READINGS ON HEBREWS (3)
READINGS ON HEBREWS (3)
DMR Is there any difference between this opening remark, “Holy brethren”, and what the Lord said after His resurrection, “Go to my brethren” John 20:17? Would it be an advance?
JT I think the emphasis is on “holy” here. The thought of brethren was quite familiar in Jewish relations. They were accustomed to regard each other as brethren. Both Paul and Peter addressed them as such, too, in the Acts; but here the relationship is spiritual, and the emphasis is on “holy” — “holy brethren”.
JS Are they viewed as “holy brethren” being sanctified and set apart for Himself?
JT Yes.
ATM Is the thought to elevate them?
JT I think so. The Spirit sought to lead the Hebrew Christians to lay hold of their heavenly relations, and the word ‘holy’ applied would strengthen the heart. Many Christians are afraid to take up the place the Holy Spirit accords them. This is what you might call abstract, that is, it refers to all true Christians.
BTF Do you think it is based on, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, Hebrews 2:11.
JT I doubt if it goes as far as that. I think they were taken upon the ground of their profession.
DMR They had accepted that position.
AFM This would put a leverage in their souls.
JT It strengthens the heart to know what the mind of God is — what is expressed about us. It is not a question of the state of the saints; but the mind [p. 32] of God about them. To be addressed in this way by the Spirit of God as “holy brethren” is very stimulating; and it encourages you to take hold of what is predicated of the saints. “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”. They have part in the heavenly calling, which is a contrast to an earthly calling, which the Jews had.
ARS While the Holy Spirit calls them “holy brethren”, should we say that of each other?
JT I think we should in the sense in which it is used here. You could hardly take account of Christians in any other way. This, as I said, is abstract — how God takes account of us. As the apostle says in the epistle to the Corinthians in enjoining them to cast out the old leaven, “as ye are unleavened”, 1 Corinthians 5:7. Not, As ye ought to be; but “as ye are”.
ANW At the outset of the same epistle it says they are saints by calling.
JT Quite.
AFM In the divine mind, this would be true of all saints.
JT Quite. How could we be partakers of the heavenly calling, except as thus viewed? Otherwise you would have those who were unholy having part in the heavenly calling, which would be thoroughly out of accord with the mind of God.
CAM You could not consider the greatness of this Person in such conditions.
JT The expression stimulates and encourages the heart to take hold of what is presented.
AFM Thus the expression, “heavenly calling”, involves the call of God to heaven. Like Israel of old, they were called to Canaan.
JT Just so.
AFM All the education of the wilderness was in view of the land.
JT The call, primarily, was to Abraham, and they would all have it — it would be handed down — [p. 33] but God Himself appears to Moses and indicates that He is about to take the children of Israel out of Egypt, and lead them into the land of Canaan; that is, the call is confirmed in God’s address to Moses. Then you have, as the record stands in Exodus, the genealogy, or generations, of Jacob’s children. You get an account of the tribes until you arrive at Levi. It does not go beyond Levi because it is a question of bringing forward the apostle and High Priest in Exodus 6. So the genealogy, or generations, of Jacob’s children are given; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and then Levi’s posterity, until you come down to Moses’ father and mother, and then: “This is that Aaron and Moses”, Exodus 6:26. The Apostle and High Priest are authenticated in their family link — “This is that Aaron and Moses”, Exodus 6:26. And I think there is the suggestion here that our calling is assured to us, it is confirmed, and, as having it confirmed, you consider in the dignity of it the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. “Our confession”, not our calling; that is to say, we come down to the thought of the confession in all the dignity and power of the calling. The confession is dignified by those who are in it. The calling is higher than the confession; for the confession is what I am down here; but I dignify it by the calling.
JEH “The Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus”, does that mean that you have a link with that One?
JT Confession is what comes out here in the way of testimony. The Apostle and High Priest is Christ in this office, and stands in relation to what we are down here.
BTF Are they described in the first two chapters?
JT The first two chapters are like Exodus 6 — the genealogy of the Apostle and High Priest, “This is that Aaron and Moses”, Exodus 6:26. We have them in one Person here.
