the name of the other, Eliezer", verse 4; which means, "El is my help". You will see by what I have been saying, that this parent is stamping God, as it were, on his household; it is the secret of the preservation of our children; from the very outset our children are stamped, I might say, with the name of God. First, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land", as much as to say, I can never be at home in this world; my son is stamped with it, and I want him to be brought up that way. Someone may say. You will never be a successful man. Oh, yes, Moses would say, "God is my help"; that is the name of my second boy, and I will bring him up in the light of that; I am not a man of this world, and I depend on God in everything. I will bring up my children in dependence on God.

In the New Testament God promises us, "Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, ... and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty", 2 Corinthians 6:17,18. Moses would say, I have proved that.

[Page 99]

He proved it in the presence of Pharaoh in the exodus. And so he says, My second boy must be brought up in the understanding that God will help him. If I cannot go out with people, and take part in the things of this world, and hence may appear at a disadvantage in my business, yet I know God will help me. Moses brought up his family in the light of these two great facts.

Now going on to Abraham in Hebrews 11, I am not speaking of him exactly as a leading servant, but as a leading father; his name means father. First he is "high father", and then he is "father of a multitude"; and we have a description of him in this chapter as a man of faith. I have spoken of Moses as a father, and of how his father-in-law helped him with his wife and children, so that grandparents are brought into the service of bringing up children; and we are told here that Abraham dwelt in the tents with Isaac and Jacob. "By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise", verse 9. That is, he would have in mind to help his son and grandson, so that he dwelt with them; and he dwelt with them in tents. There would be two tents, I suppose; Abraham would have one, and Isaac would have one. It is not good for families to dwell together in that sense; it is better for each family to have a tent, and to let the grandfather come into the son's tent where the grandson is, and influence him there for good, showing his paternal interest in his children and grandchildren. That is the effect here, implying that Abraham was really a father, he had a true parental heart. You can see him coming down the fields or down the garden to Isaac's tent: Isaac is there and Rebecca is there -- comparatively young people -- and Jacob, who at the most could not have been more than fifteen years old. From the time Jacob was a babe, until he was fifteen years old, Abraham would have been accustomed to

[Page 100]

come to the tent of Isaac his son, and to sit with his son and grandson. And you can understand how Abraham would say, Well, Isaac, I have been thinking of such-and-such a thing today. He could go back many years beyond a hundred; he was about one hundred and sixty years old when Jacob was born. He could say to Isaac, Jehovah appeared to me before I left Ur of the Chaldeans -- adding many details of deep interest. How sanctifying that would be! A most spiritual man in later times says of that event, "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia", Acts 7:2. What a day that was! I do not suppose Abraham could say, "The God of glory"; it was Stephen who said that. But anyway, it was the God of glory; and we can understand how Abraham would say to Isaac, Jehovah said to me, "Go out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house", Genesis 12:1. And Jacob was sitting there, a boy of twelve, we might say, listening to his grandfather; these words would sink into his heart: they should have sunk in anyway, and doubtless they did. That is what was said, "Go out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house".

Well, that is the position. Verse 13 that I read says, "All these died in faith", that is, those who were pilgrims and strangers; you could hardly refer to Noah in that way, or to Enoch. But I am speaking only of Abraham here. He moved out of the land of the Chaldeans at the word of Jehovah and came into the land of Canaan and died there. The word is, "All these died in faith", that is, I apprehend, Abraham and his immediate family as mentioned in verses 8 - 12. These are the ones; but they died. How did they die? Did they die distressed or without hope? No! They died "in faith". It may be translated, as we may see in the note, 'according to faith'. That is how I want to die. If the Lord pleases to call me to sleep, as He may, I want to go that way, "according to faith". "All these died in

[Page 101]

faith, not having received the promises". But the writer further says, "but having seen them from afar off and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and sojourners on the earth. For they who say such things shew clearly that they seek their country. And if they had called to mind that from whence they went out, they had had opportunity to have returned; but now they seek a better, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he has prepared for them a city", verses 13 - 16. My point now, just to close, is that they confessed to strangership. Moses confessed it in the name by which he called his first boy; it indicated that he had been a stranger in a strange land. He could not take up any offices there in the sense in which they are ordinarily taken up; he was a foreigner. Midian was not the land of promise, so that Abraham differs from Moses; he was actually in the land of promise, but still he is a stranger; as it says here, "By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country", verse 9; that is, he dwelt in the land of promise as a stranger. It was promised to him, and yet when he got there he lived in it as a stranger. The meaning is that the literal land is still under foreign domination, and Abraham's entrance into it as his inheritance awaited redemption -- the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Thus only could there be a city which has foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor.

"All these died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them from afar off and embraced them", verse 13. The actual land was under their feet; that was not at a distance; it was the faith realm that was afar off. Abraham began to see there was something even beyond the land of promise, the faith realm; because, after all, Palestine is there yet. Where is Abraham? The Lord Jesus, in replying to the wicked doctrine of the Sadducees, referred to "the

[Page 102]

section of the bush", in which it is said God appeared to Moses; there God says, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", Matthew 22:32. It is not, I was the God of Abraham, but I am. Then the Lord adds, "God is not God of the dead, but of the living". Where is Abraham living? In the realm of faith. He is with Christ, but he looked forward beyond the land of Canaan to the heavenly realm; that is where he lives in the measure in which he may live now. Presently he will have part in the first resurrection, and he will live eternally in the heavenly land, not in the earthly Canaan. Abraham will not come back here to the land of Canaan literally; his lot is in a better land. What does Scripture say here? Scripture says plainly that they seek a country. In the very land of Canaan they are seeking another country. And what is that country? What does God say about it? "And if they had called to mind that from whence they went out, they had had opportunity to have returned; but now they seek a better, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he has prepared for them a city", verses 15, 16. God did not promise Abraham a city when He told him to go out from the Chaldeans; this city is a new thing that has come into view, and it is heavenly. It is about to come down from God out of heaven. Abraham waited for it: "for he waited for the city which has foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor", verse 10. So my thought in regard to Abraham is that in the very things which were legitimate and which God promised him literally, he was a stranger; he was not even at home there. He was looking for better things. God would help us to look for better things than the temporal mercies which He may grant us. That is the word that characterises the epistle to the Hebrews -- better things; so that we may learn not to be content or be satisfied with what nature calls the very best. There are

[Page 103]

things better than that, and these are what Abraham looked for. He died according to that principle -- in faith; he died in faith, so that the things he looked for were not yet realised. But now they are realised, because every promise of God is yea and amen in Christ. There is just that word in Peter, "Beloved, I exhort you, as strangers and sojourners, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul", 1 Peter 2:11. That enters into this matter, for the youth amongst the brethren, and their parents need to be watchful of it: "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul". It is amplified in the word, "having your conversation honest among the gentiles, that as to that in which they speak against you as evildoers, they may through your good works, themselves witnessing them, glorify God in the day of visitation".

May God bless the word to us all, parents, servants, and young people. These all enter into what I have endeavoured to bring before you, and I trust God will use the word to help us all.

[Page 104]

SPEAKING

2 Corinthians 4:13; John 12:41; 1 Peter 4:11; Malachi 3:16 - 18

What I have in mind is in relation to speaking. It is peculiarly a time of speaking: God is now speaking from heaven, and Luke has in mind the quality of the speaking. It belongs to the priestly state, for the priests' lips should keep knowledge, as Scripture says, It is to be observed that he who prefigured Christ as Priest, he who became the first high priest of Israel and the father of the priestly family, is introduced in the Scriptures as one who could speak well: that is, Aaron. Impediments in speech are not rare, and where they exist they occasion discipline; but God made man's mouth, inclusive of all the organs of speech, and made it perfectly. It is this very fact that He brings forward, when one who was to be a great servant complained that he could not speak. Inability to speak, therefore, is not to be put forward as an excuse for non-speaking, for silence. Luke records of the young man of the city of Nain who was raised from the dead, that he sat up and began to speak. We have to make a beginning in speaking. The voice of a risen young man, and the theme of his speaking, would be of deep interest. Lazarus, who also was raised from the dead, is never said to have spoken, another singular thing. Yet he was the occasion of many believing on Jesus. So that speaking is not everything in service; something more than speaking is needed. Without other essential things speaking is in the way and may become a trial to the saints. There are those who think they are heard because of much speaking, which the Lord rebukes.

So you will understand what I have in mind; and I refer to Aaron because he stands at the very beginning of what I may call organised testimony. Organisation belongs to God, and Aaron was brought forward in the

[Page 105]

divine system with this commendation, that God knew he could speak well. Moses was to be God to Pharaoh; he was to represent God, and Aaron was to be his prophet. That is the idea of organised testimony into which speaking enters. Confirming this we have with Barnabas and Paul the great accompaniment of good speaking in the preaching of the gospel, although Paul's traducers at Corinth said his speech was contemptible, which I would call a lie. They said that, but the Spirit of God says he and Barnabas so spake that a great multitude believed. You have to put those two things in juxtaposition. They "so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed", Acts 14:1. Indeed, speaking is stressed in that remarkable chapter: one man heard Paul speaking and was affected by his speaking, not only by what he said, but by the act of speaking itself. Paul said something specific to the man "with a loud voice". "This man heard Paul speaking, who, fixing his eyes on him, and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice. Rise up straight upon thy feet", and he did. Acts 14:9,10.

Well now, I shall lean on my four scriptures to aid me in bringing out this matter. The first shows that speaking is based on and is the outcome of faith. The second shows that it is the outcome of seeing the glory of Christ; not simply reading about Christ, but seeing the glory of Christ. The third declares that "oracles of God" are to be enunciated. And fourthly it is stated that the saints characteristically speak one to another. They have no discrimination, as preferring one to another; the mutual feelings in the saints of God are in view characteristically as having love amongst themselves; that is, the most honoured brother speaks to the simplest, if I may so classify them. They "spoke often one to another". The divine system affords such condescension, humility in listening to perhaps the least, as he might be estimated. The Lord Jesus listened to two speakers: one was

[Page 106]

Moses and the other was Elijah. There is no complaint on the part of Moses on the mount of transfiguration that he could not speak; he had learned how -- he and Elijah. I suppose they spoke one after the other. There would be no interruptions as there are sometimes in our speaking together, unnecessary interruptions. One can understand how Moses would speak of the types of the Lord's death, for it was about His death they were speaking, the greatest subject morally -- the death of Jesus. One can imagine Elijah remarking to the Lord something on what happened at Carmel, and the altar he built where he slew the prophets of Baal. What speaking it must have been! I mention it because Scripture says they were speaking with Jesus, not He with them. The Lord listened to them, and of course spoke too. So that speaking in a mutual way belongs to the kingdom of God, for what transpired on the mount of transfiguration was that. It was the kingdom of God. The kingdom of the Son of man first; the kingdom of God come in power second; and thirdly the kingdom of God by itself in dignity and greatness: these are the phases of the truth that shone out on that great occasion on the mount, as seen in the three synoptical gospels.

Now the first scripture speaks about faith. When one is to speak by invitation, which is very proper, he has to inspect himself see to his spiritual condition. Then what is of paramount importance is faith, whether I can speak as believing: "I believed", says the psalmist, Psalm 116:10. Not that faith is very prominent in actual record in the Old Testament; it was there in Abel, in Enoch, in Noah, in Abraham, in Isaac, in Jacob, and in all the rest of these enumerated in Hebrews 11; but the word 'faith' is not formally mentioned. The thing was there: it underlay all the testimony. Faith began as sin entered; I mean, as God acted to meet sin, faith began. Sin was to be met on that principle, on the principle of faith. So that one may speak of Adam himself

[Page 107]

giving his wife another name -- Eve. I should say that name was, as it were, baptised. Ishshah, her first name, did not need to be baptised, no death had come in yet; the name Eve did. You will understand what I mean: death had come in; Adam and his wife were clothed with the skin of an animal, which pointed to death; they knew sin was upon them, but it had to be met; and God was already meeting it in type. Adam spoke and called his wife's name Eve, the mother of all living instead of the mother of all dying. She could not be the mother of all living except through the death of Christ.

Psalm 116 is cited by Paul in the verse read in 2 Corinthians: "according to what is written, I have believed, therefore have I spoken; we also believe, therefore also we speak", 2 Corinthians 4:13. So that in approaching the service of speaking it is not only that I have believed, but that I believe. Every step from my solitary sanctuary in the preparation of what I have to say, is to increase on the previous one, in faith. It is a matter of the dispensation of God which is in faith. And so the Holy Spirit has liberty and the speaker stands up, not with the thought that he believed historically, for he may have done this and not be in faith now; it is present faith in regard to what I am going to say; do I believe it now, or have I just read it and committed it to memory? Paul says, "we also believe", that is, we believe now. Hence the preaching is on the principle of faith to faith; the speaker is counting on the hearers to have faith too. Have they had a sanctuary of enquiry? Have they waited on the Lord as to what is going to be said? It is not with them a question of what they are going to say, but of what they are going to hear. Have they faith in regard to that? For unless there is faith in the hearers the ministry must be ineffective. Hence the need of exercise and sincerity in coming to listen to ministry. It is profane to come carelessly or indifferently.

[Page 108]

Now the next thing is not with regard to faith, but to the glory of Christ. One of the greatest thoughts in Scripture is the glory of Christ. There is the glory of God too; there is the Father of glory, and the Lord of glory, but this is the glory of Christ. Well, if that comes into my soul, and I am going to speak about Him, it is because I have seen that glory. Thus John says, "These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him", John 12:41. It dissipates any thought of glory as to myself that I may have in my service of speaking, one of the greatest dangers in serving is to have any thought of personal glory in the service; it is a dead fly in the ointment of the apothecary. How often it breaks through the screen! So John the evangelist, quoting by the Spirit from Isaiah 53 says, "Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? On this account they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them", John 12:38 - 40. A terrible judicial sentence! "They could not believe". As quoted here, it is the second time Esaias spoke. But my verse is, "These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him", verse 41. Now one rejoices in the great increase of ability in service, but I would urge on all of us who serve, to seek to understand and get a view of the glory of Christ. Where is that glory to be seen? It is in the sanctuary as one retires there, for if one is to speak to men, he must speak to God first. If I cannot speak to God I cannot rightly speak to men. Of one it is said, that he had power with God and men; and according to this verse the need is to see the glory of Christ if one is to speak to men rightly of Him. For that we need the power of elimination; the ability to govern our minds, so as to eliminate from them at a given time all that is extraneous to the moment, and to

[Page 109]

let what is needed for the moment come into them. This is one of the most important exercises and requirements that I know of in the service of God; a supreme matter in the christian's life is to learn how to control the mind. It is thus free, and the Holy Spirit gives a view of the glory of Christ in relation to what is immediately to hand. Something will come, something is sure to come to you as you wait on God on those lines, and it will give character to what you have to say. "These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him". One of the most beautiful verses in the beautiful gospel of John is that verse: "he saw his glory and spoke of him". That glory is described vividly by the prophet Isaiah in chapter 6.

The next thing, dear brethren, is the oracles of God. It is said of Israel that they had much advantage because to them were committed the oracles of God. Oracles are speakings from an oracle; in Scripture they are speakings from the temple of God. That is more than my closet, my retreat before my service: it involves the assembly, it involves the saints, that is to say, those who have the Holy Spirit. I can speak much better to those who have the Holy Spirit than to those who have not. The latter need the gospel. In Acts 14 Paul spoke to those who had not the Spirit, as I have already said. The more spiritual the auditors, the more elevated the ministry; for there is a drawing out, instead of forcing it back. And why should it not be so? As we are together as of the temple there should be scope for the ministry of the Spirit. "Do ye not know that ye are the temple of God?" 1 Corinthians 3:16. We may well take the words to ourselves: "Do ye not know that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" The Holy Spirit has liberty in the saints and thus there is a spiritual current, that is the idea of the oracle; it is a place of immediate communication from God, not what I get in my closet, but what I get when I am on my feet

[Page 110]

as I minister. The oracles of God emanate from the oracle. It is a question of the Holy Spirit and it raises a great inquiry in the ministry, as to how far those who listen aid those who speak. It is obligatory upon us to do so in so far as we may, and that is by disallowing what interferes with the free action of the Spirit among the brethren. The principle enters into this meeting, into a Bible reading, into all meetings for ministry. Think of the magnitude of it, that God speaks! Actual communications from God issue forth for His people. "If any one speak -- as oracles of God". 1 Corinthians 14 governs all this. The epistle contemplates lawless conditions in the assembly, even to the extent of an evil spirit, a terrible thought: the apostle has to say, "I give you therefore to know, that no one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus", 1 Corinthians 12:3. Think of the possibility of a state in an assembly, ostensibly the assembly of God, where the Lord Jesus would be cursed! Where He would be hated! You may say, There is no such thing now. Well, let us examine our hearts and see how much there may be there in lightness and evil thoughts as to those sitting by us, thoughts brought in from the wicked world around us by young people. Let us examine our hearts as to evil thoughts. And so the apostle says, "If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha", 1 Corinthians 16:22. God speaks severely to us in these matters. He is jealous of the assembly, of His temple, and would have us to judge ourselves lest we bring in what is antagonistic to Christ and to God as we sit listening to ministry. But then, as I said, the speaker himself has to see to it above all, that if he speaks, let it be as oracles of God. Not that he is an oracle exactly; it is more the idea of oracles, that is, communications of that character. What a great matter that is in the world of darkness around us! Young people come out of schools that are full of darkness, full

[Page 111]

of hatred to Christ; doctrines from the very pit are proclaimed by the teachers. We hear them in our business places too. The darkness is dreadful. But in contrast, think of the greatness of what is existent now: God speaking on the principle of oracles! What a great honour it is to have any part in this! "If any one speak -- as oracles of God", says the apostle Peter. It is not a matter of guess work or of speculation, but of what I am assured is the truth, as weighed before God in the light of Scripture; it is prompted by the Spirit, it emanates from Him. What is said in this way has the character of the oracles of God. All speaking in the assembly should take on the character of definiteness: "We also believe, therefore also we speak". The apostle spoke what he knew to be true. This, however, does not preclude godly inquiry, for others are to judge what is said, Of the Bereans it is said, "daily searching the scriptures if these things were so", Acts 17:11. I would like to have said to those Bereans, Have you examined what Paul said tonight? Yes. And have you found any error? No. That is what I should expect. He spoke as oracles of God. What a wonderful thing it was, Paul going out into the dark heathen world and speaking definitely the truth! He knew it was true. John greatly stresses the idea of truth, and of believers knowing it definitely.

And finally, there is the speaking one to another according to what I read in Malachi: the saints speaking one to another. It is not the way they did things on Mars' hill: that was a place of speaking; we all know that the Greeks were speakers; they studied oratory and excelled in it too. Some of them brought Paul to Mars' hill, having said "What would this chatterer say?" Acts 17:18. That is what they said about him. And again, "He seems to be an announcer of foreign demons, because he announced the glad tidings of Jesus and the resurrection to them". With all their supposed intelligence

[Page 112]

they seemed to regard the resurrection as a god: "strange gods" -- "Jesus and the resurrection" -- as if Jesus was one god and the resurrection another. That indicates the intelligence of Mars' hill! So that the speaking between the saints contemplated in this remarkable passage in Malachi is not a Mars' hill affair. Those who frequented that famous place "spent their time in nothing else than to tell and to hear the news", they were there to hear and to tell some new thing.

It may be profitable to suggest here that we ought to be on our guard as to things we report. To be able to tell a new thing is an attraction. That it is new does not prove it is true. The thought on Mars' hill was, not to tell some true thing, but some new thing; and you may be sure that the reporter, if he were going to be a little prominent in the day's session, would add to the report, and what he added might make it a lie. Let us be on our guard as to carrying new things. What value are they if they are not true? and if they are true and are not useful, what is the advantage of telling them? We are to be set to edify one another. "Whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are amiable, whatsoever things are of good report ... think on these things", Philippians 4:8.

The passage read in Malachi says, "Then they that feared Jehovah spoke often one to another; and Jehovah observed it, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name". "Feared Jehovah" is said twice, and it is recorded at a particular time when others were not doing so. "Then they that feared Jehovah spoke often one to another; and Jehovah observed it, and heard". I think that is very beautiful, that Jehovah should turn His ear to hear what a group of people who feared Him were saying. I should have liked to turn in too and hear what they were saying. "Jehovah observed it, and heard". He heard exactly what these people were

[Page 113]

saying. Notes of it would, I am sure, make good matter for printing. Those people were characterised by the fear of the Lord, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; so that I learn in the fear of the Lord how to say wise things and to avoid folly. The book of Proverbs is on that line, to keep me from folly and to maintain me in what is wise and helpful. And so, it says, "a book of remembrance was written before him". A book of remembrance does not mean He wrote down everything that was said; God put down something about these people that He would remember. It is a beautiful touch. Think of God making notes, as it were! He does not need to, being God, but He comes down to our way of doing things so that all should be understood as accurate. What caused Him to turn aside to hear these people? It brings up the whole question of the position today of those who form the assembly: whether we are attracting the ear of heaven and whether any note is being made up there as to what is transpiring among us, over against what you get in public print every day. It is a question of what heaven takes account of. And then the passage says the book was written "for them that feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name". It is not only what they said that is noted, but what they thought; that was, "upon his name"; they cherished the name of Jehovah above all other names. So that "they shall be unto me a peculiar treasure, saith Jehovah of hosts, in the day that I prepare; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him".

We come back to Exodus 4, to the great divine thought of sonship: it is not now in millions of Israelites, but in the few, the greatly reduced number, that are the true remnant. The very shrinkage makes for quality, makes what is worth while for God to note in the few that feared Jehovah and thought upon His name. He says, "I will spare them". Does that not fit in at the present time when there is so much suffering among our

[Page 114]

brethren? Will God not spare us? I think He will. Things might be far worse than they are; they are bad enough in certain places, but in general they might be worse. And as we promote these features in ourselves, will there not be a sparing of us? I am sure there will. Our prayers are not always answered immediately; it is said of Jabez, "And God brought about what he had requested", 1 Chronicles 4:10, but it may have taken months or years. I know that desires I have had for forty years, and expressed in prayer, are coming about now. You may ask me what they allude to, but I will not tell you. But what I am saying is right: if you have to wait years, it is worth while waiting. On whom are you waiting? God. Saul lost the kingdom because he could not wait, whereas David says, "I waited patiently for Jehovah", Psalm 40:1. "Be watchful unto prayers", 1 Peter 4:7. Waiting on God is worth while; if the answer does not come, pray again. God brings "about" what we pray for.

Then Jehovah says, "ye shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not". Under these circumstances there is improvement in discernment. The present is a most educational time and we are not to miss it. A brother wrote to me the other day from England, saying, Is it not the finishing course? I believe it is and I do not want to miss it. But I am referring to discernment: as God spares us and makes us more discerning we do not call things by their wrong names, we know how to name things according to what they are as presented to us; so that we "discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not".

[Page 115]

THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD

1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Galatians 1:1,2; Revelation 2:1

J.T. What is in mind is to show how the administrative service of the assembly is in subdivision in localities; but that in the subdivisions, there is catholicity; that is, uniformity in procedure and custom. "The assemblies of God" is a very dignified term. "We have no such custom", the apostle says, verse 16; that is, contention is not allowed in the assemblies of God. Then in chapter 14 it is said that God is not a God of disorder but of peace, "as in all the assemblies of the saints", verse 33. In Galatians we learn that the assemblies in a district may be affected together by an evil principle or doctrine; that is, the influence of it may extend to a district, but not universally. Finally, the Lord, in view of the failure of the assemblies, asserts this principle of local responsibility as being He "who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps", Revelation 2:1. He visits them and speaks to each of them, and there is a different word for each one.

W.B-w. Is Acts 9 the first place in which "assemblies" are mentioned; that is the plural? "The assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace", Acts 9:31. They are unified and all walking in the power of that. It seems that after Saul of Tarsus was converted "the assemblies", in the plural, come into view.

J.T. That is right; one had that in mind. The thought came in under Paul's ministry; he was not yet recognised as a minister of the gospel, but it is very significant that the word 'assemblies' appears in this connection first. It was a single idea at Jerusalem earlier, but we get it later in the Acts several times, in the plural; and elsewhere, too, besides the passages read. It speaks of the Thessalonians being imitators of the

[Page 116]

assemblies in Judaea; but Peter in the end of the chapter in the Acts that you alluded to, went to all quarters, no longer confining himself to the central position. And then we have Aeneas directed to make his bed for himself, which is the principle in mind in the local gathering.

C.J.E. In the first scripture you referred to, is the contentious person the opposite of a subject person?

J.T. Quite so. You read of a contentious king in the Old Testament, Hosea 5:13, note. It is also said, "It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman, and a house in common", Proverbs 25:24. The allusion would be to a state of contention in the assemblies: it is better to be alone in the corner of a housetop than to be in that -- a very pronounced way of condemning contention. So that the apostle announces here, "we" -- emphatic -- "have no such custom". That is, he would disallow it himself and so would those with him, and the assemblies of God are of the same mind. And the next passage read confirms this: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints", 1 Corinthians 14:33. It is the way in which God makes Himself known in the assemblies. When the Lord came into the first one, He said, "Peace", as if that were to mark it. That was the inauguration, and it was to mark the assembly in its subdivisions.

A.R. Have you in mind that the assemblies of God are to take character from God Himself as belonging to Him?

J.T. That is the lesson, I think. The first part is in that dignified word -- "the assemblies of God". We have the "assemblies of the saints", but "the assemblies of God" is a characteristic word in view of dignity and representation.

C.A.M. I suppose that designation in itself would put them on a different footing from any other assemblage in the world. The word would be understood, in

[Page 117]

a way, in Greece, but the political assemblies there would hardly be free from contentions.

J.T. Mars' hill, where they came together to hear the news, would be marked by that. "What would this chatterer say?" is their query in Acts 17:18. And anything Paul said they would question.

C.A.M. You mean legislation is put through on that principle.

J.T. Yes. There is a very significant term in England - "The King's Opposition". In the House of Commons the party not in power has that designation. It is legalised opposition, whereas in the assembly of God there is no such thought.

F.H.L. That seems to be in view here, because it says, "But if any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God", 1 Corinthians 11:16; as if contention is the work of the active natural mind.

J.T. Yes; there would be the thought in my mind that I will question what this one says, and what that one says, There used to be a great deal of that in earlier days amongst the brethren, but, thank God, there is not much of it now. God has helped us as to unity.

A.R. Why does he say, "we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God", as if he is speaking about himself and others, and then about the assemblies of God?

J.T. I think it is to stress that his custom is not different from that of the assemblies of God. He did not admit of such a custom. If he had to contend for the truth, he had to; but he did not admit that it was a right thing for any one to have a different opinion. Of course many assert that it is right, and say, This is my opinion, or, That is my mind; and we must leave it and agree to differ. But Paul did not want that at all; the we is to show that he did not. Why should I have a

[Page 118]

different mind? If we are the temple of God, we need not differ; we may arrive at one mind. So in Philippians we are told that we are to be not only of the same love, but of the same mind: "that ye may think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking one thing", Philippians 2:2.

W.R-n. Being "perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion", 1 Corinthians 1:10.

A.N.W. You referred to the imitation on the part of the Thessalonians. Would you say a little more about that? It is, "imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus". Is that a matter of imitating assembly procedure?

J.T. I should say so. It is disregarding national feeling. National feeling is a very baneful thing amongst the brethren; that is, we ought to be able to judge right or wrong, whatever nation is guilty of the wrong. To say wrong is right is immoral, no matter who is guilty of the wrong. So I think the fact that the Thessalonian saints were able to imitate the assemblies of God in Judaea in Christ Jesus meant they were free from national feeling and recognised the early ministry. The meetings in Judaea would be the product, largely, of the twelve apostles (Peter particularly being accredited of God), and they are said to be "in Christ Jesus". They are the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus -- a very exalted term in every way -- and the Thessalonians are commended for imitating them; showing that the work of God enables us to link on with what is of God in every locality, provided it has the moral superiority that is worth imitation. We do not say we will not learn from brethren at a distance, or in another country; we are to be ready to learn from others if there is something of God to be learned.

W.B-w. Suppose some new procedure starts in one locality and certain ones go with it, how do we determine whether it is right or wrong?

[Page 119]

J.T. By the Scriptures. The Thessalonians evidently determined that things were right in Judaea at that time. According to the epistle to the Hebrews, they would hardly copy them later. The assemblies in Judaea must have lost ground from the way the writer speaks of them; in fact, they were neglecting the assembling of themselves together. They must have retrograded. Persons taught of God would not have imitated them then. Of course, the way of finding out what is right and wrong lies in the Spirit, Scripture being the standard. We have the Spirit of God and He guides us into all the truth. We do not say the assemblies of Judaea were right because they were there, but evidently they were going on with God, because they were "the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus". The very designation shows they were right. The assembly at Thessalonica is said to be in God the Father; this shows a beautiful link between them and those in Judaea.

W.B-w. These questions of whether a woman should wear long hair and whether she should be covered seem to be points that might bring in the contention.

J.T. Quite so. It is remarkable how much contention they have occasioned; but the apostle has in mind that we should not contend about them; we should wait on God and obtain His mind.

A.A.T. There has been a good deal of contention about baptism.

J.T. Yes. We should not contend. Scripture says, "And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend", 2 Timothy 2:24. On the other hand, we are told to contend "earnestly for the faith", Jude 3that is, contending for the truth in a godly way is quite admissible; but contending characteristically is wrong; as a person saying, I have a different view and am holding to it. Of course, baptism is being used very much for that sort of thing, and I am sure because of that we should

[Page 120]

avoid contention about it, but God would help us to bring the truth to bear on souls.

C.A.M. What you said about the Spirit and its bearing on this, is very important. Where a thing is beclouded in the eyes of any of us as to right and wrong, would it not be a just thing to say that our view must in some way conflict with the cross of Christ, as in chapter 1; or with the Spirit, as in chapter 2 of this epistle?

J.T. Disunion is the first thing the apostle speaks of in the way of exhortation: "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been shewn to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you ... . I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas". The "I" is emphatic right through, as much as to say. That is my judgment; I am of Paul; who can question my right? That is the first real difficulty the apostle mentions. And as was said, he brings in the cross immediately in chapter 1 (1 Corinthians 1); and in chapter 2, the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2). So that these two great thoughts would militate against the idea of strife and contention.

A.R. While in the main there is unity in regard to the truth, there is sometimes failure in the working out of right principles. Why is that?

J.T. That is true. There is not much contention about the truth in a general way, but sometimes great contention privately as to the application of it; and I believe what dims our vision is that personalities are involved. We think of the persons rather than of the principles governing the matter.

A.R. That is what I was wondering. A matter may come up for adjudication, and one will say, I am for Paul; and another, I am for Apollos; whereas really you are not to be for either.

[Page 121]

J.T. No, you want the truth unhampered by party bias.

F.H.L. The apostle says, "Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ", 1 Corinthians 11:1.

J.T. Yes, "my imitators". That would be as to his conduct. Usually when a matter arises among us, what blinds us is the persons involved. What Paul is combating here is schools of opinion.

Ques. Is that why he says there are ten thousand instructors but not many fathers?

J.T. Quite so; think of the number of schools of opinion you would have if you had ten thousand instructors! It is remarkable that he uses such a large number; it is prophetic, so many instructors governing the history of christendom. They are developed in the seminaries; the fathers are not turned out in seminaries, but through experience with God. That is a family thought. The order of the truth as brought out in Corinth is intended to overthrow the partisan spirit there: the cross, in chapter 1 (1 Corinthians 1); the Spirit, in chapter 2 (1 Corinthians 2); and the temple, in chapter 3 (1 Corinthians 3).

F.S.C. Is 1 Corinthians 3:16, "ye are temple of God", a collective thought?

J.T. Yes; it involves the presence of the Holy Spirit in a collective sense. That is what is meant by the temple. The Spirit of God dwells in the saints collectively.

A.N.W. Perhaps we have to hold the matter of leadership a little more guardedly than we have done.

J.T. The most distinguished leader ought to be able to sit down among the brethren and be one of them; that is needed for the temple to function. The brethren, the saints, are the temple in virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in them; it is no theoretic matter. Normally, the Spirit has a place amongst the brethren. We must let Him have place, because if we make much of party leaders, He will not have any place.

[Page 122]

J.T.Jr. Does it mean that though there might not be a distinctive gift in the local meeting, the temple would make way for the Spirit to bring in God's mind?

J.T. Yes; God uses whom He will. The gifts are used in the temple; they belong to it. That shows the error of appointing any one in the assembly; it is a question of what a man is, of what is there; the Holy Spirit will use whom He will. Of course, the later chapters, 12, 13, and 14, help us on that line. The thing is to be together as brethren, because the idea of brethren must precede the idea of gift.

W.B-w. How does that work in a general way? For instance, brothers are invited to serve here and there.

J.T. It is a question of what a man is, of what there is when we sit down together. The Holy Spirit will use whom He will. If a brother is invited to a place to serve the brethren (the word invite means that room is made for him in the town), that is quite in order and scriptural; and love will make room for brothers resident in other parts. But in readings day in and day out, week in and week out, it is a question of the temple and of the Spirit dwelling. There is no warrant for setting up a brother in a prominent way. The Spirit will use whom He will; and in that way true leadership comes to light. It is not by appointment, it is because of what a man is. God has set certain in the assembly -- apostles, prophets, teachers, 1 Corinthians 12:28. It is 'set for himself', see note.

E.T.B. If we recognise a gift, is that different from appointing somebody?

J.T. Very different; it is a question of what a brother is as furnished of God. Normally, the saints discern this. One has often said that what is called the canon of Scripture, that is, the books that have been recognised as inspired, has been determined by the saints on the principle of the temple. In the temple, as recognising the Spirit, we know what is of God. Every one taught of God today can see that the books in the Bible we have in

[Page 123]

our hands are inspired. The Apocrypha is not, although the king James' translators retained it, but not as inspired. The Roman Catholic system recognises it as Scripture, but the Holy Spirit amongst the saints gives a true judgment. "He shall guide you into all the truth", John 16:13. Thus they recognise what is of God. If we realise that the Spirit of God dwells in us, we shall discern what is of God as it is presented to us. And so it is that normally the brethren soon discern a gift, and he finds his place. We do not appoint him, it is what he is, and the Holy Spirit will use him.

A.A.T. Does a gift function in administrative matters? If you want a judgment about a matter, do you ask a gift?

J.T. There is the gift of government, and there is 'the word of wisdom', and 'the word of knowledge'. All these are by the Spirit, and as existing, they should be available where needed. They are set in the assembly, they have their part in the temple, the Spirit uses them and the saints will make room for them. Thus we can arrive at a true judgment. You can reach the mind of God.

J.T.Jr. It is not like the Supreme Court of this country where the judges have their own opinions, and are often not unanimous. In the assembly the Spirit would always lead to unity.

J.T. That is the principle that is urged from the outset. In the epistles, unity is required throughout, so that we do not assume to have different opinions. Abstractly we are of one mind. We ought to assume that in our minds and to make the most of what a brother says, Gradually, if present, the gift of wisdom will come to light, or whatever other gift is needed, such as the gift of government.

A.R. Would not 1 Kings help us in regard to what you are speaking about? The sanctuary was called the oracle, the ark being there (1 Kings 8). The oracle was permeated with the mind of God.

[Page 124]

J.T. Quite so. That is what came out in Numbers 7. Moses would go in to speak to God; but it says, "And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, then he heard the voice speaking to him from off the mercy-seat which was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim", Numbers 7:89. That is, it is authoritative; and I believe the passage indicates to us how Moses got all his communications. Compare Exodus 25:21,22.

A.D. The writer to the Hebrews says, "Remember your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God", Hebrews 13:7. That would show that their ministry is from the oracle.

J.T. So that we are enjoined by Peter, "If any one speak -- as oracles of God", that is, what you are saying is right. Not that we are infallible, but still in principle you have tested the thing out and what you say is right. That is the ground you take; you are not guessing. In principle you know what you say is right. That is the idea in all these meetings.

J.T.Jr. It speaks of the oracles of God being entrusted to Israel. Is that thought carried forward now -- they are entrusted to the assembly?

J.T. Yes; it is very important to notice that. We have the cross and the Spirit in chapters 1 and 2; and then the Spirit, not by Himself, but in the temple, in chapter 3; that is, He speaks in the temple. That is one line of thought in our subject. We find in chapter 14 what God is: He is the God, not of disorder, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints. That is what He is in the assemblies of the saints. So that if you get a meeting that is not marked by the peace of God, God has not His place there.

W.B-w. "If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord's commandment", 1 Corinthians 14:37. I suppose the epistles to the Corinthians would

[Page 125]

support the idea of what is authoritative. There are plenty of commandments of the Lord in these epistles. Paul spoke the truth about the matter.

J.T. It is the test of spirituality: "If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise ... . the Lord's commandment".

W.B-w. Certain questions came up on chapter 7, such as marriage, but the commandment of the Lord is there.

J.T. Quite so; you can visualise how matters stood at Corinth when this letter was read; what these leaders would say. Paul wrote, If they are spiritual, they will recognise that what I am saying is the mind of God. They were thus tested by it.

A.R. What he was saying was coming from the oracle really.

C.A.M. Do you not think we are liable in a natural sort of way to feel that this is optional? I have a right to think whatever I like. Statutes and ordinances and commandments are directed against such disorder.

J.T. From the very youngest of us, brothers and sisters, we should never assume to be on a different line from the brethren. Abstractly, the ground to take is that you want to be with them, not only physically, but in heart and mind. Of course, difficulties will arise, and all must be according to Scripture, but I refer to the attitude of mind in individuals in a gathering, that such an attitude would ensure peace. No one is to be independent or contentious. God is the God of peace in all the assemblies of the saints -- a very remarkable thing; that is what He is amongst us, and so peace should be looked for. It seems as if God would accredit the saints in using the word in that way. Instead of saying, "in all His assemblies", he says He is the God of peace in all the assemblies of the saints. How delightful it is even in a meeting like this that God is characteristically in it as the God of peace. Not simply that He ordains peace, but

[Page 126]

that He is amongst the brethren as the God of peace.

F.S.C. Going back to chapter 3, it says, "If any one corrupt the temple of God, him shall God destroy", 1 Corinthians 3:17. Does that apply to more than the flesh?

J.T. It does. Corrupt and destroy are from the same original word: the man is destroyed. God employs the word against a man: "If any one destroy" -- that would be a man, an instrument of the devil, who was not a christian at all; and there were such at Corinth. They are Satan's emissaries, false apostles; the apostle was aiming at them.

A.R. Job says, "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes", Job 42:5,6. Is that how ministry affects persons, so that we see God in the ministry?

J.T. God is doing it; prophecy brings God in. It is a triumph in an assembly that God is there in the way of conviction, but then, He is also there in peace. All this gives you a sense in your soul that He cares for you.

J.T.Jr. Being amongst you would be the local thought, that as the result of the prophetic ministry God is there.

J.T. Yes. In all the assemblies of the saints He is the God of peace, but He is that amongst you; that is, the local assembly at Corinth. How changed the convicted man was! It was a miracle really, and he reports "that God is indeed amongst you".

W.B-w. If you had come to Corinth you might have had to listen to one of those false apostles giving a word there. What attitude would you assume in that case?

J.T. If you were with God you would be very much concerned that you might not come under the influence of that; because, according to chapter 12, a man might get up and speak by an evil spirit. How awful that would be! But it is clear there was power in the assembly

[Page 127]

at Corinth. God was there. Prophecy is the evidence of this, as 1 Corinthians 14:24,25 shows.

Ques. Would the power of God exhibited with Samuel when Saul went to him at Naioth, be something like this?

J.T. Exactly; that illustrates what is before us here. They were prophesying: they were not simply a school of prophets, they were doing the work under Samuel's presidency; and when the messengers of Saul came, that is what they saw, and they prophesied too. Then Saul himself came and he also prophesied, showing what power there was, typically, under the influence of Christ. God was there; the prophesying was in progress, Samuel standing as president over the prophets. It is said, "the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied". 1 Samuel 19:20

A.R. So that ministry does not merely soothe the mind, it affects the moral conditions of the saints.

J.T. It does. The man is judged of all; that would mean that all are listening to the prophesying, and they see a man convicted. Every one is in the matter, and they judge him; the whole assembly is in transparency. A remarkable scene is contemplated there. The same thing is true of 1 Samuel 19 to which we have been referring.

E.S. Might the presence of God amongst us be emphasised in a threefold way: the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, mentioned in the last verse of the second epistle?

J.T. Quite so; so that we have in the two epistles, communion in three ways: the first is the communion of the Son of God; then the communion of His death in the Lord's supper; and then the communion of the Holy Spirit. All are from the same original word meaning fellowship.

Well now, Galatians shows that a whole district may

[Page 128]

be affected by some wrong doctrine; not only the local company, but the assemblies of Galatia. This epistle is written to "the assemblies of Galatia". An epistle was written to Colosse and one to Laodicea, two assemblies that were near each other in the province of Asia. There would have been a similar condition among the different assemblies in Galatia, because one epistle was written to them in common; but Colosse and Laodicea are more distinguished than the Galatian assemblies, because an epistle was written to each of them. The one written to Colosse was to be read, or caused to be read, in the assembly at Laodicea; and the one to Laodicea to be read in Colosse. That is remarkable, pointing, I think, to a better state of things, but still to the need of watchfulness in these two assemblies. There is only one letter written to all the assemblies of Galatia, because they were all affected evidently by the same evil. They were all affected by bad doctrine, evidently by an emissary of the devil who preached another gospel -- something imported. It was not the conditions of the city, like at Corinth, affecting the saints, but of doctrine taught in a whole district by certain persons.

C.A.M. Referring again to Colosse and Laodicea, the assemblies there being dignified as you say, it would maintain the idea of nearby assemblies without exactly grouping them, as in the district of Galatia?

J.T. Yes; take those in this district where we are gathered: are they all likely to be affected by the same evil? If they are, their state is rather low. Now Colosse and Laodicea were apparently on a better level than the assemblies of Galatia, for the apostle entrusts a letter to each of them. The Colossians were not in his thoughts exactly as the Laodiceans were; but still, they were near each other, and he would like both to hear what he wrote to each. He is very urgent about this, as we see in the last chapter of the epistle to the Colossians, "And when the letter has been read among you, cause that it be

[Page 129]

read also in the assembly of Laodiceans, and that ye also read that from Laodicea", Colossians 4:16. There are two letters: if both assemblies were affected by the same thing, there would be only one.

C.A.M. Do you not think that in that way they would be ordinarily a support to one another? But where they are all under the same evil domination, they cannot help one another.

J.T. They cannot; they draw together as affected by the evil.

A.R. You can meet a local condition more easily than you can a general condition.

J.T. That is why this passage should be noted, because he addresses them all: "Paul, apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from among the dead, and all the brethren with me, to the assemblies of Galatia", Galatians 1:1. It was a matter of very great importance, and he included all the brethren with him in what he was going to say. It is very urgent, and he goes on to say, "I wonder that ye thus quickly change, from him that called you in Christ's grace, to a different gospel, which is not another one; but there are some that trouble you, and desire to pervert the glad tidings of the Christ". That is to say, they were a fickle sort of people, the gatherings were easily influenced. That is very poor; we thus expose ourselves as being in a low state. Each gathering ought to learn to stand on its own feet. So Paul and Barnabas chose them elders in each assembly; each assembly should be provided for, and maintain its local status.

J.H.E. Paul gives his credentials that he might be heard: what he says is not from men nor through man. He gives his credentials at the outset as to his authority, and the brethren were with him in it.

J.T. "And all the brethren with me", as if that added to what he was going to say. So he says, "Grace

[Page 130]

to you, and peace, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, so that he should deliver us out of the present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be glory to the ages of ages", Galatians 1:3 - 5. This conveys the idea of deliverance from worldly influences, and then he deals with the persons that were damaging them; but he calls attention first to the fact that they changed quickly. There must have been shallowness.

F.S.C. Does not evil in any assembly affect the whole assembly?

J.T. Well, it does in the principle of it; only you can see how it works locally and extends to a district, for Galatia was a district.

A.R. If we had gone to Galatia earlier, we should have found that they spoke highly of Paul; he says, You would have taken out your eyes for me. But not long after he had gone, they were turning around to some one else who was saying something entirely different. They were following men.

J.T. That is what he says: "I wonder that ye thus quickly change"; it was the quickness of their change from what the apostle had taught -- clearly in the power of the Spirit -- to something that was very poor and sinister.

C.A.M. This was not characteristic of the Philippians. The apostle says to them, "even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence", Philippians 2:12. Apparently those saints behaved in his absence as they did in his presence.

J.T. He said to them, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", Philippians 2:12. You may have difficulties in working a thing out, and you may make blunders, but work it out with fear and trembling, "for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure", Philippians 2:13.

[Page 131]

That is a great thought in a local gathering, that God has His pleasure in it.

C.A.M. Is that not an important matter, that if God does not get something out of whatever we pass through, it has not accomplished its end?

J.T. I think He has great pleasure in the gatherings of the saints, seeing them work things out. It may take years for a gathering to find its feet, but still God is with it in the working: "for it is God who works in you".

E.B. Do you think it is a mistake to try to influence the judgment of the local assembly?

J.T. Well, yes; but even if you are not local, you can bring principles to bear on the saints, and so minister the needed truth as opportunity is given. Ministry is often in persons that move about, so that when we come to the last scripture the Lord walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps. While He may visit each, the service is universal; He is not local to any of them. He walks about amongst them; and, in truth, that is very largely through persons He has that He can use in a universal way. These are important. God has set certain in the assembly: first, apostles, etc. -- not in local assemblies, but in the assembly. That means that the gifts are universal. I believe He walks in the midst of the assemblies by the Spirit; He uses this one and that one to visit the brethren and lay down principles for them -- lay down the truth. They are not to decide local issues, but if they have principles, they are to impart them. That often happens. The visiting brother, if wise, will recognise the exercises of the gathering he visits, and moving with them, serve as the Lord enables him.

E.B. Is it right to say that a brother that has gift is interfering?

J.T. He would not be doing so if he keeps simply to principles, but if he attempts to influence the brethren

[Page 132]

beyond these, he would be. We have to distinguish between persons being dealt with, and the principles that govern the action. These principles may be set out by any one. The Lord walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps, and principles may be set out as governing any matter, by any one whom the Lord may use. But the local people are to deal with the issue; hence the apostle says, "Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves", 1 Corinthians 5:13. That is what they were to do. Yourselves includes only those who were local.

C.A.M. So that Titus going to Crete would be an example, I suppose, of what you are saying. The apostle instructed him in general as to what was to be done, but he could hardly single out the persons that needed discipline.

J.T. Yes. The apostle says as to the man in 1 Corinthians 5, being such: "to deliver him, I say, being such" 1 Corinthians 5:5; that is, it was for them to see that he was such; that he was a wicked person. Paul had heard that this man was there, and he pointed out the evil thing -- very bad -- but they were to remove him. The apostle had a certainty about it, but they were to confirm that; "being such" implies that it was for them to say.

C.A.M. It is remarkable how all these things are set out by the apostle himself, confirming what was said as to those who move about in ministry.

J.T. Paul would set out the principle. At the end of Acts 15 it is said he went about confirming the assemblies; he went about doing that. And in chapter 14 we were told that he and Barnabas, carrying on the same service, chose them elders in each assembly, meaning that it should be so furnished that it could act for itself. The elders would be local, affording such help as their office implies; eldership is not gift, it is experience, moral qualification.

A.R. So in moving about from one locality to another,

[Page 133]

the apostle respected what was in each. I suppose in anything local you must respect what is there.

J.T. Yes: when he goes to Derbe where Timothy was, he found that Timothy had a good report of the brethren; he recognised what was there.

H.Pf. How can a district clear itself of any evil that may be pervading it?

J.T. That would be by each assembly clearing itself. The letter addressed to all of them together would mean that they are all affected by the same evil, which is a very discrediting thought; that they are so low down as to fall like stalks of wheat when a strong wind passes over a field. In recovery, they would each have to arrive at right principles for themselves, and judge the evil under the power of which they had come. I do not think they would unite in answering Paul, but each assembly would get to God in self-judgment. It is an assembly recognised as here in Revelation, one of the assemblies. Their individuality is never lost sight of although they may be addressed as a group.

W.B-w. Each assembly would have to act to clear itself.

J.T. That is what we may learn in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation. "To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: These things says he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps: I know thy works and thy labour, and thine endurance, and that thou canst not bear evil men; and thou hast tried them who say that themselves are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars; and endurest, and has borne for my name's sake, and hast not wearied: but I have against thee", Revelation 2:1 - 4. That assembly is recognised by the Lord, and we shall see that each of the seven assemblies differs from the others; they are not alike. They are not like the Galatian assemblies, all under the power of the same thing. Each has a distinctive quality to commend, and also distinctive

[Page 134]

evils except Smyrna and Philadelphia. So that the Lord has in mind the whole assembly, and He is pointing out that each gathering is recognised, and He knows it. He walks about to see, and says, "I know", and He deals with each one on its own footing.

A.R. In calling attention to the evil in the locality, He leaves the locality to deal with the evil.

J.T. That is what He says: "But I have against thee, that thou has left thy first love. Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works: but if not, I am coming to thee, and I will remove thy lamp out of its place, except thou shalt repent", Revelation 2:4,5. They had the Nicolaitanes there, too, but they hated their works; they were like Himself in that. He says, I also hate them. But still, there was that which they had to judge and they were to do the first works. He says, "Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works".

C.A.M. I think it is very important to see that the adjustment is incumbent upon every one, inasmuch as the speaking goes on to the overcomer; every one in the local assembly is to be exercised about the thing. If it were in the ecclesiastical world, they would address this letter to the bishop, with no scriptural idea at all.

J.T. Yes; each of those dignitaries might think the angel was himself. But the truth is, the angel represents the whole gathering. So the Lord in His remarks to these assemblies identifies the angel with the whole company.

J.T.Jr. Would the condition of the assemblies among us be pretty much like that of all the assemblies here addressed, with the exception of Smyrna and Philadelphia? You referred to Smyrna and Philadelphia as having nothing evil that the Lord calls attention to; would the others represent the state of the assemblies generally today?

J.T. I think so. The numeral seven, of course,

[Page 135]

symbolises what is complete; it refers to the whole of the saints at any time, perhaps the whole of the saints in the whole dispensation after the failure, so that the angel is really a collective thought.

A.N.W. In Thyatira the Lord addresses a special few in the assembly. Is that similar to the way the apostle writes to Corinth? He writes to certain ones in it, even though addressing it to the assembly.

J.T. Just so; he had certain ones in mind. The assembly, of course, is formally addressed in those letters to Corinth and Ephesus; but here it is "the angel", which represents the whole company, I believe. Besides addressing the angel in Thyatira, He says, "But to you I say, the rest who are in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I do not cast upon you any other burden", Revelation 2:24. He includes all the assembly in His general address, but He singles out a remnant in that company, addressing them as the rest.

W.B-w. Do you have in mind in this reading to help us in attacking a pervading evil locally and also generally?

J.T. I think that each assembly standing on its own footing would be a check on evil, so that it does not spread like an epidemic. You look into a matter and say, I do not think that is right. It is done in another gathering, and you look into the matter, and you decide what is right and what is wrong; you are a check on the movement. The Galatians were not. But according to what the Lord says to Ephesus, there was refusal there of certain evils; the Nicolaitanes were hated, and false apostles were found liars. The trouble there was that they had left their first love. There was, nevertheless, sufficient faithfulness to refuse general errors.

W.B-w. When Paul wrote to Galatia, there was a constructive side to it, too, the truth of sonship being revived.

[Page 136]

J.T. That is what he uses to recover them. Let us suppose that one meeting in the province of Galatia is right; it would check this evil. But apparently there was not; they were all evidently swayed by the one thing.

J.T.Jr. The allusions to the Old Testament in Pergamos and Thyatira would show how ample testimony has been given to the saints in meeting the evils that arose in the periods indicated.

J.T. Ample testimony was afforded. The Lord has greatly helped His people in looking into the Old Testament Scriptures in our Bible readings. The time was when many brethren would disallow the books of the Old Testament as far as considering them in a course of readings was concerned; but in recent years the Lord has greatly blessed the reading of them. They were written for our learning.

[Page 137]

THE HOLY ONE OF GOD

Revelation 3:7; Psalm 16:10; John 6:67 - 69

I wish to speak about Christ as the Holy One of God. He is spoken of in more ways than I can now enumerate; but He is said by Peter to be the Holy One of God; and He Himself says to God: "For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou allow thy Holy One to see corruption", Psalm 16:10. In the verse read in Revelation He calls Himself "the holy". "These things saith the holy", Revelation 3:7. The demon cast out of the man in the synagogue said he knew the Lord as the Holy One of God, Mark 1:24. The Lord did not accept that testimony, and He caused the demon immediately to go out of the man in whom he was, and through whose vocal power he spoke, for He would not receive testimony from a demon. There are those now who make much of the holiness of certain saints, canonising them, but all true saints are holy. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews addresses them as "holy brethren".

The epistle to the Romans develops the thought of holiness in christians, saying that we are to yield our members as instruments of righteousness to God. Righteousness comes before holiness; so that in that process we have our "fruit unto holiness". The exercise of righteousness in our members yielded to God develops holiness; and the process of holiness qualifies us to testify to the Holy One of God. It is significant that this great feature of Christ is introduced by Himself in writing to the assemblies; and particularly that He selects the assembly in Philadelphia to which to address Himself in this way. That assembly is to be regarded as representing the whole assembly in these last days of ours. The Lord had peculiar pleasure in addressing it, as He always has where there is love. His heart seemed to be free to speak of great things to this

[Page 138]

assembly, things personal to Himself, and personal to the assembly; not only to Philadelphia, but to the assembly as a whole. He tells her that there are those "who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie", verse 9. He is speaking symbolically; He is not speaking of literal Jews, but of Jews that are so in heart and spirit, whose praise is of God and not of men. He is speaking of real christians, that is what He has in mind; and there are those who say they are such, "that they are Jews, and are not, but lie". Such are of the synagogue of Satan. They would symbolise those in christendom who claim prior rights, regarding themselves as the ancient people of God. Romans 2:29 shows who the real Jews are. It is no question of a system being owned because of antiquity, asserting its right to priority as a church because of this; the real Jews are those who are such inwardly, and circumcision of the heart, in spirit, not in letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. The Lord says of the unreal ones, "I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee", verse 9. That is a most precious thing for those who love the Lord Jesus and know His love for them. It is enough, you might say, to know that love and be responsive to it, but He says, Others are to know that I love you.

One of the most interesting things is the fact that the Lord is bringing this about. He is doing it and will do it; He will show that certain ones are the objects of His affections. I want to be one of those. The prophet who wrote these words of the Lord Jesus knew the Lord's love; he is called several times by himself in his gospel, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". His pen would run freely when he came to write these words, "and shall know that I have loved thee". That is the whole assembly; not simply one locality, but the whole assembly. The Lord Jesus, we are told, loves the assembly; He loved it and gave Himself for it, and He says, In

[Page 139]

these last days I am going to make certain ones know that I love you still. Every one of us who loves the Lord would say, I want to continue in that, so that it may be known that He loves me. He loves you because you are His; but there is such a thing with the Lord, as there is with each of us, as loving what is lovable, and a lover of Christ is most lovable in His eye.

So it is that He has liberty here to speak of Himself as the One who is holy. And surely it is that we might have this apprehension of Him, and have it as an outlook in our walk and ways, that the Lord Jesus is holy. As I said, there are many things He is said to be, and this is one of the most important. He is holy; and He says so Himself: "These things saith the holy, the true", verse 7. Holiness is one of the most important things in the Old Testament Scriptures, and the Lord Jesus constantly brings it forward. "Hallow yourselves therefore, and be holy", Leviticus 20:7. "Holiness becometh thy house, O Jehovah, for ever", Psalm 93:5, etc. Moreover Scripture says, "for whom the Lord loves he chastens, and scourges every son whom he receives", Hebrews 12:6. And what for? That we might be partakers of His holiness. We are brought into accord with God and with Christ, and with the Holy Spirit too, and the brethren in this process of holiness. It is the fruit of the Spirit. It is not acquired by faith, although faith must underlie all our exercises: it is acquired by the Holy Spirit in the practical way of the exercise of righteousness. Scripture says, "ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life", Romans 6:22.

Before I come to Peter in the last scripture, I want to speak about Psalm 16 as referring to our Lord Jesus in the grave. Perhaps we have not touched on it much in this connection; but it is most touching and affecting that the Lord Himself refers to His being the Holy One of God as actually in the grave. That our Lord Jesus Christ lay for three days and three nights in the grave is

[Page 140]

most solemn. He says Himself: "thus shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights", Matthew 12:40. How thoroughly He became acquainted with the earth! Man had been taken out of it. The penalty was, according to Genesis 3"For dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return". That was the penalty on man for having sinned. Every burial reminds us of that; the cemetery reminds us of it, if we are capable of being reminded. People put it far away from them, but still these things remind us of this solemn fact, that man through sin incurred death and burial; that he shall return to dust.

Now our Lord Jesus Christ took on manhood, but He did not return to dust. His death and His condition in His burial were as unique as His condition in His life here below. His condition as a Man here, born into this world, was unique; there has been no other Man like Him before or since. "Who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth", Acts 8:33. The condition which He took in flesh and blood never existed in any other man, and never will do so; nor will it again exist in Him. It was holy and absolutely unique, the condition of Christ in humanity here below. He will never be in that condition again; but still, it is treasured up before God, as the manna was treasured up in the ark. The "hidden manna", Christ as here below, is to be fed upon. Then His death was unique -- not as an ordinary man's death. When Pilate sent the messengers to inquire as to His death. He was dead already. Pilate did not expect that. They broke the legs of the two thieves, but not of Jesus: "Not a bone of him shall be broken", John 19:36. He was unique in dying; there was no death like His; He died of Himself. John would give you to understand it was an act of power, for no one took His life from Him; He laid it down of Himself, John 10:18. He cried with a loud voice, which denoted strength. His dying was unique, no other man has died

[Page 141]

as He died; in every way He has the pre-eminence. And so in His burial: it is said, "And men appointed his grave with the wicked", Isaiah 53:9; they had no other thought than that He should be put into the common grave of the criminal. Could these men do as they wished? No, they could not, He was with the rich in His death. How was that? God took care of that. He was not with the wicked; although He was crucified with the wicked. He died before the two thieves. He says to the converted thief: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise", Luke 23:43, but He went into paradise before the thief. He did not say, Today shalt thou go with Me to paradise, for the thief came in after the Lord. I am speaking of the fact that in His death He was the Holy One of God, and did not see corruption. All these things point to the uniqueness of Christ, whether in life or in death.

And so, too, in resurrection: I do not believe any other person risen would be like Christ in His resurrection. The facts relative to His resurrection are different from those of all others. He came out of the grave without moving the linen cloths in which He was bound, except the napkin that was about His head; somebody folded that and put it aside by itself; otherwise all was as it had been on His blessed body. This, I believe, is what John's account conveys. These remarks bear on this psalm in which the Lord says to God, "For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou allow thy Holy One to see corruption".

I now come on to Peter, so that we may see how we arrive at this; because in dealing with the truth we must learn to arrive at it. Things are stated objectively, and as we take them in we have the Holy Spirit to give us an understanding of them, but then, there is the arrival at them on the principle of experience. When we come to what we call ministry meetings, we come together as brethren, some of whom have something which they give out. I am referring to 1 Corinthians 14. The first

[Page 142]

thing mentioned there is a psalm, that each of us has one; that means experience. Again in Colossians we are enjoined to admonish one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. In this connection Moses represents ministry that comes to us, he conveyed messages from God to Israel: "The Lord spoke to Moses saying, Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord ..."; that is the principle of Moses' ministry. But then, the effect of listening to Moses would be that godly ones would write psalms. The Pentateuch is composed of five books, that is what the term signifies; the Book of the Psalms is also composed of five books and it corresponds, in a sense, with the Pentateuch.

I am speaking in this way because what Peter says in this verse, John 6:69, is on the principle of a psalm. It is not given here as an immediate revelation such as we get in Matthew 16there the Lord says to all the disciples, "But ye, who do ye say that I am? And Simon Peter answering said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", Matthew 16:15,16. That was not a psalm; that was a revelation, because the Lord especially says, "... for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens", verse 17. It is a revelation that came immediately; it is not a psalm. We are to have both, but in the passage quoted from 1 Corinthians, the first thing mentioned that we are to bring is a psalm. In that same section we get a revelation, one sitting by has something revealed to him; that is not a psalm, it comes into his soul immediately from God. But I am speaking now of the psalm, what I come to, not in the assembly, but may be in the wakeful hours of the night, or in my workshop, or at my desk, or sitting in the train. I am able to abstract myself from what is going on around me and think of God. "Lord, thou has been our dwelling-place in all generations", Moses says in Psalm 90. This is not, "the Lord spake

[Page 143]

unto Moses", it is the outcome of his knowledge of God, it is his own production -- his psalm. It suggests 1 John 4:16: "God is love, and he that abides in love abides in God, and God in him". What an experience that is! Moses says further, "... from eternity to eternity thou art God". He knew God; he dwelt in God, we may say; and hence could speak of Him in that experienced way.

