MAN AS PRESENTED IN CHRIST AND THE ASSEMBLY (4)

^[p. 317] MAN AS PRESENTED IN CHRIST AND THE ASSEMBLY (4)

John 14:15 - 26; John 20:14 - 23

JT It is thought, having reached the highest level this forenoon in chapters 5 and 6, ending with the individual side of our subject, that is, life seen in individuals, it is in mind now to look at chapter 14 which opens up the subject of the Spirit in a collective sense, and life in the Spirit. There is also the feminine side of the subject; for the word man covers both male and female from this point of view. For us, the feminine side comes into chapter 20 in a very special way, opening up the truth of the assembly, although not formally stated; and also, the importance of teaching, which Mary Magdalene would stress. We have already had it in mind in chapter 1, and in chapter 6 it is stated: “They shall be all taught of God” (verse 45); meaning that spiritual teaching must enter into any subject, especially the subject of life, the subject of man.

The teaching evidently came in early in the history of man, in the history of the testimony in man; for it is said that Enoch was “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14), his name signifying possibly teaching through discipline. It would point to the idea being introduced early: the idea of teaching. Of course we know it has come down and is greatly stressed in the New Testament by the Lord Himself, and Paul also takes it up in a very special way. It is the same line of thought, and “the seventh from Adam” would mean that (if the name Enoch implies discipline, which is likely) God would stress it amongst the saints of this dispensation. Man is being taken up in the highest possible sense: as it is said in chapter 1 of this gospel, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (verse 4). It is clear that the teaching enters into that position. So we had it as to ^[p. 318] Nathanael, then Nicodemus, and now Mary Magdalene. Teaching is prominent in all these settings, and learning; not ever learning and not coming to the knowledge of the truth, (see 2 Timothy 3:7) but learning in a real way. I believe in this particular chapter we have it; namely, in verse 26: “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you”.

PHH Is there something special in the Spirit receiving the designation Comforter in these chapters?

JT As to the primary meaning of the word I would say it is very special: that is, One by us, or with us; some One always here, called “another Comforter” (verse 16); and He is definitely said to be “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive” (verse 17). So that that thought is important, and enters into our lesson this afternoon.

HGH Does the thought of “another Comforter” link the Holy Spirit up with the teaching of Jesus?

JT Quite so: so the thought is that the idea of teaching enters into the Lord’s word and the Holy Spirit would take it up.

H.G.H. Would continue it?

JT That is quite clear. The idea of continuance would be One come in to replace the One who has gone; so that divine thoughts are to continue, whether in Christ here or the Holy Spirit here.

AM Would you say something about knowing the Spirit objectively? As it says here, “Ye know him” (verse 17).

JT Well, it raises the whole question of revelation and whether we have taken it in. The knowledge of God implies the Spirit; for the Spirit is to be known objectively as God is, and so we have “ye know him”, and the following, “For he abides with you, and shall be in you”. The idea of abiding with us would continue the idea of Comforter; that is, that He is with us, alongside of us.

Perhaps it is intended by the Spirit that John, as running on to the end of the dispensation, and much error being introduced since Pentecost, would necessitate the idea of teaching being stressed in the revival of the truth. Hence the great evidence of research during the past 100 years or so, and the result thereof in teaching in print amongst us, come through persons fitted by the Spirit to carry on such a service. Hence, in Matthew we have the idea of a scribe “discipled to the kingdom of the heavens” being “like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old”, Matthew 13:52. The thought of a scribe would help us as to what we are saying and John’s reference to books.

WC Is there any distinction between the Spirit’s teaching and “what the Spirit says to the assemblies”, Revelation 2:7?

JT Well, what the Spirit says in Revelation is the opening up of the Lord’s words to each church, to each assembly. I suppose each of the Lord’s addresses must be regarded as a brief though divine communication to the company as from One above. The Spirit’s sayings would be somewhat the opening up of what the Lord said. What the Spirit says to the assemblies is a test to us: “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”, Revelation 2:7. What the Spirit says is a test to us as to whether we take in what is meant in the Lord’s communications.

