GENERATIONS IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS (4)
[p. 432] GENERATIONS IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS (4)
JT We were unable to take up the second division of our subject this morning, namely, “the generations of the sons of Noah”. The spiritual significance of this section is not so deep and extensive as what was before us this morning, but it has a place in view of the gospel. We noted the number of Noah’s family, eight including himself, which the Spirit of God mentions in the New Testament, but the three sons have a place separately as entering on the new world. Amidst the confusion of the race the Spirit of God keeps the three branches in mind throughout, and it is to be noted that in the beginning of chapter 9 Noah and his sons are blessed together. That chapter has to be taken in that light; it is a chapter of blessing. The sons are viewed in conjunction with their father, and the chapter closes with blessing by Noah himself. The covenant is established in that chapter, and a sign attached to it, which sign runs through and has to be taken into account in the proclamation of the glad tidings. For it involves the reconciliation of the world provisionally or, at least, the favourable relations of God in Christ with man in view of the gospel. The family of Japheth particularly, as entering into the section, is more specially in mind in the gospel as we have it, and which the apostle Paul calls “my gospel”.
We have first Japheth, and then Ham, and finally Shem in chapter 10. On account of the elimination of God from the mind of man, and the building of the tower of Babel and the city, we have Shem separately in chapter 11, with a view to Abraham and the line of promise. Then we have Terah, filling out the generations of Shem, as having three sons, just as Noah had three. In both lines, that is, in the “book of Adam’s generations” and the “generations of Shem”,
[p. 433] we have a culmination in one man begetting three sons. The first three developing into the world as we have it, and the family of Terah representing the line of blessing. Those two lines run together, but the numeral three governs both positions, and indeed has a great place in the book of Genesis. That in general is the line to follow in this reading.
The position in chapter 9 is to be particularly noted. It is a chapter of magisterial government, introduced conjointly with the use of animals to be slain for food, and agricultural industry, in connection with which Noah fails. Notwithstanding his failure, he holds the ground for blessing and is able to bless. All that necessarily is carried down in some sense in the sign of the covenant, and ought to govern us in our public testimony, because it denotes the favour of God whatever has happened.
CAC Is that secured on the line of moral suitability in Noah? “Thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation” (Genesis 7: 1).
JT Quite so. What you suggest links on with the question asked this morning as to why he is called a preacher of righteousness. He is the only man referred to in Scripture as righteous at that time; and being a righteous man, he could preach righteousness, so that the position right down, whilst the earth remains, is to be affected by what is in chapter 9, developed out of what Noah was personally. Preaching righteousness arises from one being righteous; what you preach is a proved thing. Righteousness is always scarce, and there is great need of it now amongst the brethren. It should characterise the man who preaches it. Of course, it emanates from God, but He does not impute righteousness until you come to Abraham. In Noah’s case it was what the man was, but the idea of imputed righteousness is a great thought as following upon God’s favourable attitude towards the world. What is preached is known — experienced — proved.
GVS [p. 434] The writer of the Hebrews says that Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Hebrews 11: 7). What bearing would that have upon it?
JT Of course it was there already in Abel. The principle thus preceded Noah, but heirship of it would include also the great thought which came out in Abraham. It is the idea of righteousness imputed on the ground of faith, and that is what comes out in Abraham; his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. It is, as we may say, God’s righteousness which “shall look down from the heavens” (Psalm 85: 11).
MWB Is the position in chapter 9 somewhat akin to the righteous One of John’s epistle: “Jesus Christ the righteous”? You spoke of the attitude of God as being favourable towards the world; we have propitiation in John’s epistle.
JT The bearing of it is for the whole world.
MWB I was wondering if that was the distinction between chapter 9 and what you have spoken of as imputed righteousness on the principle of faith.
JT The righteousness of Noah is clearly personal: “thee have I seen righteous before me”. It is what he was, but he “became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith”. He had faith, of course, and personal righteousness would be the outcome of it, and he preached what he experienced. If Abraham preached, he would preach righteousness imputed on the obedience of faith, which is unfolded in Romans.