Peter affords us something of this here. He says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". The word we is emphatic, meaning that Peter is calling attention to himself and his fellow-apostles. They are called the twelve here by the Lord; He never calls them apostles in John, nor are they ever called apostles in John even by the Spirit; but they are called the twelve, so that we can easily identify them. The word twelve implies that they were subject to Him together, and amenable to Him and to each other. This involves love to the Lord and to one another; Peter would not be envious of John, nor John of Peter. The Lord had prayed for them that they might be one, as He and the Father were One. The word twelve directs us to the twelve apostles, and as remarked, Peter refers to himself and his fellow-apostles when he uses the word we in this verse. He plainly states that they were definitely with the Lord in the testimony, unlike those disciples who "went away back and walked no more with him", John 6:66. His word to the Lord is, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". "We have believed and known"; he refers back to soul history, and that is what I want you to have in mind. As I get a new thought by the Spirit of God, how am I going to use that thought? Am I going to let it slip away? No. I must do as Mary did, she "kept all these things in her mind, pondering them in her heart",

[Page 144]

Luke 2:19. She was a treasury; she put the things where they would be safely kept -- the things that came to her from the Spirit of God -- and took them out and worked over them as she had opportunity, pondering them in her heart; and thus she grew. That is the idea, that we should grow and add a psalm. When the Lord Jesus was on the cross His mother Mary was standing by Him. Simeon had said to her: "and even a sword shall go through thine own soul", Luke 2:35; and it did. Think of the feelings of that mother as the Lord Jesus, her Son after the flesh, was crucified before her eyes! But she was standing at the cross, and the Lord saw her standing there; He saw John standing there too, and said, "Woman, behold thy son", John 19:26. You may say, He is speaking about Himself. No, He is not speaking about Himself, He is speaking to her about John. He says, John is your son; and He says to John, "Behold thy mother", as if to say, You and she are henceforth to be in the relationship of mother and son, and son and mother. Thus she was constituted the mother of John whom the Lord loved, and from that hour John took her to his own home. No one had that relation with the mother of Jesus, but John. What conversation John would have with Mary, as he had that distinguished woman in his house as his mother, and he there as her son! Mary represents the matter of experience of which I have been speaking; she could speak to John of much that the Lord had said and done which only she knew; she could say, I weighed these things over, I pondered them in my heart and I kept them there. They became, as it were, psalms to her. "And even a sword", says Simeon, "shall go through thine own soul". Think of a woman like that -- to have her soul pierced by a sword! But think of the experience of it! And how worthy she was as a psalm-maker in the things she had heard and seen in Christ, that perhaps no one could hear and see but herself.

[Page 145]

And so it is here that the apostle Peter says, "we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". The saints are called "holy brethren"; but He is the Holy One of God, the true Aaron of God; He, who is the Minister of the sanctuary, who officiates in the holy places. Peter says, We know that; we have believed, and we believe it now. This implies that those who had left the Lord and walked no longer with Him did not know Him. Maybe there is somebody here who has turned away from the Lord. "From that time many of his disciples went away back and walked no more with him", verse 66. Think of the solemnity of that! Think of going back from the holy and blessed Person of Christ! They "walked no more with him"; it is a settled thing, and we must say, for ever. How solemn! Peter says, "we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". Would Peter not know how to take part in the assembly when the time came? When the Holy Spirit came down from heaven and entered into Peter and the others, they would serve in the assembly in the recognition of the Lord as the "minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man", Hebrews 8:2. Peter would know how to take part in the service of God. As the saints in those early days came together in assembly, Peter would rise up and speak to God; he would know that the Lord Jesus, and not the high priest at Jerusalem, was Minister of the sanctuary. In Acts 1 it is said the Lord "assembled with them". Peter would apprehend then that the Lord was the Holy One of God, the true Leader in the assembly. And so it is today in the spiritual sense: as coming together in assembly, we are to understand, not only by the Scriptures but by experience, that Christ is the Holy One of God, and that He is the Minister of the sanctuary, of the true tabernacle which the Lord has pitched and not man.

I have brought this before you so that we might all

[Page 146]

have this subject of holiness before us, how it is to be reached; how the Lord is the expression of it, and that it is a matter of experience; that we apprehend Christ, not only because the Scripture says so, but by experience in assembly meetings, that He is the Holy One of God. As such He is the true Aaron who carries on and officiates in the service in a spiritual way, and leads us on in that service so that we worship God in spirit and truth.

[Page 147]

DIVINE NAMES (1)

Matthew 28:16 - 20, 1 Corinthians 8:3 - 6

J.T. The brethren will be generally aware that the subject proposed for these monthly readings is that of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that is to say. God, the economy into which He has come and the names by which He is spoken of in Scripture, by which the three Persons of the Godhead, indeed, are spoken of. It is thought that we should begin with the Father, the special title in which God is known to christians, and then later take up other titles from the Old and New Testaments. Father is the name in which God is revealed in christianity. In Matthew He is seen generally in relation to the kingdom, that is, in the exercise of care for His people down here; whereas John in one passage quoting the Lord Jesus, connects us with the Father as Christ is with Him. The Lord says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God", John 20:17. That is not a kingdom connection but a family connection, in which we know God in the most exalted and intimate way of any of the families in heaven or on earth, because it is in association with Christ -- He being the Son, we being sons.

It is thought that we should be confined in our conversation to this phase of our subject. Matthew 28 has been suggested because it shows how we are introduced into this wonderful light of the revelation of God in the economy into which He has come -- baptised "to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", Matthew 28:19. It is not in the name, but to the name, meaning that the bearing of our baptism is towards God as thus revealed.

[Page 148]

The passage in Corinthians shows how christians as thus baptised regard God -- "to us", it says, The knowledge spoken of is confined in phraseology to the saints of God -- "to us there is one God, the Father", 1 Corinthians 8:6. So that we begin with God known to us, at least professedly known to believing through the Holy Spirit. Of the three Persons spoken of in the formula in Matthew 28, the Holy Spirit is the power in us of knowledge and in this power we can call God our Father, for it is said, "For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father", Ephesians 2:18. So that we should be able to converse about this great matter as of a God known to us, we might say humbly and reverently, in a personal way, as the Father.

Then another thing, one ventures to say for the sake of clarity is that all truth is authoritative, and the apostles represent the authority of the truth known to us in the New Testament, as Moses represents the authority of God in the Pentateuch. Moses received at mount Horeb light from God as to Himself. He said, "I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty God", Exodus 6:2,3. But now He is taking on a new name, which is Jehovah. In writing the Pentateuch, Moses uses the name Jehovah from the outset, but He uses it as in the light of the revelation that he had. He uses the title Jehovah from the outset in Genesis, and he uses it according to the light that he had, the revelation made to him. He does not enlarge on it at first, but when we come to Exodus, the second book he wrote, Moses tells us about this revelation, and not only having the revelation but being commissioned of God as the mediator between Him and the people, he has authority in what he says, hence the Pentateuch is the beginning of divine authority in Scripture, the written mind of God; and so the apostles in the New Testament occupy the same place as Moses. They had a revelation. Peter had a revelation from the

[Page 149]

Father as to Christ, that He was the Son of the living God. There was indeed the revelation to them all of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Peter in his first address in Jerusalem spoke of the Father, he spoke of Christ receiving from the Father the promise of the Spirit, and that He had given Him to the saints, "he has poured out this which ye behold and hear". So that the authority connected with the revelation of God was with the apostles. They were not only believers having the Holy Spirit and having the light, but they were commissioned as Moses was. They had authority and all the writers of the New Testament carried authority. And what comes out in keeping with this is that the first believers from the preaching after the Holy Spirit came down "persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles", Acts 2:42; that is, they recognised the authority vested in them. The commission the apostles had places the Bible on indisputable ground -- on the ground of divine authority. There is no question of disputation, whether it is inspired or not: it is inspired, given to us in the power of the Holy Spirit by persons divinely commissioned. So that all the truth that will come before us has divine authority behind it, and in no subject is it more essential to observe this than the truth as to God Himself.

J.S. In the light of the types, in Matthew 28 the disciples arrive at the mountain of God.

J.T. Very much like it. It is the last mount of Matthew. There are seven mountains in Matthew, in connection with which there are seven phases of the truth, like the mountains round about Jerusalem, and this last one, as you say, is like the mountain of God at which Moses received his commission and his revelation. To show that authority stands peculiarly in this mountain, it is said, "the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them". He appointed to meet them there. It was very

[Page 150]

formal, and with a certain amount of distance, the distance that His dignity required in such a position. In his message to the disciples the angel says, "And behold, he goes before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him", Matthew 28:7. "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth", Matthew 28:16 - 18; that is, power in the sense of authority.

C.A.M. Would you say something more about the Father in the gospel of Matthew. You were alluding to the matter of the kingdom and I was going to ask you about the expression used in Matthew: "Our Father who art in the heavens", Matthew 6:9.

J.T. That is what I was remarking on. It is a kingdom reference. We are down here -- the saints are down here and He is up there.

C.A.M. Do we regard ourselves in that way as in the place of children and need, etc.? Is that the thought?

J.T. That is the thought in Matthew, generally, not altogether. Because we have the Father calling attention to the Son there, also the Son speaking to the Father, but generally it is the Father known in the kingdom, known in His care: "For your Father knows of what things ye have need before ye beg anything of him", Matthew 6:8.

C.A.M. Well, if I might just ask this further question -- as to children in John's gospel, whether the thought of nature is more prominent?

J.T. Yes; the introduction to that is, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh's will, nor of man's will, but of God". John 1:12,13. Birth is connected with children, which is a matter of our position down here.

[Page 151]

The term children, properly, belongs to us as here where Christ was; but sonship belongs to us in our heavenly relations above.

A.N.W. Does the Lord Jesus link Himself with them in Matthew in saying, "Your Father"? In John 20 He says, "My Father and your Father", John 20:17

J.T. No. That is what we ought to see -- the difference. John only uses the expression "your Father" once, and that is in chapter 20. Whereas Matthew uses it many times, quoting the Lord; and of course, Paul uses it and Peter uses it. But John is limited as to this, he wishes, however, to stress the heavenly position of fatherhood; Fatherhood to Christ; attaching God's Fatherhood to Christ, and to us. "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God". The word "ascend" governs it. You get nothing like that in Matthew.

J.S. It is not adoption in John.

J.T. We do not get sons in John's gospel.

J.S. I was thinking of chapter 1, "who have been born, not ... of flesh's will", John 1:13

J.T. You mean, children is not adoption; 'children of' implies birth, but sonship is adoption -- that is, for us. For Christ, sonship is birth. "Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee", Psalm 2:7.

J.S. You have "the grain of wheat" falling into the ground and dying in John -- our derivation from Christ.

J.T. Quite so. "For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one", Hebrews 2:11. Christians are the "much fruit" of the one grain of wheat. Thus we are absolutely of Him; as He is so are we.

A.B.P. In relation to what you were saying about the heavenly side, would there be special significance in the "to" in John 17"These things Jesus spoke, and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father", John 17:1.

J.T. Quite so. He speaks to Him on that ground,

[Page 152]

which there involves His Person -- He is alone in it. The formal statement of our relation with the Father is in John 20. "My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God". And that ought to help us in conversing together on this great subject. Now, what we ought to see is whether we can all say, "To us there is one God, the Father". Because one point in 1 Corinthians 8 is idolatry. It is a question of whether we are free from idolatry. Idolatry is all around us. "There are gods many, and lords many", 1 Corinthians 8:5.

C.B. I suppose it is necessary for the Father to be shown to us, so that it might suffice for us. "Lord, shew us the Father and it suffices us". John 14:8.

J.T. Yes, that brings up John's line of truth as to our subject. In chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 -- we have already alluded to 17, but you quote 14, in which Philip says to the Lord, "Shew us the Father and it suffices us". The Lord answers, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", John 14:9. Well, that has to be carefully considered, lest any one might think the Father and the Son are phases of one Person -- which is not true. They are two Persons. The Father is seen in the Son. It was not that He was the Father personally, but the Father is represented in Him, perfectly represented in Him. He says in that same chapter, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" John 14:10. So the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons; and the Spirit is also a distinct Person; but the Son perfectly represented the Father, so that anyone who saw the Son saw the Father. It is a question of the character, the traits, of the Father perfectly represented, the Father Himself there. Nobody ever sees the Person of the Father: "the blessed and only Ruler ... dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see", 1 Timothy 6:15,16.

A.N.W. So that when the Lord Jesus says, "I and my Father are one". He is not saying they are not two

[Page 153]

Persons; but They are one in motive, purpose and thought.

J.T. That is exactly what is stated there. Unitarians might say it is one Person in two phases or three phases, but it is not so. There are three Persons, only infinitely one in the sense of unity. God is one; that is, one in all that oneness in persons means.

Ques. Would it be right to say that it takes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit properly to express God?

J.T. It does, but the Father remains in the absoluteness of the Deity, so "to us there is one God, the Father". The other two Persons have taken mediatorial places. They have not left the Deity in the inscrutable sense, but they have taken a mediatorial place, so that God might be fully known, but the Father is the One we allude to objectively as God -- "one God, the Father". It is not one Father, God; but one God, the Father; that is, the Godhead is in the Father in the economy, and the other two divine Persons are in the mediatorial place so that they operate here -- Christ in heaven, and the Holy Spirit here -- to carry on in administration the work of God in this wonderful time. The economy is in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

W.B-w. Referring to the family relationship in John, the thought of eternal life runs right through, and then when we come to chapter 20, "I ascend to my Father and your Father", does that cover sonship -- that expression, or does it cover eternal life also?

J.T. Clearly; the Father must imply sonship. If He is the Father of Christ, Christ is Son, and if He is our Father, it means that we are sons; although the word is not used, it is clearly implied because being Father to us, we are His sons.

W.B-w. But does John enter into Paul's line of truth in the expression, "I ascend to my Father and your Father"?

[Page 154]

J.T. Paul develops this truth. It is the heavenly side of the position.

W.B-w. There are two sides: the family side and that of eternal life.

J.T. Yes; eternal life is more man with God, so "And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent", John 17:3. It is not the Father and Son there, but the true God and Jesus Christ. I do not know whether that is clear to you, but I think it ought to be worked out in our souls, the relation in which eternal life stands. It is a question of God and man. The relation of Father and Son is family, and Paul adds the thought of the Spirit of adoption to that. The Spirit of adoption is the Spirit of sonship.

W.B-w. I was wondering why John rises to that in chapter 20. Generally it is God and men, in relation to eternal life. When you come to chapter 20, "I ascend to my Father and your Father", is higher than eternal life.

J.T. The message through Mary in John 20 is one of the greatest truths. John touches that point there to establish our heavenly position, but in no other place in John is He called "our Father". He is called Christ's Father, but it is the Father or Christ's Father universally in John, except in that one passage, so that in the body of John's gospel, it is a question of eternal life, and the Father would more stand for grace than family relationship except to Christ. The book begins in that respect with this, "we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father". Well, that is Christ, as a Son, an only Son with the Father. That is all personal to Himself, elsewhere, it is "the Father" or "my Father" except the one passage in John 20. Generally, "the Father" in John's gospel would be God known in grace.

J.T.Jr. Does eternal life stand in relation or in

[Page 155]

contrast to what sin has brought in, and family relationship more in regard to God's purpose?

J.T. That is right. Eternal life is a necessity because death has come in. "Even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death", Romans 5:12. The question of eternal life would not be raised were it not for that, but the family thought was counsel, "having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself" Ephesians 1:5.

F.S.C. Is eternal life based entirely on belief in the Son?

J.T. That is how it is stated in John 3. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal", John 3:16. That is how it is introduced, but later we have "He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal", John 5:24.

A.N.W. Is it right to say that eternal life is in the range of promise, sonship in the line of counsel?

J.T. Quite so: the promise of life.

W.B-w. The only difficulty in my mind is the question of introducing the family in connection with eternal life, and using it in relation to sonship. Does the same word 'family' cover both?

J.T. I think that would make too much of eternal life and too little of sonship. Sonship is a matter of eternal purpose. Eternal life is a necessity -- to meet the need in man; but sonship is to meet a need in God's heart. We needed life because death had come in. Of course if Adam had not sinned, the question of eternal life would not be raised because there would be no death in the human family. But in meeting the question of sin God placed life on a higher level than what Adam innocent had. Christ risen is the expression of it.

C.A.M. So that while the Lord is addressing the Father in chapter 17 yet when He says, "And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only

[Page 156]

true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent", does that not seem to make it quite clear that eternal life is not the same thing as family relationship.

J.T. It does; and moreover He says, "as thou hast given him authority over all flesh, that as to all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal", John 17:2. That would be all that received life eternal down here: "all that thou has given to him". So that every believer, including those in the millennial earth, is given to Him in that sense. But when we come to verse 6 of the chapter. He says, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world". When we come to the millennium in which eternal life will have full force, it is not a question of being given to Him out of the world, because the world is then the millennial world. But now He says, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world". They represent a family by themselves, the men whom the Father gave Him out of the world. They are the ones that are mainly in view throughout the whole chapter. In the first statement it is, "all that thou hast given to him". It is a question of all flesh inclusive of the millennial day; but verse 6 onward is a special family. That is, the family of the present dispensation. The men that are given to Christ out of the world.

C.A.M. That looks on to eternity, does it not?

J.T. Yes. That is the heavenly side of the matter. The whole of the chapter shows what a place they are to have; that they are to be with Him, as He says in verse 22: "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, as we are one". And then in verse 24, "Father, as to those whom thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me". John 17:24 That does not refer to all that get eternal life in the early part of the chapter.

C.A.M. Would it not be right to say that it is a higher and eternal thought?

[Page 157]

J.T. That is what I understand. We are to be with Him; He says, "Father, as to those whom thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world". Then He goes on, "Righteous Father, -- and the world has not known thee, but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them", verses 24 - 26. I think the brethren will all see that these statements refer to a special family or class of persons, not to the generality of those of "all flesh", although given to Christ; and they will get eternal life.

W.B-w. What is involved in the manifestation of the Father's name to them?

J.T. Well, the first is manifestation, verse 6, "I have manifested". Verse 26 is making known: "And I have made known". "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me", verse 6. That would be objective, the Father's name manifest before their eyes, but in verse 26 it is another form, namely, "I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them". Making it known is a deeper thing. It is worked into us, as it were, by the Lord's instruction; worked into our being, to make room for the love; the kind of love with which the Father loves the Son. I think the brethren will all see by these comparisons that John 17 contemplates in general a unique family, called men given to Christ; whereas the earlier reference in regard to eternal life is "all flesh". Christ has authority over all flesh. He says, "that as to all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal". That is on lower ground. We come into that too; but He is not dealing on that point as to the disciples. The men the Father gave him.

[Page 158]

A.R. I suppose eternal life does not take you off the earth, whereas verse 24 really puts you in heaven.

J.T. Clearly; where He is now.

W.B-w. Verse 26 would be family love, would it not?

J.T. Yes. A very extraordinary kind; because it is the love "with which thou hast loved me". That kind of love.

A.R. How do you explain that verse in Ephesians: "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named". Ephesians 3:14,15?

J.T. That enlarges on what we are saying. There are other families besides those who form the assembly. John 17 deals with that family in the body of the chapter, but there are other families, and the apostle in bowing his knees to the Father recognises that there are other families.

A.R. Will they take their bearings, or be assigned into a certain class or relationship as from the Father?

J.T. I think so. Take for instance, chapter 14: "Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe on God, believe also on me. In my Father's house there are many abodes; were it not so, I had told you: for I go to prepare you a place; and if I go and shall prepare you a place, I am coming again and shall receive you to myself, that where I am ye also may be", John 14:1 - 3. That cannot refer to the Jewish family down here in the millennium nor to saved gentiles, either. Each are in a class by themselves.

Ques. Do you distinguish between the Fatherhood of God in a general sense, and the name Father as revealed to us as sons?

J.T. The name Father implies sonship, John's gospel begins with that, "And we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father", John 1:14. "No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten

[Page 159]

Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", John 1:18. So He is the Father of Christ in John's gospel, and parallel with this, "the Father" in that gospel. The Father expresses grace, because the Lord says, "For neither does the Father judge any one", John 5:22. That is important to bear in mind, the title of Father is more limited than the title God. God judges but the Father judges no one. In John 20 He is Christ's Father and our Father, which is special, our heavenly calling being in mind, for ascension is connected with it.

A.R. As Father has the idea of family in view. God would have in view all men.

J.T. The Father must imply sonship or children.

A.B.P. Will the saints of the Old Testament have part in what is heavenly?

J.T. I would think so. When Christ comes they will all be raised, for they are Christ's, they belong to Christ. They will all be segregated, so to speak, each into his own family, because each family must be formed according to the light vouchsafed to it. Therefore what existed before the deluge would not be the same as what came in under Abraham, and then what came in under Moses, and what came in under David and the prophets. There are dispensations, and each dispensation has advanced light, I mean, it is cumulative, until you come to the highest thought, and that is Christ become man. You have sonship of the most exalted sense, and we come into that. Others come into sonship, too, but according to their formation, they will be on lower ground. That is how I understand the truth.

A.B.P. So that that thought is seen in God's saying, "Out of Egypt I called my son", Hosea 11:1.

J.T. Yes. That was Israel in Egypt called out. He had that relation and place with God in Canaan.

J.S. In verse 2 of John 17 -- "he should give them life eternal" is that as the second Adam?

[Page 160]

J.T. Yes, I would say that.

J.H.E. The Lord said, "Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced", John 8:56. Would that allude to the family thought?

J.T. Yes. I think the allusion would be to the weaning of Isaac. I mean, that is the figure. Abraham rejoiced in that day, but it was Christ really though Abraham could not have told you about it as we can tell each other now; but the Lord interpreted it in that way; and in referring to eternal life, I think we have to connect it with Abraham. Human life was shortened steadily up to Abraham, so that the idea of eternal life would be more appreciated.

A.C. Speaking of the Father, would you explain the expression in Hebrews, "the Father of spirits".

J.T. Well it is remarkable that He is not called "our Father" in Hebrews. Hebrews does not bring out the fulness of christianity. It is just the Father of spirits. Of course. He is the Father of our spirits, but the point is He deals with us inwardly, so that we have come "to the spirits of just men made perfect", Hebrews 12:23.

R.W.S. I would like to be a little clearer on how sonship in the assembly family is different to the sonship you spoke of in other families.

J.T. Take, for instance, Ishmael. He was Abraham's son, and he was blessed because he was Abraham's son, but he was not on the same level as Isaac. Isaac was the supreme thought -- "for in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee", Genesis 21:12. I only allude to that as a figure, that a man may have two persons who are in the relation of sons, but one may not be in the same relation as the other; for instance, the mothers were different, and motherhood has a great deal to do with the families. It is a question of subjective conditions in the time in which they lived.

A.R. Would also the scripture in Ephesians help

[Page 161]

-- "his inheritance in the saints"? We could not say that of other families, I suppose.

J.T. I should not say that. I think every family affords something for God. Take little children, the Lord Jesus says, "their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens", Matthew 18:10. We can only just touch on that. Scripture is almost silent, but there is enough to show they form a certain family.

C.A.M. In that connection, our apprehension of the Father would be very much greater in this family, the assembly. "He that has seen me has seen the Father", John 14:9. Do you connect that sentence with the expression that the Father uses, "This is my beloved Son ... hear him", Matthew 17:5? Do you connect those two matters together?

J.T. No doubt. We should not have the character of the Father at all if the Son had not become a Man, if one of the divine Persons had not become Man. The record does not say the Father spoke to Him at the Jordan. It is a voice; a voice from heaven. There was supreme affection in that voice, and the voice was heard. Of course it was the Father's, but the thought of the voice is stressed. Referring to the transfiguration, Peter says, "such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: ... and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain", 2 Peter 1:18. What voice was that? Was there ever such a voice heard before? Never! As far as Scripture goes it was the first time that voice was heard. Not that God's voice had not been heard, but the Father's. "This is my beloved Son" then, "Thou art my beloved Son" (both things are said), "in thee I have found my delight", Matthew 17:5, Luke 3:22. These statements were heard on the banks of the Jordan. But we want more than the voice. We want something of the Father's traits, what He is characteristically. Well, you see them in that

[Page 162]

Person that He speaks to. So that the Lord says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father". That is more than the Father's voice. The character of the Father is there. We see Him perfectly in the Son. The Lord says, "I have manifested thy name". I think that would be in His walk and ways, and words and teaching. But "I have made known unto them" -- that would go further. Manifestation is what is before your eyes; but making a thing known is an inward process. There is room in us for the love wherewith the Father loves the Son.

A.N.W. Why does He distinguish between "I have made known", and "I will make it known"?

J.T. I think He would have in mind what came out in chapter 20 when He says, "I will make it known". He had done it already, but there was more still to make known, which He included in the message through Mary.

W.B-w. Was the Father not expressed in Him before His baptism?

J.T. Well, He said "Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father's business?" Luke 2:49. Sonship was there and active, but the Father's voice was not heard. The Father's voice was heard in connection with the service of Christ down here, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Him simultaneously with that. So that the representation of the Father is in the power of the Spirit. That is how the truth is presented in Scripture.

W.B-w. And began there at that time at the banks of Jordan? Is that the beginning of it?

J.T. Quite so. You get the Lord starting out there. Immediately He goes to the wilderness. He is led of the Spirit, and He gathers up the fishermen, Peter and Andrew, James and John. He becomes attractive. The Father would always be there, but it is as active in testimony that He says "He that has seen me has seen the Father".

[Page 163]

E.E.H. Is the idea of the Father carried through to eternity as seen in the Lord Jesus where He is spoken of as the Father of Eternity?

J.T. Fatherhood in God will continue. But you are quoting from Isaiah 9. It is really literally "Father of the age", and it alludes to Christ, not to His having a family exactly, but that He is exercising the care of a Father over the whole millennial period. As a man may be said to be the father of his country. He says to the disciples, "Children". That is a fatherly expression; but that does not mean He was Father in the Deity, that is, in the sense of "the Father".

E.E.H. That is very clear; that is what I mean.

J.T. It is the greatness of the Person of Christ; that He is great enough to be the Father of His kingdom, of the millennial world. So, as I said before. He said to the disciples, "Children, have ye anything to eat?" John 21:5. We just sang the first hymn which contains the expression "Father of eternity". I am afraid that as it stands there it is connected in our minds with Him in pre-incarnate Deity; not that I did not have to do with that myself; but I am afraid it is misleading. People sing it and think it has to do with Christ's position in the eternal day. The Father of the eternal state of things into which we are going is the Father of whom we are speaking. "One God, the Father". It is important to have that distinction.

J.S. Would it not be important to look into the text. It is quite clear that it is the 'Father of the age'.

J.T. Anyone can see that in Isaiah 9. There is a note to this effect in the New Translation.

A.C. While speaking of the term 'care', would it not be in keeping with what the apostle Paul had in his mind in writing the two letters to the saints at Thessalonica, addressing them as "in God the Father", and speaking of the nursing attitude?

J.T. Yes; they were in the affections of the Father.

[Page 164]

Paul said he exhorted them "as a father his own children". It corresponds with what John says: "I write to you, little children, because ye have known the Father", 1 John 2:13. The Thessalonians were young christians, but very lovable. That is really what is meant. He does not say that of those at Corinth. He says to them, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ", 1 Corinthians 1:3.

A.R. Is there any other family that will understand and know God as Father as christians do?

J.T. Not on the same level. "My Father and your Father", I think only applies to those who form the assembly, that is, the saints of this dispensation.

A.R. Is Abba Father distinctly christianity?

J.T. I would say so. These are the exact words of Christ in speaking to Him.

R.W.S. Is that the "us" in 1 Corinthians -- "to us there is one God, the Father"?

J.T. That is what I thought we might see, the "us" would be characteristic christians, inclusive of the apostle himself, these terms are known now to the whole profession of christianity, but are they really known? "To us there is one God, the Father". That is real christian knowledge, and the apostle is speaking about knowledge.

A.B.P. Will the Father as referred to in Matthew be known in the millennium by the family on earth?

J.T. Yes, to some extent.

A.B.P. The idea of care and provision, which would obtain in the millennium?

J.T. I think so. The early instruction in Matthew has that in mind. In chapter 10, the Lord says, "Go not off in to the way of the nations, and into a city of Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", Matthew 10:5, 6.

J.S. I suppose we would have to come to Ephesians for the development of sonship?

[Page 165]

J.T. Just so -- "having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself", Ephesians 1:5.

T.E.H. Would you help me on verse 3 "But if any one love God, he is known of him"?

J.T. The apostle is dealing with a condition of intelligence without love. There were certain in Corinth who had knowledge but they were without love. So the point is, "if any one love God, he is known of him". You might say, God knows everybody; and so He does. He has the name of every one in His books; but if so to speak He met one who did not love Him He would not own him. If God meets a lover of His He would recognise him. The Lord Jesus in meeting the women who were at the tomb as they were on the way to tell His disciples that they should meet Him in Galilee, says, "Hail". He salutes them; they were His lovers. He would not have done that to the Jews who were at the same time carrying a lie to the chief priests. "If any one love God, he is known of him".

F.S.C. Is our love toward God the result of knowledge of Him?

J.T. Yes; the more you know Him, the more you love him, "let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me", Jeremiah 9:24. "For they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah", Jeremiah 31:34. That will be said of nations by and by, so that all will be known of God in that way.

F.S.C. Someone has said, 'The way to know Christ better, is to love Him more'.

J.T. Well, knowledge comes first. For instance, take Nathanael. Philip says to him, "We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth", John 1:45. That was light for Nathanael, but he did not take it in at once. He said, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see".

[Page 166]

And he came and saw; that is, he began to move towards Christ. And when the Lord saw him coming to Him, He says, "Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile", John 1:47. Knowledge was the first thing there; and then Nathanael says, "Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel", John 1:49. That glorious Person has become an Object for him now; his love for Christ would follow. That is the idea; the gospel is light. Paul is sent out into the world as an evangelist to open men's eyes. An evangelist does that. He enlightens people, disillusions them "to whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God", Acts 26:18. They must have their eyes open to see the Christ and to love Him.

C.B. "We love because he has first loved us", 1 John 4:19. The light comes to you and then you love.

J.T. Just so.

W.B-w. In Revelation 14 we get one hundred and forty-four thousand with the Lamb on mount Zion, having His Father's name in their foreheads. What relation would they have in sonship?

J.T. They will be a family by themselves. You have three families there. They are on earth at mount Zion, and they are allowed to learn a song that is sung in heaven; and that song is sung before the four and twenty elders and the four living creatures. The four and twenty elders refer to the assembly. The singers are not they; they are some other family, but they are in the heavens. And the people down below that learn the song are still another family; so we have three families. We can easily understand how they will be segregated in heaven. The Lord Jesus is in charge of every family and He will put each in its place. It is the name of the Lamb's Father they have in their foreheads, also the Lamb's name. Over against the mark of the beast they have the Father's name. It is their profession in intelligence that anyone can see.

[Page 167]

W.B-w. So that mount Zion is not heaven there.

J.T. No; it is down here.

A.R. Stephen says, "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham". The apostle Paul speaks about God as the Father of glory. How do you view these expressions?

J.T. I would say the God of glory is marked by glory, all His operations are glorious; but the Father of it would be the Source of it; He is the Source of all glory.

R.W.S. Are all the families included in the verse read: "One God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him"?

J.T. "We for him" would be the christian's position that we are speaking of. He does not say of all families, as he does in Ephesians: "of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named", Ephesians 3:15. Generally, we do not call families things, exactly; but still they are all for Him. Only the apostle Paul here is speaking of one family. The knowledge of the true God is among the christians, not among the Jews, or others.

A.P.T. Would that have raised an exercise in Corinth -- as to this appellation having a firm footing in their souls?

J.T. I think it should; it was not by men's natural intelligence, which marked some of the Corinthian leaders. The "us" is christianity. Those who belong to christianity have the knowledge of the true God. It is only there; that is what is implied. "To us there is one God, the Father". A christian understands the divine economy. The Father retains the place in the Deity; and the Son has become the Mediator; "One God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him". He effects everything for God, and thus we are by Him. We are effected by Him for God. That is how we are for God. The "us" covers all that; we

[Page 168]

are for God, because Christ has brought us in before Him, as He says in John 17:12: "Those thou hast given me I have guarded, and not one of them has perished".

J.S. Do you not think modem teaching has beclouded the Fatherhood of God?

J.T. There is a good deal of that, I am sure. There are those who say. God is the Father of all men, which is not so. He is Father to christians. "To us there is one God, the Father". The true knowledge of God is among christians.

J.S. "Ye are of the devil, as your father". John 8:44.

A.Pf. Of John the baptist it is said, "There is not arisen among the born of women a greater than John the baptist. But he who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he", Matthew 11:11.

J.T. John the baptist was on that line; that is, born of women; whereas christians are born of God. Not that John the baptist was not; but the point is the line on which he is placed. John the baptist could not carry on as we are carrying on here tonight. He did not have the intelligence christians have. "To us there is one God, the Father". Christians have the highest intelligence -- in accord with the relation in which we are set. Ephesians opens up the truth as to those forming the assembly.

J.H.E. Is christian relationship characterised by the mother -- Jerusalem who is above, the true mother?

J.T. That enters into our position. "Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother", Galatians 4:26. That is the difference between Isaac and Ishmael. I am speaking of Ishmael as having been blessed of God. We must look at him as blessed of God, as one primary feature of his position.

Rem. So the Jew in that sense, refused the testimony of the Father. "If ye had known me, ye would have known also my Father", John 8:19, whereas the man in John 9, comes into the good of all that.

[Page 169]

J.T. Yes. Because He believed on the Son.

R.W.S. Is the instrumentality commensurate with the source here?

J.T. Quite; the instrumentality is the Son -- "by whom". The "by" is instrumentality, and it is the Son who exercises it. So the Son is equal to the Father. The Lord stresses that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father. He is equal to the Father and therefore He can lay His hand upon the Father and us. He brings us in in suitability to God, brings us in like Himself. He effects that in us.

A.P.T. No one can say Lord Jesus except in the power of the Spirit. Does that link on with your remark, "by Jesus Christ", as to the approach being commensurate with the revelation? It is all centred in Him but acted on in the power of the Spirit.

J.T. Yes; it brings out the three circles in operation in the economy. That statement you quote, "No one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus; and no one can say. Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit", 1 Corinthians 12:3, brings the Spirit in as the power in us subjectively to use divine names properly. Then the apostle says, "But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all", 1 Corinthians 12:4 - 6. That is the Spirit, the Lord, and God. The three Persons in the Deity are brought in there in the operative sense. And on the same principle in Ephesians 4, we have them again only on a higher plane. "There is one body and one Spirit" (that is one circle), "as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord" (that is another circle) "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all". These are remarkable passages as showing how the economy operates, how each Person has His function, speaking reverently. We begin with

[Page 170]

these circles centring in the Persons, as baptised "to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". We have got to observe how the Persons operate through our whole experience down here and in eternity.

A.P.T. In Matthew 28, the Father is stressed as introducing divine authority, but in Ephesians 4 the Father is last, if I may use that word reverently. It is the summit of the purpose of God for us.

J.T. Yes; Ephesians 4 involves the universe, and we begin with the centre of it; that is, we are in the unity of the Spirit. "There is one body and one Spirit". That is the first circle -- the inner circle. Then, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". That brings in the Son. And finally the Father is universal, "Who is over all, and through all, and in us all".

A.P.T. I was thinking too of the other verse, "For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father", Ephesians 2:18. The Father, the supreme One, indicating the elevated sphere into which we are brought in this wonderful thought of speaking to Him.

J.T. I follow you fully there. The chapter shows how we are brought into all this as having been aliens to the commonwealth of Israel. Christ has brought us in and reconciled us in one body to God by the cross, that he might form the two in Himself into one new man. All that is down here. "For through him we both have access" that is through Christ, and in happy unity, Jew and gentile have access to the Father by one Spirit. Through Christ -- that is the position of our worship. It is always mediatorial. It is through Christ, as between the Father and us, and the Spirit, the power in us, to worship the Father.

W.B-w. "In whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit", Ephesians 2:22. It brings God in at the end.

J.T. That is down here, the habitation of God. The

[Page 171]

gentiles themselves by themselves, even though there are no Jews, which is the case now, you might say. Even if there are no Jews, there is a habitation of God, but first it was the Jew and gentile, chapter 2, but now in the end of that chapter, the last verse, it is the gentile -- "ye" the Ephesians.

A.N.W. Would the absence of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 8 signify that idolatry is dislodged by the Father and the Son? He is not mentioning the Spirit. The Thessalonians acknowledge the "living and true God, and ... his son".

J.T. "To await his Son from the heavens", 1 Thessalonians 1:10. 1 Corinthians 12 brings the divine operations in, how the work of God goes on every day and every night.

A.B.P. Is it well, while speaking of how God may be known, to keep in mind that there is that which we cannot know?

J.T. There is always the inscrutable. It is as in revelation we know Them, for God, we are told, dwells in light unapproachable, no one has seen Him at any time. That is the inscrutable.

Ques. In regard to 1 Corinthians 8, the reference to "all things" of the Father, and "all things" by the Son -- is the created sphere in mind?

J.T. "All things" is the created sphere; it refers to the universe really.

[Page 172]

DIVINE NAMES (2)

Matthew 27:45,46; John 20:17,18; Revelation 3:12

J.T. Most of us will be aware that our subject in these readings is Divine Names. At the first reading we considered the Father, the appellation by which christians are privileged to know God. It was thought well to begin with our own relation to God in that name; then take up other titles, inclusive of those in the Old Testament, so that it was thought that we might consider God as God in the two meetings of today.

It is thought that in considering our Lord's addresses and references to God as His God, that we have God before us in the fullest possible manner. Christ is speaking to Him and of Him as His God, in these passages, and as taking our place beside Him, so to speak, we have God before us in the fullest sense possible, for it is not a mere creature speaking to Him, but One equal to Him Personally, yet as Man addressing Him as God. So that it is God in the fullest way, not simply in a relative sense, but an absolute sense, because the Speaker knows Him not only in His relative position, but in the Absolute. Divine Persons know each other in that sense, as apart from creation. Still the Lord addresses Him in Matthew 27 as a Man, in a place of responsibility; that is, on the cross. He addresses Him as "My God" twice, and in resurrection, according to John 20, He speaks of Him as His God, and our God.

A.N.W. And in Revelation is there anything added in "My God" in chapter 3?

J.T. Well, it is first, the temple of My God, and then the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which comes down from heaven from My God. It is Christ's God that is stressed; this God in relation to things that are connected with His testimony and purpose.

[Page 173]

C.A.M. Would you say that in this passage in Matthew, the magnitude of what was taking place required the matter of addressing God in the absolute?

J.T. Well, I only use that word because Christ knew Him in that sense, and it would be the Lord's mind; it would be His full knowledge of God, but He is speaking to Him ostensibly as responsible to Him and therefore the relative thought is on the surface. The psalmist, of course, used these solemn words before, but in a prophetic way, and the Lord takes them up on the cross. The psalmist using them, of course, it would be as a creature; he could not apprehend the absoluteness of God, but Christ in taking up the words knew perfectly the Being whom He is addressing, not only in His relativity but in His absoluteness, because He Himself has part in the Deity.

C.A.M. Then, of course, the psalm would be a prophetic intimation of all the depth of meaning there is in this.

J.T. Well, it would, only the actual speaker was a creature. Of course the Spirit of Christ spoke in him, as He speaks in us, but David could not apprehend the depths of God as Christ apprehended Him.

A.N.W. Is 'El' God in the absolute? Elohim is, is it not?

J.T. El is the name of God denoting power. Elohim is a plural word. In the note to it in Genesis 1, the translator uses the word 'absolute', but I doubt that he really meant its full signification: 'free from limitation, dependence or relation, opposed to relative'. I have not been able to find in Mr. Darby's writings anything to indicate that he had in his mind absoluteness in this sense, that is, in its sense of unrelatedness to any thing or person.

A.N.W. So that you would find it difficult to designate the Being there in absoluteness because we are finite.

[Page 174]

J.T. I do not think any creature can take in the absoluteness of God. No creature can be in absoluteness himself as far as I can understand; he must be in relation to something whereas the word 'absolute' as applied to God carries with it freedom from relation to anything; it is His own infinite Being, having existence before there was a creation. We have to admit that in our minds, but to compass it it is beyond us.

J.S. Why is it put in the form of a question here?

J.T. Well, He is using Psalm 22; the Lord takes up Psalm 22 and addresses this word to His God: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is a question for every sinner to answer in his own soul -- why Christ was forsaken there. It is not that the Lord did not know; it is to bring out the truth. The answer to it brings out the truth; He gets no answer here -- a very solemn and touching thought. His persecutors jeered at Him; they thought He was speaking to Elias, to come and take Him down.

W.B-w. The absolute and the relative are combined in this expression "My God, my God".

J.T. I only used the word 'absolute' as knowing that a divine Person is speaking to God and I am sure He is not limiting Himself to what He is relatively. We come specially into nearness to the Absolute as being alongside the Lord, as being with Him by the Spirit, as He addresses God.

F.H.L. You make a distinction over Genesis 1, where the plural thought of absolute Deity is in view?

J.T. The question is whether it is absolute Deity there because it is God in the sense of supremacy, power involved; it is the plural carrying the full thought of Deity, but relative. The idea of supremacy is relative; here God is in relation to creation. Earlier there was no creature at all; nothing to be relative to. Elohim, being plural, is the word used here. How it came into use is the question. No doubt the Spirit would cause

[Page 175]

some person to apprehend God as the Supreme Being and enable him to designate Him thus. I would say it is human language, not angelic language, and it conveyed that the person who used the word first had the idea of God as an Object of veneration and worship, so that it is a relative word.

J.T.Jr. In Philippians 2:6 there is no idea of relativity; the idea of equality was brought out. He "did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God"

J.T. He was in the form of God; and being in the form of God He was in absoluteness. But if creation is brought in relativity is there, because the Creator is in relation to His creation. But there was a time -- to use the word time; indeed as we are we can hardly avoid it, being creatures -- when there was nothing for God to be relative to; He was Himself; there were the three Persons in infinite oneness.

A.N.W. That moment is stated in John 1"In the beginning was the Word", John 1:1. I presume that goes beyond Genesis 1:1.

J.T. That is right, but you have the word 'beginning' which is a relative word; only He was; He did not begin. In the beginning He was. The word 'was' brings us into time. "In the beginning was" is existence in time. The beginning is time; something is being done; something is begun, and He was there. But then if your mind can take in what was before that. He was there too, as far as we can use words. But there was nothing to be relative to; divine Persons were all there with nothing else, as far as Scripture shows.

J.S. Would Genesis 1 suggest relativeness?

J.T. Yes. God is apprehended in creation. Someone apprehended Him in creation and used that word. I suppose the Spirit of God helped him to use it; it is a relative word, that the creature used meaning that there is a Being above me, to be revered and worshipped. That

[Page 176]

came into some mind and hence the use of the word.

J.S. And Moses used it intelligently.

J.T. Well, Moses came in as one to whom God revealed Himself as Jehovah, which is more than this, and he was qualified to use this word. He uses it as beginning to write Scripture, but clearly it existed before him.

R.W.S. Does the singular or the plural enter into this expression of the Lord's in Matthew 27?

J.T. Well, I would say it is a singular thought. It is an Aramaic word, which, I suppose had been in common use. It is "Eloi" in Mark, but "Eli" in Matthew, both meaning "My God". For "God" David used the Hebrew "El" in Psalm 22, but the Lord used the ordinary language of the day.

A.N.W. So that the Scripture really has it in the Hebrew, in the Aramaic and in the Greek, is that right?

J.T. Yes. It is carried down to us in Aramaic, only we have the translation of it into Greek. Matthew and Mark give us the interpretation of it, so that there is no doubt as to what is meant.

C.A.M. A creature can only understand relatively, but this in Matthew really is beyond the creature's apprehension, is it not? I mean the depth of meaning in it could never have been expressed by a creature.

J.T. That is what I was saying; we are, I believe, in the presence of absoluteness in the Lord's own mind. We are thus on the very highest and most sacred ground conceivable -- one divine Person speaking to Another, and surely He would, in speaking, have in His mind all that God is. Still, as we have noted. He is in manhood, and thus in the attitude of subjection.

C.H.H. Are you suggesting this word implied even more than the first of Genesis in absoluteness?

J.T. Well, it would, because it is a divine Person using it. Of course He is quoting David, Psalm 22, but the word is "God"; Eli, is "My God"; it is His God; it is

[Page 177]

Christ's God, and that Being is known to Him in all that He is clearly, so that it is greater in His mouth than it could be in any creature's mouth. I think it is most important, most wonderful, most solemn, that we are called into this. There were those standing around the cross; they jeered at the Lord, but how different is a believer who loves Him! What a sanctified and solemn thing to be called into this, to be engaged with it! Why was He forsaken? It brings in the whole question of our guilt and our responsibility. So that we begin with our subject at the very foundation of the truth.

J.S. Does He use current language because He is in manhood here?

J.T. Yes; He used what everybody around could understand, if they paid attention, although some evidently did not understand it.

R.W.S. Do you think if you get an expression not understood we should feel responsible not to misunderstand it? Here they say He "calls for Elias".

J.T. Quite so. Unless we are in a subject and reverential attitude in listening to what is said in ministry we may misrepresent what is said. Here they said the Lord was calling for Elias but He is not calling for Elias at all -- the very opposite of that. He is not even calling upon God; He is asking Him why He forsakes Him so that the answer to it enters into every repentant heart.

A.N.W. Would it be right to say it is two divine Persons measuring the matter of sin?

J.T. Well, that is what enters into it; it brings in every truly repentant person; every repentant person comes into this answer, and if one does not come into it he is not repentant.

A.L. Is the judgment so terrible that God in grace covers it from the sight of men; there is darkness for three hours?

J.T. Well, quite so. As it were, God veiling, you

[Page 178]

mean, shutting out the human gaze for the moment.

Ques. Would the personal pronoun in "My God" refer to the Lord's holiness?

J.T. Yes, to use such a term in that position. He is in the vicarious position, being made sin. But God did not immediately answer Him; that is the solemn side of it.

J.S. Why not?

J.T. Well, because He is the Sin-bearer. He has to go through alone; He is abandoned. It is not the time for answering. He has taken up the position responsibly of bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. It is a public matter and God is forsaking Him -- one of the most solemn matters that christians can think of, that God is actually forsaking Him; and He is not for the moment answering Him.

Ques. In that way does it not enhance the holiness of God, as we have in Psalm 22"And thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel", Psalm 22:3?

J.T. Well, that is really the answer to it, that God is holy. That is why He does not answer; that is why He has forsaken Him, and I thought it would be a moral basis in our souls to dwell on this a little as considering our great subject. God says in Jeremiah, "But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me" Jeremiah 9:24. Understanding that the forsaking of His Son on the cross was because of the holiness of God is fundamental in this knowledge.

A.P.T. Romans 8 says, "God, having sent his own Son" -- does that connect with this chapter in Matthew?

J.T. Quite so; God did it. "Having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh", Romans 8:3.

J.S. I think you have used the word 'abandoned' have you not -- abandoned of God?

J.T. Yes, He is abandoned of God here; the Lord says so. But He is speaking to God; He calls Him "My God": if a man who is suffering on a cross has a God

[Page 179]

why is that God not delivering Him? That is the question. Others called on Him and were delivered.

A.B.P. Does the known power of resurrection enter into the name 'El'? You spoke of it representing the thought of power.

J.T. Quite so -- the exceeding greatness of His power; we are to know that; the power in Ephesians 1 is what we should know: "the surpassing greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the working of the might of his strength, in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead", Ephesians 1:19,20. The exceeding greatness of His power -- that is what El conveys; the mighty One.

A.B.P. The Lord Jesus would know that, as having exercised that power, "marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead", Romans 1:4. He had raised the dead with that power.

C.H.H. Is it foundational that we should first know God in this character of holiness?

J.T. Well, that is what I thought we might come to, a moral foundation in regard to the great subject before us -- what was in the Lord's holy mind when He uttered this cry. He got no immediate answer but He says later, "from the horns of the buffaloes hast thou answered me", Psalm 22:21, which I suppose would mean He was in that distant spot and ultimately was heard, but the three hours of darkness had to be endured; the actual experience of abandonment by God had to be endured, and it was endured -- the three hours of darkness.

A.R. How do you understand that scripture "from the horns of the buffaloes hast thou answered me"?

J.T. I suppose it is where He was, and He speaks in the Psalms of different creatures of antagonism; I suppose the buffalo would be amongst them. I take it that way; He was held there in death. God heard Him from that point, so that He immediately says, "in the midst

[Page 180]

of the congregation will I praise thee", Psalm 22:22. I suppose the hearing would imply that He was raised and taken out of that state.

F.H.L. Have you not said that we are not great enough to consider Jesus as God and Man at the same time?

J.T. That is quite true; we are not great enough to take in the two ideas at once.

F.H.L. Would you just help us again as to this expression: as a Man He was suffering, but as a divine Person He was making this expression.

J.T. You never think of Him as a mere Man, for He is always a divine Person, but He represents on the one side what man is before God -- Himself a divine Person; on the other hand He represents God to us and these are two great ideas that we have to hold separately.

J.T.Jr. The Person who emptied Himself is the same Person who took the bondman's form and was found in fashion as a man. His Personality goes through, does it not?

J.T. There is no change at all in His Personality.

A.C. This abandonment of the Lord comes in Matthew and Mark and not in Luke or John, is that intensity of the sufferings?

J.T. Matthew and Mark are severer. They deal with the governmental side of the testimony, so that we have these words from Psalm 22 quoted by both these evangelists. You get them nowhere else. You might question why it is that we do not. Other features of the testimony of God are often mentioned and yet there is no greater thought than this. I suppose it is so great, standing out like the Himalayas before us, there is no need for repetition.

C.H.H. In the first book of the Psalms, I think the remark "my God" is mentioned thirty times, but only once, "Why hast thou forsaken me?"

A.R. Does God involve what He is in Himself;

[Page 181]

Father is according to the relative idea in the family or sonship?

J.T. That is what we had last time -- Father is a family term, and conveys grace. He does not judge any one. God judges.

J.S. Have you something further in your mind regarding Psalm 22?

J.T. Well, there is a great deal that could be said, but I thought it would be wholesome for us to get alongside the Lord, as it were, at this time and hear Him say this and think of what was in His mind. The question of sin was involved, and He gets no immediate public answer. His resurrection is not a public matter. There is, of course, testimony to it that is public. The Father raised Him by glory, but no man saw that. The angel came down and rolled away the stone, but it is not stated that he saw the resurrection. "An angel of the Lord ... rolled away the stone and sat upon it", Matthew 28:2. But there is no testimony to anybody's being there but two divine Persons. The Father raised Him by His glory. That was private; the Lord's enquiry on the cross was a public matter, and He gets no answer. That enters into the answer of the enquiry -- Why not? It is the sin question; the government of God required that while He is bearing sin, there should be no public acknowledgment of Him by God. It is a question of our guilt, how abhorrent it was to God that He could not own One who was our vicarious sacrifice, bearing our sins.

J.S. Did glory demand His resurrection?

J.T. Just so; but He had to go through the forsaking, the three hours, and the three days and three nights in the heart of the earth as well.

C.A.M. You were speaking of its not being repeated anywhere else -- standing alone in all its own immense meaning. That seems to make it very impressive. No creature is ever going to say anything like this.

J.T. It stands out like a tremendous object by itself

[Page 182]

in its solitude and grandeur and greatness. There it is in the presence of the universe, that the Lord Jesus in bearing our sin uttered this cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

A.Pf. Jonah's language was similar to the Lord's here, only not so intense, and he got an answer, did he not? "I cried by reason of my distress unto Jehovah, and he answered me; Out of the belly of Sheol cried I: thou heardest my voice. For thou didst cast me into the depth, into the heart of the seas. And the flood was round about me" Jonah 2:2,3.

J.T. Jonah was answered; and the Lord says in Psalm 22, that God answered others, too. "Our fathers confided in thee: they confided, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered; they confided in thee, and were not confounded", Psalm 22:4,5. That is in contrast to Himself. A similar wail might ascend from an unforgiven man, but he could not truthfully say, my God. So the position is most remarkable "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- not simply "God", but "my God".

W.B-w. Jonah was answered, because He was repentant and got salvation the same as we would be answered, is that the idea?

J.T. Quite so; the Lord here is going through the sufferings of atonement, and it requires time -- not a moment, but three hours, and then three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

F.N.W. Do you mean to say that if the publican in Luke had said, 'My God, be merciful to me the sinner', it would have been presumption?

J.T. It would; but he says, "O God". No creature could rightly speak thus as consciously abandoned. No one could rightly use it but Christ, because it was His God; He knew that. He knew He had not ceased to be His God, but He had abandoned Him, and that is the terribleness of the whole matter.

[Page 183]

W.B-w. These were the atoning sufferings, were they not, during those three hours of darkness on the cross. He was suffering atoningly. But were the three days and three nights necessary in the atoning part? or did the atonement finish at the end of the three hours of darkness?

J.T. I think the three days and three nights are a counterpart to it. They are linked with the actual sufferings on the cross. He was not answered when He went into the tomb. Why should He go into a tomb? It would be blasphemy to say He personally must be put into the tomb. It is all vicarious. If we do not keep the vicarious idea in mind, we are blaspheming. He did not need to die. To say He died personally, other than in a vicarious sense, is blasphemy. It is because He took our place that He had to die, -- not only to be forsaken on the cross. It does not say He is dead here. He says, 'I am forsaken'. He is still alive and yet He is forsaken. That is one thing, but then the next thing is that He has to die. Why should He have to die? That is the same thing. He must die because He is in the Sin-bearer's place, and not only that, but in a vicarious sense He must be buried. Why should He be buried? He could have arisen immediately. There must be some requirement for it. Part of the sentence on Adam as having sinned was: "until thou return to the ground: for out of it wast thou taken. For dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return", Genesis 3:19. Thus the burial of Christ was a necessary part of His atoning work, 1 Corinthians 15:3,4.

W.B-w. Was it because so many men and women died previously and were buried that He went there to clear up that situation. He went there vicariously to take them out.

J.T. Yes, it was required -- "For dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return", Genesis 3:19, as already quoted. The idea of going down into the earth was

[Page 184]

necessary for atonement. The whole position occasioned by sin was covered by Him.

A.N.W. Can you carry the vicarious thought beyond the burial? I ask that because in our hymns we sing to sinners: "Jesus died and rose for thee". (Hymn 112)

J.T. Well, He was "delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification", Romans 4:25. If He were not raised there would be no justification. Of course He was raised by the glory of the Father on the ground of His own Person, but then He was raised vicariously too, because there could be no justification if He were not raised -- raised again for our justification.

There could be no justification offered to a sinner without that. Christ is said to be a Mercy-seat -- "whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood", Romans 3:25. The mercy-seat involves not only that He has died vicariously but He has risen, the idea of vicariousness goes with Him, attaches to Him now. He is a Mercy-seat -- "whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood ... and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus", Romans 3:25,26.

J.S. The glad-tidings would not be complete without Christ risen and glorified.

J.T. It is a risen Christ and a glorified Christ that is preached in the gospel. Raised again for our justification -- to effect it. He bore our sins in His body on the tree, dying for them under the judgment of God, and was raised without them -- hence our justification.

R.W.S. Between the three hours on the cross and the three days and three nights in the grave, the Lord Jesus says, "Father" -- Why was that?

J.T. He was free to do that, but there was no immediate manifest answer to, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit", Luke 23:46, and "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", Luke 23:34. The answers are in His resurrection.

W.B-w. How do you account for Paul's expression

[Page 185]

-- "even as Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father", Romans 6:4? You do not get the expression in the Old Testament.

J.T. No, it is a marvellous expression. It brings out what the Father's affections for His Son were, for glory is largely the shining out of love -- what one is in this sense. Of course it was the power of God too.

C.H.H. Is it necessary to understand the holiness of both Persons? "For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou allow thy Holy One to see corruption" Psalm 16:10 -- connecting this with Psalm 22, where God is spoken of as holy.

J.T. Quite so; Christ could not be a substitute for us save as a Holy One. The demon recognised Him as that when he said, "... thou art, the Holy One of God", Luke 4:34. But Peter's testimony in John 6:69 is in remarkable discernment, considering the time: "We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". Here the centurion says, "Truly this man was Son of God", Matthew 27:54. So that God was here operating in the midst of the darkness, which is the case now. What darkness there is around! but in a few God is operating, so that we see who Christ is -- "Truly this man was Son of God", says the Roman centurion.

F.H.L. We see that in the opening of Hebrews -- "God ... at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son", Hebrews 1:1,2.

J.T. Just so; the centurion recognised that He was the Son of God, which is a remarkable thing.

I thought that if we could get all this fundamental truth into our souls we might see how John 20 comes in. In Psalm 22 we have the answer from the horns of the buffaloes. I would take that to be where Christ was held by adverse powers and He says, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren", Psalm 22:22. That fits in with our scripture in John 20. He says in that scripture in the message to Mary Magdalene, "I ascend to my Father

[Page 186]

and your Father, and to my God and your God", John 20:17. That is, He is bringing the disciples -- He says "My God" on the cross, as dealing with sin and bearing our sins, but now He says, "My God and your God" -- that could only come in after the sins are borne and dealt with once and for all. Now we are in relationship with the Father in resurrection, and He says, He is your God -- "My God and your God". So that we christians ought to see what God is, not only as He was, as dealing with sin, but what He is -- Christ as risen and glorified, what He is to that Person whom He raised by His glory, and that we are alongside of that Person recognised as His brethren, that is, that His God is our God. We are thus in a position to know God beyond any other family. He is now not only risen but ascended; He says, "] ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God". We are speaking now of His God and the position we are in as alongside of Christ. I think that is of great importance in this subject that we understand our relation to Christ, and therefore are in the position of understanding God as Christ's God.

A.R. I suppose we know Him in a way that was never known before the Lord came into the world?

J.T. He could not be known in this sense before Christ became Man; it depended upon the incarnation, The word "God" in Genesis 1 is a creative title, but not simply of inanimate things, but all persons with intelligence. Someone apprehended the Creator as an Object of veneration, an Object of worship, but now you have a Person qualified to tell you about God, to reveal Him. He spoke to Him on the cross when dealing with our sins; now He is speaking of Him, as risen and ascending, and He is telling His disciples that He is His God: "My God and your God".

F.S.C. We are privileged to say My God, in view of the Lord's saying, Your God.

J.T. Quite so; Paul says, "My God shall abundantly

[Page 187]

supply all your need", Philippians 4:19. And so any of us can say that, but it is beautiful to be alongside of Christ now, that that is our position. That is the position He gives us.

A.N.W. Would you say there is no less in the Lord's mind in speaking of His God in John 20 than in Matthew 27?

J.T. That is what I was thinking. The exact expression is carried through -- My God. It is the same expression only now He is in the clear sunshine of relationship with God as having settled forever the question of sin. He is beyond it in heavenly glory, because He is talking about ascending, when He says, "my God and your God". You need to be in association with the Lord to grasp the thought rightly.

W.B-w. Does it not imply sonship on our side to be able to say my God rightly?

J.T. Clearly; it is in sonship we say it. It is, however, more God and man here. It is not exactly God and His sons, here; it is rather God and man. I think that is the thing to get hold of. Christ is speaking of Him as Man, and we come in on that line.

A.R. When you say 'getting alongside of Christ' do you mean where He is?

J.T. Quite so; it is in His present place; where He is, we are to be. That is our status in heaven, we are His brethren. When we enter heaven there will be no question about our status: We shall be recognised as suitable association with Christ; we are identified with Him.

C.H.H. Would the way it is put guard His own peculiar place in it? He does not say, our Father and our God. He would be unique in that relationship.

J.T. That is always so. So that in the book of Ezekiel when you come to the question of the division of the land, the first thing is that Joseph must get two portions, Ezekiel 47:13. Whenever we speak of Christ

[Page 188]

we must never forget that He must have two portions. He is always anointed above His companions.

A.L. In this chapter, He says to Mary Magdalene, "Touch me not", John 20:17; but in Luke 24:39, He says, "Handle me and see". What is the difference?

J.T. In John 20, she is outside by the grave-side, and she is assuming that she can touch Him; whereas from John's point of view, the link with the Jewish position is completely broken. The touching must be in a heavenly relationship. He says, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father". In Matthew, they did touch Him. They held Him by the feet. He did not refuse it, but here He does, because John is dealing with the spiritual and heavenly side, and he says, If there is to be any link with Christ, it must be on heavenly ground. The Lord is insisting on that. The passage in Luke 24 contemplates the assembly, which admits of our heavenly relation with Christ.

Ques. Why does the Lord use "Father" before "God"? It is really the highest setting, bringing in the heavenly family.

J.T. 'Father' here refers to the heavenly family, but it is not so great a term as God, if one might use 'great' in this connection. The order is progressive; the ultimate is God.

A.P.T. Did the Lord make that quite plain Himself in John 4? "The Father seeks such as his worshippers". Then He says, "God is a spirit; and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth", John 4:23,24. Does He distinguish there in regard to this great matter?

J.T. Just so; He does not say, the Father is a spirit. He says, God is a spirit. But He says, the Father seeketh such, for it is the idea of the need arising from affection. He is seeking worshippers, but God is a spirit. That is the great final thought. That is our great subject. It is a question of God.

A.N.W. I think your word about being alongside of

[Page 189]

Jesus should help us, because Thomas used the term "my God", but not as alongside of Him. It is on a lower level.

J.T. Quite so; he called Christ his God, John 20:28, which, of course, is right, but it is not on the level of verse 17.

F.H.L. The fact that the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one, would enable us to understand the declaration of the Father's name.

J.T. Quite so; the Lord sets us free through Mary's message, which brings up another matter: Why did He not go into the assembly and tell the brethren this? It is dearly a reason for this, because that when He comes in amongst the brethren the condition is to be right. The state is right; there is no question at all, so the disciples are glad when they see the Lord. He says, "Peace be to you" twice. The whole position is clear and confirmed.

A.R. When He says, "my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God", does that include sonship?

J.T. It is, I think more what man is toward God. The Father is family, but God is God and man; not that we are not sons of God, too, because we are; but I think it is God and man more when the Lord says, "my God and your God".

A.R. "The tabernacle of God is with men".

C.A.M. Would not the order of the Father coming first agree with the fact that the Lord in His life here had expressed the Father really prior to this great matter of God that we are considering in His death?

J.T. Yes; He says, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me" John 17:6. Manifested is objective, what they could see; and then He said, "I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known", John 17:26. That would be a further thought, which I suppose is involved in these verses. The manifestation was "He that has seen me has seen the Father", John 14:9.

[Page 190]

C.A.M. Yes, the manifestation of the Father was in His life here, so that it would emphasise what you said about the fact, that the great ultimate is the knowledge of God in this way.

A.P.T. How does the epistle to the Hebrews fit in in relation to this ministry? Does that epistle deal with God in this relation?

