THE ASSEMBLY (8)
[p. 647] THE ASSEMBLY (8)
Exodus 18: 1 - 12; Revelation 3: 10 - 11; Revelation 12: 13 - 17
JT We noticed in our previous reading that Jethro had given Zipporah to Moses as his wife. The passages before us now show how provision is made to preserve her from the trials which were about to come on Egypt, and also that in the New Testament we have similar provision made for the saints when danger exists. The Lord promises to keep the saints at Philadelphia; that is, the assembly, from the hour of trial which is about to come upon the earth to try all those that dwell upon the earth. Revelation 12: 17 contains a similar provision for the Jewish remnant: “And the dragon was angry with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus”. So that these passages in Revelation are intended to enlarge our minds as to prophetic matters and give us to see how the assembly is to be kept out of the tribulation, and to show how the Jewish remnant is to be kept out of the way of evil from the dragon, prior to the millennium. Another point that may help in understanding these matters is the reference to the mountain of God: “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came to Moses with his sons and his wife into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mountain of God”, Exodus 18: 5. The mountain of God would be a place of strength; as if Moses resorted thither. That is a point for us, as to where we are to find strength in our service. If the hill of God comes into the hands of the Philistines we are at a great disadvantage, but then it was not in their hands here. It was in the hands of Moses, we might say.
RWS Does Exodus 18 involve what Stephen speaks of as “the assembly in the wilderness”?
JT The assembly in the wilderness would be more Jewish; the allusion, at this time, is [p. 648] to Zipporah as typical of the assembly of which we form part.
ABP Do you have in mind that Moses sent his wife back to Midian to preserve her from the judgments that were coming upon Egypt?
JT That is what I understand; showing the divine care that is exercised over the saints in view of what might damage us physically or morally. There is much of that kind of thing just now; some are clinging to certain associations which are sure to cause moral damage.
FSC It says that Moses led the flock to the mountain of God.
JT That would show the shepherdly spirit he had; he was presently to take the nation of Israel under his hand as a shepherd.
ANW The second son, Eliezer, comes to light here. Gershom is mentioned in chapter 2, but here it says, “and the name of the other, Eliezer, For the God of my father has been my help, and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”, verse 4.
JT The first son was named Gershom; for he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign land; but now it is a matter of divine help.
JTJr Eliezer’s name is not mentioned until help has been experienced. Both sons were there, according to chapter 4: 20, but Eliezer’s name is not mentioned until this chapter, stressing, I suppose, the help of God which had come in.
JT And the assembly, as we speak of it now, and, of course, we can only speak of it humbly, involves the help of God. These are very important matters to keep in our minds.
RWS Why did Moses send Zipporah back?
JT Well, it does not say, as far as I know; there is just an allusion: “... after he had sent her back”. No doubt the allusion would be to some provision he had made for her protection, as we [p. 649] have been saying.
RWS It would involve consideration for her?
JT Well, exactly. Moses evidently was a true husband. In the early part of the book Zipporah was complaining a little. She called Moses a bloody husband. But he is looking after her here. I think that is the idea, that he is a true husband.
WAT Even in that reference in chapter 4: 25, “A bloody husband”, the footnote in the New Translation gives the meaning, ‘Bridegroom’. Evidently she had to admit, even in testing times, that he displayed bridegroom features. And will not the Lord Jesus retain the bridegroom character for ever?
JT Quite so; He will retain the bridegroom character; it will not wane with Him. And the assembly will retain bridal features. She is seen coming down from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband.
RWS Does Exodus 17: 6 show, typically, that Christ has suffered that we might have the Spirit? But Moses, in sending Zipporah back, is typical of Christ shielding the assembly from suffering? There was no protection for Christ; the Rock was smitten that the water might flow.
SW Does not the end of Matthew’s gospel suggest the protective side also? The Lord is viewed there as with the disciples. He says, “behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”.
JT Quite so; He is not said to go up in Matthew. He is seen here in care for His own.
JAP Would you distinguish between the sufferings that the assembly should go through and those from which it will be preserved?
JT Well, there are sufferings. We read in the Colossian epistle that the apostle Paul, a man of great spiritual affection and power, would fill up the sufferings of Christ: “I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ”, Colossians 1: 24. It is not stated who was behind in it, but the thought is to fill up that which is [p. 650] behind of the tribulations of Christ. It is a noble thought in the sense of sacrifice; others should do it, but he would take it on personally.
