ETERNITY TO ETERNITY (1)
ETERNITY TO ETERNITY (1)
JT The Lord will help us, I think, in going over this heavenly ground, and perhaps it may be well to keep before us that, there being six chapters in the epistle, we may have one chapter for each meeting.
I have been thinking recently of the link there is between the epistle to the Ephesians and the ministry of David and Solomon. In this connection it is interesting to note that the prayer of Moses the man of God has in view eternity; he says, “From eternity to eternity thou art God” (Psalm 90:2), and David, in inaugurating the service of God in 1 Chronicles 16, delivers a psalm which is formed of parts of several psalms ending with Psalm 106, in which he says, “Blessed be Jehovah the God of Israel, from eternity and to eternity!” In bearing these thoughts in mind, we shall be able to see what is in view in this epistle. The epistle brings before us what is really “from eternity to eternity”, going back to the purpose of God and culminating in glory to God in the “assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, (Ephesians 3:21). In David’s psalm (1 Chronicles 16), all the people said, Amen, that is to say, there is the suggestion of the saints being brought into agreement with what is stated, that is, of our being brought on to the ground of eternity — “from eternity to eternity”.
PL So the psalmist in Psalm 106:5 says, “That I may see the prosperity of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance”. Does that suggest the epistle to the Ephesians?
JT Exactly. Moses would link us on in Deuteronomy 26 [p. 199] with the purpose of God in the thought of “the basket”; and I believe a right understanding of Ephesians would enable us to understand what is typified by the basket; it is what the believer is from the standpoint of divine counsel. We shall recall that in Deuteronomy 26 the basket is said to be taken out of the hand of the worshipper and set down by the priest before the altar. That illustrates the abstract thought of the believer always being held in regard of divine purpose, and as in that dignity he is able to speak of his responsible origin, of what his father was. Then it will be noted that the worshipper goes back to the first-fruits, and the priest is no longer mentioned; he sets the basket down before Jehovah and he worships. “From eternity to eternity” would signify that there is a dip down, and in that dip, God makes known what He is — but the object is eternity.
HH “From eternity to eternity” covers all the period of time?
JT I thought so. The dip, so to speak, the down coming is to display what God is, and how He effects His purpose.
HH And that is what the scriptures deal with in the main, is it not?
JT Yes. In the period between the two eternities, there is the display of what God is, in the working out of His thoughts and the testimony here in the presence of evil, so that He might be known, but the great end is “to eternity”.
CAC It seems to bring us into the full scope of the divine thought.
JT The opening verses of the epistle clearly exhibit the idea of “from eternity”: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ; according as he has chosen us in him before the world’s foundation, that we should be holy and blameless before [p. 200] him in love; having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has taken us into favour in the Beloved”. That is all, so to speak, “from eternity”. Redemption is not brought in until after all that is stated; redemption involves the dip down.
HD'AC Redemption was necessary because of what had come in in the interval. In eternal ages we were not viewed as sinners, but as persons chosen in Christ.
JT Yes. “The basket”, to use the simple figure in Deuteronomy 26, refers to what we are according to the counsels of God. “A perishing Aramaean was my father” (verse 5), refers to the condition and time of responsibility, and all that terminates, for after speaking about his history and his fathers, the worshipper comes back to the basket.
EuR Who is the priest suggested in the passage?
JT I think it is the Lord as securing the believer. That is what the Lord is set for. He is the minister of the sanctuary and secures us in conditions according to the light of purpose. That is presented in the abstract, in the priest taking the basket and setting it down before the altar; but afterwards reference to the priest is omitted, and the worshipper puts the basket down before Jehovah. That is to say, there is a full recognition of our responsible origin and history, and of redemption meeting all that condition. The passage here deals with that side of things: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of offences, according to the riches of his grace”.
MWB Would you say the one is on the line of purpose and the other the line of the ways of God?
JT Quite so. Therefore, Moses and David in the types, are linked, the one ministry bringing us out of Egypt, involving redemption, and the other (including Solomon) setting us up as a habitation of God, growing to a holy temple, as seen in [p. 201] this epistle.
MWB I wondered whether you would link the ways of God more particularly with chapter 2 verse 11 and onward.
