THE SPIRIT IN THE CORINTHIAN EPISTLES (4)
[p. 401] THE SPIRIT IN THE CORINTHIAN EPISTLES (4)
JT Our subject this afternoon is in the second letter. References to the Spirit are found in chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, and 13, the principal ones being in chapter 3. The consideration of chapter 3, the covenant, will fit in in order with what we have had. It may be of help to remark that we have more substance in the subjects treated of than in those in the first letter. The first letter having taken effect, the apostle is able to put more feeling and affection into his remarks. This particularly applies to chapter 3, because the covenant was already alluded to — the blood of it as in the cup; here it is the spirit of it. We are much more ready to take up the letter of things than the spirit of any given subject. The treatment of the covenant, largely involving the Spirit of God, implies also the Spirit of the covenant.
The book of Exodus helps us as to this, in the advance in the second giving of the law. Moses had passed through much with Israel between the first giving of the law on the mount and the second, and so was equal to more glory, being more spiritual himself. Hence Jehovah makes His glory to pass before him on the mount, as if he could absorb something of it, which he did; God outlines certain things and gives him directions to write “after the tenor of these words”, Exodus 34: 27. Moses did not write the tables. Jehovah wrote them. The second time the outline of the covenant was given according to the tenor of what Jehovah said, as we have here, “not of letter, but of spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens”. There was more given than the tables. Moses comes down with the reflection of the glory and carries it forward into Deuteronomy, where he embodies it in his final book, which is more the tenor of things than the letter. Deuteronomy contemplates that the saints had progressed so as to understand [p. 402] things spoken of in the tenor or spirit of them. The Spirit quickens. This chapter furnishes us, as we shall see, with this thought, and how it is embodied in the Spirit of God. The Lord is Himself the Spirit of the covenant, meaning that He embodies the divine thought in it, and makes it effective in that way in our souls. The first thought is what was effected through Paul in the Corinthian saints. I suppose he is able to speak of it in this way, because of the recovery in them that had been effected through the first letter, so he could go back to what was, and say they were “manifested to be Christ’s epistle ministered by us, written, not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God; not on stone tables, but on fleshy tables of the heart”. So that he begins the subject with the Spirit of the living God.
AMH Would you connect the death of the testator, typified in Moses going up the mount to make atonement for the people if he could, with the first epistle, and this second letter with the glory shining in his face?
JT I would. Moses was ready to be blotted out. The first letter speaks of the blood of the covenant. Jeremiah does not mention the blood of it where the covenant is stated. He mentions the result of the blood of the covenant, that is, the forgiveness of sins, but the Lord mentions the blood of it, that there was more than the forgiveness of sins in it. He goes deeper than Jeremiah; the blood of the covenant witnessed the love of God, what was surrendered that it might be effective.
Ques Is that seen in Exodus, where half the blood was for the altar, and half for the people?
JT Yes; and that is what is treated of in Hebrews 9; it alludes to Exodus 24. This chapter alludes to Exodus 34. Chapter 24 makes much of the blood of the covenant, that is what entered into it on God’s side, and the volume of it from God’s side, but there is the ministration of the covenant too. You get no such allusion to the blood as you get in Exodus 24 — it is unique, marked by quantity.
WJH [p. 403] Had you something special in mind in mentioning the Spirit of the living God?
JT I thought it was very significant. That is how the subject of the Spirit is introduced in the chapter; the idea of life is stressed, corresponding with the thought of quickening. The Spirit quickens. The use of the term “the living God” throughout the New Testament is full of instruction, and no part more so than here. The idea of writing is by the Spirit of the living God. The writing material is “the fleshy tables of the heart”.
WJH There would be a living result to the writing, would there not?
JT The second letter requires this. It requires not only bare statements of doctrine and principles but the living God. The writing is by the Spirit of the living God.
JCS Why is it that he refers to the letter written in our hearts?
JT The verse reads, “Ye are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men, being manifested to be Christ’s epistle ministered by us, written, not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God; not on stone tables, but on fleshy tables of the heart”. The first heart is Paul’s, and the second alludes to the saints at Corinth. The first means that the work at Corinth had such a great place with him that the results of it, the very saints, were, as it were, indelibly impressed on his heart. “Known and read of all men” would mean that wherever he went he spoke of them. I fancy the apostle, at a meal table, or at any time conversing, would bring forward the Corinthians — what a great work of God that at Corinth was! He stayed there eighteen months, and there were results accordingly. I think that is what he means. A very suggestive thing for anyone serving — you speak well of the saints, and not ill of them. Make the most of the brethren.