Ques In what way would the teaching of the Spirit be a comfort to us?

JT Well, the word comfort of course is not quite strong enough as to teaching. As we remarked, in verse 26: “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you”. That is somewhat stronger than comfort. The Spirit is seen in these chapters, i.e., 14, 15 and 16, as bringing all things to us: “he shall guide you into all the truth” (chapter 16:13). That is another trait of John’s writings needed at the present time, in view of the much error that has been allowed, and is being allowed, and of which we are always in danger unless we keep to the truth of the Scriptures and the Spirit’s teaching. It is not simply that we learn, but we learn from the Spirit; that kind of teaching.

Ques The word “all” is mentioned twice; does that suggest that everything He knows is made available to us, and it is for us to be subject to the teaching?

JT “He shall guide you into all the truth”, for instance; it is remarkable how we are all in the divine mind in this section. In the first chapter, when the Lord adds to what Nathanael had said, He turns to the plural, meaning that He would like to have all brought into whatsoever is communicated. No one gets light for himself alone but he would usually get it with others; and the Lord means in the change over to the plural in the light furnished to Nathanael that He wishes what He is saying to spread out: “Freely ye have received, freely give”, Matthew 10:8. So that the whole church should be in mind in any ministry which the Lord takes up, running out to all to whom it should come.

JHT Standing at the foundation, so to speak, of the Acts of the Apostles we read: “All things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles”, Acts 1:1,2. Would that be to keep them within the confines of “the Spirit of truth”?

JT Very much, I would say; especially where it is placed. The doing of anything, the carrying it out practically, should in some way precede the communicating of it to others; and the Lord is said to have charged the apostles by the Holy Spirit at that time, and told them to wait till the Spirit should come (see Acts 1:2-4).

EuR In the epistle the apostle encourages the little children that “the unction which ye have received from him abides in you, and... the same unction teaches you as to all things”, 1 John 2:27. Does that link it up?

JT “All things”; quite so. The unction teaches all things: it is a peculiar word as bringing in the activity of the Spirit in the little children.

JAP Why does He bring it down to the individual in verse 23 of this chapter?

JT It is common in all divine communications, one would say, to bring in the individual, because, although we are in the assembly, the individuality of the believer must remain at all times and will remain eternally, I believe.

HFN Help us a little as to the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, and then the Lord’s movements, “I will come to you” (verse 18). I think the brethren would be very thankful if you would open up to us the place the Spirit has, and then the place the Lord has as coming to us.

JT The Spirit is viewed here in a very special way as Comforter; and His presence as the abiding One down here makes all possible in regard to what has been said. “Another Comforter” (verse 16) contemplates His position down here. There are not two Comforters in heaven: there is One there, and One down here. But then, to suggest or say that the One there is dependent wholly on the One here will not do; because we have evidence that the Lord ^[p. 322] acted apart from the Spirit in His communications, in His comings, even after He went to heaven. So that we must not impose anything on divine Persons. If in general He speaks through the Spirit and makes His communications through the assemblies, that is quite simple; but then, to say that He must do that, is here error lies, because divine Persons can never be put under restrictions. We have to leave divine Persons free in all these things. Then the love of the disciples is proved in keeping His commandments; that is the question of obedience. The section opens with obedience; and then the Lord proceeding on the mediatorial position: “I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you”.

Now the position is made clear; the Spirit of truth is here, and the world cannot receive Him. That is to say, that all that belongs to the world, religious or otherwise, is shut out from all that is of the Spirit. Viewed as being the world, it cannot receive Him; and hence, what can be expected from the world? It cannot receive the Spirit of God. “But ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you”: these are the plain facts. He abides with you; He is to be apprehended objectively as abiding with us; and hence we get illustrations in the Acts of the Spirit acting Himself, and even speaking to Peter. Therefore, we have the Spirit here in an objective sense, also He acts generally subjectively. A divine Person apprehended here and near to us, thus in us and with us. Then verse 19 says: “Yet a little and the world sees me no longer; but ye see me; because I live ye also shall live”. This is where our subject easy to tell that it is the Father there in what has lives, so we live. Our life is contingent upon His living. A very precious thought: “because I live ye also shall live”.

