THE ASSEMBLY IN HER WIFELY RELATIONS
[p. 148] THE ASSEMBLY IN HER WIFELY RELATIONS
Exodus 18: 1 - 5; 1 Samuel 25:1-3; 1 Samuel 25:14-19; 1 Samuel 25:32-33.
JT What is in mind is to speak about the assembly in her wifely relations, and it is thought that Moses should be considered first, and then David, especially as these two servants of God are engaged in great things, and the marital matter is brought in evidently in relation to these things; Moses in view of the law on Mount Sinai (or Mount Horeb), and David in view of the kingdom which he was about to receive. The assembly is viewed thus in the testimony of God as in relation to Christ in view of things happening on earth, but originating in heaven. It will be seen that the types of the assembly in a feminine, wifely, sense treat of Christ in type as engaged with great things, nothing, as it were, being in mind save that she is in evidence. What is in mind in heaven is that the saints now forming the assembly are to have part in these great things. Thus Zipporah comes in here after she had been sent back, the Exodus having taken place; she is here evidently in view of the beginning of the law, with all that might be implied typically as to the assembly’s part in this.
AJG What answers in our day to what you are connecting with the thought of the giving of the law?
JT It would be what is set out in the New Testament, the epistles to the Corinthians particularly, involving also the ministry of Paul recorded in the Acts. I think it would be seen by examination of the Acts that the book has in mind the complete position of Christianity, the complete position of the assembly down here in testimony, not only what was set out in the twelve, but in Paul’s ministry; the appearings of the Lord after He rose were to impress the disciples with Himself and continued historically [p. 149] until Paul arrived. The second narrative of Luke begins with an allusion to certain omissions in the first narrative, which was incomplete. It does take us to the ascension of Christ, but omits the important item of the Lord’s sojourn for forty days among the brethren coming in and going out amongst them. Luke alludes to that in the second treatise, and it runs on to the transfer of the gospel to the Gentiles, the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, we are told in the last chapter of the Acts, and they would receive it. What has been alluded to begins earlier, because Paul’s ministry began earlier, and the assembly had a great place there, so that the introduction of the testimony of the gospel to Europe and its outgoings, was accompanied by the presence of the assembly, and it is intended to continue to the end.
AJG You mean the assembly is there a kind of support to the testimony going out in that way?
JT Yes, and a softening influence; the feminine influence was intended to be modifying and softening, involving the gospel being applied in a more gracious and tender and sympathetic way, as we see for instance, in women like Lydia and Phoebe and the influence they exerted. Other similar references, too, are to be found in the epistle to the Philippians — the peculiarly tender consideration for the apostle; he says that they had fellowship with him in the gospel from the beginning. The Corinthian ministry specially requires the presence of the assembly, because the assembly is there called “the Christ” in the first epistle, as if she exerted great influence in view of the continuance of the position in testimony, and much is made of woman’s service, her silence stressed at the same time, and yet her influence. What is said in chapter 11 as to the headship of God, and of Christ, and of man is notable, as though that headship would greatly augment the service of sisters [p. 150] in the testimony, and the rule is to be universal, ordained in all the assemblies. So that there can be no special customs or rules in the testimony; they are all to be unified, and emanate from the Head. There should be no special customs in any locality; all are to be regulated on the principle of headship, and hence in the second letter the apostle says he has espoused the saints at Corinth to Christ, to one Man. It is rather a wide scope, and one wishes to be concrete, concise and brief in setting out the truth, but what has been said I am sure is necessary to bring the subject before us. We have to learn to learn, because we are apt to listen and forget what we hear. The point is to be learners. The Lord has set the example Himself having His ear opened as a learner; the Magdalene designates Him as her Teacher. She is specifying the kind of teacher she would have, and that Christ is to be that Teacher.
WC Would that fit in with Proverbs 1: 8, “My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother”?
JT Just so, and then the great example at the end of that book, the acrostic production of the author, making so much of it, as if it were to be written down so carefully, the alphabet brought into it. “Who can find a woman of worth?” the writer says, and then she is described — the ideal, and Abigail answers to the ideal, and I think the women mentioned already such as Phoebe and Lydia represent the ideal.
Ques Do you mean they typify the assembly rather than the sisterhood?
JT What must be in mind is the assembly; the sisterhood must merge into the assembly. The sisterhood is suggested in the relatives of Abraham, the daughters of Terah.
