FAITH AND SPIRITUALITY AS SEEN IN ABRAHAM (5)
[p. 335] FAITH AND SPIRITUALITY AS SEEN IN ABRAHAM (5)
JT We have before us a section of Scripture almost unequalled, for the affections involved and the circumstances generally are all intended to bring out divine love in its family relations, because love is of God, and everyone that loves has been begotten of God and knows God. The section before us deals not only with God peculiarly, but with God in relation to a family, Abraham being selected, foreknown indeed of God, to fill out this wonderful section, which I believe the Spirit of God intends to use to impress us at this time. This chapter, of course, is the very heart of our subject, that is to say the offering up of Isaac and the conversation between Abraham and his son, and then God’s comment on it all.
Ques Would the beautiful spirit of grace in Abraham seen in the previous chapter, provide God with a moral basis for taking Abraham on?
JT I would say that. He is, as it were, equal to the occasion, because the idea of personality must come into view, and in no section of typical Scripture do we find an equal, as far as I know, in the facts presented to us here, an equal as to family affections involving personal relations with God and with men. So that Abraham qualifies, I would say, and if God were regarded as making a selection, Abraham is fully qualified, and the events immediately preceding only augment the qualification; that is to say, what we have in chapter 21, the spirit brought out in the presence of the Philistine king. It is here that the Psalms refer to the people of God in their weakness and how they were taken account of by God, and how they were viewed at this early date even as prophets, and they were not to be [p. 336] harmed, they were being watched over, a word that would certainly appeal to us at the present time, “Do my prophets no harm”.
PHH Are you referring to Psalm 105?
JT Yes, I am referring also to the whole section really, which is illumined by the wonderful appearance, I may say, of Melchisedec, the light of whom shines throughout Scripture, speaking especially of the priestly grace of Christ, for He is said to be a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
HH That is the first time that priesthood is mentioned, is it not? It is the first time a word is used that governs the situation. The priesthood of Melchisedec is not an Aaronic priesthood, but a permanent idea?
JT Quite so, another priest arising not after the order of Aaron.
Ques The reference to the burnt offering here, would that be a continuation of the idea?
JT Just so, it is fitting. Isaac says, “Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the sheep for a burnt offering?” That is, Isaac had the right thought, and Abraham’s reply is, “My son, God will provide himself with the sheep for a burnt offering. And they went both of them together”. The word is sheep as the brethren will notice. It is not a youthful thought, it is a mature thought that is in mind. But they went both of them together.
Ques May I ask you to amplify a little what you had in mind in emphasising, Melchisedec as being necessary, his service enabling all this matter to continue? Have you in mind the heavenly side of the priesthood?
JT He is introduced abruptly, but his very greatness swallows up the abruptness. The mind is at once seized by the greatness of the occasion and the personalities involved in it, for God would draw us at such a time as the present into His own [p. 337] thoughts, although they may be abrupt at times, yet their very greatness absorbs the abruptness. It is a question of the greatness of things. It is a question of God, divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that is what we are baptised to, so that Christianity involves all this.
Ques When Paul in Hebrews was entering on the section in which he was to speak of Melchisedec, he says, “Let us go on to what belongs to full growth”. Would that link on with what you have lust said as to maturity in the sheep?
JT Quite so, and let us go on to it. Evidently the Hebrew Christians were drawing back, and he is urging them forward.
PHH What is the meaning of “assimilated to the Son of God” in Hebrews 7? Melchisedec “having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God, abides a priest continually”.
JT It is a fact I would say; the facts stated involve the assimilation. The thought of the Son of God is brought in to the mind at once.
PHH Does that mean that the Son of God is the Person who is in mind, and Melchisedec is to suggest Him as he comes forward early in the Scriptures?
JT Quite so, but to suggest Him as already existent. The Son of God according to John’s gospel is existent. “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. He is in the bosom of the Father; that is whence the declaration comes. It is a question of the Son of God, but the only-begotten Son of God.
Ques Do you mean that whilst sonship involves Christ’s manhood, what is said about Melchisedec involves also His [p. 338] deity?
JT It does indeed. Both sonship and Deity are asserted and verified in John’s gospel. It is said, “In the beginning was the Word”. Infinitude can be put into that, “In the beginning was the Word”, not is but was. “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. He was with God, but then He was God, so that we are left in no doubt as to what is in mind. The expression, the Word, refers to Christ as known here in sonship.
