DIVINE NAMES (1)
[p. 147] DIVINE NAMES (1)
Matthew 28:16 - 20, 1 Corinthians 8:3 - 6
JT The brethren will be generally aware that the subject proposed for these monthly readings is that of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that is to say, God, the economy into which He has come and the names by which He is spoken of in Scripture, by which the three Persons of the Godhead, indeed, are spoken of. It is thought that we should begin with the Father, the special title in which God is known to christians, and then later take up other titles from the Old and New Testaments. Father is the name in which God is revealed in christianity. In Matthew He is seen generally in relation to the kingdom, that is, in the exercise of care for His people down here; whereas John in one passage quoting the Lord Jesus, connects us with the Father as Christ is with Him. The Lord says, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”, John 20:17. That is not a kingdom connection but a family connection, in which we know God in the most exalted and intimate way of any of the families in heaven or on earth, because it is in association with Christ — He being the Son, we being sons.
It is thought that we should be confined in our conversation to this phase of our subject. Matthew 28 has been suggested because it shows how we are introduced into this wonderful light of the revelation of God in the economy into which He has come — baptised “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, Matthew 28:19. It is not in the name, but to the name, meaning that the bearing of our baptism is towards God as thus revealed.
[p. 148] The passage in Corinthians shows how christians as thus baptised regard God — “to us”, it says, The knowledge spoken of is confined in phraseology to the saints of God — “to us there is one God, the Father”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. So that we begin with God known to us, at least professedly known to believing through the Holy Spirit. Of the three Persons spoken of in the formula in Matthew 28, the Holy Spirit is the power in us of knowledge and in this power we can call God our Father, for it is said, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18. So that we should be able to converse about this great matter as of a God known to us, we might say humbly and reverently, in a personal way, as the Father.
Then another thing, one ventures to say for the sake of clarity is that all truth is authoritative, and the apostles represent the authority of the truth known to us in the New Testament, as Moses represents the authority of God in the Pentateuch. Moses received at mount Horeb light from God as to Himself. He said, “I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty God”, Exodus 6:2,3. But now He is taking on a new name, which is Jehovah. In writing the Pentateuch, Moses uses the name Jehovah from the outset, but He uses it as in the light of the revelation that he had. He uses the title Jehovah from the outset in Genesis, and he uses it according to the light that he had, the revelation made to him. He does not enlarge on it at first, but when we come to Exodus, the second book he wrote, Moses tells us about this revelation, and not only having the revelation but being commissioned of God as the mediator between Him and the people, he has authority in what he says, hence the Pentateuch is the beginning of divine authority in Scripture, the written mind of God; and so the apostles in the New Testament occupy the same place as Moses. They had a revelation. Peter had a revelation from the [p. 149] Father as to Christ, that He was the Son of the living God. There was indeed the revelation to them all of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Peter in his first address in Jerusalem spoke of the Father, he spoke of Christ receiving from the Father the promise of the Spirit, and that He had given Him to the saints, “he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”. So that the authority connected with the revelation of God was with the apostles. They were not only believers having the Holy Spirit and having the light, but they were commissioned as Moses was. They had authority and all the writers of the New Testament carried authority. And what comes out in keeping with this is that the first believers from the preaching after the Holy Spirit came down “persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”, Acts 2:42; that is, they recognised the authority vested in them. The commission the apostles had places the Bible on indisputable ground — on the ground of divine authority. There is no question of disputation, whether it is inspired or not: it is inspired, given to us in the power of the Holy Spirit by persons divinely commissioned. So that all the truth that will come before us has divine authority behind it, and in no subject is it more essential to observe this than the truth as to God Himself.
JS In the light of the types, in Matthew 28 the disciples arrive at the mountain of God.
JT Very much like it. It is the last mount of Matthew. There are seven mountains in Matthew, in connection with which there are seven phases of the truth, like the mountains round about Jerusalem, and this last one, as you say, is like the mountain of God at which Moses received his commission and his revelation. To show that authority stands peculiarly in this mountain, it is said, “the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them”. He appointed to meet them there. It was very [p. 150] formal, and with a certain amount of distance, the distance that His dignity required in such a position. In his message to the disciples the angel says, “And behold, he goes before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him”, Matthew 28:7. “But the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”, Matthew 28:16 - 18; that is, power in the sense of authority.