Rem I was thinking of your reference to the [p. 151] wifely place the assembly has and connecting it with the New Testament. You spoke of Phoebe and Lydia, and of the service of sisters. I was wondering whether you had in mind that those two sisters set forth the feminine side assemblywise, rather than the feminine side as we speak of it amongst the sisterhood.
JT That is right. Whether Phoebe or Lydia had husbands I am not prepared to say, but they certainly fit in with the sisterly qualities needed amongst us. I alluded to Terah’s family because that family was to furnish the wives for the men of faith, in principle at least, and suggests the idea of kindred relations with Christ, that we are of the same kindred as Christ; the foreign element is excluded, all mixture is excluded. Zipporah is not specially honoured in the position, but she fills out what is needed in regard of the mediator, and therefore can be brought down to the idea of the opening up of the epistles to Corinth, bringing out the assembly’s place, and how comely it is supposed to be, so as to give weight to the authority of the apostle. Zipporah never shone very much, but she is a wife, and Corinth did not shine either, but the wifely principle was there.
Ques You mean Paul would hold them to it?
JT That is what I was thinking, and he enjoins as to the comeliness of women’s hair, chapter 11, and silence imposed on them, and then the allusion later to the espousal. The thought of the assembly is there evidently intended to give weight to the instruction in the letters.
GWB Does the word in chapter 6, verse 17, “he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit”, bear upon what you have in mind?
JT I would think so. There is a certain marital allusion there. One principle in the scripture is that the abstract idea of anything is usually present, sufficiently there to be called attention to at [p. 152] any time.
AJG Is that illustrated in Paul’s saying, “We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”. The assembly was there supporting the ministry.
JT Very good. The allusion is to the assembly generally, and what characterises it.
WC Would Zipporah here as brought back to Moses be like the second epistle to the Corinthians? Nothing is said to discredit her here?
JT Very good. I would go with that.
WC It mentions the word ‘wife’ though it does not in the original link, as if she had been adjusted.
JT That is important: she is there anyway. The idea is there enough to carry out what we are dealing with. It is a line running right through scripture from Genesis 2 to the end of the book of Revelation.
PHH Would the two sons suggest some substantial fruit out of this assembly link?
JT I think so. What was in Moses’ mind in naming them is that the names of the two sons would be there in the house. The name of the one was Gershom, and the name of the other was Eliezer. They are given at length, so that the meaning attached to their names would be always usable to call attention to the truth involved. These boys, or young men, would always be available to call attention to the principles in the names.
PHH Would the sojourning confirm the idea of the assembly being here a heavenly vessel, but only on sojourn, but the second son the help received in the sojourn?
JT Quite so, it shows the history of Moses, what he had found. It is given in chapter 2, verses 21 - 22: “And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said I have been a stranger in a strange land”, this being his experience. The other is “God is my help”; in Genesis 15 God takes up the ground of being Abraham’s shield. This is somewhat akin to Moses’ use of “Eliezer”.
CH If Zipporah represents the assembly in her public side, is there significance in the fact of the ‘in-law’ position, which seems to be stressed here? It is mentioned four times over in the first seven verses.
JT Quite so. It does right down the chapter. That is the relation is recognised; somewhat distant, but to be recognised. There are many today in that relation with us. They are real children of God, they are ‘in-laws’, we cannot disown them, but cannot go very far with them, which is important. We have an exercise about them anyway.
JRS I think we would like to understand what the ‘in-law’ position is.
JT Persons somewhat at a distance from us, but we must own them in that distance. Moses went as far as he could, although other scriptures would indicate that the relation between them was not of any great importance if we regard Jethro as Hobab. He stayed in the wilderness; he would not go with the people of God all the way. There are many like that.
CH It is in these circumstances that Zipporah, the wife of Moses is introduced here, as though in a certain sense the legal bond with her is also stressed.
JT Her legal bond is of course stressed; it is going through typically.
Rem Really there is no distance in that she is called his wife.
JT She is not a concubine, which implies degradation of the feminine sex. She is called his wife here.
JPH Perhaps we should be helped more in everything if we unitedly and assemblywise were [p. 154] thoroughly with the Lord in all that He would bring in amongst us in a regulating way. You get Zipporah with Moses in the giving of the law.
JT I think that is the way it is to be held. Eve and Rebekah, and other women in the book of Genesis had a wifely place without much more said of them, but still they were there. Even Joseph’s wife has not much said about her, but she is there as if the abstract thought is to be there. We are to be with the Lord in all that is current in His mind as He is in heaven and we here, but there is the idea of union which has not been much touched upon among us in our service for many years, but it has to be borne in mind that union exists between Christ and the assembly.
