DIVINE NAMES (7)
[p. 286] DIVINE NAMES (7)
Genesis 2:4 - 25; Isaiah 40:28 - 31; Amos 5:14 - 17
JT We looked at the title Jehovah on the last occasion on which we met together in relation to this subject, Divine Names. We considered Jehovah and Jah. We noticed with considerable interest at the end of the meeting that the idea of a memorial was attached to that title, God saying, “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations”, Exodus 3:15. The idea of a memorial is carried through the Old Testament, the Psalms particularly, and it is now thought that we should look at Jehovah again, only in its compound connections. It is thought that we should finish the consideration of the Old Testament at this session with a view to looking later at certain titles in the New Testament that have not yet been touched on, titles, especially, of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
But before reading the Scriptures it might be well to remark that there are several divine titles that we shall not have time to look at, but they are particularly titles that stand related to Jehovah, such as the pronoun ‘He’, which is used, as many of us know, either rendered ‘He’ or ‘the Same’. It is employed several times in the Old Testament and very significantly as calling attention to essential, unchangeable Deity, an idea that ought to be in our minds as in a changeable world. The first mention of it is in Deuteronomy 32:39, I believe, and we are there directed in a note to several passages in which it appears. Another name that God takes in the Old Testament is ‘Jealous’, Exodus 34:14, very significant, too, warning us against idolatry.
In considering the name Jehovah, inclusive of Jah, I believe we touch the very heart of the Old Testament. We cannot say that it is not a relative name, but it is less relative than the others; all the other names are distinctly [p. 287] relative, but Jehovah is accompanied with such suggestions as “I AM that I AM” and “the Same” and “Jah” which is said to be an abbreviation of the name Jehovah, but I believe it carries a more spiritual suggestion. The fact that Jehovah is distinctly God’s memorial would, no doubt, include the title Jah: “This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations”, Exodus 3:15. In this we are in the presence of God as nearly in the abstract as could be in Old Testament times. And it is mentioned first in this compound in our chapter, Genesis 2 “Jehovah Elohim”. The brethren no doubt have observed how frequently the compound tide is used in this chapter and the next chapter. God impressing us with His own essential interest in man, not simply a governmental interest, but an essential interest. When the Lord Jesus saw a man that was blind, as we read in John 9, the disciples inquiring as to whether the man had sinned or his parents, He said, “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him”, John 9:3; and in curing his blindness the Lord spat on the ground, which, I think, points to the essential interest of God in man, not governmentally, because if it were a governmental thought it would be that he had sinned or his father had sinned. It is neither, it is God’s essential interest, that the works of God should be manifested in men.
AR In Genesis 1 you get the general idea of the creation, whereas in Genesis 2 you get God’s thoughts concentrated, do you, in relation to man; the garden of Eden and man in it?
JT It is man right through, except that the cattle and fowl are brought to him, not so much to call attention to them but to see what he would call them, to bring out what a creature he was, and what pleasure God had in him. He did not tell Adam what to call them, but, “Jehovah Elohim ... brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name”. It is a question of man, and God’s pleasure in him.
JS Would headship be seen there?
JT Yes, God would bring out what intelligence His great creature had. I think we should begin with ‘Jehovah’ in this connection — God not telling us here what the name means, as He does in Exodus, but the name is connected with all this; it is God essentially, the word Jehovah here prefixing the word Elohim, the creational name. We see that man is the supreme object with Him.
ABP Is that supported by Genesis 2:5: “and there was no man to till the ground”, as though the creation could not be complete without the man?
JT That is the thought there, I am sure. So that we have immediately the formation of Adam. “But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground. And Jehovah Elohim formed Man” — that is, we have the idea of moisture before we get the idea of formation, which you do not get in chapter 1, because it is simply creation in chapter 1.
ABP What is the meaning of that?
JT I think the moisture would be an allusion to the Spirit — not very pronounced. In the light of the New Testament, you cannot help connecting the Holy Spirit with it.
JS Are both Jah and El used as prefixes?
JT Yes. El is sometimes used with Shaddai as a compound in order to stress power in the Deity.
RWS Would you say something about ‘formed’? Jehovah Elohim formed man as over against creating him.