JT Well, the earlier part of the chapter also deals with what we were, and speaks of the power of God; but we have to see that for the working out of the testimony here in the church, we are first taken up to heaven: “has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”, (chapter 2:6). All that has in view the testimony down here, that the heavenly feature should enter into it.
JHT Would the baptism of John in Acts 19 refer to the responsible side, and then the men being baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit coming upon them, link up with this? The Spirit coming upon the twelve men would enable them to enter into this.
JT Quite so. Those referred to in Acts 19 were placed on the ground of Paul’s ministry, and the Holy Spirit being given would enable them to enter into the heavenly side, and it is similar with us. I think we ought to distinguish between eternity and heaven. “From eternity to eternity” is one idea; but heaven has in view the testimony here. It is a question of the predominance of heaven. It is, of course, alluded to as the abode of God, but that is all in view of His relations with the earth.
Ques You mean that heaven is not really looked upon as a description of a past eternity?
JT No; it is part of creation. It is in view of the testimony. I think all references to heaven, and to elevation, are intended to impress us as on the earth. What God is, is infinitely beyond us. We may have some idea of moral elevation by seeing the heavens; they convey the thought, but there is the recognition in scripture that the heavens cannot contain God (see 2 Chronicles 6:18).
CCE The heavens are all created.
JT [p. 202] God in grace seeks, through physical things, to convey His thoughts to our minds, but it is a great thing to reach a point where you are clear of mere physical environment. Spirituality involves that. I find it very difficult to get rid of physical environment in my thoughts, but I think spirituality involves that we do.
Ques You mean we ought to get outside of any idea of a specific place for God?
JT He dwells in light unapproachable.
AMH How do you regard the new heavens and the new earth?
JT The same idea is retained in them as in the present heavens and earth; they are created. They are seen in the eternal state of things (Revelation 21).
WRP Do you make any difference between heaven and the heavenlies?
JT I should. The word “heavenlies” in Ephesians is a peculiar one. The end of chapter 1 clearly shows it is above, where Christ is. I think it would be an intensification of the idea. Verse 3 says, “who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ”.
AMH Is the idea something entirely above and different from the earth?
JT I think so, showing that our blessings are marked off, or distinguished, from blessings that others may have on the earth.
FHB You were dwelling on the statement, “From eternity to eternity thou art God”; would that give you the idea of God being the beginning and cause, and then the end of all things?
JT That is what I was thinking, and this epistle develops that thought for us.
Ques Would the apprehension of that be connected with maturity in the believer? Hence in this epistle you have the climax of the work of God.
JT I am sure that is contemplated in the work at [p. 203] Ephesus because it is the acme of Paul’s work, so that the state of the saints clearly would warrant all this being opened up. I have no doubt the saints at Ephesus would say, “Amen”. In Psalm 106:48 it is, “Let all the people say, Amen!” but in 1 Chronicles 16:36 they said it.
ASL What difference would you make between heaven and the heavenlies?
JT The Lord is said to have entered into heaven itself. It is something distinctive.
Ques Is it defined in Colossians 3:1 where it says, “The things which are above, where the Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God”?
JT Yes, I think so; only there elevation and power are more in view, as the terms “above” and “right hand of God” imply.
WRP Would you connect the thought of place with heaven, rather than the heavenlies?
JT Yes. What is presented here is an intensified thought, not that we are with Christ, but that our status is “in Christ”.
HH Would you distinguish between the beginning of Genesis, “God created the heavens and the earth” and the scripture just referred to, that Christ is entered “into heaven itself”? (Hebrews 9:24).
JT I think all these expressions are used to convey divine thoughts and to fit in with our limited ability to apprehend things. “Heaven itself” would convey the thought in its totality. We have the “third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2), but “heaven itself” would involve more than that.
HH You would allow for what is spiritual in the expression “heaven itself”, but the heavens, as created, do not suggest what is spiritual.
JT The sidereal heavens are material, but generally the realm of the spiritual is conveyed by the term “heavenlies”, even as to what is satanic; we read of spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies. God is dealing [p. 204] with us with a view to our education, taking account of our limited powers of apprehension. After all, besides the heavenly bodies, what do we see? The idea is, something far above, which is intended to dominate, and in a convincing way, to convey the idea of our privilege and supreme blessing and exaltation. But to ‘go up’, that is to enter upon these blessings, we must learn to be spiritual. The disciples saw the Lord go up.
