THE HOUSE OF GOD
[p. 380] THE HOUSE OF GOD
Acts 2:1 - 3; Ephesians 2:11 - 22
JT I think these two scriptures connect the idea of the house with reconciliation. The one hundred and twenty, according to the facts presented in the first chapter, were reconciled. They had learned from Christ and partook of His character. They were marked by prayer; by being together with one accord; and by reverence of the Scriptures. The disallowance of man’s will is seen in the selection of an apostle. So, as together, they represent the idea of reconciliation, and consequent upon that you have the Spirit forming them into the house. In Ephesians the passage read shows that reconciliation precedes the thought of the house.
RSS We have reconciliation in Romans, Colossians, and in Ephesians. Could you say a word as to the special feature of it as presented in each epistle?
JT I think in Romans it is presented as a general truth of the gospel. We are said to have received it, and we are said to have been reconciled by the death of God’s Son. It is presented in a general way as a part of the gospel in Romans, without any special reference to the subjective state of those that were reconciled. In Colossians it has reference to what is agreeable to God in the circle of the saints. Pending the reconciliation of all things, God would have His satisfaction now in the circle of the saints. In Ephesians it is in the body; “that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross”; showing that it is seen in the way in which love works out in us practically; the enmity being annulled.
RSS There is no “if” in Ephesians, but in Colossians there [p. 381] is.
JT It is because of the element of defection, although hidden perhaps, it already existed there. The “if”, I think, always supposes that a tendency to defection is present, and clearly in Colossians, conditions were not as we have them in Ephesians. Things were as yet as the apostle had established them in Ephesus.
WCR In Colossians he beseeches too that they might be united together in love. Would that show there was defection there?
JT I think they were not complete, on the experimental side. There was a danger of being led away through philosophy and vain deceit. The “if”, I think, was an allusion to that.
RSS In Ephesians the purpose of God is presented.
JT It is more what is for God and Christ in the assembly; so that they are reconciled in one body. The body is for Christ, for the display of Christ. Therefore, reconciliation is brought in in that connection in Ephesians; that there might be a vessel here suited for the display of Christ.
JD The ministry of Christ produced an order of man to which the Spirit of God could join Himself.
JT That is the idea, I think; corresponding to what God expressed as to the Lord Himself; “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). That was the Man on whom the Spirit came. The pleasure of God was there, and the gift of the Spirit is in that connection. God comes in to dwell there. So with Zion; “here will I dwell”, He says, “for I have desired it” (Psalm 132:14). There was that which pleased Him there.
WB Would you connect reconciliation with the new man?
JT Yes, it is so, only that the new man is more for testimony here. It is what you put on, what men see in you. I think reconciliation is more what is [p. 382] for God, as we have already said. The drink-offering in Genesis 35 speaks of reconciliation, but the new man is more the oil which is put over it.
RSS Would you make that clear to us?
JT The Lord Himself, in His thirty years of private life was like a drink-offering for God. He was not yet in public, but He was under God’s eye during all that time.
RSS Is refreshment the thought of the drink-offering?
JT Pretty much; drink is for refreshment and satisfaction, too. The Lord in His thirty years of private life was just that. He answered to Jacob’s pillar. The drink-offering was there for God, and then the oil was put over it. Now we might extend that thought. The one hundred and twenty here were like that. They were pleasing to God in so far as the facts presented show. They were together with one accord in prayer, and having to decide a matter, the selection of an apostle, they appealed to the Scriptures, and they appealed to God by means of a lot. They did not use their own wills. The coming of the Spirit is like the oil poured on the pillar. In this chapter it is not what they received inwardly, but what came upon them; the external effect of it.
RSS Did they not receive something inwardly at that moment?
JT Undoubtedly, it is the beginning of the dwelling, of the house of God, but it was the external effect that was in view; what others could take account of.
BTF What was the bond between the hundred and twenty before the Spirit came?
JT The bond was Christ. They had been companying with the Lord, and had learned from Him. He had taught them to love one another as He had loved them. That was the kind of love. The love [p. 383] of reconciliation is the love that Jesus taught the disciples. It is the love of a Man to men.
BTF The bond was, that they loved Him.
