NAMES OF DIVINE PERSONS IN THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA
[p. 368] NAMES OF DIVINE PERSONS IN THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA
JT This verse 19 gives us the only names of the divine Persons in which they are seen as relative to One Another. The names that we have throughout the Scriptures seem to be names expressly in relation to creation, so that the baptismal formula, having in view that we should believe, implies that believers are introduced into the light of God as the Trinity under names in which the Persons are in relation to Each Other, and, as in these relations to One Another, they are in relation to men or nations or the whole realm of creation. That is, the one God as the Trinity is conveyed under names of graded relationship.
AJHB What relation is connected with the thought of the Holy Spirit?
JT Well, it seems to be subordinate.
AJHB Do you mean in being placed last?
JT Yes, and, of course, in the light of other scriptures we know it is. From the actual original meaning of the word we cannot assume it was a name that the divine Persons would employ in relation to One Another in absoluteness, meaning ‘wind’ or ‘breath’. We cannot speak of the three divine Persons in absoluteness regarding one as the Spirit and the Others as something else, because “God is a Spirit”. So that what is behind it is now understood. It is evidently a name taken in relation to creation involving power in action and yet perhaps unseen. The first mention of the Spirit is that He was hovering over the face of the waters, as if the suggestion is of divine feeling and sympathy, God in nearness to the need. As indeed in Genesis 6 the Spirit is referred to as striving with men, a very lowly attitude to take with men away from God; He is seen striving with them.
AJHB [p. 369] Do you think it suggests the thought of serving?
JT Yes, the humble attitude of striving with people unsympathetic with what you are striving for. There is nothing arbitrary, but rather lowly sympathy preparing us for the great service He is rendering now, only that He is now here as come from heaven. Sent by the Father and sent by the Son to us, He has taken a lowly attitude in the divine economy, but one most essential as dealing with matters in a first-hand, nearby way, and maintaining subjectively all that is presented objectively.
JJ Would the verse in Hebrews 9 be in contrast to that? “Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God”. You get the three Persons mentioned again.
JT Well, He was available to the Lord who acted by Him. I do not know what the preposition is there, whether it is in His power or not, but He is there as available to the Lord in the supreme act of atonement.
AJHB That expression “eternal Spirit” has been taken up as rather proving the thought of the Spirit beforehand, but the word “eternal” is more characteristic, is it not?
JT It is in keeping with Hebrews. There could be no difficulty about making it retroactive, extending backward of course, but to make too much of the word “Spirit” will get us into confusion, because God is a Spirit. The word seems intelligible as applied to One who is active, if necessarily unseen, but always acting, ever-present, and maintaining suitability to God in all circumstances.
EuR Have you any thought why in Romans 8 we have the “Spirit itself”, whereas in John 14, for instance, He is spoken of so emphatically as Him?
JT It is only a question of gender. The primary word, of course, would be neuter, but we know it is a Person. It is just a question of language; how [p. 370] different words are employed in the application of gender. If you speak of the Godhead you have to say ‘It’ — the Deity.
JJ Are not all the passages where the three Persons are brought in of special significance? For instance, in Ephesians, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, chapter 2: 18. Is not that another case where the bringing together of the divine names is important?
JT It is interesting to go through the New Testament and see where the three Persons are active. One has thought of that. Perhaps the most prominent occasion, at any rate at the outset, is that of the Lord’s baptism. They are brought into evidence there as showing that if One of the Persons speaks it is a voice from heaven. Each is viewed distinctly; they are distinctive Personalities, and yet the One who became flesh here in manhood is the Object of the other Two.
Ques Have you in mind that these relationships you speak of refer to the Persons Themselves, or do they refer to men, or both?
