THE DIVINE ECONOMY

^[p. 181] THE DIVINE ECONOMY

Matthew 28: 19, 20; 1 Corinthians 8: 5, 6; John 20: 17; Ephesians 2: 18

JT It is in mind to stress these scriptures as speaking of the Father. The first, in Matthew 28, contemplating the three Persons of the Godhead, to the name of all of whom we are baptised. The second, in 1 Corinthians 8, shows how christians distinguish between the divine Persons, discerning the Father to be regarded as the one God; the Son, as acting in a mediatorial way in effecting everything for Him. The third scripture, in John 20, speaks of the Lord associating us with Himself in His relation with the Father — His Father our Father, His God our God. Finally how we draw near, how we have access to the Father through Christ by the one Spirit (Ephesians 2: 18); this verse in a very concise way presenting the economy into which God has come, and how we recognise it in drawing near. It is hoped that we may be helped in looking at these scriptures from these points of view, and have more intelligent liberty in our service to God.

AMH Baptising to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The word ‘to’ helps in what you are saying, that it is the great end in view.

JT You mean it is not ‘in’, but ‘to’ — “to the name”. It is in keeping with what is in the Lord’s mind when He says here, “make disciples;” the apostles are to make disciples. Being baptised to the name of divine Persons involves the economy that they have come into; we are introduced into all the wonderful light implied in the name of the three Persons. It is the faith period that is in mind, what God is as thus presented. We are baptised into all that, introduced into all by baptism, and taught to ^[p. 182] observe all things whatsoever the Lord had enjoined. He then says, that He is with them; “behold, I am with you”.

WHU Would you help us as to the difference in baptising “in the name” of the Lord Jesus (Acts 10: 48), and to the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? What difference should we have in our minds?

JT Here baptism is ‘to’, or ‘unto’ the Name. It is a question of what we are introduced into, as over against judaism and paganism.

CAI Is this dispensation set up in the light of the relations of divine Persons to one another as thus revealed?

JT Yes, here it is the order in which They are set. We could not reverse that order, the order is “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. This involves the economy into which God has come, and in which all that He is in grace and power is presented and available to us.

WHU Would baptism ‘in’ the name bring in divine authority? Baptising ‘to’ the name introduces us into a system connected with that name.

JT Yes. Baptism had existed before. “All were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10: 2), not unto the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ‘In’ the name would mean that all that name stands for is available. I think there is protection in it. ‘To’ involves what we are introduced into, the light and privilege generally of christianity; the making, indeed, of disciples.

AMH Would you say a little as to the making of disciples? You emphasised that.

JT It implies that the apostles had moral power and hence would exert influence for good over men. One not only affords light to people, but influences them by what is in oneself, and that influence ^[p. 183] would be exerted to bring persons into what is involved in this wonderful light. You not only enlighten people, but you influence them in a formative way. We see it exemplified in the apostles in the Acts 14: 21, and in the epistles. What great concern they had! Peter preached, we are told in Acts 2, and the other eleven were there with him. Those who were convicted said to him and to the other apostles, “What shall we do?” showing that they apprehended what was implied in the light conveyed, not simply that they were to be enlightened, but what they were to do. He says, “Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. Those then who had accepted his word were baptised; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles” (Acts 2: 38 - 42).

I read those verses because they bring out the effect that Peter’s service produced on his hearers, and how they not only directed their questions to him, but also to the eleven as if they discerned that there was something peculiar and distinctive about these men, that they could rely upon their help. Peter is the only one who is said to have answered them, but they directed their questions to all. They were in principle, made disciples, because they persevered in the apostles’ doctrine, showing how profoundly the apostles had affected them. The point is that they persevered in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; they were affected by ^[p. 184] the ministers.

AMH So that they would, in fact, become constitutionally different from this perverse generation.

WHU Why do we get a change in the term? They are not baptised here, apparently, to the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but to Jesus Christ (Acts 2: 38).

JT “In the name” here, I think, involves protection, and a certain status in the testimony of God; baptised in that name.

WHU Which term would we use today?

