CHRIST ASSEMBLING WITH HIS OWN (5)
[p. 78] CHRIST ASSEMBLING WITH HIS OWN (5)
Matthew 26:26-40; Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-9
JT Some further remarks are called for on the passages read this morning in chapter 18, following on chapter 17 where sonship is introduced, linking up the saints with the Lord in it. In the word about the piece of money, the Lord says, “Take that and give it to them for me and thee”. Then we have a meeting contemplated in chapter 18. The disciples came to Him saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens? And Jesus having called a little child to him, set it in their midst, and said, Verily I say to you, Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens” (verses 1-4). Their inquiry here indicated that they needed correction; indeed, they needed to be converted, an important item in our instruction; for those engaged in the service, this coming in and going out of the Lord involves instruction as to their aspirations. Their minds were on the idea of greatness in the kingdom of the heavens, and the Lord shows the way of it in a little child. “And Jesus having called a little child to him, set it in their midst.” Verse 15 brings up the question of a brother sinning against another, and that the adjustment of the matter must include the spirit of sonship. The Lord says “If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” It is a family matter.
AB Would you say more in regard of the incident at the close of chapter 17 as bearing upon chapter 18?.
JT Sonship belongs to heaven properly, but we are sons down here, and the spirit of sonship is to be seen in our relations with men. That is the point. It was in the town where the Lord resided, where He was known personally, and some enquirer said to Peter,
“[p. 79] Does your teacher not pay the didrachmas?” Peter answered, “Yes”, without asking the Lord. He did not understand the bearing of sonship. He did not carry down from the mount of Transfiguration the full thought conveyed there. The Lord Jesus, being the Son, could not be tributary to any one. The tax was not obligatory on Him; but Peter assumed that it was — it means that he did not understand the Lord’s sonship. When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him; that is, the Lord knew what had happened. Peter had not said anything to Him as yet, but the Lord knew what had happened, and He would adjust Peter as to it by bringing out these facts. He calls upon Peter to tell Him about the kings of the earth, meaning that the Lord expects us to understand such matters as that. He says, “The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive custom or tribute? from their own sons or from strangers? Peter says to him, From strangers”. He knew that, but he did not learn the great lesson on the Mount of Transfiguration as to the Person of Christ.
AB He had been told that “there is here what is greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6).
JT Yes. He ought to remember that too.
JHJr Would the spirit of sonship provide a bulwark against the gates of hades? not only from the outside in chapter 17, but from the inside in chapter 18.
JT The outside is important because it is said, “Let your gentleness be known of all men” (Philippians 4:5). We are not set against what the ministers of the government may require; we are ready to agree to do anything that does not compromise the rights of God. The Lord said to Saul of Tarsus, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). Saul and his fellow persecutors had met the spirit of Christ in the houses of christians in Jerusalem. James says later, “Ye have condemned, ye have killed the just; he does not resist you” (James 5:6). That is the attitude of the spirit of sonship, the spirit of Christ in the saints; a very important [p. 80] one, when special demands are being made upon us by the military, customs and immigration departments. We are to take up this attitude, “But that we may not be an offence to them”, the Lord says, “take that and give it to them for me and thee”.
WL Chapter 18:14 helps us as to our attitude as sons in a practical way. The Lord had said of the little ones, that “their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens” (verse 10). Then in verse 14, “It is not the will of your Father who is in the heavens that one of these little ones should perish”.
JT The whole passage contemplates the little ones as inoffensive, unpretentious and outwardly unprotected. Paul says, “For thy sake we are put to death all the day long; we have been reckoned as sheep for slaughter” (Romans 8:36). That is the suffering attitude.
JTJr This gospel brings out at the beginning the little Child under divine protection; I suppose that is carried through.
JT Yes. Jesus is called the little Child several times. In the second chapter He is very exposed. The spirit of Rachel enters into this gospel: “Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not” (verse 18). Herod had murdered them. It is the bitter opposition of the enemy against the little children. The Lord is not here called a babe, but “the little child”, and always put before His mother; His personal dignity is maintained, but He is still exposed to attack. Almost the whole of chapter 2 is devoted to the protection of the little Child. In chapter 18 it is unseen interest in the “little ones”: “their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens”. It means that they are represented up there and come in for the protection of God.
HH Is the protection connected now with the kingdom of the heavens?
