THE GLORY OF THE LORD
[p. 503] THE GLORY OF THE LORD
2 Corinthians 3: 5 - 18; 2 Peter 1: 16 - 18
JT What is in mind is to look into the subject of the glory of the Lord. 1 and 2 Corinthians speak of it; they speak much of the glory of God too, but the first epistle speaks about the Lord as the Lord of glory, meaning that He has in His hand the administration of glory. The second epistle speaks of His own glory as Lord, and in connection with the new covenant. The epistle also speaks about the giving of the saints as connected with this glory, “the glory of the Lord himself”. Those who carried the money of the saints to dispense it were said to be “messengers of assemblies, Christ’s glory” 2 Corinthians 8: 23.
So it is thought the Lord would help us in confining ourselves as much as possible to this point of the glory of the Lord, and incidentally to see that His supper enters into it; the new covenant, of course, entering into the Lord’s supper also as given to us in the first epistle. That is connected with His glory. Then the passage in Peter gives us His glory as Son of God, which is a somewhat advanced thought on the glory of the Lord. The instruction we have as to the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians connects it entirely with the Lord Himself; and Canticles in the Old Testament helps to fill out the service in connection with the Lord’s supper, for it is a question there of reciprocated affection typically between Christ and the saints. There is hardly a reference to God or Jehovah in the book.
FI What connection has glory in relation to the Son of God with the glory of the Lord in Corinthians?
JT We are on the heavenly line when we reach the former title. The allusion is to the mount of transfiguration, and Peter gives us his view of it in his last epistle, significantly saying, “he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered [p. 504] to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight; and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain” 2 Peter 1: 17,18. It is a link with heaven, so that as entering into the service of God, it is an advance on the glory of the Lord in our passage in 2 Corinthians, which is an administrative thought here on earth.
AM Would the sight of the glory of the Lord lead on normally to the second part, the heavenly side, and would the thought in the mountain suggest the glory of sonship?
JT That is what I thought. Peter mentions the voice from heaven as the glory, he has this in mind besides that which appeared in the Lord on the mountain. The Lord was transfigured personally before them; this in itself was glory. It was not conferred; it was of Himself. We are changed as beholding His glory, but the glory on the mount of transfiguration is of Himself, and then there is the glory that is seen in Moses and Elias; they appeared “in glory” too. So the scene is glorious before the voice from heaven comes, but it is the voice from heaven that Peter alludes to especially, the heavenly side of the position; the acknowledgment of His sonship from heaven.
GCS Does “glory to glory” contemplate this? Does the end reached suggest sonship, or is it just liberty?
JT It is a question of what “the Lord the Spirit” is doing for us. It is the glory of the Lord we are looking at, which includes His effectuation of the covenant, not only making it a fact, but applying it; making it effective. Of course He made it a fact by dying, but the Lord of glory alludes more to the effectuation of it in us.
Ques Would that be especially at the Supper, or is it confined to the Supper?
JT It is seen there more especially, but I would not limit it to that, because in principle the Lord’s [p. 505] ministry in this respect is always current as He has opportunity, but it is dependent on our beholding the glory of the Lord, which would be especially at the Supper. The Lord is always ready as we are engaged with Himself. That is glory from this point of view. It is confined to the glory of the Lord here, and He is ready to act upon us. The change is “by the Lord the Spirit”. Looking at the glory will not in itself cause the change; transformation is an act of Christ as Lord, but “the Lord the Spirit”.
LDM Two men appearing with Him — would that suggest formation? Two men who were Moses and Elias.
JT Yes. Appearing in glory implies this. They were men like ourselves; but they were men of great experience with God, who had to do with Jehovah in the Old Testament in a striking way; men who took on glory and became formed in it. It was said of Moses, “the form of Jehovah doth he behold” Numbers 12: 8. They “appeared in glory”. Peter leaves that part out, but Luke mentions it. Peter confines himself to the glory of sonship; “he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight; and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain” 2 Peter 1: 17,18. So Peter has sonship in mind, acknowledged in this remarkable way.
Ques I suppose it is general in 2 Corinthians 3 — “we all” beholding?
JT Yes, it is what we all do. The brethren will all be helped if we think first of the glory of the Lord — the Lord first. “The Lord is that Spirit”, and then “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord ...” 2 Corinthians 3: 18, and then the act of transforming by the Lord the Spirit. So the title Lord as associated with the Spirit in the passage is very striking.
