DIVINE NAMES (3)
[p. 198] DIVINE NAMES (3)
1 Corinthians 15:24 - 28; Genesis 1:1,2
JT It is thought that this scripture in 1 Corinthians 15 links on immediately with what we had this afternoon, the Lord speaking in the message to Mary Magdalene of His God, and again to the overcomer in Philadelphia, that He would make him a pillar in the temple of His God and write upon him the name of His God, and the name of the city of His God, new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from His God. It was remarked that we are “by Him”. He said “My God and your God”, and in 1 Corinthians 8 it is, “we by him”. He has effected us in our present relation; that is, christians made through His instrumentality, so that we are by Him; we owe our existence to Him, and owe to Him the relation in which we stand as brethren.
His God is ours; and thus we value the promise in Revelation 3; and in our scripture now in 1 Corinthians 15 we have the expression: “Then the end, when he gives up the kingdom to him who is God and Father; when he shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power”, 1 Corinthians 15:24. He delivers up the kingdom to Him who is God and Father; and then finally, it is “the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [p. 204] who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”, 1 Corinthians 15:28. It is thought that the appellation “God” in this verse contemplates finality; a fixed state of things which will be eternal. So that it is not “God and Father” in this verse, but just “God”.
JS Is that God’s end in government?
JT Well, the word ‘subjection’ here is noticeable. It is a condition of government; but God is God not in the sense in which He is God of the nations — God over all; He is God, “all in all”.
Ques Has Peter this in mind where he says in his epistle, “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God”, 2 Peter 3:12?
JT Quite so.
CHH Would it involve divine Persons having entered into relation and maintaining that throughout eternity; so that the three distinct Persons are seen to the end throughout eternity?
JT Well, I think the economy into which They have come goes on; it is not abrogated. It is operating now for the deliverance of men; but the idea runs through. The idea of subjection is there; actual subjection. Of course, you could not think of anything else in Christ, but that He is always what Man should be before God; the passage says, “then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him”, 1 Corinthians 15:28. That is, He takes that place.
JHE Is this something special? It is a parenthesis from the 20th to the 28th verse, as if Paul was adding something to this epistle.
JT He is bringing in what is needed to complete the subject. But it includes the greatest thoughts; finality in the divine economy; how we reach a fixed state of things. God is all, but in the sense of being in all.
AR Does the scripture read suggest that the Lord is occupying an office at the present time that will be given up presently in the light of the scripture at the end?
JT It says so. “For he must reign until he put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that is annulled is death”. 1 Corinthians 15:25,26. The Lord is operating now, effecting subjection in all; and when that is completed, He Himself becomes subject; He takes a subject place, and hence a fixed state of things, the economy remaining, but in that state. The Son is placed in subjection.
JS This involves the world to come whereof we speak.
JT It seems to go beyond it; the world to come, it [p. 200] says, involves to some extent subjugation; not only subjection but subjugation. It contemplates that elements of lawlessness may arise; whereas this indicates that the period of subjugation is over, and subjection now is the order; even the Son taking part in this.
RWS Colossians says, “Christ is everything, and in all”, Colossians 3:11. Is this a further thought?
JT Clearly. Colossians is always a sort of half-way epistle, Christ has peculiar prominence there. So that it is the new man, in which Christ is everything and in all. The Ephesian statement on the same subject, Ephesians 4:22, is “having put off according to the former conversation the old man which corrupts itself according to the deceitful lusts; and being renewed in the spirit of your mind; and your having put on the new man, which according to God is created in truthful righteousness and holiness”. That is, Ephesians is the full thought.
CAM In connection with 1 Corinthians 15:28: about the “Son also himself”, being in subjection, I was wondering if such glories are maintained throughout eternity. Subjection in eternity in connection with the Lord Himself is rather a wonderful idea, and I was wondering as to whether it would be right to say that when the Lord Himself, being equal to God as far as His Person is concerned, came into sonship, the glories that were connected with that position are maintained throughout eternity?
