4. RELATIONS IN WHICH GOD IS KNOWN - GOD KNOWN IN THE ASSEMBLY

^[p. 443] 4. RELATIONS IN WHICH GOD IS KNOWN - GOD KNOWN IN THE ASSEMBLY

Ephesians 2: 14 - 22; 2 Chronicles 3: 10 - 14; 1 Corinthians 14: 23 - 33

JT The order in which our great subject comes before us is, first, God in creation; secondly, God in Christ personally as a Man here; and then God in the economy which He has set up, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to which His people and servants are committed. During the present meeting how God is known in the assembly in its provisional state here on earth will be considered. This afternoon, God willing, it will be God in the assembly too, only in its eternal or final relations.

It is thought we should begin with Ephesians, because the epistle contemplates the calling of God on high; the greatness of the saints in sonship, and that we are raised up together, and made to sit down together in the heavenlies, and as such, constituting the assembly. The assembly is formed therefore of heavenly persons and is a heavenly institution here on earth, so that verse 22 says, “in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”. That is, the gentiles as such are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. Ephesians gives us the assembly as a heavenly vessel; according to the record in Acts 10 the vessel came down, and was taken up finally. It is down here provisionally as a vessel; the sheet being knit at the four corners indicating its universal bearing. The passage in 2 Chronicles 3 shows in type the holiest of all, in which God was symbolised in the cherubim and the ark. The cherubim were looking “toward the house;” that is, they looked outward. God, as it were, looking out to see man returning to Him. According to Luke 15 the father of the prodigal is looking out for the son returning. Then in 1 Corinthians it is the ^[p. 444] same feature, only it is God there in a prophetic way, convicting; working in the assembly through the prophets.

AR I suppose your references to Acts 10, 2 Chronicles and Luke 15, have in view the incoming of the gentiles.

JT It is the gentiles who are in view, as in Ephesians 2: 22, “ye also”, the apostle says, “are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”. There are hardly any Jews in it now. The assembly is almost altogether formed of gentiles, but still a habitation of God.

HH What would be the link between Luke 15 and Ephesians 2?

JT Luke’s house would be Paul’s assembly. He does not speak of the assembly formally, but refers to “the house”. When the elder brother came up to the house there was music and dancing in it, occasioned by the return of the prodigal, but he would not go in. It was there, however, and others had gone in, and would go in, but he would not go in. The Jew would not go in. On the other hand, John would exclude the Jew by shutting the doors against him; that is, the Jew characteristically. The Jewish element has come into the religious formations of Christendom.

SP Would the house in Luke be the outcome of what we had yesterday in Matthew 28: 19 — “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”?

JT Yes, it would be that, because Matthew has the assembly in this provisional sense in mind. He is the only evangelist who mentions it formally as set up here in an authoritative way. He quotes the Lord as alluding to it in chapter 16 as “my assembly”. In chapter 18 discipline is connected with it. If one does not listen to the assembly he is to be treated “as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer” (Matthew 18: 17).

ANW ^[p. 445] Why does the body seem to require both Jew and gentile? Both seem to be emphasised in connection with the body, while as to the habitation, the emphasis is on “ye” the gentiles.

JT The Spirit of God prophetically intimated that as time went on the assembly generally would be formed of gentiles. At the beginning it was Jew and gentile, according to our passage: “that he might form the two in himself into one new man” (Ephesians 2: 15), a great triumph of God in a moral sense. The middle wall was broken down. In subsequent history the Jew drops out. Paul at Rome formally states “this salvation of God has been sent to the nations”. He turned away from the Jews as they had turned away from him. He quotes Isaiah 6, and then says, “Be it known to you therefore, that this salvation of God has been sent to the nations; they also will hear it” (Acts 28: 28), as if they were judicially set aside. Henceforth it would be a gentile matter.

AR Bring forth the best robe; it is for one son, not for two.

JT Yes, the heavenly side of the truth is in mind, Paul’s assembly. Luke would have that in mind, the prodigal is arrayed in the best robe.