J.T. Yes; "God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son" Hebrews 1:1. That is the Son on God's side; whereas what we have before us now is on our side. When the Lord Jesus says "my God", that is not how He is spoken of in the first part of Hebrews. He is spoken of in chapter 1 as a divine Person, through whom God has come out and spoken to us. What we are dealing with now is His speaking to God on the cross, where the moral question is involved, and now the family question and the need of affection and the full divine purpose reached in a Man with God, because it is a question of God and men. That is the great ultimate, that God will have men with Himself, of course as sons, but still men. Never forget that. Angels are sons too. But the leading word is 'man' in this connection. The idea of God in His purpose was to have man with him in this relation.

A.R. So it says, the seventy elders saw the God of Israel, whereas this would be Christ's God. Is that the idea?

J.T. That is the thought to get into our minds. It is God and men, but in such a Man first of all, as Christ -- a divine Person, capable of knowing Him, but still a Man. See what I have reached! God would say. Adam failed Him, but now He has man in permanency -- God and men. And the Lord says, You are pre-eminently in this with Me.

C.A.M. So that you would say that now man is the

[Page 191]

greatest order of being in the creation of God. It was not always so; I mean, He became a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, but now as a result of all that has transpired, manhood is the greatest order in the universe.

J.T. That is right. If you said sonship, it would not do, because sonship applies to Israel and angels, and Israel is national. But this is an order of being with God according to His purpose -- "Let us make man" Genesis 1:26 -- not make sons; not make children, but man "after our image and likeness". Thus Christ did not take the angelic order of being, but manhood. In it He is over all, "God blessed for ever", Romans 9:5.

C.H.H. So the end of Revelation corresponds with Genesis 1. It is God and man, and Genesis 1 is God and man -- is that morally greater than sonship?

J.T. I think it is as contemplating that order of being; sonship existed before man; sonship existed in the angels. The sons of God shouted for joy, but man was not there until Adam was formed. Adam failed, but in Christ God reached it to His infinite satisfaction. And the Lord says, You are in this too -- my God and your God; it is as Man, that order of being, and yet in One who is God's equal; that is, the human idea, but in a Person His own equal. And believers now are His brethren, in association with Him in heavenly glory. That is truly wonderful, so that we should get it into our souls; as we do God becomes more and more to us, because it is infinite, inasmuch as the Lord Jesus says,"My God". Infinitude enters into those words as He uses them.

Rem. 1 Corinthians 15 would bear on that -- the Lord is said to become subject so that God may be all in all.

J.T. I thought we would take that in this evening in connection with Elohim in Genesis, but it fits here. But let us get this thought that it is the order of being that is

[Page 192]

in question; it is the order of being; it is God and man -- the order of being that God had in His mind in His counsels with Himself.

C.N. It is a knowledge of God relatively to a consciousness that would bow our souls in worship before Him -- would that be so?

J.T. Just so, we shall see that, I hope, this evening in the word 'Elohim'. The word means a Person or Being to be revered or worshipped. But you have the Lord Jesus saying "My God" on the cross. I could not join in with Him there. I could not say "My God" with Him whilst my sins are upon Him. But now they are gone, He being risen, and the Lord says, You are in this too.

E.McK. How would Paul's thought in regard to the fulness of God in Ephesians fit in -- filled to all the fulness of God?

J.T. Well, that is another thing, to be filled unto all the fulness of God. It would mean, I think, what He is in Christ; that is, the fulness of God in Christ. "That ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God", Ephesians 3:19. "For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell", Colossians 1:19. And we are to be brought into it. We cannot compass it, for it is infinitude, but we have our little part in it. It is what God is towards us, and we enter into it. Scripture says, "And they feared as they entered into the cloud", Luke 9:34. That gives you a little inkling of it; we do not fear as we enter the cloud; we are happy in it. Part in the fulness of God will be our eternal portion.

A.R. The tabernacle of God with men, would mean men like Christ.

J.T. Just so; He represents an order of things in which man is set up; man is taken up again. We have often alluded to Moses in this respect. His staff was turned into a serpent as cast on the ground. Then God says, Take it by the tail, and it was a staff in his hand.

[Page 193]

Man is taken up again in Christ. It is fixed; it will never become a serpent again. Man can never come under the power of Satan again. It is that order of being taken up in Christ and in those verses in John 20 you get the fulness of it.

A.R. Does the apostle link the Ephesians on to the same ground where he says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", Ephesians 1:3?

J.T. Well, that is the epistle that develops these verses in John; develops the counsels of God in man.

A.A.T. Is the highest form of worship to God and not to the Father?

J.T. I think so; God is to be the supreme Object of worship. We shall see in the next reading, in 1 Corinthians 15, that God will be all in all. He is all in all, not only in an objective way, but is in us.

A.P.T. The reference to the worship of God in Revelation 22 is significant. The angel says to John, "Worship God". Do you think he had more intelligence than John?

J.T. John was ready to worship the angel. The circumstances were extraordinary, but still it is humbling, that he should worship a creature. It shows what any of us is capable of. God is the supreme Object of worship.

C.H.H. Would you say that we could arrive at that without a hymn?

J.T. Quite so; only that singing has a great place in the service of God. God has a great ear, if one may speak reverently, for music, but for the music of the sanctified human heart, that comes out through the vocal powers of men. That is what is in His mind.

A.B.P. The praises of Israel in Psalm 22 are in relation to God.

J.T. Clearly; God inhabited them, one of the most remarkable phrases in Scripture. "Thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel", Psalm 22:3.

[Page 194]

J.T.Jr. We get an inkling in Psalm 43 of the harp: "Upon the harp will I praise thee, O God, my God", Psalm 43:4. Is that the instrument used in heaven, the harp?

J.T. Quite so; these instruments typify persons -- men. In such scriptures God indicates the music He seeks.

A.R. What have you to say about Revelation?

J.T. Well I was going to say the Lord uses this expression "My God" four times. The temple of My God, the name of My God, the city of My God, "which comes down out of heaven, from my God". The Lord uses the expression "my God" four times in that verse in relation to the overcomer in Philadelphia. What can that mean, except that the Philadelphian overcomer understands what we are talking about this afternoon? That, I believe, is what it means. The Lord knows that he will value what He says, The Lord would hardly use a promise like this if the overcomer did not understand it.

J.T.Jr. Is the idea that we move on from what the cross, Matthew 27, would suggest, of which we have the teaching in Corinthians, to this elevated position with Christ in His joy before God?

J.T. Quite so. Thus in the passage before us, the Lord is associating the overcomer with the great thought of His God.

C.N. Would it be right to say that in assembly meetings we should pass on from what God has done in Christ to God Himself, to worship Himself? Would the final thought be to have God, according to what He is in Himself, before us?

J.T. That is right. I am sure we have taken in very little of what it is to worship God because of what He is in Himself; not simply because of what He has done for us, but what He is in Himself, and surely God is more than enough in Himself to more than fill any human heart.

[Page 195]

W.B-w. What is the meaning of the new name being written upon the believer? "I will write upon him the name of my God ... and my new name", Revelation 3:12.

J.T. The first thing is that he will be made a pillar in the temple of Christ's God. "Temple" refers to the inner part of the structure. He will write upon him the name of His God and the name of the city of His God. That brings up the question as to what material is involved. The overcomer is great enough to have these great thoughts written upon him. I believe it means that he apprehends the truth that is involved. That is what constitutes material that the Lord can use.

J.S. Would the fact that it is repeated four times show that Philadelphia had reached the universal thought of the assembly?

J.T. I think the overcomer has reached what we are dealing with now -- this great matter of Christ's God. I think this verse indicates that the overcomer in Philadelphia understands the things that we are speaking of.

W.B-w. The Lord speaking of the temple in this way would indicate that the overcomer would know what had taken place in the temple of My God.

J.T. God has helped us on this subject in our Bible readings, and the like. We thus understand something about the temple, so the overcomer in Philadelphia understands what the Lord is speaking about here.

C.A.M. Would it be right to say the Father, in whose hands all dispensations are, is waiting until this period in the church's history when the saints reach this wonderful goal?

J.T. It seems as if the Lord shows in this address to the Philadelphian church His gracious consideration for His own in these last days. There are some who value these terms, and the Lord puts them forth as if the overcomer knew what they meant.

[Page 196]

R.S.W. Is it less of a test in worship to attribute what is said to what the Son is in speaking to God, than to attribute it to what God Himself is?

J.T. I think it is. You usually find that our speaking to God has reference to Christ, which, of course, is right and wholly acceptable to Him. But can we speak to God according to what God is -- "my God", the Lord says? You are to know that, to know how to speak to Christ's God as your God. You speak to Him of Himself, knowing something of Him.

Ques. Is the knowledge of God the measure of our part in the service of praise and worship?

J.T. It must be. It is the God whom we have known. It is a known God. The Athenians had an unknown God. We have a known God, but the point is whether we do know Him. I believe we are now where we ought to get some help. The Lord says, "my God and your God". Let that enter into our souls.

W.B-w. Has this a bearing upon the public testimony -- the name written upon the believer?

J.T. Clearly. You are material great enough for such a writing. It may not be understood, but it is there as testimony.

A.R. Is it more a promise in relation to the millennium in Revelation?

J.T. It would be; that is how you will appear by and by. "I will write upon him the name of my God ... and my new name", Revelation 3:12. But it has a present bearing.

W.B-w. Is there a certain order in these three writings?

J.T. I should think so. "The name of the city of my God" means that you reflect the heavenly capital, that you have to do with government.

W.B-w. You understand assembly government, is that the idea?

J.T. Quite so; "which comes down out of heaven,

[Page 197]

from my God". The Lord finishes with that, and then He says, "my new name".

W.B-w. What is involved in that?

J.T. That is over against the way He is known now in christendom. The stress is on the word 'new'. It is His new name. We understand His newness.

C.H.H. That would be an advance on the name on the white stone, which would be more individual?

J.T. Yes, and more secret; 'Called by that secret name of undisclosed delight', (Hymn 79). It is a secret name, but this is a public matter.

C.B. It is impossible to touch eternal life unless we do know God.

J.T. Quite so; there it is the "true God"; we are speaking now about Christ's God, which great thought leads us into eternity.

C.B. I was thinking of the heathen. They have the word God, but not the true God.

J.T. Quite so.

[Page 198]

DIVINE NAMES (3)

1 Corinthians 15:24 - 28; Genesis 1:1,2

J.T. It is thought that this scripture in 1 Corinthians 15 links on immediately with what we had this afternoon, the Lord speaking in the message to Mary Magdalene of His God, and again to the overcomer in Philadelphia, that He would make him a pillar in the temple of His God and write upon him the name of His God, and the name of the city of His God, new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from His God. It was remarked that we are "by Him". He said "My God and your God", and in 1 Corinthians 8 it is, "we by him". He has effected us in our present relation; that is, christians made through His instrumentality, so that we are by Him; we owe our existence to Him, and owe to Him the relation in which we stand as brethren.

His God is ours; and thus we value the promise in Revelation 3; and in our scripture now in 1 Corinthians 15 we have the expression: "Then the end, when he gives up the kingdom to him who is God and Father; when he shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power", 1 Corinthians 15:24. He delivers up the kingdom to Him who is God and Father; and then finally, it is "the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all", 1 Corinthians 15:28. It is thought that the appellation "God" in this verse contemplates finality; a fixed state of things which will be eternal. So that it is not "God and Father" in this verse, but just "God".

J.S. Is that God's end in government?

J.T. Well, the word 'subjection' here is noticeable. It is a condition of government; but God is God not in the sense in which He is God of the nations -- God over all; He is God, "all in all".

Ques. Has Peter this in mind where he says in his

[Page 199]

epistle, "waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God", 2 Peter 3:12?

J.T. Quite so.

C.H.H. Would it involve divine Persons having entered into relation and maintaining that throughout eternity; so that the three distinct Persons are seen to the end throughout eternity?

J.T. Well, I think the economy into which They have come goes on; it is not abrogated. It is operating now for the deliverance of men; but the idea runs through. The idea of subjection is there; actual subjection. Of course, you could not think of anything else in Christ, but that He is always what Man should be before God; the passage says, "then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him", 1 Corinthians 15:28. That is, He takes that place.

J.H.E. Is this something special? It is a parenthesis from the 20th to the 28th verse, as if Paul was adding something to this epistle.

J.T. He is bringing in what is needed to complete the subject. But it includes the greatest thoughts; finality in the divine economy; how we reach a fixed state of things. God is all, but in the sense of being in all.

A.R. Does the scripture read suggest that the Lord is occupying an office at the present time that will be given up presently in the light of the scripture at the end?

J.T. It says so. "For he must reign until he put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that is annulled is death". 1 Corinthians 15:25,26. The Lord is operating now, effecting subjection in all; and when that is completed, He Himself becomes subject; He takes a subject place, and hence a fixed state of things, the economy remaining, but in that state. The Son is placed in subjection.

J.S. This involves the world to come whereof we speak.

J.T. It seems to go beyond it; the world to come, it

[Page 200]

says, involves to some extent subjugation; not only subjection but subjugation. It contemplates that elements of lawlessness may arise; whereas this indicates that the period of subjugation is over, and subjection now is the order; even the Son taking part in this.

R.W.S. Colossians says, "Christ is everything, and in all", Colossians 3:11. Is this a further thought?

J.T. Clearly. Colossians is always a sort of half-way epistle, Christ has peculiar prominence there. So that it is the new man, in which Christ is everything and in all. The Ephesian statement on the same subject, Ephesians 4:22, is "having put off according to the former conversation the old man which corrupts itself according to the deceitful lusts; and being renewed in the spirit of your mind; and your having put on the new man, which according to God is created in truthful righteousness and holiness". That is, Ephesians is the full thought.

C.A.M. In connection with 1 Corinthians 15:28: about the "Son also himself", being in subjection, I was wondering if such glories are maintained throughout eternity. Subjection in eternity in connection with the Lord Himself is rather a wonderful idea, and I was wondering as to whether it would be right to say that when the Lord Himself, being equal to God as far as His Person is concerned, came into sonship, the glories that were connected with that position are maintained throughout eternity?

J.T. There is no difficulty in my mind about certain glories continuing on, but there are glories attaching to His service of a provisional nature. There are many allusions, especially in John's gospel, to glory; but whether they all continue on in this sense in which you speak of them, is a question. That He is to be subject, or placed in subjection, is remarkable; and clearly in keeping with the attitude He took up in incarnation. He said, "Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will". Hebrews 10:7. Also, "Thou hast prepared me a body", Hebrews 10:5.

[Page 201]

In that body He took up the position of obedience, and what we have here is quite in keeping with that. He retains that position eternally, only He has taken on services that the condition of man in the world, and conditions in heaven, too, required. He took on subjugating power, subjugating ministry, and that involved the title of Lord or King, and He is called God in that position. Besides, He has glories relative to Israel.

A.N.W. Would you help us as to the idea of the Son being placed in subjection?

J.T. Well, it is in accord with what has been remarked as to the position He has taken as Man. "A body hast thou prepared me". In that body He was subject; but to assume that He must be in a place of subjection will not do. It is a place He has taken; and He, in that place, has prerogatives, involving that He is a divine Person. Some of these prerogatives He delegated to the apostles. He said of them that they would do greater works than He did because He went to the Father; but still. He always performed the works in a personal way, not invoking a divine name in doing them; so that the truth of His Person is always evident in His services. He retains man's place, but then we can never say He is limited to that. It will not do to say that at all; He is called God even as Man: "who is over all. God blessed for ever", Romans 9:5. Thomas says, "My Lord and my God", John 20:28. John says, "He is the true God and eternal life", 1 John 5:20. We have to make room for all these things, otherwise in our minds we are apt to lapse into the thought of limiting Him to man's place; we have to make allowances for the contextual connections where these statements appear. That idea runs right through, so that even in this eternal condition it will not do to limit Him and say that He must be that. Only the Spirit of God says He "shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all".

[Page 202]

C.A.M. I think that is very wonderful, and I am sure we all agree with it. The thing in my mind was just the sonship of Christ, as to whether you would connect subjection with the idea of sonship.

J.T. Well, it is connected with it here; He is not any longer subjugating. He has subjugated everything; that is preliminary work, a provisional work, because of insubjection in the world, because of lawlessness. He is carrying that on now with ourselves. Presently He will carry it on with the whole earth and heaven too; but He will not always have to do that. Otherwise we should have to assume that lawlessness will continue on, whereas it will not. "When all things shall have been brought into subjection to him", verse 28; that is, the work of subjugation is finished, so that it seems to be a great moral position involving, as you say, glory; a divine Person in the place of sonship, taking the place of subjection. And we are in that; that is our position. The whole universe will be in that position, for there will be no insubjection, and hence no need of subjugating; it is finality.

A.N.W. Does not Hebrews 1 teach us that it is as the Son He sets Himself down at the right hand?

J.T. Yes; we get it several times, that He acts so of Himself. That is what I was remarking. While subjection is there in a general position as a testimony. He is Himself a divine Person, and acts as God. We can never limit Him, therefore.

A.P.T. The Ancient of days in Daniel 7 is not quite clear to me, as to the son of man's position there. Would you say something about that in relation to our subject?

J.T. Well, there are three settings there to the kingdom. The prophet had a dream in regard to four beasts coming up from the sea, the four gentile empires, and then he says, "I beheld till thrones were set, and the Ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow",

[Page 203]

Daniel 7:9. Then, he says, Daniel 7:13, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man, and he came up even to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him". These are the passages you had in mind.

The first is clearly God coming in under the appellation "Ancient of days", but it would be God in Christ; that is, it is Christ in this connection from the divine side, so that He is God; but from the standpoint of experience, God in manhood, clearly. The term, "Ancient of days" refers to manhood in Christ, but manhood from the divine side, Christ from God's side towards us; but in verse 13 it is the Son of man coming to the Ancient of days, another view of Christ; the Ancient of days remaining on the divine side. God Himself; and the Son of man coming to Him; just as in Revelation 4, you have God on the throne, and Christ as Man comes to Him there, but Christ appears as the Ancient of days in Revelation 1. So that the passage in Daniel 7 bears on what we are saying, that Christ has to be apprehended from the divine side, and the appellation "God" refers to Him from that point of view. Thomas rightly said, "My Lord and my God". John also said, "He is the true God and eternal life". As Eternal Life He is on our side, and so here in Daniel 7 the son of man is on our side. It is the inscrutability of the Person in the Deity that has to be borne in mind. If He takes a place of subjection, we must not say that He must be always in that place, because the inscrutability of His Person involves that He may act as God at any time. He goes beyond all heavens; that is not a creature's liberty at all; it is Deity and He does it Himself; and sets "himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high", Hebrews 1:3.

D.P. Does the Son here merge into Deity in 1 Corinthians 15?

J.T. He is in subjection; it is stated definitely that "the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him

[Page 204]

who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all". It is the economy that is in mind here; so that it is Christ in subjection; it is from our side, from man's side; and God, we are told elsewhere, is the Father: "to him who is God and Father". So that I do not see why we should bring in the Son merging into Deity here, abstractly He is always in Deity; but He is seen in the position of subjection in this passage.

D.P. Where would you put the mediatorial service?

J.T. The mediatorial service is involved in this passage. "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand", John 3:35. And He is carrying on now a ministry of subjugation which will cease according to this scripture, when there will be no more lawlessness; but He does not give up the mediatorial position, involving the place of subjection, because He is in subjection as the Son.

Ques. What would the Lord's service be from this period on? Perhaps that is what our brother wants to get light on.

J.T. The Scripture does not say very much about service in the eternal state of things. It is to be understood now; now is the time to understand these things, when you see them actively before you and you have part in them yourself. They do not come to an end. There will be glory to God in the assembly continually, Ephesians 3:21. So that, if the Lord is in subjection, as Son, that does not mean He is static, or not in activity. There are the features of love; love's activities will never cease. His relations with the assembly and the Father and with God and His brethren implies that other features will be there. In the eternal state of things love will be active but all will be in perfect order. A mediatorial state of things will continue, because we must bear in mind we shall never see God Himself in His essential Being. It must always be through or in Christ, the mediatorial thought remaining.

[Page 205]

Rem. Though in subjection He would still have the first place. God is pleased to make Him firstborn among many brethren.

J.T. He has always the first place: "that he might have the first place in all things", Colossians 1:18.

A.N.W. As being placed in subjection does He not set forth the model of subjection for everyone?

J.T. Well, you can see the whole position will be marked by subjection. Although we are there as brethren of Christ, sons of God, the principle of rule remains. It never ceases, but, as remarked it will not be needed in the sense of subjugation. It is a principle with God that everything is governed by law.

W.B-w. David and Solomon both brought in the principle of subjection; but although Solomon had brought in the sphere for God to dwell in -- the house -- he was not equal to taking the place of subjection himself.

J.T. There was no adversary or evil occurrent, he says, That was a foreshadowing of what we have here. Subjugation is no longer a necessity because there is no lawlessness. That in principle would apply to the millennium also, although there will be some evidence of lawlessness; but not here. Everything is subjugated, and there is a condition of subjection even in Him who has subjugated everything.

W.B-w. I was thinking Solomon was not equal to that.

J.T. No; but his kingdom as a type alludes to what is before us. He sat first with his father on his father's throne; Solomon and David reigned together; David dies and Solomon says, "there is neither adversary nor evil event", 1 Kings 5:4 and, therefore, you have the house; the ark has rest. I think it is a foreshadowing of this. In Solomon's case typically there is no need of subjugating any more. Now it is a question of accepting the Solomonic condition. That is, it is the reign of Solomon, the man of peace; and Jehovah says, I am His

[Page 206]

Father, and He is My son. That is the idea, I think, here. The subjugating is in David, and the state of subjection in a general way is in Solomon; and his kingdom so that he says to Jehovah, "And now, Jehovah my God ... I am but a little child: I know not to go out and to come in", 1 Kings 3:7. God took him up on the principle of being a little child who had been in the experience of a son with his father. "For I was a son unto my father", he says, Proverbs 4:3. So that God had reached His thought, typically, in Solomon. David called him Solomon, Jehovah called him Jedidiah. Solomon is the man of peace who comes into the position of subjection, and God loves him in that position, as the name Jedidiah implies. You see, there is no irksomeness at all; there is not the slightest degradation in the subjection. It is the happy condition of divine love.

A.N.W. So that you would make a distinction between "all things shall have been brought into subjection to him" and "the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection"?

J.T. Quite so. The subjugating period is over; there are no longer any elements of lawlessness.

W.B-w. I wanted to ask a question about bringing up the ark of the covenant. David brought it up: Would that fit in with Colossians, "but Christ is everything, and in all"?

J.T. Yes.

W.B-w. Solomon brought the ark into the house: God all in all would go on to Solomon?

J.T. Yes. It is what God was anticipating. He comes in and fills it with His glory. That is a fixed state of things which is for God's pleasure.

W.B-w. What is the difference between Christ everything and in all in Colossians and God all in all in this chapter?

J.T. Colossians, as I was saying, is a tentative state of things. We are going on to completion in Ephesians.

[Page 207]

Colossians is not the complete truth; we are entering, as it were, on to the complete position according to the counsels of God, so that in Ephesians the new man is said to be "according to God".

W.B-w. In Colossians "Christ is everything, and in all" in the new man.

J.T. Yes. "Everything" as an Object, but "in all" as a state. In our scripture God is all in all. He is not everything, but all in all. "All" is a very great word there, and it is "in all". It is not simply that He is that objectively, but in the actual affections of His people.

C.B. God will rest in His love. There will be no more to subdue.

J.T. That is right. Christ does all the subjugating. "By whom are all things", 1 Corinthians 8:6. Whatever is to be done. He does it.

R.W.S. Would you define these three 'hims' in verse 28, to whom they apply?

J.T. "But when all things shall have been brought into subjection to him" -- that is, unto the Son -- "then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him" -- that is, God; "who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all". The first 'Him' refers to Christ and the second to God. The last 'Him' alludes to Christ.

A.P.T. "Then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all". Is that the condition the Lord Jesus is taking and not so much who is doing it?

J.T. Yes. It is the fact without saying who placed Him. Of course, all that is done as between the divine Persons is in the infinitude of love and according to counsel. But nothing is put on the Lord as obligatory as it is on the creature. He may take on things Himself, but they are not put on Him by God, as they are on us.

F.S.C. Is "the tabernacle of God is with men", Revelation 21:3, an extension of this?

[Page 208]

J.T. Yes, it is with men. The allusion would be that God is near to men in a vessel suitable -- a tabernacle, not any showy thing, but what is small and where love can act. Nearness is the idea in love, nearness. So that the heavenly city, the bride, the Lamb's wife is really the tabernacle of God with men.

C.H.H. Would the glory that John describes, "... we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth", John 1:14, correspond with this?

J.T. I think so. I believe it is alluded to in John 17:22. "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them", that is, the glory of sonship.

C.H.H. Would the last verse in Ephesians 3 go beyond, or is it more the world to come? "... to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages", Ephesians 3:21.

J.T. That too enters into the eternal state of things.

C.H.H. Then would that imply that the Lord retains the thought of the Minister of the sanctuary?

J.T. Yes, it is "the assembly in Christ Jesus" which is a mediatorial thought.

A.B.P. We have the scripture, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself", 2 Corinthians 5:19, would it be right to say of this scripture that God was in Christ subjecting all things to Himself?

J.T. That would be true. Only, the operation of subjugation is in the hands of Christ as if He was operating on those lines, and having finished the service He gives up the kingdom to Him, who is God and the Father, and, according to verse 28, He is "placed in subjection". So that it is a most blessed state of things. It is the way of divine love. It is still a mediatorial state, because it is essential that it should be. We can only be in relation with God, the unseen, through the Mediator.

C.H.H. That would exclude the idea that the assembly could worship the Godhead by itself, that is,

[Page 209]

including the Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and the Spirit.

J.T. I do not think we are equal to that. As to this the statement is, "For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father", Ephesians 2:18. I do not think we are equal, save as through Christ and by the Spirit, to having to say to Deity in its absoluteness. It is always a mediatorial position. We need a mediator.

C.H.H. Throughout eternity we will need that service.

A.Pf. Hebrews says, "Thou has made him some little inferior to the angels", Hebrews 2:7.

J.T. He took that place for the suffering of death. It was for a purpose. "... But now we see not yet all things subjected to him, but we see Jesus, who was made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; so that by the grace of God he should taste death for every thing. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings". Hebrews 2:8 - 10. All that is clear enough as to Christ. It is His downstooping to carry out the will of God. And then, it became God -- it was essential that this should happen.

F.N.W. Would Ephesians 4:6, indicate that this is reached in the assembly now? "One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all".

J.T. Yes, only that that is the third circle, as we may call it. It is contingent on the other two. The first is in relation to the Spirit, the second is in relation to the Lord, and the third is in relation to God. Those three concentric circles apply at the present time. The second one will be suspended according to our verse in chapter 15 of this epistle. That is, subjugation is finished. Whilst there is subjugation needed, the kingdom is in function. The kingdom is in view in subjugation. He

[Page 210]

gives up that when everything is in subjection to Him. So that the three circles in Ephesians refer to the present time, during which the Lord is effecting subjugation.

F.H.L. Would it be right to say the names in Isaiah of Father of Eternity and Prince of Peace are prophetically names of the Son?

J.T. Yes. The Father of Eternity, as we have had it before, is what Christ will be in the millennial world, exercising fatherly influence and service.

R.W.S. Verse 24 says, "God and Father", and verse 28, "... that God may be all in all". It would not be right to put the Father in the latter, would it?

J.T. Well, that is what I was remarking. God is the great ultimate in all this. We begin with God and end with God.

T.W. Is verse 28 in the plural?

J.T. It is the Greek word for God, only it would carry the full thought of God. I think Elohim as being plural is to convey the full thought of God creatively, what He is in creation; but here it is the eternal state of things answering His own purpose. It is a fixity, but it is still an economy. It is still a mediatorial state of things so that the word 'God' has the same force as the word 'God' in the first verse of Genesis.

A.R. Colossians 2:9 says, "... in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily". Is that the idea that it will all be set out in Christ?

J.T. Yes.

A.R. Just say something about the idea of Elohim, Elohim in the plural, whereas this is in the singular.

J.T. It is just the Greek word for God which is the only one used in the New Testament, but you can see in the setting of this that it is the full thought of God. Plurality in scripture is often for intensification of an idea. Not always so, but it sometimes is. I believe it is so in the word Elohim in the first chapter of Genesis. It is the plural as we all know, but it is to bring out the

[Page 211]

fulness of the thought apprehended in the creation. It is in a creative sense. This is more than creation; it is counsel, the eternal counsels of God completed. God is everything. God is all in all.

A.N.W. Paul told the Athenians, "In him we live, and move, and have our being", Acts 17:28. That is true of every living man, but most may never know it.

R.W.S. Does this touch on assembly service now?

J.T. It is a question of our spiritual ability to reach that point. In our assembly service we proceed from the Lord's supper to God, but God as known in Christ. The Father first, then God.

J.S. Is God seen creatively in the four living creatures in Revelation?

J.T. They represent his attributes in creation.

J.T.Jr. In regard to the thought of the Branch in Zechariah it says, "... the counsel of peace shall be between them both", Zechariah 6:13. What is the thought there?

J.T. "Even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both", Zechariah 6:13. It would be between Jehovah and the Branch.

J.T.Jr. "Counsel of peace shall be between them both", where would that fit in in relation to the chapter before us, 1 Corinthians 15? Where does it fit in regard to His reign?

J.T. Zechariah has the subjugating reign of Christ in mind. All through the Scriptures the idea of the throne is maintenance of rule involving subjugation where needed, but that service being over the kingdom comes to an end. There is no more lawlessness. It will be a blessed state of things, God being with men, Christ Himself placed in subjection.

F.H.L. In chapter 8 "there is no other God save one", 1 Corinthians 8:4?. Is that the thought of God creationally?

[Page 212]

J.T. "Yet to us there is one God, the Father". The Father is the one God there; it is God as known by christians, only embodying what came out earlier.

A.R. How can you take in that one divine Person known to us as Jesus is operating to direct us to another divine Person whom in a personal sense we shall never see?

J.T. Well, that is the thing to be taken in. It appears in the Lord's ministry, especially as presented in the gospel of John. He stressed in His closing words to the disciples that as seeing Him they saw the Father. "Am I so long a time with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father", John 14:9. That is, the Father was there. The same thing is true today. The Spirit is here and in virtue of the presence of the Spirit, He who is God and Father as known in Christ is here. In eternity it will be the same thing, only in a more vivid way because all lawlessness will have disappeared. The kingdom will have been handed back to God. We have reached finality. We have reached perfection, we have reached the counsels of God: the Father, and the Son, and we with the Son, only it is God and men. So that it is God and men, only the family relationships remain, also Christ's relation to the assembly. But God has reached His final thought, and that is God and men.

A.R. The idea of understanding the One that is unknowable in that sense, yet all to be really known as we take account of Christ.

J.T. Quite so. Everything will come out through Him. Everything is perfect and fixed. I do not conceive there will be any growth; it is a fixed state of things.

C.A.M. We shall surely be dependent upon the Spirit for ever, otherwise we would have no right thoughts of the immensity of Christ.

J.T. Yes. 'By the Spirit all pervading', (Hymn 221), both as the Spirit and the Spirit of sonship.

[Page 213]

C.H.H. Christ will always be the effulgence of God's glory.

A.N.W. He will always be the image of the invisible God.

A.P.T. What special name of divine Persons am I to learn from this reading?

J.T. God.

R.W.S. In assembly service when God is addressed as God, does an instructed believer have in his mind God in the full thought or are three Persons in his mind?

J.T. That is another matter, because in the economy two of the Persons are in the place of subjection and in general They will always be in that place so that we always worship Him who is God and Father. You cannot put the three Persons into the word Father. It is always one idea in Father, one Person. Hence, I think it is more that we are addressing one Person in our worship not three Persons. The other Two, we speak with reverence, have taken the place of subjection in the economy, and They will retain that place. We cannot worship without Them. Nevertheless the general thought of God, including the three Persons in infinite unity, remains. In considering these infinite truths we must carefully keep to Scripture, otherwise we shall become confused and err.

A.MacD. In John's gospel, "God is a spirit; and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth", John 4:24. Does that go through?

J.T. I think so. Only the idea of spirit and truth does not come in where the contrary does not exist. All will be perfect then.

J.S. I remember you saying some years ago that the Son is inscrutable, "... no one knows the Son but the Father", Matthew 11:27. That is still true is it not? He is still God.

J.T. It is always true, and it protects the Son. You do not assume that you can get around Him as it were,

[Page 214]

that He is any less inscrutable as Man than the Father or the Spirit.

C.H.H. "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever", Psalm 45:6.

J.T. That keeps us balanced.

W.B-w. "For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father", Ephesians 2:18. You get the three divine Persons in that one verse: through Christ by one Spirit to the Father.

J.T. Quite so. That is always true. We need that economic condition for the service of God, and we shall need it eternally. I believe many have in their minds that we shall see God as He is, which is impossible for creatures. It is expressly said that no one has seen Him nor can see Him. We are dependent on the Mediator and the Spirit to know God and worship Him.

A.R. Yet you know Him. It is really remarkable that we know Him and yet we will never see Him.

J.T. Not in His infinite essence, because He is unseeable in that way, by the creature. Still He is seen -- that is, in Christ. Scripture speaks much of this, and it is most essential that we should understand it. Otherwise we do not really love or worship Him.

J.T.Jr. It is My Father and your Father, My God and your God.

J.T. That will go on. "To Him who is God and Father". The 'and' is an additional thought; the primary thought is God; that is, I think, what we should keep to.

F.H.L. What you said about God and man is most helpful. Do you think the Lord had that in mind in John 17"... the men whom thou gavest me out of the world", John 17:6?

J.T. Quite so; not there sons or brethren, but men.

J.T.Jr. So the section before us begins with man. "For since by man came death, by man also resurrection of those that are dead", 1 Corinthians 15:21.

[Page 215]

A.R. What you are bringing before us is really greater than verse 1 of the book of Genesis.

J.T. It is. This is finality. The book of Genesis contemplates what God began with. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". There was yet no word of man; it is the creation of the heavens and the earth.

W.B-w. When the Son is placed in subjection to God in the eternal condition, do you think the service will go on by the One in subjection?

J.T. That is what I understand, as already remarked on Ephesians 3:21. That will all go on; there will be no need of Christ being our Advocate with the Father then. We shall have no infirmities, no sins or the like; but the service will go on in absolute perfection, and the Son will function as He is functioning now. "... to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen". Ephesians 3:21. I believe that involves Christ's power in service.

C.N. Would it be right to say that the economy that was introduced by the incoming of Christ is being filled out now, completed in this -- God being all in all?

J.T. That is right. It is completed but goes on in this new condition; there is no more subjugating; no more kingdom activity. It is the Son in subjection.

C.N. Just as the condition He took in manhood made no difference whatever as to His Person, so this position of subjection does not affect this.

J.T. It does not alter His Person at all; that is inscrutable. The person of Christ is inscrutable; no one knows Him but the Father.

A.R. You have been speaking a great deal of late about joy. I suppose the more we understand what is eternal, the more we will take on that feature; the sense of satisfaction entering into assembly service.

J.T. Yes; I think we need to look into that; we have some joy with us. "Let thy priests, Jehovah Elohim, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in thy

[Page 216]

goodness". 2 Chronicles 6:41. That surely is a state we want to have before us.

W.B-w. It says in those eternal conditions, "the tabernacle of God is with men", Revelation 21:3. Do you refer that to the assembly? Will the tabernacle of God be the assembly in those conditions?

J.T. I would say that; that is, the context would show that it is. The new Jerusalem coming down "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband", Revelation 21:2. And then we have, "... the tabernacle of God is with men". It seems as if the allusion is to that glorious vessel, the bride adorned for her husband. So that God dwells with man in immediate conditions of love; the love of Christ for His bride and her love for Him are there.

W.B-w. Is it a change from city conditions to tabernacle conditions?

J.T. Yes; showing that we may take on more dignity at some times for good reasons; and then other times we are less official and freer -- in love conditions, where we are near one another. The Israelites were to remember that they were caused to dwell in booths when Jehovah brought them out of the land of Egypt. Love is there; we begin with love and end with love.

A.R. I suppose if we want to understand the official side, we should take account of Matthew's presentation, whereas for tabernacle conditions we would have to go to John.

J.T. Just so. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt (tabernacled) among us and we have contemplated his glory ...", John 1:14. The idea of love is there, "an only-begotten with a father".

A.B.P. Would this great end we have been speaking of be in view in the song of Moses, the last sentence "Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever!", Exodus 15:18. Would that go as far as the eternal day or has it the millennium in view?

[Page 217]

J.T. It is more the millennium, I think, although Moses does say, "from eternity to eternity thou art God", Psalm 90:2. The idea of God goes through.

C.A.M. If God is going to tabernacle with men and that tabernacle idea is the assembly, I suppose we can understand that we are being wonderfully formed in manhood in view of that.

J.T. You can see that. It is the training that belongs to the assembly peculiarly, centring in the Lord's supper where love is vividly before you, and then worked out in ourselves, so that we become a habitation of God by the Spirit. The thought of "a bride adorned for her husband" enters into assembly service.

A.N.W. It would be the bride for the Husband immediately following the Supper, leading on to the worship of God, and the tabernacle idea.

J.T. Just so: I think God has great pleasure in Christ and the assembly, the reciprocal affections between them, and happily joins with them.

A.P.T. Is the feast of booths something like local companies?

J.T. Yes; it is to bring out and foster conditions of love. It is the last feast of the year, the feast of tabernacles, they are small places but they are not too small because love likes nearness.

C.A.M. The fact that it is the eighth day would confirm the fact that eternity is in the divine mind.

J.T. The feast has an eighth day, it goes on into eternity, I think. The link is in love. Love is the settlement of everything; love never fails.

A.R. Did John not seize the idea of the Supper when he was on the breast of the Lord Jesus?

J.T. Yes, I would think so. Quite so.

C.H.H. What is the meaning of being "filled even to all the fulness of God"? Ephesians 3:19.

J.T. Well, the fulness of God is what is in Christ. The order of the statement is that "... Ye may be filled

[Page 218]

even to all the fulness of God". He begins with this, "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", -- He has families in mind -- "... of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, in order that he may give you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man, that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts, being rooted and founded in love, in order that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height; and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge; that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God", Ephesians 3:14 - 19. All this corresponds with what we have been talking about as to the Father and God. "Of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named", is said of the Father; He is occupied with families; they are all under Him. But we reach God on the line of the apostle's prayer, "that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God", Ephesians 3:14 - 19. That is, God is apprehended in Christ, Christ is the fulness of God. The fulness dwells in Him bodily. The end of the prayer is, "that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God". It contemplates that we are stabilised in infiniteness; what shines out in Christ, what will shine out in eternity, what God is in Christ. It is infinitude and we are small, but we are in it. We are not lost in it. Each has his own individuality in it. The next thing is the doxology: "... to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen".

A.R. What you say really helps me to understand all that we have had; it is all in Christ; the more we take account of Him the more we shall see that everything is there.

A.N.W. Would you make it a little plainer why you read the first two verses in Genesis?

J.T. Well, it is just to proceed with our subject. We

[Page 219]

shall have to go into it a little more later, but to proceed with our subject which will lead on to other titles of God in the Old Testament. This is the creative name of God -- "In the beginning God ...", Genesis 1:1. It is written by Moses to whom God revealed Himself as Jehovah, and "I AM THAT I AM". Exodus 3:14. You might say this is an almost absolute title. Moses had that light when he wrote this verse; He begins with God, not Jehovah, although he had the light of that great name when he began to write.

W.B-w. Why did he not begin with "I AM"?

J.T. Well, he used Elohim, suitable evidently to designate Him in the beginning, when He began to work. It is a name attached to God as operating and known in creation.

W.B-w. He must have differentiated between 'I AM' and 'Elohim'.

J.T. He did not bring "I AM THAT I AM" in here. It is very near to the expression of the essential being of God; it expresses His personal existence. Moses got that at Mount Horeb, but he does not bring it in here. It is bound up with the word 'Jehovah', which is not found until we come to chapter 2, and it is there compounded with Elohim.

Ques. Would you help us as to the 'I AM' in Exodus 3.

J.T. That is bound up with Jehovah, His new name.

Rem. Chapter 6 says, "And God spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty God; but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them", Exodus 6:2,3.

J.T. It is the new name; it involves His essential Being; it is the nearest you can get to it. "I AM THAT I AM" is involved in it, but Moses does not begin with that; he begins with the name that fits in with creation; it does not necessitate the essential name of God; it is a creative name, signifying a Person who is supreme, to

[Page 220]

be revered and worshipped. That is a word selected by the Spirit of God to begin the Scriptures.

C.H.H. Does the word in Hebrews 1 throw further light on Genesis 1"by whom also he made the worlds", Hebrews 1:2?

J.T. Yes, clearly; that light Moses did not have. Moses did not have the idea of the three Persons; but the New Testament reveals three Persons in the Deity.

W.B-w. In John 8 when the Lord uses the word 'I am' is that the same allusion as in Exodus: "I AM has sent me unto you", Exodus 3:14?

J.T. Well, pretty much. "Before Abraham was, I am". John 8:58, not I was. And so He says, "Unless ye believe that I am". 'He' is not in the original. These expressions convey His essential eternal existence; He belongs to the Deity.

J.C. "Let us make man in our image", Genesis 1:26 -- does that suggest the three Persons?

J.T. The word 'Elohim' is plural; but I do not think the Old Testament writers understood the three Persons.

A.B.P. Would the suggestion of the plural name indicate that what was done in the ways of God was in keeping with divine counsel? Counsel would include more than One, would it not?

J.T. Well, no doubt. The Spirit of God used the plural, but not much can be said about it, because the plural, as I remarked already, means rather dignity and intensification of what is expressed. We shall need to consider this title later.

[Page 221]

DIVINE NAMES (4)

Genesis 1:1; Genesis 14:18 - 20; Deuteronomy 32:15

J.T. At our last reading we were dwelling on Genesis 1:1. It is thought we should begin there tonight -- considering the names of God in the Old Testament. In the originals of these three scriptures, the first is Elohim, which we have already touched on; the second is El, chapter 14; and the third is Eloah or Elah, the same under two different original words, one Hebrew and the other Chaldee. There are other names of God in the Old Testament, which we may consider at the next meeting. We noticed before that Elohim is God's creative name; at least, the name by which He is spoken of as Creator. He is the Being with whom men have to do; to whom they are responsible; He is to be worshipped. This is the appellation by which He is most frequently spoken of in the Old Testament. Why there should be so many names of God in Hebrew is a matter to be specially noted, for in the earlier western languages, especially Greek and Latin, there is only one title in each language. It would seem as if faith in its earlier stages laid hold of God in different features, each title conveying some distinctive one, as if love would multiply names. But in general the names in the Old Testament carry the idea of power. So that if we think creationally, faith would, as following the Old Testament custom, think of God under this great general title of Elohim. We have the attributes of God used as names too, such as the Almighty. The pronoun 'He' is used to designate the Deity. All these titles culminate in the name Father in which God is revealed to christians. We do well to look into these various designations of God and see whether our minds may not become enlarged as to Him, our affections, too; for the ultimate of all these considerations of the Scriptures should lead to a greater love for God. It is said that in

[Page 222]

the last days men are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.

A.R. In that sense is the last revelation cumulative in relation to all that has preceded -- the last revelation of God as Father?

J.T. Yes. And the accumulative designations largely refer to attributes; that is, God known in various ways, and all brought down in the New Testament as included in the appellation God, whom the only-begotten Son has declared. It is one term, whether it be in the Greek or Latin parts of the western world. Then He says that He has become Father to us: "and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty", 2 Corinthians 6:18. So all really merge in the great relation in which He stands to christianity as the Father. Of course. He is God -- "yet to us there is one God, the Father", 1 Corinthians 8:6. So our considerations of this great subject ought to lead to increased appreciation of God, and especially as our Father, because all these attributes enter into the name of Father.

A.P.T. "We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father", John 1:14. Will you just say a word as to what is inferred there?

J.T. Well it is the idea of a father and an only-begotten son there. It is not the Father but a father. It is a descriptive thought, a thought taken up from ordinary family relationships and applied to Christ seen as man with God. They saw Him, and what did they see? It would not be as Moses was with God, or Enoch, or Noah. It would be in the intimate relation of Father and Son, and that brings the matter down concretely to our own experience.

A.MacN. Is it of Elohim the apostle speaks when addressing the Athenians? He says, "In him we live and move and exist", Acts 17:28?

J.T. The allusion is to that title; it is what God is in

[Page 223]

creation, only the apostle used the Greek name for God.

Ques. The name the Lord God Almighty, what would be the force of that?

J.T. The living creatures. Revelation 4, address Him thus -- as known in Old Testament times. "Who was" comes first there. It is God known historically. In chapter 1 "who is" comes first, Himself being more in mind. We shall come to that later, the compounds of divine names. They begin in Genesis 2. They are quite extensive, more than we can look at now. The wise course now is to take each of these titles and consider it by itself and then we shall see the compounds, how they work out. The first one is in chapter 2 -- Jehovah Elohim. That is, the compound is the title of covenant relations with man. We are on a higher level in chapter 2 in that sense, because it is a covenant relation there.

F.H.L. One has noticed that the Spirit of God used the word Elohim some thirty times up to that point. Would that not make it most emphatic at the outset of their operations?

J.T. That is quite right. It is used more than any other title of God in the Old Testament right through, showing that it is comprehensive as to God coming into His creation.

A.N.W. Should Elohim, being in the plural, lead a godly unprejudiced Hebrew to inquire further as to the other Persons in the Trinity?

J.T. Well the question is whether it is plurality in the ordinary sense. I think it is generally understood to be more emphasis, as in many other instances. The plural represents emphasis, although the Spirit of God may have in mind that the emphasis in this case involves more, awaiting the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament.

A.N.W. "Let us make" -- would that not suggest something more than emphasis?

J.T. Well, it is a question of whether you are entitled

[Page 224]

to put more into it. The Spirit of God is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, and Psalm 2:7 speaks of the Son of God and thus the Trinity is plainly contemplated in the Old Testament, but, that it is in the title Elohim is doubtful. Agur asks, "What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest?" Proverbs 30:4. Well, he may have had an inkling. Psalm 2 was probably written before his day. He professes to be a very ignorant man, and it is from a man that has a small estimate of himself you might get an inkling of the Trinity.

Ques. And the Lord speaks of "My Father worketh hitherto and I work", John 5:17. Does He infer there that there was only one worker in the Old Testament?

J.T. He is designating one Person in the Trinity when He says that, and the New Testament shows that that Person is God: "There is one God, the Father"; but when He says, "My Father worketh hitherto" you cannot say that the other Persons of the Deity were not involved in what was done. But the Lord is speaking from the standpoint of the economy into which He had come. In this the Father and the Son are working. I think if we are too literal in these things it would lead us beyond our depth; the Lord speaks and the Holy Spirit speaks in the gospels from the standpoint of revelation, that is, from the standpoint of God as in the christian economy.

A.N.W. Would you care to say that the Person mentioned in Genesis 1:2 is other than the Person mentioned in verse 1 -- the Spirit of God?

J.T. The Spirit of God (Himself a divine Person) is included in the designation 'God' in chapter 1. The Spirit in verse 2 is in effect God Himself hovering over the face of the deep. His feelings were expressed there. Jehovah is spoken of as the Creator in the book of Proverbs, but then John 1:3 shows that the Creator really is Christ. Thus, in the light of the revelation of

[Page 225]

God, we can see that the three divine Persons are in the Old Testament contemplated as operating.

C.A.M. There has been a statement made that one great thing to note in the Old Testament is that there is one God, and the great thing to note in the New Testament is that God is One. The reason I say that is because of what you have said in the matter of revelation if I understood you rightly; you connected that in a special way with the New Testament, is that right?

J.T. It is. The New Testament says, "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", John 1:18, and "no one knows the Son but the Father, nor does any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him", Matthew 11:27. So that revelation properly belongs to the New Testament. It is there we get the whole truth about God. We have the word God in Genesis 1, and it may be said that it is revelation; it is a name used to designate the Supreme Being, but whether it can be called revelation is the question. I think we have to come to the New Testament properly for revelation and declaration and these two thoughts depend on sonship; that is they begin with one of the Persons becoming a Man so as to be apprehended by man. There was no mediator, Job said; he sought a mediator, but there was not one. Of course Moses was one, but he was only a creature; there was no one great enough to lay his hand upon God and upon man until Jesus became a Man, so that it all awaited that great and blessed fact.

J.T.Jr. Would the Psalms help us in understanding the thought of God? The psalmist says, 'My God' and 'O God' etc., and the Lord takes up the strain from Psalm 22 Himself.

J.T. Well, they do now that we understand, but what could you say more than that? It was Christ in Spirit speaking anticipatively on the cross. It was

[Page 226]

David who actually used the words at first; they were a prophetic allusion involving the incarnation, but Christ was speaking in Spirit. We can see now that sonship in Christ was anticipated, but how could David understand it? No doubt he inquired like Agur, "What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest?" Proverbs 30:4. He had some little inkling but that is all we can say. Psalm 2 speaks about the Son, but where was He? "Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee", Psalm 2:7. Faith had laid hold of that, but had that day come? It had not come. The New Testament records the great event as having taken place.

C.A.M. Those three men that came to Abraham have been likened, in your ministry, to the Trinity suggestively, is that right?

J.T. Yes, we can see that now.

C.A.M. Quite so, so that God had given suggestions of what existed.

J.H.E. Would all these titles be cumulative?

J.T. I think they are; we have already remarked that they entered into the great relation in which God stands to us. Whatever might be said in the Old Testament about God, you can say, He is my Father.

J.H.E. We have had a little before us, "then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him ... that God may be all in all", 1 Corinthians 15:28. That is the final thought, is it not?

J.T. Yes, it is the great ultimate in mind, but it does not set aside the abstract equality of the three Persons in the Trinity, nor the great variety of other thoughts that enter into the eternal state of things.

A.N.W. Referring to Abraham again, while three stood before him, he answered and addressed One in the singular; is that not striking?

J.T. He did; he discerned Jehovah, and that is what we should discern, that there is one God, the Father,

[Page 227]

but there is the Son as well, and the Spirit. I do not say for a moment that the three persons that came to Abraham were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, because two of them were angels, but there is the suggestion of the Trinity. The idea of the three runs right through Scripture.

R.W.S. In the multiplicity of names in the Hebrew, you mentioned the thought of power running through. Is there a suggestion of love in any of these titles?

J.T. Well, I suppose Jehovah would be near to that; Jah even more so. These are said to be names that are never pronounced by the godly in the Old Testament; they are too sacred in their minds. Whether that were so or not literally, it would indicate a certain affection developed in some that would lead to worship, not only because of His attributes, but because of what Jehovah Himself was, so that you get the psalmist saying, "I love Jehovah", Psalm 116:1. There is much said of God's love for His people, and this of course reflects what He is. You get love for Jehovah in the Psalms, and I suppose that would be the outcome of experience with Him. But I do not know that any of the names convey the idea of love, and yet when we come to the New Testament we are told that God is love; it was there; it must have been in some sense manifested. It most certainly was. He says to Israel, "I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee", Jeremiah 31:3.

Ques. Did not they have some sense of relationship? In Isaiah they say, "thou, Jehovah, art our Father", Isaiah 63:16.

J.T. Yes; that would be the spirit of prophecy fully naming what Jehovah had been practically to Israel, but it is not a relationship entered into with them. In John 20 we see that He has formally taken up this relation with christians.

A.C. I wanted to ask you why in Genesis 1, where

[Page 228]

the creation is mentioned, Jehovah is omitted, but in chapter 2, we have Jehovah for the first time coupled with 'Elohim'?

J.T. That is because Adam is brought in there in covenant relation. It contemplates covenant relationship in chapter 2, so that we have Jehovah frequently throughout the chapter. It is the compound thought we alluded to, which I think will help us when we come to it.

W.B-w. "The Most High God" -- is that an attribute?

J.T. Yes; although a formal name of God. It is El first. You will notice in the New Translation in the note 'El Elyon' is power repeated. The note continues "Elyon is habitually represented by 'Most High'", but also carrying the idea of power. 'El' separately is God in the sense of power. So it is the idea of power and elevation in Genesis 14, a matter that enters with great instruction into that chapter, because we have Melchisedec there in view of the millennial world.

W.B-w. In chapter 17, it is Almighty. That is power too. Is that an attribute or a name?

J.T. It is an attribute, but used as a name of God, as we have been remarking. In the book of Job, it is used frequently. In 'Almighty God', Genesis 17:1, the word God is power; that is, El, the second name we are touching on now; showing that whoever used that title first was impressed with the idea of power. God says to christians, "I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters". He says this as Jehovah Almighty, showing that we now have Him in that way. His power being available to us.

A.R. Was that the same power that was seen in the operations in relation to the creation?

J.T. Yes; that is the idea of it.

W.B-w. The word 'El' refers to God; and 'Almighty' would refer to power.

J.T. Well, El is power, too, as we have seen. It is

[Page 229]

the Mighty One; therefore when almightiness is added to that, the speaker must have had a great sense of power. He either knew it or wished to know it, and God says that is how we christians are to know Him. Of course the greatest evidence of that is the resurrection of Christ -- the "exceeding greatness of his power". All these designations of power looked on to that.

J.T.Jr. You mean that all awaited the incoming of Christ before there could be any full knowledge of God.

J.T. Yes. Of course there was some knowledge of Him; because these names indicate knowledge of God but only in a general creative way, and as Creator, power, goodness, mercy and other beneficent things were seen in Him. Indeed the whole system of creation denotes great thoughtfulness on the part of the Creator so as to lead the creature to love Him and worship Him in some sense. "Because what is known of God is manifest among them, for God has manifested it to them -- for from the world's creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both His eternal power and divinity", Romans 1:19,20.

A.R. Would chapter 42 of Job confirm what you are saying -- "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes", Job 42:5, 6; as if he had heard of God in some way through the creation, do you think?

J.T. Just so. Elihu first spoke to Job and evidently helped him, but all on the line of creation, bringing in the thunder, rain, hail, snow, and the clouds. Elihu used all these things in creation to affect Job, and he evidently succeeded to some extent, but not entirely; so that in chapter 38, God takes him on. And He says, "Gird up now thy loins like a man", verse 3; as if God would say, You are making some headway, and answer me if you can. And then God proceeds with the creation

[Page 230]

-- Where was he "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 42:7. That is very touching, that there were persons affected by God as Creator. And God proceeds, calling his attention to the sea, light, darkness, snow, hail, constellations, birds, land and sea animals, especially behemoth, the chief of the ways of God, and leviathan, king over all proud beasts. And now Job says, "I will lay my hand upon my mouth", Job 40:4. First, his "words" were ended, but now he says, "I will lay my hand upon my mouth", as if to say, lest I should speak at all, I am so affected. And then finally, he judges himself -- "now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself". He saw Him as known in creation, not in His essential Being, because no one sees Him in His essential Being, but in the way He created and what He created. And Job repented "in dust and ashes".

F.H.L. In Psalm 19, David speaks of the declaration of the glory of God in the heavens, and he closes with "Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer", Psalm 19:14. I thought that followed your thought in regard to Job.

J.T. I think Job and the Psalms run together. Job is the gentile working something out with God in the creation. The Psalms are the Jews working things out; not only in the creation but through certain communications, the oracles of God, and therefore in the Old Testament they come nearer to God than others.

R.W.S. Would you just say how "the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity -- so as to render them inexcusable", Romans 1:20?

J.T. That would be in creation. It is His power and divinity there; it is not His Deity. It is a word of less value or character than deity, so that it is what God is more in His attributes that is in mind, but when you come to Colossians, we have another word. It is not

[Page 231]

divinity but Godhead: "in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily", Colossians 2:9. That is actually His essential Being.

R.W.S. The comparison of divinity and Deity helps.

A.A.T. I notice in the book of Job that the title Jehovah is used much. Did Job have the light of God as Jehovah?

J.T. Well, it is mainly by the writer, whoever the author of the book is. Job himself is quoted as using the name Jehovah only in Job 1:21 and Job 12:9. The use of the title 'Jehovah' extends back to Eve; she was the first to use it, but that does not mean that she understood it any more than she understood the appellation 'God'. We understand the word 'God' now, but did the saints of the Old Testament? 'Jehovah' was not understood until Moses, although it had been used. God, as it were, made it new; He says, My new name, Jehovah. He formally says to Moses, that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did not know Him by this name, but that they knew Him as Almighty God.

C.A.M. Would you say that what we are considering tonight, the name of God as expressed in these three scriptures, is to be fundamental in our souls, in an initial way as to the recognition of God -- His mightiness?

J.T. I think so; I think it is most important that we should look into these matters. It is a question of how many of us have thought of them, and if we have not it is well worth our while to stop and consider what is for us in these names that were used by Old Testament believers. We want to get the good of them.

A.P.T. Moses being the writer of these books, is it not important to note that in Exodus 3 he speaks of God saying, "I am the God of thy father?"

J.T. I think He alluded to Abraham. I think it is the general allusion to the beginning of that line, that God began with Abraham. He is the father of us all; he is the father of all believers. So that it is well to begin with that.

[Page 232]

A.R. Luke in his gospel goes back to Adam, does he not?

J.T. He does; he says that Adam was of God. He traces the line of Christ through Adam to God.

A.C. The reference a moment ago to Job was interesting as to the creational aspect; in Exodus 24 Moses and Aaron and the seventy elders ascended the mountain and they saw the God of Israel and ate and drank. Now 'Jehovah' is not mentioned there.

J.T. Well, that is a further advance on what we are speaking of now. It is not a question of the God of creation; it is the God of Israel. That is the covenant idea; they are on narrower ground, but spiritual ground. But we ought to dwell on the title 'Elohim', because it is His creative name. What can I get out of this name? We shall come to the God of Israel and to Jehovah later, God willing. Jehovah is not mentioned in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2. It is God's relationship with man. But now we are dealing with God in creation and man included. Chapter 2 is man in relation to God not the cattle, although they are mentioned there as named by Adam. It is man set up in the garden on the principle of covenant and a wife given him there.

A.C. Well, then, we understand that in each mention of the names and titles of God there is a certain specific line of teaching or education for us.

J.T. Certainly; that is the point we are seeking to get at; young people here are enjoined: "Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth", Ecclesiastes 12:1. That is important -- your Creator. Who gave you your spirit? It was God. "And the spirit return unto God who gave it", Ecclesiastes 12:7. There is a direct link in that sense between God and every man, woman and child -- "in him we live and move and exist", Acts 17:28. It is well to begin there. Every moment, every breath I breathe affects me. God gave me my spirit, involving my individuality and responsible link with Him.

[Page 233]

C.A.M. I suppose it is on that ground that you would have an appeal to anybody and everybody -- in God's creation.

J.T. That is the ground upon which the gospel goes out in Mark; it fits in here. The Lord Jesus says, "Go into all the world", Mark 16:15. That is the moral side in which men are living in, lawlessness; but He says, "and preach the glad tidings to all the creation"; the creation; that is, men looked on in a different way. We may go out in the street and speak to men who are passing and call them wicked sinners and that sort of thing, and you may cause indignation, but if you speak to them as God's creatures, their attitude will be different; and you will say, I have a link with you, because I am a man, as Peter said to Cornelius, "I myself also am a man", Acts 10:26.

W.B-w. Let us get it clear in our minds as to whether Elohim refers to Deity, or whether it refers to His creative power, or both.

J.T. It is both; it is certainly His Deity, but then did they have an apprehension of God as we have? They did not. Even in His relation to Israel. He said, "Lo, I will come to thee in the cloud's thick darkness", Exodus 19:9. There were no lights in the holiest. God said He would dwell in the thick darkness, 1 Kings 8:12. Now "he is in the light", 1 John 1:17.

W.B-w. Is there any name for God in the Scriptures that covers His deity only?

J.T. Elohim expresses His deity, only it is relative to creation. El is Deity too, only expressing power. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. It is power, but there is more in it. It is the supreme God in His creation, an Object of worship. But Jehovah and Jah, are nearer to absoluteness, as I hope we shall see when we come to these titles.

Ques. Can we have the apprehension of God apart from revelation?

J.T. I think so. The creation testifies to that, but I

[Page 234]

do not think there would be any result to Him from it if the Holy Spirit was not operating. Left to himself, man would not arrive at it, though actually the testimony was there and that ought to lead him to it. The opportunity was there. But the Spirit was operating. It says immediately that He was brooding over the face of the deep and that is the secret really of men turning to God. In Adam's case God took pains with him, so that he might know Him -- according to Genesis 2.

E.E.H. What was it that affected the men in the city of Nineveh?

J.T. Jonah's preaching -- "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" Jonah 3:4. That affected them. It is the preaching that brought about the repentance -- the goodness of God.

A.P.T. In that way, Paul apparently uses Genesis 1, he says, "The God who has made the world", Acts 17:24. If he was not in the good of revelation, he would not be able to preach, would he? Is that how you are seeking to help on the line of the glad tidings?

J.T. In going about, he observed the shrine "to the unknown God". That is his text. Well the word 'God' is on the shrine. Who put it there? Some one with some exercise must have put it there. It was not idolatry. It was an unknown God that he had in mind. And Paul says, "Whom therefore ye reverence, not knowing him, him I announce to you", Acts 17:23. So he goes on to preach the gospel. He carried on from this. And so the angel that preaches the everlasting gospel begins with Genesis, Revelation 14:6,7 -- "Fear God and give him glory ... do homage to him who has made the heaven and the earth and the sea and fountains of waters".

A.R. He will go further in his testimony?

J.T. No doubt, but he got back to it. It is a testimony of God for all times, and we should go back to it. Young people are enjoined to "remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth".

[Page 235]

C.A.M. Creation has a voice, as you say; men are responsible to acknowledge God's divinity and power to which it testifies. The Holy Spirit was active to bring all into the light of it.

J.T. That is right; if the Spirit of God had not been active in this chaotic condition, there would be no results for God at all. The Spirit of God is the means of subjective result and that begins with faith and repentance, and that accounts for Abel's sacrifice. The Holy Spirit helped him to bring a suitable sacrifice; he brought his offering "of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat", Genesis 4:4; he knew that was suitable to God.

A.B.P. Does Romans 1 apply to all men, whether they have faith or not? They are inexcusable because it is possible to apprehend God in the things that He has made.

