CROYDON - READING (3)
CROYDON — READING (3)
JT This scripture is suggested partly because it is the first day of the week. It has come before us, from time to time, that there should be recognition of the day, and that we should seek to bring the service of God into it. This section therefore of chapter 4 affords a good example as a subject, for the service of God peculiarly enters into it, not simply in an ordinary sense, but in a worshipful sense. The thought of worship comes into the passage peculiarly, the Lord referring to it in the discourse with the woman of Samaria. He says “The Father seeks such as his worshippers”, but the conversation with the woman opens it up, she introducing the subject of worship.
WS How does the unsatisfying character of the waters of this world contribute to the matter we are now speaking about?
JT It contributes to it negatively. The Lord is said to be wearied with the way He had come, and then it says, “A woman comes out of Samaria to draw water. Jesus says to her, Give me to drink (for his disciples had gone away into the city that they might buy provisions). The Samaritan woman therefore says to him, How dost thou, being a Jew, ask to drink of me who am a Samaritan woman? for Jews have no intercourse with Samaritans. Jesus answered and said to her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water”. Now the matter is thus introduced, the woman saying further that she discerned that the Lord was a prophet. It is a question, therefore, where our discernment is in a time like this, so that we should get something out [p. 138] of it, discerning that the Lord is a prophet, and discerning the spirit of prophecy.
Ques Is the greatness of the Person as the Giver of the Spirit in view?
JT I think so, and that is in keeping with the spirit of John’s gospel; it is a question of the greatness of the Person of Christ. So in the first chapter we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” and so forth. The subject is introduced there, and it is a question of the greatness of Christ, who He was. “All things received being through him, and without him not one thing received being which has received being”.
Ques Does that link on with verse 10 of this chapter where the Lord says, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink ...”?
JT “Who it is”. Quite so. The Lord says elsewhere, “Thou shalt see greater things than these”. He always brings in what is to be seen as great.
WSS I think when we were looking at this passage here some years ago, it was suggested that the woman would be suggestive of the assembly. That seems to lift our thoughts on to a high level in relation to the passage.
JT That is, the woman as converted. Quite so. Before she was converted, she would not be illustrative of the assembly; you do not mean that, of course.
WSS No. At that time we were considering the thought of man and woman, and the Lord addresses her here as “Woman”.
JT I think that is good. Perhaps we will be led on to the fulness of it, so that the assembly is in view, because it is said in the end of the passage that she left her water-pot, meaning that she saw the end of natural things. She came to the end of natural things, she “left her water-pot and went away into the city, and says to the men, Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done, is not he the Christ?”. So that the thing came into her mind that He was a great Person. He was the Christ. The Lord, in fact, had told her that He was the Christ, which is a very remarkable thing. It is doubtful that He told anybody formally that He was the Christ, save this woman.
WC When the woman says, “Sir, I see that thou art a prophet”, would that link on with Joseph’s cup — the thought of the one who divines and discerns? I was thinking that the woman had some sense that she was in the presence of the true Joseph. He is alluded to previously in the chapter.
JT Just so. The well is implied in that, and would you say, leading up to the whole thought of the water that the Lord proposed to give.
WC Quite. I was thinking of what was said yesterday about the cup of the Lord, and wondering whether it would fit in with that. It is the challenge to our hearts as to conditions, so that there might be no hindrance to the flow of worship.
JT Very good. I think you would do well if you said more about the cup of the Lord.
WC It is connected with the thought of jealousy in 1 Corinthians 10. “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”. I was thinking of the jealousy of love that would expose and deal with everything that might hinder the worship.
JT Just so.
AJG Does the woman’s action in leaving her water-pot indicate that she recognised that now she herself was to be a vessel of the Spirit?
JT That is just what I thought. Why should she carry a literal water-pot, when she had the spiritual water? “The water which I shall give him”, the [p. 140] Lord says.
AJG I wondered if that would be a good thing for every brother and sister to recognise fully, and whether the assembly would not greatly benefit if every brother and sister regarded themselves as vessels of the Spirit and therefore contributory to the service.