WJH The heavenly bodies are for ‘signs’, pointing to something spiritual.
JT Exactly; that is one of the reasons for which they exist. In creation God formed a means of conveying His thoughts, as, for instance, when He ‘set’ the heavenly bodies. We cannot say how long they had already existed; they were created as mentioned in Genesis 1:1, and in Genesis 1:17 we read God “set them”. That indicates how God has set things so that He can call upon them for use as He needs them. So the heavens and the earth, and especially the heavens, really suggest the thought of dominance. Matthew takes that up in a special way, emphasising the kingdom of the heavens.
The heavens and the earth are to be the scene of the display of divine purpose, and the idea goes right through; God never gives up that thought, and what will be in the new heavens and new earth, will be the result of what is worked out in the present scene.
EuR Would Matthew be the working out of the principle of the heavens and the earth, in relation to the assembly?
JT That is the idea; the Lord says “My Father who is in the heavens”, (Matthew 18:10).
MWB Is the purpose of God linked with God Himself prior to creation, and then is creation a sphere in which that purpose can be wrought out?
JT Yes, and He was pleased to create that sphere as heavens and earth. In His wisdom He did that.
MWB And He did so in order to convey certain [p. 205] moral ideas to our minds; but you link purpose with eternity and God, prior to all else?
JT That is my understanding of it. It is a question of God, of whom, and through whom, and for whom are all things (Romans 11:36).
The heavens, spoken of in Genesis 1 were not affected by the catastrophe: “the earth was waste and empty”. In connection with the renewed earth, there was evidently an additional heaven formed on the second day which would be that which is nearest to us, but all as a means whereby God would convey His thoughts to us.
MWB In what relation does the purpose of God stand to the world to come? Would you distinguish between the two thoughts?
JT What God purposed for us in love, has its full answer in the eternal state of things, but it comes into display in the world to come, thus taking the form of testimony; for the world to come is really to bring into public display what God is effecting now. We shall see that in this epistle, the main body of which deals with the world to come. Its teaching shews how God brings out here on earth now, the excellence of this superior thing, the assembly, and brings it out of heaven. Chapter 2:7 contemplates that in the ages to come God will set forth “the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus”. What follows on that is the habitation of God down here; that is to say, the ‘habitation’ depends on our having first been raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies. “Raised up” refers to elevation. This would promote unity; and we are to be here in unity for the habitation of God. All this, too, would tend to keep us small, for being great I can be small: “less than the least of all saints”, (Ephesians 3:8). Thus we are in God’s hands as suitable for His present purpose.
ASL That is the great effect; it enables you to be genuinely [p. 206] small.
JT In being small you are morally great, that is, you are like Christ:
‘O keep us, love divine, near Thee,
That we our nothingness may know’. (87:3)
Ques Do you connect the basket with the inheritance because it is heavenly?
JT It contains what is heavenly — the first-fruits — and it is taken out of the hand of the worshipper by the priest. It represents what God has in mind as to us viewed in relation to purpose.
Rem The person who brings the basket has the purpose of God in his thoughts, and values the inheritance.
DLH He has the purpose of God in his basket!
JT That is better; because the man himself is the basket, figuratively speaking, but not as the Syrian; it is the man in the light of purpose. The basket is formally separated by the priest taking it out of his hands and setting it down before the altar. Then the man makes the confession as to his ancestry, and afterwards he sets the basket down and worships.
Ques What about the basket in Exodus 29?
JT It is similar, having reference to the humanity of Christ as essential to priesthood.
PL In John 17 you have the Priest in relation to the basket, the Lord lifting up His eyes to heaven, demanding that He might have His own with Him.
JT That is very good. The Father had given them to Him. The Lord thinks of them in relation to the testimony, and then that they might be with Him as He says, to “behold my glory which thou hast given me” (verse 24). In the first four verses He speaks of His mediatorial service, and then asks to be glorified with the glory He had along with the Father before the world was; that is surely “from eternity to eternity”. In verse 6 He speaks of His disciples, and the greater part of the chapter deals with them in connection with the testimony here;
[p. 207] and then He asks the Father that they should be with Him — to “behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”.
It is quite clear that verse 24: “I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me” is eternity in the future, and then He adds the past: “For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”.