J.T. Psalm 19 is based on that, as was remarked a moment ago: "yet their voice is heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their language to the extremity of the world", Psalm 19:3,4. So that Paul brings that very thing in; he says they are without excuse.

A.B.P. In our thanksgiving now, as knowing the declared name of the Father and it may be far beyond our apprehension of God, may it not? But in Genesis, the names, the titles you referred to, do you imply that they were an expression of the measure of the apprehension of some person?

J.T. Quite so; that is what we were speaking of lately, how the Old Testament merges with the New, how one dispensation merges into another; how all the testimony from Adam down was cumulative so that all that they had in Genesis came into the book of Exodus. In chapter 17 God said to Moses "Write this for a memorial in the book", Genesis 17:14; that is, the book already had been started; that suggests that the truth as it came out was cumulative, that there is nothing lost. So that the writing of Moses in the five books is the gathering

[Page 236]

up of everything from Adam down to his own time.

Ques. You referred to the sacrifice that Abel brought; was that not what God had in view, that all should do that?

J.T. Quite so; God Himself gave the idea in that he made coats of skin for Adam and Eve; that is the basis. We often go back to Genesis 3 for the gospel; it is there in the principle of it.

A.C. Is it not remarkable that in the kind of gospel when Paul and Barnabas preach to the heathen audiences in Lystra they bring in the creational setting, referring to the creation of the heaven and the earth, Acts 14:15?

J.T. Yes. He adds the thought of filling their hearts with "food and gladness", bringing in not only the creation but the fruit of it.

A.C. And further confirming what you were saying as to the various titles the Spirit of God brings to us as to the Godhead, that we should be educated through it.

J.T. Well, that is what is in mind tonight, to try and get the brethren, the young ones especially, to look into this, to look into their Bibles. You see what a range of things is there.

Now leaving Genesis 1 and going on to chapter 14, we get the priest and it is in connection with moral elevation and power; "the Most High God", coming in after Noah, after the flood, after Babel and the scattering of the race. Abraham is taken up and God is starting anew in him. The idea of father is stressed in Abraham, clearly pointing to the fatherhood of God, which had not yet been disclosed. It underlies the stress laid on the name 'Abram' which is 'high father' and then Abraham, an enlargement upon it, which is 'father of a multitude'; that is. God is taking him up upon the ground of fatherhood, as if to intimate to him, I am to be that, but you are to set it out. Abraham is to set out the idea -- a fresh testimony brought in, and now he is met by this

[Page 237]

great person called Melchisedec. Who is he? The writer to the Hebrews, says, "without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life", Hebrews 7:3. And his name means "king of righteousness", and he is "king of peace" as well, being king of Salem. So that we have a great setting now, a family setting, and a new name of God, it is the first time the word 'El' is used. The Spirit of God went through fourteen chapters before this title of God is brought in. It is a family idea, and God is saying, There must be great elevation. Abraham is 'high father'; that is elevation, and now we have the 'Most High', and He is most powerful, so that we are in the presence of a divine setting of things, which enters into christianity, or, as we noted before, Abraham is the father of us all, Romans 4:16.

C.A.M. The light that the New Testament gives us would show that inasmuch as Melchisedec was "made like unto the Son of God" this must have been a very wonderful epoch in the ways of God in regard to fatherhood and sonship.

J.T. Yes. This fourteenth chapter of Genesis is a remarkable chapter because we are introduced into the divine family setting involving elevation and power. So that we need not be afraid of current happenings. The Lord says, "And when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified", Luke 21:9. There is power on our side, and there is elevation on our side; let us therefore not get down to the level of men and what they are doing. Here a world war had just happened, four kings with five, and this great personage comes in and blesses Abraham.

Rem. The Most High God would be the One who overrules the outcome of the nations in conflict, and the High Priest would be the one who intercedes to help the saints from being affected by the conflict.

J.T. That is right; He is the Most High, meaning

[Page 238]

that He is above the level of all that is going on. God is not affected by the things that are happening, and lest Abraham should be affected by the things that are happening, God's priest meets him and brings out bread and wine to support him above the pressure and influence of war conditions.

C.A.M. I suppose in that way we should recognise that in this tremendous conflict, four against five, our brethren would be recovered that are apparently lost.

J.T. That is what comes out, the recovery of Lot is the one thing that concerns Abraham, it is when he comes back after the slaughter of the kings that he meets this great personage, and I think it points very peculiarly to our own times. It points to power in God, and elevation in God and priesthood on His side on our account.

F.H.L. The great contrast to the slime pits, Genesis 14:10.

A.R. Is there now power to enable Abraham to refuse the king of Sodom when he comes to him afterwards?

J.T. He does refuse him; he does not come under the influence of the warring powers.

J.T.Jr. Does he maintain the separation that God brought in in chapter 11? Is that maintained in Abraham's life?

J.T. Exactly. Where did he dwell here at the beginning of the war? I was thinking of that. It gives us a clue as to our own position now. It is said, "Then Abram moved his tents, and came and dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron. And he built there an altar to Jehovah", Genesis 13:18. And then we have this war started. That gives us a corresponding position, I think; that is, we are to be dwelling outside the world in connection with the purposes of God, at Hebron. That saves us from taking sides merely because of nations. It elevates us above all that, a very important matter,

[Page 239]

because we are sure to be defiled if we take sides with nations as nations; at the same time taking sides with right against wrong.

A.N.W. So the supremacy in Elohim would suggest supremacy in majesty; whereas the supremacy in El would suggest infinite might, is that the thought?

J.T. That is the idea, and that God has a system, although the divine system did not fully develop until Exodus, but still we have a priest of the Most High God here, and that involves a system, to some extent. It is not the service of God that is in mind here. Melchisedec does not represent that side, Aaron does. Service Godward is seen in Aaron in type, but Melchisedec is from God towards the saints.

A.B.P. Is the place of peace important, too? He is King of Salem as well as King of righteousness. A place of peace would that be?

J.T. That is what it is; by interpretation, the writer to the Hebrews says, "also King of Salem, which is King of peace".

A.B.P. Does it anticipate Jerusalem?

J.T. It does.

A.R.S. What have you to say about Lot? It says in this chapter that Lot was taken captive. He gets recovered and then goes right back into what he was recovered from -- a solemn matter.

J.T. Just so. He went back into Sodom.

A.R. It says in this chapter, Lot was taken captive. I suppose he represents those who come under the thing and are affected by it, affected by the darkness.

J.T. Yes; it is significantly stated, "For he dwelt in Sodom", Genesis 14:12. He came under the influence of the warring nations. As possessed of faith, the saints are living in the light of the Most High God, we are outside of that -- living in Hebron; that is, in relation to God's counsels which were before the world.

A.P.T. Verse 13 in this chapter indicates that the

[Page 240]

war does not change the heavenly position. Abraham is still dwelling in the same place at the end of chapter 13.

J.T. Just so. "And one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew", Genesis 14:13. I suppose this is the first time the word 'Hebrew' is mentioned. It marked them off as the people of God. They came from another place across the Euphrates. "And he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eschol, and the brother of Aner. And these were Abram's allies" (meaning, 'masters of covenant'). Whatever they represent, they would be men in a corresponding status. They were not among the warring nations.

C.A.M. It is a very searching thing about the warring nations. I suppose the reason John could write in The Revelation about things that should be "after these" is that he was taken up into heaven at the beginning of chapter 4.

J.T. They were to be written from a heavenly point of view.

Rem. I was thinking of the three hundred and eighteen servants born in Abraham's house. That would correspond to the assembly's position today, it is not systematically organised as the nations are.

J.T. That brings up a very important distinction; that christians are warriors or soldiers, trained. He had three hundred and eighteen, we are told in Genesis 14:14. "He led out his trained servants, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them", meaning that it was a household matter. Christianity is a household matter. It is the household of God, and the saints are trained servants in it, but we are warriors of a heavenly kind. "For the arms of our warfare are not fleshly", 2 Corinthians 10:4 -- "not against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies", Ephesians 6:12. We are

[Page 241]

warriors but not of the ordinary kind. But then we must not despise the ordinary kind because they belong to the four monarchies which God uses provisionally for our protection, and therefore we are not to despise them as if they were just the world, because they are essential to government. Governments must have soldiers, they must have police, etc.; we do not belong to that side at all, but we do not despise them. We pay for them from that point of view. I believe that is what Abraham represents. He is here a characteristic believer. He used what he had to rescue his brother.

A.R.S. What is the meaning of the word "the Hebrew"?

J.T. It is not clear, but what is stated in the note in the New Translation furnishes some light. It is implied that Abram came from across the Euphrates. It is a term applied particularly in Exodus. The Hebrews were despised. It would look as if the term might bear on the children of God. "For this reason the world knows us not, because it knew him not", 1 John 3:1.

A.B.P. Does that emphasise our heavenly position?

J.T. It corresponds with it; that you are under reproach here, so we are to accept the reproach of Christ, "Let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach", Hebrews 13:13.

A.R. What have you got to say about the scripture in Deuteronomy?

J.T. There is not much time now, but just to add that Eloah (Chaldee, Elah) is a term used much in the book of Job, also Ezra and Daniel; and I suppose it would mean God known in foreign or captive conditions. The Jews were there but God had not forsaken them. He puts His people into conditions, in discipline, that are hard, but He has not forsaken us. So that it is a Chaldean title in Ezra and Daniel. The name of God was known there, too. Wherever you go, you will find God; I think that is the idea of it. Job found Him, and

[Page 242]

those who were captives among the gentiles found Him. You will never lose God if you are right with Him. Although He hid His face from the Jews nationally, wherever there was love for God as in Daniel, God was there.

C.A.M. Would you say the second book of Psalms illustrates that? They are outside the place of the ordinary current of blessing, and the name of God changes in that book characteristically. It is more God than Jehovah.

J.T. It is very comforting that no matter where we are placed under the government of God in discipline, if we cry to God we shall find Him. We may not be able to use the Hebrew title so to speak, but I can use the title in the language of the country where I have gone. If I love Him, I will find a name for Him.

W.B-w. Even when Israel had given Him up. He could be found. Is that the idea?

J.T. That is how it reads: "Then Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked -- Thou art waxen fat. Thou art grown thick, And thou art covered with fatness; -- He gave up God who made him", Deuteronomy 32:15. If you will look at the notes, you will see that it is Eloah, the first occurrence. "He gave up God who made him". The word 'God' is used, thus, in rebellious conditions. "And lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation", Deuteronomy 32:15. That is, they had given Him up, but why should they have given up such a God?

W.B-w. Like Romans 1?

J.T. It corresponds with Romans 1. They did not like to retain Him in their knowledge.

A.B.P. When God spoke to Job's comforters. He did not excuse them for not knowing Him. They had not spoken of Him as His servant Job had, and therefore they had to sacrifice, and Job had to pray for them. There is no excuse in that sense for not knowing God.

A.R. How does Psalm 139 fit in: "take the wings of

[Page 243]

the dawn and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea", Psalm 139:9. Is that the same idea here?

J.T. Quite so; God will be there; He is not far from any of us, no matter where we are.

J.T.Jr. It is a remarkable thing in verse 39 you have another name -- "I am HE", which means 'The Same'. If we do get away and come back, we find that He is the same.

[Page 244]

DIVINE NAMES (5)

Genesis 17:1 - 7; Genesis 48:1 - 4; Romans 4:16 - 25

J.T. This title of God Almighty conveys power intensively. The word 'God' here, by itself refers to power, so that the idea of power is very much emphasised, implying that God is all sufficient, whatever the circumstances in which His people may find themselves. It is said in Exodus 6 expressly that He made Himself known to the patriarchs under this appellation and it is found in our chapter, Genesis 17, in connection with Abraham. It stands especially in relation to him. In chapter 28 we have it in connection with Isaac and in chapter 48 with Jacob. The apostle Paul carries it down to the New Testament in calling attention to Abraham in this way in Romans 4, how he believed that God was able to perform what He promised, and in 2 Corinthians 6 God tells those of us who have come out from the world and separated ourselves, that He becomes a Father to us, and we are His sons and daughters; this promise is by "the Lord Almighty". It becomes therefore a practical matter to us at the present time. The saints of God are beset with peculiar difficulties; though these difficulties may not directly affect us here, they seriously affect brethren elsewhere, and we are suffering with them; and it is a great comfort that as understanding this title we can say, like Job, that God can do everything. In the book of Job the title 'Almighty' is used by itself as a name of God: thus the almightiness of God is stressed there. He is known as the Almighty to Job. It is significant that in the book of Job, both Elihu and Jehovah Himself calls Job's attention to the creation as a witness of God's power, so that he finally says to God, "I know that thou canst do everything" -- seen in its fullest sense in the resurrection of Christ. We are to know "the surpassing greatness" of God's power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.

[Page 245]

W.B-w. It seems to be linked on with multiplication. Abram's name is changed to Abraham -- "father of a multitude". Is that the idea of the power of multiplying?

J.T. That is what I thought we might see. It is in connection with Abraham especially, significantly enough here, that the change of name should involve that he should be the father of a multitude, and that is carried down to the New Testament in Romans 4, showing how Abraham took it up in faith counting that God was able to accomplish what He had promised. He was able to do it; it is a question of God's ability.

J.H.E. If we are going to accomplish anything or apprehend anything, it is on the principle of faith.

J.T. That is the thought, faith appropriating what God is. The leper said -- "If thou wilt thou canst cleanse me", Mark 1:40. The Lord both willed it and could do it; He touched him and said, "I will, be thou cleansed".

C.A.M. Referring to the fact that Abraham was at this time ninety-nine years old, would you think that the power of this name comes to us after we have given up all kind of hope on any other line?

J.T. It does. In chapter 16, we have that very thing in Hagar. God took up Abraham, according to the chapter we read, in spite of his great age and gave him Isaac. Ishmael was not the product that God intended for Abraham. Abraham had to learn that; he had no change in name in connection with the birth of Ishmael; it is in connection with the birth of Isaac.

A.C. Relative to the Almighty, I wanted to know if the reference to the first verse of Psalm 91 would confirm what you were saying as to the power of God in that name? "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty", Psalm 91:1

J.T. Yes; that psalm has been a comfort to many of our brethren lately.

[Page 246]

A.R. What would you say about the Lord Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane? He says, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee", Mark 14:36. Has He got in mind the almighty power of God?

J.T. Quite so; that is practically what Job said. He said, "I know that thou canst do everything", Job 42:2. The Lord Jesus says, "all things are possible to thee", but He says, "Abba, Father". That shows that the name Father is cumulative; that the almightiness of God enters into it. Thus Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

A.R. Do you think He had in mind that God in His almighty power could fulfil His purpose some other way? He says, "My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me", Matthew 26:39, as if He was weighed down by what was involved in going that way.

J.T. "If it be possible". That is, if the counsels of God admitted of it. The Lord would not have His Father turned aside from the accomplishment of anything that He had in mind, all must be according to His will. The Lord's words there bring out His full position in subjection and the full position of God as the Father, as in control; although He called Him, "Abba, Father" there, He called Him 'God' on the cross. He does not say, 'Abba, Father, Abba, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?'; it is "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It was necessary with God as dealing in the fullest way with sin. If there was to be salvation for anybody; if Christ is to have companions, it must take place, so that the first thing you get after His atonement is accomplished, is that He is declaring God's name to His brethren, and in the midst of the assembly praising Him. He had said, "And thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel", Psalm 22:3. That all entered into the Lord's words to His Father in Gethsemane.

A.B.P. Would the offering of Isaac suggest that this apprehension of God was fully taken on by Abraham?

[Page 247]

J.T. Well, that is what is stated: "counting that God was able to raise him even from among the dead", Hebrews 11:19. Did he not say to the young men, "Abide ye here ... and I and the lad will ... come again to you", Genesis 22:5? He expected Isaac to return with him.

A.B.P. I suppose Hebrews 11 confirms that, knowing that he was able to raise him from the dead.

T.W. Why do you say it is the exceeding greatness of His power that is needed to raise Christ?

J.T. It is meeting the power of death. It is said of the Lord Himself, "marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead", Romans 1:4, however few or many. The stress is on the word 'dead' -- dead persons; the power involved persons dead for thousands of years; not that He is said to have raised any of such, but He could and will. We are so accustomed to the idea of the resurrection of the dead that we hardly realise what is implied in taking a man out of death. There is no physical trace of most; yet the Lord Jesus will take all out of their graves. But in His own case, it is "the surpassing greatness of his power towards us ... in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead", Ephesians 1:19,20; as if the power of death was stressed there.

C.A.M. I suppose in connection with that, every intelligence in the universe would be in a sort of suspense, if you could say such a thing as that, when Christ was in death; so that the magnitude of what God did could perhaps be said to be the greatest thing ever done. Would you say that?

J.T. That is how the matter stood; it was before the universe, that the Son of God had died, and he was attested to be that, even by the Roman centurion at the time. There was ample evidence as to who He was, and yet He is held in death; so that it was a question for the whole universe. Why should it be? And hence the magnificence of the act of the Father in raising Him by

[Page 248]

His glory, Romans 6:4. What an answer to the cross and the grave!

A.C. There is no mention of the Almighty there, although power is involved. Would you say a word as to that?

J.T. It is to bring out that there was more than power -- affection was involved. Affection was more prominent there than the power; the power was there of course, but the Father's love for the Son was active; the One He had proclaimed as His delight was lying in death. His affections are involved. Think of what it was to God to be without Christ for three days and three nights! Of course you might say, the Lord Jesus had gone to paradise; He said He was going there, but that is not the full thought of manhood. God had proclaimed His delight in the Lord Jesus as Man down here, and He was without Him for three days and three nights, in that sense.

E.E.H. What would you say about Abraham here falling upon his face as a result of this objective presentation, "I am the Almighty", Genesis 17:1?

J.T. Well God had said, "I am the Almighty God", Genesis 17:1, as we have already remarked. The idea of power is in both Almighty and in God. It is the word 'El' that is used for God here, which means the Mighty One, so that almightiness is greatly stressed. He says, "I am the Almighty God: walk before my face, and be perfect. And I will set my covenant between me and thee, and will very greatly multiply thee. And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying. It is I: behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of a multitude of nations", Genesis 17:1 - 4. I think his falling on his face brought him into his proper place before God. He was in the presence of such a God. God honours him in saying, "It is I", Genesis 17:4. This implies that the One who has declared Himself as Almighty to Abraham would assure him, give him confidence as to the great promises

[Page 249]

made. It is one Person speaking to another, Abraham is distinguished and assured in this way.

A.R. Would you help us in connection with the thought of resurrection that Ezekiel had to learn in chapter 37? He was taken over the valley of dry bones. "And he said unto me, Son of man, Shall these bones live? And I said, Lord Jehovah, thou knowest", Ezekiel 37:3. It was an indication of almighty power.

J.T. It was; Jehovah questioned the prophet about it, and Ezekiel was to go round about the valley and see the bones from every angle. Then He says, "Shall these bones live? and I said, Lord Jehovah, thou knowest. And he said unto me, Prophesy over these bones". And the way by which they lived was the power of God. Bone came to bone and sinews and flesh and skin came upon them, and then breath entered into them and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great army. It was the power of God exercised through prophecy. It is remarkable how human instrumentality is brought into it. This refers to life effected in a moral and spiritual way in Israel, not literal resurrection, because there will be no question of prophetic ministry when the Lord comes to raise the dead. They will hear His voice and come forth as Lazarus came forth. It is no question of prophesying. What we have alludes to "the whole house of Israel" brought into life presently, not actually brought out of their graves but in the sense of being brought out as a nation.

Ques. Would you say then that Abraham stands out as a feature of the believer? God said, "I am the Almighty God: walk before my face, and be perfect", Genesis 17:1. He would be outstanding in his relations with God.

J.T. God is bringing him out in his individuality before Him. How great a thing it is for God to converse with you or me on individual lines, God saying, "It is I"! He gives you to understand that you are of very great importance in His eyes. The whole book of Job is

[Page 250]

written in relation to one man; the three friends had to say to him, and then Elihu had to say to him, and then God took him on. And He says, "Gird up now thy loins like a man", Job 38:3. The matter is now between God and Job. Each of us should come to that, involving the greatness of a believer's importance in God's eyes. God portrays before him different features of the creation as evidence of His power, and then Job says, "I know that thou canst do everything", Job 42:2 and he repents in dust and ashes. God then says, in effect I am making a priest out of you, and He tells his three friends they must bring sacrifices and come to Job and that Job would pray for them; "and Jehovah accepted Job", Job 42:9.

C.A.M. I suppose when God said to Job, "Gird up now thy loins like a man", He was really meaning that Job would reach that. I suppose the full development of manhood depends upon the apprehension that God is able to do everything.

J.T. That is the point in the book of Job, to bring out manhood in Job; and manhood according to God culminates in priesthood. That is the order of the truth in the book of Exodus. Aaron, seen in chapters 28 and 29, is the full thought of manhood in Exodus; Job corresponds in measure, and hence comes out as a priest. That is the culmination of the book, and as a priest he had power with God and with men; and I think that marks the history of Abraham, too.

W.B-w. Is this word 'perfect' full-grown -- "Walk before my face, and be perfect", Genesis 17:1?

J.T. That is the thought of it, it is manhood, Abram had not been altogether like that in his experience in Egypt and in other circumstances already narrated in the book, but now God is coming to the culminating point of Abraham's development, so He says, "Walk before my face, and be perfect"; and then he falls on his face, which is right; and God says, "It is I",

[Page 251]

meaning that there are two persons entering into this matter. It is a matter between Abram and Jehovah.

C.A.M. So there is a great difference between what we speak of as 'human' ideas and true manhood. These friends of Job, for instance, had human thoughts of everything, including God, but true manhood is something else, is it not?

J.T. You mean what the Lord said to His disciples, "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" Matthew 16:13. They would speak of Him without godly exercise as they would speak of other things. The disciples were different in the Lord's mind. He said to them, "But ye, who do ye say that I am?" Matthew 16:15.

C.A.M. Job's "friends" would have passed as men amongst men, but they came short in not being men according to God.

J.T. Job says, "Truly ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you!" Job 12:2 -- a very sarcastic remark, but it applied as they pretended to be wise and were not. God said to them, "Ye have not spoken rightly of me", Job 42:7. It is very often in our speakings that manhood, or the opposite, comes out.

Ques. How does this apprehension of the almighty God in the believer affect him?

J.T. Well it is that God can do everything; that you can rely on Him in all circumstances. That is how it comes out in the book of Job, and so here in Abraham -- the birth of Isaac would be impossible in Abraham's eyes if he did not see this; that God can do everything. God is almighty. He says, "I am the Almighty God" and that is what comes out in Romans 4. The apostle Paul shows us how it worked out in Abraham's soul. He was confident that God could do what He promised to do. That is a practical lesson for us today.

W.B-w. Would 'Elohim' refer to God's power on creational lines; whereas, the 'Almighty' would be a further thought -- God's power on family lines?

[Page 252]

J.T. Yes; almightiness comes in in relation to the divine family, a special revelation. Elohim is not presented as a special revelation. It is a primary and general title of God in relation to the creation; it designates the Supreme Being, to be obeyed and worshipped by men.

A.R. So that when He spoke to Abram and changed his name to Abraham, the father of a multitude, he was not only representing manhood but, I suppose, he would represent God as Father.

J.T. Well, at first elevation is the idea. Abram is 'high-father'. That would be elevation in God's mind. He was coming to the idea of fatherhood on an elevated line, not like an ordinary father, who would let his children do as they pleased, think of them only in regard to this world, but Abraham was a man with moral elevation, and hence qualified to be entitled "Abraham". "father of a multitude". But this enlarged title would mean that God has the power to bring in the multitude.

C.A.M. Do you think it shows advance in Abraham; if we are to advance in this way, it must be through our further apprehension of God?

J.T. Yes; here it is a fresh revelation; the time had come for it. Clearly Abraham is ready for it. He fell on his face, which God recognised.

Ques. What do you understand by the thought of "the Almighty God" in Genesis and in Revelation 1, "the Almighty"? "I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty", Revelation 1:8.

J.T. Well, this with 2 Corinthians 6:18 brings it down to the New Testament. It is Deity, but Christ is the Speaker in Revelation 1:8. The verse is a striking testimony to His Deity. The title Almighty has a great place in the book of Revelation. One can understand it in view of prophecy; what this title implies would be a source of assurance to believers as having to do with the

[Page 253]

world. "Come out from the midst of them, and be separated ... and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty", 2 Corinthians 6:17,18. How we need God's power in separating! And then in going through the great tribulation the people of God will need the support and protection of almighty power. The enemy's attacks become insuperable in our eyes unless we count on God's power acting for us. The Lord says, "when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified", Luke 21:9. War is naturally terrifying, but the believer, trusting God in it, finds Him round about him, Psalm 91.

R.W.S. How do you understand Paul's allusion to the weakness of God?

J.T. The allusion would be to His taking up outwardly weak instruments, which mark His ways. The reference is to human estimates. But the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. He takes up weak instruments and they wax strong, "for when I am weak, then I am powerful", 2 Corinthians 12:10. The Corinthians were to consider their calling as a proof of God's ways in this respect, 1 Corinthians 1:26 - 29. The power of God, asserts itself as we accept our weakness. Paul says, "Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may dwell upon me", 2 Corinthians 12:9. It is in accepting weakness, and exercising faith in God's power that I become strong.

A.C. Although the name 'Almighty' is not mentioned, do you think Abraham had the knowledge of the power of God in answering to God's call, enabling him to go out not knowing where he went?

J.T. Well, he believed God, but then this is a revelation -- God Almighty is the name that God specially took with him at this juncture. He is now ready for it. God brings it in in a supreme way; if Abram is to have an

[Page 254]

heir, if he is to have Isaac, he must believe in God as thus revealed.

A.C. You remarked earlier on the sufferings of our brethren on the other side. We are not passing through the thing actually except in spirit with them, and they in their measure are comforted in the name 'Almighty' and the power in it. Do you not think that the pressure increasing would be an incentive for us to get hold of the thought of the Almighty?

J.T. That is what I was thinking. God said to Abram, "It is I". This has a personal application, God conversing with Abram in a familiar way, as we remarked. Where we have to do with external things or things that seem to be impossible to overcome, deliverance is in appropriating God in His almightiness.

A.R. The covenant in this chapter is very extensive. He says to Abraham "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee ... to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee" and then He says, "all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be a God to them", Genesis 17:8. He is assuring Abraham that in the covenant He is going to be a God to those who follow on.

J.T. Yes, what a thing it is to have such a God! That is the point -- the capabilities of God, and how they are available to us. That is what comes out in Abraham -- what God can do in and through one man; so that the blessing of Abraham, we are told, arrives at the nations.

C.A.M. In Exodus 6, where the Almighty is mentioned, and that He was not known by His name 'Jehovah', have we not connected the idea of the covenant with Jehovah very specially?

J.T. Well, we hope to come to that this evening and take up that title; it is pre-eminently the covenant name of God. The name Jehovah, however, was known here from the outset. The name was known, but not the significance of it. No doubt the idea of almightiness in God was already there too but not specially stressed by

[Page 255]

God, so that when we come to the name Jehovah, although the name had been in use clearly as we see by this book, the real significance of it had not been understood, when the time arrived for it. God says, I am going to be known in the full meaning of this name. In the same sense, 'God' had been regarded, but not in the full significance of it in operation, and we have the name Father applied to God in the Old Testament, but not in the full significance of it. As a matter of fact, while light is seen progressively in these names, the full significance of them all awaited the incarnation.

C.A.M. I was struck with something you said earlier, that there has to be a corresponding work or state in us before God can be truly apprehended.

J.T. One of the most important things in understanding Scripture is to see that truth is brought out as we are ready for it. Then in a wider sense truth is unfolded at a time fixed by God sovereignly, but its effectiveness requires His work in His people. Conditions must be ready for the divine unfoldings. This is exemplified in the opening chapters of Luke.

Ques. What is the idea in the face of God being mentioned here? It says that Abraham should walk before His face and be perfect.

J.T. The face is that in which the fulness of the being is expressed. The face is that in which the affections and intelligence and feelings are expressed, so that the fulness of the being is contemplated and Abraham is to walk in the understanding that that is so, so that the psalmist speaks of praising God for the health -- or salvations -- of His countenance, Psalm 42:5; and Paul speaks of "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ", 2 Corinthians 4:6. It is the full expression of what God is.

The believer's walk is to be in accord with that; you see how responsible Abraham was and he fell on his face as much as to say, I must hide myself from the presence of this, but God would lift him up, according to the psalm.

[Page 256]

The psalmist says, "the health of my countenance, and my God" Psalm 43:5. God's countenance was the psalmist's health, which was reflected in his countenance. So that the believer can look up to God with full confidence and not only so, but express his feelings in his face. When the king enquired from Nehemiah "Why is thy face sad?" Nehemiah 2:2, he replied, "Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my father's sepulchres, lies waste?"

Ques. God took this attitude to bless, did He not?

J.T. He says, "It is I" -- a beautiful thought. God speaks with Abraham as one man speaks with another. Scripture says this of Moses too: "Jehovah spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend", Exodus 33:11. Every believer should learn how to be on individual ground with God. Here He is on easy terms with Abraham, and he would have Abraham to be on free and happy terms with Him. Hence He makes a covenant which would confirm Abraham in the blessed relation with God into which he had been brought. The covenant contains the terms to which God commits Himself as to Abraham, agreeing with the comforting scripture: "by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement ... and entering into that within the veil, where Jesus is entered as forerunner for us", Hebrews 6:18,20.

W.B-w. Then He gives him the covenant of circumcision, which follows that.

J.T. That would mean that God says in effect to Abraham, The terms into which I am entering with you imply that the flesh is to have no place. The circumcision is the putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; so that we are with God happily and freely, but he disallows fleshly feelings and activities for "the flesh profits nothing", John 6:63.

A.R. Is circumcision a household matter?

[Page 257]

J.T. Quite so; that is what it is made here. He immediately carried it out in the household.

Rem. Ishmael was thirteen years old at this time. He was a fully developed boy, and God would introduce His thoughts at that point; he was old enough to know the truth, and thus responsible.

J.T. He had passed twelve. The Lord sat in the temple at the age of twelve and behaved as a man. If people are young in age and want to come into fellowship the point is they have to act like men. "Let no one despise thy youth", 1 Timothy 4:12. The Lord acted like a man in the temple, and I am sure that is an example for all of us. Now Ishmael is about thirteen years of age, but he is not a man; even as it was said of him prophetically before he was born that he would be "a wild ass of a man", but he has here attained an age when he should be showing manhood qualities, but he has not got them, because he mocked when Isaac was born.

F.H.L. Had Abraham his thoughts on the wrong line in giving him the name Ishmael? "Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!" Genesis 17:18.

J.T. Well, it was a name given by the angel of Jehovah, meaning "El hears", recognising the affection of his mother, and thus should have reacted on the lad for good, but evidently it did not. The angel in furnishing his name said he would be a wild ass of a man, as already said. Thus while God heard Abraham (Genesis 17:20) as to Ishmael, his mind was not governed spiritually in making his request for Ishmael. Ishmael had an Egyptian mother, and he took character from her.

Ques. Is dependence a feature of manhood according to God?

J.T. It is; it is one of the great features -- subjection, dependence on God.

W.B-w. Is circumcision here equivalent to receiving the Spirit in our language?

J.T. Yes; it involves the Spirit. How can I put to

[Page 258]

death the deeds of the body except by the Spirit? That is the idea of it, putting off the deeds of the body in the circumcision of Christ is an attitude of mind, but the power of it is by the Spirit, and that is what comes out in Abraham; the power that wrought, faith appropriated it. Circumcision was applied at once.

W.B-w. Abraham would have had Ishmael circumcised, too.

J.T. Yes; he had his whole house circumcised; the word of God was acted on immediately.

W.B-w. But Ishmael did not answer to it.

J.T. Not at all; just like sometimes young people do not answer to baptism, although household baptism is rightly applied in the believer's family.

A.B.P. Do you link that with Romans 8, the name here coming in in connection with walk? Would that link on with Romans 8:4 "Who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit".

J.T. That is the idea exactly. Romans 8 shows what the Spirit is to the believer, as you will have noticed, the 'Holy Spirit' is mentioned fifteen times in the first sixteen verses, showing that is the point in Romans 8. It is a question of the power of God operating in us which operated in Christ in raising Him from the dead.

F.H.L. Would you say something about the change of Sarah's name? God said, "she shall become nations", Genesis 17:16, the evidence of power in the maternal line?

J.T. The two parents corresponding in that way, so that we have a wholly right seed, which is spoken of in the prophets. Ishmael was not a wholly right seed, because his mother was a worldly person, an Egyptian, and she brought him up in a worldly way, too, and got an Egyptian wife for him, and that is the difficulty with many families, the parentage is not right.

G.V.D. What is the link between power and multiplication? I was thinking in Corinthians, Paul said,

[Page 259]

God gives the increase; and then in Acts 18, the Lord said to him, "I am with thee ... I have much people in this city", Acts 18:10. Does that link on with this?

J.T. It does. The people were known to the Lord, and Paul had to find them, but he said "No one shall set upon thee to injure thee", Acts 18:10. Those the Lord called His people that were in the city must be secured, and it required the power of God to secure them. One point the apostle makes is that "the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us", 2 Corinthians 4:7. He makes that prominent in the first epistle also, that he did not preach in man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; "that your faith might not stand in men's wisdom, but in God's power", 1 Corinthians 2:5.

A.R. Is that what Jacob arrived at when Joseph appeared before him? He got strength and sat up on his bed, as if he as an old man is relying on the power of God.

J.T. That is what comes out here in chapter 48. I thought we should read that because it brings this out. "And it came to pass after these things, that one told Joseph, Behold, thy father is sick", Genesis 48:1; "And one told Jacob and said, Behold, thy son Joseph is coming to thee. And Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed. And Jacob said to Joseph, The Almighty God appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and he said to me. Behold, I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a company of peoples; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession", Genesis 48:2 - 4. He strengthened himself, and he refers to our title - "The Almighty God appeared to me at Luz", which would allude to the second visit to Bethel, which gives this blessing that Jacob alludes to, carrying down the thought of God Almighty in the patriarchal history.

A.R. He says to Joseph in regard to Ephraim and Manasseh, they "shall be mine". Would that be the idea of carrying the thing forward in the family, not only

[Page 260]

recognising Joseph as his son, but Joseph's two sons would be his sons?

J.T. Yes; when you come to Moses' blessing of the tribes, we have said of Ephraim and Manasseh, the myriads of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh; these are the ones taken on sovereignly here by Jacob, but in relation to the Almighty God; the blessing comes through to these two sons of Joseph who are elevated to sonship among the twelve tribes; Jacob makes them his -- "as Reuben and Simeon", Genesis 48:5. We need the power of God for sonship.

C.A.M. I would like to ask a question there, as to what is in your mind as to the relation between manhood and sonship.

J.T. It comes out more in the book of Exodus than it does here. I think the general truth of manhood and sonship stands in this way. God said, "send a message to Pharaoh saying, Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn", Exodus 4:23; that is, the idea of sonship is stressed in the testimony. That is what God would have in those who serve him. But the sonship that God had in His mind is worked out in manhood, not simply by birth but by the development of manhood, so that you get manhood immediately you come to Exodus; the enemy is set on destroying the male children, that there should be no men and Moses is secured in spite of that. He is secured for God's service and testimony, and it comes out in sonship.

C.A.M. That is an instructive suggestion. Ephesians 4 furnishes a link in that respect -- the unity of the faith, and then the Son of God and then the full grown man.

J.T. Yes. 'Son' implies family dignity; 'man' is racial, or order of being. The first man in which sonship is mentioned is Enoch in Cain's family. Cain

[Page 261]

calls the city he built after his name. God takes it up and calls Israel His son. Typically it is worked out in manhood, seen in fulness in Aaron. In him God clothes manhood with great and glorious thoughts in the garments that are mentioned. It is a question of divine thoughts being attached to a man in those garments and adornments. These involve sonship in Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews shows.

Rem. Israel has power to discriminate in the way he stretches forth his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, later on in the chapter.

J.T. Quite so; answering Joseph's objection. He says, "I know", Genesis 48:19.

A.B.P. Is the thought of adoption suggested here in relation to sonship?

J.T. Yes; it is the idea of adoption, elevating us from the lower state to a higher one.

A.B.P. Does that suggest there is formation there?

J.T. I think so; these two were evidently ready for it. We gentiles have come into sonship, by adoption.

A.R. When the apostle speaks of presenting every man perfect in Christ, do you have in your mind that the man there is presented as a creature?

J.T. Yes; that is the idea; a creature of that order.

A.R. Sonship underlying it, but before God in Christ, in manhood.

J.T. We see the two thoughts running collaterally, the first, as race or order of being -- "Let us make man" -- not sons -- "after our image", Genesis 1:26?; that is a racial thought, an order of being, but then sonship is a family thought applying to that being. That is how the matter will stand eternally.

Rem. Joseph bringing his two sons forward here might miss the patriarchal thought. Jacob was exercised that he might get it -- the blessing of God.

J.T. Joseph was here on natural lines, he wanted Manasseh placed first and that would dislocate the

[Page 262]

principle of sonship. The basis of it is not the order of birth, which was what Joseph had in mind. It is in us a matter of predestination or counsel. And that is what comes out, that the younger is put before the elder; our whole position is really that. It is counsel, not simply a matter of birth, as is seen when you come, for instance, to the breast-plate of the high priest and the shoulder pieces. On the shoulder pieces of the high priest's dress the names of the sons of Israel were engraved according to their birth; that is one thing -- the family according to birth -- but the position of the tribes on the breast-plate was not according to that; there, the emphasis is not on their names, which are not formally given; it is a question of precious stones, and they are set in four rows of three each. It is a question of the divine counsel, setting whom He will where He will, similar to the relation in which the tribes were set around the tabernacle -- four sets of three each. It was a question of God's counsel. Judah had the first place there, not Reuben.

[Page 263]

DIVINE NAMES (6)

Exodus 3:11 - 15; Exodus 6:2 - 5; Revelation 1:8

J.T. It is thought that we should consider Jehovah at this time. Our general subject, as is known, is Divine Names. We considered 'God Almighty' this afternoon.

From the passages read in Exodus we will see that Jehovah is a special name taken with Israel. God Almighty was a name taken especially with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so that we are now in the realm of revelation. How the name Elohim or God as used in Genesis 1:1 came into currency is not stated in Scripture. It is used in that verse of course, but it was evidently already in use. But these names 'God Almighty' and 'Jehovah' are special, involving revelation, God making Himself known to His people in a special way, and that indicated in the appellation used. This prepares us for what runs through Scripture, the idea of revelation, and finally in the Lord Jesus' own remarks that the Father is revealed by Him and that no one knows the Son but the Father.

So that it will be necessary for us to pay close attention to what is said about this name. The footnote tells us that as a memorial it is mentioned in Psalm 30, Psalm 97, Psalm 102, Psalm 135, Isaiah 26, and Hosea 12. These passages give significance to this name in a peculiar way because in each of them we have a special feature which we may be able to look at later in the meeting. Indeed there is a certain mystery attaching to this great name. We have an abbreviation of it in the name Jah, first used in Exodus 15. It bears out what has been remarked as to the mysterious character of the name, involving, we may say, the absoluteness of God. But before we have the name of Jehovah formally stated, we have these remarks by Himself in Exodus 3:14,15: "And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And he said, Thus shalt

[Page 264]

thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover to Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations". So that the name 'Jehovah' carried I AM with it. I AM is the root of it and it is His memorial as seen in those passages we have alluded to.

J.S. Do you think it is because of special circumstances that this name is introduced?

J.T. It has in mind that God is entering into covenant with His people and delivering them. As taking them out of the world they are to be His people and He is to be their God and He is to dwell among them, so that He holds back nothing from them so far as it applies to them. He would have them to understand that He is disclosing Himself in His secret Being, which always ought to touch us.

J.S. I was thinking more particularly about the severe circumstances in which they were under Pharaoh.

J.T. That, of course, enters into it, but the ultimate end that God was about to reach was that He would dwell with them. It would be salvation, of course, from Pharaoh and Egypt, but then He said He would dwell with them; He would bring them out of their affliction in Egypt "unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey", Exodus 3:17. And He goes on to say, "And thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, hath met with us, and now, let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to Jehovah our God", Exodus 3:18. He had that in mind, and later says that He would dwell

[Page 265]

among them. The name 'Jehovah' really has more to do with subsequent circumstances. The almightiness of God entered into the deliverance out of Egypt which we considered this afternoon, but 'Jehovah' is a name to be carried forward in a special way as these passages show.

C.A.M. Would you say another word about revelation, as to when revelation really commenced? If I understood you rightly, the meaning of the name of God as in Genesis 1 was not exactly disclosed; but is it right to think that these other names open up the attributes of God?

J.T. Yes, only some of the attributes are stressed. The attribute of power is stressed in the name 'God Almighty', as we had it this afternoon; but when you come to 'Jehovah' it is the Being Himself, I AM. The root really implies 'to exist'. That is His name, that He exists eternally. "THAT I AM" goes further, implying what He is without stating it, but it would come out in effect.

F.H.L. Is that the name of John 8?

J.T. Yes, "Before Abraham was, I am", John 8:58. The Lord uses the past tense in regard of Abraham but the present as to Himself. He does not say. Before Abraham is, I am. It is "Before Abraham was, I am". It is eternal existence. That is the root of the title 'Jehovah'. So that Israel was brought into very intimate relations with God and that, I think, is what we might keep in our minds because of the references to it in the Psalms: Psalm 30; Psalm 97; Psalm 102; Psalm 135; Isaiah 26, and Hosea 12. God is carrying the thought on in the sense of a memorial; it is Himself, not simply attributes, but Himself.

W.B-w. Does I AM refer more to His Deity, and what is inscrutable, whereas 'Jehovah' has to do with revelation? It has a system in view?

J.T. Well, as remarked, Jehovah seems to convey God Himself -- His essential Being. It is said to be difficult to determine even the pronunciation of it. It is

[Page 266]

a peculiar formation; and it is further alleged that the ancient Jews did not even pronounce it. Whether that has any moral value or not, it in some way indicates inscrutability and secrecy or mystery about it that is properly attached to the Being of God. So that Paul says, "And confessedly the mystery of piety is great. God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit, has appeared to angels, has been preached among the nations, has been believed on in the world, has been received up in glory", 1 Timothy 3:16. There is something about God, and we ought to cherish it, that does not belong to the natural mind at all. It is outside that range.

J.S. Is 'Jehovah' His covenant name?

J.T. That is what you get here. There was a covenant attaching to 'Almighty' too according to what we had this afternoon, but 'Jehovah' is characteristically the covenant name of God with Israel, and hence it is carried through the Psalms and the prophets as a memorial, as the Lord's supper is carried through as a memorial of Christ in our dispensation.

W.B-w. Why does the Spirit of God emphasise the 'I AM' before 'Jehovah' in this chapter?

J.T. I think it is just because of what we have remarked. It is a question of the Being, God's essential Being, that He exists. There is no beginning or end to Him.

W.B-w. It must cover Deity then.

J.T. It does cover Deity so far as it is seen in the Old Testament.

Ques. Is the great servant Moses being adjusted in his own mind as to who God is, both as to His absoluteness and in His relation to His people Israel?

J.T. Well, you can see that he was a fit subject for it. It is when we are ready for things that we get them. Moses was now eighty years of age, and had gone through much. He had been in Pharaoh's house and he

[Page 267]

was under proscription by Pharaoh and had to flee the country. He was forty years in a humble way in Midian subject to the will of God, because the Spirit says, he "was content to dwell with the man", Exodus 2:21. He was not complaining in the circumstances. Moreover, "he sat by the well", Exodus 2:15. He was trusting to something outside of himself, typically the Holy Spirit. He cared for the sheep of his father-in-law uncomplainingly; and as he led them to the back side of the desert God took occasion to reveal Himself to him. Moses turned aside to see and God called him by name twice, showing he was now ready for such honour as to have a revelation made to him.

A.R. 'I AM' goes beyond time. 'Elohim', I suppose, comes into the creation, and 'Almighty' in relation to His power, but 'I AM' goes back beyond Genesis 1.

J.T. Quite so, there is no beginning to it at all. It is eternal existence, always present. You get it in The Revelation, that is why I suggested Revelation 1:8. It is "he who is", first, and then, "and who was", and then, "and who is to come", I AM is eternal existence. There is no historical tense at all.

A.R. "In the beginning God" is relative, is it? Whereas this is not relative.

J.T. It is mentioned as over against persons who are limited by creature conditions, that God has no such conditions. It is the nearest, I think, you can get to absoluteness. Eternal existence is really what is meant by 'I AM', it is existence eternally.

F.N.W. Does worship of God as revealed lead us to the final point of worshipping Him in His absoluteness?

J.T. Well, so far as you can take the thought in. It is a question whether any creature can. This is as near as you can get it to. It seems to me that properly absoluteness can only be apprehended by a divine Person.

R.W.S. Does "I AM THAT I AM", Exodus 3:14, differ from "I AM"? "Thus shalt thou say unto the children

[Page 268]

of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you", Exodus 3:14. Is that the same?

J.T. "I AM THAT I AM" includes what He is, as remarked. It implies addition to eternal existence; but the general thought is "I AM hath sent me". It means that the eternally existing One had sent him. So 'Eternal' is used for 'Jehovah' in the French translation of the bible which is good enough, only that Jehovah carries more than that, as Exodus 34:5 - 7 shows.

C.A.M. I think that God using such an expression as I AM THAT I AM would confirm just what you have been saying. Although He is absolute, we can only think of Him in a relative way.

J.T. We are relative; we cannot be anything else. We are creatures. No doubt many of us do not follow the difference between the absolute and the relative; but it is well to consider it and see if we can arrive at the thought. The word 'absolute' means several things, but it means this: that you are not related to any thing or person at all. That could only refer to God, because everybody else is relative to someone or something. God has now come into the creation and is relative to all, but still He can retire out of that, being God.

C.A.M. The first three words of the gospel of John, "In the beginning" show that One who is absolute is coming into a relative position, otherwise we could never apprehend Him.

J.T. Quite so. "In the beginning was the Word ..." That means He was there in the beginning of the creation. The 'was' goes further back; it goes back, before there was any creation at all.

A.P.T. How do you look at "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come", Hebrews 13:8, in relation to this great matter of I AM?

J.T. The allusion is to this, only it is more limited, because it is "yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come". The terms are more limited.

[Page 269]

F.S.C. How is it in Deuteronomy 32:39, it says, "I am HE".

J.T. You have 'He' there.

F.S.C. The footnote says it is the same word as "the Same".

J.T. That is, a known Person. That runs through the Scripture too; as David says, "Thou art that God". "I am HE" is a known Person, but unchangeable; but here God is making Himself known to Moses, as eternally existent, and Moses has come in that name. You can see that all this (because the ministry of Moses among the people is involved) is to arouse spirituality. It is no longer a question of the attributes of God as the Almighty, but Himself so far as He could be known; and hence the mystery attaching to it, and the reverence and the sense of fear even to name the Name. A man "blasphemed the Name", that referred to this Name.

A.R.S. When the Lord was here He was asked the question: "Who art thou?" John 8:25. He says, "Altogether that which I also say to you". Is that the same idea as I AM?

J.T. That would be what He said, what He disclosed in His ministry. But as to His Person abstractedly, no one knows the Son, but the Father. His service was not to reveal Himself but the Father.

W.B-w. He says, "I am he", and "they went away backward and fell to the ground", John 18:6. It is 'I am' literally. Does that refer to His Deity?

J.T. I think it does. In chapter 8 you have it twice: "for unless ye shall believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins", John 8:24. And later He says, "Before Abraham was, I am", John 8:58. All refers to His eternal existence, His Deity.

Ques. Do you connect this scripture with Matthew 16? Peter's confession, and Moses' confession before the people?

J.T. It was revelation in both cases. When Moses

[Page 270]

came among the elders with Aaron the ministry would be striking. He had a revelation. He had light in his soul that no one had before. And so it was with Peter; his confession conveyed a revelation from the Father.

F.H.L. Would Psalm 90 be an answer to this? "... even from eternity to eternity thou art God", Psalm 90:2. And then at the close it says, "And let the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us; and establish thou the work of our hands upon us: yea, the work of our hands, establish thou it", Psalm 90:17.

J.T. Just so. "... from eternity to eternity thou art God". The psalm brings Him into time. "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations", Psalm 90:1, That was what Moses had in his soul. It is important to understand what Moses had in his soul when he came to minister. What power he has as under the influence of God revealed to him as 'I AM'!

A.B.P. The Lord referred to this scripture to substantiate the truth of resurrection. Would that enter into our consideration tonight?

J.T. I think it would; it is "the section of the bush".

A.B.P. "God is not God of the dead, but of the living", Matthew 22:32. I wondered if that would be like an unfolding of the Name too?

J.T. Well, I suppose it would; He is the God of the living. Himself the living God. "I lift up my hand to the heavens, and say, I live forever!" Deuteronomy 32:40.

A.R. Moses had in mind a ministry to deliver the saints really. What he was going over with God was the question of their leaving Egypt. How would this work out as he went in among the people? God had in mind to take the people out of Egypt, and yet He had this great thought in His mind as a background for service.

J.T. Yes. It is said in the end of chapter 4, "And Jehovah said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses", Exodus 4:27. And in verse 28: "And Moses told

[Page 271]

Aaron all the words of Jehovah who had sent him ... And Moses and Aaron went and gathered all the elders of the children of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words that Jehovah had spoken to Moses ... And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped", Exodus 4:31. That is how the truth works out; the people believed and they worshipped, showing the power of the ministry.

A.B.P. Would not this Name involve more than their deliverance from Egypt? Does it not involve their complete eternal place in relation to God? God would have in mind a committal that would bring man in eternal relationship with Himself.

J.T. Yes. Our brother was calling attention to the fact that the people of Israel were about to be delivered from the circumstances they were in; but the name Jehovah goes beyond that. But these references that we have alluded to in the Psalms and prophets show that this Name enters into the most spiritual thoughts of the people. At this juncture it might be well to look at them, so as to stir our affections. Psalm 30:4, "Sing psalms unto Jehovah, ye saints of his, and give thanks in remembrance of his holiness" -- or as the margin reads, 'celebrate his holy memorial' i.e. 'his holy name: see Exodus 3:15'. That is one thing, and I think the brethren will see the best spiritual thoughts in Israel were there. It is a dedication-song of the house. Then, Psalm 97:12: "Rejoice in Jehovah, ye righteous; and give thanks in remembrance of his holiness". Again you will see a notation: 'See Exodus 3:15. Holiness here is "Kodesh" as Psalm 30:4'. Psalm 102:12: "But thou, Jehovah, abidest for ever, and thy memorial from generation to generation". They are now engaged with the eternity of God.

J.S. Psalm 68:4 too: "Sing unto God, sing forth

[Page 272]

his name; cast up a way for him that rideth in the deserts: his name is Jah; and rejoice before him".

J.T. The name there is 'Jah', which we shall link on presently with Exodus 15. The next direct reference is Psalm 135, which is similar to Psalm 102"Thy name, O Jehovah, is for ever; thy memorial, O Jehovah, from generation to generation", Psalm 135:13. You will see how the Spirit of God and the best spiritual features in Israel are engaged in carrying this forward -- this precious Name. It is their greatest thought and greatest treasure that they are in relation to such a God. Then we have in Isaiah 26:8: "Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O Jehovah, have we waited for thee; the desire of our soul is to thy name, and to thy memorial". See the longings of the soul! Isaiah is the vessel here. And then finally in Hosea 12:4,5, speaking about Jacob, "Yea, he wrestled with the Angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spoke with us, -- even Jehovah, the God of hosts, -- Jehovah is his memorial"; that is, Jehovah, the Name, is His memorial.

A.B.P. The fact that it carries through the prophets would indicate that the thing is secured eternally.

J.T. Yes; and entering into the ministry, that the saints should be reminded of it, because prophetic ministry is intended to keep needed truth before the saints. The Psalms denote the experience of the saints, but then that experience may wane and the prophets have to revive it.

Ques. Is it necessary to recognise authority in the servant through whom the name of God is developed?

J.T. Exactly; you can see how Moses advanced in this way. And he was enabled to contribute to the Psalms.

A.P.T. Would Moses' experience with God here indicate the way God operates now with any whom He may be using to help the brethren?

[Page 273]

J.T. That is the principle. It is the principle of obtaining a gift. He was ready for it after the eighty years of experience he had. God seizes an opportunity to reveal Himself to him. He intended him to be a great minister; and he needed not only the experience he had had, but this revelation. And so you find with Peter -- the Father reveals something to him and so you find with Paul. "God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me", Galatians 1:16, he says; and so it is with everyone of us who are of any service; we get some kind of transaction with God and He reveals Himself to us in some way and we are effective -- on that line, whatever it is.

R.W.S. Will you enlarge on this thought of 'my memorial' as it applies to us today?

J.T. The idea is carrying things down; carrying things forward. The Lord's supper, of course, illustrates it. How essential it is! At the very beginning of the dispensation they broke bread "in the house"; And then they came together to break bread; "we being assembled together to break bread". In the letter from Paul to the Corinthians, the institution of the Supper is given in a reduced way: "that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me", 1 Corinthians 11:24,25. And so the idea of a memorial is carried through. I suppose the first great thought of a memorial is in Joseph. "Only bear a remembrance with thee of me", he says to the butler. Genesis 40:14.

A.R. That is, I suppose, personal? "This do for a remembrance of me" would be the means of calling the Lord Jesus to mind, whereas the memorial now before us is the calling to mind of God's holy name.

J.T. It is; but 'name' is what a person really is, only

[Page 274]

what he is as made known; and in principle, I think, it is bringing down what God is in Christ in the Lord's supper; only, it is personal, as you say, to the Lord. It is an assembly matter as 1 Corinthians 11:17 - 22 shows.

Rem. The opposite would be in Exodus 32:1 "for this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt -- we do not know what is become of him!" It seems as though idolatry marks those who do not remember the Lord.

J.T. That is what happened at Corinth. They had really missed the point in the Lord's supper. They were carrying on in a scandalous way in the assembly; Christ was being displaced in their minds and this would make way for idolatry. Moses was away less than forty days -- yet they said, "for this Moses ... we do not know what is become of him!" The Lord's supper keeps Him very vividly before us. We know what has become of Him.

C.A.M. Do you not think this word 'memorial' is a sort of key word to the whole history of time. Eternity will show the effect of it -- what we have learned of God.

J.T. All that God is as known is carried down in the memorial. So that in assembly service we begin with the idea of memorial. We thus make room for the Lord to come in and He will not fail to bring the Father in; because that is the principle of His ministry. As He was about to leave the disciples He stressed the Father, as seen in John's gospel. We have the Son saying, "Holy Father". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit enter into the service; we are baptised to that Name. The Lord's supper keeps all that before us.

D.P. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee", Psalm 22:22. Is that the thought in the assembly?

J.T. That helps as to what we are saying. The Lord takes care of the Father's Name; we take care of His, in that sense. It is His Supper; we recall Him in His

[Page 275]

Supper, but He brings the Father in; He makes room for the Father. The memorial maintains freshness.

D.P. Is the thought of memorial objective?

J.T. The Lord's supper is an objective thought in the symbols, but it affects our minds, and our minds are what the Lord uses. He comes into our minds; the way is opened, and He comes in and gradually takes charge. We begin with the physical thought in coming together; the bread and the cup are physical. As we sit down together we are so regarded. Eating and drinking implies it; but then the Lord coming in is spiritual. He does not come in corporeally; He comes in spiritually; and if He has scope amongst us He will in due course occupy us with the Father; He will bring Him in, because He declares His name to His brethren, and in the midst of the brethren He sings -- in the midst of the assembly. Thus the memorial bears on the whole service.

Ques. Would you say that through the memorial, we are affected constitutionally, so that, as you mentioned, in this book there is a development of true features of manhood?

J.T. There is; and it culminates in Aaron. The idea is that, although it is sons who do serve, yet they serve as priests; because the priest provides for what is due to God in holiness and intelligence. Sonship is a matter of family affection, but priesthood is that you know what to say and when and how to say it; you say it by the Spirit. I mean that you are governed by the truth in all that you do. We are to worship by the Spirit of God, Philippians 3:3.

W.B-w. It is called a sign in Exodus 3:12: "and this shall be the sign to thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain". And in Exodus 3:15: "This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations". Is there any difference between a sign and memorial?

[Page 276]

J.T. Well, the service is the sign. God is here appealing to the instincts of Moses that the sign is what they should do themselves. They would serve Him on that mountain.

W.B-w. The sign would be the result of the memorial?

J.T. And that Moses would respond. God is anticipating that he and the people would respond and actually serve Him.

W.B-w. The sign was answered to when they worshipped.

J.T. It is where they worshipped; and that is just where God was speaking to him. Instead of God just conversing with him, Israel would be serving God there; that is, when the people would be out of Egypt, showing that there would be a real deliverance; and that is what comes out in chapter 4. They begin to worship as Moses and Aaron minister to them with this special light. How can we fail to worship God as we know Him as Father?

J.S. During the past dispensation the memorial to Israel was connected with the passover, was it not?

J.T. That was a memorial of an event but this was Jehovah's memorial, "My memorial", He says, The passover day was a memorial, to be celebrated as "a feast to Jehovah", Exodus 12:14. The passover and feast of unleavened bread was a question of Israel's moral condition. The feast of unleavened bread was to be a memorial between the eyes of children of Israel, "that the law of Jehovah may be in thy mouth", Exodus 13:9.

A.B.P. In connection with the Supper, especially in small meetings, does it not help to have a greater sense of what the memorial is if we connect history with it? In Corinthians the night in which the Lord was betrayed is referred to, and this scripture refers to "from generation to generation". I just wondered if the sense of what He

[Page 277]

has been throughout generations would add to the sense of the greatness of it?

J.T. Just so; we have, therefore, a variation in the book of Revelation in the verse we read in chapter 1: "... he who is", Revelation 1:8. That is not history, that is the present; the present ever-existing One. "... and who was, and who is to come", "the Almighty". "Who was" is history, "who is to come" is prophecy, or future. But in chapter 4 it is "... who was, and who is, and who is to come", Revelation 4:8. That is, the historical side is placed first in chapter 4, and I suppose that is how it is in the Lord's supper. It is a matter of history, but a memorial of Christ, His name implied; and we come in for the more spiritual part of the service as He is known in the midst. But in other circumstances we put "who is" first. That is, God regarded as eternally existent.

J.S. You have frequently said that Luke supports Paul. Is that the reason why the passover and the Supper merge in Luke?

J.T. In Luke he rather separates them, one following on the other; but in Matthew and Mark they more merge; they run into each other; but in Luke it is "after supper", and Paul says, "after having supped"; meaning the passover supper is finished before He introduces His own Supper. So that there is a formal separation in Luke; Luke is, I believe, peculiarly for us gentiles; for local assemblies.

A.R. The word 'memorial' would indicate the power that Moses had in his soul to convey the thought of the name Jehovah, the I AM. The revelation was given to him personally, but to be handed down.

J.T. That is just it. He evidently conveyed it to the brethren too. I mean, it must have been there as Peter's confession has been placed amongst the brethren. The Holy Spirit takes care of that, and carries it down to us. What he had was brought to the assembly. Now in Moses' case you will see in chapter 34 how it was

[Page 278]

accentuated in his own experience. In chapter 34 Moses was directed to go up to the mountain, and it says, "And Jehovah came down in the cloud, and stood beside him there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah passed by before his face, and proclaimed Jehovah, Jehovah God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy unto thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but by no means clearing the guilty", Exodus 34:5 - 7. You can see how Moses is further impressed with this great name; only it is now the name he is identifying with the people in serving them -- God actually operating among them. But it is "Jehovah, Jehovah. And Jehovah passed by before his face", and when he came down from the mountain his face shone.

J.S. Would that be on the line of revelation as reflected in the face of Moses?

J.T. That is the idea; the thought of Jehovah is evidently greatly impressed upon him. "Jehovah came down in the cloud, and stood beside him there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah passed by before his face, and proclaimed Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious". He did not do that at first, Moses saw Him in the bush at first, and the name is simply disclosed to him verbally, but now the Person Himself passes before him in all this gracious way; and all that would enter into his ministry.

D.P. Would you say this Name was taken on by the people as seen in chapter 15 where they sing to Jehovah?

J.T. Yes. That brings in the second thought that we had in mind; the title Jah there. They are already in the wilderness. "Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song to Jehovah, and spoke, saying, I will sing unto Jehovah, for he is highly exalted: The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. My strength and song is Jah", Exodus 15:1,2. This is the first

[Page 279]

mention of Jah, and the note says, 'Jah may be a short form of Jehovah; but it seems to express His absolute rather than His continuous existence. See Psalm 68:4'. But the people here are seen as occupied with God, not so much because of what He is, but because of what He did for them. Because they say, "for he is highly exalted: The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. My strength and song is Jah, and he is become my salvation", Exodus 15:1,2. In the use of Jah -- its first mention -- there is a touch of increased spirituality as they begin to sing. It is the first song; you might say, the beginning of the service of God; and it is very significant that Jehovah and Jah are found together in it.

A.R. On the one hand, you might say, the song of relief, and on the other the knowledge of God as absolute?

J.T. Yes. "My strength and song is Jah, and he is become my salvation: This is my God, and I will glorify him; My father's God, and I will extol him". All that He has been to them is brought into this song.

J.S. So that the revelation is effective in Moses?

J.T. Just so; and effected in the other singers to some extent. The children of Israel are joining in it; In this production we have a key to the service of song. There are cumulative spiritual touches throughout.

J.T.Jr. Would it correspond with John 9? We have a development of revelation in the man in John 9.

J.T. Just so; he ended in worshipping the Lord as Son of God. The works of God are manifested in him.

A.R. Would you say that in Exodus 15 we begin to think for God? "This is my God, and I will glorify him". Love is now operative in the people?

J.T. Just so; this would make the way for chapter 25, where God says, I am ready to dwell with you now. God brings that out when the time comes for it.

R.W.S. Is there to be increased discrimination in the

[Page 280]

use of the hymn book in giving out just certain verses which apply to the time at hand?

