CHRIST IN THE BELIEVER (3)

^[p. 277] CHRIST IN THE BELIEVER (3)

John 6:67 - 69; Exodus 28:1 - 4

JT It was intimated yesterday that our subject would take us today to Peter. We have already considered John the baptist and the woman of Samaria, the former exemplifying Christ in a sacrificial sense, that is, Christ is in him in that sense. In the woman of Samaria, Christ was in her as the Christ: she spoke of Him in that way, “Is not he the Christ?”.

Peter in his confession here indicates that Christ was in him as the Holy One of God, which may be enlarged upon in view of it being the first day of the week, and may be enlarged upon as viewing Christ as the Priest, the Minister of the sanctuary, so that we may have a little in that connection in keeping with the first day of the week. Peter’s exercises will find an answer in all of us as having part in the assembly. Assembly service is better known as Christ is known as Minister of the sanctuary.

So the better rendering in verse 69 is (it is Peter who is speaking for the others), “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”; “we have believed and known” would refer to past experience; “the holy one of God” would be an allusion to Aaron, said to be saint of Jehovah (Psalm 106:16); he is spoken of in that relation, the word alluding to holiness, and he is spoken of in that way as envied of opposers, looking forward to Christ as envied then and now, for the allusion is to Numbers 16, where we have the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, referring typically to the uprising in christendom in the history of the assembly, the hierarchical rivalry to Christ. So that our subject resolves itself at this time into an enquiry as to what is implied in ^[p. 278] the Holy One of God, as held in our hearts in this relation as delivering us from all that great system of priesthood that is current today in christendom.

SWR Is there a suggestion that some had turned aside? It says, “From that time many of his disciples went away back and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).

JT Well, that is the connection and it is very suggestive of our own times. The Lord had been unfolding Himself as the Holy One of God in priestly, spiritual power and substance, so that murmuring arose among His disciples, and the Lord says in verse 63, “It is the Spirit which quickens, the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life”. That is what marked the Lord. “Many therefore of his disciples having heard it said, This word is hard; who can hear it?”. What He was saying was spirit and life, entirely spiritual, hence it says, “From that time many of his disciples went away back and walked no more with him”. It meant a great falling away, not simply not following, but it was apostasy. They went away, walking no more with Him, and this brings out the confession of Peter as to his apprehension of Christ, and that of the others with him, that He was the Holy One of God, and that He would go on into the spiritual realm of His service, opening up the great service of God which is opened up in the epistle to the Hebrews later, where we are told, “We have such a one ^[p. 291] high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man” (chapter 8:1,2).

LLC Is there not a suggestion that the truth puts us to the test?

JT That is what stands out in the passage. The Lord is speaking of great things, and as He proceeds ^[p. 279] to greater depths His hearers begin to murmur, and this leads to what we read, that they “went away back”. They could not stand the spirituality of what He was saying.

JR It must have been pleasurable to the Lord to get this answer here, this confession of Peter’s.

JT It is not said to be a revelation of the Father here as in Matthew 16, where we have the other expression, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Here it is “the holy one of God”, and not an immediate revelation to Peter, but the outcome of observation on the part of himself and others. “We have believed and known”, he says.

JR Has this any connection with the first time Peter came to the Lord in chapter 1, when the Lord said, “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas”, meaning a stone?

JT The Lord had in mind what kind of a man he would be, an established sort of man, reliable, having the truth and holding to it, the idea of assembly material. That is, you are not giving things up, you have believed and known, and you are not giving things up whatever happens. We want to be stable as having part in the assembly, not carried about by every wind of teaching. “We have believed and known” — it is a settled fact in their minds.

RHKr Does this show Peter was progressing in his spiritual education?

JT That is right. “We have believed and known” is progressive. It shows he was going on with the thing, increasing in it. The Lord knew that and He would bring it out, as He does in every crisis; the crisis brings it out.

OL In the second epistle of John it says, “See to yourselves, that we may not lose what we have wrought, but may receive full wages. Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God”.

JT Well, he is simply out of the matter. One who goes forward and abides not in the doctrine, he has not God. Peter is going forward, and he has God, and also those that were with him, and so he says “We have believed and known”. He said as regards eternal life, “Thou hast words of life eternal”. That was a present thing; the chapter is full of these words, but as regards the Holy One of God that is a settled matter with them, extending back further. I suppose the chapter stresses the words of eternal life as a current thing, which the Lord had been bringing before them. As regards the Holy One of God, this would imply that there was an earlier conviction with them and that they had gone on with it. It really implies the epistle to the Hebrews which opens up to us the High Priest and Minister of the sanctuary, and the service of God.

