THE ASSEMBLY, GOD'S OWN SPHERE
THE ASSEMBLY, GOD’S OWN SPHERE
1 Corinthians 1: 1 - 3; Exodus 19: 16; Exodus 40: 34, 35
JT What was in one’s mind was that the assembly, according to the verses in 1 Corinthians, is an area which God claims — “the assembly of God”. The verses in Exodus were suggested to confirm the principle — God covering the mount with a cloud, as if He would use it for the time, as His territory. Then He covers the tabernacle with a cloud, thus carrying on the thought, and fills the tabernacle with His glory. It seems as if that thought ought to engage us profitably.
HB That is the sphere where God has rights.
JT That is what I thought, and where man, as such, cannot intrude with impunity. The idea was asserted as the Lord was about to introduce His supper at the last passover. He sent His disciples into the city to prepare the passover, and a man was to meet them, and they were to say to the master of the house, “The teacher says to thee, Where is the guest-chamber where I may eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished”, Luke 22: 11 - 12. That is, the Lord’s right is owned there, which is the thought that runs through these Scriptures. Later, as He arose from the dead, He entered where the disciples were, without any question as to His rights — He entered as having rights there — and found conditions suitable (at least as John gives us the facts), so that He could fill the sphere.
HB Would you say one of the earliest assembly features on our part would be the recognition of His rights, as with the master in that house?
JT I think that is right. It works out in various ways, but particularly now, we might say, in the exclusion of man’s thoughts and doings in the assembly.
PL Does Mark emphasise that — “my guest-chamber”, chapter 14: 14?
JT I thought of that; that the Lord stresses, according to Mark’s account, His rights in the place. There must have been some basis in the man’s mind in his knowledge of the Lord, from the Lord’s assertion that the guest-chamber was His; and we know well enough through the gospel the basis of the Lord’s assertion of His rights to us; the epistle to the Romans is to bring out the divine rights in believers, laying the basis for 1 Corinthians.
WCG Would the guest-chamber suggest the tabernacle rather than the mount?
JT Yes. The whole circumstances on the mount were in keeping with what was then in mind. We have that noted in Hebrews, the kind of mount it was; it was not the mount we come to as stated there, but nevertheless there were principles in it that apply. It is the mount of God’s rights, and He asserts, by the presence of the cloud covering it, that it is His area which is not to be interfered with.
PL Would you attribute importance to the fact that it was on the third day when it was morning? Does that refer to resurrection? Moses said to the people, “be ready for the third day”.
JT Just so. In the earlier part of the chapter before we get this, it is mentioned that it was the third month after they left Egypt, and after they had passed Rephidim. The battle of Rephidim means the conflict that enters into a believer’s soul as he recognises the Spirit. So that the idea of Rephidim enters into this chapter peculiarly, referring to a believer’s experience with God; and morning, of course, would bear on it too. Then “it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings and a heavy cloud on the mountain, and the sound of the trumpet exceeding loud”. God was asserting His rights, and man should not interfere.
[p. 101] PL Does that promote exclusiveness in relation to those who are in the light of the assembly?
JT That is what I thought we might get to. If it is God’s sphere, He must rule in it and determine the principles that are to govern it, and the stranger that comes nigh, must be put to death, so to speak. That is, God refuses man’s will and thoughts, in the assembly.
PL King Uzziah presumed on the sphere of God’s rights; but in the year that he died Isaiah saw the Lord in His holy temple, taking possession of it in His rights (Isaiah 6).
JT Quite so, the seraphim asserting God’s holiness. Then the prophet’s acknowledgment of his lips being unclean. If we went through the process of Isaiah 6, we should not presume in the assembly, with our own thoughts.
Ques It would perhaps help us if you would say in a few words what you understand the assembly to be. Some of us know the term well, but we may not understand its true meaning.
JT 1 Corinthians has its own way of speaking of it; that is what is in mind at the moment. It is the assembly in a town or city, the aggregate of all believers in any given place, coming under the authority of God and recognising the Spirit. That is how it is viewed in 1 Corinthians; and it is called in verse 2 “the assembly of God”; that in which He has His rights, and in which they are acknowledged too. In another view, the assembly is the aggregate of all believers on the earth at any given time: and still another view is, that it is the aggregate of all believers from Pentecost until the coming of the Lord: this last is seen in the heavenly city (Revelation 21).
