THE SPIRIT'S FUNCTION IN THE ASSEMBLY AS CONVENED

THE SPIRIT’S FUNCTION IN THE ASSEMBLY AS CONVENED

Romans 5: 5; Romans 8: 14,15; Ephesians 2: 18

JT Some of us have been occupied with some scriptures in 2 Samuel, and we concluded that we have antitypically in that book the great features of the assembly. We have in it the thought of changing over from one great feature of Christ to another, on the principle of “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3: 18). These great features, first of all presented to us as light in the instruction we have as to the assembly, can only be experienced here by the Spirit. It has been remarked that the disciples scarcely understood anything the Lord said in His instructions while He was with them; it is doubtful whether they understood anything properly. It is by the Spirit that we understand. We are taught that no one knows “the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ... even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2: 11). So that however much light we have as to the assembly, it will not become practical and workable apart from the Spirit and the place given to Him. We have in the section in 2 Samuel 5 - 2 Samuel 7, the idea of royalty in David and then the ark brought into a certain position in the city of David. Then we have the idea of sonship; then the position of the worshipper, sitting or tarrying before Jehovah within; all this involves the changing over from one feature of Christ, the royal feature seen in David, to the royal feature as in Solomon, in sonship. This change has to be understood, and we have to learn how to change when the time arrives in the assembly; but it has to be in spiritual power. So the Spirit of God as presented in Romans first brings in certain wealth, that is the love of God, and places it in the hearts of those who form the assembly; and then the Spirit gives a lead, as we are told in Romans 8: 14:

“^[p. 460] As many as are led by the Spirit of God” — that is where sonship appears in us — “these are sons of God”. That is the line of things I had in mind, that the saints might come to see that we are not only in fellowship, but that we are brought into an environment of great things — royalty and what is denoted in the ark.

CGR And sonship, suggested in Solomon, by the Spirit?

JT It is an environment of great things, and we have to move in that environment, not only intelligently, but in power, and that power is by the Spirit.

ERF “The king hath brought me into his chambers” (Song of Songs 1: 4). Would that be the idea?

JT Quite so, it is the king who does it.

Ques “As many as are led by the Spirit of God” Romans 8: 14: would that be the change?

JT That is the change-over. We are earlier occupied with the Lord. The Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts the love of God. Our brother was remarking on the king bringing us into his chambers, but we have also what we are inside in the royal apartments, in Psalm 45, that is we are fit for the royal palace, “all glorious is the king’s daughter within” Psalm 45: 13. I believe that while we may take these thoughts in and cherish them in our minds, yet the function of the Spirit in the assembly as convened has perhaps been somewhat overlooked. He functions in two relations: in relation to the Lord in regard to royalty, according to the type in David; and then in relation to Solomon, that is, royalty in the son, the one who builds.

CGR As brought into the royal apartments, into the palace, we should move with dignity.

JT We are there “all glorious ... within”, and our “clothing is of wrought gold” Psalm 45: 13. As illustrating this, we get two men alluded to in three instances, in relation to the Lord’s resurrection, ascension, and transfiguration. The first is in Luke 24, where we get two men at the open sepulchre, indicating that the Lord is risen;

^[p. 461] they would impress us with regard to the realm of resurrection. Then the two in Acts 1, at the mount of Olives, would impress us with the manner of His going up — ascension. Then on the mount of transfiguration we are told that two men appeared in glory talking with Him, but in glory, suitably robed and attired for the place; indicating what we might reach in assembly. The Spirit is necessary for all these things now. First He brings in the Lord; He operates in relation to the Lord: “no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12: 3). Any brother who says, “Lord Jesus”, in the power of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, gives a lead. It touches our hearts as he says it by the Spirit. Then another says, “Abba, Father”. Anyone saying, “Abba, Father” by the Spirit of adoption gives a lead too; he is a son, marked off as led by the Spirit. So that the procedure is not merely a matter of light, but of power.

JS Hence often a hymn may be given out, touching sonship but there is no thrill — no substance.