RHKr Was the Lord Himself really eternal life? Peter observes, “Thou hast words of life eternal”.

JT That is what the scripture says, “He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20), but Peter was speaking in detail about it, “Thou hast words”. The words would open it up to your mind, make it intelligible to you. John’s ministry takes this up more than Peter’s, but Peter saw it.

RHKr As Peter spoke, were the others in the good of his expression?

JT It seems so. He spoke for the others. He said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. As much as to say, There is no other, and not only so, but “thou hast words of life eternal”. It is a great matter, He is eternal life, and He has the words of eternal life, which makes it intelligible to our souls, but then he is alluding to another thing which he stresses even more, that they had already believed and known about Him, that He was the Holy One of God, the true Priest; as much as to say, ‘Being the Holy One of God, there is no other’.

RHK That would be in line with what you were saying yesterday: everyone has to be eliminated that Christ may stand.

JT Yes, the Holy One, the High Priest in that sense. Of course all christians are holy, but Luke brings out the fact that Christ was holy substantially in His birth, and that could be said of no one else. Children of believing parents are said to be holy, but only in a relative sense. Christ was holy from the outset, “The holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

HF Would you say this crisis tested Peter? He says, “To whom shall we go?”

JT There is no other. It is largely in keeping with John’s line, “I, if I be lifted up”. There is no other. John is very astronomical in the use of his terms. If we follow him carefully we shall see that. There is no use bringing in any other, there is none.

JR Is there an allusion to this in Psalm 89:19, “Then thou spakest in vision of thy Holy One, and saidst, I have laid help upon a mighty one; I have exalted one chosen out of the people”?

JT Quite so. Aaron, saint of Jehovah, was typically Christ. Agur speaks of “the knowledge of the Holy”, which is “a man’s intelligence” (Proverbs 30:2,3).

Rem If Christ is in us in this way, it will preserve us.

JT That is what I thought. It preserves and delivers us from the great hierarchical system set up, as alluded to in the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Aaron is called “the saint of Jehovah” (Psalm 106:16). They envied Aaron as saint of Jehovah. This idolatrous uprising was typically against the priesthood of Christ, so men after the flesh are designated priests. It is rivalry to the true priesthood. Aaron represented the true priesthood, typically Christ, and that is what Peter means here. We ^[p. 282] see now that is what is in mind, that they had believed and known that He was the Holy One of God.

HS Is there any difference in knowing Him as the Holy One of God, and having part with Him as the Holy One of God? “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me” (John 13:8).

JT That brings us to what we read in Exodus. Aaron is introduced as the priest, the true priest, but his sons are introduced with him only primarily “that he may serve me as priest”. Throughout the chapter it is Aaron. In the beginning Aaron is serving, but at the end of the chapter his sons are brought in formally as serving, “that they may serve me as priests”. So I think John 13 would bring us in to have part with Christ in this service; He is Minister of the sanctuary, and we belong to the house of Aaron. The Psalms speak of the house of Aaron, “House of Aaron, bless ye Jehovah” (Psalm 135:19). I suppose the washing would bring us into association with Christ in that.

RHKr Is there a progressive step in knowing Christ as Son of God and knowing Him as the Holy One of God?

JT I think it is to bring us to Christ in us as Son of God, and that we find in chapter 9, although it is spoken of earlier, John the baptist testifying of Him as Son of God. The Son of God characteristically is seen as in the blind man, who is representative of that thought. The Lord proposes it to him, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?”. He was ready for that, “And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?”. We shall come to that tomorrow. This does not take us quite so far. The woman of Samaria was a purified vessel in whom Christ is as the Christ, the One who does things; Peter represents one in whom Christ is as the Holy One of God, which lays the basis for the service of God through the Minister of the sanctuary now. It ^[p. 283] is a very great matter because if He is in us in that light we are ready for the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, and all that enters into it. Christ is in me as the Minister of the sanctuary. It is a great day for the service of God, and that will exclude popes and bishops and all else belonging to the great hierarchical system that is current all around us. It is a very great matter and so necessary for the people of God to get deliverance from the uprising against the true Apostle and High Priest. They envied Moses, and Aaron, the saint of Jehovah.

HK Would you tell us why the Lord answers Peter in verse 70, “Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil”? Does it allude to the fact that as the Holy One of God He would be attacked?

