GENERATIONS IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS (5)
[p. 453] GENERATIONS IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS (5)
Genesis 25: 12 - 23; Genesis 26: 1 - 6; Genesis 27:26-29; Genesis 27:37-40
JT The generations of Ishmael need not occupy us long, but they have a place in the ways of God as affecting His people. What is particularly before us is Isaac: “the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son”. The passages read bring before us Isaac as intended to be understood by God’s people, not simply as the heavenly man, but as a type of Christ having to do with the whole dispensation — christianity, as we speak of it. It was pointed out yesterday that Abraham was characteristically the heavenly man, he being mainly in mind in the allusion in Hebrews 11 to those who went out, not knowing whither they went, and sought a heavenly country. God prepared a city for the heavenly ones; Abraham looked for it, one whose builder and maker is God. That is, his mind was spiritual, his outlook and expectations were spiritual and heavenly. Isaac, although generally regarded as representing Christ as the heavenly man, should rather be viewed as Christ in heaven in relation to the testimony here, as it is known in christianity. Rebecca is clearly a type of the assembly as taking another’s place as the bride of Isaac; he leads her “into his mother Sarah’s tent”. Then, what comes out in chapter 26 shows that he is not only a type of Christ personally, but a type of the responsible element in the dispensation, and viewed as such, has to be guided from the divine side. Not manifesting the same exercises and desires as Abraham, God looks after him from His own side, keeping him where he should be, in the land. Chapter 27 shows a certain weakness from this point of view, nevertheless he is able to bless; blessing, according to Hebrews 11, both Jacob and Esau, so as to stress the thought of blessing throughout our dispensation. I just mention this so that, as following the scriptures, we may be guided aright. It is important [p. 454] for us to keep clearly in view that Abraham is the heavenly man characteristically, not only as preserved by God, but as evidenced from his general exercises, outlook, and desires, and his concern as to Isaac, as seen in chapter 24, as to what must be the lineage of the wife to be sought for him.
PL Would there be a downward grade in regard to the sons of Ishmael, as disclosed in their names, in contrast to the upward grade of chapter 5, issuing in Enoch? Nebaioth suggests self-exaltation, Kedar, black skin.
JT That all may be regarded as instructive and helpful. There is the idea of administrative ability in these generations — twelve princes. God, respecting Abraham, gave Ishmael a good start in that sense, but what you point out shows that decline marked his descendants, and whilst he dwelt before his brethren, as it says, it was in relation to territory bearing on Egypt and Assyria.
HFN What would Ishmael represent in regard to what you are speaking of as to generations? What would he suggest in contrast to the great thought in Isaac?
JT Well, it is the source and outcome of his history; the people of God should know what they have to contend with in him. We know something of it in our own experience. We have to trace back the elements we have to contend with — whether it be Rome, or the Establishment as in this country, or other religious denominations. In order to understand them aright we have to trace them from their sources. God intends His people to be observant and to have an understanding of what is current around us, so as to pursue our way intelligently in dealing with each element. We know how the Ishmaelites bought Joseph; they were that class, dealing in men as chattels.
AMH What would be the difference between Ishmael and Japheth? You spoke yesterday of Japheth [p. 455] as spreading abroad. Is Ishmael more a concentrated form of what is not on the line on which God is working?
JT Yes. I think these generations of Ishmael and Esau are, as it were, what is near to us, being outwardly related. Paganism is far off, but there is that which is near to us by profession. Japheth is the public world in its leading feature, related of course to Shem and Ham, and we have to discern what God governmentally wrought in him, that is, in the western world as preparing external conditions for the gospel, and for the calling out of the assembly. It began, of course, with Shem, but it is developed under Paul among the nations of Japheth. We ought to be conversant with these things from the scriptural point of view. Ishmael began as a persecutor of him who was born after the Spirit, and you cannot expect much else from him. As under his father’s roof he was a persecutor, and when he gets out of hand, he is spoken of as “a wild-ass of a man, his hand against every man, and every mans hand against him; and he shall dwell before the face of all his brethren” (Genesis 16: 12). You cannot expect much else from him; he is not wishing to get away from the brethren: he settled before the face of all his brethren.
Ques Was Ishmael the fruit of unbelief in Abraham?