J.T. I think good use of the hymn book is very important; even to the selection of verses. The hymn that often throws us out of balance is (Hymn 209). It is one of the best known hymns, but sometimes is given out just after the Lord's supper; it brings us to God at once, and throws us out of balance. One might leave out the closing verses and reserve them for a later part of the service.

A.P.T. Do you believe that God puts us through this great thought of memorial every Lord's day morning?

J.T. Yes. It comes into christianity in the Lord's supper. The passover was a memorial, but it was of their deliverance; it was on the physical side leading us to the spiritual. The Name is spiritual. It refers to the highest spirituality in Israel.

Ques. Would you say that "who is" is the thought of God we should come to in assembly?

J.T. It belongs to the service of God properly. It enters into the thought of Christ's God. It is the ultimate of the service, you might say. "... my Father, and your Father ... my God and your God", John 20:17.

C.A.M. Is it not remarkable that Absalom who represents what is anti-christian builds a memorial much on the order of the ecclesiastical world, because he had no son? The contrast of that shows what a wonderful living and eternal order of things we are connected with in this memorial.

J.T. Quite so; the 'no son' state is in the cathedrals.

Ques. Would you say there is increasing revelation in the memorial?

J.T. It would be rather that we come into the fulness of the revelation. How many of us ever do? Jehovah says, "I AM THAT I AM", Exodus 3:14. What is there is there, but

[Page 281]

the next thing is how much do we enter into it and appropriate it? For us the revelation is complete. The Lord says, "I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known", John 17:26. The latter is John 20. When David went into the house of the Lord and sat down, how rich his words became! How glorious were the appellations he could use in speaking about God! The nearer we get to Him the freer we are in speaking to Him.

F.N.W. Paul says, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of him", Ephesians 1:17. When does this take place?

J.T. That may take place in any of us at any time. It is a question of the spirit of wisdom and revelation, being given to us, "so that ye should know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what the surpassing greatness of his power towards us who believe", Ephesians 1:18,19. It is a question of our state there. The revelation is objective, but a state is required to take it in.

Rem. John in the book of Revelation was in a proper state to receive that revelation; he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.

J.T. He was in a fit state for it.

D.P. This revelation was given to Moses on the mount with God, and the people were to serve on that mountain.

J.T. I think God was saying to him that where he was then, he and Israel would serve Him presently. But it would be after they came out of Egypt. For us it is really a moral state of things denoted in the mountain.

W.B-w. What is the point in the three persons in the titles, The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, being brought into this Name?

J.T. To bring the truth down to the current date; which is always a principle. The testimony is always cumulative; so that what we are going along with now is

[Page 282]

not only what we have got for ourselves; it has been brought down to us. It is not new in the sense of further revelation, but what may be entered into by the spirit of wisdom and revelation, which God gives to us. What those who have gone before gained in this way the saints at a given time may add to. David said to Solomon, "thou shalt add to it", 1 Chronicles 22:14.

W.B-w. Would it refer to the unconditional covenant? The covenant in Genesis 17 is unconditional; and this is the conditional covenant. Do they both run now together?

J.T. All the covenants come down; even the covenant made with Noah comes down.

J.H.E. You made mention of the name Jehovah being revealed to Moses. He must have been greatly impressed and must have received great spiritual and moral power, because he was able to transfuse it to Aaron and to the people. Would you say a little more about the intimacy?

J.T. The working out of the truth in the two brothers is interesting. The system that God set up in connection with Moses and Aaron in Exodus began here with the two brothers. Jehovah appeared to Moses, and Moses told Aaron what Jehovah had said to him, and Aaron spake to the people all the words that Jehovah had spoken to Moses. It passed through Aaron's hands to the people and the people believed, and they bowed their heads and worshipped. It is an excellent result of ministry, when people become worshippers through it.

R.W.S. This revelation is given him in circumstances of affliction. Is there some connection in the present affliction of the people of God and the ministry we have been having by the Spirit?

J.T. I am sure whatever has come to us and has been stressed among us is in order to meet an emergency. It looks to me as if the brethren who are going through this

[Page 283]

sorrow have a deeper appreciation of God than perhaps we have had earlier. What we are saying today certainly bears on it.

C.A.M. Do you not think Satan himself knows how precious the light is; and really the intensity of the evil is against the very places that have had the light; I mean, have had the privilege of diffusing the ministry worldwide?

J.T. It would look as if God were testing His own work. "The proving of your faith, much more precious than of gold which perishes, though it be proved by fire, be found to praise and glory and honour in the revelation of Jesus Christ", 1 Peter 1:7. It seems to me that God has placed the thing where it can be borne, and He is glorified in the way it is being experienced. That is the way I understand it.

A.R. Would you say that in spite of the departure seen with Aaron in the incident of the golden calf, Moses gets a further revelation; and through his faithfulness he laid the foundation morally for it?

J.T. Yes. In chapter 34 he gets a fresh impression of Jehovah and instead of exactly ten words, it is "after the tenor of these words". It is like the new covenant; the spirit of it and not in the letter. So that the next chapter brings out the material for the tabernacle, Exodus 35?.

W.B-w. The thousands in this chapter 34 get mercy. In chapter 20 it is the thousands of those that love Him. In these circumstances we need mercy: "Jehovah God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy unto thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression and sin". Is that what is needed just now?

J.T. There are thousands who need it!

G.V.D. Is this characteristic of God to pass before us in testing times? He did so before Elijah.

J.T. Well, it is to show Himself; passing by is to show Himself.

[Page 284]

F.S.C. Would the cleft of the rock suggest the death of Christ? (chapter 33).

J.T. God says, "And it shall come to pass, when my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover thee with my hand, until I have passed by", Exodus 33:22. And then in verse 5 of this chapter: "And Jehovah came down in the cloud, and stood beside him there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah", Exodus 34:5. There can be no doubt that morally the cleft of the rock precedes this wonderful incident, and it must be as in Christ we stand up in the presence of the glory. "In a cleft of the rock" is "in Christ". 2 Timothy stresses the thought of being "in Christ Jesus", 2 Timothy 1:1;2 Timothy 1:9;2 Timothy 1:13;2 Timothy 2:1;2 Timothy 3:12;2 Timothy 3:15, because it is needed so that we should be sure of our position in the last days.

A.R. Would you say that the enemy is seeking to destroy what God has on earth?

J.T. Yes. The word has gone out for destruction; not simply fighting a nation, but destroying it. But there is a great deal for God there, and destroying it is Apollyon's work; and God is taking notice of that.

Ques. When the Lord comes, is not the door of mercy and grace closed? Then wrath is to come upon the earth.

J.T. Yes; we have not come to that. What is going on is only a foreshadowing of what is to come. It is well to take account of that. The Lord said to Philadelphia: "I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial", not "take thee out of" it, but "keep thee out of" it.

A.R. That would be very comforting to the saints who are experiencing something of the tribulation now, because some thought at the commencement that we were about to be taken out of it.

A.P.T. It says, the smell of the fire was not on Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, Daniel 3:27. Do you not think that is the way we should know God and be able to come through?

[Page 285]

J.T. That is it; He does not even allow the smell of the persecution. And the king said he saw four men loose walking in the midst of the furnace. Instead of three there are four, and "the fourth is like a son of God". What an experience for them!

One has often remarked as to Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego -- they are mentioned together about thirteen times in one chapter, and it is encouraging to see that almost every brother who stands up to pray today, prays for our suffering brethren. Their names are well known up there; they are often heard.

[Page 286]

DIVINE NAMES (7)

Genesis 2:4 - 25; Isaiah 40:28 - 31; Amos 5:14 - 17

J. T. We looked at the title Jehovah on the last occasion on which we met together in relation to this subject, Divine Names. We considered Jehovah and Jah. We noticed with considerable interest at the end of the meeting that the idea of a memorial was attached to that title, God saying, "This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations", Exodus 3:15. The idea of a memorial is carried through the Old Testament, the Psalms particularly, and it is now thought that we should look at Jehovah again, only in its compound connections. It is thought that we should finish the consideration of the Old Testament at this session with a view to looking later at certain titles in the New Testament that have not yet been touched on, titles, especially, of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

But before reading the Scriptures it might be well to remark that there are several divine titles that we shall not have time to look at, but they are particularly titles that stand related to Jehovah, such as the pronoun 'He', which is used, as many of us know, either rendered 'He' or 'the Same'. It is employed several times in the Old Testament and very significantly as calling attention to essential, unchangeable Deity, an idea that ought to be in our minds as in a changeable world. The first mention of it is in Deuteronomy 32:39, I believe, and we are there directed in a note to several passages in which it appears. Another name that God takes in the Old Testament is 'Jealous', Exodus 34:14, very significant, too, warning us against idolatry.

In considering the name Jehovah, inclusive of Jah, I believe we touch the very heart of the Old Testament. We cannot say that it is not a relative name, but it is less relative than the others; all the other names are distinctly

[Page 287]

relative, but Jehovah is accompanied with such suggestions as "I AM that I AM" and "the Same" and "Jah" which is said to be an abbreviation of the name Jehovah, but I believe it carries a more spiritual suggestion. The fact that Jehovah is distinctly God's memorial would, no doubt, include the title Jah: "This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations", Exodus 3:15. In this we are in the presence of God as nearly in the abstract as could be in Old Testament times. And it is mentioned first in this compound in our chapter, Genesis 2 "Jehovah Elohim". The brethren no doubt have observed how frequently the compound tide is used in this chapter and the next chapter. God impressing us with His own essential interest in man, not simply a governmental interest, but an essential interest. When the Lord Jesus saw a man that was blind, as we read in John 9, the disciples inquiring as to whether the man had sinned or his parents, He said, "Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him", John 9:3; and in curing his blindness the Lord spat on the ground, which, I think, points to the essential interest of God in man, not governmentally, because if it were a governmental thought it would be that he had sinned or his father had sinned. It is neither, it is God's essential interest, that the works of God should be manifested in men.

A.R. In Genesis 1 you get the general idea of the creation, whereas in Genesis 2 you get God's thoughts concentrated, do you, in relation to man; the garden of Eden and man in it?

J.T. It is man right through, except that the cattle and fowl are brought to him, not so much to call attention to them but to see what he would call them, to bring out what a creature he was, and what pleasure God had in him. He did not tell Adam what to call them, but, "Jehovah Elohim ... brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each

[Page 288]

living soul, that was its name". It is a question of man, and God's pleasure in him.

J.S. Would headship be seen there?

J.T. Yes, God would bring out what intelligence His great creature had. I think we should begin with 'Jehovah' in this connection -- God not telling us here what the name means, as He does in Exodus, but the name is connected with all this; it is God essentially, the word Jehovah here prefixing the word Elohim, the creational name. We see that man is the supreme object with Him.

A.B.P. Is that supported by Genesis 2:5: "and there was no man to till the ground", as though the creation could not be complete without the man?

J.T. That is the thought there, I am sure. So that we have immediately the formation of Adam. "But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground. And Jehovah Elohim formed Man" -- that is, we have the idea of moisture before we get the idea of formation, which you do not get in chapter 1, because it is simply creation in chapter 1.

A.B.P. What is the meaning of that?

J.T. I think the moisture would be an allusion to the Spirit -- not very pronounced. In the light of the New Testament, you cannot help connecting the Holy Spirit with it.

J.S. Are both Jah and El used as prefixes?

J.T. Yes. El is sometimes used with Shaddai as a compound in order to stress power in the Deity.

R.W.S. Would you say something about 'formed'? Jehovah Elohim formed man as over against creating him.

J.T. Well, I think the word, as it is set in Scripture, usually alludes to ornamentation, or beauty in some sense. He "formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul". That is, this is Jehovah Elohim. Elohim alone, you might say, would be simply creation,

[Page 289]

as in chapter 1, although you have the word 'make' in chapter 1.

F.H.L. The thought of Jehovah Elohim is also connected with the building of the woman, is it not?

J.T. Quite so, it is remarkable how the title is repeated in chapters 2 and 3.

A.N.W. You have not the breath in chapter 1. Jehovah Elohim is nearer to man in chapter 2 apparently than in chapter 1. He breathes into him.

J.T. There is a personal link in the breathing? It is not that we should say God lives by breath as we do, but it brings out the personal touch in the formation of man. Divine breath is a very interesting subject in itself. This is the first mention of it. Based on it, Adam is said to be 'of God'. There is the idea of generation in that. The book of Job has the breath of God several times. We have the breath of God causing the ice, pointing undoubtedly to death, that in which Christ was. And we have the breath of God igniting the eternal fire of hell in the prophet Isaiah 30:33. And then we may say we have the breath of God at Pentecost, in the violent blowing or breathing. No doubt God's personal interest in man in the gift of the Spirit is implied.

J.S. Would you say also in John's gospel?

J.T. Well, I was going to speak of John 20; you have it in John 3:8 under the term 'wind'. It is less personal there, but in John 20:22 it is directly personal; the Lord breathed into the disciples.

Ques. Would the dry ground be more the work of God and the moisture the addition of the Holy Spirit?

J.T. It is an additional thought and if we are at liberty to speak of it as the Spirit, then we would have to link it on with the Spirit in a personal sense in chapter 1, where it is said He "was hovering over the face of the waters". This is again a personal idea; it brings in the feelings of God as to what existed. In chapter 1 we have no moisture in the earth mentioned. The earth is

[Page 290]

simply brought up out of water in chapter 1; it had been in the water, but it is brought up out of it; but now there is a mist out of itself. Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth -- "But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground". It is a subjective thought. The mist is said to have gone up from the earth and moistened the whole surface of the ground.

C.A.M. It would seem to confirm the thought of formation. It seems to go with that. The Spirit looked at in that way in connection with chapter 1 is striking. It seems to enter on this idea of forming in chapter 2.

J.T. I think it could be worked out in John's gospel. The Holy Spirit is seen first of all, symbolised in the dove. It is said the Lord baptised with the Holy Spirit in that connection. And then in chapter 3 we have the Spirit under the symbol of wind, not issuing from a person but acting by Itself. That is, no one can say anything as to the source of the wind; we do not know. It is part of the creational condition, but it blows where it lists; that is, it is sovereign in its action, and so the Lord says, "thus is every one that is born of the Spirit", John 3:8. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; there is no thought of water yet as a type of the Spirit. It is wind, but wind in a sovereign way and producing what is of Itself. And then the next great thought is the living water in the believer springing up, John 4:14 and John 7:38. Then we come to the wind again in John 20:22. There the disciples are already formed, and the Lord breathes into them, which is probably an allusion to this passage in Genesis 2. So that John's gospel opens up the truth of the Spirit as indicated in Genesis 1 and 2.

C.A.M. What you say opens up a wonderful line of thought. It shows how much there is in the gospel of John because it is an essential line of thought which agrees with Genesis, does it not?

[Page 291]

J.T. That is right; it makes the believer very near to God. The word essential is good, and I think the spitting on the ground carries that thought with it, as to who is there. God was essentially there in the Lord Jesus in that chapter; and John's gospel brings us nearer to God essentially than any other.

C.A.M. So that this idea of naming things would be a parallel thought to the gospel of John, whether it be God or Adam naming the creatures?

J.T. Yes. The Lord is the last Adam in John's gospel. When He sees Peter He says, "Thou shalt be called ...", John 1:42. That is naming; it is what he is to be by formation, not simply material as in Matthew; it is, "Thou shalt be called Cephas". The very word that the Lord Himself used is there: Cephas. God essentially is a spirit, and the Spirit works in us to produce what corresponds. That is, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit".

A.R. "Let the earth cause grass to spring up", Genesis 1:11. That is, there is a power in itself to bring forth grass. Now chapter 2 is that the moisture comes up from the earth of itself. I suppose, like John's gospel, the work of God appears by itself.

J.T. Quite so; the Lord said to the disciples as the Samaritan woman had gone, "Lift up your eyes and behold the fields, for they are already white to harvest", John 4:35. That is, the fields were yielding. "Others have laboured", He says. It is not their immediate work at all; the earth brings forth fruit of itself, as we get elsewhere. As the seed is sown in good soil the subjective work goes on, Mark 4:26 - 29.

Ques. Do you also see that thought developed in the day of Pentecost? You have a "violent impetuous blowing", and in turn they are all filled with the Holy Spirit.

J.T. We have been speaking of that; it conveys, I believe, a personal idea only it is very powerful. It is

[Page 292]

breathing. It is not wind in the ordinary sense (see note in New Translation). Breathing implies wind, of course, but it is wind coming through the lungs, as it were, and it suggests the personal idea in the gospel in the coming in of the Holy Spirit.

A.A.T. I notice in John 20:21 the Lord speaks of sending the disciples forth: "As the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed ...". Are the breathing and the sending forth connected?

J.T. Yes. Representation is in mind. "As the Father sent me" the Lord says. That implies that the Father was represented in Christ here. Now He says, "I also send you". And having said that He breathed into them; meaning they are to be truly representative of Him. For this they were to have His Spirit, and in this personal way. It is not simply the general thought of the Holy Spirit given, but the breath of Christ. Hence He commits to them confidentially the power to remit sins or retain sins; so that He is thoroughly represented here in those in whom He had confidence. It is a stabilisation of the position, trustworthy persons authorised to forgive the sins of some and retain the sins of others. What is done down here is ratified in heaven; but it must be in trustworthy persons, and only those who have the Spirit of Christ are trustworthy.

J.T.Jr. Is that the allusion in Romans 8? Would the Spirit of Christ there be characteristic of the saints?

J.T. Quite so. "But if any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him", Romans 8:9. There is no true representation of Christ unless you have the Spirit of Christ.

A.R. God put Adam in the garden to till it and guard it. That would suggest trustworthiness, would it not?

J.T. Quite so; that is the next thing. Man is formed; he becomes a living soul by the breath of God. That should make him trustworthy. The angels had not

[Page 293]

all proved trustworthy. He charged some of them with folly. And now, is man going to be trustworthy? There is no record that God ever breathed into any creature before, and here is something to be arrived at. Is Adam going to be faithful? Is he going to be trustworthy?

E.E.H. Is the answer in Psalm 8? "Thou ... hast crowned him with glory and splendour", Psalm 8:5.

J.T. That is man in Christ. So that all the mind of God awaited the incarnation for fulfilment. The man being placed in the garden brings in another thing, and that is the river. So that now we come not to moisture but a river; a quantity of water under control, within channels and flowing out of Eden into the garden. It becomes four main streams or heads. It is now water in a very powerful and regulated way, carrying the idea of headship in it.

J.T.Jr. The allusion there is to Adam's being formed, not created, "Man whom he had formed", Genesis 2:8.

J.T. Yes; so that we are dealing really with John's gospel here, the enlargement of all this is there. Not exclusively so, but what man is in John's gospel, and the river flowing out and becoming rivers, so that John 7:38 is rivers. The one river flows into the garden. Eden is a wider area than the garden. The garden is a distinct thing in it, and the water flows out of Eden into the garden, and then it becomes parted. Then you get the full bearing of it. It is four main streams or heads.

C.A.M. Do you look at the river as influence?

J.T. Well, it is an influence, but it carries with it the idea of 'heads'.

A.N.W. The primary purpose seems to be or is said to be indeed, "to water the garden".

J.H.E. Would you get the thought in the man with the pitcher of water, and as following him, what came out?

J.T. That is a suggestion of it. It is an allusion to

[Page 294]

ministry, especially in Mark, but it carries with it the idea of water for refreshment and headship too, because the man affords guidance -- "follow him".

C.A.M. Your comparison of the river and the mist helps. It is a very easy to see that there is a difference.

A.R. Is there the idea of headship in all ministry?

J.T. I think so. John is said to be the last book of Scripture written, and morally it is the last; and it is very significant that at the sepulchre you have the handkerchief that was on the Lord's head "folded up in a distinct place by itself", as much as to say, There is something to be noted in that. Attention is called to the Lord's head. In connection with this it is said of the writer of the gospel, "he saw and believed", John 20:8.

Ques. Do you connect the source of the river with headship?

J.T. Well, the idea of headship comes out in the parting. The Spirit coming in at Pentecost, we are told, appeared in the form of "parted tongues", meaning that the bearing would be universal. Wherever the river goes it carries the idea of influence for good with it. It becomes four main streams or heads. We have the idea of surrounding; and in the case of Havilah it is said that the gold of that land was good; and that bdellium and the onyx stone were there.

A.A.T. I wonder why we have the thought of 'mist' now and not 'rain'. The thought of rain does not seem to be introduced, does it?

J.T. Not till the flood. We do not get rain until the flood, a very remarkable thing. Here it is mist and a river. Both are typically subjective ideas. It does not appear as if God is making very much of heaven until after the flood. It is what was here to bring out the goodness of God; what was deposited in the earth itself, where man was.

J.S. John 7 would give you rivers, would it not?

J.T. It does, but it is flowing out; our chapter refers

[Page 295]

to that. The rivers flow out of the person, the Lord says. "He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water", John 7:38. I think it is an allusion to this, because the Lord says, "as the scripture has said". You cannot find it literally in Scripture, but you can find it in effect; that is, this passage and others like it, as Proverbs 18:4.

Ques. Is the thought of living water springing upward the same as the river parting in the garden?

J.T. I think so. The Spirit came in at Pentecost in the form of parted tongues and sat upon each of them, showing that you are not to be limited to yourself. There is to be a flowing out and in the character of tongues, so that all languages are included. It brings out these four rivers or heads covering the whole race, the post-diluvian world. I mean, these rivers mark off the ancient world into which God brought Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I believe it is from that standpoint that these rivers are to be understood.

J.S. So that we get the divisional idea too, the divisions of the earth.

J.T. Quite so; you get that after the flood. Moses spoke of the rivers as existing, the deluge had not effaced them.

A.R. Would it be right to say that the Acts of the Apostles substantiate what you are saying; it describes what is here by the Holy Spirit on the earth. You referred to what is after the flood; actually it suggests what is on earth, would it?

J.T. It brings out that the Holy Spirit branched out into the gentile world, into Europe particularly. These rivers point to the division of the patriarchal and Israelitish world; that is, where God's testimony was after the flood.

C.A.M. At Philippi the prayer meeting was by the river. Perhaps what was in view was a very extensive opening up of things.

[Page 296]

J.T. I think so. The garden was the prime thought. From thence the river was parted and became four main streams, that is you have influence from a favoured centre developed universally, and you can understand that that thought would dominate the world in which Moses wrote.

A.B.P. Does this link on with Ephesians -- "head over all things to the assembly", Ephesians 1:22?

J.T. I think that comes out in the chapter. Adam is in the great position marked by rivers. In it he must have a helpmate, one suitable to him.

J.S. And have we the fulfilment of the antitype in the four gospels alluding to Christ here, the partings: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

J.T. Yes, four. It is remarkable how that runs through Scripture. God is a universal God. We get Him in the New Testament in that way. "God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all", 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

A.N.W. Referring to the mist again and no rain until the flood, I wondered whether that, perhaps, throws light on what God says to Noah -- "My spirit shall not always plead with Man", Genesis 6:3. Would that seem to link with it?

J.T. I think it would in the sense that the flood would be end of the striving. The first mention of the Spirit is in chapter 1, and the second mention (in type) is in this chapter -- both the mist and the river, and then chapter 6 is the Spirit striving -- a very touching thing. It is also touching that the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep -- chaotic conditions -- to bring order out of it. In chapter 6 there is the striving with men, and a certain time given -- 120 years -- for that striving. The rain in chapter 7 is judgment -- not a type of the Spirit.

Rem. Verses 8 to 14 seem to be a special provision for men. The previous verses are formation, but verses

[Page 297]

8 to 14 seem to be God planning a special region that man might be placed in.

J.T. Quite so, and you notice, it is Jehovah Elohim right through. So that He took man and put him into the garden of Eden, Genesis 2:8. Later, "Jehovah Elohim ... put him into the garden of Eden, to till it and to guard it", Genesis 2:15. The tilling and the guarding follow the idea of the river. That is, you must have the Holy Spirit to work out all this, which, by extension, would include all our ministry, care meetings, etc. Thus there is a link here with the wider field of the New Testament.

A.R.S. What is the meaning of the word Eden?

J.T. It is pleasure.

A.R.S. And the river has its source there.

J.T. It has its source there, and it comes into the most favoured spot in it, and flows out from thence, becoming universal from there.

A.R.S. Then the river in The Revelation flows from the throne of God.

J.T. Yes. It is more governmental there, but still influential for blessing everywhere.

R.W.S. Is there a special thought of fertility with the third and fourth rivers? The first and second have a view to a certain area, but of the third and fourth Genesis 2:14 says: "the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which flows forward toward Asshur. And the fourth river, that is Euphrates". I wondered if there was some thought of special fertility from that area spiritually, flowing forward towards Asshur?

J.T. I hardly know. The first two surround certain districts, and good from them is indicated. The second two are well known. We know of the great empires that arose from the areas through which they flow. Hiddekel is the Tigris, and is identified as "flowing toward Asshur". The Euphrates is seen in Scripture as representing international boundaries.

[Page 298]

Ques. Does the apostle develop a feature such as we have here in 1 Corinthians 11, where he says, "the Christ is the head of every man, but woman's head is the man, and the Christ's head God", 1 Corinthians 11:3?

J.T. That is, of course, headship in its graded form, which is only, I should say, provisional. It is not the eternal thought of headship; it is provisional -- from God to Christ, and from Christ to the man, and from man to the woman. The full thought of headship is in Ephesians. God "gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all", Ephesians 1:22, 23. Our chapter, Genesis 2, is fulness. The first chapter is basic; this is fulness, the working out of chapter 1.

W.B-w. The garden now evidently is the assembly. Is that the thought?

J.T. That is the way to look at it. The river flows out of a favoured spot, but the garden is more favoured. The parting takes place there. So that it would very much look like the coming in of the Spirit to those gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

W.B-w. The whole earth is watered through the assembly in that sense.

J.T. It is the highest character of testimony. It is not the testimony flowing out from Jerusalem; although it is flowing out from Jerusalem at Pentecost, but it is really flowing out from heaven via the assembly. That is the principle; the testimony after this dispensation will be more an earthly thing, from Galilee according to Matthew, but this is heavenly, the sound came out of heaven.

W.B-w. I notice that of the first two streams, the passage says: "surrounds the whole land of Havilah" and "surrounds the whole land of Cush"; and the third flows forward, not surrounding but flowing forward. Those are two different functions of the Spirit.

J.T. Yes; you have the circular thought, I suppose,

[Page 299]

the more restrictive and resultful; whereas the going forward would be going out indefinitely.

Rem. Eden would be a general area; whereas the garden seems to be more a circumscribed area.

J.T. Yes. Eden is said to be that. It is a district; the garden is in it, eastward in it, showing that it is in the most favoured spot -- the east pointing to what is hopeful; and if we look at it in the antitype in the Acts, Judaism was a pleasant place for God, but the assembly is greater, and the universal thought -- the Spirit goes out from the assembly, not from Israel.

J.H.E. You were saying Eden means pleasure. I was looking at the announcement in Luke -- "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men"; Luke 2:14.

J.T. "Good pleasure in men" would mean it is not in Israel simply, but in men.

Ques. Christ being the Head of every man -- would that be in the creational sense?

J.T. Yes. But it is only creational in the sense that He has come into the creation as Man. He is the beginning of it -- the beginning of the creation of God. We often say, the new creation, but He is the beginning of the creation of God as it is now. He came into it in a mediatorial sense. He represents what God is -- all flows out from God to us through Him. The head of man is the Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

A.R. Does the idea of this scripture carry forward the thought that God is taking account of us here as representing manhood?

J.T. Yes. We must keep the meaning of the title 'Jehovah' before us. It is Jehovah Elohim, that is, Jehovah in the compound. He is coming later on to tell us what 'Jehovah' means. He is not doing it here; that is, He did not tell Abraham what this title meant; He revealed Himself to Abraham as "God Almighty", but

[Page 300]

the word Jehovah was there too; that is, you have the word without its full meaning, but still it is there. God is holding to the principle of His name and as we wait we will get to understand what it means. Faith had to wait until Exodus, until Moses; Moses represents a turning point, because certain conditions existed "from Adam to Moses". We get that as regards death. When we come to Moses we get the explanation of this wonderful name but it is already here, and now we can go back and see the force of this chapter. Why does God take this name so early? Why does He not wait until Exodus? But He has pleasure in man, and He is saying in effect, This name covers My relation to him. This pleasure is in Eden. The garden is a supreme thought and Adam is there, and God is telling us that this name will come up presently, and we shall understand it. Now we understand, and we can revel in Genesis 2, as I hope we are doing in some little measure now. It is only in the light of the assembly. Paul says, "I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly", Ephesians 5:32. He was speaking of a man and his wife and his children and all that, but he says, "I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly", and our chapter finishes with this great thought.

J.T.Jr. Is the thought of God's purpose suggested in Genesis 2 before we have the question of good and evil coming up at all?

J.T. That is right, and the word Jehovah coming in alongside of His purpose. That is, the nearest touch to essential Deity is in Jehovah; it is not opened up yet, but when we come to the opening up of it, we look back and see what light is there in these early chapters of Scripture.

W.B-w. In Exodus God is taking a people out of the world for His pleasure, not merely to save them but to bring them out for His own pleasure and satisfaction.

J.T. That is right, showing that separation is required for the disclosure of the divine Name. A certain condition in men is essential to that; that is

[Page 301]

separation. 2 Corinthians 6 furnishes this condition.

C.A.M. So that the source of the name Jehovah is in Genesis. The opening up comes later on.

J.T. Yes. So that we have to be in school, and go through it. There are many things ahead of you and I think that is what is in this book of Genesis. The man that shines specially in the antediluvian world, is Enoch. His name means a man in the school of God. So that we have to be patient in our learning; hence it is said that Enoch was "the seventh from Adam". He has gone through the course.

C.A.M. He had such a wonderful vision that he looked right on to the end of the whole history.

J.T. Quite so; he "prophesied ... saying. Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all", Jude 14,15.

A.P.T. In relation to this learning matter, would you link the epistle to the Romans with Genesis in this way?

J.T. If it is a question of spiritual education, you must go through the curriculum. You must begin with Romans.

A.P.T. We need the truth of Romans, the doctrinal side comes to one as converted, as a sinner, leading right up to chapter 5; the whole truth is available, but not always known in the soul. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; They are all there, but perhaps not known yet in the soul. Hence we have to go through the full course of instruction.

J.T. The question of the law has to come up, and Romans covers the whole period "from Adam to Moses". That involves the law for it is said that by law is the knowledge of sin. Romans teaches us "the knowledge of sin", not only sin in the world, but in ourselves.

Rem. I would like to get a little more help about God bringing these animals and fowl to Adam that he might

[Page 302]

give them names. There would be a great moral lesson in that.

J.T. It comes in after the four heads of the river. The river is the basis of this headship, for headship comes out in Adam in the way he names the creatures. Every land animal and every bird -- I suppose their names carry down to us today; but he was finally tested in the woman. He could see the birds flying and the land animals walking about and would name them according to what he saw in them but here is an individual he never saw before and there is only one; and God brought her in to him like the others. What will Adam say now? It is to bring out instinctive headship; the power to name things, the wisdom that one may have as to discerning traits in a being, so that you name him rightly.

Rem. The naming of the woman seems to be spontaneous whereas the naming of the creatures seems to be put upon Adam "to see what he would call them".

J.T. Yes, here it is "And he took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its stead. And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that He had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man", Genesis 2:21,22. That is all. Then man says, "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man", Genesis 2:23. He is bringing in new words now -- 'Ish' and 'Ishshah'. He is adding to the divine vocabulary. We have not got a single instance of the names he gave the animals and other creatures or birds, but we have here, the woman's name is Ishshah because she was taken out of Ish. He is giving a reason for the name; that is, bringing out that she was taken out of man.

A.R.S. And that has stood till the present day.

J.T.Jr. Having God's breath thus would shew how great man was; giving character to his whole being -- all that he would be.

J.T. Just so. Man is made to live by God breathing

[Page 303]

into his nostrils the breath of life. It really involves our spirits. The spirit of each as he dies returns to God who gave it, Ecclesiastes 12:7, so that man has his spirit from God directly.

A.N.W. As to the names of Elohim and Jehovah, would not Elohim be nearer essential Deity than Jehovah?

J.T. I think not. Jehovah is He who is -- the ever-existing One; corresponding with 'the Same', 'He', 'I am'. He who is, and who was, and is to come. It is God in His essential Being, in so far as we may grasp it. Elohim is power. It is the plural of Eloah, which is the idea of power; but it is Deity nevertheless, the Being to be worshipped, as we have seen. Jehovah is not the idea of power; it is essential Being.

Ques. Do you see set forth here the development of the truth of eternal life? I have been wondering as to all you have been remarking: you have every shrub of the field before it grew -- and then Adam being formed and how Jehovah Elohim breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the woman being formed of the man, so that you have: "this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man", which really goes all the way back to the source who was God.

J.T. Well, yes. Of course, it is life; but eternal life is properly over against death, and there is no death yet in the true sense of the word. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. Adam's sleep was a figure of it; but it is not death as a penalty, it is the primary thought. Sleep does not mean death literally. The latter implied that man had to return to dust, which is not the case here.

C.A.M. In that connection I would like to ask a question about verse 21. That was a very helpful remark you just made, because really, death, as we speak of it, had not come in yet, so that verse 21 possibly might be applied to the present position of Christ and the formation of the assembly. You reach a wonderful climax at the end of chapter 2.

[Page 304]

J.T. Sin is not contemplated in the sleep of Adam. "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death", Romans 5:12. The next chapter records this. So that Adam's sleep is before death. It is Christ and the assembly, apart from sin -- the assembly of Him. With these guarding facts before us, we may regard Adam's sleep as a foreshadowing of Christ's death.

C.A.M. In that sense is it not right to feel that the assembly is being formed in this way? It is going to reach this apart from the question of sin altogether. That is what is taking place at the present time.

J.T. We have to abstract ourselves and understand what we belong to -- the assembly as of Christ; our origin is Christ. There is no previous history at all; no sinful history as contemplated by God.

F.H.L. You never read of Eve's dying.

A.P.T. Apart from the prohibition in this chapter 2 in relation to the two trees, there really is no moral issue in the chapter is there?

J.T. The commandment is there, of course, but it is not violated yet. So that Adam here is a type of Christ as not having to do with sin.

A.P.T. Does this great matter enter into the service of God? Would the teaching of this chapter and other New Testament scriptures like it lead us into abstractedness in the realm of God's thoughts?

J.T. Quite so. So that Scripture says, "He that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one", Hebrews 2:11. There is no previous history in that at all. We are of Christ. The Corn of wheat is the beginning of everything in that sense.

A.P.T. Your remark at the outset in relation to the man in John 9 helps; he really was ready for the assembly, was he not? He was really part of it in that way.

J.T. Yes. The flock comes in in the next chapter; one flock and one shepherd. This chapter. Genesis 2, is Jehovah Elohim; that is, it is the first mention of Jehovah,

[Page 305]

placed here before the idea of God in chapter 1, Elohim. And why is it so? It is clear it is because of this great creature that appeared in the chapter -- God's interest in him. It is a moral lesson for us now, it is God's interest in us; that is what is meant. What delight God has in His great creature. We cannot compass it save by the teaching of the Spirit. One creature is occupying His mind, and He is concerned with him through this chapter, giving him a wife; Christ and the assembly is in the mind of God. But by extension, it is God's interest in every person here tonight -- that everyone should be free to come to God; that is what this chapter means.

And then as coming to our second scripture, in Isaiah 40, it may be said that Isaiah is perhaps the most comprehensive of all the prophets. Each book is divided up into sections. He is, I think, the most comprehensive of all the prophets, and especially in regard to God in His creational relations. In this chapter he begins with the subject, and says many remarkable things about God as the Creator, coming down to the verses read: "Dost thou not know, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not nor tireth?" Isaiah 40:28. That is a fine word. Isaiah would bring God into our present circumstances -- what the world is becoming. God is sitting on the circle of the earth, he says in this chapter. What are the inhabitants to Him? They are just as the fine dust of the scales, as simply creatures. So that the question is, "Dost thou not know, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not nor tireth? There is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint". It seems to me it is a wonderful deduction from what we have had in chapter 2 of Genesis, that man is under God's eye, and how God sets Himself before us as representative of Himself, and we

[Page 306]

are of Him. What He looks for now is strength in us.

J.S. Isaiah 40:18 would you say?

J.T. Yes. "To whom then will ye liken God?"

C.A.M. You are stressing the creational idea?

J.T. Do you not think we should? It is in this chapter and the next chapter; it is very much stressed in this book.

C.A.M. Yes, that is what I thought you perhaps had in mind in saying that this prophet is so comprehensive; he really goes on to new creation.

J.T.Jr. In the meantime up to this chapter Israel has been created and formed, according to this prophet.

J.T. That is very suggestive because he covers the whole field of testimony on the earth -- right on to new creation from Adam down. He brings God in here in the creational setting, I think in view of our prayer meetings -- our prayers; of course, at all times, but especially when we come together for prayer.

R.W.S. Looking for strength at all times, would you say?

J.T. Yes -- strength: "but they that wait upon Jehovah shall renew their strength: they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not tire; they shall walk, and not faint", Isaiah 40:31

Rem. Esteeming the nations "as a drop of the bucket", Isaiah 40:15, would remove all national feelings from our minds. A drop of the bucket is a very small quantity.

J.T. Quite so; national ideas are not worthy of our consideration at all, save as they enter into the government of God. That christians should take them on or make much of them in a mere national way, is surely outside of the range of spirituality.

A.R. Why does He bring forward His own personality? He says He is the everlasting God who fainteth not nor tireth.

J.T. That is to encourage us, I think. He is setting

[Page 307]

Himself before us. If we wait upon Him, we will renew our strength; it is a question of waiting upon Him. "They that wait upon Jehovah shall renew their strength: they shall mount up with wings as eagles", Isaiah 40:31. God brought Israel out of Egypt to Himself on eagles wings. We learn from God; in the prayer meetings and in our private prayers, we learn in His presence. In measure, we take on His attributes.

A.R. Is that why he brings out that even the youth might tire?

J.T. Yes; characteristically, the most agile and athletic of mankind is a youth, but even he tires. But those that wait upon the Lord do not.

C.A.M. I suppose you need eagles' wings to understand John's gospel. The flying eagle idea is in that gospel.

J.T. It is taking on what God is. I think that is the thought.

C.N. Do you not think therefore that the present ministry that brings God Himself so intimately before us would result in the strength that this chapter refers to?

J.T. I am sure it would; the prophetic ministry brings God to us and then we come to Him. Now there is a very beautiful word in one of the historical books: "Jehovah is with you while you are with him". He appeals to us as to that, so that I look abroad on what is happening today -- am I with God in it, recognising His rights in the scourging of the profession, of christianity, the nations and humanity as such. And the second thing is that if we are, He is with us; He will see you through.

W.B-w. In the prayer meeting do we pray to Him as One who is sitting on the circle of the earth?

J.T. Well, we can bring in all these thoughts; they lift us out of the narrowness of national feeling and the like.

W.B-w. What does sitting upon the circle of the earth mean?

[Page 308]

J.T. It is a figure; it is a metaphorical thought. He is above it; He is supreme, yet not ignorant and indifferent to what exists; He is looking upon what is transpiring.

Ques. Do you see an example of this in Paul and Silas "in praying, were praising God with singing .... And suddenly there was a great earthquake", Acts 16:25,26? They seemed in those circumstances to have power to bring God in as Creator.

J.T. Quite so; God was brought in there as Creator. He would give power to the position of such servants. We can count upon that in suffering in the testimony.

J.S. Would you regard Isaiah more in regard to what you are saying, as an international prophet instead of a national prophet, his ministry is so great?

J.T. Well, he really lifts us up out of all distinctions of that kind; he lifts us up to life and new creation, making great allowance for Jerusalem in chapter 65. "I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy", Isaiah 65:18. It is what God creates in the millennium, the new creation; how it works out in the millennium.

F.N.W. What are those sections of the book you are referring to?

J.T. We could not go into that now for want of time. It is a wonderful book and I suppose our brother will be able to look into it by himself. These meetings are just to touch on the truth; as we follow them up individually, we get help. We see how the rivers flow.

The third passage read, Amos 5:14 - 17, is to bring out how self-judgment will take place in the Jewish remnant, and of course, in the people of God, now. It speaks of "Jehovah, the God of hosts". The idea of hosts -- God having such power under His hand when outwardly things were small, for Amos says of Jacob "he is small"; he beseeches God about Jacob and God has respect for the prophet and repents of the evil, Amos 7:1 - 6 -- a very touching thought. It shows how God

[Page 309]

may change His mind as to any judgment if there is a spirit of intercession as to it amongst His people. Here it is Jehovah, the God of hosts. Jehovah in this connection -- "And so Jehovah, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye say. Hate evil, and love good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that Jehovah, the God of hosts, will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts, the Lord" ('Lord' involves mastership). "Wailing shall be in all broadways; and they shall say in all the streets, Alas! Alas! And they shall call the husbandman to mourning, and such as are skilful of lamentation to wailing. And in all vineyards shall be wailing; for I will pass through the midst of thee, saith Jehovah". That is, we are warned in view of this distressing state of things to seek good and not evil, "that ye may live; and so Jehovah, the God of hosts, shall be with you".

[Page 310]

DIVINE NAMES (8)

Matthew 1:20 - 25; Luke 1:26 - 35

J.T. For the sake of our visiting brethren, it may be remarked that in these monthly meetings we are considering the great subject of Divine Names. We have so far considered the Father -- in the first reading, in subsequent meetings we considered God as in the names peculiar to the Old Testament, such as, Elohim, the Highest, and the Almighty, and above all, Jehovah; so that at our last meeting, we considered that we reached the end of the Old Testament. There are four readings remaining, so it is thought that we might look into the New Testament again with regard to the names or titles of our Lord Jesus and of the Holy Spirit.

The proposal now is that we might consider Jesus, and Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus, and Messiah at this reading -- referring to sections in Matthew and Luke. It is thought well to begin with Matthew in our subject, because it gives the legal side of our Lord's position as become Man. The genealogy establishes that He was Son of David, Son of Abraham, and in the course of the angel's remarks to Joseph (Joseph is more prominent in Matthew than in Luke) we have the remarkable statement that Jesus implies Deity. It is said, "For he shall save his people from their sins", Matthew 1:21. The 'for' there is sequential in that it alludes to the meaning of the name Jesus, which we get in the Old Testament -- "Jah, the Saviour". The word 'saviour' is alluded to. It is the enlarged name of Joshua, and the first name given to him; although it was literally given to him as he searched out the land, the first mention of him is not as 'Hoshea' but Joshua, which means, Jah, the saviour. That is a clear statement of His deity. The name Jesus designates Him as Man, but it also involves His Deity. This is a point that each of us should understand, because it greatly enhances in our minds the Person of Christ -- who He is.

[Page 311]

It is not a mere human name. It is a name given to Him in incarnation, but a name covering the truth of His Person.

Another thing that confirms that, and it is very significant in Matthew, is what was said to the prophet, "Now all this came to pass that that might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord, through the prophet saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, 'God with us'", Matthew 1:22,23. So these two allusions to the Old Testament are very significant here. There are no more significant statements really as to our subject, because they point directly to the deity of Christ: first, as Saviour of His people, meaning God's people, and then Emmanuel, that Person is with His people. And it is said further, in Luke, that Mary was to call His name Jesus. The angel in Luke would put it on Mary to do this, but significantly it is Joseph here, the male side, establishing the full position of Christ as in manhood, that He is God, and that He has people, and that He saves them and that He is with His people, the word 'Emmanuel' meaning this. What we have, therefore, in this chapter is on a sure footing. It is well to have all this before us, because it is very establishing and confirming as to the ground we are on as gathering to the name of the Lord Jesus.

A.R. In that way, Jehovah that we have been dwelling upon in the Old Testament is now here in a babe, is that the idea?

J.T. Just so, Jehovah the Saviour, and that He is with His people.

Ques. The apostle says, "For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell", Colossians 1:19, does he refer to the incarnation?

J.T. Yes.

C.A.M. When you say the 'legal side' of things, do you have in your mind government and responsibility as in Adam?

[Page 312]

J.T. Well, what God had ordered or inaugurated, was binding in the sense of being of Him. It is what is of God, as governing an order of things. It appears in God putting Adam under responsibility, not to eat of a given tree. But then besides, He established Adam over the lower creation. "And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth", Genesis 1:28; that is, man is established legally in that position. It is morally right that man should be supreme in the creation, but it is legally right; that is, God has enjoined it, and that runs into many things. It comes down to Noah. Noah was established as having authority over the creatures, and to use them for food. There was no legal right to do that before, but after the flood it was inaugurated by God that man could kill a cow or a sheep and eat it. Then we have later many other things, but particularly what is enjoined at Sinai. There is a system of things enjoined there, so the Lord says, "One iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass", Matthew 5:18. He magnified it and made it honourable, that is, He established by practice and example what God had enjoined through Moses. Applied to what is before us, our Lord is legally proved to be the Christ by the facts presented in Matthew 1"Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham", Matthew 1:1. "Son of David" first, because it is a question of royalty on legal ground.

C.A.M. It throws light on the gospel of Matthew to my mind, that God Himself should come into those matters, giving the idea of government and our responsibility as to it.

J.T. I think we shall see that as we consider the matter in going through Matthew how the legal side is established; not legal in the sense of enslavement, but establishing everything as of God, what God enjoins; and how it bears on the assembly, and the position

[Page 313]

of the remnant now. That is to say, is there a right ground? Or is it problematical? It is not problematical; what the saints go on with is legal; that is, it is according to what God has enjoined. So that each has to understand the ground he is on, whether it is divinely legal; whether it has been established by divine injunction.

J.S. Is it then the legal side as to royalty before the promise? Son of David comes before Son of Abraham.

J.T. Quite so. It is the royal side. God had gone to great pains to establish the house of David, and David says, "thou hast spoken also of thy servant's house for a great while to come", 2 Samuel 7:19. That "great while to come" implies eternity; and that book shows that the Lord Jesus is the promised son of David, not Solomon.

A.R. Is the angel not speaking to Joseph in what he has to say to establish the legal side?

J.T. And for good moral reasons. He is a righteous man. You do not get that in Luke. The angel takes account of and honours a righteous man, and so in Matthew you get later that if you do something for a righteous man, you get a righteous man's reward. "He that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward", Matthew 10:41. The book is on those lines. Things must be right, and Joseph is morally right in his position. It was right for him to have those exercises, but the angel respects that and adjusts him thoroughly, so that Joseph is brought into accord with God.

J.S. "A king shall reign in righteousness" would be this book.

J.T. That is right. Hence Matthew brings in the city of the great King; and the first people that rise from the dead go into Jerusalem, 'the holy city'.

A.N.W. Would you place this gospel first in the structure of our souls in dealing with that?

J.T. Well, it is a question of what we need to begin

[Page 314]

with. I would say Luke is what a sinner needs. Luke is the most evangelical of all the gospels, and of course what we all need is the gospel to set our souls right; so that the angel says to the shepherds, "For today a Saviour has been born to you in David's city", Luke 2:11. That is what we need. I would say that Luke is the gospel of the grace of God -- which every sinner specially needs. But then the next thing would be whether he is going to be an assembly man, and every christian should be fit for the assembly; and I think Matthew is specially the gospel for the assembly. If I am to be an assembly man, if I am to be in fellowship, I must be a righteous man. One who is assembly material does not seek to justify himself in any matter by saying, The Lord knows my heart. That will not do for Matthew; in cases needing adjustment more than that is needed. The saints need to know something about your conduct and your associations and what you are saying. Matthew demands all these things.

Then, the next thing is the ministry, and Mark has that before him. So that he begins with "Jesus Christ, Son of God". It is a question of the ministry, and then finally, the greatest thing of all, the deity of Christ. What He is from John's point of view; formally stated to be God: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", John 1:1. And the creation was by Him; that is, John goes back to the beginning of everything and establishes who Christ is in relation, not only to the creation in Genesis, but that which is before it. Whenever there was a beginning, He was there.

R.W.S. Would you say how extensive is the statement, "for he shall save his people from their sins"? Matthew 1:21. Do you look at that as the people of God?

J.T. Well, the people of God, whoever they are. It would be immediately the Jews, Israel. Matthew

[Page 315]

quotes the Lord "I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house", Matthew 15:24. And He tells the apostles, "Go not off into the way of the nations, and into a city of Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", Matthew 10:5. "Ye shall not have completed the cities of Israel until the Son of man be come", Matthew 10:23. Thus "His people" would immediately be the Jews.

A.R.S. When he says, "He shall save his people from their sins", Matthew 1:21, does that allude to the condition of Israel, being under the Roman yoke because of their sins, and that He was coming in now to deliver?

J.T. That would be true, too. But there was a worse bondage than the Roman yoke. I mean, the bondage of sin. "Every one that practises sin is the bondman of sin", John 8:34. It would be a great point to establish with any Jew that the Lord Jesus was really their Jehovah, and He was here to save them.

Ques. Luke does not introduce the thought of sins in relation to the birth of Christ like Matthew, does he?

J.T. No; the formal statement is, as we read, "thou shalt call his name Jesus", but he does not give the meaning of it, nor does he give Emmanuel. But he does say. He "shall be called Son of God", meaning that He should develop that great thought in His life. As born He would be called Son of God.

C.A.M. Matthew makes a great deal of the prophetic word and the fulfilment of Scripture? Does that fit in with what you are saying?

J.T. It does; the genealogical list comes first. We have had before us lately the importance of a chronicler as seen in the lists of David's officers. Chronicling now is in the hearts of the saints, corresponding to the records kept in heaven -- those too recognised in God's world. The first thing therefore here is the chronicler's work. "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Juda and his brethren; and Juda begat

[Page 316]

Phares", etc., Matthew 1:2. Matthew says, "Book of the generation of Jesus Christ", but this is based on earlier chronology, the work of chroniclers.

C.A.M. If I understand then, the histories are in the living persons.

J.T. I would say that. I would say that from Abraham down, what is coming out now, what is to be established, was known before-hand; hence the Lord Jesus says, "Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced", John 8:56. Well Abraham is the first mentioned. He is a good witness. "Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced". I believe that is a key to all this genealogy.

S.McC. What do you think about the mention of these different ones who appear somewhat under reproach in the Old Testament? You would think from a human standpoint they were poor names to be linked up in this way.

J.T. I suppose the fact that they are mentioned establishes as much as anything what we are speaking of, that they are witnesses to this great Person. The first questionable person is Thamar. What does her father-in-law have to say of her? "She is more righteous than I", Genesis 38:26. Morally she is in accord with the royal line.

S.McC. She had a link. She was very careful as to that. She establishes the legality of her position.

J.T. Quite so; that is what we will get to see in the genealogy that it carries the moral side down.

A.N.W. It is said of Rahab, "and she dwelt in the midst of Israel till this day", Joshua 6:25.

J.T. Quite so; all these are just witnesses to what we are saying.

J.T.Jr. The prophet says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah". Would that link on with these witnesses? "And my servant whom I have chosen; that ye

[Page 317]

may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE". Isaiah 43:10. Is that the idea you had in mind?

J.T. Yes. God establishes this line of witnesses from the beginning, and Abraham heads the line. You do not get it just that way in Luke. It is who people are of, going right back to God. Adam was of God. He was of Him on the principle of life. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. That was the link with God, a wonderful link; not a mere creative link, but it is the breath of life breathed into his nostrils by God. Well his position is thus clear enough -- he is of God. One point in Luke is that Christ was to be called Son of God, but here it is that He is Son of David, Son of Abraham. In Abraham you have the great thought of sonship foreshadowed. "Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest", Genesis 22:2.

F.H.L. Isaiah says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given", Isaiah 9:6. Does that fit in establishing the legality of the position?

J.T. Yes. Matthew indicates who the 'us' are.

J.T.Jr. Stephen goes over that ground, beginning with the God of glory appearing to Abraham and finishing with Solomon, which pointed to the fact that He would bring this salvation to Israel.

J.T. Yes; he really is in line with Matthew, because one point in Matthew is to convict Israel; to convict the Jews of the murder of Christ. Stephen convicts them formally. There is a regular indictment in Stephen's address, but still the idea of grace was there. So that he says, "ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, ye also", Acts 7:51. The work of the Holy Spirit would be in this genealogy, because it is largely in these mentioned that the testimony to Christ has been -- in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David and many others.

Ques. How do you connect what you are saying with the genealogy in Luke? Instead of working forward it works backward to God.

[Page 318]

J.T. As we have said, it is 'of'. Thus Adam was of God. "And Jehovah Elohim formed Man ... and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul", Genesis 2:7. It was the "breath of life", not simply breath. You will see that in Genesis 2. We cannot say God lives by breath as we do, but the breath of life was what was needed. What cannot God in this sense do? and what Adam needed was to be made to live. He is not made to live as a sheep is; he is made to live by the breath of life.

A.N.W. The other living souls are in swarms, and come forth by the word of God.

J.T. Here it is not simply breath, but breath of life. It was breath of a peculiar kind; it linked him with God. That is the finish of Luke's genealogy. "Who was of God". Adam was of God by the breath of life.

Ques. In Acts 17 there are three things said of the creature. "For in him we live and move and exist", Acts 17:28. Where would you bring in breath there?

J.T. That is what we are as creatures simply. In Ecclesiastes 3:18 - 20 men and beasts are on the same footing. The wise man says what befalleth the children of man befalleth the beasts, that they have one breath. But the last chapter of Ecclesiastes says, "... the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God who gave it", Ecclesiastes 12:7. That is, he rises to the truth of man's link with God, that he got his spirit from God, which cannot be said of any other creature. Job says "the spirit of God is in my nostrils", Job 27:3.

A.B.P. Would the breath of life be in contrast to the breath of the Lord's mouth, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which consumes?

J.T. Quite so. We have been speaking a little about that, how the breath of God ignites hell. "For Topheth is prepared of old; for the king also it is prepared: he hath made it deep and large; its pile is fire and much wood; the breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone, doth

[Page 319]

kindle it", Isaiah 30:33. It was prepared for the king, meaning for the devil, and the breath of God ignites the pile. That is how hell has been started; it is the breath of judgment. And so, as you say, "Whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming", 2 Thessalonians 2:8. But the breath of life is the great thought of the link between man and God.

J.T.Jr. There is a note in regard to that in Genesis 7:22 -- "everything which had in its nostrils the breath of life". And Mr. Darby gives a note to that, 'Breath of spirit of life'. That is, all that died in the flood.

J.T. And so we are told in Job 34:14,15 that if God gathered unto Him His breath all flesh would succumb. Thus what is man to be regarded "whose breath is in his nostrils"? That is, our breath is a superficial thing in one sense, but it is an eternal thing in another sense; through it God has access to all men, and in the believer it involves an abiding sense; a link with God.

J.S. So that our outbreathings should be to God.

F.H.L. Is there a suggestion as to what is before us in Psalm 33, "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth", Psalm 33:6?

J.T. Yes, in the mention of "the breath of his mouth"; but that would not mean that they are living by breath as we are. The "host" is made by God's breath, not made to live.

"The host of them" is metaphorical. The psalmist would allude to the host of heaven, the stars; "Jehovah of hosts" would refer to living beings; but they would be angels, and we cannot say they live by breath. We do not understand their existence.

C.A.M. Referring to the matter of generations again, we have fourteen, and fourteen, and fourteen till you come to Christ; the living formation in those people

[Page 320]

pointed to Christ, so that when Christ comes in, all that is living in them is given a meaning by God Himself.

J.T. That is what I understand; the genealogical registry is in people. We are not directed to any literal registry here. 'Book' in verse 1 refers to what follows in the chapter to verse 17. We are given names beginning with Abraham. That is the key, I think, because of the Lord's own remark about Abraham. "Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced", John 8:56. That is, he pointed on to this Person. Just forty-two generations is sovereignty. God makes everything fit from His own point of view. He might have included more, for some names in the line of kings are omitted, but He would have three times fourteen.

J.H.E. Would that be something like the crowd of names in the beginning of Acts?

J.T. Well, the suggestion there is that although a crowd you could count them. There were one hundred and twenty, but it means more there, I think, that is, that in spite of their being a crowd they are all distinguishable, 'names' implying that each had his own distinction; that is, you can say. That is Peter; That is John; That is James; I know these names, because I have the impression of them in my soul.

J.H.E. That is what I was thinking. They were in keeping with this genealogy.

J.T. Only you could not apply the word 'crowd' here because this is a measured matter. This is forty-two generations. Think of the work of God in all those forty-two generations!

A.N.W. In Acts 1:15 it is about one hundred and twenty: here, it is exactly forty-two.

J.T.Jr. So the prophet says, "I will work, and who shall hinder it?", Isaiah 43:13. Do we see that working out here -- no one can hinder it. God has brought it about.

J.T. Yes. There is much said now about tool

[Page 321]

making, and the idea of tools comes into what we are saying. The Lord is the great Tool-Maker, and tool-making requires great accuracy. The process of making things fit, so that they operate automatically necessitates this. The creation is most accurate. Think of the sun revolving all these centuries! And so here -- fourteen generations three times. What accuracy God put into that, that He could pick out these names, that He could make them fit to bear testimony to the birth of Jesus, and that He was the Messiah! It is unquestionable; what is written on the whole list is that there is in it unquestionable witness to the legality of the claims of this glorious Person.

C.A.M. So you get the astronomical idea in Matthew -- the wise men were guided by a star, suggesting the ordinances of the heavens.

J.T. Quite so; The word 'wisdom' enters peculiarly into the creation. As the creation was proceeding wisdom was there; she speaks as a person, and says that she was daily Jehovah's delight. I would say that God found delight in the means by which He was bringing things to pass.

Bringing that down to the assembly, we read "in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God", Ephesians 3:10. The material and everything is His delight; all these centuries God has been building the assembly, and every day and every minute brings Him pleasure.

S.McC. It ought to help us today, that in spite of the carrying away to Babylon, the outward break-down and ruin in the church, the forty-two generations are going through.

J.T. Exactly; and you would like to be in the forty-second. That is the end; and it should be as accurate as pointing to Christ, as the first one seen in Abraham, bringing out what God is in them all.

[Page 322]

H.B. Does the scripture, "the virgin ... shall bring forth", Matthew 1:23, have a bearing on that, suggesting a vessel in whom all these thoughts are treasured?

J.T. Quite so. The virgin here enters into all that. She connects with all that, and Joseph too. He is a righteous man. You need him for that. He is just the man for the moment, amenable to the word of the angel.

H.B. Would that be why he is called the Son of David, rather than Joseph of the house of David as in Luke?

J.T. Just so. He is called son of David, Matthew 1:20.

A.R. Joseph is the last name mentioned in the list in Matthew. Would it suggest he had some light as to the promises made to Abraham himself?

J.T. I think so. The facts given show that he was a righteous man. "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus", Matthew 1:16. He is not behind the list; he is called a righteous man; he is tested out. You may be sure all these were tested out as to the element of righteousness.

H.B. "Who is called Christ", Matthew 1:16, and then, "and thou shalt call", Matthew 1:21, and "they shall call", Matthew 1:23 -- why the difference in tenses?

J.T. He is called Christ; that is. He is rightly so called. That is an historical fact. Who has called Him Christ? It does not say, but those who did knew what they were saying. The only one that the Lord informs as to Himself in that way is the woman of Samaria, an unlikely person from the natural point of view. "I who speak to thee am he", John 4:26. Then she does not go and tell the men that He told her that; she says, "Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?" John 4:29. She is a righteous woman. She has an impression; not because He told her, but because of what He said to her as to herself; and that is what enters into all these names. The principle is that God has had to do with them.

[Page 323]

Ques. What would be the feature in Luke? You were speaking about righteousness in Matthew.

J.T. Luke stresses the priestly side. There is a great deal more to be said about Matthew, but I think what we have had ought to help us as to the assembly's legally established position, corresponding with the forty-two generations. As drawing near the end, that is a principle to keep before us. The line runs right through, and the legality of the position now is as clear as it was at Pentecost. There is no doubt about it.

A.N.W. Arriving at Christ by these three fourteens. He is called Emmanuel. "They shall call his name Emmanuel", Matthew 1:23.

J.T. It is most important to stress that. "God with us". The disciples could easily say that a thousand times over; God was with them in Jesus. In Acts 1 the apostle to be chosen, was to be one of the men "who have assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us", Acts 1:21. Every time they could say truthfully, God is with us. Emmanuel was there. The man that gets converted at Corinth says, God is among you of a truth (1 Corinthians 14:25). It is the presence of God that stabilises everything. The great question in any position is, Is God with us?

Rem. John would emphasise that they beheld His glory; that would be his thought of Christ.

J.T. "We have contemplated his glory", John says, John 1:14. The apostles did. Bringing the matter to the present time, is God with us? who can doubt it? So Matthew says, quoting the Lord, "For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them", Matthew 18:20. That is what we have to count on; as maintaining righteousness and assembly principles God is with us of a truth.

H.B. Moses says that is how we shall be distinguished above others, Exodus 33:16.

J.T. There are those who say they are on right ground, scriptural ground, but their meetings are flat.

[Page 324]

They are not on the right ground if God is not with them; if there is no evidence that God is with them, they have no right to talk about it.

Rem. There must have been much adjustment in Corinth before one could testify that God was among them of a truth, and yet the apostle says in the opening of the epistle "the assembly of God which is in Corinth", 1 Corinthians 1:2.

J.T. Well, chapter 14, which we are quoting, is hypothetical. The apostle does not say it is that. If so-and-so happens, this is what will happen. If you prophesy one by one, and an unbeliever or simple person comes in he will fall down as convicted of all. The apostle does not say it was so, but he says that is what will happen if you proceed on these lines. The convicted man would do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you.

J.S. And does the name Emmanuel carry with it the idea of the land?

J.T. That is the next thing, that He has a territory. Well, that territory is what we have here today, what we ought to look for, conditions suitable, so that God is with us.

C.N. Do I understand you to mean that the presence of God in the assembly proves the position right?

J.T. Yes. You say, we hold the right doctrine; we hold the truth of the church, and so forth. But if your meetings are flat, and there is no spiritual power, what evidence of the presence of God is there? Normally the assembly is marked by the presence of God.

A.R. Would the end of Matthew support the idea of the legal side, of which we have been speaking? "And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age", Matthew 28:20.

