DIVINE NAMES (2)
[p. 172] DIVINE NAMES (2)
Matthew 27:45,46; John 20:17,18; Revelation 3:12
JT Most of us will be aware that our subject in these readings is Divine Names. At the first reading we considered the Father, the appellation by which christians are privileged to know God. It was thought well to begin with our own relation to God in that name; then take up other titles, inclusive of those in the Old Testament, so that it was thought that we might consider God as God in the two meetings of today.
It is thought that in considering our Lord’s addresses and references to God as His God, that we have God before us in the fullest possible manner. Christ is speaking to Him and of Him as His God, in these passages, and as taking our place beside Him, so to speak, we have God before us in the fullest sense possible, for it is not a mere creature speaking to Him, but One equal to Him Personally, yet as Man addressing Him as God. So that it is God in the fullest way, not simply in a relative sense, but an absolute sense, because the Speaker knows Him not only in His relative position, but in the Absolute. Divine Persons know each other in that sense, as apart from creation. Still the Lord addresses Him in Matthew 27 as a Man, in a place of responsibility; that is, on the cross. He addresses Him as “My God” twice, and in resurrection, according to John 20, He speaks of Him as His God, and our God.
ANW And in Revelation is there anything added in “My God” in chapter 3?
JT Well, it is first, the temple of My God, and then the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which comes down from heaven from My God. It is Christ’s God that is stressed; this God in relation to things that are connected with His testimony [p. 173] and purpose.
CAM Would you say that in this passage in Matthew, the magnitude of what was taking place required the matter of addressing God in the absolute?
JT Well, I only use that word because Christ knew Him in that sense, and it would be the Lord’s mind; it would be His full knowledge of God, but He is speaking to Him ostensibly as responsible to Him and therefore the relative thought is on the surface. The psalmist, of course, used these solemn words before, but in a prophetic way, and the Lord takes them up on the cross. The psalmist using them, of course, it would be as a creature; he could not apprehend the absoluteness of God, but Christ in taking up the words knew perfectly the Being whom He is addressing, not only in His relativity but in His absoluteness, because He Himself has part in the Deity.
CAM Then, of course, the psalm would be a prophetic intimation of all the depth of meaning there is in this.
JT Well, it would, only the actual speaker was a creature. Of course the Spirit of Christ spoke in him, as He speaks in us, but David could not apprehend the depths of God as Christ apprehended Him.
ANW Is ‘El’ God in the absolute? Elohim is, is it not?
JT El is the name of God denoting power. Elohim is a plural word. In the note to it in Genesis 1, the translator uses the word ‘absolute’, but I doubt that he really meant its full signification: ‘free from limitation, dependence or relation, opposed to relative’. I have not been able to find in Mr. Darby’s writings anything to indicate that he had in his mind absoluteness in this sense, that is, in its sense of unrelatedness to any thing or person.
ANW So that you would find it difficult to designate the Being there in absoluteness because we are [p. 174] finite.
JT I do not think any creature can take in the absoluteness of God. No creature can be in absoluteness himself as far as I can understand; he must be in relation to something whereas the word ‘absolute’ as applied to God carries with it freedom from relation to anything; it is His own infinite Being, having existence before there was a creation. We have to admit that in our minds, but to compass it it is beyond us.
JS Why is it put in the form of a question here?
JT Well, He is using Psalm 22; the Lord takes up Psalm 22 and addresses this word to His God: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It is a question for every sinner to answer in his own soul — why Christ was forsaken there. It is not that the Lord did not know; it is to bring out the truth. The answer to it brings out the truth; He gets no answer here — a very solemn and touching thought. His persecutors jeered at Him; they thought He was speaking to Elias, to come and take Him down.
WB-w The absolute and the relative are combined in this expression “My God, my God”.
JT I only used the word ‘absolute’ as knowing that a divine Person is speaking to God and I am sure He is not limiting Himself to what He is relatively. We come specially into nearness to the Absolute as being alongside the Lord, as being with Him by the Spirit, as He addresses God.
FHL You make a distinction over Genesis 1, where the plural thought of absolute Deity is in view?
JT The question is whether it is absolute Deity there because it is God in the sense of supremacy, power involved; it is the plural carrying the full thought of Deity, but relative. The idea of supremacy is relative; here God is in relation to creation. Earlier there was no creature at all; nothing to be relative to. Elohim, being plural, is the word used here. How it came into use is the question. No doubt the Spirit would cause [p. 175] some person to apprehend God as the Supreme Being and enable him to designate Him thus. I would say it is human language, not angelic language, and it conveyed that the person who used the word first had the idea of God as an Object of veneration and worship, so that it is a relative word.