JC-S John tracing Him back as he sees Him here would identify Him in this way as God. That is, the Word was as he saw Him here in time.
JT That is what is in mind in the gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word”, but then “the Word was with God, and the Word was God”.
PHH I suppose that lays a great foundation in our minds for all that follows upon the introduction of Melchisedec, leading up to these great relationships involving the Father and the Son. Is that so?
JT I think so, and it is what is before us now. The intent is to affect us, to enlarge us inwardly; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that is the place that Christ has. Not who was in the bosom of the Father, but who is in the bosom of the Father, and He hath declared Him.
CAI “Take now thy son, thine only son”, that touches on the great matter of the affections involved.
JT Quite so, because what precedes is that God tried or tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” It is the supreme test of love but love in this particular setting.
AJG Does the fact that this is the first mention of love in Scripture, “thine only son, whom thou lovest” indicate that it is the prime thought of love that God would present to us, the love of the Father for the only-begotten [p. 339] Son?
JT I am glad you mention that. It is good to get the first mention of a thing like this. We have all read in Genesis 15, the first mention of the word, and now as you say, this is the first mention of love, and that is very important to have before us. According to the scripture in Exodus the Hebrew servant plainly says “I love”. Here is a statement of fact that Abraham loved Isaac, “thine only son, whom thou lovest”. God says this to Abraham. It is a question of love in activity, not love in an abstract or static way, but in activity. And so in Exodus it is again love in activity, “I love my master, my wife, and my children”.
AJG Do we get a double thought of love in this chapter, the love of complacent affection in the father for the son, and then the love seen in supreme sacrifice?
JT Just so, the love seen in supreme sacrifice, that is what it is.
Ques Would the verse in Romans 8 refer to this? “He that spared not his own Son”?
JT “His own Son”, just so; He that spared not. That is a sacrifice, a supreme sacrifice.
JC-S Would the two thoughts be included here, “The Father loves the Son” in John 3 and then in John 10, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again”?
JT Yes.
PHH Would you be free to say a word about the verse in John 17 where the Lord says, “That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them”? Would that be typically brought before us in this chapter?
JT Quite so, and then “I in them”, that is to say, He has a place, and He would be loved in a certain place, that is in them, which opens up the [p. 340] idea of His service to God in the midst of the assembly. That is where He would be.
JWH Is it intended that as we view this love in complacency as seen in the Father and the Son we might be affected by it in the service?
JT Just so, to be in love, but love in activity.
Ques Is there any connection between the thought of the Eternal God in the end of the previous chapter and the love that is now coming into expression? I was thinking of the passage in John 17 — “my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. Did what is spoken of as complacent love have its existence in eternity, but it has now come into expression in a tangible form in relation to Christ in manhood?
JT We are dealing with a most profound typical section, and John 17 is the most profound apostolic section. It is the very heart of things, and of course it opens up something for us to think of, and the Lord would give us grace to think aright and to speak aright, so as to help one another, because in what we are saying it is a question of our being able to say it in love, and thus there is a situation created in which love is active. I believe that is what John’s gospel implies — the activity of love.
JC-S So that love becomes our measure in the matter?
JT Yes.
Ques It says that Abraham rose early in the morning to give effect to this. Do you think that that would be delightful to God? He was ready to give immediate effect to this great thought of sacrifice in love.
JT “The morning” affords much in an operational sense that you do not find later in the day. Hence it is the time for doing things and reaching ends, especially in these readings that we have. The morning meetings usually are the best as far as [p. 341] I remember, because it is the freshness of the day, and the freshness of ourselves too, the vigour that God may give us, the spiritual vigour of course, to deal with His things.
Rem So that God says to Moses, “Be ready for the morning”, Exodus 34: 2.
JT Quite so. Now tell us more of what you had in mind as to John 17.
Rem I was only enquiring as to John 17: 24, “Father, as to those whom thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. My inquiry was whether the love before the foundation of the world touched what was otherwise inscrutable, the relations of love in eternity, and yet evidently centring now in Christ as Man, for the glory is given to Him, involving His manhood. I was wondering whether the Eternal God in that sense has become known to us in the love of the Father for the Son.
JT Just so. In considering the subject we might look at verse 5, “And now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. He is speaking as Man here, but He is speaking to His Father on personal grounds and desires to be reinstated, as it is said, “And now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. He is speaking to His Father as Man here, but He is referring to the past and asking to be glorified now in manhood along with His Father with the glory which He had along with Him before the world was.
