"WHO IS THIS?"
“WHO IS THIS?”
Romans 8: 14, 15; Colossians 3: 10, 11; Song of Songs 3: 6; Song of Songs 8: 5
JT I thought that the passages in the Canticles illustrate somewhat the passages in the New Testament. The verses in Romans point to the leading of the Spirit, and involve the action of the Spirit as we come together in assembly; so that the assembly is seen moving, so to speak, in her own power, the Spirit being the power, but viewed as in herself. Then Colossians points to Christ leading, answering to the second scripture read in the Canticles; she comes up leaning upon her beloved. The passage in Colossians says in the new man “Christ is everything”: He is everything. We reach a point where we are, as it were, full; that we are, for the moment, shut up to Him. Scope is to be given for the working out of this in assembly service. So that the idea of His leading comes in, for if He is everything, He is also a leader. It has often been observed that Colossians scarcely notices the Spirit. It does notice and mention the Spirit — “your love in the Spirit”, (chapter 1: 8), but Christ, who is everything, is what is in mind. Romans makes a great deal of the Spirit. In chapter 5: 5 we have Him shedding abroad in our hearts; in chapter 8 He is mentioned; indeed it is remarkable how frequently He is mentioned in that chapter, having in mind that it is the state of the saints. The state of the saints is to be marked by spirituality, the Spirit having His place.
If the brethren have followed my remarks, perhaps we might proceed, beginning with the passage in Romans 8, and linking it on with Song of Songs 3, where the feminine personage in the song is seen coming up out of the wilderness, without any external support [p. 2] mentioned, but fully furnished so far as it goes. The passage would correspond in the types with Numbers 21, where instead of the tabernacle being the direct guidance, the Spirit is guiding and leading; the Spirit is fully recognised, so that they move on steadily from point to point, no longer wandering in the wilderness.
JRH “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”, Romans 8: 14. How would you bring that in in the wilderness?
JT Well, that comes in after Numbers 21 in the types, forming a junction with the ark in the book of Joshua, and with Colossians in the antitype. Sonship proper belongs to the land, but the Spirit of it comes in in the wilderness, I think. But the Spirit is to be understood before the passage read in Romans; it is to be understood in chapter 5 and, indeed, in the early part of chapter 8. The question is the state of the saints.
RAL We sing in the fourth hymn, ‘Now with love’s treasure our spirits are freighted’. (4:2) Does that suggest the work of the Spirit in our souls in the power in which we begin the morning meeting?
JT Quite so. Our spirits are freighted with it. It is a question of the state of the saints, for the early part of the assembly service is left as our part. We come together to do something, but it is in the power of the Spirit. We are never seen other than in the power of the Spirit.
EP You speak of the people no longer being guided by the tabernacle after Numbers 21. Would you mind saying a little more about that?
JT Well, the tabernacle from the time it was anointed, when the glory entered, was to be a guide. The movements of the people were determined by its movements. You will remember that at the end of Exodus, the people were to move as the tabernacle moved. “And the cloud covered the tent of meeting,
[p. 3] and the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle. And Moses could not enter into the tent of meeting, for the cloud abode on it, and the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle. And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel journeyed in all their journeys. And if the cloud were not taken up, then they did not journey until the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of Jehovah was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, before the eyes of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys”, Exodus 40: 34 - 38. It points to what is presented to us objectively in the way of instruction and assembly formation.
EP Would it correspond at all to the Lord being present here on earth, then leaving the disciples dependent on the Spirit? I was thinking of the disciples in the Acts being left, the Lord having established them in a way, and then leaving them.
JT Going up, you mean? Yes, quite so. Therefore, henceforth all would hinge on what transpired in the way of assembly formation, and in the way of devotion to what we get at Pentecost as, for instance, chapter 10. Right through the Acts the saints were governed by the movement of the testimony. Of course, Numbers brings that out more than Exodus. Exodus gives us the general idea, the glory being in the tabernacle. The guidance was in that connection. Numbers gives us more detail as to the taking down of the tabernacle, and its being carried and set up again, involving movement and change of encampments. There were a great many encampments. Each encampment had in mind some thought, and the people were to observe it.
JRH Would you say the pillars of smoke were connected with the encampments?