J.T. I was thinking of that, and it corresponds with chapter 18 that we so often quote: "For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them", Matthew 18:20.

[Page 325]

There is one thing to be pointed out about Luke, and that is the use of the word 'Highest'. "But in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent of God to a city of Galilee, of which the name was Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in to her, and said to her, Hail thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou amongst women. But she, seeing the angel, was troubled at his word, and reasoned in her mind what this salutation might be. And the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God; and behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end. But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man? And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God", Luke 1:26 - 35. I was thinking of the word 'Highest'. How characteristic of Luke it is! It is moral elevation. It is not simply heaven but the Highest, what God is. He is morally elevated, apart from the order of things down here, and all that entering into this glorious Person, that He is the Son of the Highest. I was thinking that we might have that thought in our souls, the idea of the Highest. It is the most High of the Old Testament.

A.R. The angels said in the hearing of the shepherds, "Glory to God in the highest", Luke 2:14.

J.T. And you get it later, in chapter 19, "glory in the highest", Luke 19:38. So God is linking us on in Luke with great elevation.

Ques. Does Luke bring in the birth of Christ in

[Page 326]

relation to the priestly family and would not the Highest fit in in that way on high moral lines?

J.T. Quite so.

J.H.E. It starts off with the hill country, does it not?

J.T. That is another thing. Mary went to the hill country -- moral elevation runs through Luke. God comes down to us in Jesus, even to the position of a babe in a manger. While God comes down so low, He is ever the Highest. Thus however humbled outwardly we are to maintain moral elevation.

H.B. Is that why Nazareth and Galilee are emphasised in Luke?

J.T. I think so. It is to bring out the lowliness He came into, but He was what He was, nevertheless.

R.W.S. How do you view verse 35 -- "And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee", Luke 1:35? I was inquiring as to the Holy Spirit coming upon, and the Highest overshadowing.

J.T. Well, the overshadowing would be a spreading out. It precludes all else. I think it is to render the whole position a scene of holiness, but a moral elevation, too, the power of the Highest.

R.W.S. In a divine Person?

J.T. Quite so. It is to create an environment precluding all else. It is a remarkable priestly statement, showing how God rendered the whole scene free from hostile elements -- sterilised, to use a hospital term. It is to exclude all contamination from the scene.

Ques. Is that why you have Melchisedec, priest of the Most High God brought in in that way?

J.T. Yes, moral elevation is implied there. This is the power of the Highest overshadowing. It has Mary as an object -- overshadow thee. That is, it is this vessel in which God is operating. It is entire refusal or exclusion of all contaminating thoughts. The whole scene is not only sterilised, but rendered holy. It is made holy

[Page 327]

by the power of the overshadowing of the divinity, God Himself being there. Think of the scene, think of the operation, think of what is in mind! thus how essential all this is! And Luke opens that up as no one else does, being priestly in his gospel.

Ques. Does the overshadowing of the ark by the cherubim correspond?

J.T. That is right. The overshadowing of the mercy-seat. The idea is protection, and the whole scene is rendered holy, so that there is no possibility of corruption there; and then the 'Holy Thing'; it is not mere superficial holiness. The babes of christians are said to be holy, but that is only superficial or provisional. This is substantial holiness.

A.N.W. Is "fine flour mingled with oil" the type?

J.T. Quite so.

A.R. The power of the highest overshadowing her, and earlier the passage says, "He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest", Luke 1:32. Say just a word on that.

J.T. "Shall be called" in all these cases refers to development; what would come out in Him. What a person would be called is what he is worthy of being called. "And thou shalt call his name Jesus" that is a definite word from God. But "shall be called" -- that is to say, what is there is named without saying who gives Him the name.

But, "He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest" and "Son of God" -- Anyone could see in the Lord how morally He was infinitely above all that was around Him. "For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens", Hebrews 7:26.

J.H.E. At the end the centurion could say, "Truly this man was Son of God", Matthew 27:54.

J.T. He called Him that.

C.A.M. This expression "called Son of God" --

[Page 328]

the word 'called' there could not be understood had the Lord not clarified sonship.

J.T. We were noting lately the dominance of sonship. Sonship is dominant because of the Person in whom it is. How it shone in Christ is seen in Matthew 17.

A.R. Would it be right to say that Son of the Highest was seen even at twelve years of age?

J.T. It came out there. He says to His mother, "Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father's business?" Luke 2:49. He was asserting His sonship. But then could she call Him son? She did not at that time; that is the sorrowful side. I am sure she did afterwards. It is her son (not the Lord Jesus, but John, the writer of the gospel) that was specially used to bring out the greatness of the sonship of Christ.

C.N. In his entry into Jerusalem on the colt it is said they who went before and those who followed after cried, "Hosanna to the son of David; blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest", Matthew 21:9. There was a demonstration there that brought that out.

J.T. "Hosanna in the highest". I thought we might especially consider the thought of the Highest so as to have it in our souls. These meetings are nothing if they do not elevate us and lift us up from the ordinary things around us.

J.S. Why do you think Gabriel is introduced here?

J.T. I think Gabriel is brought forward in Luke because he is the priestly angel; his name is given in Daniel too. He has a great regard for the saints. He comes to assure them that they are regarded in heaven. He knows how they are thought of in heaven. "Fear not, man greatly beloved", he said to Daniel, Daniel 10:19. And so with Mary here. He says, "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God", Luke 1:30. It is comforting to know that there is an angel who knows how you are regarded in heaven. The Lord says of children,

[Page 329]

"I say unto you that their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens", Matthew 18:10. I suppose the angels learn from the Father's face. "There is joy before the angels of God for one repenting sinner", Luke 15:10.

A.R. The word Gabriel means 'man of God'. What do you say about that?

J.T. It is apparently that he represents man's feelings, but in divine power; 'el' is power.

[Page 330]

DIVINE NAMES (9)

Luke 1:35; John 3:35,36; Matthew 12:8 - 12; John 1:1,2

J.T. At our last meeting we began to look at the titles attaching to the Lord Jesus as Man, and spoke of "Jesus" principally. It is thought that we should look at His titles. Son, Son of God, Son of Man, and The Word, at this time. We have only three meetings more after this and there is considerable ground to cover both as regards the titles of the Lord Jesus and the titles of the Holy Spirit.

It has been thought wise to begin with Luke as to our subject, having in mind that our Lord's sonship is contingent on His incarnation and Luke gives us a fuller account than the other evangelists and particularly mentions the title Son of God. Matthew stresses the titles Jesus, Emmanuel and Christ, but the angel Gabriel according to Luke directed that the Lord, as born, should be called Son of God. It is assumed by many and has been generally believed that His sonship extended back into His part in the Deity before incarnation, but if that was so, the angel should have said, is Son of God. But it is "shall be called"; that is, He is called Son as born -- "the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God", Luke 1:35. In the three synoptic gospels He is declared from heaven to be Son of God, not at His birth but at His baptism. Of course as born He was Son just as much as He was as baptised or as much as He is now, but what is to be specially noted is that the angel Gabriel says, "shall be called". If He were Son before incarnation then it could be said He is -- who is Son of God.

A.R.S. And what the Jews looked for was the Messiah, was it not?

J.T. Yes, but it is stated in the second Psalm that Jehovah said to Him: "Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee", Psalm 2:7. That confirms what we have

[Page 331]

been saying, that it was as begotten He was stated to be the Son. To add to that, you will remember that Nathanael said to Him, "thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel", John 1:49. There was no evidence that he had a revelation about the Lord Jesus as Peter did; it was simply that he took account of Him in that way, because He said that He saw Nathanael before Philip called him. He discerned in what the Lord said to him that He was the Son of God; that is, he connected what the Lord said to him with Psalm 2. That confirms really what we are saying -- "shall be called" Gabriel says. He alludes to what people would say or call the Lord Jesus, and Nathanael calls Him the Son of God. And so did John the baptist call Him the Son of God as coming to Him, and so, in effect, did the blind man, who worshipped Him, John 9, and others. "Shall be called" -- that is, it came out in Him as born into this world.

A.R.S. And what do you say about Nebuchadnezzar? When Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were cast into the furnace, he said, "I see four men ... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God", Daniel 3:25.

J.T. Well, that undoubtedly alludes to what was coming. It is there in the plural; it is son 'of the gods' really; what Nebuchadnezzar would mean really is that he was a super-natural person, but it is translated "is like a son of God". You can see the Holy Spirit had the incarnation in mind, that the Lord Jesus would be identified with His people in their sufferings.

A.R. Would you say that the title 'Son of God' is a graded title, whereas the Lord before incarnation, as it says in Philippians, was on an equality with God?

J.T. Yes; -- "who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God", Philippians 2:6. The allusion there is to His deity, of course, that He was God, as John 1:1 says -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with

[Page 332]

God, and the Word was God", meaning that He had part in the Deity.

A.N.W. In one of your addresses you had identified the Lord, I think, in Daniel 3, as the Son of God, but you now say that that was merely foreshadowing.

J.T. Oh, I should not say He was not there; He was there in some sense. It is Nebuchadnezzar's apprehension that is mentioned; the Spirit of God does not say that it was the Son of God, but that Nebuchadnezzar said that. But if He were there, it would be anticipating what He was coming to take on. Jehovah was one of the three 'men' who came to Abraham, Genesis 18:2. No doubt as to the Person, it was the Lord Jesus, but He was not incarnate.

A.B.P. In a methodical writer like Luke, having accompanied Paul, he would be very careful as to the selection of words in dealing with this great subject, would he not? I refer to what you have already said as to "he shall be called Son of God".

J.T. Yes, as you say, he is a methodical writer and of course all the scripture writers are, but he is peculiarly that. Instead of saying He is the Son of God, the angel says He shall be called that, meaning that it should come out in Him, the characteristics of God should come out in His Son as here.

H.H. The statement in Psalm 2, "Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee", in a certain sense is in a Jewish setting. There are wonderful gems in the Psalms.

J.T. Clearly it is in the Jewish setting -- the first book of Psalms. But it is brought into the New Testament very prominently, especially in Hebrews -- all the teaching as to sonship in Hebrews, we may say, is founded upon Psalm 2.

A.A.T. I suppose Mary knew that He was the Son of God at His birth according to Luke, but John the baptist, although a cousin to the Lord, did not know Him as the Son of God until His baptism.

[Page 333]

J.T. Yes, he says, "I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptise with water, he said to me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God", John 1:33,34. That is what he says; that is, he saw the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him; that was an evidence that "He it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit". Thus John bore "witness that this is the Son of God".

H.H. The word 'son' means son, and the idea of only-begotten implies the Lord's birth. I mean, we do not want to put definitions on words in Scripture that are not justifiable.

J.T. The word begotten means begotten.

H.H. It used to be said that it was a term of endearment simply; the brethren were not clear about the matter so it was referred to in that way. But sonship is sonship. If a man has sons, he can speak about his sons, but if he does not have any sons he cannot.

C.A.M. God gives an intimation of a matter like this, in creation, such as "the sons of God", but it is only a suggestion until Christ comes in and then we have the full meaning of what God always had in His mind.

J.T. Exactly; John the baptist is used specifically to bring it out. "I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God", John 1:34. He is able to say that and that was not simply because the voice from heaven proclaimed His sonship at the Jordan, but because the Holy Spirit came and abode upon Him. That is what John speaks of.

A.A.T. Did he get it by revelation?

J.T. Well, "upon whom" -- it is equal to revelation. He is told how he is to recognise the Son of God; namely, "upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit". That is what John is told, and his deduction

[Page 334]

is, "I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God". There is thus a clear testimony to Christ's sonship. The Lord says He had other witnesses as to His Person than John the baptist, but John the baptist was an important witness. The Father witnesses to Him in a proclamation from heaven at the Jordan and another at the mount of transfiguration.

J.T.Jr. "This ...", would that allude to the flesh and blood condition into which He had come -- when he says 'this'; "this is the Son of God"?

J.T. Quite so; the Man that was there before their eyes had come to him to be baptised, and the Father proclaims Him as His beloved Son, and John witnesses that He is the Son of God.

C.A.M. The questions raised in Psalm 8:4 had to wait for the coming of Christ, did they not?

J.T. Yes. "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and splendour", Psalm 8:4,5. That refers to Him as Man; that is, Son of man, which we shall come to presently. But in Proverbs 30 we have "What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest?", Proverbs 30:4. All that awaited the incarnation; both the truth of the Son of man and the truth of the Son of God awaited the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in flesh and blood.

W.B-w. It came to light in Melchisedec in connection with Abraham. He is said in Hebrews to be assimilated to the Son of God. Do you link that on with Daniel 3?

J.T. Yes. The likeness of the Son of God is in Genesis 14, but the word son is not used of Melchisedec there, whereas it is attached to the Person seen in the furnace.

W.B-w. The testimony of sonship is given in Hebrews.

[Page 335]

J.T. The testimony awaited Hebrews, but in Daniel it is one "like a son of God". In Genesis 14 Melchisedec is the priest of the Most High God, but he is assimilated to the Son of God the writer of the Hebrews says, and abides a priest eternally. Sonship in Psalm 2 is connected with that in Hebrews.

W.B-w. Is the featuring of Abraham and Melchisedec to instruct us as to the Son of God?

J.T. Clearly, from the standpoint of Hebrews. Genesis 14, Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 are linked together in the epistle to the Hebrews to set out the truth of Christ's sonship and priesthood.

H.H. As regards the thought of person -- the Lord ever was a Person. I mean, He did not just become a Person when He became incarnate; He was a divine Person before then, and is a divine Person now.

J.T. Quite so. John brings that side of the truth out: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", John 1:14. The Person became, took on, another condition, but He remains unchanged as to His abstract personality in the Deity. His becoming a Man does not alter that. But it is as a Man here that He is designated Son of God; that is the point -- "shall be called", the angel Gabriel says.

A.B.P. Did you have in mind in that expression that we should be able to call Him Son of God as discerning features in Him of sonship; not merely because we have learnt from Scripture that He is the Son of God, but because of apprehension in our souls of certain features in the Person?

J.T. Yes. That is what is in mind in the word of the Angel -- "shall be called Son of God" without saying who should call Him that. Of course the Father proclaimed Him from heaven as the Son, but as I said Nathanael proclaimed Him too; said He was the Son of God. Those in the boat with Him when He stilled the waves, and Peter who walked on the water said He was Son of

[Page 336]

God. It came out in Him and different ones said He was Son of God.

W.B-w. How do you reconcile the scriptures you referred to with Matthew 11 -- "No one knows the Son but the Father", verse 27?

J.T. It is a question of the Person, as over against the Father, for He says, "No one knows the Son". It is not a question of sonship but personality -- the Person; whatever name you may designate Him by. He is inscrutable. That is what is meant. He is not as to His Person, a subject of Revelation; as a Man here He is to be known. As Son, we are to come to know Him, according to Ephesians, but that is not a question of His inscrutable personality.

W.B-w. That is a good distinction between inscrutable personality, and what He is in relation to men as become Man.

J.T. You can designate Him by the titles Christ, The Son, The Word or the name Jesus. It is the Person you have in mind.

A.R. That is why the Lord said: "Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?" John 9:35.

J.T. Yes; it is a question of what He became; He wanted the blind man to know Him as God's Son, representative of God here, an object of faith as God is, so that the man worshipped Him. He said, "I believe, Lord: and he did him homage", John 9:38.

E.E.H. Say more in reference to the error of applying sonship to Christ prior to incarnation. It is very important in view of the fact that many of the brethren are confused, especially in relation to Proverbs 8, although in that chapter nothing is said at all of sonship. It simply says, "I was by him". Some of the brethren seem to use that to indicate Him as Son prior to incarnation.

J.T. Yes; it had been commonly used in that way, but as you say, the word 'Son' is not there. It is the

[Page 337]

word 'wisdom'. It is a feminine word. The chapter speaks of wisdom as having been brought forth, or born. Surely it is not right to speak of the Lord as if He had been born in the past eternity. He is the Jehovah, who was creating. We are told in John's gospel, there was not one thing made that was not made by Him. He is the Jehovah that is creating there, and wisdom is by Him, daily His delight. Wisdom there is a divine quality. It is personified in Proverbs, and in the New Testament. The Lord says, "Wisdom has been justified of all her children". It can only be said to be a name of Christ, as become Man, for He is called the wisdom of God. There are also the children of wisdom. The word in Proverbs 8 is feminine. And it is "brought forth", as if begotten or born.

H.H. In a certain way, it may attach to Christ in view of His coming in, but the way that chapter has been used to establish an eternal sonship of Christ is perfectly wrong.

J.T. Well, it is derogatory. Let us look at the passage. "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up" (notice the word is 'anointed') "I was set up from eternity, from the beginning, before the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth" (notice 'brought forth'. It is an allusion to birth). "When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth" (the same expression); "while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world".

"When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he ordained the circle upon the face of the deep; when he established the skies above, when the fountains of the deep became strong; when he imposed on the sea his decree that the waters should not pass his commandment, when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him his nursling, and I was daily his delight,

[Page 338]

rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men", Proverbs 8:22 - 31. All that is wisdom speaking. Jehovah is the Creator, and John 1 tells us that the Creator was Jesus. "All things received being through him", John 1:3.

A.R. That last section of the verse -- "my delights were with the sons of men" that is still wisdom, is it?

J.T. Yes; still wisdom; she anticipated men, of course. It came out in Christ when He became Man. It was all there, but we cannot apply it to Christ in the full sense. He was not brought forth. He was the Jehovah who was making the universe. You can understand it applied to a quality and that quality belongs to God, and comes in when it is necessary. When the universe was set up, wisdom was there, implying that infinite wisdom was employed.

A.B.P. Is there not a link between Proverbs 8 and Luke 7:35, "wisdom has been justified of all her children"?

J.T. Just so; the disciples were children of wisdom. Christ was wisdom here upon earth. He is said to be the wisdom of God.

W.B-w. What is your thought in the quality being personified?

J.T. There are other qualities personified in the book of Proverbs. "I wisdom dwell with prudence". That is an allusion to prudence being a personified quality.

H.H. 'Personification is a figure of speech by which inanimate objects and qualities are regarded as human persons'. That is a definition in a dictionary.

F.N.W. Is there divine order in Romans 1 -- "come of David's seed according to flesh", and then "marked out Son of God in power", Romans 1:3?

J.T. "Marked out Son of God" by certain things He did; exactly. "Marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead Jesus Christ our Lord", Romans 1:4, showing that the

[Page 339]

power of sonship was there; the power of God was there.

J.T.Jr. Satan takes up the matter in Matthew 4"If thou be Son of God", Matthew 4:3. He brings that side in to try to lead the Lord off the line that He had come in on, that of obedience.

J.T. Yes, he wanted Him to act as God in sonship, a title attaching to Him as Man, so that the Lord immediately answers him, "Man shall not live by bread alone", verse 4, suggesting that He meant that sonship was in manhood.

A.N.W. Do you see any reason why the Spirit stresses the title 'Son' in Hebrews?

J.T. The book begins thus: "God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in (the person of the) Son", Hebrews 1:1,2. That is an historical reference, that the Son was speaking. Isaiah and many others had spoken, but now it was the Son. Clearly He is viewed as a Man speaking here as the prophets had spoken, but the Speaker now is a divine Person in the relation of Son. "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever", Psalm 45:6 is quoted to emphasise the deity of Christ, but it is the Man here, the Person known here historically that is in mind; that is as clear as anything can be in the Scriptures. The setting out of the truth in Hebrews is that God spoke in a Man down here; that is, in a Person, the Son, instead of in an ordinary man like Isaiah or Elijah.

C.A.M. I think the truth is that the idea of manhood or sonship or typical names would have no meaning if Christ had not come into them.

J.T. He must come in and appear before men Gabriel says. He "shall be called Son of God". People see that He is not an ordinary Man; He is a divine Person.

A.A.T. Do we have any scripture as to His title before incarnation?

J.T. The divine titles of the Old Testament

[Page 340]

included Him, for He was then "in the form of God". Then there were prophetic allusions to His manhood, as "Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee", Psalm 2:7.

A.A.T. That was not His title before incarnation, was it?

J.T. No; that is in time; it is this day; it is not eternity; "I this day have begotten thee". It is day, we must go back to the beginning of Genesis for it; it is one of the days of creation.

W.B-w. Psalm 2 is only a prophetic reference, is it not?

J.T. That is all; it came to pass when the Lord Jesus was born, so that the psalm says, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way", Psalm 2:12. The kings are called upon to recognise the Son while they are in the way with Him.

H.H. The Psalms were waiting for Christ. Their full application required His presence here as Man.

J.T. The whole Bible would be unintelligible without the incarnation. It could never be understood spiritually; it is the Son coming in that makes everything clear. Philip says, "Come and see", John 1:46. Nathanael came to Him and said, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel", John 1:49. He is one of those who call Him Son, and we all need to come to that, to see what sonship means in Jesus, and regard Him accordingly in our own experimental way.

Now I think we ought to go on to the title 'Son'. We have the Son of God as Christ on God's side, but Son of Man is that He is on man's side, which we shall come to presently, but the title Son is usually more a question of His Person; that is, He has the dignity in the testimony of God, that He is the Son. The greatest things are stated of Him as the Son. Of the Son God says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever", Psalm 45:6.

H.H. In that way would it be right to say, that the

[Page 341]

term 'the Son' covers the whole truth of His Person?

J.T. I think it does; only the title refers to Him as Man, and He says the Son can do nothing of Himself, which we ought to reverentially look at in John 5"Verily, verily, I say to you. The Son can do nothing of himself save whatever he sees the Father doing: for whatever things he does, these things also the Son does in like manner", John 5:19. You can see that is the Lord Jesus speaking of Himself as a Man here, in subjection to the Father. And so, using the same title in Mark 13, He says, "neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father", Mark 13:32. The Father has reserved to Himself the knowledge of the day and the hour of the Lord's coming. To put that scripture back into His state and part in Deity before incarnation is not right. It is the Lord become a Man here that speaks thus.

A.R. Would John 5:26 confirm that? It says, "For even as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself".

J.T. You cannot think of one Person as in abstract deity, where They are all equal, speaking in that way. It is as become Man, He receives from the Father.

A.R.S. In the boyhood of the Lord, there is not much said about all this. It is only after the Lord was baptised and commenced His public ministry that you find all this coming out about Him.

J.T. That is right, only the angel Gabriel did not limit it to time, "He shall be called" is a general thought, and He plainly intimates it when He was twelve years of age: "did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father's business?" Luke 2:49.

H.H. Would you include 1 Corinthians 15 in what you have been saying about the Son: "then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him", 1 Corinthians 15:28?

J.T. Quite so; that is another one. It is just to bring out that these tides, whilst they plainly mark the Lord as a divine Person, One equal with God, because that is

[Page 342]

what is stated too in John 5, yet He is in the place of subjection as Man. To make it attach to Him as in the Deity, as "in the form of God" is not right I am certain.

A.B.P. Would it be right to attach the thought of development reverently with the Son? I had in mind that the circumstances through which the Lord Jesus passed, never having passed through such before coming into manhood, would give Him the possibility, if one might put it that way, of learning God in varying circumstances.

H.H. It says, "He learned obedience", Hebrews 5:8. Quite a new feature, would one say reverently, for a divine Person to learn obedience.

J.T. Before incarnation as God, He commanded -- He was not in the position of obedience. You cannot attach the idea of learning to Deity. But it is as coming into manhood that it is attachable to Him. "He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the instructed", Isaiah 50:4. Think how the Lord could say that!

A.R. John 5:20 says, "For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things which he himself does". Would that be confirmatory of what has been said? He depended on the Father to show Him certain things.

J.T. Yes. And then at the same time. His Person is protected, for He says, "that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father", John 5:23.

A.S. Would verse 27 help there? It says, "Because He is Son of man", John 5:27.

J.T. Yes; that alludes to the exercise of judgment. It is because He is Son of man He executes judgment. Men will get consideration in judgment inasmuch as it is the Son of man that judges us; He is on our side.

J.T.Jr. In regard to the thought of the Son, Scripture says, "If therefore the Son shall set you free, ye shall be really free", John 8:36. Does that emphasise the thought of His own personal service in relation to us?

J.T. Quite so, and He abides in the house for ever.

[Page 343]

That, in itself, shows that He is a divine Person. Now the passage read in the end of John 3 says, "the Father loves the Son", John 3:35. How very touching that is! "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight", Matthew 3:17, the Father says: but here, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand", John 3:35. His position in administration is as Son, but also as loved by the Father; so that coming under this administration, we are in the sphere of the radiation of divine affections.

A.A.T. Is that called eternal life?

J.T. It would include it, but in the next chapter you see the Samaritan woman talking to the Lord, and the Lord talking to her. The idea of the Father comes into it and what the Father is. How can you explain that, except that there was a radiation of divine affection; that there was a condition great enough for the introduction of the great thought of what God is, that He is a spirit? "God is a spirit", John 4:24, the Lord says. He also said, "the Father seeks such as his worshippers", John 4:23, who worship Him in spirit and truth.

A.N.W. That throws light upon the Lord's previous statement: "he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him", John 3:36.

J.T. So that christianity is properly in the range of divine affections, and I believe the woman came into it, in principle, so that He could speak so freely to her. How could she rise to the greatness of the conversation, which she evidently did to some extent, save in the atmosphere that was there that set her free?

A.C. I suppose that is why at the end of the discourse she said to the men, "Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done", John 4:29

J.T. Clearly; and there must have been something of power in her manner, so that they believed her and they went to the Lord because of her word.

[Page 344]

A.P.T. As to this circle of affection, John 3:35 and John 5:20 indicate remarkable thoughts in relation to the operations of love. It says in a note to John 21:15 that the former is 'the settled disposition of the person (necessarily resulting in activity) rather than as an emotion; the latter signifies the love of friendship, and implies attractiveness in the loved'.

J.T. That is very interesting instruction. It is a question of the two Greek words used for love and their meaning.

A.B.P. Would you suggest that in the life of Christ, the life of the Son here, every movement that He made gave the Father fresh occasion to love Him?

J.T. I am sure that is so and it is a beautiful thought.

C.A.M. Would it be right to say that all the administrative lines enter into John's gospel in the sense that you have emphasised, the closing period of the Lord's life especially? And so the whole course of christianity, would it be right to say, has resulted now in these last days in an abundance of love in the understanding of the relationship of sonship?

J.T. Yes; it is John that tells us how long the two who first were attracted to Jesus remained with Him. He is the disciple whom Jesus loved, and thus knew love; and so he was qualified to set it forth.

A.A.T. Is this realm of divine affections, of which you are speaking, touched on the Lord's day morning?

J.T. Quite so; it is a question of coming within the range of divine radiation -- "the Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand", John 3:35. Now that is carried into chapter 4, and I believe an understanding of the conversation between the Lord and the woman opens it up for us, that she came under the influence of divine affections. She was rapidly affected; she left her water pot, indicating that she understood what the Lord was saying, that the water pot would be herself, that she would be used for living water.

[Page 345]

Although understanding it but little, she came under the power of divine love and then she brings others into it. Then they invite the Lord to stay there, which He does; He remains two days with them; it is a question of the influence of the light of divine love.

Rem. So you would say the assembly has really become that. It says in Colossians, "translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love", Colossians 1:13.

J.T. Quite so. That is where we are, I hope, at these meetings and that is why the brethren should attend them, because it is not only what is said, but the radiation of divine affections.

A.R. So that the Lord says in chapter 16, "For the Father himself has affection for you, because ye have had affection for me", John 16:27. That is really extending the circle, is it not?

J.T. Quite so, and the disciples say to Him, "Lo, now thou speakest openly and utterest no allegory ... By this we believe that thou art come from God". Now in regard to the title 'Son of man', the third scripture read was in Matthew 12:8, "For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath". It was read to bring out just that the title Son of man conveys that He has got authority, and authority for enforcing what is good. We were speaking lately about the Lord's day, that He has to do with time in the great administrative position He is occupying. He can take one day and say, That is mine, and He leaves man the other six, as it were. He says, "For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath"; that is. He has authority with regard to time. He can set aside the sabbath. He can leave Saturday and give us Sunday. He has done that. He is going to take over all time presently. The millennium is one thousand years. He will utilise that time. In the meantime. He is laying claim to one day, called the 'Lord's day' the dominical day, where He has rule. I thought it would be helpful to see that the Lord says here that the Son of man is

[Page 346]

Lord of the sabbath -- and what is He doing with it? Well, He heals a man's withered hand on that day. The Pharisees would destroy Him for this. They would take a sheep out of a pit on the sabbath however. The Lord says, "What man shall there be of you who has one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and raise it up", Matthew 12:11. Now He is showing that He is going to use the sabbath for the benefit of man.

A.A.T. How about transferring that to the first day of the week?

J.T. Well the Lord has done that effectively. Here the chapter says, "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath through the cornfields; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, seeing it, said to him. Behold, thy disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath. But he said to them, Have ye not read what David did? etc", Matthew 12:3. That is, He defends what His disciples are doing. He is making the sabbath free for men.

Ques. In defending it, is He setting it aside?

J.T. Well, He is setting it aside as the sabbath. He is changing the day. The first day of the week is not the sabbath. The Lord's day is not the sabbath. This is important, because there are those who make it the sabbath. We are all apt to lie longer on Sunday morning than on Saturday or Monday. That is carrying the idea of the sabbath. In Scotland they used to say, 'A long lie and a tea breakfast on Sunday'. That is not the idea at all. The Lord is saying that He is Lord of the sabbath, and if a sheep falls into a pit, into a ditch, you can pull it out; or if a man has a withered hand, you can heal him. You can utilise the sabbath for the benefit of man, but then in effect, when He proceeds to change the day. He is up very early indeed in the morning, and He is working late in the evening, John 20:1,19. So we cannot use the Lord's day to rest ourselves or have a late breakfast.

[Page 347]

The later we have the breakfast, the poorer the day will be. It is a question of spirituality. It is a day that the Lord is supreme in, and He has a great deal to do, and He wants us to be with Him in it.

C.A.M. Luke 24 shews that there is a lot to be done in that day. Two of the disciples went back to the assembly with what they had learned of the Lord's activities. They seemed to have disregarded the lateness of the day.

J.T. John says, "It was evening on that day", that is late, John 20:19. This scripture in Matthew 12 is a question of how the Lord sets us free. He went into the cornfield on the sabbath, and the disciples did the same, and they did more; they plucked the ears of corn, which He did not do. They were moving in the liberty which He was inaugurating. He was setting them free, and He says, formally, "The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath"; that is, the Son of man can act for the benefit of man even to the changing of the day.

A.B.P. Would His service to us on the Lord's day be in view of our lifting up holy hands?

J.T. Quite so; it is not a question of resting on the Lord's day. If we are with the Lord in it, following His example, it will be well filled out.

A.B.P. This man was able to lift up holy hands.

A.N.W. In Acts 20, they carried on until midnight in discourse and broke bread in the morning.

J.T. That is what is stated, showing that the Lord never intended to make another sabbath. He is called Lord of the sabbath, but He inaugurates the Lord's day, His day.

H.H. Over against that, He lay in the grave on the sabbath.

A.Macd. Do we see that in Revelation 1? John says, "I became in the Spirit on the Lord's day", and then he says, "I saw ... one like the Son of man", Revelation 1:10,13.

[Page 348]

J.T. Just so. It links up the Son of man there. Present conditions abroad are causing isolation among the brethren. We cannot see each other as we used to. I mean from nation to nation. Now John calls attention to that fact; that he was in an island. "I John ... was in the island called Patmos", Revelation 1:9. An island is isolation, but he was not hindered in spite of the isolation. He says, "I became in the Spirit on the Lord's day"; that is to say, he is asserting the Lord's title to time, and that he is set free on it; he is in the Spirit on it, and he hears a voice behind him and he sees one like the Son of man. It is the Son of man that is setting us at liberty. If we cannot see one another personally, if we are in the Spirit, we shall see each other and link with one another spiritually, so that he says, "I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus".

Ques. At what particular time was that day introduced, the Lord's day?

J.T. I think when the Lord started, and it was to see the saints, it was early in the morning. He arose from the dead very early. Matthew would say, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay", Matthew 28:6. He broke through on that day and worked away until late in the evening according to John. It was a long day.

Ques. In distinguishing the sabbath from the first day of the week, do you get in Mark 16 proper distinction? It says: "And the sabbath being now past", Mark 16:1, and "And very early on the first day of the week", Mark 16:2.

J.T. That is where the change took place, and the Lord's activity began. The Lord is asserting in this dispensation that He has a day and that His supper runs with it, the dominical day and the dominical supper. Whatever men may do to close up the ways of travel, these two things hold, that the Lord has a day and that the Lord has a Supper, and so far we are in

[Page 349]

possession of both and we must make the most of both; but not in laziness, not in sabbath keeping; but in holy activity in the King's business.

A.C. Would Psalm 118 fit in with what you are citing? "This is the day that Jehovah hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it", Psalm 118:24.

J.T. Yes.

Ques. Would you say what the writer has in mind in Hebrews 4? "There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God", Hebrews 4:9.

J.T. That is future; that is what we are coming into. "For we enter into the rest who have believed", Hebrews 4:3. It is the rest of God; the writer is bringing out from the Old Testament that it is yet future. "There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God", Hebrews 4:9. Joshua did not give them that rest. But those who believe enter into that rest. That is altogether spiritual and the sabbath has an application in a spiritual sense, that I take in and absorb spiritual things. But as to time, the Lord has it in His hands; He is Lord of it; it belongs to Him.

H.H. "Come to me ... and I will give you rest", Matthew 11:28. There is the point of rest in Christ.

J.T. That is rest for your souls, but to make the Lord's day a time of mere physical rest is not right; the Lord never intended the first day of the week to be that. He intends us to be with Him in it, and He was most active there the whole day, as we have seen.

J.T.Jr. In Deuteronomy we have the length of Og's bed. He had a big bed, and I suppose that is the idea you have in mind. You mean we should not the use the Lord's day for that.

J.T. I am sure that is right; the longer we lie in bed in the morning the poorer we shall be spiritually throughout the day.

A.B.P. According to the record in the gospels, no matter how early you get up on the Lord's day the Lord precedes us.

[Page 350]

J.T. Quite so; He is up early and so it is in the Old Testament; they rose up early to do important things.

Well, what we have been saying is to bring out the truth of the Son of man; how He operates for the benefit of man. That is what I thought we might see in this scripture in Matthew.

Ques. It is said in this chapter that for any person speaking injuriously against the Son of man there will be forgiveness, but speaking injuriously against the Spirit there will be none.

J.T. Well, I think the Son of man is Christ viewed on man's side; forgiveness to one speaking against Himself, He allows, but He will not allow it to one speaking against the Holy Spirit. There is no forgiveness for it in this age nor in the coming one. 'Son of man' is a term of grace; He is on man's side and has patience with man. That He executes judgment because He is Son of man would show that He exercises patience in it.

Ques. Why I ask that is because you were referring very much to the thought of the Lord here in relation to the sabbath.

J.T. He goes on to say that it is for man. Mark quotes the Lord saying, "The sabbath was made on account of man, not man on account of the sabbath", Mark 2:27. He is doing all possible for man and points out that a man is better than a sheep. He is on man's side, as Son of man. He is on God's side as Son of God.

A.A.T. What about the title "The Word"?

J.T. What is in mind has been anticipated in our remarks that the Word is a title referring to Christ as having conveyed the mind of God. Some say it was the name He had in Deity, which is not supported in Scripture. It is a name that He had here among men. His Name is called the "Word of God", we are told in Revelation, and in Luke, there were those who were eye-witnesses and attendants upon the Word. That is what

[Page 351]

He was here, unfolding the mind of God. John takes it up to show that that Person existed before time. He is the Creator; He is God. Thus He could speak or convey the mind of God perfectly.

A.B.P. Would it be right to say that there is no title that can fully describe God? Of all these titles that we have in Scripture, the very fact that they are used in relation to creation, indicates they cannot in themselves fully express God.

J.T. What He is in His absolute relations we cannot take in. There is no title that really conveys it to us. Of course, the word god, may be applied to man and is so in Scripture, see John 10:34,35. The Son declared God, and of course the names of God had been in use before the declaration.

W.B-w. The expression 'the Word' is used three times in verse 1. Does that mean that God is going to express Himself in that Person to man?

J.T. That is what had happened. It had happened already when John wrote this gospel. He is writing to establish what had already happened; that this Person who had come in and gone out amongst them and had died for them had made the mind of God known.

W.B-w. Has the title Word the thought of language in it?

J.T. Quite so; that is the force of it. It is that the Lord Jesus can tell you all about God, and has done so. He has done it.

W.B-w. That goes beyond all language.

A.B.P. Is not creation one of God's languages?

J.T. Just so; to some extent, the creation is that in which He may be read and understood.

A.B.P. Is that why 'the Word' is used as a title here of the Person who created; not that He created as 'the Word', but there was an expression of those features in what He did?

J.T. He had in mind that God should be known.

[Page 352]

"the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity", Romans 1:20. So that creation is in a limited way a language.

A.N.W. When He says, "I am the Alpha and Omega", Revelation 22:13, He means that He has covered every word that can be said.

J.T. Psalm 19 is perhaps the best confirmation of that, that we have. It is said, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse showeth the work of his hands. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech and there are no words, yet their voice is heard. Their line" (the extent of their testimony) "is gone out through all the earth, and their language to the extremity of the world", Psalm 19:1 - 4. and all that is included in the idea of 'the Word'.

[Page 353]

DIVINE NAMES (10)

Acts 2:34 - 36; John 18:33 - 37; John 1:29 - 37; Hebrews 7:23 - 28; Ephesians 1:19 - 23

J.T. It is thought that we should consider tonight the titles attached to the Lord Jesus besides those we have already considered: the titles Lord, King, Lamb of God, Priest and Head. There are two readings more, which it was thought well should be devoted to the appellations of the Holy Spirit.

We will need to be patient and attentive too, as there is much ground to cover at this time, so that we should give enough time to each feature of our subject. The first is the title of Lord, which in the original has a wide use, applied by men to each other, but when applied to the Lord Jesus it takes on a very exalted character, involving His supremacy in administration, having power to enforce His will, as it is needed, also carrying protection for us as in the kingdom. I think the passage read is as good as any: Peter having spoken at length in the preaching says, "Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ", Acts 2:36. The two titles are thus coupled here; the first referring to authority, the second meaning that He is the Messiah, the anointed Man for the accomplishment of the purposes of God.

J.S. Do the truths of the two titles run on concurrently?

J.T. Pretty much, but 'Christ' goes further, linking with His headship. Authority is in lordship; it is not directly connected with His headship, but the anointing is. In the passage in Ephesians 4 we shall see how the idea of the Christ is associated with the idea of His headship, verse 15: "but, holding the truth in love, we may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, the Christ", Ephesians 4:15

[Page 354]

J.S. Is the gospel preached demanding subjection to Christ as Lord?

J.T. That is what I think we should see; He is made Lord and Christ. He is regarded as Lord while here below, for at His birth it was said He was Christ the Lord -- that was the announcement to the shepherds by the angel: "for today a Saviour has been born to you in David's city, who is Christ the Lord", Luke 2:11.

W.F.K. Is the title Lord connected with the kingdom?

J.T. Clearly; the word 'king' is not used in relation to the assembly or in relation to the gospel much; it is a title that will be more in use directly in Jewish relations.

A.N.W. Would you care to say when it was that God made Him Lord and Christ?

J.T. Well, Peter is alluding to the session on high. The passage read says, "David has not ascended into the heavens, but he says himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I have put thine enemies to be the footstool of thy feet. Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ", Acts 2:36. He alludes to His session at the right hand of God, as having returned into heaven as Man; although of course the title is applied to Him here below, as I said; the title attaches to Him inherently, being who He is -- the Son of God. He was the Messiah, and He was the King, too, as we have seen already in Matthew. He belongs to the royal line as Son of David, Son of Abraham. Matthew shows He is King by right, but I think Peter is alluding to what took place in heaven. The present time is in mind and He is ruling from there, not down here.

C.H.H. "No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit", 1 Corinthians 12:3. Would that be in connection with the assembly, or would it not?

J.T. It is in connection with public service in the

[Page 355]

assembly. The epistles have christianity in mind almost entirely; and His lordship, made Lord according to Peter's word here alludes to what has taken place in heaven, including His reception of the Spirit and giving Him to the saints. "Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear", Acts 2:33. The 'therefore' is that He is made Lord up there. The giving of the Holy Spirit was an act of the dispensation, an administrative act from there. It is a peculiar situation we are in now; Christ is there. It is entirely a faith period. Peter says, "whom heaven indeed must receive till the times of the restoring of all things", Acts 3:21. That is, He is there and administering from there, and the Holy Spirit is the greatest evidence of it; and the Holy Spirit here is the power by which we recognise the Lord Jesus as there. We say 'Lord Jesus' by the Holy Spirit. So that the position is very real. What is here in the Holy Spirit corresponds fully with what is there.

R.W.S. Is there a difference in the word 'despot' as in Acts 4:24, which, I believe, is sometimes translated 'lord' and sometimes 'master'?

J.T. Yes; it is applied to God in Acts 4 and to Christ in 2 Timothy 2. It is a stronger word than the word used for Lord ordinarily. The word used for Lord ordinarily is used in the original for men; a title of respect. We know how that has become common in other lands, where people are entitled lord, having no more attaching to it than respect or dignity. Despot is a very strong word, because it means He is absolute in authority.

R.W.S. Is it an intensification of the title Lord. Are there certain times when that Name is suitable in the assembly?

J.T. Well, in a crisis where things are urgent, where divine aid is very urgent it might be used, as in Acts 4:24. "Now, Lord look upon their threatenings"; it was an

[Page 356]

urgent situation. In addressing a divine Person it is employed only three times.

A.B.P. Are there certain services that are under the Lord peculiarly, according to 1 Corinthians 12? "But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all", 1 Corinthians 12:4 - 6.

J.T. That is important. It comes in after it is said, "no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit". That chapter is helpful in our subject, because it shows that the Holy Spirit in us corresponds with the Lord's position in heaven. It is the present position or session in heaven that corresponds to christianity but it finds its counterpart in the Holy Spirit here below, that the saints are feelingly recognising Him as Lord. We say, Lord Jesus, by the Spirit. That is done feelingly, and brings out to the hearers that it is a real matter. Christianity is a real matter, the authority of Christ is a real matter and regarded in affection by the saints.

A.C. How do you view Stephen's cry when he says, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit". Acts 7:59? And a little later he says, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge", Acts 7:60.

J.T. Well, it is in agreement with what we are saying. No one can say Lord Jesus except by the Spirit. It is an affectionate way of speaking to Him.

A.C. That confirms what you are saying about the operation of the Spirit. Stephen was a man full of the Holy Spirit and in his last hour he cries intelligently, would you say?

J.T. That is what Acts brings out; that the authority of Christ in heaven is recognised by those who love Him on earth. That is a real thing. Any exercised hearer would be affected. It makes the kingdom of God at the present time a unique system, because love enters into it.

[Page 357]

C.H.H. Is the balance thus preserved in respect and affection: Lord Jesus?

J.T. I think Lord Jesus is an affectionate term. "The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up", 1 Corinthians 11:23. It is brought in in connection with the Supper: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said. It is more blessed to give than to receive", Acts 20:35. These expressions spoken in power and heard by persons in that way would suggest the wonderfulness of christianity. What a kingdom it is! It is permeated by love.

A.R. Is that what Saul of Tarsus discerned when the light shone round about him. He says, "Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus", Acts 9:5. Saul discerned Him as in authority, he says, "Who art thou, Lord?" This confirms what you are saying; He is operating from heaven.

J.T. Quite so; he was brought into the kingdom. He was never spoken to with such consideration. He deserved destruction, but instead of that the Lord says, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" Acts 9:4. The Lord is full of affection for that man, and presently He intercedes with Ananias for him. He says, "For this man is an elect vessel to me", Acts 9:15. I think all we are saying now is very important, because in our speakings of the Lord Jesus and to the Lord Jesus, we speak with affection and people hearing us say, Well, there is something in this; it is different from anything we know of.

A.N.W. It is well placed in that verse of our hymn: 'Jesus, Lord Jesus, we love and adore thee', (Hymn 4) do you not think?

J.T. Yes, indeed. Our hymns are very full of it, of course; there are about two hundred and fifty hymns addressed to the Lord Jesus in our book and they are very full of the thought before us, and they have great power if we sing by the Spirit. I mean the Spirit of God, because He is the power by which we should sing. "For

[Page 358]

we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God", Philippians 3:3.

Ques. In that way is the position here marked by the spirit of the brother? Ananias, laying his hands upon him, says, "Saul, brother, the Lord has sent me", Acts 9:17.

J.T. That shows he was now drinking into the spirit of the kingdom instead of criticising Saul to the Lord and telling the Lord about Saul as if He did not know. The Lord is brought into it in a practical way. The lordship of Christ has great prominence in Acts 9. And there is another statement: "to us there is ... one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him", 1 Corinthians 8:6. That is, He has brought us into being; we owe our spiritual being to Him.

A.R. How far back does that go?

J.T. To the time of our conversion or beginning in a spiritual sense; we confess Him as Lord; then He comes in to act as Lord for us. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved", Romans 10:9. He operates for us at once.

J.S. I think it is helpful and suggestive, the thought that resurrection is not sufficient; He must of necessity be received up.

J.T. That is where christianity begins really. His being made Lord and Christ. But then He gives the Spirit, and the Spirit down here corresponds with what He is up there, so that we have a real, vital kingdom.

A.B.P. Are the Levites under the Lord's authority directly -- in relation to the services of 1 Corinthians 12 and in relation to the end of Mark, the Lord working with them?

J.T. Yes. Peter operated in that power. It is he who tells us that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, and then he says, "he has poured out this which

[Page 359]

ye behold and hear", Acts 2:33. He was manifestly under the Lord in the service he was rendering.

A.A.T. In Ephesians 4 where it speaks of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that Christ has ascended up on high and given gifts to men, is that on the line we are speaking of?

J.T. It is; it is one Lord; that is the second concentric circle in the series of circles there. The first is, "there is one body and one Spirit, as ye have also been called in one hope of your calling", Ephesians 4:4; that is the inner circle, in connection with the Holy Spirit which corresponds with 1 Corinthians 12 already quoted. And then the second circle is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism", Ephesians 4:5; that is the kingdom which we are now speaking of, but the point there is that it induces unity as one of the concentric circles in christianity. The other is "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all", Ephesians 4:6. These circles are all working together in the Spirit; the inner is the Spirit. It is all to promote unity. The second is what we are speaking about, the kingdom, where the Lord is prominent.

J.S. Was He received up to receive gifts in manhood as at God's right hand?

J.T. Yes; but that goes beyond lordship. As giving the gifts He has gone beyond all the heavens; that is, to an uncreated condition of things, which is beyond our range, but it says, He "received gifts in Man", quoting Psalm 68:18; He received gifts in Man, in relation to men, and He has given some apostles, etc.; that goes further; it is more headship that is involved in the gifts.

A.R. "Abounding always in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord", 1 Corinthians 15:58.

J.T. That is linked on with what is before us. He is exercising the power that He has; so that we are not to weary in well doing, but continue on in patience; that is

[Page 360]

the way. It may not seem to bring results now, but, as in the Lord, it is not in vain.

E.E.H. Is Joseph in exaltation a type of Christ as Lord?

J.T. Yes. He was Lord of all Egypt; Pharaoh made him that, and everything was under his hand, so that he carries on the administration there.

C.H.H. "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to God the Father's glory", Philippians 2:10,11. Is that because He was under reproach?

J.T. That is right; it is illustrated in what we read. "God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ", Acts 2:36; that is, God is asserting that all must bow the knee to Him, because He has made Him both Lord and Christ. It is the name of Jesus.

A.N.W. I was wondering whether the name above every name that is granted to Him might encompass all the names given Him in manhood.

J.T. It would, but really the name Jesus carries them all. The name of Jesus involves His deity; He saves His people; that is God. But He became humble and obedient under it, and hence God honours it.

Rem. Luke 2 says it was divinely communicated to Simeon, that he should not see death until he had seen the Lord's Christ.

J.T. The word 'Lord' there is Jehovah; in the gospels it sometimes refers to Jehovah. The context shows it was not the Lord Jesus there; it is Jehovah's Christ.

Rem. Would Mary understand lordship? She says, "Because they have taken away my Lord", John 20:13.

J.T. Quite so. She had affection for Him -- "my Lord". And so did Elizabeth say to Mary, the Lord's mother, "the mother of my Lord", Luke 1:43; these women grasped the thought.

A.C.W. Acts 8 says that Philip went into a city of Samaria and preached Christ, and there was great joy

[Page 361]

in that city. It does not say he preached the Lord. Would you say the necessity of the lordship of Christ maintained all that has been secured through the preaching of Him as the Christ?

J.T. Well, I think it fits in there very intelligently. You will remember the woman of Samaria asked "Is not he the Christ?" John 4:29. So that Philip preached the Christ. It is not simply that he preached Christ; he preached the Christ; that is, He is the Person whom God is using in His operations. He did not come in through the Samaritans; He came in through the Jews. The Samaritans are not recognised at all nationally. They are not any more than the nations, but the Jews had a great place with God, and Paul said, "Of whom, as according to flesh, is the Christ", showing the Christ was not of any other nation but the Jews, and therefore Philip announces "the Christ". The Samaritans were put out of court as regards any national claim to Christ, but now they come into it on the principle of faith, many of them having believed, and there was great joy in that city. I believe we ought to link that passage with John 4, because that chapter brings out the relation of Christ to the Jews.

A.N.W. The Lord proved that David himself called Christ his own Lord according to Psalm 110. He calls Him his Lord: "Jehovah said unto my Lord", Psalm 110:1.

J.T. Psalm 110 really goes with what we are saying; that He is really a divine Person. No one else could be the Christ; and no one else could, in the true meaning, be Jesus.

A.B.P. In connection with Samaria, is it not significant that the apostles having gone down, it is said, "they therefore, having testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem?" Acts 8:25. Following up Philip's work, they announced "the word of the Lord".

J.T. That would be needed, adding to what Philip

[Page 362]

had preached. They did not get the Holy Spirit through Philip's teaching. That is a remarkable thing. It is as made Lord and Christ that He gives the Holy Spirit.

Ques. After the genealogy in Matthew you have "Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ", Matthew 1:16? But in Matthew's gospel you do not have reported the ascension of Christ. Why do you think that is?

J.T. Well, it is in keeping with Matthew. He is always here according to his gospel. But then Matthew is not the only book in the Bible. We must read the whole Bible to get the full bearing of any one book. It is one phase of the truth that the Lord is always with us, as He is here tonight. He is with us by the Spirit; He is not here corporeally. "Behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age", Matthew 28:20. We learn from Luke and John that He has gone into heaven, and so it must be His presence is by the Spirit; it is not corporeal.

J.T.Jr. Would you say the Lord's commandment in Corinthians has that in mind, the presence here of the Spirit to hold us together? He is up there but the commandment is here.

J.T. In a sense the commandment takes His place. It is the Spirit that gives the real substance to christianity. It is the correspondence to the Lord up there.

A.R. Would you say a word as regards the difference between what you are speaking of and the scripture read in John 18, the Lord saying, "My kingdom is not of this world", John 18:36?

J.T. We can just touch on that, because one of the parts of the superscription on the Lord's cross was that He was king of the Jews; so that what is before us comes out strikingly in John. We have more about it in John's account than we have in the others. Pilate, we are told, "entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus, and said to him, Thou art the king of the Jews?" John 18:33. And Pilate is just asking that, as a judge, as much as to say, is it so?

[Page 363]

But the Lord says, "Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence. Pilate therefore said to him. Thou art then a king? Jesus answered, Thou sayest it, that I am a king. I have been born for this, and for this I have come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth", John 5:33 - 37. I think the Lord is deferring His earthly kingdom. The present one is not of this world. I believe He has christianity in mind. It is not the time of fighting with swords or guns or airplanes at all. That is not for us. It is, of course, necessary for the nations to whom God has given the government of this world. But our position is peculiar, and I think it must have mystified Pilate; he was well-conversant with Roman kingdoms. What kind of a kingdom is this? -- not of this world. But still He was a King and born a King; He was not simply made it; He was that by right.

A.R. Matthew quotes the wise men enquiring, "Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?" Matthew 2:2. Whereas this apparently goes beyond being related to the Jews as King.

J.T. The Lord treats His kingship in a more general and elevated sense. It is christianity that the Lord had in mind. Pilate would not understand that, but the magi from the east say, "Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?" Well, He says, to Pilate, I have been born for this, but it is not of this world, meaning that things are not just as you might expect them -- a king born into this world. Pilate would say, Whatever does this mean, a man born a king and yet his kingdom is not of this world? Well, we come into this and it brings us into reproach as it brought the Lord into reproach.

[Page 364]

A.A.T. Is that a title for the future?

J.T. 'King' is not a title used for christianity properly, but what the Lord said to Pilate bears on the present time. He is Heir to David's throne and will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, Luke 1:32,33. He is King of kings, too; He is an Emperor. All that will come in presently. But we are to have it in our souls in prospect. But He says "My kingdom is not of this world;" He is introducing that at once. He is bringing in something different from anything that had existed.

C.H.H. Paul in his doxology says: "Now to the King of the ages ...", 1 Timothy 1:17. What does that refer to -- a continuous idea?

J.T. That refers to God -- "the incorruptible, invisible, only God".

C.H.H. Is it the same thing in the second allusion in 1 Timothy to the King; "the King of those that reign", 1 Timothy 6:15.

J.T. I think so; it is connected with what we are talking about. "I enjoin thee before God who preserves all things in life, and Christ Jesus who witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession, that thou keep the commandment spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; which in its own time", that is, the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, "the blessed and only Ruler shall shew, the King of those that reign, and Lord of those that exercise lordship; who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see", 1 Timothy 6:13 - 16. That is, that King will show the time of the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, "its own time". "The King of those that reign" is God.

C.A.M. That would seem to be borne out in the verse that is quoted by Peter: "The Lord said unto my Lord", Acts 2:34

J.T. Quite so; God would show the time and all connected with it, of the appearing of our Lord Jesus.

[Page 365]

"He has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed", Acts 17:31.

A.P.T. Nathanael speaks of the King of Israel.

J.T. Well, he is quoting Psalm 2. "Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel", John 1:49. That is what Nathanael said; he represents Israel. He is an Israelite indeed; that would be spiritual Israel, I think. And then, in answering him, the Lord alludes to Psalm 8, saying, "the Son of man", Psalm 8?, meaning, I think, that His dominion is even wider than Nathanael thought it was.

Ques. Why is the Lord referred to as "the prince of the kings of the earth", Revelation 1:5?

J.T. Well, He is; He is King of kings and Lord of lords, but 'prince' is a personal touch.

A.N.W. I suppose Revelation 19:16 places Him as the true Emperor, King of kings and Lord of lords in His title in dignity as Man.

J.T. That is the crowning point; He comes out as a Warrior.

R.W.S. How would His kingship be designed to affect us?

J.T. It is part of the truth; everything must be included in 'our faith'. The Lord says He is born to be King, and the magi came to worship Him as thus born. He has inherited this position and it is important that we should have all that in our minds. All that refers to Christ is part of the truth.

C.A.M. Would you say the desire of all nations is really that someone should be born great enough for kingship; the existing trouble is that no one is born great enough for it?

J.T. The position is there, you mean; the imperial position exists, just as the kingdom position exists, but there is no one great enough here below for it; still God is carrying on with men, maybe unsaved men, but the position is awaiting a day. God has appointed a day for

[Page 366]

it, and that was said at the centre of the gentile world -- Athens. "He has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead", Acts 17:31

J.T.Jr. Would the voice here in this chapter be the voice of the King? "Every one that is of the truth hears my voice", John 18:37.

J.T. That is right; the idea of the King, is the man who is able.

Rem. In John 6 the truth was presented in the Lord's Person, and they thought to make Him King there. The same thought comes forward again here. Pilate alluded to Him as King, but did not have the truth of the Person of Christ.

J.T. The truth of His Person involves His kingship, and the fact that He could feed a multitude of people with five loaves and two fishes led them to seek to make Him King. What difficulties He would solve! But the Lord would not accept that nomination; He is born King, and waits God's time, so that God has appointed a day for this.

A.C. Do you not think that there was great light in the soul of the thief on the cross when he said, "Remember me. Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom", Luke 23:42?

J.T. That is right; He had light in his soul. That light shone in the Lord, God working in the thief sovereignly. It is a beautiful testimony to Christ in such an hour.

Ques. You have the key of David in relation to Philadelphia; does that fit in in regard to kingship? -- all that David was under the hand of God?

J.T. Yes; power to open up things.

C.H.H. Balaam refers to the shout of a king amongst Israel and also says, "And his king shall be higher than Agag", Numbers 24:7. Does that refer to Christ?

[Page 367]

J.T. Clearly. The shout of a king is a fine thought. Applied today it means power in the meeting. You are not overwhelmed by any emergency. You are overcoming it. The shout of a king means that kingly power is there.

C.H.H. Would you bring the assembly thought into Psalm 45 where you get the word, "He is thy Lord, and worship thou him", Psalm 45:11?

J.T. Quite so. The King is in mind throughout the psalm.

Rem. Of old the shout of a king would mean that God was among the people. Moses was king in Jeshurun, when the elders of the people were gathered together, Deuteronomy 33:5?

J.T. Quite so. It would come out fully when Christ was here. He is the King.

A.R. Did you select the scripture in Hebrews by design that Melchisedec is brought forward not only as high priest, but King of righteousness. King of peace, and priest of the most high God; "for such a high priest became us?" Hebrews 7:26.

J.T. Well, Melchisedec links on the idea of kingship with priesthood. The Lord is Prophet, Priest and King. Melchisedec is King of righteousness and then King of peace. Well, he has no sword as far as we can see. There were nine kings in the war. Four against five. Here is a king not in the war at all, and that is our position today. Our King is not in the war. His kingdom is not of this world, the Lord says. Melchisedec came out in grace. He met Abraham who was not in the war either. He only entered into it on account of his brother; and that is our position. We are exercised about this whole matter because of our brethren. We are exercised on that line. Not that we ignore the authorities, because we are dependent upon them for outward protection. But our position is plainly marked in Melchisedec and Abraham. Abraham is looking after his brother; he entered the war on that account, and Melchisedec meets him as returning

[Page 368]

after the slaughter of the kings. Abraham's victory would correspond with the effect of the prayers of the saints which go up for our brethren. Those who are against our brethren our prayers are against them. There is no hesitation about that whatever. Our prayers are against any that are against our brethren. Melchisedec comes in on that line. He meets Abraham returning after the slaughter of the kings, with bread and wine. Who is he? He is priest of the Most High God, the Possessor of heavens and earth. That position is very fine and enters into what we are saying as to the kingdom of Christ, of which He said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought", John 18:36. We are identified with a different warfare, and that is what Melchisedec signifies. The Lord in speaking with Pilate has in mind what we are speaking of -- that we are brought into a kingdom that is not of this world, and therefore we cannot take the sword as men do; but we are sympathetic with the governments that are in the right, although we cannot take the sword. We can pray and that may be the determining factor. Abraham is the determining factor as regards Lot. He secured Lot -- his brother.

Ques. Is not that feature being developed now? "And made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth", Revelation 5:10.

J.T. "And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father", Revelation 1:6. That is our position now -- we shall rule over the earth. As we have often remarked, it is a question of prayer and sympathy with God in what He is doing; but we cannot take life. There are things we cannot do, but there are many things we can do to serve the government.

J.T.Jr. Exodus brings out that Jehovah is a man of war. Does not that show that the Lord carries on a war spiritually and shows His hand in dealing with things among us?

[Page 369]

J.T. The war goes on, but the weapons of our warfare are spiritual; so that we are marked off as warriors of a different kind from what is current. Pilate represented Caesar, but the Lord had another kingdom and presently He will have a kingdom that will overthrow all other kingdoms.

A.N.W. Paul calls us good soldiers of Jesus Christ, 2 Timothy 2:3. That is, soldiers of the right kingdom.

J.T. Just so. Now our scripture in Hebrews, links on with priesthood which we might just look at. Our Priest is the King, but it is Melchisedec. "King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from smiting the kings, and blessed him; to whom Abraham gave also the tenth portion of all, first being interpreted King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace", Hebrews 7:2. Now at the end of this chapter we have the verses we read, "For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens: who has not day by day need, as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, then for those of the people; for this he did once for all in having offered up himself. For the law constitutes men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected for ever", Hebrews 7:28. That is our priest, and He "became us". It is not simply that we become Him, but he becomes us, showing that our calling is so great, that is, the assembly's calling, that it needs such a Priest. We can, therefore, speak of our Lord Jesus as our High Priest. He is constituted, the passage says, by "the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected for ever". 'Perfected' there means that He is now in the condition in heaven that belongs to this priesthood, and shows what our position is; for our place in heaven corresponds with this, and we are to be like Him. In the millennial day this will come out, that

[Page 370]

is, our priestly service for the universe in relation to Christ.

A.R. In Genesis 14, where Melchisedec met Abraham, he is called "priest of the Most High God". I was wondering whether the book of Hebrews is to help us, in the introduction of Melchisedec, to be elevated in our own souls to become servants of the Most High God.

J.T. I think that is the lesson for us. "The Most High God" is elevation. It is a millennial title, but the fact that Christ is of that order, the order of Melchisedec, brings in what He is to us now; only Melchisedec is not said to have sons. Our place in priesthood as a family is Christ as typified in Aaron; Aaron had sons. The priestly family is seen in Aaron's sons.

A.B.P. Was it as priest after the order of Aaron that He offered Himself?

J.T. Aaron had to offer for himself and for his house, according to the type. The scriptures introducing the order of Melchisedec bring out the deity of Christ in a very striking way. "Without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but ... abides a priest continually", Hebrews 7:3. It is a question of what He is in His own Person. Christ's order of priesthood is represented in Melchisedec, but the manner of His service now is seen in Aaron.

A.R. Hebrews 7 says He has "become higher than the heavens", Hebrews 7:26. That is a remarkable thing; the Lord is constantly referred to in the book of Hebrews as being there, and I wondered if that is what is in mind, to help us to understand what is there.