JJT Is it noticeable that in Genesis 15 where the thought of God is my helper comes out, the question arises in regard of an heir and a son with Abraham. Abraham was concerned about a son at that moment.
JT You get the word of God brought in for the first time, which is another matter to be noted. The word of God implies that which discloses His mind in so far as it goes.
JJT I wondered whether the thought of continuity was particularly in Abraham’s mind, something for God on earth.
JT That was in his mind and carried through though there were blemishes in the effort, and that has to be taken account of, so that the seed runs through according to the word; it is a question of the word of God. “In Isaac shall thy seed be called”.
AM How does the beginning of Romans 7 fit in, “being to another”, and then “bearing fruit to God”?
JT The allusion of course is to the death of Christ accepted in our souls. The “married to another” is on that ground, not on the ground of [p. 155] divorce, but on the ground of the death of the first husband.
PHH Would you say a little more about the mention of union? What have you in mind? Should we mention it more in assembly service as known amongst us?
JT Yes, the first mention is very early. It is worked out particularly in Colossians and Ephesians, but the first mention of it is in the well-known scripture in Genesis 2, where it is said: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”, verse 24. That is where union is first mentioned — one flesh. With us it is a spiritual matter between Christ and the assembly. We are united to Him by the Spirit, but we are of the same kindred. New birth and generation form our relation with God, but our relation with Christ is by union.
Ques Would that fact underlie the right exercise of affection in the marital relations between Christ and the assembly at the Supper?
JT I think so; it would come in there no doubt. We are a little uncertain in our minds whether we should take the ground of brethren of Christ at first in our service, or whether we should begin with union. I think scripture shows that we should begin as brethren. Hebrews 2 begins with the brethren, and goes on to Christ singing in the assembly, so it seems as if we ought to take on the thought of brethren first.
Ques Would you make any distinction between brethren as presented in Matthew’s gospel and in John’s gospel?
JT I should, because John is on a higher level. He records what the Lord said to Mary, that she should not touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father. Then He goes on to say: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my [p. 156] Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God”. The relation is there on a higher level than in Matthew I would say. In Matthew it is because we are doing the will of God we are known as His brethren, and so in Mark and Luke, but John is distinctive, the relation is heavenly. “My brethren” is a heavenly relationship.
Ques Would that involve association with the ascending Man?
JT I would say that. It is a remarkable expression — “he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”. Of one order. That precedes the idea of brethren and the idea of singing in the assembly.
PHH When you say the idea of brethren should come first, are you thinking of John 20?
JT Yes, the kindred — “all of one”.
AJG Brethren in Hebrews 2 are on John’s level.
WC Would not the brethren in the synoptic gospels flow out of the basic relationship in John?
JT I think we should look at the facts. The first is in Matthew 12, verses 49 - 50, “And, stretching out his hand to his disciples, he said, Behold my mother and my brethren; for whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is my brother, and sister, and mother”. I think we can see that is not just the same as John 20. It is really on moral lines there — His brethren — but in John 20 it is a statement of His own as to the disciples’ relation with His Father. He is constituting them His brethren, that the Father is His Father and their Father, that they have the same Father, He and the disciples. That is not just what we have read — “Behold my mother and my brethren”. He is in the heavens and we are down here, that is not the idea in John 20. He is ascending, and we are His brethren as ascending. It is a moral setting in Matthew 12.
Ques Is that what you have in mind? At the [p. 157] outset of assembly service the moral side must be there constitutionally first, or have you the thought of association with the ascending Man also there?
JT I would think the latter exclusively. Matthew 12: 49 would be what marks us when we go in and sit down together before the service commences. We are just brethren, not exactly Christ’s brethren, but brethren on moral lines.
If we look at Luke 8 we see what the side is there — “My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it”, verse 21, not the will of God, but the word — a kindred, but a different thought.
WC Mark gives the will of God, not the will of My Father.
JT The synoptic gospels are all on one line; John is distinctive — a distinctive line based on ascending, so that when Christ came in He came in from heaven. That is the principle. Mary was not to touch Him before that, but when He came into the company she could touch Him then; Thomas certainly did.
WC I wondered whether the view of the Lord’s brethren in the synoptic gospels could be connected with the assembly as morally akin with Him viewed in the loaf, doing the will of God. You said when He comes in it is from heaven and we touch the thought of brethren of the ascended Man; we rise in the service.
JT When we are giving thanks for the loaf, we do not view Him as present, but the assembly is there. Hence the Lord’s supper takes place in Jerusalem so to speak, which is said to be spiritually Sodom and Egypt.