JT Yes.
HGH In verse 10, where the Lord says, “If thou knewest the gift of God”, is the Spirit referred to there?
JT I think so. The Lord really had that in His heart, when He says that. “Jesus answered and said to her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water”. That was what was in His mind. The great gift is the gift of eternal life. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal”.
ESH The Lord Jesus had spoken in chapter 3, of speaking of heavenly things. Is this woman leaving her water-pot prepared to leave the things she would be drawing upon in regard of earth, but to live in heavenly things by the Spirit?
JT I suppose so. She left her water-pot, and then she became evangelical. It says, “The woman then left her water-pot and went away into the city, and says to the men, Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done, is not he the Christ?”. So that I think, in going to the men, she became evangelical. Hitherto she might well be afraid to go to them, but she was not afraid to go to the men now. She did not seek out the women simply, she went to the men, and said, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done”. I think she was wholly superior now to all the natural feelings that might have been with her. So she left her water-pot,
[p. 141] intending undoubtedly to go in for heavenly things, but then it was not only that but she went to the men. She was evangelical, and it is a good thing for sisters to learn to be evangelical and to be entirely free from natural thoughts.
PL So that it says in Philippians, “our commonwealth has its existence in the heavens”, and so on, and immediately afterwards we have the reference to the true yoke-fellow, and to those “who have contended along with me in the glad tidings”.
JT You mean the woman symbolised that?
PL Yes, the evangelical spirit flowing out of the heavenly position.
JT Just so. In fact, the word ‘them’ in the passage you quote from Philippians is a feminine word, is it not?
PL That is right. It might read ‘Those women’.
ECM Does the idea of the living water suggest that the service of God is a living matter?
JT Well, just so. Peter said of the Lord, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The service of God implies what is living. Is that what you meant?
ECM Yes, and also the thought that the assembly is “the assembly of the living God”.
JT Quite so.
Rem When the Lord says, “who it is that says to thee”, is He really referring back to what it says at the end of chapter 3, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”.
JT I suppose that is quite right.
HH Would you say a little as to eternal life in connection with the thought of the living water. We have the thought of eternal life in the previous chapter, and then it is brought forward into this chapter in verse 14, “the water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life”.
JT I think the idea in chapter 3 must enter into this, because it is a question of the gift of eternal life, and that must spring out of the fact that it is a question of the Spirit. “Springing up into eternal life” alludes to the Spirit, which is, of course, important now from the standpoint of the light into which the Spirit has brought Himself, that He is an Object. The Spirit is the power of eternal life. It is not simply a question of light, and that one can have light by believing, but the power of eternal life. The power of the Spirit works out into eternal life.
Ques Is all that necessary if God is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth?
JT Just so. Our service therefore on the first day of the week must be the outcome of the Spirit in that sense.
Rem I was wondering whether this woman depicted soul history with every one of us, if we are to form part of a vessel in which God is to be worshipped in spirit and truth. It involves detachment from what is not right, and becoming, as you have said, a vessel of the Spirit and receiving the knowledge of God and power to respond to it.
JT I think that is good. So that what comes out in connection with the woman is that the Lord raised the question of her having had five husbands; He said, “Go, call thy husband, and come here”. It is as if He would bring out the polluted conditions in which she had been, but even that would not hinder Him in making her a suitable vessel for the service of God, because she left her water-pot, implying that she was to be a vessel herself. The whole subject now before us implies the service of God, and that is dependent upon vessels. Several things are mentioned in the case of Elijah in 1 Kings 17, and they are put into vessels. It reads: “And he arose and went to Zarephath; and when he came [p. 143] to the entrance of the city, behold, a widow woman was there gathering sticks. And he called to her and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink. And she went to fetch it, and he called to her and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thy hand. And she said, As Jehovah thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but a handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse” (1 Kings 17: 10 - 12). She was impoverished, it was only a little of everything, but whatever it was it was to be in a vessel, and in this chapter the woman herself is to be a vessel. She became a vessel after she had conversation with the Lord, so that I should think that the first day of the week now is a time for vessels, and vessels to be used in the service of God.
