GOD'S INHERITANCE IN THE SAINTS (5)
GOD’S INHERITANCE IN THE SAINTS (5)
1 Chronicles 28:1 - 19; 1 Chronicles 29:10 - 19
JT We may all clearly observe that these chapters form a definite section in the book, having the character of completion. The early part of chapter 28 stresses that thought of divine choice. As definite work in us progresses to its completion, it will fit perfectly with divine counsel. All the results of God’s work must fit in with His counsel; so that as the work is examined it will be observed that it conforms with God’s own desire and choice. In the book of Ezekiel, where we have perhaps more about divine measurement than in any book, it is measurement of what exists, of what had come to exist in the work of God; not what should be, but what is. I think these chapters, as we look into them, will impress us with all this; the completion of God’s work in us has in mind perfect correspondence with His counsels. There will not be, there cannot be, any discrepancy at all. So David is enlarging here on the divine choice, it is entirely in keeping with God’s work. This is confirmed principally as to himself, and, inferentially, also in Solomon: for his instructions and exhortations have in mind that it should also be in Solomon.
AMP Would it be diverting to ask about the tillage of the field in the previous chapter?
JT You allude to chapter 27:26: “And over them that worked in the field for tillage of the ground was Ezri the son of Chelub”. Then we have, “And over the vineyards was Shimei the Ramathite; and over what was in the vineyards of stores of wine was Zabdi the Shiphmite; and over the olive-trees and the sycamore-trees that were in the lowland was Baal-hanan the Gederite; and over the cellars of oil was Joash”. The section continues to the end of verse 31. That the Spirit of God should extend to these details is very [p. 277] suggestive, as also the superintendence over us all, viewed as what is to be cultivated for divine results. We have to apply it to the divine field in cultivation now. Jacob was spoken of in his blessing as “a field which the Lord hath blessed” (Genesis 27:27). He was potentially that, but had to be cultivated. The first section of chapter 27 gives the twelve military divisions of twenty-four thousand each. Then the princes of the tribes are mentioned (verses 16 - 22). Then those over the king’s treasures, storehouses and towers (verse 25); and after these, the overseers of agriculture, then those over the herds and flocks (verses 26 - 31); all having in mind that full results should be secured. All this departmental instruction is seen from the beginning of chapter 23 to the end of chapter 27; and the Spirit of God brings out how thorough David was that there should be a full result for God. We have in the end of chapter 27 certain men mentioned: “And Jonathan, David’s uncle, was counsellor, a wise man, and a scribe; and Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was with the king’s sons”. We have an important thought introduced there, that is, companionship for the sons. We have also such a man as Ahithophel mentioned here, all from the side of good: “Ahithophel was the king’s counsellor; and Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend”. The whole position is mentioned from the standpoint of care in the king; and on this ground the succeeding chapters are based. Here we have advanced on to higher levels, that is, we come on to the realm of divine choice and quality in what is provided, reaching even to the pattern of the house with its variety of features received “by the Spirit”. It is in writing, too, so that there should be no question at all at any time: “All this said David, in writing, by Jehovah’s hand upon me, instructing as to all the works of the pattern”.
MWB Would there be the contrast in that respect, chapter 27 concluding the issue on the moral line, and this being more on the spiritual line and divine [p. 278] purpose?
JT I think that is what is in mind; how the work of God eventuates in perfection, in complete correspondence with His counsels, and what He had in mind before anything was effected at all.
FCH Would “the footstool of our God”, in verse 2, bear on this thought of completion?
JT Quite so, descending even to that; God provided for, even to that extent — a footstool.
AJG Is the emphasis given to divine choice intended to add a richness in the service of God?
JT I think so. We ought to arrive in our souls at a sense, not only of doing things well, ministering to God, but that we answer to His choice, for all must come back to that: “For of him, and through him, and for him are all things” (Romans 11:36). Whatever any one of us is, or the assembly is, it is the outcome of divine choice, divine selection; hence the pattern here.