JT Clearly, and in Sarah particularly. He was brought in as a contrivance, even after God had assured Abraham that He would give him a true seed.
AMP Would the expression “from the beginning” in John 8: 44 bear on this? There were those who spoke of their father Abraham, but the Lord speaks of their father the devil, and says he was a murdered from the beginning.
JT I think that helps. John deals with both lines, what was from the beginning both as regards good and evil. The Lord is first presented there as existent “in the beginning”. In the gospel it is, “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1: 1), but in the epistle it is, “That which was from the beginning” (1 John 1: 1), and it is said there, “from the beginning the devil sins”. God has helped us in getting back to the source of things, which is really a great fundamental feature. The brazen serpent is sin judged not only in man, but from its source — the devil.
HH How far back does “the beginning” go in John’s epistle?
JT It is the beginning of Christ here on earth, His incarnation, I would say, in a general way, as John presents it: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. What is said in the epistle includes what the apostles saw in Him as risen — particularly this, I believe.
EJMcB Do you consider Adam to represent the great basic principles of God established, and then Noah bringing to pass what is universal on the earth, and now we are dealing with what comes to light in a people called to a heavenly position?
JT That is it exactly, so that as we had yesterday, the generations of Shem are in view of a people called out, and the generations of Terah leading up to Abraham. The call was before Terah moved, Terah taking on the character of a pilgrim, going forth out of Ur to go into Canaan. The call was not to him, but to Abraham, and in Abraham allowing Terah to take him and the rest of his family to Haran, we see how, although called, he took on what proved extraneous. So we have a Lot, and yet God turns all into account. Terah, Lot, and Ishmael cannot be regarded as subjects of the call of God, but related to the called one, and resulting really from unbelief. Anticipating our dispensation, all are regarded and treated in grace, and the most possible made of them.
PL And calculated, even in their opposition, to bring into lustre manhood in its heavenly character.
JT Isaac is the product answering to the mind of [p. 457] God, and that is the way he is to be taken account of. He is “Abraham’s son”, not one of his sons; the others are ignored, because generally they are the product of the flesh. Ishmael is said to be his son, but with the qualification that Hagar bore him. “These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son;” the Spirit of God would keep him clearly in view.
Rem So it is “Abraham begot Isaac”. Of Ishmael, it is said, “whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s bondwoman, bore to Abraham”.
JT Quite so. God takes account of these elements that are brought in, in spite of the fact that they are the outcome of the flesh; He does not repudiate them, He makes the most of them. That is another thing to be observed. It is one of the features worked out in this book in view of christianity, that God makes the most of what there is. Ishmael was Abraham’s son, and Lot was his nephew, and then, as we were seeing yesterday, the sisterhood is brought to light in the family of Nahor, the son of Terah. We must not overlook that God makes the most of what there is, even although it be the outcome of the flesh, in its relation to those who are called. Hence Esau is blessed too, notwithstanding his character; he is Isaac’s son and blessed “concerning things to come”, not only present things, but things to come, showing that God maintains His own point of view and makes the most of what is in the sphere of profession.
PL You get it in Romans 9: 3, 4 in regard of Israel “according to flesh;” “whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the law-giving, and the service, and the promises”.
JT That is the idea exactly.
JC-S In speaking of these generations as near relatives, had you in mind the false systems which have grown up in the bosom of christianity, and adopted its things, but we have to trace them back to the beginning or origin, and name [p. 458] them?
JT Yes. Apostolic succession is claimed by some, but that can be easily repudiated; that is not from the beginning. There is nothing of the kind in Scripture — and many other like things. So the greatest systems around us are overthrown in that way. But then, there is that which is from the beginning, and is regarded as having links with Abraham, as it were, and God makes the most of them, and we must make the most of them.
Ques How would you regard Abraham’s desire that Ishmael might live before Him?
JT It was more a selfish desire, and yet God heard him in regard of it. It is the thought of the predominance of grace.
HES I think you spoke of what was heavenly characteristically, and what was heavenly in regard of the testimony; would you kindly develop that a little?