[p. 506] Ques Is this to bring about suitability to the Son, so that we can take account of the glory of the Son of God?
JT I think so. In fact the whole scene is glory as we sit down in assembly. Even in leaving our houses to reach the assembly we are glorious. It is not, from degradation to glory, but from “glory to glory”. Glory is one great idea “in assembly”; and so the anointing, which applies to us at all times, appears specially as we move towards the assembly. It is the place where God’s “glory dwelleth” (Psalm 26: 8), and you feel the necessity as drawing near to appear in glory, as Moses and Elias. But then there is more, it is “from glory to glory”, because there is increasing depth and density of glory. The apostle speaks in the next chapter of “weight of glory” 2 Corinthians 4: 17, so there is progression in the thought.
Ques Would you call it conferred glory on those who behold?
JT It is not put in that way; but in the sense of being taken on, being changed. It is really what transpires in our minds and affections; it is not superficial glory; it is substantial. If you could see the saints in this state of things, it is all glory, solid glory as it were; that is, all our faculties are glorious; reflected of course in our countenances and in what we say.
GCS It is consummated in the holy city coming down, being four-square, solid, having the glory of God.
Ques Does 2 Chronicles 9 suggest that thought, when the queen of Sheba came to Solomon? Scripture says that, “all king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold ... silver was not of the least account” 2 Chronicles 9: 20.
JT She was affected by what she saw. There was substantial glory there, not mere tinsel. All the wealth of the world, viewed in that sense, contributed to it.
FWW Do you connect the ministry of righteousness with the glory of the Lord? That seems to have a prominent place.
JT [p. 507] That is included. The parenthesis contrasts the ministry of Moses with the ministry of the new covenant now, widening out, in the thought of the ministry of the Spirit, to the full truth of the gospel. “But if the ministry of death, in letters, graven in stones, began with glory, so that the children of Israel could not fix their eyes on the face of Moses, on account of the glory of his face, a glory which is annulled; how shall not rather the ministry of the Spirit subsist in glory?” 2 Corinthians 3: 7,8. “Subsist in glory” is an intensified thought; it is not shallow or superficial. And so it goes on, “For if the ministry of condemnation be glory, much rather the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory” 2 Corinthians 3: 9. It is an intensified thought.
FWW You were mentioning the coming from our houses as the initial step to the assembly, that we should come as expressing glory, the glory of righteousness.
JT I think it is well to notice that, it is a very practical allusion. First we have the “ministry of the Spirit” in verse 8, and then the “ministry of righteousness” in verse 9, and again “that which abides subsists in glory” in verse 11; so that the question of righteousness certainly enters into it. It is not simply that one is practically righteous. I will be so, as having righteousness ministered to me, but the ministry of righteousness means, I suppose, that one is substantially that, and not merely legally so — the man is that.
FWW So the thought of glory would be what is in the man shining out?
JT Quite so. Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, that is the gospel through faith, but the ministry of the Spirit goes beyond that. It affects the person and changes him so that he is that, he is righteous in that sense. Well, you can see how all that implies dignity in the saints, and the thought comes specially into the mind, as you move towards the assembly, for you are going to the place of glory. “In [p. 508] his temple doth every one say, Glory!” Psalm 29:9, and you want to be in suitable dress for that occasion. It requires it more than any other meeting we attend. Psalm 45: 7 tells us that Christ “loved righteousness” and so it enters into what we are saying. “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy companions” Psalm 45: 7. So you feel in approaching the assembly that is what has to be in mind. The dress of the saints in which we appear must include all these things. It is well to be practical, and to think of how we are as we leave our houses. In 1 Corinthians the apostle says in regard of the collection, that we should put by at home on the first day of the week. That is an element that goes with us. There is glory in that. Everything that reflects Christ in the saints is glory. So that in proceeding to the assembly you have suitable dress. “Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness” Psalm 132: 9, Scripture says; and sitting down we are glorious. All these elements we have been speaking of are reflected in us, and therefore it is not from degradation to glory; there is glory in our houses really. Of old, Israel were to bring the two wave-loaves, baken with leaven, out of their houses, but to be a meat-offering. Although in a mixed condition and coming out of our houses we are to be glorious, because we have annulled by the Spirit the action of sin, involving self-judgment.
FWW This feature of righteousness must be taken account of.
JT You feel the necessity of it — where God dwells. The brazen altar is that principle — a question of righteousness.
