THE FATHER'S PORTION
THE FATHER’S PORTION
Genesis 41:50 - 52; Genesis 48
JT It is proposed to consider Jacob as representing a father, and Joseph, a son, and Ephraim and Manasseh the saints as secured by Christ as among the gentiles. Stress is laid by Jacob on their having been born in Egypt, before he came there; and Joseph, in keeping with that, says that God had given them to him, as he says, “They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place”; that is, in Egypt. Applying Genesis 48 to the present time, it contemplates the outward weakness that marks our position, as indeed marked the position of the assembly from the outset, but particularly in the last days. Yet, in this weakness, we have the clearest setting out of the divine mind. Jacob speaks in the most definite way as to what was in his mind, and he would not be turned aside from it, although it cut across the human mind. In this attitude Jacob stresses his thought to take on these two sons of Joseph, and give them a status on the very highest plane; he says, “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon”. Then, as Joseph brings them to Jacob, who enquires as to them, Joseph says, “They are my sons, whom God has given me here”, but Jacob regards them as his, and blesses them accordingly.
If these thoughts are kept in mind, I believe the Lord will help us to profit by this enquiry and to see how we, who had no place, according to Ephesians 2, are brought nigh, and are also “builded together” (Ephesians 2:22); — the Father takes us on as His. It works out practically, when we are together in assembly; the Lord’s supper contemplates Christ as rejected, Joseph was viewed as rejected by his brethren. The Lord’s supper as we have it, that is, as committed to us by Paul, contemplates not only the Lord’s death, but His rejection by Israel, and what He has among the Gentiles,
[p. 250] and how they are taken on in the assembly. On the one hand, the Lord’s supper contemplates the toil and the forgetfulness of Christ as to His earthly relations; but, on the other hand, as in Ephraim, there is fruitfulness, and the Father takes us on saying, they “shall be mine”. It works out practically as the position is changed “in assembly”; the Lord takes, as it were, a second place. Jacob is the chief speaker here, indeed all the proposals are his. Leaving out the incident of Joseph’s protest, he is generally a type of the Son as subservient to the Father’s will; Jacob honouring Joseph and taking on his two sons, although begotten in the land of his sorrow. Then Christ typically is honoured at the end of the chapter in that He has a double portion. I think our position in the assembly is clearly in view (verse 22), although in outward weakness — for Jacob is said to have been sick.
WHM What distinction do you make between Ephraim and Manasseh?
JT Manasseh, as you know, means “forgetting”; Joseph says in naming him, “God has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house” Genesis 41:51. The Spirit, I believe, would instruct us as to how the Lord Jesus, while feeling what He had lost in His rejection, for it was a very real thing to Him, would impress upon us gentiles, what consolation He has in us, and what we are to Him. Manasseh represents this. Then Ephraim is “fruitful”, as he says, “God has caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Genesis 41:52).
WHM “Joseph is a fruitful bough... by a well; his branches shoot over the wall”, Genesis 49:22. That would bring in Ephraim, would it not?
JT Yes. We see in Joseph the Lord’s contentment in the new circumstances, for they were new circumstances that He should move out among the gentiles and forget His father’s house — this would be through Paul’s ministry. He has something else as a recompense and consolation, and would impress upon us that He [p. 251] finds this in us. Jacob takes up the thread in saying, “now thy two sons, who were born to thee in the land of Egypt before I came to thee into Egypt, shall be mine”. He makes a point of that, “before I came” that is, when Joseph was alone and apart from his father’s house.
Ques Will you say how “before I came” applies to the present moment?
JT The coming of Jacob to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 48:5), applies to the present time as has been said; and it would also show how God’s thoughts in regard to Israel and the millennium come under our notice as treasuring the interests of Christ, for Jacob’s sons also came with him. Joseph in Egypt had nothing before him but what he secured there, a wife and family — he is consoled in that, and these typify what Christ finds among the Gentiles pending the resumption of His relations with Israel, it is what comes about under these circumstances. The Lord would impress us in assembly that He so regards us; He dignifies us.