ECM Would you connect the springing up with what you suggested this morning, in the word, calling forth all that is within us?
JT It would be that because it was a spiritual thought. You would not call upon what was within you other than what is spiritual. The thing would be out of all keeping with the position referred to here, if we referred to something, physical. It is something spiritual that is in mind in the suggestion of calling upon all that is within us.
GCS Is the heart satisfied first? It says “whosoever drinks of the water which I shall give him shall never thirst for ever”. Is that a satisfied heart? One felt this morning it was satisfied hearts by the Holy Spirit enjoying His love that were available for the praise of God.
JT Quite so, and then it speaks about what it became in her. “The water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life”. Well now, that is something. What has happened? It is a change in the person [p. 144] from mere water to what springs up into eternal life. There is a change in what it becomes in the believer.
Ques So does the fountain indicate life and spontaneity?
JT Quite so, but it becomes something. There is a change implied, and we can easily challenge our own hearts as to whether there is a change in us inwardly, and the needed change which God demands from us.
Ques Is the woman changing in verse 15?
JT “The woman says to him, Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst nor come here to draw”. Is that what you allude to?
Ques Yes, because immediately the Lord says to her, “Go, call thy husband”. Is she changing her head?
JT Quite so. The Lord implies that there must be a change, if there is anything at all to be in her. There must be a change.
AW “Whosoever drinks of the water ...” Does that involve intercourse with the Holy Spirit?
JT I would say that.
AW So we have a New Testament passage for speaking to the Spirit.
JT Quite so. Very good.
AJG This change which you refer to — “the water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up ...” — would that involve the Spirit’s part in the service, giving a living touch to it so that there is a springing up?
JT Yes. What prevails on the first day of the week ought to be of that character, and the service of God, of course, would take on the character of springing up, because it is toward God really, but it becomes in a person, so there is something for God already in the person. If there is not a change of that kind, I would think there is not much evidence of the work of God in a [p. 145] man.
HH You get in the Old Testament, “Rise up, well! sing unto it”. There is a power arising, is there not?
JT Quite so. There is something that is tangible, but spiritual. The nobles of the people sang. They sang to the well, which, as has been remarked, was typically speaking to the Spirit. That is what helped me some years ago, to refer to the Spirit as spoken to.
Ques Would prophetic ministry have in view the promotion of this change with us?
JT It would seem so, so that I think we might go on to this matter of what the Lord said to her. He says, “Go, call thy husband, and come here. The woman answered and said, I have not a husband. Jesus says to her, Thou hast well said, I have not a husband; for thou hast had five husbands, and he whom now thou hast is not thy husband, this thou hast spoken truly. The woman says to him, Sir, I see that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship. Jesus says to her, Woman ...” That is, I think, the point where she comes into things of moral worth, when she is called a woman. It means that she is truly what she is, what God has made her creatively. The Lord recognises that she is that, that she has emerged from what she had been — the wife of five husbands. She is now a true woman; I believe the Lord meant that, and I believe that all that follows is based on that. The Lord recognises her as being what she was creatively, in her own place.
HH When the Lord refers to the man who was not her husband, does the change come in there? I mean it was an unlawful link, was it not?
JT Well, quite. The Lord is really dealing with her morally. He is dealing with the moral condition [p. 146] in which she had been, and that is the basis of what comes out as to worship, and all else.
HH And is not the moral side of things the point of importance for us? If that is not attended to, it would get in the way of what is spiritual.
JT Just so. Many things are allowed to get in the way of what is spiritual on the first day of the week.
Ques Does not Paul strive for this with the Corinthians, when he speaks of their being espoused unto one man?