JT There is no difficulty in my mind about certain glories continuing on, but there are glories attaching to His service of a provisional nature. There are many allusions, especially in John’s gospel, to glory; but whether they all continue on in this sense in which you speak of them, is a question. That He is to be subject, or placed in subjection, is remarkable; and clearly in keeping with the attitude He took up in incarnation. He said, “Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will”. Hebrews 10:7. Also, “Thou hast prepared me a body”, Hebrews 10:5.
[p. 201] In that body He took up the position of obedience, and what we have here is quite in keeping with that. He retains that position eternally, only He has taken on services that the condition of man in the world, and conditions in heaven, too, required. He took on subjugating power, subjugating ministry, and that involved the title of Lord or King, and He is called God in that position. Besides, He has glories relative to Israel.
ANW Would you help us as to the idea of the Son being placed in subjection?
JT Well, it is in accord with what has been remarked as to the position He has taken as Man. “A body hast thou prepared me”. In that body He was subject; but to assume that He must be in a place of subjection will not do. It is a place He has taken; and He, in that place, has prerogatives, involving that He is a divine Person. Some of these prerogatives He delegated to the apostles. He said of them that they would do greater works than He did because He went to the Father; but still. He always performed the works in a personal way, not invoking a divine name in doing them; so that the truth of His Person is always evident in His services. He retains man’s place, but then we can never say He is limited to that. It will not do to say that at all; He is called God even as Man: “who is over all. God blessed for ever”, Romans 9:5. Thomas says, “My Lord and my God”, John 20:28. John says, “He is the true God and eternal life”, 1 John 5:20. We have to make room for all these things, otherwise in our minds we are apt to lapse into the thought of limiting Him to man’s place; we have to make allowances for the contextual connections where these statements appear. That idea runs right through, so that even in this eternal condition it will not do to limit Him and say that He must be that. Only the Spirit of God says He “shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”.
CAM I think that is very wonderful, and I am sure we all agree with it. The thing in my mind was just the sonship of Christ, as to whether you would connect subjection with the idea of sonship.
JT Well, it is connected with it here; He is not any longer subjugating. He has subjugated everything; that is preliminary work, a provisional work, because of insubjection in the world, because of lawlessness. He is carrying that on now with ourselves. Presently He will carry it on with the whole earth and heaven too; but He will not always have to do that. Otherwise we should have to assume that lawlessness will continue on, whereas it will not. “When all things shall have been brought into subjection to him”, verse 28; that is, the work of subjugation is finished, so that it seems to be a great moral position involving, as you say, glory; a divine Person in the place of sonship, taking the place of subjection. And we are in that; that is our position. The whole universe will be in that position, for there will be no insubjection, and hence no need of subjugating; it is finality.
ANW Does not Hebrews 1 teach us that it is as the Son He sets Himself down at the right hand?
JT Yes; we get it several times, that He acts so of Himself. That is what I was remarking. While subjection is there in a general position as a testimony. He is Himself a divine Person, and acts as God. We can never limit Him, therefore.
APT The Ancient of days in Daniel 7 is not quite clear to me, as to the son of man’s position there. Would you say something about that in relation to our subject?
JT Well, there are three settings there to the kingdom. The prophet had a dream in regard to four beasts coming up from the sea, the four gentile empires, and then he says, “I beheld till thrones were set, and the Ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow”,
[p. 203] Daniel 7:9. Then, he says, Daniel 7:13, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man, and he came up even to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him”. These are the passages you had in mind.
