"MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER ... MY GOD AND YOUR GOD"
“[p. 185] MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER ... MY GOD AND YOUR GOD”
John 17: 1; John 20: 17, 18; Revelation 3: 12
JT What is in mind is to speak of what enters into the Lord’s use of the term My God, and how, as appearing at the beginning of His ministry in our dispensation while He was still on earth, in John 20, it appears also at the end of our dispensation in the address to the assembly at Philadelphia. He — according to Matthew and Mark — used Psalm 22: 1 on the cross, saying, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and He adds, “thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel”.
In John’s gospel, which, I believe is, among many other things, intended to instruct us as to this, we have the Lord presented incarnate, and so in sonship in chapter 1: 14 “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father);” that is, He is presented immediately as with the Father. In chapter 11, He speaks in the audience of others to the Father, and says, “Father” — He speaks thus because of those that heard, those that stood by, indicating that His audible speaking to His Father had in mind the instruction of others. Again in chapter 12, He speaks to His Father, and there is the answer from heaven. Then in chapter 17, He addresses the Father formally, lifting up His eyes to heaven. This was evidently in the audience of His disciples, because He says, “they are not of the world;” that is to say, they were nearby. The thought, I believe, is to draw us to the side of the Lord in a spiritual sense, especially as in assembly. He would draw us to His side so that we may apprehend the current of His feelings and His affections, and what His God was to Him.
[p. 186] This would lead us to have part in what was before Him, especially in our service Godward. So that the instruction peculiar to John in these chapters, is not only as to the Lord going to the Father, but it says also that He came from God and went to God. That would be God in the sense in which He knew Him. In view of all this instruction in these chapters in John, His message to the disciples is the more significant, because He sent the message before He came in amongst them. In John’s account they are not said to have been saying anything as He came in amongst them. In Luke’s account they are said to have been saying certain things, but not in John’s. The thought is that the wonderful message they had received had affected them, and they would think of the Lord in that way. He had sent a message that He was ascending to His Father, and theirs, His God and theirs, and that would be in their minds. It was intended to be in their minds, and it is revived in His word to the overcomer in Philadelphia. That assembly, the last but one addressed in Revelation, is especially before the Lord as having remnant features, and the overcomer would have intelligence as to the reward promised. Those who loved Him would value what He brought before them. So He brings in this term four times in the verse we read: “the temple of my God ... the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God”. It is manifest that He has in mind that this thought which He sought to impress upon the disciples at the beginning has been revived. The purpose of our meeting now, is that we might have it in our minds as the supreme thought in the service of God — our service in the assembly.
Ques Does the thought of Father convey more affection than the thought of God?
JT It is a term of family relationship which God has taken up, all that God is in that way enters into [p. 187] it. Other things do not enter into it, such as judgment. All that God is in affection necessarily enters into it, and the term is intended to assure us of the fullest affection and interest. It is in itself more limited than the thought of God, judgment not attaching to it. It conveys unqualified affection for its objects, that is to say, for those in the family relation. God is a primary thought; God is. It is the name or title that is final. The title Father does not cease, but God is the beginning and the end; “that God may be all in all”. This means that all His counsels and operations end in Himself. God will be the infinite Object of all, and He will fill all. So that the service of God in the assembly should have that in mind now.
Ques Do you think that we have allowed the thought that the Father was the terminus?
JT I think that is so. Father is a name taken in the economy into which God has come. It appears definitely as Christ is owned from heaven as Man at the Jordan; indeed the three divine Persons are seen there. Romans 11: 36, 1 Corinthians 15: 28, and similar passages show that God as God is the source and end of all His counsels and works.
FWW Would you distinguish for us between God known in the covenant and God known as you are now speaking of Him?
JT The idea of the covenant, as I understand, is that God enters into such a relation to assure us of His love, in view of our weakness, and to establish confidence in us as to Himself. We read in Hebrews 6: 18 “That by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement”. This passage indicates what is in mind. It is to assure our hearts as to Him, but as we progress in the knowledge of God, we come to apprehend Him as in family relationship with us; in measure as Christ knows Him. There is no covenant relationship between God and Christ in that sense. The Lord did not need [p. 188] any assurance, so that His relations with God would be on the ground of the absoluteness of God as He knew Him, as He alone could know Him. The covenant helps us in our weakness; assures us and sets us free; “perfect love casts out fear”. We can understand that God is God, and the Lord Jesus having come out as the Mediator, knows Him; He can lay His hand on God and on us, and would lead us to the full thought of God. He says to the woman at the well, “God is a spirit”. The intent in our reaching this thought of God is to fit us for eternity now. The thought of the covenant will not be needed there, but God, as He is known to Christ, will be the thought.
