PAUL'S MINISTRY AND THE SERVICE OF GOD (4)
PAUL’S MINISTRY AND THE SERVICE OF GOD (4)
JT Having read the passage in Ephesians 5, beginning at verse 22, to the end, it occurs to me that we should read from Genesis 24, a section which will perhaps serve to clarify and enlarge what we have had. The passage in Genesis 2 alluded to this morning, as well as chapter 24, enter into the teaching of the verses read this morning in Ephesians 5. Genesis 2 refers to the Lord’s death figuratively, and the Lord’s resurrection as called attention to by Himself in showing to the disciples His hands and His side. Genesis 24 records the proposal of Abraham that the chief servant of his house should seek a wife for his son Isaac, and that she must be of his kindred, and that Isaac must not be brought to where she was, but that she must be brought to him. It should be remarked that Genesis 22 calls attention to the death of Christ in a sacrificial way, and that while He was raised figuratively, yet He, as typified in Isaac, did not return from the mount. It is not said that Isaac returned with his father after the occurrence on the mount when he is offered up, figuratively. Abraham came down and went and dwelt at Beer-Sheba, but Isaac is not said to have come down with him; as if to remind us that he prefigures Christ in heaven, and that the assembly is brought to Him there. Rebecca is seen in relation to her family in the end of the chapter. It is said, that “Bethuel begot Rebecca”. Genesis 22:23. Her relatives are spoken of, but she is seen alone in the parenthesis of verse 23. She is there for the servant to find her and take her to Isaac, which he does. The verses read this morning in Ephesians 5, call attention to the fact that “Christ also loved the assembly,
[p. 316] and has delivered himself up for it, in order that he might sanctify it, purifying it by the washing of water by the word, that he might present the assembly to himself glorious, having no spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that it might be holy and blameless”, “For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also Christ the assembly: for we are members of his body; we are of his flesh, and of his bones. Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. Ephesians 5:25-27; Ephesians 5:29-32. Now the verses in Genesis 24 speak of Isaac taking Rebecca into his mother’s tent. There is nothing said about Abraham in that section of the chapter. Isaac is said to be the servant’s master; Abraham is not mentioned, nor is it said that anyone else had part in Sarah’s tent, save Rebecca with Isaac. It is thought that these remarks will help us, and perhaps clarify the whole position, especially in view of the part that the marital side, that is, of Christ and the assembly, has in the service of God. It is thought the brethren will be interested to follow up this narrative along with Ephesians 5, linking it with the actual service of God in the present provisional time. Ephesians 3, which we spoke of this morning, refers to the service of God too, but it follows it into eternity; in fact the service is specially mentioned in saying, “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”. Ephesians 3:21. That goes into eternity, whereas now we are dealing with the provisional position of the assembly in the service of God.
Ques Have you any thought as to what form the service will take in eternity, and wherein it will differ from the provisional side?
JT Well, of course, there will be no Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper belongs to the present provisional side, and is inseparably linked with the service, the [p. 317] divine service, according to 1 Corinthians. In eternity the assembly will be glorious, literally so, not in humiliation in any sense; she will be conformed to Christ’s image, and to His body of glory; so that whatever service there may be, and will be, of course, has all this in mind; that is, our risen, glorious and heavenly position. We cannot speak much of it, but we can speak considerably of the service on earth. Ezekiel enlarges on it, the service of God on earth, but as to what will proceed eternally, we cannot say much as to the details, but certainly the passage already dwelt upon this morning says something as to it. It is in the form of a doxology. “But to him that is able to do far exceedingly above all which we ask or think, according to the power which works in us, to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen”. Ephesians 3:20.
SMcC Do you regard the marital side and the Lord’s enjoyment of His links with His own in that light, as having a place in relation to the dominical side of assembly service; that is, the Lord’s part in the service?