TH What is involved in David standing on his feet?
JT You feel how suitable it is in dealing with such matters that it should be so, that our old age should not prevent us taking up this attitude, because he was an old man, weak, according to 1 Kings. If you compare the narrative in 1 Kings, David was a very old man, not exactly in years, for he was only seventy; but the immensity of the affairs he had attended to, I suppose, promoted old age. Here he is superior to all that; he is not behind in the position: he is not seen as a decrepit old man; he is in full vigour.
Ques Do you see the same thought in the day of recovery as well as the day of inauguration? Nehemiah 9:5, says, “Stand up, bless Jehovah your God from eternity to eternity. And let men bless the name of thy glory, which is exalted above all blessing and praise”. And then it goes on to say: “Thou art the Same, Jehovah Elohim, who didst choose Abram and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; and foundest his heart faithful [p. 279] before thee, and madest the covenant with him ... and thou hast performed thy words, for thou art righteous”.
JT It shows how thorough the recovery was. Thoroughness is a word I think we should keep in mind. In this book, at whatever point it may be, the mind of God was reached thoroughly.
Ques Would you say a word on “my brethren and my people”, in verse 2?
JT “And king David stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren and my people!” It is the relation of the people to him. “My people” would be a kingly word; but “my brethren” is very beautiful as the very words of our Lord Jesus: “Go to my brethren” (John 20:17); that is not a kingly word, it is a family word. I suppose David is in the spirit of the instruction given as regards the king in Israel; that he was to be “from among thy brethren”, (Deuteronomy 17:15). It is a greater thought, in a sense, than kingship.
Ques Would it be right to say that the list of persons thus addressed gave David a warrant to address them thus? In the first verse we have the thought of princes three times and then the captains. Would the spirituality thus represented enter into the thought of “my brethren”?
JT There is a sense of equality with David, and Christ would have it so with us. We have words intimating the thought of equality in John’s gospel, showing that we may speak to the Lord, with reverence, on family terms; and then, too, of course, under other circumstances, subjection and reverence. A princely condition would afford us liberty of address. The message, “Go to my brethren”, as received by them, would without doubt qualify the disciples for the Lord’s entrance amongst them, so that they are glad when they see Him. There would be, I am sure, a sense of nearness, a mutual feeling on His side and on theirs, as He came in amongst them; so He says, “As [p. 280] the Father sent me forth, I also send you” (John 20:21); and “he breathed into them”, as much as to say, I have confidence in you.
WGT In John 9:37 the Lord says, “It is he that talketh with thee”. Would that be intimacy? — and then, “he worshipped him”.
JT Quite so: the Lord would bring the man to that; he was worthy of it as shown by what he had been in testimony. He was cast out, and when the Lord heard that he was cast out He found him, and “he said to him, Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him, Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he” (John 9:35 - 37). “With thee” is a touch of familiarity. The Lord would never be slow to set us free thus as we are equal to it, as our state would preclude any thought of irreverence.
EuR Joseph said: “Tell my father of all my glory” (Genesis 45:13); then he wept on Benjamin’s neck, “And he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them; and after that his brethren talked with him” (verse 15). Would that be our reciprocating?
JT Just so. Our chapter introduces great richness of feeling, and David proceeds, as standing upon his feet, to say, “I had in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of Jehovah and for the footstool of our God”; he proceeds further to say that he is precluded from what is in his heart, and continues to extend out to Solomon. He shows that the idea of choice had gone beyond him: but he had come into it, chosen before his brethren; “Jehovah the God of Israel chose me”. He had the thought of God’s pleasure in him; he was not robbed of it, but it extended to Solomon, too.
FHL There are eight groups assembled here to the king; I suppose the thought of [p. 281] sonship is underlying all, although Solomon is not specifically mentioned as coming?
JT Yes, he is pre-eminently the son.
Ques Do we get the idea of equality in Matthew 17:26,27 in the expression, “Then are the sons free”, and then “for me and thee”?
