THE ASSEMBLY (2)
[p. 525] THE ASSEMBLY (2)
Genesis 1: 26 - 30; Genesis 2: 18 - 25; Genesis 5: 1, 2
JT It was thought wise to begin these readings with the book of Revelation which, although not the last book of the Bible to be written, nevertheless contemplates breakdown in the dispensation. We read from this book at our previous inquiry. In keeping with that it was thought well to begin also with the earliest typical truth of the assembly, and hence the first chapter of the Bible is now before us. So that we dealt with the last chapters of the Bible first and the first chapters of the Bible are before us now. The first thing in mind is to get the divine mind as to the assembly according to what we have read in Genesis 1: 26. The word ‘man’ embraces both male and female in this instance. So that this makes way for Christ and the assembly. Christ Himself is represented in the male or masculine side and Eve represents the female side. In the New Testament the assembly of God is composed of all saints who have the Holy Spirit. The thought is that we should differentiate between what differs in these passages — first as regards the masculine side, and then how the female side is brought in, as we are told in the New Testament: “Adam was formed first, then Eve”, 1 Timothy 2: 13. So that the principle of subjection remains to be made clear as to her. “Adam was not deceived”, we are told, but the woman was. So that there is clear indication as to the sexes and the place they have in the divine mind, and in the creation too, for we are beginning here with the creation. Our thought will be to consider the truth while man was in innocency, which is to be seen in these two chapters. The third chapter brings in sin. But we are now to deal with the truth as to man in innocency first so as to get the import of this wonderful type.
AR It says, “let them have dominion over the fish [p. 526] of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth”, Genesis 1: 26. Is the woman included in the word ‘them’? Is it Adam and Eve?
JT Quite so, “let them have dominion”.
AR So that she has part in headship?
JT Quite so, as we get in Ephesians 1: 22, that God gave Christ “to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all”.
AR We are very slow to take in the association of the assembly with Christ in headship.
JT And it is not clear to all of us now either.
JTJr This great matter of Genesis 1 flows out from God: “God said ...”. and then, “Let us make man”.
ANW Verse 27 says, “in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. Does the word ‘him’ embody both man and woman and yet there is to be distinction between the male and the female?
JT Clearly so; the apostle in writing to Timothy points out that Adam was made first and that he was not deceived, but the woman was deceived. Then another thing that you will notice is the use of the plural in verse 26: “Let us make man in our image”. That may be taken as suggesting the Godhead, or it may be taken as suggesting dignity or divine supremacy. Both are true.
RWS Is the Adam over against Enosh, which alludes to the weak failing side of manhood?
JT Enosh was recognised as mortal man in weakness. Adam, of course, represents the man, entirely, as over against the woman. The way he is spoken of would indicate that the divine mind was to set out man in Adam first.
EAL It is interesting that there are two elements [p. 527] in creation over which man is to have control but in which he does not move naturally. There is the sea and the fish in it, and the fowl in the heavens. Man is not naturally free in those elements.
JT But it will be so ultimately in Christ; He puts His right foot on the sea, and His left foot on the land, according to Revelation 10. Hence, when it is said that the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, we have to regard that the whole globe, as we call it, is the Lord’s.
AR So you get subjugation in this section: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it”.
JT That is how it reads, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. So that the principle of subjection comes in immediately. God would have everything in subjection to man.
SW Would you mind opening up the thought of image and likeness, and how much of it was lost by the fall, and if it is all being retained in Christ and the assembly?
JT Oh! it is all retained, and more, in Christ and the assembly. But here it is image and likeness. First it is, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. The ‘our’ is plural; that is, it is the Godhead, I would say. The word ‘image’ would point to representation of God, so we are told in 1 Corinthians 11 that man ought not to have his head covered in the service of God because he is God’s image and glory — that is, he is like God. Image may be a fuller and more general thought, whereas likeness is more accurate as to fact. It is what God is Himself. So that in Matthew 5 we are exhorted to be like our Father who is in the heavens. We are to [p. 528] be His sons and we are to be perfect as He is perfect. But at the same time there is the thought of image. It is complete representation of God in His creation. That was His intent in creating man.