JT I would think they were. They would be the smoke of the sacrifices. Pillars of [p. 4] smoke would mean they were formed in things. They rose up steadily.
GM And there would be constant exercise. The smoke would speak of that.
JT Yes. I suppose it would suggest sacrifice, that is out of love, Godward, so that Romans begins with God’s love shed abroad in our hearts; and then in chapter 8 it contemplates our love for God — “all things work together for good to those who love God”, Romans 8:28. I think the pillars of smoke would indicate the love they had for God, and the sacrifices they offered.
CAM It would be the Spirit’s comment on it — in the Song of Songs, the section that we read; and then that section from verses 6 to 11 does not exactly form part of the conversation between the king and the bride; it was rather a sort of commentary by the Spirit.
JT It is a view — something contemplated, as looking at the movements. “Who is this?” It is a question asked. “Who is this, she that cometh up from the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?” She is described. Who is she? Her history, of course, is in Egypt, and were we to go by the prophets, we would say she has been sinning all the time, from the time she was in Egypt, but as she is identified with the Spirit of God, who is there with her, there was this view. She is coming up out of the wilderness, and there is no external support.
Moses is not in evidence; he was earlier. It is more the power that is within in the type.
SMcC Would this view, these graces, suggest what is acquired rather than what is put upon her?
JT I think they are accredited to her. They are, as it were, an integral part of the position. They are the distinguishing marks. Who is this, that cometh up with these distinguishing marks? I think they [p. 5] allude to what is very creditable. You might say it somewhat corresponds with Balaam’s view. He saw them in a somewhat similar sense. There was nothing discreditable; everything was creditable. God caused him to see her. He is a man who has his eyes opened — not an ordinary man, but a man with his eyes opened, seeing the vision of the Almighty; that is, seeing things as God sees them. God is entitled to look at us abstractly; that is, taking account only of what is of Himself in us.
JWD Would you link this abstract view on with the first part of the morning meeting?
JT I think we might see that, the place the Spirit has, which is part of the position. It is not external, although the anointing is external. It is more the view of Numbers 21; they had drunk and moved immediately, and steadily from point to point in the right direction. I think that is what we ought to keep in mind, so that all these figures here — this smoke — as we come out of our houses in the morning to approach the assembly, these features are to be seen. They are seen, of course, concretely as we sit down together in assembly. God is entitled to look at us in that way, what we are in relation to the Spirit. Romans 8 enlarges on what the Spirit is in us. First we have the righteous requirement of the law fulfilled, and then the mind of the Spirit is life and peace; and several others — some dozen references to the Spirit in the chapter all pointing to a state that is in keeping with the first verses, that God has condemned sin in the flesh; that it is out of sight, that it is viewed as ignored. It is the Spirit now, and these marks are, therefore, the result of the Spirit. First, I think, is unselfishness or love for God in the volume of sacrifices, the smoke of the sacrifices. The church is characteristically sacrificial.
Christ in John 1 is viewed as sacrificial by John the baptist, and as He walked, He is viewed also sacrificially,
[p. 6] that is as the Lamb. The Lamb is sacrificial, and I think that that runs into the assembly. Sacrifice marks us.
CAM After Numbers 21 and after Balaam’s vision comes that special household burnt-offering, morning and evening. They did not have that before, I suppose.
JT No, that comes in in chapter 28, quite so. First we have, after the brazen serpent and the springing well, the steady movement of the people towards the land and Balaam’s view, as if God would give us a right view so that we might look at them abstractly. Moses in Deuteronomy looks at them in that way. Moses does what God is entitled to do, to look at us entirely according to what the Spirit has effected in us. Well, if we sit down in the assembly, God would help us to view things abstractly.
JWD It would be a wonderful release to the work of God amongst us.
JT That is just what it will be. John’s epistle helps us, too, but Balaam has no desire to justify the people, but he is prepared to do it as one who has his eyes open, who had a vision of the Almighty.
HB Would it be helpful to bring in Numbers 24: 1 - 5, “And Balaam saw that it was good in the sight of Jehovah to bless Israel, and he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel dwelling in tents according to his tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him. And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor saith, and the man of opened eye saith, He saith, who heareth the words of God, who seeth the vision of the Almighty, who falleth down, and who hath his eyes open: How goodly are thy tents, Jacob, and thy tabernacles, Israel!”