The first is clearly God coming in under the appellation “Ancient of days”, but it would be God in Christ; that is, it is Christ in this connection from the divine side, so that He is God; but from the standpoint of experience, God in manhood, clearly. The term, “Ancient of days” refers to manhood in Christ, but manhood from the divine side, Christ from God’s side towards us; but in verse 13 it is the Son of man coming to the Ancient of days, another view of Christ; the Ancient of days remaining on the divine side. God Himself; and the Son of man coming to Him; just as in Revelation 4, you have God on the throne, and Christ as Man comes to Him there, but Christ appears as the Ancient of days in Revelation 1. So that the passage in Daniel 7 bears on what we are saying, that Christ has to be apprehended from the divine side, and the appellation “God” refers to Him from that point of view. Thomas rightly said, “My Lord and my God”. John also said, “He is the true God and eternal life”. As Eternal Life He is on our side, and so here in Daniel 7 the son of man is on our side. It is the inscrutability of the Person in the Deity that has to be borne in mind. If He takes a place of subjection, we must not say that He must be always in that place, because the inscrutability of His Person involves that He may act as God at any time. He goes beyond all heavens; that is not a creature’s liberty at all; it is Deity and He does it Himself; and sets “himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high”, Hebrews 1:3.
DP Does the Son here merge into Deity in 1 Corinthians 15?
JT He is in subjection; it is stated definitely that “the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”. It is the economy that is in mind here; so that it is Christ in subjection; it is from our side, from man’s side; and God, we are told elsewhere, is the Father: “to him who is God and Father”. So that I do not see why we should bring in the Son merging into Deity here, abstractly He is always in Deity; but He is seen in the position of subjection in this passage.
DP Where would you put the mediatorial service?
JT The mediatorial service is involved in this passage. “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”, John 3:35. And He is carrying on now a ministry of subjugation which will cease according to this scripture, when there will be no more lawlessness; but He does not give up the mediatorial position, involving the place of subjection, because He is in subjection as the Son.
Ques What would the Lord’s service be from this period on? Perhaps that is what our brother wants to get light on.
JT The Scripture does not say very much about service in the eternal state of things. It is to be understood now; now is the time to understand these things, when you see them actively before you and you have part in them yourself. They do not come to an end. There will be glory to God in the assembly continually, Ephesians 3:21. So that, if the Lord is in subjection, as Son, that does not mean He is static, or not in activity. There are the features of love; love’s activities will never cease. His relations with the assembly and the Father and with God and His brethren implies that other features will be there. In the eternal state of things love will be active but all will be in perfect order. A mediatorial state of things will continue, because we must bear in mind we shall never see God Himself in His essential Being. It must always be through or in Christ, the mediatorial thought remaining.
[p. 205] Rem Though in subjection He would still have the first place. God is pleased to make Him firstborn among many brethren.
JT He has always the first place: “that he might have the first place in all things”, Colossians 1:18.
ANW As being placed in subjection does He not set forth the model of subjection for everyone?
JT Well, you can see the whole position will be marked by subjection. Although we are there as brethren of Christ, sons of God, the principle of rule remains. It never ceases, but, as remarked it will not be needed in the sense of subjugation. It is a principle with God that everything is governed by law.
WB-w David and Solomon both brought in the principle of subjection; but although Solomon had brought in the sphere for God to dwell in — the house — he was not equal to taking the place of subjection himself.
JT There was no adversary or evil occurrent, he says, That was a foreshadowing of what we have here. Subjugation is no longer a necessity because there is no lawlessness. That in principle would apply to the millennium also, although there will be some evidence of lawlessness; but not here. Everything is subjugated, and there is a condition of subjection even in Him who has subjugated everything.
WB-w I was thinking Solomon was not equal to that.
JT No; but his kingdom as a type alludes to what is before us. He sat first with his father on his father’s throne; Solomon and David reigned together; David dies and Solomon says, “there is neither adversary nor evil event”, 1 Kings 5:4 and, therefore, you have the house; the ark has rest. I think it is a foreshadowing of this. In Solomon’s case typically there is no need of subjugating any more. Now it is a question of accepting the Solomonic condition. That is, it is the reign of Solomon, the man of peace; and Jehovah says, I am His [p. 206] Father, and He is My son. That is the idea, I think, here. The subjugating is in David, and the state of subjection in a general way is in Solomon; and his kingdom so that he says to Jehovah, “And now, Jehovah my God ... I am but a little child: I know not to go out and to come in”, 1 Kings 3:7. God took him up on the principle of being a little child who had been in the experience of a son with his father. “For I was a son unto my father”, he says, Proverbs 4:3. So that God had reached His thought, typically, in Solomon. David called him Solomon, Jehovah called him Jedidiah. Solomon is the man of peace who comes into the position of subjection, and God loves him in that position, as the name Jedidiah implies. You see, there is no irksomeness at all; there is not the slightest degradation in the subjection. It is the happy condition of divine love.
