FATHERHOOD (1)
[p. 368] FATHERHOOD (1)
Genesis 3: 20, 21; Genesis 4: 25, 26; Genesis 5:1-5; Genesis 5:6-8
JT The apostle’s remark to the assembly at Corinth, that there are “not many fathers”, is in mind, also the thought that there should be more than there are now. So the proposal is to look at fatherhood as seen in the book of Genesis. The facts we have of fatherhood in the antediluvian world do not afford us as much material for our subject as those recorded as happening more immediately after the deluge, particularly those mentioned in relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Fatherhood has a leading place in the instruction of Joseph, too; but there is enough in the section before us now to help us as to the features of fatherhood which are always needed among the saints.
There are two ideas in the New Testament connected with this subject which should be specially noted: one in John’s ministry — fatherhood conveying growth in the family of God. John speaks of it in his first epistle; to it is attached the knowledge of “him that is from the beginning”, meaning that they know Christ as seen from the beginning of His ministry, and so are mature; for the fulness of fatherhood was in Him. He is spoken of in this way, as the “Father of Eternity”, or the ‘Father of the age’, (Isaiah 9: 6). He exhibits fatherly qualities with His disciples. Then in Paul we have the second idea connected with fatherhood involving a model. He says, “For if ye should have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers” (1 Corinthians 4: 15). He goes on to say that he has begotten them in Christ Jesus by the gospel, meaning that he was not only an instructor, but the progenitorial idea was in him. He begat children. That is, there were definite results from his ministry, constituting him a father in that sense. I thought that Adam and Seth might be looked at now. Adam introduces the parental thought very definitely in naming his wife Eve, “because she is the mother of all living”. Fathers have that in mind, persons in the family who are living, marked by what is living; and now God takes account of that and clothes the thought in Adam and Eve. God is, as it were, encasing the great idea, the great thought in Adam and Eve by suitable clothing.
AEH Do you think the prime requisite in connection with fatherhood is that there is subjectively that which is able to receive divine impressions?
JT That is, I am sure, a thought of great importance in the subject. So that divine thoughts come out from Jehovah Elohim to Adam; and Eve would have part in these thoughts, and hence the ultimate development — a living state of things.
AR Would it be right to say that you get the historical commencement of creation in Genesis 1, and the moral commencement in chapter 5?
JT I think so. Chapter 5 is worthy of that. It is a book — “the book of Adam’s generations”. The time is now come to represent things, and Adam is set up on moral rather than on creative lines, although the latter is involved; it is a question whether a brother or sister has his or her name in what corresponds with this book; a very important matter.
CAM Would you say Adam calling his wife’s name Eve was a matter of faith based on what God had said?
JT Yes. God had said the severest things to Adam and Eve, as seen in the verses previous to this. He had said to Adam, “cursed be the ground on thy account; with toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; and thorns and thistles shall it yield thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou return to the ground: for out of it wast thou taken. For dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return”. You could hardly get a [p. 370] severer statement, using the word dust as to the material out of which he is made instead of clay. Now immediately afterwards we have this statement, “And Man called his wife’s name Eve; because she is the mother of all living” — the seed out of which something is to develop; Adam referring here, not to what God had just said about himself, but to what He had said about Eve, that her seed should bruise the serpent’s head. Adam selected, as it were, and received into his mind, the true seed of God indicated in what God had said to the serpent. Of course everything that He said, to the devil and to Eve and to Adam, was the word of God; but in the ministry of the word there are things that are especially intended for us and the point is to get them. “Accept with meekness the implanted word” (James 1: 21). The word is received into the mind, grafted into the mind, received into honest and good hearts. Adam evidently received what God had said as to the woman’s seed into his heart and he thought of that word instead of the dust that God had just mentioned.
AEH The impressions he received previously from his wife and from what was around turned out to be only corrupting. I suppose the great lesson for him to learn was not to receive impressions from what was around; these things were to stand in a disciplinary setting, but he was to receive his impression from above.
JT Eve listened to the devil, and what the devil said to her she passed on to Adam, bringing about terrible results — sin. But now God comes in and speaks and there is seed in the word that is spoken. So that we have to take heed as to what we hear; we hear from many, but if we listen to any that are on natural lines the result will be death. If God comes on the scene and speaks, there is the incorruptible seed of the living and abiding word of God. I believe that is the point; it is life. Adam took notice of what God had said about his wife and called her Eve. God did not tell him to do [p. 371] that, he did it of himself, showing that he was affected by what God said.
