ETERNITY TO ETERNITY (5)
ETERNITY TO ETERNITY (5)
JT There are two main subjects in the chapters still to be considered — the church and the conflict; we might concentrate on these. It was thought that the details in the exhortatory part of chapters 4 and 5 might be left as time does not permit of going into them. The assembly in a peculiar way is brought to our attention in the verses read, and this affords an opportunity for briefly looking into the whole subject. There are, however, two features in chapters 4 and 5 that might first be touched upon; namely, the “new man” in chapter 4 and the “beloved children” in chapter 5. On these two features hang, practically, all that is said in detail, the “new man” having reference to what we put on, being more public; and the subject of “beloved children” bringing us into very close correspondence with Christ. Certain conduct is treated as hinging on these two features.
Then another point in chapter 4 is the “unity of the faith” which was scarcely noticed yesterday. We were engaged generally with the “unity of the Spirit”; but the “unity of the faith” as having a bearing upon full growth, is a very important matter in its setting in chapter 4 leading up to the self-action of the body, which implies the absence of the babe condition (verses 1 - 16) and involves each being in his place in intelligence and affection. The chapter speaks of both the unity of the Spirit and the unity of the faith, the latter implying that those who compose the assembly should never assume that there must be differences existing. The saints being fully grown should surely be able, in the presence of the Lord, to see the right and wrong of everything. I thought it would be well, perhaps, to mention these general features in [p. 270] chapter 4 and the early part of chapter 5 before we take up our definite subject which is the assembly.
NMcC Do you connect the unity of the faith more with intelligence than affection?
JT Yes. The unity of the Spirit, as we had yesterday, is properly linked up with the affections. The unity of the faith having reference to our minds, our intelligence; but it is not simply a matter of doctrine, as I understand, but what is held in faith. Christianity is not a system of doctrines; there are doctrines, but it is a question of what is held in faith, therefore it is called “the faith”.
MWB Is that why the unity of the faith is linked with the knowledge of the Son of God?
JT Yes; the Son of God, in the passage, refers to what He is on God’s side, and the “measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ” is what He is on our side.
JJ Would there be a connection between the “one new man” of chapter 2, the “inner man” of chapter 3, and the “full-grown man” and the “new man” of chapter 4?
JT I think there is an interesting link in those passages.
JJ How would that bear on the assembly? I suppose it is material for it.
JT It leads up to it. The assembly is found in each of the chapters up to this one. In chapter 1 it is spoken of as the fulness of Christ; in chapter 2 as the habitation of God; then twice in chapter 3, first as that in which the all-various wisdom of God is seen by the principalities and powers in the heavenlies, and then as the vessel of divine glory in eternity; then in chapter 4 it is referred to as the body and as self-edifying here, the saints set together in full growth so that there is self-acting. It is an organism in which all the members are in their places.
EuR We have looked too much at this thought of full growth as being future, and that to which we are moving [p. 271] on.
JT I think it is clearly present, with a view to the increase of the body, to its self-building up in love. You find the church in each of these chapters up to this one; we have a greater view of the church here than in any other epistle. Above all subjects a knowledge of the types is essential to a right understanding of the church as presented in this epistle. In Genesis we have three types. There are others, but the principal ones are Eve, Rebecca and Asnath. In the wilderness we have Zipporah and the Ethiopian (wives of Moses); then in Joshua we have Achsah; and in 1 Samuel we have Abigail. There are other types in a lesser way, but I think these are the great types. The first, Eve, is really the greatest type, as I understand it, because it is a type of the church viewed apart from sin, and was given before sin came in. All the others contemplate the existence of the moral question, but Eve is the church viewed apart from sin, and was a type given before the moral issue was raised, and therefore she sets forth the idea of “eternity to eternity”, so to speak. “Eternity to eternity” would mean that the church in the coming eternity has no reference to a past sinful history at all. It has a life out of death; not death as penalty, but death illustrated in sleep and as expressive of love. Then Rebecca would be the church as brought to Christ, being of equal family dignity, to replace Israel; Asnath would be the church as seen in Colossians — Christ among the gentiles; then Zipporah and the Ethiopian viewed together, would be the church in the wilderness, suggesting peculiarly, Corinthians. Achsah is the church viewed as laying hold of the inheritance, valuing and appreciating it; and finally Abigail is the church militant. I mention all these, because I think they enter into the subject before us, as essential to a right understanding of it.
