PRIESTLY SERVICE WITH REGARD TO THE ASSEMBLY AS CONVENED
[p. 376] PRIESTLY SERVICE WITH REGARD TO THE ASSEMBLY AS CONVENED
Deuteronomy 10:6,7; Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 8:1,2
Ques Does the covenant furnish a background to priestly service?
JT It does. It is a question of love existing, so to speak in volume, that is, God from the divine side. The priestly order is to bring about a state of things amongst the people of God, a state of liberty, a state of joy. God showed it to be His mind and heart for His people as having brought them to Himself. Exodus 20 speaks of the thousands of those that love Him, but then He proves in the covenant that He was worth loving, that “We love because he has first loved us”, 1 John 4:19. Then Exodus 21 brings in the Hebrew servant, the type of Christ in extreme lowliness in bondman form, and the basis of love in those circumstances. He says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go free” (verse 5). That is ascending love, horizontal love, and descending love, and plenty of it, as you might say, although in one in bondman form, in conditions that did not tend to promote it. There were limited conditions, but there would be love there in one Person ascending, and moving out, and coming down. It is the “length and depth and height” of that love — quantity, so to speak. I think that is the basis, in a practical way, of the exercise of priesthood — one who says that he loved his master and wife and children and would not go out free but stays there for ever on the principle of love. Because of love, He would stay there for ever. And then that same Person in another type is seen in an ennobled way in Aaron — the same Person. The Hebrew servant is a type of Christ, and Aaron is a type of Christ in a very exalted way. He is the brother of the mediator, a man with a history, a man known to God for years back. So in Exodus 28, you have Christ, not as a bondman but as a noble [p. 377] exalted Personage with all the habiliments of dignity and glory, Priest unto God. These two types, converging as they do, bring us to the exercise of priesthood in a dignified way. “That he may serve me as priest”, not as a slave, but in the priest’s office, but then we have the basis of love to witness to it. That, I think, is properly introductory to the service of priesthood in the assembly. When we come to Moses’ account of things in Deuteronomy, it is looking back, for Deuteronomy is retrospective, written after things had intruded, when things had been known by experience. At the second giving of the law Jehovah, when Moses had prayed to Him in the mount, told him to hew out the stones himself and to make the ark of wood himself; when all this was effected, these two verses are brought into the history, happening, as they did, about forty years, or twenty-five years, or eight years after, but they are brought in not because of any historical connection but in a moral connection, for you have a state of things where God hands over things to a man who is at liberty to hew stones and make the ark, and who does it all. God has a man now that is entirely trustworthy; as a matter of fact, Moses had become a wonderful type of Christ. He offers to die for the people at that time that they should not be wiped out or destroyed. So we have Moses himself representing Christ in the way of sacrifice. He would rather be blotted out of God’s book than that they should be blotted out, and he fell down forty days and nights before Jehovah. So God gives him the opportunity to hew out the stones and make the ark, which he does. And then this remarkable link is brought in, that Aaron dies and another priest comes in; that is to say, we have a change of priesthood — a change of law — Eleazar is now the priest, and that is the side we ought to get on to — what Eleazar means or represents.
Rem What you have been saying fits in with the scripture we read in Hebrews.
JT That is right — “For such a high priest became us”. The saints are viewed now in their exalted status.
Ques Does “Hew for thyself two tables of stone like the first” (Deuteronomy 10:1), refer to the people of God as a new generation in which all this is going to be effected?
JT That is right; it is writing material, impressionable material.
WB-w What is your thought in referring to the Hebrew servant and Aaron? Is it the idea of seeing them set forth in Christ personally first before bringing in the saints?
JT Yes, quite so. How wonderful to see the greatness of the Priest, because a priest marks off the people — “such a high priest became us”. You are not inferior — not that we need Him personally, but the dignity of the saints requires such a great Person, and that brings us on to an entirely new level.
CAM So the change of priesthood seems to be very wonderful in that way. I suppose it would be right to say that the whole system is according to the Priest. If we took any system and knew the priest of it, we would have an idea of what kind of thing it was.
JT That is right. Hebrews brings out the greatness of the priest, but it brings out also the greatness of the people “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”, Hebrews 3:1.
AFM What is the idea of the second verse we read in Deuteronomy, “From thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah; and from Gudgodah to Jotbathah, a land of water-brooks”? Is there something in that?