CAM Faith seems to grow on that principle, of the seed being true to itself. This seed being there brought forth from Adam this remarkable title, because he could hardly have judged by appearance in making this utterance.
JT It is clearly the word of God. This is a very important principle right in the forefront of our subject. In this matter of fatherhood very much lies in impressions received from God.
JWW Would there be a link with the scripture Peter gives us as to “being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1: 23)?
JT That, as we already remarked, is the idea exactly. So that we have the thought of a “wholly right seed” which is the product of the word of God.
JWB Would Job be helped by the Lord in connection with fatherhood in chapter 39? He speaks of the ostrich, referring to the feminine side in connection with her warming her eggs in the dust; with the eagle he speaks of the masculine side, alluding to his nest on high and his young.
JT Yes. God speaks to Job, using the lower creatures to convey His thoughts; so that the impression of the eagle would be very different in most minds from that of the ostrich. God Himself uses the eagle to symbolise His care for His people, saying, “I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Exodus 19: 4). In Deuteronomy 32 He again brings the eagle in as making a nest for her young.
ASB In Genesis 3: 7 “they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons”, but these afforded no covering for the guilt which God exposes from verse 9 to verse 19; and then in verse 20 we have the position which is answered to by God clothing them in verse [p. 372] 21.
JT Yes. The clothes involve suggestions that Adam and Eve were to receive into their hearts, not only the word in their hearts, but they were clothed. It says that God made them “coats of skin, and clothed them”. There is the idea of tailoring, and the product is clothing so that we assume that the clothes fitted, not only in quality, but in cut. All that enters into the household, into parental thoughts.
HB Is it significant that the parental name of God is used in this matter?
JT You mean “Jehovah Elohim”? It is a covenant name that enters into this chapter. It appears in the second and runs through into the third. God has not relinquished His care for the race, for man. He is finding a way by which to maintain His relations with him, now His covenant relations. And that, I think, is the meaning of the fifth chapter where we have the book of Adam’s generations. The word generation there is not exactly his descendants, but his origin, and into that we all come.
AEH You referred to the implanted word in James 1. Would that have any suggestion of the clothes that we are considering now? He ends that chapter by saying that “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, to keep oneself unspotted from the world”. He mentions the Father there.
JT That is a very interesting link with what is before us.
RWS In New Testament language, does that passage in James, just quoted, refer to new birth?
JT Yes, only it goes further. It is the effect of “the word of truth”. That is what we are dealing with, what comes out from God. New birth is said to be a sovereign act of the Spirit, John 3: 5 - 8, not especially stressing the responsibility of its subject; but here we have a fuller thought: “According to his own will [p. 373] begat he us by the word of truth” (James 1: 18). That is God begetting us. The word of truth in Genesis 3 is in regard to Satan, in regard to Eve, and in regard to Adam himself. Adam is clearly affected by what was said to the serpent about Eve.
AR The standard is very high in chapter 5. God has created a man in His likeness: “Adam ... begot a son in his likeness”. Is that what you have in mind?
JT Of course chapter 4 comes in as foundational to chapter 5. Chapter 5 involves the moral line that begins in chapter 3, and Eve is again brought into the position in chapter 4. She bore Seth and named him; and then Seth has a son and he names him. In Seth we come into the working out of the purpose of God on moral lines, so that an epoch has begun. The Spirit says, “Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah”. That ought to be linked with the verses in chapter 3 where Adam is evidently affected by the word of God. Faith is operating in his heart and God is clothing him accordingly, setting him up with clothes in keeping morally with what he confessed. Now we have in the interim the murder of Abel, so that a murderer is in the family. Chapter 4 deals with the murderer; his position is divinely fixed. Then, as we have noted, we have another son born to Adam and Eve and Eve calls him Seth, meaning that he is appointed. The names here are given for a reason, and the reason is given. Eve says, “For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, because Cain has slain him”. The position is definitely recognised in her mind and stated in a name. Then it says immediately that Seth has a son and he calls his name Enosh. His wife does not name him, he does so himself, evidently coining in Enosh a new word, meaning mortal, weak. There is a want indicated in the word Enosh. If that is my name, then something is needed, namely, eternal life; because however long I may live down here, if I [p. 374] die according to nature there is a want, and I think that the promise of life comes in there. So light is thrown in on the scene, not only expressed in the name of Seth’s son, but others are affected by the light. The true light is now shining. Over against Cain’s world, where Cain called the city Enoch after the name of his son, we have God’s world, where people are calling on the name of Jehovah. So the two lines are clearly set out, the one in Cain and the other in Seth; and we have hope, the hope of eternal life.