JTJr In Philippians 2:6 there is no idea of relativity; the idea of equality was brought out. He “did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God”
JT He was in the form of God; and being in the form of God He was in absoluteness. But if creation is brought in relativity is there, because the Creator is in relation to His creation. But there was a time — to use the word time; indeed as we are we can hardly avoid it, being creatures — when there was nothing for God to be relative to; He was Himself; there were the three Persons in infinite oneness.
ANW That moment is stated in John 1: “In the beginning was the Word”, John 1:1. I presume that goes beyond Genesis 1:1.
JT That is right, but you have the word ‘beginning’ which is a relative word; only He was; He did not begin. In the beginning He was. The word ‘was’ brings us into time. “In the beginning was” is existence in time. The beginning is time; something is being done; something is begun, and He was there. But then if your mind can take in what was before that. He was there too, as far as we can use words. But there was nothing to be relative to; divine Persons were all there with nothing else, as far as Scripture shows.
JS Would Genesis 1 suggest relativeness?
JT Yes. God is apprehended in creation. Someone apprehended Him in creation and used that word. I suppose the Spirit of God helped him to use it; it is a relative word, that the creature used meaning that there is a Being above me, to be revered and worshipped. That [p. 176] came into some mind and hence the use of the word.
JS And Moses used it intelligently.
JT Well, Moses came in as one to whom God revealed Himself as Jehovah, which is more than this, and he was qualified to use this word. He uses it as beginning to write Scripture, but clearly it existed before him.
RWS Does the singular or the plural enter into this expression of the Lord’s in Matthew 27?
JT Well, I would say it is a singular thought. It is an Aramaic word, which, I suppose had been in common use. It is “Eloi” in Mark, but “Eli” in Matthew, both meaning “My God”. For “God” David used the Hebrew “El” in Psalm 22, but the Lord used the ordinary language of the day.
ANW So that the Scripture really has it in the Hebrew, in the Aramaic and in the Greek, is that right?
JT Yes. It is carried down to us in Aramaic, only we have the translation of it into Greek. Matthew and Mark give us the interpretation of it, so that there is no doubt as to what is meant.
CAM A creature can only understand relatively, but this in Matthew really is beyond the creature’s apprehension, is it not? I mean the depth of meaning in it could never have been expressed by a creature.
JT That is what I was saying; we are, I believe, in the presence of absoluteness in the Lord’s own mind. We are thus on the very highest and most sacred ground conceivable — one divine Person speaking to Another, and surely He would, in speaking, have in His mind all that God is. Still, as we have noted. He is in manhood, and thus in the attitude of subjection.
CHH Are you suggesting this word implied even more than the first of Genesis in absoluteness?
JT Well, it would, because it is a divine Person using it. Of course He is quoting David, Psalm 22, but the word is “God”; Eli, is “My God”; it is His God; it is Christ’s God, and that Being is known to Him in all that He is clearly, so that it is greater in His mouth than it could be in any creature’s mouth. I think it is most important, most wonderful, most solemn, that we are called into this. There were those standing around the cross; they jeered at the Lord, but how different is a believer who loves Him! What a sanctified and solemn thing to be called into this, to be engaged with it! Why was He forsaken? It brings in the whole question of our guilt and our responsibility. So that we begin with our subject at the very foundation of the truth.
JS Does He use current language because He is in manhood here?
JT Yes; He used what everybody around could understand, if they paid attention, although some evidently did not understand it.
RWS Do you think if you get an expression not understood we should feel responsible not to misunderstand it? Here they say He “calls for Elias”.
JT Quite so. Unless we are in a subject and reverential attitude in listening to what is said in ministry we may misrepresent what is said. Here they said the Lord was calling for Elias but He is not calling for Elias at all — the very opposite of that. He is not even calling upon God; He is asking Him why He forsakes Him so that the answer to it enters into every repentant heart.
ANW Would it be right to say it is two divine Persons measuring the matter of sin?
JT Well, that is what enters into it; it brings in every truly repentant person; every repentant person comes into this answer, and if one does not come into it he is not repentant.
AL Is the judgment so terrible that God in grace covers it from the sight of men; there is darkness for three hours?
JT Well, quite so. As it were, God veiling, you [p. 178] mean, shutting out the human gaze for the moment.
Ques Would the personal pronoun in “My God” refer to the Lord’s holiness?
JT Yes, to use such a term in that position. He is in the vicarious position, being made sin. But God did not immediately answer Him; that is the solemn side of it.