JT These two men in Luke 9 not only knew what to do with the light they had, but they were at home in the glory. It would seem that the two men on the mount, who are called in Luke 9: 30 “two men” before we get their names mentioned, represent the heavenly saints; that is, ourselves viewed in heavenly relations; they were at home and in liberty there. Not only can the Lord speak to us, but we can speak to Him. They were speaking with Jesus, and it says they appeared in glory.

CGR That suggests that we should be at home in our heavenly position and relationship.

JT That is the final thought. They represent the heavenly saints in liberty. So after sonship is brought in in the type in 2 Samuel 7, David goes in and sits before the Lord; he is at home and in freedom there; the word “sat” (verse 18) may be rendered “tarried”, which means that he is not soon going, like someone ^[p. 462] visiting a great personage in the world and only being allowed a few minutes’ audience, as is usually the case. Sonship gives us a place inside which is not limited thus.

CGR Owning the Lord’s authority and crying, “Abba, Father”, are both by the Spirit.

JT Those are the two sides of the truth which I thought we might see more clearly, especially the younger brothers and sisters; so that we might understand that being in the assembly not only involves that I am breaking bread, but is a matter of power and spiritual intelligence.

WW The love of God shed abroad in our hearts would mean that not only would it be known in my heart, but it would be in relation to every other person who has part in this wonderful gift, would it not?

JT It says, “our hearts”; not indeed that the assembly is in view in Romans 5, but you can see the basis of it, the wealth that is brought in.

WW There is oftentimes a lack with us in working out, in relation to one another, this wonderful thought of divine wealth in the love of God given to us in the Spirit.

JT So that the wealth acquired in Exodus is from those whose hearts prompted them. There is no requirement of sonship in Exodus in the building of the tabernacle; not that the thing does not underlie Exodus — it does: “Let my son go, that he may serve me” (Exodus 4: 23), but what is in mind is more what is preliminary: that is what comes out in Moses as a type of the Lord. All are supposed to have wealth, but no one is asked for material save as his heart prompts him to bring it. We have wealth which lies in what the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts; every christian is in view. On the other hand when you come to the building of the temple, while all may be concerned with regard to the material for it, it is particularly the king’s wealth,

and the princes’ wealth, that is in view; it is on another plane; sonship is in view: it is the persons.

WCG “Now abide faith, hope, love; these three things; and the greater of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13: 13). Do not the first few verses of Romans 5 deal with these three things: justification on the principle of faith, boasting in hope, and the love of God shed abroad in our hearts?

JT That is right.

WCG We may have faith and hope, but not much love.

JT Faith and hope are not material for the building; it is by love we build.

WCG The greatest of these is love.

JT As a matter of fact it is in the comparative degree: “the greater of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13: 13); the first two, faith and hope, are on the same level; love is on a level of its own. Love is the thing that abides, the tangible thing, the material. So Exodus stresses the thought of the heart; it is love that prompts the heart, meaning that I have wealth myself; I am a person in the assembly with love prompting me. We love God; we are to be in the assembly as brothers and sisters whose hearts are affected, not simply as recipients of love, but as prompted by love.

JT-y Every man and every woman who was willing-hearted brought gifts, and those who were wise-hearted wrought in the work.

JT It is the Spirit of God speaking about me, you and everybody, as to whether I am in the assembly in a living way, my heart moving in love. I am myself the material as governed by love, as having love. If I have not love I am nothing; I might as well not be there without love; but if I love, I have something.

WW What you have been saying about the wealth being there with the people, but only being brought by those whose hearts prompted them, gives the idea that I might have these things in the way of light, and ^[p. 464] not be holding them in power and love by the Spirit.

JT The apostle Paul says, “If I ... have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13: 2), which is a very sweeping statement. I had better let someone else have my seat if I have not love. It is not a question of numbers but of quality. In Israel there may have been two million people, yet the appeal was only to those whose spirits prompted them, whose hearts moved Godward. Is it not worth while to make a place for God? It is worth His while; He is willing to sacrifice in order to come down and be with us.

