THE LORD KNOWN IN HIS SERVICE IN THE ASSEMBLY

^[p. 506] THE LORD KNOWN IN HIS SERVICE IN THE ASSEMBLY

John 6: 67 - 69; John 13: 8; John 14: 5 - 10; John 17: 6, 26

JT These scriptures indicate how as believers we come to know the Lord in His service in the assembly, in His relations with the Father. The first scripture points to His priesthood. In the types Israel had to come to a knowledge of Aaron as priest; holiness, at least typically, entered peculiarly into his office. So Peter in our scripture (John 6) says, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. His disciples believed on Him, we are told, as He manifested His glory, and gradually they came to see Him in His varied glories and offices; so in saying that they had believed and known that He was the Holy One of God they had the knowledge of Him which we may call basic as regards the service of God. He was in them on this line. He had spoken in chapter 14 of their knowing Him when the Spirit should come, that He was in the Father and they were in Him and He in them. He becomes ‘in us’ on this line as we believe and know through experience. The gospels furnish examples of persons who know who He is in this sense, such as John the baptist and the woman of Samaria, and now Peter. John the baptist, as you might say, knew Him sacrificially as the Lamb of God; the woman of Samaria spoke of Him as the Christ; and here Peter says that they had believed and known that He was the Holy One of God. So that He acquires a place with the disciples in this way. Paul speaks of Christ being among us or in us, involving His place in the assembly as Minister of the sanctuary, and indeed as exercising other offices in it; as He is in it His varied glories shine, we know, and are responded to by the saints as He is known amongst us. And then in chapter 13 Peter ^[p. 507] again speaks unadvisedly and the Lord reminds us in His answer to Peter that we can only have part with Him as He washes us, not simply as washed. That is, the matter must be His. Elsewhere we wash ourselves. He washes us from our sins too, but here it is not simply that we are washed, but that He does it, and unless He does it there is no possibility of having part with Him. This would remind us that in the assembly He must have to say to everything. And then Philip questions Him as to the Father, and He instructs us in His answer how we shall apprehend the Father. It is not that He is to be apprehended personally but as to His features; no one has seen Him as to His absolute Being, but He is to be apprehended in His features, so that it is what is in Christ: “He that has seen me has seen the Father”. That is to bring to our minds what He is speaking of when He speaks of the Father, some concrete thought. He is invisible as God, but still there are the features in mind so that we know, when we are speaking to the Father, to whom we speak. And then finally in chapter 17 the Lord is seen as High Priest. Although John does not give us these official titles, yet we can see when the Lord is speaking to His Father how divine service is carried on, how the Minister of the sanctuary carries on the service and what place the saints have in it, carried along in the teaching of this book, to be alongside the Lord in His speaking to the Father, in which speaking, or you might say prayer. He calls them ‘men’; He calls His disciples ‘men’ whom the Father gave Him, and He has manifested His name to them according to verse 6, and in verse 26, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”. So that, on these lines, we come into possession of love in its greatest expression, that is, the love the Father has for ^[p. 508] the Son.

AR Would you say what is involved in the expression ‘the Holy One of God’ as in the first portion?

JT Well, I think it underlies the service of God in the sanctuary. It underlies the Lord’s official place, as you might say, as Priest. The disciples came to apprehend Him in this light. It is remarkable that it comes out at that time when many were going away. It reminds us of the need of acquiring a knowledge of Christ, an experimental knowledge, otherwise we shall go away.

HB His being in us in this character would mean that we have seekings on sanctuary lines, seekings as to getting into a sphere that suits us and where we are in direct first-hand touch with Him.

JT And hence you are fixed. You are not going away. There is no one else to go to.

Rem Does Peter get his first glimpse in his knowledge of the Lord in Luke 5? He says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord”. Luke presents Him as “the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”. And immediately the Lord indicated service for him.

JT That is very good. Holiness was there. He felt the presence of holiness and he was sinful: he was not only a sinner, but sinful. As you say, Luke begins with the thought of holiness, essential holiness: “the holy thing”, that is essential holiness; that could be said of no other babe. Even the demons recognised Him; but in Peter’s answer here it is an experimental matter, not simply revelation as in Matthew 16; it is experimental and therefore within the range of all of us.