RWS We need alertness to listen because certain names in Cain’s world are quite similar to those in chapter 5. It is a question of seeing which is really the “wholly right seed”.
JT That is a good point, because the world does take on names from God’s world; so I think the word book in chapter 5 is to verify things. You have a regular record. It is a question of Adam’s generations; the book of Adam’s generations. It is very like the book in Matthew 1: 1, in fact it is almost identical in wording: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”. Matthew is setting things out in definiteness because the assembly is in mind. We must be sure about people.
CAM If you did not know about the book you might read the wrong Enoch into this.
JT Just so. Satan is ever ready to borrow names if it suits him. We must not be deceived by literality, we must get the book. The word runs right through Scripture. In the last chapter of the Bible we have, “And if any one take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22: 19). So that “the book” has a great place in the Revelation, involving records as to who persons are.
CAM That is very interesting, because you have [p. 375] been referring to the voice of God; but this stresses the matter of writing in making all these records permanent.
JT This is over against the Egyptian records dug up out of the earth, or from the tombs. It is the book of Adam’s generations, but it is on moral ground; not simply creative. It is as though in chapters 3 and 4 the record is adjusted and things are sifted, and then we have the real thing in chapter 5, the book of life, really; persons that can come through the chaos, the crisis, and come out triumphant in life. That is what is in mind, and Seth is appointed. It is a man with an appointment, carrying with him responsibility. The Lord Jesus is appointed, everything is in His hands, all the books; our very souls are in His hands, so that all is secured in life.
AHP Is there any suggestion that would correspond with this in Matthew’s gospel when the Lord turns away, as rejected, from the unappreciated service and says, “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes” (Matthew 11: 25)?
JT He is rejected by Israel. A crisis had arisen. Chapter 11 of Matthew is a special chapter of crisis, and the Lord is showing that the things involved are all settled, the Father has taken them on. There is a definite turn in the course of events: at that time Jesus answering said, “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes”. The Father has taken on what the Son is doing. The Father and the Son are working together. There is complete adjustment in chapter 12. The brethren have come to light. The babes are viewed according to the work of the Father. He has taken them on and reveals things to them. Great things are brought out in chapter 12; the One greater than [p. 376] Jonah and Solomon designates the disciples as His brethren.
EF Does your reference to the Lord Jesus being appointed link on with the thought of John 17: 2: “as thou hast given him authority ... that as to all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal”?
JT Just so. It is to give eternal life to all whom God has given Him. He is appointed, that covers the position of Christ officially. Everyone of us is to come into this idea of appointment.
JWW Would the principle of this work out in the believer’s history as seen in Romans 6: 4, where we are “buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, in order that, even as Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life”? Would the two lines be seen there?
JT That is like the book of Adam’s generations. We are planted. The word in Romans 6: 5 is planted, and there is a growth from it, and that growth is in newness of life, in which we walk. That stands out as a testimony — newness of life. The end of the chapter says, “the wages of sin is death; but the act of favour of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”. The great blessing of eternal life is fixed.
HB Would you say the word another is most important if we are to be found going on with God’s present operations? Eve says, “For God has appointed me another seed”.
JT Quite, “instead of Abel”. She speaks intelligently, but in the next chapter it is Adam who names him. He “begot a son in his likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth”. This is now in the life line, the matter is settled; the appointed one is here. Notice another seed, not here son, although the Spirit of God uses the word son in verse 25. The word seed here must be linked with chapter 3: 15.
TLS Was there light in Adam’s soul in chapter 3 in saying, “the mother of all living”, but the detailed working of it out in chapter 5 has the thought of fatherhood in view.
JT Yes. Chapter 5 has the principle of a book, the book of Adam’s generations. Now we follow on with that book until we get other books. It is the principle of the book to gather things up officially and reliably so that reference may be made to it, and that we may know where we are at any given time in the testimony.