ANW So that you would make a distinction between “all things shall have been brought into subjection to him” and “the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection”?
JT Quite so. The subjugating period is over; there are no longer any elements of lawlessness.
WB-w I wanted to ask a question about bringing up the ark of the covenant. David brought it up: Would that fit in with Colossians, “but Christ is everything, and in all”?
JT Yes.
WB-w Solomon brought the ark into the house: God all in all would go on to Solomon?
JT Yes. It is what God was anticipating. He comes in and fills it with His glory. That is a fixed state of things which is for God’s pleasure.
WB-w What is the difference between Christ everything and in all in Colossians and God all in all in this chapter?
JT Colossians, as I was saying, is a tentative state of things. We are going on to completion in Ephesians.
[p. 207] Colossians is not the complete truth; we are entering, as it were, on to the complete position according to the counsels of God, so that in Ephesians the new man is said to be “according to God”.
WB-w In Colossians “Christ is everything, and in all” in the new man.
JT Yes. “Everything” as an Object, but “in all” as a state. In our scripture God is all in all. He is not everything, but all in all. “All” is a very great word there, and it is “in all”. It is not simply that He is that objectively, but in the actual affections of His people.
CB God will rest in His love. There will be no more to subdue.
JT That is right. Christ does all the subjugating. “By whom are all things”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. Whatever is to be done. He does it.
RWS Would you define these three ‘hims’ in verse 28, to whom they apply?
JT “But when all things shall have been brought into subjection to him” — that is, unto the Son — “then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him” — that is, God; “who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”. The first ‘Him’ refers to Christ and the second to God. The last ‘Him’ alludes to Christ.
APT “Then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”. Is that the condition the Lord Jesus is taking and not so much who is doing it?
JT Yes. It is the fact without saying who placed Him. Of course, all that is done as between the divine Persons is in the infinitude of love and according to counsel. But nothing is put on the Lord as obligatory as it is on the creature. He may take on things Himself, but they are not put on Him by God, as they are on us.
FSC Is “the tabernacle of God is with men”, Revelation 21:3, an extension of this?
JT [p. 208] Yes, it is with men. The allusion would be that God is near to men in a vessel suitable — a tabernacle, not any showy thing, but what is small and where love can act. Nearness is the idea in love, nearness. So that the heavenly city, the bride, the Lamb’s wife is really the tabernacle of God with men.
CHH Would the glory that John describes, “... we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth”, John 1:14, correspond with this?
JT I think so. I believe it is alluded to in John 17:22. “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them”, that is, the glory of sonship.
CHH Would the last verse in Ephesians 3 go beyond, or is it more the world to come? “... to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3:21.
JT That too enters into the eternal state of things.
CHH Then would that imply that the Lord retains the thought of the Minister of the sanctuary?
JT Yes, it is “the assembly in Christ Jesus” which is a mediatorial thought.
ABP We have the scripture, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”, 2 Corinthians 5:19, would it be right to say of this scripture that God was in Christ subjecting all things to Himself?
JT That would be true. Only, the operation of subjugation is in the hands of Christ as if He was operating on those lines, and having finished the service He gives up the kingdom to Him, who is God and the Father, and, according to verse 28, He is “placed in subjection”. So that it is a most blessed state of things. It is the way of divine love. It is still a mediatorial state, because it is essential that it should be. We can only be in relation with God, the unseen, through the Mediator.
CHH That would exclude the idea that the assembly could worship the Godhead by itself, that is,
[p. 209] including the Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and the Spirit.
JT I do not think we are equal to that. As to this the statement is, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18. I do not think we are equal, save as through Christ and by the Spirit, to having to say to Deity in its absoluteness. It is always a mediatorial position. We need a mediator.