ANW The emphatic “ye” in Ephesians 2: 22, cannot be put into chapter 3: 21 in connection with “the assembly in Christ Jesus”.

JT No, that is the eternal relations of the assembly, the complete whole, historically and numerically, as in its eternal place and function. The “ye” is stressed in chapter 2, because the gentile is in mind, showing the idea of the habitation of God runs on, even though there are no Jews.

HH Does the prodigal in Luke 15 suggest the point reached down here?

JT Yes, it a provisional state of things. The house is not formally stated at first, but it is when the music and dancing are proceeding, showing that ^[p. 446] a happy state of things was there. I suppose the elder brother would fit in with the end of Acts; Paul says, “we turn to the nations” (Acts 13: 46). The Jew would not receive the truth; he would not go in. The Lord begins after that to give parables like the rich man and Lazarus.

WB-w The Jew nationally was shut out. Is that the idea of the elder brother?

JT Yes. As men, as having part in the human race, they are objects of the gospel, but it is no longer to “the Jew first”, it is to the gentiles according to Acts 28, as we have seen.

JS The seven assemblies are said to be in the province of Asia, outside of judaism altogether. Although there were many assemblies in Judaea, they are not mentioned.

Rem Although the Jew is shut out, this does not affect the truth of the reconciliation of the world.

JT Not at all. Of course, they came in in great numbers under Peter’s ministry and that of the other eleven apostles. Paul, in his ministry amongst the gentiles, made a point of speaking to the Jews first, and many of course, were converted, but the time came when they were formally rejected — at Rome, Acts 28. He says, “wrath has come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thessalonians 2: 16). That would correspond to John 3: 36”he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him”. That is the Jews’ position. Our verse in the end of Ephesians 2 shows that the gentiles by themselves continue the idea of habitation of God in the Spirit.

ANW What did the Father mean in Luke 15: 31, “All that is mine is thine”.

JT That involves the Jews’ place in the ways o God; they came into the heirship of the world through Abraham. Paul speaks in Romans 9: 4, 5, of what belonged to them. The Lord recognises them ^[p. 447] as His brethren in Matthew 25: 40, saying to the nations, “Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me”. That will be His Jewish brethren, known as doing the will of God, showing they had first place with Him. The nations are blessed through them. I suppose that will be the millennial position.

JB Do you think the Jewish mind kept the Galatians from enjoying sonship?

JT That accentuates what we are saying as to shutting out the Jew in his natural characteristics. Paul says, “I would that they would even cut themselves off who throw you into confusion” (Galatians 5: 12). That is the Jewish element. Paul says, to the Thessalonians, they are against all men, they persecuted us and cast us out and wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2: 15, 16). That is their present position. We may get one or two in, but on the ground of being men, not on the ground of being Jews. They have no priority now at all.

WGT The Syrophenician woman represented the moral state that will exist among the gentiles, seen as sheep in Matthew 25.

JT She first took Jewish ground; thus she was not owned by the Lord, she was a Canaanite. She says, Son of David have mercy on me. He did not even answer her. She must take her true place, according to the Lord’s remarks (Matthew 15: 26, 27). That was because the Jew had priority then, but they have not now. The gentiles have been in view for many centuries. The Jews have hardly any part in the testimony.

ANW In John 4, the Lord particularly says to the woman of Samaria, “salvation is of the Jews”, when did that cease?

JT That remark was to put the Samaritan in her place. She was a Samaritan; the Samaritans claimed equality with the Jews. They assumed Jacob ^[p. 448] was their father. It was a false position. The Lord’s remarks adjusted the woman. What we are speaking of now hinged on their final rejection of the gospel through Paul. He says, in 1 Thessalonians 2: 14 - 16, “For ye, brethren, have become imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus; for ye also have suffered the same things of your own countrymen as also they of the Jews, who have both slain the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have driven us out by persecution, and do not please God, and are against all men, forbidding us to speak to the nations that they may be saved, that they may fill up their sins always: but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost”. I think that is the word. That happened when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. The Lord alluded to it: “for these are days of avenging that all the things that are written may be accomplished”. That is vengeance on the Jews, and then it goes on to say, “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations until the times of the nations be fulfilled” (Luke 21: 24). That is running on now, and they have no priority; there is hardly any representation of them in the assembly. There are some of course, but generally it is the gentile who is forming the habitation of God now.