EG In connection with the bread, would you include all believers on the earth at a certain time? “We being many, are one loaf”, 1 Corinthians 10: 17.
JT That is right. The “we” is general in Corinthians: “ye” is usually local.
Ques What is involved in the thought of “temple” — “ye are temple”? Is that what we are in the light of the assembly?
JT Yes, and it involves that we have the Spirit. “Do ye not know that ye are temple of God” which applies, without any pretension as to it, to a meeting like this. For it is not “the temple” — it is the character of the thing, as without the article. That is the view in 1 Corinthians.
WCG The verses you read in 1 Corinthians are the antitype of the trumpet call. Is not that the force of it?
JT You are referring to Numbers 10?
WCG Yes. We are often so submerged in natural things that we forget the higher calling, so the trumpet call wakes us up to the fact that we belong to God’s assembly.
JT Yes. The trumpets were made of beaten silver, which would suggest the rights of Christ in love, in redemption; and that ought to appeal to every christian, so that 1 Corinthians is a trumpet appeal to every christian, as to the divine rights over his soul. What follows in the earlier verses of 1 Corinthians 1, verses 4 - 9, is the furnishings with which God has furnished the assembly, so that it should be independent of man’s natural ability; and then that God is faithful, verse 9, so that, if it is thought that we must depend on some official organisation, God assures us that He is faithful and will sustain us, and hence, that we are not obliged to leave the ground of the assembly for support under any circumstances — for the Lord is able to “confirm you to the end, unimpeachable”.
PH Would the faithfulness of God be seen in the pillar of the cloud in Exodus — linking on with what you have in mind? At the end of chapter 13 it says, “And Jehovah went before their face by day in a pillar of a cloud” Then, in chapter 14 He moved and went between the people and the Egyptians. Are those suggestions to give our hearts confidence in God as appearing in this way?
JT I thought that. As soon as they began to move, the pillar of cloud appears. I think it corresponds with the statement here — “God is faithful, by whom ye have been called ...”. He called Israel out of Egypt, but then they would encounter serious difficulties in moving out, so that the cloud appears as soon as they move, and, according to Exodus, it is always the guide. The ark is not mentioned as guiding, in Exodus; it is only in Numbers we get the ark; as they began to move from Sinai, the ark moves out as additional to the cloud, but the great general principle is the presence of God in the cloud, He will stand by it. So that we do not need a paid minister or a ruling convention or a hierarchy; we are independent, however poor we may seem to be, for “God is faithful, by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. Even before they were baptised unto Moses, they were baptised in the cloud; for the cloud was there, before they came to the Red Sea. That is to say, they had experience of its movements, firstly as going from before them, then to their rear to divide and separate the Egyptians from them; a beautiful movement of divine faithfulness and thoughtfulness. Well, they had that experience before they are asked to enter the sea: Entering the sea was a serious matter, as it appeared, but the cloud was there: they experienced the cloud before the sea, that is, they had the presence of God before death. So in the gospels, the presence of God is like the cloud; men could experience the presence of God in Jesus. Is it worth while, as knowing God in the cloud in His faithfulness, to accept death in that One in whom it is set out? That is the incentive — so that they were all “baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”, that is the positive thing — it is worth [p. 104] your while. Then, when He spreads over Sinai a thick cloud, you feel it is worth while: it is not really against us; it is prohibitive, but prohibitive in love.
AWR Is the faithfulness of God seen in the thousands of those who love Him?
JT Exactly: we get that in the next chapter; which is one of the finest touches in Exodus, and should warn us not to minimise the numbers of the saints; there are the “thousands of Israel”, but properly, the thousands of Israel are “the thousands of them that love God”; they understand the cloud. The power in the camp really lay in those who loved God. The lovers of God keep the commandments practically, they express the commandments. If we can only bring saints, or persons, into an enjoyment of the cloud, that is to say, of the presence of God, it would become worth their while to go into death, to accept the fellowship and the consequences of it.