JCS Would it be the normal consequence of the Spirit of the living God writing the covenant in our [p. 404] hearts that the saints would be written in the minister’s heart?
JT Yes. Those who minister should speak of the saints. Paul could occupy the brethren many a time with the terrible state of things which existed at Corinth, but he did not. He brought forward the good things. The early work there must have been wonderful. How Paul would refer to it with pleasure!
WSS The spirit of Christ comes out in the apostle in his expressed esteem for the saints in the various places. He must have thought of them as the excellent of the earth.
JT You can always look at them that way. There may be shallowness, but we are always entitled to look at them abstractly. If we cannot speak much as to current facts we can revert to earlier days when the work of God was manifest in them.
PL So this goes with the Deuteronomy view, Moses blessing the tribes, the great minister clothing them with the thoughts of God.
JT That is right. Moses in speaking of them thus is called “the man of God”. Comparing his blessing and the blessing of the tribes by Jacob, you have the two sides. Jacob, although a father, is not governed by natural feelings — he is a patriarch in the true sense, as Genesis 49 shows; he tells the whole truth, and gives the history as it would be. Moses is entitled to speak abstractly for the reason that God had wrought. If God has not wrought in a man’s soul you cannot speak of him as to any good, but if God has wrought, you can speak abstractly of him in relation to what God has done. Deuteronomy contemplates what God has wrought, so the Thummim comes before the Urim in Deuteronomy 33 because it involves not only light, but the effective work of God.
JCS It is a very different standpoint from Moses speaking of the people as [p. 405] rebels.
JT Yes, that was on a different level from what he is as called a man of God.
EBMcC Were the Corinthians in some measure up to what the apostle says of them?
JT It was how he had them written in his heart, and he can speak of them in this way because recovery had taken place. “Ye are our letter”. He is now free to speak to them in that way.
AMH Is there the double thought — what is written in his heart as a commendation, and what was in their hearts locally as the expression of God?
JT That is the truth. Being manifested to be Christ’s epistle — that is what was actually at Corinth.
Ques Why does the apostle change from “our letter” to “Christ’s epistle”?
JT Because he is alluding, as we have said, to what marked him as he moved about among the brethren in other parts. They were his letter, in the sense that he always spoke well of them. Anyone hearing him speak of the Corinthians would be impressed with his love for them, and no one is commendable who does not love the Lord’s people. This is a great feature in a letter of commendation that the bearer of it loves the Lord’s people.
JCS And the more striking because he was not loved much by them, but he loved them “more abundantly”.
JT How one can speak of the Lord’s people is a great test. We may have to call attention to things that are distressing, and Paul does: he does it to themselves. To be a characteristic traducer of the Lord’s people is one of the most objectionable of things to heaven.
PL It puts you in the company of the accuser of the brethren.
JT Yes, it puts you in the company of the devil. We have to discern anything in that connection, designed to discredit the Lord’s people as this is directly from the devil, although there may be some truth in it.
[p. 406] Ques Would Paul be speaking of the divine traits in them as the result reached through his ministry?
JT Quite so, and they became lovable to him. God loves us in spite of our state. Spiritual men are able to do that, too — able to love the saints in spite of their naughty ways — but I think that Paul would have indelibly on his heart what this remarkable work of God in Corinth was. It is presented in a very formal way in Acts; the time spent there enabled him to become acquainted with the brethren in a peculiar way, and they were endeared to his heart. His personal feelings expressed here are striking, for instance, “all things are for your sakes”.
EWC Would not the apostle’s thoughts about the saints flow along the line of the work of God in them?
JT I think it is a great thing to cultivate the faculty to love what is lovable. We may be obliged to love people who are unlovely, yet knowing that the work of God is there, you can love them in spite of their unloveliness. Here it is to love what is lovable, and I am sure Paul had keen appreciation of what was lovable, and undoubtedly the work at Corinth was remarkable in its beginning. The formal way Paul approached it, and the real anxiety he had about it, all prepared a state of soul in himself that would take in impressions of the work of God in others, and the same thing appears in the second letter. He had to go through a remarkable experience before he wrote it (see chapter 1: 8 - 10).
WS Paul’s ministry had been producing lovable features. Would evidence of lovableness now be coming in?
JT Yes. Titus would recount what he saw in this brother and that brother, and that household; and would also tell the apostle what he saw as the effect of his first letter; that there was sure evidence of the work of God.