JS Do you think the Jew failed to accept his position nationally as set among the nations?

JT Really it is a question of hatred to Christ, going beyond Jewish territory in persecuting the gentiles, even forbidding the gospel to be preached to them. Well, that was a sin against the Holy Spirit you may say. Wrath thus comes on them. It is Paul’s ministry that was refused really so that he turns to the gentiles, that is how the matter stands.

HH Would the Canaanitish woman of Matthew 15: 22, of whom we have spoken, be in good time for the structure Christ was ^[p. 449] building?

JT Just so. Matthew follows up the Syrophenician case. She came in on the ground of humility, taking the place of a dog, the gentile’s place. The Lord stresses that the Jew still had priority, and she comes in on the ground of taking a dog’s place. Then chapter 16 brings in Caesarea Philippi, a sort of allusion to the gentile world. That was where the Lord spoke about His assembly.

JRH Evidently they had the priority when the epistle to the Romans was written, “to the Jew first”.

JT Yes, but the epistle to the Thessalonians contemplates the governmental change.

CHH Does not Romans 10: 12 contemplate that too? “For there is no difference of Jew and Greek; for the same Lord of all is rich towards all that call upon him”.

JT Quite so. Romans 9, 10, 11 set out Israel’s position as having rejected the gospel. Israel is set aside, the gentiles taking its place provisionally.

EP Does Ephesians 2: 15 suggest that the formation of unity takes place under great difficulties? I was thinking especially of the thought of enmity: “having annulled the enmity ... that he might form the two in himself into one new man”.

JT The enmity was great. The pride of the Jew in his religious place with God outwardly was so great that God intended to show His triumph in breaking that down — in a man like Saul of Tarsus, for instance, an arrogant despiser of the gentiles. Peter too saying, “I have never eaten anything common or unclean” — the triumph of God in breaking all that down, I think was in mind. It is stated here, “For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, having annulled the enmity in his flesh” (Ephesians 2: 14, 15). The Lord’s death on the cross is in mind. Verses 15, 16, 17, “having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ^[p. 450] ordinances, that he might form the two in himself into one new man, making peace; and might reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; and, 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”. The breaking down of the enmity, the formation of one new man, and unity in the one body. This is the basis of the testimony going out to the gentiles. It is said the Lord preached to the gentiles first, “coming, he has preached the glad tidings of peace to you who were afar off, and ... to those who were nigh”.

EP Would the price paid for the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite fit in at all, having in mind the house of God?

JT It is remarkable, that it is the threshing floor of a Jebusite. Ornan was ready to offer the threshing floor, oxen and implements to David for use in the building of the house; this is to be credited to him. David would not offer to God what cost him nothing; that was David’s point of view, but it did not set aside the liberality of the Jebusite. Really he was coming into position for the house.

HH It was a worthy contribution of a gentile touched by the testimony in that day.

JT He, and his four sons, are thoroughly with David. It is very suggestive, a family actually operating in what is good, not leaving their father, but working with him in the threshing floor.

HH I suppose we are on the threshing floor now. The wheat is to be saved and the chaff to be dismissed. That goes on with us as of the assembly down here.

JT Yes. The relation of the threshing floor to the house is very suggestive. It is a question of separating the wheat from the chaff. Matthew takes it up, “and he shall thoroughly purge his threshing-floor”. We have it in Gideon too. We have it when Jacob was buried. When we die, great separation is effected.

SP Would you say something on the force of “form the two in himself into one new man” (Ephesians 2: 15)?