Ques In the Song of Solomon it says, “Who is this, she that cometh up from the wilderness” chapter 3: 6. Would that apply to the assembly, or does it link on with Israel?
JT It is an Israelitish position; it typifies Israel leaning upon her Beloved, but we apply it to the assembly; we are entitled to do that. All Scripture is profitable and we are at liberty to use it; but, of course, we should use it intelligently.
AP What is the teaching in the frequent repetition of the words “Moses’ father-in-law”?
JT Well; it is a question of spiritual understanding as to that. Is it a question of what Jethro was in that relationship or what the greatness of Moses added to him? We have the case of Peter’s wife’s mother. She was Peter’s mother-in-law, and we are not sure whether she contributed much until the Lord had to do with her. She appears to have been a complainer, but nevertheless she was healed. The Lord touched her, and she rose up and served them; she served the brethren. She was changed through the touch of the Lord. She not only served the Lord, but the brethren. People often say that they are doing things for the Lord, but doing things for the brethren goes with that.
ABP Does this setting have the service of God in mind?
JT Well, I would think so, but at this point it is a question of what Jethro was; he is called Jethro here, and the fact that he is Moses’ father-in-law is mentioned about seven or eight times. He is emphasised in that relation, and happily and profitably in it. On both sides it is a happy season, so that it says in verse 12: “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God”. So that, whilst he was Moses’ father-in-law, it was a happy relation.
ABP Verse 7 stresses the idea of good relationships. Moses went out to meet Jethro and he kissed his father-in-law and they asked for each other’s welfare. Would that not suggest that the most difficult relationships can be held in proper balance as we make way for the service of God?
JT Yes, grace suffices for everything, whatever the difficulties may be. The Lord said to Paul, “My grace suffices thee”.
VCL Would the destruction of Amalek in the previous chapter make way for this grace to flow so freely and happily?
JT Very good; I would say that. Much could be said as to the point where this chapter comes in, but we can also see that Moses needed instruction here, and Jethro was able to give it to him; Jethro was morally greater in the position, because it says, “Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God”. He became an active priest in the presence of one of the greatest servants that we have. Jethro became a priest unto God; and Moses and Aaron were there with the elders of Israel, fully showing their appreciation of this man. He was rightly selected of God at this juncture.
JTJr Jethro was sympathetic from the beginning. Immediately after Jehovah spoke to Moses, Jethro said to Moses that he should go in peace; that he should go back to Egypt; showing how fully he was with the mind of God in what was going on.
EEH What is there in the fact that Zipporah is left in the background here? Jethro seems to hold the prominent place here.
JT Well, it is to emphasise what we are saying; that God is honouring this man. He is taken up, a seemingly providential man, who augments the position;
[p. 652] it is a brother coming in at a time when he is needed.
CAM Would you say that the two sons of Moses are so prominent, and the meanings of their names are given, because they were to have a place in the service of God?
JT Well, they augmented the position; the position included them. I think we had that recently in the eighth chapter of Ezekiel; what is stated there is not simply of persons, but of features of the position; and these two young men are features of the position.
CAM The fact that they were sons would suggest that his feelings would be livingly carried on; these features were not to be forgotten.
JT They had a place in the testimony afterwards, but they are here at this point. Things are grouped together here and we are to see what this and that mean and get help from it.
ANW It looks as though the change of name from Reuel to Jethro signified a closer relationship to Jehovah. The name Jethro carries the suggestion of Jehovah. And he seems to be much more in line here than in the previous chapter. The verse which you read is extraordinary; the presence of God being referred to: “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering, and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God”. That seems to be a great advance from the previous chapter.
JT After Eliezer is mentioned, whose name is identified with the exercise, The God of my father has been my help, and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh, it says, “Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came to Moses with his sons and his wife into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mountain of God. And he sent word to Moses: I, thy father-in-law Jethro ...” (he is identifying himself in the most striking way, as the Lord says, “I, Jesus”, and Paul says, “I, Paul”)
“[p. 653] I, thy father-in-law Jethro, am come to thee, and thy wife” (not my daughter, but thy wife), “and her two sons with her”. That is where they should be. And then it says, “And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and did obeisance, and kissed him”. Now I think that is a very beautiful picture!
Rem There were right relations between Moses and his father-in-law.
JT Well, they were leading men; and I would like to impress the need for right relations upon all of us who in any measure are leading brothers; and I might say that if we have not leaders we are sure to go wrong; we must have leaders. So that there are right relations between these two great men, Jethro and Moses. It is a very important matter to see that good relations are maintained in every meeting.