AR Would the idea of fatherhood be seen in Paul as he says of Timothy, “I have no one like-minded” (Philippians 2: 20)? Timothy was taking on the likeness of Paul.
JT Quite so, and passing the thing down to us. “And the things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men” (2 Timothy 2: 2). They were to teach others also.
AR If the truth is to continue in our own day, it must continue on that line as it has from Mr. Darby’s day on.
JT Yes, the line must be kept clear. There is a book, published by a certain independent body, with a great number of photographs of men, many of whom God had used, but some were far away from the truth. They are put into the book together as if all were on the same footing; a regular conglomeration. You are darkened by such a combination, but the generations in the book of Matthew would illuminate you.
SMcC Would you say that in the constant recurring crises in our localities, and generally, there is great need for fatherhood asserting itself? We would like perhaps to be counted in officially in connection with the thought of fatherhood, but the need is for it asserting itself morally.
JT Yes. Chapter 4 is to show the moral element in Adam and Eve and in Seth, so as to qualify them for chapter 5. They are to have a place in the book. The book is the determining feature as to identification [p. 378] according to God, not a book of all kinds of persons, some used of the devil. It is in a sense the book of life, the book of Adam’s generations, but on moral lines.
SWP Is that why it begins, “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”, and then goes on in verse 5, “all the days of Adam”? Is that cumulative in the light of what has gone before?
JT I think you have to look at it in that way. Chapter 5 is the book of life. You might say of those listed there, that they all died, but they did not all die. This chapter verifies the Lord’s remarks to Martha when He says, “every one who lives and believes on me shall never die”, and again, “he that believes on me, though he have died, shall live” (John 11: 25, 26). Enoch is the former and the others are included in what the Lord says, “though he have died”. There can be no doubt, but that Methuselah is honourably mentioned in chapter 5. He did not go through the flood; he died before it came.
ASB Would chapter 4 be something like the world’s book you were referring to? Verse 20 says “Jabal: he was the father of those who dwell in tents;” and then “Jubal: he was the father of those who handle the harp and pipe”. There is no mention of living conditions in chapter 4, but chapter 5, verse 3, says, “And Adam lived;” and verse 5, “all the days of Adam that he lived;” and verse 6, “Seth lived”, etc.
JT That is the life line. Of course we are entitled to put much into it that is not in it literally, to put much into it from the revealed mind of God. We know that God is the same yesterday, today and for ever, so the thoughts of the New Testament are here.
JRH Paul says to the Corinthians, “death works in us, but life in you” (2 Corinthians 4: 12). Would that link on with Adam naming his wife, and Seth naming Enosh?
JT I think so. Enoch was the seventh from Adam; the matter is worked out to the seventh, which [p. 379] would be like what Paul speaks of, the principle of death working. God is taking account of persons who are allowing death to work in them. “Death works in us”, a remarkable thing, but what is accruing from it? At any rate, life worked in the Corinthians. It would seem as if the apostle had to furnish a good deal of the life side to keep them going at Corinth. Think of how he took the thing on, so that the more death he went through the more life would be in them!
AEH Is the emphasis on what is moral seen perhaps in the fact that when it comes to the generations of Noah the idea of the book is dropped, but it says that he was “perfect amongst his generations: Noah walked with God”? Why is the word book left out?
JT There are several other generations that have no book. There are none of them in Cain’s world. What are all these records worth? There is a book called The Records of the Past; that is to say, they have dug up some buried cities and otherwise acquired information, all of which is instructive as to the history of the human race in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaan, etc. They are all records of the past, but they are not living records. These will come out in “that world and the resurrection”. Enoch involves all this and he is living.
WL Would you say that Luke’s record of the genealogies would show us their importance?
JT Yes; you get in that the records of the past. You see in the first book of Chronicles, for instance, verses 1 to 4 of chapter 1, those that are of value, “Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lemech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth”. They are the ones. Cain is not in it.
AR The historical record in itself may include a breakdown, but God in grace effects recovery as in Adam.
JT A breakdown took place in Adam and Eve, but God found a way of recovery. You have them [p. 380] mentioned in the life line in chapter 5. “This is the book of Adam’s generations. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created”. The basis of all is God acting through death in clothing Adam and Eve. Thus they are worthy of mention. God comes into the scene, and Adam’s soul takes on moral impressions. He names Eve the mother of all living. Thus a basis was laid for chapter 5.