TT Earlier in the chapter the Lord speaks about being taught of God and it says, “Every one that has heard from the Father himself, and has learned of him, comes to me”. Is there a connection between ^[p. 509] the two?

JT I think there is. The chapter is profound in that way. It is a chapter that requires perhaps more attention than any for the understanding of it. The Lord says, for instance, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he has sent”. He sent the Son in these varied glories. His varied glories shine throughout the gospel: we have them in chapter 1. They are recognisable, so that knowledge in the chapter becomes experimental in regard to the Lord; that is, He becomes in us, as it were. We are told in Romans 8, “If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness”, and in Colossians 1: 27 we have, “Christ in you the hope of glory”. I believe John brings in that line of truth. John the baptist recognises Him, and so right along we get the varied features of Christ’s glory in the way He was apprehended, for the names He gets are nearly all from those who have apprehended Him, as, for instance, Nathanael.

GHC Would the apprehension of Him in this way be in any way connected with the way He is presented in this chapter as the Bread of life?

JT Yes. Peter says, “Thou hast words of life eternal”. This is the first thing he mentions, “words” meaning that the truth or the subject of eternal life is opened up to us, made intelligible; there is instruction as to it in detail, and that is very necessary too as regards our assembly position because life is essential. It is the living that praise God, as Hezekiah says. And then Peter adds here, “the holy one of God”. The Holy One of God would imply the service of God in the sanctuary.

JAG Do you suggest that Matthew 16 is special to Peter and this chapter is normal?

JT This is normal. It is presented as normal, although the Lord addresses the twelve. It is presented as the normal outcome of what is experienced.

^[p. 510] He does not ask them what men are saying about Him, but He challenges them as to whether they are going away, so that it becomes very practical. The knowledge of Christ as Peter speaks of it here is essential to our being held in the right position.

FBW You spoke of the apprehension of Himself in the earlier chapters; do you think the character of the service here is more in relation to the assembly?

JT I think the basis is laid in Peter’s soul for the service of God. From this point you might take up the whole typical teaching, for the types are full of remarkable teaching relative to the service of God. For example in Exodus, for the great bearing of Exodus is the service of God: “Let my son go, that he may serve me;” that is in chapter 4, and then from chapter 25 onwards we see how God is to dwell amongst His people and to be served by them in the tabernacle. So one can understand this instruction, and see how instruction laid in Peter’s soul would fit him to take up the service of God, as we have seen it in type in the book of Exodus, and then priestly service as in the book of Leviticus. It is the great subject for the moment that the Lord is keeping before us, and we are challenged here as to whether we are going away. What is holding us? Is it a vital link with Christ, first as the One who has the words of eternal life and then as the holy One of God?

RMcA Do you think that the Lord felt keenly that there were those that went away?

JT He did. “From that time many of his disciples went away back and walked no more with him”. And then He says to the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” Then Peter replied. These are the things, the initial features that would hold saints. Where can we go? Who will tell you about eternal ^[p. 511] life? That is one of the greatest needs. As to what we are in the flesh and as regards God and His service, who can tell us anything about it? Where can you get it in all the systems that man has built up? They have not got the thought of the service of God. There must be the holy One of God for the service of God.

WH Does the Lord connect the thought of being in them as known with the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood? “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him”.

JT That is good. It confirms what we are saying as to this chapter.

Rem So that this would be a matter of what enters into the constitution of the individual.

JT That is right: ‘constitution’, that is the word, because this is not an immediate revelation. It is something we have known by experience: “We have believed and known”. We believe much that we cannot say we have known, but when I say I have known, it means that I have had experience of the thing, I have proved it.

JW Was this a word of encouragement for the Lord’s heart from Peter as well as a test of the Lord to the disciples?