ANW So that, while it is said that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, you would hardly apply likeness to Him, because He is God.
Ques Is the likeness spoken of here moral or spiritual, or is it both?
JT Physical at first, obviously, but then the moral side must come in, too. And so we see the great disaster that came in with the fall in the third chapter. The moral side, we might say, disappeared. At the same time the likeness and the image of God remains outwardly in the human features.
JTJr We do not get these thoughts in relation to the lower creation — the fish and the cattle and other animals; the idea of likeness, or image, awaited the creation of man.
RWS Would you say more as to physical likeness?
JT Well, it is clear that it must have been there: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. That must carry the idea of what is physical. You do not get it in the lower creatures; for instance, the cow does not give any suggestion of image or likeness of God. God reserved that for man, and that would go to the full extent of male and female; and so the thought is retained in chapter 5: 1 after sin came in, “in the likeness of God made he him”. And then, as previously quoted from 1 Corinthians 11, we have the word that man is God’s image and glory. So that the two thoughts remain.
AMcD Did the apostle Paul bring that out in Romans? He speaks, in chapter 1: 23, of man changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and of quadrupeds and [p. 529] reptiles.
JT Men had descended in their thoughts; they brought in the thought of the form of God — likening it to the image and likeness of man and birds and reptiles.
AR Your reference to 1 Corinthians 11 is very important. “Man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God’s image and glory”, verse 7.
JT It is a question there of the covering of the woman’s head, whereas the man’s head ought not to be covered, because he is made in the image of God and represents the glory of God. This is still true, to some extent at least.
FHL With respect to physical likeness, how do you reconcile the fact that God is a Spirit?
JT Oh, well, likeness would be carried through to the physical appearance of man, I would think, because it states definitely here, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. There must surely be the thought of physical appearance in that. But at the same time, no one has seen God at any time. We are not to ignore that, and therefore the incarnation of Christ was in mind in all these things.
RWS What you say seems to throw light on the living creatures. An outstanding feature was the face of a man, both in Ezekiel and in Revelation. Is it that the eyes, and the expression, and the hearing, and the like, all bear out what you allude to in the way of likeness of God?
JT Well, there are four living creatures in Revelation 4: 6. It says, “in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, four living creatures, full of eyes, before and behind; and the first living creature like a lion, and the second living creature like a calf, and the third living creature having the face as of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle”. That is to say, there are four different creatures, including man. Therefore we have to consider that the creation itself is in mind here, in Genesis 2. It says, in verse 19, “Jehovah [p. 530] Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like”. Adam was there but no woman. Of course, that particular feature is not in mind in Revelation 4; it is a question of the creation as a whole, and that is what Adam named here. God would bring out the intelligence that He placed in man. It says that He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them.
EEH What is involved in that expression in Numbers 12: 8: “The form of Jehovah doth he behold”?
JT Well, that is quite a question, and it involves more than we can undertake now. But I believe that such matters awaited the incarnation; the “form of Jehovah” must await the incoming of the Lord Jesus, really, the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
RDG Would it be intelligent to connect that with the Lord’s answer to Philip, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”?
JT That would be a question of moral character, I think. The reference in Numbers would preclude anything except the incarnation. Of course, the incarnation had taken place when John’s gospel was written, and opens up all that. It is Christ in manhood.
WAT Would likeness include feelings, love, and intelligence?
JT Yes; the moral side.
AP If we speak of the right hand of God, or His nostrils, or His eyes, we can only understand by our own features.
JT Well, the only way we can understand all these things is by the Spirit; He gives us the understanding.
[p. 531] Therefore, if we speak of the nostrils of God, well, we have to think of what that would signify in God; and we have to bear in mind that God is a Spirit, if we think of God in the abstract. At the same time the incarnation makes all that simple, because God has become a Man.