WC Does this in the synoptics take account of the saints as in the wilderness, John more as in the land?
JT A clear way of putting it, which I hope all will [p. 158] take in.
PHH Jonathan comes before Abigail in I Samuel. Does that fit in at all here? David speaks of Jonathan as “my brother”. Does that suggest this line of brethren?
JT Yes; I have spoken of the love between Jonathan and David as masculine love — “passing the love of women”. When we get on to the idea of brethren and sons of God these relations lift us above the level of the synoptic gospels. It is not a question of what we are morally after the Lord comes in, but what we are as of His order, the same order as Christ, which is typically seen in Abraham’s urgency as to kindred; the wife must be of the same kindred as Isaac. That is what Abraham caused the servant to swear to, which shows what an important matter it is and that principle is touched on in Hebrews 2, in which the writer says, “Both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”. Not all one, but of one, which is a peculiar form of expression which implies they are of the same order — a wonderful thing if we take it in. Not that we partake of Deity, but we partake in the nature of Christ as Man.
AJG So that we must be brethren according to John in order to enter into union.
JT That is the idea exactly. Colossians and Ephesians deal with it collectively as in Paul’s doctrine.
FCH Do you distinguish between the thought of brethren and sons?
JT There is a distinction. Brethren are related to Christ and the sons to the Father, but they are the same persons and viewed together as the assembly. The feminine idea is attachable to them.
FCH I notice in regard of Zipporah that the first time the wife is mentioned first and then the sons, but the second time the sons are mentioned first and then the wife.
[p. 159] Ques We should like some more help in regard to the order of the service. The Lord has greatly stressed the thought of remembrance of Himself in the Supper both in connection with the cup as well as the loaf, and it seems to have given opportunity for the affections in the marital relation being released. Would not union underlie that?
JT I think so, where you have affection aroused.
Ques Where would you place sonship in the service of God? Have we not thought that the marital side was what was peculiarly for the heart of Christ, but would those who form the assembly have the same relationship as Himself Godward, and would praising in the assembly involve our place in sonship?
JT I would say that. Therefore I venture to put the thought of Sons and the thought of brethren into one, because they are the same persons, and thus they form the assembly. She bears a feminine character from that point in the sense that she is related to Christ as the bride, or as the wife, but she also has a place with the Father, because Matthew says the king made a marriage for his son, and John the baptist says, “He that has the bride is the bridegroom”, so that if we segregate the idea of brethren by itself, and then bring in the idea of sons, but think of the same persons, we can introduce the thought of the bride. At the same time if both thoughts are there and merge in the assembly, I do not see why we could not speak then to the Father of His sons, we being His sons in our relation as brethren with Christ. I am afraid there may be confusion in some minds and brethren may think there is contradiction. We were thinking, some of us, this morning of the way that Luke writes one treatise and finishes it, and ignores the forty days, meaning he is not giving so much time to the matter of the Lord’s ascension as [p. 160] he gives in his second treatise, because the Acts says He was forty days before He went up. The question is now as a practical example, whether the brethren ought not to be patient in these matters, not to be too quick, but let the Lord come in amongst us forty days and see how we get on.
Rem I think the thing is becoming clearer in our minds, and in our hearts, by your linking the thought of brethren in John with sonship.
JT Yes, and also in the prolongation of the narrative. The first stops at Luke 24, and the Lord is seen carried up into heaven. The next narrative runs along to Paul, and tells us that the Lord had been forty days with the disciples, and that He came in and went out during that time. Paul tells us later in Corinthians that he also had an appearing, so that the time elapsing from the first narrative by Luke until the full thought of the mystery of God has come into evidence is considerable, several years I would say before the matter was completed, and that would show there is need of care and patience so that we may arrive at the whole truth.
AJG And the Lord is giving fresh touches of glory to the truth all the time.
Ques Has that any link with the waters in Ezekiel that cannot be passed over? There seems to be a continual development in the truth as we are able to bear it.
CW When the Lord speaks in John of the Holy Spirit He says “He will guide you into all truth”, and then, “he will show you things to come”. Does that mean there are things to come? The time arrives when these are made known?
JT A time comes when they are current. I would not say the word of God is not completed at any time as Paul said it was completed by him, but the principle is there, that a long time elapsed for the [p. 161] whole truth to come out. His ministry was the completion of the word of God.
PHH What you state about the brethren and the sons would be what the saints are, and that encourages us as being able to enter into all these thoughts of the Lord Jesus and of the Father. That would help us in whatever there is to come.