JT Well, I think the word, as it is set in Scripture, usually alludes to ornamentation, or beauty in some sense. He “formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed [p. 303] into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul”. That is, this is Jehovah Elohim. Elohim alone, you might say, would be simply creation,
[p. 289] as in chapter 1, although you have the word ‘make’ in chapter 1.
FHL The thought of Jehovah Elohim is also connected with the building of the woman, is it not?
JT Quite so, it is remarkable how the title is repeated in chapters 2 and 3.
ANW You have not the breath in chapter 1. Jehovah Elohim is nearer to man in chapter 2 apparently than in chapter 1. He breathes into him.
JT There is a personal link in the breathing? It is not that we should say God lives by breath as we do, but it brings out the personal touch in the formation of man. Divine breath is a very interesting subject in itself. This is the first mention of it. Based on it, Adam is said to be ‘of God’. There is the idea of generation in that. The book of Job has the breath of God several times. We have the breath of God causing the ice, pointing undoubtedly to death, that in which Christ was. And we have the breath of God igniting the eternal fire of hell in the prophet Isaiah 30:33. And then we may say we have the breath of God at Pentecost, in the violent blowing or breathing. No doubt God’s personal interest in man in the gift of the Spirit is implied.
JS Would you say also in John’s gospel?
JT Well, I was going to speak of John 20; you have it in John 3:8 under the term ‘wind’. It is less personal there, but in John 20:22 it is directly personal; the Lord breathed into the disciples.
Ques Would the dry ground be more the work of God and the moisture the addition of the Holy Spirit?
JT It is an additional thought and if we are at liberty to speak of it as the Spirit, then we would have to link it on with the Spirit in a personal sense in chapter 1, where it is said He “was hovering over the face of the waters”. This is again a personal idea; it brings in the feelings of God as to what existed. In chapter 1 we have no moisture in the earth mentioned. The earth is [p. 290] simply brought up out of water in chapter 1; it had been in the water, but it is brought up out of it; but now there is a mist out of itself. Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth — “But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground”. It is a subjective thought. The mist is said to have gone up from the earth and moistened the whole surface of the ground.
CAM It would seem to confirm the thought of formation. It seems to go with that. The Spirit looked at in that way in connection with chapter 1 is striking. It seems to enter on this idea of forming in chapter 2.
JT I think it could be worked out in John’s gospel. The Holy Spirit is seen first of all, symbolised in the dove. It is said the Lord baptised with the Holy Spirit in that connection. And then in chapter 3 we have the Spirit under the symbol of wind, not issuing from a person but acting by Itself. That is, no one can say anything as to the source of the wind; we do not know. It is part of the creational condition, but it blows where it lists; that is, it is sovereign in its action, and so the Lord says, “thus is every one that is born of the Spirit”, John 3:8. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; there is no thought of water yet as a type of the Spirit. It is wind, but wind in a sovereign way and producing what is of Itself. And then the next great thought is the living water in the believer springing up, John 4:14 and John 7:38. Then we come to the wind again in John 20:22. There the disciples are already formed, and the Lord breathes into them, which is probably an allusion to this passage in Genesis 2. So that John’s gospel opens up the truth of the Spirit as indicated in Genesis 1 and 2.
CAM What you say opens up a wonderful line of thought. It shows how much there is in the gospel of John because it is an essential line of thought which agrees with Genesis, does it not?
JT [p. 291] That is right; it makes the believer very near to God. The word essential is good, and I think the spitting on the ground carries that thought with it, as to who is there. God was essentially there in the Lord Jesus in that chapter; and John’s gospel brings us nearer to God essentially than any other.
CAM So that this idea of naming things would be a parallel thought to the gospel of John, whether it be God or Adam naming the creatures?
JT Yes. The Lord is the last Adam in John’s gospel. When He sees Peter He says, “Thou shalt be called ...”, John 1:42. That is naming; it is what he is to be by formation, not simply material as in Matthew; it is, “Thou shalt be called Cephas”. The very word that the Lord Himself used is there: Cephas. God essentially is a spirit, and the Spirit works in us to produce what corresponds. That is, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.
AR “Let the earth cause grass to spring up”, Genesis 1:11. That is, there is a power in itself to bring forth grass. Now chapter 2 is that the moisture comes up from the earth of itself. I suppose, like John’s gospel, the work of God appears by itself.