CAM Would you say something more about the Father in the gospel of Matthew. You were alluding to the matter of the kingdom and I was going to ask you about the expression used in Matthew: “Our Father who art in the heavens”, Matthew 6:9.
JT That is what I was remarking on. It is a kingdom reference. We are down here — the saints are down here and He is up there.
CAM Do we regard ourselves in that way as in the place of children and need, etc.? Is that the thought?
JT That is the thought in Matthew, generally, not altogether. Because we have the Father calling attention to the Son there, also the Son speaking to the Father, but generally it is the Father known in the kingdom, known in His care: “For your Father knows of what things ye have need before ye beg anything of him”, Matthew 6:8.
CAM Well, if I might just ask this further question — as to children in John’s gospel, whether the thought of nature is more prominent?
JT Yes; the introduction to that is, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. John 1:12,13. Birth is connected with children, which is a matter of our position down here.
[p. 151] The term children, properly, belongs to us as here where Christ was; but sonship belongs to us in our heavenly relations above.
ANW Does the Lord Jesus link Himself with them in Matthew in saying, “Your Father”? In John 20 He says, “My Father and your Father”, John 20:17.
JT No. That is what we ought to see — the difference. John only uses the expression “your Father” once, and that is in chapter 20. Whereas Matthew uses it many times, quoting the Lord; and of course, Paul uses it and Peter uses it. But John is limited as to this, he wishes, however, to stress the heavenly position of fatherhood; Fatherhood to Christ; attaching God’s Fatherhood to Christ, and to us. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. The word “ascend” governs it. You get nothing like that in Matthew.
JS It is not adoption in John.
JT We do not get sons in John’s gospel.
JS I was thinking of chapter 1, “who have been born, not ... of flesh’s will”, John 1:13.
JT You mean, children is not adoption; ‘children of’ implies birth, but sonship is adoption — that is, for us. For Christ, sonship is birth. “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2:7.
JS You have “the grain of wheat” falling into the ground and dying in John — our derivation from Christ.
JT Quite so. “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”, Hebrews 2:11. Christians are the “much fruit” of the one grain of wheat. Thus we are absolutely of Him; as He is so are we.
ABP In relation to what you were saying about the heavenly side, would there be special significance in the “to” in John 17: “These things Jesus spoke, and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father”, John 17:1.
JT Quite so. He speaks to Him on that ground,
[p. 152] which there involves His Person — He is alone in it. The formal statement of our relation with the Father is in John 20. “My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. And that ought to help us in conversing together on this great subject. Now, what we ought to see is whether we can all say, “To us there is one God, the Father”. Because one point in 1 Corinthians 8 is idolatry. It is a question of whether we are free from idolatry. Idolatry is all around us. “There are gods many, and lords many”, 1 Corinthians 8:5.
CB I suppose it is necessary for the Father to be shown to us, so that it might suffice for us. “Lord, shew us the Father and it suffices us”. John 14:8.
JT Yes, that brings up John’s line of truth as to our subject. In chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 — we have already alluded to 17, but you quote 14, in which Philip says to the Lord, “Shew us the Father and it suffices us”. The Lord answers, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14:9. Well, that has to be carefully considered, lest any one might think the Father and the Son are phases of one Person — which is not true. They are two Persons. The Father is seen in the Son. It was not that He was the Father personally, but the Father is represented in Him, perfectly represented in Him. He says in that same chapter, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?” John 14:10. So the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons; and the Spirit is also a distinct Person; but the Son perfectly represented the Father, so that anyone who saw the Son saw the Father. It is a question of the character, the traits, of the Father perfectly represented, the Father Himself there. Nobody ever sees the Person of the Father: “the blessed and only Ruler ... dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”, 1 Timothy 6:15,16.
ANW So that when the Lord Jesus says, “I and my Father are one”. He is not saying [p. 153] they are not two Persons; but They are one in motive, purpose and thought.
JT That is exactly what is stated there. Unitarians might say it is one Person in two phases or three phases, but it is not so. There are three Persons, only infinitely one in the sense of unity. God is one; that is, one in all that oneness in persons means.
