GOD'S MIND AS CONVEYED IN THE WORD

GOD’S MIND AS CONVEYED IN THE WORD

Hebrews 4:12,13; Hebrews 5:13,14; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 John 1:1

JT It is in mind that the expression ‘word’ employed in a characteristic way of persons and things involves the mind of the Person, such as the “Word of God”. It also involves the intelligent setting forth of things, having in view the mind and thoughts governing the things dealt with so that the intelligence should be readily received. The word is obviously an allusion to our minds, the word of God being a great general thought reaching up to a title of Christ Himself, and in one of the passages before us reaching up to God Himself. The word of righteousness would be the mind of God in relation to that feature, and so in regard to reconciliation and the cross, as also in reference to life. The truth involved is extensive and therefore we can only allot a limited time to each point. It is manifest that the word of God is the great governing thought in the subject. It widens out to everything that He would convey to us, and as it involves Himself (the Father, the Son and the Spirit at one time) it searches us, as is stated. It is of particular importance now; it always has been, but especially now in view of the great activity of man’s mind. It is of all importance that we should have God’s mind before us for its own sake, as well as giving us an understanding of everything. It is the disclosure of His mind.

Ques Would that be generally indicated from the Scriptures?

JT Yes, the Scriptures give a full account of what God would have us to know, and thus form the basis of God’s mind for us. The Spirit being here there is a constant enlargement as to the things spoken of in Scripture, so that we may have the word of God at any time, ministered by the Spirit.

WF ^[p. 65] Does it imply a living voice?

JT It does; it is a voice, of course. A voice in itself does not necessarily instruct the mind; it calls attention. It is in the word ‘word’, that we have what affects the mind.

WF The setting of it seems to be in relation to “those who had not hearkened to the word”, like Israel in the desert.

JT Yes. In connection with God’s ways in the desert beginning at Sinai particularly, the sound was of importance. The same thing applies to our own dispensation: there was the sound “as of a violent impetuous blowing”, and it “filled all the house” (Acts 2:2). The word is the communication of God’s mind. It is by writing too, but the idea of the word is what enters the ear; the ear refers to the understanding, that which is instructed.

ELM Would the expression itself be a little wider than in its application to the Lord as the Word of God? Would there be a wider bearing of it indicating the mind?

JT You say you make a distinction between what it is as a title applied to the Lord, and what it is as ministered, is that what I understand?

ELM Yes, whether it might have a little wider bearing in some instances than strictly as a title attaching to Christ?

JT The title as attaching to Christ would involve all that God has to say, and all that would come out through Him as become Man and thus qualified to unfold the mind of God. The question is whether we might speak of anything going beyond what He unfolded; we read that “by faith we apprehend that the worlds were framed by the word of God” (Hebrews 11:3); that would be the widest possible application of it. It is not only world, but worlds. We must conclude that that came under Christ in some sense, but as to christianity and the Old Testament ^[p. 66] the term certainly alludes to what came out through Him. John connects the title with Him, saying, “In the beginning was the Word”, alluding to His Person. Luke 1 says “Those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word”. Luke alluded directly to the Lord speaking. He became known in that way, and I apprehend it is from the same point of view that he alludes to Him according to the way He had served here, the Word conveying the mind of God. It appears to me that we ought to accept in a general way that what has come out from God is through Christ; it has come out in a mediatorial sense in One who is capable, as being Himself God, of knowing the mind of God.

WL-b Was it not in connection with the creation that it is said “For he spoke, and it was done” (Psalm 33:9)?

JT That is what I understand. “Without him not one thing received being which has received being” (John 1:3), so that we have to attribute all to Him.

ELM I was not thinking simply of the blessed Lord but of everything in detail, and whether any communication as expressed on the part of God might be the word of God at any given moment, having in mind the expression “to whom the word of God came” (John 10: 35).

JT You have in your mind the immediate vessel that may be employed, the immediate mouth through which the thing comes; is that your thought?