JT That is right. I think it must have been very refreshing to Him to have an answer like this. And so always, the Lord loves to hear us tell what we think of Him; and what will hold us today save that we have vital knowledge of Christ in this sense? There is nowhere else to go. Who is there to go to? Take all the systems one by one, where else can you go? If you are a spiritual person, if you are a true believer in Christ, where can you go?

Ques In chapter 17 the Lord says, “The words which thou hast given me I have given them”: do you connect that with the words of eternal ^[p. 512] life?

JT Well, that goes beyond this. Peter says the Lord had them, but it does not imply that the disciples had them. They no doubt understood. This is their experience of the teaching; they were listening to what He was saying and they saw that He was speaking not simply as a teacher but as One who had them. “Thou hast words of life eternal”, says Peter.

AS Is it this knowledge that distinguishes the other disciples from Judas? He was chosen as much as they were, was he not?

JT The Lord says so, a very solemn challenge, because if He is the Holy One of God we are searched out. Being in the outward position is not enough; but when He is confessed in this way, He cannot let Judas off: “and of you one is a devil”. It is not simply that he had a demon, but he was a devil, showing what may be amongst the brethren, and the Lord graciously exposed it.

WH As eating His flesh you must be apart from all that the flesh would live in, and drinking His blood would bring you into all that God is. Love would be your portion.

JT I am sure of that. The chapter is very profound. The Son of God from heaven is life in the world. It is a question of life. I have no doubt Peter’s remark referred to that. The teaching had been received by him and others. The disciples had reached something that holds them — permanency. The Lord spoke of a person amongst them being a devil, and it can be dealt with without any damage to the others; there is something to hold them.

GD You are calling attention to the great feature of holiness.

JT That is what I was remarking. The underlying thought of what God is presently leading His people to is His service in the sanctuary. Holiness becomes it for ever, so that we have in Christ the ^[p. 513] Holy One of God, not simply the Holy One, but the Holy One of God. He is the One capable of being the Minister of the sanctuary.

GD Is that in line with chapter 3 of Revelation where the Lord presents Himself as the Holy and the True?

JT Quite so. The Old Testament is full of the thought; it has much of the thought in it, the Holy One of Israel and of Jacob; but here it is the Holy One of God. That is, He is the One available for service and is qualified for all that relates to the sanctuary.

GD Is that what was lacking with the two sons of Aaron; they did not understand the holiness of the position in their service?

JT Quite so. They offered strange fire. Judas would do that.

HB Is there anything in our being indispensable to Him in filling out the service of God?

JT That is what comes out here. The Lord comes in amongst the twelve. It must be remembered that all that He unfolded while here below was in relation to the twelve, especially the Lord’s supper; as far as the record goes only the twelve were present. What is in mind in that is that what the Lord intended to inaugurate was established on reliable testimony; the thought of the sanctuary comes in here, and the Lord must say that there is a devil. This is utterly incompatible with the sanctuary. It must be dealt with. Anything of that description must be dealt with. Of course, if you come to the types this is all opened up to us.

HB It says of Mary Magdalene that seven demons went out of her. Does that present the idea?

JT It would: she would be thus constituted material for ^[p. 514] the assembly.

GHC Is this thought of the Minister of the sanctuary known in a peculiar way when the saints are together in assembly?

JT That is what I have been thinking of, first as to how each of us comes into the knowledge of Christ in this relation. Many of us may sit down in assembly and have no personal knowledge; we have to rely on brothers who have a personal knowledge of Christ, whereas the thought here is that the believer comes into a personal knowledge of Christ in this character. “We have believed and known”, Peter says, so that we understand when we sit down in assembly that we are looking to Him to take charge.

GHC Is this a side of His service that we have not paid sufficient attention to?

JT Yes, it is each person coming to know the Lord as Peter knew Him.

TT The Jews had said, “Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we have known?” (John 6: 42), but there was nothing in what they said of any value in relation to the service of God.

JT Quite so. That is a good contrast. They could never come into fellowship, as we say. It is this personal knowledge that qualifies for the assembly. Peter could have said many other things at this juncture, but then what he says here, you may be sure, is what is needed. It is what fits in with the instruction.