J.T. Yes, higher than the heavens. We have already alluded to that in Ephesians 4, "ascended up above all the heavens", Ephesians 4:10. It is striking that even in regard to the gifts He has gone beyond all heavens. That is what Ephesians 4 deals with. I think it is all to

[Page 371]

emphasise that He is a divine Person and yet we are associated with Him.

J.S. And is the thought having gone beyond all created spheres, that He might fill all created spheres?

J.T. Yes; He comes in in Deity. No one could be in an uncreated sphere except a divine Person. Angels are never said to be there. Paul says expressly he went to the "third heaven", which is within the created sphere.

Rem. No reference is made in Genesis to His being made like the Son of God but the footnote would show the characteristics were there, which caused this priest to be assimilated to the Son of God.

J.T. Yes. They indicate that it is a divine Person that is priest. That is what is meant.

Now after speaking about priesthood, which is our third subdivision tonight, we have the sacrificial thought, namely the Lamb of God in John 1. The verse read says, "On the morrow he sees Jesus coming to him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", John 1:29. This is a title that refers to the Lord sacrificially. But then, what did He offer? He offered Himself; the offering was Himself.

J.T.Jr. Have you got the combination there of the thought in Leviticus, both as to the priest and the offerings in what we have had in Hebrews and in John 1?

The early chapters in Leviticus give us in detail the kind of offerings that are to be made. Do we not have in John 1 the suggestion of sacrifice -- how we arrive in our souls at the sacrificial greatness of Christ?

J.T. That is the next thing after priesthood -- to see what the offerings are. They are all phases of the one great offering. "Who ... offered himself spotless to God", Hebrews 9:14. And John the baptist sees this. I suppose it was in His gait, the manner of the Lord's approach to him; when he saw Him coming to him, he says, "Behold the Lamb of God", John 1:29. The word Lamb here is a full thought. It is not a diminutive thought. The

[Page 372]

word Lamb in Revelation is a diminutive thought. But this is a more mature thought, a Person coming forward to offer Himself. The full sacrificial thought is in this Person. He is coming to die. John is administering baptism. The Lord is figuratively facing death.

A.C. In Revelation, would the suggestion of the Lamb ever keep the suffering side before us?

J.T. I think that is the general thought. His blood is used sacrificially for cleansing in Revelation; He has washed us in His blood. Of course it is the same Person; His death is involved. In Revelation "little Lamb" would mean that He was defenceless, stressing suffering; He says, "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up ...", John 18:36. But He is not doing that; He is suffering. The sacrificial thought is in a lamb of a year old, according to the type in Exodus. A yearling lamb you might say is a sheep; it is more than a little lamb.

W.F.K. "Lamb of God". Does that mean that God provided the Lamb?

J.T. Yes. Isaac is the type. Abraham and Isaac went together to the point to be reached, to the mount of God, according to the divine direction. There is no evidence that Isaac trembled at all; although he could not but have discerned that something serious was going to happen to him, and even when his father raised his hand with the knife there is no evidence that Isaac trembled. I think that is the idea; it is full growth; it is manhood in sacrifice.

Ques. Have you in mind that the mature idea was seen?

J.T. Yes. John is administering death and the Lord is coming to him, meaning He is coming sacrificially. It is a full grown thought and John evidently saw that. John saw the gait. We have in Proverbs certain creatures who were "comely in going". Here it is the movement of the Lord Jesus, as coming to John to be

[Page 373]

baptised. That brought out this expression -- "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". -- clearly a sacrificial thought.

A.P.T. John represents somewhat the priestly side in this connection. He is fully cognisant of the greatness of the position of the Person before him.

J.T. Yes. He can name the Lord Jesus as he sees Him coming to him; and the next day he sees Him walking, which is another thing. The passage does not say where He is going; it is His manner of walk.

A.P.T. Would this side of the truth be more advanced than the thought of kingship and lordship? Is this truth to be consolidated in one's soul in a priestly, spiritual way?

J.T. I think that is the point to get hold of, what enters into this. John is baptising; death entered into what he was doing. Sacrificial death entered into baptism and the Lord comes forward for that; He is ready for it, and that is what leads John to say, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", John 1:29. It was a priestly knowledge in him, I am sure. Adam names the animals and the Lord Himself in this same chapter, when He saw Simon, says, "Thou shalt be called Cephas", John 1:42. That is, He gave him a name meaning material.

A.R. How far does this go? He does not say, takes away the sins of the world, but the sin of the world.

J.T. It is the whole thing, root and branch. The word 'sin', I suppose, covers all evil in that sense. The devil is the author of it.

A.R. That is what I was wondering, we might say this goes back to Adam, but what you are saying shows sin goes beyond Adam; it has its origin in Satan.

J.T. Yes, He is dealing with that, having come in through man; it is to be removed from the universe. So that Paul says, "Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in

[Page 374]

him", 2 Corinthians 5:21. That shows the result in believers, what we are made, but John does not go that far. He says He takes away the sin of the world.

C.H.H. Would that involve the lake of fire?

J.T. I think so. All that is unaffected by His sacrificial death He places in the lake of fire; it is taken out of the universe of God.

F.N.W. Does the sonship of Christ underlie the sacrifice as well as the priest? John bears witness of Him as the Son of God. In Hebrews we read "a Son perfected for ever", Hebrews 7:28.

J.T. Quite so; the One whom God gave: "God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit", Romans 8:5. That is the order of the truth; He is the Son of God, He is the Priest, He is the Sacrifice too, the testimony to God's love.

A.B.P. Would the fact that the disciples abode with Jesus that day suggest that this is a point that is reached?

J.T. Yes. He becomes attractive. In the second day, I suppose, John the baptist is advancing in his soul. I believe he is. John 1:35 means that he is now occupied with Christ in a more personal way. We can understand that what happened at the Jordan would affect him in this sense. That is the thing to get hold of -- how we progress in our souls, first speaking of the Lord sacrificially and then speaking of Him according to what He is in Himself. And in that way He becomes attractive to others. Nobody left John and followed Jesus after the first statement; it is after the second statement John 1:36, that we see them following: "Looking at Jesus as he walked, he says. Behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speaking, and followed Jesus". That is, after the sacrifice is made, so to speak,

[Page 375]

then the Lord is going somewhere, and the instinct of the believer inquires, "Where abidest thou?" He says, "Come and see", John 1:38,39. That is one of the keys to John's gospel.

A.B.P. Is it right to say that the gospel is really built up on that, the principle of abiding? "Come and see" seems to suggest the Person is apprehended and it is like a Selah in the book. It is abiding, to take in all that the Person is in the particular character in which He is presented.

J.T. Quite so; "They abode with him that day". They stayed a certain time with Him. The suggestion is that John would say in these last days of ours, the assembly having failed, that there is nevertheless a place where Jesus abides. He abides where divine love is.

Ques. Would the sacrificial side make way for what is spiritual?

J.T. You must have that to clear away what is between God and men. The sacrificial side must come in, and then the next thing is the personal side. Can you speak about the Lord Jesus according to what He is as walking. His beautiful manner of movement? That is the next thing.

Ques. Does the Holy Spirit coming upon Him suggest sensitiveness in the appreciation of what is so comely?

J.T. Just so; and then the baptism of the Holy Spirit by the Lord comes in in the interim, that is, between the sacrificial thought and the personal thought. He implies the power by which we follow the Lord Jesus, as in John 1:37.

C.H.H. "Who ... offered himself spotless to God", Hebrews 9:14. It says, 'Himself'. That confirms your idea about personality. Then again, "he himself stood in their midst", Luke 24:36.

J.T. That is the personal side. And "he presented himself living, after he had suffered", Acts 1:3, showing

[Page 376]

that although He is now in another condition. He is the same Person.

A.R. Is it not remarkable that they hear John say, "Behold the Lamb of God", John 1:29, but when the Lord says, "What seek ye?" They say, "Rabbi (which, being interpreted, signifies Teacher)", John 1:38. They must have seen more than just the suffering side in the Lord, do you not think?

J.T. They did. John had been their teacher, but in the Acts we find certain persons who had been taught by John and they are defective. These two persons indicate those who go the whole way in learning. Many stay in darkness because of traditional associations, but they do not get the best teaching there. You want to get the best there is, and I think these two disciples wanted to go the whole way. It is not now only a question of the Lord's sacrificial work; it is what is to be taught, what is to be learned. And that is the situation today. How few there are that go in for the whole truth! "And we shall know, -- we shall follow on to know Jehovah", Hosea 6:3. That is what these two represent. They see the Lord and call Him Rabbi, and the Spirit of God tells us what that means. So that we should know they wished to be properly taught. The twelve men at Ephesus were not properly taught. They did not know of the Holy Spirit.

Now we may look at headship. It comes in as we are taught. It is not only what we are taught, but we come under the headship of Christ in Ephesians. We read from Ephesians 1:20 to the end: "in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead, and he set him down at his right hand in the heavenlies, above every principality, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name named, not only in this age, but also in that to come; and has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all".

[Page 377]

This is the supreme thought tonight, the headship of Christ; that is, being governed by Him, not simply by command but as of the body. He is Head of the body, the assembly.

Ques. Does that involve affinity of interest?

J.T. Quite so; He is given to be Head over all things to the assembly which is His body. It is the widest thought of headship. In Colossians He is head of the body, but here He is head over all things to the assembly. That is, we are brought with Him into the headship of all things. But before we can be brought into the universal headship of Christ, we must know Him as our Head, and that is Colossians. Wisdom is in headship.

C.H.H. Is that why the order is reversed in Colossians? There He is head of the body, the assembly, but in Ephesians Head of the assembly which is His body.

J.T. He is head to the assembly in Ephesians. In Colossians He is head of the body, the assembly. We are to hold the head in Colossians, because all nourishment flows out from Christ. It says, "not holding the head", Colossians 2:19. Where men allow ceremonialism and the like, they do not hold the Head.

A.P.T. Is Genesis 2 the Ephesian side?

J.T. Adam is Christ in death, and He is taken out of it; but the church is taken out of Him figuratively while He is in death, but as raised from the dead He is made Head to her, and that involves a lot as to her education, because she is of Him. Adams says, "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man", Genesis 2:23. That is the basis of Ephesians 1. Think of what an organism the assembly is that it is capable of entering into the headship of Christ! And we can understand it, because Eve is able to enter into the headship of Adam.

A.N.W. I was thinking the culminating point is here peculiarly in the very term "his body". It is the body in Colossians.

[Page 378]

J.T. Yes. Adam claims her; she is taken out of Ish; she is taken out of him, so that we have the highest thought in that sense in the type in Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 the word is "let them have dominion", the male and the female. We can understand that from this passage in Ephesians, that Christ is Head over all things to the assembly; that is, the assembly is capable of joining in the headship, so that she is to have dominion with Him.

Ques. Have you in mind in this chapter, in speaking of the assembly, wisdom or love -- which of the two?

J.T. Both. The type helps us because Adam had been already naming the lower creatures and his wisdom was seen in that. It must have been a great pleasure to God to hear Adam naming the creatures as He brought them to him. But now he is put into a deep sleep and he does not see anything and God brings this creature to Adam and he says immediately, "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", Genesis 2:23, as if Adam in his intelligence were to say, This is something different from anything else I have had to name before. "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man". How did he know she was taken out of a man? God had closed up the wound, while he was asleep but it was his intelligence. Figuratively, it is Christ exalted over all things to the assembly, the assembly as His counterpart being brought into it with Him.

A.R. Ephesians 1:22 says, "and has put all things under his feet". In Acts 2:35 it is "until I have put thine enemies to be the footstool of thy feet". I suppose that is really going back to Genesis.

J.T. Ephesians is anticipative of everything, so that we are raised up together and made to sit down together. It is all a finished matter; it is a question of God's power. It is as good as finished; that is a feature of Ephesians.

[Page 379]

DIVINE NAMES (11)

Acts 2:1 - 4; John 14:15 - 17; Genesis 1:2; Matthew 3:16 - 17

J.T. According to what we have spoken of together with some of the brethren here, the subject tonight should be the Holy Spirit. It was thought that we should begin with Him as sent down from heaven at Pentecost as the Holy Spirit. Then as the Comforter, John 14:16, and as the Spirit of God, Genesis 1:2, and passages in the New Testament; and at the next reading, perhaps, take up the other titles of the Holy Spirit spoken of in the Scriptures.

It is as under the titles mentioned above that He has been received by christians, so that each christian ought to be able to verify what Scripture presents on this great subject, for He has come into us feelingly and sympathetically, shedding the love of God abroad in our hearts. The title Spirit of God presents Him from God's side, coming in feelingly, first in regard to the chaotic state of things presented in Genesis 1, where He is moving over the face of the deep, evidently with feeling. And then in Matthew He comes in with supreme feeling and affection. The Spirit of God came upon Jesus as He was baptised. It was thought from the outset that we should pursue this great subject in an experimental way. Of course, we have to think of the Spirit objectively too, but still inasmuch as we as christians have Him we ought to be able to think of Him with feeling, and with the consciousness of what He is to us.

C.A.M. I suppose the fact that we are coming into that glorious world in all the meaning of sonship would mean that we have feelings with regard to this matter.

J.T. Well, I hope we shall show that we have. Certainly if we have the Holy Spirit we ought to be able to speak of Him feelingly, not merely in an objective or theoretic way. Hence the verse first read says, "when

[Page 380]

the day of Pentecost was now accomplishing, they were all together in one place. And there came suddenly a sound out of heaven as of a violent impetuous blowing, and filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them", Acts 2:3. And then verse 4 tells us, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth", Acts 2:4. All that points to experience which everyone present at that time would be able to give an account of subsequently, I am sure. For Peter in commenting on the Holy Spirit coming to the gentiles says, "and as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them even as upon us also at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit. If then God has given them the same gift as also to us when we had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who indeed was I to be able to forbid God?" Acts 11:17. That is, as the gentiles received the Holy Spirit in Peter's presence, he recalls what happened when the Spirit came to the Jews at first, that there was correspondence. And it would seem as if there should be correspondence with everyone of us in our reception of the Spirit, our possessing Him. We ought to be able to verify it by the facts presented in Acts 2.

A.N.W. Would the fact that the article in the first part of Acts 2:4 may be left out, confirm that "Holy Spirit" is, in a way characteristic? "And they were all filled with Holy Spirit".

J.T. Yes, corresponding with John 20:22. "Having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive (the) Holy Spirit". It is the same form; the article is not in the original; it is the character of what is received.

A.R. Should all believers have this experience two-fold? The passage says, "it sat upon each one of them.

[Page 381]

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit", Acts 2:4. There was the external evidence of what was received internally.

J.T. Just so; and there is uniformity. It sat on each, it would be the same on each person. "They were all filled with (the) Holy Spirit", Acts 2:4, would mean that there was correspondence throughout. However many there were, the same thing happened, as to the outwardness of the transaction and as to the inwardness of it. Because the inwardness is in the feeling and in the speaking, not simply objectively, but as the Spirit gave them to speak forth. That is, it is the Person of the Spirit now. The article is there and He is operating; He is operating in them.

W.B-w. "Sat upon each one of them", Acts 2:3 -- is that equivalent to each one being baptised by the Spirit as in Acts 10:47?

J.T. Well this is, of course, peculiar to the initial incoming of the Spirit, pointing to what should mark His presence in the testimony. That is, "there appeared to them parted tongues as of fire", Acts 2:3. We do not get that afterwards. No one, I suppose, ever received the Holy Spirit after this in just that way. These verses are dispensational, pointing to the fact that there would be speaking in all languages, and that there should be fire accompanying the speaking to disallow the flesh. This stands as inaugurating the dispensation of the Spirit, but there is no evidence that it was repeated. What happened at Cornelius' house was that the Holy Spirit fell upon each of them. It says, "While Peter was yet speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word", Acts 10:44. The title is not without the article there. It is the Person of the Spirit that lays hold of the gentile believer. 'Fell' would be energetic; it is a different transaction in that sense, but it is the Holy Spirit personally who is taking on the hearers of the gospel through Peter, as Peter was speaking. There is nothing said about cloven tongues of fire, but we are not

[Page 382]

to set that aside; it stands. So that the baptism by the Holy Spirit would correspond; it is the public side, and the anointing is the public side; but baptism brings us into one body. "For also in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body"; 1 Corinthians 12:13. Anointing is for dignity. Both baptism and anointing are public, external; but the internal side is what is so precious because He operates in us inwardly. The operations are from within by the Spirit; He operates in christians, in suitable vessels.

A.R. Is that why Peter in his address in Acts 2:33 refers to the promise of the Holy Spirit? "... and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear". It is as if the great fact was being demonstrated before their eyes.

J.T. Yes, the mockers said that they were full of new wine. The allusion is to of what they were inwardly. It does not say they were anointed with fresh oil, but they were filled with new wine. The power of the Spirit is always from within. The mockers say. They are full of new wine, but that only shows that there was real power there, a real change had come into these persons.

Ques. Do you regard the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the believers spoken of in Acts 10 as dispensational, too?

J.T. It is just the extension of Pentecost, only there is nothing said about the tongues nor the fire nor the breathing; the breathing ought to be noted too. There is nothing said about these three things afterwards; the only thing that is said about the breathing is when the Lord Jesus breathed into the disciples, and said "Receive the Holy Spirit". But this is violent breathing, showing the Holy Spirit was coming in in a powerful way, an irresistible way. They began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth. Clearly He was operating and they were amenable to Him in their

[Page 383]

affections and their vocal powers. It is to be clearly kept in mind that the Holy Spirit operates in vessels, either in the assembly collectively or in each person, and that person or that assembly is amenable to Him, because it is as the Spirit gave them utterance.

A.B.P. In Peter's recital in Acts 15, he refers to the heart-knowing God, in connection with the giving of the Spirit. Would that be in contrast with what the mockers say about them being filled with new wine?

J.T. Yes; God gives the Spirit; His Spirit is given to those who value Him; to all those who obey God; and it is secured through prayer according to the Lord's remarks: "how much rather shall the Father who is of heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him", Luke 11:13. The gift of the Spirit is proposed to persons who appreciate Him. The heart-knowing God knows who these are.

J.T.Jr. Would you say that Simeon helps in the consideration of the matter? Scripture says the Holy Spirit was upon him, and then there was a revelation to him by the Spirit, and then he came in by the Spirit into the temple, Luke 2:25 - 27.

J.T. I think he is presented as a model for us, a representative man as to the Spirit in Luke. Although he is not said to be a priest, he represents true priesthood, which we might expect to get in Luke. He is characteristically "in Jerusalem", having the Spirit upon him, receives communications by the Spirit and moves by the Spirit into the temple. And all that having been stated, he, it is said, received the Lord Jesus into his arms. Then he said what was suitable. He spoke in a priestly and prophetic way.

E.E.H. Would you say a word as to the Holy Spirit descending and abiding on Jesus as in contrast to Acts?

J.T. Well, that will come in when we consider "the Spirit of God", but it is important to observe the difference now that it is the Spirit of God that comes that

[Page 384]

way. He comes as a dove because there is nothing at all in Christ to challenge His sensitiveness. The dove is, I think, a symbol of sensitiveness -- a very sensitive creature. We see her first with Noah; how he sent her out from him and she came back to him, as if there was a link between her and Noah. The Spirit comes as a dove on Jesus. There is nothing at all incongruous there, everything is infinitely perfect, so that the Holy Spirit abides upon Him. I think consideration of that endears the Lord to us; He was endeared to the Father at that time. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight", Matthew 3:17. And then the Spirit of God came upon Him; the word to John the baptist is "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit", John 1:33.

A.R. And is the Spirit of God in contrast to Holy Spirit at Pentecost? I suppose the latter has in view that there might be unholy conditions there?

J.T. Yes. The passage read, I thought, would be the best one to have before us because it gives the exact title, 'the Spirit of God'. "And he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him". It is not simply the character, but the Spirit of God coming upon Jesus, in a complete personal sense, not by measure. He is great enough for this. No creature could receive the Spirit in its entirety; it is too great a thought.

W.B-w. The same chapter, Matthew 3:11, says, "He shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire". Fire is mentioned.

J.T. Well, that is the thought in our passage in Acts 2, but the article is omitted there; it is 'Holy Spirit'. It is not the Spirit viewed in the same personal, absolute way, as in His coming down upon the Lord Jesus. It is true, however, that the Spirit is in the assembly in completeness.

A.N.W. What does John refer to when he says that

[Page 385]

"God gives not the Spirit by measure", John 3:34.

J.T. Well, He has come down in full personality.

A.N.W. I only meant whether it stood related to the Lord Himself or as given in relation to Pentecost.

J.T. "For God gives not the Spirit by measure". I think that would refer to Christ personally, but it refers to the assembly too. The Holy Spirit is here in a personal sense in the assembly, as Christ was here personally. The Spirit is "another Comforter".

A.R. Is your thought that in Acts 2 the article is left out indicating that It was not there in toto at Pentecost?

J.T. No. It is to show the character more of what came in. He came in completeness, because we have immediately after that statement "as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth", Acts 2:4. That is, the Spirit personally, operating here.

R.W.S. Does the Spirit of God represent feelings and sensitiveness combined with power as related to God?

J.T. Well, viewed as coming into the assembly, or come to anyone of us, He is here in these connections. He is here feelingly and in power. Hence, Paul says, "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power", 1 Corinthians 2:4. And, of course, He is in power in the believer, as the well of water springing up into everlasting life. That would be the same thought; that would be power in the way of enjoyment, for He operates in our affections, springing up into everlasting life. But then He also, as the Spirit of God, is seen in power in testimony, so that Paul says, "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power". So that, I think, so far as we have gone it is a question of what the Spirit is to us, whether as individuals, or collectively in the assembly. What He is in coming in feelingly and shedding abroad God's love in our hearts, and delivering us as taught in Romans; and then what He is as the Comforter, alongside of us in a collective sense. These are the two thoughts I thought we might dwell on, first

[Page 386]

that each might inquire into his own history; as to whether his history corresponds to what is presented in these two scriptures, that is, Acts 2 and John 14. The word Comforter in John 14 is a title of the Spirit that is unique, because it does not refer to Him with the combination Spirit. It is a word used by itself, as applying to the Holy Spirit here with us.

C.A.M. I wanted to ask you a question about this expression, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit is connected with finite vessels; and yet He is a divine Person, and hence infinite.

J.T. Quite so; and the assembly is great enough to receive the Holy Spirit in that sense. Of course, the assembly is not infinite, but still it is great enough to afford a dwelling-place for the Holy Spirit, as it affords a dwelling-place for God. So that infinity comes into the finite.

C.A.M. That is what I meant. It is a marvellous thing.

J.T. There is the idea of compression in it. He who took a body was God Himself. God was "manifested in flesh". So that it is infiniteness coming into limitation in love.

A.N.W. And yet the speaking, the Spirit speaking would be without limitation, would it not? The whole power of the Spirit is there in the speaking.

Ques. Would not John 14 suggest what you are saying about the infinite coming into the finite, following the Lord's statement that the Comforter would be given? He then speaks about Himself, coming into the believer, and also the Father, as if that is the thought, the Spirit coming in makes way for the Father and the Son.

J.T. That is the way it stands in those verses. The Comforter, meaning One who takes care of us, looking after everything that is necessary, makes room for the Son to come in, and the Father too. So that the three Persons are seen there. But then they are come into

[Page 387]

finite conditions, and that is all in keeping with God as revealing Himself. He creates and then He comes into what He creates, and what He creates is necessarily finite; but He is never other than infinite.

W.F.K. It says, "another Comforter". Does that mean the Lord had been a Comforter to the disciples?

J.T. He had rendered the same kind of service to the disciples; an advocate as often remarked, who takes care of your matters better than you can take care of them yourself. But the Spirit also takes care of things in relation to the Father and the Son so that they might be provided for as coming in here.

J.T.Jr. I was wondering if Acts 13 would bear that out. The Holy Spirit is speaking as in the assembly, in connection with the services.

J.T. He said, "Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them", Acts 13:2. That was the Holy Spirit speaking Himself as a divine Person here, but obviously He would use someone in the assembly to say that; throughout the Acts you have evidences of this. Paul says, "The Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and tribulations await me", Acts 20:23. That would mean that He testified to Paul in the assembly.

"They were all filled" -- the use of the word filled here would hardly suggest that the saints had small capacities, because they had already been under the Lord's hand in the way of preparation for this great matter. The question is, therefore, when each of us receives the Spirit how much capacity there is to fill. One reverts to one's own history; at the beginning there was hardly any capacity. The Holy Spirit has to battle for a place in us. And that brings in a christian's history of self-judgment. The fire which marked the coming of the Spirit enters into this.

W.B-w. God says through Joel, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh", Acts 2:17. Would that go beyond the assembly?

[Page 388]

J.T. That is millennial. It is a millennial state of things there, as you would expect in the prophets; but it is brought into Acts 2, to confirm what happened; what had happened is described in the four verses read, and it is very practical that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth. In the citation from Joel you will notice how many things are predicated of the Spirit: "It shall be in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your elders shall dream with dreams; yea, even upon my bondmen and upon my bondwomen in those days will I pour out of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy". And then it goes on, "And I will give wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: the sun shall be changed to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and gloriously appearing day of the Lord come", Acts 2:17 - 20. All that is millennial, or rather, introductory to that blessed period; but it is applied here as confirming what had just happened at Jerusalem.

W.B-w. They all spoke with tongues -- was that miraculous? Does it mean that a person who never knew a certain language got up and spoke that language?

J.T. Yes; it was miraculous. "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God", Acts 2:11. All these languages were represented and the speaking was intelligible; it was in keeping with the cloven tongues of fire. God was stressing that side of it, that the testimony should go out in all languages.

R.W.S. Acts 4:31 says, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit". After the apostles had been released and go to their own company, Acts 4:31 says, "and when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and

[Page 389]

spoke the word of God with boldness". Is that filling the thought of increased capacity?

J.T. I think it is renewal. It is confirmatory of what was already experienced. It was to encourage them, as we may experience in our little way now. God sometimes gives you to experience an impulse of the Spirit that you have not had before; God comes in to encourage us in our meetings in that way.

R.W.S. Coming into the company.

J.T. It is a collective thought; the place was shaken -- that was miraculous, of course, but it would remind the saints gathered of Pentecost.

A.A.T. In Acts 5, I notice when Peter was rebuking Ananias he says Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit, not to the brethren. How do you understand that?

J.T. Well, the three divine Persons are brought in. He lied to the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3; to God, Acts 5:4. And he says to Sapphira, "Why is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" Acts 5:9. I think it is to show that the enemy through Ananias and Sapphira was attacking God as revealed and operating in the assembly. It brings out, I think, the character of the moment -- that God and Christ and the Spirit are seen operating in the assembly.

C.A.M. You were referring to the fact that the Holy Spirit had found a place; the speaking there is all over the world in the way of ministry, is that not a very encouraging thing, indicating that the Holy Spirit has such freedom?

J.T. It is a great testimony now that there are those who make room for Him; you can see what is in mind here. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth. The Holy Spirit is operating; He has got a means of doing it; scope is made for Him so that He can do it -- a great testimony in Jerusalem. I am sure the Spirit of God is aiming at this with us now. It is a question of capacity. How much can each of us contain?

[Page 390]

And then how much can we contain collectively? Speaking spiritually will be in the measure in which we are filled with Holy Spirit.

Ques. Is that not brought out in Stephen? -- Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, Acts 6:5.

J.T. Yes. It is a full vessel that is needed; that is a principle with God. And so in John's gospel the six water pots were to be filled up to the brim and then they draw forth; that is there must be fulness, the vessel filled in order that the Holy Spirit might operate effectively. Christ was full of the Holy Spirit; also full of grace and truth.

A.R. Acts 4 says, "then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, Rulers of the people and elders of Israel ...", Acts 4:8; could that be seen by those who were listening?

J.T. I think so; you would see that that man was full of something. The mockers say the saints are full of new wine, but it is not so; it was too early in the day for people to drink wine; it was only the third hour. Peter condescends thus to meet the enemy. And then he goes on to give them a wonderful gospel, saying almost at the end: "having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear". It was not only the words they spoke but the effect of what they had received on the vessels; you could see they were different men, and that is what should mark every one of us.

C.A.M. Do you not think Satan is making a very great effort in multiplying voices and amplifying them, to drown this wonderful speaking?

J.T. Yes. It is remarkable that in referring to the Spirit the Lord in John 7 is said to have cried, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink", John 7:37. Several times He is said in the Scriptures to have cried, and this time in relation to the Holy Spirit.

[Page 391]

As regards the Comforter, what has been already said ought to be borne in mind. It is a title that does not convey what the Spirit is as the Spirit; it is a title denoting His functions. All the other titles link with what He is as the Spirit. He is called the Comforter, or Paraclete, which means One that looks after matters amongst the saints. And I think we ought to take good account of that and make room for Him in all matters relative to the assembly, relative to the service of God. There are principles to govern us, but we must make room for the Spirit in all matters.

W.B-w. "For he abides with you, and shall be in you", John 14:17. Is that why you use the word 'alongside'?

J.T. The word means that; the same title that is applied to the Lord Jesus above. He is an Advocate with the Father. That is the same word; He is carrying on for us up there. Everything that is needed on our account up there is taken care of. The Holy Spirit is operating here, exactly in the same way, only He is with us.

F.S.C. Is that not the reason the word 'another' is used?

J.T. It is, because the Lord had been this to the disciples when He was here amongst them. He looked after things for them. He said, "But I am in the midst of you as the one that serves", Luke 22:27. You wonder what He did not do when He was among the disciples. He did anything that was necessary to be done for them.

A.R. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit would take on that service? The footnote says, 'One who carries on the cause of any one and helps him', John 14:16.

J.T. Yes; that is the note in John 14. That confirms what we are saying.

A.R. It is really very remarkable; I would like to get a little help on it.

[Page 392]

J.T. Well, what has been said is the truth. Let us learn to make room for the Holy Spirit in matters that are relative to our position here in testimony. He is ready to serve us.

A.P.T. Would it be indicated in the multiplication of the food that was short? That was something the Lord did when He was there. In a meeting like this the Holy Spirit comes to serve us in every way. Now the Lord is not here, but the Holy Spirit is here and He would help in this or any such meeting.

A.N.W. What is the bearing of the title 'Spirit of truth'? It is linked with the Comforter.

J.T. The bearing of that would be in our times when the truth is so beclouded by heresies. The Spirit of truth comes out in these chapters. "He shall guide you into all the truth", the Lord says, John 16:13. So that we must make room for the Holy Spirit especially in that respect, because the truth is so important to be kept before the saints. And the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

A.R. When the Lord was here the disciples would come to Him for help, would they not? It is really the idea now that I learn how to make room for the Holy Spirit in me to help me.

J.T. That is right; make room for Him. We are to be "filled with the Holy Spirit", Acts 4:31, not partially filled, but wholly filled.

Rem. The Lord manages our affairs up there and the Spirit manages our affairs down here.

J.T. That is it exactly. The word 'Advocate' in John's epistle is the same in the original as 'Comforter' here.

W.B-w. Does it not work out in the Spirit using someone to help us in the practical working out of the thing down here?

J.T. It does. Of course, the Holy Spirit is often limited Himself because of the weakness of the vessels

[Page 393]

available to Him, so that we do not have the same power they had in apostolic days; but still you can see at meetings how the Holy Spirit helps; one says one thing and another another; we are not arguing; we are not debating, but the Holy Spirit uses one after another, so that the truth comes out in what we say. He is concerned about the truth, and through His presence and service we are kept and helped generally so that we are guided into the truth.

A.N.W. Of Stephen it is said, "and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke", Acts 6:10.

R.W.S. How far does this help go? Is it in spiritual matters and temporal matters, or is it limited to the spiritual?

J.T. It is spiritual. Of course, the Holy Spirit would act in you in keeping with what you have to do. So that even in your business He keeps you right; He keeps you free and above your circumstances. Otherwise you would be difficult and irritable. The great thing is to be in our ordinary affairs, our domestic affairs, and business affairs, to be above the circumstances; not to allow the circumstances to carry you, but you carry them. And therefore, you are superior to them. That is the Spirit's function; to keep you happy, free and in power. And then you are able to do other things. The Holy Spirit does not teach you how to be a carpenter or a doctor; you do not expect Him to do that; but He will never fail us as we seek Him and give place to Him in our circumstances, so that we are kept superior to them. We are to be christians at all times; the idea of a christian is that you are made that. The disciples were first called christians at Antioch. "In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian", says King Agrippa, Acts 26:28. It was but a little. But Paul says "such as I also am". To be truly a christian in everyday life gives me victory.

[Page 394]

Ques. The Holy Spirit coming in then, would you say the Lord had in mind that the disciples would carry on His features in testimony?

J.T. Exactly; it is the Spirit of Christ from that point of view. It is the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ that we all need for everyday life.

A.P.T. Romans 8 says, "In like manner the Spirit joins also its help", Romans 8:26. That indicates how He serves us.

J.T. That is right. He makes you feel that He is personally in you and that you have a spirit of your own. You would not confuse your own spirit with the Holy Spirit. He witnesses with your spirit that you are one of God's children. That makes His indwelling very palpable, very real.

A.D. In the end of John 15 the Lord says, "ye too bear witness", John 15:27. What does that mean?

J.T. That refers to the apostles. The twelve were to bear witness according to their own commission. He says, "Because ye are with me from the beginning". They had been with Christ during the time of His ministry; they had this opportunity of learning from Him, of knowing Him, but then the Holy Spirit would witness also. And this would imply such men as Stephen and Philip and Paul and all the rest of us down the line. The Holy Spirit witnesses too, as proceeding from the Father.

M.O. Is the Comforter a provisional thought?

J.T. Well, it is primarily in view of our circumstances as we are here below.

M.O. What are we to understand by His being with us for ever? Is that another character?

J.T. That is the Spirit Himself. "And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with

[Page 395]

you, and shall be in you", John 14:16,17. The designation Comforter will no doubt continue, but as applied to the Lord and to the Spirit, it clearly refers to the period of the saints' sojourn here below. We ought to become acquainted with the Spirit. Perhaps it is an expression that is not familiar, but we ought to become acquainted with Him, knowing Him, in us, as a distinct Person, distinct from ourselves, and He will be with us for ever.

W.B-w. In John 14 it is the Person -- "the Spirit of truth", but Romans 8:16 says, "the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God". We have the word 'itself' applied to the Spirit.

J.T. Yes, it is neuter. Well, that does not set aside the personality of the Spirit; it is a neuter thought as covering the Person. I should not make much of that; it is sometimes 'he' and sometimes 'it'.

A.N.W. Like the neuter pronoun applied to the Godhead in Colossians?

J.T. Quite so; "to reconcile all things to itself", Colossians 1:20.

A.R. Would it be too much to say that we should use the Holy Spirit that we might draw from the Lord on high?

J.T. That is the way we ought to learn the truth. We have the expression "the love of the Spirit"; that there is One in us that loves us. It is not made so much of as the love of Christ and the love of God, but it is there, so that we do not forget that He is a divine Person, but has taken a lower place and keeps Himself out of view. And then we have "the communion of the Holy Spirit", 2 Corinthians 13:14. It is very precious to keep these things in mind -- what the Spirit is to us individually and especially in the assembly.

W.F.K. How do we grieve the Spirit and quench Him?

J.T. By allowing fleshly ways and thoughts. You

[Page 396]

can quench Him by allowing natural feelings and thoughts in a meeting like this. Clericalism shuts Him out altogether.

Ques. "But when he is come, the Spirit of truth, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak; and he will announce to you what is coming", John 16:13. Could you give us some help on this?

J.T. We have just spoken of that. Take an occasion like this, without assuming that it is just so, but to illustrate. One says one thing that is according to the truth so far as he sees, depending upon the Spirit and subject to the brethren; another says another thing that bears on it, and so on. Well, the Holy Spirit is here in the keenest way to put all these things together in our souls according to the whole truth, so that there is guidance. It is not so many things said, but the result as one whole. We all ought to be on the alert to get the benefit of the presence of the Spirit as thus operating amongst us, as sent down from heaven by the Father and by the Lord Jesus. How feeling He is! He is the Spirit of truth and guides us into all the truth. So that in what we say, we ought to keep in mind that it should fit into the whole scope of truth.

J.T.Jr. In Acts 15 you would say they were guided into a right assembly judgment and nobody could gainsay it?

J.T. That is a good illustration of what is before us, and so they finished: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..." Acts 15:28.

A.N.W. It would seem that divine Persons are represented as having matters before them. It seems to read that way in that remarkable verse: "whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak", John 16:13.

J.T. So that at a time like this there is the great reservoir of divine thought; the Holy Spirit is cognisant of all that, and He is in us and so you look for new

[Page 397]

thoughts, new phases of the truth, new touches and we all feel it when they come out.

Well, now we must finish with the third part of our subject, that is, "the Spirit of God". What is to be noted in Genesis 1 is that the first mention of Him is as "the Spirit of God", Genesis 1:2. Chaotic conditions had come into the creation, "the earth was waste and empty". God never made it like that; He made it to be inhabited. He did not make it waste or empty, but it had become that, "and darkness was the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters". The waters were part of the creation but they had got into a wrong setting; they engulfed everything, and the Spirit felt that. That is the first thing to notice about the Spirit of God, that He feels things from the divine side. If calamity or disaster happens, He feels it. He is on the divine side here; He is the Spirit of God; it is God Himself in this way, feeling what had happened.

C.N. What is the idea of hovering?

J.T. Well, I suppose, as it were: 'What can be done with this?' When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem he found chaos there. "And when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobijah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there had come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel". Then Nehemiah says, "And I came to Jerusalem, and was there three days. And I arose in the night, I and some few men with me -- but I told no man what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem -- and there was no beast with me, except the beast that I rode upon. And I went out by night by the valley-gate, even toward the jackal-fountain, and to the dung-gate; and I viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were in ruins, and its gates were consumed with fire", Nehemiah 2:10 - 13. That is what is involved in the Spirit's hovering over the face of the waters; as if to say. What damage has come about! And Nehemiah in the same felt the state of Jerusalem. It was

[Page 398]

in a dreadful condition and he went out by night to look at it, and he felt it. The Spirit of God felt it infinitely, what some being had done in devastating part of the creation of God.

C.N. And I suppose He is prepared to secure what there is, if there is anything at all to be gotten out of it, so to speak. He is prepared to do what He can to salvage the situation.

J.T. That is right. He is prepared to bring in a new order of things, so that the whole chapter is devoted to this. The first thing is God said, "Let there be light", Genesis 1:3. That is to be taken into account, that the Spirit hovered. What is to be done? The first thing is there must be light. So if we apply it to a man in his unconverted state, the Spirit is hovering, and the first thing he needs is light.

A.Pf. Is it not like the Lord Jesus at the grave of Lazarus? He felt things.

J.T. That is right; He wept.

R.W.S. The Spirit of God seems to have the capability of grieving over a long period of time. It is possibly suggested here, and also in connection with the public history of the failure of the church.

J.T. Quite so. Who can say how long He had been hovering over the waters? It is God in His wonderful patience and His consideration for His creation. That is really the question that would enter into this position. The next thing is God said, Let there be light. God began to operate. But the first thing is the feeling way in which He took account of the disaster, and I think that is what we should keep in mind at the present time; the disaster that has come about in the history of the assembly, and how it is to be met. God is ready to meet it in everyone of us.

Ques. Would you say this feeling is seen at Nazareth? "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach glad tidings to the poor", Luke 4:18.

[Page 399]

J.T. Quite so. It was operative in the Lord when He was here; what He did, He did by the Spirit of God. Now the contrast to that is the beautiful statement in Matthew 3. There is no need to hover over Jesus. All is perfect there. It says, "Jesus having been baptised, went up straightway from the water, and lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him", Matthew 3:16. There is no hovering. The heavens are opened to Jesus, and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming upon him. He is seen as the Object of heaven. The heavens are opened to Him here; showing that He was infinitely and perfectly delightful to the Father and the Spirit comes upon Him accordingly, and then the voice. There is no chaos now. It is the direct infinite contrast to Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is not hovering over the face of the darkness, it is hovering over material that God had made, but it is out of use. It had become lawless.

Ques. Do you look at the flood on the earth as being chaotic in that sense? Noah sends out the dove, and it returns to the ark, but then after seven days it returns with an olive leaf plucked.

J.T. The flood was, of course, direct judgment from God. But the dove returning with "an olive-leaf plucked off" indicates that there was growth; the leaf was plucked off a tree. The Holy Spirit takes hold of what is living. And so here the heavens are opened to Jesus; there is no chaos there. Everything is infinitely delightful to heaven, and that enters into the inauguration of this dispensation. God begins with infinite perfectness in a Man; and then the Spirit of God coming in. It is here what Jesus saw Himself. And then you see the Spirit of God coming upon Him. The One that is perfectly capable of appreciating the heavens opened, and the Spirit coming down, perfectly capable, infinitely so, of appreciating all that.

A.P.T. Is there a somewhat synchronising thought in

[Page 400]

Philadelphia: "I have loved thee", Revelation 3:9? As to whether that characteristically comes through.

J.T. I think so. There is correspondence with Jesus in Philadelphia. The assembly is of Himself and He loves her.

F.N.W. Is that correspondence seen developed in Romans 8 in the progression there, where the feelings of the Spirit are seen, and His part with us. His help to our need; and conformation to God's Son seen in us, and the glorifying of those whom He has justified -- as if this line is reached?

J.T. That is very beautiful. And what we have said about the Lord as over against the chaotic condition of the material that God had created is worthy of special note. We have in Jesus infinite perfection, and heaven's appreciation of Him is all, we may say, for Himself. That is, God would begin over again with One who perfectly appreciates what heaven does, what heaven values. And so when we come to the gospel, Romans teaches us how we are brought into accord with that, so that the Holy Spirit is in us, forming us so that we should be like Jesus. The section begins really with the glory of the Father. One has often thought of the first day of the week; the Father begins it. He raised Christ from the dead by His glory. The first day of the week is the immediate outcome of all that, and the Spirit comes into it, because the Lord Jesus breathes into the disciples and says, "Receive ye Holy Spirit", John 20:22. So that there is perfect correspondence with Christ in that sense, in the saints receiving the breath of Jesus. Breathing into us is the most intimate transaction.

R.W.S. That verse read in Matthew 3:16, "lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him: and behold, a voice out of the heavens saying ..." is as if to emphasise the joy in heaven and to call our attention to what is happening.

J.T. Yes, it is to Him, and then this is calling others'

[Page 401]

attention to what is happening; we are brought into it in that way. Matthew has the assembly in mind. It is brought into infinite affection, a scene of reciprocal affection in divine Persons is in that; He is in us now, making us suitable to it, making us part of it.

A.R. You might say that in spite of the chaos that has come into the church's history He is not hovering today over the face of the deep: I mean He is really in believers, is He not?

J.T. Quite so, but there are a lot of believers in that chaotic condition and the Spirit of God is concerned to get them out of it.

A.R. How would He work in them there?

J.T. Each of us who have been delivered out of it should be able to give an account of His service to us. You see how He waited for Cornelius and when the time came He fell upon "those who were hearing the word", Acts 10:44. The Spirit secured them out of the world.

W.A.W. In Acts 9, would you say, in regard to Paul, he was in a chaotic condition in darkness and the Lord came in and the scales fell from his eyes -- a remarkable case?

J.T. Could anybody be in a more chaotic condition?

G.V.D. Would you say a word about proving the spirits, "if they are of God". "Hereby ye know the Spirit of God", 1 John 4:2.

J.T. "Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God", 1 John 4:2. That is the test -- Jesus Christ come in flesh, that is the One upon whom the Holy Spirit came at His baptism, and we, as of God, confess Him come in that way. The Spirit of God in us confesses Christ in that way. It is the truth of Christ's Person, the truth of the incarnation, the confession of it.

A.R. "No one can say. Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit", 1 Corinthians 12:3. And we say, "Abba Father" by the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:15. I was wondering whether, if the Holy Spirit had liberty in

[Page 402]

us, every brother would be functioning in the assembly.

J.T. I am sure that is the truth.

J.H.E. "Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God". That is a new condition, a new relationship, is it not? It would dispel all thoughts of His sonship in eternity; it is a relationship into which He came.

J.T. It would. He is come in flesh. God had said to Him prophetically, "Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee", Psalm 2:7.

[Page 403]

DIVINE NAMES (12)

Ephesians 3:14 - 19; Galatians 4:6,1; Peter 1:11; 2 Corinthians 3:17 - 18

J.T. The brethren will be aware of the great subject that has been engaging us at these meetings. This is the last of the series, and the proposal is to read certain passages referring to the Holy Spirit. We have already considered the subject of the Holy Spirit; that is on the last occasion that we were together, but there are titles that were not then considered, and they will be under review now. The first is, the Spirit of the Father; the second, the Spirit of the Son; the third, the Spirit of Christ; and the fourth, the Spirit of the Lord. There are other titles that we have not mentioned; namely, the Spirit of grace and the Eternal Spirit. These may be referred to in our remarks.

It is thought that we should consider the Spirit of the Father first, as affording an opportunity to speak of Him in that relation as promoting fatherly feelings and affections amongst us -- most important and most necessary, and perhaps rare. It is to be observed that the Father is mentioned here: "Of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named", Ephesians 3:15. The note, which helps, says, 'There is a distinct connection between the words for Father and family'. As one of the families named, it is clear that we may share in the gain of the knowledge of the Father and the Father's Spirit. For we are said to be "strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man", Ephesians 3:16. John says, "See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God", 1 John 3:1. So we come directly into the service of the Spirit, and particularly the Father's Spirit, Who strengthens us in the 'inner man'.

L.E.S. Do you suggest that the Spirit of the Father is to permeate every family and morally become the light of each?

[Page 404]

J.T. Well, whether every family will have Him as we have Him is questionable. We have the Spirit as indwelling, and He becomes in us the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of the Son, and the Spirit of God. Every family will be energised by the Spirit in some sense.

Here, every family is mentioned, characteristic of Ephesians, so that we might have the full scope of the truth before us. In the next chapter we have, "One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all", Ephesians 4:6. "In us all" has the immediate family in mind.

C.A.M. Would you say that this is one of the points where Paul's line of things touches on John's line? Do we not usually think of the family matter when we think of John?

J.T. Well, he deals with the family in a characteristic way, beginning with this, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God", John 1:12. That is the divine family: those who believe on His name, "who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh's will, nor of man's will, but of God", John 1:13.

A.N.W. Is Ephesians 3:17 the result of the strengthening, or is it another phase of the apostle's prayer, "that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts"?

J.T. 'That' would connect directly with the prayer, the bowing of the apostle's knees; but it carries with it the idea of the Father's Spirit strengthening us. It is in the power of that that the Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, and enlarges our view. "Being rooted and founded in love, in order that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge", Ephesians 3:18,19. The prayer runs to the end of verse 19.

C.A.M. So the apostle in praying thus for the saints would be in his own spirit in the good of what he is speaking of, is that the thought?

[Page 405]

J.T. Clearly; "For this reason, I bow my knees", Ephesians 3:14. In the reference to the bowing of his knees, he would have in mind the greatness of the truth that he was ministering to them, that they should be able to take it in.

A.R. Would you say something more as to His Spirit in the inner man, developing not only family feelings, but feelings in a mature way, fatherly feelings.

J.T. I thought that was what we might touch on particularly. One observes a great want of fatherly care and affection amongst us. There may be care, but not fatherly care. I believe this would indicate how these feelings may be acquired and exercised. It is in the inner man -- clearly, a very inward thought.

A.A.T. Do we get any indication of the Father's feelings in Luke 15 -- the way He greeted the son?

J.T. I think the fatherly feelings run right through the parable of the prodigal son. We do well to imitate what is seen there. The father ran to meet him. That would indicate the feelings, how urgent they were. There is certainly great need for such feelings; of course, also inclusive of motherly feelings. The young are so exposed, and so amenable too, to the influences that are about, damaging influences, that we need not only to rebuke them and correct them verbally, but to influence them.

A.B.P. Would the Spirit of the Father be seen in Paul's epistles to the Thessalonians?

J.T. Clearly. He began by regarding the assembly as "the assembly of Thessalonians in God the Father", showing they had a great place in the Father's heart, and Paul himself reflected this in his care of them, as a nurse her own children, he said.

C.A.M. Is it right to think of the father idea in connection with Paul's ministry and the mother thought with John?

J.T. Yes. We have both father and mother with

[Page 406]

Paul. He speaks about a nurse and her own children, which would be the skill of the nurse added to the affections of a mother; and then he said to the Corinthians, "For if ye should have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the glad tidings", 1 Corinthians 4:15. As a father he had begotten them through the gospel.

A.N.W. I wondered whether John 17 might be a very exalted instance of the working of the Father's Spirit. "That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them", John 17:26. You, I think, suggested that the Father's love for Christ being in our hearts affects our love for Him.

J.T. Yes, "may be in them and I in them", John 17:26. Clearly the reflection of the Father's love in our hearts bears on our love for Christ. It is not, of course, that we would have fatherly affections for Christ. That could not be; it is the strengthening of the affections that is in mind there.

Rem. In Matthew 10 the Lord speaks of the Spirit of your Father speaking in you.

J.T. Just so; in conflict, in testimony.

F.H.L. Does Paul in writing to Timothy suggest the spirit of elderhood underlies fatherhood as far as the practical side is concerned?

J.T. I am sure that is right. Elderhood is in line with fatherhood. The fact that the Spirit of the Father acts in us shows it is in ever-ready active testimony in service. The Spirit of the Father is ever ready.

G.H. Do we see the Spirit of the Father in the book of Proverbs, "My son"? 'My son' is frequent.

J.T. Quite so. We have often remarked that the book of Proverbs should be linked with Colossians 1"translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love", Colossians 1:13. Proverbs is really the son of the father's love. Solomon is exercising fatherly qualities in that book. He addresses the youth as a father, and says, "For I was

[Page 407]

a son unto my father, tender and an only one in the sight of my mother", Proverbs 4:3. Of course, that is fully seen in the Lord Jesus.

Ques. Would "the inner man" be more the spiritual side of the believer developing in us fatherly affections inwardly? Is that the thought here?

J.T. I think so. The inner man is a full thought. You have such expressions as the new man, the old man, and the outward man, but the inner man is a striking expression and corresponds with David's building 'inward'. It is an allusion to the man's inner exercises, not childish exercise but the exercise of a man.

R.W.S. Why is the thought of power linked with the Father's Spirit?

J.T. I think here it is because of the need -- what the apostle had in mind was this immensity of range of thought, of intelligence. "In order that he may give you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man; that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts, being rooted and founded in love, in order that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height", Ephesians 3:16 - 18. "That the Christ may dwell, through faith in your hearts"; it is not merely a mental grasp, but in the heart; as in Ephesians 1:18, "the eyes of your heart". The affections are brought into the truth and there is power inwardly to lay hold of the great range of things in mind here.

L.E.S. It would be to effect increased spiritual capacity to take on the greatness of the economy.

J.T. That is the thought; there is such an immense range of things in the apostle's mind. He wanted them to know how much he knew about the mystery, Ephesians 3:4; and he knew well enough it was by the Father's Spirit he was able to grasp the great truth he had; and he wished they might be able to grasp the great range of truth he had. So that it raises the thought with us as to

[Page 408]

whether we are just content to use our minds in the laying hold of the truth or whether we bring our hearts into it, affording scope to the Spirit.

A.B.P. Would it be right to link on the thought of the Spirit of the Father with the camels in connection with Rebecca? We noticed that the reference to the master was in almost in each case to Abraham rather than to Isaac, until the transaction had been completed. I wondered if the thought of power for movement in that way linked on with Abraham in the type?

J.T. The camels as a type of the carrying power were provided by Abraham, only the servant took them.

R.W.S. In some of our minds, I must confess in my own, I have thought of the functioning of the Father's Spirit in us in connection with the second part of the morning meeting. Is that limiting the Father's Spirit?

J.T. Well the Spirit may be viewed as in the whole service; first as the Holy Spirit; and then, the Spirit of the Lord, I should say, coming out of the covenant, where there is liberty; and the Spirit of Christ, which would work out in Bridegroom feelings in the Lord, and our response; and then there is the Spirit of adoption, which is our response in sonship. The Spirit of the Father would, no doubt, be to enlarge our view in assembly service. That is the link here. It is enlargement of view, "the breadth and length and depth and height; and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge; that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God", Ephesians 3:18,19. The Father's Spirit gives enlargement of view and capacity to take in. The Father is "over all, and through all, and in us all", Ephesians 4:6.

A.R. Does this suggestion bring you into the centre of the spiritual realm?

J.T. Yes. You want to be with the Father in what He has in mind. It is said that God is to be all in all. That is the great end, according to what we have had

[Page 409]

already in these meetings. I think it would be well to note it, that the point here is power, only incidentally, as I might say, the development of fatherly feelings which would necessarily come out in the possession of the Father's Spirit. Generally here, the point is power, so that we might grasp the divine range of thought, that we might be able to take in the whole realm in which God is operating, in which Christ is operating. The Christ dwelling in our hearts is Christ viewed as operating in the whole domain of divine thought and purpose.

Ques. Is that seen in the old economy in Exodus 15 -- "my strength and song is Jah", Exodus 15:2?

J.T. That was the highest note they reached. We already spoke of that in our readings. It is a special spiritual touch, and it links on with the highest note in the service of God in the Old Testament.

J.T.Jr. Would there be a link with Numbers 1 -- the fathers' houses, and then the thought of the princes in connection with those houses, the power in the princes?

J.T. Quite so; the princes refer to personalities. 'Prince' usually denotes personality, and that would develop into this. Judah, the leading tribe in the four groups of three each of the tribes, would exhibit the idea of prince.

J.T.Jr. Before you have the ark spoken of in Numbers, you have the fatherly thought brought in, Numbers 3. I was wondering whether it did not connect with this chapter, the Father's Spirit is strengthening us for the understanding of the Christ as in the divine realm. Numbers opens that up, does it not, the great sphere of testimony?

J.T. Yes. And the order of the tribes under the princes around the tabernacle of witness involves fatherly qualities.

A.N.W. Why was the Spirit not content to say strengthened by His Spirit? Why does He emphasise power so peculiarly -- strengthened with power by His Spirit?

[Page 410]

J.T. He wants to stress the thought of power. The word 'strengthened' of course involves power, so that the word 'power' is to augment the idea; and how it is to be effected with us -- that is, by His Spirit in the inner man. So that we are thoroughly in the thing; and then with a view to the operations of God in Christ. The Christ is the One by whom He does things.

Ques. In 2 Timothy we read, "For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of wise discretion", 2 Timothy 1:7. Do we get those three features in this chapter?

J.T. Yes. There is a great stress laid here on the idea of power; strengthened with power by His Spirit; in view of the domain in which the divine operations are carried on, and by whom they are carried on, that is, through the Christ; that He should dwell in our hearts. "That the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts", Ephesians 3:17. It is still a faith matter; we are not in it literally; we are not in the realm literally. It is a faith matter, but He is dwelling in our hearts. It is the Christ. The article is intended to be there, it is there in the original. It is often in the original though not used in the English, but it is evidently to be used here, because it is, you might say -- "I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who shall do all my will", Acts 13:22 (cf. Psalm 89). The allusion is to the One who did all the will of God. The reference to the great realm of divine operations.

Ques. At the end of the chapter the thought is brought forward of what He is able to do. "But to him that is able to do far exceedingly above all which we ask or think", and then it goes on to say, "according to the power which works in us", Ephesians 3:20. I was wondering if that is not all working up to the doxology.

J.T. Clearly so. That is a final word. The last two verses are the doxology, bringing the apostle's own feelings into the matter. A doxology usually is that, to

[Page 411]

show how thoroughly one is affected by what he is saying. You will notice, it is the power that works in us. The power is already there, but it is to be stimulated.

C.A.M. Speaking of power, in Colossians it works in the believer in connection with combat, whereas here the power would seem to be on account of the immensity and greatness of the place we are in. Is that right?

J.T. Yes. It is the immensity of the sphere of divine operations; that we should apprehend Christ as operating there, and that we should know it in its dimensions. Indeed, we have remarkable dimensions -- "that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height", Ephesians 3:18. That is, four dimensions, which is unusual.

A.N.W. The four dimensions indicate that those who value those measurements are in the centre of the whole system.

J.T. Just so. And the Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, in the immensity of the domain -- is the steadying thought. His Person engages your heart on the principle of faith. You are strong enough or great enough to admit Him that place when you see what a place He has in the divine domain. He must have a place to dwell in my heart.

J.T.Jr. Would Paul represent that in the long discourse he made in Acts 20? Would he represent this great idea that the saints are to be occupied with Him? But one is overpowered; he is not able to follow the discourse.

J.T. The power of sleep over him is greater than the inward power he has. And he falls. The power seen here steadies you and enables you to stand up against sleep or whatever else it be.

A.R. Is it commensurate with verse 19 of chapter 1? "What the surpassing greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the working of the might of

[Page 412]

his strength, in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead", Ephesians 1:17

J.T. That is the first prayer, which is more objective. "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of him, being enlightened in the eyes of your heart, so that ye should know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what the surpassing greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the working of the might of his strength, in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead", Ephesians 1There is what is operating towards us. That is more the objective side of the truth, which you lay hold of through "the eyes of your heart", Ephesians 1:18. Chapter 3 is the second great prayer of the apostle's. It is the subjective side; it is the power not simply toward us but which works in us.

L.E.S. Is the Spirit in the inner man to correspond with the riches of His glory?

J.T. Quite so. Being strengthened with power is preceded by, "in order that he may give you according to the riches of his glory". That is an immense measure -- "according to the riches of his glory". You are touching there a point of the deepest interest, because it was the Father's glory that raised Christ from the dead. His deepest affections were active there.

L.E.S. The power that works in us corresponds to that?

J.T. That is the idea. You are in the midst of immensity, and yet finiteness, so that we are not lost in it; but we are filled unto all the fulness of God. We are in immensity as to domain, and yet it is finite, which is from our side because it is measurable -- length, breadth, depth, and height. Filled even unto all the fulness of God involves infiniteness. We have finite thoughts as regards our own ability to know the breadth and length

[Page 413]

and depth and height; but to be filled unto all the fulness of God means that I am steady in the full revelation of God in Christ; I am not lost in it. Christ is the centre of the whole scene so that I am steady there but filled, no void anywhere. Filled even to all the fulness of God.

A.R. Is fulness revelation?

J.T. Fulness is revelation. It is what God is. It is what He is, only come out, what comes out. The word 'fulness' is used very much in Scripture.

F.S.C. It says, "fully able to apprehend", why not comprehend?

J.T. Well, 'comprehend' is a greater thought. 'Apprehend' is more limited. 'Comprehend' is that you can go round a thing. I can apprehend that the world was framed by the word of God, but I cannot comprehend it. It is a finite thought, but the worlds are greater than any creature mind can take in in the sense of comprehension, which is going round the thing fully.

T.W. Are there conditions in myself necessary for this strengthening to take place?

J.T. Well, the moral conditions, of course, are laid in Romans, touched on in Ephesians, but the immediate results are by the Father's Spirit, operating according to the riches of His glory. The point here is power to take in these great things; the immensity of the domain, and the Christ operating in that domain.

Rem. The apostle speaks of being rooted and founded in love. Love is to permeate the family.

J.T. You cannot be in these things without love. You must include all the saints in this -- the breadth and length and depth and height. When we come to the heavenly city, we see the full substantiality of the thing. It is a cube. What is before us here is what was reached in the down-stooping of Christ -- "He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens", Ephesians 4:10.

L.E.S. I was thinking, in order to take on this great

[Page 414]

thought, we need to take account of the saints according to divine workmanship -- all the saints.

J.T. Quite so; Colossians lays the basis for this. You have love for all; not only those that are local, those that might be commendable to you, but "towards all the saints", Colossians 1:4. I think that lays the basis for Ephesians.

Now the counterpart of this phase of our subject, the Father's Spirit, is the Spirit of the Son. "God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father". He cries Abba, Father. It is not simply here the Spirit of adoption, but the Spirit of God's Son.

W.F.K. Is the Spirit of the Son the idea of helping us in worship?

J.T. Yes; The Spirit of God's Son enables us to cry Abba Father. We cry Abba Father by Him. Here, it is He that cries Abba Father.

Rem. According to what our brother says, certain work has preceded this. The apostle says, "because ye are sons".

J.T. Yes, we already have the light. The Spirit of God's Son operates in the light. We must have light preceding the incoming of the Spirit. Of course it is by Him we are born anew, but then as received by us, He operates by us as we are in the light. The light that we have, which comes through the gospel, is the basis of His operations as dwelling in us.

W.F.K. Is this worship as of sons?

J.T. Well, the Spirit cries Abba Father which enables you to worship the Father in spirit and truth; but it is the Spirit of God's Son here -- not simply the Spirit of adoption but the Spirit of God's Son.

A.N.W. Not only in the inner man but in the heart; the emotions and affections are brought into play.

C.A.M. Would you say this is arrived at by the way the truth in the gospels comes into your soul; you grow in that?

J.T. Yes. Romans is the great basic epistle and lays

[Page 415]

the foundation for all these great truths. The gospels generally run with and confirm the epistles, but it is fulness of manhood in the gospels. It is what came out in Christ.

Rem. This seems closely allied with the thought of God sending forth His Son. The same thought is carried forward in God sending forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts.

J.T. Yes; the Son has to come first. "God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship", Galatians 4:4,5. We receive sonship first, and then the Spirit of God's Son to support it in us. That is what is taught here; so that the idea of sonship comes into your soul as a matter of light. Hence it is said in chapter 3, "For ye are all God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus", Galatians 3:26. That is the light of the thing. "But because ye are sons. God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father". Galatians 4:6.

A.B.P. When Jacob took on Ephraim and Manasseh, adopting them as his sons, was it not because of his love for Joseph and is that reflected in our position as in adoption?

J.T. It would be. He honoured Joseph; he gave him one portion above his brethren; but then we must also remember that Jacob was enriched in sons by the elevation of these two to sonship. It seems to lay a basis for our position now. Redemption brought the Jewish believers into sonship, but it has also brought gentile believers into sonship. That is, we are elevated to the full place of sons. We are not subordinate to Israel, as the nations will be in the millennium.

L.E.S. It would be seen in Genesis 22 in regard of Abraham, where it is said, "Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, Isaac", Genesis 22:2. And then later on when Isaac spoke to Abraham and said, "My father! and he said, Here am I, my son", Genesis 22:7.

