UNION WITH CHRIST
[p. 531] UNION WITH CHRIST
Genesis 2: 21 - 25; Ephesians 5: 29 - 33
JT The passages treat of what is called “union”, which is a subject that is, perhaps, less understood than any other feature of the assembly.
J.S. Why so?
JT Well, it is a very exalted feature of the truth, peculiarly spiritual and presented in type before sin entered into the world. This chapter in Genesis is before sin entered into the world.
AFM Would that show that the truth of union is an eternal thought, going right through?
JT I think that is the way it stands. That is the way the truth stands in the Scriptures, that the type coming in before sin came, in, would show that it was a primary thought. There are primary thoughts with God, and provisional thoughts. Provisional thoughts come out to meet the exigencies that arise consequent upon sin’s being here. Primary thoughts are not dependent on the action of sin. They must go through, and the existence of sin and its action subserve the primary thought. God makes His primary thoughts to work out in that way, but they stand by themselves.
ANW In 1 Corinthians 11, the apostle makes the statement that man was not made for the woman, but woman for the man. I suppose that runs very close to union, does it not?
JT It does.
Ques Is what we have been considering, such as the covenant and priesthood, provisional?
JT These are all provisional things. This is a primary thought that is to subsist eternally, going through the many developments that have arisen from the existence of sin and causing them to [p. 532] be subservient.
CAM Perhaps the reason this is so slightly understood, as you were saying, is because most of our lessons are learned out of the lesson book of provisional things, do you not think?
JT I think that is right. We are born in sin, so that we have to learn things in that way; we are not born in innocency. What came in before sin, is obviously a divine thought that is to subsist. It is worked out in detail in connection with the exigencies of sin in this world. God meeting them as they arose. He did not just meet them; He carried through His own thoughts in meeting them.
AFM In spite of the ruin that had come in, which is very remarkable.
WGT Is there any suggestion of union in the gospels?
JT Well, this scripture is quoted there. The Lord quotes this scripture in Matthew 19 in a very forceful way “and the two shall be one flesh ... What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate”. One flesh is what is alluded to. That is not unity, but union, those two becoming one.
JTJr That is the thought in Levi, is it not? His name means “joined”.
JT Well, that is not quite so strong a word; still, it is united, meaning that he was to be united to Aaron in his service; that he would be, as it were, an integral part of the priesthood for service.
WB-w Does the word come from the verse in Ephesians 5, united as one?
JT Yes; it is a word not found in scriptures as a word, but the truth of it is there — one flesh is what is meant.
ANW Is it not important to understand what you were saying, that the thought of unity is not [p. 533] union?
JT Well, it precedes union. If a man and woman are to be married, they ought to be united. They ought to be of one mind beforehand; they ought to agree generally: but union is a greater thought; so, in the assembly, the unity precedes union.
ANW I was referring to the scriptural doctrine as in connection with ourselves, rather than the thought of union?
JT That is right, but do you not think what enters into union and becomes Christ, as it were, must be united before; so that Romans and Corinthians precede the thought of union. The saints are brought together in unity.
Rem That is where the provisional subserves the great thoughts and the counsels of God — unity, in a sense, as provisional, over against what is disunited.
JT Yes; we were disunited. The Jew and the gentile, for instance, most generally are; so that Romans brings out that we are one body in Christ. “One body in Christ” is a status that no other body has, and Romans does not go beyond that, but Corinthians does. It gives us one body by the Spirit, so also is the Christ, which word really includes union — “so also is the Christ”. It touches the idea as near as you can get in Corinthians, for in “the Christ”, you cannot very well leave out the idea of the Lord as head of the united body; and while it is barely there, the thought is there. We are all baptised in the power of one spirit into one body.
AFM Would that be something like what is said of Adam and Eve? He called their name Adam — the one title or name covering the two.
JT Yes; I think that expresses “so also is the Christ” in Corinthians; although, I suppose, it is safe to just make it the body, but how can it be a complete thing without the head? I mean, you [p. 534] must, in your mind, think of the head. Ephesians and Colossians supply the head.
FHL Is it in view of the breakdown in what is provisional that it is referred to as a “great mystery”?