JT There is that which is heavenly, as you might say, officially. Isaac represents that, but he does not represent much that is substantial. As a type, of course, he represents Christ personally, particularly in chapters 22 and 24, but when we come to chapters 25, 26, and 27 we are more on the line of what he is officially, and how God would keep the heavenly side in view as much as possible. So He directs him not to go out of Canaan, but dwell in that land even although the Philistines were there. That is to maintain the heavenly side officially, so to speak, as we see in the Acts in Paul’s ministry principally. In Abraham we have heavenly substance; there is more formation. He is alluded to in the New Testament in that way. He went out not knowing whither he went, and he might have returned with others if he wished, “but now they seek a better, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he has prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11: 16). That is how I think we should arrive at what [p. 459] Abraham represents.
CAC Do you think we might be on the Isaac line without rising to the Abraham line?
JT Yes. Abraham is the characteristically heavenly man, and God had in mind that Isaac should continue that. You are struck with the external influences in regard of Isaac, both on the part of Abraham and God Himself. How concerned Abraham was that he should not leave the land, and that his wife should be of his own kindred. That was all from Abraham’s side, not from Isaac’s side. It is to bring out the Fatherhood of God really, for I think, in treating of Abraham, we see that God in the Trinity had to do with him. I mean figuratively, but really substantially, for Jehovah Himself came with two others — three men came to him at Mamre. So we have the great idea of the Deity appearing in relation to Abraham under the figure of the three Persons. The Trinity, I believe, comes out here in order to bring out this dispensation — first in Abraham, then in Isaac, and then in Jacob. The thought of God is in the Father; the Son and the Holy Spirit entering into it, and standing in relation to it. The great thought of fatherhood is stressed in this book, so that God as Father dominates this dispensation. I have thought over it, and am convinced it is right. It lends great substance to these chapters as having christianity in mind; that which should continue, taking its character from the Father: “to us there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8: 6).
Ques Is that why in chapter 18 Jehovah says, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing”?
JT That is the thought; he stands out there as visited. According to chapter 17, he had had a beautiful conversation, and Jehovah said, “It is I”. That is, God speaks to him on personal grounds and enters into covenant with him in relation to circumcision, that the relations between Himself and Abraham are to be, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. “And he left off talking with him; and God went up from Abraham;” and Abraham carries out the injunctions in regard to circumcision [p. 460] fully. All the males in his house are circumcised, Ishmael included. Then God, as honouring that, comes in, as I believe, in the Trinity. We know that two of them were angels, but still they speak together, and Abraham addressing the Lord, speaks to them as together, and they together accept his proposals for entertaining them; and also “they said to him, Where is Sarah thy wife?” Then Jehovah says, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing?” God was going to tell him about judgment, but it was because Abraham would “command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice”. That is, he is a judge on the earth now, and he recognises that Jehovah is “Judge of all the earth”. So the element of judgment, holy discrimination, is now in evidence.
HFN Would you say more about the official thought in Isaac, that you spoke of?
JT In view of it we would do well to dwell a little further on Abraham so as to get the characteristics of the heavenly man: more the substantial thought. In chapter 18 he is quite on easy terms with God, God impressing him with the thought of nearness. He catered into covenant with him, and spoke with him, Abraham not being behind in regard of it, for he immediately executes circumcision, so that he is now on the ground of the Spirit. I do not know, Mr. C., whether you agree with what I was remarking about the Trinity. I am using a word which is prevalent. It is not a word found in Scripture, although the idea is there, in this very chapter 18.
CAC Yes, indeed.
EuR Would Ephesians 4: 6 help? “One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all;” one Lord and one Spirit being referred to immediately before.
JT That is right, and so in 1 Corinthians 8: 6, “To us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things,
[p. 461] and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”.
Ques Does the conversation between Abraham and Isaac in chapter 22 help in regard to what you suggest as to the Trinity? “Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and said, My father! And he said, Here am I, my son”. Then in verse 9, it says, “they came to the place of which God had told him”. I wondered whether the movements there would include the thought of the activities of the Spirit.
JT I think that is right. Chapter 24 brings it out more fully in type, Eliezer not being mentioned by name, but as “his servant, the eldest of his house, who ruled over all that he had”. There is reference to dignity, the Spirit taking a lowly place and carrying out the will of the Father. I think that is the way we should understand the position. The Father is the dominating thought in christianity, the Trinity first being seen where we are baptised “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, baptised to all Three. The dominating One throughout is the Father, the other two divine Persons acting in subjection. Their part abstractly remains equal in the Deity, but the Father is the dominant thought in revelation, and I believe it is worked out in type in the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
CAC Do the two angels going to Sodom fall in with the thought in any way?