JT Just so. It is a remarkable thing, that he alludes to a feminine thought there, although the persons he spoke to were men as much as women. It shows that the feminine thought is applied to the assembly, and, of course, it must be if the assembly is to be espoused to Christ. That is the great point that will come out in due time, that the feminine thought must be in the assembly and the masculine in Christ Himself. I do not know whether the brethren go with what I am saying, but I am sure it is true, and the apostle alludes to it in the language he uses, “I have espoused you unto one man”, and the espousal is of all the saints in Corinth. The word, ‘espousal’ would allude to a man and a woman; so that the assembly is to be regarded as espoused. The idea of the assembly is feminine, and the idea of the masculine is in Christ, because the assembly is espoused to one Man, and the one Man is Christ.
Ques In the reference in Hebrews 2, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” — is that the feminine thought of the assembly?
JT Well, just so. In fact, we had that this morning, in connection with the service of the Son, the Lord Jesus, to the Father, “in the midst of the assembly”. But I am glad you allude to the assembly as a [p. 147] feminine thought.
NKM I think you stressed in your word that it was “the assembly”, not “my assembly”.
JT That is true too, and I think it just fits in to what is being said now. It is not simply “my assembly”, the Lord says, but “the assembly”, although the ‘the’ is not in the original literally, what Mr. Darby gives us is clearly right. The ‘the’ is right.
HPW So it says in verse 29 of our chapter, “Is not he the Christ?”. The “he” is the blessed Man, the Lord Jesus.
JT It is a masculine thought, you mean.
Ques Would you say why the Lord uses the term “the true worshippers”, in verse 23? What constitutes true worshippers?
JT We have to take the Lord’s word. He used the word ‘true’ Himself. If He used the word ‘true’ He means it, and we have to follow it out, because the idea of worship is in view.
WJ Is the thought of the feminine that she leans upon the arm of her beloved? “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” Song of Songs 8: 5. Is that a feminine thought?
JT “Her” would be, of course. Quite so.
WJ And her attitude too is normal for the assembly?
JT Quite so. The Song of Solomon has been greatly used in modern times, and the feminine thought is much stressed in it, and then, as we have said, the masculine side is in the Lord Jesus Himself. The book begins with the feminine thought. Would you kindly look at the beginning of it and see how the feminine comes into it.
AJG “The song of songs, which is Solomon’s. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for thy love is better than wine”. That is evidently the feminine [p. 148] speaker.
JT Quite so. That is what I meant. This is the feminine speaker, and she is alluding to the masculine. She is speaking; she begins the book really.
AM Is the Lord reminding the woman in John 4 of her femininity in asking her to give Him to drink? I was thinking back to Genesis 24, and wondering whether it is not a right feminine movement to give Him to drink.
JT Quite so, but it is rather a long stretch to carry the thought here back to Genesis 24. It would be a question of interpretation, therefore.
AM I was only thinking that the Lord waits on her to minister to Him. Is not that a very great element in the first part of the service, that He should be served.
JT I think we should say that the Lord, in all He had said at the outset, intended to bring out what was in His mind, and that she was to be the subject of it, but He does not come to it until He calls her ‘Woman’.
Ques So that the service of God was in the Lord’s mind from the outset?
JT Quite so. That is just what it is.
ECM Do you mean that the Lord must have the assembly for that? Is that the thought here? “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”.
JT Well, just so.
EuR That verse comes forward from Psalm 22, which is “Upon Aijeleth-Shahar”, meaning ‘the hind of the morning’.
JT Just so. It is the heading of the Psalm.
EuR Is not the Lord likened in the Song of Songs to a hart, and there are allusions also to the hinds? Both are characterised by great resiliency of movement, and is not that what the service of God calls for?
JT Quite so, and “the hind of the morning” is the feminine thought.
PL The word ‘hour’ is used there, and in Mr. Darby’s note to 1 John 2: 18, he refers to it as a period characterised by one thing, and hence looked at as only one time. It is what is supreme and characterised by one thing, and marked by intensity.
