THE LIVING GOD (2)
[p. 132] THE LIVING GOD (2)
2 Corinthians 3:3 - 6; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; Romans 9: 25, 26; Hebrews 9: 13, 14
JT Most of us will be aware that our subject is “The Living God”, as seen in the New Testament, and the features of the truth that stand related to this divine appellation. In Matthew 16: 16, Peter is recorded as saying to the Lord, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The object in view in these readings is to stress what should correspond in us on earth, with the living God, namely, a living state of things. This is in contrast with dead conditions that had marked judaism in our Lord’s own time, and now marks the profession of christianity. Instead of the energy of the Spirit of God, we have forms and ceremonies. The passage in Romans 9 speaks of the “Sons of the living God”. It is quoted from the prophet Hosea, and shows how quickly the change takes place, from being a cast-off people, to being in the relationship of “Sons of the living God”.
In the order of the truth, we should now consider the Spirit of the living God, for it is through the Spirit that the answer to the living God is realised. All that is effected subjectively here is by the Spirit, so that 2 Corinthians 3 furnishes a convenient passage to dwell on as to that side of the truth. Linking this with sonship in Romans 9 — “Sons of the living God” — we reach service in Hebrews 9. The word ‘service’ there may be translated worship, and refers generally to the official or public service Godward. It is not the idea of serving men, but God, as Philippians 3: 3.
EF Have you in mind that as we are affected by the Spirit of the living God as in 2 Corinthians 3, we are characterised by what is living?
JT That is what I think the Lord will help us to see in this chapter. The use of the word ‘spirit’ is quite [p. 133] distinctive here. We have the Spirit of the living God, and then we have the spirit of the covenant; that is, over against the letter in verse 6, “not of letter, but of spirit”. Then, the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens. The second reference there is evidently to the Holy Spirit, and is so indicated in the New Translation. In what is marked off as a parenthesis — verses 7 to 16 — we have first a reference to the ministry of the Spirit, connecting Him with the new covenant. Then the Spirit of verse 6 is said in verse 17 to be the Lord Himself — “the Lord is the Spirit;” and it is then transposed: “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. Then, again, we are brought back to the thought of the Lord being the Spirit in the last verse; that we are changed as by the Lord, the Spirit. There is the union in this wonderful ministry of the new covenant, of the Lord and the Spirit; so much so that the Lord, as we have seen, is said to be the Spirit, which I think helps us as to the realisation of His visits and manifestations. His manifestations and His visits, His comings to us are of a spiritual nature. They are not in any sense corporeal. He appeared corporeally, of course, during the forty days to His own, and no doubt afterwards, too, particularly to Paul, but in general everything lies now in the Spirit as to what transpires here on earth.
Ques Would you say a word as to the fleshy tables of the heart?
JT Well, I suppose the meaning is that they are impressionable as over against the tables of stone. Our hearts naturally are just adamant, so that it would allude to the work of the Spirit, new birth underlying all the further divine operations in us; that is, we are constituted spiritually impressionable. That is what I understand by the contrast — not on stone tables, but on fleshy tables of the heart. It is not fleshy in a bad sense, but in the sense that they are soft or impressionable.
[p. 134] Rem Indicating that our moral beings have been affected by the Spirit.
JT That is what I thought — the basic work of the Spirit.
JM Does Peter suggest the kind of material that can be written on?
JT Well, you have to understand every word in Scripture in its context. Peter means ‘stone’, not flesh; it means that he corresponds with Christ as the Rock. Christ was the foundation or the Rock, referring to solidity. Peter is of the same kind, stable, only a part, a lesser thought — also involving that he is material for building. What is in view here in 2 Corinthians 3 is writing material, and for that the figure “fleshy” is used, because God can impress us.
GH Written not with ink, does that suggest something that is dead and lifeless?
JT The meaning is, it is not what is commonly called writing — thoughts imparted by a certain fluid with a pen. Ink is that fluid, and “the Spirit of the living God” is the contrast to it. On the other hand, John uses the word “ink” in an ordinary, practical way, that it is a means of transferring your thoughts on to writing material. Here it is a contrast. It is not ordinary writing, but the Spirit of the living God. Therefore, we are now on the ground of divine operations. The material on which the writing is, and the means by which it is — the former, the hearts of the saints, the latter, the Spirit of the living God.