JT I certainly think so, and how we all merge bearing the same characteristics, because the sons of God and the brethren of Christ are co-relative, of equal value.
CW In relation to the service of the assembly, the feminine thought is what the church is peculiarly to Christ Himself, but when it comes to the service of God we have Christ and the assembly moving together in relation to which Christ is leading. Is that so?
JT It would be wider than that. It is a question of the testimony too. There is one thing that comes out in the early part of the subject. Isaac and Rebekah become united in regard of the testimony down here. The type implies they are heavenly. Isaac did not come down after he was offered up. It does not say he came down, that means he is a heavenly man, but Rebekah comes in at the end of the 22nd chapter outstandingly in relation to Abraham’s family, and now Abraham disappears from the narrative. The servant now deals with Isaac and Rebekah. Isaac is his master, and all that he relates is not to Abraham, although he must have been there; it is a question of what he relates to Isaac, meaning that the testimony is carried on by Isaac and Rebekah; Abraham is no longer treated as in it, the line is carried on in them. So the thought of Christ and the assembly is wider than the actual service of God when we are together. Christ and the assembly are caring for the testimony. The whole testimony of God is in their hands, and I [p. 162] think that is important too, because it enables us to think of the place the assembly has in all that the Lord is doing in heaven; she is taken into it.
That brings us to Abigail. It is a great matter now, an important epoch. Samuel is dead, and David arose (verse 1), and then we are told about Abigail, “she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance”. Then in verse 14 it says that one of the young men told Abigail about Nabal; she is brought into the matter. It is an important matter, because there is an attack on David, and she is brought into it. At the end of the chapter David says: “blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand”, verse 33. That bears out what has been said already, the assembly has a modifying effect in the ministry and in the preaching of the gospel, there is a modifying effect intended in her.
AJG I was wondering whether you mean her being here in faithfulness to Christ in the presence of the increasing apostasy has a modifying effect in that it delays the judgment and maintains a testimony of grace in spite of the apostasy.
JT I think that would be borne out by the facts scripture affords as to women characteristically. When Nehemiah approached the king for certain things at Jerusalem it is a remarkable thing he mentions his own brethren first, one of the brethren told him about the state of Jerusalem, and then we have the first mention of the queen. She does not do or say anything, but is there, as if there is a modifying power or influence there. That is important in preaching or whatever else may go in relation to the service of God, even the care meetings. I believe the brethren would do well to tell the sisters what happens, because there is always a modifying effect.
[p. 163] Rem In writing the first epistle to Corinthians the apostle connects a brother with him, and addresses the saints as brethren alluding to what had been shown him by the house of Chloe.
JT A very important matter that. Her house comes into it. We have mentioned others already who might be mentioned here too, showing the modifying influence of the sisters. How often it happens that brothers have a hard judgment about matters, and when they come home and talk about things with the sisters there is a modifying influence for good. So here you see David refers to the same thing, “Blessed be thy discernment, and blessed be thou, who hast kept me this day from coming with bloodshed, and from avenging myself with mine own hand”. She, as it were, saved the position.
Rem You mean, she prevented David from going too far?
JT How often that happens.
Ques Do you get the very opposite with Herodias in connection with John the baptist?
JT The king was minded to save John Baptist, but Herodias would have it otherwise.
PHH Abigail comes in with some food, prepared food. Would that too bear on this?
JT It is really designed for the purpose we are speaking here today, that we might understand the assembly and its influence for good.
Ques How do the sisters who are not wives come into it?
JT They can ask. Why not? “Ask their husbands at home”, is said to the wives, but then the daughters can do the same; if they are godly they will seek it, and make it a matter of prayer.
PH-d One of the young men brings the matter to Abigail. What do we learn from that?
JT The attention of the assembly is called to [p. 164] certain events. That is what he represents, I think. You can see he is an alert young man and says to his mistress, “Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to bless our master; and he has insulted them”, verse 14. That is the assembly being made aware of the facts, and she takes it on, and the result is as we were reading.
JRS Is there anything in the fact that God takes the matter in His own hand in regard of Nabal?
JT That is another matter. David regards that too. “Blessed be Jehovah, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal”, verse 39. Abigail had nothing to do with that, God did it.
EuR Is not that the way God comes in and does things when the information about things is placed in a right assembly setting?
JT The brethren take occasion to look into it, and take advice. The care meeting is not an administrative or authoritative body, it is counsel. The brethren have had recourse to care meetings through the past twenty five years or so, more than they used to, and I think God has blessed the care meeting.