HB The thought of Manasseh would be a negative feature which comes first in history, but takes second place eventually to Ephraim, which is positive.
JT Yes, I think that is right. The first thing is Joseph’s forgetfulness, whether we are spiritual enough to understand that as applying to Christ, that He can forget — that is, forget that which would claim Him on lower ground — He loved Israel. So Jacob immediately introduces the thought of Rachel, the first loved, but last received — she died; Jacob accentuates that thought in taking up the thread in chapter 48. It is a question of our being able to apply the thought of forgetfulness to Christ. It clearly applies to ourselves, for how much we forget Him, and what need there is of the Supper to remind us of Him — but it is a question of His forgetting.
Ques Would it be like, “who for the joy that was [p. 252] set before him endured the cross, despising the shame”? Hebrews 12: 2.
JT Yes, quite so, the assembly was undoubtedly in His mind.
AEL Would it be the same as Rebekah and Isaac — he is comforted after the death of his mother? or is that different?
JT That is another view, the assembly in Israel’s place, in Sarah’s tent; but Asenath is not that, there is no Sarah’s tent in Egypt.
Ques Does the word in Psalm 45 apply? “Hearken, O daughter, and consider... forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house” (Psalm 45:10).
JT Yes, as to us, for we so cling to natural and family settings, and natural affections; but the Lord entered into these things, He entered into a system of affections on earth, an ancient system, and it was no small matter for Him to relinquish that. We do not sufficiently sympathise with Him in regard of that, that He has to forget; that is, that in a new system of affections, He has forgotten the old. The forgetting of Christ is a real thing — it is possible for Him to forget, to lose the thought of one thing in a greater thing. In Egypt there were no family links when Joseph came in, he was alone, he was carried there in rejection, as a slave; now he gets something that consoles him, that satisfies him so completely that he forgets the old. That is a matter to be considered; whether we can apprehend Christ in this way and see what He has found among the gentiles. Joseph is satisfied in Egypt — not with the place, it is the land of his affliction still, but with the family; he has learnt to forget in the presence of the new thing. That is to make us understand how much we are in the mind of Christ; for Ephraim and Manasseh are just ourselves, from the point of view before us.
Rem “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come”, John 2: [p. 253] 4.
JT Yes, that is one expression of it. When the Lord said, “Who is my mother, or my brethren?” (Mark 3:33), and He looked around — that is it, only there we have not the territory. Here we have the territory, the gentile position; and the Lord would impress us, as of it, with how much He thinks of it. The Jew was out of sight; though I think properly the place the gentiles have, comes in under Paul’s ministry — “the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and ... they will hear it”, Acts 28: 28.
Ques Do you think Paul came to it when he could say, “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before”? Philippians 3:13.
JT Quite so, but you can see in him how hard it was to forget the old system of affections, and if it were so strong in him, how much more in Christ who died for the nation! Yet He comes to a point where He forgets it, and I think it is to impress on us how much the assembly is to Him. Jacob says, ‘I want those two’ — they were born to Joseph while he was alone in Egypt.
GAvS The position in which Jacob is brought before us here in relation to Joseph’s sons, brings before us the delight of the Father in bringing into the heavenly inheritance a people who for Him would be linked up with that which His Son had suffered and gone through in rejection?
JT That is the thought. The Father takes them on, not only to bless them, but he is taking them on himself — they “shall be mine”. That is something Joseph had not thought of; but Jacob’s thought is in keeping with Joseph’s thoughts about them in giving them these names.
Ques What would Reuben and Simeon typify?
JT They represent in this passage the counsels of God. We have to look on the tribes as applying to ourselves, they represent those that have a [p. 254] part in divine counsels; Ephraim and Manasseh are raised to that level.
WCG Does the line begin in Matthew 11 where the Lord says, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth”? Matthew 11:25.