AP Genesis 2: 7 speaks of God breathing into the man.
JT Well, just so; and in Acts 2: 2 the breathing was, we might say, the breathing of God; the lungs of God were involved, speaking reverently. The breathing was by God Himself.
JTJr So it is right to think of the plural, “Let us make ...” in the light of the New Testament where three divine Persons are mentioned. They all have their part in this matter of man.
JT And there can be no real understanding of such references as have been made as to the nostrils of God or of personal features, save as we see them set out in the Lord Jesus in incarnation. The incarnation answers all those questions.
FHL Would the full thought of the assembly, as the nearest thing to Deity, be the expansion of this thought?
JT I would say that fully. You have all the features of manhood, including the female side, in mystery, in the assembly.
FSC Man is comprised of spirit, soul and body.
JT Quite so; the Lord referred to His spirit, soul and body. And, of course, we refer to all these things reverentially, in a holy way, but at the same time the idea relates to the incarnation and is most essential to the truth.
AR It says, in John 20: 22, that the Lord breathed into the disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. Would that be like Genesis 2: 7? “And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into [p. 532] his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul”.
JT It is the same kind of thing, only it is Christ breathing into His disciples. He said, “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them”. It was to bring out the kind of thing you may expect in manhood — forgiveness and retention of sins.
AR Does the breath which Jehovah breathed into man involve the Spirit?
JT No; I do not think it does. It is just the spirit that man was given. “Man became a living soul”. Every man has a spirit. It is not the Holy Spirit, but a spirit. He has spirit, soul and body. These are the component parts of a man. And Christ has those, too.
ABP When Moses was slow to speak, Jehovah asked him, “Who gave man a mouth?” Does that suggest that He had designed a specific function for man to perform with each part of his body?
JT Quite so; and God’s mouth is alluded to. But as we were saying, these things were all filled out fully in the incarnation — in Christ becoming man.
JHE Romans 5: 14 refers to Adam being the figure of Him that is to come. Christ would be the fulness of that?
JT That is true. And it is a great comfort, and full of light for our souls, that the Lord Jesus is God. “He is the true God and eternal life”, 1 John 5: 20. In John 17: 3 the Father is called the only true God, so that we have to discriminate and be sure that we know what we are speaking of when quoting Scripture.
RWS There are a number of negatives in Genesis 2. It says, “Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth”, verse 5; and then, in the same verse, “there was no man to till the ground”, and in verse 20, “he found no help-mate, his like”. Do these negatives suggest that we have to wait for the filling out of [p. 533] things?
JT Very good; I would say that. The negatives in that chapter are important and should be noticed. There is something lacking. But all is now completed in Christ and the assembly.
ANW Is that involved in the expression, “in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”, Colossians 2:9?
JT In chapter 1 it really reads, “in him all the fulness ... was pleased to dwell”, verse 19. In chapter 2 it is “the fulness of the Godhead”.
ANW I was struck with the word in chapter 2: “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are complete in him”. The first chapter seems to have in mind His days here on earth. But I do not want to divert; it was simply the thought of ‘bodily’; that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells there.
JT Yes; that is chapter 2. It is right to be clear about these things, because they lie at the foundation of the truth.
JAP Is it right to say that in the gospels the assembly was not in evidence? It was just a question of the Man — Christ?
JT Well, it is a bit remarkable that, in Matthew, a certain man would make a wedding for his son. It was a wedding, but the wife is not mentioned. And so in John 3: 29: “He that has the bride is the bridegroom”, but the bride is not in evidence.
JAP Does that correspond with this chapter down to verse 22 where Eve is formed? Does that section cover the gospels?
JT We might say she was made, according to chapter 1: 26, included in Man; and also, in chapter 5, it says, “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created”. But I may not have understood your thought.
JAP [p. 534] You mean that there is mystery in all this?