JT Well, I think it was a mystery before. Genesis 2 is a mystery — how a man and his wife were one; although two individuals, they are one flesh.
GMacP So it is said to be hidden in God before the ages of time?
JT Yes.
FHL I follow what you mean, but I wish you would say a word more. While remaining a mystery in a sense, yet it is understandable to the intelligence.
JT Well, it is; and yet it is doubtful whether it is understandable to any save those that are in it. I doubt very much whether the thing is grasped save by those who are in it.
Rem It says “the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge” (Ephesians 3: 19) as if it is a known thing; yet unknown as far as writing in a book is concerned.
JT It is like many other things, and peculiarly so that one has to be in the position to which the truth applies in order to understand it. So it is outside the range of others.
TH Does not the truth help us in relation to Leah and Jacob? She goes through the difficulties; and then she says, Now my husband will be united to me, in connection with Simeon and Levi.
JT I think that helps.
ARS “To make known the mystery of His will” — would that help? There is a certain class to which it can be made known. The apostle was going to do that, was he not?
JT Well, that is a similar thought but this is the [p. 535] mystery of His will as head of all things in Christ. That is another thing. But this is a great mystery — this particular phase. The church is a mystery in different phases. It is, properly speaking, the mystery, but this particular phase is an important one — a great mystery.
APT Priscilla and Aquila had a good idea of union, did they not? It says they staked their neck for Paul.
JT It was one neck, you mean, not necks. I think that helps. They were so thoroughly one in their movements.
WGT In chapter 3 he speaks about the Ephesians, that when they read this they would know how well taught he was in the mystery. The very writing of the epistle is to give us a knowledge of the mystery.
JT You mean that is the intent of the epistle to the Ephesians; yes.
HE Would you say that the culmination of unity would be in Revelation: the Spirit and the bride say, “Come”.
JT That is one voice; quite. But we have to grasp the idea of the Man, and know there is no such thing as union between the saints and the Spirit. The Spirit is the bond of it. He is a divine Person unincarnate. We have to grasp the idea of incarnation of the Man; how we are to be one flesh with Him — “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”, Genesis 2: 23. That is a mystery; you cannot get it otherwise. It has to be grasped spiritually.
AR That includes all the saints in your mind.
JT Yes; in the full thought.
ANW You do not place union before unity, do you?
JT Unity precedes from our side.
ARS “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?” Amos 3: [p. 536] 3.
JT That is unity; that must precede union. How can disunited material or persons be fit to be united in Christ? How can they? There must be unity in the most absolute sense if we want to be with Him, “of his flesh, and of his bones”, Ephesians 5: 30.
EB Would you say the assembly could only come to light after the incarnation?
JT It could only come to light concretely after the death and resurrection and exaltation of Christ. It is after the Holy Spirit came down that the assembly is formed, not before. The idea of it was there. The individuals that were to form it primarily were there, but the thing itself did not exist until the Holy Spirit came down and united the one hundred and twenty. They were there in perfect unity. You have them altogether alike, so as to be morally equal to be united.
Rem In that connection, say something more about the assembly viewed in this light as a product of the death of Christ.
JT Well, it is what comes out of Christ.
Ques But not as having had previous history, for instance?
JT It is just what comes out of Him, viewed not as the Sin-bearer, but as having been in the state of death; He was actually in the state of death as Adam was figuratively. Why He got into it is not the point, but He was in it, and having come out of it, the assembly comes out with Him. It is “curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth”, Psalm 139: 15.
JT In Genesis 2, we see that the woman is built. I suppose you have that thought carried forward in the gospels: “On this rock I will build my assembly” (Matthew 16: 18), and then in Acts 2?
JT Yes, quite.
A Pf. Why is the marriage of the Lamb only mentioned at the end of Revelation? There is union now with Christ, is there not?
JT [p. 537] His marriage is only a celebration of what already exists. It is not like ordinary marriages. In the ordinary sense, union does not exist before marriage takes place; but with Christ, it exists before the marriage takes place; the relationship of marriage exists. So you get no celebration of marriage with any of the Old Testament saints. The union is there, but no celebration. It is the Lamb’s wife, but union is there, which is different from anything in the ordinary course of things; so that there is no celebration of marriage with Isaac, Joseph, Abraham, Jacob or David. That is left out. We have to keep the type in mind. This is all figurative of what exists today, and the marriage ceremony is after the marriage of the Lamb has come, “has come” — “and his wife” — not his bride, but his wife. The wife is there.