PL Would you say that is prefigured in the transfiguration cloud overshadowing them, and then the voice out of the cloud saying, “This is my beloved Son: hear him”? Is that the assembly setting?
JT Exactly. Think of what the voice meant, and what relationships were involved in that cloud! Peter, after he got the Spirit, calls it the “excellent glory”. That is really what it is; it is the presence of God. It is worth our while to accept baptism and fellowship in the presence of that, and as tasting it. A man falls down on his face in Corinth, for instance, and owns that “God is indeed amongst you” (1 Corinthians 14: 25). That is what the cloud means — it is the presence of God. Our position is not merely a question of light or special truth, but of the presence of God.
PL So, does Peter leave it to “our beloved brother Paul”, to whom he affectionately refers, to enlarge on the meaning of that cloud and that voice?
JT I think so. Paul brings out the great principles of fellowship and the assembly.
Ques The Lord calls it “my assembly” in Matthew 16 — would you enlarge on that a little?
JT That enters into what we are saying. We may view it as God’s assembly locally; that is, that in which God’s rights are owned and asserted in any locality: we may also view it as Christ’s assembly — what will He not do with it as He has it in full control? What will He do with it, for instance, as we are together in assembly? What will He do with it if it is His? Let us recognise that it is His. Chapters 13 to 17 of John indicate to us what He will do with it: He will lead it to the Father, and He will sing praise in it. I suppose that is how He would regard it especially, as that in which He praises the Father.
EG How wonderful to see the way He praises the Father in the midst of the assembly!
JT Yes, that would be its chief value in His mind, that He could lead it in praise to the Father. We want to let the Lord have His way in it. So these verses in the last chapter of Exodus indicate that, when the glory enters, it fills the place, and that is exclusive, not only in the way of authority, but substantially; it is substantially filled, and authority, even, is shut out for the moment — Moses could not enter, it says. The way things go on amongst us at times as we are together normally, in assembly, would incline us to ask the Lord to come and regulate and control us; because often we take the thing out of His hands and carry on as if the assembly were not His, but ours.
FI What you refer to in John 20 is the setting. The Lord did all that was done there.
JT Yes. Luke shows us, in his account, the mixed thoughts we may have, and, to that extent, we hinder the Lord; but John’s account omits that — the doors were shut, so the Lord had a free hand.
Ques Is not the Lord asserting His claims in the assembly in Revelation, where it would seem He was not allowed His [p. 106] rights?
JT That is right. He is asserting that He has power to deal with what is contrary to us, and He does so.
WCG Does Moses fill the place typically as Son over God’s house in Exodus?
JT I think he may be so regarded, but I think it is more authority there.
WCG In verse 9 the Lord says, “Lo, I will come to thee in the cloud’s thick darkness, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee also for ever”. I thought Moses would have a special place.
JT He has, as the mediator. It is a question of subjection, they should be subject to Moses. It is not to be assumed, of course, that the exclusion of Moses by the glory in chapter 40 would have any personal reference, but rather that the glory is asserting its rights. This whole domain is God’s, and all else for the moment is in abeyance.
WHM Is the thought of the tabernacle greater than the thought of the house? The glory of the Lord fills the tabernacle. You were speaking of the mount being a wider thought than the upper room. Is the thought of the tabernacle the greatest thought?
JT I suppose it is; it is that which enters into eternity; “the tabernacle of God is with men”, Revelation 21: 3. It is a movable state, that is to say, it is a thought that love can employ; it is a movable suggestion, it is not fixed. Love may take up a fixed position, as in Solomon’s temple, but I think this refers to movableness. It begins, as we have already noted, in the cloud, with the movement from the front of Israel to the rear: it is the free hand that love would have in moving.
HEF If the Lord got His place, would that lead to the bringing in of the glory, and would He then appear in a different character to us, and lead us into something [p. 107] further?