HD'AC The glory of verse 5 is not communicated. But in verse 24 He says, “That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me”.
JT “The glory which I had along with thee before the world was”, (verse 5) seems to be spoken of in our hearing, as calculated to produce holy adoration. It is evidently the glory of Deity — glory as between the divine Persons.
HD'AC It is a very special privilege for us to hear of it in this way.
JT Verse 24 is the “glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. I thought the reference to “before the foundation of the world” was to link on eternity with eternity, that they agree. But verse 5, as remarked, seems to be between divine Persons: “the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”.
Rem The glory in verse 5 is not said to be seen.
JT We cannot say it is the same as verse 24, for the glory there is said to be given; the “glory which thou hast given me”.
Ques Would that be conferred glory?
JT If He says, “the glory which thou hast given me”, I would leave that as it is stated. It refers to what has been given to Him as Man. He speaks of giving them a glory which the Father had given Him, which, of course, could not be essential Deity.
FHB Is not the stress in verse 24 on the word ‘my’? “That they may behold my glory”.
JT It is His as given, and His love for His own would have them with Him to behold it.
FHB In verse 5 He receives it.
JT It may seem to amount to that, only the expression is. “and now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”.
ASL Is it not so, that having come into manhood, even the glory that was His from all eternity He would receive now from the Father?
JT Verse 5 says “the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”, apparently involving association. Elsewhere it is said that He comes in the Father’s glory; but that would be revealed evidently, but the glory of verse 5 seems to be between the divine Persons.
JJ Is that very much like John 1:1: “The Word was with God”?
JT Not precisely; though it would include that; John 17:5 is undoubtedly a reference to the Lord’s status in Deity.
The mention of it should appeal to us, calling forth worship. “The glory which I had along with thee”, He says. The preposition is very often translated ‘with’, but “along with” intensifies it. As Man He returns to the status of Deity.
Ques Is it like the Mediator passing for a moment out of our sight, and in that way establishing equality in status with God in glory?
JT I think it is. In verse 14 of chapter 1 you have the same preposition, where it says, “as of an only-begotten with a father”. There you have an object of affection in manhood in relation to purpose; but John 17:5 seems to deal with equality of divine Persons.
Ques Would you use the word ‘unity’?
JT Well, the idea is alongside, as of one your own equal. It is not what They are towards One Another, as in chapter 1 verse 1. “The Word was with God” is [p. 209] another idea, the preposition is different; it is toward; but chapter 17:5 is “along with” as involving equality, I think. In John 17:1 - 4 mediatorial service is clearly in view, thus “glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee”, but verse 5 goes further and so there is emphasis on the personal pronouns “me” and “thou”.
WRP Why do you bring purpose into chapter 1?
JT In regard to the Only-begotten. We have here (Ephesians 1) the Beloved; we are made accepted in the Beloved. That is where you get an Object for the Father’s affections. We are now on the line of purpose, because we are on the ground on which others can be brought in. Sonship is really with a view to others being brought in. That is the idea, and John 1:14 has that in mind. The glory He had there, was the “glory as of an only-begotten with a father”; it is descriptive.
WRP Then sonship is relative?
JT Clearly; it is to establish a ground for purpose, so that the position here is in the Beloved. Of course there is also the declaration of God in the Son.
MWB What connection do you see between the Beloved as you are quoting the expression now from Ephesians, and John 17:24: “for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. Is there any connection between these two?
JT I think John 17:24 is to establish what we are considering today — “from eternity to eternity”. That reference is to bring in the love that was there. We shall see it in the eternity to come; the link is in love; that is, “eternity to eternity” is linked up by love; the One that was loved then is the Beloved in whom we are now.
JJ Would you carry in your mind John 1: 14, back into eternity?
JT No, I should not. It is a description of the Word as become flesh, as the passage most plainly states.
WC Do I understand that that was not an exclusive thought but rather [p. 210] descriptive?
JT Well, it is a human figure. It is not the Father, but a father: “as of an only-begotten with a father”. He had that place, but to apply it to Him as in the Deity, would, it seems to me, disarrange the relations between divine Persons, because you must make room for the Spirit; but as soon as you come into the realm of divine operations and the accomplishment of divine purpose, you get sonship.