CAM We have to keep the types in mind; otherwise, our minds will travel the wrong way in this wonderful subject. You helpfully remarked on this idea of the Man; that is the first consideration.
JT That is the first idea. You must grasp the thought of incarnation. It is a great thought to get hold of, to begin with the incarnation.
JS So that Eve, as we see here, had no previous history; and the minute she is formed, she is brought to the man.
JT That is what we have to get at in this inquiry — how it is that the assembly, seen eternally as the bride of Christ, comes; that is, how she is presented in relation to eternity — the “bride adorned for her husband”, Revelation 21: 2. That is the first thing mentioned in that chapter, but the wife is mentioned in Revelation 19: 7.
WB-w She is the wife before she is the bride.
JT She is — a most remarkable thing! She is the bride eternally; so she is seen as “the bride, the Lamb’s wife”, Revelation 21: 9. It says earlier in that chapter “as a bride adorned for her husband”.
WB-w How do you account for Paul’s saying, “I have espoused you unto one man”, 2 Corinthians 11: 2. It looks as if he did that in his day.
JT Well, it was an application of this great thought, but it does not go beyond espousal there. It is not the wife relationship. It is to maintain chastity; that is the point there: but the wife is in Revelation, and that is worked out from Ephesians.
GMacP Does the deep sleep that fell upon Adam correspond to Christ loving the assembly, Ephesians 5: 25?
JT Well, you cannot say that Adam loved his wife, because although God had said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate, his like”, you cannot think of him loving that yet; it was an abstraction, but it was not an abstraction that Christ found in the disciples, as they presented themselves to Him whilst here. He speaks about the pearl, and the treasure hid. He found the pearl, and hence there was something concrete there to give Himself for.
CAM It seems to be one of the most wonderful things in Scripture. It would appear as if in His life here upon earth, thoughts came to Him that we can say with reverence had never been in His holy mind before. Would that be right?
JT I think in a way it would be right — “having found”. He was seeking and He found. So the thing came to Him. Instead of the Jewish remnant, this wonderful thing came into His mind. They were more than the Jewish remnant to Him.
ANW Why did John the Baptist get a glimpse of Him as the Bridegroom, and what made him think of the bride?
JT I do not think his thoughts went beyond Israel’s relation. Of course, we can put more into it now; even in the figure in Matthew 22, the bride is [p. 539] not mentioned. It is just a marriage for the son. The Spirit does not go so far as to speak about the bride, and yet there must have been one, but you can see how the Spirit of God views these things.
Ques In Genesis 2, why does Jehovah Elohim come into it so strongly rather than the man himself?
JT Well, it is the Covenant-God. It is Jehovah Elohim. You will find this title more in Genesis 2 and 3 than perhaps in the whole of the rest of Scripture; for it is to bring out the covenant affections of God, as it were, with man. “Man” is the word.
JS In chapter 1, it is just God.
JT Yes, and in relation to man, you get Jehovah.
Ques Is there any indication that it was in the mind of God before time, for instance?
JT I think so. The two titles, or combined title, would mean that, because affections are brought into this thing. He has this wonderful creature before Him this time, in chapter 2. What he must have been to God! because He would think of Christ; man was the figure of Him that was to come. So wonderful is this noble creature to God, that God would do anything for him, and therefore it is not good that he should be alone. It is Jehovah Elohim, it is God in his affection for this creature doing what He can for him.
FHL If we see man standing in his greatness, is it not part of the mystery that he should require a helpmate?
JT That is the way to approach it. We have Adam formed and set in the garden, as if he was growing in the mind of God, growing more and more His delight. Now what will He do for Him? This is what He does for him. We have to grasp the position of man first and carry it forward to Christ here in solitariness as seen in the gospels, and to God’s desires for Him; but then you have to add to that that He finds something, which Adam did not.