HFN “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”; can we substitute the Spirit for Christ, when He says, “I am coming to you”?

JT That is just what I was saying; the Lord comes to us Himself. We cannot say He must come by the Spirit, because we have positive proof that He came to Paul before he was converted so we cannot say He came to Paul by the Spirit.

EJMcB You mean He comes personally.

JT Quite so. The great subject opening up now is of the communications of divine Persons above to the assembly below; and divine Persons are viewed here as moving in that sense. Hence, what an area we are brought into, and that continues.

EuR “He himself stood in their midst”, Luke 24:36. Would that confirm it?

JT Just so. Before He went up, that happened several times according to 1 Corinthians 15; but it also happened after He went up to heaven, introducing what we are saying; the dispensation affording liberty to divine Persons to move in relation to the assembly.

Ques Is the Spirit the power to apprehend divine Persons?

JT I should not deny it if a person felt the presence of God before he was converted, say, before he had the Spirit. The divine Persons make Themselves felt in the assembly. One not indwelt might feel the divine Presence. The unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 14 comes in and hears the prophetic word, and he falls down and reports “that God is in you of a truth” (verse 25). He is affected by the presence of God. That is a wonderful fact, that on the earth at the present time there is the divine presence.

AJG In what sense does God the Father come: “We will come” (verse ^[p. 324] 23)?

JT In the same way, I think. We are told God is here by the Spirit: “in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”, Ephesians 2:22. He is God Himself here in the Spirit. The Spirit is God, but we have already been noting the difference in the actions of divine Persons. The differences noted are to be observed, that therefore we may hope to arrive at discerning each Person as He acts. I would say that is a very difficult matter to say much about, but we can cite instances in the Scriptures where the Father is seen acting or speaking; where the Son is seen acting or speaking; and where the Spirit is seen acting or speaking. So we have to take account of what actually happened. You would arrive by careful analysis at who it was that performed any particular act. You would arrive at it by the context in which what happened is related.

JSE In this gospel the Lord spoke to the Father; “Father, glorify thy name” (chapter 12:28). “The crowd... said that it had thundered” (verse 29). It was the Father’s voice.

JT Quite so. What a study it would be for any of us to look into the facts to see whether we can discern whether it is the Father or the Son speaking!

JHT In 1 Corinthians 12, the apostle says; “I do not wish you to be ignorant” (verse 1) and then later he refers to “the same Spirit; ...the same Lord; ...the same God” (verses 4 - 6). Would that have any bearing on what you are saying?

JT That would bear on it, I would say, generally; but what I was saying about facts reported, or facts that may occur, whether we can attribute them to the Father, Son or Spirit; not going into detail as to what is said in the Scriptures, if facts occur such as should be attributable to the Father, then it is easy to tell that it is the Father there in what has happened. If terrible things have happened, if a ^[p. 325] governmental check has come in — I am not saying the Spirit might not act in that sense — I could easily determine that is an act of God. That makes you restful. But then, if it were a person suddenly converted, and manifested the sense of definite life, that is, the effect of the new birth: of course, that is the Spirit. I could tell who does that. Then, as to what the Lord Himself may do; that can be recognised. We can definitely say, such and such a thing was done by the Lord. The gospels afford abundant evidence as to that.

Ques Would Acts 13:2 be an illustration of what you have in mind? “The Holy Spirit said, Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”?

JT That is so; the Spirit is seen acting definitely Himself; more particularly in view of service, the Spirit is seen acting in it: and so in Philip; and so in Peter; and so in Saul and Barnabas. Therefore, we can conclude that any actions of that kind can be attributed to the particular Person who generally acts in that way.

WJW With regard to the manifestations of Jesus, would the reference to “already the third time” in chapter 21:14 show there were many such occasions?