[p. 81] JT The kingdom is provision for us in that sense. It is a bulwark, it is called usually the kingdom of the heavens in this gospel, to bring out the attitude of heaven. The Voice from heaven proclaiming the Father’s delight in the Lord Jesus would show that we may look up there for the protection of what is lovable to heaven, the continuation of Christ here in the saints; they are lovable to the Father; “their angels ... continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens”. It is a beautiful touch.
EP Would they discern correspondence in the little ones to the face they beheld in heaven?
JT I suppose so, reflection here; as in christians it is the continuation of Christ in a spiritual sense. It is very remarkable, the place children have in this gospel, beginning with the second chapter; the weeping of Rachel, the spirit of Christ we may say, because they are murdered; it came down through Jeremiah from Genesis, Rachel weeping for her children. Now in this chapter we have a little child amenable to the call of the Lord. In chapter 11:25, it is babes, the very smallest conception of human beings. The Lord says to His Father, “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes”. So that the work of God is built up from the bottom in the little ones. It is seen in this little child available to the Lord; He can set him down in the midst of the disciples. Then in chapter 21 we have the children singing in the temple; taking up a note which began with the blind men in chapter 20:30; they addressed the Lord Jesus as “Son of David”. In the beginning of chapter 21 we have the quotation from Zechariah 9:9, “Behold thy King cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass”. The crowds say, “Hosanna to the Son of David”, a salutation carried forward, as we may say, from the blind men in chapter 20. It is maintained,
[p. 82] and carried forward in increased power among the crowd. Then in the temple, verses 15 and 16, “when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonders which he wrought, and the children crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were indignant, and said to him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus says to them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” It seems to me that the thought of children is greatly enlarged on in Matthew, as typical of christians; the note of praise is carried forward, and maintained by them in the temple, the Lord Jesus justifying it against attacks.
AM It is most important that we should learn this lesson so that right relations might be maintained with our brethren prior to moving on in assembly service.
JT That is right. Chapter 18:15, “But if thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee and him alone”. We are to remember he is our brother, “If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother”. It is clear that the offended one has the spirit of Christ, the spirit of sonship. You can see the thought of it in chapter 12. Jesus walked through the cornfields on the sabbath, establishing liberty. In chapter 17 He anticipated what was in Peter’s mind. If you were there, the Lord would impress you with the fact that He is Son and you are one with Him. He is associating you with Him in sonship before the world, it is not before the Father here, but before the world.
JRH How do you distinguish between before the world and before the Father?
JT Matthew 17 refers to what I am in my daily life; the way I treat other people; the officials of the government and the like; I am subject; not self-assertive. The Lord as ill-treated was “as a sheep dumb before her shearers, and he opened not his mouth”; that is the wonderful testimony of Isaiah 53, and Romans 8:36,37 connects it with the saints; “For thy sake we are put to death all the day long; we have been reckoned as sheep for slaughter. But in all these things we more than conquer through him that has loved us”.
HB The Lord gives quite a long answer to the question of the disciples in chapter 18.
JT You see how important it is that we should have this long answer, and then the long object lesson too in the little child as to who is greatest in the kingdom.
WJC Does this cover anything more than personal trespass?
JT The Lord is dealing with the family, carrying the thought forward, it is the family, especially the brother. “If thy brother sin against thee.” He is worth something, he belongs to the family. “If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he do not hear thee, take with thee one or two besides, that every matter may stand upon the word of two witnesses or of three. But if he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly; and if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer” (Matthew 18:15-17). The state of the offender is in mind, for he goes forward in evil if he refuses to listen to the assembly.
WJC Does the instruction apply to anything that might be known amongst the saints that has to be taken up?
JT The principle taught is wide; applying especially to discipline resulting from refusal to hear the assembly. That might arise in any case of discipline. You may not be able to prove wickedness against a person although you feel it is there, but the attitude the person takes up will in time tell. If he is insubject, if he refuses first one brother, and then two or perhaps three, and then finally refuses to hear the assembly, his will is at work; the principle of will being at work is lawlessness. That is a great matter in cases of [p. 84] discipline — how does the person involved regard the brethren?
HH How does it get to the assembly? Does the care meeting come in there?
JT I think so. That is where the witnesses are heard.