CGR Would you say that in the power of love there would be maintained conditions suitable for Him to come in?

JT That is what you have in mind in coming to the assembly, that there might be a place for God.

LDM In 1 Corinthians 12: 13 it says: “in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit”; you get two thoughts there.

JT Yes, the one is what is done to you — “we have all been baptised”; it is the act of another. The one side is what is done to me; I am given my place in the body by the Spirit. It is a matter of power. Then I am given to drink into one Spirit, meaning that I am in it in a happy satisfied way, as drinking; all is a matter of the Spirit.

WCG According to Romans 8: 13,14, this thought of the Spirit governs all a man’s movements, whether in private life or publicly, as being led of the Spirit?

JT Well, being led of the Spirit is not a matter of my public relations; the allusion is to Numbers 21.

WCG It says, “If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God ...” Romans 8: 13,14.

JT That means that as I apprehend the brazen ^[p. 465] serpent, there is room for the Spirit, and the leading is really spiritually in the assembly — it is into Canaan. In the wilderness proper, the leading is by the cloud and the tabernacle. In my public movements I am regulated by where God is, by the cloud; but inwardly, from Numbers 21 onwards, the tabernacle is not much in view; it is the Spirit, and the great objective is the land, entering into Canaan, which for us is realised in the assembly. I think the verse, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God” Romans 8: 14 finds its answer more in the assembly than in my outward relations, which relate to where God is known by the pillar of cloud.

Ques How does the thought of leading fit in with the thought of headship?

JT It synchronises with it; so that Romans 8 properly links on with Ephesians. In the type as we have it in Samuel, Jehovah says, “I will be his father”: that comes out at the Lord’s baptism and on the mount of transfiguration — “and he shall be my son” (2 Samuel 7: 14). Where is that answered to? Where can it be answered to more fully than in the assembly? “He shall be my son”: that is what He is Godward; and the Spirit of adoption in us places us alongside of Him. What a Son the Father has in Him! The result of that communication is that David goes in and sits before the Lord: it is the inwardness of the thing. He tarries there; there is no need for him to go out. The inward thought is that the nearer I get the freer and the more at home I am. The more free I am in sonship, the more the Lord can express what He is to the Father: “he shall be to me for son” (Hebrews 1: 5).

Ques Does the tarrying suggest the liberty of the house?

JT Yes. “He shall be to me for son”. Where could He express that more than in the assembly?

Rem “The servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever” (John 8: 35).

JT We are free really; He sets ^[p. 466] us free.

JHB Will you say more about royalty as seen in David and the ark being brought to Zion?

JT They are preliminary to what we are speaking of now. The royalty seen in David is more a feature that marks us in relation to the ark. The ark is a mysterious thing; it is not a thing that acts of itself exactly; it is carried. I do not say that it is not presented as moving, but it is carried. Its measurements all denote that there is something more than you see; every measurement has ‘a half’ in it, which means that there is more than you see. The Lord says, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father” (Matthew 11: 27). Now royalty in David is allied to that; and David dances before Jehovah and he set the ark in its place in the midst of the tent which David had spread for it, having brought it up to the city of David with joy (2 Samuel 6: 12,17). The ark is not itself active; the activity is in David; which denotes the activity of the Spirit in us in a royal way. But then there is something more than that in the ark; it is inscrutable; there is latent power there, active when necessary, but always present. It is a very great fact that the assembly is the home of power which is always present, but in an inscrutable way. Royalty in David is more the action in us as before the ark. Then we have the desire of David after all this is finished, to build a house for Jehovah (2 Samuel 7: 2). It is a good desire, but this is where the changeover comes about. David has to learn something, and we have to learn what he learnt, that is, that the building is not by royalty in David, it is in another; it is royalty still, but in sonship. That is what he has to learn, and as soon as he learns it he is restful and free; he tarries before the Lord. He “went in and sat before Jehovah” (verse 18); it is an inward thing.

