FELLOWSHIP AS BEARING ON THE SERVICE OF GOD
[p. 351] FELLOWSHIP AS BEARING ON THE SERVICE OF GOD
1 Corinthians 10: 14 - 33; 1 Corinthians 11: 1 - 16
JT A suggestion has been made that we should look into something relating to the service of God. What has been read is introductory to it, for the service of God, in the order of it, strictly begins with the Lord’s supper, whereas what we have read is not the order of it but the fellowship of it; that is to say what relates to our public life, and whether that is in keeping with the service of God. We have begun with the cup first, so that we may see it is not the order of the Supper, but some part taken which enters into the fellowship of it. Indeed verse 16 says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ?”, as if the apostle had in mind to touch our hearts as to our public conduct, and in the beginning of chapter 11 as to our public appearance, so raising the question as to whether it is in the comeliness suitable for the divine service. Hence the cup is mentioned first, whereas in the order of the Lord’s supper the bread is mentioned first. But the apostle would touch our hearts, I believe, by the thought of the blood of Christ, and the communion of it.
LPM What relation has the mention of the cup first to the public behaviour of the assembly that you alluded to?
JT Well, it is a question of the fellowship, because the cup, the blood of Christ, is a question of communion. The word relates to a partnership with one another even although we may be absent from one another. It is a question of our public relations, as to whether we are loyal to the principles [p. 352] that we profess.
LPM I observe that the same word ‘communion’ is used in connection with the bread which we break, but you remarked that the cup comes first.
JT Well, that is in accordance with what has been remarked already, that the blood of Christ is peculiarly touching.
AM Does the idea of blessing bear on the public position?
JT The idea of speaking well of a thing, which we ought to do. We ought to have before us that we are not only respectful of things that we profess, but speak well of them. Blessing has the sense of eulogy, I would say, that is to say, making much of what we profess, or what we have been brought into together. It is a matter of the community that we have been brought into, and there is much to speak of and to think of, so that we are not light or frivolous in our conversation, but take things up in reality as leading up to the service of God.
AM The idea of blessing begins with Noah, does it not? and the first element in it is that he blesses Jehovah, and then you have the idea of the spreading out in connection with Japheth — looking on to our day. I just wondered if that would bear on this. Noah says, “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem”, and so on — I was thinking of that as the first element of the service of God in an initial way, that he is thinking of God first; and the light in which God would be displayed, not only in Shem but in Japheth.
JT Shem has a peculiar place in the economy of God, but Japheth comes in later, though in Genesis 10: 21 Japheth is called the elder. Noah had the thought of God in his mind, and as to himself he would comfort, his father thought of him in that way. Japheth was undoubtedly in mind in view of the assembly, that is to say the western world.
EB [p. 353] In view of the public side that you have emphasised, would you say a word about intelligent persons, the question of responsible age, and the measure of intelligence that would be necessary in view of fellowship?
JT Well, we should know how to name things and to regard them according to how they are to be used, so that we are not ignorant. It is said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4: 6), and again “For I would not have you ignorant; brethren”, 1 Corinthians 10: 1. We have many such references, and this chapter is to make us intelligent, I would say. “I speak as to intelligent persons”. The epistle often treats of the truth in an abstract sense, as in chapter 1 up to verse 9. It says, beginning at verse 4, “I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus; that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine” (notice “word of doctrine” which would mean great intelligence, abstractly at least), “and all knowledge, (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you,) so that ye come short in no gift, awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you to the end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 1: 4 - 8. Now that passage contemplates knowledge, intelligence, only it is treated in the abstract and thus treated fully. It cannot be said that it is applicable to the Corinthians in a general way in detail, because verse 10 turns to division amongst them and then licentiousness, and other such things. The reference here in chapter 10, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, would be taken from that thought; that is to say, it is the abstract idea, or in one sense the objective side of the truth. The apostle is giving them credit for intelligence, and of course, he proceeds to much on that line. Then next to that thought we have [p. 354] headship which is the full thought of intelligence, intelligence in Christ, of course, but worked out in the assembly.
AJG Is the bringing in of the cup first, “the communion of the blood of the Christ”, to emphasise death as having an important bearing on our position in this word?
JT It would imply that, I should think, and how we are to be concerned as to every word, as to our conversation and references, that all is to be conducive to God’s service, for we are identified formally with it. We may easily desecrate the truth that we profess to hold by the language we may use and the persons with whom we converse and associate.