CAM Is it not remarkable that when we come to the book of Daniel all the scribes and writers could not interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? It needed one who had the secret.
JT Quite so; it is very beautiful. “Go thy way, Daniel”, is the word; “thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days”. That is the principle of the book; the book of life is mentioned in the last chapter.
SWP Would it be right to say that God puts His own preface to this book because of what follows? God puts His stamp of approval on it, as it were.
JT And the cumulative principle developing in Enoch is a great thought for us. We are to observe it. Think of the mass of literature there is now: what can you pick out that remains in your heart as living? Enoch is the cumulative product, the seventh from Adam; Jude speaks of him in that way. So that this section is linked up in the New Testament. Jude quotes Enoch as saying, “Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads”. He is the finished product in this section and God says, so to speak, He will do for me. So that finally he is not found here. He may have been occupied in some practical work like Daniel, but one day he is not found; God has him. You have to go to heaven to find him; he is secured there. He was not found here, for God took him.
JRH There appears to be a note of triumph in [p. 381] this fifth chapter. The first chapter says, “Be fruitful and multiply”. Do you think that on the moral side the great work of God in the souls of Adam and Eve — He “called their name Adam” — is shown in the way of multiplication?
JT That seems evident. And God took Enoch, which is the gathering up of all from Adam to Enoch. Enoch as thus developed in the truth. Now He has another man on the scene, namely, Noah, and he is a father. In order to get the thing clear in its present bearing we should note that he is one of eight. Where are we today? What about this book today? There are not many to write in it now. There are just eight souls mentioned in Genesis 6; they are to be carried through the deluge in the ark. Who can tell us how many there were in the antediluvian world? How sorrowful, how distressing! Think of the number that were there! They married, and gave in marriage, and ate, and drank until the day that Noah entered the ark; and then the Lord just says, “the flood came and destroyed all of them” (Luke 17: 27). But the book of life has the eight, and the ark has the eight, and they are going through; saved through water.
WL Would you say that shows the importance of arriving at God’s positive thought in regard to the seed, as Adam did?
JT Yes. The positive thought was in Eve. Adam arrived at that. That was through the word of God, the ingrafted word which is able to save our souls. It was carried down to Enoch, the seventh from Adam; it was carried on in the exercises of these men enumerated. That result went up to heaven.
HB Why did Adam live such a long time before Seth was begotten? He lived 130 years, and the others generally lived long periods before their sons were begotten. Would it suggest experience with God, not a brief period [p. 382] matter?
JT It is said that Adam lived 130 years and begot a son and called his name Seth. We are not told how old he was when Cain was born. We shall have to count that 130 years back, I suppose, to the day of his creation. He was not created a boy, he was created a man; and Eve was created a woman. Adam would, therefore, if we add ordinary years of babyhood, boyhood, and manhood to him, probably be the oldest man. But he did not have those experiences. He could hardly say with the psalmist, “I have been young, and now I am old”, He could hardly speak of childhood or boyhood. So that his experiences are the experiences of a full-grown man of 130 years before he begot Seth. But then, as we have noted, he had two sons earlier, Cain and Abel. The period of his experiences and exercises on the moral line I should think took place mainly after the death of Abel. We are not told. Adam and Eve are brought into the history less than some might have expected. God has not given us much detail, but enough to establish the physical and moral history. They had experience in bereavement in having one of their sons killed by another, but did they understand it? The experience from such events began with themselves; they needed time to work it out, because they did not have any models to go by. Evidently God gave them time to prepare for Seth. Eve so far has not forgotten that Cain slew Abel. She carried that thought down.
RWS Would that be gathered up in Enoch; does not his name mean disciplined?
JT It does, and it is very appropriate because you can see that he is learning from experience. He had models behind him to go by so that he might say to his wife, ‘Did anything happen like that before?’ going in his thoughts right back to Adam. Terrible things happen amongst us and they might overcome us, but God would say, Other people have such things to bear. So God would, no doubt, come in to help Enoch [p. 383] positively in these experiences, but you can see that in the early parts of their lives Adam had none and Eve had none. They had to learn everything at the outset without the help of models.
JRH The fourth chapter speaks of Eve naming Seth but in chapter 5 Adam names him. Is that the result of experience with God?
