FATHERHOOD (3)
[p. 410] FATHERHOOD (3)
Genesis 17: 1 - 14; Genesis 24:1 - 9; Hebrews 11: 8 - 10
JT Attention was called yesterday to the apostle Paul’s remark as to fatherhood, that although the Corinthians had ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet they had not many fathers. Also that he had begotten them through the gospel, therefore he was a father, not only in stature, but as begetting a spiritual family. Now in the second letter to Corinth he appeals to them as a father to his children, to become enlarged. His heart had become enlarged towards them, repentance having been wrought among them in regard to certain things; and then he proceeds to say, “Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6: 14); going on to the promise of God, that He would be a Father to us and we His sons and daughters on the ground of separation. It seems as if the second letter to Corinth should be viewed as entering into our reading today; the fatherhood of God known by us in a practical way here below on the ground of our separation.
Abraham represented this great principle of separation, and hence the great truth of the family comes into his history, especially the matter of fatherhood, for that is what is alluded to by the Spirit in Hebrews 11, that he, “being called, obeyed to go out into the place which he was to receive for an inheritance, and went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise”. That is, he carries the thought of fatherhood to his own son and to his grandson; showing the idea is to run down as far as we may have power to exercise it. So that we have in Joseph the principle as to how long a father or a grandfather or a great-grandfather may exercise influence for good in his descendants. Of Joseph it is said that he lived 110 years, “and Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation; the sons also of Machir the son of Manasseh were born on Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50: 23).
So that it would appear that we should have 2 Corinthians in mind, as showing how the thought of fathers continued in the apostle Paul in regard of the family at Corinth, and how it culminated in the promise of God to us as christians, that as we are separate He would become a Father to us and we be His sons and daughters. The apostle justly adds in the words that follow: “Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear” (2 Corinthians 7: 1).
RWS Does the failure to exercise that principle of separation hinder Abraham earlier? He is told to move, but is hindered by his own father from moving.
JT He was influenced by his father unduly; and there can be no doubt that the lessons learned through other members of his family coming with him had in mind his own discipline, so that when Isaac was born he should be a disciplined father. He was a father developed under God’s discipline so that he should know how to look after his children, which he was able to do, because it is stressed in Hebrews that he “dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise”. Esau is not mentioned, nor Ishmael, showing the holy discrimination against evil in our children that enters into fatherhood.
AR That came in the first chapter we read: there was another product in the household, Ishmael.
JT That is important. It brought out further traits in Abraham, that whilst he was a real man of affection and loved Ishmael his son, yet in relation to his house he had in a particular way to go through exercise to learn righteousness, and it worked out through his wife. He learned to submit to what was right, to own that he himself was wrong in allowing [p. 412] natural feelings to rule him contrary to the mind of God. Sarah’s word to him, “Cast out the maid servant and her son” (Galatians 4: 30), is highly honoured in that it becomes Scripture.
JB So that what the Lord has said as to separation is to mark us, is it not? Abraham moved in relation to what the Lord said.
JT Quite so, and in his case it was accompanied with great incentive, because it was the God of glory that appeared to him; not yet the glory of God; in our chapter it is the glory of God; at least, there is glory in Jehovah’s appearing to him, but in calling him, God is spoken of as the God of glory. That would indicate it would be worth his while. And he obeyed.
HGH Are not these promises to Abraham on the line of encouragement, and similarly those to which you have referred in 2 Corinthians, an encouragement to holiness?
JT They are. The idea of progression in Paul’s own mind in regard of a father is seen in the second epistle, as if the family of God is viewed as a refractory family to a great extent in Corinth, but yet care for it persists; and a great incentive to separation is added in chapters 6 and 7, that makes it worth while: “I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”. The allusion is clearly to Abraham, because that is the name taken by God in this passage in Genesis 17: “I am the Almighty God: walk before my face, and be perfect”.