JT A very good example of what we are saying, for Matthew reserves a section for the personnel of the new system. In it he quotes the Lord, saying, “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). It is a question of personality. Mark and Luke make more of the kingdom of God, but in Matthew it is the Son of man coming in His kingdom, and the thought runs through to the end of chapter 17. It really begins in chapter 16 of Matthew, where the Lord raises the question as to what people were saying about Him as to His Person, not simply what they were thinking, but what they were saying. The Lord would put it upon us to be speaking of Him in this sense: let the truth of His Person be the theme of our conversation. Chapter 17 is almost wholly occupied with the theme of personality, bringing the disciples on to the thought of sonship, “me and thee” — very beautiful.
Rem In the following chapter of Matthew the thought of the “little child” corresponds with Solomon in the next book.
JT Just so.
AJG Does the thought of choice involve not only sovereignty, but the thought of God’s pleasure in what the subjects of His love should be?
JT God has His own likes, His own tastes. Wisdom of course enters into it, but we have especially here an illustration of God’s choosing; that is, the work of God had made David worthy of it.
[p. 282] Ques Would this lay the foundation for what you term masculine love? I mean, this apprehension of what has been said as to our equality?
JT These chapters would indicate that it is reached in David. The end of chapter 17 shows that as he sat before Jehovah, he was actuated by this: love for God in man, in the light of sonship. The love of sonship must be masculine; the collective thought in the assembly, of course, is feminine.
JSE In what way are you viewing David typically at this juncture?
JT As the full result of the work of God, which in us has in view the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4). Of course, you cannot connect the thought of the work of God in this sense with Christ. He is a divine Person in manhood, and is as Man our standard. These chapters are to show the work of God in its completion, perfection in so far as David went in his administration. What a man is must work out in his administration, in what God gives him to do. David rises with the work. This chapter shows how he is thoroughly in keeping, through the work of God, with the divine thoughts.
JSE Yesterday morning you referred to Solomon as subordinate to David and now you refer to completion: is it completion in David himself?
JT Yes, and the result of his influence. The whole thought is outlined in the account here. In chapter 29:20 we have worship, and then the result in the people in verses 21, 22; and then, Solomon, not Solomon by himself, but as the completion of David’s work and influence. “And Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves to Solomon the king” (verses 23,24). All that is viewed as the outcome of David’s administration, what he was himself, and what his administration effected. A man’s work must stand in relation to himself, the outcome of what the man is. Under God, there will be correspondence between what the minister’s work is and the minister himself. So Solomon as seen here is to bring out the result of David’s work and influence generally.
Ques Is there often a difficulty in laying hold of these thoughts because of defective administration?
JT “Like people, like priest” (Hosea 4:9). What the minister is, the people will be; so Paul constantly stresses himself. It was, in one sense, I am sure, a trial to him to have to do it. The Spirit of God causes him to do it as a minister, so that his children should not be malformed. You must compare the workmanship with the workman.
SB Would you make your remarks as to masculine love a little clearer?
JT It arose earlier when Jonathan loved David; his love for David is greatly stressed, and David says that it was “passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). It had its own distinction; and, I think, from that remark of David’s, that the thought of masculine love is to be maintained in our souls; it should be connected with the sons of God. The other side is the saints viewed femininely as of the assembly; it is a question of love for Christ in the assembly. So I think sonship has precedence over the assembly; it is a higher thought, because Christ Himself has part in sonship and leads the saints; He gives character to it in the saints: so in chapter 27:32, “Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was with the king’s sons”. He must have been a man of peculiar influence for good. David would not have placed him there unless his influence was to be good.
Ques Would Hebrews 1:8,9 bear on it? “As to the Son”, He says, “Thou hast loved righteousness and hast hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy companions”.
JT Yes; it is on account of what He was as Son.
JSE Would the scripture in Romans 8:29 as to being “conformed to the image of his Son”, involve this question of equality?