JT Quite so; the Lord said to the disciples as the Samaritan woman had gone, “Lift up your eyes and behold the fields, for they are already white to harvest”, John 4:35. That is, the fields were yielding. “Others have laboured”, He says. It is not their immediate work at all; the earth brings forth fruit of itself, as we get elsewhere. As the seed is sown in good soil the subjective work goes on, Mark 4:26 - 29.
Ques Do you also see that thought developed in the day of Pentecost? You have a “violent impetuous blowing”, and in turn they are all filled with the Holy Spirit.
JT We have been speaking of that; it conveys, I believe, a personal idea only it is very powerful. It is [p. 292] breathing. It is not wind in the ordinary sense (see note in New Translation). Breathing implies wind, of course, but it is wind coming through the lungs, as it were, and it suggests the personal idea in the gospel in the coming in of the Holy Spirit.
AAT I notice in John 20:21 the Lord speaks of sending the disciples forth: “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed ...”. Are the breathing and the sending forth connected?
JT Yes. Representation is in mind. “As the Father sent me” the Lord says. That implies that the Father was represented in Christ here. Now He says, “I also send you”. And having said that He breathed into them; meaning they are to be truly representative of Him. For this they were to have His Spirit, and in this personal way. It is not simply the general thought of the Holy Spirit given, but the breath of Christ. Hence He commits to them confidentially the power to remit sins or retain sins; so that He is thoroughly represented here in those in whom He had confidence. It is a stabilisation of the position, trustworthy persons authorised to forgive the sins of some and retain the sins of others. What is done down here is ratified in heaven; but it must be in trustworthy persons, and only those who have the Spirit of Christ are trustworthy.
JTJr Is that the allusion in Romans 8? Would the Spirit of Christ there be characteristic of the saints?
JT Quite so. “But if any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him”, Romans 8:9. There is no true representation of Christ unless you have the Spirit of Christ.
AR God put Adam in the garden to till it and guard it. That would suggest trustworthiness, would it not?
JT Quite so; that is the next thing. Man is formed; he becomes a living soul by the breath of God. That should make him trustworthy. The angels had not [p. 293] all proved trustworthy. He charged some of them with folly. And now, is man going to be trustworthy? There is no record that God ever breathed into any creature before, and here is something to be arrived at. Is Adam going to be faithful? Is he going to be trustworthy?
EEH Is the answer in Psalm 8? “Thou ... hast crowned him with glory and splendour”, Psalm 8:5.
JT That is man in Christ. So that all the mind of God awaited the incarnation for fulfilment. The man being placed in the garden brings in another thing, and that is the river. So that now we come not to moisture but a river; a quantity of water under control, within channels and flowing out of Eden into the garden. It becomes four main streams or heads. It is now water in a very powerful and regulated way, carrying the idea of headship in it.
JTJr The allusion there is to Adam’s being formed, not created, “Man whom he had formed”, Genesis 2:8.
JT Yes; so that we are dealing really with John’s gospel here, the enlargement of all this is there. Not exclusively so, but what man is in John’s gospel, and the river flowing out and becoming rivers, so that John 7:38 is rivers. The one river flows into the garden. Eden is a wider area than the garden. The garden is a distinct thing in it, and the water flows out of Eden into the garden, and then it becomes parted. Then you get the full bearing of it. It is four main streams or heads.
CAM Do you look at the river as influence?
JT Well, it is an influence, but it carries with it the idea of ‘heads’.
ANW The primary purpose seems to be or is said to be indeed, “to water the garden”.
JHE Would you get the thought in the man with the pitcher of water, and as following him, what came out?
JT That is a suggestion of it. It is an allusion to [p. 294] ministry, especially in Mark, but it carries with it the idea of water for refreshment and headship too, because the man affords guidance — “follow him”.
CAM Your comparison of the river and the mist helps. It is a very easy to see that there is a difference.
AR Is there the idea of headship in all ministry?
JT I think so. John is said to be the last book of Scripture written, and morally it is the last; and it is very significant that at the sepulchre you have the handkerchief that was on the Lord’s head “folded up in a distinct place by itself”, as much as to say, There is something to be noted in that. Attention is called to the Lord’s head. In connection with this it is said of the writer of the gospel, “he saw and believed”, John 20:8.
Ques Do you connect the source of the river with headship?