WAT In regard to their eating in the presence of God, in verse 12, does the title God refer to the three divine Persons?
JT Well, the one idea is stressed; that God is one and His name one, and that there is no other God beside Him.
WAT Do we today, in the Supper, have the Holy Spirit with us?
JT I would certainly say so.
WAT Will you help, please, as to the place of the Holy Spirit personally?
JT Well. He is there; He must be there; He is in charge of everything here in a subjective sense; everything is in His hands. There is the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. And if we sin, we have an Advocate with the Father. But that is in heaven. The Holy Spirit is not that Advocate; He is here on earth to look after our affairs here, and the affairs of God, too. And, of course, the Lord’s supper must come into that; the Spirit must have part in that; He is the power for [p. 654] it.
AR It has been said that the Spirit retires at a certain point in the meeting and the Lord Jesus takes on leadership. I would like to know what you would say about that.
JT The Spirit is here all the time.
AR And has His part in the service during the entire meeting?
JT Quite so; if it be the second part of the service, for example, He would have part in that for He is the Spirit of sonship. He is in the matter all the time.
RWS Does the title “the Lord the Spirit”, or “Lord Spirit” indicate how He is with us in the early part of the meeting?
JT I think so; it says in 2 Corinthians 3: 17: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”, and that passage ends with the words, “... even as by the Lord the Spirit”. It relates to the service of God, especially the Lord’s supper.
Rem The Holy Spirit would be with us from the beginning to the end of the meeting.
JT Well, certainly; the Spirit never retires as far as I see, nor will He retire, even in heaven. Why should He? He is God.
ANW It is stated that we worship by the Spirit of God.
CAM You referred to the Spirit’s place in the latter part of the morning meeting as that of the Spirit of sonship. I think that is particularly helpful, as well as what has just been said about the Lord the Spirit in the earlier part.
JT Yes; “... even as by the Lord the Spirit”. He is the power for every part of the service.
SJM Does not the Spirit have full control on Lord’s Day? It says of John that he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.
JT Well, I would not be sure about that, because it is the Lord’s day and the Lord’s supper, you know;
it is not the Father’s supper, nor the Spirit’s supper; it is the Lord’s supper. One Person is particularly in mind and that is the Lord.
ANW We cannot say, “Lord Jesus”, without the Holy Spirit.
JT Well, that is what is says: “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”.
Ques How should we regard the scripture: “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2: 18? Would that apply to our approach to the Father in the morning meeting?
JT Yes; the Father is in mind. He is the objective there. “Through him” (that is Christ), “we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”. The objective is the Father.
ABP Is it not helpful to see that all three divine Persons have their part in relation to the service on Lord’s day morning? If one Person in the Godhead is addressed, the Others have delight in that, also.
JT Well, quite so. They are in infinite unity; the unity of divine Persons is infinite. When the apostle refers to the Lord’s supper, it is the Person of the Lord Jesus that is in mind. It is a question of having discernment as to the name we are using, and to whom it refers. The reference to the Lord’s supper has the Lord Jesus in mind. He has instituted it; it is in relation to Him.
Ques Does the Spirit come with us to the meeting?
JT Well, we do not come to the meeting collectively, the collective idea takes expression in the meeting room. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, so that He is with us always in that sense, but when we are in the meeting room to partake of the Lord’s supper, we have the collective idea, and the Spirit is with us collectively.
TNW And is there something beyond His being in us as gathered? Can we take account of Him by [p. 656] Himself?
JT Surely; He is a divine Person. He is with us collectively; not that He is separated from us; there is His own personal dignity and greatness. He is there.
RWS Is He with us first, before the Lord comes to us?
JT Well, yes, I should say that. The Lord comes; but we are not told that the Spirit comes. The Lord says, “I am coming to you”. It is particularly the Lord Himself that is in mind there; and He comes for us, too. “The Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel’s voice and with trump of God, shall descend”. That is Himself! But, of course, He comes to us now by the Spirit. I would expect the Spirit to prepare us for the Lord coming in.
SW At what time does the transformation take place? You have quoted from 2 Corinthians 3: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit”.
JT Well, there it is: “the Lord the Spirit” does that. The transformation is by Him.
SW Yes, it is by Him, but I wondered at what particular part of the meeting this takes place.
JT Well, I believe that particular passage applies to the celebration of the Lord’s supper. The transformation comes in with the presence of the Lord, and, of course, the presence of the Spirit too. Divine Persons bring in the transformation.