JT You mean He says, “Of you one is a devil”. Judas it was, who would deliver Him up, being one of the twelve. Have you something in mind about that?

HK I asked the question for help, as I was wondering why the Lord answered Peter in that way in this verse. As the Holy One of God He was referring to the attack that would be made upon Him.

JT Yes, I think that goes with what we have been saying. How abhorrent it was to Christ, to His holy spirit, to think that one of the twelve was a devil; not simply that he had a demon, but that he was a devil himself. It is a terrible thing to think that a man should be a devil, and you would understand how the Lord would look on to the history of the assembly in seeing one of the disciples act in this way; that is what is involved in regard to this confession of Peter’s, an uprising of the enemy against the Holy One of God. Korah, Dathan and Abiram envied Aaron, the saint of Jehovah. He was a holy one, and the devil was near enough in these men to do that. Korah was a Levite, and Moses pointed out to him that he had great privileges, and he took ^[p. 284] advantage of them to rebel. These men were ready instruments of the devil to attack Moses and Aaron, that is to attack Christ typically. The moral bearing of it now is, may I not be one like that? I may be amongst those in fellowship, and yet be a ready instrument of the devil. “Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil”. The Lord had actually chosen him, and yet he was a devil, and the Lord must point him out on an occasion like this. On account of this confession of Peter’s and all it involved He must point out this wickedness.

SWR Is this matter of rivalry against the priesthood of Christ the sin against the Holy Spirit?

JT Well, that has been pointed out in an allusion to the so-called churches around us. Not that we are here to attack the clergy or any christian, but the whole idea, as pointed out, is dispensational. We have had a very strong and sobering statement regarding sin against the Holy Spirit. It sets aside the Spirit of God. A man takes the place of the Spirit of God in the assembly, he appoints who is to speak.

HS To know Him as the Holy One of God regulates our pathway on earth, and in relation to holy conversation, “Holiness becometh thy house, O Jehovah” (Psalm 93:5). “Loose thy sandals from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5). It was passing through my mind that it should be a great exercise if I know Him as the Holy One of God, then is my conversation holy, is my life holy?

JT That is the way this truth works out, “Be ye holy, for I am holy. And if ye invoke as Father him who, without regard of persons, judges according to the work of each, pass your time of sojourn in fear” (1 Peter 1:16,17). If Christ is the Holy One of God and we have part with Him it must have a bearing on our walk and ways here. How can we have part in the assembly save as holy? In regard ^[p. 285] to this question of rivalry, we can see how the Spirit of God is set effectively aside by the uprising of the hierarchical system. It has been said to be dispensationally the sin against the Holy Spirit. Why should I have part in that? It is a voice to every christian to come out of all that, and to have part with the Holy One of God.

LLC Is there not a crisis reached here, or a test? One could say, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”, but at this stage the Lord points out another class, one who is a devil.

JT Not one who has a demon, but a devil, and not that he has a devil but that he is a devil, representing the worst possible class. Then there is another class that the Lord points out. It says in verse 64, “But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would deliver him up”. Then it says in verse 66, “From that time many of his disciples went away back and walked no more with him”. There were those who went away back, walking no more, which would be apostasy, a final fixed matter. Then there is this one, Judas, who betrayed Him.

RHKr Would you say a word as to the Lord’s forbearance in having the knowledge of what Judas was and yet allowing him to go on with the company?

JT That brings up another matter in the sovereign ways of God, which are inscrutable at times. The Lord in finally alluding to Judas says, “Those thou hast given me I have guarded, and not one of them has perished, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12). The scripture had to be fulfilled, hence this one is allowed and ordered to be amongst the twelve though he is a devil, and evidently it is to bring out what the flesh is capable of. One so privileged and yet so ^[p. 286] incorrigible (the flesh is naturally incorrigible) so that he is called “the son of perdition”. That is, he was that characteristically. It was a matter of divine counsel really, that such a one should be amongst the twelve.

SWR Is that in contrast to the thought of Peter having been taken up to be a ‘stone’? He had his first impression that the Lord gave him, “I am a sinful man, Lord”; he got this impression very early.

JT That is very good. That is the way Luke presents it. He was impressionable. He is now ready for the positive side, what Christ is as the Holy One of God. So I suppose that was needed to link him with what this word ‘stone’ signifies; reliability is what is in mind as over against Judas, who was utterly unreliable.