JWD Why do you think Terah called his son Abram — High father? Do you think he had a conception of God as Father, of fatherhood apart from that which had to be judged?
JT Well, I think the naming was under God. Whatever Terah may have thought, the term High father would refer to moral elevation, that is elevation morally above what was current either in Mesopotamia,
[p. 413] or in Canaan. Terah was not called, but the generations of Terah have an important place in the book of Genesis, because of public history, just as certain others have, like those of Ishmael. In chapter 11 it says, “And these are the generations of Terah”, alluding to a stock of people whence sprang several that were connected directly with the testimony, especially Abraham. The sisterhood in Israel or among God’s people sprang also from Terah; so that, whatever Terah may have been personally, under God, he evidently was somewhat of a father, and had in his mind that Abraham should be one, calling him by his name.
RWS Is there a moral link with Noah in Abraham?
JT I think so. Noah is said to be an heir of the righteousness which is by faith; an heir of it. The righteousness which is by faith came, in I think, through Abraham. Of course, righteousness was there in Noah, but this is the righteousness which is by faith; that principle belongs to our own dispensation. Noah became heir of that, and so comes into the line of Abraham. It is a very important matter that we have not simply righteousness by itself; Paul says, “not having my righteousness, which would be on the principle of law, but that which is by faith of Christ” (Philippians 3: 9), that kind of righteousness. We must have that kind of righteousness to be in the line of Abraham.
CAM I would like to ask you about the covenant in the early part of chapter 17. Would you say that to make advance in this matter we should have some special understanding with God?
JT Well, we have come now to the chapter especially in view for this reading. What we have been saying is preliminary and disciplinary, because Abraham had to be brought into this through a long and painful history, especially as to his family according to the flesh. He had to learn that God’s aim in taking him up was a family after the Spirit, “a wholly right seed”, and discipline entered into that; so that the High father is developed and now his name is changed into Abraham — Father of a multitude. It is due to him morally that he should have a multitude as a family because of his qualities. These qualities are largely built up through discipline over a long period. Hence in this chapter God is speaking to him as a man speaks to his fellow; in verse 3 He says to Abram, “It is I”. “And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying, It is I: behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of a multitude of nations. And thy name shall no more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of a multitude of nations have I made thee”. The chapter is full of the thought of the covenant. I think it is brought in here because of Abraham’s reliability, his moral worth, that God would secure him on the ground of covenant.
CAM Recent ministry has drawn a distinction between covenant relationship with God and the family relationship. This chapter links them together.
JT It does; and the idea of the covenant is important for us, not that we are brought into covenant exactly but in principle we are; that is, each believer is to have an understanding with God and God would say, I want to have an understanding with you. “It is I” — He is saying that He Himself is speaking to you, no other, no less. He would say, ‘I am speaking to you Myself. I want to be on terms of assurance with you; I want to commit Myself to you. I know what you have to contend with as bringing up a family in this world; and I want to assure you of My committal to you’, because — as it is said later regarding Abraham, “I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him” (Genesis 18: 19). God watches us as young men and young women in view of this relation, and He knows what we have to contend with in it and would assure us that He is standing by [p. 415] us.
AB Is that why the apostle in 2 Corinthians 1: 21 says, “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God”?
JT That is the principle in that chapter. The Corinthians in their naughty attitude were questioning the veracity of the apostle and he brings this in, that God is faithful to every promise: “For whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us” (verse 20).
HGH Do we get the same principle here, where He reveals Himself to Abraham as the Almighty God?