JT Yes, that is a great thing — a land of water-brooks. That is where we want to get, where there is plenty of power and refreshment. The land of waterbrooks corresponds to the land of Canaan. It is that kind of land. They had reached it, you will observe. Aaron dies and is buried there, and Eleazar, his son,
[p. 379] exercises the priesthood. It is not simply that he received it but he exercised it. The thing goes on; there is no lapse. When Aaron died, Eleazar exercised the priesthood, another priest who is to be associated with Joshua as Aaron was associated with Moses, but he is associated with Moses for a while, until Moses dies. Aaron and Moses die and authority and priesthood from the standpoint of personal support cease. We come into what is collective in Eleazar who exercised the priesthood in the stead of his father. “From thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah; and from Gudgodah to Jotbathah, a land of water-brooks”. They journeyed. That is the way this is to be; the Spirit of God brings out that where you have these conditions, there is movement. A priest suited to this movement brings it in.
JS A land of waterbrooks indicates the spiritual resources of the place.
JT That is what we should have before us in coming together in assembly, that we reach a place of waterbrooks. It is very refreshing and sweet.
WB-w In Numbers 3, it reads that Eleazar and Ithamar exercised the priesthood in the presence of Aaron their father; in Deuteronomy, Aaron dies, and Eleazar takes it up. What is the distinction?
JT Well, Eleazar is high priest now. He could not be that while his father lived. He represents an element of our relations in the church. Whilst his father lived, he is a spiritual element amongst the saints, but that element increases when his father dies, just as Joshua in a military way increases. We see him in a little way in Exodus 17, but he increases. I think he, with Eleazar, becomes a great leader. He is to take the people in and put them in possession of the land.
ANW Are you viewing Eleazar in verse 6 as another type of Christ or as one of Aaron’s sons?
JT It is Christ in another way.
JS Would you say that in Exodus 21 the Hebrew [p. 380] servant and Aaron merge so that we have the spiritual result in Eleazar?
JT I think so. It is only to get the mind fixed because the Holy Spirit teaches us in our minds. Thus He links the thing up. So if you get the Hebrew servant in your mind, you see the element of love is there even in limited circumstances, in the circumstances of a slave.
WB-w In Numbers, Eleazar and Ithamar represent the saints more; whereas in Deuteronomy, Eleazar represents Christ.
JT He does; when his father dies.
AFM Would you say how far Aaron takes us? We have Moses and Aaron, and then they go and we have Eleazar and Joshua.
JT We have leaders in the New Testament. Moses and Aaron run together in Romans and Corinthians; that is, the authority in the Lord runs on to Jordan. The priesthood of Aaron runs on to Mount Horeb before we come on to Romans 8, which is the springing well, but the authority of the Lord runs through.
ARS Why did the priesthood of Aaron run short of bringing them into the land? Is that because of the breakdown?
JT It is not so much that. The breakdown in Deuteronomy is because of the people, not because of Moses. The breakdown in Aaron and Moses is not mentioned. It is because of the people in Deuteronomy — “Also Jehovah was angry with me on your account” (Deuteronomy 1:37). It was because of them; therefore it is governmental, but then you can see that it is overruled and fits into the divine economy. Authority will never take you into heaven; it will never take you into the land. It is spiritual power that is needed there. Aaron stands more for what is external; whereas, Eleazar is more Christ viewed as the spiritual Leader. It is a spiritual thing.
[p. 381] Rem You expect to go on with Eleazar beyond the point of Moses. Eleazar enters into the land.
JT Moses goes a little further. He goes to Mount Pisgah, but Aaron dies at Mount Horeb. That element stops. Of course, you have the Spirit immediately after Aaron dies, but not the Spirit as you see Him in Exodus 17, but the Spirit as a springing well recognised by the people.
Ques And then Eleazar goes beyond the death of Moses, too. You are coming to that later on?
JT Yes; he goes on and takes them in under Joshua, but bear in mind this is all Christ, whether in Moses, Aaron, Eleazar or Joshua; only Moses and Aaron are Christ in authority and external support, whereas Joshua and Eleazar represent an inward thing.
CAM I think that greatly helps. The priesthood seems to have two functions, one in connection with a need and the other toward God. In connection with this change in the priesthood, is it right to feel that this matter of compassion and need really comes to an end in the saints, and there is a spiritual power that gives the priesthood a greatness it never had before?