JT Quite so. There is a reference there, perhaps we might look at it a moment in chapter 24: 4, he [p. 7] stresses very much his vision, and how he was affected. That is, God affected him in spite of himself, so that he sees them from God’s point of view. The Spirit of God does that for us now; He affects us in spite of ourselves. Romans 7 enables us to distinguish the working of the flesh, and we learn how God condemned it in the early part of chapter 8, enabling us to see things as they should be seen.
RS The devil seems to be very active in the morning meeting. Our minds are often very wandering, and thus totally unworthy of the occasion. Is this required on that account?
JT Quite so, there is not one but would admit that. We need the power of God to fix our minds first of all on the order and beauty of Israel, and then on Christ as we see Him in Colossians.
WL Is that why the leading is looked at in an individual way — “as many as are led”? We need to come to this thought on an individual platform.
JT Well, I suppose so. We have already had it intimated that sonship comes in late in the service of the assembly, but it is only to make a link with the Spirit; for the Spirit’s action begins in Romans 5, and has considerable authority before we come to chapter 8: 14.
CAM This matter of the order of the saints and having a sense of how wonderful it is, is all taken for granted as we go on to Colossians; although I suppose Paul was dependent on the information from Epaphras, he realised what was existent in Colosse.
JT “Your order”, you mean?
CAM Yes.
JT I think that is the link. It links on with Romans and Corinthians. Corinthians, of course, is the orderly setting, so that Romans and Corinthians enter into Balaam’s prophecy. It is a wilderness scene. Balaam comments on the order, like cedars by the waters, like aloes of the Lord’s planting.
[p. 8] Corinthians runs on with that thought into Colossians where it is “rejoicing and seeing your order”, chapter 2: 5. That is the pleasure that the eye sees — not joying and knowing it, but seeing it — the pleasure the eye has in divine order among the saints.
CAM If it was not regarded it would spoil what the Lord is stressing.
JT The link with Romans, Corinthians and Colossians is very striking as applicable to assembly service; the place the Spirit has in Romans, and then the place that order has in Colossians. Christ is made so much of personally in the epistle, the Spirit made so little of (I mean as to mention). It is rather the effect of the Spirit that is in mind in Colossians, so that the apostle has pleasure in looking at that.
“Rejoicing and seeing your order, and the firmness of your faith in Christ”. That makes room for chapter 3, which we read, where Christ is all. He is everything. Well, if He is everything, He will be leader. We will understand that every function is His at each particular phase of our assembly service.
AHP Do you think what the queen of Sheba saw when she came to see the wisdom of Solomon would correspond with Colossians in that respect?
JT Very good. “There was no more spirit in her”. She saw the externals. She had no part in them. It is what she saw. The point here is what is seen. “Who is this, she that cometh up?”
JW “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn”, Numbers 24: 8.
Would that apply?
JT That alludes to the Spirit. Romans 8 would indicate the unicorn strength.
JWD Do you mean that we are conscious as we sit down together of the inward spiritual power, the Spirit’s presence with us?
JT That is what I think. Paul stresses it in the Corinthians. The Spirit’s place in the assembly in [p. 9] Romans is more individual. But we realise it as we sit down together. There is the strength of a unicorn, and the shout of a king. Balaam alludes to these matters; and really and truly it is only that side of the truth that makes our position a tenable one, a legal one, so to speak, an undeniable one as of God. That is, not simply the claims that we put in, but the fact that there are these things in some degree. There is the order, and then there is the unicorn strength, and the shout of a king.
JWD That is to say, as I sit down, I am entitled to forget my connection with the flesh, sinful flesh, and take account of myself as linked with all others in the possession of the Spirit of God.
JT That is right, so that “Ye are not in flesh but in Spirit, if indeed God’s Spirit dwell in you”, Romans 8:9.
JRH That would have a greatly moving effect on our spirits as we sit together.
JT Indeed it would. Anyone present who is not part of us — if God is working in him — will see it. It is John’s way of establishing the truth, by quoting the Lord’s remarks and the remarks of others to exercise souls. “Come and see” — “Come and see”. That is really the final test as to where God is, and what is of God. One comes and sees these marks.