JT That is it. If He has entered into covenant with you He is saying, ‘I can stand behind it, I can support it; it is sure that you will get great benefit from it’. That is the point in 2 Corinthians. He is God Almighty. What can He not do? Hence the idea of discipline proceeds. There can be no doubt that Abraham was contemporary with Job, or nearly so. It was a peculiar time of discipline in relation to the thoughts of God; He called one man out of the gentiles, but He did not call Job out, He left him where he was, but disciplined him and Job arrives at the thought that God can do everything. God promulgates this Himself, that He is God Almighty, and Abraham is set up on covenant terms with God. There is a connection in this with every young father and young mother. God would say, ‘I know what you are going through, I know the world you have to contend with, and I am ready to enter into covenant with you. It is I, the God you believed on in the gospel, and I have had you in mind in that; but it is not only to be a question of sons eternally, I am going to be a Father to you as my sons and daughters here’.
CAM The idea of covenant seems to be largely in the first part of the book of Genesis. The great thought of fatherhood is developed fully towards the [p. 416] end.
JT That is so. There is very little thought of covenant in the antediluvian world; the only word as to it is what is said later, that Adam transgressed the covenant, meaning that he was set in Eden to guard and keep it; he thus was there in responsibility. He was specifically commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is all. But the principle of covenant is there nevertheless; and in the section we are in now, that is, the postdiluvian era, God’s relations with Noah are full of covenant, and they are relations that extend out to the family of Japheth particularly. God entered into covenant with Noah and his sons and with the earth itself and with the creation, and that runs right down to the present dispensation. Then when we come to Abraham, it is a call out of that world. According to Romans it had become corrupted just as the antediluvian world had become corrupted; so the epistle to the Romans teaches us as to Abraham, and how he came into covenant.
SMcC Is it not touching how this is referred to in Hebrews 6 over against the apostasy that was current? The apostle says, “Wherein God, willing to shew more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, intervened by an oath” (Hebrews 6: 17). It is wonderful the way that God moves to confirm the heirs of the promise in these matters.
JT Especially in apostate conditions, as you say. According to that chapter the Jewish believers were in danger of drifting back into apostasy, into the old system, and the point is that we might have a strong consolation, “by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie” (verse 18). That is, there was an oath attached to the position, and a promise. The oath involves the covenant, so that we are set up; whether it be in our natural relations as parents with children, or as brethren, we find that God stands by us, and I think that is how it works out in Corinth. Paul developed [p. 417] fatherhood in relation to the Corinthians and brings out this great thought of God the Almighty.
AEH That seems to be the carrying out of separation on the inward side, whether in the natural relationships or in the assembly. We are not so much tested in relation to baptism in our houses when our children are small and we can keep things out and keep them separate; but when they get older it is more difficult. So the principle of circumcision comes in and the declaration of God Almighty.
JT Quite so. Thus the flesh must be rendered powerless, and this can only be by the Spirit. We do not rely on the power of the flesh any more. Our side of the covenant is, as it were, in our flesh, that is, the evidence of circumcision. Paul says, “for when I am weak, then I am powerful” (2 Corinthians 12: 10). You do not rely on natural effort in the exercise of parenthood, it is the power of God. Our side is circumcision; God says it is to be in your flesh; a present thing all the time.
JB The end of Exodus 4 helps us in connection with this. Immediately after God speaks of Israel as His son, His first-born, Moses has to deal with circumcision in his own son.
JT His wife was not with him, that was the great difficulty; whereas in Abraham’s case his wife was with him, and he was the failing one. Zipporah was not much in it, indeed she reproves her husband because of it. But we have the great fact here that God sought to kill Moses because of failure in the execution of circumcision — one of the most remarkable things in Scripture! The mark of circumcision was in himself and why did he not carry it out in regard of his son?
JH What link is there in this matter of the covenant with what we have in the previous chapter?
