DIVINE NAMES (10)
[p. 353] DIVINE NAMES (10)
Acts 2:34 - 36; John 18:33 - 37; John 1:29 - 37; Hebrews 7:23 - 28; Ephesians 1:19 - 23
JT It is thought that we should consider tonight the titles attached to the Lord Jesus besides those we have already considered: the titles Lord, King, Lamb of God, Priest and Head. There are two readings more, which it was thought well should be devoted to the appellations of the Holy Spirit.
We will need to be patient and attentive too, as there is much ground to cover at this time, so that we should give enough time to each feature of our subject. The first is the title of Lord, which in the original has a wide use, applied by men to each other, but when applied to the Lord Jesus it takes on a very exalted character, involving His supremacy in administration, having power to enforce His will, as it is needed, also carrying protection for us as in the kingdom. I think the passage read is as good as any: Peter having spoken at length in the preaching says, “Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”, Acts 2:36. The two titles are thus coupled here; the first referring to authority, the second meaning that He is the Messiah, the anointed Man for the accomplishment of the purposes of God.
JS Do the truths of the two titles run on concurrently?
JT Pretty much, but ‘Christ’ goes further, linking with His headship. Authority is in lordship; it is not directly connected with His headship, but the anointing is. In the passage in Ephesians 4 we shall see how the idea of the Christ is associated with the idea of His headship, verse 15: “but, holding the truth in love, we may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, the Christ”, Ephesians [p. 354] 4:15 Is the gospel preached demanding subjection to Christ as Lord?
JT That is what I think we should see; He is made Lord and Christ. He is regarded as Lord while here below, for at His birth it was said He was Christ the Lord — that was the announcement to the shepherds by the angel: “for today a Saviour has been born to you in David’s city, who is Christ the Lord”, Luke 2:11.
WFK Is the title Lord connected with the kingdom?
JT Clearly; the word ‘king’ is not used in relation to the assembly or in relation to the gospel much; it is a title that will be more in use directly in Jewish relations.
ANW Would you care to say when it was that God made Him Lord and Christ?
JT Well, Peter is alluding to the session on high. The passage read says, “David has not ascended into the heavens, but he says himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I have put thine enemies to be the footstool of thy feet. Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”, Acts 2:36. He alludes to His session at the right hand of God, as having returned into heaven as Man; although of course the title is applied to Him here below, as I said; the title attaches to Him inherently, being who He is — the Son of God. He was the Messiah, and He was the King, too, as we have seen already in Matthew. He belongs to the royal line as Son of David, Son of Abraham. Matthew shows He is King by right, but I think Peter is alluding to what took place in heaven. The present time is in mind and He is ruling from there, not down here.
CHH “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12:3. Would that be in connection with the assembly, or would it not?
JT It is in connection with public service [p. 355] in the assembly. The epistles have christianity in mind almost entirely; and His lordship, made Lord according to Peter’s word here alludes to what has taken place in heaven, including His reception of the Spirit and giving Him to the saints. “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”, Acts 2:33. The ‘therefore’ is that He is made Lord up there. The giving of the Holy Spirit was an act of the dispensation, an administrative act from there. It is a peculiar situation we are in now; Christ is there. It is entirely a faith period. Peter says, “whom heaven indeed must receive till the times of the restoring of all things”, Acts 3:21. That is, He is there and administering from there, and the Holy Spirit is the greatest evidence of it; and the Holy Spirit here is the power by which we recognise the Lord Jesus as there. We say ‘Lord Jesus’ by the Holy Spirit. So that the position is very real. What is here in the Holy Spirit corresponds fully with what is there.
RWS Is there a difference in the word ‘despot’ as in Acts 4:24, which, I believe, is sometimes translated ‘lord’ and sometimes ‘master’?
JT Yes; it is applied to God in Acts 4 and to Christ in 2 Timothy 2. It is a stronger word than the word used for Lord ordinarily. The word used for Lord ordinarily is used in the original for men; a title of respect. We know how that has become common in other lands, where people are entitled lord, having no more attaching to it than respect or dignity. Despot is a very strong word, because it means He is absolute in authority.
RWS Is it an intensification of the title Lord. Are there certain times when that Name is suitable in the assembly?
JT Well, in a crisis where things are urgent, where divine aid is very urgent it might be used, as in Acts 4:24. “Now, Lord look upon their threatenings”; it was an [p. 356] urgent situation. In addressing a divine Person it is employed only three times.
ABP Are there certain services that are under the Lord peculiarly, according to 1 Corinthians 12? “But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all”, 1 Corinthians 12:4 - 6.