Now in order to get the importance of the thought of the Minister of the sanctuary, which is in mind, and to really get an expansion of the thought, we should look a little at Exodus 28 to see how the mediator enters into the Jewish service, and how the priesthood enters into assembly service. What comes out in Exodus is that what we have before us is a life-size picture of Moses from his birth, whereas we have nothing about Aaron until he is about to be taken up for service. He was probably over eighty years of age before he is mentioned, whereas Moses is the great primary thought, so that the early part of Exodus occupies us with him from his birth, and as to the representation of God in a man, it is Moses who was to be for God to Pharaoh, and Aaron was to be his prophet, not priest, but prophet. The priesthood of Aaron comes out formally in chapter 28, but the mediatorship of Moses comes out prominently much earlier, and that suggests the thought of the Lord’s supper in the antitype, as marked by the authority of Christ, His official and moral authority,

^[p. 287] so that it is called the Lord’s supper, the Lord’s table, the Lord’s cup, the Lord’s death.

HS So the speaking is to those who are wise-hearted, those who are filled with the Spirit in Exodus?

JT Yes, it is a spiritual matter. The apostolic, or authoritative side of the service of God is what is stressed at the outset more than the priestly side. The priestly side is the Minister of the sanctuary.

HEF Do you mean that we need the service of Christ as Mediator before we are ready for His service as Priest?

JT That is what I was thinking. It is obvious that it is so, so that we are told in the early part of Exodus that after crossing the Red Sea, Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God (Exodus 19:17). Now I would bring in this thought, hoping that the Lord will use it to help the brethren as to assembly service, leading on to the idea of the Minister of the sanctuary; that is, we come together in assembly. It is an inside place, a family expression. It is in relation to the Lord’s supper that we leave our habitations on the first day of the week to meet together in assembly. It is a dominical matter. It is obvious that it is so. We need to be helped in our houses, as we move out of our houses into the street to go to the assembly, as we reach the place of meeting and sit down together; it is all a dominical matter, we have to do with the Lord, and as He has His place with us we are brought to God. He is Himself the object of service of worship, of praise, but then what He has in mind is to bring us to God. Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, but that only goes a certain distance, and it alludes to the authority of Christ over us, officially and morally.

HEF Would you say it involves authority over the whole scene, and that He controls the situation and opens up the way for ^[p. 288] us?

JT And so it is His day, His dominical day, and He has kept it open for us, and it is to bring us out of the camp to meet God. It is a question of entering into this matter. The thought of the priesthood comes up in chapter 28. It is a matter which I believe is deserving of the consideration of the brethren, to understand the service of God and the features of it: at the beginning the authority of Christ, then His ministerial service Godward, “That he may serve me”, Jehovah says, not the people now, but, “That he may serve me as priest”.

Ques Referring to Moses bringing the people to God, have you in mind covenant relations?

JT Well, the covenant is included, but mediatorship has to do with us in a wider way than the covenant, in the way of authority, official and moral, so as to bring us into subjection; practically we are brought to God in that way. The body of Christ was for the will of God, and we, “being many, are ... one body”, is also referring to the will of God, and is effected through the Lord’s service to us in authority, so that we are brought to God in entire subjection to Him and indeed to one another and are practically united.

HEF In that connection would you say what would be the bearing of the passage we get in Exodus that when the glory filled the tabernacle Moses was not able to enter?

JT Well, the point there is that the mediatorship of Christ ends there, and now we are brought out as furniture of the tabernacle, parts of it, the tabernacle of the saints, and as each part is brought and put in place it is functioning, that is, our wills are not active, it is the will of God, each functioning in his place, and now we see Moses is not needed, there is no room for him. It is not any discredit to him; it is really a credit to his work, that he has effected that in us.

HEF ^[p. 289] Is that the point therefore where we should move on to the service of Christ, as Minister of the sanctuary?

JT Well, that is where room is made for the other part of the service, where we move forward into the consciousness of sonship, because sonship is the primary thought in Exodus, it nullifies the official side. Sonship is not the official thought. “Let my son go, that he may serve me” (Exodus 4:23) is a family thought, but when we come to the actual service we need holiness and intelligence, and that is what priesthood means.

JR That is the service of Christ as Minister of the sanctuary?

JT That is what I thought. The covenant releases us for sonship, which sets us free in our spirits. In Exodus 19 Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God. Then in chapter 28 we have this appointment of Aaron and his sons, “That they may serve me as priests”, Jehovah says. So that the service is Godward, not Christward, but Godward. Christ is among us as our Leader, but He is concerned about the sanctuary, that God may be ministered to there.