WJH In what way would you connect the church as “from eternity”?
JT Well, Eve coming in before sin, indicates what [p. 272] was in the mind or purpose of God. She was needed; it was not good that man should be alone; and she is brought in for Adam before sin came in. That is, Eve would represent purpose. But by way of contrast, you cannot think of Zipporah in the same way, nor the Ethiopian woman who was a sort of counterpart to Zipporah. Those types suggest wilderness features. What is said of them is brief and would indicate there was nothing attractive. Of the church in the wilderness you cannot say much; it is a question of what it proves itself to be, but it is there.
EuR Is your suggestion that Eve illustrates the assembly as wholly spiritual?
JT Quite so, as taken out of Christ. You cannot apply that to Zipporah. Adam says, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, (Genesis 2:23). Eve is the church as entirely spiritual, and as we have it in its highest feature in this epistle.
JJ Would not that be seen in the first six verses of chapter 1?
JT Yes, and in the beginning of chapter 2. It includes union; we are quickened with the Christ.
Ques Would Eve as a type suggest to us the manifold wisdom you spoke about yesterday morning?
JT Well, I do not know that you could limit that to this type. What the saints are down here now is alluded to there: “in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God”. I think the idea of the church as typified in Eve, in an abstract way runs through this dispensation, to shew what was in the mind of God from eternity, and the church as seen in her — goes into eternity.
FHB It is important to see that what God is doing now, is not merely with a view to meeting man’s need, but to carry out what was in His mind for eternity, for His own pleasure — the building of [p. 273] the woman.
JT That is what I had in mind. Eve is the greatest type, I think, and, as we were saying about the basket, she must be understood as abstractly existing. There is, however, very little known amongst us of the concrete idea of the church seen in this type. But she is there; the thread runs right through. She is out of Christ, not as having died under penalty, but in the character of sleep, so that the moral question does not enter into it. That comes in later, and enters into the fibre of the church. The fibre gives lustre; but Eve is the church of purpose, to which we come when we are clear in our souls of all that refers to the moral issue.
Ques If no sin is attached to Eve as “from eternity”, in what way does the cleansing come in here in chapter 5 the “washing of water”?
JT You cannot limit these verses to that type. The type is alluded to, but the church is presented here in other relations besides. The subject comes in here as confirming the apostle’s instruction as to wives.
CAC Would you say it was the thought of God that the Eve character of the assembly should come into concrete evidence now, and would the cleansing have that in view?
JT I think the cleansing frees us, so that we might enter into what the church is in purpose. Was not that the great burden of the ministry of J.B.S. — to bring us to apprehend that the church has come out of Christ, and that all that goes to heaven comes out of heaven?
Ques Would the Eve type be suggested in John 20 where the Lord showed them His hands and His side?
JT I think that is right; it fits properly there because it is the chapter in which the first day of the week is in evidence; it is mentioned twice. His side, alluding to Adam, is the link, I think. The first day of the week being emphasised in John is important. It is not the day after the Sabbath; it is the first day. John has in view, not a development from the ways of God in the Old [p. 274] Testament, but a wholly new thing, the ‘first’ having no reference to anything earlier. Rightly understood, it would therefore suggest the entrance into what is of eternity; that is what is there. The church has come in that way, from the side of Christ. The fact that it is not formally mentioned does not affect the general idea conveyed in the chapter.
MWB With reference to sleep or death do you think it would help us as to the Supper — the Lord’s love seen apart from penalty?
JT I think that is right. John’s gospel hardly presents the death of Christ as penalty. There is no forsaking — nor is there in Luke. Not, of course, that it is not there; but the truth is presented in John’s gospel from a different side.
EuR Is Matthew 16:18 the Eve character? “I will build my assembly”.