GH Does sonship as applying to us enter into it?
JT It does. That is what I thought we might come to. It is God and man finally, but man in the relation of son. The thought of man does not cease in sonship. Man is the thought that God had in His mind from the outset. “Let us make man in our image”. Sonship is the relation in which there is liberty and dignity, but it carries with it the thought of manhood. Hence the Lord says in the chapter before us, “the men whom thou gavest me”.
JDU Does the thought of God convey what He has always been, and will be eternally?
JT Quite so. The suggestion of it came out in Exodus 3: “I am”. The first use of the word God in Scripture is in the plural, evidently alluding to His absoluteness. Of course, the title itself is relative, for He is not God to Himself but to others; but it conveys the full thought — He who is “all in all”. That is what we are to end with; all that comes in between is to bring us to that. God comes out on a lower plane, so as to raise us; to bring us to Himself as He is.
AGD Would Psalm 90: 2 come in: “from eternity to eternity thou art God”?
JT Yes. It is Moses linking God as He was with him, with what He will be — indeed what He is!
There is no change with Him. “From eternity to eternity thou art God”. It is not that the title God denotes His essence and form; it is relative; used by the creature; Christ as Man also using it, but Moses here uses it to denote that time has made no change in the Deity.
WG Is the Lord using the term, My God, an indication to us of His perfect humanity?
JT Clearly so; His God comes thus into evidence. Using the term in this way, in our hearing, is to bring us to His side so that we might grasp the current of His mind, grasp what He means by the title my God. That is, the God with whom He as Man is in relationship The very fact that He says “My God” implies that He is Man. God comes down to our side as it were to establish confidence in our hearts, but then He would draw us to His side to see who He is. “God is a spirit” is involved. We have to dismiss material thoughts from our minds. “God is a spirit”, the Lord says. We do not get that in relation to the covenant, which is on the down line, so to speak. “God is a spirit”, in John 4, is on the up line.
Ques What about John 17: 3, to “know thee the only true God”?
JT That is in relation to eternal life; God meeting conditions here. The up line is God meeting conditions, so to speak, in His own heart; that man should know Him or apprehend Him as He is. “True God” in John 17: 3 is over against idolatry.
GAvS What bearing would God dwelling in unapproachable light have upon His absoluteness?
JT It refers to it. In relativeness He dwelt in Christ here and He dwells in the assembly. The bearing of a statement like that would be to show how limited we are. Think of God in His absoluteness There is no possibility of us ever compassing Him. It is only as we get into the current of Christ’s mind, as I understand it, that we can get some little thought of what [p. 190] He is. If I grasp the current of Christ’s mind, I get some thought of God in His absoluteness. Christ alone can compass that. The wonderful thing is that He can, and I am alongside of the One who can! I am brought thus to infiniteness in the measure in which I am able to take it in. We shall be all filled to the fulness of God, according to our measure. There will be nothing left to fill. “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”.
CD Is it that Christ would lead us to know His God as He as Man knows Him?
JT Yes, but the measure in which He knows Him is beyond us. We can be with Him, and get into His current of thought. Peter says, “this voice we heard ... being with him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1: 18).
JDU Does what is before us take us back, beyond, and above all question of good and evil, and the solution of it?
JT Yes; it is final. The Lord is leading on to finality in the wonderful communications in John 14 - John 17. The message through Mary, I think, is to affect the minds of the disciples, so that the Lord coming in amongst them, there might be some little ability to stand by Him and grasp what was before Him.
EJF Is the man in Ezekiel 43 standing by the prophet on the line of what you are speaking of?
JT “The man stood by me”. I suppose there it would be to give support in the presence of the glory. How could man know God at all except through One who Himself has part in the Deity, becoming incarnate? Incarnation is the down line, but as it is stated in John we get immediately the thought of “an only-begotten with a father”, and that the disciples contemplated Christ in that glory. The Lord in the chapters alluded to enlarged on it, and the message through Mary was that they might have some thought in their minds of their association with Him before God so that when He came in they might be ready. The [p. 191] position looks towards finality — to eternity; they are with Him in the light of the message: “I ascend to my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God”. That sets us up beside Him, looking on to the final state of things.