BTF “For, in that himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to help those that are being tempted”, (Hebrews 2:18 ) bringing before us the wonderful sympathy he has, and ability as Priest to support His own.
JT Chapter 1 is the Apostle, that is to say, this is that Moses. Chapter 2 is the High Priest: this is that Aaron. As you said, the High Priest in chapter 2 is able to sympathise.
CAM Writing to these Hebrew saints in this way, it would carry their thoughts back to what was said in Exodus 6, and would enhance the greatness of this Person to their hearts.
JT The people would have a knowledge of their leaders. There is much said about Moses and Aaron, especially about Moses, in the opening chapters of Exodus before you have the exodus itself, so the people would have confidence in them. It is a great thing to have confidence in our leaders.
DMR Referring to Moses and Aaron being brethren in the flesh, would that bring before us how closely linked the Apostle was with the High Priest?
JT I think it would establish confidence in the people. It would assure a certain amount of unity and agreement. We know, in detail, it did not; there was a certain amount of disagreement and a measure of rivalry with Aaron, for he and Miriam rebelled against Moses at one point; but here we have “that Moses and Aaron” (Exodus 6:26) in one Person.
AFM In this case a perfect answer to the true Moses is found in the true Aaron.
JT The High Priest is equal to the Apostle.
AFM In going back to Exodus, what have we there which answers to the “confession” here?
JT First of all the passover: the blood of the passover lamb on their side posts and lintels was a confession. Anyone could read that. It distinguished [p. 35] them from the world. Then their moving out in military array under divine leadership. The confession there is, typically, that Jesus Christ is Lord. So that the passover lamb would be the confession of His death, and their movement out of Egypt would be the confession of His lordship. They were in the kingdom as they began to move, and came under His leadership and protection, which Exodus 13 and 14 show. As they were subject they were protected; this was their confession.
BTF What you say shows the suitability of the word in contrast to profession. Confession would really come from the heart.
JT Confession is akin to martyrdom. They witnessed a good confession. They “confessed that they were strangers and sojourners on the earth”, Hebrews 11:13.
AP It says, “Moses indeed was faithful in all his house”. Did his confession embrace the time when he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with God’s people?
JT It did; but when Moses is brought in here, it is not a question of his confession, but rather of his faithfulness in service in God’s house. The first thing is the confession, and the Apostle and High Priest of it. Many have the thought of confession, but do not see there is an Apostle connected with it, and a High Priest. In that way you are connected with a system, and supported and protected in the confession.
AP What is the thought in the Apostle?
JT One who comes out from God as having been with Him. The High Priest goes in. In chapter 1 we have, “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in ... Son”, Hebrews 1:1,2. That is the Apostle. One who comes out to speak. There are many who confess the Lord who do not see that there is an Apostle and a High Priest connected with that confession; therefore are not sustained in it. If you have the conscious support of the Apostle and High Priest, you are not only sustained individually but co-ordinated — your confession is linked with that of others.
ANW “And Israel ... believed the Lord, and his servant Moses”, Exodus 14:31.
JT That leads to the next thing: “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord”, Exodus 15:1. Moses now acquires a place as a song leader — there is co-ordination. It is your confession, mine, and that of all Christians: there is only one confession, really. The idea is not that there should be so many individuals confessing the Lord, but co-ordination.
AFM Take Romans 10:9: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”, Romans 10:9. Does it imply that there is One who is now endeared to your heart, whom you own, a Person with whom you have a link? Is not the title one of endearment to those who know Him?
JT No doubt, but “Lord Jesus” involves His authority, which Satan will never recognise. You will find he will never recognise the lordship of Christ. He will recognise the name Jesus; but the lordship of Christ never. That is where the test comes — it is confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus. That is the thing, and in doing that you come under His protection, and get His support.
WLP Owning Him as Lord.
JT It is confessing Him publicly; the children of Israel went out of Egypt in the sight of all the Egyptians — the Egyptians saw them go out. It will [p. 37] not do to hold allegiance to the Lord silently: there must be a public recognition of the Lord.
JS They went out in power.
JT Yes. It says, “with an high hand”, Exodus 14:8.