AM Is it important to see that it primarily should be kept in the smallest possible compass, the one brother first of all. “But if thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee and him alone.”
JT That is quite clear there. You keep it within the smallest possible compass. There are some things that can be dealt with without bringing them to the assembly if the offending one is amenable to his brother. If he is not and thus disregards the possible loss of his brother he is void of the spirit of sonship.
WGT “Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens” (verse 3). Would that not be of help to the brethren generally? We would have to be in that attitude to be of any use in dealing with such a case; we need to be priestly.
SJH I judge if one were to go to a brother in the spirit of sonship, you might go once or twice before bringing others, so as to avoid legalism.
JT Yes, we are to preclude the legal element at all times. The apostle said to the Corinthians, “For this reason I have sent to you Timotheus, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ, according as I teach everywhere in every assembly” (1 Corinthians 4:17). As Paul’s child, he was available. Paul would call him and send him to Corinth, a “beloved and faithful child in the Lord”. Perhaps that is the combination that is needed! Childship is derived from Paul; Paul begetting through the gospel and personal influence, which you might say was the influence of Christ. Then the child is beloved, that is, a lovable person. Of [p. 85] course, I must be faithful and bring the truth clearly before the offending one, but I want lovableness too. I may be wanting in the beloved character.
JWD “Tell it to the assembly”, did you say the care meeting was equivalent to that? It has been suggested that the assembly may be convened so that the excess of grace which is in it may be brought to bear on an offender before a meeting for formal discipline is called.
JT That grace marks the assembly is established in Luke 24:33,34. It is said, “They found the eleven, and those with them, gathered together, saying, The Lord is [p. 86] indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”. That is, this whole company is occupied with this point of grace. The Lord appeared to Simon, the offending one, the one who denied Him. That ought to pervade care meetings; if it is really a care meeting, love is acting. “How shall he take care of the assembly of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5). In the meeting called the care meeting, we are taking care of the assembly of God, and I think brethren together in that way are normally an expression of grace; we ought to be expressive of grace. There should be the greatest consideration for the offender because he is our brother. But in cases of discipline the assembly should be convened only for executive service, not for investigation or deliberation.
RA Do you think the Me and thee enters into this — the Lord moving on that occasion that He might not offend?
JT Yes. You do not want to lose the brother. The Lord would preserve Peter, “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to have you, to sift you as wheat; but I have besought for thee that thy faith fail not” (Luke 22:31,32). The Lord would secure Peter, and so as risen He appeared to him on the first day; that is grace. The whole company was occupied with this one point — “the Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”. Paul says, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he, being rich, became poor, in order that ye by his poverty might be enriched” (2 Corinthians 8:9). It is a question of the grace of Christ, and this is witnessed in the restoration of Peter. When the cock crew He turned to Peter, He paid attention to the hour. He turned round and looked at Peter. Peter saw it and went out and wept bitterly. The Lord had prayed for him; had looked at him at the right time and brought conviction. All this enters into Matthew 18.
Then the passage brings out the greatness of the assembly in an authoritative sense; for “if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer” (Matthew 18:17). That does not mean that the assembly is taking action; it is what he is to the person who is offended; “let him be to thee”. The next thing is how heaven regards what is done in such cases. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven” (verse 18). It is to bring out the greatness and dignity of the assembly administratively, as representative of the Lord here.
HB What would you say about the change from the word ‘ thee ‘ to ‘ ye ‘?
JT That word “ye” stands in relation to those who form the assembly. Something must be done if the brother refuses to listen, and he is to be regarded as a heathen; something must be done. It is to bring out that the assembly cannot be quiescent in the presence of that.
EP We are responsible to maintain what is due to the position in that way as indicated in the Lord’s instructions here in verses 15 to 18.
JT Clearly so. What the Lord requires here contemplates manhood in every one. If the offended [p. 87] one, it is a question of whether I am a man; the assembly is composed of such in a spiritual sense. This matter needs adjustment, and I must go the whole way with it, take it to the assembly. The instruction given is to bring out how things are solved. Matthew is the only gospel which furnishes us with this instruction. It is very needful that we should have it, because there is in the assembly the means for the solution of every difficulty.
EP The Lord goes on to speak of our being conscious that He is with us.