JT I think they refer to the Persons Themselves. Clearly they do in this passage, but combined. It is God, not only as Creator but in redemptive relation. It was the idea of God, but not indeed to all, you might say. His relation as Creator, I suppose, underlies it, but it is a question of redemption, because of the symbol of the death of Christ being used — the baptism. But to make these three names the names applying to Them in absoluteness is where the mistake is, I think. The term “God” is used to designate Them in absoluteness. It conveys our thought of God before incarnation or before creation. These are the only names that I can think of that can be used as designating relations between the Persons, and yet they are relations that have men or creation in view on the ground of redemption.
[p. 371] AJG Where it says that in eternity God will be “all in all”, will that be God as known in this way?
JT That is what I understand — God thus known. I think (without giving it much thought) the term “God” in its varied forms has been assumed to be a name attachable to the Deity, to the Godhead in absoluteness. I mean by absoluteness, apart altogether from anything else but Itself, but then the term would have no force for They are not God to Each Other.
JJ Is the expression “I AM” a relative term?
JT Yes. It is to remind us that it can apply to no one else but divine Persons. It would have no meaning as between Themselves because it applied to all, but it is to remind us that others have a beginning and They have not. It links on with absoluteness because it conveys eternal and unchangeable existence.
JJ When the Lord said in John 8, “Before Abraham was, I am”, He was referring to Himself alone, in a way?
JT I think so, yet the use of the expression would necessarily imply the Deity.
Ques Why does it say, “To the name”, not to the names “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? Is it in connection with what you are saying as to the absoluteness of God?
JT I think the singular would mean the unity of the Three; it is one God. You have something similar in Isaiah 9, “His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace”.
PL Would there be a suggestion of diversity of operations by these three Persons in the christian economy?
JT I suppose so. It is one idea, but diversity of operation as you get in 1 Corinthians 12. It is noticeable there that the Spirit comes first, showing that He has His own distinctive place in [p. 372] the operations.
PL I was thinking it might bear on Matthew, being the church gospel, that the assembly is the vessel of those operations.
WHF Do you speak of the term “God” as being relative?
JT Yes; the first mention we have of it is in Genesis 1.
WHF Relative to creation and men.
JT It would have no force apart from that. It means the supreme Object of worship. It must be relative, that is to say, it was a name by divine teaching and the power of the Spirit which became current in the minds of men of faith.
WHF I was thinking of the expression in Psalm 50, which J.N.D. gives in the note, ‘El Elohim Jehovah’. Tracing back it would seem as though El, God, was an expression which extended beyond creation. He comes in as Elohim in creation.
JT Elohim is the first name we have historically. El is power, is it not?
PL When you speak of creation you are going back beyond verse 2 of Genesis 1, going back as far as we can and not simply to the bringing in of man?
JT “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, that which Wisdom speaks of as “Before the earth was”. That is as near as we can speak in terms. So that El Elohim Jehovah is a question of God’s power.
Ques When you speak of the name God being relative, do you mean that any name used in human language must be in a way relative? I suppose unless the idea that we connect with God is absolute, we would have to say that everything is relative. The name itself is a word in human language and is therefore expressed from man’s point of view. It is really some absolute idea as far as it is possible for us to think of anything [p. 373] absolute.
JT I am sure that is right. All we can say as to the absolute is that it is there. I cannot think in terms of absoluteness; it is beyond the creature, that is, to consider it apart from anything altogether but itself. I can apprehend God in supremacy, but what we call absolute we just know it is there.
Ques I suppose the term ‘absolute’ — the very word — is in a way relative in the sense of being marked off from all that we generally call relative?
JT You mean it is really relative in that sense, but it is the weakness of human language. The two words are used in the sense in which we are speaking of them to convey as far as is possible that the Deity has to be that apart from all other considerations but Itself. As far as I see, we can hardly get out of the relative ourselves.
PL Really resulting in worship for the believer. We are in the presence of God, and does not that tone the worship of the saints?
JT Yes; you cannot express it. The Holy Spirit in us gives us expansion or power that no one can have who has not got the Spirit, but as far as I see, we can only think in terms of relativity; we cannot speak in terms of absoluteness.
JJ Would you say that of love?
JT Love is what God is, and I think that is the link between the two. The Lord speaks of it Himself “Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (John 17: 24); it was there.