GCS When Jacob was moving towards the house of God he saw the necessity for suitable conditions in removing the idols.
JT How could he go up glorious otherwise? But he did go up glorious and God owned him. When God had named him earlier He would not tell Jacob [p. 509] His name, for Jacob was not equal to it; but the very thought of Bethel causes him to put away the idols, and Jehovah came down and stood beside him, not as he was at Bethel at the first, though the Lord was there, but now He comes down indicating that there is suitable dress in Jacob.
Rem “All glorious is the king’s daughter within; her clothing is of wrought gold”. Psalm 45: 13.
JT That goes further, but shows what we are moving on to.
WEM Does it depend on what our minds are occupied with, and does that lead in the direction in which our faces are set?
JT A righteous man’s face reflects righteousness, he is transformed; things are all settled. As it says, in the earlier part of this epistle, “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God, who also has sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” 2 Corinthians 1: 21. Well, that makes a very great change in us, as compared with persons who are not righteous.
FI Is the glory of the Lord connected with Him as the One who came out, so that what was in the heart of God in regard of His love could be brought out on a righteous basis?
JT That is what I think is in mind, that He is doing it. It is presented here as His doing and as the Lord; not as Christ, nor as Jesus, but as the Lord and as the Lord the Spirit, a combination of thought that is unique.
AM Is your thought that our houses and we ourselves should correspond with what is now immediately before us in moving towards the assembly?
JT That is the thought. As I said, the type contemplates what goes on in the houses of the saints, and they bring it with them. It implies that sin is there, but rendered inactive, in keeping with the manner of the incoming of the Spirit which was with cloven tongues as of fire; to protect Himself, as it were. As [p. 510] over against how He came on Christ as a dove, He comes to us in terms which indicate protection of Himself, so that we are not out of keeping with that, and we come out of our houses in that way. So it raises a practical question as to whether we are in righteousness and whether we walk to the assembly in dignity and sit down in dignity. So it is “from glory to glory”, but glory with us in that sense is to be always. The position of a believer is never other than glorious in some sense.
GCS Is it seen with Lydia? The Lord opened her heart and then she opened and controlled her home.
JT How glorious she was! The Lord had opened her heart, it was an act of administration. He was changing her, but to attend to the things spoken by Paul. You can see how that would be glorious and would involve more glory in her. Then she opened her house.
LDM Should what is seen in Lydia be characteristic of us? It would preserve the atmosphere and give room for the liberty brought in by the Spirit of the Lord.
JT Anyone who thinks about it can see that the sitting down of the saints in the assembly is glory, but there is a greater glory ahead of us and we are ready to take it on, so that the Lord is there with us as He comes in, and it is “from glory to glory”. He is preparing us for greater things all the time.
Rem So we come up with right thoughts of God and Christ and the saints, and now the Supper itself would concentrate our hearts and minds upon the glory of the Lord, especially in the cup?
JT That is what I was thinking. We are ready for that, and the ministry of righteousness would imply that I am able to lay aside everything extraneous to that position, because we are engaged with the glory scene; we are now looking for the Lord to come in and His glory is shining. The bread and the cup involve that His glory is shining and we are ready to take on [p. 511] the effect of that. It is a practical thing. It comes to us freshly and changes the nature of our outlook, and we are all to lay aside everything that is unsuitable for the moment. We are becoming more and more concentrated, and so the priestly element that comes up helps us in what we say and do. The idea is dress. Moses and Elias appeared in glory, that is dress. “Being by the right hand of God exalted”. Acts 2: 33. He is glorified. That was wonderful glory. Were they equal to it in Jerusalem in Acts 1 and 2? They were. The description shows they were equal to it, and the Spirit came in as glory and sat on each of them and then they are speaking; they were so far glorious.
Rem So the ministry of Moses as representing Christ results in a sphere of glory.
JT So in the Lord’s supper, the emblems coming before us, already glorious, it is “from glory to glory”, not degradation to glory.
Ques “We all, looking on the glory of the Lord” 2 Corinthians 3: 18 — does that mean the saints together in the light of the assembly?
JT That is where it comes out in the most concrete way. We should not limit it to that, for normally the believer is always glorious in some sense. Even if one is under reproach, he is glorious. “Whom he justified, them he also glorified”. Romans 8: 30. I think that alludes to the Spirit; having received the Spirit we are glorified in principle. According to Romans 8:11, our bodies will be changed on account of the Spirit dwelling in us.