JT Quite so. Now we might proceed. It says in verse 14, “The water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life. The woman says to him, Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst nor come here to draw. Jesus says to her, Go, call thy husband, and come here. The woman answered and said, I have not a husband. Jesus says to her, Thou hast well said, I have not a husband; for thou hast had five husbands, and he whom now thou hast is not thy husband, this thou hast spoken truly. The woman says to him. Sir, I see that thou art a prophet”. Now that is a thing that I think we might dwell upon a little, that she saw He was a prophet. She had discernment, “I see that thou art a prophet”, she says, and then she proceeds, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship. Jesus says to her, Woman ...” That is the first time she is called ‘Woman’ by the Lord. It means that the feminine thought is stressed in her, and undoubtedly the Lord has in His mind to work out something alluding to the assembly.
Ques Why does the Lord say to her in the end of verse 17, “Thou hast well said”, and then again “this thou hast spoken truly”? Does that indicate that the change that you refer to is taking place, so that the Lord speaks of her in that way as speaking truly.
JT I think the Lord meant that she had not been speaking truly at all up to that; she was not [p. 150] reliable, but she is now coming to it. That is the first time she has come to it, and so the Lord says, ‘Woman’ to her. It says, “The woman says to him, Sir, I see thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship. Jesus says to her. Woman”. That is the first time, I think, that she is recognised by the Lord as in her true place, and it is a great matter when we come to what is true in what we are saying, and in any confession we make. “Jesus says to her, Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when ye shall neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what; we worship what we know, for salvation is of the Jews”. Now there is another point and that is that the Lord acknowledges that He is a Jew Himself. “We”, He says, “We worship what we know”. The Lord is rightly taking the place (it must be rightly, of course), but it is a fact to be noted, that He takes the place of being a Jew. In the ‘we’ He refers to Jews.
NKM What would be the significance of that?
JT The Lord was sent to the Jews, “I have not been sent”. He says, “save to the lost sheep of Israel’s house”, Matthew 15: 24. He made that a point. The Jews had to come into view first, and then the gentiles; and so it was that Paul was raised up to bring in the gentiles.
Ques Is it not remarkable that the Lord should speak to this woman of the Father?
JT I think it is, and so we might as well proceed fully with the thing because we have nearly come down to the end of our subject now. The Lord said, “The hour is coming and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for also the Father seeks such as His worshippers. God is a spirit” — now, that is another thing you hardly ever get before — “God is a spirit; and [p. 151] they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth”. So that God is not material in any sense; He is a Spirit. But then it says further in John’s gospel, “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. We cannot, therefore, assume to have seen God; He is invisible.
HH Does that not bring in the mediatorial system that has in view that God might be known, the Lord Jesus and the Spirit serving to that end?
JT Just so. The Lord Jesus became Man, so that He could be seen. God is not seen, “No one has seen God at any time”, the Lord says.
HH Do you connect the three divine Persons in the mediatorial system, or only the Lord Jesus and the Spirit?
JT The three must be included in the thought of God. “God is a spirit”, and if the context shows that it is simply the Father Himself, excluding the Son and the Spirit, then, of course, we can accept it — but God is a Spirit; I mean to say God sometimes includes the three Persons. Any One of the Three can be called God, but then the Three all together can be called God and are called God. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” — well, that is the three Persons. In the interpretation of it, it implies the three Persons.
AJG So would it be right to say that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit all have their part in the mediatorial system, although it is the Son who is the Mediator and the Spirit who also serves in a mediatorial way?
JT Quite so. The Father has never become the Mediator. The term does not imply that. “The Father” is the idea of a revelation or a family; “The Father” refers to a family usually.
WSS The references to the worship at Jerusalem and what is called “this mountain” would be [p. 152] lacking in intelligence, but I take it that the worshipping in spirit and in truth would be intelligence in variety and fulness in the light of the revelation of God.
JT Quite so.
Ques Why is it the Lord adds in the second instance, “the hour is coming, and now is”? Is it because of what He has brought in?
JT Quite so. It is the worship of God and He brought it in.
