DISPENSATIONS ENDING IN QUALITY EQUAL TO THE BEGINNING
[p. 189] DISPENSATIONS ENDING IN QUALITY EQUAL TO THE BEGINNING
Genesis 6:8,9; Genesis 48:14 - 20; Malachi 3:16 - 18; Revelation 22:16,17
JT The trend of the meeting is to enable us to look together at the spiritual quality marking the end of the great dispensations of God, the first beginning at Genesis 1, and extending to Genesis 6, and then the second extending to the end of the book, inclusive of all the dealings of God from the entrance into Egypt by Jacob and his family until Christ really, but as seen ended in Malachi, and then the present dispensation ending in the verses read in Revelation. These scriptures will be seen, I believe, as we look at them, to represent spiritual quality or qualities, which, although seen in but a few, were there as witness to the divine workmanship, a subject bearing particularly on ourselves now as drawing near to the end, so that the quality indicated in Revelation 22 should appear more definitely. The Lord, as He announces Himself as “the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star” is recognised; the Spirit and the bride join in asking Him to come. Noah would represent the first dispensation, and Jacob the second, and those in Malachi the third, and the Spirit and the bride the supreme thought; nothing can exceed, in the sense of spiritual stature, what we get in them.
AMH Did you say Genesis 6 was a climax of the beginning?
JT I thought the record indicates that Noah answered to the mind of God. It is said he found favour in the eyes of Jehovah, and then the history says, “Noah was a just man, perfect amongst his generations; Noah walked with God”; and then in chapter 7 Jehovah says, “Thee have I seen righteous before me”. There is that to which God can, in this language, formally commit Himself.
AMH That is, after the breakdown in Adam, certain features acceptable to God are developed in certain individuals and are brought together in Noah.
JT That is what I thought. He is prophetically spoken of as born by his father, who called his name Noah, saying, “This one shall comfort us concerning our work and concerning the toil of our hands, because of the ground which Jehovah has cursed”. We can see, I think, that the Lord had wrought in him with a great end in view and that it was reached; it represents the work of God at that time.
AMH So that God’s sabbath, which was broken in upon, is now recovered in one man and his generation.
JT That helps to show how the Spirit of God has the truth set; his name signifying ‘rest’ would show that God was finding that in him, and we are told later that Jehovah smelled an odour of rest.
Ques Does the expression, the “eyes of Jehovah” suggest what Jehovah was looking for?
JT Jehovah looked down from heaven, we are told later, to see if there was any good; He finds good here in Noah.
AMH Is your point that it was not merely Christ typically here, but God has actually arrived at the point He was labouring for in men on earth?
JT Yes, the substance was there; Noah “found favour in the eyes of Jehovah”, and then the history says he “was a just man, perfect amongst his generations”, and then again, “thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation”. All this alludes, not to what he is typically, but what he is actually, substantially.
Ques Have you in mind that these qualities being found in man, God is able to move forward,
[p. 191] and they are accumulated, so to speak, in the climax at the end?
JT I thought we would see as we proceed that these qualities are cumulative, it is one entering into the next dispensation and a development on that; then the third great dispensation under Moses introduced sonship, which is an advance; in the end of Malachi we get the very thought in those who feared the Lord at that time.
JSE Is it important to see that God is only looking for one odour, it is a definite one, what He smells; it is the odour, as though He is always moving for one thing in every dispensation.
JT Yes. It finds its culmination in our dispensation in the ministers. In Paul there was an odour to God, he caused the odour of the knowledge of God to spread abroad wherever he went, and he was himself an odour to God in those that were saved and in those that perished.
EF Is there a link between Enoch and Noah, Enoch being caught up?
JT Enoch would represent, as a type, the saints, the assembly, being caught up into heaven; the link would lie in that. Noah goes through the judgment here and Enoch escapes it. They both represent the work of God, however, substantially, for Enoch had the testimony that he personally pleased God, so that he comes very near to Noah as representing the work of God towards the end of that dispensation. He is “the seventh from Adam”, we are told in Jude, which would mean that he represents the culmination of the exercise from Adam down to his time. Noah carries it through; Noah also represents that same exercise, only he carries it through, the number eight attaching to him going over to another dispensation. The application to us would be that in our spirits we go over, we do not go through the judgment; it will be another dispensation; but in asking the Lord to [p. 192] come, we anticipate what the Jewish remnant shall have to endure.