RS When you speak about our state, is this just now what you have in mind as to sitting down and making room for the Spirit, and not allowing flesh, or workings of the flesh, as being in it? Is that what you mean by state?
JT Quite so. Romans teaches us that we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit — that state, a state consequent on the action of God really, the confirmation of the apostle’s own conclusions: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing”, he says, and that the victory, the deliverance and the thanksgiving is through Christ. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord”, he says, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God”. That is, he has arrived in his soul history at self-conscious ness. He is conscious of himself in the true sense of the word, a man delivered in his mind, and yet in power by the Spirit; but in his mind, through the analysis of the flesh, he is able to pronounce on it and name it, and now he says, I am free to do God’s law. “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. That is not simply the ten commandments. It is a characteristic word, whatever it may be, and God’s law must rule me. Well, if I sit down in the assembly on that line my order will be right; I will not be disorderly in my part in the assembly. Then God comes in in chapter 8, and we have that He, having “sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh”. It is not sin in Satan. Of course He has condemned it in Satan. That matter was settled before man was created.
The brazen serpent meant that was its origin. There was no sacrifice for sin in Satan. But sin in the flesh is dealt with in Romans 8. God has dealt with that.
He has condemned it. “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 —” (verses 3, 4). The Spirit is seen now operating and the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled. Then the chapter runs on with other allusions which show that on the basis of God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh and the presence of the Holy Spirit, a believer is not in flesh but in Spirit, if so be that God’s Spirit dwells in us. Not only that He is in us but undisturbedly in us.
Well, if we are all like that sitting down in assembly, you will see what a time we shall have, and what external order there is, because everyone has in mind God’s law — not my mind but God’s law.
RAL What should promote the brother to stand [p. 11] up to break bread? His consciousness of himself, or “I speak of the things which I have made touching the king”? He has a song.
JT He does not sing a song as he stands up to break bread. “We being assembled to break bread”, says Luke (Acts 20: 7), speaking of the incident at Troas. They came together to break bread. An analysis of that chapter would show that there were spiritual men present. The evident fruit of Paul’s work in different parts of the world were there; they accompanied him, and Luke says, “We being assembled to break bread”. Now, Paul’s discourse there has to be viewed as extraordinary, meaning that before we break bread we must listen to Paul. That is a sort of recovery point before we resume the breaking of bread. After the great captivity in the history of the assembly, we must listen to Paul.
But the primary thought in the passage was that they came together to break bread. Picture them all sitting there, Paul and Luke and several other distinguished men; what would happen? Well, as the brethren waited, Paul would get up and undoubtedly break the loaf. Paul, being there, would have in mind that they had come together to do this. It is not exactly a question of the Spirit leading us. It is not put that way. The Spirit does not come with us to break bread. We understand from Romans that everything is to be done in the Spirit — that we are in the Spirit; but we are personally there to break bread. That is our business. That is what we come together to do. You can understand how Paul would do that. He would do it with instinctive understanding; and so would any spiritual man with instinctive understanding that the brethren were there for that purpose, and he would have deliverance in his soul in doing it; but he would do it on the principle that they came together to do it. You would feel glad when he did it. Not that Luke could not [p. 12] have done it, or others. Any one of them might have done it, because ‘we’ is a mutual word in that sense. Not Paul and these distinguished men, but we came together to break bread.
JWD This instinctive understanding works out more happily amongst us. An instinctive understanding usually expects a certain one to do it who is present, where the brethren are affected by the Spirit, but there is no discourse.
JT You feel from the standpoint of Romans 8 that there would be no difficulty about it. There would be a right understanding as to everybody. Well, that is a point that has been a great help to one, John’s way of regarding what was said in that respect, and others’ too. If you have what is of God, you can invite inspection. So here, “Who is this?” It is a question; no person is mentioned as asking it; but the question has a voice. And John says, “I turned back to see the voice” (Revelation 1: 12) — remarkable thing! I turned back, not to hear it, but to see it; meaning the person speaking and the person spoken of must be of interest. He is able to take account of these qualities or features in this person, and the first is that she is like pillars of smoke. Suppose Moses was there, and someone asked him what this is, Moses would say this is the love that the saints have for Jehovah. Jehovah said there are thousands of those that love Me. They are characteristically a sacrificial people.