ANW Would you say that the Lord would not come to us apart from the fact that the Spirit is with us? Is the Spirit not the power by which we apprehend Him?
JT Yes; the Spirit is here; the Lord comes in the power of the Spirit. The question whether the Lord comes Himself, corporeally, arose some years ago. The [p. 657] answer is that at one time He did. He was seen by the disciples for forty days; He was there corporeally. So that when He came to His own at Emmaus and at Jerusalem, it was the Lord; He came in corporeally. He sat down with them and took a meal with them. That was not by the Spirit, it was by His own power. But then all that has gone, for He has gone into heaven. That is the position. So that we do not get the same kind of visitations as the disciples did then; if He comes to us now He comes in the power of the Spirit, I would say.
CAM Referring again to 2 Corinthians 3, we have reference to the Spirit of the Lord, and then it goes on to say, “But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord ...” Is it in that way that we apprehend the Lord’s glory — at that moment?
JT The transformation arises in that sense: “But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory”. So that the Lord Jesus is chiefly in mind as to the transformation. But the Spirit’s power is there too.
CAM It makes it very wonderful, I think.
JT It is very wonderful. But we are to regard it as an actual practical matter which we can reach on the Lord’s day.
ANW The Lord Jesus is before us objectively in that way, and the Spirit with a subjective authority to regulate us?
JT I would go with that.
DPC In the service in the assembly does the Spirit augment the service to the other divine Persons?
JT Very good; He augments the service, but never have in mind that He is less than other divine Persons. If He is augmenting the service, He is doing it of Himself; He is not obliged to do it.
CHH I was thinking of the Lord’s word about the [p. 658] Spirit of truth guiding us. Moses, in his song in Exodus 15, speaks of being guided by Jehovah’s strength unto the abode of His holiness. It says further, “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, the place that thou, Jehovah, hast made thy dwelling, the Sanctuary, Lord, that thy hands have prepared”. Are not the Spirit’s activities thus seen as leading us from the mount of God in the wilderness to the mount in the land?
JT Well, I think there is a good deal of instruction there which could be opened up for us, especially for ministry at the Lord’s supper.
RWS Should the Spirit have a place in our affections in assembly service along with the Father and the Son?
JT I think so. They are the three Persons of the Godhead; but then you would also take account of what They say of Themselves. For instance, the Son is not said to be sent from heaven by the Father. He is sent as here. But the Spirit was sent from heaven.
ANW We can only have one Person in mind when we think of Him who gave Himself for the assembly.
AAT Do we know divine Persons outside of the economy?
JT I do not think we are capable of that.
AAT Well, as I understand it, in the economy there is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but divine Persons cannot be limited to the economy, can They? Our capacity to know divine Persons is limited to the economy.
JT They are known in the economy. That is the only way we can know them, because that is the way They have been pleased to reveal Themselves. The economy is a comforting and a very instructive word.
CAM Economy is an excellent word, but it is not just connected with time, is it? In a sense, it is eternal. We sometimes connect or confuse the words economy
[p. 659] and dispensation; but this thought is beyond that, is it not?
JT Well, divine Persons have come into certain relations, and it looks as though They remain in them. That seems to be the way matters stand since the incarnation; the incarnation is the turning point of everything. Everything must turn on that; the Word became flesh. There is a tangible thought before you, that Man is God — God Himself — the true God and eternal life.
RWS You have spoken of not limiting divine Persons. Can they be limited to the economy into which They have come?
JT Well, we never can limit Them; it is a question of what They do of Themselves. Speaking reverentially it is a question of what divine Persons do Themselves. They are sovereign in their actions.
ANW We can approach Them freely in the economy, but beyond that we simply know that God dwells in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see.
JT That is good.
ABP The limitations are with us.
JT That is right; the limitations are with us; they are not with divine Persons.
GH If the Lord Jesus were pleased to do so, He could come in amongst us in a corporeal way.
JT Well, if He was pleased to do it, yes; and He will come corporeally when He comes for us. That is a most specific way to state it. The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with archangel’s voice; He will come Himself. Well, that will be corporeal. We shall see Him then. But He is not coming to us corporeally now. He did it during the forty days at the beginning, and Paul’s words would indicate that He did it after that time, but He is not doing it now, so far as our observations go.
[p. 660] BW It says in 2 Corinthians 3, “Now the Lord is the Spirit”. Does that refer to the way the Lord Jesus comes in?