EJMcB Is your thought that the dispensation does not break down exactly, or fail on that line, but the picture is given of the complete idea of the dispensation in the close of it?
JT That is right, and they are all cumulative. The testimony as to God’s work goes through, the work of God is imperishable. What may accompany it in those in whom it is seen is another matter, causing discipline or judgment, but the work of God itself is imperishable.
PL Would not the three distinct ministries, those of Peter, Paul and John, touch on this; Peter in relation to Noah; Paul in the great patriarchal character of blessing, seen in Jacob; and then John in relation to the overcomer in Malachi, as a son? Peter speaks of “our beloved brother Paul”; is there a passing over in that way, what is choicest in the one cumulative in the next?
JT I think it is important to keep the cumulative side in mind because it is the work of God. Peter undoubtedly touches particularly on Noah, because Peter deals with the government of God. He addresses his first letter to those of the dispersion, meaning that they were dispersed in the government of God. But the government of God did not interfere with the work of God, but rather accentuated it; it was the very thing that helped externally to develop in them the truth of christianity. So it is said of Noah, that he was one of eight, and saved; Peter says “into which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water” (1 Peter 3:20), they are the few of privilege. The government of God has a sifting character to it, and those that subsist are the privileged ones. So Peter says, “The time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come”, but then the house of God is us in his mind, that is real [p. 193] christians, and we are saved, not so as by water, but so as by fire. Where it is a question of the judgment of God and we are difficultly saved, we are saved so as by fire, that is, we have to go through things.
AMH Is that the same use of the word ‘few’ as in connection with Reuben’s blessing, “Let Reuben live, and not die; and let his men be few” (Deuteronomy 33:6); is it the dealing of God to free him from all that attached to him naturally, and bring out what belonged to privilege?
JT I should say so. They were counted, that is the comment; and if we take account of what he was according to Jacob’s blessing, that is a person governed by the flesh, the first-born governed by fleshly propensities, we can understand that reduction would be necessary to bring out the work of God in him. Is that your thought?
AMH I thought you were indicating the same kind of thing in Noah, the dealings of God bringing about an entire removal of all that attached to the old order, so that he stands out now as in accord with God.
JT The deluge was a most drastic judgment, only eight survived it; the same may apply now, there are comparatively few. Judgment beginning at the house of God is a most solemn matter, but then God’s government is to relieve His work from the flesh and what results from it.
Ques Does 1 Peter 5:10 agree with that, when he says, “The God of all grace who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, when ye have suffered for a little while, himself shall make perfect, stablish, strengthen, ground”? Does that agree with the thought of Noah being perfect in his generation?
JT Yes. So that we are to arm ourselves, according to his way of putting it, “with the same mind”, that is, the mind in which Christ suffered. “Christ indeed has once suffered for sins, the just [p. 194] for the unjust, that he might bring us to God”; so that we are not to suffer as evil-doers; he says, there is no need for that, but we are to arm ourselves with the mind of the Sufferer, “for he that has suffered in the flesh has done with sin, no longer to live the rest of his time in the flesh to men’s lusts, but to God’s will”. But then that is the beginning of chapter 4 of Peter’s first epistle, and at the end of that chapter he says, “the time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come”; that is, we cannot enter the kingdom without suffering. “Which figure also now saves you, even baptism”, that is not suffering, baptism is a figure of Christ’s suffering; so normally a christian would escape by arming himself with the same mind as Christ, to suffer, but then, if it is not there, the fire is needed. Peter says, “saved through water”; Paul says, “saved, but so as through the fire”.
JC-s Why does he say “the house of God” here, why not some other term?
JT Well, the allusion is to what is real, for he says, “if first from us”. Although the kingdom was his particular ministry, yet he reaches the idea of a spiritual house. We carry forward so much that is extraneous, that has to be dealt with.
Ques Are Peter’s developments of the spiritual house in his epistle the outcome of the impressions he got as to the assembly in Matthew 16?