JT I think that helps. They are there, the Lord regards them as babes, but the Father had already begun with them. “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes”. Matthew 11:25 The Father had not yet disclosed the truth of the assembly, but He had already begun to reveal things to babes; not yet the truth as to the Son — that remained for chapter 16, but the Father had already begun to move on the principle of revelation sovereignly.
WCG The Lord is not overwhelmed by His rejection, but rejoices.
JT Yes, showing how the Lord is triumphant in moving from one set of circumstances into another; so the Father is appealed to — “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes. Yea, Father, for thus has it been well-pleasing in thy sight”. Then, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father” Matthew 11:27. The babes are really the product of Christ’s own ministry, the Father takes them on.
GAvS Would that be, “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me”? Isaiah 8:18.
JT I think so, although we do not get the territory changed, they are still Israel; the allusion is to Isaiah 8, as you know. There is something in Israel, and of course what is in Matthew is in Israel, but what we are saying alludes to what is begotten in another land outside of that, when the Lord is alone.
Ques Is that on the line of “this mystery among the nations”? Colossians 1:27.
JT Just so, it is Colossians — Christ “among the nations” — among the gentiles.
[p. 255] Rem The Lord takes the place of the true vine, of Israel in that way, and the Father is glorified in the much fruit produced.
JT Yes, He does, but there is no Israel in Egypt yet; Israel’s place was not, and never had been, properly in Egypt, Joseph was the first to go in in that sense, he was there alone, as a slave. It is to impress us with the value of what is secured among the nations.
LDM Does Matthew fit in — “Out of Egypt have I called my Son” (Matthew 2:15); and then, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”? Matthew 28:19.
JT Well yes, there is a certain link, but of course there again you are not out of sight of Israel. He is taken into Egypt as Israel had been, and taken out of it as Israel had been, but that does not contemplate the fruitfulness; He was taken in as a Babe, and taken out of it. But here, you have a person taken into it alone, as a slave, under the greatest reproach. Paul served the saints in this attitude; the lowliest kind of man, with no pretension at all, a tent-maker; not a man who had a link with Israel, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, and the like — not a man of that kind at all, but a lowly man, a tent-maker in Corinth. Well, what is coming out of all this? The Lord says, “I have much people in this city”, Acts 18: 10. The operation is entirely apart from any previous setting, because he did not go there in relation to Israel, he went there as a tent-maker. Joseph went to Egypt as a slave: then Jacob comes in, not as representing Israel in the land, but suggesting the Father’s appropriation and recognition of what the Son had won in another sphere and system of things; not connected with an earthly portion, but a heavenly one.
Rem Joseph was just a bought slave.
JT Anyone can see the position, he had no status whatever — and yet this is what comes out of it; we have to apprehend Christ in that light.
[p. 256] Rem The Father secures sons — Thy two sons “shall be mine”.
JT Well, they are the result of Joseph’s fruitfulness, but Jacob values them; I think that is the thing to see. Joseph values them, as naming them, they are the expression of his experience, and Jacob values them accordingly. He knew them, yet, when they are brought to him, he says, “Who are these?” and Joseph tells him who they are, saying, “They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place”; he is viewing them in accord with the mind of his father about them. We should understand how Christ visited the nations in Paul, the manner of His visitation among the gentiles is seen in Joseph being in Egypt where these two sons are given to him.
Ques Why had Joseph to tell him?