Ques Is that why it is important to follow prophetic ministry? At one moment Nathan said that David was to do all that was in his heart but then the word of the ^[p. 467] Lord comes to him in the night and he goes to David in the morning and says that another must do it.

JT That is right. We have to learn to be checked; that it is not all on one line in the assembly; there is another line, which you have to learn. So that in the assembly we get those who understand that when we partake of the Lord’s supper and when we all drink out of the cup, the action of the Spirit would be to assure us that we are on the platform of the love of God; He would bring us on to the platform of the liberty of love (not yet sonship); for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3: 17). It is not yet the Spirit of sonship, but of the Lord. We want to get on that sure footing to which the Spirit would bring us. Sometimes a brother gives out a hymn addressed to the Father immediately after the Supper, before he gets his feet on that platform, before he sees that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” 2 Corinthians 3: 17. It is royalty, but in David.

PL “I rejoiced when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of Jehovah. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem”. Is that the platform? Then it says, “Whither the tribes go up”: is that where they go up from? (Psalm 122:1 - 4).

JT That is right. It is a question of a sure footing, not only a head matter. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. David later bought a large plot of ground; he bought the place to give plenty of room (1 Chronicles 21: 25).

CGR “Our feet shall stand” Psalm 122: 2: you are there in dignity, uprightness and power.

PL I was thinking of the rapture; we stand together, but then we go up. Is not the attempt to go up without standing compactly together making for restraint?

JT That is right. All being made to drink into one Spirit implies that there is liberty and satisfaction. I believe the Lord would detain us there, and accustom ^[p. 468] us to that glory. That is a glory, certainly. We go “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3: 18).

WCG Why is the witness of the Spirit brought in in Romans 8: 16: “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”? Does it stand connected with the footing on which the epistle stands?

JT There you go on to something else, to the thought of suffering. Romans does not present the assembly; it does not take us out of the wilderness; it gives us a look into the land, but it is a wilderness position. What you have alluded to is another function of the Spirit. We say, “Abba, Father” by Him; that is properly an assembly thought, if you put it in its right setting. Then He goes on to something else; He helps to analyse the inward position. Chapter 7 helps us to analyse the working of the flesh, but the Spirit helps us to analyse between our spirit and Himself: “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God” Romans 8: 16. That leads on to another thing. We may take each principle up as given in Romans, and put it in its own setting. The spirit of adoption really belongs to the land, not the wilderness. We get foundational ideas in Romans. So if we have got our feet on the platform of liberty as accorded by the covenant in Romans 5, then we can move forward.

Ques Would you connect the hymn that they sang, as recorded in Mark 14: 26, with liberty?

JT It is to bring out, I believe, the mutual side. It does not say the Lord sang it; it says “When they had sung an hymn” Mark 14: 26, as if He would say, ‘you have been told what the cup means; now shew that you are all one’. It is the mutual side; all the saints are on that platform, so to speak.

WW Is that why the Lord uses such language in Luke? He says “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22: 20). We should be concerned to see that love is poured out ^[p. 469] in relation to what we enjoy with one another. I feel myself that is where we are so small in our assembly bonds, in connection with the mighty flow of love that would devote itself to the removal of any obstacle, so that it might work.

JT That is how it works. There was a pause necessary. When the Lord instituted the Supper it did not take very long to pass round the emblems from one to another with the Lord and His own; but in connection with Corinth the Lord says “I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:10); and it is in connection with that thought that you have the message from heaven about the Supper; it implies that there were a good few, and in that case it takes a while for the emblems to be passed round while we sit together; that sitting together implies a platform of liberty — “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” 2 Corinthians 3: 17. It is a state of liberty, under authority; and the Spirit takes on a new function. There is a change-over according to the type, from David to Solomon. Nothing could be plainer in the type than that change-over. David and Nathan had a night to think it over. They both had in their minds that David should proceed on his line, that David should be the builder; but overnight there is a change-over. God impresses upon David, and on Nathan too, that there must be a son. David had not reckoned on that, and many of us do not reckon on that. We just go on on David’s line, which is wonderful indeed; I would not belittle that. But God has other thoughts; and David quietly takes his place before the Lord and bows to the idea of sonship.