Ques Would it be right to say that it takes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit properly to express God?
JT It does, but the Father remains in the absoluteness of the Deity, so “to us there is one God, the Father”. The other two Persons have taken mediatorial places. They have not left the Deity in the inscrutable sense, but they have taken a mediatorial place, so that God might be fully known, but the Father is the One we allude to objectively as God — “one God, the Father”. It is not one Father, God; but one God, the Father; that is, the Godhead is in the Father in the economy, and the other two divine Persons are in the mediatorial place so that they operate here — Christ in heaven, and the Holy Spirit here — to carry on in administration the work of God in this wonderful time. The economy is in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
WB-w Referring to the family relationship in John, the thought of eternal life runs right through, and then when we come to chapter 20, “I ascend to my Father and your Father”, does that cover sonship — that expression, or does it cover eternal life also?
JT Clearly; the Father must imply sonship. If He is the Father of Christ, Christ is Son, and if He is our Father, it means that we are sons; although the word is not used, it is clearly implied because being Father to us, we are His sons.
WB-w But does John enter into Paul’s line of truth in the expression, “I ascend to my Father and your Father”?
[p. 154] JT Paul develops this truth. It is the heavenly side of the position.
WB-w There are two sides: the family side and that of eternal life.
JT Yes; eternal life is more man with God, so “And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only [p. 156] true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”, John 17:3. It is not the Father and Son there, but the true God and Jesus Christ. I do not know whether that is clear to you, but I think it ought to be worked out in our souls, the relation in which eternal life stands. It is a question of God and man. The relation of Father and Son is family, and Paul adds the thought of the Spirit of adoption to that. The Spirit of adoption is the Spirit of sonship.
WB-w I was wondering why John rises to that in chapter 20. Generally it is God and men, in relation to eternal life. When you come to chapter 20, “I ascend to my Father and your Father”, is higher than eternal life.
JT The message through Mary in John 20 is one of the greatest truths. John touches that point there to establish our heavenly position, but in no other place in John is He called “our Father”. He is called Christ’s Father, but it is the Father or Christ’s Father universally in John, except in that one passage, so that in the body of John’s gospel, it is a question of eternal life, and the Father would more stand for grace than family relationship except to Christ. The book begins in that respect with this, “we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”. Well, that is Christ, as a Son, an only Son with the Father. That is all personal to Himself, elsewhere, it is “the Father” or “my Father” except the one passage in John 20. Generally, “the Father” in John’s gospel would be God known in grace.
JTJr Does eternal life stand in relation or [p. 155] in contrast to what sin has brought in, and family relationship more in regard to God’s purpose?
JT That is right. Eternal life is a necessity because death has come in. “Even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death”, Romans 5:12. The question of eternal life would not be raised were it not for that, but the family thought was counsel, “having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself” Ephesians 1:5.
FSC Is eternal life based entirely on belief in the Son?
JT That is how it is stated in John 3. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal”, John 3:16. That is how it is introduced, but later we have “He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal”, John 5:24.
ANW Is it right to say that eternal life is in the range of promise, sonship in the line of counsel?
JT Quite so: the promise of life.
WB-w The only difficulty in my mind is the question of introducing the family in connection with eternal life, and using it in relation to sonship. Does the same word ‘family’ cover both?
JT I think that would make too much of eternal life and too little of sonship. Sonship is a matter of eternal purpose. Eternal life is a necessity — to meet the need in man; but sonship is to meet a need in God’s heart. We needed life because death had come in. Of course if Adam had not sinned, the question of eternal life would not be raised because there would be no death in the human family. But in meeting the question of sin God placed life on a higher level than what Adam innocent had. Christ risen is the expression of it.
CAM So that while the Lord is addressing the Father in chapter 17 yet when He says, “And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”, does that not seem to make it quite clear that eternal life is not the same thing as family relationship.