[p. 540] Adam did not find the woman; it was God who thought of it. But Christ had the thought. He says as to the pearl, “having found one pearl of great value”, Matthew 13: 46.
RWS He moves in full consciousness in finding the pearl. Adam knew nothing of it.
CAM I suppose it would be all right to say that the Lord with that in His path goes on to death with the consciousness that He was great enough to bring that into being.
JT Yes, that is the thought. The Lord said, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone”. God said of Adam it was not good for him to be alone. The suffering on the cross is the falling into the ground. He fell into the ground; that is the point. He was actually in the state of death.
RWS Have you any thought as to why the member removed was a rib?
JT I do not know, I am sure, but there was no shortage.
RWS I wondered whether there was any spiritual point in the member being a rib.
JT I think it is the side of Christ; that is the explanation of it.
ANW That is John’s view.
JT Yes; that is right. John says, “not a bone of him shall be broken”. He quotes Exodus 12: 46. He is the only one that does, as far as I remember. John’s view is the affections of Christ — “he shewed to them his hands and side”, John 20: 20. It is not a perfect type, but there is the suggestion in the rib. The flesh was carefully closed up; that is, the man was left whole. He was deprived of nothing; I mean to say, he got back his one, in having lost his rib, a thousand-fold. The flesh is carefully closed up, and you may be sure there was no scar; although the Lord has a scar, but that is only the testimony as to [p. 541] His love; but this is to bring out, I think, that part of the body that is nearest the heart, nearest the affections.
Rem Then remarkably the verse comes in that says, “And Man said. This time it is bone of my bones”. The idea of the plural comes in, the whole structure was to be like the whole structure of the man.
JT Yes; it was a bone taken from many bones — “bone of my bones”. It is not a question of part of a bone, but one of the bones. It is a complete idea.
RAL He adds “flesh of my flesh”. Did God take some of his flesh? Why does he add “flesh of my flesh”?
JT Well Adam intelligently so regards it, but you cannot have the plural in flesh, but you can have the plural of bone. The bone is an entity, so to speak. It is one taken from many others and a complete thought in itself that God could take and build. He formed the rib into the woman.
Ques Is it not a complete structure that Adam is looking at here? It is not an unfinished structure, but a complete structure.
JT Yes. He could not have said anything else as to where the being came from, but Adam regards it as one thing. It is his flesh. It is union; this creature is taken out of Adam, and she is a whole creature. She is a whole person. There she is. She is a whole complete thought.
AFM Does verse 24 suggest that the thought was in Adam’s mind, or is it the Spirit’s comment — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife”?
JT That is the Spirit’s comment as bearing upon the whole race of mankind. That bears on marriage, and the Lord takes it up in Matthew 19, but Ephesians 5 touches marriage, too — “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. This truth would bear on Christ and the assembly, which was in view. This was in the mind of God at the time.
JS In the world the thought of one flesh is not understood.
JT No, it is not. It is the highest thought of marriage, which people do not understand. The Lord brought it in very beautifully in Matthew 19. “He who made them from the beginning”. He did not say God. He just said “He who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... and the two shall be one flesh ... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man separate”.
EB Does Genesis 1: 27 precede this? Does the thought referred to in that verse help?
JT It says, “God created man in his image ... male and female created he them”. What is in your mind about that?
EB Does that precede the building of the woman.
JT Well, that is divine purpose. They are viewed as entities there, but in chapter 5, it is said, “Male and female ... and called their name Adam”. One name is union. That is what we are speaking of.
AFM Is the union in chapter 2 to take place when God brings Eve to the man? Is that the actual taking place of union.
JT Yes, that is right. What preceded that is the material; the material came out of the man. There could be no union except on that basis. It is the same flesh, the same bone, and therefore union is possible.
ANW Say a word or two more on that part of the verse Mr. M, was quoting — “brought her to Man”. Is that not a very striking and important statement?
JT Well, it is. You say something about it.
ANW I am inquiring. Was not the blessed [p. 543] Spirit very largely there in it? In Ephesians, the Man presents it to Himself.
ARS In the type, the servant brings Rebecca across the desert to the man.
JT And Isaac takes her from him. He does not present her to him.
ARS There is no marriage celebration. He just takes her and goes into his mother’s tent.