CHH Throughout eternity we will need that service.
APf Hebrews says, “Thou has made him some little inferior to the angels”, Hebrews 2:7.
JT He took that place for the suffering of death. It was for a purpose. “... But now we see not yet all things subjected to him, but we see Jesus, who was made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; so that by the grace of God he should taste death for every thing. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. Hebrews 2:8 - 10. All that is clear enough as to Christ. It is His downstooping to carry out the will of God. And then, it became God — it was essential that this should happen.
FNW Would Ephesians 4:6, indicate that this is reached in the assembly now? “One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”.
JT Yes, only that that is the third circle, as we may call it. It is contingent on the other two. The first is in relation to the Spirit, the second is in relation to the Lord, and the third is in relation to God. Those three concentric circles apply at the present time. The second one will be suspended according to our verse in chapter 15 of this epistle. That is, subjugation is finished. Whilst there is subjugation needed, the kingdom is in function. The kingdom is in view in subjugation. He [p. 210] gives up that when everything is in subjection to Him. So that the three circles in Ephesians refer to the present time, during which the Lord is effecting subjugation.
FHL Would it be right to say the names in Isaiah of Father of Eternity and Prince of Peace are prophetically names of the Son?
JT Yes. The Father of Eternity, as we have had it before, is what Christ will be in the millennial world, exercising fatherly influence and service.
RWS Verse 24 says, “God and Father”, and verse 28, “... that God may be all in all”. It would not be right to put the Father in the latter, would it?
JT Well, that is what I was remarking. God is the great ultimate in all this. We begin with God and end with God.
TW Is verse 28 in the plural?
JT It is the Greek word for God, only it would carry the full thought of God. I think Elohim as being plural is to convey the full thought of God creatively, what He is in creation; but here it is the eternal state of things answering His own purpose. It is a fixity, but it is still an economy. It is still a mediatorial state of things so that the word ‘God’ has the same force as the word ‘God’ in the first verse of Genesis.
AR Colossians 2: 9 says, “... in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. Is that the idea that it will all be set out in Christ?
JT Yes.
AR Just say something about the idea of Elohim, Elohim in the plural, whereas this is in the singular.
JT It is just the Greek word for God which is the only one used in the New Testament, but you can see in the setting of this that it is the full thought of God. Plurality in scripture is often for intensification of an idea. Not always so, but it sometimes is. I believe it is so in the word Elohim in the first chapter of Genesis. It is the plural as we all know, but it is to bring out the [p. 211] fulness of the thought apprehended in the creation. It is in a creative sense. This is more than creation; it is counsel, the eternal counsels of God completed. God is everything. God is all in all.
ANW Paul told the Athenians, “In him we live, and move, and have our being”, Acts 17:28. That is true of every living man, but most may never know it.
RWS Does this touch on assembly service now?
JT It is a question of our spiritual ability to reach that point. In our assembly service we proceed from the Lord’s supper to God, but God as known in Christ. The Father first, then God.
JS Is God seen creatively in the four living creatures in Revelation?
JT They represent his attributes in creation.
JTJr In regard to the thought of the Branch in Zechariah it says, “... the counsel of peace shall be between them both”, Zechariah 6:13. What is the thought there?
JT “Even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both”, Zechariah 6:13. It would be between Jehovah and the Branch.
JTJr “Counsel of peace shall be between them both”, where would that fit in in relation to the chapter before us, 1 Corinthians 15? Where does it fit in regard to His reign?
JT Zechariah has the subjugating reign of Christ in mind. All through the Scriptures the idea of the throne is maintenance of rule involving subjugation where needed, but that service being over the kingdom comes to an end. There is no more lawlessness. It will be a blessed state of things, God being with men, Christ Himself placed in subjection.
FHL In chapter 8 “there is no other God save one”, 1 Corinthians 8:4?. Is that the thought of God creationally?
JT “[p. 212] Yet to us there is one God, the Father”. The Father is the one God there; it is God as known by christians, only embodying what came out earlier.