JJ Whereas light is more relative?
JT Quite.
JJ Are the beginning of Matthew and the end alike in that way? The Lord’s first recorded movement was in the baptism, and now in the baptism of believers He brings forward the three Persons again. Is that the link?
JT I think that is a very good suggestion, bringing out what is in view in the gospel. It is not only [p. 374] God coming out in incarnation but entering into death. Therefore the basis is redemption.
Ques Does not the expression in Psalm 90 rather suggest the absolute? “From eternity to eternity thou art God”.
JT I suppose it does, but I do not know how far we can take in “Thou art God”. No doubt the thought is there to assert His infinitude, but it is “from eternity to eternity”, meaning that it is there beyond the furthest limits to which you can go in your mind; it is there. I think in that psalm it bears on others who are dying, and that a thousand years to Him is as one day, whereas our years are just three-score and ten. It is to bring out the smallness of man as over against God.
EP Is it not this infiniteness about divine Persons that makes us worship? Who can address divine Persons?
JT It bears on our worship, and I believe the Lord will use it in that way; there is something that you cannot express. Having the Holy Spirit we are really in touch with infinite Beings subjectively, but we never cease to be creatures nevertheless.
PL ‘And see! the Spirit’s power Has ope’d the heav’nly door, Has brought us to that favoured hour When toil shall all be o’er’.
JND says, ‘There only to adore’; is that all in keeping?
JT There is a power in those who have the Spirit which exceeds any creature power; it is a divine Person in us.
WHF “Filled even to all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3: 19); that would be the thought of worship, would it not?
JT Yes; the fulness of God would be revelation. You are filled into the idea of the Deity in Its absoluteness, only in revelation.
[p. 375] PL So that the rays of light from the scene of light inaccessible have been brought into the sphere of revelation in that Person.
JT Well, quite. It is not that there is a barrier beyond which you cannot pass, but it is a question of inability and want of power. We may be strengthened by the Spirit of the Father in the inner man that we may be able — in so far as we may be. We have a divine Person in us, and there is wonderful potentiality in that, but still, we never cease to be creatures and finite.
AJHB There must be limitation.
JT On that side, yes. “Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”. “Unapproachable” would not imply that God has barred us, but I think it is more the want of ability, not want of love on His side. Otherwise we should become infinite and be as gods.
JJ Were the limitations felt by Paul after he became conscious that he was on earth again? He had been in the heavenly sphere where there were no limitations exactly.
JT Oh! there would be limitations there.
JJ Not like they are here, I mean.
JT Of course 1 Corinthians 13 speaks of the great difference there will be; we shall know as we are known then.
JJ Only he could not give expression here to what he saw there owing to the limited conditions.
JT It was “not allowed to man to utter”, he said.
AJHB We shall not cease to be creatures in glory.
JT That is what I am thinking.
NKM What is the force of the expression, “I shall know according as I also have been known” (1 Corinthians 13: 12)?
JT I suppose you will have the full divine thought as to yourself, as you are known. If a man [p. 376] love God the same is known of Him. He knows you in that relation, so that you will have the full divine thought of yourself. We are very mixed now, are we not? That is all I can say about it.
AJHB It cannot be the same intense degree but rather the character of it; in degree you must be limited by being a creature.
JT It is a question of degree which seems to be characteristic of 1 and 2 Corinthians, the apostle holding out something greater in the distance at the end. They were making much of knowledge, what they knew, even in regard to one’s motives, but he would not attempt to be sure about his own motives.
Ques The verse does not mean that we shall know God as He knows us, but we shall have the full divine thought about ourselves?
JT I think so; everything will be seen clearly as it is.
PWD It is in contrast to knowing in part, is it not?
JT Which marks the present time.
WL Would not the scene on the mount illustrate it? I was thinking the disciples knew Moses and Elias; they needed no introduction. Is it that character of knowledge?
JT That is helpful. I think I shall know Paul — do you mean that?