ELM I meant the thing itself, not so much the mind, but the communication at any given moment of the mind of God. I wondered whether that might be covered by the expression, “the word of God”.

JT It can be; that is what we ought to keep before us, only that we cannot say it is not from Christ, even if He uses vessels. We see in a general ^[p. 67] way that the Logos is Christ, and that the article is generally before it, and always before it when it is applied to Him, which I believe involves the double thought, not simply characteristically that, but that the double thing is there, as if all came out that way.

WF Is that the beginning of Hebrews, “God ... at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son”?

JT Quite so; that is over against the prophets. He had spoken to the fathers by the prophets, but the point is that God has spoken “in Son” now, and whether we should not in a wider sense connect all the speaking with Him, as able to communicate, and alone able to communicate, the mind of God.

AN Do you mean that if we are to have the truth about anything referred to in the Scriptures, whether as to righteousness, or the cross, or life, that there is the communication of the mind of God in respect of all these things, but that the whole truth is covered in Christ personally?

JT Yes, I think the Logos would cover the whole mind of God.

JTS Did you say that in Hebrews 4 the word of God reaches up to God Himself? Would the great gain of hearkening to the word in that setting be that it would bring us into the presence of God where everything is naked and laid bare?

JT That is what I had in mind; it is formally seen under the heading of, the Word, or the Logos, in Christ, and of course Christ is God, and it thus reaches up to God Himself. From the standpoint of our hearing it is that we are searched through and through: “All things are naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do”.

JTS So you consider that if we became habituated to this we would learn to love it, so that we would say, “Search me, O God” (Psalm 139:^[p. 68] 23).

JT That is the way we would like it to work; one hopes that by our looking at it in this way it will come to that more than ever before. There is the great possibility of having the mind of God about everything, hearing what He has to say. He has to say to everything, and how He speaks of things! He speaks of them in relation to our intelligence, taking account of our limitations, our minds, and speaking accordingly, but then He has given us of His Spirit “that we may know the things which have been freely given to us of God” (1 Corinthians 2:12). We have the power in the Spirit for that. It says, “We have the mind of Christ”; that is an immense thing, the power of thinking as He thinks, to take in and to be formed in our minds as to all the things of God. What can be more obvious than that it should be before us to have the mind of God about things?

AN That would be what the prophet referred to, “Thy words were found, and I did eat them” (Jeremiah 15:16); thus they become part of us.

TT Paul says, “They that were with me ... heard not the voice of him that was speaking to me”, (Acts 22:9). They apparently heard the sound, but it was not the word of God to them.

JT They did not hear the words.

WT Does Romans 3:2 bear upon our subject, where Paul is enjoining the gentiles to have the oracles of God which were committed to His earthly people?

JT He records how they had the oracles of God; how much more so ourselves! That leads us to Hebrews 5 where the writer has in mind “the elements”, as he says in verse 12, “of the beginning of the oracles of God”. Then in chapter 6:1, “Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us go on to what belongs to full growth, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God”; he is dealing with the ^[p. 69] Jews, the Jewish christians. They had the oracles of God as they are seen in the Old Testament, but they had fallen very low and needed to be taught again, as he says “Ye have again need that one should teach you what are the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God”; that is they had to begin over again. The oracles of God now refer to the great things of christianity, of which the Old Testament generally is figurative, but written for us so that we are to embrace the Old Testament in looking into the oracles of God, and the word of righteousness, which is what is before us. It says “everyone that partakes of milk is unskilled”, and speaks of “good and evil”. Attention is thus called to these elements which are the very fundamental elements of the beginning of the oracles of God.

AHG Are you referring to the Old Testament now?

JT Yes; that would be included for the Jews had these things, but then Christ had come in and everything had taken form. We can only understand the Old Testament by the presence of the Logos. It is only by Christ that we can understand “The Word”. Christ had already come in, and now it was for them to be instructed. The word of righteousness alludes to Christ and His death, but the Old Testament is certainly in mind; it is part of the oracles of God, but unintelligible except by Christ, so that “having begun from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). It is His exposition that makes the Old Testament intelligible to us. Of course the Spirit is here, and He-comes in grace into the mediatorial system, and all is connected with Christ.