JSB Would it not convey the thought of what is indelible — what is really lasting?
JT Yes, and that which is living, so that it works out in the way the saints are impressed by things presented to them. It is not a mere intellectual matter that we are pleased with at the moment, but it is an impression that is indelible, so that by it we become the epistle of [p. 135] Christ.
JM Did formation begin with Peter and the disciples on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit came?
JT No doubt the apostles and others had been impressed by the Lord while here, but what is in mind in what we are speaking of is the presence here of the Spirit and His work in the saints, that is when the writing began.
Ques What would you say is a circumcised heart?
JT It is a heart that is governed, not by the flesh, but by the Spirit. Circumcision means the putting off of the body of the flesh, that is, the flesh is proved useless, not subject to the law of God; hence put off in the circumcision of Christ. Baptism refers to the world outside of me, but circumcision refers to what is within. Naturally, we would rely on the flesh, that is, our natural ability. A circumcised heart and ear disallow mere human ability in every sense, and make room for the Spirit of God. It is only in the Spirit that we can properly be said to be circumcised; it is not in letter, but in heart and in spirit (Romans 2: 29).
JDU Is the heart then to be taken as the seat of the affections Godward?
JT Just so. Of course, there is intelligence also, for we have the eyes of the heart elsewhere; the heart is the seat of intelligent affections. The soul is rather the seat of the affections by themselves, so that we have the “springing up” which, referring to water as a figure of the Spirit, would be from the lower organs, denoting the lower affections. The Spirit in John 4 is viewed in the christian as water springing up into everlasting life, which would allude to the lower automatic organs. The Spirit also is typified by air, which would allude to the lungs, the upper organs, where you have intelligence, involving the spirit of a man.
ABJ Resulting in our calling upon all that is within us to bless the Lord (Psalm 103).
JT That includes, I think, all the organs as we have been speaking of them. If you call upon what [p. 136] is within you, before new birth and redemption are known, and the Spirit possessed, it would be an impure thing, but Peter speaks about “your pure mind”. What is within the christian is purified, the heart is purified by faith, so that you can safely call upon all that is within you to praise God.
JDU Does the verse in Romans 5: 5, the Spirit shedding abroad in our hearts the love of God, come into this section that you are speaking of now?
JT Yes, it does. The Spirit sheds the love of God abroad in the heart, but here there is a thought added: it is “the Lord is the Spirit”, implying, I understand, that it is an office of Christ, but through the Spirit. The authority of the Lord is in it, so that He makes effective the covenant in spite of our wills; He subdues us, and makes the covenant effective. What is in mind, I think, is to dress us properly for the assembly, for the presence of God, because the scene on the mount brought into evidence a certain dress in the persons who spoke to the Lord, that is, they appeared “in glory”.
EM Does that take place in the morning meeting?
JT It fits in with the Lord’s supper. The Lord has His part in it, and He has in mind this great occasion, proper to the assembly; that it is an occasion for full dress, to use an illustration: we are to be “all glorious within” (see Psalm 45: 13, 14). He has the service of God in mind, and in this chapter stress is laid on the Spirit and culminates in our being glorious. Not simply the glory in the face of Jesus, but the saints being transformed, “from glory to glory”.
JDU Would that apply to us as together or individually?
JT The point here is together. “We all” meaning that we are brought into a glorious state under God’s hand by the ministry of the covenant. There is a further thought in Ephesians, bringing in what was in the mind of God before the world. “According as he has chosen us in him before the world’s foundation,
[p. 137] that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Ephesians 1: 4). That is ennoblement, but this chapter is dress. It is the outcome of the covenant being rightly apprehended: we become glorious. The covenant affecting us in a living way, the thought here is in view of the service of God, it is a question of how we appear before Him: that we should appear glorious.
Ques What is the practical effect of that? How does it work out — for instance in the morning meeting?