WR Would you say this includes the youngest believer?
JT Well, it is a collective thought. The smoke is solid. It is not scattered by the wind, it is solid. That is the suggestion in the pillars of smoke.
JRH It is not only what can be seen, but what can be smelt. Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense.
JT Well, she could be, I suppose. That would be the person that would be perfumed with myrrh [p. 13] and frankincense, with all the powders of the merchant, meaning that she is not like the Corinthian assembly. You take them when Paul left. If anyone came to see what had happened they would see much irregularity.
EP Paul speaks of the grace of God bestowed on the assemblies of Macedonia. Do you think there would be smoke there?
JT Quite so. The Thessalonians, too. There was a scent went out from them.
APT According to Paul’s second epistle to Corinth, there would have been order on a spiritual basis, would there, instead of disorder prevailing? I suppose they would have done it by rotation according to the first epistle in the breaking of bread.
JT By rotation, what do you mean?
APT Well, there were parties there. I do it this Sunday, you do it next.
JT Quite so. I have known that to happen. That is not right; that is not the saints moving in spiritual power. The “we” of Luke in Acts 20 is no question of gift at all. It is the persons you know, and some of us yesterday were remarking about personality. One feature of the assembly is the personal way we know one another. Normally we know one another, and that helps us in sitting down in a local setting. If there are parties there, cleavages, of course, we shall not be too pleased for a brother of the opposite party to get up and give thanks. We feel he is getting an advantage. That is very poor, because Romans 8 would dispel all that. We are of the Spirit, not of the flesh at all.
RS Then the brother who breaks the bread could also get up later on and address the Father, could he not?
JT Yes, he will by the spirit of adoption. But, we do not break bread by the spirit of adoption. I do not say it is not the same Spirit, because the Spirit is [p. 14] presented in the scripture in many classifications. We break bread in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God known in that way according to Romans 8.
AHP Had you any thought as to distinctive features of this myrrh and frankincense? Would they suggest something of the inward workings of the Spirit of God now taking form in the expression amongst the saints, carrying the odour like John 12?
JT I think that is good. Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense. Myrrh is usually a suggestion of suffering; not that one would make it that exclusively, but it is a drug with a refreshing odour. Frankincense would perhaps be stronger in that way. All of these would be graces of the Spirit. They would be what is emitted in spiritual power amongst us viewed collectively. Then all powders of the merchant would mean, I think, that you feel as in the Spirit that anything will not do. There must be something that would please the Lord. You must have all powders of the merchant, and I suppose the allusion to the merchant would mean that these cost something, so that the idea of cost and sacrifice enters into this position.
AHP We would be preserved from orthodoxy by all powders of the merchant. It would involve that the Lord is coming to us in ministry at the present time as well as what preceded.
JT Yes, this is a current position, a position at a particular time. It is God, as it were, giving us an abstract view; someone who valued these things and who asked the question would understand what these things meant. Who is capable of all this? That all enters into the truth of the ministry of the assembly as presented in the scripture.
SMcC Would you say a word as to the importance of this ellipsis and its bearing on our part in the assembly?
[p. 15] JT Well, that is the other side. The brethren will understand the ellipsis in the end of verse 6. I n verse 7 the Spirit of God goes on to Solomon. We are directed now to Christ. The other is the feminine side, “Behold his couch, Solomon’s own: threescore mighty men are about it, of the mighty of Israel. They all hold the sword, experts in war; each hath his sword upon his thigh because of alarm in the nights”, chapter 3:7, 8. Then in verse 9 it says, “King Solomon made himself a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon. Its pillars he made of silver, its support of gold, its seat of purple; the midst thereof was paved with love by the daughters of Jerusalem”. That is a beautiful view; a combination of what Christ has made for Himself, and what the daughters of Jerusalem add to it. “Paved with love”, that is our side.
SMcC Is it not important in this relation, to observe and carefully notice the turn in the assembly service, so that we should not persist in going on after a turn is made? I mean in reference to Solomon; the quick turn from her to Solomon.
JT Yes, quite so. We go on too long, sometimes, on a certain line. We ought to be on the alert for the turning point, a change-over from the covenant to the feminine side with the saints in relation to Christ. We are together in the Spirit and the flesh has no place in the service. That is very happy, and it is for the Lord’s eye, or someone else’s eye, whoever has an eye for it. Come and see, if you have an eye for these things.