JT I would use both. Matthew 28 conveys the idea of being introduced into christianity, the whole revelation of God; the other involves our being under the protection of the Lord Jesus, especially as Lord; He is made Lord.

LDM You put that second.

JT Yes, I do. I am only saying what I feel free to do.

FJF Paul at Ephesus in Acts 19 baptised certain ones to the name of the Lord Jesus, who had previously been baptised to the baptism of John.

JT Paul speaks about Christ to these men. “And he said, To what then were ye baptised? And they said, To the baptism of John. And Paul said, John indeed baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him that was coming after him, that is, on Jesus” (Acts 19: 3, 4). They were baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus there.

FJF The other name, as in Matthew 28, is not mentioned in Acts 19.

JT If Scripture says a thing once that is enough.

LDM The economy is established in Matthew, but the entry into it depends on our submission to the Lord Jesus.

JT ^[p. 185] The mediatorial service of Christ is stressed in the epistles and in the Acts too. As viewed in that way, He is doing everything; so all the result is through Him, as we see also in 1 Corinthians 8: 6 — “One Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. When we come to the actual instrumentality of the making of disciples, it is by Christ. By God, of course, too, but in the detail as to the persons it is by Christ — “and we by him”. I think we would be helped to dwell on this thought of being made. It is what the Lord intends as to the inauguration of christianity; not simply to enlighten people; it was that, but that they should be made disciples.

AMH Have you the thought of making exemplified in Peter, in that his shadow falling on the sick healed them. Would that be the substance in the man brought to operate on persons?

JT Quite so. You see in Acts 2 how it is wrought out, how the people took account of these twelve men. If a few brothers go out preaching the gospel in the street, one preaches while the others stand by. Can people see in them anything different from the ordinary bystander? Why do these convicted persons direct their questions to the eleven, as well as to Peter? Peter stood up with the eleven. The Spirit of God records that, as if these were persons already made by Christ. He said to Peter, “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4: 19). Why do these convicted persons discern that these other eleven men should be questioned as well as the preacher? When moving about among men you would like to find them coming to you if in soul need.

AMH You would like them to know that you belong to that wonderful company.

JT That is what I thought; that in preaching one should be worthy of imitation.

^[p. 186] CAI In Acts 3, when the lame man was healed, he was seen standing with them. Does he become part of what is there already?

JT Yes. The enemy could not overcome that fact. The same was seen in Lazarus, they believed because of Lazarus (John 12: 9 - 11).

Rem Peter says, “Be baptised each one of you”. Have you any thought as to that? No one was to miss this blessing.

JT I suppose the transaction would be individual, not as it was with Israel in the Exodus. They were baptised together as a whole as they crossed the sea (see 1 Corinthians 10: 2). Here the transaction is individual. It must have been a remarkable time when these three thousand people believed. The idea of baptism would spread. What does all this mean? So many of them submitting to it, and very real in it. You could tell that they were not merely religionists, changing their religion, but they were genuinely affected by the gospel.

AMH “And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”, evidenced that they were real.

JT And “in breaking of bread and prayers”. Many of our young people say they have confessed the Lord after a certain preaching, but that is all they have done. They are hardly made yet, but these people “persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”.

ESH Would persevering indicate that there would be difficulties in the way, and the element of opposition to meet?

JT The word “persevere” would imply that; and it was “in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”, showing how the converts were affected by these twelve men. Peter did not specially call attention to himself, but there was something that ^[p. 187] affected them so that they would follow what these men taught. They ask what they are to do, and they do it. Then they are added, and they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers. The “making” included all these things. Why should any one who confesses the Lord stop at confession?

CAI Does making involve all that is recorded of these men?

JT I was thinking that it exemplifies the meaning of the Lord’s words, “make disciples”. Nations have been baptised in an external way, that is, they have changed their religion. For example, Russia changed her religion and has now gone back, in apostasy. There is no genuineness in taking it up in a national way.

WHU Would the making of disciples carry the thought of securing material for the assembly, not merely to bring in relief by the gospel, but to secure the persons?

