DIVINE NAMES (5)
[p. 244] DIVINE NAMES (5)
Genesis 17:1 - 7; Genesis 48:1 - 4; Romans 4:16 - 25
JT This title of God Almighty conveys power intensively. The word ‘God’ here, by itself refers to power, so that the idea of power is very much emphasised, implying that God is all sufficient, whatever the circumstances in which His people may find themselves. It is said in Exodus 6 expressly that He made Himself known to the patriarchs under this appellation and it is found in our chapter, Genesis 17, in connection with Abraham. It stands especially in relation to him. In chapter 28 we have it in connection with Isaac and in chapter 48 with Jacob. The apostle Paul carries it down to the New Testament in calling attention to Abraham in this way in Romans 4, how he believed that God was able to perform what He promised, and in 2 Corinthians 6 God tells those of us who have come out from the world and separated ourselves, that He becomes a Father to us, and we are His sons and daughters; this promise is by “the Lord Almighty”. It becomes therefore a practical matter to us at the present time. The saints of God are beset with peculiar difficulties; though these difficulties may not directly affect us here, they seriously affect brethren elsewhere, and we are suffering with them; and it is a great comfort that as understanding this title we can say, like Job, that God can do everything. In the book of Job the title ‘Almighty’ is used by itself as a name of God: thus the almightiness of God is stressed there. He is known as the Almighty to Job. It is significant that in the book of Job, both Elihu and Jehovah Himself calls Job’s attention to the creation as a witness of God’s power, so that he finally says to God, “I know that thou canst do everything” — seen in its fullest sense in the resurrection of Christ. We are to know “the surpassing greatness” of God’s power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the [p. 245] dead.
WB-w It seems to be linked on with multiplication. Abram’s name is changed to Abraham — “father of a multitude”. Is that the idea of the power of multiplying?
JT That is what I thought we might see. It is in connection with Abraham especially, significantly enough here, that the change of name should involve that he should be the father of a multitude, and that is carried down to the New Testament in Romans 4, showing how Abraham took it up in faith counting that God was able to accomplish what He had promised. He was able to do it; it is a question of God’s ability.
JHE If we are going to accomplish anything or apprehend anything, it is on the principle of faith.
JT That is the thought, faith appropriating what God is. The leper said — “If thou wilt thou canst cleanse me”, Mark 1:40. The Lord both willed it and could do it; He touched him and said, “I will, be thou cleansed”.
CAM Referring to the fact that Abraham was at this time ninety-nine years old, would you think that the power of this name comes to us after we have given up all kind of hope on any other line?
JT It does. In chapter 16, we have that very thing in Hagar. God took up Abraham, according to the chapter we read, in spite of his great age and gave him Isaac. Ishmael was not the product that God intended for Abraham. Abraham had to learn that; he had no change in name in connection with the birth of Ishmael; it is in connection with the birth of Isaac.
AC Relative to the Almighty, I wanted to know if the reference to the first verse of Psalm 91 would confirm what you were saying as to the power of God in that name? “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty”, Psalm 91:1 Yes; that psalm has been a comfort to many of our brethren [p. 246] lately.
AR What would you say about the Lord Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane? He says, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee”, Mark 14:36. Has He got in mind the almighty power of God?
JT Quite so; that is practically what Job said. He said, “I know that thou canst do everything”, Job 42:2. The Lord Jesus says, “all things are possible to thee”, but He says, “Abba, Father”. That shows that the name Father is cumulative; that the almightiness of God enters into it. Thus Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.
AR Do you think He had in mind that God in His almighty power could fulfil His purpose some other way? He says, “My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me”, Matthew 26:39, as if He was weighed down by what was involved in going that way.