JT They take on the executive side. Of course, God does things, and here He is said to be the Judge of all the earth, but the executive side in detail is carried out by the Son and the Spirit. Although God judges it is Christ as Son of man, for the Father judges no one (John 5: 22).
JC-S You said that the Father and what is connected with Him gives character to the present dispensation. Is it right to suggest that the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit have taken a relative place in [p. 462] this economy, in order that the Father and all connected with Him might be secured in the affections of the saints?
JT It is expressly stated that the Father judges no one, that is how the matter stands. The revelation of God involves an economy, and we are baptised to the name of the Three. You could not reverse the order in which they stand — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; they are there objectively as we are baptised. In the dispensation as it stands, it is, “to us there is one God, the Father”, and in Ephesians 4: 5, 6, as has been cited, we have, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. I believe the more we ponder these chapters in Genesis, the more we shall see the thought of the Father in the patriarchs is stressed in a very full way, pointing to what marks this dispensation. It is grace right through. Judgment will be, of course, wrought out in detail, but the Father is carrying on the thought of God revealed in grace before us, and the Son and the Spirit are carrying it out executively in detail, so as to secure the divine end, and in Jacob we shall see that the result is worship.
CAC Does this involve that things should be taken up personally rather than officially, that the saints should be personally characterised by affections as appreciating the revelation?
JT That is what we shall come to. We are formed in affection; the Son and the Spirit are operating to that end. The Father is seeking something for Himself, and the Son and the Spirit are operating to that end. In the economy They have been pleased to take a lowly place, and it is most affecting to see the depths to which They have gone to secure the desired results.
MWB Would that be confirmed in chapter 18 of this book, the Trinity moving in unity as one, and then, in chapters 22 and 24, Their relative positions and distinctive [p. 463] work?
JT That is how the matter stands, the Father as in Abraham foreseeing everything and providing for everything. In the instructions to the servant of his house he is considering for Isaac; all, as it were, flows out from him. Isaac says nothing as to the kind of wife he would wish; it is the father.
LES Why is it the Godhead in Colossians 1: 19 in connection with what you are saying?
JT The word “Godhead” is not there; it is literally just “the fulness”. The Fulness was pleased to dwell in Christ, and then He is the instrumentality of the reconciliation: “by him to reconcile all things to itself”. It is not the personal thought, the Deity is in mind, but in Its fulness. What is presented is “the fulness”. The reconciliation is to the fulness; to the Deity, of course, but in the sense of fulness, that is, as It has come out. It is not the Deity in Its abstract relations, but as It has come out, and we are reconciled to that.
ASL In 1 Corinthians 8: 6 the apostle says, “to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”, but no reference directly to the Holy Spirit by name. Would you say a little on that?
JT What you say opens up a good deal, but it is a question of how christianity stands. It stands in relation to the Father as God, in order to stress the thought of grace in it, and that continues to the end. The One we call the second Person in the Deity is mentioned there: “by whom are all things, and we by him”. It is a question of instrumentality, that the Lord has brought us in, but that involves the Spirit, because the new birth and all the work of the Spirit is involved in that. Christ is usually referred to as representing the administrative and executive side of the economy. So, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand” (John 3: 35), that is the economy. Then it says, “God gives not the Spirit by measure” (verse 34); the Spirit is seen there. From chapter 4 we learn how the Spirit comes in in the economy. The dispensation is established in the light of God as Father, and the Lord’s own words limit that title, in His saying that the Father judges no one. “For neither does the Father judge any one, but has given all judgment to the Son ... and has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is Son of man” (John 5: 22 - 27). The Spirit is involved in the position in 1 Corinthians 8, “One Lord” involves the Spirit, because being made “both Lord and Christ”, and “having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear” (Acts 2: 33, 36). That is all executive, in view of effecting things in detail here below.