Now chapter 9, as based on Noah’s sacrifice, is the ground of God’s relations with the world publicly. “While the earth remaineth”, it says. The sons are seen as related to their father; they are blessed with him, and the covenant is made; it is witnessed in the rainbow, and it continues, and enters into what was said, that the world is in reconciliation. Abraham, of course, would take up that thought because he was made “heir of the world”, and he would be affected by that in his relations with the nations, so that he prayed for them. God said to Abimelech, “He is a prophet, and will pray for thee” (Genesis 20: 7). His relations with the nations would be affected by the fact that he was heir of the world. Then, the sons of Noah are taken account of by themselves, and we see that in the great departure they get out of hand and hence we have the world in a moral sense as away from God. They are, however, taken account of under the head of generations, first Japheth, then Ham, and then Shem. I suppose the order is according to their birth. Although Shem seems to be the eldest, chapter 10 is the order by which they were known, Shem coming last. That is, he has not the first place in the public world, but he has in the spiritual. He is said to be “the brother of Japheth the elder” (Genesis 10: 21), as if Japheth had that place, that men were giving it to him on the principle that he that is born after the flesh has the leading place, as we get with Ishmael and Esau. Thus the spiritual line comes in last.
HFN Can we link it up in any way with what comes out in the Acts in regard to the three great representatives of these families?
JT I think so. Ham became despised, of course, the curse entering into his family, that is on Canaan, and he is taken up first in the eunuch; and then Saul representing Shem; and the centurion, Cornelius, representing Japheth. That is the order, and we have to follow what God does. When we get Japheth and Shem together it would be the Spirit of God taking account of things as they are publicly regarded. But Shem being taken account of separately and having a generation, or history, of his own, culminating in Abraham, we are on another line. That is the line we really want to get on to, the line that goes through in life and glory. What is regarded publicly is in chapter 10 but what is in chapter 11, the generations of [p. 436] Shem and Terah, is the line leading into the purpose of God.
PL Do these two thoughts find expression in Psalm 105: 12 - 15? “When they were a few men in number, of small account, and strangers in it. And they went from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people”. Is that the presentation of the line of blessing publicly in reproach, as in chapter 10? Then does chapter 11, where the generations of Shem are set apart, bring us to the expression in verse 15 of that Psalm: “Touch not mine anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm”?
JT Quite so, and the “father of all the sons of Eber” is mentioned in a public setting. They would be the ones under reproach, I apprehend, the ones who would become small outwardly, but cared for by God; as in Psalm 105, those in outward power are notified that God’s chosen ones are under His protection, and that they have an intercessory place with Him.
PL Then the next Psalm says, “That I may see the prosperity of thy chosen ones” (Psalm 106: 5). Would that bring in the line of blessing as in chapter 11?
JT Just so: “thy chosen ones”, that is, Abraham and his family. Terah is important, compared with Noah. Noah at the end of chapter 5 and Terah at the end of chapter 11 branching out into three. Then we have, not only the sons of Terah, but daughters, that is, suitable wives for those who are chosen, the principle of brothers and sisters, a very important advance on anything we have had. So that it is the family of faith, but the family of spiritual relationships, also marital relationships which God can bless; for this, a husband is to be a brother and a wife a sister spiritually.
FSM Has the scripture in Deuteronomy 32: 8, 9 any bearing on what has been said as to Psalm 105? “When the Most High assigned to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. For Jehovah’s portion is his people; Jacob the lot of his inheritance”. Is that the governing principle on which these developments were taking place?
JT That is an important scripture as entering into what we are saying. We have now come to the parting of the ways. The sons of Noah are taken account of by themselves and they get out of hand, and that necessitated God beginning over again on the principle of call, so that there is a separation. The sons of Eber being accredited to Shem in the public position is to bring out how reduction begins. So that they are a few people and of no account, whereas Japheth had the place of the elder. He was of account, and is of account today: so the position is unchanged, for in the name of Peleg, one of the sons of Eber (signifying ‘passing over’ ), we have reference to division.
Ques Would you say a word on the introduction of magisterial authority, which would seem to be maintained as long as God and His rights are recognised? Is that a principle we should go on?
JT That is the ground we should take; it is observed right through Scripture. In the psalm which has been cited, God says, “Touch not mine anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm”. That is the position of the saints, on the line of blessing, on the line of Shem. The allusion in the Psalm, of course, is to chapter 20 of this book, where God says to Abimelech in regard of Abraham: “He is a prophet, and will pray for thee”. Well, that has to be maintained; we have the mind of God and we pray for the authorities, whoever and whatever they are.