JT That is right. If it were possible for any of us to be carried into the eternal state of things, we would understand all this very simply because we should see there is no Aaron, for there is no need of anyone being touched with the feelings of our infirmities. We have none. We have no sin to deal with. There is no need of the priest in compassion, but there is need for spiritual power there, and that spiritual power is God’s.
Ques Do you connect Eleazar and the idea of a new generation in Numbers with our thinking on spiritual lines?
JT That is right. The new generation comes in early after Numbers 11 after Kadesh, and they are the ones that go in, and Eleazar and Joshua are the ones [p. 382] that take them in.
Rem They are numbered later on.
JT Yes.
AFM Is the priesthood to be viewed as passing into the eternal state or is it in connection with a provisional order of things?
JT The priesthood of Aaron is external, and in a certain sense, Joshua and Eleazar drop it; that is, the thing gradually diminishes. The more we get into the presence of God, the more the external order of things wanes; there is no need for it.
ANW The priesthood diminished, you mean?
JT Yes, where there is nothing inferior and no sin and where all is perfect, we do not need a priest. The Person is there in whom they are set forth, but then they are not in evidence. You are there in such power yourself.
AFM How do you connect these thoughts with “We have such a one high priest”, Hebrews 8:1? There is the provision of the Priest, the Minister of the tabernacle which the Lord has pitched and not man.
JT That brings us on. We are on our feet now, and we are going to serve God. It is a wonderful thing that we can so regard Him in that He has us to serve Him.
ARS Do the sons of the new generation correspond to the saints of the present time?
JT They correspond with you, with all that attaches to you as a man of flesh. That correctly disappears. You become unconscious of it in spiritual power. This is not recognised, it is not so easy for all of us to follow, but it is a most important thing if we are to act on assembly lines. The Jordan means the complete ending of all flesh and blood conditions. “I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not. God knows;) such a one caught up to the third heaven”, 2 Corinthians 12:2. He was there.
ARS Is that new ground?
JT Well, it is — “if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation”, 2 Corinthians 5:17.
AR We have to learn not only to come under Joshua but under Eleazar.
JT Just so. Joshua is the military leader, where it is a question of power; Eleazar is a more refined thought.
WB-w In the last chapter you get both the death of Eleazar and Joshua. Would they carry us only a certain distance?
JT That is right. The thing becomes attenuated the further you go. You are not needing it; you are there in power yourself.
CAM That greatly helps. The nearer I am to God, the less actual the division of things. There is hardly anything about eternal things to be found out.
JT It is taken on trust. They are to be found out — “Things which eye has not seen, and ear not heard, and which have not come into man’s heart, which God has prepared for them that love him”, 1 Corinthians 2:9.
FHL Do you think a term such as “priest” disappears in Aaron or in Eleazar? I suppose the thought of love carries through as in the Person of Christ Himself. I was thinking of your quotation — “rooted and founded in love”. That carries on through.
JT That is right. The love of Christ remains; indeed, all the fulness of God remains. There is no need. You are sustained there in spiritual power. It is a question in Ephesians 3 of the Father’s Spirit in the heart, the inner man, that you may be fully able to apprehend with all saints. “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, in order that he may give you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man; that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts, being rooted and founded in love, in order that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all [p. 384] the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height”, Ephesians 3:14 - 18. That is the idea. It is not the support of the priest; it is love, it is the Father’s Spirit in the inner man making us powerful.
ARS I suppose the nearest that the children of Israel ever got was under Solomon?
JT Exactly. If you just eliminate the years that elapsed between Joshua and Eleazar and David and Solomon, you get a clear view of it; and we are entitled to do that because these verses in Deuteronomy 10 eliminate forty years and bring the two things together. We are entitled to do that because David and Solomon are the final thought — “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance” (Exodus 15:17), takes in David and Solomon.
JEH In that connection it was said the priests were not able to minister.
JT Yes; when you come to Solomon, there is power there for them.
Ques Does the priestly service cease in time?
JT I think it does. God says, I want this whole scene for myself.
AFM Where God shall be all in all.
JT Yes; that is the thought.
Ques At what point of time was the Aaronic state established? Was it when they were actually anointed?
JT We have different accounts of that. What is to be observed is that the first proposal is the priesthood; so that we are all to be priests. That is a thing to be noticed. God has not given up that thought. We are all to be priests. It is a nation of priests, He says. Subsequently one person is taken up, but the divine mind was that we are all to be priests, and as a matter of fact, all christians are priests; the divine thought is “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”, 1 Peter 2:5.