JT The previous chapter is a contrivance after the flesh. God is not going to set us up in that. It is after that had happened that we get this chapter, because in [p. 418] chapter 15 Abraham is seen troubled over this matter. He says to the Lord, “what wilt thou give me? seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus. And Abram said, Lo, to me thou hast given no seed, and behold, a son of my house will be mine heir. And behold, the word of Jehovah came to him, saying, This shall not be thine heir, but he that will come forth out of thy body shall be thine heir. And he led him out, and said, Look now towards the heavens, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them. And he said to him, So shall thy seed be! And he believed Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15: 2 - 6). Here he comes into the righteousness which is by faith. He was distressed over the want of an heir, that he must go childless. This scripture in chapter 15 is the first in which we have the actual expression, ‘the word of God’. The word of God enters into the chapter twice, which is remarkable: “After these things the word of Jehovah came to Abram”, verse 1, and again in verse 4, “behold, the word of Jehovah came to him”. But as seen in chapter 16 he went against the word of God, because God had said, You shall have an heir; and he ought to have relied on God; whereas Sarah proposes something else and hence the deviation from the word of God, which brings in an Ishmael that had to be cast out. Now in this chapter we are on the platform of the word of God, and not only that, but Jehovah appearing and entering into covenant on personal grounds, as if God were saying, I have followed your history, and I know I can trust you now. This is a great chapter. The time had come for it.
AR Is there a suggestion that if God has taken up any one of us He will never give us up?
JT Yes. When He takes one up definitely He says, so to speak, That is my work. That is the principle now. Jeremiah is told to go down to the potter’s place and see what is going on. Well, the potter was working [p. 419] away; God was working, and He made a vessel and it was marred. It was thrown away, not repaired, but thrown away, and He made another vessel that pleased Him. That is christianity. So that what God is doing now is pleasing Him; He is not casting it away. That is most encouraging. If God takes me on He will hold me; the Lord says, No one shall pluck My sheep out of My Father’s hand, nor out of My hand.
SWP Is that why He changes Abraham’s name here? As He proceeds in the development of His great thoughts towards him He gives him a name which would develop personality.
JT That is right. It is the God of glory that is speaking to him, the God that had begun with him according to what Stephen says. And now Jehovah is appearing to him with a view to the fulfilment of His purpose concerning Abraham. The counsels of God entered into this matter; that He had had Abraham in His mind. He had waited for this period so that Abraham might be reliable, consciously brought into reliability, so that God might speak to him as one individual to another.
AR His history after he is called would lead one to think that God might change His mind and take up somebody else. He went down to Egypt and acquired an Egyptian handmaid and as a result had a mongrel in his house. In spite of that God says, I am going on with him. It is really very remarkable.
JT It is very encouraging, so that God says later, I called Abraham alone and I blessed him. However small we may be we cannot be less than we were when God called us. God says, I called him alone and blessed him and made him a father of a multitude of nations, (Isaiah 51: 2). So that the bigness of the result as in the mind of God is to be before us.
SMcC These elevated thoughts should help us in the various practical issues that we are having to [p. 420] face in these parts, the thought of the covenant imparting a measure of stability to the soul in relation to God, so that we go through things as steadied under the influence of it.
JT Quite so. I think that God has greatly helped us in relation to the authorities in this country. That it should be so is remarkable, because it is a country of independency from the outset; but it looks as if God would say to us, ‘It is of Me, in My government of the world, that this country should be opened up and peopled by such as are here, and now in the present crisis it affords what is needed’. So that in our prayers we do not think of the matter of great wealth on this continent as an accident, but that it is a question of government. God has had His testimony in mind and knew what would be needed in these last days, so that He had this great reservoir of resources; and not only so, but also a certain sort of favourableness with the government towards God’s people. That is not accidental at all. It is a deliberate arrangement of God in the way of foresight, so that the Spirit of God has a measure of liberty and we can go on. It is a very great matter that this country and the British Empire are favourable to God’s people at the present time, because if they were not we should have a very different situation from what we have.
SMcC It is important that we should regard what you have said, the history that enters into the matter rather than the mere existing situation by itself.
JT It is well to take up the history. In our consideration of Noah we must bear in mind that, whilst it is Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the order of the names is from the standpoint of the counsels of God; that is, Shem has the first place in the counsels of God. But in the government of God Japheth has the first place since Nebuchadnezzar, and he has the first place now, so that we know how to regulate our prayers accordingly.