JSE Would you say a little more about the inferiority of this side in connection with what has gone before?
JT Though I referred this morning to the inferiority of the second part of our subject, yet it has an important place, and should be understood by those who serve, that is, the general position of the sons of Noah [p. 438] taken account of by themselves. They are not thus taken account of in chapter 9. Japheth and Shem are blessed by their father at the end of that chapter, particularly Shem. It is said of him, “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem, and let Canaan be his bondman”. Note “the God of Shem”. The blessing is based on his refusing to expose the nakedness of his father — a very important matter; he looked in another direction. In chapter 10 the three sons and their generations are viewed as by themselves. Although their father still lived on for many years, and we cannot but assume that he exercised influence for good, they are viewed by themselves and they get out of hand. The proposal to build a city and a tower shows the state that had developed amongst them. It is not on the same level as we saw in relation to Noah, but then, we have that level reached in Shem, because Jehovah is his God; the link is with him. “Jehovah, the God of Shem” links strikingly with what is so stressed later — “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”.
JSE Do you mean by that, that in Shem, God on the line of sovereignty goes back to His original thoughts?
JT Yes. The link of the testimony is renewed in the verses we have read, but God does not pass by the public position, and this ought to be in our minds always in our service, because God regards it — the sign of the covenant as to it still remains.
WMB Would Paul’s address at Athens, speaking of the “boundaries of their dwelling” (Acts 17: 26), be in line with what you are saying?
JT Yes, and in the ordering of the nations God had Israel as a centre. It was a smallness that developed, a smallness of quantity, but of intrinsic worth; greatness of quality is the thing now in the line of Shem.
PL So that the kingdom of Nimrod and the city of Babel belong to those who have got out of hand.
[p. 439] The man of faith waits for a city whose builder and maker is God, and seeks a heavenly country.
JT That is the position exactly, so Nimrod is the typical man in the public position. His name alludes to rebellion.
EuR Do we see the bearing of this on one who serves, in Saul in the first verse of Acts 13? He comes in at the end of the list there. Then later he carries through and takes the name Paul, being little, and we have Paul and his company. Then at Corinth he links on with Aquila and Priscilla — would that be more the spiritual relationship?
JT Quite so. The first is the great spiritual characteristic of those who are serving. He is mentioned last, but he soon acquires the first place — “Paul and his company”. In the second reference, at the beginning of Acts 18, he works with his hands. The more spiritual we are, the more ready we are to work with our hands; and he identifies himself with the industrial class at Corinth. He is descending indeed. The idea had already come in in Genesis 5, Jared signifies a ‘descender’, and he enters into the life line. God is glorified as we go down, and it is not our time for being glorious publicly. As we go down in the sense in which we are speaking, we go up morally, corresponding with Philippians 2.
Ques Does the final parable of Balaam in Numbers 24: 18 show the triumph of the line of life? “Israel will do valiantly”.
JT Amalek had the first place, representing the flesh peculiarly, “first of the nations”, and Balaam sees him thus, but Israel is to do valiantly. A star is to arise, a glorious prospect for those who are outwardly little now and despised.
WC Do we get the thought of intrinsic worth in the reference to “Sheba, and Ophir, and Havilah” (Genesis 10: 29), linking on with chapter 2: “the gold of that land is good”?
[p. 440] JT Quite so; we can see how that would apply.
FCH Would you say a word as to the blessing in connection with Shem? It says, “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem”. It is more than Shem himself. Is it that God is to have a portion?
JT Just so. Jehovah is blessed, that is, it is blessing applied to God as from us; but Shem is also blessed.
PL You get Shem’s seed setting out in verse 30. “Their dwelling was from Mesha, as one goes to Sephar, the eastern mountain”. Is that “we rejoice in hope of the glory of God”, the idea of the sun rising?
JT The right rendering undoubtedly in the next chapter, verse 2, is that those about to build Babel were journeying westward: “they journeyed from the east” when they started to build the city, whereas the land of Shem according to what we have here is eastward. Japheth is westward.
PL And is the thought of “the eastern mountain” the idea of the glory secured in divine stability as distinct from the tinsel and passing glory of Babylon?