AP Is the confession amongst the Lord’s people?
JT More publicly; where the enemy’s power is — in the sight of the Egyptians. We go to heaven privately, not in the sight of all the Egyptians. We are not told that any one saw Enoch go up, nor Elijah, save Elisha. The translation of the assembly is a private matter. On the mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elias spake of His decease, which meant His departure out of this world, that was to be public; and baptism corresponds with it. He went out of the gate, which was the place of publicity, bearing His cross — every one saw Him. The confession is not a private matter; but the Lord supports us in it. By avoiding a public confession, we miss the Lord’s support — the great gain of the Apostle and High Priest, and He is that in connection with the system, and the system involves confession.
WLP What is it that brings about public confession?
JT It takes various forms; but the great thing is that you are not ashamed to confess Him.
WLP I was thinking of the martyrs.
JT The thought of confession involves martyrdom. Whatever it costs you, you confess the Lord. Your everyday life is in accord with your confession.
CAM Speaking about going to heaven being private, as far as this world is concerned they will not say, They have gone to heaven; but, They never belonged here.
JT There is great opposition to any thought of going to heaven. Even when Elijah went up, Elisha was persuaded by the sons of the prophets that, after all, it might be a mistake and they might find him [p. 38] somewhere, whereas, Elisha saw him go up. But the testimony is that Enoch was translated, it says in chapter 11, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God”, Hebrews 11:5. Those who please God will be translated.
AFM One title to go to heaven is that we are called, but it is of all moment to have the testimony that we please God.
JS “Our confession” goes beyond the individual confession.
JT It is our confession.
JS The system over which He presides.
DMR You were speaking of the Lord going out publicly by the way of the gate. When He ascended up to heaven, would that be private?
JT He said, “The world sees me no longer”, John 14:19.
JS “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before”, John 6:62?
JT That is abstract. It does not mean that every one saw Him; but He would be seen. Some of their own number would see Him. It is abstract; for, as a matter of fact, Peter and others saw Him.
ARS What is involved in considering Jesus? “Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus”.
JT It is a good thing to sit down and consider Him; because everything in the system with which we are connected emanates from Him, and has to be learnt from Him. If you sit down beside this blessed Man, and contrast all the great dignitaries of Christendom with Him, beginning with the Pope, right down to the most ordinary curate, what place could they have with you? See the difference! Jesus is the Official of the system. Think of Him! The name Jesus implies that He is a Man. If you view the situation in that way, you see at once the importance [p. 39] of considering Him, and as you do so, you say to yourself, Am I like Him in what I am doing amongst the saints? Because He is leading on to the thought of the house and you measure yourself with Him in relation to it.
ARS Is Mary an illustration?
JT She would be. It is from that point in Luke you get the thought of priesthood developed. “As he was in a certain place praying”, Luke 11:1. There is the idea — a Man is there. They saw Him praying and if Mary were present, she would say, I would like to pray in that way. So, “one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray”, Luke 11:1. Whatever you do in the house of God, you have to learn to do it from Christ.
WLP Would considering Him be studying His life?
JT Considering Him would be taking into account the Man; and the next thing is, How do I compare with that Man?
AJD In considering Him, you consider Him in relation to the system, do you not?
JT It is Jesus. You consider the Man. Most young believers see men as trees walking. They see this and that big brother (I say “big” because the Lord may be using them), and these are magnified in their eyes. Now, the Lord asked the man at Bethsaida, “If he beheld anything”, Mark 8:23. And he looked up, and said, “I behold men, for I see [them] as trees walking”, Mark 8:24. After that the Lord put His hands again upon his eyes (He touched him twice), and he then saw every man clearly. So men do not assume undue proportions in your mind. Then the Lord goes on to say to His disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” Mark 8:27. He wants to draw out from them what they had arrived at in companying with Him. What had they found in Christ? Peter here says, “Thou art the Christ”, Mark 8:29. His answer is given in the three synoptic [p. 40] evangelists, and his confession in each one is distinctive. He had seen the Lord; he had been with Him, and had discovered something in Him — he had considered. And, I can well understand what Peter confesses he would afterwards, as well as all the others, be exercised to be in keeping with. They would never again be unduly influenced by any other man than this Man.