LDM You suggest that going along with David we do not reach sonship? The building of the house involves a universe for God for His pleasure.

Ques Would you say that as we may have desires in relation to the house, we find that the only power to carry them out is sonship?

JT That is where the Spirit comes in to support ^[p. 470] us. In Galatians 4: 6 the Spirit cries, “Abba, Father”, Himself, but in Romans 8: 15 it says, “Whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. So the two sides of the Spirit’s activities are clearly marked out, and I believe most of us just keep on one side — the David side.

Ques Would the premature movements be the result of the difference you made earlier between having light and having power? We may have the light of the position without the power that would carry us into the position.

JT That is where we miss it. The meetings are often somewhat without substance, because the Spirit has not given a touch or a lead. If a brother says, “Lord Jesus”, by the Spirit, there is a touch there; that gives us a lead; or if he says, “Abba, Father”, by the Spirit; that gives us a lead. The Spirit has a greater part in the assembly than perhaps we recognise. If He is free, He will give a lead.

WW Does what we are individually in the meetings have a bearing on that? What you suggest about a brother giving a lead by saying, Lord Jesus, in the power of the Spirit, raises the question whether I have anything in my mind prior to that.

JT Quite so; so that you are free. You do not come to the assembly with something ready; you are ready for a lead, not mentally, but as one who has substance.

Ques When you allude to the change-over from David to Solomon, do you suggest that the thought is personified in Solomon? Does failure come in because we have nor realised the change-over from lordship to seeing our position in relation to Christ in sonship? We speak of sonship in an indefinite sort of way without seeing that sonship is realised in a definite way in Him. Is that what is in your mind?

JT Yes, so that the Spirit has scope in the assembly, and moves, of course, according to the constitution of it; but if He has scope there will be a lead, and the ^[p. 471] lead will be in accord with the light that governs it. So that when sonship is introduced by Jehovah to David, he bows to it, as it were; he goes in and sits down; he is now before God. That is the position we take up.

Rem God commends him for his thought; but He had something better for him.

JT That is right; it is something we have to wait for — a better, greater glory.

ERF Would you say the singing of a hymn would be rather on a different platform from the singing of a psalm? Would the former require more conscious dignity?

JT No doubt. I think the Lord allowed the plural thought to come in there. After He spoke about the covenant then the plural comes into evidence, involving mutual movement. That is the platform. The Spirit of the Lord is there, not simply Christ; He was there, but the Spirit (typically) was present. He allowed them to move. Doubtless He took part in the hymn, but the point is that they did it. There was that spirit there which enabled them to take part by themselves. That is what the Lord loves to see.

Ques Is what is Godward by the Spirit the great thought in the assembly, what is to be for God?

WW Access to the Father by one Spirit?

JT You get that in Ephesians: “through him”, that is Christ, involving all that we have been speaking of — the royalty in David. He is taking care of all the preliminaries, so that now we might move. It is “through him”, but “by one Spirit”; the one Spirit operates in us so that there is united movement to the Father, “access ... to the Father” (Ephesians 2: 18).

CGR Obviously in the liberty of sonship.

JT Well, in the liberty of the Spirit in relation to the covenant, and then there is the change-over.

It is by the Spirit of adoption. So as soon as we are on that line, we really retard the meeting, to say nothing ^[p. 472] more, by introducing hymns or thanksgivings addressed to the Lord as such; that is where meetings are often hindered.

FW We might get help on this point in relation to the ‘selah’ or pause, might we not? Would the principle of resting in ploughing time and in harvest (Exodus 34: 21) come in here? One feels one has a tendency to keep the thing going, and not get thoroughly established in one position before going on to the next.

JT I believe most of us live in activity; but that is not proper to the thought of the assembly, where there should be the understanding of keeping sabbath; that is, there is power in the soul by which it can rest before God, involving peace.