JT “If it be possible”. That is, if the counsels of God admitted of it. The Lord would not have His Father turned aside from the accomplishment of anything that He had in mind, all must be according to His will. The Lord’s words there bring out His full position in subjection and the full position of God as the Father, as in control; although He called Him, “Abba, Father” there, He called Him ‘God’ on the cross. He does not say, ‘Abba, Father, Abba, Father, why hast thou forsaken me?’; it is “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It was necessary with God as dealing in the fullest way with sin. If there was to be salvation for anybody; if Christ is to have companions, it must take place, so that the first thing you get after His atonement is accomplished, is that He is declaring God’s name to His brethren, and in the midst of the assembly praising Him. He had said, “And thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel”, Psalm 22:3. That all entered into the Lord’s words to His Father in Gethsemane.
ABP Would the offering of Isaac suggest that this apprehension of God was fully taken on by [p. 247] Abraham?
JT Well, that is what is stated: “counting that God was able to raise him even from among the dead”, Hebrews 11:19. Did he not say to the young men, “Abide ye here ... and I and the lad will ... come again to you”, Genesis 22:5? He expected Isaac to return with him.
ABP I suppose Hebrews 11 confirms that, knowing that he was able to raise him from the dead.
TW Why do you say it is the exceeding greatness of His power that is needed to raise Christ?
JT It is meeting the power of death. It is said of the Lord Himself, “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”, Romans 1:4, however few or many. The stress is on the word ‘dead’ — dead persons; the power involved persons dead for thousands of years; not that He is said to have raised any of such, but He could and will. We are so accustomed to the idea of the resurrection of the dead that we hardly realise what is implied in taking a man out of death. There is no physical trace of most; yet the Lord Jesus will take all out of their graves. But in His own case, it is “the surpassing greatness of his power towards us ... in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead”, Ephesians 1:19,20; as if the power of death was stressed there.
CAM I suppose in connection with that, every intelligence in the universe would be in a sort of suspense, if you could say such a thing as that, when Christ was in death; so that the magnitude of what God did could perhaps be said to be the greatest thing ever done. Would you say that?
JT That is how the matter stood; it was before the universe, that the Son of God had died, and he was attested to be that, even by the Roman centurion at the time. There was ample evidence as to who He was, and yet He is held in death; so that it was a question for the whole universe. Why should it be? And hence the magnificence of the act of the Father in raising Him by [p. 248] His glory, Romans 6:4. What an answer to the cross and the grave!
AC There is no mention of the Almighty there, although power is involved. Would you say a word as to that?
JT It is to bring out that there was more than power — affection was involved. Affection was more prominent there than the power; the power was there of course, but the Father’s love for the Son was active; the One He had proclaimed as His delight was lying in death. His affections are involved. Think of what it was to God to be without Christ for three days and three nights! Of course you might say, the Lord Jesus had gone to paradise; He said He was going there, but that is not the full thought of manhood. God had proclaimed His delight in the Lord Jesus as Man down here, and He was without Him for three days and three nights, in that sense.
EEH What would you say about Abraham here falling upon his face as a result of this objective presentation, “I am the Almighty”, Genesis 17:1?
JT Well God had said, “I am the Almighty God”, Genesis 17:1, as we have already remarked. The idea of power is in both Almighty and in God. It is the word ‘El’ that is used for God here, which means the Mighty One, so that almightiness is greatly stressed. He says, “I am the Almighty God: walk before my face, and be perfect. And I will set my covenant between me and thee, and will very greatly multiply thee. And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying. It is I: behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of a multitude of nations”, Genesis 17:1 - 4. I think his falling on his face brought him into his proper place before God. He was in the presence of such a God. God honours him in saying, “It is I”, Genesis 17:4. This implies that the One who has declared Himself as Almighty to Abraham would assure him, give him confidence as to the great promises [p. 249] made. It is one Person speaking to another, Abraham is distinguished and assured in this way.
AR Would you help us in connection with the thought of resurrection that Ezekiel had to learn in chapter 37? He was taken over the valley of dry bones. “And he said unto me, Son of man, Shall these bones live? And I said, Lord Jehovah, thou knowest”, Ezekiel 37:3. It was an indication of almighty power.