Rem Ascension would be vital to the understanding of this.
JT Yes. It involves our heavenly place, the ground on which we are. The words, “I ascend”, not ‘I will ascend’, give us the character of the thing, to prepare the minds of the saints for His incoming and our taking up this attitude of being beside Him.
Ques Do you think, like Mary, we would often detain Him in resurrection?
JT I think that is the truth. It is not many years back since the doctrine was asserted that resurrection was the platform of the assembly, and that Christ comes to us on that ground. That is not the full truth relative to the assembly. In John 12, He goes to Bethany on that ground; on the ground of Lazarus having been raised, but coming in to the assembly is on a higher platform. It is on the ground that we are heavenly, and He has gone into heaven.
JDU Is there any difference then between the relation of “an only-begotten with a father”, and what He is as ascended?
JT Well, the verse in John 1 is no doubt an illustration. It is to present the idea; it is not the father, but a father. It is an illustration of what they saw, to bring out the peculiar radiation of affection between the Father and the Son. It is a relation known among men, of course; what an only-begotten is to any father normally, and that Jesus was apprehended in that relation with God. It is to bring out the beautiful radiation of affection between God and a Man, as Father and only-begotten. The Son ascending involves more than that; it implies His title to take a place with His Father above, and that the saints have a place there, too. It [p. 192] makes His position distinct, but His brethren are to be with Him in view of the counsels of God being opened up. It is looking towards eternity, the ground taken is heavenly. Not that heaven is beyond creation, it is part of it. We do not go beyond creation but He does; He goes beyond all heavens. Here it is not, I ascend to the heavens, but “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”.
Ques Does this thought of God belong to the assembly only?
JT No others will have it in the same measure, because of the status given and the formation that corresponds in the assembly. Each family will have its own status and formation, and it is manifest from the way the scripture presents it, that those forming the assembly have a place and intelligence beyond all others. It is only a matter of gradation. It is the same thing in principle, but the assembly has a relationship and formation peculiar to itself.
GAvS What does the scripture in Exodus 4 imply, “Let my son go?” What does the word “son” cover?
JT I think it is what we are speaking of in a figurative way. Israel had that place, and Jehovah sends a message to Pharaoh that Pharaoh would understand. It is a relationship that would be intelligible to men, that Pharaoh would well understand. Jehovah says, “I will slay thy son”. It is carried through from Hosea, into Matthew 2, and applied to Jesus as having been in Egypt, and called out of Egypt, so it runs on to what we are saying. It is a question of the service of God. “Let my son go, that he may serve me”. What is said in Exodus 4 awaited the incarnation; all awaited that, and sonship therefore develops from it. What we are speaking of today is sonship, not as applied to Israel, because they will have it on earth. It has to be understood as applying to the members of the assembly, which, in view of the fact that we have the [p. 193] Spirit of adoption, makes it greater than applied to any other family.
GAvS Was it anticipative of the covenant in the case of Israel?
JT Yes. The covenant was necessary because of what they were; and it is necessary for us also, so that we should be set free to enter into sonship, which is beyond the covenant. Sons, as such, do not need the covenant. The relationship of sons implies that our position is fixed. There is no uncertainty about it.
GH Would the Lord’s word in John 14: 9, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, refer to preparedness to receive this thought of God?
JT That is greater than the thought of Mediator of the covenant. Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant, but when He says, “he that has seen me has seen the Father”, it is not simply a question of attributes or service of mediatorship, but of personality. The Father was there in Him, and perfectly expressed.
Ques What is the difference of thought between the Father seeking worshippers, and God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth?
JT The Father there would refer to the longings of God known in that relation; it should move our hearts. “God is a spirit” refers to what He is. It is a primary thought. The object of the statement, I believe, is to liberate us from material thoughts in regard of God and His service. The new birth implies that we are to be constitutionally spiritual: “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.
GAvS Is there any significance in the Lord speaking about “my Father and your Father”, before He says “my God and your God”?
JT The latter, My God, is the final thought. It is really the greatest thought, not in any sense detracting from the precious name of Father, but the relation of Father is taken up in time. As the Word is said to [p. 194] have become flesh in John, we have the Father immediately, but the idea of God is from eternity to eternity, as we have seen. Of course, the relation of Father remains, involving family relationship.
JDU Do you get in the thought of God, One from whom every movement of good to man has emanated?