JT That is important. It comes in after it is said, “no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”. That chapter is helpful in our subject, because it shows that the Holy Spirit in us corresponds with the Lord’s position in heaven. It is the present position or session in heaven that corresponds to christianity but it finds its counterpart in the Holy Spirit here below, that the saints are feelingly recognising Him as Lord. We say, Lord Jesus, by the Spirit. That is done feelingly, and brings out to the hearers that it is a real matter. Christianity is a real matter, the authority of Christ is a real matter and regarded in affection by the saints.
AC How do you view Stephen’s cry when he says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. Acts 7:59? And a little later he says, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge”, Acts 7:60.
JT Well, it is in agreement with what we are saying. No one can say Lord Jesus except by the Spirit. It is an affectionate way of speaking to Him.
AC That confirms what you are saying about the operation of the Spirit. Stephen was a man full of the Holy Spirit and in his last hour he cries intelligently, would you say?
JT That is what Acts brings out; that the authority of Christ in heaven is recognised by those who love Him on earth. That is a real thing. Any exercised hearer would be affected. It makes the kingdom of God at the present time a unique system, because love enters [p. 357] into it.
CHH Is the balance thus preserved in respect and affection: Lord Jesus?
JT I think Lord Jesus is an affectionate term. “The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up”, 1 Corinthians 11:23. It is brought in in connection with the Supper: “remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said. It is more blessed to give than to receive”, Acts 20:35. These expressions spoken in power and heard by persons in that way would suggest the wonderfulness of christianity. What a kingdom it is! It is permeated by love.
AR Is that what Saul of Tarsus discerned when the light shone round about him. He says, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus”, Acts 9:5. Saul discerned Him as in authority, he says, “Who art thou, Lord?” This confirms what you are saying; He is operating from heaven.
JT Quite so; he was brought into the kingdom. He was never spoken to with such consideration. He deserved destruction, but instead of that the Lord says, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” Acts 9:4. The Lord is full of affection for that man, and presently He intercedes with Ananias for him. He says, “For this man is an elect vessel to me”, Acts 9:15. I think all we are saying now is very important, because in our speakings of the Lord Jesus and to the Lord Jesus, we speak with affection and people hearing us say, Well, there is something in this; it is different from anything we know of.
ANW It is well placed in that verse of our hymn: ‘Jesus, Lord Jesus, we love and adore thee’, (4:4) do you not think?
JT Yes, indeed. Our hymns are very full of it, of course; there are about two hundred and fifty hymns addressed to the Lord Jesus in our book and they are very full of the thought before us, and they have great power if we sing by the Spirit. I mean the Spirit of God, because He is the power by which we should sing. “For [p. 358] we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God”, Philippians 3:3.
Ques In that way is the position here marked by the spirit of the brother? Ananias, laying his hands upon him, says, “Saul, brother, the Lord has sent me”, Acts 9:17.
JT That shows he was now drinking into the spirit of the kingdom instead of criticising Saul to the Lord and telling the Lord about Saul as if He did not know. The Lord is brought into it in a practical way. The lordship of Christ has great prominence in Acts 9. And there is another statement: “to us there is ... one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. That is, He has brought us into being; we owe our spiritual being to Him.
AR How far back does that go?
JT To the time of our conversion or beginning in a spiritual sense; we confess Him as Lord; then He comes in to act as Lord for us. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved”, Romans 10:9. He operates for us at once.
JS I think it is helpful and suggestive, the thought that resurrection is not sufficient; He must of necessity be received up.
JT That is where christianity begins really. His being made Lord and Christ. But then He gives the Spirit, and the Spirit down here corresponds with what He is up there, so that we have a real, vital kingdom.
ABP Are the Levites under the Lord’s authority directly — in relation to the services of 1 Corinthians 12 and in relation to the end of Mark, the Lord working with them?
JT Yes. Peter operated in that power. It is he who tells us that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, and then he says, “he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”, Acts 2:33. He was manifestly under the Lord in the service he was rendering.
AAT In Ephesians 4 where it speaks of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that Christ has ascended up on high and given gifts to men, is that on the line we are speaking of?
JT It is; it is one Lord; that is the second concentric circle in the series of circles there. The first is, “there is one body and one Spirit, as ye have also been called in one hope of your calling”, Ephesians 4:4; that is the inner circle, in connection with the Holy Spirit which corresponds with 1 Corinthians 12 already quoted. And then the second circle is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”, Ephesians 4:5; that is the kingdom which we are now speaking of, but the point there is that it induces unity as one of the concentric circles in christianity. The other is “one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”, Ephesians 4:6. These circles are all working together in the Spirit; the inner is the Spirit. It is all to promote unity. The second is what we are speaking about, the kingdom, where the Lord is prominent.