ASL So, in the prayer of the apostle in Ephesians 3: 14, 15, he says, “I bow my knees to the Father ... of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”. The words “of our Lord Jesus Christ” are doubtful, and very likely inserted by a copyist who thought they ought to be there. It is the Father, the great characteristic name in the present dispensation.
JT Yes, and the more we discern that and bow to it the better, and the more effective we shall be in our evangelical service.
Ques In 2 Corinthians 13: 14 it says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit”. Is the thought of Father there, although not mentioned?
JT Yes; we have it too in 1 Corinthians 12: 3 - 6. The Spirit is first mentioned, then the Lord, and then God, God obviously alluding to the Father.
HH What would be the thought in John 20: 17, “my God and your God”, following on “my Father and your Father”?
JT That is in relation to our eternal portion, and the peculiar relations of christians with God as Father. It is not the Father there, but “my Father and your Father”. You only get it there, that is the Father’s special relation with us. Generally in John it is either the Father, or Christ’s Father. The thought of the Father is the stamp of the dispensation to show how God is operating in grace.
HH Then, do you connect the thought of “my God and your God” with what goes into eternity?
JT Yes; it is Christ’s God, which is clearly the greatest thought of God.
LM Are you connecting the idea of the Father more with source — the Father of glory, the Father of mercies, the Father of lights, the Father of spirits — whereas “our Father” is more the idea of family relationships?
JT Quite so. What you quote is specifying that He is the Father of so many things, but “the Father” formally calls attention to God as He is known now in love and grace. He is known in that way; the point is that He is such a One. The Father judges no one, the Lord says, and the Father seeks worshippers. When He speaks of God, He says, “God is a spirit”, but the seeking is by the Father.
PHH So, in the introduction to eternity in 1 Corinthians 15: 24 - 28, where God shall “be all in all”, Christ delivers up “the kingdom to him who is God and Father”. Does that mean that God will be known to us as Father in eternity?
JT Quite so: “him who is God”. That would cover God in all He is in dealing with things, but it adds, “and Father”. That is the special relation in which He is known, especially in christianity. Then it is, “that God may be all in all”. That is the final thought.
HB-t Does not the expression, “the Father”, often include the whole of the Trinity, the Godhead?
JT What scripture have you in mind? This is the greatest of subjects, and we must go by Scripture; we cannot assume to make everything logical and fit [p. 466] in.
HB-t I was thinking of the Lord’s prayer in John 17, where He addresses the Father. Has He not the Godhead before Him?
JT The Lord cannot be said to include Himself in the title Father, although He speaks of the Father as the only true God. “To us there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8: 6). God is really an official thought in some senses; it is that the Deity has come out. The abstract relation of the Persons is always inscrutable, and any One of Them can act as God. It is really in a sense an official thought, as I said: the supreme One who does everything, and any One of Them may operate in this sense, but in the economy the One known as the Father is God characteristically, always to be regarded in this way.
JC-S What you have said elsewhere might help at this juncture, that this economy has been a matter of arrangement between the Persons, and the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit have taken this lowly place in relation to it. Do you not think that in our desire to maintain His deity we often force ideas into the Scriptures which really lead to confusion?
JT We certainly have to follow the scriptural way of speaking — in this matter above all.
ASL Would you say a word in this connection on this scripture: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them ... and no one can seize out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one” (John 10: 27 - 30)? Why the change from My Father to the Father?
JT The Father is God in His general relation in our dispensation. As we have been saying, the Lord is speaking in the light of the economy, and that is really how the truth is developed. What the Persons are abstractly, apart from all else, we cannot say. We know They are there; Scripture makes this plain, but occupies us with the Godhead as in revelation. The Lord is speaking in the light of the economy in relation [p. 467] to His Father, and says that His Father is greater than all. He said also, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14: 28). When He says, “I and the Father are one”, He alludes to Their unity in the testimony. In saying the Father, the Father’s general relation is in mind. “The Father” is God thus known. It is not a question of Their abstract relations, but of what They are in what is going on, that They are thoroughly one. No one could use the words, of course, but the Son, but it is simply that He and the Father were thoroughly one in what was proceeding, and it all bears there on the safety of the sheep. The ‘Authorised’ translators followed certain manuscripts and read “my”, but “the” in John 10: 30 is undoubtedly correct.
Rem “They went both of them together” (Genesis 22: 8). They were one.