JT I think it is to bring out the position of Christ in the assembly, that He speaks of us, in keeping with the Father’s mind; the Father’s mind is in Genesis 48: 5 — “now thy two sons ... which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine”. Then in verse 8, he says, “Who are these? And Joseph said to his father, They are my sons, whom God has given me here” — in this place — that is in keeping with his father’s thought. The Father and the Son are in perfect accord as to the saints; those secured among the nations. The Lord, in assembly, would so to speak, say to the Father, as to us, ‘These are the sons I have begotten here, in this strange land’ — the gentile world. Paul speaks of God taking out from among the gentiles a people. We are apt to think a good deal more of ourselves than we are entitled to externally — we say we are English, or German, or American — but there is no virtue in that whatsoever. God will never let us off on those lines, we are still gentiles, and, as such, relatively below His earthly people, and that will come out by-and-by. Whatever advantage the gentiles have acquired through christianity,
[p. 257] it will not give them a place beyond what they have in the mind of God; they are gentiles. But what is stressed here is, that these two sons are different, strictly speaking, they are born in Egypt, but they are taken out of that setting; that is what we do not like and although we do not say so, we are very slow to give up nationality. God has raised us above it; even as Ephraim and Manasseh are given the same status as Reuben and Simeon.
WHM One would like to enter a little into the joy of Joseph’s heart as he heard the value Jacob put on those sons; they are “mine” — “all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them”, John 17:10.
JT That is the thing to lay hold of, I am sure, to see how the Father takes us on and elevates us, so that our nationality is left behind. Our status according to God is elevated, and we are brought into a new setting; we belong to the Israel of God, “to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven”, Hebrews 12:23.
Ques Would it be correct to say that those two sons are a type of the assembly?
JT They represent it from the point of view we are considering; the gentiles, that is, ourselves, as brought into the assembly and regarded by the Father in this way, lifted out of our ordinary settings, lifted up to the highest level.
Ques Would not the wife Joseph secured in Egypt represent the assembly, and the sons be the product of that?
JT Yes.
AM Would John 12 anticipate this? The Greeks desire to see Jesus, but He speaks of the corn of wheat, and the much fruit, and then the Father’s name is glorified.
JT I think that is good. In the minds of Philip and Andrew the Greeks had a great place in the ancient world. I have no doubt they had in their minds that [p. 258] this was a matter of great importance, that even such people should come to see Jesus. The Lord does not attach any importance to that; but indicates that there is to be an entirely new sowing, a new crop, which means we are lifted out of all that, we are to be like Himself. The slave position marked Paul right through — tent-making, a lowly occupation — “these hands have ministered to my wants”, Acts 20:34. There is no pretence to any great religious status at all, or assumption of having any link with the people of God, he is just a workman. He spent a large part of his time in prison, and the like, that is the thought; it is the land of Christ’s affliction, but wonderfully fruitful. The Father honours the Son in the place He gives us; you are the product of the Son, I am the product of the Son. We have no place outwardly, any more than the Syrophenician woman; she had to come to it that she was a dog; but the Lord had great regard for her “O woman, great is thy faith”, Matthew 15: 28. That was what gave her a status; and the Father is perfectly in accord with that; that comes in just before the assembly is mentioned.
Ques What is the significance of the crossing of the hands?
JT That is the next thing. The point is, I suppose, that these two sons are taken on by the Father, yet their positions are determined according to sovereign wisdom. They are not there on the line of nature, or on the line in which they were brought into the testimony even. For instance, there were many in Christ before Paul, but, in result, Paul has a different setting. It is the sovereignty of God, I suppose, in Jacob crossing his hands.
Ques Would Romans 9, Romans 10, and Romans 11 help us to remember who we are and where we have come from?
JT Quite so. We ought to bear those chapters in mind as to what we are externally. The western nations have come into great prominence through the light of [p. 259] christianity quickening their intelligence, but they are still dogs, that is the position — how then are we to be elevated? Through faith — “thou standest through faith”, Romans 11:20. The Father determines the position of each, even as Ephraim is set before Manasseh; everything in God’s world is according to divine appointment, the appointment of infinite wisdom.
Rem The Lord said to the woman in John 4, “salvation is of the Jews”, it comes that way to us gentiles.
JT Quite so; we have to respect all these things. We may look down on the Jew, and it may be there is ground for it in some respects, but a humble christian will always take a low place outwardly.