CCC Are we entitled in that way to carry over into this chapter the impression of Genesis 18 as to Deity in the three Persons who stood near [p. 342] Abraham?
JT We alluded to that yesterday, and one would not speak of it except in a fluid way, that is to say, not to make it a prime thought exactly, but there are the three seen together thus, that is God Himself and the two angels, for we see later that they were angels, though they are not viewed thus in Genesis 18. The word is, “Jehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre. And he sat at the tent-door in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, three men standing near him”. We just touched on that yesterday, seeing too that the word “standing” means that they had stationed themselves there, they took up the position deliberately so as to be available, to be near. They were standing near. It is clearly that there might be opportunity for Abraham to move in such light and in such company and in such distinction as were afforded to him by the presence of the three persons alluded to.
Ques Would it be wrong to use the word assimilation, and say that these three men, might, in our minds, be regarded as assimilated to the thought of divine Persons?
JT I doubt if we should go so far as that; it is a question of Godhead. The word assimilated is a New Testament word, used in saying that Melchisedec was assimilated to the Son of God. I speak of Genesis 18, as I said, in a fluid way, not to stress it unduly, but to have the thought in our minds, because God does teach us in this way, sometimes in a shallow or light sense, and then at other times in a deep sense — the depths of God. I mean to say we have to choose our words if we are to be careful, and to say that these three are assimilated to the Deity is going too far.
Ques Do you think that what David prays for Solomon might enter into what we are now saying? He speaks of “the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people”, 1 Chronicles 29: 18. Do you think that would enable us to grasp the divine thought that has been suggested to us without taking it too far? To lay hold of the tangibility of the suggestion without trying to work it out completely?
JT Well, quite so. David is a suitable person to bring forward. “Thou art that God”, he says, 1 Chronicles 17: 26.
AED Is the relationship brought into peculiar prominence in the seventh verse of this chapter in the words, “My father”, and then he said, “Here am I, my son”, before the question is raised by Isaac? Does this link on with what you were saying as to John 17?
JT Think of the infinite depths involved in John 17: 5! Firstly He had said, “I have glorified thee on the earth, I have completed the work which thou gavest me that I should do it” and now He adds, “and now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. We are in the very depths of God, you might say, because that is an expression that is used by Paul, “the depths of God”.
PHH Are the Persons emphasised so closely together, “Now glorify me, thou Father”?
JT Yes, it is a question of the intimate relationships, and these relationships being asserted, and then time brought into it. It is a question of before the world was, but there is an anticipation, too, that the Lord is looking for, of Himself being reinstated, if I may use that word, in the glory which He had along with the Father.
AMH Do you take that glory to be some peculiar relationship of divine love, before the relationship of Father and Son was introduced? And now He asks to be received back into that in [p. 344] manhood.
JT That is right, so that we cannot say that love was introduced. I mean that we have to see that love was there.
AJG The expression “along with” involves equality, does it?
JT I think so.
Ques Does not the verse taken by itself leave us with the impression of what is inscrutable? Verse 24 would enable us to say something in relation to love, because that is where we come into the matter, is it not?
JT Well, verse 22 I think should precede what you are saying, “The, glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, as we are one”. I would say that that is the glory of sonship, but the glory of verse 5, “Now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”; I would not say that that was sonship. I am certain it Was not, but verse 22 is sonship. It is the glory of sonship, that is to say, the Lord has taken the disciples up in a fit relationship involving glory.
PHH That is the glory which He had, but it was a glory which He was given. Is that the distinction in your mind?
JT Just so. He gave the disciples the glory that was conferred upon Him. They are brought into that glory.
AJG And then would you mind saying a word as to verse 24, “that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me” as distinct from “the glory which thou hast given me I have given them” in verse 22?
JT You are centring on the thought of love. Is that what I understand?
AJG Yes, I was enquiring whether in verse 22 it is a glory which, as you have said is given to us, the glory of sonship, but in verse 24 there seems to be something distinctive in the expression, “my glory”, which He desires that we should behold as with Him.
JT One has to think more about this matter. Verse 24 reads, “I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me”, that is to say, there is a glory that the Father has given Him, and He wishes that the disciples should know it, should behold it.