JS Was He received up to receive gifts in manhood as at God’s right hand?
JT Yes; but that goes beyond lordship. As giving the gifts He has gone beyond all the heavens; that is, to an uncreated condition of things, which is beyond our range, but it says, He “received gifts in Man”, quoting Psalm 68:18; He received gifts in Man, in relation to men, and He has given some apostles, etc.; that goes further; it is more headship that is involved in the gifts.
AR “Abounding always in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 15:58.
JT That is linked on with what is before us. He is exercising the power that He has; so that we are not to weary in well doing, but continue on in patience; that is [p. 360] the way. It may not seem to bring results now, but, as in the Lord, it is not in vain.
EEH Is Joseph in exaltation a type of Christ as Lord?
JT Yes. He was Lord of all Egypt; Pharaoh made him that, and everything was under his hand, so that he carries on the administration there.
CHH “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to God the Father’s glory”, Philippians 2:10,11. Is that because He was under reproach?
JT That is right; it is illustrated in what we read. “God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”, Acts 2:36; that is, God is asserting that all must bow the knee to Him, because He has made Him both Lord and Christ. It is the name of Jesus.
ANW I was wondering whether the name above every name that is granted to Him might encompass all the names given Him in manhood.
JT It would, but really the name Jesus carries them all. The name of Jesus involves His deity; He saves His people; that is God. But He became humble and obedient under it, and hence God honours it.
Rem Luke 2 says it was divinely communicated to Simeon, that he should not see death until he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
JT The word ‘Lord’ there is Jehovah; in the gospels it sometimes refers to Jehovah. The context shows it was not the Lord Jesus there; it is Jehovah’s Christ.
Rem Would Mary understand lordship? She says, “Because they have taken away my Lord”, John 20:13.
JT Quite so. She had affection for Him — “my Lord”. And so did Elizabeth say to Mary, the Lord’s mother, “the mother of my Lord”, Luke 1:43; these women grasped the thought.
ACW Acts 8 says that Philip went into a city of Samaria and preached Christ, and there was great joy [p. 361] in that city. It does not say he preached the Lord. Would you say the necessity of the lordship of Christ maintained all that has been secured through the preaching of Him as the Christ?
JT Well, I think it fits in there very intelligently. You will remember the woman of Samaria asked “Is not he the Christ?” John 4:29. So that Philip preached the Christ. It is not simply that he preached Christ; he preached the Christ; that is, He is the Person whom God is using in His operations. He did not come in through the Samaritans; He came in through the Jews. The Samaritans are not recognised at all nationally. They are not any more than the nations, but the Jews had a great place with God, and Paul said, “Of whom, as according to flesh, is the Christ”, showing the Christ was not of any other nation but the Jews, and therefore Philip announces “the Christ”. The Samaritans were put out of court as regards any national claim to Christ, but now they come into it on the principle of faith, many of them having believed, and there was great joy in that city. I believe we ought to link that passage with John 4, because that chapter brings out the relation of Christ to the Jews.
ANW The Lord proved that David himself called Christ his own Lord according to Psalm 110. He calls Him his Lord: “Jehovah said unto my Lord”, Psalm 110:1.
JT Psalm 110 really goes with what we are saying; that He is really a divine Person. No one else could be the Christ; and no one else could, in the true meaning, be Jesus.
ABP In connection with Samaria, is it not significant that the apostles having gone down, it is said, “they therefore, having testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem?” Acts 8:25. Following up Philip’s work, they announced “the word of the Lord”.
JT That would be needed, adding to what [p. 362] Philip had preached. They did not get the Holy Spirit through Philip’s teaching. That is a remarkable thing. It is as made Lord and Christ that He gives the Holy Spirit.
Ques After the genealogy in Matthew you have “Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”, Matthew 1:16? But in Matthew’s gospel you do not have reported the ascension of Christ. Why do you think that is?
JT Well, it is in keeping with Matthew. He is always here according to his gospel. But then Matthew is not the only book in the Bible. We must read the whole Bible to get the full bearing of any one book. It is one phase of the truth that the Lord is always with us, as He is here tonight. He is with us by the Spirit; He is not here corporeally. “Behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”, Matthew 28:20. We learn from Luke and John that He has gone into heaven, and so it must be His presence is by the Spirit; it is not corporeal.
JTJr Would you say the Lord’s commandment in Corinthians has that in mind, the presence here of the Spirit to hold us together? He is up there but the commandment is here.
JT In a sense the commandment takes His place. It is the Spirit that gives the real substance to christianity. It is the correspondence to the Lord up there.