JT He tells us later He is with us. You can understand how important for Matthias, who was about to be appointed as an apostle, to have all this instruction before him. As an apostle he would have to do with these things in his ministry. Then when the assembly fails, it might be said, what are we to do now? Thus we have, “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it may be that they shall ask, it shall come to them from my Father who is in the heavens”. And again, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them” (verses 19,20). So that even in remnant times, there is provision made for solving matters; everything is solved. The assembly should not carry forward unsolved difficulties.
Rem In 3 John 10, we read that Diotrephes “casts them out of the assembly”.
JT That is the reverse of all this. That is not assembly action at all. It is a man arrogating power to himself to cast out of it.
Now in chapter 26 we should see how the Lord’s supper enters into this subject. It is a very important feature of our subject. Matthew says, “as they were eating”, the eating was going on before He brings in the Supper. “And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
[p. 88] And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins. But I say to you, that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father. And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”. That is Matthew’s account of the Lord’s supper; the institution of it; and perhaps what is needed to be brought home to us at this time is the idea of eating attached to it. They were already eating when He brought in the Supper, showing that the thing itself, what enters into the assembly, requires constitution in us. It is not a prayer book service, but something that needs constitution in us in order to carry through what belongs to the assembly.
AEH Am I right in thinking as to eating, that it is the passover?
JT That is what they were eating.
AEH Would that enter into what we have had before us in the previous meetings? To take these things on we need an assembly constitution.
JT Yes. I think the application to us would be that we are eating what is needful for assembly service, for taking on the Lord’s supper. In 1 Corinthians, the passover is brought in in chapter 5, the Lord’s supper in chapter 11. “Let us celebrate the feast”, the idea of carrying forward the passover is made plain there.
TH Why are the words, “this do in remembrance of me”, omitted here?
JT They are omitted here and in Mark. They are only found in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24,25. I suppose Matthew and Mark have in mind the great pressure that attaches to the service of God in the assembly, and we need to eat; Luke is thinking of the absence of Christ, and would have us not to forget that. We are in danger of turning to idolatry if we [p. 89] ignore His absence. In Exodus 32:1 we read, “this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him!” They turned to idolatry, they forgot him, they did not carry him forward in their affections.
WGT In 1 Corinthians 5, the thought is the keeping of the feast. Is it the continuance of the thing that is in mind?
JT It is kept “with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. That is the significance of this eating; the feast is kept with that kind of bread.
WL The Lord says in Matthew, that He is with us “all the days, until the completion of the age”.
JT Yes. Matthew contemplates that side of His service. Luke contemplates Him gone into heaven. Luke makes a great deal of His going into heaven; as early as chapter 9:51, he says, “When the days of his receiving up were fulfilled”.
There is not only eating but drinking; “And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it”. That is, every one of us, every disciple ought to drink it.
AHP Why “for remission of sins”? Do you regard it as characteristic of the assembly, as well as what Paul “received from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23)?
JT The Lord does not include that in the word to Paul, for he says, “I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” (verses 23-25). It does not seem to be a memorial in Matthew at all; it grows out from the passover, carrying with it forgiveness, stressing the covenant as including the remission [p. 90] of sins.
JTJr In Numbers 11 we have the children of Israel getting tired of the manna; they asked for flesh to eat. The government of God comes in. I think that there is a great deal of that amongst us, getting tired of divinely appointed food, getting tired of the meetings, lusting after the world.
JT So that the eating must go on. If we are only Sunday christians we shall soon cease to be christians at all, because there must be the weekly experience. In going through experience in a contrary scene, partaking of suitable food, we develop a constitution fitted for the service of God in the assembly. Hence, “let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). Do not cease eating. If there is anything on your conscience, judge it, but keep on eating. “Let a man prove himself, and thus eat”, do not cease to eat. Why should I cease to eat? Of course, if the brethren have imposed discipline that is another matter. I am speaking of how a brother or sister should proceed normally. This chapter provides me with the means of cleansing so that I can go on eating. In Matthew, as we have noted, there is no memorial, but in Matthew and Mark we have the mount of Olives to which they went after the hymn, which Luke does not give us. Going to the mount of Olives would imply that we have strength to move out on to a higher level. That is the point with these two evangelists. Eating enables us to move on to a higher spiritual level.
EP These are strenuous chapters, are they not, these closing chapters of Matthew’s gospel? It seems like, “But in all these things we more than conquer through him that has loved us” (Romans 8:37).