JT Somewhat, but I think that includes Abigail, that is, the church militant — “hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”.
AMH Would you connect the thought of His flesh with the character of Man in Luke, and His bones with the order of Man in John?
JT John it is that speaks about the bones being unbroken. John refers to flesh too. I think John makes more of the flesh of Christ than any of the evangelists. “The Word became flesh” in chapter 1 and in chapter 6 he makes a great deal of it. The food in John is His flesh, but the food in Matthew and Mark is the body of Christ.
JHB What is the difference between the flesh of Christ and His body?
JT The flesh is condition, but the body conveys a whole idea and suggests unity. I think this is what is prominent in the synoptic gospels. The church is reached there more from the standpoint of the wilderness, and the Lord’s body is spoken of so that we should have a whole idea. We come into the assembly in connection [p. 275] with the body as presented in the Lord’s supper, which we do not get in John. The body is to present the church as a whole idea, a complete thought, as answering to a complete thought in Christ; so that the food in Matthew and Mark is His body: “Take, eat: this is my body”, (Matthew 26:26). But in John, the eating is the flesh, that we might be imbued or built up in a constitution answering to the condition that a divine Person has taken. It is a marvellous thing that He has taken that condition and died, so that the blood is spoken of as separate from His flesh. It is “drink indeed”.
JHB That helps. You have referred to the way in which the assembly is spoken of in the first four chapters of Ephesians, would you say in what way it is regarded in chapter 5?
JT It is presented as “subjected to the Christ”; that is the first thing. It is to be noticed that the passage begins the instruction relative to wives, children and bondmen. That is to say, the apostle has in mind that the enemy would take advantage of persons in a subjected condition. In the position of subjection there is great liability to irritation and a consequent giving place to the devil, so that the principle of subjection is introduced in regard of the wives, and then he immediately says, “but even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ, so also wives to their own husbands in everything”. That is the first thing. Then you have the love of Christ as the incentive for it: “as the Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it”.
FSM Would the deep sleep of Adam suggest to us the impression of the love of Christ, that aspect of His death which was the deep expression of His love?
JT The type fails as to love. God caused the sleep. Notice it was a deep sleep; it was not an ordinary sleep. But you can understand how Eve would speak later of what Adam entered into in order that she might exist. No doubt they had much communion on that point. The [p. 276] Lord would impress us with that too, of where He has been in order that we might have an existence. The very existence of the church depended on it. But here, the moral side is added to that: “in order that he might sanctify it, purifying it by the washing of water by the word”. So that the Lord is seen as dealing with us in this tender way; it is “washing of water by the word”. “The word” carries with it something very sweet if we consider the relation that exists between the One who is speaking and the one who is being washed. It seems as if it ought to call forth active affections. And the Lord would remind us that the water was due to His death as well. He was actually dead when it flowed.
Ques And is it not the same kind of love with which the Lord serves the church now, as expressed in the gift of Himself?
JT That is right. You cannot get anything more expressive of the love of Christ than this passage. He “loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it, in order that he might sanctify it, purifying it by the washing of water by the word, that he might present the assembly to himself glorious, having no spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that it might be holy and blameless”. The effect of this service is to touch our hearts with the love of Christ, so that our affections are active while in the process. It is no irksome process; it is by the word, but it conveys that He delivered Himself up, that He was actually dead, and that He would have the church in full keeping with eternal thoughts, “having no spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things”. It is the ability He has of clearing her of all the effects of sin, so that she answers to Eve before sin came in.
ESH Would “holy and blameless” link on with the opening verses of chapter 1?
JT I was just thinking of that: “that we should be holy and blameless before him in love”.
Rem So in the Eve type you have the thought of “from eternity to eternity”, and all the service of Christ in love that she might be made suitable for eternity.
JT That is so; she is taken out of the scene in which moral things have been wrought out, so that she answers to Christ. Hence, while the purpose of God implied the life out of death seen in the church, it also anticipated the moral question that she should go through that, and that gives a certain lustre to her, for the question of holiness arose, not in innocency, but as a consequence of sin.