WL I thought it was just that character of knowledge.
JT It presents the force of the word ‘name’ as applied to us. We shall know as we are known, which suggests much enjoyment. There is not the slightest suggestion that the disciples had to be introduced to Moses and Elias; they knew them.
Ques It says in 1 Corinthians 8: “To us there is one God, the Father”. Does that rather imply that if we think of God or address God, we can only think of the Father rather than the idea of three [p. 377] Persons?
JT I understand that to be the economy in which we are. It seems as if we are assisted in it to know how to speak to God — “one God, the Father”, and yet in speaking to Him there is the inscrutableness attaching to the Deity that you never lose sight of. Elsewhere the Son is said to be the true God, and we have to think as Scripture does. If it speaks of the Father, in the understanding of the economy there is also “one Lord, Jesus Christ”, and I do not forget that the Deity is presented in the Son also, and then in the Spirit. But I think God has greatly considered for us, being finite, that we might know, as introduced into the wonderful realm of light, how to think without confusion.
ER-n Would you distinguish between addressing God and the Father in any way? Should we do both in any circumstances?
JT I should. If I were speaking about judgment and the like, I should not address the Father; He judges no one. Yet on the other hand, in the passage alluded to in 1 Corinthians 8, you have the full idea of God. Where you speak to God you can bring in judgment, for God judges — or whether it be a question of creation. But then, if it is the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, it is another line of thought; and if it is “Abba, Father”, which the Holy Spirit teaches us to say at once, then it is a question of God Himself. I feel we are in a realm of infinitude, and we have to learn everything there, and if we do we shall have to speak in the terms of Scripture. It is a question of learning, the knowledge that arises from the thoughts of the environment.
PL Is that why John who treats so much of infinitude emphasises the way the Lord presents Himself as Teacher and the way love gives Him that place?
JT You mean the two disciples said to the Lord, “Rabbi, ... where abidest thou?”
PL Then, “The teacher is come and calls thee”, with Mary, and then, “Rabboni” — Teacher, with Mary Magdalene. In each case they are on the threshold of something now in relation to that Person.
JT I think it is a line of progress. You recognise you have to learn everything from Christ; He is the Teacher. For instance, Luke would be concerned about public utterances in the assembly, and so the Lord is seen praying in a certain place and a disciple says to Him, “Teach us to pray”. That is the idea; he saw the Lord and heard Him praying doubtless and he felt that he could not pray unless he were taught. How can I speak to a divine Person unless I am taught by a divine Person to do so?
EP Would you be free to say “Heavenly Father”, seeing the Lord said it?
JT Well, you do not get it in the epistles, and I think we ought to learn from them. Coming into the divine realm and the school that attaches to it, so to speak, you begin with the epistles. The gospels really are confirmatory; if a person advances in the school he will know how to regard the gospels. They are from the divine standpoint; the Lord is seen there coming in and dealing with everything as it stood, so that they come in last in the educational course. Therefore, you do not find, for instance, the title “Son of Man” used in the epistles in an educational way. Stephen uses it, and it is quoted in Hebrews, but it is never used otherwise, and yet the Lord uses it about eighty times in regard of Himself. So as, in the course of education, I arrive at the gospels, I know how to regard that term, what is meant by it, and other terms. For instance, I do not believe the expression “kingdom of the heavens” which is common in Matthew is found in the epistles, but as I proceed in the course of instruction I know how to regard these terms; I do not mix them up; they have their setting, and you can see they are perfectly [p. 379] right and furnish light in the Lord’s mouth in the gospels. They go wider than christianity; they cover everything which the epistles do not.
WC Is it comely for us to use the title “Father” without bringing in God? I mean, the Lord said, “When ye pray, say, Father”. We do not get that in the epistles without God.
JT You do in Romans 8, by the Spirit, “whereby we cry, Abba, Father”.
WC I mean, in actual prayers or praise. You have, for instance, “Blessed be the God and Father ...”.