PL Is not that the very thing suggested in John 1:1? “The Word was with God”. It would not do to say, ‘the Word was with the Father’; that would leave out the Spirit.
JT I think we ought to see in the Son becoming Man, One adequate for God to express all that He is. No finite being would be adequate for God to show how He can love a person. I do not mean, of course, that He did not love finite beings, but in the Son you have a Person great enough for God’s heart. That is the idea you get in the baptism of the Lord: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, (Matthew 17:5). God has an Object great enough to shew His love family-wise, so as to lay the basis on which we can all be brought into it.
EJMcB Is that why you stressed the priest taking the basket in the first place?
JT I think the Lord takes the basket just in that way. He knows what the Father is set for, and He takes you, so to speak, for that and never gives you up. He has taken us up for that. It is abstract until you come to verse 10 in the chapter (Deuteronomy 26). Then I take the thing up myself and worship.
In the Son you have the Beloved. He has “taken us into favour in the Beloved”. That has eternity to come in view, but then we come down to the working out of it all and that involves redemption.
EuR What is the contrast between “in the Beloved” here, and what you spoke of in connection with status as being “in Christ”?
JT I think “in Christ” is more the dignity of the anointing. You need that in heaven. It is another thought.
Ques Does the thought of Christ being loved “before the foundation of the world” involve family relationship?
JT I do not think so at all. We have to leave, in that respect, what was before the foundation of the world. There was relationship, of course, the relationship that exists between divine Persons. It is important to remember John 1 has past and present tenses in dealing with this subject; what Christ was and what He is. What is stated in the present tense refers to manhood, but what is stated in the past tense refers to Deity: “the Word was God”.
ASL What He was and what He became.
JT “The Word became flesh”, (John 1:14). There you are on the ground of God working out His purpose.
HH Is there any direct reference to His deity in Ephesians?
JT Of course it is assumed, but He is seen here as Man — the object and centre of the divine counsels.
HH Quite so; I was only thinking of what has often been said as to Colossians where there is very direct reference to Deity.
JT I think the scriptures in which the deity of Christ is insisted upon are corrective. In heaven we shall never raise such a question; we shall be in the presence of God there.
CAC “Who fills all in all” would involve His deity, but it is said of Him as the exalted Man.
JT It is remarkable that the church is referred to in connection with that expression. The church is His fulness. How great is the thought that God should bring out such a thing in a Man! Who He is is evident.
ASL We have certain scriptures methodically setting out the Lord’s deity, and having these we do not raise questions as to His Person; they are settled.
Ques Would you not think the relations between [p. 212] divine Persons in eternity were greater than anything that has been revealed?
JT I should, certainly. If God is pleased to come within our range it is clearly unwise for us to say that what we see is all. I think it is due to God that we should leave Him, so to speak, in His own realm. If He has come into ours we adore Him, but we must recognise the mystery of piety.
ASL It is entirely beyond our competence to intrude into relationships that existed between divine Persons in eternity.
JT God has been pleased to come into revelation. We must not forget that He has come; the ark of the covenant denotes the smallness of the compass into which God can come.
ASL Then there is one precious word from the lips of the Lord Himself we need to bear in mind; “no one knows the Son, but the Father”, (Matthew 11:27).
GWW You said something about corrective scriptures; what has to be corrected?
JT In view of theology coming in, the Holy Spirit saw to it that the doctrine was there; there it stands; John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1 remain, and all the theology of the world cannot overthrow what is there.
FHB We have to remember the creature can never comprehend the Being of God. He has revealed Himself for finite beings.
PL So the psalmist said: “who humbleth himself to look on the heavens and on the earth?” (Psalm 113:6), and the previous verse is, “who hath placed his dwelling on high”.
JT All that assumes revelation, but we must not limit God to that which that psalm states.
Ques Would it be right to say that love was there?
JT I believe love is the great thing in “eternity to eternity”; love was active before the world was.
JJ And does not John 1:18 suggest the limitation of His revelation? “Who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. It shows that the revelation is limited to that, to the revelation of the Father.
JT I think the revelation involves both. “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. I believe the Him includes both God and Father. The Son is in that wonderful position, and so God is declared; the term employed is not ‘revealed’ there but ‘declared’; it is declaration, and I think the position of the Declarer being mentioned is to bring out the advantage of it, that is, that He is in the place of love.