JT I think number three is final there. Number one is in chapter 20; and number two referring to the Jews; and number three to the gentiles, the hundred and fifty-three great fishes. Eliminating the dispensational side in John 21, and bringing in experience in the service of God, I would say we may expect the Lord to act in the close of the dispensation in the sense of catching big fish; important persons spiritually coming into fellowship. It may be saying much, but why should it not be so? The net did not break. There is recognition of the work of God in the net, that it is held intact. The fellowship is held ^[p. 326] intact by principles, and great persons, great spiritual persons, may be located; for the work of God is being recognised in what is being done publicly. The fishing expedition was not inaugurated by the Lord, but the Lord ultimately took a part in the matter; and so it is. The Lord has joined in the revival, we may say. He has said, “Cast the net on the right side” (verse 6). The brethren have been told what to do and there is a great catch. The net did not break and there are one hundred and fifty-three great fishes. One was speaking of it lately in a certain locality where the meetings are being reduced somewhat steadily; the way to expect a remedy or replenishment is indicated in that action in John 21. That is how the Lord would meet a situation like that. Also the claims of the government which affect the young people, the young men and women. We can pay it off, we can meet it by the fishing expedition of Matthew 17:27. That is to say, the stater was enough to pay the tax required. The Lord will take the matter in hand: we shall be able to meet the claims of the government and the claims of the wear and tear of the fellowship. We can expect the Lord to come in and replenish the losses. Hence the position is that we can go on in assurance that the Lord can stand by us to the end. The claims of the government will be met by the one fish, the actual liability being stated, and then the hundred and fifty-three great fishes, not the actual value stated, but said to be great fishes.

EuR Then the end of it, they know by observation that it is the Lord.

JT The loved one knew that it was the Lord operating; and what a comfort it is!

WW It is said by Paul, “The Lord stood with me”, 2 Timothy 4:17. He recognised the Lord.

JT Very good; “and strengthened me”.

AWP Will there be a stronger revival in the latter days of kingdom principles? Peter lands the catch but John recognises the Lord.

JT Peter knew what to do, but the Lord says: “Bring of the fishes which ye have now taken” (verse 10). The Lord graciously accredits it to them.

Ques Would you make a remark as to “the Lord is the Spirit”, 2 Corinthians 3:17?

JT The Lord Himself would be that. That is another thing to be noted in our enquiry: “the Lord is the Spirit”; it is what He becomes in certain circumstances, I would say, showing how divine Persons can act of Themselves. It is the action of the Lord.

FWK Does Acts 16 bear that out, where the Holy Spirit forbids the apostle to go into Asia, and then it is the Lord is forbidding it?

JT Quite so.

Ques “There are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all”, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. Would that be the general line of these operations?

JT That is a general statement that would help us as to discerning divine Persons. We have it in one case in John 21; how they discern it is the Lord.

Rem In Genesis 6:3, God says: “My Spirit shall not always strive with man”; and Peter referring to the same days in 1 Peter 3:18,19, says it was Christ, “being put to death in flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which also going he preached to the spirits which are in prison”.

JT That is to say, it is a matter of retroaction. The Lord’s preaching is viewed as retroactive. He went and preached to the spirits which are in prison, Peter says.

Ques Was it seen in Noah’s preaching?

JT ^[p. 328] That is just what is meant. Noah was the preacher all the period of the time. Until the day that Noah entered into the ark the preaching was there and there were no converts. It is not to say the preaching was not perfect, it was by the Spirit. The Spirit was striving, until Noah went into the ark. He signifies a man who does things. What God signifies is to be done. Noah does that, he is distinguished in Hebrews 11.

HH The Spirit of Christ in Noah?

JT Quite so; and in that Spirit “he went and preached”. We have to bring a thing down to the actual facts. It was the Lord’s preaching, for the Lord had to do with the preaching of Noah. Peter is speaking about the Lord, that He preached, and that He preached through Noah. He preached in the Spirit. Hundreds of years intervene, but divine Persons can easily be understood to cover that.

HFN Might we get your thought as to these two scriptures as to life in manhood?