ARS I understand about our all being priests in this dispensation, but in the past dispensation it was [p. 385] generally the tribe of Levi, and nobody could be a priest unless he belonged to that tribe.
JT These subsequent developments are to bring out other things. God has given out that you are all to be priests. He has not given that up. Then He wants to show what the thing really means, and for that He brings up Aaron, the brother of the mediator. And then the next thing is that the family of Levi is taken up. “At that time Jehovah separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, to stand before Jehovah to do service unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day. Therefore Levi has no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; Jehovah is his inheritance, according as Jehovah thy God told him”, Deuteronomy 10:8,9. Now Christ as the High Priest is depicted in Aaron. He is a great personage and they anoint him, but then you have a family as well as priests, because in Deuteronomy and Joshua, the Levites are all priests. It is a family of priests, and everyone of them is a son, a first-born; that is another thing. These features are to bring out other things. They are to bring out the greatness of the priestly family, and the greatness of Christ as their High Priest.
Ques Do you not think that this anointing of Aaron and his sons occurred very early because it was evidently soon after the anointing of the tabernacle? Does the idea of the priesthood not come in to the thought of the Supper in its early setting?
JT It does. We need Aaron as such. Everyone does as he leaves his house to come to the assembly. He needs the support of Christ. We have children to look after, and that causes anxiety and worry and irritation and we need Christ in that aspect; as we sit down together, we need Him, and then alongside of that, you have the authority of Moses because it is the Lord’s supper, the dominical sphere.
Ques What about the eating? Is that priestly, more?
[p. 386] J.T. You mean the Supper?
Ques Yes; according to Matthew, the thought is eating; in Leviticus 8, the thought is eating. Is it appropriation of Christ in the Supper, more what we do in a priestly way?
JT Well, it is. It supports us, for it strengthens us. Matthew and Mark would give that side. We are supported — “This is my body” — not ‘This is my flesh’, but my body. We are supported by that food. It is a collective idea. It is food that nourishes us but it is a collective idea, that we know how to be among the saints. It is not food for life, but food for the assembly, to give you a constitution to take a place among the brethren so that you might be able to sit down quietly and silently in power, as appropriating the body as food, “Take, eat: this is my body”, Matthew 26:26. That gives you a constitution to be in the assembly in power as of the body. You grasp the whole thought of God and you take account of the saints sitting by you as making up the whole; you are sitting with them.
Ques That would be Matthew’s presentation of the Supper?
JT Yes, Matthew and Mark both say, “Take, eat”.
CAM I should like to refer to something you said about Leviticus 8. It appeals to me that what we have in view is something that is going to broaden out and fill the whole universe.
JT Yes; the tabernacle means that. It was the figure of the universe. It was anointed and Aaron was anointed in relation to that.
CAM It is difficult, otherwise, to bring the calendar into Leviticus 8.
Ques Does not Leviticus 8 really precede the other offerings?
JT Oh, yes; you have not got the priest. It is after the offerings are finished that you get the priesthood [p. 387] anointed, but then they are seen as officiating before that in chapter 1.
Rem You could not have authority unless that were established.
JT That is right; the chapter morally comes in first. The offerings, of course, were to furnish the priests and build them up so that they were fit to be anointed.
WB-w The idea of eating and drinking gives you a spiritual constitution. Does that bring you under Joshua and Eleazar now?
JT We must not bring in a calendar because properly this leads us into eternity. Time enters into it at the beginning because it is the first day of the week, and “When the hour was come”, Luke 22:14. Time has to do with it, but it is to eternity. God begins with time. He graciously comes into time. God came out from eternity into time to lead us out from time into eternity.
CAM The line of the hymn ‘Eternity’s begun’ (94:1) has a meaning only with regard to us.
JT Not as regards Himself.
Ques Is the thought of the sanctuary on the way to eternity?
JT Yes; the calendar is quite right and very important. It is right to be on time and not be late at the Lord’s supper — to be there in time, and to be there in subjection, suited to it as well. The official priesthood of Aaron and the authority of Moses are needed in all that. But eating of “my body” is to give you a constitution for the collective position, that I may have my place collectively and know how to sit with my brethren. I must have power to do that. I believe that is what the food in Matthew and Mark is for. David built inward: it does not say how far. The suggestion is unto God. John’s gospel leads in that direction, particularly in regard to the assembly.