JT Well, the Lord’s part in the service, which includes the Lord’s supper, must include the assembly; the marital relations between Christ and His own. It is difficult to place it in that side that we speak of as the Father’s side, although it can well be brought in by way of allusion or reference, but the Father’s side has in mind sonship; that is, what is for Himself. Although, as we said, Christ and the assembly must form part with the Father, as the type would show in Genesis, beginning with Abraham, but it would be difficult to speak much about the assembly as such, and Christ with it, when we are dealing directly with God, the Father.
SMcC I asked that question because there has been an inquiry as to whether what has been said as to the assembly and its place in the service of God, in a feminine way, eliminated the marital side from the beginning of assembly service.
[p. 318] Ques Would you think that the Supper leads directly to the marital side?
JT Well, I would say, rather that the Lord’s brethren come before the assembly as such; the Lord’s brethren as seen in John 20, not what we see in Matthew 12, and corresponding passages in the other synoptic gospels. Matthew 12 is more general, as connecting our position with the will of God in a practical way, but John 20 definitely and formally connects the brethren, the saints, with the Lord as His brethren, as He says to Mary, “Go, to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father”. John 20:17. He is speaking of His brethren in an ascending relation; that is to say, in a heavenly relation. Matthew does not deal with them in that sense.
JR Is association with Christ a greater thought than the marital relation?
JT I would not say so, because we are speaking of a divine Person, and the assembly as related to Him; she is not herself divine, yet she is related to Christ, He being a divine Person. It would be difficult therefore to say that His brethren, or the sons of God even, are greater than those who form the assembly. The fact is that the three relations, the brethren of Christ, the assembly, and the sons of God, have all to be taken into account, and it is difficult, at least from my point of view, to say that any phase of the three is greater than the others.
HW Would you say a word as to the order in which these three great thoughts are brought before us in Hebrews 2; the sons of God, and the brethren “all of one”, Hebrews 2:11, and then the assembly?
JT Well, God Himself is brought in first; “it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. Hebrews 2:10. That is by itself. Then we have the brethren of Christ, and then the assembly, but the assembly as the vessel through which the Lord praises the Father. He says,
“[p. 319] in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. Hebrews 2:12. Verse 10 is a separate matter; verses 11 and 12 are by themselves; they read, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. Hebrews 2:11,12. So that, if we consider this side of the praises of the Lord to the Father, then we are obliged to connect the brethren with what precedes it, because the Lord says, “I will declare thy name to my brethren”. Hebrews 2:12. That would come in first, and then the assembly following, both connected with the praises, and sonship following upon that.
WC Luke says, in Acts 20:7, “we being assembled to break bread”. Would you regard that in the light of brethren?
JT I would say that is more what we call each other as brethren, in a responsible sense; it is our own part in the matter; the Lord has not yet come in in that position, “We being assembled”, the writer says.
WC So that there is a view of the saints antecedent to what you are speaking of as brethren in the service according to John 20.
JT Well, we should need to allow for the Lord to come in, in order to bring in the passages read from Hebrews 2. We are now dealing with the truth governing the service of God, which is dependent on the Lord coming in Himself, as the Minister of the sanctuary. We come in ourselves before that, to break bread; we assemble, and it would be our own act, following the example He has set us, and with a view to the memorial. The Lord comes in as a result of the memorial taking effect.
AJG Are you connecting the thought of brethren in John 20, with our being kindred to Christ even as is shown in Genesis 22, as to Rebecca, before she is actually brought [p. 320] into union?
JT Well, just so. The passages in Hebrews all enter into that position.
Ques Referring to His brethren, kindred of Christ; are we that constitutionally; and regarded so always, not merely so viewed in a position we take up at a given time?
JT But John 20 contemplates a position taken up; the saints are viewed as together, the assembly, in the upper room.
SC Does the thought of brethren in the first three gospels give the moral side?