JHT You referred to the Father as stamping the dispensation to show how God was operating; would the fulness of God’s operations be seen, first in the opened heavens: “My beloved Son”. Then at the cross, “Father, forgive them”. Then thirdly, “raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father”. Would that be filled out in the apostle’s prayer to the Father that the saints might come into the fulness of God?
JT Yes. You can see how the dispensation opened up; in fact, the three Persons come to light at once. It does not say that the Father spoke, but “a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son” (Luke 3: 22). It is, of course, the Father speaking, and the Spirit is there in the dove, descending on the Son, so that we have the Trinity, but the voice from heaven is the dominant feature. It is not a question of the other two Persons being in any sense inferior, because abstractly They are not inferior. It is a question of the economy, and if we get that into our minds the matter is simplified. The Son and the Spirit take a lowly place, but They retain Their equality all the time.
CAC [p. 468] Does this thought of the economy particularly apply to the time of the heavenly?
JT I think so, and that is why I thought we might dwell on Abraham as representing that side, and then the Trinity (Genesis 18), coming in in relation to those heavenly qualities, so that the dispensation is really heavenly.
Ques What place does the Holy Spirit take throughout the ages of ages?
JT I think He will be always the Spirit of sonship to us, and He is always the power subjectively. He will be this, I suppose, in all the families named of the Father. At the very outset the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep; that is a suggestion that He is always here feelingly and affects us in that way.
Rem In writing his epistle the apostle John says, “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God” (1 John 3: 1). He uses the same expression there — “the Father”.
JT Yes. Children is what we are down here, in that relation to Him and bearing the characteristics of God; what we are in a moral sense before men “in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation”. So it is more what God is, but that God is the Father.
MWB Would you say something more about the threefold way in which the thought of Father is developed in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
JT The first thing in that relation is to see how concerned Abraham was that the heavenly should be preserved on the official side, so to speak, in Isaac. As Abraham and his young men returned to Beer-sheba, Scripture does not say that Isaac returned, but in chapter 24 Abraham particularly stresses that he must not leave Canaan, that is, that the heavenly position must be preserved. The type has in mind the Father’s concern that the dignity of the dispensation should be maintained in the Person who represents the official side being in heaven, and that His bride is to [p. 469] be of his own kindred, and brought to Him there. Then, when Rebecca comes, Isaac acts, and he leads her into his mother Sarah’s tent. He does that, showing how thoroughly he is in accord with the father’s thought. Abraham is concerned about the heavenly side; Isaac is concerned about the position of the assembly, itself heavenly, here below, and that shows what is in mind. It is the continuance of the testimony here below in its heavenly character.
EG Is that why it says that Abraham “dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob” (Hebrews 11: 9)?
JT Yes; typically he would promote the heavenly character in them.
EuR Abraham not only stipulates that the bride must be of the same family order, but must be prepared to follow the servant from the land where she was, to the land where Isaac was.
JT She is brought to him in the heavenly position. It involves Paul’s ministry. That is her proper place, but Isaac leads her into another position. It does not say that he loved her until he has led her into another position, into his mother Sarah’s tent. That is the position here below, and it is in that position he loves her, as much as to say, she is lovable in that position. It is the assembly’s heavenly testimony.
MWB Is that the line of the epistle to the Colossians, the earthly setting of a heavenly company?
JT Quite so: “Christ in you the hope of glory” (Colossians 1: 27). This particularly, however, would be Christ among the gentiles, and hence would point to Asnath as a type.
AJG Would it involve that Rebecca was supported in those heavenly characteristics by the love of Christ, too? He loved her in that position.
JT The Lord’s supper would enter into that. The love of Christ enters into it, but it is in that position she is loved; that is, what the saints are in the testimony [p. 470] here. We are loved, and take on lovableness in that sense.
EuR Do both thoughts link together in 1 Corinthians 1: 2? “Called saints” — would that be the heavenly position, and “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”, what we are down here in the light of it?
JT Well, quite so, but Sarah’s tent is what is in mind. It is how she shines in Sarah’s tent, in Israel’s place, as we see it in the Acts.