JT Oh, yes, but they loved one another, too. The Lord’s great concern about them was that they should love one another.
WLP They were of one mind as to the Lord.
JT He was their bond primarily, but I think we ought to remember that each of them was lovable. It is not simply that they loved the Lord; they loved one another, and so “they were all together in one place”.
GAT Would you say that in His death He brought this about. He not only removed their sins, but the distance between them?
JT Yes, that is according to Colossians 1:22 “reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”. They could not be together under God’s eye aside from that, because the question of sin has to be dealt with; but there was also the effect of His work in each of them, so that they became lovable.
JD In the meat-offering, there is the fine flour mingled with oil, and then the fine flour anointed. Is your thought that the period between the ascension of the Lord and the coming of the Spirit shows the same elements found there as in Christ before the Spirit came?
JT Yes; only we always keep in mind, of course, what He was as a divine Person.
JD Yes. What was true in Him as Man is found in them in measure before the Spirit is given. It is the difference between the whole sheaf and the two loaves, in Leviticus 23.
JT Well, yes. The sheaf of first fruits is what Christ was. There was no need for the action of a fire with Him, but the two loaves required the action of the fire on account of the leaven. It is the distinction, as you said, between Christ personally and ourselves.
[p. 384] We need the action of the fire in order to render ineffectual the leaven. They were to be baked with leaven, denoting that there was leaven in the one hundred and twenty, but it was rendered ineffective in them.
JB Would you say they had eaten of that meat-offering, and so they became, in that way, a reconciled people?
JT They had learned in one way and another from Christ. He, for instance, was accustomed to prayer. They saw Him pray, and they say: “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1). And they were taught how to pray, and they pray here. That is one point. There could be nothing, in a way, more pleasing to God than a praying man. In fact, it was as a praying Man the Lord received the Spirit.
RSS They were much exercised during those ten days; more so than during the forty days in which they were kept together at Jerusalem.
JT During the forty days the Lord was with them; but being left to themselves was a test. Ten days was a time of testing. That is what God does. He leaves a man to himself, and what that man does as left to himself brings to light where he is. Take Saul, the king, for instance in 1 Samuel 13; it says he reigned one year and then two years, then he is left to himself. He had every possible advantage at the outset of his reign, but he must be tested. So he reigns one year, and then reigns two; he blows a trumpet, and the first word he utters discloses where he is. “Let the Hebrews hear” (verse 3). He is disqualified for the eye of faith by that one word, Hebrews. He is wanting in divine instincts. Otherwise he would never call the descendants of the man whom God had called Israel, “Hebrews”. So the disciples, being left to themselves for the ten days, show the nature of the work that had been effected in them. [p. 385] It stood.
BTF Do you not think it is very affecting to take up the history of the disciples with the Lord, and to note how they speak to Him as a company? They say “we”. “Lord, to whom shall we go?” showing there was a bond formed between them.
JT Yes, and I have often thought that He sanctioned that, too. He says, “who do ye say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15). Now He meant to challenge every heart in the circle. Peter replies, and that reply is for them all. It represents the judgment of each of them, for no one challenged it. Therefore, holding their peace, we are entitled to conclude that they acquiesced in that confession. They committed themselves to it.
HG I would like to ask in connection with our brother’s questions, if it is the thought that the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost connected Himself simply with the work of God, really with Christ subjectively formed in the hearts of the disciples, and if ultimately that becomes the material out of which the house is formed?
JD I understand so. Our brother has been pointing out the moral features found in them, and that they were according to Christ.
JT Yes, it is a very concrete idea you get here. It is reconciliation presented concretely. It is with that the Spirit identifies Himself.
RSS You mean it is seen in a practical way?
JT Yes, seen in men and women. It is presented tangibly. It can be seen. The effects are there.
AFM The working out of that for us would be the epistle to the Colossians, would it not?
JT Yes. What is under God’s eye irreproachable in His sight is “to walk worthily of the Lord unto all well-pleasing” (chapter 1:10). It is remarkable how the idea of pleasure comes in in Colossians. “In him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell” (chapter 1:19). It was the pleasure of God that all should [p. 386] be there.