JT There is no marriage ceremony and no celebration. You have something in your mind. Mr. W., as to Jehovah presenting her to the man.
ANW I thought it was a striking statement; although you would think she was there, the statement “and brought her to Man” seems to reflect on divine operations.
JT I think the idea is, there is an objective scene there from Adam’s point of view. Jehovah presents her. He brought the cattle before.
ARS Does not verse 18 help us? “And Jehovah Elohim said. It is not good that Man should be alone”. Now He made a helpmate and brings her. It was God’s idea for complete happiness for Adam.
JT Yes, and it would be an objective scene to Adam. He saw her coming. Isaac went out into the fields, and he saw Rebecca coming. Now it says in verse 18, “And Jehovah Elohim said. It is not good that Man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate, his like”.
Now your mind is left in suspense there, and then something else is brought in as it says, “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them” verse 19. It is the same thing; your mind is just left in suspense until this, because it is added properly to verse 20.
FHL Would it not reflect on the dignity with which Christ would view the [p. 544] assembly?
JT I think it is to bring out that it is an objective scene, as far as Adam was concerned. Each creature was brought. God brought them, and Adam named them. How he did it, we do not know. He would view each creature as it came. He might see a lion or another of the creatures coming, and he would name them intelligently from their movements. Their movements would suggest what they were characteristically. But now he sees this wonderful creature coming, as God brings her, and now he says “this time”, which refers to verse 20. He had said what the other creatures were. Now he says, “this time”. This is a unique time, and what is she? She shall be called “Ishshah” — wherever he got that word. It is wonderful how language grew. This word could never have been in use before. It must have been spontaneous, the use of this word “Ishshah” because he says, she is taken out of “Ish” — a very fine evidence of his intelligence. Think of Christ and see how He looks at the movement of the assembly. You have in the Song of Songs His description of the earthly bride; how He would look at the saints, the disciples, those that loved Him and were around Him, men and women, those that loved Him from Galilee, how he would look at them and love them! “Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it”.
JTJr There would be an answer to His movements in the movements of His wife.
Rem Like Ish. It says, a helpmate his like.
JT What else could he say. It is “Ishshah”, taken out of Ish.
AFM Is that why we find the Lord doing wonderful things for His own in His ministry here; in love to them He would wait on them and stoop to do things for them that ordinarily such a Person would not do? Was the truth of the assembly or His wife in His mind?
JT I think so — “I love my wife” — in the type.
AR He says to Saul of Tarsus “Why persecutest thou me?” I suppose that would correspond to what you said. He saw His like on earth.
JT Quite so.
MacC You spoke of unity as preceding union. I would like you to say something about that.
JT Union is, of course, the assembly united to Christ. Before that, you can see that the saints should be united too. That is what ministry aims at, that there might be practical unity amongst the saints.
MacC Unity, which brings to my soul a knowledge of Christ and of God, is the thing that precedes actual union by the Spirit, would you say?
JT Yes; the normal presentation of the truth is in Romans. It says, “We ... are one body in Christ”. That means that we have a status. It does not say, ‘one body by the Spirit’ in Romans, because the time for that to come is in Corinthians “in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body”, (1 Corinthians 12: 13) because we are all made partakers of that one Spirit. That is the idea, a unity according to God. He says, “unity of the Spirit”, Ephesians 4: 3.
CAM God could state the thing before it actually comes about.
JT Yes, quite so.
AFM What is the link between Corinthians and Ephesians? Is it Colossians?
JT Yes; Colossians goes further and says that we are quickened with Christ, quickened with Him.
WB-w It says in Colossians, “being united together in love”, Colossians 2: 2. Is that more the idea of unity?
JT Yes; that is Corinthians carried along; but “quickened ... with him” is an additional thought, which you do not get in Corinthians, and underlies [p. 546] what you are speaking of. We are quickened in that life; not only that we are united, but we are living in His life.
CAM That is a very interesting thing because that thought is only in Colossians and Ephesians. It is nowhere else, as if we would not have reached that far in apprehension, is that right?
JT Yes; I think you get things in these epistles as you are equal for them, and equal to them.