JT Well, the idea of headship comes out in the parting. The Spirit coming in at Pentecost, we are told, appeared in the form of “parted tongues”, meaning that the bearing would be universal. Wherever the river goes it carries the idea of influence for good with it. It becomes four main streams or heads. We have the idea of surrounding; and in the case of Havilah it is said that the gold of that land was good; and that bdellium and the onyx stone were there.
AAT I wonder why we have the thought of ‘mist’ now and not ‘rain’. The thought of rain does not seem to be introduced, does it?
JT Not till the flood. We do not get rain until the flood, a very remarkable thing. Here it is mist and a river. Both are typically subjective ideas. It does not appear as if God is making very much of heaven until after the flood. It is what was here to bring out the goodness of God; what was deposited in the earth itself, where man was.
JS John 7 would give you rivers, would it not?
JT It does, but it is flowing out; our chapter refers [p. 295] to that. The rivers flow out of the person, the Lord says. “He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”, John 7:38. I think it is an allusion to this, because the Lord says, “as the scripture has said”. You cannot find it literally in Scripture, but you can find it in effect; that is, this passage and others like it, as Proverbs 18:4.
Ques Is the thought of living water springing upward the same as the river parting in the garden?
JT I think so. The Spirit came in at Pentecost in the form of parted tongues and sat upon each of them, showing that you are not to be limited to yourself. There is to be a flowing out and in the character of tongues, so that all languages are included. It brings out these four rivers or heads covering the whole race, the post-diluvian world. I mean, these rivers mark off the ancient world into which God brought Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I believe it is from that standpoint that these rivers are to be understood.
JS So that we get the divisional idea too, the divisions of the earth.
JT Quite so; you get that after the flood. Moses spoke of the rivers as existing, the deluge had not effaced them.
AR Would it be right to say that the Acts of the Apostles substantiate what you are saying; it describes what is here by the Holy Spirit on the earth. You referred to what is after the flood; actually it suggests what is on earth, would it?
JT It brings out that the Holy Spirit branched out into the gentile world, into Europe particularly. These rivers point to the division of the patriarchal and Israelitish world; that is, where God’s testimony was after the flood.
CAM At Philippi the prayer meeting was by the river. Perhaps what was in view was a very extensive opening up of things.
JT [p. 296] I think so. The garden was the prime thought. From thence the river was parted and became four main streams, that is you have influence from a favoured centre developed universally, and you can understand that that thought would dominate the world in which Moses wrote.
ABP Does this link on with Ephesians — “head over all things to the assembly”, Ephesians 1:22?
JT I think that comes out in the chapter. Adam is in the great position marked by rivers. In it he must have a helpmate, one suitable to him.
JS And have we the fulfilment of the antitype in the four gospels alluding to Christ here, the partings: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
JT Yes, four. It is remarkable how that runs through Scripture. God is a universal God. We get Him in the New Testament in that way. “God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all”, 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
ANW Referring to the mist again and no rain until the flood, I wondered whether that, perhaps, throws light on what God says to Noah — “My spirit shall not always plead with Man”, Genesis 6:3. Would that seem to link with it?
JT I think it would in the sense that the flood would be end of the striving. The first mention of the Spirit is in chapter 1, and the second mention (in type) is in this chapter — both the mist and the river, and then chapter 6 is the Spirit striving — a very touching thing. It is also touching that the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep — chaotic conditions — to bring order out of it. In chapter 6 there is the striving with men, and a certain time given — 120 years — for that striving. The rain in chapter 7 is judgment — not a type of the Spirit.
Rem Verses 8 to 14 seem to be a special provision for men. The previous verses are formation, but verses [p. 297] 8 to 14 seem to be God planning a special region that man might be placed in.
JT Quite so, and you notice, it is Jehovah Elohim right through. So that He took man and put him into the garden of Eden, Genesis 2:8. Later, “Jehovah Elohim ... put him into the garden of Eden, to till it and to guard it”, Genesis 2:15. The tilling and the guarding follow the idea of the river. That is, you must have the Holy Spirit to work out all this, which, by extension, would include all our ministry, care meetings, etc. Thus there is a link here with the wider field of the New Testament.
ARS What is the meaning of the word Eden?
JT It is pleasure.
ARS And the river has its source there.
JT It has its source there, and it comes into the most favoured spot in it, and flows out from thence, becoming universal from there.