HEF Is it not striking that Leviticus follows, the people drawing near to God with their offerings and so forth?

JT Exactly. It is the counterpart of Exodus, making way for the priesthood. Leviticus was not properly named. The book should have been named from Aaron, not Levi, because the idea of Aaron governs Leviticus. It is drawing near and serving God, so that Psalm 135 says, “House of Aaron, bless ye Jehovah”.

LAR I have heard it said that the service of Christ goes on into eternity.

JT Well, it does, but not in the sense of priesthood, nor even in the sense in which we are speaking of it now, but in eternity in a sense we shall always ^[p. 290] need Christ as a Man between God and us. We shall never see God in His infinite essence; no creature can see Him, so that He must be seen in the Mediator, in the One we know. We can only take God in, in Christ; that is all that is meant in that. We are now speaking of Aaron typifying the Lord as Minister of the sanctuary, and in the history of the assembly according to Numbers 16, of the uprising against this, “They envied Moses in the camp, and Aaron, the saint of Jehovah”, this one who served in the sanctuary. The intent of the enemy at that time was to set aside the service of God, and that was the enemy’s intent in the antitype in the history of the assembly. It came about when the clerical system was set up, and as it continued it eventually shut out what we have been speaking of. The service of God in the assembly is maintained by Christ in an intelligent way, the saints all being regarded as priests, of the “house of Aaron”. The clerical system makes the priesthood dependent upon a certain religious training, and not on a man being converted and having the Holy Spirit. It effectually shuts out the Minister of the sanctuary, and the functioning of the saints as priests. Now we see that Peter’s confession of Christ implies the Minister of the sanctuary, and that we are all priests; all christians, those who have the Spirit, are sons of Aaron and have part in the service.

HEF Would you say that if we understood better the glorious character of the Minister of the sanctuary the thoughts of the service would be elevated in our minds?

JT That is the point in the epistle to the Hebrews. It ought to be read and studied by us in the light of what we are saying now. How glorious this Person is! So that after the first seven chapters of that epistle it says, “Now 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; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man”. That is an opening up of what we are speaking of, and after that he touches on the covenant for at least two chapters, so that the saints should be free to have part with Christ as the Minister of the sanctuary. The house is reached in chapter 10:19. He urges the saints to draw nigh to God by “the new and living way” which has been opened up.

HEF He makes the whole position very attractive to us.

JT Yes, indeed. “We have such a one” as that, it says.

SWR Is the thought of entering into the sanctuary the thought of a building? I was thinking of Cephas, a stone, and his understanding something of the Holy One.

JT It has a wilderness setting. It was a tabernacle, the idea of pitching and setting up a tabernacle. It really is the assembly which is the true tabernacle which the Lord has pitched. I suppose that is what you mean?

SWR It was on that line, following up the thought of Peter, and at the same time I thought of the remark you made just now of being subject to God and to one another. That makes room for the holy priesthood.

JT The position in Hebrews is the tabernacle, but it involves what is heavenly. The tabernacle was figurative, representative of things in the heavens, so that we have access to the heavenly part as following the Minister of the sanctuary.

HS So the Lord says, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17).

JT I was just going to say a word that would lead to that. Hebrews 2:10 says, “It became him,

^[p. 292] for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. That is what the apostle has in mind to reach. God is bringing many sons to glory so that the tabernacle pitched implies the thought of things in the heavens. Then it goes on to the thought that the leader of their salvation is made perfect through sufferings. That is to say Christ has reached a condition of humanity in which we can have part. As here on earth He was alone. Being made perfect means He reached through sufferings a condition of humanity in which we can have part, hence it goes on to say, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren”. That is the supreme thought in Hebrews that the Spirit of God would lead us to, and we see that the Minister of the sanctuary is really not ashamed to call us His brethren, and we really are of His house, the “house of Aaron”. We have part in the heavenly service, “bringing many sons to glory”. We are God’s sons, and we are Christ’s brethren. That is the ground we are on, the family side of it.

HS The Lord is free in His spirit to declare the Father.

JT That is the setting of it. It is a family matter now. “I will declare thy name to my brethren”. The priesthood is all to that end. The priesthood is essential because of what we are down here. The point is the family.

HF Why is it that Moses stands alone but Aaron has his sons?