WB-w Do you make a distinction between the assembly in the wilderness, and the assembly over [p. 388] Jordan? — would the assembly in the wilderness be the provisional side, and over Jordan the eternal setting?
JT That is right.
WB-w Is the priesthood principally connected with the assembly in the wilderness?
JT That is right. “This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness”, Acts 7:38. We have to learn Christ in that way. We have to learn Him in the land, too, which is Colossians. That is another position. In Ephesians, God has “raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2:6.
WB-w In the assembly in the wilderness, is it largely a measure of approach? In the land, you are set. You are not approaching; you are before God. Is that a different idea?
JT The thought of approach is in Ephesians, too. In Hebrews it is, “Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which he has dedicated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, and having a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, sprinkled as to our hearts from a wicked conscience, and washed as to our body with pure water”, Hebrews 10:19 - 22. You can see the force of that as applying in the wilderness setting; but in Ephesians, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:18); we have no blood, no washing, and no high priest. It is through Him — through Christ.
WB-w Before that it says, “but now in Christ Jesus ye who once were afar off are become nigh by the blood of the Christ”, Ephesians 2:13.
JT You go back to the high priest there.
JTJr Would that fit in with the tribe of Levi here that stands before Jehovah?
JT Yes; the whole family in that way [p. 389] are drawn near; they are there to bless; they are standing before Him.
ANW Are both these movements upward — to do service to Jehovah and to bless in His name?
JT I suppose blessing in His name is a general thought. They are like God.
ARS With regard to what you said as to sitting down in power in the assembly, does that precede drawing near?
JT I think so. We draw near as together.
ARS We ought to come together in power. Is that the idea?
JT Yes, and then we move upward, which is a question of the power that is within us. If there are a few spiritual brothers and sisters present, they will get the wave of power, and everybody in the assembly will be affected by it. I think God loves to spread out. So here the whole tribe of Levi is brought in. In Numbers 4 when they are presented to Jehovah, He stipulates they are reserved from thirty to fifty; but when they are presented in chapters 8 and 9, He lowers the age to twenty-five. God loves that kind of people, and He would increase the number. I believe that as there is power in a meeting, the number with us increases.
CAM It seems to me in that connection that the matter of music, for instance Mr. Darby’s hymns, has a definite place. If we were to have to express those ideas in praise, we would have the greatest difficulty, but there seems to be a place for such expression in hymns.
JT Quite so. As regards the inward movement, if we eat the body, if we appropriate the body of Christ, we get the idea of the whole thought. The whole assembly comes into your mind; it is great enough for it to be included in your mind, and you say, I would not wish to go without them all. You want to get them all. Of course, we may have to say, “all Israel present”; but still you want all Israel, and so you get in Ephesians “has raised us up together”. All the saints come up together. There is no such thought as individuals going up by themselves. They should find an answer in the assembly. It is moving together.
AR There is no such thing as a broken idea, even in connection with the two and a half tribes that would have stayed on the east of Jordan.
JT Just so. You might say, The two and a half tribes did not go in; the nine and a half had to go in by themselves: but the scripture is very particular about that. They did go in, forty thousand of them, and they had their names there in Gilgal like the rest. There were twelve stones set up in Gilgal.
Ques Do you think there was a great deal to be adjusted in Luke 24, that the Lord was adjusting it on the line of His priestly service, bringing them into accord?
JT That is right. He was getting them all together. It was priestly service to get them all together.
CAM And in John 20, eternity has begun with Mary.
JT That is the thought. John 20 is particularly inward; Luke 24 is external. There it is the assembly gathering, but you do not have gathering in John 20. It is “where the disciples were”, that is, the persons; the further on you go, the more you see the greatness of the persons.
AFM I should like to ask where you would place the Lord Himself. If we have our movements upward to God, what particular place does the Lord occupy with regard to us; for instance, we have in Ephesians, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18?
JT It is the instrumentality of it. I think Hebrews comes in too. We have, first of all, “such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens”. That guarantees that He can lead us, He can take us up in the [p. 391] Spirit now — in the body, presently. Then it says, “Now a summary of the things of which we are speaking is, We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man”. Such a summary would always go back to chapter 2. We have Him now; He became us. We have Him now, and we appropriate Him as active in the assembly. He is the Minister. He is available for us. He is on our side, and we appropriate Him; and in that way, I think, there is room to lead us. As I appropriate Him, it means I want to go on in the service. I want to enter in to the Father, and He is there and acts for us.