JT I believe that is so. But the Spirit in Galatians crying in us, “Abba, Father”, and we crying by the Spirit, “Abba, Father”, are enough to warrant anyone speaking to God as Father. We do in our hymns.
WC I was thinking of that.
ER-n In addressing God as God have you in mind all the Persons in the Godhead?
JT There you are again. I confess I think the thought is that you are only able to speak to one Person. It is God taking account of us in our limitations.
EuR “To us there is one God, the Father”; would that bear it out?
JT Yes, but you are always affected by the sense of inscrutability. What there is behind that I cannot know.
PWD When we pray, “God and Father”, do we have in our minds first of all that we are creatures with God and then the position we have as sons with the Father?
JT I think that helps, but we must be careful there, for the Lord says, “My God and your God”. It is not on the basis of creation in His case.
PWD Then the Lord reversed it. He said first of all, “My Father and your Father”, and then, “My God and your God”. We could not begin that way, and say, ‘Father and God’.
JT It is a question of what you find. Is there any form like that in the Scriptures? and why should I introduce forms? If others who are far superior have not done so, why should I?
PWD So you would say, God and Father, and not, Father and God?
JT I should go by what is customary in the realm into which I am introduced.
JJT Do we always take up the thought of creation in addressing God? Do we ever go beyond that?
JT I think so. The Lord Jesus spoke to Him as God: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” That did not refer to creation. He takes His place as Man. The word ‘God’ became known. Of course, the Spirit of God taught man to say it, other wise they could not say it rightly. They might have the thought, but they could not have it rightly. When Moses used it it was known, and no doubt he was Spirit-taught. We are not told how, but there it was.
JJ In Ephesians 4: 6 it says, “One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. Does that go out wider than christianity?
JT “In us all”, I think, is christians.
JJ But there is an extensive thought in it.
JT I think so. There it is in connection with the other concentric circles. It is the widest of the three. We are brought into a wonderful environment, and we have to learn what is there. It is not for us to introduce forms, they are all there.
JJ The apostle uses the three Persons in the last verse of 2 Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit”. Why does he bring in God like [p. 381] that? God includes all the Persons and yet the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinctly mentioned.
JT It is the same thought of the mediatorial or economical position. We cannot get round these things; we just accept the terms and bow to them; God has so ordered it. There is God, and 1 Corinthians 8 says, “To us there is one God, the Father”, and Ephesians 4 says, “One God and Father of all”. The other two Persons are viewed subordinately for wise purposes to make things effective, and you just accept it as it is.
FF The first expression of God in Matthew’s gospel is connected with the Lord Himself, is it not? “They shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’”. Has that any bearing on the latter part, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
JT I suppose it would include the revelation of God. “God with us” would mean God was there in all the fulness of the Godhead. It says, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins”, and then Isaiah is quoted as to the Babe, that He should be called Emmanuel, “God with us”.
FF It is interesting that Matthew quotes it as “They shall call his name Emmanuel”. I wondered if it did not mean those intelligent persons who would go forth baptising. Isaiah says, “The virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel”, but Matthew gives it as “they”.
JT That is interesting, and I suppose we have to look backwards and see the force of it. Persons saw by what happened that God had visited His people. So the name was not arbitrary, but fully expressed in the Lord’s history, and, of course, would enter into this formula here. Now in Isaiah 7 we have “Immanuel”, meaning ‘God with us’, and in chapter 8, when the Assyrian attacks, the word is used again; the remnant is victorious because of [p. 382] Immanuel, that is to say, because God is with us. That is like the gospel, the presence of God makes us invincible.
Ques I suppose the names should be used intelligently. I should like to ask why we speak so often to the Lord, and yet there is not more than one occasion that I can remember in Scripture where the Lord is addressed in prayer — where the apostle besought the Lord thrice.
FWK Acts 7 would be another instance.
JJ And 2 Timothy 2; “Those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”.
JT There is plenty of ground for praying to the Lord, for He is in administration; things are committed into His hands, and it is quite evident we should go to Him about anything.