JT Yes. The word strenuous is good. Matthew is severe, the matter is urgent; he has divine representation in mind both in the apostles and [p. 91] in the assembly.
AEH In moving on to the higher level in the service of God we are often hampered by unsuitable contributions. Could you help us in regard to how we may meet that? I suppose the constitution helps.
JT It does. The hymn was sung in the city, and the breaking of bread was in the city, Jerusalem. The movement to the higher level would be as we come to recognise the Spirit as the only power for service; but a spiritual constitution in each of us is necessary if the Spirit is to use us. The woman of John 4 represents this thought, what the vessel is, what she was when she left her waterpot and went away to the city. In principle the living water was in her and would support her, it was springing up. All this is most essential for assembly service. It shows what we are constitutionally, and whether the Spirit can take us on and use us. There is not only the eating, but also the drinking, as we have seen. In Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 the word ‘ supped ‘ in “after having supped”, refers to the passover supper. After that, He gave them the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25). He speaks of the cup, and also says, “in remembrance of me”.
WJC Does sonship indicate the kind of constitution?
JT It does; but food for a suitable constitution is most important. The Lord says, “Have ye anything here to eat?” (Luke 24:41). What we are speaking of now refers to eating before the Lord’s supper. It underlies the movement from “glory to glory”. I look upon it this way: the dwellings of Jacob are glorious, and from these we move out as coming to the assembly; they are not so glorious as the assembly, but they are glorious. In the assembly, as we sit down to the Lord’s supper, there is glory; the glory attached to the bread and the cup; and then the Lord apprehended; it is Himself, the glory radiating, and He proceeds from [p. 92] that on to other glories. The question is, Can I follow in all these glories? If I am not accustomed to eat suitable food, which builds up the constitution, I shall not be equal to the great occasion.
DG The Lord’s supper is very testing to us. The Lord says, “Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves” (John 6:53).
JT That is flesh. It is not flesh here, but the body — the word is important. This gospel has the assembly in mind — you are built up in relation to the assembly, what I am to my brethren, what they are to me. The apostle says, in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Christ? Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. The thought of the Lord’s body leads me into the spiritual body composed of all the saints. John 6:53 does not refer to that; it is not His body, it is His flesh; it is incarnation, human condition there. The point here is the body with which He did the will of God.
TH Eating and drinking are emphasised in 1 Corinthians 10.
JT Yes.
JWD There are various ways in which we can eat. In Matthew 26 it builds us up constitutionally, leading to the mount of Olives and singing the hymn.
JT There was evidently power to go to the mount of Olives. The hymn is sung mutually. They did it. The Lord is not specially mentioned as doing it. He would be included no doubt, but it is what they did; it is a mutual thing. The brethren are together in a mutual way having power to go to the mount of Olives. The mount of Olives suggests exercise; you leave the position of Jerusalem; you no longer move in a local orbit, but into the spiritual side now. That is where Matthew and Mark serve us well, suggesting the idea [p. 93] of eating that we may enter the spiritual realm, which requires power in ourselves.
HH A brother on Lord’s day morning gives out the notices; from that point of view, we are not thinking of going to heaven; we have in mind to attend the different meetings notified.
JT All these meetings are public testimony, that is quite in keeping with the beginning of our meeting for assembly service; but going to the mount of Olives is not that side, but our entering the spiritual realm; there are no limits there; it is “from glory to glory”. We have “the Father of glory” too; ‘ thought beyond all ‘ thought, as the hymn puts it.
EP It says in Zechariah 14:4, “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem toward the east”. Is that the outlook? Heaven is to be introduced into assembly service.
JT Yes. At night He went to the mount of Olives, we are told in Luke 21. That would be His retreat; you could not find Him in Jerusalem; He would be with the Father. He taught in the temple during the day. When the day’s work was done He retired to the Father. In the nights He was not in Jerusalem, He goes, as it were, outside that realm. He is in Jerusalem only to serve and to suffer.
JTJr Our being told that the Lord went to the mount of Olives Himself, would indicate where we too may go individually during the week. That would add to the thought in chapter 26, when they all went.
JT Yes. That furnishes you with the strength you need; it makes you spiritual. Constitution is what is in mind. Eating builds you up, so that you are able to leave the city position, the public position, for the spiritual position, where there is no limit. The Lord went up, according to the Acts; His ascension links the position in the assembly with Him up there.