FI Does this personal — knowledge of the Lord come to us before we come to the Supper or while we are at the Supper?

JT I think it is a question of experience that we ought to acquire when we are converted. It is the essence of the gospel that He is raised from the dead, that He is “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”, Romans 1: 4. It is something to be acquired by every person that is converted, to whom the gospel comes. The element of holiness comes with the gospel; it is presented definitely in the gospel. The Spirit works it in us. We come together, as I understand, and sit down in the assembly as knowing Christ in this way. He is my Saviour, of course, and many other things, the Mediator of the covenant, but He is the Holy One of God. That is basic, and then we get the glories of Christ.

FI You have in mind the thought of the service of God which is carried on as we are in assembly in relation to the Supper. You do not look at it as apart from that. Where do we gather up the thought of our being made suitable to take it on as being available to the Minister of the sanctuary?

JT I think the Supper is the occasion of all this, the introduction to all this, our introduction to the service of God as in assembly. What is remarked is that each believer is to acquire a knowledge of the Holy One of God, otherwise he cannot have part in this service. It is a basic thought really as to the service of God, and too may bring out the varied glories of Christ. He is the Holy One of God; that is, He is looked at as God’s in this light. He will look after matters in the assembly for God, in the sanctuary, the One who is the Minister in it.

FBW They do not answer each one for himself, but Peter answers for them all as though the assembly was involved in that matter.

JT Yes, and then the Lord remarking about Judas is a very solemn and searching matter, for in approaching assembly service there is the possibility of a person like this and the Lord could not let Judas off when He is confessed as the Holy One of God. He must expose him, for it is part of the service of the Minister of the sanctuary to expose any evil that may be. We must therefore see that there ^[p. 516] is no possibility of escaping being exposed in the presence of the Holy One of God.

HR So that, after He is confessed as the Holy One of God, that makes room for His service as Minister of the sanctuary.

JT He is known to be that. He is known to God as that, but the point is He is known to us as the Holy One of God. Peter says, “We have believed and known”. It was evidently known amongst them; it was common amongst them. You can understand the apostles talking to one another. They would say this and that, going over what the Lord had said, and the truth would develop in their minds in that way. He, Peter, must have been conversant with the others in saying, “We have believed and known”.

HR In John 21 Peter says, “Thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee”. It was both conscious knowledge and objective knowledge there. What would this knowledge be that you refer to now?

JT I cannot really tell you the original word, but I think it is conscious. Peter used the word for conscious in John 21 until the last reference, meaning that the Lord could see in him some objective evidence that he loved Him.

HR One might have conscious knowledge and yet have a demon.

JT I do not think Judas is included in this at all. He was there, but he is not included in this. The Lord would not let him off. He might profess to know all these things, no doubt intellectually. He was unreal and if the Lord is acknowledged as the Holy One of God, Judas must be exposed. Now is the time to do it.

Rem As to what we said earlier, it is not ‘One of you has a devil’, but, “One of you is a devil”, it was a question of what the man ^[p. 517] was essentially.

JT Yes, what he was essentially.

AS He did not name him; but the disciples knew from what the Lord said.

JT “He spoke of Judas the son of Simon, Iscariote”, the evangelist tells us, “for he it was who should deliver him up”. It seems to be most important that as He is the Holy One of God there must be exposure if He is acknowledged.

Rem I suppose when you come to chapter 17, Judas is not there. Here you have things operating in the sphere of holiness.

JT Well, in chapter 17 we come to the inside; He is speaking to His Father. What morally follows what we have in chapter 6 is Peter’s comment as to the Lord’s service, washing their feet. The Lord’s answer to that is in keeping with Him as the Holy One of God, implying that He must have complete charge. It must be His matter. We are now proceeding on the line of the sanctuary, and the Lord must have the say as to the whole position. We may as well face that. This chapter expunges Judas; he is forced out. He is named as a devil in chapter 6, but he is forced out in chapter 13. The point is, “Unless I wash thee”. The Lord must do it. He will see to it that what is suitable to Him is there.