AJG Yes. Is that the distinctive glory given to Christ to bring in, in Himself, all the thoughts of love which the Father had formed before the foundation of the world, and would it link at all with what Peter records in the first chapter of his second epistle, that when they were with Him on the holy mount, the Father said to them, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”?
JT Then this prayer in verse 24 is, “Father, as to those whom thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. If I may make a comparison, in verse 5 the Lord says, “And now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. Here it is “the glory which I had along with thee”, but in verse 24 it is something that is given to Him. This is clearly a distinct thing from verse 5. The disciples are to see the glory of verse 24, and I would think what you say is quite correct. It is a question of the unfolding of love, divine thoughts between the Father and the Son, and the disciples are to come into these, and see the glory that He has as unfolding these thoughts, and bring them into evidence.
AJG Would that be confirmed by the difference in the expressions used in verse 5 and verse 24?
In verse 5 He says “before the world was” which seems to be a more absolute expression, but verse 24 is “before the foundation of the world”, which seems to link on with the thought of divine purpose.
JT Just so, it is divine purpose. That is the idea, “the foundation of the world”. It is a foundational thought, that is to say, God is going to build up things, and the Son is to be the agent of it, but the disciples have this special place. As He says, “Father ... I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me”. The glory which the Son has received, which has been given to Him by the Father, is now to be seen by the disciples. “For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”; the Father’s love for the Son is brought into it all, therefore I would think what you say is quite in order, and encouraging, too, and instructive as to what we are to be brought into, in the sense of what is given to Christ, in view of the service that He is rendering now, or has been rendering to the Father.
JC-S The glory of sonship in verse 22 conferred upon Him or given to Him is conferred upon us, but the glory in verse 24, whilst conferred upon Him is not conferred upon us. We are to behold it.
JT That is right. We are to see Him.
WSS Would the anointing of Aaron help to the understanding of it, Aaron anointed alone in the first place, and then Aaron and his sons with him anointed together (see Leviticus 8: 12 and 30), one being a distinctive glory and the other a glory which is shared?
JT There is a good deal in that, I am sure, because Exodus 28 is primarily concerned with Aaron by himself, although the sons are in view, but the whole chapter almost, we might say, is occupied [p. 347] with Aaron by himself. The sons are brought into it at the end of the chapter.
JP Could we have a word as to the love in verse 24 and the love in verse 26 of John 17? “For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”, and then “that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”?
JT Well, it is not now that we see it, but that it is in us. That is a greater thing, a fuller thought really, and brings out just what has been remarked earlier, that the Lord says, “I in them”. He has a place in us, and is operating in that position, and so in Hebrews He sings to the Father in that connection, in the midst of the assembly.
Ques Is it not brought out by the whole tenor of Scripture, that whilst we are brought into such intimate relations with the Lord, and share the love that He knows, and share His relationship, He ever retains and will ever retain, a distinctive personal place?
JT Quite so. In all things He must have the pre-eminence, but at the same time it is very touching that He wishes to be in a certain position in order to serve God. The Father’s love is in them, but Christ is in the disciples — “I in them”, He said.
PHH Is this preposition in, therefore, to be looked at in the light of operation and activity? “That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”.
JT I think it just supports what we are saying as to operation. The Lord desires to have a certain position in view of the operations in mind.
PL Does it link up with headship in Colossians? “I in them”. It would give Him scope for the service of God.
SHB Is there a reason why the feature of contemplation is introduced in regard to this great [p. 348] subject? I was thinking of John 1. “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”. Does contemplation come in on our side, so that we get the joy of it?
JT Quite so. It comes in following on the Word having become flesh. “The Word became flesh” (He had taken another form) “and dwelt among us and we have contemplated his glory”. That is what John says, the Lord had come within their range, that they might contemplate His glory.
FDA Referring again to love, the love that ever existed, is that carried forward into the sphere of sonship, or is there something distinctive about the love that has ever existed?
JT Well, you are quite right in saying it is carried into the sphere of sonship. The Lord has come into that sphere, that is the point in John 1. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. He became flesh. It was His own action. He has taken another form, but with a view to being within our range, dwelling among us.
JWH Does this link on with Paul, as seen in Galatians, where he says, “When God, who set me apart even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me”?