JT “The eastern mountain” is an idea of prospect; it is toward the rising sun. The setting sun is never a suggestion of a glorious prospect, it is the opposite. Faith, of course, expects a setting sun to rise, and looks for it, and so the face is always towards the sun-rising. Hence in Romans “we rejoice in hope of the glory of God”, but it is on the principle of faith. So what we have had in chapter 10 is the general thought, and I believe the importance of it is for those serving particularly to understand God’s relations with the creation, how they are fixed on the principle of sacrifice. In announcing the gospel we are to “go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation” (Mark 16: 15). God is already in relation with it on the principle of covenant, but then that does not touch the question of call. Whereas, when we come to chapter 11, where we have the generations of Shem by himself,
[p. 441] and his offspring Terah, we are on the line of the call, the call of Abraham, so that the history of Abraham necessarily is in mind in the generations of Shem and Terah.
WSS The generations of Shem come immediately after the reference to Babel. There seem to be two great divisions here, the sons of Noah after the flood, and the generations of Shem after Babel.
JT I think the generations of Shem given separately are the outcome of the attempt of the sons of Noah, as presented in chapter 10, to undertake to build a city and a tower, which meant independence of God. That is, they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, and so He takes up Shem again, according to the prophecy as to him preceding. Although Shem had his part in the undertaking, God takes him up again as in His mind, according to Noah’s blessing. He is Shem’s God, and takes him up, and gives us the history so that we may understand what comes out in Abraham. We do not get the generations of Abraham; the next we get is that of Ishmael to show the negative side, but the history of Abraham is in mind peculiarly in all this.
MWB Why do we not get the generations of Abraham? We have it of Jacob, as going on in Joseph, but nothing distinct as to Abraham.
JT I think the reason is, that he represents the heavenly side or position. In type as well as in faith and outlook he is the heavenly man. Thus, although personally coming under the generations of Terah, Abraham is, as a type at least, outside the range of generations. When we come to Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob, we need to have their generations. The Spirit of God regards them as necessary, as lines running through which should be known, but Abraham is outstanding in another sense, for indeed it is he who is specially in mind in Hebrews 11. As called out, he belongs to heaven; he is the heavenly man.
MWB [p. 442] I was wondering whether it was a fuller thought. He was a heavenly man, whereas Jacob as a generation relates to God’s ways on the earth.
JT Yes; Isaac, of course, although the heavenly man, bears on Jacob and the testimony on earth. He stands in relation to the testimony, typically in relation to Christ glorified and the assembly united to Him in Israel’s place here. We must get that history. But Abraham’s history is, as it were, in heaven; his name is written there.
EuR He heads the generation in Matthew 1.
JT It is on the royal line there. It is not his generation. It is Jesus, “the generation of Jesus Christ”. Abraham’s is written in heaven, he is known there, and the more we understand the heavenly, the more we shall understand Abraham. It seems that he is honoured; although the great head of the family of faith, he is not brought down to the level of these generations.
HFN Could you help us a little in regard of the great truth of the calling in regard of Abraham?
JT The generations of Shem lead up to that. God would say, as it were, to any learner of the inspired narrative, These are the antecedents of this great family. So that we have brothers and sisters in view of the household of faith, so that what is of heaven is down here. Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister, and so he calls her sister. Then, from the same family, we have Rebecca and the sisters Leah and Rachel. I think it is to regulate us as to the household of faith.
Ques What is to be learned from the fact that one of them dies before the face of his father? Is that on the reducing line in regard to Abraham?
JT It would be, but he leaves a son, Lot, who links on with Abraham. All this is under divine ordering to bring out what is in the divine mind. So we must have Lot who represents an element in all this.
PL So this sojourning family, as it proved to be, composed of brothers and sisters, is in contrast to verse 18 of chapter 10: “And afterwards the families of the Canaanites spread themselves abroad”.
JT Just so. That is a mark of man after the flesh, represented in the Philistines, who “spread themselves”, whereas the principle of reduction goes with the family of faith.
CCE Have you any thought of the moral meaning of the shortening of the ages of these men after the flood?