WJH He boasted about them to Macedonia, about their readiness to give, showing he delighted in the fruits of grace in [p. 407] them.
JT I think he had regarded that Corinth was a special piece of his workmanship. In view of the time he spent there, and what the Lord said to him about Corinth, there can be no doubt that it had a leading place in the apostle’s thoughts.
EBMcC They would see the features of the new covenant in him; he could set them forth livingly in himself.
JT I am sure that is true, and that brings up the important side of ministerial responsibility; that one is what he says. He ought to be such a minister as would beget children. If one is not well formed himself, his children will hardly be well formed. I think it is a test as to anyone with peculiar or unspiritual qualities — would you like a generation like that? We hear of people having peculiar traits, causing light comment, but the real test is, would you like a generation like that? Abraham is the great patriarch, the great progenitor, but before we get that, we get what Abraham was: his name had been Abram, “high father”, indicating moral elevation and then there was a “wholly right seed”.
JCS If the servant is sensitive, the Lord would call attention to any traits in him that would not be lovable or suitable?
JT Well, anything that is not suitable should be called attention to.
JCS Would the Lord call attention to any trait that is not good so as to correct it? It might be reproduced in those I serve. The Lord would call attention to it, so that I might check it.
JT Surely. The thing is to set yourself specially against it. Those taught are likely to take on what marks their teachers.
WSS With regard to generation, he says, they were Christ’s epistle — not Paul’s epistle. He brought Christ into it.
JT He never lost sight of that. The apostle was the minister, and Christ was the writer. He has to reflect [p. 408] what he is ministering, an expanding of what he is as minister.
PL So the apostle would get free of what was uncomely. It is needful to be thus exercised and have the grace needed bestowed upon us.
JT You set your face against it, all the time, because natural proclivities only mar the vessel.
Rem In the beginning of Matthew’s gospel we read, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, ... Son of Abraham” — the idea of a generation according to God.
JT Yes, showing that it is a prime thought, hence it is “Abraham begat”, and so forth. It is a progenitive thought, and it is involved in Genesis 22 — the ram caught in the thicket involves the progenitive thought.
EBMcC Would you say a little as to the spirit of the covenant? “Not of letter, but of spirit”.
JT The allusion to the spirit of the covenant is not at first to the Holy Spirit, but it merges into the Holy Spirit. In this chapter, verse 17, it is said, “the Lord is the Spirit”, that is, the Spirit of the new covenant. We have to learn it from Christ — He is the Spirit of it. There is the combination of the Lord and the Spirit. Thus the new covenant is made effective “even as by the Lord the Spirit”.
WJH Is that a reference to the Lord personally or the Spirit?
JT I think both. It is a unique reference; a combination, it seems to me, of the Lord and the Spirit in view of the peculiar subject on hand, the thought arising from the spirit of the covenant. Primarily, the covenant is expressed in Him, but He becomes also the instrument of effecting it. The combination of the Lord’s authority and the Spirit is very remarkable in view of the effectuation in us of the new covenant. The spirit of the covenant may be viewed as an objective thought, but then it becomes in Christ instrumental according to verses 17 and 18. “We all, looking ... are transformed ... by the Lord the Spirit”. That would include the [p. 409] Spirit of the new covenant. It is an objective thing and we, as looking on it, take on the glory of it, we absorb it, as it were. But then there is the instrumentality in it — “by the Lord the Spirit”. We absorb the glory, but there is also instrumentality to effect it.
JCS It might almost be rendered “Lord Spirit”.
JT It seems a blend, as it were, of the Lord and the Spirit, an instrumental thought to make effective what is presented objectively. We need authority for that. It runs on in the types, particularly to Deuteronomy, where Moses is hardly presented as directly acting for Jehovah, but rather on his own account. It is “the words of Moses”, but then, speaking thus he is king in Jeshurun, recognised among an upright people. His authority is there, only greatly modified. It is “the Lord the Spirit” for the effectuation of the covenant in a modified authority, but still authority, the Lord being there. It seems to point to the fact that the Lord is a quickening Spirit. The last Adam is a quickening Spirit. The covenant is an objective thought, even the spirit of it, as in verse 6, but then it is alluded to as effecting something — it quickens. The Lord the Spirit in the end of the chapter brings in the authority which is needed, but such authority as is typified in Moses.
CCC Does this bear on the enjoyment of covenant conditions after the Supper, in contrast to the ministerial side of the service? You have been dealing with the lovability of the saints and that Christ in the character presented here, is seen in Moses in Deuteronomy.