FHB When he speaks of the washing and the cleansing, I wondered whether he was not looking at the assembly as composed of individuals, and whether that was not the reason he brought in the idea of washing?
JT She needs it as formed of those who severally have had part in sin.
FHB But Eve did not need any washing.
JT We are not limited to the type here. The Spirit of God does not confine us to Eve in innocency. The church having had to do with the moral question, it has acquired a lustre that answers to Christ, because He has had to enter into the moral question, and we should hardly correspond with Him if we did not. Eve does not typify holiness, whereas it appears in the church, as, of course, it does in Christ.
CAC There would be an absence of reality if we were to enter into the purpose of God without a reference to the moral side.
JT Surely! That is right.
WRP But why should it be necessary for the Lord to go into death if in this aspect of His death it was not the moral side?
JT If God intended to have a life seen in the assembly altogether apart from sin and death as its penal consequence, He could surely bring in that figure to indicate it. He intends to have the church in the coming eternity altogether free of any sinful connection, and I think the figure in Genesis 2 is to show that, and to represent God’s mind. Not that He had ever such a thought as that Christ should die, save vicariously, but if He had a thought of having the church in a life altogether apart from sin, He is entitled to use a figure to show what was in His mind; and there is ability with Christ to bring the church into a condition and status, in which there is no sense of a past sinful shameful condition. It is “from eternity to eternity”, as I was saying, but if it has come down here into the region where moral questions have arisen, this brings it into accord with Christ, because He also came down into that region — but the primary thought of God is never lost sight of, and that is presented in Genesis 2. It speaks of a life out of death; that is what God intended, but not death as penalty, though it was that as a matter of history, and God foreknew the necessity for this, but if He has in His mind to have something entirely clear of that, He can bring in a type setting that forth. God alone could work out the two things together and maintain them as distinct.
Ques Then is the love of Christ set forth in that aspect?
JT We have just been saying that. It is in the passage here; He “loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it”.
Rem That is the Adam aspect.
JT I think it runs beyond it. The moral question is added to it, in order that Christ might take the church out of the effect of sin and present her to Himself altogether according to Himself, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. She is wholly free as the bride in the beginning of Revelation 21. She is adorned for her Husband.
Ques Is that the view of the love of Christ we should have in the Supper?
JT Yes, I think it is.
JHT What bearing has “his wife has made herself ready” on this? Does that suppose she has understood the moral question?
JT I think so. She is the Lamb’s wife, which would mean that she is in accord with the suffering Christ, and it gives lustre to her. Do you not think it is the Colossian side? “I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly”, (Colossians 1:24). She has to go through sufferings, for we would not miss anything of these things in their result. It is the result we have in view.
JHT I should like help as to the ‘word’ as you spoke of it. Is the service of Christ through the gifts in relation to that?
JT I think so. He acts mediately now, but I think we should notice the “washing of water by the word”. It is a suggestion of intelligence, and He makes us know what He does. “What I do thou dost not know now, but thou shalt know hereafter”, (John 13:7). He intends you to know what He does, and that gives great place to the assembly, that what is being done is understood. It is not arbitrary. No husband would act arbitrarily with his wife unless will were in action. The ‘word’ is to convey intelligence, that what is being done is understood, and that greatly helps in ministry.
COB Do you connect this with John 13?
JT Yes. The Lord would convey to Peter and to them all, the meaning of what He did. “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”, (verse 8).
MWB The word is the expression of the mind.
HWS Do you connect the thought of subjection with the moral side, or would that go on into eternity?
JT The idea of subjection must go on into eternity, even in Christ; “then the Son”, it says, “also himself shall be placed in subjection”, (1 Corinthians 15:28). Eve in innocency was under Adam; he was her head.
ASL Do you think the deep sleep and the waking out of it would foreshadow in any way what was in the mind [p. 280] and intention of God that it was to be Man of a new order, not the man that came out of dust, but another kind of Man altogether was to be the One in whom all His purposes were to centre?
JT That is right, and so John 20 brings before us the “last Adam”, and the church, in its members, is seen there also.