DMR The Lord’s own words to the disciples were, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls”, Matthew 11:29. It could be said of Moses, although he was the one who inaugurated the tabernacle system, that he “Was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth”, Numbers 12:3.
JT It is really “Learn from me”, (Matthew 11:29) which fits in with this.
AFM Would you cite those three confessions of Peter?
JT In Matthew 16 it is, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, Matthew 16:16. In Matthew He is the Builder of the assembly.
In Mark 8, “Thou art the Christ”, Mark 8:29. The One who does everything for God, the Anointed. There was One here who would do everything for God. In Luke 9, “The Christ of God”, Luke 9:20. The One who not only does everything for God, but brings God forward, making Him everything.
AFM Our apprehension of the greatness of the system depends upon our knowledge and appreciation of this One.
JT It dignifies you greatly. When you come on to chapter 8, it is not only the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, but: “A summary of the things of which we are speaking [is], We have such a one High Priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of [the] greatness in the heavens”, Hebrews 8:1. We [p. 41] have such a One. It is what we have. That makes you fully independent of the world. Take the Roman hierarchy and set it down alongside what we have. What is that worth in comparison with what we have? When we speak about what we have, it is what all Christians have, and the thought is emancipating — it enables you to leave all human organisations.
JS To see “all things clearly” Mark 8:25, is that to see men, or things, in their relative position in regard to Christ?
JT You never see them rightly until you see them in relation to Christ. The first touch did not effect that. He saw something; but he saw men, as trees, walking. 1 Corinthians 2 shows that “the spiritual discerns all things” 1 Corinthians 2:15. He sees everything as it is.
WLP Why did not the blind man get his full sight at first?
JT Some people think we get everything at the start, but they make a mistake. In this instance it needed a second touch. It is typically the gift of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is to be distinguished from new birth or redemption.
JS In new birth you have title to everything; but to come into the practical good of Christianity you require the Spirit.
JT There are believers and believers. We read of the Lord’s disciples in the gospel of John believing on Him; but they were already believers.
CAM And in John 20 we get confirmed believers.
JT In Acts 19 we have: “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” Acts 19:2 They were believers, but they had not yet received the Spirit.
Rem In Ephesians: “Having believed, ye have been sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” Ephesians 1:13.
JEH Here we have something about the house.
JT It is a question of contrast. “Who is faithful to him that has constituted him, as Moses also in all his house”. Then he touches on the house; but it is to bring out that the One who built the house is greater than the house. The Lord Jesus is greater than Moses in the measure in which He who has built the house has more honour than the house. Moses did not build the house, Christ is the Builder.
BTF Is it not remarkable that it should say, “Jesus, who is faithful to him that has constituted him, as Moses also in all his house”?
JT It was that kind of faithfulness — a question of kind. It goes on immediately to say, “For he has been counted worthy of greater glory than Moses, by how much he that has built it has more honour than the house. For every house is built by some one; but he who has built all things is God”. The Holy Spirit passes on immediately to the superiority or pre-eminence of Christ.
AFM That is, He is God, the Creator.
ANW In chapter 1, the Son is God; but here Jesus is God, “he who has built all things is God”.
JT Wonderful weaving of the truth! In the building of the house it is God Himself, no less.
CAM According to chapter 1, God, in the Person of the Son, was the Creator of all things: this is really based on that.
JT Quite. “All things” refers to the universe.
AFM The book really enlarges upon the truth presented in chapters 1 and 2.
JS Why is the house introduced here?
JT The place in which our faithfulness is seen. There is nothing tests you more than the house in that respect; because the saints form it: “Whose house are we”. The saints forming it, necessitates that you have to take account of every one of them. Not only is there a great variety of states in the house, but you may find a good deal of hostility in some, and [p. 43] of indifference in others, and you will be tested, if you are a servant, in that very thing.