JT I think it is in view of reduction. It is not now death pressed upon men as in chapter 5. We have the greatest longevity in chapter 5, but death is there — “... and he died ... and he died”. That is carried through even with Noah after the flood: “and he died”, but then we have the end of that. Now what comes out is the cutting short of human life, but death not mentioned; it is that the lives are shorter and shorter. That helps I think as to the gospel, so that Moses comments on it and brings it down to what we experience now: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten” (Psalm 90: 10). It is not so much that we die, but that our days on the earth are short. No matter what you go in for here, how quickly you have to leave it. The point is not that we die, but we do not live very long.
JSE Why is Terah singled out here as dying?
JT The point is that he died in Haran — where he died; meaning that he did not die in the place of his nativity. That is, he was of the class of those who journeyed, who went out. Not that he is said to have had faith, but he went out and took his family with him.
JSE Is the account of his dying to give us, in our minds, a link with the life line in chapter 5?
JT I do not think so; it is rather where he died; he was one of those who went over. Of course, Abraham died, and Isaac died; they are spoken of thus as a matter of history, but it is not now death as a matter of [p. 444] teaching, but that your life is very short and you may as well accept it. Children are encouraged in Ephesians that their days may be long on the earth; that would hardly fit in chapter 5, for there the lesson is death. Terah has the character of one who went out, but did not go all the way. He died in Haran. Stephen says of Abraham, “after his father died, he removed him into this land in which ye now dwell” (Acts 7: 4). So Terah has not the full status of a pilgrim; he did not fully go on that line.
HMS With regard to the generations of our Lord, to which reference has been made in Matthew 1, why do we have that question in Isaiah 53: 8, “Who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living”?
JT I suppose that would allude to His manhood as here in flesh and blood: it was unique and His cutting off terminated it; the prophetic eye saw no continuance of it in a generation. His life is taken from the earth — you cannot make it a subject of chronology, it is out of that range.
DLH “His life is taken from the earth” — does that not refer to resurrection? The thought seems to be that He is risen, and consequently you cannot account for any generation from Him as viewed here in flesh and blood.
JT Yes; His being cut off is stressed. He is taken out of the line of generation in that sense — in the ordinary prophetic sense He had no generation. In truth, viewed as here “according to flesh”, He was absolutely alone — there was no one like Him, nor shall there ever be. He Himself has ceased to be in that condition. There is no continuance of it. The point made is that He was cut off from the land of the living, from the earth, to which ordinary generations belonged.
EuR Are chapters 10 and 11 a little like, “But that which is spiritual was not first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual” (1 Corinthians 15: 46)? Would the brevity of life tend to induce us to go in for that which is spiritual and find our life in that which will never come under death?
JT That is the thought; we are prepared for eternal life really. The shortness and uncertainty of ordinary human life tend to enhance the thought of eternal life and direct us to it — to “lay hold of what is really life”.
Ques Would Psalm 102: 24 help us here, where it says, “My God, take me not away in the midst of my days! ... Thy years are from generation to generation”?
JT Quite so; the Lord felt being cut off early, but the divine voice to Him is: “Thy years are from generation to generation”. This asserts His deity. Personally, He was not limited to time. This shortening of human life, running down to Moses, is to be taken account of, and it helps us in the gospel.
Ques Would you be in any way restricted in your evangelical activities in the last days of the dispensation when apostasy has set in?
JT Well, we have to take account of the vessel in which the light is, of course, and actually we are necessarily more limited now than they were at the beginning on account of the breakdown of the vessel in which the light is. The candlestick as owned of God is lost, although responsibility as to it remains. We should take note of the reduction of human life, and how God in all this is taking account of Shem. He is the God of Shem, and He is reminding us that our life is not in what we possess in this world. The man in Luke 12: 19 says to his soul, “Soul, thou hast much good things laid by for many years; repose thyself, eat, drink, be merry”. He had plenty, but God says, “Fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee”. That is a word which enters into this. God is reminding us in the generation of Shem that our prospects are not in [p. 446] this life. The years are gradually dwindling, and one man dies before his father, so that things are very uncertain. We are to be prepared for the gospel as set forth in one man, and we have the idea, at this juncture, of the Scriptures preaching, saying to Abraham: “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed”. It is the blessing of Abraham now, and the shortening of the days would help us. In chapter 5 death was rolled in upon men and helped them, but now it is the shortening of our days. We have the idea of an organised world after the flood, nations with prospects, glory attaching to each nation. Well, what is the good of it all? It is only a few years and we are gone, and so God is calling out a man and setting up things in him on the principle of life out of death. It is the gospel, so that the gospel was preached to Abraham.