JT It is an important word. In Ephesians 4: 24, the new man is said to be “created in truthful righteousness and holiness;” the body is in mind. Making the two into one “in himself”, would speak of a more personal touch; each one is invaluable. You can see how the Lord took up Paul and expended great care on him, to form him. The new man is also renewed in knowledge after the image of Him who created him. Saul of Tarsus, an austere, proud, arrogant man, received great attention from the Lord; he was cared for and personally entertained by the brethren before he went out to preach. The first chapter of Genesis is creation, but the second is formation. God formed Adam in an ornamental way; how much more so the assembly; the new man involves this. That He might form or create (chapter 2: 15 is the same in the Greek as chapter 4: 24) the two into one new man, and that “in himself;” the personal touch is in that. The passage runs on to “making peace” and reconciling both in one body. The body is formed too (see Psalm 139: 14 - 16).

SP Is the suggestion to be seen in Paul’s personal word to each saint at the end of Romans, calling them by name?

JT What enters into that, as we were remarking earlier, is the idea of reconciliation. “God ... reconciling the world to himself”. The idea of reconciliation underlies all these salutations. Paul, as he contemplated the Romans, must have known a good many of them. There are about twenty “salutes” in ^[p. 452] the chapter. All whom he saluted would be pleasing to God, as they were pleasing to him.

AR In 2 Chronicles there is the preparation of the material under Hiram, king of Tyre, then the putting together in chapter 3.

JT Typical of assembly material and formation. Exodus from chapter 25 has that in mind right through; what the material was basically, and then what it was as formed by Bezaleel. Everything is made. We get a good illustration of this idea of formation in the end of Matthew. The women came to the tomb with the spices. They saw the angel, who represented authority; but they were full of dark thoughts; he says to them, “Fear not ye ... . Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and say to his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goes before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him. Behold, I have told you” (Matthew 28: 5 - 7). That is authority. They went quickly to the disciples, and as they were going, the Lord met them and says, “Hail!” He salutes them. They were moving in obedience. The Lord honours us as moving in subjection to Him. That is how formation takes place. Instead of calling them “disciples”, He says, “go, bring word to my brethren”, (Matthew 28: 10). The women were themselves to fit into that, because formation must enter into our place amongst the brethren.

JRH Isaiah 43: 1 — “But now thus saith Jehovah, that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine”.

JT In that passage we have creation, agreeing with Genesis 1: 1, and formation, agreeing with Genesis 2: 7.

TU Is Peter coming into this, as learning by the sheet let down? The Jew formed in assembly ^[p. 453] thought, as you are suggesting, and the bringing in of the gentile in Cornelius.

JT Yes. Paul is particularly a good representation of a Jew transformed; and he uses the word in Romans 12: 2, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. “We all ... with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image” (2 Corinthians 3: 18). It is a metamorphosis; implying a substantial change in the formation. When God said, “make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25), there was not only basic material specified, but men qualified to do the work. The thought of basic material corresponds with Genesis 1, and formation with Genesis 2. Bezaleel and Aholiab did the making.

McK. At Antioch we have a picture of what you have in mind. “Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work” (Acts 13: 1, 2). Divine formation was found with these men.

JT The assembly there is presented as the work of Paul and Barnabas. They taught in the assembly for a whole year. The formation went on in all the four seasons of the year — all circumstances. Now we have the finished product in Acts 13. From that point we have Paul and Barnabas sent out, “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”. They were to go out from the heart of the gentile assembly and they return to it after their first missionary journey.

JS Antioch was the first assembly functioning outside of the Jewish economy.

JT Yes — functioning. It was a finished product, the product of the work of these two men in the assembly. It is said they taught “in the assembly”,

^[p. 454] a large crowd. You have to distinguish the two thoughts: a large crowd, and the assembly. The idea of “crowd” disappeared, and the assembly stood out. Now the Spirit of God can address that company. “Separate me now”. It is a perfect state of things in the gentile setting.

APT Does this provisional system require holiness? In 2 Chronicles 3: 10 the word says, “in the house of the most holy place”. Not only an actual place, but what it is characteristically is emphasised — holy of holies. It is the house of that.