JT What you find in Exodus 40 is that everything is done according to commandment. That is to say, that firstly that side of things is completed; that enters into the order of the assembly as convened. We come together in the wilderness, where it becomes apparent that there is something there that belongs to the Lord and to God; and, I think we might say, the glory covers it from the outset. I think the position in the wilderness implies that it is according to God, and the glory covers it. There is that attaching to the assembly in the wilderness, that is, as the saints come together in assembly, that warrants the glory covering the position, and faith understands that. But then there is the additional thought in the chapter of the glory entering and filling, and that is an exclusive thought; that is, there is no room for anything else. It is God asserting His rights to the whole place, and love will say, ‘Well, we will have a good time and God is to have a free hand, filling the place’. So that you are careful not to intrude with anything out of accord with that. The difficulty in our meetings is that a brother has a hymn on his mind, or he would like to say something to the Lord, but that means that I am heard, not the Lord. The thought is the Lord is to be heard, and the glory fills the place. What you find in Exodus is, the glory is the leading thought, not the ark, although the ark is there; it is in its place in chapter 40. Its function there was to contain the testimony, not yet to go forward and seek out a resting-place. The glory is the guiding thought in Exodus, the cloud. So that what should engage us, as following the Lord’s supper, is the glory, the glory of the covenant, the love of God; not yet the Father, but the glory of God. The ark is not yet seen as moving, that comes in later, but the glory is the great guiding principle here, and I think there should be room made for that side. That is 2 Corinthians, where, more particularly, full scope is given for the thought of the glory, as [p. 108] in Exodus.
WHM Every whit uttering glory in His temple — that is your thought?
JT Quite so. That goes a little further, I think, for it is in the temple, but still the idea is there, the temple is not a guiding thought, it is what is inside. The glory in Exodus is not always filling the tabernacle, but it is always there as a guiding principle. So that we are contemplated at the Lord’s supper in that position, before the ark is mentioned as moving at all. It is the glory that is the guiding principle.
OG It says “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle”. Would the glory filling be the tabernacle — the inside thought, and its covering the tent of meeting the external position as what is of God?
JT That is right. The cloud is needed, for God, for the Deity, is there; God was there but enshrined in that. The believer knows He is there; and, you will notice, the movements were to be according to that. It goes on to say, “And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel journeyed in all their journeys”. There is nothing about the ark here, and that is to be understood; the ark comes in later as excess, there is no prescription from the Lord as to the movements of the ark in Numbers 10 — it is His own action, typically, His own love acting.
PH Will you say a little more about the glory of the covenant?
JT It is a wonderful thing! God has come in in Christ there, as having you in mind, as having me in mind — that we might know His love and be in relationship with Him on that basis. That is to say, there are covenant relations, and family relations. The covenant relations enter into Exodus; the family relations are properly in the land. Now Exodus is the great starting point for the christian; whatever way you look at him in his beginnings. Exodus is his starting-point in the types. Even if it be the Lord’s supper, Exodus is his [p. 109] lesson-book, for the covenant, what Christ is personally, is in chapter 21. He loves His Master, and His wife, and His children. He will not go free — that is chapter 21. Chapter 24 speaks of the voluminous character of the blood of the covenant — the scene is full of the testimony to the love of God in Christ, the covenant love. The blood was put into basins to call attention to the volume of it. Then the blood is sprinkled on the people and on the book. So that you have the idea of covenant in great volume in chapter 24, and this is in relation to their assembling. Then in chapter 34 Moses, having gone up the second time, comes down with the glory in his face: So that Exodus is the great book for the believer in his beginnings, no matter how he is taken account of.
WCG So that Exodus, like Romans, is to magnify God in our eyes — nothing can “separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”.
JT Yes, so that we might move. In Joseph’s time he secured all the people for Pharaoh: Romans secures the saints entirely for God, so that we have no rights over ourselves — we are bought with a price. Unless young believers come to that, they are never in the assembly according to God.
Ques. Is that Romans 12?
JT Yes, it works out there.
Ques Would you connect that with “sanctified in Christ Jesus”?
JT Yes, saints are viewed in that light.
Ques What are we to learn from the fact that Moses could not enter when the glory filled the tabernacle?