AR Would you say a word as regards the difference between what you are speaking of and the scripture read in John 18, the Lord saying, “My kingdom is not of this world”, John 18:36?
JT We can just touch on that, because one of the parts of the superscription on the Lord’s cross was that He was king of the Jews; so that what is before us comes out strikingly in John. We have more about it in John’s account than we have in the others. Pilate, we are told, “entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus, and said to him, Thou art the king of the Jews?” John 18:33. And Pilate is just asking that, as a judge, as much as to say, is it so?
But the Lord says, “Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence. Pilate therefore said to him. Thou art then a king? Jesus answered, Thou sayest it, that I am a king. I have been born for this, and for this I have come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth”, John 5:33 - 37. I think the Lord is deferring His earthly kingdom. The present one is not of this world. I believe He has christianity in mind. It is not the time of fighting with swords or guns or airplanes at all. That is not for us. It is, of course, necessary for the nations to whom God has given the government of this world. But our position is peculiar, and I think it must have mystified Pilate; he was well-conversant with Roman kingdoms. What kind of a kingdom is this? — not of this world. But still He was a King and born a King; He was not simply made it; He was that by right.
AR Matthew quotes the wise men enquiring, “Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?” Matthew 2:2. Whereas this apparently goes beyond being related to the Jews as King.
JT The Lord treats His kingship in a more general and elevated sense. It is christianity that the Lord had in mind. Pilate would not understand that, but the magi from the east say, “Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?” Well, He says, to Pilate, I have been born for this, but it is not of this world, meaning that things are not just as you might expect them — a king born into this world. Pilate would say, Whatever does this mean, a man born a king and yet his kingdom is not of this world? Well, we come into this and it brings us into reproach as it brought the Lord into reproach.
AAT [p. 364] Is that a title for the future?
JT ‘King’ is not a title used for christianity properly, but what the Lord said to Pilate bears on the present time. He is Heir to David’s throne and will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, Luke 1:32,33. He is King of kings, too; He is an Emperor. All that will come in presently. But we are to have it in our souls in prospect. But He says “My kingdom is not of this world;” He is introducing that at once. He is bringing in something different from anything that had existed.
CHH Paul in his doxology says: “Now to the King of the ages ...”, 1 Timothy 1:17. What does that refer to — a continuous idea?
JT That refers to God — “the incorruptible, invisible, only God”.
CHH Is it the same thing in the second allusion in 1 Timothy to the King; “the King of those that reign”, 1 Timothy 6:15.
JT I think so; it is connected with what we are talking about. “I enjoin thee before God who preserves all things in life, and Christ Jesus who witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession, that thou keep the commandment spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; which in its own time”, that is, the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, “the blessed and only Ruler shall shew, the King of those that reign, and Lord of those that exercise lordship; who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”, 1 Timothy 6:13 - 16. That is, that King will show the time of the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, “its own time”. “The King of those that reign” is God.
CAM That would seem to be borne out in the verse that is quoted by Peter: “The Lord said unto my Lord”, Acts 2:34 Quite so; God would show the time and all connected with it, of the appearing of our Lord Jesus.
“[p. 365] He has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed”, Acts 17:31.
APT Nathanael speaks of the King of Israel.
JT Well, he is quoting Psalm 2. “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”, John 1:49. That is what Nathanael said; he represents Israel. He is an Israelite indeed; that would be spiritual Israel, I think. And then, in answering him, the Lord alludes to Psalm 8, saying, “the Son of man”, Psalm 8:?, meaning, I think, that His dominion is even wider than Nathanael thought it was.
Ques Why is the Lord referred to as “the prince of the kings of the earth”, Revelation 1:5?
JT Well, He is; He is King of kings and Lord of lords, but ‘prince’ is a personal touch.
ANW I suppose Revelation 19:16 places Him as the true Emperor, King of kings and Lord of lords in His title in dignity as Man.
JT That is the crowning point; He comes out as a Warrior.
RWS How would His kingship be designed to affect us?
JT It is part of the truth; everything must be included in ‘our faith’. The Lord says He is born to be King, and the magi came to worship Him as thus born. He has inherited this position and it is important that we should have all that in our minds. All that refers to Christ is part of the truth.
CAM Would you say the desire of all nations is really that someone should be born great enough for kingship; the existing trouble is that no one is born great enough for it?
JT The position is there, you mean; the imperial position exists, just as the kingdom position exists, but there is no one great enough here below for it; still God is carrying on with men, maybe unsaved men, but the position is awaiting a day. God has appointed a day for [p. 366] it, and that was said at the centre of the gentile world — Athens. “He has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead”, Acts 17:31 Would the voice here in this chapter be the voice of the King? “Every one that is of the truth hears my voice”, John 18:37.