MWB Do you think there is a special link between the shortening of the days and the idea of the call, in view of the heavenly position that is taken up?
JT That is the thought in mind. If I have only a few years, what does it matter, because my life is elsewhere.
MWB Would it be right to class Abraham with the “partakers of the heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3: 1)?
JT Typically, that is particularly in mind. They went out not knowing where they were going and looked for a city whose builder and maker was God. You see that things are dwindling here, and that human life is shortening, and the idea is to get hold of the new thought, the heavenly: “Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he has prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11: 16). Now He was Shem’s God, but then Shem had part in the public world, so it is a question of the line that is in Shem: “God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God”. It is on moral [p. 447] ground.
PL What operates in gracious instruction in chapter 5 is helping us through governmental circumstances at this point.
JT That is the idea. Moses puts it into the form of a prayer, and brings down human life within a very small compass. One day men are flourishing, the next day they are gone. What is it all? he says. That is the idea, and we are enjoined “to number our days, that we may acquire a wise heart” (Psalm 90: 12). Then Moses goes on to God showing Himself, and letting His work appear, and establishing the work of our hands. That is God returning — “Return, Jehovah:” he says — God returning in resurrection and establishing another order of things.
Rem Stephen accepted in a definite way the shortening of his days, he fixed his eyes on heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus.
JT Quite so. That is very beautiful.
JTS In connection with the preaching in Ecclesiastes 12: 1, is it striking that it says, “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth”, and then you have the conclusion of the whole matter at the end of the chapter. Is that to be in mind in the preaching of the gospel?
JT That is an excellent text. The writer gives a description of man when he gets old. The young are mentioned first, but we become old, and the description he gives of the feelings of old men and women is remarkable, and should be noted. He says, “(for man goeth to his age-long home, and the mourners go about the streets;) — before the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be shattered at the fountain, or the wheel be broken at the cistern” (Ecclesiastes 12: 5, 6). That is God in mercy gradually bringing men down, preparing them for actual death. The book of Ecclesiastes helps us in this respect, and is intended to help in the gospel. One is speaking about the gospel, for the apostle in Galatians 3: 8 says that [p. 448] the gospel was preached to Abraham. What comes out in Abraham is the basis of the gospel, you might say.
FSM Would it mean deliverance from an organised world? The liberated soul walks in the path of faith, and that should be taken up at the earliest possible moment in view of the brevity of life.
JT It should be kept before one in preaching, with a view to reaching man. Of course, men are afraid of death, but prospects in this world is the great element the enemy uses. It is deliverance from the “present evil world”. How men are held by the world, and how they become inflated by money and the like.
MWB Would you say a further word on the introduction of the wives, the sisters?
JT It is important to keep them in mind in view of the household of faith. You see how the Spirit of God brings them in in chapter 22. As soon as we have Christ in type seen as risen, we have Rebecca brought in. It says, “And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she also has borne sons to thy brother Nahor; ... (And Bethuel begot Rebecca)” (Genesis 22: 20 - 23). It is significant that the sisters are brought in here in the light of the assembly. The household of faith is built up in relation to kindred, not strangers but kindred; that is, we are all christians, and it is only on that line that young people reach the idea of the assembly. It is a question of kindred, being of the same family.
LES Do you think 2 Corinthians 6: 17, 18 would have a bearing on this? “Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”.
JT That is good. Your mind is on “sons and daughters”, not simply sons, but that we have sisters. So Paul speaks of taking round a sister as wife (1 Corinthians 9: 5). One can understand how he would have the assembly in mind. It comes in on the line of family relationship.
HFN Do we have the same principle in the Song of Songs in the reference to the sister as well as the bride?
JT Exactly; that book helps us on this line.
PL So Romans 16 begins with “Phoebe, our sister”, and a number of brothers and sisters are mentioned, and then finally the thought of the mystery is alluded to.
JJ Why does it say that Sarai was barren in this connection?
JT That is another element there. God knows that, too; He needs to show what He can do with a barren person. It is to bring out His almightiness. As has been mentioned, “Come out from the midst of them ... and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”. Well, God can come in for that barren wife, but how much more important it is spiritually. It is a question of the power of God.