ARS Then the river in The Revelation flows from the throne of God.
JT Yes. It is more governmental there, but still influential for blessing everywhere.
RWS Is there a special thought of fertility with the third and fourth rivers? The first and second have a view to a certain area, but of the third and fourth Genesis 2:14 says: “the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which flows forward toward Asshur. And the fourth river, that is Euphrates”. I wondered if there was some thought of special fertility from that area spiritually, flowing forward towards Asshur?
JT I hardly know. The first two surround certain districts, and good from them is indicated. The second two are well known. We know of the great empires that arose from the areas through which they flow. Hiddekel is the Tigris, and is identified as “flowing toward Asshur”. The Euphrates is seen in Scripture as representing international boundaries.
[p. 298] Ques Does the apostle develop a feature such as we have here in 1 Corinthians 11, where he says, “the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”, 1 Corinthians 11:3?
JT That is, of course, headship in its graded form, which is only, I should say, provisional. It is not the eternal thought of headship; it is provisional — from God to Christ, and from Christ to the man, and from man to the woman. The full thought of headship is in Ephesians. God “gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all”, Ephesians 1:22, 23. Our chapter, Genesis 2, is fulness. The first chapter is basic; this is fulness, the working out of chapter 1.
WB-w The garden now evidently is the assembly. Is that the thought?
JT That is the way to look at it. The river flows out of a favoured spot, but the garden is more favoured. The parting takes place there. So that it would very much look like the coming in of the Spirit to those gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
WB-w The whole earth is watered through the assembly in that sense.
JT It is the highest character of testimony. It is not the testimony flowing out from Jerusalem; although it is flowing out from Jerusalem at Pentecost, but it is really flowing out from heaven via the assembly. That is the principle; the testimony after this dispensation will be more an earthly thing, from Galilee according to Matthew, but this is heavenly, the sound came out of heaven.
WB-w I notice that of the first two streams, the passage says: “surrounds the whole land of Havilah” and “surrounds the whole land of Cush”; and the third flows forward, not surrounding but flowing forward. Those are two different functions of the Spirit.
JT Yes; you have the circular thought, I suppose,
[p. 299] the more restrictive and resultful; whereas the going forward would be going out indefinitely.
Rem Eden would be a general area; whereas the garden seems to be more a circumscribed area.
JT Yes. Eden is said to be that. It is a district; the garden is in it, eastward in it, showing that it is in the most favoured spot — the east pointing to what is hopeful; and if we look at it in the antitype in the Acts, Judaism was a pleasant place for God, but the assembly is greater, and the universal thought — the Spirit goes out from the assembly, not from Israel.
JHE You were saying Eden means pleasure. I was looking at the announcement in Luke — “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”; Luke 2:14.
JT “Good pleasure in men” would mean it is not in Israel simply, but in men.
Ques Christ being the Head of every man — would that be in the creational sense?
JT Yes. But it is only creational in the sense that He has come into the creation as Man. He is the beginning of it — the beginning of the creation of God. We often say, the new creation, but He is the beginning of the creation of God as it is now. He came into it in a mediatorial sense. He represents what God is — all flows out from God to us through Him. The head of man is the Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
AR Does the idea of this scripture carry forward the thought that God is taking account of us here as representing manhood?
JT Yes. We must keep the meaning of the title ‘Jehovah’ before us. It is Jehovah Elohim, that is, Jehovah in the compound. He is coming later on to tell us what ‘Jehovah’ means. He is not doing it here; that is, He did not tell Abraham what this title meant; He revealed Himself to Abraham as “God Almighty”, but [p. 300] the word Jehovah was there too; that is, you have the word without its full meaning, but still it is there. God is holding to the principle of His name and as we wait we will get to understand what it means. Faith had to wait until Exodus, until Moses; Moses represents a turning point, because certain conditions existed “from Adam to Moses”. We get that as regards death. When we come to Moses we get the explanation of this wonderful name but it is already here, and now we can go back and see the force of this chapter. Why does God take this name so early? Why does He not wait until Exodus? But He has pleasure in man, and He is saying in effect, This name covers My relation to him. This pleasure is in Eden. The garden is a supreme thought and Adam is there, and God is telling us that this name will come up presently, and we shall understand it. Now we understand, and we can revel in Genesis 2, as I hope we are doing in some little measure now. It is only in the light of the assembly. Paul says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”, Ephesians 5:32. He was speaking of a man and his wife and his children and all that, but he says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”, and our chapter finishes with this great thought.