WJH The moral side in Mary Magdalene had already been solved.
JT Yes; out of her had gone seven demons.
GWW I would like to get more clearly what is meant by the “washing of water by the word”. Is it the bringing home to the soul morally, of what was set forth and is true in Christ?
JT It is what is set forth in His death — not the blood, but the water. But it is connected with the ‘word’ here. So that we understand the process.
GWW The bringing us to it, is what is involved in the “washing of water by the word”. That is what our brother had in mind when he said that otherwise we should have unreality.
JT We should; and therefore we should not be too hasty as “in assembly” to go on to the purpose of God as a matter of light. I think we acquire lustre and power and tone as intelligently bringing in the moral side. But on the other hand, one observes that the brethren often remain too long, in occupation with Christ as Lord; that is, after the Supper is eaten, they remain too long before headship and companionship are reached. When we are alongside of Him all the references are to the Father.
GWW Does not that indicate the necessity for ministry on that line? If souls are not really up to the thought of companionship, is not that a special indication for ministry?
JT That is what ministry is for: “for the work of the ministry ... until we all arrive”, (chapter 4:12,13). I believe the Lord uses ministry to enlighten the minds of brethren, but if you [p. 281] get light, the thing is to act on it. As apprehending Christ as Head it is wonderful to be alongside of Him so as to be led of Him to the Father.
Ques Would that mean that there is intelligent love that enables the saints to be in His presence?
JT Yes. When you are with Christ in companionship, there is no thought of any past sinful history, but you must reach that point in the power of the Spirit.
GWW You cannot bring in the question of moral state there.
JT You are past it. The Lord’s supper implies what is moral; but at such a time as we have referred to we are past that, so that, as scripture says, “both [p. 288] he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, (Hebrews 2:11). I think if we were occupied unduly with the moral or responsible side, there would be a sense of shame, and you would hardly be equal to the thought of companionship.
MWB You said the moral side was involved in the Supper; do you see the combination of the two sides there?
JT I think so, but I do not know that we should bring in the penalty. It is more the principle of the boiling of the sacrifice, the indirect action of judgment. It is that aspect.
MWB That is what I wanted you to make clear. It is not death as penalty in the Supper, but rather the expression of love. Would you distinguish between the two?
JT The Lord’s supper conveys that He gave Himself, and of course we do not wish to shut out what that meant, but both Luke and John leave out the forsaking, and we are entitled to do so under certain circumstances.
JJ Is that not what the Lord meant in John 15:13: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. There was nothing of penalty [p. 282] in that.
JT No indeed; you could not in ordinary circumstances, get anything more expressive of love than to lay down one’s life, and that is all you need at the Supper. Not that you wish to shut out penalty, but if Luke and John leave it out, we can; we need to be occupied more with the love side. Matthew and Mark would impress us with the evidence of love, but this is not necessary if we are enjoying it.
JHB Referring again to Genesis 2, what are we to understand by the words in verse 18: “It is not good that Man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate, his like”?
JT The words “Ish” and “Ishshah” indicate correspondence between the two, correspondence in mind and in affection and intelligence.
JHB Would that lead on to the thought of standing before God the Father in association with Him?
JT Yes, there is correspondence, as in John 20.
GWW Would you say a little more about the boiling and the roasting?
JT I think boiling is to convey to us the indirect action of the fire; the heat reaches the oblation indirectly. If a thing is cooked in a pan the same is true, only that it is more direct than boiling. Boiling is in water; it is to reduce the evidence of the fire. You do not want to leave it out, but to reduce the thought, and I think Luke and John have that in mind. Death is there, of course, as the evidence of love. But Matthew and Mark do not reduce; they give the full bearing of the judgment — the forsaking.
GWW You have the fire direct.
FHB The penalty is more connected with the passover.
JT It was “roast with fire”. You find complaint sometimes because brethren do not emphasise the forsaking at the Lord’s supper, as if it were leaving out something that should be there, but they ought also to [p. 283] complain of Luke and John. If Luke and John did that, we may do it on the same principle.