JT The first chapter we have covered; that divine Persons have opened up a way in relation to persons, in relation to the disciples, as we see it in 1 Corinthians 15. Then in Paul’s case, who confirms that divine Persons may thus act, and even with persons who have not the Spirit. I hope we are all of one mind about that, because it is very clearly taught in Scripture. Then the other scripture is introducing the idea of teaching in Mary; but the idea of woman, as the Lord says in verse 14: “Having said these things she turned backward and beholds Jesus standing there, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus says to her, Woman”. I am alluding to the word “woman” as we have already alluded to the Samaritan woman. That is, it is a woman, the feminine side, and she is seen here in view of the assembly. That is why it is put this way. “Whom seekest thou?” What person? “She, supposing that it was the gardener, says to him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus says to her, Mary”. That is personal; not sex, but personal. The personal name, all entering into what is before us. “She, turning round, says to him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which means Teacher”. That is the Spirit’s comment, meaning that Mary had been learning; which means, I understand, she has so designated the Lord her own particular Teacher. That is, she acknowledges nothing less.

WD Paul heard Jesus speaking in the Hebrew tongue; and Mary also spoke in the Hebrew tongue here.

JT There is no doubt that in both cases the Jew was in mind. Both persons had the Jew in mind. Mary undoubtedly had. She was not at all clear of Judaism. Therefore, the Lord says: “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God”. She would be delivered by that. The Lord is recognising her strong links with her own nation and the Lord is delivering her, leading her on to the heavenly side of the truth which she is to be used to communicate to the brethren. I would think, therefore, that she is like Nathanael, a quick learner. She had only just spoken to Him, and she concludes that Rabboni is the suitable word by which to designate Him.

SR Would the power of her ministry be seen in the word she brings, “that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”?

JT That is, we might say, her word. Jesus said: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdala comes bringing word to the ^[p. 330] disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”. But how much had she learnt from Him? How long did it take her to learn? It was a matter of minutes; and that brings up the matter of how God can act in that way, what He can do, even in a “twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15: 52); what God can do!

HH God took a rib and builded a woman (see Genesis 2: 22).

JT You mean we have been speaking of the quickness with which Mary learns? What we have said as to quick learning is there. She may have seen Him before and the reference she made alluded to that, but He is her Teacher. I would say the Lord’s words to her are to detach her from the Jewish system. How are we to be brought into all these things? And how quickly we may be brought into them!

HH We may have this same kind of message in our own souls; is that your thought?

JT Her remark, “Rabboni”, meaning as it evidently does, what He was to her, that is, to show us how quickly we may learn these great truths, and need not be a lifetime on it. Learn quickly.

Rem The Thessalonians are said to be “taught of God to love one another” (1 Thessalonians 4: 9); and then in the next chapter it says, “But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know”, 1 Thessalonians 5: 1, 2.

JT Yes, I am glad you have brought it up now. We have indicated there that three times would be enough for a preacher to limit himself to, “three sabbath days” (Acts 17: 2); that is all they had, and how quickly they learnt! We can understand, therefore, the apostle’s comment as to them and what they were to the Father. “The assembly of Thessalonians” (1 Thessalonians 1: 1); that kind of persons, the persons who had been there when Paul visited the place three sabbath days. They are “in God the Father”: a remarkable thought.

EuR Will you say how the thought of His brethren is linked with manhood?

JT I think it is how things are worked out in the divine teaching when the family really began to take form. There was the idea of a family in Adam, and this is mentioned in Genesis 5; but we have to await the divine family, and how quickly they may be formed! We have it, I think, in chapter 1 of John’s gospel; the Lord gives us the right to take that place of children of God, as “born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God” (verse 13). So the idea of the family evidently comes into the teaching in John in a peculiar way; that man is to be understood in relation to his place in the family.

PH Why is the Father spoken of first? The Lord says: “My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”.

JT Well, what I am concerned about for the moment is what the family is in regard to our subject, and why it is that the man is viewed as in the family; and it looks as if God is honouring man in patterning him after Himself. For the Father is the source of all, and His thought is that man is to be with Him on the principle of a family. Hence, the great importance of the family as coming into this matter; Abraham is a man who is our father and he is marked off as loyal to God, commanding his house after him; and so the race has come down to us on the principle of Abraham. But now it is a question of the Father and the Son; our relations with God in the economy. How God has come into the economy in order to be with us and that we should be with Him; and I believe all this enters into this remarkable chapter. Bearing on that, the Father comes first in the message, not God.