JWD Would this not help so many of our young brothers to take part in the morning meeting?
JT Yes, I think that is good.
JWD Even the youngest brother, as John’s child, knows the Father. So many have no liberty in connection with the public service of God.
JT Well, they are coming into it, as far as I [p. 16] observe, they are coming into it in a remarkable way. We had this morning a very young brother taking part, very nicely, and the oldest brother in the meeting followed him. It was very nice and pleasing to God. Many of our young brothers do not take part, but their taking part is very pleasing to God, and we do right in referring to what happens. “Who is this?” These marks we are entitled to regard in them because that is the position then; but as we move on, we leave all that and think of the greatness of Christ where He is everything, and in all. That is the turn-over now to Solomon. We need support at that juncture. Expert people in war know the turn, and they are on the alert. Darkness, distance, Satan is not very far away, but then we are going on to something Solomon has made for Himself, not something that we have made for Him. “My assembly” comes into mind, not so much the local assembly, but what He made for Himself. Then the paving with love by the daughters of Jerusalem, that is what He made and we are adding to it. That is not the first part of the meeting, but it is where Christ comes in and recognises us.
CB On the alert — guarding against breakdown.
JT Anything that the enemy might use to disturb what is going on. These mighty men have their swords on their thighs; we may not need them at all.
CB It is not a question of using the sword, is it?
JT It is because of alarm in the nights. So these things are in our minds, put there by the Spirit of God, and when we sit down it is to serve us in good stead. We may not mention them at all, but then we are going on. It is what Christ has of His own. “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse”, chapter 5: 1. That is, it is His now, and then we begin to see that He is taking it on. It is His matter. So that she is leaning on her beloved, and He says, I have brought you up under the apple tree. You [p. 17] have good manners. I am not ashamed of you. Many of us cause distress in the meeting because we do not know what to do. But if we are brought up under the apple tree, we would understand what to do, and not discredit the house by our talk.
Ques What do you mean by good manners?
JT I brought thee up under the apple tree — the upbringing of the saints; how they are nurtured.
SMcC Paul said that God suffered their manners forty years.
JT Quite so, He bore them. Paul is commenting on good manners at Corinth. That is what he is after that there may be good manners among them.
APT If the saints have been brought up under clerical systems for a great many years, it takes time to bring us to the full thought of sonship.
JT We have passed through the patriarchal period, extending back as far as I remember; now the Lord has brought us round to the mutual side, including the youngest amongst us; the least of the assembly. But this matter of being brought up under the apple tree is important that we might have good manners.
CW Do you think Timothy would be one who had good manners in the house?
JT Yes, he represents that. Paul says, I have sent him to Corinth that he may put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ. The perfect manners of Paul are represented in his child Timotheus.
JRH What is the thought of being wakened up there? “I awoke thee under the apple tree”, chapter 8: 5.
JT From the beginning, I would presume. “I awoke thee under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth; there she brought thee forth that bore thee”. The allusion is to Christ as the apple tree in the earlier part. That is, He is supreme. There is no one like Him — no one like Christ. So [p. 18] that John would open up the apple tree to us. John the baptist refers to Him as the Lamb of God, walking. He is like the apple tree, and two of John’s disciples, seeing Him walk, leave John and follow Jesus. And when He asks the question, “What seek ye?” they say to the Lord, “Rabbi”. They need teaching. They instinctively need teaching in the house, that is the idea of it.
JRH Do you mean in saying “Rabbi” that there was the sense of being awake now?
JT Yes, and they needed teaching. The apple tree was there. “So is my beloved”. There is no one like Him. He is supreme above all. He is incomparable, and now they ask, “Rabbi, ... where abidest thou?” ‘Where do you live’, and the Lord says, “Come and see”.
SRMcC There is much that develops out of asking questions.
JT That is why these readings are so useful. It is question time. And that largely marks the Lord’s ministry, answering questions. He is ready to answer them. They say, “Where abidest thou? He says to them”, Come and see.”They went therefore, and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day. It was about the tenth hour”. Well, they got teaching. That is how the matter began. The mother is brought in here. “There thy mother brought thee forth; there she brought thee forth that bore thee”. It is in relation to Christ, making everything of Christ to them.