Ques Would boiling bring in the idea of apprehending the moral question because of what God is?
JT You can never leave that out while we are in our present condition, and Luke and John do not leave it out. It is there, but they do not formally mention the forsaking, and I think this helps as to the Lord’s supper.
TR It is noticeable in Luke that whilst the penalty, the forsaking, is not found there, we have the Spirit of God bringing in the three hours of darkness.
JT There is no question in any of the gospels that the judgment of God entered into the death of Christ. We are speaking of how the truth is presented.
ASL In John’s epistle propitiation is spoken of as the perfect expression of love: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son a propitiation for our sins”, (1 John 4:10).
JT Like Matthew and Mark, that is full testimony, but as in the enjoyment of the love we need not bring that side forward.
ASL So that we do not want to be occupied with our sins or past history; we rest in perfect love seen in propitiation.
JT Love is thus known and all fear is cast out. Matthew and Mark are the framework of christianity, meeting the moral question, but not meeting the love question, as formally dealing with it. Luke and John deal more with this, which is important. Luke and John are founded on Matthew and Mark, but they are really the fulness of love. In them you get the Lord coming into the midst of His own after He rose and showing the tokens of His love, but it is not so in Matthew and Mark.
GWW Would you say a word as to the difference between the passover as first partaken of in Exodus 12 and as partaken of in Luke in the upper room?
JT In Luke you have much more than you could [p. 284] have in Exodus. You have the judgment expressed in Exodus and the shelter of the blood. They ate the lamb roast with fire in view of the exit from Egypt. The passover that the Lord partook of included additions which He accepted. You find two cups; there is nothing said about them in Exodus. And you find a hymn; there is nothing said about that in Exodus. There was no suggestion of singing in Exodus until chapter 15. It is said that a certain selection of the Psalms were sung at the passover. All this would be of the nature of wealth added, and which the Lord recognised.
GWW So when we take up the expression, “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7), we have to take it up from the standpoint of all that accumulated wealth, and from Luke’s standpoint, not from the standpoint of Exodus 12.
JT There was something there in connection with which He could link Himself on with them. There were additional elements that He could employ to convey Himself, not in what He was to Israel, but in what He is to the church. There was a certain richness in that passover which does not appear in Exodus.
EuR Do we need in that way to seek to get accumulated wealth in relation to the Supper?
JT I think so. Whatever wealth there is we should see that in our localities we are not behind. It is a poor thing for the brethren to come and sit down in an impoverished state, with the spiritual elements wanting, that the Lord would use to enhance Himself.
DLH With regard to the cup, I notice that it says as regards the passover, that He took a cup, but when the cup is referred to in the Lord’s supper, He took the cup. I apprehend that means that He took the cup which had already been used in the passover and gave it a further application in the Supper.
JT At that time there were several cups used according to historical accounts, so that the article being [p. 285] affixed to the cup of the Lord’s supper makes it all the more important. There was a vessel there for His use, and practically as coming together we must see that there is nothing absent that the Lord might use.
Ques Would you say a little more about being by the side of Christ in view of the Father?
JT That all enters into this. As headship is apprehended, the idea of the assembly comes into evidence. The apostle goes on here to refer to Eve again. “For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Christ the assembly: for we are members of his body; we are of his flesh, and of his bones. Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. As we come into the sense of companionship with Christ, we understand that He is not ashamed to call us brethren; we come to the idea of the church as of Him. Then there is no sense of previous sinful history. That is a point to be reached as we come together in assembly.
Ques Would Mary Magdalene standing by the side of Christ immediately He came out of death be a nucleus of the church?
JT I think so. She calls Him, ‘Rabboni’, meaning that she needs instruction. That is essential here. ‘Rabboni’ is ‘my teacher’, and presently He says to her, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. Mary of Magdala comes bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”, (John 20:16 - 18). I think there you have, in principle, the church. She is in subjection to Christ as taught. She does not assume the place of a teacher with the disciples, but simply tells them that He had said these things to her. There is no idea of authority [p. 286] with her, but simply that she is the bearer of a message. The Lord comes and He says, ‘Peace’, and shows them His hands and His side. There is a clear indication that they were the objects of His love, and that, so to speak, they had come out of His side; and then He breathes on them.