GCS Would “we all” suggest that each one is distinguished — but we are distinguished together?
JT We have varied glories of course, but the point here is to similarise us; so the Lord has us together in the assembly in glorious dress.
Ques Does the beginning of Psalm 29 bring in the thought? “Give unto Jehovah the glory of his name; worship Jehovah in holy splendour”. Psalm 29: 2.
JT Very good. “In his temple doth every one say, Glory!” Psalm 29: 9, and every saint ought to speak glory. That brings up another matter, as to how the cup is viewed in assembly service. It is the “cup of the Lord”. There is the Lord’s table, which is the bread, and the Lord’s cup, so it would seem as if it is a matter between Him and us all the time during the service relating to the Supper.
Ques Is the Lord’s cup the Lord’s portion in it?
JT No, it is what He is administering. He does not partake of the Supper. It is as often as ye eat it. It is a question of administration, and glory enters into it.
GCS We have in the past addressed and given thanks to God for the cup; it would be right and proper to address the Lord.
JT I think so. The more you look into it, it seems that it ought to be a question between the Lord and ourselves. It is a little premature and tends to confusion to bring God into it as we are actually partaking of the Supper.
Rem And it says, “this do in remembrance of me” 1 Corinthians 11: 24,25, in regard of the cup as well as the bread.
JT Quite so. It is the new covenant in My blood. God is not formally brought into it in the Lord’s own words. As I was remarking, in Canticles there is properly no reference to God or Jehovah; it is Solomon and the people — Christ and His people; and it seems as if the service in the assembly in relation to the Lord’s supper ought to make ample room for that, for there is delightful expression of reciprocated affections between Christ and His own.
FWW How far do you carry in your mind the thought of the Supper into the service? Would you limit the Lord’s supper to the mere partaking of the bread and the cup?
JT Well, I think the facts stated would imply two things, namely food and remembrance. Matthew and [p. 513] Mark give us the food — the meat and drink, and Luke gives us the memorial. I do not know that it goes any further, but there is the marital suggestion entering into it.
FWW I was wondering whether that is connected with the Supper.
JT I think it also goes beyond. “This is my body, which is for you” 1 Corinthians 11: 24, would mean that the Lord has devoted Himself in love unto death, and the bread, also suggesting the saints as His body, being brought in there, points to the assembly viewed in that light. Zipporah being brought to Moses in Exodus 18, just as the covenant was about to be inaugurated, helps us to see from the types that the marital thought is there even before you have the covenant. But in relation to other servants of God that follow Moses you have references to the assembly from the marital side; as for instance with David, Abigail is strikingly representative, and what marks her is her beauty and understanding; which thought ought to come in subsequent to the Lord’s supper. The marital thought being introduced in Exodus 18 would be to augment the position in view of the covenant being inaugurated in the next chapter.
FWW So you would link that with the wilderness side?
JT Yes, it is what we are here in the wilderness. The Cushite (Numbers 12), I think would be similar. You have nothing much stated about affection in either case, but the setting reminds us of wilderness circumstances. When you come to Abigail, and even Pharaoh’s daughter, you have marital thoughts that belong to the land of promise, which come in on the spiritual line, and there ought to be scope for that, for the Lord’s supper is what He is to us peculiarly. Romans 7: 3 introduces the thought of being to Another, and that surely ought to have a place [p. 514] with us.
FWW So Zipporah and Abigail would suggest the movements “from glory to glory” upwards.
JT Just so, involving the assembly’s glory, for we have in the first epistle to the Corinthians that the woman is the glory of the man; and, as to the giving of the saints, those who carry it are said to be “messengers of assemblies, Christ’s glory” 2 Corinthians 8: 23; all that ought to have its place in the service. Then we go back to Genesis where we have primary thoughts as to the marital side, which do not come out in connection with the development of the testimony in Exodus. Before we have the ministerial or mediatorial side at all, we have the marital thought, meaning that it was the divine purpose in view before sin came into the world.
Ques So does the marital thought underlie every position in which we are found?
JT If Christ is Man, you must make room for His complement. The Lord is thinking of the saints and loving them, always thinking of us, and why should we exclude that thought from the service of God? It enhances the position, and so we have, “Go forth, daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart”, Song of Songs 3: 11. That is a very felicitous thought in the service. The saints are gladdened through what they see in Christ and because of their relation with Him.