JT I think God would have the book that way. It is a divine book. It would not do to have Eve outstanding as the parent who named the son appointed. Adam did it, but Eve named him first, she gives a reason for it. We can understand that Adam fixedly named his third son, designating him, perhaps, in prophetic light. Light comes in through Seth. “Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah” (Genesis 4: 26).
EGMcA Chapter 4 says that Seth named his son Enosh, but chapter 5 just says that he “begot Enosh”. What is the difference? All the rest in chapter 5 simply begot sons and daughters, but Seth had the intelligence to name Enosh. Does that indicate that he was in line with his father’s thought in the intelligence of naming?
JT I think that is right. It is clear that Seth had light in naming Enosh. We may almost say an epoch began, “Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah” (Genesis 4: 26). After Adam the word begot is used throughout in chapter 5. It is proper as fitting into an official book. We have already alluded to Matthew 1; there we have the same expression: “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Juda and his brethren;” coming on down to verse 16, where it is said, “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus”. The Son of God could be begotten only by God. The Spirit of God is very careful about that. So what you say, I think, is very suggestive, that the progenitive idea must be in the book, because that gives each one there his status.
EGMcA I was wondering if the progenitive idea [p. 384] is in keeping with the intelligence seen in verse 26 of Genesis 4?
JT Exactly. Joseph was the reputed father of Jesus, but he could never have been said to have begotten Him.
JRH Does the thought of image and likeness belong to the progenitorial idea?
JT Yes, it is the carrying on of the impressions of the father. Take Esau and Jacob: they were begotten by Isaac, but in effect Esau elects himself out of the book.
Baptised children are in the kingdom, and in a certain sense they are in the fellowship. If they elect to leave, they are in principle apostates, although other circumstances may modify this — grace would afford time for repentance. But the progenitive idea is a very important one, the carrying on of the divine thoughts of the parents. You can carry down what your father stood for, and if you do the divine privilege into which you were born remains.
SWP Is that why in Exodus 12 it is “a lamb for a father’s house”?
JT Just so. So in Genesis 22 where Christ is typically seen in Isaac about to die, it was not a female sheep, but a ram caught in a thicket that was found. The ram there stands for the progenitorial thought, it contemplates the continuation of the line; it is going through. Isaac comes out of death, he is received back from the dead in a figure. It is through the power of God, witnessed in Christ’s resurrection that divine progeniture is developed.
SMcC Would you help us as to the two words used here, the idea of creation, and that of generation, and their bearing on ourselves? Chapter 5 says, “This the book of Adam’s generations. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them”.
JT I think the two thoughts come into [p. 385] the new order of things. We have new birth which is the generative thought, and new creation which is the creative thought. These two words convey to us a new order of things, so that in chapter 5 you have the life line. Generation is something that God had in His mind, and He would see to it that His thought is fully carried out in creation. The idea of creation is not growth. In generation it is growth, but in creation the thing is fixed at once. Adam was not created a baby or a boy, he was created a man. He was created according to divine thoughts, as is everything else that is created. Take the vast system of the universe: God designed it in His mind before He did anything; everything there is worked out on the principle of design. So wisdom is called God’s artificer, perhaps the artificer of His love, see Proverbs 8:30 and the Note in New Translation. There is not a thing omitted in the result because wisdom is there. The primary design in the mind of God is carried through by wisdom. Therefore when the time comes, each one of us will be in his created position. Even our very works come into the matter, for Ephesians 2: 10 says, “For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has before prepared that we should walk in them”. That is, we are created for that. God has prepared these works that we should walk in them, that is the divine thought worked out. When Solomon was born, Jehovah loved him as a babe, pointing on to Christ. It is not a creation; it is a birth, and Jehovah would name what is going to develop. Of course both ideas attach to all but Adam and Eve. A birth involves love, but creation is fixed at the start. Of course God’s creative works go on, but I am speaking now of the great general principle of creation and generation as seen in Genesis 1 and 2; also new creation which is presented in Scripture as a fixed matter. “If any one be in Christ there is new creation” (2 Corinthians [p. 386] 5: 17).
AEH Is there a difference between creation and generation set out in the two words, order and character? Creation is an order of things, an order of being, but generation or birth has to do with the character.
JT Just so. The family is the sphere of life. Parents delight in their offspring; we must not deny ourselves that, nor God either. So wisdom says in this wonderful matter, as the artificer of God’s love, “my delights were with the sons of men”.