The history of Moses helps very much, because in that forty years in the wilderness with the people, you see what a variety of states he had to deal with. What jealousy! What rivalry! Even his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam, spoke against him; then Korah and his company, but he bore with them all. You are encouraged thus to bear with the Lord’s people; your faithfulness is seen in the way you bear with them.
You cannot touch on a more important subject than faithfulness in the house, we are so apt to get weary and discouraged with the ungratefulness of the Lord’s people. Take the apostle Paul in regard to Asia, where his greatest service was rendered — his three years’ ministry at Ephesus — and yet he had to say, “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me”, 2 Timothy 1:15. What a test that was! Again, the Corinthians, amongst whom he wrought for eighteen months, he says in substance to them: Wherever I go, I speak well of you; I bring you forward, because you are in my heart, you are my letter. Yet they were allowing direct opposers of Paul to flourish in their midst. So he has to say, “If even in abundantly loving you I should be less loved”, 2 Corinthians 12:15.
JEH Paul was a faithful man.
JT You have to make up your mind to be that. For it is in the house you will be tested. Moses was tested for forty years, and the book of Deuteronomy shows how successful he was. Moses wrote that book at the end of his life, and it abounds with his love for the people. He would not give them up because he loved them.
AFM What is the relation of Christ as Son over God’s house?
JT Moses was a servant in the house; Christ a [p. 44] Son over His house to accord liberty to all who are of it. The One who is over the house is the Son, and that accords liberty to us, “Whose house are we”.
WLP Is the house earthly?
JT It would hardly be right to say it is earthly. It is a heavenly institution, taken up and placed on earth provisionally. The idea of the house belongs to the earth; but the assembly is it for the moment. It came to light in connection with Jacob, was with Israel, and will be prominent in the millennium; but not in heaven. It is a great privilege now to be brought to the recognition of the house.
The writer does not in this epistle enlarge on the truth of the house; but shows Christ’s place in it — that He is Son over it. So it says, “Christ, as Son over his house, whose house are we”. The “we” is emphatic. All Christians are included in the “we”. You may tell any Christian that he is of the house.
ANW The “great house”(2 Timothy 2:20) condition in Timothy does not conflict with this.
JT The word ‘great’ shows that the professing thing had become conspicuous in the world. The true idea of the house is lost now — it is not visible at the present time, but was when this epistle was written.
ANW The house over which Christ is Son, has it not vessels to honour rather than to dishonour?
JT You have to view is abstractly now. All real Christians belong to it.
ANW And only real ones?
JT Yes. I think the spiritual mind understands the use of the word ‘great’ in this connection, and it affords room for vessels to dishonour. Such a mind understands that “a great house” refers to what took the place of the house of God — that which had been the subject in 1 Timothy; but it ceased to be that, so he introduces the word ‘great’. Timothy would [p. 45] understand that it had become that. We do not say it is God’s house.
CAM We would not say that Christ is Son over that house.
JT The only thing to be said is, that the great house includes publicly the house of God. It is not outside of it. The great house includes the vital thing.
AFM Here we are said to be God’s house if; and companions of the Christ if; but, normally speaking we are God’s house and companions of the Christ.
JT You do not apply the “if” where the saints are in the power of the thing. It refers to our public position. All profession, at the time in which this epistle was written, would be included in the “we”. “Whose house are we, if indeed we hold fast the boldness and the boast of hope firm to the end”. The “if” supposed the possibility of it discontinuing and becoming the great house.
WLP In the great house there is not the exercise of discipline, or the purging out of evil in a general way.
JT There is not. So you have, “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work”, 2 Timothy 2:21. You separate from “these”, the vessels to dishonour, not from the great house. You cannot leave it; that is, the profession; but you can separate yourself from vessels to dishonour. Strictly speaking, the house of God always refers to real believers, “Whose house are we”. And, “judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us; what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1 Peter 4:17.
ARS Coming to the second paragraph, what about the speaking in the house?
JT [p. 46] That is where it is. The ground work is laid for the Holy Spirit. The reference is to Psalm 95 — “Wherefore, even as says the Holy Spirit”. It is not, As the Holy Spirit said. Historically it had been said hundreds of years before, but it is a present speaking — a present application of the Psalm. It throws light on how the Old Testament is to be used. “Wherefore, even as says the Holy Spirit”. It is what He is saying. As I remarked, He said it hundreds of years before, but it is the present application of the thing to the subject in hand.