JT Quite so, he deals with the material side. He does not develop the government of the house, nor the assembly proper; he did not have the mystery, but he certainly had the idea of material and the idea of an assembly, as the Lord used the word. So that he really merges in Paul’s doctrine from the standpoint of material; he says, ye “are being built up a spiritual house”; then in chapter 4 he says, “the time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come”.
NKM Will you say a little as to the distinction between being saved by water and by fire?
JT Well, water is normally a christian’s salvation from what is external; water is the normal thing, so Peter says, “which figure also now saves you, even baptism, not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the demand as before God of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being subjected to him”. There is no suggestion of suffering there, it is but a gracious symbol suggesting to the young believer that the suffering is by Another, he has no part in it at all, save on the principle of faith, that he arms himself with the mind in which Christ suffered. But then Paul looks at the brethren as possibly including persons who may have brought in extraneous material, like “wood, grass, straw”; but he says the real believer, although he builds in such material, will be saved, yet so as by fire; that is suffering, I mean it is a drastic thing, it is judgment in that sense.
WC Had the appearance of the cloud over the tabernacle by night discipline in view?
JT I think so; and even the Spirit coming in in the form of cloven tongues of fire, “our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). It is a most necessary thing, and those who love God and are subject to His work do not dread it, they rather welcome the thought. But it is the greatest cleansing element, the most drastic element.
PL So that, where Abraham is taken up in relation to the thoughts of God in a distinct way, does fire not enter in much? There is the vision he has at night, and then the fire in relation to the offering up of Isaac, and even the fire in relation to the judgment of Sodom. Does all that come into our history now, Abraham representing much that pertains to this day?
[p. 196] JT Quite so. It was a furnace he saw; before that “a horror, a great darkness, fell upon him”, and it says, “There was a smoking furnace, and a flame of fire which passed between those pieces” (Genesis 15:12,17). The smoking furnace would mean, I suppose, there was substance; it passed between the pieces. The ultimate deliverance of Israel would imply that experience; it undoubtedly includes the sufferings of Christ, but Israel would have to arm themselves with that mind; they come out that way.
WC In Psalm 105:12 the word ‘few’ is used in regard to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; would that suggest the choice result of God’s dealings with them?
JT I think it is a characteristic word; God would encourage us: it is really a question of quality.
JSE Is this a basic matter with us in days when darkness is thickening, the necessity of accepting this principle of fewness?
JT Yes, it seems a leverage in the soul, especially for young christians; one said, “Are such as are to be saved few in number?”. Well, the Lord says, as it were, ‘See that you are one of them’, “Enter in through the narrow door” (Luke 13:24). The one who answers to the test shows he is a subject of the work of God; that is the point, what the work of God is. So manifestly, Noah meets the incoming of sin in principle in the fact that he brings in the rest, the rest that had been disturbed, the rest of God. There had been an odour of rest, and God said in His heart that He would not again destroy the world by a flood. It is a remarkable thing that we are told what God said in His heart; what followed, in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, must have been the outcome of that; it is a question now of the heart of God. And Jacob answers to that in that he worships, as we are told in the New Testament, “on the top of his staff” (Hebrews 11:21). How much there must have been for the [p. 197] heart of God in that man as He took him up as he lay on the earth with a stone for his pillow, what there was in the heart of God to develop in that man! So that he is taken up to show not only the call of God but what God can do for a man whose natural traits are all against the work of God, what God can do to bring out a result for His own heart. So that he puts the second before the first; that is, he sees that is a principle with God, and he answers to the work of God in that dispensation, for it is a question of the work of God in a man whose history is so fully given and whose natural disposition was so against the work of God. So that he comes out with these sensibilities and with definite judgment as to the mind of God and maintains the great thought of father which had come out in this second dispensation, for Abraham is the typical patriarch, as representing the great thought of father, and Jacob is able to address his sons, the heads of the twelve tribes, from the standpoint of his own experience. That is, there was much in all of them, taken together, that would be against the work of God, but they are all blessed nevertheless; that is, the great thought of the dispensation is established in Jacob, and so it goes through to the next one.
AMH Is that what causes him to speak so feelingly of God as “the God that shepherded me all my life long to this day, the Angel that redeemed me from all evil” (Genesis 48:15, 16) with the consciousness of what he was in himself as standing in the way of the thoughts of God?