JTJr Is the thought of God’s purpose suggested in Genesis 2 before we have the question of good and evil coming up at all?
JT That is right, and the word Jehovah coming in alongside of His purpose. That is, the nearest touch to essential Deity is in Jehovah; it is not opened up yet, but when we come to the opening up of it, we look back and see what light is there in these early chapters of Scripture.
WB-w In Exodus God is taking a people out of the world for His pleasure, not merely to save them but to bring them out for His own pleasure and satisfaction.
JT That is right, showing that separation is required for the disclosure of the divine Name. A certain condition in men is essential to [p. 301] that; that is separation. 2 Corinthians 6 furnishes this condition.
CAM So that the source of the name Jehovah is in Genesis. The opening up comes later on.
JT Yes. So that we have to be in school, and go through it. There are many things ahead of you and I think that is what is in this book of Genesis. The man that shines specially in the antediluvian world, is Enoch. His name means a man in the school of God. So that we have to be patient in our learning; hence it is said that Enoch was “the seventh from Adam”. He has gone through the course.
CAM He had such a wonderful vision that he looked right on to the end of the whole history.
JT Quite so; he “prophesied ... saying. Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all”, Jude 14,15.
APT In relation to this learning matter, would you link the epistle to the Romans with Genesis in this way?
JT If it is a question of spiritual education, you must go through the curriculum. You must begin with Romans.
APT We need the truth of Romans, the doctrinal side comes to one as converted, as a sinner, leading right up to chapter 5; the whole truth is available, but not always known in the soul. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; They are all there, but perhaps not known yet in the soul. Hence we have to go through the full course of instruction.
JT The question of the law has to come up, and Romans covers the whole period “from Adam to Moses”. That involves the law for it is said that by law is the knowledge of sin. Romans teaches us “the knowledge of sin”, not only sin in the world, but in ourselves.
Rem I would like to get a little more help about God bringing these animals and fowl to Adam that he might [p. 302] give them names. There would be a great moral lesson in that.
JT It comes in after the four heads of the river. The river is the basis of this headship, for headship comes out in Adam in the way he names the creatures. Every land animal and every bird — I suppose their names carry down to us today; but he was finally tested in the woman. He could see the birds flying and the land animals walking about and would name them according to what he saw in them but here is an individual he never saw before and there is only one; and God brought her in to him like the others. What will Adam say now? It is to bring out instinctive headship; the power to name things, the wisdom that one may have as to discerning traits in a being, so that you name him rightly.
Rem The naming of the woman seems to be spontaneous whereas the naming of the creatures seems to be put upon Adam “to see what he would call them”.
JT Yes, here it is “And he took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its stead. And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that He had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man”, Genesis 2:21,22. That is all. Then man says, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”, Genesis 2:23. He is bringing in new words now — ‘Ish’ and ‘Ishshah’. He is adding to the divine vocabulary. We have not got a single instance of the names he gave the animals and other creatures or birds, but we have here, the woman’s name is Ishshah because she was taken out of Ish. He is giving a reason for the name; that is, bringing out that she was taken out of man.
ARS And that has stood till the present day.
JTJr Having God’s breath thus would shew how great man was; giving character to his whole being — all that he would be.
JT Just so. Man is made to live by God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. It really involves our spirits. The spirit of each as he dies returns to God who gave it, Ecclesiastes 12:7, so that man has his spirit from God directly.
ANW As to the names of Elohim and Jehovah, would not Elohim be nearer essential Deity than Jehovah?
JT I think not. Jehovah is He who is — the ever-existing One; corresponding with ‘the Same’, ‘He’, ‘I am’. He who is, and who was, and is to come. It is God in His essential Being, in so far as we may grasp it. Elohim is power. It is the plural of Eloah, which is the idea of power; but it is Deity nevertheless, the Being to be worshipped, as we have seen. Jehovah is not the idea of power; it is essential Being.
Ques Do you see set forth here the development of the truth of eternal life? I have been wondering as to all you have been remarking: you have every shrub of the field before it grew — and then Adam being formed and how Jehovah Elohim breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the woman being formed of the man, so that you have: “this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”, which really goes all the way back to the source who was God.