AM Do you think that apart from this experimental knowledge of the Holy One of God our unreality would be exposed as we take part in the service of God?

JT It will be. As sure as anything our unreality will be exposed. The point is whether the Holy One of God is recognised.

JD Is His character as the Holy One of God set forth when He speaks in the midst of the golden candlesticks in chapter 1 of Revelation?

JT Well, it comes out: what He is as the Holy One of God is manifested, especially in dealing with Thyatira, which corresponds with Judas. His eyes ^[p. 518] are as a flame of fire. In spite of the maze of ecclesiastical rites, the Lord discerns all that is there; “I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel”. He tells the church what He has done with her, and spoke about the depths of Satan. He would speak about the depths of Satan that the remnant were to understand that the depths of Satan were there. You get no exposure of these things, the worst kind of things, in systems where the Holy One of God is not recognised. It is where the Holy One of God is recognised that the exposure is guaranteed.

TT Does the Lord still carry on this service of washing personally, or has it been delegated now?

JT It is delegated here in the passage we read, that we are to wash one another’s feet, but in putting it into the hands of the brethren He does not specify that they must do it: He sets an example which they should carry on, but His first reference is, “Unless I wash thee”. That is a great fact set out at the beginning of the subject. Let us allow the truth into our souls that the Lord must have the first and last word as to the service in the assembly, as to having part with Him.

HB Does this mean that we necessarily need our feet washed in view of taking part in the assembly?

JT Yes. We may think they are washed, but the Lord reminds us that if He does not do it, it is not done. “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”. That is, you are drawn into the sense of responsibility of bringing the Lord into it. He must be recognised.

Ques Does the thought of “part with me” relate to service?

JT It refers to what He is about to unfold in the following chapters, as in the sanctuary as with the Father. All these chapters lead us up to the ^[p. 519] seventeenth in which we get a concrete example of His service inside. It is prayer, of course, but still you can see how the service is carried on. It is carried on by Him in our midst.

WH Would the feet-washing involve that the service that is under His hand as Minister of the sanctuary is to be carried on in freshness amongst the saints, in contrast to the formal thing that exists today in christendom?

JT I think so. Even if it be a saint that does it you discern that it is the Lord that does it. I may be qualified to wash the saints’ feet but the person whose feet are washed must see that it is the Lord. It must go past me. It is the Lord that does it.

TT The doing of the service, if rightly done, would leave that sense in the soul, that it was done by the Lord.

JT Yes. He is doing it.

FM-n Do you mean that in that connection the soul is to be definitely in contact with the Lord?

JT Yes, quite so. We are to be in definite touch with the Lord. Even if it is a brother that is doing it, I discern that it is the Lord that is doing it. After all, even the ministry is of the Lord or it is nothing. If I cannot discern that what is being ministered is from the Lord it is not His ministry.

Ques Would you say that the service of feet-washing discovers Judas?

JT Well, he goes out in this chapter. He is forced out.

RL What is your thought in “part with me?”

JT That is what we have in the assembly. As we recognise the Lord in our midst as the Minister of the sanctuary we move with Him. That is what He has in mind. I think John does not use the word ‘sanctuary’, or ‘assembly’ either, but that is what is in mind, especially in the last days when you do not want to use ecclesiastical terms, but to have ^[p. 520] the things. And so, if a brother is serving you want to discern that the Lord is in it. That is what makes it effectual.

GHC In the verse you read it is a deliberate move of the Lord towards Peter: “He comes therefore”. I was thinking of the Lord drawing attention to the service of God at the present moment: do you think it is deliberate in that way so that the saints may be helped to have part with Him in this great service?

JT It is important to get into the current of this gospel in view of the assembly. All this precedes. It is not simply what we find in the assembly when we get there, but it is what we take there, so that the Lord has us as suitable and can proceed in His service, which is included in the term “part with me”. What can be greater or more blessed than having part with Jesus as He is carrying on this service before God?

TT Does this being accomplished open the way for the Father’s name?