JT It does; and moreover He says, “as thou hast given him authority over all flesh, that as to all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal”, John 17:2. That would be all that received life eternal down here: “all that thou has given to him”. So that every believer, including those in the millennial earth, is given to Him in that sense. But when we come to verse 6 of the chapter. He says, “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world”. When we come to the millennium in which eternal life will have full force, it is not a question of being given to Him out of the world, because the world is then the millennial world. But now He says, “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world”. They represent a family by themselves, the men whom the Father gave Him out of the world. They are the ones that are mainly in view throughout the whole chapter. In the first statement it is, “all that thou hast given to him”. It is a question of all flesh inclusive of the millennial day; but verse 6 onward is a special family. That is, the family of the present dispensation. The men that are given to Christ out of the world.
CAM That looks on to eternity, does it not?
JT Yes. That is the heavenly side of the matter. The whole of the chapter shows what a place they are to have; that they are to be with Him, as He says in verse 22: “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, as we are one”. And then in verse 24, “Father, as to those whom thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me”. John 17:24 That does not refer to all that get eternal life in the early part of the chapter.
CAM Would it not be right to say that it is a higher and eternal [p. 157] thought?
JT That is what I understand. We are to be with Him; He says, “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”. Then He goes on, “Righteous Father, — and the world has not known thee, but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”, verses 24 - 26. I think the brethren will all see that these statements refer to a special family or class of persons, not to the generality of those of “all flesh”, although given to Christ; and they will get eternal life.
WB-w What is involved in the manifestation of the Father’s name to them?
JT Well, the first is manifestation, verse 6, “I have manifested”. Verse 26 is making known: “And I have made known”. “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me”, verse 6. That would be objective, the Father’s name manifest before their eyes, but in verse 26 it is another form, namely, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”. Making it known is a deeper thing. It is worked into us, as it were, by the Lord’s instruction; worked into our being, to make room for the love; the kind of love with which the Father loves the Son. I think the brethren will all see by these comparisons that John 17 contemplates in general a unique family, called men given to Christ; whereas the earlier reference in regard to eternal life is “all flesh”. Christ has authority over all flesh. He says, “that as to all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal”. That is on lower ground. We come into that too; but He is not dealing on that point as to the disciples. The men the Father gave [p. 158] him.
AR I suppose eternal life does not take you off the earth, whereas verse 24 really puts you in heaven.
JT Clearly; where He is now.
WB-w Verse 26 would be family love, would it not?
JT Yes. A very extraordinary kind; because it is the love “with which thou hast loved me”. That kind of love.
AR How do you explain that verse in Ephesians: “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”. Ephesians 3:14,15?
JT That enlarges on what we are saying. There are other families besides those who form the assembly. John 17 deals with that family in the body of the chapter, but there are other families, and the apostle in bowing his knees to the Father recognises that there are other families.
AR Will they take their bearings, or be assigned into a certain class or relationship as from the Father?
JT I think so. Take for instance, chapter 14: “Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe on God, believe also on me. In my Father’s house there are many abodes; were it not so, I had told you: for I go to prepare you a place; and if I go and shall prepare you a place, I am coming again and shall receive you to myself, that where I am ye also may be”, John 14:1 - 3. That cannot refer to the Jewish family down here in the millennium nor to saved gentiles, either. Each are in a class by themselves.
Ques Do you distinguish between the Fatherhood of God in a general sense, and the name Father as revealed to us as sons?
JT The name Father implies sonship, John’s gospel begins with that, “And we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1:14. “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten [p. 159] Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”, John 1:18. So He is the Father of Christ in John’s gospel, and parallel with this, “the Father” in that gospel. The Father expresses grace, because the Lord says, “For neither does the Father judge any one”, John 5:22. That is important to bear in mind, the title of Father is more limited than the title God. God judges but the Father judges no one. In John 20 He is Christ’s Father and our Father, which is special, our heavenly calling being in mind, for ascension is connected with it.
AR As Father has the idea of family in view. God would have in view all men.
JT The Father must imply sonship or children.
ABP Will the saints of the Old Testament have part in what is heavenly?