JT Yes, and the masculine side that we have been speaking of. The epistle to the Romans shows how a believer reaches the point where he has authority over his mind: “I myself with the mind serve God’s law” (chapter 7:25). Whatever God’s law may be he instinctively serves it. Chapter 8 shows that that man is brought into sonship; but the moral element must be there, it is a question of manhood.
GE “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will” (Acts 13:22).
JT That is the word: it is what God finds; so that what He finds on the moral line enters into what He has on the family line. The family is purpose, but what I am morally is a result of God’s work in me. The family is purpose; so as in it I cry, “Abba, Father”, having received sonship.
JTS Does this thought rise up to Ephesians 1:4, “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”? And is David leading up to that when he says: “And David blessed Jehovah”; and then, “And David said to all the congregation, Bless now Jehovah your God” (verse 20)?
JT Yes, we can see how our chapters are linking us on with Ephesians. Ephesians 1 is the chapter for sonship: God has predestinated us to that; it is the supreme thought, but the moral element must enter into that. Romans brings out what one is as the result of the work of God; and we are made equal to it, not only by the moral work, but by the “spirit of adoption”(Romans 8:15). We are taken into the realm of the King’s sons, and masculine love must go with that. It is all to be seen there, because of sonship. The same persons are seen in a collective sense as [p. 285] representing the feminine thought; so in that same chapter (1 Samuel 18), where Jonathan is spoken of as loving David, we have the women, too, coming out with their praises for David.
ROS “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Is that masculine love?
JT It is always masculine love in Christ.
EJMcB I was wondering whether David is coming to the recognition of the wisdom and love of God in appointing Solomon; whether he was arriving at the thing in his own soul. God had set him aside and brought in Solomon, and he sees the wisdom of that. He had “affection” for the house and gets the pattern of it.
JT Quite so. The governmental side has to be borne in mind, but Solomon is really the extension of David. Solomon, in the antitype, is Christ glorified in heaven: what He was down here, but now seen in another condition and position; so that what He was down here is, you might say, morally greater, if one might venture to make comparisons.
PL The moral is greater than the official.
JT That is the point: Solomon is put into the shade in the New Testament to bring out the moral qualities that shone in Christ. “A greater than Solomon”; of course Christ was literally greater than David, but you do not get this formally stated. In the prophets Christ is called David.
MWB With regard to the moral basis, and reaching sonship on that line, does the expression “for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Romans 8:14), rather imply the characteristic that warrants the thought of pleasure? God’s pleasure in sonship? There are moral qualities that suit His pleasure. I was noticing that divine pleasure is connected with David; is that the moral basis for the sonship formally expressed [p. 286] in Solomon?
JT Quite so; so that the “spirit of adoption” in us carries a moral element underneath, which gives lustre to it while we are down here, as taking on sonship.
EuR What is the instruction for us in what you emphasised in connection with Christ in David?
JT Solomon is the full thought of Christ as He is today, not what He was even in the forty days. I suppose the Davidic character enters into the forty days; at any rate, the Spirit of God makes the distinction, in saying that we are to be conformed “to his body of glory” (Philippians 3:21). It is not only His body, His condition spiritually, but glorious, as it is now. I suppose David in remarking here about Solomon being chosen has in mind that the choice goes further than himself: “and of all my sons (for Jehovah has given me many sons), he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah over Israel”. He introduces the word “chosen” there and goes on to say, “And he said to me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts; for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father”. He is chosen as David’s son; he is the extension of David in sonship, as God’s choice, but then Jehovah has chosen him to be His son. I think we have to notice the difference between David’s son being chosen as king, and his being chosen to be Jehovah’s son. This, I think, would link us on with Christ as He is now. Whilst David goes all the way as to suffering, and I believe that, in the present time in the assembly, the Davidic character of Christ is to be traced; there is what Christ is as chosen to be God’s Son. Of course, as in manhood, Christ is always that: I want to guard the Person of Christ; but I am only speaking as to how Scripture presents things. David presents the suffering side to reach an end, whereas Solomon is the counterpart in heaven for the working out of divine thoughts: so Solomon is chosen to be Jehovah’s son for the accomplishment of divine thoughts; in our days, the Father’s thoughts. He says, “Father, ... glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee” (John 17:1).