CB Would you say the Corinthians had moved in relation to the trees of the wood rather than the apple tree? That is why their manners were as they were.
JT They were comparing themselves with themselves.
CAM Good manners were really acquired, at the end, even in Corinth, in connection with the great [p. 19] awakening in chapter 15. Evil communications corrupt good manners (verse 33).
JT I think good manners are in the new covenant. That is the idea in connection with the mother. The new covenant is the love that is current amongst the saints, so that they take on the mother character; and hence, as our brother here was remarking about the young men taking part, probably they are hindered. The more the patriarchal spirit governs the assembly, the less the young will have an opportunity; and if there are party feelings, there will be rivalry, and the young are kept out of the way. Whereas, if the Spirit is there ungrieved, if we are in Spirit and not in flesh, what the young have is just delightful.
EP Do you think you have an example in 2 John 4? “I rejoiced greatly that I have found of thy children walking in truth”, and then verse 3, alluding to the Lord Jesus Christ, “Son of the Father, in truth and love”. And then in verse 13, “The children of thine elect sister greet thee”. I was wondering if that were a suggestion of what you are speaking of as good manners.
JT It is delightful. The third letter is more like the beginning, but the elect lady who has her children is the mother and as children walking in truth they are brought up under the apple-tree. It is the objective teaching in the apostles, and now the mother is nurturing them and looking after them daily.
RS Luke has to call attention to Martha’s unspiritual conduct in Luke 10, but before John passes off the scene, he says her manners are good.
JT I think God is bringing us back to the idea of manners. Evil communications corrupt good manners. Good manners were there at first under the apostles but God is bringing us back to them again, and I believe that is why John is so stressed in these last days. He brings in good manners.
CAM In connecting the manners with the [p. 20] covenant, would Sarah be a good example of it when she came into blessing and all bad manners had to be excluded and cast out? When she is in the freedom of good manners, there is laughter. “All that hear will laugh with me”. I suppose that is good manners.
JT Quite so. That confirms what we are saying. The covenant is connected with the mother. There are two covenants. The apostle says Hagar was one and Sarah another. “Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother”, Galatians 4: 26. We are born of a free woman. Well, the apostle is really labouring in the letter to bring the brethren back to the apple-tree, that is to Christ. But then we can be under the mother, wake up under the apple-tree; and then we have the mother’s influence; our mother, Jerusalem above. What liberty there is in that!
WR Would you say God really called Samuel from under his mother in that sense?
JT Yes, quite so. She brought him in there and set him down in the house of God.
AHP Referring to young people again, do you not think it tends to their spiritual progress and prosperity to keep clear of anything of party feelings. It leaves them free for service in the house of God.
JT I am sure party spirit in the meeting dwarfs the young ones. They are not far enough on to know what the thing means. Think of coming and sitting down on the Lord’s Day morning. Think of the children; some would be sitting over there and some sitting over here. How could they grow up there to manhood, spiritual manhood?
APT It tends to bondage, as in Galatians.
JT Quite so.
JRH So those of us who are older are responsible to provide an atmosphere of peace and love.
JT Quite so, we speak of a poor lead in a meeting. What is meant is there is no liberty, no spiritual power. It is the idea of spiritual leading.
[p. 21] WR Meetings of over fifty tend to hinder the growth of the young.
JT Well, I think the small meetings greatly facilitate the growth of the young and participation in the meeting.
AM It says of Moses that he sent away his father-in-law, and then in connection with the elders going up to the mount it says the young men offered sacrifices.
JT That shows in Exodus 24 that there was spiritual power with the young men or youths offering sacrifices. It would mean there was spiritual power and plenty of it there.
JWD In some places you have linked up the inheritance with the covenant. I was wondering if linking up the mother with the covenant, we should be more at home instinctively with what is involved in the inheritance — how to place these things, and how to function in relation to them. Do you think that?
JT Tell us more.
JWD I was only following out what you suggested. The covenant is an introduction into the inheritance. The covenant is intended to liberate us. It is what God is, the God with whom we have to do. ‘What the God that thou hast found’.