AWP In the service in relation to the Lord Himself, it is the feminine side, but in regard to worshipping the Father, it is as sons that we worship. Does that involve that the feminine thought of the assembly is dropped?
JT We have already stressed the idea of the assembly being feminine. The assembly worships the Father. Now I would like to get your thought, because we do not want to misunderstand each other.
AWP That is why I wanted to get it clear. Does the feminine thought continue to the end of the service of God?
JT It does continue because the assembly is always feminine. The word implies that.
AWP Is there any point in the service where we change over in mind to sonship?
JT Well, there is. There is in assembly service, but it is a question of whether it is in time or in eternity, because the assembly will ever be the spouse of Christ. That is, the idea will be feminine. She is the spouse of Christ; she is ever that.
AWP Yes, I think that is clear to most of us, that she ever remains, as into eternity, the feminine. She is the woman. But then, I thought the sons come in more in regard to the service of God.
JT Oh! well, I am following you now, that sisters in the assembly would be viewed as sons.
[p. 153] Therefore the feminine thought is dropped as regards them, but not as regards the assembly as a whole; because in the worship of God on the first day of the week, for instance, it is so many persons, but the assembly is a unity. It is one idea, and that is where the feminine remains, that is where the feminine is seen, but the sons of God are so many persons; it is not collective. They are never viewed as anything but sons, individuals.
Rem So that the Lord speaks of “worshippers” — persons.
JT Quite so.
Ques You have been speaking about the vessel in the earlier part of the chapter. It is all in view of producing worshippers?
JT Quite so.
GWB May I ask a question in connection with what you were quoting just now in chapter 1, “No one has seen God at any time”. Would you say something about what is said in Exodus 24 as to the nobles of the children of Israel, where it says they saw God.
JT I think you have to bear in mind that the Scriptures have to be reconciled; we cannot make them contradict each other. So in Matthew 5 there are certain persons of whom it is said that they shall see God, but we have to treat that according to the context, and discern what the idea of seeing God is. You might say, if we see the Son we see God, because He is God; He is the true God. But then we have to keep to the context of Scripture and see what is meant in that case, “He is the true God and eternal life”. One might say, well, we see Him in that sense, and we do too, because the Lord Jesus has been seen and will be seen eternally.
Ques Is it significant in the verse that is quoted from Exodus, the Spirit of God through Moses says, “as it were” twice in one verse, as though there is [p. 154] not an attempt to define what was seen? “They saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were work of transparent sapphire, and as it were the form of heaven for clearness”.
JT “As it were” is a form of speech. That is all there is in that. We know what is meant, anyway.
GCS When Job said, “Mine eyes have seen thee”, would it be simply in creation, in all the wonders brought before us?
JT Whatever it was. The Spirit of God records it thus, and God is to be seen in that sense. But then we cannot contradict John 1, “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. So the word ‘declare’ has also to be borne in mind. The word ‘declare’ is said to have the force of the three Persons. The three Persons would be in mind, “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. It may be God in that sense. The word ‘declare’ means a reference to other Persons. I am only referring to the original, according to what I have read, or understood.
AJG Do you mean that the “he” may refer to the three Persons, or the “him”? “He hath declared him”.
JT The word ‘declare’, the active part of it, refers to more than one Person.
HH Could it not read, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared”? The ‘him’ is bracketed, as if there is no justification for the word.
JT Quite so. Declaration is an open question, an open matter. The language implies that it can be used in that sense. It is a question of language.
Rem And that makes worship possible. The Lord says, “We worship what we know”.
JT Just so. We do not want to say much about the Lord worshipping God, you know, I think it would be better not to use the expression, though the Lord does there, saying, “We know what we worship”. I mean to say the whole question is language. What we are speaking of now implies language and the use that can be made of language. God has made language, and we can use it accordingly.
Rem God must be known to be worshipped.
JT Well, just so.
Ques Could I refer back a little to the remarks as to the worship of the Father by the sons, and to what has been brought forward as to the change from the feminine to the masculine side, when the Spirit of sonship fills our hearts, and ask if there is something that is due to God that would involve the feminine side of the assembly? “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. Does that come into the service of God?