Japheth’s name means enlargement, but it is enlargement in certain directions, the west and the north. When Paul was exercised about where he should go to serve, the Spirit of Jesus said to him, You must go this way. Paul says, He suffered us not to go that way, but this way, that is, towards Europe. And presently the man of Macedonia appeared saying, “Pass over into Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16: 9). That is the voice of God. It was a man, and yet it was women that the apostle met first when he went over. But in due course the man appeared and has stood in Europe ever since. The point is that he should stand there now.
JWD Do you think that is involved in the word to Philadelphia as to the opened door? There would be the key of David and the idea of opening and no one shutting, and shutting and no one opening. Would you put all that into what you are speaking of?
JT I would. The opened door has been in this direction; we are a witness to it. Why are we here? It is under the government of God we are here, and as here we are not forgetting God. God has followed us up, but still there is the idea of a covenant.
SRMacC “And a rainbow round the throne like in appearance to an emerald” (Revelation 4: 3). Would that enter into what we are saying? Is that the covenant idea?
JT Yes; that covenant stands. So that when the Lord comes down according to Revelation 10, and puts His right foot on the sea and His left on the earth and roars like a lion, He has the sign of the covenant round His head. You can see what a place the sea has in modern times. The Mediterranean always had a place even in the ancient world, but think of how much depends on the seas today! In the government of God those who hold the seas hold the power, and if they are protecting the rights of God, God will give them the power. God is asserting His rights in the testimony in that [p. 422] way.
AR When you say Shem had the first place in the counsels of God, do you mean in relation to God’s ways?
JT In relation to Abraham. You can see in chapter 10 of Genesis that Shem came in in relation to the other two sons of Noah, but in chapter 11 he comes in by himself. There it says, “These are the generations of Shem”, verse 10, and the generations are carried down to Abraham. That is the reason I think that Moses speaking from the standpoint of Israel and of God’s testimony puts Shem first; because he is morally first.
AEH Would you say that the first surge of spiritual development reached out towards Europe, and that the records of decadence and apostasy also find their place there; and the seeds gradually grow?
JT Yes. Let us not forget it. How quickly things may turn around! The seeds of apostasy are there; that is the basis of the book of Revelation — the apostasy of Europe.
AR Have you in mind that God has counsels in relation to heaven as well as to earth?
JT Yes; quite so. It is in relation to earth here, for in chapter 15 God leads Abraham out and says, “Look now toward the heavens, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them. And he said to him, So shall thy seed be! And he believed Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (verse 5). That is the great universal thought. And then in chapter 17 the word is, “And thy name shall no more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee”, verses 5, 6. So that it is more the earth that is in mind here.
RWS Is the lack of fatherhood on this continent because of its newness, or because of the material at [p. 423] hand?
JT I think the idea of experience with God has little place, and even the idea of fatherhood in the ordinary sense has little place, because the importance of youth is so greatly stressed in this country. Those who immigrated here were young people and were usually able to do things, and when they came to this country they thought there was no limit to what could be done. That is what developed, great universal independency in youth and great feminine independency. Japheth is called ‘the elder;’ I believe he was the eldest of the three, which would mean he had fatherly qualities in the ordinary government of God; but in immigration that thought became greatly attenuated, because there was no need to refer to the parents at all. Those of us who have lived only in the last quarter of a century can hardly realise what immigration there was previously from Europe to this country. About a million people came into New York harbour every year, mostly all young people, and each set to make money and be something. The idea of a father and mother was in the mind of those who would send a gift to parents left in the mother countries, but in them authority was but little recognised. Let us not forget that that condition still exists in some measure.
SMcC Is it not remarkable that, in the genealogies in Chronicles, that of Japheth is developed first? The order is given in verse 4, “Shem, Ham, and Japheth”. Then it immediately proceeds, “The sons of Japheth”, verse 5. Do you think there is in mind in the Chronicles the expansion at the hand of David?