JT That is how the truth is stated — “For of him, and through him, and for him are all things” (Romans 11: 36). In this and other statements it is God Himself as the Source of all, and the End of all.
WJ There is an expression in John 14: 20, “In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you”.
JT That refers to the day of the Spirit, of course. The Spirit here enables us to apprehend His place in the Father’s affections. The idea is that He is in the Father’s affections, and that we are in His affections, and He is in our affections.
Ques Do the rewards to the overcomer in Philadelphia carry us on to an eternal condition?
JT I think they do and that it is very remarkable. It only occurred to me today, that it is striking that the Lord should bring this thought so prominently before the overcomer in Philadelphia. I think that He has in mind the full thought of God. Brethren have been helped as to this in these last days. There has been the recovery of the truth, not only of what we may call mediatorial truth, delivering truth, but truth that involves eternity and the saints’ place there, and what God is to have there, and how God is to be supreme. The Lord in Revelation 3 is honouring what is in Philadelphia in speaking thus, in putting things on such a level; first that the overcomer should be made a pillar in the temple of My God. What an honour! The Lord would not use such terms were it not that the persons addressed have some apprehension of them and value them. It would allude to a person who is standing upright in regard to these great things in [p. 195] these last days. It is what he is characteristically here in this world, and the Lord is intimating to him that he understands the great thoughts He presents to him. He is to be “a pillar in the temple of my God”. Then He says, “he shall go no more at all out”. This I suppose is an allusion to our eternal portion. There is much going out now, much burden-bearing, and all that; but “he shall go no more at all out” would mean restfulness and enjoyment. Then, “I will write upon him the name of my God” — a new name. No doubt many would read this and think nothing of My God; the name of God would be enough, they would think. The name of God is not enough for the Lord; He is evidently alluding to the intelligence of the people addressed; that they have some little thought of that great final thought in the gospel of John. That is in His heart, as He conveyed it to the hearts of the disciples in the message: “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. It is assumed that the overcomer would understand.
In the addresses to the assemblies, He speaks according to the ability of the persons addressed, according to what they value. He does not go beyond their understanding, and I believe He implies that here; that John’s gospel is understood and the bearing of the last days is understood. His God is understood. So that He alludes to new Jerusalem; “the name of the city of my God”. It is not the city of the living God now, but the city of My God, the new Jerusalem. He is assuming that the overcomer would understand, and, of course, we ought to put ourselves in that position. If we are worth anything at all, we should be overcomers, and the promise is to us. It should be an incentive to us, as understanding the words My God in that gospel.
McC. Is it personal knowledge? Paul speaks of “my God;” David also speaks of “my God”.
JT Paul knew the covenant God; he knew the Creator God, but in using the words, “my God”, one can understand he would be on the lines of the Lord’s usage of them.
Ques Would “our God” be more the language he would use as intimating what is collective?
JT If you speak collectively you would have to say that, but it does not set aside that one can say, My God.
WG In Philippians 4: 19, we read, “my God shall abundantly supply all your need ...” and later, “But to our God and Father be glory to the ages of ages” (verse 20).
JT Yes. In no one can you get more fully set out what we are speaking of now than in the apostle Paul. In his writings, you get expressions of worship constantly, and all in this trend, all toward God in the full sense.
Ques Is it largely the covenant God in Hebrews?
JT I do not know that it is. The verse that has already been quoted is really the acme of the epistle, the highest level. “It became him ... in bringing many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2: 10). That is God as we have been speaking of Him. Then the quotation from Psalm 22 follows immediately, for it goes on to say, “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” (verse 12). I think you have there the thought to be reached in the epistle. It is God, “for whom are all things”. God bringing many sons to glory, and He has made the Leader of their salvation perfect through sufferings. That is, Christ has reached that point to the end that we might be brought in. “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (verse 11). We are brought on to the high level of being His brethren, so that He might have us in the assembly, that He might praise God through us. I think we are on [p. 197] eternal ground there.
GAvS You were referring to the eternal condition of things. Is the new Jerusalem in Philadelphia identical with the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21?
JT Yes. That is found in the beginning of chapter 21. It says, “I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem”, that is in relation to the eternal scene. In verse 10 it says, “the holy city, new Jerusalem;” that is millennial. It is the eternal thought, I think, that is in mind in Revelation 3. It is “the city of my God, the new Jerusalem”. The name of the new Jerusalem is written on the overcomer in Philadelphia.
Ques Are all the rewards limited to the millennium?