JT That is right; the idea of the King, is the man who is able.
Rem In John 6 the truth was presented in the Lord’s Person, and they thought to make Him King there. The same thought comes forward again here. Pilate alluded to Him as King, but did not have the truth of the Person of Christ.
JT The truth of His Person involves His kingship, and the fact that He could feed a multitude of people with five loaves and two fishes led them to seek to make Him King. What difficulties He would solve! But the Lord would not accept that nomination; He is born King, and waits God’s time, so that God has appointed a day for this.
AC Do you not think that there was great light in the soul of the thief on the cross when he said, “Remember me. Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom”, Luke 23:42?
JT That is right; He had light in his soul. That light shone in the Lord, God working in the thief sovereignly. It is a beautiful testimony to Christ in such an hour.
Ques You have the key of David in relation to Philadelphia; does that fit in in regard to kingship? — all that David was under the hand of God?
JT Yes; power to open up things.
CHH Balaam refers to the shout of a king amongst Israel and also says, “And his king shall be higher than Agag”, Numbers 24:7. Does that refer to [p. 367] Christ?
JT Clearly. The shout of a king is a fine thought. Applied today it means power in the meeting. You are not overwhelmed by any emergency. You are overcoming it. The shout of a king means that kingly power is there.
CHH Would you bring the assembly thought into Psalm 45 where you get the word, “He is thy Lord, and worship thou him”, Psalm 45:11?
JT Quite so. The King is in mind throughout the psalm.
Rem Of old the shout of a king would mean that God was among the people. Moses was king in Jeshurun, when the elders of the people were gathered together, Deuteronomy 33:5?
JT Quite so. It would come out fully when Christ was here. He is the King.
AR Did you select the scripture in Hebrews by design that Melchisedec is brought forward not only as high priest, but King of righteousness. King of peace, and priest of the most high God; “for such a high priest became us?” Hebrews 7:26.
JT Well, Melchisedec links on the idea of kingship with priesthood. The Lord is Prophet, Priest and King. Melchisedec is King of righteousness and then King of peace. Well, he has no sword as far as we can see. There were nine kings in the war. Four against five. Here is a king not in the war at all, and that is our position today. Our King is not in the war. His kingdom is not of this world, the Lord says. Melchisedec came out in grace. He met Abraham who was not in the war either. He only entered into it on account of his brother; and that is our position. We are exercised about this whole matter because of our brethren. We are exercised on that line. Not that we ignore the authorities, because we are dependent upon them for outward protection. But our position is plainly marked in Melchisedec and Abraham. Abraham is looking after his brother; he entered the war on that account, and Melchisedec meets him as returning [p. 368] after the slaughter of the kings. Abraham’s victory would correspond with the effect of the prayers of the saints which go up for our brethren. Those who are against our brethren our prayers are against them. There is no hesitation about that whatever. Our prayers are against any that are against our brethren. Melchisedec comes in on that line. He meets Abraham returning after the slaughter of the kings, with bread and wine. Who is he? He is priest of the Most High God, the Possessor of heavens and earth. That position is very fine and enters into what we are saying as to the kingdom of Christ, of which He said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought”, John 18:36. We are identified with a different warfare, and that is what Melchisedec signifies. The Lord in speaking with Pilate has in mind what we are speaking of — that we are brought into a kingdom that is not of this world, and therefore we cannot take the sword as men do; but we are sympathetic with the governments that are in the right, although we cannot take the sword. We can pray and that may be the determining factor. Abraham is the determining factor as regards Lot. He secured Lot — his brother.
Ques Is not that feature being developed now? “And made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth”, Revelation 5:10.
JT “And made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father”, Revelation 1:6. That is our position now — we shall rule over the earth. As we have often remarked, it is a question of prayer and sympathy with God in what He is doing; but we cannot take life. There are things we cannot do, but there are many things we can do to serve the government.
JTJr Exodus brings out that Jehovah is a man of war. Does not that show that the Lord carries on a war spiritually and shows His hand in dealing with things among [p. 369] us?
JT The war goes on, but the weapons of our warfare are spiritual; so that we are marked off as warriors of a different kind from what is current. Pilate represented Caesar, but the Lord had another kingdom and presently He will have a kingdom that will overthrow all other kingdoms.
ANW Paul calls us good soldiers of Jesus Christ, 2 Timothy 2:3. That is, soldiers of the right kingdom.