JT Well, I would say that, and that that enters into Acts 20:7, where it says, “we being assembled”. The view of brethren in the synoptic gospels would be in mind, the we would be the brethren, whereas John 20 contemplates another matter; that is to say, we are brethren, in a spiritual sense, of the ascending Man; of the Lord as ascending to His Father.
PL The first bearing on love’s obligations here, and the second on love’s elevation there?
JT Very good. Love’s elevation.
HFN Does Hebrews 2 give us the order of this service?
JT No, I would not say that, only the setting of verse 11 might well be regarded as covering the position when Christ is apprehended as having come in. We are assuming that the Lord comes in according to John 14. He comes in, but not at the beginning of the meeting; we come together, left, as it were, to ourselves, it is our matter, and He comes in. It is not that things could be put together in a formal way like that, but spiritually we apprehend that it is so. He said, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”. John 14:18. But we apprehend that He would come as we are thus together.
HFN What I wanted to get clear about is whether Hebrews 2 looks at the saints from the standpoint of purpose as the sons, and thus states their dignity and [p. 321] privilege, yet does it additionally give us the order of the assembly service?
JT The order of the service, I think, must be worked out from the Lord’s supper, because it is the gathering point, and the Lord had directed that we should do it, not that He should be there when we are doing it, but that we should do it. “This do”, Luke 22:19, He says. It is what we do. The order begins there, and then what He will do consequent on that would be a question of love.
HW Do you look upon Hebrews 2:11, as connected intimately with what has gone before in verse 10, thus linking the thought of the brethren, all of one, with the Sons in verse 10?
JT Well, sonship comes in in verse 10, and according to the structure of the chapter, Hebrews 2, it is a finished matter at the paragraph. It is a question of what is suitable to God. “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. Hebrews 2:10. That is a separate matter, involving the death of Christ. But verse 11, whilst it may be linked up grammatically, we might say, with verse 10, yet it is a subject by itself, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”. Hebrews 2:11. There is nothing said about sufferings here; it is sanctification, and it is the Lord’s own action, whereas verse 10 is God’s action. The matter has to be considered by itself, and as to order comes in really after the verses 11 and 12. Assembly order properly is in Corinthians, and we begin with the Lord’s supper. Hebrews 2 is truth, doctrine, that is needed in the service of God, but it is not the order of the service of God, which properly begins with the Lord’s supper.
Ques When the Lord comes in at the Supper, would you say He comes to His brethren or to the assembly as [p. 322] such?
JT Well, I would say to His brethren, but if it be the assembly it would be the assembly in its public character and aspect, whereas the application of Hebrews 2 in its various parts would involve the private or secret relations of Christ with His people, but if we do not follow the order of Corinthians as to the service we shall get into disorder, because that epistle is intended to be the order of the house of God in its service. There is the public side of the service of God, and that begins with the Lord’s supper, and I doubt if we will ever reach the truth that we are dealing with now, unless we begin with that, because it relates to the public worship of God; that is not given up, it entered into the Old Testament in the sacrifices in the temple, and in the tabernacle, but it is now in the christian assembly, the public assembly, the assembly of God in Corinth; that is, where the thing begins, and it is public.
PHH When ye come together in assembly, would that be as brethren, but on the side of our being brothers and sisters together?
JT Just so, that is exactly what it is, as I understand it.
PHH Not “my brethren” in the John 20 sense?
JT No; it is the public side of the worship of God, carried down from the Old Testament, only it is in the christian assembly. The christian assembly is designated in the Corinthian epistles as the assembly of God which is in Corinth. The Lord’s supper is celebrated there, and all that enters into it spiritually follows on that, works out of that.
PL “He himself stood in their midst”, Luke 24:36. Is that the public and local setting?
JT That is right. Luke contemplates the public assembly. It is the same incident that John alludes to, but Luke contemplates the public side.
HW Would that connect with Philippians 3:3, “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God”. Is that the public [p. 323] thought?
JT Well, the Spirit is supposed to be there when we are celebrating the Lord’s supper, so that I would go with that.