JC David’s failure having resulted in his not being able to build the house, he falls back on the sovereignty of God.
JT He has not lost the sense of divine choice, but the thought of choice goes further than sovereignty. Another side of the position of Christ has to be brought out, namely, what He is as in heaven, and that He is there to carry out divine thoughts, to bring them to full fruition.
JJ You spoke about the pattern previously and what was abstract: do you regard the pattern as an abstract thought, and is the filling out of that seen in Ephesians?
JT Yes; the pattern is what must be, what God has determined; it links on with His sovereignty. What we are occupied with now is how the work of God conforms to that; so in Ezekiel what we get is not exactly the pattern, but the thing in reality and substantiality. The first item mentioned is a wall, very thick, a substantial thing; so the heavenly city corresponds — not what should be, but what is — thoroughly in accord with His mind. It is His glory: the measuring reed is gold in Revelation 21:15.
JJ Would it be the same with Paul in Ephesians 3, thoroughly versed in the mystery?
JT That is the idea, a man who knows. The Spirit of God can take up a man who knows, and enlarge His thoughts through him.
Ques Do I understand that the complete thought according to the counsels of God is seen in Christ as seated in heavenly places, but the moral work is what God effects down here in the scene of the enemy’s power? The full and complete thought is seen in Christ in heaven, and, I suppose, the saints in heaven too, but the moral work underlies all [p. 288] that.
JT Quite so: Ephesians is anticipative, “raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6). It is in order that in the ages to come God might set forth what are His thoughts in us — it is all as anticipative.
EuR Did I understand that David is sonship reached according to Romans, and Solomon according to Ephesians?
JT Yes; that is, in a general way.
Ques Would you say that we are on different ground here? That is, David in chapter 22 is a man of war who has “shed blood abundantly, and has made great wars” (verse 8); there is excess in that, but here, verse 3, it is “a man of war, and hast shed blood”. Is there a difference here?
JT Well, yes, but he is carrying forward the limitation attaching to him. He has not lost the sense of choice; and it is a most important thing, I think, that we do not lose our sense of choice in anything that happens; let it have its full scope with us, God would have it so. He chose “me”, he says (verse 4). But the choice of Solomon goes further, and accomplishes the divine mind in the building. The building must be very interesting to God; this pattern of the house is a great honour conferred upon David, showing that God would go to the limit in honouring him. It is his thought, but another is to build; that is, Solomon.
ABP Would David link on with the word at the baptism of Jesus? “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight” (Matthew 3:17); and Solomon with, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand” (John 3:35)?
JT Quite so; “all things”; and then “raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father” (Romans 6:4): all the affection of the Father active in regard to Christ as having entered death. He was “raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father”, involving an infiniteness of love, that is now reflected [p. 289] in Christ where He is above. That is the choice, what Christ is as above; not only as raised, but as in heaven, One who has ascended. What glory attached to His movements as He entered up there! and, on the other hand, what movements of affection on the part of God! He has the Object of His choice above, and now all operations are from that centre. So Peter has to be brought into the thought in Acts 10. Peter had been working on lower ground, but the vessel, as a great sheet knit at the four corners coming down means that now all is from heaven, and all that results from the operations from that centre, goes up: the full thought of God is thus secured.
PHH Does John 17:1, “Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee”, connect with the Solomon character of Christ?