AHG So that an intelligent understanding of the Old Testament scriptures would lead up to what Christ brought ^[p. 70] in.

JT They are essential; they were in mind, the new creation was in mind, but there would be no understanding of them by us apart from the Word, the Logos, meaning that Christ is the mind of God.

WSS Would the same remark apply to every word of ministry? That is to say the word of ministry would bring Christ livingly before the saints in regard to the particular aspect of the word which the ministry had in view.

JT And really it is by Him, for if you minister, all the ministry is by Christ. Peter said, “In which also going he preached to the spirits which are in prison” (1 Peter 3:19), referring to the Old Testament. The Spirit of Christ was the Spirit of grace, the title “the Word” involves all that, then “coming, he has preached the glad tidings of peace to you who were afar off” (Ephesians 2:17).

EBG Is the thought that in the Old Testament everything pointed on to Christ and found its centre in Him, while in christianity everything radiates from Him, so that any speaking today would be the filling out of what was in Christ personally?

JT Exactly, the Old Testament is like the light thrown backward, it is really from the same Christ, only He had not as yet taken form. He had not taken the form to which the term Logos belonged, but the speaking was there.

WF In Hebrews 6:1 it speaks of “the word of the beginning of the Christ”. What is the connection of that with what we are speaking of?

JT It is running on from this same subject: “Leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us go on to what belongs to full growth”. All that was really in the Old Testament only it came into the New; the Lord Jesus came into all that, and He had to do with all that. He had to do with it anticipatively; it was Christ that preached through Noah;

^[p. 71] it was His Spirit looking on to His incarnation, and operating in man, for the Spirit of Christ was the Spirit of a Man.

JTS Would you help us as to the difference between the babe state as “unskilled in the word of righteousness” and what belongs to the full-grown man?

JT I think the allusion is to the state of things among the Jews, christian Jews had dropped down to the level of the Old Testament. They were gradually giving up the distinctive features of christianity. The Old Testament is not viewed as one thing and christianity as another, for the Old Testament is involved in the whole scheme of divine teaching. The writer is treating them in that way, just as we treat christians today, for the great general weakness is in the want of teaching. There is a retrogression, we may say, to Old Testament ground. It is not to be repudiated but it is an extremely low state of things, so that the direct application of the passage now is to lead the saints from the babe stage, which is a state formed by a christianity which is current and which is really spurious. It is not the full truth of the word of God and we need this instruction, so that we should go on. The point is to go on to full growth and that is in Christ, the full height of christianity.

We have to admit that the babe state is very prevalent. So it speaks of babes or infants, and if we compare it with Galatians 4 we see that they were kept under tutors and governors; that is the nursery condition of things, but christianity has come, the fulness of time has come, and the Jews had lapsed back from whence they had come, so the writer is seeking to bring them on to the full ground of christianity.

ETS How does the word of righteousness bring that about?

^[p. 72] JT I think it is the opening up of the gospel. I daresay we might speak of the epistle to the Romans as a sort of general amplification of the word of righteousness, what came out in the way of righteousness. Righteousness did not belong to the earlier elements, what they had in the Old Testament; but everything must be learned in that way, so that “having begun from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Everything is to be seen and learned in Christ; the Old Testament cannot be understood otherwise.

ELM “Having begun from Moses” I judge then would cover the whole of the five books of the Pentateuch, so that our thoughts as to creation would be placed in relation to Christ?

JT I think that is right, provided we keep clearly in mind that all that came out (of course the creation refers to Him as God) through Him as the Logos refers to Him as Man. If others spoke before, it was by His Spirit, the Spirit of Christ as Man operating in man before He became Man; we can understand that.

WL-b Would you say that in the Old Testament God was educating mankind in view of the coming in of Christ, and it was like an elementary school in view of what God would further bring in?