JT It was; Jehovah questioned the prophet about it, and Ezekiel was to go round about the valley and see the bones from every angle. Then He says, “Shall these bones live? and I said, Lord Jehovah, thou knowest. And he said unto me, Prophesy over these bones”. And the way by which they lived was the power of God. Bone came to bone and sinews and flesh and skin came upon them, and then breath entered into them and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great army. It was the power of God exercised through prophecy. It is remarkable how human instrumentality is brought into it. This refers to life effected in a moral and spiritual way in Israel, not literal resurrection, because there will be no question of prophetic ministry when the Lord comes to raise the dead. They will hear His voice and come forth as Lazarus came forth. It is no question of prophesying. What we have alludes to “the whole house of Israel” brought into life presently, not actually brought out of their graves but in the sense of being brought out as a nation.
Ques Would you say then that Abraham stands out as a feature of the believer? God said, “I am the Almighty God: walk before my face, and be perfect”, Genesis 17:1. He would be outstanding in his relations with God.
JT God is bringing him out in his individuality before Him. How great a thing it is for God to converse with you or me on individual lines, God saying, “It is I”! He gives you to understand that you are of very great importance in His eyes. The whole book of Job is [p. 250] written in relation to one man; the three friends had to say to him, and then Elihu had to say to him, and then God took him on. And He says, “Gird up now thy loins like a man”, Job 38:3. The matter is now between God and Job. Each of us should come to that, involving the greatness of a believer’s importance in God’s eyes. God portrays before him different features of the creation as evidence of His power, and then Job says, “I know that thou canst do everything”, Job 42:2 and he repents in dust and ashes. God then says, in effect I am making a priest out of you, and He tells his three friends they must bring sacrifices and come to Job and that Job would pray for them; “and Jehovah accepted Job”, Job 42:9.
CAM I suppose when God said to Job, “Gird up now thy loins like a man”, He was really meaning that Job would reach that. I suppose the full development of manhood depends upon the apprehension that God is able to do everything.
JT That is the point in the book of Job, to bring out manhood in Job; and manhood according to God culminates in priesthood. That is the order of the truth in the book of Exodus. Aaron, seen in chapters 28 and 29, is the full thought of manhood in Exodus; Job corresponds in measure, and hence comes out as a priest. That is the culmination of the book, and as a priest he had power with God and with men; and I think that marks the history of Abraham, too.
WB-w Is this word ‘perfect’ full-grown — “Walk before my face, and be perfect”, Genesis 17:1?
JT That is the thought of it, it is manhood, Abram had not been altogether like that in his experience in Egypt and in other circumstances already narrated in the book, but now God is coming to the culminating point of Abraham’s development, so He says, “Walk before my face, and be perfect”; and then he falls on his face, which is right; and God says, “It is I”,
[p. 251] meaning that there are two persons entering into this matter. It is a matter between Abram and Jehovah.
CAM So there is a great difference between what we speak of as ‘human’ ideas and true manhood. These friends of Job, for instance, had human thoughts of everything, including God, but true manhood is something else, is it not?
JT You mean what the Lord said to His disciples, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?” Matthew 16:13. They would speak of Him without godly exercise as they would speak of other things. The disciples were different in the Lord’s mind. He said to them, “But ye, who do ye say that I am?” Matthew 16:15.
CAM Job’s “friends” would have passed as men amongst men, but they came short in not being men according to God.
JT Job says, “Truly ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you!” Job 12:2 — a very sarcastic remark, but it applied as they pretended to be wise and were not. God said to them, “Ye have not spoken rightly of me”, Job 42:7. It is very often in our speakings that manhood, or the opposite, comes out.
Ques How does this apprehension of the almighty God in the believer affect him?
JT Well it is that God can do everything; that you can rely on Him in all circumstances. That is how it comes out in the book of Job, and so here in Abraham — the birth of Isaac would be impossible in Abraham’s eyes if he did not see this; that God can do everything. God is almighty. He says, “I am the Almighty God” and that is what comes out in Romans 4. The apostle Paul shows us how it worked out in Abraham’s soul. He was confident that God could do what He promised to do. That is a practical lesson for us today.