J.S. Why not?
JT Well, because He is the Sin-bearer. He has to go through alone; He is abandoned. It is not the time for answering. He has taken up the position responsibly of bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. It is a public matter and God is forsaking Him — one of the most solemn matters that christians can think of, that God is actually forsaking Him; and He is not for the moment answering Him.
Ques In that way does it not enhance the holiness of God, as we have in Psalm 22: “And thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel”, Psalm 22:3?
JT Well, that is really the answer to it, that God is holy. That is why He does not answer; that is why He has forsaken Him, and I thought it would be a moral basis in our souls to dwell on this a little as considering our great subject. God says in Jeremiah, “But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me” Jeremiah 9:24. Understanding that the forsaking of His Son on the cross was because of the holiness of God is fundamental in this knowledge.
APT Romans 8 says, “God, having sent his own Son” — does that connect with this chapter in Matthew?
JT Quite so; God did it. “Having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh”, Romans 8:3.
JS I think you have used the word ‘abandoned’ have you not — abandoned of God?
JT Yes, He is abandoned of God here; the Lord says so. But He is speaking to God; He calls Him “My God”: if a man who is suffering on a cross has a God [p. 179] why is that God not delivering Him? That is the question. Others called on Him and were delivered.
ABP Does the known power of resurrection enter into the name ‘El’? You spoke of it representing the thought of power.
JT Quite so — the exceeding greatness of His power; we are to know that; the power in Ephesians 1 is what we should know: “the surpassing greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the working of the might of his strength, in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead”, Ephesians 1:19,20. The exceeding greatness of His power — that is what El conveys; the mighty One.
ABP The Lord Jesus would know that, as having exercised that power, “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”, Romans 1:4. He had raised the dead with that power.
CHH Is it foundational that we should first know God in this character of holiness?
JT Well, that is what I thought we might come to, a moral foundation in regard to the great subject before us — what was in the Lord’s holy mind when He uttered this cry. He got no immediate answer but He says later, “from the horns of the buffaloes hast thou answered me”, Psalm 22:21, which I suppose would mean He was in that distant spot and ultimately was heard, but the three hours of darkness had to be endured; the actual experience of abandonment by God had to be endured, and it was endured — the three hours of darkness.
AR How do you understand that scripture “from the horns of the buffaloes hast thou answered me”?
JT I suppose it is where He was, and He speaks in the Psalms of different creatures of antagonism; I suppose the buffalo would be amongst them. I take it that way; He was held there in death. God heard Him from that point, so that He immediately says, “in the midst [p. 180] of the congregation will I praise thee”, Psalm 22:22. I suppose the hearing would imply that He was raised and taken out of that state.
FHL Have you not said that we are not great enough to consider Jesus as God and Man at the same time?
JT That is quite true; we are not great enough to take in the two ideas at once.
FHL Would you just help us again as to this expression: as a Man He was suffering, but as a divine Person He was making this expression.
JT You never think of Him as a mere Man, for He is always a divine Person, but He represents on the one side what man is before God — Himself a divine Person; on the other hand He represents God to us and these are two great ideas that we have to hold separately.
JTJr The Person who emptied Himself is the same Person who took the bondman’s form and was found in fashion as a man. His Personality goes through, does it not?
JT There is no change at all in His Personality.
AC This abandonment of the Lord comes in Matthew and Mark and not in Luke or John, is that intensity of the sufferings?
JT Matthew and Mark are severer. They deal with the governmental side of the testimony, so that we have these words from Psalm 22 quoted by both these evangelists. You get them nowhere else. You might question why it is that we do not. Other features of the testimony of God are often mentioned and yet there is no greater thought than this. I suppose it is so great, standing out like the Himalayas before us, there is no need for repetition.
CHH In the first book of the Psalms, I think the remark “my God” is mentioned thirty times, but only once, “Why hast thou forsaken me?”
AR Does God involve what He is in Himself;
[p. 181] Father is according to the relative idea in the family or sonship?
JT That is what we had last time — Father is a family term, and conveys grace. He does not judge any one. God judges.
JS Have you something further in your mind regarding Psalm 22?