JT Yes. The passage read was suggested because of the position of the cherubim as different from Exodus. Exodus is the habitation for the wilderness; it has not the gospel in mind; there was no incoming in Exodus. The cherubim looked down on the mercy seat. It spoke of God in His infinite majesty looking down on the sacrifice of Christ as the basis for everything. That is Exodus. When we come to the temple in Chronicles, it is a fixed heavenly thing (2 Chronicles 6: 2). The cherubim were looking out. The Authorised Version says they looked inward, but the New Translation says, “their faces were toward the house” (2 Chronicles 3: 13). They looked toward the outer house, to suggest that God is looking for men to come in, like the father of the prodigal. Kings is more the heavenly, assembly side. There is no veil in Kings, but there is in Chronicles, which would refer more to the earthly side in the future, but the gospel side now, for God is now in the assembly as seen in Paul’s ministry, looking out on men.

SMcC In regard of God in the assembly by the Spirit, how does this thought link with what we have had previously as to God here in Christ?

JT It is a question of finishing, and of divine skill. As in the assembly, God is known in His abode, in which He is in touch, or can be in touch ^[p. 455] with men. Of course this was true in Christ, for He was in the Pharisee’s house — an unconverted man. God was there in Christ reconciling, but that was preliminary. Paul’s ministry was the great thought in mind. The three and a half years of the Lord’s life were preliminary. The testimony in the full thought of God needed the assembly. The Lord did not have the assembly when He was down here, He sent out the twelve. In Acts 2 they are all together in one place, and the Spirit comes in the form of cloven tongues as of fire, and sat on each one of the hundred and twenty persons there; each would have something distinctive by the Spirit. The Spirit sat on each in the form of cloven tongues of fire. Each one is to be representative of this great matter. God is there in relation to man. He is there provisionally to get at men. When we come to Cornelius, Peter is not just equal to this service, to go out to the gentiles. God makes him equal, and suitable, to preach to Cornelius through the great sheet which came down. That is the idea of the assembly. It is the vast bearing of the thing. God is in it in a universal way, in order to get at men. We are working with men, every day we get at them. It is God in the assembly, so as we see in Corinth, the unconverted man comes in and finds God there in the midst.

SMcC In Christ it was more on the principle of compression. What we have now is far more extended and expanded.

JT It is still Christ, of course, but “Christ in you” — extended through the gospel. As here in the flesh, Christ deliberately came into small circumstances, so that God Himself in a Person equal to Himself, was near to men in grace. The assembly is not divine, but it is God’s habitation. Christ Himself was equal to the Father. He was in outwardly compressed circumstances. Weary with His journey He ^[p. 456] sat at the well and asked a drink of water from a woman. But He said, “If thou knewest ... who it is ... thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water” (John 4: 10). The Lord Jesus was equal to the Father. He says, “I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how am I straitened until it shall have been accomplished” (Luke 12: 50). He is not straitened now, hence He also says, “He that believes on me ... shall do greater [works] than these, because I go to the Father” (John 14: 12).

JB Referring again to 2 Chronicles 3, in the last few verses of the last chapter of Acts, would the cherubim be seen looking out? The passage speaks of Paul being two whole years in his own hired lodging, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom unhinderedly.

JT Quite so. He is a prisoner, in the very heart of the gentile world, but he is more expanded, more enlarged than ever. That shows what is in mind. We have this very Ephesian epistle from that prison-house.

SMcC Is it not interesting that we have the heavenly side in 1 Kings? In 2 Chronicles the verses given to ornamentation are only about half of what are given in the Kings.

JT Yes. In Kings it is a question of heavenly grandeur and expanse; houses are mentioned that are not in Chronicles at all. When God is proceeding in regard to men, it is not a question so much of grandeur, as of getting at their souls. In Chronicles it is the official position on earth, with the veil and the altar. Man is relieved, he has come to understand God in removing the distance between Himself and man. Israel’s millennial position is in view. Solomon went to Gibeon to “God’s tent of meeting ^[p. 457] which Moses the servant of Jehovah had made in the wilderness” (2 Chronicles 1: 3).

CAM Referring to our scripture in Ephesians, “the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2: 21).