JT It works out in our apprehending what we are under the eye of God. We are suitable. We sit down together and the Lord’s supper passes before us. The Spirit is there from the outset; He does not come in; the truth is that He is with us. The Lord says, “he abides with you, and shall be in you” (John 14: 17). Consequent on that, the Lord speaks about Himself coming to us in John 14. The Spirit is there from the outset, and as our minds are spiritually clear, and we are able to sit together “in assembly”, not merely as a matter of theory, but together in affection, there is a gradual change. There is a process of change until there is a sense of being acceptable under the eye of God, that He looks on us with pleasure. It is a question of the dress in which we appear. So in Luke it says two men spoke with the Lord, appearing in glory. And according to Luke there were two men in the Lord’s sepulchre in “shining raiment”.
WG Should we be marked by that as coming away and entering into the activities of the week? Should the shining of the glory be on our faces?
JT That would be the effect. Of course, it may wane a bit, because having to do with adverse things tends to weaken us in that sense, but what we are dealing with now is our approach to God and the dress in which we approach. The covenant brings in glory in the sense that we are affected by the ministry of the Spirit under the Lord’s [p. 138] hand.
GH-n Does not the question of the building of the assembly indicate a formation, whilst what we are considering, the covenant, is transformation?
JT Yes; we are made like Christ, of course, but also like one another. We come into likeness to one another through the transforming effect of the Lord’s ministration. The Lord is the Spirit; His authority is in it, but the power of the Spirit is also in it. It is a real thing. So that it is not one point reached, then a lapse, but “from glory to glory;” nor is it from an inglorious state to a glorious one. What is in mind is inward movement here because the following chapters lead on to new creation, and reconciliation. It is the inward position and the state suitable to it that the apostle has in mind.
GAvS What relation would what you have been saying have to the high priest appearing in robes of glory and beauty in the service of God?
JT Well, that is Christ Himself, of course. He is there in all His personal glory and dignity, but on our side, He comes in in relation to the Supper, His memorial, and takes His place with us, but we must understand that it is not a corporeal movement. It is wholly spiritual, it is a question of the state of our souls in apprehending Him. As apprehended thus, He brings us forward in suitable dress in keeping with Himself, for the sons of Aaron were also attired relatively in garments of glory, that is, there is correspondence with Christ in us. So the idea of God’s pleasure in the saints is extended. It is not only inclusive of Christ, but inclusive of all of us. The position in Exodus sets out what we are speaking of, more than what stands related to Solomon. Each saint in his place and functioning as anointed, and God says, You are pleasing to Me. That is what is meant, I think, in Exodus 40, by the glory filling the tabernacle, and even Moses shut out, that is, his ministry; for the moment there is no need for it. All is pleasing to [p. 139] God.
JDU The understanding of the cup in the Supper is of very great importance in helping us to reach that point.
JT It is the more positive side of the institution. The bread is positive, too, in the sense that it is Christ’s body which we eat for support, as well as for a memorial of Him. We partake of it for support, but the Lord says more about the cup than He does about the bread. He says, “Drink ye all of it” — that is, all the saints are to drink of it, and they all did — those that were there. Then He speaks about it to them, meaning that He would have us to thoroughly understand what it means. It is to have an effect upon us. It had an effect upon them, because it says, “having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives” (Matthew 26: 20). That was their movement, and the movement was pleasing to heaven. We may be sure that heaven was looking down with the greatest intent on that scene. “They went out to the mount of Olives”. Jesus had often gone out there by Himself; He spent His nights there, and obviously His living associations were there; they are now moving to that place. It does not say He led them there. They sang a hymn and they went out, showing that they were now coming to the divine thought, they were moving upwards themselves.
CSS The psalm says, “That my glory may sing psalms of thee, and not be silent” (Psalm 30: 12) — is that the thought?
JT I think that is right — the place the glory has — the scene is glorious. Yes, one’s glory praises God, instead of enhancing oneself. This is seen in Mary of Bethany.