JT No; “the Lord the Spirit”, refers to the Holy Spirit; not to the Lord Jesus. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”, that is the Holy Spirit.
DMcD ‘Lord’ is a title that may be used of the Spirit?
JT That is right. That helps us as to how to address Him. It gives us latitude because it is an additional form or title by which we may address Him.
CHH Would verse 12 of our chapter be a moral basis for administration? Would it be essential that something of the mount of God be understood before we qualify to take on administration? I was thinking of the advice of Jethro to Moses, and the details that he gives as to how the people of God should be rightly cared for and rightly judged through overseership and eldership, but this spiritual position of the mount of God must be understood before that can be taken on.
JT You have in mind that the mountain of God qualifies us? What do you mean by that?
CHH I was thinking of the nearness to God and the understanding of God’s mind which are connected with that position. The question of administration comes up right after this in what Jethro said to Moses, from the 13th verse of the chapter.
JT Yes; I see; that, of course, is a subject by itself which we deliberately left out of our consideration. But you have in mind that one has to understand the hill of God as a preliminary to administration?
CHH Yes; I was thinking of the men of Issachar, the two hundred chief men who knew what Israel ought to do.
JT Well, that is right, I would say that. But I would not confine that to the idea of the hill of God — that the hill of God qualifies us, because the Spirit is the [p. 661] agency by which we are instructed; He teaches us all things, the Spirit guides us into all the truth. Therefore, whilst young men and young sisters have to observe what others do, and learn from others, they are to learn by themselves; the Scriptures will help them, and the Spirit will help them, to know what they should do; because many do not know what to do.
WAT Referring again to the order in the morning meeting, after we have addressed the Father, it is not orderly to address the Lord in worship, is it?
JT I think it is awkward and confusing. If we go on to the Father we should proceed on that line, because the great end is to reach God; that God may be all in all. It is a question of whether we are instructed. It is said in Acts 2: 42, “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. So that we have an indication in that passage of how things are to be done. It is a question of the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, and then the breaking of bread, and prayers. We are going on with these things now. The apostles are not with us, but it is the same thing, in principle, and we are going on with the breaking of bread and prayers.
AR When we speak to God, are the three divine Persons involved?
JT That would depend upon the facts. In 1 Corinthians 8: 6 it says, “to us there is one God, the Father”. That is not the three Persons, it is the Father. And then it goes on to say, “... and one Lord, Jesus Christ”; that is another Person.
AR I had more in mind, 1 Corinthians 15: 28: “... that God may be all in all”.
JT Well, we have to go by the context. Contextual consideration is one of the most important things in dealing with the truth. The context helps; it affords instruction.
SJM What did Moses mean in Psalm 90 when he said, “from eternity to eternity thou art God”?
JT Well, what did Moses understand? That is an example of the need for contextual dealing. What did Moses understand? I do not think that he would understand what we know now, when he said, “from eternity to eternity thou art God”. He would mean God in the sense in which he used that word. And that would be in relation to one of the Persons; the One whom we call Father. But the title Father is not used by him in that sense at all. I think we should get hold of these things because it is very important that we should be intelligent as to the names we apply to divine Persons.
RWS Will you say a little more about the Spirit in the morning meeting?
JT Well, if we speak to the Lord Jesus or to the Father it should be as helped by the Holy Spirit, but then He is to be regarded personally. We go by the Scriptures and we are kept right. So that, if the Father and the Son are spoken of more frequently than the Spirit, then it is well that we are regulated by that.
RWS So that a climax to the early part of the meeting would be the glory of the Lord?
JT That is what we have been saying. It is the glory of the Lord Jesus that is in mind.
RWS I think that helps to balance things as to the service.
AAT In Luke 22 the Spirit seems to be in mind, figuratively, in the master of the house. Is He in charge right through the service?
JT I think it is a question of understanding; “the Lord will give thee understanding in all things”, 2 Timothy 2: 7. That is how we get at the truth.
LW When would we experience abstraction in the morning meeting?
JT Well, it is a question of whether we can reach it, the matter of state enters into it. But it is well to [p. 663] look into the word and get its full meaning. The word abstract is not found in Scripture, but the idea is in Scripture, very fully.
ABP Is it important that throughout the morning meeting there should be a sensitiveness with us so that the Spirit may direct our thoughts, that we may be prompted by the Spirit and kept in line with what is proceeding?
JT Just so.
ABP Is there not a danger with us of having something in our minds and retaining it beyond the period when it would be properly expressed.