JT Yes; involving more than any creature can enter into, because He goes on to say, “And now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. In dwelling upon Solomon as a type, we are on ground peculiarly attaching to Christ, not only as become Man, but as with God. Our Lord has the same status above as He had before incarnation, and He has gone back to that. What a day it was when He went up there! and now all operations are coming from heaven and the results go back there. The vessel in Acts 10:11 sets that forth; it is the extension of divine thoughts. There is the extension in Solomon, and added to that is the pattern of what he is to build. “The pattern of all that he had by the Spirit”; the Holy Spirit is brought into this. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in type, enter into these chapters.
JJ Does the ministry of the four great men, Moses, David, Ezekiel, and John cover the whole scope of God’s work from the complete standpoint?
JT There is a lot in that; Moses had the pattern of the tabernacle, David of the temple; Ezekiel sees [p. 290] things in the concrete sense, also John. They represent in a sense the whole range of divine thoughts. They lift us into the realm of purpose that God has in mind.
WAS “Of thine own have we given thee”.
JT David has that in mind here: look at his speech: “And David blessed Jehovah in the sight of all the congregation; and David said, Blessed be thou, Jehovah, the God of our father Israel, for ever and ever. Thine, Jehovah, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the splendour, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and on the earth is thine: thine, Jehovah, is the kingdom, and thou art exalted as Head above all; and riches and glory are of thee, and thou rulest over everything; and in thy hand is power and might; and in thy hand it is to make all great and strong. And now, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer willingly after this manner? for all is of thee, and of that which is from thy hand have we given thee. For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is no hope of life. Jehovah our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee a house to thy holy name, is of thy hand, and is all thine own. And I know, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. In the uprightness of my heart have I willingly offered all these things; and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, offer willingly to thee. Jehovah, God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and direct their hearts to thee! And give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes, and to do all, and to build the palace, for which I have made provision”. I suppose that is one of the finest speeches in the Old Testament. It is a man who [p. 291] is in a special way the subject of the work of God; God and His great thoughts and purposes is before him, and he is in possession of great wealth for the accomplishment of these purposes, the people being with him, and all emanating from God. As in Acts 10, the sheet comes down, and goes up, to remain in heaven — all of God, and for Him eternally; no discrepancy at all between the concrete result and the original purpose conveyed in the divine pattern.
HB Would you say a word as to “in thy hand it is to make all great and strong”?
JT There is the need of that; how comforting it is — everything is of Him! How Paul in his doxologies impresses us constantly with this! “For of him, and through him, and for him are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen” (Romans 11:36).
You can see in a spiritual sense what this scene must have been for God, looking on the antitype, everything fulfilled in Christ. Solomon is not representative of the work of God, David is that. Solomon is representative of Christ more as putting all together; bringing all together according to divine counsel.
MWB Could we distinguish between our inheritance as more covered by the term, eternal life, and God’s inheritance in us finding pleasure in sonship?
JT Eternal life necessarily enters into our inheritance; it is basic, both for God’s purpose in us and our blessings: the living only can praise Him. Eternal life is in the realm of promise (Titus 1:2), and I think promise contemplates need. Our inheritance goes beyond eternal life, while including it: in Joshua the heavenly saints, those forming the assembly, are seen in the Levites, whose portion was God Himself, the sacrifices and certain cities. Sonship and heaven are included in our inheritance. Indeed God is our inheritance, as we are His.
EG The last two lines of chapter 29:18 are a complete reversal of what we get in Genesis 6:5,
“[p. 292] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually”. Is Chronicles the completion of the work of God morally?
JT Yes, the passage in Genesis refers to the work of Satan making man thoroughly objectionable to God; but in and through Christ man is thoroughly to God’s pleasure, and that is, at least, in principle, what is seen in David here.
WGT What is the difference between God as Head and Christ as Head?
JT Headship is the highest thought, the supreme thought. 1 Corinthians 11:3 contemplates that “the head of Christ is God”: everything must come that way, all emanating from God.
WSS With regard to verse 20, “And all the congregation blessed Jehovah the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and did homage to Jehovah and the king”: is the king a type of Christ there? and does it bear on the position after the Supper when we are engaged with the greatness of God? Does the greatness of Christ come before us and occupy us in worship?