PHH Is it significant that the word ‘assembly’ appears in connection with the passover? “Speak unto all the assembly of Israel”, Exodus 12: 3. Would that help to bring before us in an early type the idea of the whole people being concerned in something and morally held responsible to be loyal to it?
JT I think that is good. Exodus 12 comes in conveniently for us at this time, as illustrating the principle of reducing a matter, instead of enlarging on it unduly, so as to make it applicable to a given circumstance. So that whilst the chapter enlarges on the truth of the passover, Moses epitomises it, reducing the full thought of the chapter to a few verses; compare verses 21 to 27 with verses 1 to 20. What we are dealing with now, that is, fellowship as bearing on the service of God, is a great subject, but what is in mind is not to enlarge upon it because there would not be time. It deserves a fuller account of things than we are able to give it now, but brevity is in order, and headship would help us to be brief in presenting the matter in hand. The service of God belongs to the first day of the week, but what we are engaged with now leads up [p. 355] to it.
HH Would Numbers 4 help in relation to the public side? It is interesting that the Kohathites carried the ark, the table of shewbread, the candlestick and all pertaining to it. There is the very remarkable word as to the brazen altar, that the priests were to cleanse the altar of the ashes, and spread a purple cloth thereon (Numbers 4: 13). All that is in testimony now, and carried on the shoulder of the Kohathites?
JT That helps. It enters into what we have in mind now. It is more suitable for Saturday; that is to say, the last day of the week, than the first, because this chapter deals with all the week except the first day. So we have such references as being asked to a meal in verse 27: “If any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to go, all that is set before you eat, making no inquiry for conscience sake. But if any one say to you, This is offered to holy purposes, do not eat, for his sake that pointed it out, and conscience sake; but conscience, I mean, not thine own, but that of the other: for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I spoken evil of for what I give thanks for? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all things to God’s glory. Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God. Even as I also please all in all things; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many, that they may be saved”. So that we are thus protected in our public relations, maintaining the distinction, we might say, between Jews and Greeks, and then the assembly of God is distinguished by itself. We have that in mind, and keep it in mind in dealing with men, whether in our businesses or otherwise, so that we are able to speak at any time and glorify God in regard of [p. 356] it.
LF Are you stressing the necessity for conformity with the truth in every detail, as entering into this matter? It would touch us in our homes, our businesses, and our relations with brethren, our thoughts, too, and everything like that?
JT The brethren can see how simple and practical the apostle is, but yet how holily he guards everything. So that although a christian might accept an invitation from another, not a christian, he protects himself in all that he is doing; he is glorifying God in all that he is doing. He gives thanks for what he eats, and whatever he does, he glorifies God. The assembly of God is the great matter in everything as regards the service of God, and the apostle is guarded in the instructions given here.
RHG Is it in your mind that the blood of the Christ would give the distinctive character to the fellowship to which we are called?
JT It does; it is very distinctive because we are to name things, and in naming the blood of Christ before the bread, the apostle intends to put something forward that ought to affect us peculiarly in the service. There are grades and values, of course, in the service, but I think the blood of Christ is particularly distinctive.
AJG Is the intelligence referred to in chapter 10 to preserve us, as to what not to be entangled with in view of moving into what is our true place in chapter 11?
JT I would say that is very good. And so when we come to the service, that is to say ministry, in chapter 14, a man is contemplated as coming into the assembly. Here we have allusion to the Jew and the gentile and the assembly of God, but in chapter 14 a man is contemplated as coming into the assembly of God, not to partake of the emblems connected with the Lord’s supper, but to listen to ministry of the truth, and he is convicted of all, he [p. 357] is judged of all, and he falls down and worships God, so that he knows what to do; he is intelligent as to what he should do, and falls down and worships God. That is an important thing, especially if we are evangelical in any sense, seeking to get souls into the truth. When they come in they are ready to do what is right; they know what to do; they know how to give names to things and to act accordingly.
AED Would these thoughts of the cup of blessing, and the blood of Christ, induce vitality in the soul so that our affections are kept pure?
JT I would say that. Vitality is one of the most important things, because we need to be kept fresh. Caleb said that Jehovah had kept him alive up till the time he spoke, and he was then 85 years old. He was kept fresh, and that is of great importance in the service of God, that we are kept in freshness.
ECT So we can understand the determined efforts of the enemy to do away with every thought of the blood.
JT Quite so.