JT That is the idea. Making disciples would mean that a new system of teaching is brought in, and these three thousand people are genuinely affected by it. They are not merely changing their religion, but are genuinely affected, not only by what these men say, but by what the apostles were. They must have taken them as their models. Paul says, “Ye became our imitators, and of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1: 6).

LDM Is there a slowness to avail ourselves of the teaching? The recognition of the Spirit in the temple means that a new constitution is built up. Is that often lacking with souls who confess the Lord?

JT Just so. It is most interesting to see in the early chapters of Acts, how God supported these twelve men. Chapter 5, as already alluded to, is very striking as to the power they acquire, especially ^[p. 188] in discipline. After Ananias and Sapphira were dealt with for sin, it is said, “And great fear came upon all the assembly, and upon all who heard these things. And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders done among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch, but of the rest durst no man join them, but the people magnified them; and believers were more than ever added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women;) so that they brought out the sick into the streets and put them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter, when he came, might overshadow some one of them. And the multitude also of the cities round about came together to Jerusalem, bringing sick persons and persons beset by unclean spirits, who were all healed” (Acts 5: 11 - 16). That paragraph is to bring out how God is supporting the twelve even in the presence of severe antagonism that might terrify some, but the people magnified them. “They were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch”. I believe that what has been remarked as to these chapters is of prime importance as to ministry, that the persons who minister are to be the reflection of the things ministered, and hence affect their hearers rightly.

JH Does that mean that the teaching according to Matthew is to so morally affect us that we help to affect others?

JT Yes. Matthew is very stringent. Of course, grace runs through Matthew, as in the other gospels, but he stresses responsibility and what is needed for the time, so that the assembly might be supported. In giving this instruction the Lord says, “I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. That is the principle of the inauguration of christianity.

CAI Does the economy in this way become operative and effective towards us through these ^[p. 189] men being brought into it? John in his epistle says the apostles’ fellowship was with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, and we have fellowship with the apostles.

JT Yes. The apostles have a particular place. Perhaps it is something not noticed much by the brethren, but John says, “Our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1: 3). Then “that ye also may have fellowship with us”, that is with the apostles, not, in this respect, directly with the Father and the Son. In setting out the testimony the apostles have a special place.

FW The scripture in Matthew emphasises the three names of the divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but in Acts 2 it is God and Christ and the Spirit. Would they understand then that God was the Father?

JT Peter had said, “having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear” (Acts 2: 33). Clearly the twelve understood, for the Lord unfolded the thought of the Father when He assembled with them, especially as seen in John 14 to 17; and Acts 1: 4 says, “being assembled with them, commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father”. Then He alludes to the Spirit, “ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit”. When they enquired when He would restore the kingdom He says, “It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority; but ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you” (Acts 1: 7, 8). It is clear, therefore, that the twelve had in mind the thought of the economy, for the Lord had distinguished between the Father and Himself and the ^[p. 190] Spirit.

FW I had in mind Acts 2: 38, 39. “Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God may call”. There is no reference in connection with that to the term “Father” as indicated by the Lord in Matthew.

JT But he said in preaching, “Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this” (verse 33). The apostles would have the economy in mind throughout. Christ received the Spirit from the Father to give to the saints — to the assembly. When we come to 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “to us there is one God, the Father”. So that for all true christians, Paul included, it is clearly recognised that the Father is God in the economy, and that the Son — that is the Lord — has all things in His hands to accomplish. Things are done by Him; “and we by him”.

AMH Does God stand in relation to the call to the conscience, for it says repentance towards God, and in coming to God we learn that He is the Father?

JT I think that is how it comes out in the epistles. It is the gospel of God concerning His Son. That is the general position. Paul says, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations” (Galatians 1: 15, 16). John says, “the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world” (1 John 4: 14). This shows that the thing was in their minds. I believe the Father is spoken of in every epistle. Clearly the divine economy was in the minds of the ^[p. 191] apostles throughout.

CAI In this dispensation is God known in relation to any other name than Father, or are our relations with Him always in relation to that name?