WB-w Does the first verse of chapter 8 refer to Him where He is and the greatness that He has on the throne and the second verse to Him in the tabernacle as Minister down here?
JT Quite; the first is just to bring out His greatness; He is available to us here, but then the tabernacle is not a material one, it is spiritual. It is an entirely spiritual environment now, and hence we are to be spiritual.
FHL How far does the apostle John go in referring to the kingdom?
JT That does not go so far as this. It is the kingdom there. You understand how it fits into Revelation, where you do not get what we are speaking of properly. What we are speaking of now is properly seen in substance in Colossians and Ephesians.
Rem But still connected with the idea of priesthood and priestly service.
JT Yes, but the “minister of the holy places” is the great wide thought when the Lord takes on the service and is available to us for our part in it. He will take on Israel by and by, too, but He is available to us now.
AFM Does that involve relationship in praise,
like Hebrews 2:12 — “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”?
JT Certainly it would. When you hear a brother give out a hymn or give thanks in the spirit of adoption, the Lord is operating and you follow that line, that lead. It is the power that worketh in us; the thing is to follow that. So one can say “Abba Father” in the power of the spirit of adoption. The power of the Minister of the sanctuary is operating in that connection.
JTJr You do not want to disturb that.
ANW Where would you place the Minister of the holy places and the true tabernacle?
JT I think it is a great general thought of Christ going on to the Father.
WFK Do we need priestly service when we enter into sonship?
JT That is a question. You are still in flesh and blood condition and it is easy to lapse back into what is natural, but the power of abstraction is what is required, the spiritual power of abstraction.
Ques Do you link the thought of the priesthood with the thought of the Father at all, the thought of going into the Father?
JT Yes; He is Son of God, you know. The spirit of adoption is “for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”, Romans 8:14. The power is in yourself; you are able to do it yourself. You do not get the priesthood mentioned at all in Ephesians — not that the thing is not there of itself “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18.
Ques How far does the thought of the sanctuary go? Does it come in in Eleazar’s service in Canaan?
JT Well, the sanctuary will always be necessary. It is only mentioned because of the state we are in. It means that it is a holy place, which would not be [p. 393] necessary at all if sin did not exist. It will have no place in eternity where there is nothing amoral.
Ques Does the thought of priestly service go beyond the thought of the sanctuary?
CAM Would it be right to say that the priestly element has a reference peculiar to this earth?
JT I think so, always. It alludes to our position and state in flesh and blood that necessitates it.
APT With regard to John, if you had been there you would see that the idea of priesthood would have a very small place in your mind. You would see the Lord in all His dignity and how we are there with Him and ascend in His presence. Do not you think it is possible to get into that and enjoy it even now?
JT That is the point we are at. If only we can abstract ourselves in mind and affection to enter into the conditions of eternity, then we shall see what we are talking about. You do not need these things there. You do not need authority as expressed in Moses, or priesthood as expressed in Aaron. There is no sin, no wrong thought. You see you do not need them, and therefore as you see the thing in your own mind as He is there before you, you see what you are yourself and what the saints are. I think that is the way to get at it. If I could transfer myself to the eternal region then I could come back into the assembly and know what to do. That is the idea.
ANW I want to ask whether John 20 fits in with Hebrews 2:11, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”. Does that not come very near John’s gospel?
JT It does. Even John 20 and this passage in Hebrews 2 contemplate us as still here. The bulk of Scripture relates to what we are here, serving in our flesh and blood condition, but if we were to visit the eternal regions, we could see that what is necessary here is not necessary there, and the more you enter now [p. 394] into what is there, the less you are conscious of these provisional things.
WB-w Is it not important that we take new ground after the bread and wine and the collection box have been passed? I take new ground in my mind. Is that not a very important thing?
JT It is, that is the reason I am stressing it. The thing is to move out in our minds and affections; so that one has to be intelligent as to what governs the eternal position you are in.
WB-w To be practical, a brother will get up after the breaking of bread and speak to the Lord about His coming into this scene; whereas He is not in this scene at all.
JT Very few of us do take the new ground. That why we do not get on to the assembly. You have, for instance, one brother speaking about the Lord coming into this scene; another will give out a hymn about the Lord having been in it; another will give out a hymn to the Father, and another to the Lord; and so we are losing, we are missing the great end.