PL Would Psalm 16 illustrate this? everything is enhanced with the psalmist, “my cup”, and “thou maintainest my lot”, and then the great energy that has been referred to, “I will bless Jehovah, ... my heart rejoiceth and my glory exulteth”, and so on. Is that suggestive of stimulation in the service of God?
JT Quite so. The brethren come into the Lord’s mind in that psalm.
JP-sn Do we get in chapter 11 the public service of God in the assembly, but in chapter 10 the way it is set forth in the saints individually, in giving thanks before unbelievers? So that there is an attractiveness in what is set forth outwardly, as to what is to be seen inside.
JT Well, we shall come to chapter 11 presently; that is, as to headship; in the meantime we are [p. 358] engaged with everyday life, even with unbelievers, and we are instructed how to behave, and how to protect ourselves, and how to maintain a good conscience in what we may be doing. Others might criticise what we do because they are not free to do it, but then if a man has a good conscience in what he is doing, and gives thanks to God for what he eats, then he is protected. He is protected before God, and he can at any time have part in the service, at any time become priestly.
HH Psalm 16 which has already been referred to is very relevant to this chapter, is it not? “Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another”. The thought of idolatry comes in there?
JT Quite so. Very good. So we have here, verse 17, “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. And then “See Israel according to flesh, are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar? What then do I say? that what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? But that what the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God”. We are surrounded in a sense by idolatry; it may take on a different character now from what it did then, yet the idea of idolatry is prevalent in one form or another among men in the world, and we are to be guarded so that we may not be defiled by the things that might be used in the service of idolatry. The fellowship furnishes the power of keeping ourselves, especially intelligently, in what we are doing.
PHH Would you mind saying a further word about verses 16 and 17? First of all “the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Christ?” and then the bread which, as it were, we are, “because we being many, are one loaf, one body”. Does the second reference in verse 17 [p. 359] bring in the saints, and our partaking, so to speak, of one another?
JT You mean what we have in Leviticus and elsewhere in the types, that we, as it were, eat one another. I mean, we have allusions to things that are clean and unclean, and therefore, from that point of view we do appropriate one another, because of what we are going on with together. As we sit down in relation to the Lord’s supper, it involves the saints; it is not simply that we have Christ; of course we have, but we could not have the Lord’s supper alone; no one brother or sister could have the Lord’s supper; the Lord must have His saints.
PHH I was wondering whether this mention of “the communion of the body of the Christ”, which brings in Christ Himself, I suppose, first of all, and then the allusion to the saints, would be further features with which we could defend ourselves in the more outward position. We are associated with such features.
JT So that we have therefore a certain protection in the saints, and then added to that (and it is blessed to think of) that the saints afford enjoyment, in the sense of appropriation. As we appropriate the emblems of the Lord’s supper the idea of the saints comes into mind, because we, being many, are one loaf, one body. They come to mind. We could not get on without them. I do not know what the brethren may think, but I feel this is a very important matter, because we are to learn to appropriate one another as we partake of the Lord’s supper. The Lord comes in and He partakes of things too, but He partakes with us. And so when the Lord’s supper was instituted, or rather when the passover began in view of the Lord’s supper, the apostles were eating. “As they were eating” — the principle of eating was [p. 360] there.
GA Would you mind opening up a little for us what is in your mind as to this appropriation of one another? Would it be the intelligent activities of love, and if so, in what way?
JT Well, we begin with one another. Sitting down to partake of the Lord’s supper, we begin with one another, and then, of course, the emblems come in and make way for appropriation, that is, the idea of eating.
Ques “We being assembled”?
JT Just so. You are referring to Acts 20, “We being assembled to break bread”. We are told who were there. There were seven brothers who accompanied Paul. They would be particularly in mind when they were assembled, but then the question is, were the brethren at the moment fully instructed as to the truth of the Lord’s supper? The inference clearly is that they were not. And so Paul, instead of eating, discourses. That is to say, we need to be instructed as to what the saints are to God, and what they are to Christ. But then what are they to each of us? How do we regard them? What satisfaction have we in the Lord’s people? Hence the necessity of purity and holiness in us, so that we might partake of each other, so to say; and hence in Leviticus the clean and unclean animals are in mind, what we should appropriate and what we should not appropriate. Therefore we are concerned at first at least, and then continuously afterwards in the service of God, with the saints and whether they too are right and pure and holy, fit to be partaken of.
AED Is that in mind in the Lord’s question in Luke 24 as to whether they had anything to eat? And then what they were partaking of.