JT I think that is a good way to put it. It was just an elementary school, but the Spirit of adoption not being there they could never lay hold of the divine ideal in sonship. The word itself was there; I suppose Moses could be said to have reached it as much as any, and yet he could not have been said to be out of the nursery; they were kept under tutors, the whole position had that character, until the time appointed by the Father. Until faith came, they were kept under tutors but “when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman,

come under law” (Galatians 4:4), the Lord came into all that as coming in among the Jews, and everything attached to Him; everything became intelligible to faith, He gave it a spiritual import.

WL-b Would the word of righteousness be as far as God could take the people in the Old Testament?

JT It is to be questioned as to whether it was that in the full sense. The article in all these cases conveys the full thought of the thing. Christianity is developed, so that whatever we get now involves the whole matter. You could not get that in the Old Testament.

WSS Would the thought here be that the saints are to be skilful in the word of righteousness?

JT Yes, it is the word, the whole thing that is in mind.

WSS I had in mind that the writer of the epistle says in regard to the Lord that he has much to say about Him in His Melchisedec character, but there is need of a state in the saints of skilfulness in the word of righteousness that they may take in the ministry as to His Person.

JT They really had lapsed back to Jewish ground, as christians have today, hence the importance of this.

Ques Are you suggesting that the Old Testament only deals with what is elementary?

JT It was all elementary as to the state of the persons addressed; they could not take in the word of righteousness. As to the state of the people they were in the nursery: redemption was not accomplished and the Spirit of God had not come; they could not understand the thing.

JTS Would the word in Romans 1:16,17 support what you are saying, “I am not ashamed of the glad tidings; for it is God’s power to salvation, to every one that believes, both to Jew first and ^[p. 74] to Greek:

for righteousness of God is revealed therein”? Would that help?

JT Yes, I am glad you mention that because that is the idea, the double idea is in the mind in the article, the word of righteousness; the whole thought is there which of course the Old Testament could not furnish; it was written in such form as could only be intelligible to us, to christians.

TT The Lord says in Luke 8:11, “The seed is the word of God”. Could there have been any seed apart from Christ?

JT Everything hinged on the coming in of Christ, but God could act anticipatively; that is what we should pay attention to, that the Spirit of Christ was operating before as well as after, only not before as an indwelling Spirit, for John 7:39 says expressly that “the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”, but He operated; the Spirit of Christ as He is seen in the gospels, operated before.

AHG Would this thought of righteousness be the first great basic principle that the word of God would establish?

JT You feel how essential the word of righteousness is now, and how many are unskilled in it. When a matter comes up to be decided, how few of us are able to render a judgment, and how readily we are carried away with what is contrary to the word of righteousness. It is because of our being unskilled in it; it is a matter now of our senses being exercised to know it and be skilled in it.

WP Is the word of righteousness the whole body of doctrine connected with righteousness?

JT It would include that, but then doctrine itself will not do. You want the spirit of the thing; the Spirit instructing us inwardly to be skilled in it, to the exercise of our senses, to see how it is applied. You might be skilled in the doctrine and yet not have ^[p. 75] the skill of the word of righteousness. I do not think anyone could be skilled in the word of righteousness unless he has the Spirit and knows redemption.

EBG Does the thought of the word of God suggest very fine discernment and penetration? In our first scripture it is “living and operative” and “sharper than any two-edged sword”. It divides between soul and spirit. In Ephesians 6 it speaks of the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God, and in Revelation 19 we read of One whose “name is called The Word of God”, and out of His mouth goes a sharp two-edged sword. Do these passages indicate that fine division and discernment are connected with the word of God?

JT How essential each thought of the word of God is. In the Old Testament it says, “Man’s spirit is the lamp of Jehovah, searching all the inward parts of the belly” (Proverbs 20:27). That is what He did then, but to us the word now in the power of the Holy Spirit searches out everything, not only as light, but it is “living and operative” and distinguishes things inwardly so that we are not baffled as to feelings and motives, but are able to judge as to what is governing us.