JT Well, there is, because we have to wait for the detail till the second chapter. And in it we have added to the first chapter the idea of Jehovah. God is supreme in the first chapter because there is no reference to Jehovah; in the second chapter the name Jehovah is added — Jehovah Elohim. It is to bring out the relation He had come into — to stand in relation to man.
WWM Reference has been made to Colossians, that all the fulness was pleased to dwell in Christ, and then we read in 1 Corinthians 11 that the woman was of the man, so that we have to understand that the death of Christ was necessary in order that the woman should be taken from the man. Is that what we have in the deep sleep of Adam?
JT I would say that; taking the woman out of the man required Christ going into death. So that, “Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone”. And this was said about Adam. It was not good for him to abide alone. But then, the passage continues, “but if it die, it bears much fruit”, and the fruit, of course, is the assembly.
JTJr I suppose the woman was present, in a certain sense, in the disciples when the Lord was here. There is a kind of overlapping, would you say, in the sense that the thing was there, really, like the first reference we have here? He made them male and female. The thought was there, was it not?
JT Well, we must add something, you know, to bring that out fully. There was what was there in Christ by Himself, because the assembly was not there, except according to what was in His mind. But the Spirit coming to earth, consequent upon Christ having gone up to heaven, we have the means of the woman being formed; so I would not say the assembly existed in any sense, except in mind, until Christ went up to heaven, and then after ten days the Spirit came down to earth.
[p. 535] So that Acts 2 brings out the great fact of the assembly. The Lord added to it, we are told, such as should be saved.
CAM In that connection we sometimes look at the feminine reference, for instance, in John 4, and the remarkable feminine personality in John 20, as suggestive of what was to be for the heart of Christ, but would you say it was not yet formed until the Spirit came?
JT Just so; the woman in John 4 could hardly be said to be anything more than the Samaritan woman until she began to show qualities. In the Lord’s conversation with her she did not show much intelligence, but afterwards, as we see in Mary Magdalene, the form began to show itself, and so she is used. The first woman is not used. She left her water-pot. She brought it and left it. But in John 20, Mary Magdalene was used; the Lord took her on and made a useful vessel of her and sent a message through her. The woman of Samaria received no message; she did something of herself.
CAM That is very interesting. It is all a very mysterious and wonderful subject, is it not?
JT It is indeed, but John helps us in the women that are spoken of (there are seven or more) and they are undoubtedly intended to represent something of the assembly right up to Mary Magdalene in chapter 20. Something of the assembly was in mind, and the Lord knew it, of course, and treated them accordingly.
JTJr Would that be seen as in the pearl? The thing was there although it was not filled out as yet.
JT Well, the pearl was there, according to Matthew, but in John it is a question of women through whom the thing comes out; the women bring out the thing that was in the Lord’s mind. The consummation is seen in Mary Magdalene whom He uses.
FNW Is it not remarkable that it says that Christ loved the assembly and has delivered Himself up for it?
JT [p. 536] Quite so; it was in His mind. He had it in His mind.
TEH What is suggested in the woman saying, “Sir, I see that thou art a prophet”? Is there not some formation behind that remark?
JT Well, I think she was beginning to see things, and she says, “Sir”, to Him, showing she was beginning to respect Him. And then she said that He had told her all things that she had ever done. That is, her conscience was reached. We cannot say very much, but there was something there.
AR Do you think the need for the woman was in Adam’s mind when he gave names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field? It says, “but as for Adam, he found no helpmate, his like”.
JT He saw nothing of the woman before him. We have to wait for the latter part of the chapter. In relation to the woman he says, “This time ...” I would not say he had any concrete thought of her before that.
AR We have been saying that the Lord must have had the church in His mind when He was here, and I wondered if that entered into the type.
JT Adam was told to name the creatures and he did it. It was to bring out his intelligence. But then, he was asleep while the woman was being formed; let us see what the passage says: “And Jehovah Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon Man; and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its stead. And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman”.