JT That is as viewed in the economy — the economy operative. Of course, Christ is said to be the true God in John, and God is the true God. In John it is said of Christ, “He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5: 20). Not only that, but He has part in the creation, He is representative of God, being Himself God. He is called the true God, and so is the Father.

Ques One has wondered how far we really are right in addressing the Lord so much in prayer, or whether more should be addressed to the Father?

JT That is a good point to have before us. We must be clear that the Son is to be honoured as well as the Father is honoured. We are thus kept safe in our souls as to His Person. So long as we are well grounded as to the Person of Christ, we can look at the economy. If we look at the epistle to the Corinthians we can see how He has taken a lower or mediatorial place as One who is to do everything, having God in mind. That is why this passage is so important. It is very concise, showing how Paul puts the truth to the Corinthians. “To us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Corinthians 8: 6).

WHU Would the nature of our petitions govern us in regard to the Person addressed?

JT Well, it is not easy to divide them up.

WHU I was wondering if we would more naturally address the Lord when speaking about assembly matters, and God when speaking about the pressure and circumstances of our brethren.

JT You would have to make full allowance as to how divine Persons are addressed by the apostles. God certainly is addressed in regard to assembly ^[p. 192] matters. The best way to reach the truth is to look into what Scripture says. Look at the examples we have of prayer. How very much more prayer is to the Father and to God than to the Lord! Yet we must keep clearly in our minds that the Lord is to be prayed to.

FJF Paul in asking about the thorn says, “I thrice besought the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12: 8).

JT That is a good example of one praying to the Lord. But God is addressed in prayer and worship, in the examples we have in Scripture, much more often than the Lord Jesus.

Ques Would Paul address the Lord there because he is accepting the discipline connected with it?

JT It would seem as if the Lord took the matter up with Paul in view of the abundance of the revelations, lest he be exalted above measure. The Lord is particularly interested in the matter, lest His servant be damaged in any way. “This man is an elect vessel to me, to bear my name before both nations and kings and the sons of Israel: for I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name” (Acts 9: 15, 16). The Lord seems to take a peculiar interest in these two outstanding servants, Paul and Peter. This would not mean that they are the only ones, because we all in measure are interesting to Him. It would seem that in making us His ministers, He would take special interest in us.

AMH Job says, “thou wouldest have a desire after the work of thy hands” (Job 14: 15). Each one taken in hand by the Lord is peculiarly precious to Him.

FJF “But the body is ... for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Corinthians 6: 13).

JT That is a good scripture as confirming what we are saying.

AMH “By whom are all things, and we by him”. This would turn the mind especially to the Lord in relation to formation.

JT Quite so. If one wanted to be helped and to be fitted for the service, one should certainly turn to the Lord about it.

RMD Would emphasising the thought of the one God, the Father in any way limit the thought of the Father to the present dispensation?

JT No, I do not think so at all. “To us” would be, of course, to christians, but Matthew shows that the revelation extends to the Jews too. The earlier chapters of Matthew contemplate the Jewish remnant and their being brought into the light of the Father.

CAI Will Israel be blessed in millennial conditions in relation to the Father?

JT Yes. The revelation of God involves the Father.

AMH Has the scripture you read a final reference to Israel? We do not baptise nations, do we?

JT It does not seem as if it were ever carried out. On the other hand, I suppose going out from Galilee would imply the Jewish remnant viewed in that connection. It is a Galilean situation, having the nations as such in view. The remnant of Israel in reproach — not in Jerusalem — are in view, Christ now known as with them, and they carrying on in power to the end of the age.

AMH We baptise out of the nations, taking out individuals.

JT Quite so. God visited the nations to take out a people.

FF Would the passage in 1 Corinthians 8 be in view of the liberty of christians, setting us free by this knowledge of the Father?