HG In that way they were what might be called “A Christed company”.
GAT We do not understand just what that expression means.
HG It is a people under the anointing of the Head.
AFM I was going to ask about the expression “put on”. We could not “put on” anything before there was formation within, could we?
JT That underlies it all; and so, in regard to reconciliation, new creation underlies it.
GAT Would you say the Lord recognised the foundation in the soul of Peter when He put to him the question as to who He was? (Matthew 16).
JT Matthew presents a revelation, whereas Mark and Luke do not. Mark presents it as the normal result of education, the normal result of what had been presented before their eyes. He presents it in that way; as if they had formed a judgment, so that the confession in Mark 8:29 is “Thou art the Christ”; and they were all committed to that. He had taken up man’s place, and as a Man born into the world He was for the pleasure of God. Luke gives us that side. Before He received the Spirit He was for God’s pleasure. Now, taking up man’s place, He is found in Luke as a praying Man. At the end of thirty years He had said, “Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). That was the Man to please God. There never had been a man like that before, a man to undertake to fulfil all righteousness. Some might have fulfilled items of it, but not everything, all righteousness. So He is a praying Man; it was in keeping with such an undertaking that one should pray. It is in connection with prayer that you have the Spirit. Then He allows the Spirit to have supreme control. So it is said He was “carried up into the wilderness by the Spirit”. It was the Spirit’s doing. He did everything afterwards by the Spirit.
RSS “Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God” (Hebrews 9:14).
JT Yes, so in Acts 1:2 it is said, that He “having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen”. As ascended He received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and He shed Him forth.
JD Referring to Acts 2, what bearing has John 20 on this? “He breathed into them and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit”.
JT John 20 is the internal state. “He breathed into them”. It is what they received inwardly, and it was in order to qualify them for their heavenly relationships.
WCR In receiving the Spirit, the believer receives everything in principle.
JT Yes. With us reconciliation, in a practical way, comes about after we get the Spirit. The Spirit has a great deal to effect in us, but then the apostles were different from us in that way; they were unique. They were the handiwork of Christ before Pentecost, which never could be repeated. What the Lord did in them before the Spirit came has to be done almost entirely in us after we receive the Spirit.
BTF There had been a great deal effected. The Spirit came in connection with all that.
JT There were conditions suited for God to come in and dwell there. I should not say that about myself when I received the Holy Spirit. Generally He has to make room for Himself. The flesh lusts against Him. You cannot connect dwelling with warfare. If you have to fight a thief in your house you cannot talk of dwelling then. You must put the thief out before you can dwell. In Romans 8 we learn that God raises up our bodies on account of [p. 388] His Spirit which dwells in us. Now in Acts 2 I apprehend the conditions existed to warrant the Spirit coming in to dwell. Their wills had been broken, and there was nothing unsuitable.
GAT In Acts 2, Ishmael was gone.
JT I think so. They were reconciled before the Spirit came in.
JD In Acts 1 the conditions are set forth. They were praying, and they acted in accord with the teaching of Scripture.
JT That is what is so important. Their wills were not active. As I was saying a moment ago, what tests us is to be left to ourselves. If you have to deal with a matter of discipline, and you have not a direct precedent, a local company has to act according to its own judgment. It is their responsibility to do it, and how they do it discloses where they are. In Acts 1 we have evidence that what they did was right; it was after the teaching of the Lord Jesus.
RSS In connection with the point our brother raised as to John 20 and Acts 2, the fact that the Spirit did not come until the day of Pentecost would rather confirm what you said as to the former passage; that it was not a question of what they actually received when He breathed on them, but what they should receive.
JT “The Spirit was not yet”, it says, “because Jesus had not yet been glorified” (John 7:39).
RSS And then the fact that they drew lots would show the Spirit was not in control. We do not draw lots now because the Spirit is here.
AFM Is the thought in Acts that it was a hard breathing, a more pronounced breathing than John 20?
JT There was a sound from heaven as of a “rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting”. That is the idea of a dwelling. The presence of the Spirit made itself [p. 389] felt in the whole house where they were. All was suited to the divine presence.