JT What did He mean? In John 21: 5, the Lord says, “Children, have ye anything to eat?”, but in the passage you speak of, “Have ye anything here to eat?”; that is, had they the thing there? It is a [p. 361] matter of the local position in Luke, but in John 20 it is not the local position. The Lord was there with the brethren and they were glad when they saw Him, and He said “Peace be to you”, twice over. But in Luke 24 He makes inquiry, and the fact is that they were perturbed and really unfit for the Lord’s supper; they were unfit for the whole matter, and the Lord put them right.
PHH When Moses went up the mountain he said to the people, “And behold, Aaron and Hur are with you”, Exodus 24: 14. Would Hur stress the idea of purity?
JT That is very good, I am glad you mentioned that, because that is what the word means.
PHH I was wondering whether it entered into the chapter, so that purity and loyalty are fully attainable while Christ is absent?
JT I think that is what is in mind in 1 Corinthians 5, “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened”. That statement, “ye are unleavened” is abstract. The saints are entitled to regard themselves in an abstract sense, and hence are entitled to partake of the holy things of God.
AJG The features of cleanness in what could be eaten, that is the cloven foot in the case of animals, and the fins and scales in the case of the fish, are all suggestive, are they not, of faithfulness to the fellowship in this world?
JT Quite so. I believe that the dear brethren will, in view of what has been said, perhaps all be more concerned as to themselves in view of the celebration of the Lord’s supper. How essential it is that there should be purity and holiness, so that we should be fit for the Lord Himself, because He comes to us! He comes into the midst of us and He is looking for what is suitable to Himself [p. 362] amongst us.
DJM Is it significant that the teaching in Leviticus 11 as to what we eat follows the breakdown in the priesthood in chapter 10?
JT Just so, and then the challenge in 1 Corinthians 11 is, “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking?”. That is to say, the brethren ought to be able to distinguish between ordinary eating and the Lord’s supper, the level or the elevation on which the Lord’s supper is placed, so that we should be suitable to it, equal to it. Therefore it says, “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”. Well, what is the cause? It is that we are not discerning the body, the Lord’s body; not simply the saints, but the Lord’s body.
CHG Is this thought of appropriating one another introductory to the Supper, or does it have part in the Supper as well?
JT Well, these are the facts. What has been alluded to is, “And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread”. We being assembled; the we refers to all, the whole company. I think that is the way it should read. “We being assembled”, and therefore we have to consider who was there. We have certain ones mentioned, and they were the fruit of the work of Paul, but then there were more. It was a real gathering time, a rallying time for the saints, and what happened, as the sequel would show, was that Paul discerned that they were not ready for the Lord’s supper and all that it means, and hence he discourses to them at length. How long it was I cannot just say, but apparently the discourse was quite lengthy, and it would look as if it were carried on until midnight.
CFI Would you say something with reference to the Lord’s cup and the Lord’s table? Does that bring in the side of responsibility as in contrast to [p. 363] the side of privilege stressed in the earlier reference to the cup?
JT Just so, it is the Lord, the Lord’s cup, the Lord’s table. The table there is apparently the bread, as distinct from the cup. The word ‘table’ is just something that can be eaten of, not simply a physical thought but something that can be eaten of morally.
GA Twice you have referred this afternoon to the discourse, Paul discoursing at length at Troas. Do you consider that that is prophetic in its character, and that we should give great heed to it, so that the patience of the Lord in His constant speaking and in the help of the saints in conversing concerning the Supper would have an increasing place in our minds?
JT Very good. The Lord has been so gracious to us in bringing so much before us as to His supper to clarify the whole position, and it has brought about a better understanding of the Lord’s supper, I think. One can look back at least forty years, perhaps fifty, to when one was himself first conversant with these matters, and the Lord has constantly brought in the truth as regards His supper, in view of our partaking of it intelligently. It has been constant; the Lord’s supper has become almost as much needed in the minds of the brethren over a considerable period now as Romans 7 used to be earlier because of the state of their souls.
SC Is that why there is the appeal to the intelligence first, before the appeal to our affections in chapter 11?
JT Very good, I think that is true.
Ques Would the teaching that you have dwelt on in chapter 10 break up any idea of divisions or parties amongst us in their very inception? I am alluding to the one body, the one loaf, and what has been said about partaking of one [p. 364] another.
JT I think there is a great deal of preferential regard in brothers and sisters, which raises a question as to whether love is active; and if we admit preferential regard, we are pretty certain to exclude love. I think that is why 1 Corinthians 13 makes so much of love, and how we are excluded, and regarded as nothing if we have not got love.