JT I think so. This chapter contemplates the great general administration of the covenant, but it enters into the saints’ position as assembled, and I believe that is where the Lord is seeking to help us. The Lord comes in in relation to the breaking of the bread. Whilst He is Head, that is not the first thought. The first thought is the will of God — “by which will we have been sanctified”. The Lord comes in in the breaking of bread in relation to what suggests Him as carrying out the will of God and [p. 410] bringing us into it; for this we must be subject — in accord with the will of God. There is no headship without the body, and the body requires the thought of the will of God. We are brought under rule, hence in view of the Lord coming in, room must be made in this sense, for the complete subjugation of everything to the Lord. All this enters into the truth of the bread. The covenant in this chapter does not deal with the bread at all, but with the cup. In it there is a conformation, bringing us into line with the Lord, so we are changed into the same image. That makes room for headship. He comes in Himself and we must leave with Him what He may do.
Ques In what character does He come in in the breaking of the bread?
JT He comes in. That is the first thing. Those that came from Emmaus said He was known to them in the breaking of bread, but He vanished. The counterpart of that is that He comes in at Jerusalem amongst the brethren, but found conditions not quite right. It is useless talking of headship there — there must be adjustment first, and this is a priestly service.
PL Does appearing in another form suggest that the Lord may take different forms according to the condition of the saints?
JT I think so; we must make provision for this — His inscrutability in this respect. The form in Mark 16 is a substantial change. What form was it? Who knows? It is what He was capable of, and the more spiritual we are the more we shall recognise this.
WJH He presented Himself living during the forty days.
JT That is another thought; what did He have in mind in that? Then He assembled with them — what is in that? We have to make room for the Lord to come in.
CFI You would not expect each Lord’s day morning meeting to take the same [p. 411] form?
JT No. The Lord comes in — we must make room for Him, thus there is freshness.
JCS It is the Person that comes in.
JT “It is the Lord” and we must make room for what He may do — what He may think needful.
PL Does that not imply elasticity as to the character of a ‘word’ given?
JT Quite so, it is a question of being spiritual in the assembly. The difficulty is when the Lord comes in — then we often fail; all was apparently in order until the Lord came in in Luke 24: 36.
WHW Would this chapter help us in the way of adjustment following on from what was said about Luke 24, where it is said the disciples were troubled when the Lord came in?
JT I think it may be rightly linked with that. Our chapter is the continuation of the thought of adjustment. If He comes in, as He does, you may look for this sort of thing, the combination of authority with spiritual power, all to the end of effecting a change in us. Hence the importance of our accustoming ourselves to intentness of mind. The more we fix our minds on what is before us the more the transformation will take place. The Lord is objectively amongst us, but He is there to serve us, to effect the change into the same image, “even as by the Lord the Spirit”.
AMH Is this change something effected when together; our being brought to some apprehension of the Lord?
JT Yes. But it is also a great general thought and must not be restricted to the saints being together. Still we all with unveiled face “looking on the glory of the Lord” contemplates us as together. At any rate it enters into our position “as in assembly”; no time could be more appropriate.
JM Is the result similarity in transformation?
JT It involves what is presented to us. We are not beholding one another — we are beholding the glory of [p. 412] the Lord unitedly, and thus we are changed into the same image.
EB From glory to glory; will it be some form of glory seen in the Lord as He comes in?
JT The glory of the Lord is what shines in Him as effecting the new covenant. A change in the Lord is not spoken of, the change is in us.
WHW Moses’ face shone only. When the Lord comes in, the brethren’s faces would all shine. It says the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
JT Quite so. The point here is what is in the Lord. “Looking on the glory of the Lord” — it is very vivid, very clear.
RGL Would “Lord” here suggest Jehovah, God of the covenant?
JT No. It is Christ. He is the Spirit of the covenant, being the Mediator of it.
Ques Would that be the answer to the Lord’s prayer in John 17: “that they may behold my glory”?
JT John 17 is not covenant glory. I do not think it is alluded to in that chapter. “That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me” — it is family glory there.
CFI The glory of the Lord — the One who has made God known, is the One who has effectuated the covenant.
JT Yes. There is more in the declaration of God than what we have here, but it is on that line. The allusion is to the shining in Moses’ face on which Israel could not look. We can unitedly look on the glory of our Mediator.
Rem In my inquiry I was connecting it with Exodus 34.