AR How can you take in that one divine Person known to us as Jesus is operating to direct us to another divine Person whom in a personal sense we shall never see?
JT Well, that is the thing to be taken in. It appears in the Lord’s ministry, especially as presented in the gospel of John. He stressed in His closing words to the disciples that as seeing Him they saw the Father. “Am I so long a time with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14:9. That is, the Father was there. The same thing is true today. The Spirit is here and in virtue of the presence of the Spirit, He who is God and Father as known in Christ is here. In eternity it will be the same thing, only in a more vivid way because all lawlessness will have disappeared. The kingdom will have been handed back to God. We have reached finality. We have reached perfection, we have reached the counsels of God: the Father, and the Son, and we with the Son, only it is God and men. So that it is God and men, only the family relationships remain, also Christ’s relation to the assembly. But God has reached His final thought, and that is God and men.
AR The idea of understanding the One that is unknowable in that sense, yet all to be really known as we take account of Christ.
JT Quite so. Everything will come out through Him. Everything is perfect and fixed. I do not conceive there will be any growth; it is a fixed state of things.
CAM We shall surely be dependent upon the Spirit for ever, otherwise we would have no right thoughts of the immensity of Christ.
JT Yes. ‘By the Spirit all pervading’, (221:4), both as the Spirit and the Spirit [p. 213] of sonship.
CHH Christ will always be the effulgence of God’s glory.
ANW He will always be the image of the invisible God.
APT What special name of divine Persons am I to learn from this reading?
JT God.
RWS In assembly service when God is addressed as God, does an instructed believer have in his mind God in the full thought or are three Persons in his mind?
JT That is another matter, because in the economy two of the Persons are in the place of subjection and in general They will always be in that place so that we always worship Him who is God and Father. You cannot put the three Persons into the word Father. It is always one idea in Father, one Person. Hence, I think it is more that we are addressing one Person in our worship not three Persons. The other Two, we speak with reverence, have taken the place of subjection in the economy, and They will retain that place. We cannot worship without Them. Nevertheless the general thought of God, including the three Persons in infinite unity, remains. In considering these infinite truths we must carefully keep to Scripture, otherwise we shall become confused and err.
AMacD In John’s gospel, “God is a spirit; and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth”, John 4:24. Does that go through?
JT I think so. Only the idea of spirit and truth does not come in where the contrary does not exist. All will be perfect then.
JS I remember you saying some years ago that the Son is inscrutable, “... no one knows the Son but the Father”, Matthew 11:27. That is still true is it not? He is still God.
JT It is always true, and it protects the Son. You do not assume that you can get around Him as it were,
[p. 214] that He is any less inscrutable as Man than the Father or the Spirit.
CHH “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”, Psalm 45:6.
JT That keeps us balanced.
WB-w “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18. You get the three divine Persons in that one verse: through Christ by one Spirit to the Father.
JT Quite so. That is always true. We need that economic condition for the service of God, and we shall need it eternally. I believe many have in their minds that we shall see God as He is, which is impossible for creatures. It is expressly said that no one has seen Him nor can see Him. We are dependent on the Mediator and the Spirit to know God and worship Him.
AR Yet you know Him. It is really remarkable that we know Him and yet we will never see Him.
JT Not in His infinite essence, because He is unseeable in that way, by the creature. Still He is seen — that is, in Christ. Scripture speaks much of this, and it is most essential that we should understand it. Otherwise we do not really love or worship Him.
JTJr It is My Father and your Father, My God and your God.
JT That will go on. “To Him who is God and Father”. The ‘and’ is an additional thought; the primary thought is God; that is, I think, what we should keep to.
FHL What you said about God and man is most helpful. Do you think the Lord had that in mind in John 17: “... the men whom thou gavest me out of the world”, John 17:6?
JT Quite so; not there sons or brethren, but men.
JTJr So the section before us begins with man. “For since by man came death, by man also resurrection of those that are dead”, 1 Corinthians 15:[p. 215] 21.