JT That is the next thing; chapter 14. Chapter 14 is to bring us into some little apprehension of the Father. We are addressing a person known in some sense in a concrete way. As the evangelist says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. Well now, the voice from heaven primarily was to announce the Son. That was a voice, and we need more than a voice to grasp in our minds the idea of the Father. We see that He is the Father. The revelation of the Father does not depend on the death of Christ; He does not therefore enter into the covenant. Many have thought about that, as to whether the Father can be introduced in the new covenant, but the new covenant is a matter of the death of Christ, and the revelation of the Father does not depend on that. There is no ^[p. 521] death in the revelation of the Father. The revelation of the Father refers to the relations of the Father with Christ as Man. The Lord’s death was not necessary for that. His death was necessary for the covenant. The covenant is not between the Father and His children; it is between God and His people, and it is effected through death, not through an announcement from heaven.

Rem So that, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, is prior to and independent of His death.

JT Quite so. What the Lord means here is not that He personally is one with the Father; it is that the Father is characteristically there. He was in Christ personally and He was there characteristically so as to be apprehended. “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, so that there is a concrete apprehension of the Father in his characteristics.

WH The Lord refers to the works which He did and the words which He spoke as being the Father’s works and the Father’s words; would that be what you mean as being characteristic?

JT Quite so. Jesus is not the Father but He is a divine Person, and so great enough to personify the Father, to impersonate Him, as it were, as the Spirit may impersonate the Son now.

GHC He speaks about departing out of the world and going to the Father and He speaks about coming out from God and going back to God. Would you help as to that?

JT These words would show what is in mind in these chapters. He is going to the Father; He is going to God. He puts the two relations together in chapter 20 when He says, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. The first is the relation that God would have with Him as Man, and into which He brings us and we are His brethren; and God comes in after, as mentioned by Him, after the Father which would, I ^[p. 522] suppose, mean God as He was known by Jesus, not the covenant God, more than that, including that but more than that, God as He is known by Christ, Christ’s God.

GHC Is God a wider thought?

JT It is a wider thought than the name ‘Father’, and the scripture that supports that is, “Neither does the Father judge any one” (John 5: 22); God must be the wider thought in that, sense. The Father is the name in family relationship, and is employed, I think, to indicate the character of our dispensation. God is known in that way, not as Judge but as God in grace, but then we have to come to the family thought as to ourselves. We are not called the sons of God in John at all. It is either ‘His Father’ or ‘the Father’ to us until chapter 20 when it is, “My Father and your Father, my God and your God”. Then you say, What about the Father in Matthew? We have saints called the sons of their Father in Matthew; they are directed to speak to Him as their Father which is in heaven. It is simple, I think, if we see that the relationship of Father was brought in with Christ as Man, and the disciples are brought into that in John 20; indeed, the term ‘Father’ is applied to Jehovah in the Old Testament. It has to be taken up as it is found in this book. The Son is said to be ‘Father of Eternity’ in Isaiah. All that is short of what we have in John 20. John 20 is what applies specially to the sons as forming the assembly.

WH How far do you carry the thought of Christ being the Minister of the sanctuary? Would that go as far as John 20?

JT I think so. It gives the family thought, God as Father, the Son in the midst and we as sons. The sanctuary is a relative thought as shutting out what is unholy, but the service goes on according to John 20. It is the Lord in the midst, Christ known in us ^[p. 523] as it were. I think chapter 17 gives the clue, because the Lord having said these things lifts up His eyes to heaven and says, “Father ...”. You hear Him speak to His Father. I think the chapter gives the understanding of what the sanctuary is in that sense, that the Son speaks to His Father, in the attitude, in the sense, of prayer and thanksgiving.

RL Would the Holy One have reference to where there is unholiness?

JT That is the thought. The sanctuary has the same force. If we can follow the Lord along these chapters we shall come to the thought of assembly service, where He is with us; He is on our side and carrying on towards the Father. In Matthew we have the words, “I praise thee, Father”. We have in Luke the statement that the Lord at that time rejoiced in spirit, showing what may happen amongst us as in assembly; and in this chapter 17 we have extended prayer, as you might say, to the Father.