JT Just so. Now our scripture in Hebrews, links on with priesthood which we might just look at. Our Priest is the King, but it is Melchisedec. “King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from smiting the kings, and blessed him; to whom Abraham gave also the tenth portion of all, first being interpreted King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace”, Hebrews 7:2. Now at the end of this chapter we have the verses we read, “For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens: who has not day by day need, as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, then for those of the people; for this he did once for all in having offered up himself. For the law constitutes men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected for ever”, Hebrews 7:28. That is our priest, and He “became us”. It is not simply that we become Him, but he becomes us, showing that our calling is so great, that is, the assembly’s calling, that it needs such a Priest. We can, therefore, speak of our Lord Jesus as our High Priest. He is constituted, the passage says, by “the swearing of the oath which is after the law, a Son perfected for ever”. ‘Perfected’ there means that He is now in the condition in heaven that belongs to this priesthood, and shows what our position is; for our place in heaven corresponds with this, and we are to be like Him. In the millennial day this will come out, that [p. 370] is, our priestly service for the universe in relation to Christ.
AR In Genesis 14, where Melchisedec met Abraham, he is called “priest of the Most High God”. I was wondering whether the book of Hebrews is to help us, in the introduction of Melchisedec, to be elevated in our own souls to become servants of the Most High God.
JT I think that is the lesson for us. “The Most High God” is elevation. It is a millennial title, but the fact that Christ is of that order, the order of Melchisedec, brings in what He is to us now; only Melchisedec is not said to have sons. Our place in priesthood as a family is Christ as typified in Aaron; Aaron had sons. The priestly family is seen in Aaron’s sons.
ABP Was it as priest after the order of Aaron that He offered Himself?
JT Aaron had to offer for himself and for his house, according to the type. The scriptures introducing the order of Melchisedec bring out the deity of Christ in a very striking way. “Without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but ... abides a priest continually”, Hebrews 7:3. It is a question of what He is in His own Person. Christ’s order of priesthood is represented in Melchisedec, but the manner of His service now is seen in Aaron.
AR Hebrews 7 says He has “become higher than the heavens”, Hebrews 7:26. That is a remarkable thing; the Lord is constantly referred to in the book of Hebrews as being there, and I wondered if that is what is in mind, to help us to understand what is there.
JT Yes, higher than the heavens. We have already alluded to that in Ephesians 4, “ascended up above all the heavens”, Ephesians 4:10. It is striking that even in regard to the gifts He has gone beyond all heavens. That is what Ephesians 4 deals with. I think it is all to [p. 371] emphasise that He is a divine Person and yet we are associated with Him.
JS And is the thought having gone beyond all created spheres, that He might fill all created spheres?
JT Yes; He comes in in Deity. No one could be in an uncreated sphere except a divine Person. Angels are never said to be there. Paul says expressly he went to the “third heaven”, which is within the created sphere.
Rem No reference is made in Genesis to His being made like the Son of God but the footnote would show the characteristics were there, which caused this priest to be assimilated to the Son of God.
JT Yes. They indicate that it is a divine Person that is priest. That is what is meant.
Now after speaking about priesthood, which is our third subdivision tonight, we have the sacrificial thought, namely the Lamb of God in John 1. The verse read says, “On the morrow he sees Jesus coming to him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, John 1:29. This is a title that refers to the Lord sacrificially. But then, what did He offer? He offered Himself; the offering was Himself.
JTJr Have you got the combination there of the thought in Leviticus, both as to the priest and the offerings in what we have had in Hebrews and in John 1?
The early chapters in Leviticus give us in detail the kind of offerings that are to be made. Do we not have in John 1 the suggestion of sacrifice — how we arrive in our souls at the sacrificial greatness of Christ?
JT That is the next thing after priesthood — to see what the offerings are. They are all phases of the one great offering. “Who ... offered himself spotless to God”, Hebrews 9:14. And John the baptist sees this. I suppose it was in His gait, the manner of the Lord’s approach to him; when he saw Him coming to him, he says, “Behold the Lamb of God”, John 1:29. The word Lamb here is a full thought. It is not a diminutive thought. The [p. 372] word Lamb in Revelation is a diminutive thought. But this is a more mature thought, a Person coming forward to offer Himself. The full sacrificial thought is in this Person. He is coming to die. John is administering baptism. The Lord is figuratively facing death.
AC In Revelation, would the suggestion of the Lamb ever keep the suffering side before us?
JT I think that is the general thought. His blood is used sacrificially for cleansing in Revelation; He has washed us in His blood. Of course it is the same Person; His death is involved. In Revelation “little Lamb” would mean that He was defenceless, stressing suffering; He says, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up ...”, John 18:36. But He is not doing that; He is suffering. The sacrificial thought is in a lamb of a year old, according to the type in Exodus. A yearling lamb you might say is a sheep; it is more than a little lamb.