EE Referring to the Supper again, is it right to think that the cup was uppermost in the Spirit’s mind because it says, “after having supped” in connection with the cup; it does not say that in relation to [p. 140] the bread?
JT The bread was formally detached from the passover breads. I think the meaning in the passage you quoted is that the passover supper was over when He took the cup. He was beginning a new thing. The word “supped” of course means the passover; they had finished that and now He is going on to something else. More is said about the cup than the bread. He says, “Drink ye all of it”, and they all drank out of it. It is one thing that they do. The Lord’s heart would be full of what is involved in the cup, and brings it to bear on them. Then it says, “having sung a hymn”. It does not say that He did it; it is not the fulfilment of Hebrews 2: 12, “in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises;” it is rather the mutual state of things that is developed. That is the thing to be noted. The ministry of the Spirit brings in that which changes us, and makes us like Christ and like one another. “Transformed” indicates a real change. It is a substantial change, from glory to glory, and I think that is involved in principle in their having sung a hymn and their moving to the mount of Olives. That is, a new thing is set on foot and the direction is upward. The mount of Olives means the link with heaven.
CSS Would the singing of the hymn mark the end of the covenant phase of the meeting?
JT I think the passage indicates that we should dwell on the covenant side, because we are approaching the greatest thing — the service of God in heavenly glory — and it is well to have our hearts imbued with perfect love; to have our hearts together enveloped in perfect love. Then I think the Lord has something that He can truly lead and use.
EF Is it as we dwell on the covenant that the transformation takes place?
JT Well, it is as our minds are engaged with the glory of the Lord, but then it says, “even as by the Lord the Spirit”. That is His active part in it. He is engaged in that service to bring us into a presentable [p. 141] state. Joseph made a selection of five of his brethren to present to Pharaoh. The Lord made a selection of three to take up the mountain. The idea is, I think, to present us in suitable attire.
JM Does that depend upon what is written on the heart?
JT It runs with it, so that we appear in glory. It is a glorious scene. “Whom he has justified, these also he has glorified” (Romans 8: 30). That is not only the gift of the Spirit, but what He effects in us. Then we go on to Ephesians, where you see what was in the mind of God before the world was, and that enters into the great service of the assembly.
JDU Would the singing of the hymn be a preparation of the heart?
JT It is more than that as sung to God, but we are brought together in the singing of a hymn. What the Lord had said about the cup (they having drunk it) means that they were now together in affection; and this would be seen in the singing of the hymn. Thus they went to the mount of Olives.
CSS Is the thought of changing “from glory to glory” that He would have the saints in all suitability to the God of glory?
JT I think so. The whole scene is glorious, and the saints do not detract from it. In a sense, we are glorious, as we enter and sit down together, for whom He has justified, them He has also glorified, which alludes to the gift of the Spirit. Then there is “from glory to glory”. The impression produced by the Lord upon us; the presentation of the covenant is by the Lord, the Spirit. It is an authoritative, but a spiritual operation.
Ques Is what you are thinking of in relation to the morning meeting?
JT It is a great principle of christianity. We are applying it to the assembly in this reading in order to make it practical, but it is a great broad [p. 142] principle of christianity for us. When we come together in assembly, opportunity is afforded for a concrete expression of it.
Ques Do you suggest that the thought of the covenant is one glory, but that there is a further glory that we move on to, and there is glory after glory?
JT That is the idea.
HW Seventy elders of Israel went up, and they were spoken of as nobles.
JT Well, that is one thought; but it is the second giving of the law that is alluded to in 2 Corinthians 3. The covenant is below in Exodus 24. In principle they were glorious as sprinkled by the blood. I mean in the type they were constituted glorious; all the people are linked up with the blood. There was abundance of it; setting forth the abundance of the love that envelops us, and we go up in that way. We go up as enriched, but as we go up there is the thought of ennoblement and I believe that brings in Ephesians. In Ephesians God, in order to make us suitable, to make us in every way dignified according to the place, says by the apostle, that He has “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ” (Ephesians 1: 3). What a thought that is! The place of our blessings, and that they include all! Then He says He has predestinated us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself. It is that we might be before Him in love. That is the sort of thing; that is really the fulness of the glory — that we are before Him in love! It is not exactly what we are saying to Him in our worship, but what we are; what He sees there; the persons.