JT Well, there is a great deal that could be said, but I thought it would be wholesome for us to get alongside the Lord, as it were, at this time and hear Him say this and think of what was in His mind. The question of sin was involved, and He gets no immediate public answer. His resurrection is not a public matter. There is, of course, testimony to it that is public. The Father raised Him by glory, but no man saw that. The angel came down and rolled away the stone, but it is not stated that he saw the resurrection. “An angel of the Lord ... rolled away the stone and sat upon it”, Matthew 28:2. But there is no testimony to anybody’s being there but two divine Persons. The Father raised Him by His glory. That was private; the Lord’s enquiry on the cross was a public matter, and He gets no answer. That enters into the answer of the enquiry — Why not? It is the sin question; the government of God required that while He is bearing sin, there should be no public acknowledgment of Him by God. It is a question of our guilt, how abhorrent it was to God that He could not own One who was our vicarious sacrifice, bearing our sins.
JS Did glory demand His resurrection?
JT Just so; but He had to go through the forsaking, the three hours, and the three days and three nights in the heart of the earth as well.
CAM You were speaking of its not being repeated anywhere else — standing alone in all its own immense meaning. That seems to make it very impressive. No creature is ever going to say anything like this.
JT It stands out like a tremendous object by itself [p. 182] in its solitude and grandeur and greatness. There it is in the presence of the universe, that the Lord Jesus in bearing our sin uttered this cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
APf Jonah’s language was similar to the Lord’s here, only not so intense, and he got an answer, did he not? “I cried by reason of my distress unto Jehovah, and he answered me; Out of the belly of Sheol cried I: thou heardest my voice. For thou didst cast me into the depth, into the heart of the seas. And the flood was round about me” Jonah 2:2,3.
JT Jonah was answered; and the Lord says in Psalm 22, that God answered others, too. “Our fathers confided in thee: they confided, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered; they confided in thee, and were not confounded”, Psalm 22:4,5. That is in contrast to Himself. A similar wail might ascend from an unforgiven man, but he could not truthfully say, my God. So the position is most remarkable “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — not simply “God”, but “my God”.
WB-w Jonah was answered, because He was repentant and got salvation the same as we would be answered, is that the idea?
JT Quite so; the Lord here is going through the sufferings of atonement, and it requires time — not a moment, but three hours, and then three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
FNW Do you mean to say that if the publican in Luke had said, ‘My God, be merciful to me the sinner’, it would have been presumption?
JT It would; but he says, “O God”. No creature could rightly speak thus as consciously abandoned. No one could rightly use it but Christ, because it was His God; He knew that. He knew He had not ceased to be His God, but He had abandoned Him, and that is the terribleness of the whole [p. 183] matter.
WB-w These were the atoning sufferings, were they not, during those three hours of darkness on the cross. He was suffering atoningly. But were the three days and three nights necessary in the atoning part? or did the atonement finish at the end of the three hours of darkness?
JT I think the three days and three nights are a counterpart to it. They are linked with the actual sufferings on the cross. He was not answered when He went into the tomb. Why should He go into a tomb? It would be blasphemy to say He personally must be put into the tomb. It is all vicarious. If we do not keep the vicarious idea in mind, we are blaspheming. He did not need to die. To say He died personally, other than in a vicarious sense, is blasphemy. It is because He took our place that He had to die, — not only to be forsaken on the cross. It does not say He is dead here. He says, ‘I am forsaken’. He is still alive and yet He is forsaken. That is one thing, but then the next thing is that He has to die. Why should He have to die? That is the same thing. He must die because He is in the Sin-bearer’s place, and not only that, but in a vicarious sense He must be buried. Why should He be buried? He could have arisen immediately. There must be some requirement for it. Part of the sentence on Adam as having sinned was: “until thou return to the ground: for out of it wast thou taken. For dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return”, Genesis 3:19. Thus the burial of Christ was a necessary part of His atoning work, 1 Corinthians 15:3,4.
WB-w Was it because so many men and women died previously and were buried that He went there to clear up that situation. He went there vicariously to take them out.
JT Yes, it was required — “For dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return”, Genesis 3:19, as already quoted. The idea of going down into the earth was [p. 184] necessary for atonement. The whole position occasioned by sin was covered by Him.
ANW Can you carry the vicarious thought beyond the burial? I ask that because in our hymns we sing to sinners: “Jesus died and rose for thee”. (112:5)
JT Well, He was “delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification”, Romans 4:25. If He were not raised there would be no justification. Of course He was raised by the glory of the Father on the ground of His own Person, but then He was raised vicariously too, because there could be no justification if He were not raised — raised again for our justification.
There could be no justification offered to a sinner without that. Christ is said to be a Mercy-seat — “whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood”, Romans 3:25. The mercy-seat involves not only that He has died vicariously but He has risen, the idea of vicariousness goes with Him, attaches to Him now. He is a Mercy-seat — “whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood ... and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus”, Romans 3:25,26.