JT I think that is what is meant, what God had been to him. And now in his own sons he cannot expect anything different, so his blessing, unlike that of Moses, takes into account the working of the flesh in them all. It is a very hopeful and encouraging thought for us that the work of God survives even the worst that is in us. One has to confess before [p. 198] God, as God begins to work with him, just what his known propensities are; and wherever the work of God is, you will find a clear confession of that, and that is the next thing, to set your face against your natural propensities as naming them, and God is with you in that.
JC-s There seems no hesitation on Jacob’s part in accepting his name; that is often where we are hampered, we do not accept our name.
JT We do not tell everything out, we reserve so much; in fact there is so much we like in ourselves.
So that is the end of the second dispensation, that the work of God triumphs and is indestructible; it goes through. Jacob makes a great deal of the cave of Machpelah, as indicating his own burial, meaning that everything is to come up presently; he was conscious there was something there that would appear in the resurrection. That is another thing that helps us, that every item of the work of God will come up and shine according to divine counsels in the resurrection.
Rem So that it is stated that Abraham bought the field.
JT Yes, and he says so much about it; he causes Joseph to swear as to it, and then the others too, and tells us who had been buried there before. Joseph also wishes to be carried up and buried in Canaan, but he makes no point of Machpelah.
Ques Why do you speak of this as the end of one dispensation?
JT Well, it is the patriarchal dispensation, beginning really with Noah, but involving the call of Abraham. God is now taking on something else in Egypt; and the next one is what we call the Mosaic dispensation, it comes in under Moses in Exodus, and runs on to the end of Malachi.
JSE Is the number of souls that came into Egypt given to emphasise the continued thought of [p. 199] fewness? The number was very small, but all that God gets He gets out of that number, whatever He has to deal with in it.
JT So the patriarchal idea is stressed showing that the thought of the previous dispensation is carried forward, “These are the names of the sons of Israel who had come into Egypt; with Jacob had they come, each with his household”; that is, the patriarchal thought is carried through. Then the next point is that sonship is introduced, so that God says to Moses, according to Exodus 4:22, “Say to Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah: Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn”. In order to understand the verses read in Malachi, we have to bear this verse in mind, it underlies all that follows.
NKM Are you connecting that allusion referred to in Exodus with sonship in connection with sparing them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him?
JT That is exactly what I was thinking of, that Jehovah uses the words “his own son”; the quality that belongs to sonship was there.
Ques Would the two thoughts be maintained, the thought of the peculiar treasure and sonship in Exodus and in Malachi? God had in view in Exodus 19 that, in making a covenant, He might have a peculiar possession for Himself. Does He secure it in Malachi in the remnant at the close?
JT Quite so, and the covenant is really a provisional thing to release sonship, the real thought in the heart of God. He said “in his heart” — well, He said a great deal more in His heart than is alluded to in Genesis 8; sonship was in His heart, it was in His heart before the world was, and now He sends to Pharaoh about it, “Let my son go”, He says, “that he may serve me”. The covenant was introduced at Sinai, and what underlies that is that the idea of son [p. 200] was there; it was to release the affections proper to sonship, and that is how it works out now in the new covenant. The knowledge of the love of God in the new covenant is to release us so that He might have sons before Him released from all that hinders them.
Rem Not merely in purpose, but consciously.
JT Quite so; that was what He said in His heart at the very beginning. In Ephesians we get more in the heart of God than in Genesis 8.
JC-s So drinking into the cup of the new covenant in the Supper would greatly help us in reaching sonship afterwards.
JT That is the setting of it; it is to set us free for the thoughts of God before the world was. The ministerial section of scripture begins in Exodus, running on to David and Solomon, and the prophets are to call the people back to that. We are now in the ministerial section which involves authority. In Exodus 20 God speaks of the thousands of those that love Him, but there is much that is hindering that love, perhaps they could not be found, so the Lord Jesus comes in in spirit in chapter 21 and says, “I love”, that is, you have a concrete case of One who loves, “I love my master, my wife, and my children”. That is the Model, and all that follows is to set us free for that, for Christ is the great Leader in sonship. So that the One who says “I love” in chapter 21 is the same as is portrayed in chapter 28 as the high priest adorned with beautiful garments, the high priestly garments.