GH Does that verse in Psalm 45: 13, “All glorious is the king’s daughter within”, bear on that?
JT Well, it does. It is “within:” inside the royal apartments, as the note shows, which corresponds [p. 143] with what we are saying, for the place itself is glorious.
Ques Do you think that the Lord might lead us in the morning meeting to a place of spiritual joy and silence? That is, that no one is really saying anything?
JT That is one of the greatest thoughts in the assembly — that the brethren should be together in spiritual power, not only able to control ourselves in quietude, but in conscious relation to each other in love; laying hold of sonship, the relationship to which we were predestined anterior to the creation of the world. It was in the mind of God that there should be such beings before Him. So we now advance to the heavenly side, and we are there suitably, in dignity and liberty, every blessing being ours, and it is not here but there. It is where they are, and all is before Him. You are sitting before Him in the sense that God is pleased, and not only pleased, but He takes charge of the whole scene. God intimates, It is all Mine; all suitable to Me; and that is what I had in mind before the world was. How great that is!
JSB So that when reaching that thought, apprehending it in spiritual joy and contemplation, we would not introduce the thought of forgiveness of sins?
JT No. It is what we are according to divine counsels now, and that corresponds more with Solomon’s temple or house, for the glory filled it as the trumpeters and singers, as one, made one voice to be heard in praising and thanking Jehovah. The glory filled the house as if God would thus express His satisfaction and delight in the whole scene; because the furniture and all that was there largely typifies ourselves, that is, the saints. It is a visitation now, for God is delighted with us; it is a question of what we could say to Him. Of course, it is right to speak about the Lord, about Christ, about the Son [p. 144] to the Father, but I think the Father expects us to say something about the Father to Himself, what He, the Father, is. The Lord laboured with the apostles before He went up to impress them with what the Father is.
ABJ If a word were given in the morning meeting, you would expect it to be on the way to this or in view of it?
JT Generally it is to bring in this side of the truth. That is usually what is needed.
Ques Where does the thought of orphans come in?
JT That is the attitude we take up as we come together, that the Lord is not here. Our orphanage is modified by the presence of the Spirit. The Spirit is another Comforter. Still the parental thought is in the Lord, and He says, after He speaks about the Spirit, — “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you” (John 14: 18). I think the orphaned condition attaches to us as we come together in a hostile world. We come together, as it were, loyal to Christ, and He comes to us.
Ques You spoke of the morning meeting as a scene of change. Is that an evidence of the abundance of life? The character of the living God is impressed upon it?
JT What could suggest it more than that? It is a scene of holy change from glory to glory. What a place the assembly is! It is a realm of glory; “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages” (Ephesians 3: 21). It is seen in Revelation 21: 10, coming down from God out of heaven, having the glory of God. It has it.
JDU There is a consciousness arrived at of belonging to heaven, although bodily we are down here.
JT That is right. That point should be before us so that we reach the divine end in the assembly.
TRY Is worship distinct from [p. 145] praise?
JT I think you may call praise part of it. The word ordinarily used for worship in the New Testament indicates a movement towards a person adoringly — supreme reverence and affection, not necessarily anything said. The word in Hebrews 9: 9 is somewhat different. It conveys the idea of the service of God that is carried on in a public way; and that would include, I think, what is said in hymns or in giving of thanks.
WG How far does reference to the death of Christ come into that part of the meeting?
JT I think reference in assembly to the death of Christ belongs properly to the Lord’s supper. That is as here on earth, but Ephesians, as we have seen, takes us to heavenly places. We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies, that is, our place as in the relationship of sons. Then in Ephesians, too, we are said to be raised up together — that is, with one another — and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ; so that you have elevation as well. You have liberty and glory in the covenant, and then ennoblement in the thoughts of God about us in the place where our blessings are; then ourselves in heaven. We are said to be raised up and set down in the heavenlies. When you come to that setting — no longer local but universal — the whole assembly comes into view.