WB-w Would ‘Elohim’ refer to God’s power on creational lines; whereas, the ‘Almighty’ would be a further thought — God’s power on [p. 252] family lines?
JT Yes; almightiness comes in in relation to the divine family, a special revelation. Elohim is not presented as a special revelation. It is a primary and general title of God in relation to the creation; it designates the Supreme Being, to be obeyed and worshipped by men.
AR So that when He spoke to Abram and changed his name to Abraham, the father of a multitude, he was not only representing manhood but, I suppose, he would represent God as Father.
JT Well, at first elevation is the idea. Abram is ‘high-father’. That would be elevation in God’s mind. He was coming to the idea of fatherhood on an elevated line, not like an ordinary father, who would let his children do as they pleased, think of them only in regard to this world, but Abraham was a man with moral elevation, and hence qualified to be entitled “Abraham”. “father of a multitude”. But this enlarged title would mean that God has the power to bring in the multitude.
CAM Do you think it shows advance in Abraham; if we are to advance in this way, it must be through our further apprehension of God?
JT Yes; here it is a fresh revelation; the time had come for it. Clearly Abraham is ready for it. He fell on his face, which God recognised.
Ques What do you understand by the thought of “the Almighty God” in Genesis and in Revelation 1, “the Almighty”? “I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty”, Revelation 1:8.
JT Well, this with 2 Corinthians 6:18 brings it down to the New Testament. It is Deity, but Christ is the Speaker in Revelation 1:8. The verse is a striking testimony to His Deity. The title Almighty has a great place in the book of Revelation. One can understand it in view of prophecy; what this title implies would be a source of assurance to believers as having to do with the world. “Come out from the midst of them, and be separated ... and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”, 2 Corinthians 6:17,18. How we need God’s power in separating! And then in going through the great tribulation the people of God will need the support and protection of almighty power. The enemy’s attacks become insuperable in our eyes unless we count on God’s power acting for us. The Lord says, “when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified”, Luke 21:9. War is naturally terrifying, but the believer, trusting God in it, finds Him round about him, Psalm 91.
RWS How do you understand Paul’s allusion to the weakness of God?
JT The allusion would be to His taking up outwardly weak instruments, which mark His ways. The reference is to human estimates. But the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. He takes up weak instruments and they wax strong, “for when I am weak, then I am powerful”, 2 Corinthians 12:10. The Corinthians were to consider their calling as a proof of God’s ways in this respect, 1 Corinthians 1:26 - 29. The power of God, asserts itself as we accept our weakness. Paul says, “Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may dwell upon me”, 2 Corinthians 12:9. It is in accepting weakness, and exercising faith in God’s power that I become strong.
AC Although the name ‘Almighty’ is not mentioned, do you think Abraham had the knowledge of the power of God in answering to God’s call, enabling him to go out not knowing where he went?
JT Well, he believed God, but then this is a revelation — God Almighty is the name that God specially took with him at this juncture. He is now ready for it. God brings it in in a supreme way; if Abram is to have an [p. 254] heir, if he is to have Isaac, he must believe in God as thus revealed.
AC You remarked earlier on the sufferings of our brethren on the other side. We are not passing through the thing actually except in spirit with them, and they in their measure are comforted in the name ‘Almighty’ and the power in it. Do you not think that the pressure increasing would be an incentive for us to get hold of the thought of the Almighty?
JT That is what I was thinking. God said to Abram, “It is I”. This has a personal application, God conversing with Abram in a familiar way, as we remarked. Where we have to do with external things or things that seem to be impossible to overcome, deliverance is in appropriating God in His almightiness.
AR The covenant in this chapter is very extensive. He says to Abraham “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee ... to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee” and then He says, “all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be a God to them”, Genesis 17:8. He is assuring Abraham that in the covenant He is going to be a God to those who follow on.