JT The Chronicles were written in the light of the captivity, and of the gentile monarchies coming in; but David is brought in quickly because he represents direct authority from God. Nebuchadnezzar did not represent that. He represented indirect authority from God, and this country comes under that; but David [p. 424] represents direct authority. And as our brother remarks, it enters into the word to Philadelphia, that the Lord has the key of David, that kind of key. We are relying for the moment on the external government of God in the four monarchies, and we pray for them; but the key of David is in the hand of Christ, that is direct government from God, and presently it will come in here. We want to be under the key of David now. If it were not for that I would want to put in the best man possible in Washington. It is a question of the key of David; we are concerned about that.
RW S. Has the assembly what results from that key?
JT Yes; we come into that; the power that shuts and opens. It is the power that keeps things in check, the spiritual power that restrains antichrist. That is the key of David.
AR At the end of Revelation the Lord says, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies. I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star” (Revelation 22: 16).
JT It is remarkable how David comes into the book of Revelation. In the passage quoted it is the Lord asserting Himself, because it is more than the key now. He is “the root”, meaning that He is God; and “the offspring”, that He is Man. You come into the light of the Person of Christ, the Son of God, who He is. He exercises divine right. He is God, but He is also in manhood, He is with us. The assembly of course enters into all that, because the Spirit and the bride say, Come.
JWW You have alluded to the four monarchies. Would you be prepared to recognise them, but above all having the Son of God paramount?
JT I think that is the thought; because in figure the Son of God appeared in the furnace. The position of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego in the furnace is the general position of the testimony today. But [p. 425] Nebuchadnezzar sees a fourth: the fourth is Jesus. He comes out of heaven according to Revelation 19 as “King of kings and Lord of lords”, the very title that Nebuchadnezzar had; King of kings. So that we see the Son of God and how everything hinges on Him. Hence the importance of what we have had in recent years — the truth about the Son of God. He is going to take up the reins of government.
JWW I was thinking about the saints in Zechariah’s day: would the chariots and horses in chapter 6 be similar in character?
JT It is the same thing, only there it is the four spirits of the heavens that stand before God, and that gives them a very great and peculiar place.
AR What you say is very interesting. Publicly we recognise indirect government, but in the assembly we recognise direct government, and that is what is regulating us.
JT Yes. The Son is over the house. And so He says to Thyatira, “These things says the Son of God” (Revelation 2: 18). He will presently take up the whole government, but He has to do with the assembly now.
TS Are the authorities in some measure seeing now what Nebuchadnezzar saw in his day?
JT You hope they see something like what Nebuchadnezzar saw in the three men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. One has often called attention to that chapter. These three men are mentioned together thirteen times in that chapter. The Spirit of God delights in them, these sufferers, and the Son of God joins them in the suffering. The young men are coming before the authorities today — in what manner? Is it in the Spirit of Jesus? If it is, then you may be sure the Fourth will be there, the Son of God will be there.
AR Is that why Peter says, “God must be obeyed rather than men” (Acts 5: 29)? As christians we are under the direct government of [p. 426] heaven.
JT That is a very important matter in our care meetings and the like. It is the Son of God that we have to do with. Paul said to the Corinthians, “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus), did not become yea and nay, but yea is in him” (2 Corinthians 1: 19). That bears on the state of Corinth. They had to do with the Son of God. God had called them into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
JWD Why do you think that government in Paul’s time was not favourable to the testimony? He speaks of the lion’s mouth in regard to the Roman monarch in his day.
JT Well, that is true, but that would be because of a certain personal incitement; but abstractly the Romans were in favour of fairness, indeed the empire was constituted on the principle of fairness. But it was largely Jewish influence that brought in persecution. The lion was there, however, capable of being stirred up. Even Pilate was at first in favour of the Lord.