JT Well, Paul had the revelation in him, Peter had it to him. Peter had the revelation, too, but it was to Peter, but Paul seems to have a fuller and more animated and intimate thought about the revelation, in that the Father had revealed His Son in Paul, that he might announce Him as glad tidings among the nations, as if to glorify the service of the gospel, whereas what Peter represents is to work out in the structure of the assembly, the building of the assembly, and the appearing is to him.
AMH Might I refer again to John 17:26. “The love with which thou hast loved me may be in them”? Is that the Father’s love in us, in some [p. 349] sense giving us to stand beside Him in His delight in the Son?
JT Very good. In some sense, that is, in a respectful deferential sense. Just as we often had it, that at the crossing of the Jordan, a certain distance is maintained, but the position is there.
ENJ Would Abraham’s two young men be in that position, the great privilege of contemplating in type the movements of the Father and the Son, but only able to go so far?
JT Well, there is not much said of what they saw. Have you anything in mind as to that?
ENJ I was just thinking of Abraham having chosen these two young men to go so far on the journey, and he said to them, “I and the lad will go yonder and worship”.
JT They are seen again at the end of the chapter going down to Beer-sheba. In verse 19 it says, “Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba. And Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba”. But Isaac is not seen, therefore they did not see much. The matter of seeing was between Abraham and his son, and then that is true as regards ourselves. The thing is happening between the father and the son themselves, so, I think, we are left with the thought that Isaac does not come down to Beer-sheba. After he is risen figuratively from the dead the position is left open, and therefore we have the thought now that we often enjoy, of the Lord’s place with us in coming to us, that He is free, but He does not belong to the level of the earth or Beer-sheba. Isaac is not said to have come down; the young men came down, and Abraham came down, but not Isaac; that I think opens up much as to assembly service and privilege.
PL So that “they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba”. Is that the state of love and unity in which God is pleased sovereignly to give us light as to the assembly? “Bethuel begot Rebecca”, is now introduced.
JT That is what we have to come to and not forget it. The picture must be filled out, and Isaac is seen above; he does not come down to the level of Beer-sheba. The picture must be filled out, and it is filled out in the facts of the verses from verse 21. They bring in the position of Rebecca. Her name is just mentioned in verse 23, but it is enough. It is enough to fill out the wonderful sphere in which we are.
PHH It is mentioned in the setting of begetting. Does that in some sense bring in the thought of the Father?
JT Just so, and it also fits in with the thought of the ram.
PHH I was going to ask whether the ram brought in the progenitive idea, so that all these thoughts of love that you have been speaking about, are to be carried forward and continued.
JT That is just it. It is not a female thought, although we have the female in the earlier chapters, that is chapter 15, and we have the ram too, there, but here it is progenitive just as you said, because it is a question of Abraham’s line being carried forward. There must be the progenitive idea, and that will be the basis for our next considerations on chapter 24, where Rebecca fills out the truth.
PL Is that like the males appearing before God in relation to His service?
JT Bringing out the masculine side in the ways:, of God, beginning with Genesis 2.
PL Is not the language very selective in this spiritual environment, the “sons” in verse 20, and then the “firstborn”, and “his brother” in verse 21, and then “these eight” in verse 23. Does this all bear on the upward [p. 351] trend?
JT I think we shall see as we proceed further today that the upward trend is in mind all the way through.
FW Is there any reason why Isaac is twice spoken of here as the lad, and then in the second reference what immediately follows is his being the son? “Stretch not out thy hand against the lad, neither do anything to him; for now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me”. Is there a progressive thought in that?
JT Very good. You are stressing the word “lad”.
FW Yes. Earlier in the chapter it says “I and the lad” and in chapter 48 Jacob says, “Bless the lads”. Is it a progressive idea from what is an historical position to what is in mind in sonship?
JT That is the point. The point in the passage is that the son dies. Christ has died, but is risen again, and He is not only risen, He is ascended, and that is the point in John 20, “I ascend to my Father and your Father”, so that we must go on to that to get the full thought of Christianity. It is a question of ascension, and I think the thing is confirmed in Paul’s ministry, especially in Acts 20, where we have love at the beginning and love at the end, and at the middle, and the middle brings in the boy, that is the youth at the window. He is called a boy, meaning that it is an initial thought, a youthful thought, but he is not going to stay there. He is going to progress, because they brought the boy away. They brought away the boy alive and were comforted. Whether our young people are a comfort to the brethren is a question. They are not always, very often the opposite, but they were comforted by the boy.