JHB Is there not a suggestion of such a pause in 2 Samuel 6: 13: “And it was so, that when they that bore the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatted beast”?

JT We were dwelling on that the other night because it supports what was remarked as to the idea of a pause, or stop, accompanied by power to enjoy the position. That is what we have to learn, and that is what the idea of the sabbath teaches us. As far as we can see nearly a third of the time of Israel was taken up with keeping sabbath, if they kept them all. If you reckon the sabbatical years, and all the requirements in the way of keeping sabbath, you find that a third or a quarter of the time was occupied in that way. You say, ‘Why should all that time be lost?’ But it is not lost; it is love’s enjoyment. We shall surely know how to be quiet in heaven in the presence of love, as “filled even to all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3: 19). It is a question of power in the soul. The time is not lost; one is taking in and enjoying.

I think it is a question with us of having to learn to be quiet. “Study to be quiet” (1 Thessalonians 4: 11). That is a general direction; but you learn how to sit,

^[p. 473] tarry, before the Lord. I think the suggestion as to ‘selahs’ is good; ‘selah’ means a pause. We learn to contemplate.

Ques Would it give the Lord an opportunity if we sit before Him?

JT You feel now He has us with Him. We must not live in activity in the assembly. It does not necessarily mean that we are inert. It means that there is a condition of things which the Lord can take on and use. If He is to be a Son to His Father, it means He brings all that He has and uses it in relation to His Father. Solomon says, “I was a son unto my father” (Proverbs 4: 3). The assembly is a place of power and satisfied restfulness.

Rem The disciples were there.

JT Yes; they were not doing anything, but they were there. So in speaking of the upper room it says, “where were staying both Peter, and John, and James” and all the others. They were staying there (Acts 1:13).

PL Would the absence of the sound of a hammer in the building of the temple bear upon that?

JT I think that; one wonders how there could be a structure like that built with no noise.

Ques Should we wait for the Lord to introduce the thought of the Father? or are there principles which govern the position?

JT The Spirit may do it. He is the active One really; even the Lord’s activities are by the Spirit. The Father and the Son are in heaven; the Spirit is here, and all activity is really by Him; but then He acts by Himself He keeps Himself out of view. In Colossians, He is only mentioned once. He has a great place in Ephesians, and also in Romans. It is in Ephesians that we are said to have “access by one Spirit to the Father”.

N Is that why you suggested just now that the Lord as moving forward from the covenant to the ^[p. 474] singing of a hymn would have the disciples move in the liberty of the Spirit?

JT That is what is suggested. If we can get that thought into our minds we can understand all the rest. Why did not the Lord lead the singing there? In Hebrews 2: 12 (as quoted from Psalm 22), He says, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing”; but in Mark 14 they sing. He had done all the rest; He had blessed the bread and broken it, He had given thanks for the cup, and now He tells them what the cup means; and the next thing is they sing a hymn.

WCG Where do you connect: “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”? Hebrews 2: 12.

JT That is properly when the Lord has us with Him. The mutual liberty is established in that singing of a hymn; it is a question of what is suitable, whether you might not give out a hymn that enlarges on the covenant, bringing in the mutual side; we are together to enlarge on the covenant. But then after sonship is introduced by the spirit of adoption, the response is to the Father; it must be so. If Christ is to be a Son unto His Father, it is in the Spirit of adoption that He has us with Him. That is the position.

JT-y Do you get the thought of liberty in three aspects, the liberty of love, the Spirit of the covenant, and the liberty of sonship, our hearts prompting us in the assembly in those three spheres of liberty?

JT That is a good classification. Our hearts prompting us would mean that we are free in the liberty of love, and I think the Lord thus has us under His hand. So, “I was a son unto my father”, and again, “He shall be to me for son” — where will this work out more than when He has us together with Him?

JT-y I was wondering how the Spirit of the covenant operates with us as together?

JT I think it produces a wealth of love which is brought in. The Spirit sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts. The assembly is to be a place of wealth.