JT Yes, what a thing it is to have such a God! That is the point — the capabilities of God, and how they are available to us. That is what comes out in Abraham — what God can do in and through one man; so that the blessing of Abraham, we are told, arrives at the nations.
CAM In Exodus 6, where the Almighty is mentioned, and that He was not known by His name ‘Jehovah’, have we not connected the idea of the covenant with Jehovah very specially?
JT Well, we hope to come to that this evening and take up that title; it is pre-eminently the covenant name of God. The name Jehovah, however, was known here from the outset. The name was known, but not the significance of it. No doubt the idea of almightiness in God was already there too but not specially stressed by [p. 255] God, so that when we come to the name Jehovah, although the name had been in use clearly as we see by this book, the real significance of it had not been understood, when the time arrived for it. God says, I am going to be known in the full meaning of this name. In the same sense, ‘God’ had been regarded, but not in the full significance of it in operation, and we have the name Father applied to God in the Old Testament, but not in the full significance of it. As a matter of fact, while light is seen progressively in these names, the full significance of them all awaited the incarnation.
CAM I was struck with something you said earlier, that there has to be a corresponding work or state in us before God can be truly apprehended.
JT One of the most important things in understanding Scripture is to see that truth is brought out as we are ready for it. Then in a wider sense truth is unfolded at a time fixed by God sovereignly, but its effectiveness requires His work in His people. Conditions must be ready for the divine unfoldings. This is exemplified in the opening chapters of Luke.
Ques What is the idea in the face of God being mentioned here? It says that Abraham should walk before His face and be perfect.
JT The face is that in which the fulness of the being is expressed. The face is that in which the affections and intelligence and feelings are expressed, so that the fulness of the being is contemplated and Abraham is to walk in the understanding that that is so, so that the psalmist speaks of praising God for the health — or salvations — of His countenance, Psalm 42:5; and Paul speaks of “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”, 2 Corinthians 4:6. It is the full expression of what God is.
The believer’s walk is to be in accord with that; you see how responsible Abraham was and he fell on his face as much as to say, I must hide myself from the presence of this, but God would lift him up, according to the psalm.
The psalmist says, “the health of my countenance, and my God” Psalm 43:5. God’s countenance was the psalmist’s health, which was reflected in his countenance. So that the believer can look up to God with full confidence and not only so, but express his feelings in his face. When the king enquired from Nehemiah “Why is thy face sad?” Nehemiah 2:2, he replied, “Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my father’s sepulchres, lies waste?”
Ques God took this attitude to bless, did He not?
JT He says, “It is I” — a beautiful thought. God speaks with Abraham as one man speaks with another. Scripture says this of Moses too: “Jehovah spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend”, Exodus 33:11. Every believer should learn how to be on individual ground with God. Here He is on easy terms with Abraham, and he would have Abraham to be on free and happy terms with Him. Hence He makes a covenant which would confirm Abraham in the blessed relation with God into which he had been brought. The covenant contains the terms to which God commits Himself as to Abraham, agreeing with the comforting scripture: “by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement ... and entering into that within the veil, where Jesus is entered as forerunner for us”, Hebrews 6:18,20.
WB-w Then He gives him the covenant of circumcision, which follows that.
JT That would mean that God says in effect to Abraham, The terms into which I am entering with you imply that the flesh is to have no place. The circumcision is the putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; so that we are with God happily and freely, but he disallows fleshly feelings and activities for “the flesh profits nothing”, John 6:63.
AR Is circumcision a household [p. 257] matter?
JT Quite so; that is what it is made here. He immediately carried it out in the household.
Rem Ishmael was thirteen years old at this time. He was a fully developed boy, and God would introduce His thoughts at that point; he was old enough to know the truth, and thus responsible.