Ques By preferential regard you mean putting some up above others in our affections and regard?
JT Very good. I am sure that is true, and therefore one often wonders, and feels as one sits down to partake of the Lord’s supper with the brethren. Are we all here? The Lord said, “Drink ye all of it”, Matthew 26: 27. That is, everyone is to be included, everyone present, and one often questions in one’s mind as to where the brethren are. Why are they not all there? We know, on the other hand, that there are many that the Lord knows and that we do not know, but we would like to have them with us; but we make the most of those that are there.
ENJ Would the condition of things, the relationship between Moses and Aaron in Exodus 4, help as to a healthy condition between the brethren in relation to this matter of appropriating one another? That is, as Aaron drew near to Moses it says he would be glad in his heart to see him.
JT Very good. I think those two brothers are brought in by the Spirit of God to indicate how we should regard each other; one thing that often hinders is jealousy between brothers and sisters, or brothers and brothers. Now in regard of Moses and Aaron, Aaron was the elder of the two, and that often interferes with good relations between brothers, because the elders often take advantage of their age, and the younger are apt to be jealous; so that is just what has been alluded to. Jehovah told Aaron to go to see Moses. God had Moses in mind [p. 365] to make him special, and He says, “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? ... and ... he goeth out to meet thee”, Exodus 4: 14. And they did meet and they kissed each other; but in due time the difference in age affected both Aaron and Miriam, so that in Numbers 12 they are both jealous of Moses, and a terrible thing happened because of that. I think that is a matter that should not be omitted from our present thoughts, as to the danger of jealousy amongst the brethren interfering with the communion and enjoyment that is open to us in the Lord’s supper.
WHW It is then an urgent matter, “Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry”, 1 Corinthians 10: 14. Does that then leave the brethren free in this thought of appropriation, leading on to liberty for the Lord to come in?
JT Quite so, and leading on to what is added in the beginning of chapter 11 as to headship.
WHW I was thinking of John 13. Idolatry was connected with Judas, was it not, and after he had gone out the Lord was free to take up things that He was not able to speak of before?
JT Quite so.
EB In those asking to break bread, would you expect to see a certain element of this intelligence that you have been speaking about? Does that become a practical test in regard to the very young?
JT I think that is right. It came up amongst us elsewhere, as to the young ones coming in, what might hinder and what might not hinder, and it was pointed out that intelligence is needed, not only affection, but intelligence is needed; that is, they should know what they are doing. So that, if a child is nine or ten or less, there would be a serious question as to the intelligence, the ability to take account of what it proposed. It was suggested, I believe at the time, that the Lord’s own age, as in [p. 366] Luke 2: 42, bore upon the question. We speak, of course, reverently about Him. He was twelve years of age, and His parents were concerned about Him, and His mother said, “Thy father and I have sought thee distressed. And he said to them ... did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?”. That is to say, the Lord shows there that He was quite intelligent at that age as to what was brought up, what challenged the whole position; and I think that is a matter which should be kept in mind as to the very young ones amongst us, in view of the Lord’s supper, that it is not only a question of affection, but a question of intelligence.
CHG Is that in mind in the apostle’s word, “Do ye judge what I say”. There is a certain amount of spiritual understanding necessary as to the truth of the assembly to be present with these young people?
JT Quite so. It is a question of being able to judge between differences. And so as to Abigail, who is a type of the assembly, David says, “Blessed be thy discernment”. The word ‘discernment’ would carry with it the idea of intelligence.
PHH Abigail seems, too, to shine in this matter of headship, would you say, although personally in very unpromising circumstances? Would that be a link at all with chapter 11?
JT Tell us more about the circumstances.
PHH I was just thinking of her link with Nabal, that she behaves even in his household in a comely way, while having as a secret in her heart, we might say, the headship of Christ as suggested in David.
JT Then what is said about her as to her personal beauty and understanding should be read.
PHH “And the name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail; and the woman was of good understanding, and of a beautiful [p. 367] countenance; but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; and he was a Calebite”, 1 Samuel 25: 3.
JT You see what he was in spite of a good parentage; he was a Calebite, and Caleb we have already alluded to, how God had kept him alive; but this man was a Calebite who did not carry down what his father had been, and so, of course, he came under the judgment of God. The whole matter came under the judgment of God, and that in ten days, and Abigail was set free for David. It is a question of our deliverance from relations or associations which are not suitable to us.