AR What you are bringing before us is really greater than verse 1 of the book of Genesis.
JT It is. This is finality. The book of Genesis contemplates what God began with. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. There was yet no word of man; it is the creation of the heavens and the earth.
WB-w When the Son is placed in subjection to God in the eternal condition, do you think the service will go on by the One in subjection?
JT That is what I understand, as already remarked on Ephesians 3:21. That will all go on; there will be no need of Christ being our Advocate with the Father then. We shall have no infirmities, no sins or the like; but the service will go on in absolute perfection, and the Son will function as He is functioning now. “... to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen”. Ephesians 3:21. I believe that involves Christ’s power in service.
CN Would it be right to say that the economy that was introduced by the incoming of Christ is being filled out now, completed in this — God being all in all?
JT That is right. It is completed but goes on in this new condition; there is no more subjugating; no more kingdom activity. It is the Son in subjection.
CN Just as the condition He took in manhood made no difference whatever as to His Person, so this position of subjection does not affect this.
JT It does not alter His Person at all; that is inscrutable. The person of Christ is inscrutable; no one knows Him but the Father.
AR You have been speaking a great deal of late about joy. I suppose the more we understand what is eternal, the more we will take on that feature; the sense of satisfaction entering into assembly service.
JT Yes; I think we need to look into that; we have some joy with us. “Let thy priests, Jehovah Elohim, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints rejoice in thy goodness”. 2 Chronicles 6:41. That surely is a state we want to have before us.
WB-w It says in those eternal conditions, “the tabernacle of God is with men”, Revelation 21:3. Do you refer that to the assembly? Will the tabernacle of God be the assembly in those conditions?
JT I would say that; that is, the context would show that it is. The new Jerusalem coming down “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”, Revelation 21:2. And then we have, “... the tabernacle of God is with men”. It seems as if the allusion is to that glorious vessel, the bride adorned for her husband. So that God dwells with man in immediate conditions of love; the love of Christ for His bride and her love for Him are there.
WB-w Is it a change from city conditions to tabernacle conditions?
JT Yes; showing that we may take on more dignity at some times for good reasons; and then other times we are less official and freer — in love conditions, where we are near one another. The Israelites were to remember that they were caused to dwell in booths when Jehovah brought them out of the land of Egypt. Love is there; we begin with love and end with love.
AR I suppose if we want to understand the official side, we should take account of Matthew’s presentation, whereas for tabernacle conditions we would have to go to John.
JT Just so. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt (tabernacled) among us and we have contemplated his glory ...”, John 1:14. The idea of love is there, “an only-begotten with a father”.
ABP Would this great end we have been speaking of be in view in the song of Moses, the last sentence “Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever!”, Exodus 15:18. Would that go as far as the eternal day or has it the millennium in [p. 217] view?
JT It is more the millennium, I think, although Moses does say, “from eternity to eternity thou art God”, Psalm 90:2. The idea of God goes through.
CAM If God is going to tabernacle with men and that tabernacle idea is the assembly, I suppose we can understand that we are being wonderfully formed in manhood in view of that.
JT You can see that. It is the training that belongs to the assembly peculiarly, centring in the Lord’s supper where love is vividly before you, and then worked out in ourselves, so that we become a habitation of God by the Spirit. The thought of “a bride adorned for her husband” enters into assembly service.
ANW It would be the bride for the Husband immediately following the Supper, leading on to the worship of God, and the tabernacle idea.
JT Just so: I think God has great pleasure in Christ and the assembly, the reciprocal affections between them, and happily joins with them.
APT Is the feast of booths something like local companies?
JT Yes; it is to bring out and foster conditions of love. It is the last feast of the year, the feast of tabernacles, they are small places but they are not too small because love likes nearness.
CAM The fact that it is the eighth day would confirm the fact that eternity is in the divine mind.
JT The feast has an eighth day, it goes on into eternity, I think. The link is in love. Love is the settlement of everything; love never fails.
AR Did John not seize the idea of the Supper when he was on the breast of the Lord Jesus?