JT He had passed twelve. The Lord sat in the temple at the age of twelve and behaved as a man. If people are young in age and want to come into fellowship the point is they have to act like men. “Let no one despise thy youth”, 1 Timothy 4:12. The Lord acted like a man in the temple, and I am sure that is an example for all of us. Now Ishmael is about thirteen years of age, but he is not a man; even as it was said of him prophetically before he was born that he would be “a wild ass of a man”, but he has here attained an age when he should be showing manhood qualities, but he has not got them, because he mocked when Isaac was born.
FHL Had Abraham his thoughts on the wrong line in giving him the name Ishmael? “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!” Genesis 17:18.
JT Well, it was a name given by the angel of Jehovah, meaning “El hears”, recognising the affection of his mother, and thus should have reacted on the lad for good, but evidently it did not. The angel in furnishing his name said he would be a wild ass of a man, as already said. Thus while God heard Abraham (Genesis 17:20) as to Ishmael, his mind was not governed spiritually in making his request for Ishmael. Ishmael had an Egyptian mother, and he took character from her.
Ques Is dependence a feature of manhood according to God?
JT It is; it is one of the great features — subjection, dependence on God.
WB-w Is circumcision here equivalent to receiving the Spirit in our language?
JT Yes; it involves the Spirit. How can I put to [p. 258] death the deeds of the body except by the Spirit? That is the idea of it, putting off the deeds of the body in the circumcision of Christ is an attitude of mind, but the power of it is by the Spirit, and that is what comes out in Abraham; the power that wrought, faith appropriated it. Circumcision was applied at once.
WB-w Abraham would have had Ishmael circumcised, too.
JT Yes; he had his whole house circumcised; the word of God was acted on immediately.
WB-w But Ishmael did not answer to it.
JT Not at all; just like sometimes young people do not answer to baptism, although household baptism is rightly applied in the believer’s family.
ABP Do you link that with Romans 8, the name here coming in in connection with walk? Would that link on with Romans 8:4 “Who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit”.
JT That is the idea exactly. Romans 8 shows what the Spirit is to the believer, as you will have noticed, the ‘Holy Spirit’ is mentioned fifteen times in the first sixteen verses, showing that is the point in Romans 8. It is a question of the power of God operating in us which operated in Christ in raising Him from the dead.
FHL Would you say something about the change of Sarah’s name? God said, “she shall become nations”, Genesis 17:16, the evidence of power in the maternal line?
JT The two parents corresponding in that way, so that we have a wholly right seed, which is spoken of in the prophets. Ishmael was not a wholly right seed, because his mother was a worldly person, an Egyptian, and she brought him up in a worldly way, too, and got an Egyptian wife for him, and that is the difficulty with many families, the parentage is not right.
GVD What is the link between power and multiplication? I was thinking in Corinthians, Paul said,
[p. 259] God gives the increase; and then in Acts 18, the Lord said to him, “I am with thee ... I have much people in this city”, Acts 18:10. Does that link on with this?
JT It does. The people were known to the Lord, and Paul had to find them, but he said “No one shall set upon thee to injure thee”, Acts 18:10. Those the Lord called His people that were in the city must be secured, and it required the power of God to secure them. One point the apostle makes is that “the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us”, 2 Corinthians 4:7. He makes that prominent in the first epistle also, that he did not preach in man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; “that your faith might not stand in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power”, 1 Corinthians 2:5.
AR Is that what Jacob arrived at when Joseph appeared before him? He got strength and sat up on his bed, as if he as an old man is relying on the power of God.
JT That is what comes out here in chapter 48. I thought we should read that because it brings this out. “And it came to pass after these things, that one told Joseph, Behold, thy father is sick”, Genesis 48:1; “And one told Jacob and said, Behold, thy son Joseph is coming to thee. And Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed. And Jacob said to Joseph, The Almighty God appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and he said to me. Behold, I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a company of peoples; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession”, Genesis 48:2 - 4. He strengthened himself, and he refers to our title - “The Almighty God appeared to me at Luz”, which would allude to the second visit to Bethel, which gives this blessing that Jacob alludes to, carrying down the thought of God Almighty in the patriarchal history.