GS Would she, in that way, indicate the material that is actually available? You have spoken very feelingly of those who are not with us when we sit down again and again to remember the Lord. We are conscious in our cities, are we not, of the material that is available under the Lord’s eye? How are we to reach the Abigail material, so to speak, so urgently needed for the assembly?
JT Well, I think one thing is headship, and whether the sisters are gaining as they should; we are not short of meetings and ministry but what are the sisters generally gaining from the ministry? And whether the want of real headship being maintained is with us, whether headship is rightly apprehended, and thus fitting them for part in the assembly, because brothers and sisters are to have part in the assembly. There are certain limitations as to sisters, but still they are priests unto God the same as the brothers, and ought to have part in the assembly, but there is something that hinders; are they getting the gain of headship?
WHW Abigail would rather go to show us that hindrance can be overcome. David says “Blessed be thou”, indicating that she was the thing itself.
JT Yes, and she knew what to do, she knew what to bring to present to David. And then, moreover,
[p. 368] she was in herself able to adjust David; that is to say, David ceases to be a type of Christ there; he is just one that might be regarded as a brother, and how a sister might help him.
TCMcG I was wondering whether what God says of Moses in Numbers 12, when he was opposed by Miriam and Aaron, “The form of Jehovah doth he behold”, would have a bearing on this?
JT Very good. A remarkable passage, because God is vindicating Moses in what he is saying; his brother and his sister were not vindicating him, they were attacking him, and therefore disqualifying themselves as priests unto God, and Miriam became leprous, showing how serious this matter is.
PHH What does that mean, “the form of Jehovah doth he behold”? Does that come near to something inscrutable?
JT It would. It shows that God is in Christ as Christ comes in amongst the brethren in assembly; it is a question of God; God is there. The word ‘form’ could only be in the sense in which it is apprehended in Christ, because Christ is God. The word ‘form’ is applicable in that sense, I would say, because as to Jehovah or as to God Himself, no one has seen nor can see Him. So that we must, I think, use intelligence as to what is meant, that Christ is God Himself, and whatever reference there may be to form would be a reference to Christ. In Deuteronomy 4: 15, Moses refers to the fact that they had seen no form, that is to say, the idea of form in itself would induce idolatry if it were taken up in a natural way.
Ques For us would the economy always be in mind in interpreting such expressions?
JT Quite so, because it is a question of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the divine Persons, and we are baptised to the Name of the three divine [p. 369] Persons.
GA You referred in Sydney to the matter of teaching, the necessity for the taking up of teaching in our households, including our wives and sisters. What would be the bearing of those remarks in relation to this matter of headship which you are now enjoining upon us?
JT Well, it is a question of how the verse reads. Verse 16 of chapter 11 says, “But if any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”. And I believe there is a great deal of contention about this matter, and not a real laying ourselves out to get understanding as to what these verses mean, because they are introductory to the truth of the assembly as to intelligence.
AED Does not the thought of glory attaching to it make it attractive to us?
JT I should think so.
AED Could you say something as to that expression, the man being God’s image and glory, and the woman being man’s glory?
JT That is something to keep in mind, too. It is a question of how much time we have to enlarge on all these things, but certainly the word ‘glory’ is very beautiful there, and the allusion is to the beginning of Genesis, that is to say, the relation of man and woman. In Genesis 1 the word ‘man’ covers both, but we have to go to chapter 2 to get the detail, the working out of things, and that is, that Adam was intelligent; he knew. In chapter 2 the point is intelligence; the great creature, man, was intelligent. God knew, of course, but God put intelligence into him, and so He placed the animals before him and he was to name them, and whatever Adam named an animal that was its name; meaning that God was committing Himself to man in these matters as to intelligence. But then as to woman, there was no helpmate, no counterpart for Adam, and God had to make another creature, and He brought the creature that He made to Adam. God [p. 370] did not say anything to Adam as to her, but He brought the woman to the man to see what he would say about her, and Adam said, “This time”, alluding to the previous creatures that had been brought before him, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”, Genesis 2: 23. He knew what to say, he was intelligent, and therefore we get the distinct relation between man and woman; and then it goes on to say, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”. So that we have the full relation of man and woman, I believe, here, and the glory that attaches to that relation, that whilst there is a certain inferiority in the woman yet there is glory there; there is glory in the man as to God and glory is in the woman as to man, and that, of course, would make way for Christ and the assembly.
PL Would the passing from glory to glory be illustrated as each finds their place in recovery in relation to the order of creation? Would each thus be qualified to pass over to the peculiar glory of the assembly?