AI Have you in mind that Jehovah saw the lack in relation to Adam, and He provided for it?
JT He did, but He had not done it as yet. Apparently Adam had named every creature that was there, but the woman was not there. There must have been [p. 537] something in his mind as to what would be suitable to him, for it says, “as for Adam, he found no help-mate, his like”.
ANW It was Jehovah who said that it was not good that man should be alone. He had made all the creatures, and Adam was still alone, but it was not good. That was in the divine mind.
JT That is the way to look at it.
FHL So that purpose is linked on with Ephesians 5, is it not? The mystery is referred to there; it is a great mystery, but Paul says, I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly.
JTJr The hymn says, ‘Oh God, the thought was thine, Thine only could it be’ (92:2). This thought originated with God.
RWS Does the woman in Luke 15, who was sweeping diligently to find the lost drachma, suggest the recovery of the thought of the assembly as it is seen in Ephesians?
JT She would be typical of the Spirit, I would say. There is the sweeping in the house.
RWS That is why I asked. In Genesis 1 it is, “Let us make man”. All three divine Persons would be in that, and they are all brought into the parable in Luke 15.
JT First we have the suggestion of the Lord Himself, leaving the ninety and nine in the wilderness and going after the sheep that was lost; and then we have the woman, suggesting the Spirit, sweeping the house until she finds the lost piece of silver; and then the Father receiving the son that had been lost.
RWS I think it is beautiful that we can move on to that line of things. We are in the full light of what divine Persons are doing, but we are getting help to move into the matter. We are finding something, as it were, and rejoicing with divine Persons.
JT Just so, there is so much to be found that is [p. 538] in the Scriptures that we have not seen as yet. And I believe that Luke’s ministry helps to bring that out. Of course, all the gospels are to bring it out, but especially Luke, as we are speaking of it now. The woman swept the house until she found the lost piece of silver, and then she called certain to rejoice with her, “for I have found the drachma which I had lost”.
ANW Do we see the idea of progression in creation, formation, and building? These processes are referred to in our scripture. Is there progression in them?
JT I think there is distinct progression in the word ‘built’. This is the first mention of the word.
AI Would you help as to verse 20 of chapter 2, which says that Adam found no help-mate, his like?
JT In the whole creation there was not any creature like himself, until the woman was built. He was the only one, and there was no one like himself — no counterpart for him.
CAM It says, “Jehovah Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon Man”. Is that not a remarkable expression? Does it not help us to understand a little better when speaking about the deep things of God, in this manner?
JT It must be the death of Christ that is in mind. It is very touching for that reason, but of course we have to wait for that, until the New Testament.
CAM Yes; would you think that view of the death of Christ is suggested also in Psalm 139? It refers to the lower parts of the earth and the wonderful formation of things. The portion in mind reads, “I will praise thee, for I am fearfully, wonderfully made. Marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My bones were not hidden from thee when I was made in secret, curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my unformed substance, and in thy book all my members were [p. 539] written; during many days were they fashioned, when as yet there was none of them”.
JT Many persons here may hardly know the meaning of that Psalm. It is well worth knowing; there is the idea of formation of things. It would allude to what is formed in persons and ultimately would have the assembly in mind as a formation.
RWS Would the period of aloneness which Adam had, which, apparently, was only part of a day, represent the period of the Lord’s life in His ministry here before the Spirit came?
JT Well, it may.
FSC I have been thinking lately of that word which has been quoted from Psalm 139: “... fearfully, wonderfully made”. I would like help on it.
JT It all brings out the wonderfulness of Scripture. “Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work”, 2 Timothy 3: 16. The Psalms afford significance of that more than any other section of the Bible.
AAT I notice that the word ‘Man’ in Genesis 2 and 3 (New Translation) is spelled with a capital, and that there is a footnote, Ish. The word ‘woman’ generally occurs without a capital. What is the difference?