JT Well, I think there is a good deal in that, not only in relation to the morning meeting, but generally. I believe we are in a learning time, now. I never knew of a time that was more of a learning time than the present one, especially in regard of the Spirit.
FHL When addressing God at the end of the service, is it not proper to do so in the name of the Lord Jesus?
JT That is what Scripture says.
FHL It is proper to carry that formula right through the service?
JT I think it is.
RWS The economy involves that all is in the name of the Lord Jesus.
JT Of course, if you address divine Persons, you are addressing God, and you would say in the name of the Lord Jesus. That is a formula that runs right through, because God has intended to use that name. “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess ... to God the Father’s glory”, Philippians 2: 10.
AAT Is it because He is the Mediator?
JT Well, it is because He was so lowly and because He suffered: “Wherefore also God highly exalted him”. God is honouring Him. And the same is true of the [p. 664] Spirit. God is honouring Him. The Lord said: “but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one”, Matthew 12: 32. Well, that is because He has taken such a lowly place.
CHH So that when we address the Lord Jesus Himself we do so in His own name?
JT Well, quite so; we would do it in His own name; exactly.
JTJr Would not the allusion to “the same Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12: 9 and “one Spirit” in Ephesians 2: 18 help us in regard to the way things are reached? It is a question of unity. The ‘same Spirit’ would imply that all the brethren who serve are moving to the same end, and the ‘one Spirit’ that unity has been arrived at amongst us in relation to the service of God.
JT You are making a point of the words, same and one. Perhaps you could say more.
JTJr Well, I thought we arrived at things intelligently by the Spirit. It is the ‘same Spirit’ in the operation of effectual ministry, and it is the ‘one Spirit’ operating in the body in approach, through Christ, to the Father. Practical unity amongst us enables us to reach the great heights that are in mind in the epistle to the Ephesians.
JT Quite so; the use of right words is important — indeed, of prime importance in these matters.
SJM Is there progress with Jethro here? In verse 9 it says, “Jethro rejoiced”, and then, in verse 10, Jethro said, “Blessed be Jehovah”. Then, in verse 12, “Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God”. I thought of the disciples having rejoiced when they saw the Lord. We should rejoice similarly and then move forward to bless divine Persons. And [p. 665] then we are able to offer burnt-offerings and reach the highest side of privilege.
JT Very good; I would go with that. “Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God”. He was in the place of a priest; and what he was saying was priestly; it was a priest’s language with a priest’s feelings and sentiment, and therefore we can learn from him, because he has such a prominent place in this chapter. Of course, Moses had written all this, and that is another thing to think of. He would love to record these facts about his father-in-law.
Rem In the morning meeting there should be no oscillating; we should go higher and higher.
JT Oscillation was prominent years ago. There was a tendency to address the Father at the beginning of the meeting and then come back to the Son, and that sort of thing. But the Lord has helped us to go on upward, higher and higher yet.
GH Would the Spirit be included in that passage which says, “who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”, 1 Timothy 6: 16?
JT Well, I would say that He is included; the three Persons are in it. There is one God, not many gods.
FHL Luke 22 says that Jesus placed Himself at table and the twelve apostles with Him. It is an unseen service that the Spirit renders.
JT We do not see God and we do not see the Spirit. No one has seen God at any time. The Holy Spirit is a divine Person; He is a Spirit. He is not incarnate.
FHL Referring to the activities of the Holy Spirit, how does that come in in Luke’s setting?
JT Well; it is the Lord Jesus Himself and His disciples that are before us there: “he placed himself at table, and the twelve apostles with him”. That is [p. 666] how the passage stands. There are thirteen persons before our notice, to be simple. Well; you say there is an unseen Person, and you have in mind the Holy Spirit, and I would go with that, but obviously, as the passage stands there are thirteen persons in mind.
DP In Acts 4: 24. God is addressed as despot: “And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord, thou art the God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them”. Is God in that character known in this dispensation?
JT The word Lord there is despot. It is a special position there, and the facts in the case should help us, for it is a question of an attack on Christ. It says they were praying, but God is regarded as a despot. They say, “For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass. And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word”. That is to say, they are dealing with an attack on the Lord Jesus, and they address God in the capacity of despot. His word must go forward; it cannot be resisted; I believe that is what is meant to be conveyed there. It is the word of a despot and that must go forward. His power cannot be resisted. And that is a comforting thing if there is an attack made upon the testimony. His power cannot be resisted.