JT That tends to liberate us and bring in a condition that encourages young brothers to take part. Everybody, brothers and sisters alike, sees that we have part in all this. “We being assembled to break bread”, included everybody that was there.
APT What is the difference between Romans 5, the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts, and Romans 7, married to another? “To be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God”, Romans 7: 4. What is the difference in these two thoughts, one as [p. 22] it were coming down from God in covenant love, and what will ascend to God as fruit?
JT Well, that opens up a wide range of inquiry. The early part of Romans is from God to us, what the Spirit is to us, how He serves us in shedding the love of God abroad in our hearts, a general matter, not simply known to the older ones. The Spirit gives you to understand He is dealing in a general way amongst the saints, excluding no one. Well, that makes for wealth amongst us, at least in the principle. Then we have baptism, in chapter 6. “As many as have been baptised unto Christ Jesus, have been baptised unto his death” (verse 3). He is before us in baptism; but then what is needed to be stressed is “unto his death”. That is, He has been raised from among the dead, so that we should walk “in newness of life”. So that in chapter 7 in view of newness of life in chapter 6, and our members being yielded unto God as instruments of righteousness, the marital thought is brought in. He brings in that the first husband is dead. The first husband is the law, making us legal, and we are apt to be legal when we sit down together, having critical thoughts of one another, and that spoils the position and hinders the Spirit. But the first husband is dead, so that you are no longer under him. I disallow in my mind any principle of it, all that sort of thing, “to be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead”. Raised up, taken out of the range of the critical spirit. We are on a new platform, being married to another, even to Him that is raised up from among the dead. And then it goes on to speak about serving in “newness of spirit”.
DG They were all filled by the Spirit in Acts 2:4; we should all be filled with the Spirit.
JT That is a characteristic thought in the beginning of the dispensation, the Spirit coming. They were all together in one place with one accord. The Lord says of the cup, “Drink ye all of it”. Some have taken it to mean all the wine, but it is all the saints having part in it. Why should anyone be sitting back? Why should he not be taking part in that? The Lord says “all”. It is really a constitutional word.
AHP I was just going to raise a question as to what was involved in eating and drinking; whether it would enter much into the liberation of the saints in their souls in their service towards God. Not just eating a piece of bread, or drinking wine as such, but having these wonderful thoughts as to the body and the new covenant, whether we take on the spiritual thought sufficiently.
JT Quite so. So that the second epistle to the Corinthians is to bring out the spirit of the thing. The apostles were ministers of the new covenant, not of letter, but of spirit. Then he goes on to tell us the Spirit is Christ. “The Lord is the Spirit”, 2 Corinthians 3:17.
APT I notice a great many of the Lord’s people will sip the cup. The Lord says, “Drink ye all of it”. Would that be a word for us?
JT Oh, well, it has a spiritual meaning. We do not want to have the brethren take a lot of wine. Drink is satisfaction, I think; the cup is peculiarly satisfying, and tends to liberate our souls, for we all have been made to drink into one Spirit.
CB Each one has part in it to carry the spiritual thought that it means what spiritually satisfies you. You are satisfied with the brethren that you are with. We have all been made to drink into one Spirit, meaning the company carries that thought, and you must not criticise them or think hardly of them because we have drunk into one Spirit. Would the Spirit of God challenge us in the beginning of the meeting as to “Who is this”?
JT I think we are entitled as we finish the meeting to refer to what is there.
Such and such a [p. 24] brother spoke. Well, we are entitled to do that in a humble way because it is “Who is this?” God has made them thus. But the other side is that Christ is everything. You turn away from all that and think of the glory of Christ. It is no discredit to Christ. They all made much of Him. “... My garden, my sister, my spouse”. You cannot discredit Christ by referring to her, but then we turn to Him. “What is thy beloved more than another beloved ... ?” one says to her.
JAT You are perfectly satisfied with the brethren and thankful for them. You are able to look at them in this way.
JT But then there is the other side, “What is thy beloved ... ?” What could she say about Him?
He says beautiful things about her, but she says beautiful things about Him.
JB So, after that there are those who say, where is he gone, chapter 6, that we may seek him with thee? It would stimulate exercise with each.
JT The brethren were charged with making too much of the saints; but it is right to make much of them; but then turn around and make much of Christ as well.