AR He says to Joseph in regard to Ephraim and Manasseh, they “shall be mine”. Would that be the idea of carrying the thing forward in the family, not only [p. 260] recognising Joseph as his son, but Joseph’s two sons would be his sons?
JT Yes; when you come to Moses’ blessing of the tribes, we have said of Ephraim and Manasseh, the myriads of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh; these are the ones taken on sovereignly here by Jacob, but in relation to the Almighty God; the blessing comes through to these two sons of Joseph who are elevated to sonship among the twelve tribes; Jacob makes them his — “as Reuben and Simeon”, Genesis 48:5. We need the power of God for sonship.
CAM I would like to ask a question there, as to what is in your mind as to the relation between manhood and sonship.
JT It comes out more in the book of Exodus than it does here. I think the general truth of manhood and sonship stands in this way. God said, “send a message to Pharaoh saying, Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn”, Exodus 4:23; that is, the idea of sonship is stressed in the testimony. That is what God would have in those who serve him. But the sonship that God had in His mind is worked out in manhood, not simply by birth but by the development of manhood, so that you get manhood immediately you come to Exodus; the enemy is set on destroying the male children, that there should be no men and Moses is secured in spite of that. He is secured for God’s service and testimony, and it comes out in sonship.
CAM That is an instructive suggestion. Ephesians 4 furnishes a link in that respect — the unity of the faith, and then the Son of God and then the full grown man.
JT Yes. ‘Son’ implies family dignity; ‘man’ is racial, or order of being. The first man in which sonship is mentioned is Enoch in Cain’s family. Cain [p. 261] calls the city he built after his name. God takes it up and calls Israel His son. Typically it is worked out in manhood, seen in fulness in Aaron. In him God clothes manhood with great and glorious thoughts in the garments that are mentioned. It is a question of divine thoughts being attached to a man in those garments and adornments. These involve sonship in Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews shows.
Rem Israel has power to discriminate in the way he stretches forth his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, later on in the chapter.
JT Quite so; answering Joseph’s objection. He says, “I know”, Genesis 48:19.
ABP Is the thought of adoption suggested here in relation to sonship?
JT Yes; it is the idea of adoption, elevating us from the lower state to a higher one.
ABP Does that suggest there is formation there?
JT I think so; these two were evidently ready for it. We gentiles have come into sonship, by adoption.
AR When the apostle speaks of presenting every man perfect in Christ, do you have in your mind that the man there is presented as a creature?
JT Yes; that is the idea; a creature of that order.
AR Sonship underlying it, but before God in Christ, in manhood.
JT We see the two thoughts running collaterally, the first, as race or order of being — “Let us make man” — not sons — “after our image”, Genesis 1:26?; that is a racial thought, an order of being, but then sonship is a family thought applying to that being. That is how the matter will stand eternally.
Rem Joseph bringing his two sons forward here might miss the patriarchal thought. Jacob was exercised that he might get it — the blessing of God.
JT Joseph was here on natural lines, he wanted Manasseh placed first and that would dislocate the [p. 262] principle of sonship. The basis of it is not the order of birth, which was what Joseph had in mind. It is in us a matter of predestination or counsel. And that is what comes out, that the younger is put before the elder; our whole position is really that. It is counsel, not simply a matter of birth, as is seen when you come, for instance, to the breast-plate of the high priest and the shoulder pieces. On the shoulder pieces of the high priest’s dress the names of the sons of Israel were engraved according to their birth; that is one thing — the family according to birth — but the position of the tribes on the breast-plate was not according to that; there, the emphasis is not on their names, which are not formally given; it is a question of precious stones, and they are set in four rows of three each. It is a question of the divine counsel, setting whom He will where He will, similar to the relation in which the tribes were set around the tabernacle — four sets of three each. It was a question of God’s counsel. Judah had the first place there, not Reuben.