GWB Where does marital response to Christ personally come in?
JT Where His love comes in. The Lord loved the assembly, and gave Himself for it. Corinthians is intended to be the order of God in His service, and Paul begins with it in chapter 11, verse 18. In the first part of chapter 11, he deals with headship, headship publicly; the place the headship of Christ has publicly, involving the service of God, and the order of it; the dress and demeanour of those who have part in it men, and women, and then in verse 18 we have the phrase, “when ye come together in assembly”; 1 Corinthians 11:18; it is the character of the coming together, it is the public position, and hence the condemnation by the apostle of the conduct that was there, but the assembly is there, nevertheless; in spite of the bad conduct, it is still the assembly of God.
SMcC In Genesis 26:8, we read, “And it came to pass when he”, (Isaac), “had been there some time, that Abimelech the king of the Philistines looked out of the window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was dallying with Rebecca his wife”. Would there be any suggestion there of what is marital, in relation to the public side?
JT Quite so, I would say that indicates the idea, for it is Isaac and Rebecca, and what is seen in public.
WC Do we, in the memorial, remember the Lord in His devoted love to the assembly?
JT It is remembering Him as absent, I would say.
AMcG Do you connect the thought of remembering the Lord as absent with the cup as well as with the loaf?
JT Quite so. It is formally stated, only once, however, in relation to the cup; it is twice stated in relation [p. 324] to the bread, or more than twice, if we include the occasion at Emmaus, but it is only once connected with the cup.
AMcG If I understand what has been said as to the Lord being “made known to them in the breaking of bread”, Luke 24:35, how do we connect remembrance with the cup if the Lord is present?
JT The Lord’s supper is one thing, but with two elements; the usual designation of it is “the breaking of bread”, as in Acts 20, “We being assembled to break bread”, and that included the cup, as well as the loaf. So that we are dealing with one thing in the celebration, and I would say that the Lord comes in in the breaking of bread, Luke 24:30,31. The cup augments what is presented in the bread, but the bread is the main thought. If we keep to the actual wording in 1 Corinthians 11, I think we will arrive at the truth accurately; that is connected also with the passage in Luke 24. They were gathered together and they were saying certain things, and they referred to the Lord’s resurrection. And then the two from Emmaus added that He “was made known to them in the breaking of bread”. Luke 24:35. There is no mention of the cup in the incident at Emmaus, it was just the breaking of bread, but still it served its purpose, and the Lord was apprehended through it. And then as they were saying these things, “he himself stood in their midst”. Luke 24:36. It is not said, that He came and stood, but He was seen standing in their midst. Certain things followed which show that they were perturbed, and they were not ready really for the service of God, and the Lord has to put them right as to it. Whereas in John, it is said, in regard of the same incident undoubtedly, that “where the disciples were”, John 20:19, the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, showing that there was already exclusion of what would be damaging, and “Jesus came and stood in the midst, and says to them, Peace be to you”. John 20:19. There is no discrepancy with [p. 325] them at all, what happened is in order, and “they rejoiced therefore, having seen the Lord”. John 20:20. Luke presents the public position, and it was irregular, as it was at Corinth; John presents the same occasion, only it is more the second part of the service, because the Lord comes in. What happened before was without Him, even as Acts 20 shows what happened before the Lord came in; it was the action of the brethren in Troas in assembling to break bread; the breaking of bread evidently being before the Lord would come in in that case. Comparing all these scriptures together, we would assume, and rightly so, I think, that the Lord came in after the breaking of bread began.
PHH So you would be quite free normally speaking in giving thanks for the cup, to think of the Lord as being there, as having come.
JT Yes, I would, and always assume that He is there. What happens subsequently is simply to augment what has already happened.
Ques Then if it is discerned that the Lord has come amongst us, as we have to do with the bread, do we carry a dual thought in our minds for the time being until the Supper is completed?
JT Well, I would say that.