JCMW Is it in that way that man is brought into being as intelligent as to the mind of God, capable of expressing skill in the word of righteousness?

JT Just so, the spirit of a man is the lamp of Jehovah. God is “the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9), a remarkable word, and all His discipline with us is to bring us on to this line, that we might get His mind.

AHG Would it be right to say that all that God effects in us morally is by way of the application of the word?

JT It is a question of His mind. What a great thing it is to get the mind of God; He is ready to ^[p. 76] impart it to us about everything; but we have to begin at the bottom, and that is with the word of righteousness.

WL-b Does it first of all put us right inwardly, and then skilfulness is seen in the way we can handle the word in ministry and in the Lord’s service and in having to do with others?

JT Quite so, skilful in it. You feel that the word of God is the first thing in imparting the sense that you have had to do with God and He knows all about you; that is really what happens when God impresses you with the importance of the fact that we have to do with Him. There is the great moral basis. Then these details, the word of righteousness, the word of reconciliation, the word of the cross, the word of life, the word of faith, and every such expression is that God would make us intelligent as to every item. I believe that is the way it works with us.

AN That would be set forth in 1 Corinthians 15:34 where the state of the Corinthians was such that the apostle said “Awake up righteously, and sin not; for some are ignorant of God”. The word of God would have put them right.

JT Quite so. You feel that God speaks to you, His word comes to you and you feel you have to do with God, and that “all things are naked and laid bare to his eyes, with whom we have to do”. The next thing is to be built up in the different items of the truth, that is to say the truth of God revealed, and the first great thing is righteousness, so that the gospel, as has been remarked, is unfolded. The righteousness of God is unfolded in it.

WSS I was thinking that the distinction made between the doctrine and the word should help us. I have in mind what is said in 2 Corinthians 5:18,19 where the apostle says that the ministry of reconciliation had been given to him, and that the word of reconciliation ^[p. 77] had been put into him. Does that help in connection with the distinction?

JT The word is given to Paul. The passage runs, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their offences; and putting in us the word of that reconciliation”, that is, you have two thoughts as to Paul, first that he was given the ministry of it, that is at the end of verse 18, then in the end of verse 19 the word of reconciliation is put into him, which was the consequence. He says, “We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us”. So that he had two things, the ministry, which is an official thought, and the word of it which was put into him. There is the mind of God declared as to it, and the apostle is specially qualified to unfold the word of reconciliation. Now the saints need that in their minds, to know that they are reconciled, what the thing really is. We use the word, but what is it, what do we understand by it? It would appear that Paul alone was qualified to unfold it; the ministry of it was given to him and the word was put into him.

WSS What I had in mind was whether the putting into him of the word of reconciliation would give us the further thought, that it was livingly in him; it was not merely the teaching in connection with reconciliation, but what he knew livingly in his own soul.

JT Exactly. He had the ministry of it, which is official as you might say, referring to administration, but the word of it was his power to unfold it.

WSS So that while this applies especially to the apostle, the principle would apply to us.

JT If a brother intends to minister the truth of reconciliation he requires to know it; apparently the apostle had it in a very special way in order that it should be ^[p. 78] made clear.

JTS What is the truth of reconciliation?

JT It is that we are taken up in Christ, in divine complacency. The word of it is to be taken into our souls by faith, and it is to be understood. I see how I am taken up in Christ through redemption in complacency, that abstractly I am perfectly delightful to God through the work of Christ; it is a basic thought, not a question of formation, but what God has effected. It is a matter for the preaching.

WF Does it follow the word of the cross in the first epistle?

JT It would involve that. The word of the cross helps you to deal with what is contrary to it, but it is a great matter to have the idea of reconciliation as a basic thought in the soul, that God takes us up in complacency and that He will operate in us and by us from that point of view. He is dealing with material that is acceptable and pleasing to Him.

ELM Is the idea suggested in its completeness in that sense, the word of reconciliation, not the thought of formation but the abstract thought of the word of God in its completeness?