[Page 416]

J.T. That is a beautiful scene in type; the relation between the father and the son, and what a true son is, "... whom thou lovest". Of course, there it is typically Christ, but when we come to Jacob, the saints are brought into sonship. In his twelve sons you have the idea but then he says these other two are to be the same as Reuben and Simeon. They are on the same level. Therefore, God is enriched in what Paul has brought in. It is he really who develops the great truth of sonship for us.

A.R. Does he stress in his epistle the idea not only of relationship with God as Father, but the wholly right seed which involves a mother?

J.T. Yes; that is what you come to in Galatians. They had become mongrels, taking on other mothers; Jerusalem on earth which is in bondage with her children. That is what they were going back to, and that is where christendom is. All these systems are in bondage with their children. But Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. The assembly abstractly is our mother, based on sonship.

L.E.S. What is in your mind as to God, as sending out the Spirit of His Son?

J.T. Well, it is akin to the Spirit's service in shedding abroad the love of God in our hearts. That is, it is the whole scope of the domain into which the sons have come. Here in this distant western land the Spirit of God's son is available; God sent Him out; Sonship belonged to Israel; "to whom belonged the adoption", Romans 9:4. "Let my son go", Exodus 4:23. That is where you see the thought taking form; but it has come out among the gentiles, that we might receive sonship.

Ques. Does John 17 set forth the spirit of the Son? I was thinking of the way in which the Lord speaks to the Father in that chapter in the liberty of a Son. All the sons are able to address Him. Abba, Father, is in all the intimacy of the relationship.

[Page 417]

J.T. Quite so. That chapter develops what we are speaking of, especially verse 22, where the Lord says, "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, as we are one; I in them and thou in me", John 17:22. I believe He alludes to sonship; He imparted sonship to them. Now this great thought has come out among the gentiles; we also have received it.

J.T.Jr. Is the thought seen in Joseph? "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph ...", Genesis 37:2. Is that the idea of sonship? It comes in there immediately; the father loved him, Genesis 37:3.

J.T. Quite so. In the sense mentioned he is the only one in view until you come to chapter 46 where the others are mentioned. Joseph; but it is Christ rejected, as in sonship, and loved by His Father. According to Joseph's history, the others do not come into it until he is owned; until he identifies himself with them. The gentiles come in after that in Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob elevates them to sonship.

A.R. In Ephesians you have the spiritual realm, whereas Galatians says, "Christ has set us free in freedom", Galatians 5:1. Does that suggest that I am at liberty to move forward?

J.T. Quite so. He has set us free in freedom; that is, the freedom in which He is Himself. "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me", Matthew 11:29. The Jews had it. It belonged to them; "whose is the adoption", Romans 9:4, and the Lord Jesus came in among them in sonship and manifested it among them. It was the first thing brought out in His public ministry: Heaven owning Him as Son. So that He was there before them in that relation and they were to be brought into it, as John 20 contemplates, but later gentiles come into it. I think Ephraim and Manasseh point to the gentiles coming in; we are lifted into that: the Spirit of God's Son in our hearts sustaining us in it. The proof of it is He cries, Abba, Father. The Spirit attests real sonship in

[Page 418]

the saints. When He cries Abba, Father in me who can question my relations with God? The Holy Spirit is attesting it Himself.

A.P.T. Is it prominent now, do you think, in relation to the Lord's own use of these words under pressure? Do you think the brethren are using this word, "Abba, Father" now as under pressure?

J.T. As in Gethsemane, just so; that is where it comes out beautifully in the very words. Mark quotes them. In Gethsemane, the Lord uses these exact words to his Father.

A.P.T. Should we not get into this realm now?

J.T. I think the pressure is intended to force us into it, for He says, Abba, Father. You are known up there as one through whom those words come to the Father's ears. It establishes us as sons. Who can question it if the Holy Spirit says in any one of us, Abba, Father?

W.F.K. Is the word Abba for sons only?

J.T. Yes. It is the Son that used these words first; both in Galatians and Romans, Paul brings it in. In Galatians the Spirit cries Abba, Father, and in Romans 8 believers cry Abba, Father by Him. That would give them a status in heaven. The Lord Jesus used the words Abba, Father in the hours of greatest pressure, that is, in Gethsemane.

Ques. No one can say Lord Jesus except by the Spirit. Would it be also true here that our distinction as sons is that we are able to say, Abba, Father?

J.T. Exactly.

And now to come to the Spirit of Christ, which is another thing that runs parallel with these appellations of the Spirit we have been dwelling on. In the verse read in 1 Peter, "Concerning which salvation prophets, who have prophesied of the grace towards you, sought out and searched out; searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them pointed out, testifying before of the sufferings which belonged to

[Page 419]

Christ, and the glories after these", 1 Peter 1:10,11. This term "the Spirit of Christ", we have also in Philippians- -- "the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ", meaning that we need that. We need it as a sort of supply with us, but Peter contemplates a wider thought: that which was operating in the Old Testament; how the Spirit of Christ operated in servants, the prophets, even before the Lord Jesus became Man, the Spirit of Christ was operating.

A.B.P. Does this suggest the great extent in which divine Persons anticipated what was coming in, not only in Their minds, but feelingly?

J.T. In the Prophets, and Psalms, and even Noah, it is what you might call a retroactive operation; that is, the Spirit that was anticipated would be in Christ as Man down here, already operating in man before that; Peter says, "being put to death in flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which also going he preached to the spirits which are in prison, heretofore disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah", 1 Peter 3:18 - 20. This reference gives us a wide outlook into the past, how the Spirit in this relation was operating in preaching, and in other ways in the Old Testament.

L.E.S. Would there be a link between the spirit of prophecy and the testimony of Jesus?

J.T. That is the same thing. It is the spirit of prophecy there. Here, it is the Spirit of Christ testifying in any of the prophets. It is also the spirit of prophecy.

F.H.L. Would it link with the opening of Hebrews 1, where God spoke in many ways in the prophets.

J.T. That is right. It is how He did speak, through the Spirit of Christ in them. We are told here, "sought out and searched out; searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them pointed out, testifying before of the sufferings which belonged to Christ, and the glories after these. To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves but to you they ministered

[Page 420]

those things", 1 Peter 1:10 - 12. So they were in a very extraordinary state. Take Isaiah, he saw the glory of Christ and spoke of Him. Could He speak of the glory of Christ as we speak of Him? Could He even use the expression, the Spirit of Christ? He was very limited, but evidently he prayed to God and sought out diligently to find out what the things were that he himself was prophesying about, as much as to say, I am saying these things, but I do not understand them; and he prayed that he might understand them.

A.B.P. When we think of the diligence that moved these men of old, such as Abraham, who rejoiced to see the day of Christ, should it not stimulate us to have a deeper sense of the joy that divine Persons have in men approaching now in the fulness of things?

J.T. Surely; we have the Spirit of Christ in us now abidingly; He was in them, too, but not abidingly. He would be in them, of course, as they prophesied. Even in a man like Balaam, the Spirit came upon him and he prophesied, but the reference here is to the characteristic prophets, the real prophets. The Spirit of Christ was actually operating in them, although it was not the time of understanding, but they were prophesying beforehand and had to await the fulness of what they were saying.

A.P.T. I was thinking of where one was brought in last, Micah, and one smote him on the face, but he went on with his prophecy. Was that not like the Spirit of Christ?

J.T. It was a fellow prophet that smote him, but he went on with his prophesying and saw the Lord.

R.W.S. Would you distinguish between the Spirit of Christ which was in them, and the Spirit came upon them?

J.T. Yes. Although the Spirit operated in Balaam He was not characteristically in Balaam. It was just for the moment. Balaam was a wicked man. Here the

[Page 421]

allusion is to the characteristic prophets. "Concerning which salvation prophets, who have prophesied of the grace towards you, sought out and searched out; searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them pointed out, testifying before of the sufferings which belonged to Christ, and the glories after these", 1 Peter 1:10,11. That would be the characteristic prophets of the Old Testament in whom the Spirit spoke, but they did not understand. Still it was the Spirit of Christ, and we can go back now and read it with full intelligence.

R.W.S. If He was upon them it would be just power, but in them would form some feature of what came out in Christ.

J.T. I think so. They foreshadow the feelings and affections of Christ. We can easily see that in examining their history.

A.N.W. Peter's reference seems to be more personal regarding the Holy Spirit. Indeed; the definite article is there, where it is not in Romans 8.

J.T. 'Pointed out'. That is He is the One that is operating Himself in them.

L.E.S. Your reference to Isaiah is very helpful. Peter must have had a great sense of the glories Isaiah opened up, for he speaks of the sufferings of Christ and His glory.

J.T. It is a beautiful expression, "the sufferings which belonged to Christ, and the glories after these", 1 Peter 1:11. The government of God is in view in Peter's epistles.

F.H.L. Would it come out in Psalm 22?

J.T. It would. David is also called a prophet.

Ques. Are these all atoning sufferings, or do they include all the sufferings of Christ?

J.T. I think all are contemplated. The atoning sufferings would insure 'the glories after these'.

C.A.M. It would include such a line of thought as Isaiah 53?

[Page 422]

J.T. It would. John quotes Isaiah, that very chapter, and also chapter 6. Chapter 6 is Christ's glory as exalted, and chapter 53 is the moral glory of Christ, what shone in His sufferings.

A.C-r. I was going to refer to Simeon in Luke. It says he was a just and pious man, and the Spirit came upon him, and it was said to him by the Spirit that he should not die until he had seen the Lord's Christ; and then as he entered into the temple he was in the Spirit. What does all that have reference to?

J.T. It is to bring out that priesthood was there. He was not a son of Aaron as far as Scripture shows, but the fact that he was moved by the Holy Spirit brings out that he was a real priest, such as Luke's gospel contemplates.

There is just one other thought, and that is "the Spirit of the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 3. "Now the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit", 2 Corinthians 3:17,18. This is a title of the Spirit that is very important, because it implies liberty in the assembly in the service of God; inward liberty. But it is the Spirit of the Lord; there is implied subjection in the part you are taking.

R.W.S. Is that the order -- subjection, and then liberty, and then as we had in the first scripture, power?

J.T. Yes; that is the order. Here it develops into transformation in us. That is, you can see that we begin with the highest note. Power working in the inner man; it is the Spirit of the Father; but here it is transformation. "But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit", 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is really the lowest rung of the ladder, as we might say, in what we are speaking of, but it is a very

[Page 423]

essential feature to have before us in the service of God, especially for young people. The part we take in the assembly is in subjection to the Lord, and yet we have liberty. It is not fleshly liberty, nor liberty merely assumed, but liberty by the Spirit of the Lord. The Spirit promotes liberty that is acceptable in the assembly.

Ques. Does this not refer to two Persons in the Godhead? That is the Lord is the Spirit. Would that be the Lord personally there, and the Spirit of the Lord would be the Spirit Himself?

J.T. Quite so. "The Lord is the Spirit" is a remarkable statement. A scripture that corroborates it is "the last Adam a quickening spirit", 1 Corinthians 15:45. So that the Lord Himself may be called a Spirit, and yet He says, He has flesh and bones. That is to bring out how He operates spiritually as in the assembly. Here it is the Lord the Spirit, it is a question of His authority. But the last Adam is more what He is in manhood, the Head of humanity; the humanity that survives eternally, receiving its being through Him as a quickening Spirit.

A.B.P. Is this the point at which the young brothers should feel freest in service?

J.T. It is for them particularly, starting to take part in the assembly or in ministry, that they are subject to the Lord. You are timid, perhaps, and as you stand up you are not quite sure of yourself, but the Lord graciously imparts a sense of confidence and liberty. The Spirit of the Lord gives you liberty, but you do not allow your own mind or feelings rein at all. You have got before you the principle of subjection.

A.B.P. I was wondering why it is that many of our young brethren seem to be freer to participate at the end of the meeting.

J.T. I often feel at the prayer meeting that they would be freer if they took part with the elder brethren. The Lord is operating Himself as a Spirit, so that the idea of authority is combined with the idea of spiritual

[Page 424]

power. This is, of course, for all, but especially for young brethren.

A.R. What about those that do not take any part?

J.T. Well, they are in that sense, dumb. Luke stresses the importance of speaking. The Lord said to the young man of Nain, 'wake up'. And he sat up and began to speak. The Lord touched the bier. I should say any brother who does not take part in the assembly has never been touched spiritually. The last Adam is a quickening spirit, because the Lord touched the bier where the young man was. The young man sat up and began to speak. All this enters into what we are saying.

F.H.L. According to the first letter, you cannot even say Lord Jesus except by the Holy Spirit.

J.T. That links up with what is before us, because of the danger of the fleshly mind taking part in the assembly. Think of the possibility of a man's speaking by any other spirit in the assembly!

C.N. If I understand all that has been coming out, in the first instance, there is power to establish me in the divine realm; that is the first scripture. Then saying Abba, Father is establishing my relationships up there; and then the speaking in the prophets would establish my faith in the prophetic scriptures -- that it was not man that spoke but the Holy Spirit; and then this last one is liberty in the assembly. Is that what I should understand?

J.T. That is a very good epitome of what we have had. There are most important lessons in these four appellations of the Spirit of God.

A.R. What do you say about 'looking', 2 Corinthians 3:18?

J.T. It is a question of the mind: we go from glory to glory. The assembly suggests a realm of glory to glory. We take on glory by looking at the Lord, as our scripture says, "We all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord

[Page 425]

the Spirit". My part is to look on Him. His part is to do this changing. There is the inner thought of transforming, the metamorphosis that takes place in the person, a real change takes place. That is what is contemplated, and you can see the necessity for it, because we are naturally so ugly. We all need to come into this transformation; thus the glory of Christ is reflected in us.

Ques. Tell me something as to the 'unveiled face'?

J.T. I think the allusion is to Christ's face. You can see His full countenance, that lovely face in which the glory of God shines. What is there is to be reflected in each of us leading up to the thought that we are to be transformed to His body of glory in literality. Here, it is moral change in the assembly.

[Page 426]

NAMES OF DIVINE PERSONS

To be balanced in considering so great a subject as divine Names, we must distinguish between God in absoluteness and in relativeness. The Deity has to be regarded by Itself, so to speak, that is, as before and outside relations with time and creation. In this aspect no one has seen or can see God. He is altogether beyond the grasp of the mind of the creature. To assume that the declaration of God implies that men may now see God as He existed eternally, is a mistake; it makes Him cease to be invisible, which, according to John 1:18 and Colossians 1:15, is not the truth. He is still the invisible God. That Christ is God, and that all the fulness dwelt in Him, and that God was seen in Him, is, of course, true, but this is in manhood, not in His eternal form and essence. In the latter sense He remains in infinite inscrutability. His form and His mode of existence are beyond the understanding of the greatest creature. Being creatures, we can think and speak only in finite terms, whereas the Absolute is infinite, and the relations between divine Persons, and the names by which they may be known to Each Other in Their infinitude, are above our understanding.

While God is thus absolute, He has been pleased also to take up a relative position. He has created and He has entered into relation with His creatures; and the names He has taken, as presented in Scripture, contemplate this relativity. They do not convey, as their several meanings show, the relations of the Persons of the Godhead viewed in absoluteness; that is, as between Themselves.

Of those names in the Old Testament, Elohim comes first. It is plural, signifying the Supreme, the object of worship. Elah and Eloah (both singular) also signify God as the object of worship. Then El and Shaddai convey strength. It is obvious that all these contemplate

[Page 427]

God as in relation with creation, not the Deity in its absolute or abstract relations. No One of the Persons would be an object of worship to the Others, for instance; nor can One be regarded as stronger than the Others. Jehovah may seem to be exceptional as indicating eternal self-existence, like "I AM"; but again it is clear that it would not have force as between the divine Persons Themselves, each being self-existent. It points, too, to a covenant relation with Israel, Exodus 6:3. Adon and Adonai, signifying Lord, Master, are, needless to say, relative; also Jealous, Exodus 34:14, and Most High -- Elyon.

In the New Testament, Theos, God, the object of worship, etc., is relative. Father, Son, and Spirit are names divine Persons take as declared or revealed. Here they are relative to Each Other, but clearly as unitedly relative to the creation through redemption. Thus it is God or the Godhead, relatively, not absolutely.

While these designations involve mutual affection in the Persons so made known, their general presentation in Scripture proves unmistakably that an economy is conveyed in them. Relationships have been taken by the divine Persons in which the nature and attributes of the Godhead are presented intelligibly to men, and at the same time, in the most gracious and tender way, such as is calculated to win their hearts. In John's gospel we have the economy formally stated: "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand"; it is also stated in Matthew 11:27 and in Luke 10:22. What follows in John 4 is the gift of living water -- the Holy Spirit -- proposed by the Son. This is enlarged on in chapter 7. Then in chapter 14 the Comforter is given by the Father as asked for by the Son. The Trinity is thus seen throughout. In chapter 20 the Lord breathes into the disciples, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit", after having said, "as the Father sent me forth, I also send you". The blessed economy or administration

[Page 428]

devised by divine love is thus seen as including the disciples. Compare 1 John 1:1 - 3.

The other evangelists agree with all this. Each brings the three Persons of the Trinity into view at the Lord's baptism. Matthew also presents Them at the end of his gospel in the baptismal formula. The nations through baptism were to be introduced into the blessed light of God as now revealed or declared -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To insist that this order, and the relation of the Persons to One Another, including the names attaching to Them thus seen, are the same as existed in the pre-incarnate absolute (this word is used as the converse of relative) conditions of Deity, is to force or disregard Scripture, and is intruding into things we have not seen. Moreover, we are implying, whatever we may say to the contrary, that the Persons were not co-equal, for this is conveyed in the order in which They are presented, and in the names taken; that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It may be objected, 'But the Persons must be co-equal, even as revealed'. True, as viewed abstractly in their absolute relations of Deity, for They do not change; but viewed relative to creation. They do at least change in attitude, for in love They have come into relations in which They are known to the creature, One of Them having become Man. He has taken another form. The Father and the Spirit have not another form, although They have taken an attitude toward men in the economy of grace in keeping with what Christ has taken. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are working together for the salvation and blessing of men, and for the accomplishment of Their own counsels of love. While God remains in impenetrable absoluteness, yet in the economy of grace the Trinity is seen serving men. Luke 15 sets this fact before us most touchingly, as is well known. All is in the spirit and grace witnessed in the incarnation and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. This attitude of service

[Page 429]

is not imposed by One of the Persons on the Others; all is in the liberty of infinite love, for God is love. Christ, being in the form of God, took a bondman's form. It was His own act.

The Spirit being sent, is in keeping with the position Christ has taken up as Man sent by the Father. The peculiarly lowly attitude the Spirit has taken maintains the full import of the incarnation. That the Persons of the Deity viewed in Their absoluteness existed in Oneness is true, and that They may have borne names in relation to Each Other is possible, but those names would express Their unchangeable infinite equality; whereas the names by which we know Them are relative to creation, as already said. 'God' -- the Supreme, the Being to be worshipped -- is relative to creation, and does not apply to the Persons as between Themselves in Their absoluteness; that is, apart from creation. They are not 'God' to Themselves. This is a matter requiring the strictest attention if a clear understanding is to be had of the great subject we are considering. The Deity must be thought of by Itself; then as in relation to creation and redemption.

The hesitation to apply names to divine Persons as in Their absolute form -- that is, before creation -- has occasioned the charge of Tritheism, meaning that if one does not hold that the Persons were bound in the unity expressed in the relation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he must regard Each as a God. What, among other things is fatal to this charge, is that Tritheism, although false, is necessarily a term relative to creation, whereas the condition of the Deity contemplated is that which existed apart from and before creation. Is that condition, with names expressing it, revealed? Clearly not. That three infinite, co-equal, co-eternal Persons existed, is unquestionable, and that relations and affections suitable to Them existed is owned, but Scripture does not disclose to us these relations or the names that

[Page 430]

express them. Whatever they are, they remain in their own setting of infinitude and so are beyond the creature's power to grasp. Not that there is no link between the absolute and the relative which the creature can take hold of: there is -- it is love, for God is love. This is absolute, and so the Lord Jesus says to the Father, "Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world". The Persons are the same in the absolute as in the relative, but the latter involves graded relations taken, in the former the Persons are taken account of, so to speak, in Their natural or normal relations. The instructed believer recognises, not three Gods, but one God in the Trinity, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he assumes that nothing inconsistent with this ever existed, but he does not admit that graded relations, involving relative inferiority in two of Them, existed between the divine Persons prior to the incarnation.

It may be said that the writer is inconsistent in using the designations God, Godhead, and Deity, when speaking of divine Persons in absolute conditions, if these designations are relative; but it is obvious that we must so speak of Them, for no other names are furnished in Scripture; the creature must speak in terms intelligible to him, and those are necessarily the ones God provides -- those involving God's relations with the creation. The designations "I AM" and "The Same" suggest absoluteness, but close examination shows that their use is comparative as of divine Persons with others; they could have no force or application to the Persons in relation to Themselves.

Again, I would say that I believe relations suitable to Themselves always existed between the divine Persons. Any other thought would be incompatible with love. God is love, and this is absolute. It is now known relatively in that Christ has laid down His life for us, 1 John 3:16; but it ever marked the nature of God. As already noted, our Lord speaks of the Father loving

[Page 431]

Him before the foundation of the world. Some will insist that, because the Lord spoke thus as Son to His Father, the relation in which They then were, was the same as that in which They existed before the incarnation; but this is simply ignoring the difference between absolute divine conditions and relative ones. Moreover, it involves confusion in the use of appellations given to Christ as Man to suggest that titles used in Scripture to designate Him when in absolute Deity, must have applied to Him then. There is really no means, as said before, of distinguishing the Persons in absoluteness save as by employing the relative names furnished in Scripture. Spiritual simplicity accepts this obvious fact, but controversy -- in some -- will insist, as it suits its purpose, on making certain titles or names retrospective. Those that do so forget that, to be consistent, they must hold that Christ was Son of man before He became Man, see John 3:13;John 6:62, and that our Lord bore the name "Jesus Christ" before He became flesh, see 1 John 4:2.

Coupled with this most regrettable attitude, there is the inability or disinclination to acknowledge the inscrutable; for while it is a blessed fact that the three divine Persons co-equally and co-eternally existed, and, according to John 17, existed in relations of ineffable love, yet these relations are not defined; they are inscrutable, beyond the creature's power to grasp. God dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man has seen nor can see. There is no heresy in this; it is imperative to insist on it, Instead of detracting from the Trinity, it honours it by ascribing to the Holy Persons the co-equal and co-eternal dignity that belongs to Each, humbly owning at the same time our creature limitations.

The assumption that the declaration of God involves that the veil is removed, so that men may look on the Deity in its pre-incarnate relations, is unwarranted from Scripture and is false, as making the finite equal to the infinite. The creature is not capable of looking at the

[Page 432]

Deity in its abstract form and relations; he cannot think in terms of infinitude, but only in finite terms. Hence God, while ever the same, has come in grace into the creature's realm and has presented Himself in terms that appeal to the creature's mind and understanding. He has come in as a Man (see 1 Timothy 3:16), and in the lowliest possible way; also in relationships already known to men for the incarnate One is contemplated "as an only-begotten with a father". That statement is descriptive. He is said to be in the bosom of the Father, as declaring God. In these relations He is known and worshipped. But the statement of the Spirit that "no one has seen God at any time" reminds us of the inscrutableness of His abstract relations. He remains "the invisible God".

The Spirit of God, the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit are titles of a divine Person. He is presented in Scripture as having part in the Deity. He is seen as a distinct Person from the outset. "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters", Genesis 1:2. He acts as God, but, at the outset at least, as expressing His feelings. His attitude in the above scripture suggests this as also His striving with men, Genesis 6:3. As we link the word 'strive' here with 'moved' in chapter 1:2, which has the force of brooding or hovering, we see that divine compassions were active in the presence of the consequence of sin. The statement later, that God by His Spirit garnished the heavens, would show that He had specially to do with the refined features of creation.

The title or designation Spirit is relative. It means in Hebrew and Greek 'wind' or 'breath', and so conveys unseen but felt action. Primarily, at least, Scripture presents this feature in the Spirit of God. It is how He was apprehended in creation, expressing, as said above, divine feelings. But while a relative appellation is used to designate this divine Person, Scripture makes plain that it conveys what God is essentially; not that this can be fathomed by the creature, but in so far as

[Page 433]

power of understanding is given him he grasps what God is in this sense -- God is not material. Man has a spirit given to him by God, and in this he has a link with God and a correspondence with Him which the beasts have not. He is said to be God's offspring, Acts 17, and hence has a means of determining what God is. "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly", Proverbs 20:27. By means of this element in men God can work in them, making Himself known to them.

The Lord told the woman of Samaria that "God is a spirit". This statement is remarkable, especially in its setting, for John 4 treats of the deliverance of the believer, and his being adjusted and set up in purified living relations with God in the very place, outwardly, of his degradation through sin. The gift of the Holy Spirit is involved. The believer is not constituted a spirit through this gift, but he has the means of being in holy, intelligent, relationship with God, who is a spirit. He worships Him "in spirit and truth". Thus, while the name Spirit is primarily relative, as denoting God active in creation, as the original word implies, it is what He is essentially in contrast to what is material. He made His angels spirits, and the last Adam is said to be "a quickening spirit". This latter does not, of course, weaken the reality of our Lord's humanity, but it points to His deity, asserting that He is a spirit.

In view of the foregoing scriptural facts, it is clear that while the designation Spirit conveys what God is essentially, it cannot be regarded as a name of One only of the divine Persons viewed in the conditions of absolute Deity, for this would be to assume that the other two divine Persons were not spirits, which, of course, is not true, for God is said to be a spirit, as we have noted. The title is taken by one of the Persons in relation to the declaration of God. The Holy Spirit is called "the eternal Spirit", Hebrews 9:14, as God is said to be

[Page 434]

"the eternal God", Romans 16:26, but these expressions should be regarded as contrasting divine Persons with creatures. So also the scripture, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God", Psalm 90:2.

We may now look briefly at the names given to Christ as Man, especially in John's gospel. Matthew and Mark begin with "Jesus Christ", Luke and John with "the Word". Luke presents Him "from the beginning"; John "in the beginning" -- however far back this may have been. It is to be noted that this is not a title formally given to the Lord, such as the titles 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Emmanuel' are given.

It is quite obvious that the appellation 'Word' is relative; it refers to the mind of God being made known in Christ, as we read in Hebrews 1"God ... has spoken to us in (the person of the) Son". This term could have no application in the abstract relations of Deity, for the idea conveyed would not be necessary as between Themselves. 'Logos' in its ordinary significance is employed by the Spirit over three hundred times in the New Testament, and this should be borne in mind as we consider its meaning as a name of Christ. It is characteristic of Him as Man. In Revelation 19 we read "His name is called The Word of God"; it is manifest, but in that chapter He is also said to have "a name written which no one knows but himself". Probably John wrote the book of Revelation before he wrote his gospel, and this, with Luke 1:2, helps to show that our Lord was known by the title 'Word' prior to the appearance of the latter book, and that the apostle employed the designation in no 'mysterious' sense. That Luke speaks of Him as Man known by this title is plain, for he alludes without explanation to "those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word". 'Logos' being so familiarly used in Scripture, it is also plain that John in employing it begins with our Lord as known characteristically here. Speaking of

[Page 435]

our Lord by this name, John has in view in his early verses the assertion of His eternal personality and His part in the Deity, He was in the beginning with God and He was God. The first verse cannot be read as meaning, "In the beginning He was the Word". It reads, "In the beginning was the Word" -- that is, the Word, the One known in testimony here, was eternal. Then that as eternal He was distinct in Person, "was with God", with implying equality, and then the Word "was God". The threefold use of "the Word" in verse 1 is striking, as emphatically declaring of the Person known in testimony on earth His full part in the Godhead.

I believe every subject student of Scripture, who will carefully weigh what has been said during recent years on this subject, will come to understand John 1 in this way. Very many do, and thus enjoy 'John's simple page' as clear of the mystic speculations of theology on 'the Eternal Logos'. They see that John does not begin with a 'mysterious' designation of Christ as in the Deity and trace Him to Manhood, but rather that he identifies the Person known in manhood as One eternally in the Godhead.

Confirmatory of what I said of theological speculation, I may quote the following regarding "the Word" in John 1

'Long before John wrote thus of the Word, such a description was attributed by Greek religious writers and others to a mysterious Person in the Old Testament, distinct from the Divine Being and yet His equal, and it is this Memra or Word which John adopts as applying to the Lord'. -- Believer's Magazine, October, 1932, p. 237.

In this we are given to understand the 'theological employment' (Trench, Synonyms, 12th edition, page 337) of Logos as in John 1. We are to understand by the statement in the Believers Magazine that John used the word as employed in a heathen religion or theology, and

[Page 436]

not according to its ordinary meaning, but there is no attempt to produce scriptural evidence of this. That it has been used in this sense in the theology of christendom since the days of the so-called christian Fathers is true, but there is no evidence that John used it in any other way than in its ordinary meaning, Christ, as I have said, being the expression of the whole mind of God. He was the full and intelligible expression of all that was spoken or could be spoken of the mind of God. According to recognised authorities -- and the most learned have to rely on authorities -- there is nothing in the regular meaning of 'logos' that conveys the idea of a 'mysterious Person'.

Divine speaking is prominent from the outset, Psalm 33:9, and as a leading feature of the declaration of God it is extolled in Scripture. In Psalm 138 we read, "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name". Answering the Pharisees' inquiry as to who He was, the Lord said, "Altogether that which I also say to you", John 8:25, and so God is all that He has said. In a sense His word is Himself. It "is living and operative ... a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is not a creature unapparent before him", Hebrews 4:12,13. We learn thus that His word is in effect God Himself. Peter writes of "the living and abiding word of God" by which we are born again. Christ was the embodiment of all this and would be so regarded by believers in apostolic times. That John and Luke use this designation of Him without any explanation, is unquestionable evidence that He was known as the Word to those who had received His testimony. Luke speaks of eye-witnesses and attendants on the Word. He is referring to the Lord as actively engaged in His ministry, in which the thought of the Word is manifested.

The appellative conveys what was characteristic of Him as become Man, as Hebrews 1:2 shows. "At the end of these days" God spoke in the Son. 'Son' sets forth

[Page 437]

the dignity of the Person who actually spoke; 'Word' the inherent ability to declare the whole mind of God. Both titles imply His Deity, but as incarnate. The latter is more characteristic of Him as anointed, denoting His personal qualification to unfold the whole mind and will of God; in a word, to make God known. In contrast, those through whom God spoke in Old Testament times did not fully understand what they said, 1 Peter 1:10 - 12.

An examination of theological history will reveal that soon after apostolic times certain ideas as to Logos, found in heathen teaching, were adopted by christian teachers and read into John 1:1. The Believer's Magazine would have us understand that the apostle John used the name Logos in this heathen sense, but there is no scriptural evidence of it. The notions that prevailed, largely borrowed from the Greeks, were developed by Philo, a Jewish-heathen philosopher who flourished about the time of our Lord. In his view the agent of action in the universe was a combination of certain qualities or attributes of the Supreme God, who Himself was infinitely apart from material things, and by this combination the world was made; at the same time it was held that the Logos had a separate existence. That the Spirit of God should have employed a term with any such meaning to designate our Lord as in pre-incarnate condition, is to a spiritually instructed believer, unthinkable.

John did not so understand his Master. In Him the word of God was set forth before the apostle's own eyes, and it was in this sense, as having learnt from Christ, that he spoke of the Lord in the language of the first verse of his gospel. He did not present a mysterious Person bearing the title 'the Word' as in the Deity in the past, but One in whose bosom he had lain, and who as here on earth had made known to him and to his fellow disciples, the mind and love of God. Now the saints were to be assured that this lowly Man was Himself

[Page 438]

God. We should note that John does not say that the Word created "all things", verse 3, until he has said He was God. The understanding of the truth in John 1:1 lies in discerning the Person rather than the name used to designate Him. The importation of a heathen idea into the theological interpretation of John 1:1 has darkened it but it accounts for the 'orthodox' view, that the Word was eternally the name of the second Person in the Trinity. Whereas John, writing after the Lord had finished His testimony in the world, presents Him, as already said, by a characteristic name, and he shows His eternal personality and Deity; also that in Him was life and that this shone as light among men; that this light appeared in darkness and the darkness apprehended it not. The lowly Jesus, known in testimony here, is the starting point in the mind of the Spirit. His personal dignity and glory are maintained impregnably, as by a sword that turns every way, in this most marvellous passage.

The sonship of Christ is a leading feature of John's writing, and the Spirit would undoubtedly call our special attention to it. From Genesis 4 onwards the family appellative 'son' has been most familiar among men; indeed, it is applied to angels as from the outset of God's operations, Job 38. These facts are in mind in the application of this relative designation to our Lord in John 1:14. As become flesh, His glory is seen "as of an only-begotten with a father". This is descriptive, a well-known relationship being suggested. There is no ground for the assumption that it was a relationship of Deity carried into manhood; nor is there a hint of this in the corresponding record in Luke, where we read, "shall be called Son of God". Luke clearly bases our Lord's sonship on the great divine transaction of the incarnation. The angel says to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born shall

[Page 439]

be called Son of God". The 'wherefore' links sonship with the transaction of the Holy Spirit mentioned. Were He Son already, this could be stated, and the passage would read, 'is Son of God', the 'wherefore' being unnecessary. These remarks apply in measure also to John 1:14. If the evangelist by the Spirit wished to teach eternal sonship he could have said, 'He who was Son became flesh, and so we contemplated Him in this relation with His Father'. But Scripture contains no such statement.

The first direct presentation of sonship in John 1 is in verse 18. This presentation is in keeping with the descriptive one of verse 14, but the only-begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father, not 'with' the Father, as in verse 14. Verse 18 tells of the position of the only-begotten Son as declaring God. It is a position reached as indicated by the preposition 'in' (the Greek, as is well known, meaning 'direction towards, motion to, on, or into', etc. -- Liddell and Scott). J.N.D. says, 'Eis, is in general simple -- the direction towards; reaching, if not hindered. I am going to Rome. It is well known that where it is used with verbs of rest it implies arrival there by motion. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in (eis) hades", Acts 2:27, where it had gone on leaving the body'. (Colossians Writings, Volume 13, page 194). See also Luke 16:22, where the same preposition is used of Lazarus being carried "into (eis) the bosom of Abraham". Some would remove this important evidence against so-called eternal sonship by saying that this preposition has not its ordinary meaning here. But why not? If we bear in mind that in becoming flesh, Christ came under God's eye, not only as His equal in Deity, but as Man, expressing all loveliness, moral and personal, answering to eternal desire and purpose, it is quite intelligible that the Spirit would convey this in indicating, by the preposition He employs, that the Lord had come into the bosom of the Father. The announcement from

[Page 440]

heaven in the synoptic gospels, "This is my beloved Son in whom I have found my delight", confirms this view. What is in the mind of the Spirit is not our Lord's relations in Deity, but who and what He was and is as Man before God.

In order to weaken the force of the preposition eis here some have stressed essential being and disregard of time in the present participle 'is'. This would be important, of course, if the participle invariably expressed essential being, but it is often used to convey what is characteristic of persons or things, and in John 1:18 it is clearly subordinate to the idea of place -- where the Only-Begotten Son is. After the eternal personality of our Lord is stated in verse 1, a similar thought is added as to position, to that of verse 18: "The Word was with God". 'With' here is said to have the meaning of 'ending in' and 'communicative associations' (Notes and Comments, J.N.D., Volume 7, page 2). It conveys the outgoings of mind and affection of the Person designated the 'Word' to God. There would be infinite mutual satisfaction between the divine Persons. The first 'was' in verse 1 expresses eternal existence; the second and third are more characteristic additional facts as to the Word. John 1:1 - 4 thus refutes in the most concise and striking manner Sabellian, Unitarian, and Tritheistic errors. There is no thought in verse 1 of the expression 'with God' indicating that the position was entered into, whereas the preposition 'in' in verse 18, according to the ordinary meaning implies, as already said, that the Only-Begotten Son had entered into the position mentioned. Where our Lord's eternal personality and Deity are clearly confessed, there is nothing whatever derogatory in the thought that in becoming flesh He came into the Father's affections, and that He was in the Father's bosom in full responsive affection. On the contrary, it honours Him, for it calls attention to His excellence and loveliness in the new

[Page 441]

relation and position He had taken as become Man. In the light of these considerations, with many others that could be mentioned, there cannot be a doubt in a subject spiritual mind that the sonship of our Lord is contingent on His incarnation. The first direct notice of it in Scripture, Psalm 2:7, connects it with His birth. The Lord's own treatment of His sonship, especially in John 5:18 - 23 and Mark 13:32, precludes its being regarded as a title attaching to Him as viewed in pre-incarnate Deity. It has been alleged that 'only-begotten' is only a term of endearment and does not necessarily imply birth, this is of course to remove the difficulty implied in the ordinary meaning of the word, that as applied to Christ, if He be regarded as the Eternal Son, He must have been begotten before the worlds, as the orthodox creed asserts. But an only-begotten or darling of a father must be a child -- son or daughter -- as an only one of a husband must be a wife. Then if it is insisted that 'only-begotten' is a term of special endearment employed by one of the divine Persons of Another in pre-incarnate Deity, is there not disregard of the third Person in some sense?

The unique place taken by One of the Persons as become Man, and the lowly place the Spirit has taken in relation to this, make the term 'only-begotten' as applied to Christ intelligible. The Spirit's undefined relations with the Father emphasise the unique position and relationship of the One divine Person who became flesh.

The Lord, in causing attention to be called to His sonship in a definite way during recent years, has in mind assuredly to clarify the understanding and faith of His people as to it; indeed, to lead us into a more spiritually intelligent apprehension of the manner of the divine intervention. That the greatness of the divine transaction of the incarnation and its full spiritual import should be understood, is also in view. One

[Page 442]

of the divine Persons, according to eternal purpose, has become Man, taking the relation of Son to God, so that God in all that He is as revealed should be known, and that men, through faith, should be brought into the relation of sons of God. His sonship, although contingent on His humanity, is also contingent on His eternal personality. Only One "equal with God" could be the Son. The title conveys One as on God's side who presents all that He is to men, and what man is to God as answering to the counsel of His love. It is important to bear in mind that the incarnation implies, not only the action of the Holy Spirit as seen in Luke 1:35, but also that the Word became flesh, as seen in John. The latter presents a divine Person coming into manhood Himself.

On the other names or titles of Christ I need not fully enlarge here, although each, of course, has its own special importance.

'Jesus' is the most personal. It is the name divinely given before His birth by which our Lord was to be called. It is the Greek equivalent of 'Joshua', and so was applied to others, but although Christ's name as Man, it involves His Deity, for none but a Person, Himself divine, could "save his people from their sins". The change from "Hoshea" to "Jehoshua", Numbers 13:16, by Moses had a prophetic significance: Jehoshua means Jehovah the Saviour.

As already remarked, Matthew and Mark begin their narratives with "Jesus Christ". Thus designated He is the Man anointed to effect the whole will and pleasure of God. In Romans the work of God is through Jesus Christ and the results of it are in Christ Jesus.

Christ (the Christ, Messiah), also appears in the Old Testament. It implies divine anointing. The idea of anointing is very extended, beginning with Satan, Ezekiel 28:14. Abraham in Psalm 105:15, is one of those alluded to as "mine anointed ones", and then the high

[Page 443]

priests and kings of Israel; some of the prophets also were anointed; and likewise the tabernacle. But the Lord Jesus is the Anointed, the Messiah. He is directly alluded to in this way in Psalm 2:6 and in Daniel 9:25, while Matthew and Luke present Him as Christ at His birth, Matthew 1:16 and Matthew 2:4; Luke 2:11. The title conveys God's committal to the Man of His choice. As risen He is made Lord and Christ. He effects all the will of God as prophetically foretold in Psalm 89:20 - 27.

Emmanuel is an appealing and triumphant name, for it is 'God with us'. It appears most significantly in Isaiah: first, as expressive of grace, for the Son to be born of the virgin would be a sign given to the house of David, in spite of the unbelief of Ahaz; secondly, as a sure guarantee of victory over the Assyrian. The remnant understands the import of the name, for as the enemy comes in like a flood they are assured of victory, saying, "God is with us", compare Isaiah 7:10 - 15, Isaiah 8:8,9. 'Emmanuel' is noted in Matthew, a gospel intended to support the saints in the pressure occasioned by opposition to the testimony.

Son of man is an appellation appearing in the Psalms, in Daniel, and very extensively in Ezekiel. In the New Testament it is found in the gospels, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation only. In the gospels the Lord alone applies it to Himself. It implies that He is Heir to all that God conferred on Adam. The Lord is quoted about eighty times in the gospels as using this title of Himself, and this fact shows that what it conveys has a great place in His mind. As rejected by the Jews, He asserts His relation to the whole race of men. Stephen saw the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. Rejected and put to death like his Master, it was meet that he should see Israel's hopes deferred to make way for the universal glory of the Head of all men. Becoming Man, the Lord has vicariously taken on the liabilities of men and has discharged them to the infinite glory of God, and now

[Page 444]

He is making all this effective through the gospel.

Saviour. This is a title included in the name Jesus -- which implies, as we have seen, 'Jehovah the Saviour'. The designation is applied to God throughout Scripture, but it has a special touch as applied to Christ. As He was born, the announcement of the angel to the shepherds is, "today a Saviour has been born to you", Luke 2:11. The Samaritans who believed in Him said, "we have heard him ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world", John 4:42. John says, "we have seen, and testify, that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world", 1 John 4:14. Paul connects this great name with our Lord as God: "awaiting", he says, "the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ", Titus 2:13. "Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear to those that look for him the second time without sin for salvation", Hebrews 9:28. He has effected "an eternal salvation", which includes the resurrection of the sleeping saints and the change of the bodies of those who are alive on the earth when He comes, Philippians 3:21.

Lamb, Lamb of God. These titles have a sacrificial signification, involving, of course, suffering: Isaiah 53. The word translated Lamb in John 1 conveys maturity, whereas that in Revelation describes what is diminutive. The former is on God's part. It appears also in Acts 8:32 and 1 Peter 1:19. The latter word suggests more what Christ is as exposed to persecution and consequent suffering; although viewed thus, redemption is also accomplished by Him, Revelation 5:9,10. The term is calculated to endear Christ to the hearts of His own, as having suffered patiently in His love for us: it correspondingly induces His spirit and character in ourselves (compare Romans 8:36 and 1 Peter 2:20 - 24).

Shepherd. Under this name the Lord expresses His self-sacrificing and skilful, vigilant care for His people.

[Page 445]

It is prophetically used of Christ in Genesis 49:24, and runs through Scripture.

Head. Christ is said to be "head of the church", "head of every man", "head of all principality and power", "head of the corner". Headship implies competency to guide with authority. Jehovah is significantly called Head by David, 1 Chronicles 29:11. This was in the presence of the great wealth and glory which had developed in the kingdom. All the magnificence depicted in 1 Chronicles 22 - 29 was the outcome of the wisdom and general resources of God. David was endowed in this respect in a remarkable way, and this shone out particularly in the ordering of the divine service. He was a type of Christ, not only as King but as Head. David "became a captain" over those who gathered to him, 1 Samuel 22:2, and this indicates how the headship of Christ comes to be recognised among His people.

In Colossians He is Head by personal right. "He is the head of the body, the assembly". In Ephesians He is given to be Head over all things to the assembly. Here Christ is viewed as Man (typified in Adam) according to divine counsel. He is taken by the exceeding greatness of the power of God out of death, and set at His right hand in the heavenlies over all as Head to the assembly, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all. Romans lays the basis for headship in the believer. Christ becomes apprehended through the gospel in His moral worth, and hence, advances in the minds and hearts of the saints in His greatness and wisdom. "The one Jesus Christ" of chapter 5 becomes Head, as in Colossians and Ephesians. As Head, Christ influences, sways, and holds the whole moral universe according to the wisdom of God, of which He is the embodiment and expression.

The above remarks lead to inquiry as to whether Scripture admits of the application of 'wisdom' as a

[Page 446]

name to our Lord. It should be noted that while wisdom is personified in both Old and New Testaments, the word is feminine, the Lord Himself saying, "Wisdom is justified of all her children". It is to be observed that other attributes or qualities are also personified, especially in Proverbs. That Christ is said to be the wisdom of God is true, but this is not a warrant to regard it as a designation of His Person.

This use of it, however, is founded mainly on Proverbs 8. Indeed that chapter is generally interpreted to mean that wisdom was a name attaching to our Lord before the world was. Such a use of the chapter involves disregard of certain facts which stand out in it, and which if accepted, entirely refute the above interpretation. First, wisdom is said to be possessed by Jehovah in the beginning of His way. 'Possessed' is given in concordances to mean 'acquired', 'set up', and the word is used in Deuteronomy 32:6 for "bought". Then "brought forth", Proverbs 8:25, refers obviously to birth, the original word signifying 'pain', 'travail'. To apply these thoughts to a divine Person in pre-incarnate Deity is clearly wrong and derogatory. The following remarks on Proverbs 8 indicate how this application came into orthodox currency:

'When in christian times it was observed how well the description of Wisdom in Job and Proverbs harmonised with that of God the Son in the New Testament, such passages as this (Proverbs 8) were universally applied to Him, and the present one was interpreted as describing His eternal generation from the Father, such was the view, for instance, of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. But when the Arian controversy arose, this phrase was seized upon by the opponents of our Lord's Divinity, and claimed as teaching that He was, though the highest of created beings, still only a creature. The Catholics then changed their ground ... applying the term

[Page 447]

to Christ's incarnation', etc. -- Ellicotts Commentary.

But though the Catholics 'changed their ground' to combat Arian blasphemy, the application of wisdom as an appellative of our Lord in pre-incarnate Deity, with the corresponding belief that He was 'begotten of His Father before all worlds', remained in orthodox doctrine, the former being currently advocated in support of eternal sonship, and this by those who would rightly refuse the latter. But both are unscriptural.

The truth is that in Proverbs 8 wisdom speaks as on earth, active in a world of sin. She speaks as a person and refers to prudence in a personal way. "The foolish woman" of chapter 9, as occupied in wickedness, is set over against wisdom as engaged in promoting what is of God. Wisdom as working on earth was embodied in Christ, and its all-various features are now made known in the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies, Ephesians 3. In Proverbs her activities are seen making a way for faith out of the labyrinth of confusion which sin has brought to pass in this world, and in chapter 8 she furnishes us with her own origin and history. As already noted, the terms she employs denote that, viewed as a personality, she had a beginning: she was brought forth -- born. It is not implied that wisdom, viewed as a quality or attribute of God, is not eternal, but that as the divine operations were contemplated, it assumed this personal character, God thus seeking to impress all with its prominence in all His works. It is inherent in Himself and was brought forth as the need for it existed.

Verses 22 - 26 of this well-known chapter are unique as bringing the wisdom, already known to faith, into evidence in its peculiar form and setting before sin or the world existed. Verses 27 - 31 present her in relation to the creation. She was there. "I was by him his nursling, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth,

[Page 448]

and my delights were with the sons of men". As speaking, she is presented as actually in the scene described, in the earth amid the sons of men, what is recorded in this respect being anticipative. Her delight in the habitable part of God's earth, and with the sons of men, points to wisdom taking form and expressing itself in Christ as Man (compare Psalm 16). It is important to observe that wisdom, in this section of the chapter, is not seen actually operating in the creation. Jehovah is the Operator; she is by Him. This fact in itself shows that we cannot regard wisdom here as Christ personally, for viewed as a Person in the Godhead He created all things, John 1:3. Thus Jehovah here, verse 22, is our Lord Himself, although not exclusive of the other Persons of the Deity, for God is the Creator. It is quite intelligible spiritually that wisdom, as anticipatively taking form in Christ as Man should be the delight of the Deity in all its operations.

Lord. Under this title Christ stands in relation to the kingdom. At His birth He was announced by the angel as Christ the Lord, Luke 2:11. The angel's statement is not "shall be" Christ the Lord, but is Christ the Lord. It refers to His personal right, corresponding with the statement of our Lord's headship in Colossians 1, to which we have referred. Acts 2:36 tells us that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. There is a similar statement as to His headship in Ephesians 1. Thus we learn that as becoming Man, Christ, in virtue of who He is, takes these titles; also that as having accomplished redemption, He has them conferred on Him, as we may say, officially.

He is invested with kingly authority, and through Him -- He having sent the Holy Spirit -- the kingdom of God has been inaugurated, and exists down here for the deliverance and protection of believers from the power of Satan and the world. The kingdom of God is announced in the gospel. The believer comes into it outwardly

[Page 449]

through baptism, but inwardly by the confession of Jesus as Lord. Normally, this latter is by the Spirit (compare Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:3). Christ was owned as Lord by His own while here in the flesh, and the Acts and the epistles greatly emphasise the importance of this official title in relation to the present dispensation. He is reverently and affectionately confessed as Lord by those who love Him, to the glory of God the Father. Paul says, "To us ... one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things", 1 Corinthians 8:6. It is instructive to note here that the effectuation of "all things" is attributed to Him under a title that manifestly could not apply to our Lord as in pre-incarnate Deity. If such scriptures as this were fully accepted, believers would be deterred from insisting that, because certain names are employed in Scripture to designate Christ as creating the worlds, they must have been borne by Him then, that is before the incarnation.

The authority that our Lord exercises now will be wielded by Him until "he shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power"; then "he gives up the kingdom to him who is God and Father", 1 Corinthians 15:24. In the exercise of His royal authority in the future He also takes the title, "King of kings and Lord of Lords". This is imperial.

Priest. This is an appellation under which the Lord stands specially in relation to His people. "It behoved him in all things to be made like to his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God ... for, in that himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to help those that are being tempted", Hebrews 2:17,18. This passage shows how near Christ is to His own in sympathy and support. Having Him at the right hand of God, we may have the utmost confidence and liberty in approaching "with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help", Hebrews 4:14 - 16. On the

[Page 450]

other hand. He did not take the honour of priesthood on Himself, "but he who had said to him, Thou art my Son, I have today begotten thee. Even as also in another place he says, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec", Hebrews 5:5,6. Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 are thus prominently linked together, almost as the basis of the epistle to the Hebrews. The first, the acknowledgment of the sonship of Christ as begotten of God; the second, the constituting of Him High Priest, being Son, by the swearing of the oath.

The priesthood of Christ is founded on His sonship; and His sonship is owned, not as existing in pre-incarnate Deity, but as the consequence of incarnation. The epistle opens with the fact that God has spoken "at the end of these days", "in Son". This had evidently been accepted, but there was need of asserting the greatness of the Person so designated. The Psalms, having absolute divine authority in the minds of the Hebrew christians furnished adequate proof of His Deity, supporting the magnificent assertion of it by the writer of the epistle in chapter 1, Hebrews 1:2,3. His sonship is proved from Psalm 2, and "the Son" -- the same Son -- is addressed as "God" in Psalm 45; and in Psalm 102 He is addressed as "the Same", or the unchangeable One. It is assumed by some that the sonship of Psalm 2 differs from that spoken of elsewhere, but Hebrews knows no other sonship; nor has it been shown that Scripture anywhere treats of another sonship than that which is presented in that epistle.

The Son, of Psalm 2 is the Priest, of Psalm 110. As already said. He is so presented as on the side of the saints. Hebrews 7:26 says, "such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens". This indeed is a wonderful statement, bringing into evidence, as it does, not only the greatness of Christ as Priest, but also the greatness of the saints viewed in relation to their

[Page 451]

heavenly calling. Chapter 8 confirms this: "We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man". The service of God in the assembly now is in view in all this; having a great priest over the house of God, we are to draw near to God in praise and worship. Melchisedec sets forth the order of Christ's priesthood; Aaron the manner of its exercise at the present time. He will function as Melchisedec in the millennium, being priest of the Most High God. He will sit as a priest upon His throne, Zechariah 6.

Some have thought that because Melchisedec is "assimilated to the Son of God", this is proof of Christ's eternal sonship, but clearly a son has a father, and so the assimilation cannot be to Christ as Son, but rather to His Person. Viewed as eternally in the Deity, He is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. The truth is, that our Lord's priesthood did not hang on genealogy, like the Aaronic priesthood, but on His own divine personality as in manhood.

Other characteristic designations of Christ deserve consideration, but what has been already written exceeds the proportion primarily intended for the present work, and hence a bare mention of them must suffice. Among them. Amen, Alpha and Omega have obvious significance, especially in the book of Revelation, in which they appear. Isaiah 9:6 furnishes a marvellous prophetic testimony to the Deity of our Lord as the Child "born" and the Son "given". "His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace". How transcendently rich and glorious is this Name.

In presenting the foregoing pages to the saints, the writer is very sensible of the smallness of his

[Page 452]

apprehension of the supremely great subject considered in them, but as before the Lord he has been pressed to serve Him and His people in this way. Whatever imperfections may appear in the work, he is assured that, as engaged in it, Christ in His personal and official glories has been unvaryingly before his soul. And he is more than confirmed in the belief that, if these glories are to be maintained in our minds and hearts and in testimony, we must think of our Lord as in absolute, inscrutable Deity, while regarding Him according to the relative names in which He is presented in Scripture.

In the presence of the great facts which have been under review, writer and readers may well bow in homage to Him who loves us and has washed us from our sins in His blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, to whom be the glory and the might to the ages of ages. He is "the Alpha and the Omega, ... who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty"; with Paul it is for us to say, "To the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only God, honour and glory to the ages of ages, Amen".

[Page 453]

UNSPOTTED GARMENTS

Leviticus 13

This scripture came to me since I sat down here this evening, and assuming that in its application it contains something for us, I ventured to read it. This chapter of Leviticus treats of leprosy, not the cleansing process, but the means of detecting leprosy. It is seen in a person, man or woman, in a house, and in a garment. The subject has a great place in the book; a book which is intended to instruct us as to the service of God and its maintenance; so that it is peculiarly a priestly book. The name it bears is derived from Levi, which is apropos, up to a point, but it would be more accurate to have a title derived from Aaron, because it is a question of the priests; they being in charge of the service of God. They were to "keep the charge of the Lord", chapter 8: 35.

Chapters 13 and 14 treat of leprosy and they occupy a large part of the book; chapter 13 has 59 verses, and chapter 14 has 57 verses; so that from a standpoint of space, the subject has a great place in the book, and from a moral standpoint too, for the service of God is taken up in the wilderness in an environment that is in itself corrupting. Those who have part in the service too, according to the truth of Romans, have sin within them, but as arriving at this truth they have decided to serve the law of God, Romans 7:25. Leviticus is peculiarly the law of God, and it is intended to be in priestly hands. Clearly we cannot be custodians of the law for others save as we allow it full force in ourselves, so that we have the statement: "I myself with the mind serve God's law; but with the flesh sin's law". It is not that the speaker intended to serve sin's law; the expression "with the flesh" is simply to bring out that it is the flesh, and if it acts at all it obeys the law of sin.

In these chapters in Leviticus typically sin in the flesh is seen working in persons, and we are instructed

[Page 454]

here how to deal with it as it acts. If the person in whom it acts cannot control it then the saints have to do it, and in doing that they have to control him or her. Thank God, there is power for that! The epistle to the Corinthians furnishes us with instruction how to deal with persons in whom leprosy is active, who have not dealt with it in themselves, for it is said, if we judge ourselves we shall not be judged. And these chapters deal with this thing.

The examples of lepers that we have in the Scriptures are not so extensive as we might expect, in view of the great place that the thing has as a type of sin. The first leper mentioned is Miriam, the sister of Aaron, and she becomes a leper judicially -- a most solemn thing, especially in one having a reputation in the things of God. Gehazi is another who became leprous judicially. He was covetous; that is another working of sin that brings out this judicial dealing of God. That is to say, the sin that shows itself is, in the government of God, made leprosy in the person. We may not think that envy is as bad as covetousness, but God in Miriam shows that it is leprosy. And then in Uzziah, a king, who took on a service that did not belong to him, the same thing appears -- he became leprous by a judicial act of God. He usurped the holy service of priesthood, although not a priest. This sin is prevalent today. The priest has access within whereas one who is not a priest, even a king, does not have that liberty, and Uzziah entered into the sanctuary, so that he became a leper judicially. There are three persons who definitely were made leprous judicially, but the real leprosy was there before it became manifest; it is God dealing with the thing, and exposing it in the sinner in its true character.

In the New Testament ten lepers are seen together and they were all cleansed by the word of Christ -- but one only returned to give glory to God. Another one, definitely called a leper is Simon, Matthew 26:6; he

[Page 455]

represents those whom although they have been leprous, have judged the leprosy and are cleansed. The Lord Jesus was with Simon the leper in his house, and received the service of love there, showing the leprosy was dealt with, but what he had been was attached to the man; the more you thought of the attachment of the word to him, the more you would think how thoroughly he had judged the evil; there is not a stain of it, a trace of it. You may tell him that he had been a leper, but he does not resent it because he would say, I know that, and am humbled because of it, but I am cleansed. Paul would say, I am chief of sinners.

Well, I wish to point out that leprosy may be in a garment, whether in the warp or the woof of it. It is not the style of the garment, nor is it its size, but whether it is wool or linen, as to the material, or whether it is skin: "... in a woollen garment, or a linen garment, either in the warp or in the woof of linen or of wool, or in a skin, or in anything made of skin". That is, it could be a pair of gloves, or a pair of shoes -- anything made of skin.

Now this opens up a good deal, and it is a searching matter. But what is particularly in mind is to call attention to the difference between the warp and the woof; and what I have observed, as among the brethren in many parts of the world is, that we are generally ready to accept right principles. In the Bible readings brethren generally are ready to join in in the setting out of the truth; and of course the Lord is with us in all that, so far as we are saying what is true, governed by the Scriptures.

Well, I liken that to the laying out of the warp. In weaving, the warp is laid out in the loom in long stretches of yarn, carefully set in the beam; it is usually stronger yarn than the woof, for there is more pressure on it as the weaving, proceeds. The Spirit of God takes all this up here as a symbol; we have our Bible readings and our

[Page 456]

ministry meetings, and the Spirit is with us in developing the truth. The best translation of the Bible is in our hands; God helped the translator with it, and He helps us now; the Holy Spirit is with us in our meetings for mutual help, and according to what the Lord says, He guides us into all the truth; that is, according to our type. He lays the warp out on the beam. The Lord was occupied largely in doing that as seen in the gospels.

Now when we leave the meeting room normally we should begin to fill in the woof, using the shuttle, as it were; that makes the cloth. You cannot have cloth without both the warp and the woof, and whilst the warp is clear, there is not a particle of leprosy in it, all being agreed on the principles; but when we get outside the door and stand around we find that we have judgments different from what we supported at the reading inside. Disciplinary actions have taken place according to Scripture, but we are not in agreement with them; we talk about them; we are in agreement with the things as we speak of them in the Bible readings, but not as we come to deal with the persons. We cannot have the weft inserted, the cloth woven, without one another; principles are abstract. All eastern religions and even Judaism are largely a question of principles, but christianity is very definitely not only principles, but practice; the truth worked out in a concrete way in relation to one another, that is in our intercourse with the brethren. One whispers at the corner of the room something that is entirely in disagreement with what was said in the meeting -- that is leprosy in the woof. You have had the warp; the principles set out are to your mind right, but your practice is not right. And so there may be coteries, parties differing secretly from the brethren and from what is taught publicly -- well, dear brethren, such have a garment, but a garment with leprosy, and that is what this passage is intended to rebuke.

[Page 457]

Another thing in the chapter is a garment of skin. You may say, that means that death has come in, because you cannot have skin without the death of an animal; that is the principle. God made the first garment, and it was of skin; there was no leprosy in that. Abel followed that up; he brought the firstlings of his flock with the fat and offered it; that is to say, the death of the animal had taken place; he offered it up an acceptable offering to God. He evidently followed the light afforded in what God had done for his father and mother, in making garments of skin. If Eve had a wardrobe, no doubt you could see the coats of skin there; they would have been very interesting; I should like to have seen them. God made those first clothes; He made them of skin. In our chapter the garment of skin typifies the profession of christianity; that is to say, I come to the gospel meeting; I hear the gospel; I agree with every word that is said as to the gospel, the death of Christ alone as the means of salvation. But then when I come to practice, to work out my own salvation, I carry on much as I have always done; I do not walk according to the truth of the gospel. My profession, as owing to the death of Christ, is good, but my practice is not in keeping with it. What God requires in such a garment is the correlation of the truth of the gospel which I profess to accept -- and my practice. If my walk is out of accord with the gospel which I say I have accepted, my garment is leprous. Even the apostle Peter, who accepted and preached the gospel, was, for a time, guilty in this way, Galatians 2:11 - 16. He was affected by human influence. This always tends to leprosy in our garments. It is most important as walking in the truth, to disallow personal preferences and party affiliations.

There is nothing more to say except that each of us should look into this passage and see how the truth is worked out, how cleansing takes place. We have, for instance, "if ... the sore is greenish or reddish in the

[Page 458]

garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin, it is the sore of leprosy". It is shown unto the priest. 'Greenish' or 'reddish' points to what is distinctive in the sense of evil; contrary to what should be there and hence discipline is plainly insisted on. I cannot dwell on it; my thought is to bring out one point, that is, believers having principles right, and also practice flowing out from them so that their garments are free from leprosy and hence pleasing to God. It is largely how we regard one another, so that there should be unity among us, that our profession is real; that we are real christians; we are brethren, and we ought to see eye to eye. When the Lord brings back Zion, we are told, they shall see eye to eye -- why should there be any difference? If we are agreed on the principles, then surely the leaven is in the practice of which I have spoken, our speakings, the way we regard one another, instead of seeing that we are essential to each other. We cannot have the garment without the saints. The disallowance of sin in the principles is usually seen as we are together in the Bible readings, but the disallowance of sin in the woof is generally when we company with each other informally, in our houses, in private conversation, and other opportunities of manifesting the practicability of the truth. As the warp and woof agree, as I have been showing, there will be a good front, a profession presented according to God, for the profession of christianity should be real in all its features. The general profession has become spurious, but actually the profession of the christians and the walk of the christians corresponded exactly at the beginning, as Acts 2 shows.