JT I would say there that the word ‘assembly’ is feminine itself.
Rem That is what I have in mind. But we do not have this side very much. We generally turn from addressing the Lord to speaking to the Father in sonship.
JT Yes. Well, that is quite right, but then it is so many persons. The sons are so many persons.
Ques Yes. I understand that, and that the great collective idea is the assembly, but when would this singing of the praises of God in the midst of the assembly take place?
JT I think it would be in the collective sense. The assembly is collective.
Ques Where does the verse in Hebrews 2 come into the service of God, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”?
JT Well, the assembly will be formed of persons, of course, but it is a collective idea in just the ordinary sense of the word ‘collective’, and the idea of sons is a personal idea — so many persons. But what I am saying I am sure is right, that the masculine and the feminine must merge into the idea of Christ and the assembly.
Ques The masculine and the feminine, did you say, must merge ultimately?
JT Yes, I mean the masculine in Christ and the feminine in the assembly.
Ques I follow what has been said, that the assembly is a collective and feminine thought, whereas sonship is more the individual thing, but the point in my mind is, where in the service of God does the singing of the praises of God take place? I am alluding to Hebrews 2, “In the midst of the assembly”; that is the feminine idea of the assembly.
JT I do not know that we can assume to be the full collective idea, but the collective idea, as I have said, will be ultimately (which would be eternally) seen in the assembly itself; and it will be only that, if we exclude the idea of Israel. Of course, the feminine is applied in her case, but it does not come into our dispensation. The ultimate thought of God, I am certain, is that the masculine is seen in Christ and the feminine is the assembly viewed collectively. That is the best way I know of putting it. It is a question of examining into it, as to whether language admits of all that, but I am sure it is. The feminine must appear ultimately in the assembly as the spouse of Christ. This is the word, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”. The bride is a feminine thought, and Christ is the masculine.
Rem So there will be only one woman in eternity, in that sense.
JT Well, just so, unless we say that Israel is a woman too, because the feminine is applied to her. The idea of the bride, that we have alluded to already in the Song of Solomon implies that, but that [p. 157] will not appear, as far as I can see, in the eternal conditions. There are only two ideas, the one idea is Christ the masculine. He is the masculine in everything, and the assembly is the feminine in everything.
AJG Is it possible that the thought of sonship, from the divine standpoint, is to emphasise dignity and liberty and intelligence rather than to stress any masculine thought?
JT Just so. Besides the Father must have some portion in the Lord’s day morning meeting, and that portion is in the sons.
Rem So that the personal side in sonship continues into eternity.
JT I think so. The sons of God will be there. We are all sons of God in Christ Jesus.
HH Would you place the assembly as such before God in the feminine character?
JT In the sense that the Father has His pleasure in Christ and the assembly. He must have peculiar pleasure in Christ and the assembly, but then the Father has His own sons, and we do not connect the sons of God with Christ personally, because they are sons of God.
HH The sons are the assembly viewed in another light — are they not?
JT In another light — quite so. Sonship is one idea, and the assembly, the feminine idea, is one idea. The assembly is not the spouse of God, that is never said. The word ‘assembly’, the feminine idea, would refer to what she is to Christ. It says, “Christ and the assembly”. The feminine is the assembly and Christ is the masculine. The idea is, that Christ and the incarnation must be brought into it all, to make it simple.
Rem I remember your saying some years ago that every reference to the bridegroom in Scripture was filled out in Christ’s manhood.
JT Well, I think it is, “He that has the bride is the bridegroom”.
WF Is the close of Ephesians 3, “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, the feminine thought going into eternity, in the assembly?
JT Quite so, “In Christ Jesus”.
PL You helped us in 1946 in London in relation to the thought of brethren, the assembly, and sons, that they are collateral thoughts and each involves the same persons.
JT Quite so, I would say that now, too.
EuR And they all go on into eternity.
JT Quite.