AJG Do you mean that the remembrance of Christ in connection with the cup in that sense has to do with the public position, while spiritually He may be apprehended as having come in?
JT Yes, just so, that is just what I would say, but also would stress the thought that it is one matter, the Lord’s supper is one matter, and so designated; that is, the bread and the cup are included in it, and it is one Supper.
Rem He made Himself known in the breaking of bread, and on their side they recognised Him, Luke 24.
JT Well, it might be said, that it was not the Lord’s supper really, but the breaking of bread was there. It [p. 326] brought out the familiar way of the Lord as the house-father. He was accustomed to do it, and therefore it became the occasion of their discerning Him; that is all we can say, but it is carried through by the two that saw it, and introduced as the eleven and others were gathered together. The term “the breaking of bread” was used; He was made known to them in that, and this allusion recalls the whole matter, the Lord’s supper.
AEL Does 1 Corinthians 11:26 stress the oneness of the emblems, in saying “as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup”? 1 Corinthians 11:26.
JT Quite so, I would say that.
AHG You said that the cup was to augment what had gone before in the loaf, but how would you regard the expression “The cup of blessing which we bless”, in 1 Corinthians 10:16?
JT That is not the order of the truth as to the Lord’s supper; this order is not in 1 Corinthians 10, but in chapter 11. The order requires that the bread should come first. What is presented in chapter 10 is to bear on our conduct; the cup of the Lord and the table of the Lord are terms not properly applicable to the Lord’s supper in the order of it; these expressions come in in connection with the matter of public conduct. In chapter 11 we read, “In like manner also the cup, after having supped”. 1 Corinthians 11:25. That means after the passover supper was over; so that the Lord’s supper is not connected with anything Jewish, it is severed from the Jewish position. The apostle proceeds, quoting the Lord’s words, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”. 1 Corinthians 11:25. The point in that section is the memorial, not that the cup represented the covenant, but that the idea of memorial was connected with it. It is the only place where the memorial is formally connected with the cup, but it is there, and one testimony is enough as to it. So that it is as already said, to augment the first part of the memorial; the first [p. 327] is the main thought, because the designation attached to it also covers the whole matter; the breaking of bread speaking of the whole.
Ques It says in connection with the cup in verse 25, “as often as ye shall drink”. 1 Corinthians 11:25. Is that to emphasise that the remembrance is continued with the cup? It does not say “as often” in connection with the loaf.
JT Just so. It is important to bring up that, that it is not mentioned in connection with the bread; it is to ensure that the import of the second part is not missed, but carried into the Supper. At Emmaus there was no drinking; it was just the breaking of the bread, but, of course, it was not formally the Lord’s supper; yet when at Jerusalem they were speaking about it, they called it “the breaking of bread”; Luke 24:35; that is what it meant in their minds, and therefore the word “as often as ye drink it” 1 Corinthians 11:25, is just to stress that the memorial in the cup is not to be overlooked.
Ques Whilst you have said that the Supper forms part of the public service of God in the assembly, does it privately lead to a spot where Christ personally gets a portion that is exclusive to Himself?
JT I would say that was most precious and that the Lord’s relation with His bride, the assembly as the bride of Christ, comes into that.
Ques And does the remembrance of the Lord as the Lord comes in, lead on to that, but you think that we take the ground of being His brethren before we touch the marital side?
JT Yes, I would say that; it is the time for it; it is the time of love and the Lord’s brethren come into His mind; “go to my brethren”, John 20:17, He said. He never forgets them. It is light that is to govern the service of God. Mary received the light from the Lord, she went to the disciples and told them that “she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”. John 20:18 Following that the Lord “came and stood in the midst”. John 20:19. They were His [p. 328] brethren, and the message involved that, and that His Father was their Father, and His God their God; all that enters into the service of God.
Rem The brethren therefore are in view prior to the marital side.