JT Well, Moses represents the authoritative side we have been speaking of. At the Lord’s supper we do not rise to the family thought, we are viewed more as in the wilderness as disciples of Christ, and ^[p. 293] it is a question of His authority. So as we were remarking it is a dominical position, and as we move on to the paternal position, and distinguish between one and the other, we reach the Father in the second part of the service, but the Minister of the sanctuary comes to our side and ministers. He is not ashamed to call us brethren. He sets us free, so that we are now qualified to be His companions. That is the line He leads us on as Minister of the sanctuary. It is a fixed relation.

HF That goes on into eternity.

JT The other side is mediatorial and will pass away as not needed, hence there was no need for Moses to enter because the glory filled the tabernacle.

JR We read of the glory filling the house and the temple, as well as the tabernacle. The priest could not enter in when the glory filled the temple.

JT That is the same thought. Not only the authority of Christ but the priesthood, and that shows that the priesthood in itself is not the eternal thing that has to be carried on. Priesthood really meets certain conditions, and this is essential because we are still in the flesh. Exodus begins, “Let my son go”. When we come to actual service at Sinai, it is the priest, “That he may serve me”, not as son, but “as priest”.

HS So we have come to Christ, to the Mediator of the new covenant. We have reached mount Zion then.

JT Exactly, we have come to mount Zion; we have come “to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant”, and to God.

OL Does the service of Christ as priest enter into the Supper at all?

JT It does in the sense that priesthood has its bearing towards men, but the primary thought is in Exodus 28, “That he may serve me as priest”. When we come to later books we find the priest also serves the people. His compassion on the erring and the ignorant serves us in that way, as we need such service to adjust us when we come together.

OL That is why I wanted to ask whether in the condition in which we come together we need the service of the priest before we can proceed.

JT We do need the service of the priest in the sense that he can have compassion on us and minister to us, “His left hand is under my head” (Song of Songs 2:6). That is my support, the priest supports us, “And his right hand doth embrace me”. It is the strength of His love supporting us in spirit.

AHn That is because we are breaking bread where Christ is not?

JT You are conscious in yourself that you need the Lord’s support and He grants it to you, but properly the priesthood begins in Exodus 28, “That he may serve me as priest”. So that the priest is more the type here of Christ as Minister of the sanctuary.

Rem I am sorry to take up the time but I would like to be clear on the two verses in John 6, that is verses 66 and 69. We have two companies there, one company of disciples it is said left off following Jesus, walking no more with Him. Peter says for the other company, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. I have in mind that I would like to be sure of the company I am among. I feel out of place amongst the company of those who refuse to follow Christ, and I would like to realise that I am among the company that is supported, who can say, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”.

JT Quite so. That is what you hope we are. I mean the company whom God is supporting. Well, I am sure I am able to say I am among the company who know Christ as “the holy one of God”, and ^[p. 295] when we are able to say that, we are characteristic material for the assembly.

HS That will leave a great exercise as to which company we are among.

JT It is a challenge to each of our hearts. Are we among the company whom God is supporting? Then on the other hand, there are those who went away back, and in a way they stay there, but then the devil as representing a third company is not going back, which is the sorrowful side. The devil also came, we are told in the book of Job: when the sons of God came together, he also came. That is what Judas did. He will not stop at that. He will come back to us again to upset us. Judas went out from the company at the Supper, when the Lord said, “What thou doest, do quickly”, but he did not stay out, he came back, that is the sorrowful thing. The third type of man is a devil, and he is not amongst those going back, though typically of course he is the one who induced them to go back. He is not going to be inactive or to leave the company who have believed and known. He comes back to that company to upset it, and so when he comes back he knew the place we are told, and it was a garden where the Lord was accustomed to be with His disciples. He comes back with lanterns and torches. That is the sorrowful side of the position, this move of the devil. He knows the conditions, and is always ready to attack us, so we have to be on our guard.

AHn Is there any reason why they went away back?

JT The Lord knew they would, so He puts them to the test. The spiritual teaching first led them to murmur and then they went away back. The devil is always ready to come up and attack us. He knows the place, and he knows the ways of the brethren. He knew the place where the Lord was accustomed to resort with His disciples.

OL ^[p. 296] In Acts 28:1 it says when they reached the island, they knew where they were. The company would know where they were.

JT And we know where we are. Quite so. You have reached solid ground after the shipwreck.

CS When they left did they go back in confusion?

JT Well, what have they got? They left Him, the Holy One of God. What have they now? There is nothing else but confusion and apostasy.

Rem The glory filled the tabernacle and also the temple. In John 17:24 the Lord says, “That where I am they also may be with me”.

JT Quite so, that is our privilege, that we may be with Him, that we may be holy to God.