JT I think that is what is in mind in the Lord’s supper, that there is a passing over from glory to glory, and you can see that there must be intelligence, for these things are to be appropriated, and the question is whether sisters who have so much opportunity in meetings and ministry are really gathering up and taking on what is being ministered. The brothers, of course, I suppose, have gift and have time and devote time to it too, and perhaps have a certain ambition to ministry, but the question is whether the sisters are taking hold of things in the measure in which they may do so.
JP The range of the instruction contained in what has been brought before us in chapter 10 would [p. 371] emphasise the great importance of the Lord’s supper and the assembly service?
JT I think that is right, and how way is then made for John’s ministry. The apostle Paul is speaking as a trusted man, the Lord’s trusted man, to bring out the doctrine of things; but then we need more than the doctrine, not that he does not give us more, but John gives us more; he is specially raised up of the Lord to continue in the dispensation, to be with us at all times, and he adds the thought of life. John 20, I believe, is intended to represent the thought of life entering into the Lord’s supper.
PL And does John make so much of trustworthy holy womanhood in his gospel, in chapters 4, 12 and 20, and in his epistle in the elect lady?
JT Very good. I would say that fully, especially Mary Magdalene, who represents a woman in the sense of intelligence, because she calls the Lord “Rabboni”. The Lord is understood by Mary, and she calls Him “Rabboni”, which means ‘My teacher’. That is, she represents teachable sisters, and such teaching as may be conveyed in messages by them to the brethren.
LF Would it be correct to hold to the thought of glory in both these chapters we are looking at; in chapter 10 everything is to be done having in view God’s glory, and in this chapter there is an expression of it in this great thought of headship?
JT Well, I think so. And what the man is as representative of God, and what the woman is as representing man, that she is man’s glory.
PHH Is there in that sense some feature of representation that goes right down as far as the woman? I was thinking of the representation of God being primarily in Christ, but also in the man, who is said to be “God’s image and glory”. But would it go a little further, that is, would the representation of [p. 372] God in this world be seen in the subjection of the woman?
JT Quite so. I would say that. Of course, Proverbs is intended to implement that in the way the woman is treated of. “Who can find a woman of worth? for her price is far above rubies”, Proverbs 31: 10. I think that is intended to bring out the thought of the woman in relation to man, how the man, that is her husband, is known in the gates. That is to say, what God is in Christ is known in the gates.
GA Having in mind your reference to Mary Magdalene, would she provide a living illustration of this matter of the apprehension of headship? Would what she had come out of, in that seven demons had been cast out of her, be Corinthian in its character? Would she not in a sense illuminate the passage for us as a typical person, a woman, who has proceeded in the apprehension of this great matter of headship?
JT Very good, what is possible. And so I believe the Corinthians were like that, as has often been remarked. Corinth itself was proverbial for its lewdness and looseness, and that the Lord should select that city in which to work out the truth of the assembly is very remarkable. So He says to Paul, “Fear not ... I have much people in this city”, Acts 18: 9, 10. He remained there for a year and six months teaching these people, and now these two epistles are written to them, you might say to bring the thing out fully, what is possible in spite of the worst conditions among men, what is possible in an assembly, and how the ministry is intended to bring about what is suitable to the Lord’s mind.
Ques You alluded a while back to verse 16 which speaks about contentions. Was it in your mind that contention would destroy the happy working of headship?
JT Well, indeed. And so the word is “If any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”. That is, the universal working out of Paul’s doctrine excludes contention; it excludes Nabals, for instance, churlish people.
CHG Is there a distinctive glory in the saints as they come up to the assembly and its service, as headship is apprehended and acted upon?
JT Yes, I would say so.
AJG Would you say that the practical recognition on the part of sisters of headship as we have it in this chapter, is very important in view of the great dislocation in the world around?
JT Just so. Perhaps there has never been more dislocation than now.
AD Would you say that the mother of Moses would illustrate this, the matter of discernment and intelligence in what she did in putting Moses in the ark of bulrushes?
JT I would say that fully. God intended to give her that place, that peculiar place, when the male side was so scarce, as it were, because the intent of Pharaoh was to destroy the males. Moses’ mother preserved him, and then Pharaoh’s daughter also is provided to preserve Moses.
GA Why does the Spirit of God use the word ‘think’ in the verse you have called attention to, “If any one think to be contentious”? That might not mean actually an expression of contention. How far are we to submit ourselves to the scrutiny of the Lord in the matter of our thinking in the direction of contention?