JS The glad-tidings would not be complete without Christ risen and glorified.
JT It is a risen Christ and a glorified Christ that is preached in the gospel. Raised again for our justification — to effect it. He bore our sins in His body on the tree, dying for them under the judgment of God, and was raised without them — hence our justification.
RWS Between the three hours on the cross and the three days and three nights in the grave, the Lord Jesus says, “Father” — Why was that?
JT He was free to do that, but there was no immediate manifest answer to, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”, Luke 23:46, and “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, Luke 23:34. The answers are in His resurrection.
WB-w How do you account for Paul’s expression — “[p. 185] even as Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father”, Romans 6:4? You do not get the expression in the Old Testament.
JT No, it is a marvellous expression. It brings out what the Father’s affections for His Son were, for glory is largely the shining out of love — what one is in this sense. Of course it was the power of God too.
CHH Is it necessary to understand the holiness of both Persons? “For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou allow thy Holy One to see corruption” Psalm 16:10 — connecting this with Psalm 22, where God is spoken of as holy.
JT Quite so; Christ could not be a substitute for us save as a Holy One. The demon recognised Him as that when he said, “... thou art, the Holy One of God”, Luke 4:34. But Peter’s testimony in John 6:69 is in remarkable discernment, considering the time: “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. Here the centurion says, “Truly this man was Son of God”, Matthew 27:54. So that God was here operating in the midst of the darkness, which is the case now. What darkness there is around! but in a few God is operating, so that we see who Christ is — “Truly this man was Son of God”, says the Roman centurion.
FHL We see that in the opening of Hebrews — “God ... at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son”, Hebrews 1:1,2.
JT Just so; the centurion recognised that He was the Son of God, which is a remarkable thing.
I thought that if we could get all this fundamental truth into our souls we might see how John 20 comes in. In Psalm 22 we have the answer from the horns of the buffaloes. I would take that to be where Christ was held by adverse powers and He says, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren”, Psalm 22:22. That fits in with our scripture in John 20. He says in that scripture in the message to Mary Magdalene, “I ascend to my Father [p. 186] and your Father, and to my God and your God”, John 20:17. That is, He is bringing the disciples — He says “My God” on the cross, as dealing with sin and bearing our sins, but now He says, “My God and your God” — that could only come in after the sins are borne and dealt with once and for all. Now we are in relationship with the Father in resurrection, and He says, He is your God — “My God and your God”. So that we christians ought to see what God is, not only as He was, as dealing with sin, but what He is — Christ as risen and glorified, what He is to that Person whom He raised by His glory, and that we are alongside of that Person recognised as His brethren, that is, that His God is our God. We are thus in a position to know God beyond any other family. He is now not only risen but ascended; He says, “] ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. We are speaking now of His God and the position we are in as alongside of Christ. I think that is of great importance in this subject that we understand our relation to Christ, and therefore are in the position of understanding God as Christ’s God.
AR I suppose we know Him in a way that was never known before the Lord came into the world?
JT He could not be known in this sense before Christ became Man; it depended upon the incarnation, The word “God” in Genesis 1 is a creative title, but not simply of inanimate things, but all persons with intelligence. Someone apprehended the Creator as an Object of veneration, an Object of worship, but now you have a Person qualified to tell you about God, to reveal Him. He spoke to Him on the cross when dealing with our sins; now He is speaking of Him, as risen and ascending, and He is telling His disciples that He is His God: “My God and your God”.
FSC We are privileged to say My God, in view of the Lord’s saying, Your God.
JT Quite so; Paul says, “My God shall abundantly supply all your need”, Philippians 4:19. And so any of us can say that, but it is beautiful to be alongside of Christ now, that that is our position. That is the position He gives us.
ANW Would you say there is no less in the Lord’s mind in speaking of His God in John 20 than in Matthew 27?
JT That is what I was thinking. The exact expression is carried through — My God. It is the same expression only now He is in the clear sunshine of relationship with God as having settled forever the question of sin. He is beyond it in heavenly glory, because He is talking about ascending, when He says, “my God and your God”. You need to be in association with the Lord to grasp the thought rightly.
WB-w Does it not imply sonship on our side to be able to say my God rightly?
JT Clearly; it is in sonship we say it. It is, however, more God and man here. It is not exactly God and His sons, here; it is rather God and man. I think that is the thing to get hold of. Christ is speaking of Him as Man, and we come in on that line.
AR When you say ‘getting alongside of Christ’ do you mean where He is?