JT It is God’s way of asserting that the place belongs to Him. There is no reflection on Moses; he represents authority, but we do not need authority there; the glory is enough to control us.
HB Would you say, in that connection, we come together at the Supper in the light of authority and it [p. 110] has its place at first; but there should come a time, if things are right and suitable, when the effects of authority are seen, but it is not in exercise, and then the glory fills the company?
JT That is the lesson to be learnt from this, but I am afraid we are very slow in it. The Lord says, ‘This is My sphere’, and, not only so, but He is there in power — the glory is filling the place.
Ques Is that on the line of our brother’s question about the entering — the Lord coming into the midst?
JT Well, I think the glory is in Christ, the assembling glory, but He is said to be the glory of God and the power of God, as the ark; but here, the glory is in His face, that is how it works out in Exodus 34, but then a change comes in; the idea of Moses as representing authority ceases, and the Lord is apprehended in another way. Properly speaking, if you link on Exodus with Chronicles, you get the full thought; David and Solomon fill out Exodus. You get another thought also — you come into the idea of the Father and the Son, instead of God and Christ; and then you have all the instruction that enters into the service of God in 1 and 2 Chronicles. When you come to 2 Chronicles 5, it is not authority as in lordship, but even the priests cannot enter, all that is merely official comes to an end; that is what the presence of God entails. The glory is there, it wants full liberty, and the more I understand it, the more I am at liberty, and as the thought of officialism ceases, the liberty of the family ensues. It is delightful, if we only lay hold of it, to give the glory full scope, and let it have its way, to know the presence of God in that light.
HEF Should we pass over at that point to what you refer to as family relationships?
JT I think if we apprehend the thought, and get to the Lord and seek to learn how to arrive at the assembly, we shall come to family relationships and enjoyment, that is what is meant; if God has full scope [p. 111] in the assembly, that is what ensues, the official thought drops.
Ques Do you think the contemplation of the Lord in John 13 to 17 will help us?
JT The synoptic gospels give us very little of what occurred at the institution of the Supper, they give us rather the bare facts governing the Supper, but John fills out the thing, so as to detach us from what is merely official (right in its place), and set us down with the Father. John quotes the Lord as saying, “my Father is greater than I” — that is to give you confidence, you take your place by His side.
PH Do you get the suggestion of this in Exodus 33 in Joshua the son of Nun being the attendant on Moses, and then, when Moses returns to the camp, Joshua abiding in the tent? Was he, as having come under the instruction of Moses, in the good of what you are speaking of?
JT I think so. Joshua is there without official capacity, but he is in the tent; pretty much like Timothy in Corinth, he is a suggestion in his spirit there of what Christ is, so as to establish confidence in the saints. Joshua is presented as “a young man” who abode in the tent. That is not merely incidental, it is something laid down to be referred to later. I may find myself perfectly free in the presence of the glory without official capacity.
PL So we get the expression, “If Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear”, 1 Corinthians 16: 10.
JT Yes. What a blessed time they would have had if they had allowed Timothy his place in the assembly, as he came from Paul!
Ques Is the family setting in the Father’s house the highest point we can reach?
JT Yes, that is the counsel of God. We touch Ephesians, where He has “marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself”. There [p. 112] is nothing overpowering in that, and Corinthians, and Exodus, and Romans, lead us to it. So that we are to be perfectly free and at home there, without any official place; we do not need it, love does not require it; it is a family thought, and the youngest in the family may enjoy it as well as the oldest.
FI Is the family condition the highest, as enabling us to take up the full thought of relationship in sonship? Is it necessary for us to be at home in family conditions before we can take up the dignity of sonship in the Father’s presence?
JT Quite so. I believe those chapters in John are leading on to that thought, that we might be fully able to take our place with the Father: so He says, “the men whom thou gavest me”. God did not give Him babes, He gave Him men; that is the full thought of sonship.
Ques At what time in our history do we first enter, or take our place in, the assembly?
JT I suppose you might tell that from Acts 2, “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. The two first thoughts are authoritative, but breaking of bread and prayers are matters of your own; these come in in their places normally; but the first great thing is to submit to authority, that I am subject.