JT I think these in their fulness go beyond that. I mean, My God and new Jerusalem. That all appear in the millennium does not affect what we are speaking of; eternity is in view. It is a question of Christ’s God. Overcomers go in for all that there is. An overcomer is one that holds to all that there is for us, all that God has been pleased to recover to us. He values it and is in accord with it. I believe that is what is in the Lord’s mind in alluding to things in this way. Four times He uses the words, My God.
JDU Do you think Revelation 3: 10 indicates the pleasure the Lord would have in securing for God, in a day like this, what will ultimately be secured for God in the eternal day?
JT That is what is in mind in this reading, that the Lord is leading us beyond millennial conditions, great as they are. It is this very instruction that gives lustre to this day. It is not a mere provisional thing. It is an eternal thing, functioning in the millennium provisionally; it is eternally for the divine pleasure. God is helping us forward to eternal relations, I think. I believe the Lord has that in view in these promises to the overcomers in this assembly, because it is a question of our own times. That makes it so important for us to understand it. The millennium is really for testimony, and is more spoken of in Scripture than [p. 198] eternity, but it is not final, it is a provisional thing to show what God can do with creation as it is. New creation goes beyond that. What belongs to new creation may come into it to adorn it and to serve God in it, but the millennial state of things is provisional and in relation to the present creation and is not final. When you get something new, new heavens, new earth, new Jerusalem, you have what goes beyond the millennium.
Ques What bearing would these things have on administration eternally?
JT I do not think that you have much thought of administration in eternity. It is the millennium that requires that thought. In Revelation 21: 2 you have the new Jerusalem, but it is “as a bride adorned for her husband”, and what is said of it is, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men”. The idea of tabernacle is not administration, but dwelling. The great thought eternally will be dwelling.
GH It is “the holy city, new Jerusalem”, in Revelation 21: 2.
JT Yes. It is the link with the administrative side, but the term is changed to tabernacle. I do not think it is rule. Of course, there will be some idea of rule, but what will need it? There will he no variation or rebellious thought at all. There will be some idea of rule; the Son Himself will be subject. It is very significant that it is immediately called the tabernacle, which means God dwelling, not at a distance, but near; the assembly will be the tabernacle. The loud voice that John heard does not say, Behold the city, but “Behold, the tabernacle of God”.
GH What is the import of the change-over in thought from temple to tabernacle?
JT The thought of temple would hardly go beyond the millennial state of things, because it is largely a question of light, although the word “temple” also conveys the thought of dwelling. In 2 Corinthians 6: 16, for instance, “ye are the living God’s temple; according [p. 199] as God has said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them”. Of course, what is the temple now and in the millennium will remain eternally, as we have seen, the assembly as the tabernacle of God.
Ques Peter speaks of waiting for the new heavens and the new earth — that would refer to what is eternal?
JT It refers to the eternal state of things. In the heavenly city, there is no temple, which I suppose means that there is great nearness. The Lord God Almighty is the temple and the Lamb. There is always, I suppose, the thought of something that may be made known.
GAvS What are Isaiah’s new heavens and new earth?
JT Isaiah does not go beyond the millennium, beyond Jerusalem as in the millennium, but there is that which is new. We have to carry it forward to the full thought. The full thought is an absolutely new creation, where old things have passed away and all things have become new. Peter carries it forward.
JH What is “my new name”, Revelation 3: 12?
JT The use of the word “new” in this book is most instructive. The bearing of it in a practical way would be that current religion using the name of Christ is no different from what has been in the world all the time. There is nothing new about it. It is merely of man’s thought and way. The force of things here is that God has brought us into what is wholly new. “My new name” is the way Christ is apprehended. He is not apprehended rightly in christendom. The word “new” throughout the book has that bearing.
GH Would the new name being written on the overcomer make him descriptive of this at the end of the dispensation?
JT That is the idea. All this marks him now in principle and he will appear in it. The things that are alluded to will [p. 200] remain.
WG So that there is that which comes out from God Himself, different altogether from the original creation?
JT The Lord came in in connection with this creation. He has now taken up another setting altogether, where all is new and of God. What is current religiously in the world in regard to God and Christ is not new. We have to understand what is new.
ET Where would new creation in 2 Corinthians 5 come in?
JT It already exists. It does not exactly say there that the believer is a new creation, but that there is a new creation. But other scriptures, such as Ephesians 2: 10, say so, and hence we already have part in it.