JT Quite so; it is in His present place; where He is, we are to be. That is our status in heaven, we are His brethren. When we enter heaven there will be no question about our status: We shall be recognised as suitable association with Christ; we are identified with Him.
CHH Would the way it is put guard His own peculiar place in it? He does not say, our Father and our God. He would be unique in that relationship.
JT That is always so. So that in the book of Ezekiel when you come to the question of the division of the land, the first thing is that Joseph must get two portions, Ezekiel 47:13. Whenever we speak of Christ [p. 188] we must never forget that He must have two portions. He is always anointed above His companions.
AL In this chapter, He says to Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not”, John 20:17; but in Luke 24:39, He says, “Handle me and see”. What is the difference?
JT In John 20, she is outside by the grave-side, and she is assuming that she can touch Him; whereas from John’s point of view, the link with the Jewish position is completely broken. The touching must be in a heavenly relationship. He says, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father”. In Matthew, they did touch Him. They held Him by the feet. He did not refuse it, but here He does, because John is dealing with the spiritual and heavenly side, and he says, If there is to be any link with Christ, it must be on heavenly ground. The Lord is insisting on that. The passage in Luke 24 contemplates the assembly, which admits of our heavenly relation with Christ.
Ques Why does the Lord use “Father” before “God”? It is really the highest setting, bringing in the heavenly family.
JT ‘Father’ here refers to the heavenly family, but it is not so great a term as God, if one might use ‘great’ in this connection. The order is progressive; the ultimate is God.
APT Did the Lord make that quite plain Himself in John 4? “The Father seeks such as his worshippers”. Then He says, “God is a spirit; and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth”, John 4:23,24. Does He distinguish there in regard to this great matter?
JT Just so; He does not say, the Father is a spirit. He says, God is a spirit. But He says, the Father seeketh such, for it is the idea of the need arising from affection. He is seeking worshippers, but God is a spirit. That is the great final thought. That is our great subject. It is a question of God.
ANW I think your word about being alongside of [p. 189] Jesus should help us, because Thomas used the term “my God”, but not as alongside of Him. It is on a lower level.
JT Quite so; he called Christ his God, John 20:28, which, of course, is right, but it is not on the level of verse 17.
FHL The fact that the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one, would enable us to understand the declaration of the Father’s name.
JT Quite so; the Lord sets us free through Mary’s message, which brings up another matter: Why did He not go into the assembly and tell the brethren this? It is clearly a reason for this, because that when He comes in amongst the brethren the condition is to be right. The state is right; there is no question at all, so the disciples are glad when they see the Lord. He says, “Peace be to you” twice. The whole position is clear and confirmed.
AR When He says, “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”, does that include sonship?
JT It is, I think more what man is toward God. The Father is family, but God is God and man; not that we are not sons of God, too, because we are; but I think it is God and man more when the Lord says, “my God and your God”.
AR “The tabernacle of God is with men”.
CAM Would not the order of the Father coming first agree with the fact that the Lord in His life here had expressed the Father really prior to this great matter of God that we are considering in His death?
JT Yes; He says, “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me” John 17:6. Manifested is objective, what they could see; and then He said, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known”, John 17:26. That would be a further thought, which I suppose is involved in these verses. The manifestation was “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John [p. 190] 14:9.
CAM Yes, the manifestation of the Father was in His life here, so that it would emphasise what you said about the fact that the great ultimate is the knowledge of God in this way.
APT How does the epistle to the Hebrews fit in in relation to this ministry? Does that epistle deal with God in this relation?
JT Yes; “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son” Hebrews 1:1. That is the Son on God’s side; whereas what we have before us now is on our side. When the Lord Jesus says “my God”, that is not how He is spoken of in the first part of Hebrews. He is spoken of in chapter 1 as a divine Person, through whom God has come out and spoken to us. What we are dealing with now is His speaking to God on the cross, where the moral question is involved, and now the family question and the need of affection and the full divine purpose reached in a Man with God, because it is a question of God and men. That is the great ultimate, that God will have men with Himself, of course as sons, but still men. Never forget that. Angels are sons too. But the leading word is ‘man’ in this connection. The idea of God in His purpose was to have man with him in this relation.
AR So it says, the seventy elders saw the God of Israel, whereas this would be Christ’s God. Is that the idea?
JT That is the thought to get into our minds. It is God and men, but in such a Man first of all, as Christ — a divine Person, capable of knowing Him, but still a Man. See what I have reached! God would say. Adam failed Him, but now He has man in permanency — God and men. And the Lord says, You are pre-eminently in this with Me.