JT I would think so. When Christ comes they will all be raised, for they are Christ’s, they belong to Christ. They will all be segregated, so to speak, each into his own family, because each family must be formed according to the light vouchsafed to it. Therefore what existed before the deluge would not be the same as what came in under Abraham, and then what came in under Moses, and what came in under David and the prophets. There are dispensations, and each dispensation has advanced light, I mean, it is cumulative, until you come to the highest thought, and that is Christ become man. You have sonship of the most exalted sense, and we come into that. Others come into sonship, too, but according to their formation, they will be on lower ground. That is how I understand the truth.
ABP So that that thought is seen in God’s saying, “Out of Egypt I called my son”, Hosea 11:1.
JT Yes. That was Israel in Egypt called out. He had that relation and place with God in Canaan.
JS In verse 2 of John 17 — “he should give them life eternal” is that as [p. 160] the second Adam?
JT Yes, I would say that.
JHE The Lord said, “Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced”, John 8:56. Would that allude to the family thought?
JT Yes. I think the allusion would be to the weaning of Isaac. I mean, that is the figure. Abraham rejoiced in that day, but it was Christ really though Abraham could not have told you about it as we can tell each other now; but the Lord interpreted it in that way; and in referring to eternal life, I think we have to connect it with Abraham. Human life was shortened steadily up to Abraham, so that the idea of eternal life would be more appreciated.
AC Speaking of the Father, would you explain the expression in Hebrews, “the Father of spirits”.
JT Well it is remarkable that He is not called “our Father” in Hebrews. Hebrews does not bring out the fulness of christianity. It is just the Father of spirits. Of course. He is the Father of our spirits, but the point is He deals with us inwardly, so that we have come “to the spirits of just men made perfect”, Hebrews 12:23.
RWS I would like to be a little clearer on how sonship in the assembly family is different to the sonship you spoke of in other families.
JT Take, for instance, Ishmael. He was Abraham’s son, and he was blessed because he was Abraham’s son, but he was not on the same level as Isaac. Isaac was the supreme thought — “for in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee”, Genesis 21:12. I only allude to that as a figure, that a man may have two persons who are in the relation of sons, but one may not be in the same relation as the other; for instance, the mothers were different, and motherhood has a great deal to do with the families. It is a question of subjective conditions in the time in which they lived.
AR Would also the scripture in Ephesians help — “his inheritance in the saints”? We could not say that of other families, I suppose.
JT I should not say that. I think every family affords something for God. Take little children, the Lord Jesus says, “their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens”, Matthew 18:10. We can only just touch on that. Scripture is almost silent, but there is enough to show they form a certain family.
CAM In that connection, our apprehension of the Father would be very much greater in this family, the assembly. “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14:9. Do you connect that sentence with the expression that the Father uses, “This is my beloved Son ... hear him”, Matthew 17:5? Do you connect those two matters together?
JT No doubt. We should not have the character of the Father at all if the Son had not become a Man, if one of the divine Persons had not become Man. The record does not say the Father spoke to Him at the Jordan. It is a voice; a voice from heaven. There was supreme affection in that voice, and the voice was heard. Of course it was the Father’s, but the thought of the voice is stressed. Referring to the transfiguration, Peter says, “such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: ... and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain”, 2 Peter 1:18. What voice was that? Was there ever such a voice heard before? Never! As far as Scripture goes it was the first time that voice was heard. Not that God’s voice had not been heard, but the Father’s. “This is my beloved Son” then, “Thou art my beloved Son” (both things are said), “in thee I have found my delight”, Matthew 17:5, Luke 3:22. These statements were heard on the banks of the Jordan. But we want more than the voice. We want something of the Father’s traits, what He is characteristically. Well, you see them in that [p. 162] Person that He speaks to. So that the Lord says, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”. That is more than the Father’s voice. The character of the Father is there. We see Him perfectly in the Son. The Lord says, “I have manifested thy name”. I think that would be in His walk and ways, and words and teaching. But “I have made known unto them” — that would go further. Manifestation is what is before your eyes; but making a thing known is an inward process. There is room in us for the love wherewith the Father loves the Son.
ANW Why does He distinguish between “I have made known”, and “I will make it known”?
JT I think He would have in mind what came out in chapter 20 when He says, “I will make it known”. He had done it already, but there was more still to make known, which He included in the message through Mary.
WB-w Was the Father not expressed in Him before His baptism?