GHMcK Did you say the furniture of the tabernacle spoke of the saints?
JT Yes, it does. Of course, there is what speaks of God too. In the oracle, the holiest, all spoke of God — God in Christ; indeed the fact that the whole house, inside, was covered with gold speaks of God, “all in all”, but this only enhances the fact that the saints are there, owned to be there as delightful to Him. What is outside the inner sanctuary was generally the saints. The different woods that were used refer to the saints, or to the Spirit. There was [p. 146] only one wood used in the tabernacle, but there were several used in the temple. They denote dignity rather than durability or strength. The cedar of the house within was carved with colocynths and half-open flowers — the evidence of fresh life in the saints. There were also palm-trees.
Ques Would sons of the living God be part of the ennoblement you speak of?
JT Yes. That feature comes in next for consideration (Romans 9: 26), “where it was said to them, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called Sons of the living God”. It is not mere theory; it is practical. The Spirit of adoption is there. There is liberty and dignity in that way — all being the living God.
JM Is the scripture in Corinthians preparatory to the one in Romans?
JT Yes. The covenant comes before sonship. The covenant is not with sons. It is with us as here on earth as a people — between God and us. The relationship of sons does not require a covenant. A covenant is to encourage and assure us, viewed in our responsible life here; for us sonship belongs to heaven.
GAvS Then are the passages educative, progressing to the worship of the living God?
JT These passages lead on in that way. The relationship of “Sons of the living God” underlies the worship or service of the living God. In Hebrews 9: 14 the writer is speaking of the covenant, but he introduces the word “worship”, and therefore we have a link that fits in with our subject now. The worship comes in properly as we touch sonship by the Spirit, the Spirit of adoption.
Ques So this ennoblement you speak of is the great objective that God has before Him in first approaching us?
JT That is what I understand, and Hebrews, whilst it does not give you the full height of our [p. 147] relationship in chapter 9, it does in Hebrews 2:10,11: there we are regarded as sons of God and brethren of Christ. That is the highest point reached in the epistle to the Hebrews. It is put down there as the thought to be reached through the general teaching.
Ques Is worshipping in spirit and in truth something that is essential to the worship of the living God?
JT It is, and what we are saying about the great place the Spirit has in the covenant, helps us as to God being a Spirit. Perhaps we have not noticed that the last Adam is said to be a quickening spirit (1 Corinthians 15: 45). Ordinarily no man can be said to be a spirit; he has a spirit, but Christ, the Son of God, is said to be a spirit — “the last Adam a quickening spirit”. Here in 2 Corinthians 3 He is said to be the Spirit. “Now the Lord is the Spirit”. We have to accept that, and it helps us as to God being a Spirit, and to see that the worship of God is wholly spiritual.
FWW Would you distinguish for us between the thought of sonship with God and also with the Father?
JT The Father is a more limited thought than God because the Father does not judge anyone. It is a term of affection and care, also expressing grace. It is, as it were, nearer to our understanding than “God”. “Father” is a term well known among men, involving parental affection; it conveys nearness, promoting confidence and liberty. It is therefore the great family appellation of God. God is the great primary thought, and the great end too. God is to be known. He is to be “all in all”. The name Father, of course, goes on eternally. Christ “gives up the kingdom to him who is God and Father” (1 Corinthians 15: 24).
JH Do you make any difference between worshipping in the holiest and in the Father’s house?
JT The holiest is the immediate presence of God. The rights of His majesty are seen as maintained [p. 148] there immutably through and in Christ. It is not God “dwelling in unapproachable light”, but in an order of things in which He may be approached by men. The holiest is a term of gradation, implying immediate nearness to God, which for us could be only through Christ. In the divine arrangement there is what is more distant and still owned of God as in relation with Him, but christianity involves immediate nearness — the very presence of God, which is obviously the holiest. Besides being the holiest, it is the place of understanding. “To inquire of him in his temple” (Psalm 27: 4), one says; and again, “I went into the sanctuaries of God; then understood I their end” (Psalm 73: 17). Holiness as characterising a place is over against what is unholy, and hence has to do with present and millennial conditions and will not have force when sin is entirely removed from the universe. The holiest stands in relation to God; but entrance into it is essential to our enjoyment of our relationship with the Father. The two features are implied in Psalm 27: 4 and 1 Peter 1: 17.