JHT Did Paul serve the Corinthian saints from the standpoint of Christ’s love? He says, “Now I shall most gladly spend and be utterly spent for your souls, if even in abundantly loving you I should he less loved” (2 Corinthians 12: 15); and then he also says, “I rejoice that in everything I am confident as to you” (2 Corinthians 7: 16).
JT Quite so. He had espoused them to one Man, to present them a chaste virgin to Christ.
AMH I would like to be a little more clear as to the difference between the Corinthian position and Rebecca’s shining in Israel’s place as seen in Acts.
JT It is perhaps the Jewish setting which is the most difficult — the assembly developed there. The Spirit shows in the early chapters of Acts how she was developed, and you can see how she would call forth the affections of Christ in the way she shone in testimony at the beginning.
AMH You mean, starting in the Jewish position and developing into what is properly heavenly as in Ephesians.
JT Ephesians contemplates the Jewish side — Jew and gentile brought together, but it also contemplates the gentile side by itself in Ephesians 2: 22, “in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”. Colossians has this in mind.
AJB Do we see the heavenly and earthly sides in Jude 1? “[p. 471] The called ones beloved in God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ”.
JT “Called ones” is simply that they are called out. We have to distinguish between the heavenly calling and the actual call that comes to us in the gospel to which we respond. I think the latter is more in mind in Corinthians and Jude.
Ques Would you give us a word on the end of chapter 23, having in mind the assembly in Israel’s place, and particularly the place it has in the last words of Jacob in chapter 50: 13 “opposite to Mamre”?
JT Chapter 23, of course, introduces burial and has the resurrection in mind, and hence the great subject of eternal life enters into it. I think this should be linked on with the burial ground. Jacob stresses it later and it is a question of eternal life, of our being brought in again. The Lord, referring to the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, speaks of those who are counted worthy to have part in that world and the resurrection, which, I think, alludes to Hebron. Mamre is identified with Hebron in chapter 35: 27. So that we bury in the light of that, and it gives great stability to our souls.
Rem “Opposite to Mamre” would be in the full light of divine revelation.
JT Yes; it was there the three men came to Abraham — Jehovah thus appearing to him.
EuR Is the one pearl of Matthew 13 at all like Rebecca? That is to say, you can pass from Corinth which is local, to Rebecca which is universal.
JT The pearl is one great idea — the supreme thought.
Ques Have you in mind that the testimony in the present period is being carried on by a heavenly people, and in that sense, what God has and what Christ has on the earth at the present moment is greater than at any other [p. 472] period?
JT Exactly, and entering on chapter 26, we see that Isaac was cared for by Jehovah, that he should not leave the land. That is what God is constantly urging upon us, to maintain the heavenly side. In the main Isaac maintains it, and goes to Beer-sheba, where God appears to him on the ground of His engagement — the place of the oath; it is God maintaining the heavenly side. He is urgent about it and will not be satisfied if it is given up, if our service is on any lower ground than that. It is not exactly a question of Christ personally, but of the responsible element here who are to maintain the heavenly side of the position. Then you see, in chapter 27, how sorrowfully decline set in, but how the blessing goes through, in spite of the weakness in Isaac. We are impressed with God and His faithfulness and mercy in carrying things through in spite of our decline.
JSE Would it be right to say that in chapter 26 Isaac reaches by way of what is official the characteristic thought in Beer-sheba?
JT I think he is there seen at his best on the moral side. He is doing something to maintain the testimony of Abraham. You will observe that God speaks to him in relation to Abraham, the true heavenly man. In the beginning of chapter 26 it says, “And Jehovah appeared to him and said, Go not down to Egypt: dwell in the land that I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land; and I will be with thee and bless thee”. Then again later, “because that Abraham hearkened to my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws”. It is the heavenly side in Abraham that is in the mind of God, and Isaac is to maintain it. He is not making so much of Isaac, but doing His utmost to keep him where he should be as representing the heavenly side officially. Jehovah made room for him in the land, Isaac says (verse 22), and he would be fruitful there. The chapter presents him as generally answering to the mind of God. Jehovah appears to him at Beer-sheba [p. 473] and he builds an altar there and calls upon the name of Jehovah. He is also seen as free of the Philistines’ influence, as morally superior to them. The water found at Beer-sheba would support him: it was a testimony to God’s faithfulness, which Isaac recognises.