JT Well, yes. Of course, it is life; but eternal life is properly over against death, and there is no death yet in the true sense of the word. Death reigned from Adam to Moses. Adam’s sleep was a figure of it; but it is not death as a penalty, it is the primary thought. Sleep does not mean death literally. The latter implied that man had to return to dust, which is not the case here.
CAM In that connection I would like to ask a question about verse 21. That was a very helpful remark you just made, because really, death, as we speak of it, had not come in yet, so that verse 21 possibly might be applied to the present position of Christ and the formation of the assembly. You reach a wonderful climax at the end of chapter [p. 304] 2.
JT Sin is not contemplated in the sleep of Adam. “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death”, Romans 5:12. The next chapter records this. So that Adam’s sleep is before death. It is Christ and the assembly, apart from sin — the assembly of Him. With these guarding facts before us, we may regard Adam’s sleep as a foreshadowing of Christ’s death.
CAM In that sense is it not right to feel that the assembly is being formed in this way? It is going to reach this apart from the question of sin altogether. That is what is taking place at the present time.
JT We have to abstract ourselves and understand what we belong to — the assembly as of Christ; our origin is Christ. There is no previous history at all; no sinful history as contemplated by God.
FHL You never read of Eve’s dying.
APT Apart from the prohibition in this chapter 2 in relation to the two trees, there really is no moral issue in the chapter is there?
JT The commandment is there, of course, but it is not violated yet. So that Adam here is a type of Christ as not having to do with sin.
APT Does this great matter enter into the service of God? Would the teaching of this chapter and other New Testament scriptures like it lead us into abstractedness in the realm of God’s thoughts?
JT Quite so. So that Scripture says, “He that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”, Hebrews 2:11. There is no previous history in that at all. We are of Christ. The Corn of wheat is the beginning of everything in that sense.
APT Your remark at the outset in relation to the man in John 9 helps; he really was ready for the assembly, was he not? He was really part of it in that way.
JT Yes. The flock comes in in the next chapter; one flock and one shepherd. This chapter. Genesis 2, is Jehovah Elohim; that is, it is the first mention of Jehovah,
[p. 305] placed here before the idea of God in chapter 1, Elohim. And why is it so? It is clear it is because of this great creature that appeared in the chapter — God’s interest in him. It is a moral lesson for us now, it is God’s interest in us; that is what is meant. What delight God has in His great creature. We cannot compass it save by the teaching of the Spirit. One creature is occupying His mind, and He is concerned with him through this chapter, giving him a wife; Christ and the assembly is in the mind of God. But by extension, it is God’s interest in every person here tonight — that everyone should be free to come to God; that is what this chapter means.
And then as coming to our second scripture, in Isaiah 40, it may be said that Isaiah is perhaps the most comprehensive of all the prophets. Each book is divided up into sections. He is, I think, the most comprehensive of all the prophets, and especially in regard to God in His creational relations. In this chapter he begins with the subject, and says many remarkable things about God as the Creator, coming down to the verses read: “Dost thou not know, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not nor tireth?” Isaiah 40:28. That is a fine word. Isaiah would bring God into our present circumstances — what the world is becoming. God is sitting on the circle of the earth, he says in this chapter. What are the inhabitants to Him? They are just as the fine dust of the scales, as simply creatures. So that the question is, “Dost thou not know, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not nor tireth? There is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint”. It seems to me it is a wonderful deduction from what we have had in chapter 2 of Genesis, that man is under God’s eye, and how God sets Himself before us as representative of Himself, and we [p. 306] are of Him. What He looks for now is strength in us.
JS Isaiah 40:18 would you say?
JT Yes. “To whom then will ye liken God?”
CAM You are stressing the creational idea?
JT Do you not think we should? It is in this chapter and the next chapter; it is very much stressed in this book.
CAM Yes, that is what I thought you perhaps had in mind in saying that this prophet is so comprehensive; he really goes on to new creation.
JTJr In the meantime up to this chapter Israel has been created and formed, according to this prophet.
JT That is very suggestive because he covers the whole field of testimony on the earth — right on to new creation from Adam down. He brings God in here in the creational setting, I think in view of our prayer meetings — our prayers; of course, at all times, but especially when we come together for prayer.
RWS Looking for strength at all times, would you say?