Ques Would the word in 1 Timothy 2: “the testimony to be rendered in its own times”, connect with the scripture we have here?
JT I think so. Paul spoke about himself as a herald and teacher of the things, and that certainly enters into this passage.
EuR What does it mean in John 16: 23: “In that day ye shall demand nothing of me: verily, verily, I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give you”?
JT I suppose it was to encourage them as to His going to the Father, that it would be a great gain to them.
AJG Do the two chapters, John 14 and 16, warrant us in praying to the Lord and to the Father in relation to the Lord’s interests down here?
JT “Ye believe in God, believe also in me”.
AJG Is there special blessing connected with addressing the Father in connection with the Lord’s interests, because the Father loves those who love Him and His interests here? Is that the thought?
JT I think so.
[p. 383] Ques Is the Lord opening out the new economy to the disciples?
JT He seeks to make them conversant with the divine realm, and free to speak to the Father. It would specially give them an insight as to how matters stood, the wonderful environment in which they are set, to hear one divine Person speaking to another. They would be imbued with how to speak to God.
JJ With regard to baptism, the end of Matthew seems to take it out of the local setting. It says, “Make disciples of all the nations”. Most of us have thought that, speaking literally of baptisms, they should be done by persons in the locality.
JT There is nothing that I know to warrant that.
The idea of baptism is not local. There is only one baptism: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism”.
JJ Perhaps we have been tied up with this local idea and been rather afraid to have anyone from another place to do such a thing.
JT But there is another thing, whether I ask another person in order to distinguish me or my child.
JJ You would not confine it to local persons only?
JT If anyone should say it should be a local brother, I should say that is not scriptural at all, but at the same time to ask a brother from a distance to add distinction to me is another thing.
EuR Is that what you mean by environment, that baptism introduces the believer into the sphere where divine Persons are known by these names?
JT It is a wonderful environment of light. They had been in thick darkness in the Old Testament, but now They are in the light.
AJHB Did that await the incarnation which was necessary before this economy could be set up?
JT Exactly, and the word ‘baptism’ would mean it was on the ground of redemption. But what [p. 384] an environment it is! We are born physically into a wonderful environment, but what do I know about it? What does a child know about it? It has to learn everything. What does it know about the great bodies in the firmament? Then when it is a question of the divine environment — I am born into that, too.
EuR Does the making disciples suggest it is only those who are teachable who are brought into the environment?
JT Persons in this environment are not only taught but made, and that is by the influence that you have. You are yourself to be the thing that is to be there. It is the idea of addition, that there is no difference from what is there.
JJ So the word “Emmanuel” seems to cover the last sentence: “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”.
JT Very good. What a comfort that is! “God with us”; it is no less than that.
Ques What relation would Acts 19 have with this, in connection with the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus?
JT It is just the one Person as over against John. They had known the baptism of John, and hearing Paul’s words, they were baptised “to the name of the Lord Jesus”. In chapter 10 it is “in the name of the Lord”, as invoking His protection and power.
I like to use the expression in Acts 19, because it involves protection, but “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is distinctly objective — as a realm of light.
Ques Would you say that these names here — the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — imply the limitations, that we cannot go further?
JT I think that is how the thing stands. It is really one Name, but it is broken up here — Father, Son and Spirit. They are not difficult terms. The Old Testament enlarges spiritually on the idea of a father: “If then I be a father”, God says. It enlarges, too, on the idea of a son, and the idea of spirit is also made very clear. So those are not names that are beyond us; we can see the idea of the name of God in them.
AJG Do you mean in the Old Testament God sets out something of the idea connected with these names before He was actually made known by this name?
JT So the education was there. The idea of sonship is made very clear in the Old Testament, in Abraham and Isaac especially, and throughout you get the idea of these things. So when God takes them on Himself, they are indelible; He has already taught His people and we should not think them any different from what they were before.
JJT Is not one reason why we baptise to the Lord and pray to Him because the whole sphere of the testimony at the moment is in His hands, and He is the One who has been here to express all that God is?