AFM So in chapter 10 the Holy Spirit witnesses.
JT That is another example. It is a citation from Jeremiah: “and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will never remember any more”, Hebrews 10:17. It is the present application of what Jeremiah said to what the Spirit is saying in chapter 10.
ANW The Son hardly speaks in the house.
JT That brings in another consideration. In the addresses to the seven assemblies the Lord speaks personally to the angel of each assembly: “These things says the Son of God”, (Revelation 2:18) that is the Lord’s own word. He asserts His rights. So we say, It is the Lord’s voice. But, then, there is the Spirit’s voice: “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”, Revelation 2:7. Not now what the Lord says, but what the Spirit says. The Holy Spirit is here in the humble position of a Servant, and He must be recognised and listened to. The Lord, Himself, said: “Whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one”, Matthew 12:32. The Lord is in heaven but the Holy Spirit is here, and it being a time of apostasy, the word for us is, “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the assemblies” Revelation 2:18; see Revelation 2 [p. 47] and 3.
AFM The letters to the seven assemblies are specific and complete, but the Spirit speaking to the assemblies would be continuous as occasion necessitated.
JT We are not told what the Spirit says. The point is to listen to what He says, whatever it is. But we are formally given what the Lord says to each assembly.
JS So, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts”, Hebrews 4:7.
JT “If ye will hear his voice”, (Hebrews 4:7) that is the first thing. Have you learned to listen to the Spirit’s voice? If you have learned that you will hear it.
CAM Not in so many words.
JT It is what He says.
JEH Is He speaking today?
JT Something that he who “has an ear” hears — it is distinctive. There is a living voice speaking through one and another. The Holy Spirit has His own way of emphasising certain things, and I think we may learn from this passage — “If ye will hear his voice”, Hebrews 4:7. That is, have I been accustomed to listening to and hearing His voice? I have listened to preachers, and I can talk about great gifts — men who have been distinguished in preaching, etc., but have I listened to the Spirit’s voice? He may take up an insignificant person through whom to speak; but I am not occupied with the vessel, but with what is spoken. “He shall bear witness concerning me”, John 15:26. And, “he shall not speak from himself; but whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak; and he will announce to you what is coming. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you”, John 16:13,14.
JS Is it in view of recovery that He is speaking? The Holy Spirit has been so disregarded.
JT There are very few Christians who have accustomed themselves to listening to the Spirit. He has His own way of speaking. Have I a trained ear to hear what the [p. 48] Spirit says?
CAM You prove that in reading a scripture. I may read the same scripture that you do, but the Spirit’s voice would make those words mean far more to you than to me.
JT You may hear something in a meeting that I do not. Why is that? Paul distinguished between himself and those who travelled with him: he heard and saw what they did not; Acts 22:9. Why was that?
ANW At the end of Revelation the bride would appear to hear what the Spirit says: “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”, Revelation 22:17.
JT It is very nice to see that the bride, with the Spirit, is saying, Come. She is now brought to it.
Our attention has recently been drawn to the ten virgins. They all went forth to meet the bridegroom; but “Now the bridegroom tarrying, they all grew heavy and slept” Matthew 25:5; but there was an awakening, and they arose and trimmed their torches, five had the oil — they were ready; and “the ones that were ready went in with him” Matthew 25:10; that would synchronise with the bride in Revelation 22. The awakening cry was, “Behold, the bridegroom; go forth to meet him”, Matthew 25:6. The word ‘cometh’ should not be there, it is a presentation of Himself. So, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies. I am the Root and Offspring of David, the bright [and] morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come”, Revelation 22:16. The way it reads is very beautiful. The conjunction is to show that the desired result is already there. The Lord is there in faithfulness presenting Himself as He was at the beginning. What He was at the outset of the assembly, He is at the end; but the conjunction shows that the assembly is in full response to the presentation of Himself; “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”, Revelation 22:17. The result is complete.