PHH “My brethren”; is that what we are to the Lord more than what we are to one another?

JT I think whatever we are to one another must originate with God. Whether it be to the Lord, what we are to one another is in the light of what we are as His brethren; and that gives dignity to us in one another’s eyes. Am I understanding you?

PHH I was wondering how we might speak in the Lord’s day morning meeting relative to this matter of the Lord’s brethren as on the ascending scale in the service of God? Is it right to refer first to our relation to one another, and then our relation to Him?

JT Well; we can say we are the Lord’s brethren, and that brings up how much time we leave open for the Bridegroom’s relation with the bride. How much time can we give to it? It is quite right to speak of these allusions now, because we are dealing with the assembly in our subject and we are about to finish it. Isaac, as offered up by Abraham, is not said to come down to Beer-sheba with Abraham, which is a figurative allusion to Christ. The voice from heaven announces great things as to Abraham’s faith and devotedness. The second time there is a voice from heaven and God swears as to what He would do for him, and he and the young men went to Beer-sheba (Genesis 22: 15 - 19). Isaac is not said to be among them. Mary is told in John 20 to go to the Lord’s brethren; these are mentioned first: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father” which would mean a delivering word for her from her Jewish, original connections. “I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”; that is the order in which the Lord mentions the truth.

^[p. 333] What I am referring to now in regard to Isaac is the fact that he does not come down, but immediately we get Rebecca in the genealogy, or in the relations of Abraham and Isaac; “Bethuel begot Rebecca”. Following on that, in chapter 24 we have Abraham, the great father, seeking a wife for his son; and where is that son? Well, that is what John 20 teaches. Mary is to have in her soul that the Lord had gone up. He had been into death, as in type Isaac had, but He said, “I ascend to my Father”. So there is something in her soul in view of the assembly; the thought was in the Lord’s mind: the whole thought of the assembly. If He has gone up, He has gone up; and if He comes back it is to have the assembly, His bride. Therefore, the message is to be delivered and known amongst the assembly, known amongst the brethren; known amongst those who are now regarded as the brethren of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the light of Mary Magdalene’s place here, what is said of her; the feminine thought here, that is in mind: if man is to be apprehended we must have the feminine side. The word was included in the first reference to man: “Let them have dominion”, Genesis 1: 26. She fits in; it is a question of the persons and what they mean; what is in the Lord’s mind in bringing them in here. We must have Christ and the assembly. Paul says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”, Ephesians 5: 32. It is a question of man; how man is to be eternally with God as man, and a family. Not so many persons, but one Man and one woman. The whole of our instruction is brought up in the apostle’s word: “I speak as to Christ, and... the assembly”.

WC “My brother, and sister, and mother”, Mark 3: 35. Is that the extension?

JT That is just what fitted because of the coldness of someone in the company who said, ‘Your ^[p. 334] mother and brethren are outside waiting for you’. The Lord met that by saying: “Whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and sister, and mother”. It is a question of the will of God in the chapter you have referred to.

Rem They said to Rebecca: “Thou art our sister; mayest thou become thousands of tens of thousands; and may thy seed possess the gate of their enemies!” Genesis 24: 60.

JT Just so: the whole matter of numbers merges into one great idea, Christ and the assembly; it is a question of man.

Ques Would you say a word as to the difference between the assembly viewed as a woman, the answer to the Man, a part of the divine counsel, Christ and the assembly, and the personnel of the assembly being the brethren of Christ? Does not the one underlie the other? Is there ability to take up our place as with Christ and His brethren if the assembly is not apprehended?

JT Just so; that is what we are engaged with now.

WC Does not brethren as comprehensive, include the feminine thought?