JT That is covenant glory, but John 17 is not that. John’s thought is on the highest plane — it is the Father. The Father is not connected with the covenant — it is God.
JM Might “from glory to glory” have reference to the variety of attributes of the Lord?
JT I think “from glory to glory” refers to change in us. We are capable of this — change from one glory to another. Stephen’s face shone like that of an angel. As he proceeded in his wonderful testimony other glories shone in him. When he kneeled down and prayed for his murderers he shone in his Master’s glory on the cross. We should seek through exercise the capability of taking on glory.
EBMcC The new covenant is peculiarly effective in glorifying the saints.
JT That is how it is seen here. The apostle in writing would fill their minds and hearts with the richness of it. The parenthesis (verses 7 - 16) is to fill out the richness of it. We have the main facts in verses 1 - 6 and 17 to the end, but the richness and glory of the new covenant is outlined in the parenthesis. You have first the ministry of the Spirit subsisting in glory, (verse 8); and then, verse 9, the ministry of righteousness abounding in glory; then verse 10, the surpassing glory; and verse 11, that which abides subsists in glory. So we have peculiar richness in the sense of glory. The new covenant is abiding, subsisting by the Spirit.
PL The radiation of love is the glory.
JT Yes; what God is in this sense. What God is as seen in the death of Christ, and the effect of that in the saints so as to form a domain of glory. It is a wonderful chapter in that sense. John 17 is the domain of family glory, leading up to eternity, involving our eternal portions. This refers to our position down here. This ministry is in spite of external conditions, and makes it possible for us to be introduced into eternal conditions.
Ques Would we have the Lord as the Mediator of the covenant before us after His supper is partaken of?
JT It is the Lord first coming in by way of subjugation and adjustment, then the Mediator, making room for headship. This implies that the Lord, having [p. 414] us in intelligent liberty, will lead us further on, to family and eternal relations.
PL Would the glory of Jehovah filling the tabernacle in Exodus 40, and the glory filling the temple answer to the two thoughts?
JT That is what I understand. The glory entering the tabernacle is because the saints are seen typically as entirely subject, each in his place as anointed and functioning. God intended that in the public position the whole system should function, each one in his place, the whole thing typically being alive, each taking part as he should. There is no room for any other thing at all. God says, speaking reverently, I want it all for Myself. There is no need for Moses now, no need for anyone to tell us what to do. We have learned it. We are there in relation to one another in love, and each taking his part in the dignity of the anointing. In 2 Chronicles 5 there is no anointing mentioned. In Exodus 40 there is no singing or service mentioned, but a great deal is made of the service in 2 Chronicles 5, where there are one hundred and twenty priests and the Levites all engaged, and they reach one perfect note — Jehovah is good and His mercy endureth for ever. They are engaged with that, and then the glory enters, and the priests cannot minister. That does not mean that the persons are not to be there; it is that the official side is no longer needed. It is sonship now. The temple position is a question of the dignity of the saints in a personal sense. In the different woods employed we have typified the sons of God answering to the divine counsel. Thus the glory of Jehovah entered and filled the house of God. It finishes with the thought of God. I think we have there reached typically the eternal state of things. It is a question of the persons now, not officials, but the saints as in their family dignity. What our chapter teaches does not reach to the idea of Solomon’s temple. We have to go to Ephesians for that, the heavenly side of the truth. Ephesians opens with the place of our blessings, and then [p. 415] how we are predestinated to sonship through Jesus Christ to God Himself. God thus reaches His own thought. There is no need of official servants. It is the liberty and dignity of our relationship with God, and that is how it will be eternally.
WJH Often we do not stay long enough to get the sense in our souls of the glory of the covenant.
JT That is so, I am sure. It is well worth our consideration — the place Christ has when He comes in, and what He effects.
WHW Joseph told his brethren to tell his father of all his glory in Egypt.
JT Glory is a great subject. It is intended to be productive. It appears, we may say, properly with Abraham — the God of glory appeared to him. God is said to be the God of glory, also the Father of it; Christ is Lord of it; and the Spirit is the Spirit of glory. Thus it is wonderfully well in hand. The ministry of the new covenant is to the end that the saints as in assembly should be glorious.
Ques Does beholding the glory of the Lord translate itself into the true knowledge of God in our souls?