WB-w That is because the brethren are not intelligent about taking new ground in their minds.
Ques Does that not show the importance of what we are talking about right now? When they went to the Mount of Olives, they could have been talking on the way a lot about the environment of Jerusalem, the hatred, etcetera, but priestly service at that time would free them and set their minds on what lay before them immediately.
JT Yes; I think that is right. The Lord helps us, but your mind is the thing. Romans 7 is “I myself with the mind”. The mind is the great dominating thing the Lord has given us. Now the Lord says, ‘The ground has changed’. It is well to stick to that.
CAM “Come, see the place where the Lord lay”. It is where the Lord lay. Beyond that everything is changed.
JT [p. 395] Yes; you are to get into the company after that. In the company, I never lose sight of my mind — “we have the mind of Christ”. The mind seizes the position and holds to it, and the Holy Spirit supports us in it. That eliminates all this oscillation that we are speaking about. The mind stops all that; it is not suitable.
WB-w Colossians is, “Set your affection on things above”, Colossians 3:2. It is an order of things above. It is not a wilderness setting of things. It is over Jordan.
JT That is right. You know what to do. The mind dictates what to do, and the Holy Spirit supports you. The mind takes in and grasps the thing, and the Holy Spirit supports you in it.
JS The Lord’s message to Mary was, “I ascend”.
JT That should regulate her mind and the message would regulate their minds.
AR Some refer to the emblems after the Supper.
JT The covenant love is in the Supper, and it is well to give it full scope because it sets us all free for family affection, that is to say, the affection we have for one another, for the Father, and for the Son. That is the next thing. Let our minds get in action and go with it, and the Holy Spirit will support us.
AFM You would not hurry from the covenant love to the family side?
JT No; Matthew and Mark would rather keep you to it. The Lord spoke about it after they drank into the cup. The Lord would open up what it means.
JS Would a hymn be based on covenant love?
JT I think so. It fits in nicely.
Ques Would speaking to divine Persons relative to the covenant and what follows be a priestly line?
JT Yes.
ANW The covenant is a wonderful thing. We are to love God with all our minds.
JT That is a thing I do not believe one in a hundred [p. 396] thinks about. The renewed mind is a spiritual thing. Let it control.
Rem The eyes of your heart would be the mind controlling the heart.
TH Is that why the two ran together? Peter and John went on running but they both arrived at the same end in speaking to God and the Father.
JT What you find there is their minds were at work. Mary’s was not. She missed it. She had a great heart, and she had tears, but their minds led them. They took account of the handkerchief; they took account of the cloths, the way they were. Peter and John would say, Those cloths are just in the position that they were on the Lord’s body; He could not have been stolen away. That is spiritual power. He got out of those cloths for they are undisturbed. Mary missed all that. It was their minds. They believed before she did.
Rem It is very refined, “renewed in the spirit of your mind”.
WB-w There is another point we passed by in connection with taking part after the Supper. Some think you should never refer to the Lord’s death because it is a past thing.
JT You mean after the breaking of bread?
WB-w Yes, after the Supper. Some think you should not refer back to the Lord’s death any more.
JT I think Matthew and Mark indicate that the Lord lingered over it. He told them after referring to the covenant — not before. He told them what was meant, and I think it is an indication that we are to dwell on it, but then never to forget that the Father is in mind.
ARS After you have gone on to the Father, you would not go back?
JT No.
JS There is an oscillation in going back.
JT I think the thought of dwelling on [p. 397] covenant love is before that, because you are dealing with a company.
ANW Say a word about the two imperative necessities the Lord stresses in speaking to the woman — “They who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth”, John 4:24.
JT It is truth. Your spirit is free, you are not occupied with forms, although forms may have their place, but worship does not consist in that. The Colossians had the order but they were in danger, nevertheless. I think your remark comes in there — “in spirit and truth”. You have the spirit of things. Your spirit enters into that, and the spirit is all that enters into the worship of God. And then truth is the great regulating principle. I was speaking of the man that is abstracted. I believe it is meant to control us.
RDG Do I understand that after we have partaken of the emblems, our minds are to be affected to catch the divine thought and carry it through?
JT I think so. If a brother speaks of the spirit of adoption, we want to take that up. The Lord is saying something in it.
JS The Lord would give the lead in some spiritual brother.
JT Yes, and if you bear in mind that all that goes on is in us.