JT “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”. He is in the full position of administration, and it is quite simple to speak to Him.
PL Does it not encourage us to see what these divine Persons have done in the economy of grace Themselves, coming within our range and limitation for our contemplation?
JT It is God’s consideration for us, although we are in the place of children, in the place of learning.
PL And that these Persons, the Lord Jesus and the Spirit, without ceasing eternally to be who They are, are pleased to operate in service to us in the sphere in which we are found which is marked by limitation.
JT They have come into Their own creation, and then the Lord Jesus has come in a smaller way [p. 386] still, into Manhood. Luke 15 is a fine illustration of the different Ones — the Shepherd is going after the lost sheep, the woman is sweeping the house, and the Father is running. That is the Deity, the Trinity in grace; They are all in unison and in perfect keeping with the incarnation. So the Lord says, “My Father worketh hitherto”. All that was in view of incarnation; God leaving the absoluteness of Deity to serve. “My Spirit shall not always plead with Man” was God in the Spirit taking a lowly place, urging men against their wills, and yet keeping at it.
EuR It helps as to the way F.E.R. used to speak so much of God coming down into the place of death and testimony. If we did not see that the name “God” was relative, we could not understand that.
JT It is very beautiful. It is not that the three Persons entered into death, but there They were in the Spirit in the thing. “Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God”. I think the more we rest in the realm into which we are introduced, our souls become imbued with the right thoughts. Of course there is that verse, 1 Timothy 3: 16, “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”. The generally accepted meaning is that it was God, and it is God; it is a question of piety which is God. You cannot say that God died, of course, because you are forbidden by the instruction that is in the realm into which you are introduced; you know what to say. But if the natural mind is allowed in as it were, all these terms are the outcome, which is theology. That is, you drop down from the level of the Spirit of God. They had to do something, and these terms have been developed and have entered into the confession [p. 387] of faith. But the Holy Spirit alone can give us right thoughts and right words and terms.
EuR So this teaching is going on all the time in that realm.
JT Yes. Of course, we are not in the days of the inauguration; the Holy Spirit is not introducing terms now, but you take up what is there.
PL Then contemplatively as in John who is the great product for us of the reposeful spirit in this realm, he himself having known the Person here so intimately. He seems to present the Lord so much at issue with the Jews. Do you think it is to save us from the theological darkness and the terms which would deprive us of this light in the present day? Had he in mind the whole dispensation?
JT That is very beautiful. What delight he had He lived to be an old man, according to the records, and he is presented to us as a man of great activity, but he was a man able to be at rest in the bosom of Jesus, and he leaned on His breast, too. Then he had the great advantage of Mary the Lord’s mother in his home as his own mother. What a region of thought she would have that he would drink into!
JJ You have said that the sisters are not functioning in localities as they should. Could you enlarge on that a little?
JT There again we come back to what we were saying. We have to learn from Scripture the place they have. They acquired a great place at the resurrection, but that was not by appointment, but by their energy of affection; that is the way they come into things. Mary was selected to be the Lord’s mother; she was equal to it morally, and she came into that great place. In Luke 1 she is not said to be filled with the Spirit, as the others. It is attributed to her in intelligence. Of course, she was filled with the Spirit as the others, or she could not have spoken as she did. She spoke with the intelligence of a [p. 388] priest, as inwardly distinguishing between the features of her being, her soul and spirit. So that the great place they get — they have a greater place at the resurrection of our Lord than the men — is by their energy of affection. That is how sisters come into usefulness in the assembly.
Ques Does that suggest that their functioning depends upon headship in a peculiar way, that they are there by affection and that they are subject to the Lord personally?
JT Just so. The idea of the assembly ought to be seen in them pre-eminently, because they are so constituted as to be more ready to lay hold of thoughts without words. That is the idea of headship, that you lay hold of the idea without words.
PWD Was there any difference between those women and those who ministered to the Lord of their substance during His life?