JT That is the way it is put. “To us there is one God, the Father”. It is “to us”. It was definitely ^[p. 194] taken up by the apostles. The economy was understood, and they regarded God as the supreme object of worship, and all that God conveys is set out in the Father, but not in any restrictive way because elsewhere the Son is said to be the true God too. It shows that we have to look at each passage in its own connection, and view it from the standpoint of the economy. The apostles moved in relation to the Father, as now representing the one true God as Jehovah did in the Old Testament. Now the other two Persons have come to light and They are operating in this subservient way. They are pleased to take that position. “By whom are all things” refers to Christ as Lord, the Spirit operating in relation to Him to bring in everything for God. “Of whom” (chapter 8: 6), would mean that we are “of” God, the Father, but it is Christ who has brought us in “for him”. He has made us for God. “By whom are all things” is instrumentality.

RMD Would “by whom are all things” be what John refers to in the opening verses of his gospel? “All things received being through him, and without him not one thing received being which has received being” (John 1: 3).

JT It is the same thing, only he is alluding there to creation, all that had been effected before, our Lord being then in the form of God. Now He has become incarnate, and in this position is the one Lord, Jesus Christ. Peter says, “God has made him ... both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2: 36). Paul says, “one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. He is the One doing things, and we by Him. There is a positive result in the service of Christ in this way.

CAI Would the reference to the gospel of God concerning His Son in Romans, and also God having sent His own Son (Romans 8: 3), indicate that God as referred to is ^[p. 195] the Father?

JT The word God never loses its fulness. The word Father is more limited, so that the word God should stand out in our souls. God judges, for instance, but the Father judges no one, so we are to understand that if it says, “God our Father” that Person is to be regarded as God. If the judgment is to take place, it is through the Mediator, the Son, the Lord. The Father “has given all judgment to the Son” (John 5: 22), because He is Son of man, but still God is doing it. God made the worlds, but then One now known as Son, did it in detail. It is very difficult to put the truth of the Deity into words; it is impossible really. There is this doctrine, of course, but if we are to get the truth, the way is to set ourselves, as it were, alongside the Lord and in dependence on Him, compare the Scriptures. See how the disciples looked at things! They are the ones commissioned to teach and we are to learn from them. “Teaching them”, the Lord said, “to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you”. Let us see how they looked at things.

John 20 fits in, after we see there is one God the Father, as Christ’s Father and Christ’s God. We are now on another level. It is a question of being brought into our proper relations and privileges, and how we are being brought into our position which answers to the purpose of God. The Lord is going all the way here; it is a climax to regard Him in this light; His Father, our Father; His God, our God. He is bringing us on to a wonderful plane so that we are to understand that we are His brethren. He calls us “My brethren”.

FJF Does this involve the truth of his Headship as set forth by Paul?

JT Well, of course, that is Paul’s line. This is the family side. Paul is the family line too, but headship has to do in its fulness with the administration: “head over all things to the assembly, which ^[p. 196] is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1: 22, 23). It is what He is in a public way, so to speak. The Lord in John 20 takes up Mary who is now thoroughly adjusted and in touch with Him, and gives her the message to the brethren. He says, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. He is bringing them into the family position, answering to the purpose of God. He has in mind, too, what they are to be here in testimony: the passage goes on to that, but He would first set them in their souls on this wonderful level.

LDM Do you get stress laid on the thought of the disciples? “Where the disciples were”. It is not the assembly, but rather the persons.

JT It is persons, and an inner thought — where they were. The next time “his disciples were again within”, again showing the inner thought, which they understood. They are in the spirit of the thing; they were again within, and “then came Jesus”. The Spirit of God records the fact so as to produce an effect in our minds. It is that inner things are in mind. John has that in mind. David built “inward”, (2 Samuel 5: 9).

In Ephesians 2: 17 Christ is seen as preaching. “Coming, he has preached the glad tidings of peace to you who were afar off, and the glad tidings of peace to those who were nigh”. This shows that the full thought in preaching is a mediatorial thought, an administrative thought. It is not the apostles here, but it is the Lord Himself who operates, and by Him we have access, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”. So that the three Persons are there together. Christ is preaching, and now He is available to us, by whom we draw near to God the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the three divine Persons are ^[p. 197] there together as we draw near to the Father. The passage contemplates that the economy is understood, that God is to be worshipped, or spoken to by us, but it is through Christ and by the Spirit.

Ques Perhaps some of us do not understand clearly your thought in the word ‘economy’.