JT Yes, I would think so. Quite so.
CHH What is the meaning of being “filled [p. 218] even to all the fulness of God”? Ephesians 3:19.
JT Well, the fulness of God is what is in Christ. The order of the statement is that “... Ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God”. He begins with this, “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, — He has families in mind — “... of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, in order that he may give you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man, that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts, being rooted and founded in love, in order that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height; and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge; that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God”, Ephesians 3:14 - 19. All this corresponds with what we have been talking about as to the Father and God. “Of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”, is said of the Father; He is occupied with families; they are all under Him. But we reach God on the line of the apostle’s prayer, “that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God”, Ephesians 3:14 - 19. That is, God is apprehended in Christ, Christ is the fulness of God. The fulness dwells in Him bodily. The end of the prayer is, “that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God”. It contemplates that we are stabilised in infiniteness; what shines out in Christ, what will shine out in eternity, what God is in Christ. It is infinitude and we are small, but we are in it. We are not lost in it. Each has his own individuality in it. The next thing is the doxology: “... to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen”.
AR What you say really helps me to understand all that we have had; it is all in Christ; the more we take account of Him the more we shall see that everything is there.
ANW Would you make it a little plainer why you read the first two verses in Genesis?
JT Well, it is just to proceed with our subject. We [p. 219] shall have to go into it a little more later, but to proceed with our subject which will lead on to other titles of God in the Old Testament. This is the creative name of God — “In the beginning God ...”, Genesis 1:1. It is written by Moses to whom God revealed Himself as Jehovah, and “I AM THAT I AM”. Exodus 3:14. You might say this is an almost absolute title. Moses had that light when he wrote this verse; He begins with God, not Jehovah, although he had the light of that great name when he began to write.
WB-w Why did he not begin with “I AM”?
JT Well, he used Elohim, suitable evidently to designate Him in the beginning, when He began to work. It is a name attached to God as operating and known in creation.
WB-w He must have differentiated between ‘I AM’ and ‘Elohim’.
JT He did not bring “I AM THAT I AM” in here. It is very near to the expression of the essential being of God; it expresses His personal existence. Moses got that at Mount Horeb, but he does not bring it in here. It is bound up with the word ‘Jehovah’, which is not found until we come to chapter 2, and it is there compounded with Elohim.
Ques Would you help us as to the ‘I AM’ in Exodus 3.
JT That is bound up with Jehovah, His new name.
Rem Chapter 6 says, “And God spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty God; but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them”, Exodus 6:2,3.
JT It is the new name; it involves His essential Being; it is the nearest you can get to it. “I AM THAT I AM” is involved in it, but Moses does not begin with that; he begins with the name that fits in with creation; it does not necessitate the essential name of God; it is a creative name, signifying a Person who is supreme, to [p. 220] be revered and worshipped. That is a word selected by the Spirit of God to begin the Scriptures.
CHH Does the word in Hebrews 1 throw further light on Genesis 1: “by whom also he made the worlds”, Hebrews 1:2?
JT Yes, clearly; that light Moses did not have. Moses did not have the idea of the three Persons; but the New Testament reveals three Persons in the Deity.
WB-w In John 8 when the Lord uses the word ‘I am’ is that the same allusion as in Exodus: “I AM has sent me unto you”, Exodus 3:14?
JT Well, pretty much. “Before Abraham was, I am”. John 8:58, not I was. And so He says, “Unless ye believe that I am”. ‘He’ is not in the original. These expressions convey His essential eternal existence; He belongs to the Deity.
JC “Let us make man in our image”, Genesis 1:26 — does that suggest the three Persons?
JT The word ‘Elohim’ is plural; but I do not think the Old Testament writers understood the three Persons.
ABP Would the suggestion of the plural name indicate that what was done in the ways of God was in keeping with divine counsel? Counsel would include more than One, would it not?
JT Well, no doubt. The Spirit of God used the plural, but not much can be said about it, because the plural, as I remarked already, means rather dignity and intensification of what is expressed. We shall need to consider this title later.