WFK “Lamb of God”. Does that mean that God provided the Lamb?
JT Yes. Isaac is the type. Abraham and Isaac went together to the point to be reached, to the mount of God, according to the divine direction. There is no evidence that Isaac trembled at all; although he could not but have discerned that something serious was going to happen to him, and even when his father raised his hand with the knife there is no evidence that Isaac trembled. I think that is the idea; it is full growth; it is manhood in sacrifice.
Ques Have you in mind that the mature idea was seen?
JT Yes. John is administering death and the Lord is coming to him, meaning He is coming sacrificially. It is a full grown thought and John evidently saw that. John saw the gait. We have in Proverbs certain creatures who were “comely in going”. Here it is the movement of the Lord Jesus, as coming to John to be baptised. That brought out this expression — “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. — clearly a sacrificial thought.
APT John represents somewhat the priestly side in this connection. He is fully cognisant of the greatness of the position of the Person before him.
JT Yes. He can name the Lord Jesus as he sees Him coming to him; and the next day he sees Him walking, which is another thing. The passage does not say where He is going; it is His manner of walk.
APT Would this side of the truth be more advanced than the thought of kingship and lordship? Is this truth to be consolidated in one’s soul in a priestly, spiritual way?
JT I think that is the point to get hold of, what enters into this. John is baptising; death entered into what he was doing. Sacrificial death entered into baptism and the Lord comes forward for that; He is ready for it, and that is what leads John to say, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, John 1:29. It was a priestly knowledge in him, I am sure. Adam names the animals and the Lord Himself in this same chapter, when He saw Simon, says, “Thou shalt be called Cephas”, John 1:42. That is, He gave him a name meaning material.
AR How far does this go? He does not say, takes away the sins of the world, but the sin of the world.
JT It is the whole thing, root and branch. The word ‘sin’, I suppose, covers all evil in that sense. The devil is the author of it.
AR That is what I was wondering, we might say this goes back to Adam, but what you are saying shows sin goes beyond Adam; it has its origin in Satan.
JT Yes, He is dealing with that, having come in through man; it is to be removed from the universe. So that Paul says, “Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that we might become God’s righteousness in him”, 2 Corinthians 5:21. That shows the result in believers, what we are made, but John does not go that far. He says He takes away the sin of the world.
CHH Would that involve the lake of fire?
JT I think so. All that is unaffected by His sacrificial death He places in the lake of fire; it is taken out of the universe of God.
FNW Does the sonship of Christ underlie the sacrifice as well as the priest? John bears witness of Him as the Son of God. In Hebrews we read “a Son perfected for ever”, Hebrews 7:28.
JT Quite so; the One whom God gave: “God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit”, Romans 8:5. That is the order of the truth; He is the Son of God, He is the Priest, He is the Sacrifice too, the testimony to God’s love.
ABP Would the fact that the disciples abode with Jesus that day suggest that this is a point that is reached?
JT Yes. He becomes attractive. In the second day, I suppose, John the baptist is advancing in his soul. I believe he is. John 1:35 means that he is now occupied with Christ in a more personal way. We can understand that what happened at the Jordan would affect him in this sense. That is the thing to get hold of — how we progress in our souls, first speaking of the Lord sacrificially and then speaking of Him according to what He is in Himself. And in that way He becomes attractive to others. Nobody left John and followed Jesus after the first statement; it is after the second statement John 1:36, that we see them following: “Looking at Jesus as he walked, he says. Behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speaking, and followed Jesus”. That is, after the sacrifice is made, so to speak,
[p. 375] then the Lord is going somewhere, and the instinct of the believer inquires, “Where abidest thou?” He says, “Come and see”, John 1:38,39. That is one of the keys to John’s gospel.
ABP Is it right to say that the gospel is really built up on that, the principle of abiding? “Come and see” seems to suggest the Person is apprehended and it is like a Selah in the book. It is abiding, to take in all that the Person is in the particular character in which He is presented.
JT Quite so; “They abode with him that day”. They stayed a certain time with Him. The suggestion is that John would say in these last days of ours, the assembly having failed, that there is nevertheless a place where Jesus abides. He abides where divine love is.
Ques Would the sacrificial side make way for what is spiritual?
JT You must have that to clear away what is between God and men. The sacrificial side must come in, and then the next thing is the personal side. Can you speak about the Lord Jesus according to what He is as walking. His beautiful manner of movement? That is the next thing.
Ques Does the Holy Spirit coming upon Him suggest sensitiveness in the appreciation of what is so comely?