[p. 94] So our next scripture (Acts 1), leads upward. The spiritual side of our position is suggested here. In considering this last meeting of our Lord with the disciples our subject leads us to that point, “until ... he was taken up”. The final meeting therefore involves the forty days between His resurrection and His ascension, so that we are now to be prepared for heavenly things. Luke summarises first by saying, “To whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs; being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God; and, being assembled with them, commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which said he ye have heard of me”. He uses the word assembled there; then in verse 6, “They therefore, being come together, asked him saying, Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” We have the words assembled and come together so that we have here a very formal reference to our subject, “the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us” (verse 21). What were the lessons learned? All connected with spirituality; really the explanation and fulness of the idea of the mount of Olives.
DG As conscious of reaching the spiritual sphere, or the Father’s sphere, should we dwell on the thoughts of the Father as known, or should we say, “God and Father”?
JT God is the great End in divine appellations; “that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). It is not the Father all in all, but “that God may be all in all”. That is final, so that we should go on from Father to God in that sense. Of course, God is connected with the covenant and other matters, but here it is God in the fullest sense. God is the great End of all testimony and in assembly service: not the Father, but God.
AB Is the great result of revelation secured in the thought, “that God may be all in all”?
JT Yes. It is not “all and in all”, but “all in all”. He is all as in us, as God, filling us, and yet of course the Supreme. There is correspondence with Genesis 1, “God” there is a plural word; plural in the sense of emphasis, the Supreme, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, but you do not there get “God all in all”. As He comes into the garden He is not in Adam and Eve, the devil is in them. The great thought of redemption comes in so that God might secure His place in men, which involves sonship; “all in all”, that stands eternally.
JWD Do you think that where the apostle speaks of God and Father the thought of God being supreme enhances the blessedness of the name of Father?
JT The Lord Jesus Himself limits the name “Father” in John 5:22. He says, “Neither does the Father judge any one”; whereas God judges; every divine attribute and function must find a place in God. God includes them all, judgment and all else, but the Father is more limited, more precious in a sense, as conveying the family thought. The order in the Lord’s words is, “My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17).
HH He is the Father of all families.
JT Father is a family title, whereas God is much wider; it stands related to creation too. He is Supreme.
DG In John 17 He prayed to the Father; not mentioning the title God. In the sense of family relationship we address Him as Father; when we address Him as God and Father we are taking in the creatorial setting in relation to Him who brings all into being.
JT In John 20 He says, “My Father and your Father, my God and your God”, and in the address to Philadelphia He says, “My God”, several times. As we are alongside of the Lord by the Spirit we really get the full thought of God, in so far as creatures may get it; we apprehend Him as Christ’s God. As near enough to [p. 96] Christ to observe His holy emotions and gestures, we would get the idea of what God is to Him. John says, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). That is how they saw Him. They would learn how to speak to God; how to speak to the Father, as seeing how the Lord was with Him, “an only-begotten with a father”.
WGT The question raised here in Acts 1 was as to the time the Lord would return, and the Lord answering said that it was a matter the Father had placed within His own authority. He indicates that He as Man regarded the Father as having superior authority in a matter of this kind.
JT That is a point of importance. Matthias would have to know what this last meeting was; undoubtedly he was present at that last meeting. What did the Lord say about His coming? They were on kingdom lines; they wanted to know when He would restore the kingdom to Israel, but He puts them off. “It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority”. It is left open, we have to wait. The date of His return is on the Father’s calendar. Our business now is with the Spirit. The Lord says, “The Holy Spirit having come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”. The disciples were to be occupied in bearing witness to Christ in the power of the Spirit. It is all left open, but the Spirit is stressed. We are living in the period of the Spirit at the present time; no one can predict when the Lord will come back. The Lord says, “Yea, I come quickly” (Revelation 22:20). That is His purpose and promise. The exact time of it is the Father’s matter; even the Son does not know of the day (Mark 13:32).
AB Does the economy terminate?
JT I think not. We shall enjoy and know divine Persons in eternity on the same principle as we do [p. 97] now; only, of course, all difficulties or occasions of darkness in us will be removed.
WJC So that God is to be known by us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
JT Quite so: that is the general position. Each of the divine Persons is seen acting as God, but the Father retains definitely the place of Deity — “to us there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6).