HG You referred to an element in reconciliation which is not often in our minds. I mean in regard to seeking to be pleasurable to each other. One could be encouraged to love Christ and one’s brother, but there has not been much said in regard to making yourself lovable to your brother. What would be the motive-power in that?
JT I think it is to be spiritual. I have heard of a spiritual man saying to a child, ‘What you love in me cannot be photographed’. A child loves a spiritual man, because he is lovable. The Lord spoke of the “little ones” and if we are lovable they will love us. If the saints do not feel at home with us, it is quite evident we are not spiritual. There is something about us that is fleshly, however much intelligence we may have.
WCR If the Spirit is really dwelling in one he is spiritual.
JT I think so. The Spirit has made room for Himself if He is dwelling, but I believe that with most of us it is a state of conflict in our souls, first up and then down. One day the Spirit has control, and another day the flesh controls. That is not the idea of dwelling.
GAT How would a spiritual man feel if the little child did not love him?
JT One would be tremendously exercised as to why it is if the saints object to him; why is it a brother does not fit in with his brethren? There is something lacking.
GWH It is seen in Judah when he offered to become bondman for Benjamin. He made himself lovable to his brethren.
JT I think Judah comes out there as the brother, and, coming out as the brother, Joseph makes himself [p. 390] known to them all. They all get the benefit of Judah’s spirituality.
RSS He really gave his life; was willing to be a slave.
GWH It was an easy matter for Benjamin to love him.
JT And Joseph could now make himself known. Christ “is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2:11). Joseph did not acknowledge his brethren until the brotherly spirit was there, and that is the idea of reconciliation.
JD There is a cause for which He is not ashamed to call us brethren.
JT Yes, because we are “all of one”. He that sanctifies and they sanctified are all of one. That is what comes out at Pentecost. They were of a kind with Christ.
WCR It says of Asher that he was to be acceptable to his brethren.
JT His foot was to be dipped in oil. If a man’s walk is right he will be acceptable to his brethren.
HG He was blessed with children.
JT It is very suggestive what is said of him in Deuteronomy 33:24, “And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brethren; and let him dip his foot in oil”. That was Moses’ desire for him, which undoubtedly was, or will be, realised, and then it says, “Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days so shall thy strength be”.
WHF The foot dipped in oil indicates a spiritual man.
JT I think so. He walks in the Spirit.
WCR You said a while ago that the Lord tests us. Just before He left to go to the cross, in John 13:15, He sets an example. He says, “I have given you an example that, as I have done to you, ye should do also”.
JT That was how they learned, and, as I was [p. 391] saying, you never could have that repeated. The circumstances of the apostles were unique. What the Lord did for them has to be done for us by the Spirit, so that, as far as I apprehend it, you could not find reconciliation afterward in the same sense. The Lord had brought it about in the disciples, so that there should be that which was suitable and pleasing to God, in order that He might dwell there.
Rem They did not have to be baptised afterwards, as others were.
JT There is no record of their being baptised; so their position was unique.
AFM Receiving the Spirit, they were able to rightly represent God.
JT Now, in Genesis 35, you have the pillar anointed with oil. God went up from Jacob in the place where He talked with him. He went up there, where His communications were made. Now what will Jacob do? We know that in Genesis 28 he was not stayed from his journey to Padan-aram by time appearance of God to him; he went on his way. What is said of Jacob after he returned is that he set up a pillar in the place where God spoke to him, it seems as if he so valued the communications that he would have a witness to them. Now the assembly is the pillar. The assembly is established here in the place where the communications were made.
WHF Would you say, in connection with the one hundred and twenty and the Lord’s ministry, the Lord prepared the material for the house and the Spirit took up His abode there? David prepared the material for the temple and Solomon built the house.
JT I think that in resurrection and ascension the Lord answers to Solomon. In the gospels He is seen in the David character. It is very interesting and touching that it is the Son that builds the house.
[p. 392] It is one in that relationship; not a man of war, but one who is a son.
RSS I suppose you connect that with the thought of the Son over God’s house.
JT Yes.
EHT In connection with Jacob, you said God went up from the place where He talked with him. Jacob had opportunity to respond to the light.