HB In the last clause of verse 6, “They were thine, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept thy word” — I was thinking of “thy word”. Would that be the sonship as proper to us — His word?

JT Well, the Father’s word they had kept. The Lord gives them credit for keeping it. He calls them, ‘men’ here, which is to be noted, and which I think we should bear in mind: “The men whom thou gavest me out of the world. They were thine, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things that thou hast given me are of thee”. You can see how they are regarded on those lines as fit for the sanctuary; and then He demands, not prays, concerning them. He can speak to His Father familiarly and He says, “I am glorified in them”. Then He says, “Holy Father, keep them in thy name” and He says, “Sanctify them by the truth” (verse 17). So that we can see how thus we are fitted to be His companions, not ^[p. 524] only according to eternal counsels but according to actual formation.

HB That is what I had in mind in connection with the word being in the singular. It is the same in verse 18, “Thy word is truth”.

JT But then sonship is a further thought than the word of the Father. He says in verse 22, “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, as we are one”. There you come to the idea of sonship. It is glory imparted. It is not simply the word of the Father.

TT Would keeping the word be a proof of affection?

JT Intelligent affection too, because the word implies the Father’s mind. You cannot keep His word unless you understand it. A commandment is more authoritative, but a word is to be understood and so kept.

Ques Is your thought that there would not only be the appropriation of Him in the light of the Minister of the sanctuary, but that there should be a suitability to Him as such?

JT That is what is here; it is that the Lord might have us with Him as suitable. He says, “The glory which thou hast given me I have given them”. It implies that sonship is a glory attaching to men. And then finally, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known”. Now that word compared with the word ‘manifest’ in chapter 6 is a deeper word, I think. The name is made known. It is effectively made known and it is through Him; “That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”. So that the Lord is amongst His own in this exalted way as loved by them as the Father loves Him. It is not covenant love; it is the Father’s love in our hearts.

Ques Is that the thought in the first epistle of John? “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath ^[p. 525] bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God”.

JT The word which you have quoted ‘sons’ is, ‘children’ of God. John never calls us the ‘sons’ of God except in the Book of Revelation. He calls us, ‘children’. The word is ‘children’ in John’s epistle, not ‘sons’. ‘Sons’ is what we are towards God;, ‘children’ is what we are under His care here.

GHC Would you help us as to not only the Father’s love being in them but “I in them”?

JT Well, I think He is in us on that basis, not on the basis of covenant love. It is not that that would not give place to Him; it does, but it is a more exalted position, as in us having the Father’s love in us. It is the question of the kind of love.

JW Am I right in thinking that the whole of chapter 17 of John views the cross of the Lord Jesus as past, and not as we would read it that it was on this side of the cross? It is in view of the Lord as Priest in the assembly as having gone on high for us; the Lord is the High Priest before His Father bearing up His people.

JT I think that is right. He is bearing up His people here. Our point now is to bring out what He is in the assembly, how He serves in the assembly, and how we have part with Him in the assembly. The most exalted thought is that we have the Father’s love in our hearts, that is, the Father’s love for the Son. We have that in our hearts. We know how to love the Son as the Father loves Him, so that we are on an exalted platform as associated with the Father’s love — that kind of love, resulting from His having made known to us the Father’s name. It is not only ‘manifested’ but ‘made known’. It is effective; the Father’s name is ^[p. 526] known in our souls.

FI Does the Father’s name being made known in our souls by the Minister of the sanctuary fit us to pass over into the presence of the Father?

JT I think so. We are now qualified. I suppose we are in the enjoyment of heaven; we love as the Father loves.

FI We would not view the Lord as we are associated with Him in the presence of the Father — we do not view Him there as the Minister of the sanctuary?

JT He is the Son. He who is speaking is the Son. The official terms ‘the sanctuary’ and ‘the Minister of the sanctuary’ are relative because we have to do with evil here below, but they will be done away with in eternity when there is no more evil, so it is just ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ and ‘sons’.