JT The word is often used as that in which things are ordered and administered. The word rendered “dispensation” in 1 Timothy 1: 4 (New Translation), conveys the thought. It is the Father, the Son and the Spirit, viewed as they are seen in Matthew 28, operating in that relation. “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand” (John 3: 35). Thus chapter 4 is to be taken up in that light, that the Son is now operating in this dispensation. He says to the woman, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water” (John 4: 10). That is the position. The Son is operating in the economy, the Father has put everything into His hand, and He is speaking about the wonderful gift of God, and who He Himself is. The delight in, and knowledge of, Himself is put in the believer’s soul by the Spirit. If she did ask, she would get the living water, which implies the Spirit. Another thing that comes out is that the believer, as receiving the light of the economy and the Spirit, becomes part of it, because the woman immediately proceeds to the men and tells them about Christ. She says, “Is not he the Christ?” — the One who is doing things. She is affected, and the men are affected, too; so the thought spreads.

AMH In this scripture in John 20 there is no question but that the Father is presented to us in family relationship, but would it be right to say that in Corinthians it is rather the character of the economy that is brought before us, and the abundance of ^[p. 198] grace with the Father? Would you bring relationship into that line or not?

JT I think it is more what you say, the abundance of grace in the Father. It is the Father, the point is not whose Father He is, but that Person in that relation. Hence the Lord says the Father judges no one. In administration the appellation denotes grace; love too, of course. So that “to us there is one God, the Father” would mean that Paul would have in mind what God is going on with in the economy. Christ is operating, and He has brought us into it.

AMH The highest level is that we are brought into this relationship together with Christ and with the Father. We often speak about sons of God, but not often of sons of the Father. Would you say something as to that?

JT I think sons of the Father is quite right, but generally speaking it is sons of God. The Father is a progressive thought; God being the ultimate thought; and it is God according to the scripture in Hebrews 2, although God is not mentioned formally. “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2: 10). That is God and what He is doing.

Rem “Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8: 17).

JT Quite so.

LDM David says in his wonderful prayer, “And now, Jehovah, thou art that God” (1 Chronicles 17: 26). I was wondering whether there was some anticipation of the economy in David’s mind, because of the variety of expressions he uses in addressing God.

JT There is such peculiar richness, that you might well say he goes beyond his ^[p. 199] dispensation.

FW Would sons of God be a more appropriate expression for us because we are sons of God in Christ, not directly?

JT We are sons of God. The formal statement to us is “ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 26). Other scriptures, particularly Ephesians 1: 3 - 6, show that our position before God is in Christ, but the best authorities, including J.N.D., connect faith with Christ Jesus in Galatians 3: 26; that is, that Christ is the object of faith. I think, too, we are safe in saying that we are sons of God in a sense directly, for it says “ye are all God’s sons”, and also “because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Galatians 4: 6). This makes us consciously sons; but hearts crying “Abba, Father” places us directly in relation to God, and yet we cannot ignore that there must be a mediatorial thought in it.

FW The question of sonship is important in that way. We are sons by adoption, not by birth.

JT We come into it now by faith, and the Spirit is the Spirit of adoption in us. “God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”, and this makes us consciously sons, but, still the mediatorial thought must be there, because we are there before God in Christ, and our access is by Him. We cannot even draw near to the Father except by Him, John 14: 6.

ESH The adoption is “through Jesus Christ to himself” (Ephesians 1: 5).

JT He would have us to understand the position — that all is in and through Christ. God loves to hear us speak to Him in the Spirit of adoption as Christ spoke to Him.

FJF Is everything directed to God the Father in that way, because He has remained in what might be called the essential place of ^[p. 200] God?

JT Well, everything, as we might say, that stands related to the economy, but other things have to be borne in mind. The Lord is seen as God. “He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5: 20). We must make room for that. It is remarkable in John’s writings, especially in the epistles, how the pronouns are used. We cannot be sure whether it is the Father or the Son, showing that we should not pigeon-hole these inscrutably great things. The best way is to hold the truth in faith and make room for enlargement in ourselves.