JT I think that is right: Psalm 45:11 corresponds, “he is thy Lord, and worship thou him”. I suppose we may regard David here as a type of Christ as in the Lord’s supper in regard of the service of God. I think it is right to have Him before us in this way, but as apprehended as having taken His place amongst us as His brethren, it is the “spirit of adoption”, and God or the Father is now properly the Object of worship.
EuR And as together in supreme privilege in that way we should know how to clothe the saints with the highest thoughts, those connected with Christ as the ascending One.
JT Quite so; so that we are suitably with Him as His companions, whom [p. 293] He leads.
ECB Does this chapter link with John 20:17 — “my Father and your Father, ... my God and your God”?
JT Pretty much; David here rises to a type of Christ as worshipped. Generally in these chapters David is a subject of the work of God, conforming, as such, to the counsels of God; and then the following part of this chapter finished the matter. As seen here, Solomon stands in relation to David’s history, Solomon is part of it. It is a question of David’s history and Solomon fits in.
JAP In regard to marital love, do you regard it as on a par with the love of sonship?
JT No, I rather suggested that sonship is a question of the counsels on God in persons: “all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job. 38:7): that is, in relation to creation; that is not feminine, but masculine. It is what is in us viewed as so many persons, not in a collective sense; so in John 20 we are viewed as so many persons — Christ’s brethren and God’s sons. Luke would present the collective side, and so Matthew, but in John there are so many persons; “where the disciples were” (John 20:19). Jesus came, and they were glad to see Him. That is what I was thinking, and that the assembly, great as it is, is feminine, and is regarded in that light, to be presented to Christ; and, too, as the vessel great enough to be invested with the divine glory, what the saints are collectively in Christ. So that the assembly comes down “out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2). That is where the feminine side comes in, and must be based on the equality involved in sonship, that is, equality in the sense of family; but sonship is greater, I think, as viewed by itself, because it is that in which Christ has part. He is “firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). The assembly is His bride, His wife, conveying, of course, the feminine thought, and she is in subjection to Christ. Sons are in family [p. 294] relation to Him; His brethren, His companions, although He is anointed above them.
Rem In the working out of things practically as in assembly, connected with the Supper, the feminine side necessarily precedes the masculine, the heart of the assembly secured for Christ; and then moving on as admiring Him to have part with Him in affections Godward.
JT Yes, the final thought in service is masculine, because it is sonship; it is what the saints are in relation to Christ Godward.
Rem I said that because of what was said previously as to worshipping the king; as supported by the Spirit Godward, should we address the Lord as such?
JT We should, of course, worship Him as toward us from God’s side, but as in assembly, when the “spirit of adoption” is heard, God is to be before us; the Lord is now on our side: we have part with Him in the “spirit of adoption”. But He must have pre-eminence as taking His place on our side. In this position it is not the assembly viewed as bride, but as so many persons. We thus continue on to the general and heavenly thought, having relation to Christ.
WGC Where does Ephesians 3:21 come in?
JT It is the collective side: “glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”. It is connected with “generations” as in time, but, obviously, it runs into eternity.
JJ Will the masculine and feminine side remain throughout eternity?
JT “Prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2), is what Christ has specially, but there is what God has, too, as His “tabernacle” (verse 3).
Ques What is the force of the expression, “the assembly of God” in Acts 20:28: “shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own”?
JT It is the assembly down here, the assembly of God as His property. Ephesians 3 is the relation to God eternally: but the stress is on time and generations: the stress is on testimony, “in Christ Jesus”.
EuR It is sons both in relation to the Father and God.
JT Quite so.
GCS What is the distinction between “bringing many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10), and, presenting “the assembly to himself glorious” (Ephesians 5:27)?
JT The first is God acting — bringing sons to glory, which would be for Himself, “for whom are all things”; the second is Christ acting for the satisfaction of His own heart — He presents “the assembly to himself glorious”.