JT Yes — strength: “but they that wait upon Jehovah shall renew their strength: they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not tire; they shall walk, and not faint”, Isaiah 40:31 Esteeming the nations “as a drop of the bucket”, Isaiah 40:15, would remove all national feelings from our minds. A drop of the bucket is a very small quantity.
JT Quite so; national ideas are not worthy of our consideration at all, save as they enter into the government of God. That christians should take them on or make much of them in a mere national way, is surely outside of the range of spirituality.
AR Why does He bring forward His own personality? He says He is the everlasting God who fainteth not nor tireth.
JT That is to encourage us, I think. He is setting [p. 307] Himself before us. If we wait upon Him, we will renew our strength; it is a question of waiting upon Him. “They that wait upon Jehovah shall renew their strength: they shall mount up with wings as eagles”, Isaiah 40:31. God brought Israel out of Egypt to Himself on eagles wings. We learn from God; in the prayer meetings and in our private prayers, we learn in His presence. In measure, we take on His attributes.
AR Is that why he brings out that even the youth might tire?
JT Yes; characteristically, the most agile and athletic of mankind is a youth, but even he tires. But those that wait upon the Lord do not.
CAM I suppose you need eagles’ wings to understand John’s gospel. The flying eagle idea is in that gospel.
JT It is taking on what God is. I think that is the thought.
CN Do you not think therefore that the present ministry that brings God Himself so intimately before us would result in the strength that this chapter refers to?
JT I am sure it would; the prophetic ministry brings God to us and then we come to Him. Now there is a very beautiful word in one of the historical books: “Jehovah is with you while you are with him”. He appeals to us as to that, so that I look abroad on what is happening today — am I with God in it, recognising His rights in the scourging of the profession, of christianity, the nations and humanity as such. And the second thing is that if we are, He is with us; He will see you through.
WB-w In the prayer meeting do we pray to Him as One who is sitting on the circle of the earth?
JT Well, we can bring in all these thoughts; they lift us out of the narrowness of national feeling and the like.
WB-w What does sitting upon the circle of the earth mean?
[p. 308] JT It is a figure; it is a metaphorical thought. He is above it; He is supreme, yet not ignorant and indifferent to what exists; He is looking upon what is transpiring.
Ques Do you see an example of this in Paul and Silas “in praying, were praising God with singing .... And suddenly there was a great earthquake”, Acts 16:25,26? They seemed in those circumstances to have power to bring God in as Creator.
JT Quite so; God was brought in there as Creator. He would give power to the position of such servants. We can count upon that in suffering in the testimony.
JS Would you regard Isaiah more in regard to what you are saying, as an international prophet instead of a national prophet, his ministry is so great?
JT Well, he really lifts us up out of all distinctions of that kind; he lifts us up to life and new creation, making great allowance for Jerusalem in chapter 65. “I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy”, Isaiah 65:18. It is what God creates in the millennium, the new creation; how it works out in the millennium.
FNW What are those sections of the book you are referring to?
JT We could not go into that now for want of time. It is a wonderful book and I suppose our brother will be able to look into it by himself. These meetings are just to touch on the truth; as we follow them up individually, we get help. We see how the rivers flow.
The third passage read, Amos 5:14 - 17, is to bring out how self-judgment will take place in the Jewish remnant, and of course, in the people of God, now. It speaks of “Jehovah, the God of hosts”. The idea of hosts — God having such power under His hand when outwardly things were small, for Amos says of Jacob “he is small”; he beseeches God about Jacob and God has respect for the prophet and repents of the evil, Amos 7:1 - 6 — a very touching thought. It shows how God [p. 309] may change His mind as to any judgment if there is a spirit of intercession as to it amongst His people. Here it is Jehovah, the God of hosts. Jehovah in this connection — “And so Jehovah, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye say. Hate evil, and love good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that Jehovah, the God of hosts, will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts, the Lord” (’Lord’ involves mastership). “Wailing shall be in all broadways; and they shall say in all the streets, Alas! Alas! And they shall call the husbandman to mourning, and such as are skilful of lamentation to wailing. And in all vineyards shall be wailing; for I will pass through the midst of thee, saith Jehovah”. That is, we are warned in view of this distressing state of things to seek good and not evil, “that ye may live; and so Jehovah, the God of hosts, shall be with you”.