^[p. 475] Exodus contemplates wealth from all, but from those whose hearts prompt them. 1 Chronicles contemplates wealth too, but it comes mainly from the king and the princes; it is wealth on a higher level, and that is where sonship is seen. Solomon comes in there. Everyone is dignified. That is not in Exodus, where it is under lordship. 1 Chronicles is under headship. Royalty is not only in David, but in Solomon.

CGR Would you say one is more the house of God, and the other more the service of God, the incense and worship being more connected with that?

JT Yes. “Let my son go, that he may serve me” Exodus 4: 23 comes out more in Solomon.

PL Do you get the personnel in John 20?

JT He came where they were, to persons.

PL There are general salutations in Romans 16, but it is only in Ephesians that Tychicus is referred to as “the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:21). Would that be more the priestly side — the personnel in the assembly?

JT Just so.

JS Would you say that headship is not really seen in Joshua, but that we get it when we come to David?

JT You get hardly anything of the service of God in relation to Joshua. There is more of a link between Moses and David. In Deuteronomy you get Moses on a footing which is different from that in the earlier books; there are hardly any expressions such as “The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying”, which occur so frequently in the earlier books that to count them would be impressive. In Deuteronomy we are getting on to a platform, so to speak, where we have the suggestion of headship, the nearest to it being that Moses is said to be “king in Jeshurun” (Deuteronomy 33: 5), that is, he was recognised by the affections of the saints. It is not yet David. With David you scarcely ever get, ‘As the Lord commanded David’; it is a question of what he did. It is headship.

JT-y What about Joshua’s concern as to the people going up to possess the land? He says, “How long are ye slack to go up to possess the land?” (Joshua 18: 3). He then divides the land into seven parts which those who had not yet come into blessing should enjoy.

JT That is all to give us wealth for God; that is where the wealth comes from; it is acquired in the land. Numbers 15: 2 says, “When ye come into the land” and goes on to speak of the offerings they would bring. The wealth in Exodus was acquired in Egypt; in 1 Chronicles it is more what is acquired in the land.

Ques What is the thought connected with David getting so much material ready for the temple?

JT It was in his affliction he acquired it. You do not get anything like that in Exodus; there is no thought there of one man furnishing so much. On the side of royalty in David almost all the wealth for the temple is furnished by him; it is not the mediatorial side as in Moses, but the royal side.

Ques If we are in the liberty of which you have been speaking we shall be intelligent as to what to do.

JT Of course we might be intelligent as to what to do, and yet not have the material. The great thing is to make room for the Spirit. The assembly is a place of wealth; there are great thoughts there; the question is, are we great enough to go from a great thing to a greater?

PL “They go from strength to strength: each one will appear before God in Zion” (Psalm 84: 7).

JT Quite so.

ERF “Who is this, she that cometh up from the wilderness like pillars of smoke” (Song of Songs 3: 6). She is seen in quiet dignity, moving up.

JT Then in that chapter there is movement on to collective ground, corresponding with Jerusalem. You see her coming up like pillars of smoke, with all the powders of the merchant, and going on to greater ^[p. 477] things — to Jerusalem. The ark is eventually brought up to Jerusalem.

PL We are tested by the fact that many of our hymns — and good ones too — link up both thoughts together, and we are tested as to spiritual intelligence in the selection of a verse in such a hymn which would bear on the situation.

JT That is where intelligence shows itself. Hymns are sometimes designed partly to address the Lord and partly to the Father. We need to make a selection. ‘Analysis’ is a good word. Romans is really that. We learn the principle of analysis in relation to the flesh in chapter 7, but the epistle also enables me to analyse between my own spirit, and the Spirit of God. Mary distinguished between her soul and spirit (Luke 1: 46, 47).

PL “When they had sung a hymn”: would that suggest selection with regard to the hymn they sang?

JT Just so; they selected one from many.

Ques Is it possible to obtain satisfied desire anywhere but in the assembly?

JT God constitutes us for company. If God intended us to be so many units we would be so accordingly; but our constitution is for the assembly, and that is where we get the thing fully, whatever it is.