WB-w Would you connect the word quickening with the rib. God built a woman out of the rib, but He must have quickened her, too.
JT Well, as applied to us, we are quickened with Him so that we live in His life and the correspondence between Him and us as to the order of humanity is complete if we are quickened with Him. We come up out of death with Him, that is, in His life. The material, so to speak, is the same as His.
CAM You see God’s consideration for us in presenting the thing so that we are able to take it in. We should understand that when God says a thing there is an immensity in His mind; there is a vastness in such a scripture as “neither shall ye break a bone thereof”, Exodus 12: 46.
JT Quite; so we have to follow the incarnation and see how it is possible for us to be brought into that order of Man, that order of humanity. The disciples could not be united to Him while He was alive; they could not participate in that humanity; that is unique. But when He falls into the ground and dies and the fruit comes up, that fruit is exactly like the grain that fell; that is what the figure means.
Ques With nothing clinging to it of previous history?
JT No; that blade begins down there in that Grain that went into the ground, that died and comes up. “He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one”, Hebrews 2: 11. That is an expression [p. 547] you do not get elsewhere. However, it is a very strong expression, it is not simply that they are united but that they are one, so He is not ashamed to call us brethren.
WB-w It is quickened with Christ in Colossians and Ephesians.
JT Quite so. What did you say about Ephesians?
WB-w That is where we are raised up.
JT That is another thing, rising up is not with Christ in Ephesians 2. Rising up is altogether ours. He “has raised us up together”.
ANW That is emphasizing unity again.
JT Yes; we are all raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies, arriving where Christ is. Romans is simply, “we ... are one body in Christ”, (Romans 12: 5) but quickening in both cases is the same thing.
CAM “Quickened with” is one word in the original.
JT That shows what we are speaking of.
JS How far do you view quickening? How far does it go?
JT I think the affections. We are brought into His life. It is a wonderful thing; not only that I have life, but I am brought into His life. “Raised up together”, in Ephesians, is a further thing; it is to fit us to be in heaven, but that is not “with Christ”. That is with ourselves. We are brought up in absolute unity and made to sit down there in Christ up there.
CAM But the “with Christ”, if I understand rightly what you say, is rather more a matter of principle than position.
JT It is principle, but it is a very real thing that we are made to live in His life.
CAM I know ‘principle’ is not a very good word, but it was just to distinguish it from what is positional.
JT Yes; “in Christ” is status up there. We are made to sit down.
JS Quickening would be a state. It is a positive thing that exists today.
JT Quite; it is not ordinary living.
Ques Would it be right to say that we are quickened into an eternal state of things?
JT It is in His life that we are quickened, brought up with Him out of the grave, so that the saints in Acts 1 evidenced it. He showed Himself alive after He suffered. He showed Himself to them, and He assembled with them. They were quickened in His life. In principle, they were the same as Himself. They were in His life, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. That is how He was quickening them in His thoughts.
CAM That is a very interesting thing. He awakened their ability to take it in, and then presented Himself to them.
JT Quite; you can see how the thing was. They were as He was. “As he is, so are we” even now, 1 John 4: 17.
JS In His message to Mary, “Go to my brethren”, He recognized that.
ANW “With him” must be closely allied with affection.
JT What would it be without affection on His side and on ours?
Ques Do you not think that on our side, in the epistle to the Ephesians; there was a divine response because it is spoken of in Revelation as “first love”?
JT That is right. The address would show that — “to the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus who are in Ephesus”. That is a good thing to say about them, “saints and faithful”, and on that ground He is able to speak to them of the wonderful things that are in this wonderful epistle.
WB-w When Paul left Ephesus (Acts 20: 1),
[p. 549] he embraced them, and one of the last things they did when he left the elders (Acts 20: 37) was that they embraced him.
JT That helps greatly. Acts 20 is full of love; there is love in the beginning, love in the middle, and love at the end. He embraced them in the beginning, then he enfolded Eutychus in his arms, and then they embraced him at the end. This really fits in with the epistle. It is a love chapter. So you can see what a circle of love there was in the upper room at Troas. What a circle there was — the very best of Paul’s ministry and the principal men that were there with him. If you were in that circle, you might say you were in heaven. It was a circle of love, the life of Christ is there.