HFN “He maketh the barren woman to keep house, as a joyful mother of sons” (Psalm 113: 9).
JT How many come in on the line of such, as Sarah herself, and Rebecca, and Rachel and Hannah. So God needed that, and He ordered it that His power should be displayed in that tender, touching way, making “the barren woman to keep house, as a joyful mother of sons;” as much as to say, the very barrenness helps, for it is disastrous to have a family without housekeeping. It is an occasion for God to come in. What seems to be disaster shows how God can come in in His love.
Ques Would you apply that to a locality where this barrenness [p. 450] is felt?
JT Yes. It is intended to encourage us. What seems impossible, God can do.
HMS How would you explain the difference between having children and keeping house?
JT It just alludes spiritually to the way things are done in local gatherings. Very often gatherings do not grow because there is no housekeeping. If there is to be continuation according to God, there must be housekeeping which is seen in assembly order. What is stressed in the epistles to the Corinthians is that things are to be in order. God is the God of order, and if His order is maintained He gives children. He is the Almighty; He gave children to Sarah, and to Rebecca, and to Rachel, and to Hannah, and so in the Psalm, He makes “the barren woman to keep house, as a joyful mother of sons”. God does that; He does it through ministry. He would press it upon us, as the apostle does to the Corinthians, that things must be in order. Then we have the children — “a joyful mother of sons;” we have joy in the young ones coming in amongst us.
Ques Do we see this principle in connection with the woman of worth in Proverbs 31: 27, 28? “She surveyeth the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her”.
JT That is a beautiful picture of proper housekeeping.
EuR Does it help in regard to brothers and sisters, that in the naming of the distinctions in connection with the new man in Colossians 3, it does not say neither male nor female? Does that leave room for spiritual affections to take shape in brothers and sisters alike?
JT Quite so; the new man is seen in a sister as well as in a brother. It is not, however, a new woman; it is a new man, there is only one new man; it is a question of character; there “Christ is everything, and in all” (Colossians 3: 11).
JJ Does he bring the idea into Galatians 4: 27 for that reason, where it is written, “Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break out and cry, thou that travailest not; because the children of the desolate are more numerous than those of her that has a husband”? Were those housekeeping conditions absent in Galatia, and is that why the apostle brings this in there?
JT The allusion is to Jerusalem, that she has more children now than when she had a husband. All christians are accredited to her, but much else, of course, is said elsewhere to qualify this, including the instructions to Corinth.
HH I was wondering about your remark as to having lost the candlestick.
JT We cannot ignore that. It is not spoken of after Ephesus. From Thyatira onwards, we are in remnant times, and we have to accept limitations in our public testimony, which, of course, would cut across what is called missionary enterprise. The position in all that is really out of hand, and those engaged in it are not subject to the mind of God revealed in relation to these facts. The Lord says to Philadelphia, “I have set before thee an opened door” — one suited to the moment — “which no one can shut”.
Well, I hope the brethren have been able to follow a little as to this lesson. It really takes us to the threshold of Abraham viewed as a called one, a pilgrim, a heavenly man, and then the development in testimony in Rebecca, that is, the assembly related to Christ in heaven.
PL Does not each of the generations involving distinctive blessing, chapters 5 and 11 respectively culminate in the heavenly side of the truth, the first in Enoch and the second in Abraham?
JT It is as if God would lead us to that point; He is leading many sons to glory. All else is subservient [p. 452] to that; so that in principle Enoch and Abraham have part in that.
PL Does that throw a backward lustre on all the operations that lead up to this point?
JT Just so, and all the development on the earth, as we shall see in the history of Jacob, has it also in the background. It is a question of the heavenly company known here.
CAC Does that glorify the sovereignty of God particularly?
JT That is a beautiful thought, opening up much; for, after all, it must be that. All that happens brings us back to that. It is what God does sovereignly, so that Ephesians is the great culmination of all the teaching. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ” (Ephesians 1: 3). In the greatness of His counsels He has taken us out of a state of death and “made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2: 6). We have come to that in this reading, and in the two readings to follow we should consider the generations of Isaac, and then those of Jacob; those of Ishmael and Esau coming in on the negative side. Their histories are also given and it is well to understand them.