Ques Referring to your remark as to the Father being an eternal thought, would that be limited to what we speak of as one Person of the Godhead? We speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whereas what is eternal, I take it, would embrace all — God.
JT Well, God would certainly, but the Father is differentiated from the Son and from the Spirit, and I think the term always alludes to one Person.
Ques What about 1 Corinthians 8: 6, “there is one God, the Father”?
JT We have to distinguish between the absolute or unrelated conditions of the Deity, and the relations into which They have come in the economy of revelation so as to be intelligible to us. They have taken different relations, so to speak, to execute Their counsels of love and in this way to be intelligible to us; in no sense intimating that any One of Them [p. 149] is personally inferior to the Others. In this economy One of Them has taken up the relation of Father, and I think the Father has always to be connected with One. We cannot compass the Deity, and are only safe in keeping to the thoughts of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures.
HW There is also the mediatorial side of things eternally?
JT Yes, that goes on. Mediatorship will, however, exist only in a very limited way; that is, as compared with the exercise of it now and in the millennium, but our enjoyment of our knowledge and relationship with God always depends on it.
GAvS What is the bearing of the words, “Everlasting Father”, — “Father of Eternity”?
JT That is a term applied to Christ as Man, the Child born, the Son given to Israel. I think it alludes to Him in His place in the millennium. It is a future thought. It does not refer to past eternity as far as I understand. It is what Christ will be. To use an illustration — a man is said to be father of his country. It is that idea rather than direct parental relation with a family. In the latter sense God is Christ’s Father, also our Father.
JM Is it the thought of origin?
JT Well, the word “father” does denote that, but the “Father of Eternity” seems to mean that He has that place mediatorially, exercising the feelings and care and love of a father towards all in the coming age. So you get Him using terms such as “child”, “children”, “daughter”, in the gospels. He exercised that kind of care and affection towards the disciples and others during the days of His service down here.
ESW Does the expression “God ... all in all” involve the Deity?
JT Yes. That is the final state of things, that God might be all in all. “All” would be as Object, and “in all” as power. The word father is used with latitude in Scripture, applying even to the apostles, for instance, and to the prophets. It alludes to moral rights that are established in persons, and I think in the most supreme way on that line Christ is the Father of eternity — the coming age. It may be translated ‘Father of the age’ (see note, New Translation). What a great thing it is, not only to have the Lord, as exercising authority, like a king, but He is Father to all, exercising parental care!
HC What connection is there between God as absolute, and God in revelation?
JT The connection, of course, is in Christ. He knows God in His absoluteness, being Himself in the Deity. It is One who can lay His hand upon both, as Job says. The idea of mediatorship extends wider than what is set up typically in Moses and Aaron. Christ knowing God in the absolute maintains the thought. In Christ, the absolute is maintained, that is, if He speaks to God, He would speak to Him in that way. He would speak to Him in a wider sense than we, as He alone can, but then we are, as it were, alongside of Him, as in John 17, as He speaks to God. We are not capable of taking that in, but impressions of it are received; the connection is there in Christ; it is never lost sight of. It goes on to the future; God all in all! The Son shall he subject to Him who is God and Father.
JM Does the term, “Sons of the living God” in Romans 9 stand in relation to the sovereignty of God in mercy?
JT The quotation from Hosea 1 is brought in to show what God has in His mind for Israel. These three chapters, Romans 9, Romans 10, and Romans 11, are parenthetical in the epistle to the Romans, so as to reconcile God’s sovereignty in bringing in the nations through the gospel with His relation to Israel as a nation. He has not lost sight of the latter. He brings in this [p. 151] great thought from Hosea — even the thought of sonship applies to them, but sonship applies to us in a greater sense. God is now “bringing many sons to glory”, and Christ regards them as His brethren (Hebrews 2: 10, 11).