JT One of them was Mary Magdalene. She was pre-eminently the woman of resurrection, and is the one that gets the Lord’s mind. What comes out with her is the inward ability to move spiritually — turning round, and the expression of feeling.
This passage in Matthew is very encouraging for the last days, although it applies directly to the beginning. It was a broken state of things; it says in verse 16, “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”. He does not say a word about the doubting nor about the broken number — the eleven, but He goes on, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” — in spite of your broken number. The point in Matthew is to go on.
[p. 389] PC Does it suggest the necessity for baptism, to distinguish between the actual baptism and the place the Lord has in power?
JT If there were not that power what could baptism do? Peter brings it in: “Not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the demand as before God of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being subjected to him”. It is the power that is available in the realm into which you are introduced.
PC It would suggest the place the Lord occupies now. It would not give room to John’s baptism.
JT It would be a retrogression to baptise to John’s baptism. As was remarked, with Paul it was “baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus”, as over against that.
AJHB Does it bring in the thought of leadership, in the way you are introduced into that place where the Lord was leading in the power of resurrection? “All were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. It seems to bring you into all the good of what is established.
PL And in the wilderness it is called for particularly. So in Matthew there is great force on the word “all power”, whatever may be against us.
Rem It says in Acts 14: 21: “Having made many disciples”. Is not that the only case where it is recorded, and that after the power of resurrection was evident in Paul?
JT That is a concrete case. I suppose the greatest test that can be applied is whether one can make a disciple, because it refers to your influence — what you are yourself, as well as your preaching.
PL “My ways ... in Christ”. Did that make Timothy a disciple?
JT Quite so; he had known them.
[p. 390] EuR Is completion suggested in this as well as inauguration — “the completion of the age”? Does it suggest there is sufficient power to go on in spite of the brokenness?
JT That is what I think we ought to see. There was a broken number and some of them doubted, but the Lord says nothing about those things.
EuR “I am with you all the days”. It would bring it down to our day.
JT It would. It is like David’s remark to the priest: “What is under thy hand?” (1 Samuel 21: 3). What have you got in the house? Whatever is there, it can be used, however weak and broken the conditions. “All power is given unto me”, and you go and make disciples of all the nations.
Ques Was that power given to the Lord in resurrection? Was He referring to any point of time, or is it a general statement?
JT It is a general statement. In John 3 it says, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”. I think it is properly His position in heaven, and the Holy Spirit here is the answer to it.
Ques Do you think the fixed principles of which you have spoken recently enter into Matthew, the Lord with us in the maintenance of those things to the end?
JT Indeed. This is the public economy. I think John’s gospel gives you more the spiritual side. So that the Lord says, “All power has been given me”. In John, He sits at the well and says to the woman, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water”. That is the sort of thing that John introduces — the gift of the Spirit.
AJHB Sometimes in times of trouble and difficulty we have been almost afraid of anybody coming into fellowship with us. Do you not think it [p. 391] encourages us to go on although things may be broken? The Lord will see things through.
JT He will see us through to the end.
AJHB We are leaving our children a greater heritage than we had ourselves.
JT You set them marching round Jericho. I think maybe the Name is coming into evidence more than ever. We have that expression in the Old Testament, “Shall the enemy contemn thy name for ever?” Psalm 74: 10. It is this verse.
JJ It is remarkable how in Isaiah the three Persons of the Godhead are referred to: “The Spirit of Jehovah”: “Doubtless thou art our Father”; and “the Lord am thy Saviour”. It was all underlying that, I suppose.
JT It was to the Israelites primarily, implying that this thing was there.
Ques Would it be right to say that God allowed additions to be made to His name in the Old Testament, such as “Jehovah-jireh” and “Jehovah-shalom”, after certain experiences that the saints had?
JT Yes, right through.
PL It is a kind of salutation experimentally in the light God has given to the soul.
JT Yes. There are no such additions now. There is nothing beyond “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. Of course, we have in Revelation names the Lord takes up in keeping with the book, such as “The Amen” and “The first and the last”.