JT Well, He said “Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?” Luke 2:49. Sonship was there and active, but the Father’s voice was not heard. The Father’s voice was heard in connection with the service of Christ down here, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Him simultaneously with that. So that the representation of the Father is in the power of the Spirit. That is how the truth is presented in Scripture.
WB-w And began there at that time at the banks of Jordan? Is that the beginning of it?
JT Quite so. You get the Lord starting out there. Immediately He goes to the wilderness. He is led of the Spirit, and He gathers up the fishermen, Peter and Andrew, James and John. He becomes attractive. The Father would always be there, but it is as active in testimony that He says “He that has seen me has seen the Father”.
EEH Is the idea of the Father carried through to eternity as seen in the Lord Jesus where He is spoken of as the Father of Eternity?
JT Fatherhood in God will continue. But you are quoting from Isaiah 9. It is really literally “Father of the age”, and it alludes to Christ, not to His having a family exactly, but that He is exercising the care of a Father over the whole millennial period. As a man may be said to be the father of his country. He says to the disciples, “Children”. That is a fatherly expression; but that does not mean He was Father in the Deity, that is, in the sense of “the Father”.
EEH That is very clear; that is what I mean.
JT It is the greatness of the Person of Christ; that He is great enough to be the Father of His kingdom, of the millennial world. So, as I said before. He said to the disciples, “Children, have ye anything to eat?” John 21: 5. We just sang the first hymn which contains the expression “Father of eternity”. I am afraid that as it stands there it is connected in our minds with Him in pre-incarnate Deity; not that I did not have to do with that myself; but I am afraid it is misleading. People sing it and think it has to do with Christ’s position in the eternal day. The Father of the eternal state of things into which we are going is the Father of whom we are speaking. “One God, the Father”. It is important to have that distinction.
JS Would it not be important to look into the text. It is quite clear that it is the ‘Father of the age’.
JT Anyone can see that in Isaiah 9. There is a note to this effect in the New Translation.
AC While speaking of the term ‘care’, would it not be in keeping with what the apostle Paul had in his mind in writing the two letters to the saints at Thessalonica, addressing them as “in God the Father”, and speaking of the nursing attitude?
JT Yes; they were in the affections of the Father.
Paul said he exhorted them “as a father his own children”. It corresponds with what John says: “I write to you, little children, because ye have known the Father”, 1 John 2:13. The Thessalonians were young christians, but very lovable. That is really what is meant. He does not say that of those at Corinth. He says to them, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 1:3.
AR Is there any other family that will understand and know God as Father as christians do?
JT Not on the same level. “My Father and your Father”, I think only applies to those who form the assembly, that is, the saints of this dispensation.
AR Is Abba Father distinctly christianity?
JT I would say so. These are the exact words of Christ in speaking to Him.
RWS Is that the “us” in 1 Corinthians — “to us there is one God, the Father”?
JT That is what I thought we might see, the “us” would be characteristic christians, inclusive of the apostle himself, these terms are known now to the whole profession of christianity, but are they really known? “To us there is one God, the Father”. That is real christian knowledge, and the apostle is speaking about knowledge.
ABP Will the Father as referred to in Matthew be known in the millennium by the family on earth?
JT Yes, to some extent.
ABP The idea of care and provision, which would obtain in the millennium?
JT I think so. The early instruction in Matthew has that in mind. In chapter 10, the Lord says, “Go not off in to the way of the nations, and into a city of Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, Matthew 10:5, 6.
JS I suppose we would have to come to Ephesians for the development of sonship?
JT Just so — “having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself”, Ephesians 1:5.
TEH Would you help me on verse 3 “But if any one love God, he is known of him”?
JT The apostle is dealing with a condition of intelligence without love. There were certain in Corinth who had knowledge but they were without love. So the point is, “if any one love God, he is known of him”. You might say, God knows everybody; and so He does. He has the name of every one in His books; but if so to speak He met one who did not love Him He would not own him. If God meets a lover of His He would recognise him. The Lord Jesus in meeting the women who were at the tomb as they were on the way to tell His disciples that they should meet Him in Galilee, says, “Hail”. He salutes them; they were His lovers. He would not have done that to the Jews who were at the same time carrying a lie to the chief priests. “If any one love God, he is known of him”.