HH Does not that indicate that the saints should be viewed as risen as the Lord comes into the midst?
JT The platform is ascension. “I ascend” is not historical there, but characteristic, so that He enters in that light. The church is really the product of an ascended Christ. It comes out of death with Him, as of Him, taking its character from Him as risen and ascended.
HH I was thinking of the first part of the meeting for the Supper, which allows for the wilderness side of things, and in that connection you do not exactly regard the saints as risen, but to join Christ in companionship you do have to appreciate them as risen, that is, Christ comes into the midst as One who is risen.
JT You must add the thought of ascension. That is important because it gives the church its place as we have it in Ephesians. I think Matthew, Mark and Luke, have in view the church as in the wilderness; the Lord’s supper is in the wilderness. The position answers to the type of Zipporah, I think; it is a question of what she makes herself to be. In Exodus she is brought to Moses after deliverance is effected at mount Horeb, and her two sons are referred to there. There is only one son mentioned in chapter 2 whose name meant that Moses was a ‘stranger in a strange land’; but the second son’s name means, “God ... has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”; that is, deliverance, realised in the wilderness. But in Numbers, the official class represented in Aaron and Miriam, complain against Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman. That is what comes out in the wilderness. It shows the responsibility that attaches to the church in the wilderness, and what [p. 287] opposition may arise in these circumstances. But while beginning thus in the wilderness, in the assembly, we go on to Canaan.
EuR Did I understand you to say the church is derived from an ascended Christ?
JT Quite so; it is heavenly. It comes out of heaven and goes back to heaven. There is no thought of Zipporah going into the land; Achsah is that side; she wants the inheritance, and she wants it in the most favourable relations. She had a south land, but she wanted springs of water to maintain her in the full height of her blessing. Coming back to Moses and the wilderness, it says in Song of Songs 8:5, “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” We may think little of the church in the wilderness, but the Lord will bring her through. Who is she? She is leaning upon Him; she is dependent upon Him, and she is not out of keeping with Him either. He brings us through, and therefore it is a serious matter to be complaining because of the unloveliness of the brethren, as Aaron and Miriam did with regard to the Ethiopian woman. Of course it is a humbling thing if they are unlovely, but the complaint is against Christ. He has taken us on, and He will bring us up out of the wilderness.
NMcC Would coming up out of the wilderness bring us to the point of companionship?
JT Well, it is not quite so far. She is leaning on Him. It is not exactly companionship; it is in the land that we join Him as His companions, and the ground is thus completely changed.
FHB I think our weakness is in the lack of the consciousness of companionship with Christ. We speak a good bit about Him and to Him, but we have not the sense of companionship. As you said, if we had we would speak to the Father.
JT And we should be conscious thus of being equal with Him. Not of course having part in His deity, but “he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, (Hebrews 2:11). They come up with Him out of death, and there is no other history. He has been down, and they come up with Him, and I think that is where we touch what we have here, that we are “of his flesh and of his bones”. It speaks in the psalm of our being curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth.
JHB What is meant by the expression ‘union with Christ’?
JT It means that I am of Him and so united to Him. “The two shall be one flesh”. It is mysterious; I doubt whether it could be defined in words.
JHB It is a little different from the thought of companionship.
JT It goes beyond companionship. “The two shall be one”; it is a remarkable thought.
JJ Is union greater than unity? I thought the Lord would not unite with Himself what is not united here. We are united together and then union follows.
COB Is the presentation of verse 27 future?
JT “That he might present the assembly to himself glorious, having no spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things”. I think it would enter into our relations in the assembly now; but properly, it is future. It is the Lord looking on to the presentation of the whole church to Himself.
“This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. We are left with that here, the almost inscrutable thought of Christ and the church. You are cast on the Lord and the Spirit to understand it. It is really more for understanding than for definition; it is called a mystery, but he says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. That is what the Holy Spirit would leave with us.