CAM So that you would say that now man is [p. 191] the greatest order of being in the creation of God. It was not always so; I mean, He became a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, but now as a result of all that has transpired, manhood is the greatest order in the universe.
JT That is right. If you said sonship, it would not do, because sonship applies to Israel and angels, and Israel is national. But this is an order of being with God according to His purpose — “Let us make man” Genesis 1:26 — not make sons; not make children, but man “after our image and likeness”. Thus Christ did not take the angelic order of being, but manhood. In it He is over all, “God blessed for ever”, Romans 9:5.
CHH So the end of Revelation corresponds with Genesis 1. It is God and man, and Genesis 1 is God and man — is that morally greater than sonship?
JT I think it is as contemplating that order of being; sonship existed before man; sonship existed in the angels. The sons of God shouted for joy, but man was not there until Adam was formed. Adam failed, but in Christ God reached it to His infinite satisfaction. And the Lord says, You are in this too — my God and your God; it is as Man, that order of being, and yet in One who is God’s equal; that is, the human idea, but in a Person His own equal. And believers now are His brethren, in association with Him in heavenly glory. That is truly wonderful, so that we should get it into our souls; as we do God becomes more and more to us, because it is infinite, inasmuch as the Lord Jesus says,”My God”. Infinitude enters into those words as He uses them.
Rem 1 Corinthians 15 would bear on that — the Lord is said to become subject so that God may be all in all.
JT I thought we would take that in this evening in connection with Elohim in Genesis, but it fits here. But let us get this thought that it is the order of being that is [p. 192] in question; it is the order of being; it is God and man — the order of being that God had in His mind in His counsels with Himself.
CN It is a knowledge of God relatively to a consciousness that would bow our souls in worship before Him — would that be so?
JT Just so, we shall see that, I hope, this evening in the word ‘Elohim’. The word means a Person or Being to be revered or worshipped. But you have the Lord Jesus saying “My God” on the cross. I could not join in with Him there. I could not say “My God” with Him whilst my sins are upon Him. But now they are gone, He being risen, and the Lord says, You are in this too.
EMcK How would Paul’s thought in regard to the fulness of God in Ephesians fit in — filled to all the fulness of God?
JT Well, that is another thing, to be filled unto all the fulness of God. It would mean, I think, what He is in Christ; that is, the fulness of God in Christ. “That ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God”, Ephesians 3:19. “For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell”, Colossians 1:19. And we are to be brought into it. We cannot compass it, for it is infinitude, but we have our little part in it. It is what God is towards us, and we enter into it. Scripture says, “And they feared as they entered into the cloud”, Luke 9:34. That gives you a little inkling of it; we do not fear as we enter the cloud; we are happy in it. Part in the fulness of God will be our eternal portion.
AR The tabernacle of God with men, would mean men like Christ.
JT Just so; He represents an order of things in which man is set up; man is taken up again. We have often alluded to Moses in this respect. His staff was turned into a serpent as cast on the ground. Then God says, Take it by the tail, and it was a staff in his hand.
[p. 193] Man is taken up again in Christ. It is fixed; it will never become a serpent again. Man can never come under the power of Satan again. It is that order of being taken up in Christ and in those verses in John 20 you get the fulness of it.
AR Does the apostle link the Ephesians on to the same ground where he says: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, Ephesians 1:3?
JT Well, that is the epistle that develops these verses in John; develops the counsels of God in man.
AAT Is the highest form of worship to God and not to the Father?
JT I think so; God is to be the supreme Object of worship. We shall see in the next reading, in 1 Corinthians 15, that God will be all in all. He is all in all, not only in an objective way, but is in us.
APT The reference to the worship of God in Revelation 22 is significant. The angel says to John, “Worship God”. Do you think he had more intelligence than John?
JT John was ready to worship the angel. The circumstances were extraordinary, but still it is humbling, that he should worship a creature. It shows what any of us is capable of. God is the supreme Object of worship.
CHH Would you say that we could arrive at that without a hymn?
JT Quite so; only that singing has a great place in the service of God. God has a great ear, if one may speak reverently, for music, but for the music of the sanctified human heart, that comes out through the vocal powers of men. That is what is in His mind.
ABP The praises of Israel in Psalm 22 are in relation to God.
JT Clearly; God inhabited them, one of the most remarkable phrases in Scripture. “Thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel”, Psalm 22:3.
JTJr [p. 194] We get an inkling in Psalm 43 of the harp: “Upon the harp will I praise thee, O God, my God”, Psalm 43:4. Is that the instrument used in heaven, the harp?