JT And what Jacob did shows his appreciation of the communications made. The first epistle to Timothy has reference to that. Communications have been made; God’s name has been revealed. Now His house is here, and one is to know how to behave himself in it. Paul writes to Timothy: “But if I delay, in order that thou mayest know how one ought to conduct oneself in God’s house, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and the base of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Now that answers, as far as I understand it, to Jacob’s pillar. It is set up where the communications have been made, and it is for everyone in it to know how to behave himself.
JD What effect would this presentation of the assembly have on us in our meetings?
JT I think what the Spirit of God would especially impress upon us at this time is what it is to be for God’s pleasure. Things are done for God’s eye, and if that state exists we shall find God with us. God is dwelling. We realise the blessedness of the divine dwelling.
JD It gives us encouragement to go on with one another if we see the basis of reconciliation.
JT God has great pleasure in looking down on a company of brethren that love one another; where there is divine order, as the apostle says. He insists on order in 1 Corinthians; rejoices in the order at Colosse; “rejoicing and seeing your order”, he says (Colossians 2:5).
AB In Acts 4:31,32 we have a practical illustration of what you have been saying, “And [p. 393] when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common”. There was a feature of reconciliation. And they “laid them down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (verse 35). There was a practical illustration of love among the brethren.
JT I believe, that what the Lord would say to us would be just that; that there should be reconciliation seen in a practical way, and if there is that you will get the dwelling. Now Ephesians 3 leads on to the full thought of God, not at Jerusalem, but at Ephesus, where the full effect of Christ’s death is seen. The enmity between Jew and Gentile is annulled by the cross, and the wall of partition broken down; and the saints are so brought together that they both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. You could not get a more complete representation of unity than that. If we assume to draw near to the Father collectively apart from the unity of the Spirit we shall be made to feel it.
WCR “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, ... first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:23,24).
JT That is it; both had access to the Father, and it was by the one Spirit through Christ; that is what you get in Ephesians 2. So the apostle goes onto say: “Ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but ye are fellow citizens of the saints and of the household of God”. There can be nothing more precious as a privilege at the present time than having access to the Father together, by the Spirit, through [p. 394] Christ. We are recognised as belonging to the household of God.
BTF It shows the importance of walking in the Spirit, because otherwise this great privilege could not be maintained.
Rem We have the three divine Persons here referred to, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
JT What is presented here is that God has come in to dwell. First we are said to belong to the household of God. The habitation is another thought that comes in later. Firstly, we need to see, that as having access to God the Father, we are in this relationship; we belong to His household.
RSS And it is very striking that that wonderful Scripture; “through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father”, immediately follows what has been said about reconciliation.
JT If we attempt to draw near to God He will test us as to whether we are united in love or not.
RSS And I think you discern it yourself when you get into God’s presence.
JT “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 18:19). I think it is very beautiful to connect oneself with the household of God. The household of God is a matter of privilege, but the end of the chapter says, we are “a habitation of God in the Spirit” That is for God. That is what God has. But my privilege is that I am part of His household.
AFM Does the household grow?
JT It is said to grow into a temple. After we are said to be of the household of God it says: “Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone, in whom all the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord”. The household is one thought by itself.
JD [p. 395] Are the last three verses progressive or descriptive?
JT You have the statement as to the foundation, and then you have the statement as to the increase. It increases to a holy temple in the Lord. It has pointed out that that has the millennium in view. That is, it is in the Lord, and has in view the sphere that comes under the Lord.
AFM The holy city in its millennial character.
JT That is it exactly.
JD It begins in verse 19. I was wondering if he was explaining in detail what he had spoken of as to reconciliation. But you think it is progress, from the household to the temple and then to the habitation of God.
JT I think there is progress to the temple certainly, because it says it increases. “All the building ... increases to a holy temple in the Lord”. The increase would be in view of the place the assembly is to occupy in the future, I suppose.
JD Have these three verses any bearing on 1 Peter 2? Is it the same idea as “to whom coining”?
JT Only there the point is, that it is a spiritual house, it is the kind of house.
JD The same house though?