FSC Is our love toward God the result of knowledge of Him?
JT Yes; the more you know Him, the more you love him, “let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me”, Jeremiah 9:24. “For they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah”, Jeremiah 31:34. That will be said of nations by and by, so that all will be known of God in that way.
FSC Someone has said, ‘The way to know Christ better, is to love Him more’.
JT Well, knowledge comes first. For instance, take Nathanael. Philip says to him, “We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth”, John 1:45. That was light for Nathanael, but he did not take it in at once. He said, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see”.
[p. 166] And he came and saw; that is, he began to move towards Christ. And when the Lord saw him coming to Him, He says, “Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile”, John 1:47. Knowledge was the first thing there; and then Nathanael says, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”, John 1:49. That glorious Person has become an Object for him now; his love for Christ would follow. That is the idea; the gospel is light. Paul is sent out into the world as an evangelist to open men’s eyes. An evangelist does that. He enlightens people, disillusions them “to whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God”, Acts 26:18. They must have their eyes open to see the Christ and to love Him.
CB “We love because he has first loved us”, 1 John 4:19. The light comes to you and then you love.
JT Just so.
WB-w In Revelation 14 we get one hundred and forty-four thousand with the Lamb on mount Zion, having His Father’s name in their foreheads. What relation would they have in sonship?
JT They will be a family by themselves. You have three families there. They are on earth at mount Zion, and they are allowed to learn a song that is sung in heaven; and that song is sung before the four and twenty elders and the four living creatures. The four and twenty elders refer to the assembly. The singers are not they; they are some other family, but they are in the heavens. And the people down below that learn the song are still another family; so we have three families. We can easily understand how they will be segregated in heaven. The Lord Jesus is in charge of every family and He will put each in its place. It is the name of the Lamb’s Father they have in their foreheads, also the Lamb’s name. Over against the mark of the beast they have the Father’s name. It is their profession in intelligence that anyone [p. 167] can see.
WB-w So that mount Zion is not heaven there.
JT No; it is down here.
AR Stephen says, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham”. The apostle Paul speaks about God as the Father of glory. How do you view these expressions?
JT I would say the God of glory is marked by glory, all His operations are glorious; but the Father of it would be the Source of it; He is the Source of all glory.
RWS Are all the families included in the verse read: “One God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him”?
JT “We for him” would be the christian’s position that we are speaking of. He does not say of all families, as he does in Ephesians: “of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”, Ephesians 3:15. Generally, we do not call families things, exactly; but still they are all for Him. Only the apostle Paul here is speaking of one family. The knowledge of the true God is among the christians, not among the Jews, or others.
APT Would that have raised an exercise in Corinth — as to this appellation having a firm footing in their souls?
JT I think it should; it was not by men’s natural intelligence, which marked some of the Corinthian leaders. The “us” is christianity. Those who belong to christianity have the knowledge of the true God. It is only there; that is what is implied. “To us there is one God, the Father”. A christian understands the divine economy. The Father retains the place in the Deity; and the Son has become the Mediator; “One God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. He effects everything for God, and thus we are by Him. We are effected by Him for God. That is how we are for God. The “us” covers all that; we [p. 168] are for God, because Christ has brought us in before Him, as He says in John 17:12: “Those thou hast given me I have guarded, and not one of them has perished”.
JS Do you not think modern teaching has beclouded the Fatherhood of God?
JT There is a good deal of that, I am sure. There are those who say, God is the Father of all men, which is not so. He is Father to christians. “To us there is one God, the Father”. The true knowledge of God is among christians.
JS “Ye are of the devil, as your father”. John 8:44.
APf Of John the baptist it is said, “There is not arisen among the born of women a greater than John the baptist. But he who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he”, Matthew 11:11.
JT John the baptist was on that line; that is, born of women; whereas christians are born of God. Not that John the baptist was not; but the point is the line on which he is placed. John the baptist could not carry on as we are carrying on here tonight. He did not have the intelligence christians have. “To us there is one God, the Father”. Christians have the highest intelligence — in accord with the relation in which we are set. Ephesians opens up the truth as to those forming the assembly.