JT Quite so; these instruments typify persons — men. In such scriptures God indicates the music He seeks.
AR What have you to say about Revelation?
JT Well I was going to say the Lord uses this expression “My God” four times. The temple of My God, the name of My God, the city of My God, “which comes down out of heaven, from my God”. The Lord uses the expression “my God” four times in that verse in relation to the overcomer in Philadelphia. What can that mean, except that the Philadelphian overcomer understands what we are talking about this afternoon? That, I believe, is what it means. The Lord knows that he will value what He says, The Lord would hardly use a promise like this if the overcomer did not understand it.
JTJr Is the idea that we move on from what the cross, Matthew 27, would suggest, of which we have the teaching in Corinthians, to this elevated position with Christ in His joy before God?
JT Quite so. Thus in the passage before us, the Lord is associating the overcomer with the great thought of His God.
CN Would it be right to say that in assembly meetings we should pass on from what God has done in Christ to God Himself, to worship Himself? Would the final thought be to have God, according to what He is in Himself, before us?
JT That is right. I am sure we have taken in very little of what it is to worship God because of what He is in Himself; not simply because of what He has done for us, but what He is in Himself, and surely God is more than enough in Himself to more than fill any human [p. 195] heart.
WB-w What is the meaning of the new name being written upon the believer? “I will write upon him the name of my God ... and my new name”, Revelation 3:12.
JT The first thing is that he will be made a pillar in the temple of Christ’s God. “Temple” refers to the inner part of the structure. He will write upon him the name of His God and the name of the city of His God. That brings up the question as to what material is involved. The overcomer is great enough to have these great thoughts written upon him. I believe it means that he apprehends the truth that is involved. That is what constitutes material that the Lord can use.
JS Would the fact that it is repeated four times show that Philadelphia had reached the universal thought of the assembly?
JT I think the overcomer has reached what we are dealing with now — this great matter of Christ’s God. I think this verse indicates that the overcomer in Philadelphia understands the things that we are speaking of.
WB-w The Lord speaking of the temple in this way would indicate that the overcomer would know what had taken place in the temple of My God.
JT God has helped us on this subject in our Bible readings, and the like. We thus understand something about the temple, so the overcomer in Philadelphia understands what the Lord is speaking about here.
CAM Would it be right to say the Father, in whose hands all dispensations are, is waiting until this period in the church’s history when the saints reach this wonderful goal?
JT It seems as if the Lord shows in this address to the Philadelphian church His gracious consideration for His own in these last days. There are some who value these terms, and the Lord puts them forth as if the overcomer knew what they meant.
RSW [p. 196] Is it less of a test in worship to attribute what is said to what the Son is in speaking to God, than to attribute it to what God Himself is?
JT I think it is. You usually find that our speaking to God has reference to Christ, which, of course, is right and wholly acceptable to Him. But can we speak to God according to what God is — “my God”, the Lord says? You are to know that, to know how to speak to Christ’s God as your God. You speak to Him of Himself, knowing something of Him.
Ques Is the knowledge of God the measure of our part in the service of praise and worship?
JT It must be. It is the God whom we have known. It is a known God. The Athenians had an unknown God. We have a known God, but the point is whether we do know Him. I believe we are now where we ought to get some help. The Lord says, “my God and your God”. Let that enter into our souls.
WB-w Has this a bearing upon the public testimony — the name written upon the believer?
JT Clearly. You are material great enough for such a writing. It may not be understood, but it is there as testimony.
AR Is it more a promise in relation to the millennium in Revelation?
JT It would be; that is how you will appear by and by. “I will write upon him the name of my God ... and my new name”, Revelation 3:12. But it has a present bearing.
WB-w Is there a certain order in these three writings?
JT I should think so. “The name of the city of my God” means that you reflect the heavenly capital, that you have to do with government.
WB-w You understand assembly government, is that the idea?
JT Quite so; “which comes down out of heaven,
from my God”. The Lord finishes with that, and then He says, “my new name”.
WB-w What is involved in that?
JT That is over against the way He is known now in christendom. The stress is on the word ‘new’. It is His new name. We understand His newness.
CHH That would be an advance on the name on the white stone, which would be more individual?
JT Yes, and more secret; ‘Called by that secret name of undisclosed delight’, (79:4). It is a secret name, but this is a public matter.
CB It is impossible to touch eternal life unless we do know God.
JT Quite so; there it is the “true God”; we are speaking now about Christ’s God, which great thought leads us into eternity.
CB I was thinking of the heathen. They have the word God, but not the true God.
JT Quite so.