JT The thought of brethren, I think, comes in before the marital side in a full sense; it is a prime matter with God, extending back to His counsels, that Christ should have the assembly. It is His matter, even as in Genesis 24 it was Isaac’s matter; there is nothing said about others in relation to Sarah’s tent. Isaac and Rebecca, and Sarah’s tent means something, and there is no suggestion that Abraham was there, in fact he is not even mentioned in that connection.
Rem The servant stands aside in Genesis 24. There are sixty verses about the outgoing journey, but when the bride has come into view, the intimacy requires the exclusion of everything else; is that right?
JT It is said in verse 61, “Rebecca arose, and her maids, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man”. Genesis 24:61. Her maids must not be omitted because they bring in the feminine side and stress it. “And the servant took Rebecca, and went away. And Isaac had just returned from Beer-lahai-roi; for he was dwelling in the south country. And Isaac had gone out to meditate in the fields toward the beginning of evening. And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were coming”. Genesis 24:61 - 63. We must not forget that; he noticed the camels. They carried Rebecca, even as to the assembly there is the power that carries her. We learn, therefore, that the Spirit of God is to be recognised in the service from the very outset. As we assemble we need him; the Spirit is needed there.
PHH Would you say that from the outset, the marital side is in view in our affections, but it cannot come fully into expression until the Lord has come in and His love [p. 329] has full liberty?
JT I would say that.
PHH Does Rebecca, although personally a woman, set out this matter of the brethren?
JT Well, the brethren, as the brethren, would set out the matter of the assembly; that is the way I would put it. They are to be viewed in another light. The assembly is the prime thought with God too, but it is the prime thought with Christ, His assembly, but His assembly as His bride, according to what she is as seen in the types of Genesis 2, and Genesis 24.
FJF Would the present entrance into the joy of these marital relations with the Lord Jesus at the Supper fit us for our part as His fulness in the day to come, as referred in Ephesians 1: 23?
JT Well, just so, “the fulness of him who fills all in all”; Ephesians 1:23; it is the assembly. We are seeking to get at the relations of Christ now in this provisional time, when the Lord’s supper is in view; we are seeking to find out what the Lord’s feelings are, and what the effect of His Supper is on Himself, in that it brings in the assembly. Is there any joy in it for Him? The disciples were glad, but then we do not get as much said of the assembly, in this sense, as we do of the disciples and of the brethren. But we are trying to arrive at an understanding of what the Lord finds in the assembly as His spouse, as His bride, and where it fits. Allusion has been made to Genesis 26, and we are speaking now of what is in Genesis really; chapter 26 presents Isaac and Rebecca not only Isaac “dallying”, but the facts show that at this particular time he was free, he is not burdened with affairs. The Lord is to be regarded thus as free for the assembly, as indeed Isaac is throughout the whole of chapter 24, and especially in the passage read from verse 61. Isaac is free; he has just come from the well, which alludes to the Spirit as already connected with Israel, only through Hagar; God having earlier approached Israel on those lines. Isaac is now occupied [p. 330] with the same well, but he is meditating in the fields, and so forth. “And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were coming”. Then “Rebecca lifted up her eyes and saw Isaac”, Genesis 24:63,64, and then we are told that she had inquired about him from the servant, and the servant told her “That is my master”; Genesis 24:65; not Isaac, nor his master’s son, but “my master”. That is to say, God is not presented in the type now, it is a question of Isaac and Rebecca, of Christ and the assembly. What comes to mind now is what the Lord’s supper provides; that is, what follows it for the Lord Himself; what joy He has in seeing the saints in this collective feminine sense, what He has in them. That is the thing, I think, we all ought to have in our minds and seek to arrive at the truth of, so that we are of one mind about it.
Rem So that to have the feminine side in the true sense, as you were saying last night, it is essential that we should have power in our souls to take up individually the ground of being associated with Christ as above.
JT Quite so, because we are on the upper line, we are going up you know, it is an ascending line we are on in the service of God after the Lord’s supper has been celebrated.