JT Oh, quite. But you have a fuller view here. It is the habitation of God. We have the complete idea here as to the household of God, the temple, and the habitation. I think you will find that limitations exist in all the epistles with the exception of Ephesians. When you come to the epistle to the Ephesians, in whatever is presented you get the complete idea; whether the body of Christ, the household of God, the temple of God, or the habitation of God. It is the thing in its entirety. In Corinthians it would be the character of the thing; “body of Christ”,
“temple of God” without the article; but in Ephesians you have the complete idea.
EHT As to growth or increase, does “fitly framed” give the manner of the increase?
JT It is fitly framed. You are not out of joint. The idea is that if there is growth there is no dislocation. If a child has a limb dislocated and it grows, it becomes more and more obvious that it is deformed. So, before increase, there must be the fitly joining together. Every brother must be in place.
WCR Similar to the one accord and one mind.
JT So there is no dislocation, nothing out of proportion. There is perfect symmetry.
JB You were speaking of “in the Lord”. Would you enlarge on that thought, as bringing in the kingdom?
JT It is the One who rules, who subjugates everything, and, in connection with that, you have the temple. No doubt Solomon presents the idea. There was no evil occurrent; nor was there an adversary. So the temple was there, that in which you might inquire of God.
GWH In connection with what you said about new creation underlying reconciliation, is new creation the sovereign work of the Spirit?
JT It is the work of God by the Spirit undoubtedly. “If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new; and all things are of the God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:17,18). It is God’s work. And how could any of us be pleasing to God without it? Genesis 1 is an account of the creation and the details of it, and God pronounces things “very good”. What is “very good”? His handiwork is good. That is what is good and nothing else.
AFM Is the great end of this chapter approach to God; “access by one Spirit to the Father”? {397} I think the apostle is showing the great privileges that the reconciled ones have come into, and he reaches the top when he says, “we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father”. Then he says, as it were, looking at all these things, you must conclude you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God. This statement is based on all he has been saying.
AFM In Acts 2 do you have the house in the manward view, God expressing Himself manward in grace, and then in Ephesians 2, the thought of the house Godward; that, as a household, we have access?
JT Well, no doubt, but having mentioned the thought of the household, the apostle cannot stop, as it were. He might have stopped if it were only a question of our privilege, but, as is peculiar to Ephesians, he goes on to the complete idea. He shows the bearing of the building, that it is toward the world to come. It will appear there as a temple. In Ephesians it is the setting forth of the counsels of God, so that, having touched on their privileges, he must go on and show the complete thing. Therefore, you have the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. Then he says, “fitly framed together”, it “groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord”. But it is in whom, showing that Christ is supreme in relation to the building. Then he finally says, “in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”.
RSS That is what is true here and now.
JT This last verse is what is true here and now, but in the last verse it is not their privilege exactly, but what they were for God. A habitation for God.
HG Does the last verse bring eternity in in a sense? I mean the eternal state. “The tabernacle of God is with men”?
JT We never cease to be this, although it has a bearing at the present time, but we never cease to be the habitation of God; in the future the assembly is that.
RSS It is inhabited by the Spirit now.
JT But I do not suppose God could be in men otherwise.
AFM The tabernacle was anointed after reconciliation was accomplished, typically.
JT Yes, quite, but then God came in after that. The glory came in on the ground of the anointing. I think we have to distinguish between the Spirit anointing and God dwelling. The one is what we are in testimony, but the other is what God has in us, and I apprehend that God could not be in man except by the Spirit.
HG A habitation of God Spirit-wise is the thought, is it not?
JT Yes, that is what I understand.
GAT I am not clear about the expression the Lord used to Peter: “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Is that the same foundation we read about in verse 20, where it is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets?
JT In 1 Corinthians 3:11 Paul says, “Other foundation can no man lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”. The foundation of the apostles and prophets refers to their testimony. At Ephesus the corner-stone is made prominent. No doubt it binds the whole structure, but there is the idea of ornament in it. The beauty and symmetry of the building are in view in Ephesus, whereas it is more the elementary side in Corinth; the foundation side only. But the general truth as to the foundation is what is presented in Matthew; “On this rock I will build my assembly”. That is the confession of Peter that He was the Son of the living God.
JB That was built in Peter’s soul.