JT Yes. The word, the ministry of it, is official, and implies that Paul had it in an authoritative way. If anyone were concerned about it the answer would be, ‘You must go to Paul’. We have to go to Paul for many things, amongst them this great matter and also the ministry of the assembly. It is not only that he has the authority but also the power to deal with it in the word being in him. It is said in Galatians that God had revealed His Son in him, and so here the word of reconciliation in him gives him authority to deal with it; the full thought is now out.

FI Is the same principle seen in regard to the young men in 1 John 2? The word of God abides in them, and they have overcome the wicked one; the word of God abiding in them is the source ^[p. 79] of power.

JT The word of righteousness put into the apostle is his ability to unfold the thing, to make it intelligible to men, so that he is an ambassador fully furnished to make the thing known.

WFS Would it be an expression of the thing itself?

JT It is an expression and presented in such ability by the one who knows it that it is intelligible to men; hence we get it from Paul.

JP How do you distinguish between the word of righteousness and the word of reconciliation?

JT Righteousness is the first thing, and reconciliation follows on righteousness: “for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the principle of faith, to faith” (Romans 1:17); the gospel is the power of God to salvation because it discloses this great matter of righteousness, and of course we have to work it out as we see in Romans; then reconciliation is mentioned in Romans 5, “through whom now we have received the reconciliation”, that is, through Christ. It is a further thought, and comes in after it is understood that “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit”. We feel that as having the love of God in our hearts we shall be able to take in the great thought of being pleasing to God, and this is applicable to every believer. So we are asked to “be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

JTS Does the place that reconciliation has in Colossians 1 indicate that it is something further than the word of righteousness?

JT Quite so, there is the Godhead, or we might say the “fulness”. Colossians 1:19 in the New Translation puts in “the Godhead” to give the sense, but the thought is in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell, and then it goes on to say He has reconciled everything in Christ: “And you ... has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death; ^[p. 80] to present you holy and unblamable and irreproachable before it”.

JC Does the word of reconciliation mean the knowledge in our souls of what has been effected in the death of Christ, so that there might be a formative work in our souls under the new covenant?

JT It is the thing by itself, but it is a basic thought, and furnishes God with material pleasing to Him in what He is doing.

WSS I think it is helpful to notice that all the references to reconciliation stand related to God. It is to God, and His pleasure is in view.

JT It is a blessed thing to have the sense that God is pleased with you through Christ; He is pleased with you personally; that is the idea of “we have received the reconciliation”.

Ques In what way do we “become God’s righteousness in him”?

JT That is a very fine thought, not simply that we are righteous before God, but we are His righteousness. That is how we are to be presented by and by. It is already true to faith, but God will say ‘Look at all this vast system of blessing brought in and established in the saints who form the assembly; it is not only that they are constituted righteous, but they are My righteousness’.

Ques Does it stand relative to reconciliation and the ministry of it?

JT I think it does. God can confer it, for righteousness is a question of His rights. He has a right to do this and He does it in consistency with His own majesty.

Rem If this is known in the soul complacency can be enjoyed.

AN Do you think it is illustrated in the spies? Ten of the spies raised difficulties about the land, but Joshua and Caleb said, “If Jehovah delight in us, he will bring us into this land” (Numbers 14:8). There had been previous proofs of God’s intervention on their behalf, but when it was a question of entering into the land that is His purpose and it is “If Jehovah delight in us”.

JT Very good, so that the thought which is the basis of it was there in the Old Testament. God loved the people and delighted in them, and how could He delight in them save in anticipating Christ become man? Christ has come in so that we can see how applicable it is to the saints today, and what a delight it is to God to have material that pleases him, and for us to have the sense that God is pleased with us.

EBG As the time available is running out will you say a few words on your concluding points, the word of the cross, and the word of life?