JHE Is christian relationship characterised by the mother — Jerusalem who is above, the true mother?
JT That enters into our position. “Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother”, Galatians 4:26. That is the difference between Isaac and Ishmael. I am speaking of Ishmael as having been blessed of God. We must look at him as blessed of God, as one primary feature of his position.
Rem So the Jew in that sense, refused the testimony of the Father. “If ye had known me, ye would have known also my Father”, John 8:19, whereas the man in John 9, comes into the good of all [p. 169] that.
JT Yes. Because He believed on the Son.
RWS Is the instrumentality commensurate with the source here?
JT Quite; the instrumentality is the Son — “by whom”. The “by” is instrumentality, and it is the Son who exercises it. So the Son is equal to the Father. The Lord stresses that we must honour the Son as we honour the Father. He is equal to the Father and therefore He can lay His hand upon the Father and us. He brings us in in suitability to God, brings us in like Himself. He effects that in us.
APT No one can say Lord Jesus except in the power of the Spirit. Does that link on with your remark, “by Jesus Christ”, as to the approach being commensurate with the revelation? It is all centred in Him but acted on in the power of the Spirit.
JT Yes; it brings out the three circles in operation in the economy. That statement you quote, “No one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus; and no one can say. Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12:3, brings the Spirit in as the power in us subjectively to use divine names properly. Then the apostle says, “But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all”, 1 Corinthians 12:4 - 6. That is the Spirit, the Lord, and God. The three Persons in the Deity are brought in there in the operative sense. And on the same principle in Ephesians 4, we have them again only on a higher plane. “There is one body and one Spirit” (that is one circle), “as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord” (that is another circle) “one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. These are remarkable passages as showing how the economy operates, how each Person has His function, speaking reverently. We begin with [p. 170] these circles centring in the Persons, as baptised “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. We have got to observe how the Persons operate through our whole experience down here and in eternity.
APT In Matthew 28, the Father is stressed as introducing divine authority, but in Ephesians 4 the Father is last, if I may use that word reverently. It is the summit of the purpose of God for us.
JT Yes; Ephesians 4 involves the universe, and we begin with the centre of it; that is, we are in the unity of the Spirit. “There is one body and one Spirit”. That is the first circle — the inner circle. Then, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. That brings in the Son. And finally the Father is universal, “Who is over all, and through all, and in us all”.
APT I was thinking too of the other verse, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18. The Father, the supreme One, indicating the elevated sphere into which we are brought in this wonderful thought of speaking to Him.
JT I follow you fully there. The chapter shows how we are brought into all this as having been aliens to the commonwealth of Israel. Christ has brought us in and reconciled us in one body to God by the cross, that he might form the two in Himself into one new man. All that is down here. “For through him we both have access” that is through Christ, and in happy unity, Jew and gentile have access to the Father by one Spirit. Through Christ — that is the position of our worship. It is always mediatorial. It is through Christ, as between the Father and us, and the Spirit, the power in us, to worship the Father.
WB-w “In whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”, Ephesians 2:22. It brings God in at the end.
JT That is down here, the habitation of God. The [p. 171] gentiles themselves by themselves, even though there are no Jews, which is the case now, you might say. Even if there are no Jews, there is a habitation of God, but first it was the Jew and gentile, chapter 2, but now in the end of that chapter, the last verse, it is the gentile — “ye” the Ephesians.
ANW Would the absence of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 8 signify that idolatry is dislodged by the Father and the Son? He is not mentioning the Spirit. The Thessalonians acknowledge the “living and true God, and ... his son”.
JT “To await his Son from the heavens”, 1 Thessalonians 1:10. 1 Corinthians 12 brings the divine operations in, how the work of God goes on every day and every night.
ABP Is it well, while speaking of how God may be known, to keep in mind that there is that which we cannot know?
JT There is always the inscrutable. It is as in revelation we know Them, for God, we are told, dwells in light unapproachable, no one has seen Him at any time. That is the inscrutable.
Ques In regard to 1 Corinthians 8, the reference to “all things” of the Father, and “all things” by the Son — is the created sphere in mind?
JT “All things” is the created sphere; it refers to the universe really.