Ques Does the apostle mean that when lie says, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”? Galatians 6:14.
JT Quite so, that cuts at the root of everything.
GAvS In speaking of himself as a tent-maker, was Paul practically indicating how he was regarded in Israel? He had been absolutely forgotten and set on one side, but for “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:8), he had counted all as dung.
JT Quite so — he counted all else as dung. You might have said to Paul, ‘Why do you not make use of your education at Corinth? You are a dignified man of great attainment’ — that is what the natural mind would think. But he did not take advantage of that, he was a tent-maker, and lodged with two others because they were tent-makers. Out of that you have this wonderful product at Corinth.
GAvS You referred to the firstborn ones, do you indicate that what you have been speaking of gives that which is indispensable for our education in assembly conditions?
JT Yes. So that the Son has brought us forth, as it were, secured us in an alien land, a land of no account spiritually, as the land of Joseph’s affliction, who came into it as a slave, representative of Paul; he speaks of himself as a bondman in writing to the Philippians, that is how he came into it. Christ has secured, in that setting, an offspring, sons, as it were; they are named because of that, and in the type we see how the Father intimates that He is in accord with the Son’s mind, and He is going to take them on as His. That is how I regard these two, they are no longer in a gentile setting — Jerusalem above is our mother. It is not in heaven but it is elevated, it is high, it is above. There is the principle of lifting-up, the taking out from the old to set us up in new settings; we cling to things that are old so tenaciously.
WH In the following chapter he goes over the blessing of the twelve tribes. I wondered if the Father’s thoughts as illustrated in Manasseh and Ephraim would refer to the assembly’s place?
JT I thought so. I think chapter 48 is on a higher plane than chapter 49 where it is the tribes, and they are all blessed. In chapter 48 we have two persons taken out and blessed by themselves, and then Joseph blessed by himself, and he receives a portion above his brethren. I think we have the assembly setting, where Christ is anointed with the oil of joy above His companions; and the blessing is taken out of the hand of the Amorite, with the sword and with the bow. It is a question of what God has secured Himself, and handed over to Christ. There is no history at all, so far as I know, of this incident of Jacob taking something from the Amorite with his sword and with his bow. I believe it will be seen that chapter 48 is on a higher plane than chapter 49 which is prophetic of Israel’s history, the good and bad; but there is no thought of bad in chapter 48; the two sons are blessed according to eternal counsels — Joseph is set up above others by something that happened of which we know nothing, beyond what is stated here.
[p. 261] HB-t The blessing of Ephraim speaks of the fulness of the nations: we get in Romans 11 “until the fulness of the nations be come in” Romans 11:25 — do you connect them at all?
JT What is contemplated is the fulness of the nations, what God has out of the nations, and it is here linked with Christ’s forgetfulness as losing all thought of His earthly relations; and surely we are to be brought on to that too, to that way of thinking, forgetting natural relationships, letting them go — finding something better.
Ques Does the change over as in the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh come in as we apprehend our place as sons connected with the Father; the great prominent thought is fruitfulness — that comes first. Are we not when in assembly sometimes occupied with that which is not in the Lord’s mind at the time, that is, His toil and affliction? Is He not occupied more with what is for the Father, and therefore the thought in fruitfulness comes first?
JT I think so, and the change over is seen more in the assembly as convened than anywhere. The Lord’s supper is a sort of introduction, all that attaches to us here is left — the thought of forgetting — and then we have the remembrance. Really, the remembrance in the Supper is of Christ where He is now.
Ques Do we not perhaps stress too much at the Supper the thought of His affliction?
JT I think the thought is to move over, in forgetfulness of all that.
Ques Is this portion above his brethren at Sychar’s well? It was there the Lord said to that weary heart, The Father seeketh worshippers, those that “worship the Father in spirit and in truth”, John 4: 23.