Ques Does the fact that “first love” is mentioned, suggest that it is the best love, the highest character of love?
JT That is right.
Ques And in that thought, is there the thought of union?
JT I think so. That is where it belongs. That is where the thing fits. The saints are intelligently in the life of Christ. He loves them and they love Him — “the love of Christ which passeth knowledge”.
Ques Does Revelation 2 show that it was a wonderful thing and existed only for a short time?
JT In its entirety, perhaps, but it exists all the time in principle. The overcomers, in principle, are in union.
ANW I was thinking how we can thank God it was long enough to have the letter written.
JT However short, it was there.
CAM I thought the week in Troas would show it really covers a long period.
JT They had a wonderful time there. The results of Paul’s ministry is par excellence, as you [p. 550] might say. The very best were there in the seven names given, not from one locality, but representative of the places he had visited, the cream of his work; see them together!
JEH Were they sitting down in the heavenlies?
JT Well, that is where it was.
Rem Even looking at it practically, the love must have waned, as represented in Eutychus, but it existed in Paul.
JT “All who are in Asia ... have turned away from me” ... you may be sure it had waned.
Ques He came down and embraced Eutychus, just the same. Would he represent the overcomers?
JT He did.
TH That helps as to the enfolding. As coming out of a state of death, he would appreciate being quickened.
JT Yes, I think it would be an experience that Eutychus would never forget. We never hear any more about him. He is called a “youth”, and then a “boy”. I think the word “boy” means potentiality; the boy is developing. I have no doubt that he experienced the warmth of Paul’s arms enfolding him. Paul says, “Be not troubled, for his life is in him”. He does not say it had gone out of him. He was taken up for dead. I believe it would be an allusion to the state that the assembly fell into. The life was there, but only Paul could discern it.
CAM Do you think it would be right to say that he really did in principle what the Lord did in the forty days.
JT Yes, I think he did. His life was in him. It shows resuscitation in rising from the dead. It is an allusion, I think, to the recovery of the church.
Ques Does the truth of Paul’s embrace come into the meeting on the first day of the week. Could we really have union otherwise? We must have all of [p. 551] this idea of embracing Christ, or we must embrace one another first, do you think?
JT Well, there may be that. I think the salutations in Romans, there are something like twenty, are to get the brethren to have love for one another. They are worth loving and he gives the reasons why they are to be saluted. If we do not respect the brethren, we will never love them, although we may use the words ‘brother’ and ‘sister’. I believe the salutations mean that the brethren are worthy of respect — every one of them. That precedes Corinthians really and Colossians and Ephesians. You get respect for the brethren, and “salute one another with a holy kiss”. That is a very fine expression — you salute those persons that you respect with a holy kiss; nature is left out of it. How can you do this unless you value them as worthy of respect? They are worthy of respect in heaven. Why should I not respect them?
WB-w You respect each according to his value. Some have a greater measure than others.
JT Quite so. The salutations in Romans give this in each case.
RWS Think of each believer being picked up by Christ separately! What dignity! He had first choice, and He has made His selection and chosen each one.
JT I think it is a great matter to respect the brethren in more than a merely theoretical way, because there is something there to respect.
JEH What about Quartus, the brother?
JT He is the brother, not a brother. It is the definite article.
RDG Is this respect a part of the uniting process?
JT Well, that is what I wanted to get at. Romans is properly the working out of love. You are coming into the thing practically. That is what is united [p. 552] to Christ. That is the kind of thing that corresponds with the fruit that comes up from the ground, that fell into the ground and died. It is the same kind of thing.
Rem It speaks in Romans 14 of the weak in the faith as those for whom Christ has died. It is Christ loving the assembly and being delivered up for it, involving His death.
JT It is the general thought of being delivered up for it. It is the general thought that He gave Himself for it. It is only for one, it is for his friends. It is more dying for friends. When you come to the expression of love. He dies for me because He loves me — He “has loved me and given himself for me”, Galatians 2: 20. And you begin to see the saints that way, that the Lord Jesus loved them. We lay down our lives for the brethren and care for them. The assembly is united to Christ; it is like Himself. It is Himself. He said to Saul, “Why dost thou persecute me?” These people are like Him. That is what is united to Christ.