JT Just so; and then the baptism of the Holy Spirit by the Lord comes in in the interim, that is, between the sacrificial thought and the personal thought. He implies the power by which we follow the Lord Jesus, as in John 1:37.
CHH “Who ... offered himself spotless to God”, Hebrews 9:14. It says, ‘Himself’. That confirms your idea about personality. Then again, “he himself stood in their midst”, Luke 24:36.
JT That is the personal side. And “he presented himself living, after he had suffered”, Acts 1:3, showing [p. 376] that although He is now in another condition. He is the same Person.
AR Is it not remarkable that they hear John say, “Behold the Lamb of God”, John 1:29, but when the Lord says, “What seek ye?” They say, “Rabbi (which, being interpreted, signifies Teacher)”, John 1:38. They must have seen more than just the suffering side in the Lord, do you not think?
JT They did. John had been their teacher, but in the Acts we find certain persons who had been taught by John and they are defective. These two persons indicate those who go the whole way in learning. Many stay in darkness because of traditional associations, but they do not get the best teaching there. You want to get the best there is, and I think these two disciples wanted to go the whole way. It is not now only a question of the Lord’s sacrificial work; it is what is to be taught, what is to be learned. And that is the situation today. How few there are that go in for the whole truth! “And we shall know, — we shall follow on to know Jehovah”, Hosea 6:3. That is what these two represent. They see the Lord and call Him Rabbi, and the Spirit of God tells us what that means. So that we should know they wished to be properly taught. The twelve men at Ephesus were not properly taught. They did not know of the Holy Spirit.
Now we may look at headship. It comes in as we are taught. It is not only what we are taught, but we come under the headship of Christ in Ephesians. We read from Ephesians 1:20 to the end: “in which he wrought in the Christ in raising him from among the dead, and he set him down at his right hand in the heavenlies, above every principality, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name named, not only in this age, but also in that to come; and has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all”.
[p. 377] This is the supreme thought tonight, the headship of Christ; that is, being governed by Him, not simply by command but as of the body. He is Head of the body, the assembly.
Ques Does that involve affinity of interest?
JT Quite so; He is given to be Head over all things to the assembly which is His body. It is the widest thought of headship. In Colossians He is head of the body, but here He is head over all things to the assembly. That is, we are brought with Him into the headship of all things. But before we can be brought into the universal headship of Christ, we must know Him as our Head, and that is Colossians. Wisdom is in headship.
CHH Is that why the order is reversed in Colossians? There He is head of the body, the assembly, but in Ephesians Head of the assembly which is His body.
JT He is head to the assembly in Ephesians. In Colossians He is head of the body, the assembly. We are to hold the head in Colossians, because all nourishment flows out from Christ. It says, “not holding the head”, Colossians 2:19. Where men allow ceremonialism and the like, they do not hold the Head.
APT Is Genesis 2 the Ephesian side?
JT Adam is Christ in death, and He is taken out of it; but the church is taken out of Him figuratively while He is in death, but as raised from the dead He is made Head to her, and that involves a lot as to her education, because she is of Him. Adams 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. That is the basis of Ephesians 1. Think of what an organism the assembly is that it is capable of entering into the headship of Christ! And we can understand it, because Eve is able to enter into the headship of Adam.
ANW I was thinking the culminating point is here peculiarly in the very term “his body”. It is the body in Colossians.
JT [p. 378] Yes. Adam claims her; she is taken out of Ish; she is taken out of him, so that we have the highest thought in that sense in the type in Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 the word is “let them have dominion”, the male and the female. We can understand that from this passage in Ephesians, that Christ is Head over all things to the assembly; that is, the assembly is capable of joining in the headship, so that she is to have dominion with Him.
Ques Have you in mind in this chapter, in speaking of the assembly, wisdom or love — which of the two?
JT Both. The type helps us because Adam had been already naming the lower creatures and his wisdom was seen in that. It must have been a great pleasure to God to hear Adam naming the creatures as He brought them to him. But now he is put into a deep sleep and he does not see anything and God brings this creature to Adam and he says immediately, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, Genesis 2:23, as if Adam in his intelligence were to say, This is something different from anything else I have had to name before. “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”. How did he know she was taken out of a man? God had closed up the wound, while he was asleep but it was his intelligence. Figuratively, it is Christ exalted over all things to the assembly, the assembly as His counterpart being brought into it with Him.
AR Ephesians 1:22 says, “and has put all things under his feet”. In Acts 2:35 it is “until I have put thine enemies to be the footstool of thy feet”. I suppose that is really going back to Genesis.
JT Ephesians is anticipative of everything, so that we are raised up together and made to sit down together. It is all a finished matter; it is a question of God’s power. It is as good as finished; that is a feature of Ephesians.