WC Are the two brought together in what Jehovah says in the first chapter of Malachi, “A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master”?
JT Quite so, and the brother who is really not a son is abhorrent to God in this book. When God says, “I have loved you”, He goes on, “But ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?”. Think of people asking God that! Then He says, “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? ... and I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau; and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness. ... They shall build, but I will throw down; and men shall call them the territory of wickedness, and the people against whom Jehovah hath indignation for ever”. All that is against God is beclouding the idea of a son; a brother ought to be a son. The imitation of brotherhood is abhorrent to God; it beclouds what He has in His heart. So that is what Malachi means. There was a time when Levi answered to the mind of God; the book contemplates that that is to be reached now, and hence these verses we have read. It is unmistakable; there is the heart of God, He is finding something that answers to His thoughts, “His own son that serveth him”.
Ques What is the thought in the “book of remembrance”?
JT That they are never to be forgotten. Our sins are remembered no more, but ourselves are never to be forgotten. It is “before him”; it is the idea of sonship, before Him, that they should be “holy and blameless before him in love” (Ephesians 1:4).
Rem So that these features you are speaking of seen in this remnant were so pleasurable to Jehovah that He has this book of remembrance written before Him.
JT That is the idea, this book is before Him, they are never away from His eye and heart.
JSE Is it right to say that the more the saints are consciously in sonship, the more they are before Jehovah?
JT Consciously, you mean? Yes, God looks for that.
JSE This thought of the covenant releasing sonship is peculiarly precious. I wondered if this chapter in Malachi does not show how peculiarly [p. 202] precious the consciousness of sonship amongst the saints is to God.
JT I notice it is mentioned here not to make any show of what they were going on with; it is that they spake often one to another; we are not told what they said, but Jehovah saw what underlay all those speakings often. There are, of course, those who think we have too many meetings; maybe we have under certain circumstances; but the opposite is generally the case, for really the life of the saints is in relation to one another.
JSE In a general way, you would say such a complaint is probably the language of an Esau?
JT I think that is right. ‘Too many meetings’. ‘Too much ministry’. All that, you may be sure, shows there is a want of the understanding of eternal life, for it lies in our relations with one another.
NKM This is characteristic speaking on their part.
JT That is the point. The leading point is they do that, showing they had pleasure in one another.
Ques Is the spirit of this carried on into the next dispensation, the beginning of Luke’s gospel?
JT It has often been remarked, and I suppose we may take Simeon and Anna as the typical answer in the New Testament. Simeon is said to have been a man in Jerusalem, which is a collateral idea belonging really to David and Solomon. He was a man of Jerusalem, that was his place; he would think of it when the Lord’s eye rested upon it; as He came in to Jerusalem from Galilee, He wept over it. It was the city of the great King. Simeon was there and he received the Babe in his arms, that is, he takes in all that is there, in faith; the fulness of divine thoughts was there. And here is a man who takes all that on, as it were; he takes it into his arms. It is thus he is able to speak of Christ as “a light for revelation of [p. 203] the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel” (Luke 2:32).
Ques Would the book of remembrance include all the redeemed company?
JT Well, it is those “that feared Jehovah”; others did not.
Ques I was thinking about the brother who had not reached sonship.
JT Well, as we were remarking about Esau, he had not reached it, though he was a nominal brother and had all the attention paid to him that a brother deserved, but he never developed sonship. It is in David really the idea of sonship comes out, and, alongside of that, Jerusalem. “Jerusalem above is free” (Galatians 4:26); sonship underlies the city. The idea is a free city; that is a thought that is current among men, they speak of the freedom of the city. Certain cities from the middle ages had certain privileges of that kind. But in the mind of God, the freedom of a city must result from sonship being there. “Jerusalem above is free”, that is the idea, sonship attaches to it; it is the great thought worked out in Galatians. I think Simeon, a man in Jerusalem, answered typically to what Jerusalem really is, a man who takes Christ into his arms and blesses God and says, “Lord, now thou lettest thy bondman go, according to thy word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation”.
Ques I wondered if this great thought you suggest in Exodus 21 is reflected here, love in bondmanship.