JT I thought the idea there refers rather to the millennium. It runs into the idea of “a holy temple in the Lord”. It is more than that now. I suppose the bearing of this reference to the temple is that when the millennial day is inaugurated, there will be no dark counsels such as there are in the nations now. Everything will be divinely clear. What the Lord is doing will be understood, because in the temple things are explained — it is “in the Lord”. In Corinthians the saints are said to be “temple of God”. It is what we are now, because of the Holy Spirit being in us. Everything is explainable now and explained too, because of the Holy Spirit; not only is He down here, He is in the saints as the temple of God.

JS The millennium would be finality in respect of government.

JT Yes. In the millennial day everything will be clear. The assembly will come down from God, her shining “as a crystal-like jasper stone;” and the river “bright as crystal, going out of the throne of God”.

AR Ephesians 2: 21 is the millennium; verse 22 is the present moment.

JT Verse 22 is more limited, it is provisional in view of the fact that the Jews are not much in evidence now. It applies to the present time.

ANW What would be the prime reason for God occupying this habitation now?

JT To be near to men in family affection. His habitation in the eternal state of things too will be the assembly. In verse 21 the building is not viewed as completed, it is “growing to” a temple. In verse ^[p. 458] 21 the assembly composed of Jew and gentile is in view. It is the great general thought, but increasing to “a holy temple in the Lord”. The gentiles at Ephesus were built in too, to be now already a habitation of God by the presence of the Spirit, but the word “ye” goes beyond Ephesus, it comes down to the time when there are only gentiles.

JS We have Christ, a Man, in heaven, and God on earth.

JT That is the idea, God is here by the Spirit, by the power of the Spirit, so that He sat on each of those together at Pentecost.

WB-w God is seen dwelling in the Corinthians according to the passage read (1 Corinthians 14).

JT Yes. I thought we might see how this comes down to the ministry meeting. The chapter shows how the operations are carried on, and that God is concerned that they may be carried on in an orderly way; because it is a question of Himself, He is the God of order.

EP Is there a suggestion in a “simple person” coming in, that there is something attractive about it? As “he drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing” (Luke 15: 25).

JT The whole chapter suggests that the assembly should be ornamented in a spiritual sense. Paul says, If I am singing a hymn, “I will sing with the spirit” (1 Corinthians 14: 15). I want my spirit to be in it, not merely the words, “but I will sing also with the understanding”. I am singing right words. The order of the assembly includes the dress we wear and the way we sit. Some sit as though they were just waiting for a train; that is not right. We ought to be reverential in the assembly. If we speak, we should not speak with slang words, but with right words, having a spiritual setting; words the Holy Spirit would indite. Many other things enter into this matter. God is concerned about the vessel ^[p. 459] through which the testimony goes out to men. What is there before their eyes? That is what they are to be brought into, and they must be formed accordingly.

AHP Do you think the prominence of the Holy Spirit in the finishing touches of His work is important?

JT Yes. What we are saying now is most important. God is a God of order, Corinthians is stressing order. It is God’s assembly. He has set the gifts in it; all the vessels, the servants, adorn it. He is concerned that what goes out to men should be ornamental. Luke presents the Lord at Nazareth in His service as attractive: how He spoke; how He stood to read the Scriptures, “having rolled up the book, when he had delivered it up to the attendant, he sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon him” (Luke 4: 20). The Spirit records this as showing that the ministry is to be enhanced in the minister. That is the reason why order in the assembly is stressed in 1 Corinthians; it is what is down here.

JWD That is what affected the queen of Sheba as to Solomon.

JT What she saw, the deportment of his servants, and the order of service of his attendants, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of Jehovah. “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints” (verse 33). Then the apostle refers to women, how they are to act, and other things. In fact, he begins in chapter 11 about this matter of order. God wants things according to Himself. In verse 26 we have, “What is it then, brethren? whenever ye come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edification”. That is to be the minister’s motive; everything is for edification.

SP You are distinguishing between certain ministry and the prophetic word. In a meeting there might be a lack of what is prophetic.

JT Quite so. This chapter stresses prophecy. It is a thing we ought to be concerned about — the prophetic word; but then, if I have not that, have I a psalm? That is the first thing Paul mentioned; “each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation”.