JT Well, I think, thinking to be contentious would be that your mind is in it, you are planning in your mind how to work out contention to defeat the truth. That, of course, would mean serious opposition to God in all this precious instruction that we have.
GA Would that have been current, so to speak, in the mind of Miriam and Aaron in what preceded [p. 374] the actual event of their rising and inciting others against Moses?
JT Just so, their minds were in it. That is to say, Miriam especially (it was a question of a sister) one has often thought, would resent having a Cushite, that is a black woman, as her sister-in-law; and that sort of thing often interferes with the unity of the saints, especially as we sit down to the Lord’s supper.
Ques So that the matter of the mind and what we think has a very definite bearing in regard to the Lord’s supper?
JT Yes, of course error of all kinds arises in that way from man’s mind, such as Darwinism as an example, a terrible thing that is working out in infidelity among men, schools being impregnated with it; it is the mind given a place to interfere with the truth of God.
AJG So that Paul in writing to the Philippians urges on them to think one thing. If all our minds are on the truth as we have it through Paul, we shall be safe, do you think?
JT Quite so. “Thinking one thing”, and how the Lord Jesus is brought into that very passage. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”, and then it goes on to say, “Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself”, Philippians 2: 5 - 7. So that the Lord leads the way in this matter of the mind so that we should not be damaged by error.
DJM And the sisters in taking up this truth are protected? I was thinking of the scourge of mixed marriages.
JT Well, just so. I am glad you brought that up because they have come up universally, and they have been ignored by many of the Lord’s people.
[p. 375] Mixed marriages mean light being darkened by associations, whatever the associations may be. We see in 2 Corinthians 6: 11 - 16 how mixed marriages will affect the truth that we are dealing with: “Our mouth is opened to you, Corinthians, our heart is expanded. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your affections; but for an answering recompense, (I speak as to children,) let your heart also expand itself. Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers; for what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship of light with darkness? and what consent of Christ with Beliar, or what part for a believer along with an unbeliever? and what agreement of God’s temple with idols? for ye are the living God’s temple”; and so forth. So that the thought of mixed marriages means darkness, the darkening of the truth.
PL Those who so acted are called by Nehemiah, as addressing his God, “polluters of the priesthood, and of the covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites!”, showing what disaster spiritually would thus spread.
JT Clearly, and hence we are warned, parents are warned, about the marriages of their children, so that they should not be mixed. If a man leads about a sister as wife, well, it is to be a sister. If he leads about a wife, she is to be a sister first before she is a wife; that is to say, there is no mixture, they are both born of God, and that is the basic thought of the purity of the truth in the assembly. A brother was raising the question with me yesterday as to what is the basis of brethren of Christ. Would you mind saying briefly what you had in mind?
AJG I was inquiring for my own help as to whether the thought of being born of God was basic to our being recognised by the Lord, according to John 20, as His [p. 376] brethren.
JT That helps. I thought I would bring that out from you, because it helps in what we are saying, that mixed marriages disregard the new birth, because an unconverted person marrying a converted one, and vice versa, disregards the new birth. The Spirit of God has to transact what is called the being born again, so that both of them are on the same basis. The redemption wrought by Christ establishes the full thought of the two persons, of the husband and the wife, that is they are of the same order, that she is a sister to him first before there can be a marriage according to God.
AJG I think sometimes the difficulty amongst us is not in regard of a believer marrying an unbeliever, but a believer who is walking in the truth, at any rate outwardly, marrying a believer who is not walking in the truth.
JT We must always have the idea before us of what mixed marriages mean.
Rem In that regard you might help us in relation to the governing word as to marriage: “in the Lord”.
JT That means that there is subjection on both sides. Subjection is the great principle laid down in Romans, and of course Corinthians goes with that.
GA Does 1 Corinthians 7 connect itself with what you are now speaking of? Verse 39 reads: “A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; but if the husband be fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord”. Are these last four words the underlying principle?
JT Quite so. “Only in the Lord”.
RRT Connecting it with the chapter that we began with, it says that “we all partake of that one loaf”. That would entirely exclude the thought of mixed marriages, would it not, with anyone that was not a partaker? Would that connect with our chapter?
JT Quite so.
Rem The Lord’s authority which has to be recognised in such matters is not so much an impression that one may have from the Lord, but light which the Lord has given us to govern such matters. Does that become authoritative in that way?
JT Just so.