JT The teaching of the cross is the most drastic of the truths we have been dealing with; because it is God operating and turning the crucifixion of Christ round and making it apply to man in his wicked condition. Christ crucified is the expression of God’s judgment on man, “Cursed is every one hanged upon a tree” (Galatians 3:13). Every one of us deserves the curse, but God makes it fall on Him who did not deserve it. Those that crucified Him deserved it, but God’s judgment of them and of all of us was expressed there. It is a most drastic thought, because it involves the cross, and the word of it here (notice that the footnote says ‘the word, logos, which speaks of the cross’ ) is to bring out the way the thing is to be spoken of; it is “to them that perish foolishness, but to us that are saved it is God’s power”. It refers to persons who are characteristically saved, or being saved. If I accept the word of God, the word of righteousness and the word of reconciliation I shall accept the cross. It is a most drastic thing; the truth of the cross is the power of God to persons who are being saved, “are saved” is not final, but a ^[p. 82] process rather, as the original means. Anyone going on in that way is ready for the worst judgment of himself. He says, ‘I am worse than I have known myself to be before. Through the word of the cross, I have come to see how utterly mean I am, and nothing less than the curse of God could meet it’.

WSS I believe the passage may also be rendered ‘the import of the cross’, as apprehended in my soul and bearing upon me.

JT We see how we are being saved; we learn the judgment of God in its full bearing as effected in the death of Christ.

WSS The Corinthians were in danger of losing the gain of their salvation, and needed this word especially. The flesh had a great place with them.

JT Man in his glory in this world had a great place with them.

Ques Do we need to be maintained in the intelligence and apprehension of this word?

JT Paul determined that it was what the Corinthians needed. He was with them so long, and it is remarkable that it is only as in the town or city of Corinth that he gets his lead from the Lord. He seemed to gather up what was needed. The Lord had spoken to him about Corinth and the peculiar exercises of the place and eventually the Spirit of God helped him to stress the cross, as meeting the worldliness and recognition of man in the flesh.

JTS Does the place which the word of the cross has both in the Corinthian and Galatian epistles indicate that it will meet the conditions in those places, and also like conditions amongst ourselves? Is it especially needed now when man is so much in evidence?

JT It is needed at all times, but particularly now when the man who is developed through learning is made so much of. We find it in Romans, in Corinthians, in Colossians and Ephesians, so that the ^[p. 83] power of it runs right through and the saved ones (those who are characteristically saved) are the ones that value it; it is the power of God to them.

JCMW In what sense is it the power of God?

JT The word of the cross brought home to us in the power of the Spirit helps us. It is in a moral sense, of course, the Spirit is the dynamic power, but then there is moral power. We view things on moral grounds; that is the idea of the word of the cross.

WL-b Does the word of the cross deal with our relations with the world, as providing an exit from the world?

JT Quite so, “Through whom the world is crucified unto me, and I to the world” (Galatians 6:14).

JCMW Would you say that it is the final expression of God to the world?

JT It is His judgment of what man is. Golgotha, or the “Place of a skull”, is a derisive thought. It has in view the principles of this world, the great leaders of this world; what it all comes to, the “place of a skull”. The word of the cross brings all that out, and if we are going on in salvation we are glad of it, it is moral power in our souls to see that this is the mind of God about us.

EBG In order to get the gain of these thoughts is it necessary to place ourselves under the searchings to which you alluded at the beginning of the meeting, especially in relation to the cross?

JT That is what I thought. You feel that God is speaking to you and you invite this drastic thought, that I am only deserving of the curse, that I am so utterly mean in the presence of God. I am judging in myself that only this truth can meet it.

WSS Would it be right to say that only on that ground can there be the word of life?

JT That is what I thought. Life would finish the subject. John’s epistle is that. I suppose we might say John’s epistle is the word of life as Romans ^[p. 84] is the word of righteousness. There is not time to proceed further, but it is for us to follow it up if we are exercised about it. If we want to get the word of life, John’s epistle begins with it, it is the opening thought, and runs right through the epistle. The end is reached in chapter 5, where Christ is said to be “the true God and eternal life”.