SP What is in mind in a psalm?

JT Experience based on the truth. There are five books of Psalms, and five books in the Pentateuch. The books of Moses would represent the truth divinely presented; a psalm is experience based on this.

CAM Would you say that Jonah, although a prophet, in chapter 2 composes a psalm? Chapter 2 is in poetical rhythm.

JT God made him a psalmist before he preached to Nineveh.

NB The chapter contemplates that only two, or at the most three, should speak. Would each one bringing something distinctive promote disorder?

JT I do not think so. An effort by a second speaker to merely follow what the first speaker said is not necessary. If something he has is needed, it will serve the saints although it may not be on the same lines as that which preceded it. You do not come expressly to speak. You have something, but this does not mean that you must use it.

SMcC Is it out of place to visit a neighbouring locality to get the gain of what comes out in their ministry meeting? The ministry meeting according to 1 Corinthians 14 is local, and it has been suggested that we should leave it to those who ^[p. 461] are local.

JT We are apt to run into error there. You would bring in congregationalism if you follow that too far. The local assembly can never abrogate the general fellowship, especially in regard of the exercise of gift. “God has set certain in the assembly”, that is, the whole assembly, not simply what is local; thus the whole assembly must enter into this matter. You could not rightly exclude any gift from your ministry meeting. However, wisdom in those visiting would say, We ought to let the local brethren have liberty here. But to state that there should not be visitors would be congregationalism.

ANW Are you making the whole assembly in verse 26 universal rather than local?

JT No, I do not mean that. I am mentioning chapter 12, “God has set certain in the assembly”, that is the gifts, including the apostles; to exclude any of those from any local meeting would be congregationalism. Congregationalism means each church is separate, is independent. Some would say, Paul really means the local meeting at Corinth, but if Paul was there, must he sit silent? Still, in view of the specially local character of the meeting, wisdom in a visitor would make room for resident brothers of ability.

APT Agabus always seems to prophesy outside of his own locality.

JT We never hear of him prophesying in Jerusalem. Gift is set in the assembly and is of universal bearing.

APT All are not prophets. I would like to ask as to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Corinthians 14: 29).

JT That would imply that all the saints are not prophets. The idea of localising gift is not scriptural; and to assume that gift from another quarter cannot serve at any opportunity is not right.

^[p. 462] Gift is always universal, it is in the assembly and available everywhere.

AR If a brother has gift in a locality and holds strictly to what is local, what would be the effect?

JT He is likely to take on the character of a local clergyman. That is what they were doing in Corinth. The same thing happened at Plymouth; the gifts or men of ability became localised, failing to make room for others.

NB How would you connect each one coming with something, and yet all are not prophets?

JT Prophets are in mind in this instruction. What one has is his own. It is a question of when you use it. You add to the wealth of the occasion, by what you have, even if you do not speak. The wealth is there. You have it; so far it is yours, but it belongs to the assembly too, and you can express it as you have opportunity.

JS There was great wealth at Troas in the “many lights in the upper room where we were assembled” (Acts 20: 8).

WB Would it require gift to have a psalm? How would a person express a psalm?

JT There are psalms called Maschil, meaning teaching psalms. You have gone through the thing yourself, you are able to give it out in the form of a psalm. It constitutes something that a hearer can take into his mind easily. Poetry helps your mind, so that you can remember more easily what you hear. “In all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3: 16).

TU Would the idea of having something, and certain ones being prophets, include the sisters?

JT I think not. It is gift exercised in the assembly that is in mind here. The sisters do not speak there. Morally the psalm comes first. I think the psalm put first is suggestive that you are ^[p. 463] an experienced man. I suppose the five books of the Psalms represent the experience of God’s people, but put into such a form that it may be useful to others. We have the sweet psalmist, one very attractive in what he is giving out.

APT Psalm 45 indicates great affection for Christ in the composer.

JT God honours the Psalms in a striking manner in Hebrews. He selects from the Psalms what builds up truth as to the glories of Christ. In honouring the Psalms God honours those who wrote them.