JT Yes, I suppose what the woman represents there would fit in. It was a remarkable thing — He was alone, it was in foreign territory, too, that is, Samaritan territory; the disciples had gone away, that was not an [p. 262] accident, it was intended there should be such a scene. He is alone, and He is weary with His journey. What is to come out of this? I believe that helps us. Well, this woman comes, and eventually the disciples come back. The earthly setting did not contribute one iota to what He was dealing with, the disciples had nothing to do with it, and when they came they did not understand — they “marvelled that he talked with the woman” John 4:27, they were not in the thing, but He said, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of” John 4:32. Then He proceeds to say, “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest” John 4:35. And then the result of the conversation with the woman is testimony as to His being the Saviour of the world. It is a wide thought. “We have heard him ourselves” John 4:42, they say, and believed on that account. I believe that fits in. We should grasp the idea of a slave in Egypt.
GAvS Is there a somewhat similar suggestion in John 11? It says, “Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples”. John 11:54 I think that is good. Ephraim is the place of fruitfulness; He sojourned there.
Ques If we considered the great toil of the Lord as recorded in the gospels and His deep affection for His earthly people, it would give us very exalted ideas of the assembly as competent to enable Him to forget that.
JT Just so, and that He has found compensation among the gentiles, that is in ourselves. Not that we should be occupied with ourselves personally, but the point is what the gentiles are, what Paul has brought out, both as regards his external position, and his relations here as a tent-maker and a slave, and what he was inwardly — what he was to God. He said, “whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God” 2 Corinthians 5:13, and he would get us into that line of things: and “Jerusalem which is [p. 263] above is free, which is the mother of us all” Galatians 4:26, that takes us out of all natural and family settings, that is to say, it is “the assembly of the first-born ... registered in heaven” Hebrews 12:23. The Father has taken us on; we are equal to the highest position according to His counsels. It is sonship. They “are mine”, Jacob says, “as Reuben and Simeon”.
HB I would like to ask about this last verse “I have given to thee one tract of land (or”one portion”) above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow”.
JT I think it must be the heavenly position. It is above any inheritance that Israel will have — Joseph has that — his family — that is these sons come into that. I think it is our heavenly place — Ephesians opens it up, that He has “raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2:6.
HB It speaks in the last chapter of Ephesians of spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies, that would be the Amorite, I suppose?
JT Yes. We have to contend, for the moment, being as we are, but that will all be over by-and-by. We have to take this from Jacob’s own word, there is no history to confirm it. It is what the Father has done, without any record in history; we do not want confirmation from history for eternal things; history has to do with the earth. Jacob is a dying man — that is the outward position — but in spite of that you have these wonderful things. It ought to be very comforting to us, because our position is extremely weak, yet we have these wonderful things; the mind of God is as clear as it can be; and no one could speak more definitely than Jacob did here. It is very comforting.
Ques You made a remark as to remembering the Lord where He now is?
JT Yes, as the absent One He is to be remembered.
Ques We do not remember Him as a dead Christ?
JT No, I do not think that would be right. [p. 264] The Supper, of course, is a symbol of the dead Christ, but He is not the dead Christ now. It is not something historical you remember, it is a present Christ: it is Christ we remember, and there is no Christ but the present Christ. It is the Person we remember, it is as such He comes into the assembly — as He is now.
Ques Would you say the two sons as together suggest the idea of the assembly in its two aspects; first to the Lord, and then to God?
JT Yes, that is right. Joseph valued these sons, they were his firstborn ones, and the father is in entire accord with him.
Ques Do we get this worked out in John 17?
JT You may bring it in, I think — “all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them” John 17:10.
Ques Is that the idea in Ephesians 2 — “Wherefore remember that ye, once nations in the flesh” Ephesians 2:11?
JT That is the idea. He stresses that is what we were, and outwardly we are not different from that.
Rem Then the inward side — “Through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father” Ephesians 2:18.
JT That is the thought. Then, at the end of the chapter — “Ye also (that is the gentiles) are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit” Ephesians 2:22.