WGT There is no thought of penalty in that.
JT No, it is not necessary. If a Man loves me and dies for me, that is all you want as a proof of His love.
Ques Does the working out of union come into the privilege side of the morning meeting?
JT I think it does. When you come to the service in the assembly. God is the great object. It is not expressly union that I would stress there; it is the Minister of the holy places and His brethren and God’s sons. It is more that side.
Ques What about the early part of the privilege side of the morning meeting, for instance, after the breaking of bread and going out together in the company of Christ to the Mount of Olives? Would that not correspond to union?
JT Yes — “married to another” is the suggestion of it, bringing “forth fruit unto God”. That is Romans. No doubt it is there, but service in the assembly is more that He has brethren, and these brethren are God’s sons. He has power with them as His brethren so that He leads them. He is God’s Son, leading many sons to glory.
Ques Then in speaking to the Father, the whole range of vision helps. Christ and the assembly being an eternal thought. Would that come into our speaking to the Father in a very marked way?
JT Well, as regards headship, it would. That is a thing that develops out of union. His headship, and it is a very wide thought. It bears on the position of the assembly in all its movements in the universe.
Ques Where would you experience what is spoken of in the Song of Songs, “His left hand would be under my head”?
JT He comes in there. You are “to be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead” enters into it. That is all right, but the idea of the husband and wife is an institution by itself. In the main, it a question of His brethren who are the sons of God, and that is the line on which the service of God is carried on.
WB-w John 20 is beyond union then?
JT I think so. That is another line. The brethren, of course, are the bride, the assembly viewed as united to Him, but it is another line when you think of His brethren and the sons of God.
CAM Would it be right to say they are concurrent?
JT They run together. It is a collateral line, and headship must come in in assembly service. Otherwise we do not know what to do, for in general, headship is for wisdom so that we do know what to do. We are thinking of God now, and it is as the brethren of Christ and the sons [p. 554] of God.
JS In Genesis 2 you would be thinking of the Man — “brought her to Man”.
JT Yes; it is for him.
JS Rebecca was for Isaac and the saints would be for God.
JT That is what I was thinking we ought to get at here. They are collateral lines, but the service in the assembly is brethren of Christ and sons of God.
ANW When you say the bride is an eternal thought, you have to include that, do you not? Really the eternal thought is that headship would operate Godward. Do you conclude that the bride is an eternal thought? Does Scripture say so?
JT Yes; just as you conclude of union. It is there, but you can see that a man and his wife is an institution. It is what the assembly is to Christ and what He is to her, and it works out in headship; so that she knows what to do; hence He is head over all things to the assembly.
ANW God is the object there.
JT Yes, in the service of God, in the sanctuary itself, it is the brethren of Christ and then the sons of God, and Christ viewed as Minister of the holy places.
Ques “That he might have the first place in all things”, Colossians 1: 18. Is there not a point succeeding the covenant line where Christ is held prominently before us even before we go on with the service of God?
JT Oh, yes. He is anointed with oil of gladness above his companions, (Hebrews 1: 9).
AFM Would there not be some thought of an appreciation of Him in the first part of the meeting, that is after the Supper when He comes into the midst? would this be more in line with union than what we have been speaking of in connection with the service of [p. 555] God?
JT I think that is quite all right, what He is to us in that way. It works out in headship.
AFM They are both primary thoughts.
JT I think so. I think the Lord’s supper develops into union in that way.
RDG Is there any distinction between Ephesians 5 and Hebrews 2? Hebrews 2 brings in the idea of brethren and sons.
JT Well Ephesians 5 is what Christ is.
RDG What He presents to Himself?
JT And what subsists personally; what He has in the assembly before Him, but then the service of God is another line. The Lord is the Minister of the holy places and He has brethren. God has sons.
RDG And the Lord Jesus brings them — “bringing many sons to glory”.
JT Yes.
EB Would you say that there are many christians who love the Lord but who do not know anything about union?
JT I do not think we know much about it ourselves.
Ques Would not Revelation 2 show that? The saints there evidently knew a great deal about many things, but when it comes to first love they had given that up.