JT Yes: but take Open Brethren, they have not the faintest idea of what we are speaking of; that the final counsel of God merges into the one idea of Christ and the assembly. It is not a matter of females being in heaven as women, but what is certain is that the feminine idea finishes in the assembly viewed as an entity.

Ques Is what you have in mind that in the garden at the very beginning. God’s thoughts are seen in the man and the woman, and that is finally brought in in Christ and the assembly? I think Mr. Raven once made the remark that everything brought in for the pleasure of God is the fruit of Christ and the ^[p. 335] church.

JT I remember one saying to him in America, in my hearing, ‘Why do you say so much about the assembly?’ And he replied: ‘What is there to speak of unless we speak about the assembly?’ That is the idea: every divine thought centres in Christ and the assembly.

GCS In Hebrews 2 we have the thought of “bringing many sons to glory” (verse 10); and then, “not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” (verses 11, 12).

JT She is the vessel that He has in mind; everything merges into Christ and the assembly. It is what is to be in eternity, pending the final thing coming in when the assembly comes down from God out of heaven (Revelation 21: 2). She comes from Him, and she is the bride of His Son: a marriage for His Son; and who is the wife? She is the wife, adorned, as a bride should be, for her husband. So we come into the eternal state of things from that point.

ECM The final thought is that God should tabernacle with men.

JT Quite so.

EG “The assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own”, Acts 20: 28.

JT That is a well known term: “the assembly of God”; Jew, and gentile, and the assembly of God — a very well known term. It is really a question of owning. We always quote it: “the blood of his own”, meaning it is the blood of Christ, but put in that way, One so dear to God.

EuR In assembly service, having reciprocated the love of Christ for His bride, do we then pass on as His brethren to the position of being alongside Him with His Father and His God?

JT Well, I do not know about that; I should say that we begin with the brethren, because it is ^[p. 336] thus we should merge into the feminine thought: because it is what the Father has in the bride.

Ques Is it not summarised in Mr. Coates’ beautiful lines — ‘And God’s deep love eternally shall rest In that which ever speaks to Him of Thee’ (293:5)?

JT Quite so.

PHH Would you please say that again as to the feminine side giving way to the masculine? You say you are not sure about that.

JT Well, it is just the way you get it in Scripture. The truth works up to this passage, and it is largely the responsible side, it is the masculine. But then I was attempting to go on for a moment to Genesis 22. Isaac does not come down and Rebecca is at once introduced. Then Abraham has the thought of a bride for his son; and then the servant visits Padan-Aram; and then the journey which is described graphically. There are the beautiful features of Rebecca and the wonderment of the servant. What a person she was! He marvelled at it, which is a remarkable thing; especially as we think that the servant of his house is really the Spirit. We are in the region of wonders in regard to Christ and the assembly. That is what it is. Isaac is seen coming and going, according to what should be read, coming and going from the well Beer-lahai-roi (see Genesis 24: 62), the well that Hagar had to do with; but it is now a question of the assembly, not Israel. That is what he is occupied with. He is not like Joseph, the man of affairs; he is at leisure, and he is out in the fields meditating. “And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were coming” (Genesis 24: 63); meaning that he is concerned as to the power with which she is brought to him, in the power of the Spirit, on the camels. Then we are told Rebecca saw him, and she had already been instructed by the servant ^[p. 337] that Isaac was his master. Then Rebecca veils herself, as if to refuse all others but himself. She is to be for him: and then the marriage, so to speak, although we have not the word at all. It is a question of the persons and what flows out from themselves; what they do, what Isaac does. Then later on we have Isaac dallying with Rebecca his wife. “Dallying” is the word used; and I think it is a time for that; to provide for the Lord’s part, the active affections of the Lord for the assembly. If He has the bride, there must be enough time for that; and I would say that what is due to the Father flows out of that: the great volume of affection, involving the affections of Christ for the assembly.

WS As to the brethren coming first, is it that those who compose the bride must first of all be His kindred?

JT Quite so. I hope we have reached the consummation of the subject including man and his wife — Christ and the assembly — what man is as so viewed.

WS The assembly becoming a comfort to the heart of Christ.

JT Quite so.