SMcC Is it not remarkable that in the book of Acts, which gives us the economy of the assembly, the last seven chapters should be devoted to details in connection with one man in relation to the authorities? From the 21st to the 28th chapters it is really Paul in relation to the powers that be.
JT That is an interesting fact and I think it brings out what we have been saying about discipline. We get the best results from disciplinary history in the apostles, in what comes down to us in the Scriptures. The discipline the apostle Paul went through must have been to bring out in him the very best that God had. We must take account of God’s feelings; in Noah’s day He says, I am grieved in My heart about things, and He says of man that, “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart” is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6: 5). God had much in his heart. And we see in the latter part of [p. 427] Acts that things were so turning in the history of the assembly that Jewish elements were becoming more and more pronounced. Paul went to Jerusalem, which was the very centre of christianity; there was the appearance outwardly of christianity, but no care for Paul. They let him go! They did not help him against the authorities, nor did they help the authorities against him. It was his nephew that helped him. That is a sorrowful situation, displeasing to God, and God would say that Jerusalem is apathetic; the doors of the temple were shut just then, that situation is finished. Well, what is to become of Paul? Here is a man with all the thoughts of God in his heart, and what became of him is long imprisonment at Caesarea and two years in Rome. God says, I will get the very best through this vessel now. It is wonderful in the ways of God how things are carried on through discipline. We get the very best through Paul while in his imprisonment. Nero represents the lion in the Roman system. Paul says, “But the Lord stood with me, and gave me power, that through me the proclamation might be fully made ... and I was delivered out of the lion’s mouth” (2 Timothy 4: 17). That is the position, extreme weakness and yet the very best coming out from God for His people. That is very encouraging for our times. If we accept the discipline of God He will let His heart be known to us, and we want to have part in the disclosures of His love.
JB Do you get in 2 Corinthians 2 the feelings of Paul as under discipline, under grief and so on; and then in the third chapter joy in relation to God and His glory?
JT The second epistle shows how God came in in answer to repentance. It is a question there of repentance. Whatever is wrong, if you repent of it God will come in for you; and that is what happened in Corinth.
AR I like what you say about getting the best under such circumstances. I suppose we get the best [p. 428] from Paul, as he writes to us as a prisoner of Christ Jesus and a prisoner in the Lord in his letter to the saints at Ephesus.
JH Do we see that in Abraham? Do we get the very best faith in him through discipline, illustrated in Genesis 18, Genesis 22 and Genesis 24?
JT That is all constructive; chapter 17 being the basis in the covenant. Circumcision, the word to Abraham, is carried out, and God appears to him again as seen in chapter 18. Then, in chapter 21, he casts out the bondwoman and her son, under the influence of Sarah. Sarah comes in here in chapter 21 as a type of the assembly now, Jerusalem above; Jerusalem above has great influence. She influenced Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son; she is ‘free’, Paul says. Then we have in chapter 22 the beautiful type of the Father offering up the Son. It is the very top note of our subject, bringing out the place the Son has with the Father. It is a very touching chapter, having its counterpart in John 1: 14: “we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth”. The Father and the Son come before us here in the truth of sacrifice, and the assembly comes into view in Rebecca at the end of the chapter. Then in chapter 24 we have Abraham’s desire and concern as to a wife for his only-begotten son. Hence he selects the servant, the eldest of his house, whose name is not given. We have the name given in chapter 15, but not here; it is the eldest in his house, we are dealing with fatherhood. This one is not simply a superior servant of the house, but the eldest in the house; it is a question of experience. He is a type of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father; meaning that He issues forth from God in that relation, knowing as the Spirit did, when the Son was down here, the movements of the Father’s heart towards Him at the Jordan and [p. 429] elsewhere.
JH How would this work out practically in putting the servant under oath?