JT Yes — this section proceeds on that line. Chapters 4 and 5 are wonderfully rich in their unfoldings of God in Christ and His thoughts of love, involving new creation and eternal blessing. Divine glory presented to us is to take us out of the world. It effects emancipation. To illustrate that, when Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16) would go back into Egypt. Aaron spoke to them, setting forth the grace of God in the priest, and as a result “they turned toward the wilderness”, instead of to Egypt, and the glory appeared. God as it were said, ‘You are looking in this direction and I will hold you. My glory is greater than Egypt’. The glory of the covenant is liberating, it makes us free with God. It is perfect love that casts out fear! We are, through it, restful in the presence of God, but the family glory is inductive. It leads us into the domain of family love. We get to a [p. 416] perfect state of things in glory. John 17 is inductive. The Lord requests, “I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”.
PL You mean the emancipating glory is that we may go out, the transforming glory that we may go through, and the inductive family glory is that we may go in.
JT That is it, the ministry of David and Solomon is inward.
JCS Would there be some priestly service similar to that of Aaron in connection with the new covenant?
JT I think the priestly grace of Christ enters into the assembly, “His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me”, as is said in Canticles. We can look for that — the Lord supports us in that position both as to our minds and affections.
JCS Where does the Minister of the sanctuary come in in this connection?
JT What we have before us leads on to that. So far, it is the Lord’s service to us to bring us into accord with Himself, so that we take on the traits of glory. Two men appeared in glory, Scripture says, on the mount; so that He now has us in suitable dress, and I think we may link this on with Hebrews, the Minister of the sanctuary. He is now ready to carry on the service of God. He has the sanctuary too because the saints are the sanctuary. There is preparatory work, but the chief end is the service of God.
Ques Does the ministry of the sanctuary follow on the ministry of the covenant?
JT Yes. In the latter service there is a change effected in us. The Lord can thus go on with us, with whatever He may desire. The Minister of the sanctuary refers to Aaron, as set over the service of God. It is an official thought; Son over God’s house is also, corresponding, as to authority, with Moses.
[p. 417] Ques While the Lord is personally in heaven, He comes to us by the Spirit?
JT It is by the Spirit. The Spirit is the medium. The medium is not angelic as in the Old Testament generally. Divine Persons come in Spirit-wise, and we have to be spiritual to understand that. Of course the Holy Spirit is always here. The Lord comes in and we discern it is the Lord — we do not say it is the Spirit.
Rem It is the same Person.
JT No; the Spirit is one Person, and the Lord is another. The Lord can impersonate Himself in the Spirit. The last Adam is also said to be “a quickening spirit”. That is said by the Spirit.
PL “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” is a testimony to the perfect unity in operation in divine Persons.
JT Yes, One of the Persons may be fully seen in Another, and yet Each retains His distinctness.
Ques Does not that help us to keep clear of attaching the word “persons” to the Godhead, in the sense in which we would use the word in reference to man?
JT There is no other word to use that I know of.
Rem As used to designate three men there would be three different wills, and I think we need to beware of attaching the word to the Godhead.
JT There is no other word to use. I think it is a perfect word; as applied it conveys what is true. You may say the word “person” is not applied to divine Beings as such in Scripture, but the personal pronoun is used constantly of each of the three divine Persons. One old doctrine taught that what we call Persons were three phases of the Deity, but this is utterly erroneous. There are Three distinct Persons, and nothing is plainer in the Scripture than that. There is nothing more definitely asserted in Scripture than the Trinity.
Ques When we worship God, do we worship a Person in the Godhead, or the Godhead?
JT “To us there is one God, the Father” — a most important expression. The other two Persons are subservient to One, and Deity is presented in Him — the Father. We worship one God, the Father. But then in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 we have the Spirit first, then the Lord, and after that God. We thus travel along with the Spirit and the Lord to God. In certain connections we cannot exclude the other two Persons; the three Persons are included in the one God. But as we are standing in relation to the Mediator, we do not address God as including Him; He is on our side as towards God. In this supremely important matter wisdom lies in following the teaching and example of the apostles. The early disciples persevered in their teaching. What is clear throughout Acts and the epistles is the economy into which the Godhead has come; that is, One of the Persons, as already shown from Paul’s writings, occupies the place of God, the other two Persons take a mediatorial position in order to effect the divine thoughts. There is abundant evidence that in abstract Deity the three Persons are in equality; and further, that the Son and the Spirit as in the economy act severally as God. Thus the Scriptures fully assert Deity in all three Persons. This being accepted in our souls, we have liberty in our service God-ward to appropriate the Son and the Spirit in their gracious mediatorial service on our side, enabling us to approach and worship God. Hence Ephesians 2: 18 says, “through him [Christ] we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”; there are other similar passages.