JT There are two words, Ish and Ishshah. Ishshah is the outcome of Ish; Ish is the Man, the masculine. Ishshah is what is taken out of Man, and therefore the word ‘woman’ is written with a small ‘w’. The capital M is to bring out the dignity of the man at first. So that we are speaking of very great things, and perhaps we are not speaking of them as they should be spoken about, but there is one thing that we ought not to overlook in what is being said, and that is that we are dealing with mystery. We must be mysterious to deal [p. 540] with it; we must have the Spirit to deal with the idea of mystery. And we ourselves as christians are part of the mystery.
ABP It says in Ephesians, in regard to the assembly, that she is the fulness of him that fills all in all. Would there be a link between that expression and this word “a help-mate, his like” — the idea of counterpart?
JT Yes; but not with the “all in all”. Divine Persons are in mind in that expression. It is a divine Person, whereas here we are dealing with a man.
ABP I had the idea that the woman here, as Adam’s counterpart, is typical of the assembly’s place as the body of Christ and His fulness as she is spoken of in Ephesians 1: 22, 23.
JT “The fulness of him that filleth all in all”. That is, she is the fulness of a divine Person. She is not a divine Person, but she is the fulness, showing the wonderfulness of the assembly. No other creature had such a place as she has, but the idea of counterpart would apply literally to Adam and Eve. The assembly cannot be a divine Person, she is a creature, although having that wonderful place as His fulness. It is really mystery and ought to be dealt with as such, because we might allow ourselves to slip into the idea that the assembly has some part in Deity, which is not so.
JHE The error that Satan introduced at the beginning was, Ye shall be as gods.
ATD You referred earlier to the words, “Let them have dominion”. Did you say that the assembly participates in headship?
JT She does, in authority; that will be seen in the millennium. She will be in the heavens, above the earth — not on the earth. She will have part in the headship and in the reigning, too, because we are to reign with Christ. If we suffer with Him we shall also reign with Him. But in all these things we must be [p. 541] careful to guard against the idea of the assembly having any part in Deity. She has part in the headship, according to that remarkable passage in the first chapter of the Ephesians.
TNW Christ is given to be Head over all things.
JT Quite so, and the assembly’s place with Him is very near to Deity, but it is not Deity.
CAM I was struck with the allusion to Ephesians in the earlier part of the meeting. The verse reads, “... and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly”. That word ‘to’ seems to be a very remarkable word, does it not?
JT It is very little understood, I believe, and it is an opportunity for us to know it now, because it is to be understood. We have part in it. Nevertheless we have no part in Deity.
Rem The bride is in proximity to the husband in Revelation 21.
JT Well, it is the place she has in divine counsels. God has a right to do what He will, but we are not gods; we are creatures.
ETP The Lord uses the word ‘build’ in Matthew 16 in relation to the assembly. Does that cover the whole of this dispensation?
JT Well it does, and fills out what we are saying, that He is given to be Head over all things to the assembly.
SW Why is it that after the transgression man calls his wife Eve? When Jehovah Elohim presents her to him, he says, “She shall be called Woman”, but after the transgression he calls her Eve, meaning the mother of all living.
JT Well, it is prophetic ministry. The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. The spirit of prophecy is seen very early, and it comes into this chapter in what you allude to. The “mother of all living” is the woman; the Lord is her Seed. And when [p. 542] you come down to the facts. Mary, the Lord’s mother, must be brought into it.
AR The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.
JT That is stated here, in chapter 3.
AR That has Christ in mind, has it not?
JT Quite so; the bruising of the head is by Christ, and Satan had part in bruising of His heel, which, we understand, relates to His death; Satan had part in that.
AR So you referred to the first man that was born. Eve said she had received a man from the Lord.
TEH It is very suggestive that the spirit of prophecy should come in so early. It also occurred early in the present dispensation to help us in our assembly life.
JT Quite so; there were prophets and teachers at Antioch, and the Spirit had part in that. He said, “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”, Acts 13: 2. The Spirit had part in all that.