Ques In Genesis 24:67 it says that “she became his wife, and he loved her”. Does that imply that the highest joy of the love of Christ is reached in connection with union?
JT Very good, and the fact that the wife is seen in Revelation 19, “his wife has made herself ready”, Revelation 19:7, would help us in that. It brings to mind what she is to the Lord as the wife, that is to say in this provisional time: she is the bride, but she is also viewed as the wife. And I think the Lord would have that in mind as He joins us in the wilderness in assembly at His Supper. He is recalled to our hearts in it and He comes in, and He has the saints who are caring for His interests, because the Lord’s [p. 331] supper contemplates that they have been caring for His interests, and He has His joy in them. And then there is the idea of adornment, what is granted to her; it is a question of the place she takes; she is subordinate yet, and the Lord is acting, it is His time, but He is caring for her, as one who cared for His interests. Then, of course, we ascend to the higher levels until we reach God, and the Father. It is a question of “from glory to glory”, 2 Corinthians 3:18, until we reach God, until we reach the Father, as His sons. It is a question of what power we have in our souls and in our minds especially, because it is a question of the spiritual mind really more than of the heart in order to distinguish things. Can we distinguish when the Lord is so operating, discerning us as His, as those who have cared for His interests, and those whom He loves accordingly, and then whom He loves because of the adornment, because of her beauty personally as we see in Abigail, and all that sort of thing; these have all to be provided for, and the Holy Spirit enables us to move in them, and I think, the point with us is to be ready for our minds to be trained so as to go from one phase to another as the Lord would have us go, until we arrive at the full thought that is in His mind.
HW Is the full thought, union?
JT Well, union is the definite end in mind as regards the early part, when He is moving in relation to His bride, the assembly, but the full thought, of course, goes further than that; it includes that, but it includes the sons, the saints viewed in another light, and God’s thought in them, which we get as we have already seen in Hebrews 2.
HE With regard to the matter of union, would you help us as to why the Lord speaking in Matthew 19, and quoting from Genesis 2, adds the words which we do not get there, nor in Ephesians, “so that they are no longer two, but one flesh”? Matthew 19:6. He seems to emphasise this matter.
JT [p. 332] Just so, very good. That stresses the Lord’s relations with the assembly, “one flesh”, which goes on, of course, to the idea of union, union is the terminus from one angle, from one point of view, but it only goes so far, but then we have to think of God, and the Father, and His sons, all these things must come into our minds, the question is whether our minds are able to take them up as the Lord moves on.
HW The matter of union is necessary to be reached, before we can arrive at the final end of the service.
JT Just so.
Ques Does the expression “all of one”, Hebrews 2:11, imply that we are of Christ’s order agreeing with the word “as the heavenly, such also the heavenly ones”? 1 Corinthians 15:48.
JT That is exactly what it means, I would say.
Ques Referring to Hebrews 2:11 and 12, “he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. Hebrews 2:11,12. Does that come in as the Lord comes to us?
JT Yes; we must be together for that.
EuR Would you say a word as to the expressions “all of one” Hebrews 2:11 and “the two shall be one flesh”? Matthew 19:5.
JT Well, the latter is a great mystery, the apostle says, and I cannot tell really, but it is a mystery especially as it applies to what we are saying now, Christ and the assembly, but it would mean that we are united together among ourselves, and then suitable for union with Christ as united together; we are not diverse, nor divided; we are one among ourselves, and so the Lord is pleased to take us on as His bride. We are all governed by one thought, we are wholly governed by affection, and that is what He unites to Himself.
PL So that unity bodywise leads up to union.
JT That is what I understand exactly. We must have the real thing in ourselves as we come together to break bread. We come together as united, the Lord is pleased [p. 333] with us in that light, and hence the joy He has in us as He takes us on as we call Him to mind. That is what we shall have to stop with, that unity bodywise lays the basis for union, and if we can follow that up we will reach something.