JT It works out in the Spirit, the infinite reliability of the Spirit. That is what is meant in the type. There is no deviation; there is wonderful accuracy in the Spirit’s movements in regard of Abraham. And how skilfully He links up the mastership of Isaac in the end of the chapter, bringing out the Deity in the three Persons.
SRMacC Does the Spirit now do it mediately through His servants?
JT That is how He is operating now. “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 13: 2). He had been working in others earlier, but the time for them had come now.
AB In chapter 17 the covenant would be from God’s side; it is God speaking to Abraham. Here in chapter 24 Abraham is taking the thing on and is covenanting with the Spirit, so to speak.
JT That is the way you might look at it. John 15: 26 brings out the Spirit from this point of view; He proceeds from the Father as having been with the Father. It is remarkable phraseology: “who goes forth from with the Father”. The Lord stresses that as showing what a witness should ensue, involving Paul’s testimony and the testimony right down to the present moment where the Spirit speaks to the assembly. But then He says to the apostles, “ye too bear witness, because ye are with me from the beginning” (John 15: 27). They were witnesses of the Father’s voice and of sonship, but the Holy Spirit came out as from “with the Father”, knowing perfectly the Father’s feelings for the Son.
AR It says in Ephesians 3: 16, “... strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man”. Is that confirmatory of what you have been saying.
JT Yes; the Father’s [p. 430] Spirit is before us.
AR Does the Holy Spirit operating develop those features?
JT That is what I had been thinking in view of all that is to be developed in the assembly. That doxology in Ephesians 3: 21, “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, is one of the most significant in the Scriptures. It is “in the assembly”, and the assembly as affected by the Father’s Spirit operating in us.
AB What is in mind in putting the hand under the thigh?
JT It was some form of an oath, but I suppose it would mean the full strength of Abraham. I suppose the thigh is a symbol of strength.
RWS The crying in Romans 8 does not go so far as in Galatians, “the Spirit of his Son ... crying, Abba, Father”.
JT I think the word ‘cry’ in Romans would be urgency. You have the same expression in Galatians 4: 6. The Lord was in great urgency in Gethsemane when He used that expression, and I think it ascended to heaven in that way; and now the Holy Spirit in us is governed by the same impetus or feeling of urgency, the sense of reality. It is not simply saying it, but crying it. The Lord Jesus Himself is said to have cried: “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink” (John 7: 37). It is urgency, so that we should not be behind in the expression.
TU In dwelling on the thought of fatherhood on the ground of separation, I was wondering whether chapter 24 would carry that through and find its expression here in Abraham?
JT Yes. It is very beautiful as you go through this longest chapter in the book. The Spirit, in the servant, brings in the thought of master in Isaac: “That is my master”, he says, putting Isaac on the same footing as Abraham. That is what the Spirit [p. 431] would do, ever maintain the deity of Christ, so that this chapter would teach us to make much of Him.
And then finally to speak of the reference in Hebrews 11 — the dwelling of Abraham in tents with Isaac and Jacob is a feature of fatherhood. It is very practical that fatherhood extends down direct from grandfather to father, great-grandfather to grandfather, as if God would carry down whatever good there is in the way of fatherhood and preserve it. “By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise” (Hebrews 11: 9), a very beautiful thought. He links up his son and grandson as heirs with him of the same promise. Can we afford to leave our fathers’ houses, forsake them, abandon the inheritance that comes to us in that way? Esau did that. He was in no way sharer of the inheritance. He is not mentioned here at all. It is a sorrowful suggestion that a son or a daughter in a father’s house may become apostate.
CAM I suppose the making known of the Father’s name is not in a moment. You have to dwell on the thing to take in the wonderful love shining out. I was thinking of John 17 in connection with what you were saying as to the Spirit coming from with the Father; while the Lord when He was here made the Father’s love and the Father’s self known, yet it seems to greatly stress the blessedness of it that the Holy Spirit, knowing all that transpired during the Lord’s life, is here now to make it good in us.
JT That is very touching.