AEH We could never have Christ spoken of as created, but when the creation is spoken of in Colossians, the delightful character of things as seen in Him, He is referred to as “firstborn of all creation”.
SMcC Is generation only connected with the ways of God in time, or does it link with eternity also?
JT I think so, as also new creation: “If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation”.
SMcC It has been said that we are not sons by birth; we are children by birth, but sons by adoption.
JT That is right. But our adoption into sonship is more than the ordinary idea of being made one of a family. We have “received a spirit of adoption, [sonship] whereby we cry Abba, Father” (Romans 8: 15). We have not only the light of sonship, but the spirit of it, which implies consciousness of it. The word adoption is really sonship, so that we are constituted the thing that is in the mind of God by the spirit of sonship. He has sent out the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father”. There is no idea of our being inferior.
JRH What would be in the fatherhood exercises with Paul in this matter of image and likeness?
JT I think he must have observed in the Corinthians a great lack of likeness to himself and to God. He says, I am not coming myself to see you, but I am sending Timotheus; and if you look at the wording in 1 Corinthians 4: 17, you will see how Timotheus would be like Paul among them. “For this reason I [p. 387] have sent to you Timotheus, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ”. “For this reason”, that is, that he would represent Paul among the Corinthians as his beloved child. He had Paul’s features.
AR How is that brought about?
JT That is a good question, as to how we begin to apprehend God in Christ. Christ is said to be the image of God. We have to take on what we apprehend — to take on the characteristics. I believe that is what Paul meant. Paul was so acquainted with God in Christ that he was like Him, and that was carried over in a young man like Timothy.
JRH Is it right to say that the thought of likeness must underlie the thought of image?
JT Yes. Image is representation. It is what God intends you to be as representative of God in a certain sense; that is, if God anoints a man for a certain purpose. Satan was anointed, for instance, before he fell, and there would be some characteristic representation in him. Jehovah said of him, “Thou, who sealest up the measure of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, thou wast in Eden, the garden of God” (Ezekiel 28: 12, 13). Michael reasoned with him, but did not rebuke him; God would rebuke him, Jude 9.
AR One must be born again of water and of the Spirit; that would be by God Himself; and it would bring about likeness, I suppose?
JT Yes. That was the idea in Timothy, he was like Paul as his child in the Lord. He was in Corinth as the apostle’s representative; that would be Paul’s image. If he were not like Paul characteristically he could not represent him, but he was like Paul. God in all times took up certain persons who were equal to the position and made them representative of Himself.
JWW In the Philippian epistle, Timotheus is said to be like-minded to Paul. Would that be the same [p. 388] idea? And then further on it says, “But ye know the proof of him, that, as a child a father, he has served with me in the work of the glad tidings” (Philippians 2: 22).
JT That carries it out. Take Judas: I think he was in some sense representative of God as sent out by the Lord, he was intended to be that. He probably was positively used, but he could not be like God; he must have put on a good deal to make himself seem like the others. They evidently did not see he was a devil.
TLS Should a letter of commendation carry the same thought?
JT Quite so; as it contains just what is true.
JRH Those persons you mentioned as bearing the image of God evidently should be regarded as a warning to us. You spoke of Satan and Judas.
JT Yes. They indicate how God may come in and commit something to a man, as in the case of Judas, who may not really be like God at all in the true sense of the word.
AEH The reason that the apostle stayed away from Corinth was because he did not want to act otherwise than in his true character. He really was in love with the Corinthians, but he said, If I come I shall have to come with a rod; I will send Timothy instead, for you to see the Spirit of Christ in him.
JT A very beautiful thought!
JWW In relation to the scripture, “I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau” (Malachi 1: 2), would the line of generation come in negatively in the thought, “I have hated Esau”? He elected himself out of the blessing in that way.
JT Just so. The wickedness came out. That statement is in Malachi, and in order to understand it we must look at Esau’s history in the prophets; there you will see good reasons for God hating him. It is a historic thing culminating in Malachi. When you go back in the history of Jacob you see that God had very [p. 389] good reasons for loving him, because the lovable qualities were there. The Spirit of God tells us at the start that Jacob was a plain man that dwelt in tents. He valued the inheritance of God. Esau was the man of the field and did not care for the blessing; he had murderous hatred for Jacob. That is what God hates.
JWW It develops as the years go on, culminating in Malachi.
JT God let it go to its full limit before He said that.