Ques Is that seen in the generation of the righteous? God is our righteousness, involving subjection on our part.
JMcR There are thousands of believers who do not know there is such a thing as the assembly; are they not in it?
JT That is an abnormal state of things.
JMcR But it exists.
JT But we have to get a right view of the truth first, and then see how 2 Timothy helps us to get into Acts 2, where we have the great outstanding position of the assembly, they “said to Peter and the other apostles, What shall we do?” verse 37. He tells them what to do. They spoke, not only to Peter, but to the others as well, showing that the work of God in people’s souls leads them to recognise authority in whomsoever it may be found. Peter is the spokesman, and tells them what to do, “and there were added in that day ...” It does not say who added them, or to what they were added; it was the normal effect of persons recognising authority. The principle is brought in of addition under certain conditions. Then it goes on to say, they persevered in that, and they were all together. There were no thousands of people who belonged to the assembly and did not know it. They knew it; they were in it by virtue of their state as recognising what was there already; for the word “added” means that what is there is recognised. Now today, as you say, there are thousands of God’s people who perhaps have not heard of the assembly in the true sense, so we have to come to 2 Timothy and see how believers get out of dark and evil associations, and “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”. That is simple enough to see, and, as calling upon the Lord in this way, and following these things with them, the assembly soon comes to light in their souls.
JMcR They would be there intelligently in the assembly, not as a congregation.
JT That is right. I think 2 Timothy is intended for that; to help believers today out of the authority of darkness into the realm of light.
Ques Do we enter the assembly at new birth, or is it when we come into fellowship?
JT Abstractly, every believer who has the Spirit is in the assembly, but to take his place in relation to it in 2 Timothy days is another thing, and fellowship is where we touch it.
Ques Before the movement of the ark, as guiding in Numbers 10, when the cloud is guiding in [p. 114] chapter 9,
the movement is connected with the commandment of the Lord.
JT Everything in Numbers 9 is a question of the commandment, but in Numbers 10 we have something for which there is no commandment; and that is what we are dealing with now. Love goes beyond commandment, and that is what I believe is in mind when the glory fills the place. We cannot compass that; we can compass the commandment, that is within our range; but we cannot compass the glory; the Lord is there and He is beyond us, we cannot limit Him to commandment. The more we know of God, the more free we shall be in the assembly.
Ques The glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4). Would that be in line with this?
JT That is where it begins. Exodus is the great starting-point, but then the ark comes in as holding back the forces of death, He is apprehended there. The ark is generally the more militant side, holding back the forces of death; for Numbers 10 really culminates in Joshua 3. The last stronghold of the enemy is death, and the ark is seen there in the bed of Jordan. The people are in the land before the ark leaves the bed of Jordan, for that is what is in mind, to get the people in, to get us in, and what comes into prominence after that is the old corn of the land, that is to say, not Christ as the ark, but as the One who is indigenous to heaven. You apprehend Him as belonging to heaven, as in His own realm; that is how the truth stands in the type — “the Son of man who is in heaven”.
Rem Joshua calls it “a very, very good land” in Numbers 14.
JT That is gospel to us (Hebrews 4) and Joshua now shows that what would hinder my entering in is held back till I get in; so the people are over Jordan before the ark, “Following the ark” is only correct to a point; the idea is rather that the ark holds back the forces of death; and that is the position today, that we [p. 115] are able to be in the assembly in spite of death — for death still exists.
Ques Would that be seen in John 12, where there is the filling of the house from our side? Death is rolled back, as seen in chapter 11 and every heart is centred on Christ in chapter 12. Would that be an introduction to what is expressed in the following chapters — 13 to 17?
JT It is a sort of basis for the teaching that follows.
JB The Lord says, “A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another”, John 13: 34. How does that stand in relation to the Lord taking a basin and washing the disciples’ feet?
JT It is a question of love among ourselves.
PL The Lord says “God ... shall glorify him immediately”. That refers to the assembly as the residence of the glory; and then immediately it follows “Children, yet a little while ...”
JT Just so, the Lord would set them at liberty, “The Father himself has affection for you, because ye have had affection for me” — that is the setting.