AFM We have had the thought of worship. The Lord does not worship but He praises, and we praise. Would you differentiate between those two thoughts as regards ourselves?
JT Well, I suppose you may. You are moving towards a person with great admiration and feeling. Well, praise does not go that far. Worship implies more action inwardly.
JEH Is it praise not expressed?
JT Yes, the attitude of the mind as known to God.
Ques In the Old Testament, the word “praise” comes in a great deal; for instance, “Praise Jehovah”
[p. 398] in Psalm 146. Is worship primarily connected with this dispensation, do you think?
JT Oh, no. Sometimes it is used in a very general way, including praise. For instance, if one went to Jerusalem to worship, that was a general thought. They were just going to serve God. The word in the New Testament almost always means that I prostrate myself towards a person, not slavishly, but with affection and intelligence.
AFM Used in the Old Testament, it means to bow down. “And I and the lad will go yonder and worship” (or ‘bow down’), Genesis 22:5. Do you not think that in a hymn we might give out there would be the accompaniment of worship, too?
JT Surely. It is a question of the state of your mind. The Holy Spirit is the power that works in us. We are the musical instruments, so to speak. It is the state of your mind and heart. God sees the attitude of your heart. The word means you are toward Him.
CAM It is a wonderful thing in that way that the more spiritual we become, the more personal everything is, the more wonderful the saints become as persons.
JT That is what John has in mind — great nations, great persons.
Ques What is the difference between worshipping the Lord and worshipping God?
JT Well, in worshipping the Father, you are worshipping God, but it is more the family touch.
GH Worship may be silent, but praise must be heard.
JT Quite so. And “God is a spirit” is another thing. It is a remarkable thing but angels are said to be spirits, too. Still He allows Himself to be called that. It is to control us so that we may not be material in our worship. To Whom am I speaking? I am speaking to a spirit. That challenges me. I can understand speaking to a man, but what about speaking to a spirit?
Ques When the Lord says “to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17) is that not God as over all?
JT Yes. I think “my Father and your Father” is a family thought. “God” is God in Himself, more, although we are sons of God, too.
Ques Is there not an aspect of God that goes into eternity in the idea of the covenant?
JT Oh, yes, but the covenant is just to assure us. It is on account of our weakness. We would have no need for it if it were not for that.
ANW Does that idea of God go beyond the thought of Father? I mean the eternal aspect is going to be marked by God being all in all.
JT And “to him who is God and Father” (1 Corinthians 15:24); that Person is God, too. That helps.
Ques In Revelation 21 it is sons of God. Is that eternal?
WB-w Is Father more a relative expression?
JT Well, so is God. What is there that isn’t relative?
CAM Is it not remarkable that the Lord put the word “my Father” before the word “my God”? We might have put it the other way.
JT Yes; I often think of that — “my Father and your Father”.
Ques Is the thought in this dispensation the relation of sons to the Father?
JT Yes, you come to God, too; but “the Father seeks such as his worshippers” (John 4:23); that perhaps presents the most delightful thought.
JS God is a spirit, but the Father seeks such to worship Him.
WB-w “God is a spirit”: is that relative or abstract?
JT It is relative. You could not apply it to God in an abstract sense. The word spirit is just “wind” or “breath”. We have to be careful. You could not [p. 400] think of that being applied to God except in a relative sense. In John, He allowed Himself to be called that — the actual word, I mean. What the word means is what He is, but then what do I know about what that means? I have to think of the substance of God, what He is essentially. The word “spirit” does not tell you that.
AFM 1 Corinthians 8:6 is very wonderful to us christians in the light of all the revelation of God. “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ”.
JT How beautiful that is, “one God, the Father”. He is not beyond us in that sense — the Father.
WB-w Does “God” in Genesis 1 refer to what is relative or abstract?
JT No; there is nothing but what is relative. That means power. It is power of the Supreme One in view. And the first man that lived, like Adam, would say, ‘Think of God’. He would help you to think of Him, and something would correspond in your mind with what He is — Elohim. Somebody called Him that. It means that He is the all-powerful One. He is the all-supreme One. It must be relative. He is not supreme to Himself or to other Persons. He is supreme to us.
APT “He that draws near to God must believe that he is”, Hebrews 11:6.
JT That is right.
GH God being all in all — what does that mean?
JT That is what He is aiming at, everything that is in your heart and every heart in the universe. He is aiming at that through redemption.