JT I think so; that is, love will take up the attitude of bondmanship.
EJMcB So your point is not so much the question of whether there are any that fear God, but whether we are amongst those who fear Him.
JT That is the point, I think. To say they include all the redeemed would be to say too much. The thought is that others were not doing [p. 204] it.
WC It is predicated of Levi in chapter 2, that “he feared me”; there were those who proved themselves true in a crisis, and in this book it was really a remnant within a remnant.
JT Yes, the book contemplates what that remnant had degenerated to. Then there were those, however few, who feared the Lord.
The last point, I think, embodies what we have in mind more than any: Christ is presenting Himself to the assembly. “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”. These things are not lost sight of, they are all in mind, meaning that the whole assembly is in His mind. The economy implies assemblies, but the church is in His heart; hence the answer here is from the Spirit and the bride, not the Spirit and the assembly, but the Spirit and the bride, a most exalted thought; the bride is speaking in consonance with the Spirit; that, I think, is the allusion. Now we can say that; it is what is developing spiritually at the present time. First we have the economy, that is the public position in the assemblies; the one idea that is in the heart of Christ is expressed in the bride, not the assembly, but the bride.
JSE Unified affection.
JT Exactly. What we really reach in our assembly services when we pass out of the externals into the spiritual, and begin to touch what is in the heart of God and the heart of Christ. This idea of what is in God’s heart is to be always kept in mind, the bride. It is not the public economy; that is all provisional, the primary thought is one, that is, the bride, so that she comes down “as a bride adorned for her husband”.
JSE “My dove, mine undefiled, is but one” (Song of Songs 6:9). Is that the idea?
JT Quite [p. 205] so.
EJMcB What He has peculiarly for Himself, for “He that has the bride is the bridegroom”; John had said that.
Ques And what is involved in the “Come”?
JT Well, I think He enters into His rights according to divine counsels; the time has come for that. It is not ‘Come for us’, but it is “Come” here. As has often been remarked, the Lord is coming out publicly; they want to see Him honoured.
AMH Would His angel testifying in the assembly be an incentive to keep before the assembly every feature that there might be this unifying of the work of Christ?
JT Yes, the testimony goes on there; but it is very glorious, I think, that, however great the confusion, this one thought is kept in mind; the Spirit of God is keeping at that all the time and now He has the assembly with Him in this character, the bride.
AMH That is, she is taking on a universal outlook now.
JT Yes, she is able to speak in this way.
JC-s It is the only time the bride’s voice is formally heard.
JT I think that is right. It is a most exalted thought, “the Spirit and the bride”. He has her with Him now. We were speaking this week elsewhere about the Comforter, mentioned four times only, and all in John 14, John 15 and John 16. First, the Father gives Him that He might be with the saints for ever; secondly, the Father sends Him in the Son’s name, which would allude to the side of the economy in the assembly; He teaches as to all things and brings all things that the Lord says to our remembrance; thirdly, the Son sends Him as having been with the Father; He stresses that He goes forth from with the Father, and He says, “He shall bear witness concerning me”. What can that mean [p. 206] but that the Spirit works out the Father’s thoughts, the Spirit being with Him? This suggests to us that the Spirit testifies as to the Father’s thoughts about the Son, as Abraham’s servant did about Isaac. So the Spirit is here in that connection, undoubtedly including Paul’s doctrine, and hence the bride, the assembly, for Christ; because the Father would have that, as Abraham would have that for Isaac, so the Father would have such a one for Christ, and now He has the bride with Him.
Ques You would say the word “Come” here is in view of His taking up His rights?
JT Manifestly. We are in the sphere of testimony and the Spirit and the bride want the Lord Jesus to come out into public display to effect all the divine thoughts.
PL Does she witness in that way to the consistent and patient toil of the Spirit?
JT I was thinking of that. What satisfaction to the Spirit to have her with Him here, to have her join in that word, “the Spirit and the bride say, Come”. One has often thought that the Lord’s presentation of Himself stands in relation to the testimony of His Person; the root of David is His deity, and the offspring of David is His humanity here; that is John and Matthew respectively. The assembly understands that, the Spirit has brought her to it, she understands the Lord in that way as the bright and morning star, the Luminary over against the terrible darkness we have here.