LDM John the baptist expressed it, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom” John 3: 29.
JT He evidently discerned the affections of Christ in this respect.
Ques The covenant being God’s covenant, how does that enter into it?
JT Well, God has His part in it, but we have to wait for that period in the service. In Canticles we do not reach God properly at all, but there is wonderful [p. 515] enlargement and great expansion of thought. In the Old Testament you may bring in a title of God that would fit into the covenant; Jehovah, indeed, is a covenant name, and there are several appellations of God in the Old Testament, but the word God, which is the word we use, is represented by one word in Greek. So that if we want to speak to God about the covenant He is quite ready to hear us. The idea is Moses leading the people outside the camp to meet God (Exodus 19: 17). When that time comes we can surely speak to God, and amongst other things speak about His love which includes the covenant. In speaking to Him, God is the only title we can use, save the Father, which latter involves the family relation. If we speak to God about the covenant, He will readily listen to us.
Ques Should there be opportunity for that?
JT I think there is. Moses led the people out to meet God. The Mediator does that, but He leads us out in suitable dress. The Lord would cause us to be full of enjoyment, the glory of the enjoyment of love and reciprocated affections between Him and ourselves.
Ques Is there not one reference to God in the Canticles?
JT The “Flames of Jah” in Song of Songs 8: 6, you mean? But you can hardly speak of that in the sense we are speaking of now. It is “flames of Jah” and is just a question of character. The name is used adjectivally, it is not a personal reference. It is really a suggestion of judgment — showing the intensity of jealousy.
Ques Has the apostle the glory of the Mediator before him in saying, “The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God” 2 Thessalonians 3: 5?
JT The Lord does that, and in the types we have a very formal reference to it in that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God; but for us, that is not limited to God as known in the [p. 516] new covenant.
FWW That is a full thought. We may speak to God in many ways; speak of His love, including the covenant, of Christ, of His rich mercy, and many other great thoughts. Whatever we speak of, we speak to God — “to us there is one God” 1 Corinthians 8: 6. We may also speak to Him as Father and appreciate His supremacy in the Deity as revealed, but it is the one God. God may be known in many ways.
JT That is what I was thinking. In the Old Testament the first title we have is Elohim; which is a plural thought and alludes to a Being that is to be worshipped. That is the great general thought, but then the Old Testament is richer in divine titles in that sense, because if it is a question of power you have a name of the Deity which denotes that. But when we come to the New Testament we have only one word to designate God, and we have to use that if we want to speak about the covenant. God would listen to us about the covenant, but we should not speak of it unduly. Why not speak to Him as Creator and as Almighty and many other ways? Well, the priestly instincts with us would disallow that as in assembly. We want to keep to the matter before us. The covenant alludes to Him only in a limited way. It is God Himself we want to speak about, what He is in a more general way, not confined to the limitations of the covenant. Romans introduces love without any reference to the covenant. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts is a fuller thought than the covenant. “The witness of God ... concerning his Son” 1 John 5: 9, is more than the new covenant.
FWW Your word ‘plural’ as to Elohim helps, instead of my word ‘full’.
JT It is to stress the thought of the Being that should be worshipped, and it carries on to the final thought of God in the Scriptures, that He is “all in all”. That is God. It is not the idea of a covenant God. God Himself in His own Being is to be worshipped.
[p. 517] Rem The tendency to limit our thoughts to the confines of the covenant when speaking to God should be rectified.
JT It seems to me that we ought to see by Scripture, that it is the Lord who has effectuated the new covenant, but if we wish to speak to God about it afterwards, we ought to understand that it is a limited thought.
LDM In Mark the Lord has something to say after they had drunk. Would that be the idea of leading them out to meet God?
JT Exactly. They are brought into mutual touch with each other. Why did they not sing a hymn before the Lord introduced the Supper? I think the Supper had caused a change in them, and that is the idea. The question may be asked, To whom did the Lord give thanks for the bread and the cup? The Spirit of God does not tell us, and it is very significant He does not, because the whole matter awaited Paul’s doctrine. That is where the Supper has its proper setting and he brings out that it is the Lord’s supper.
I should like, if any brother has a different view, that it should be stated, because it is an important matter for the brethren, and the Lord is greatly helping us on this line, and it is important to see what the glory of the Lord is and what the glory of the Son of God is and all that leads up to, and how there is conferred glory on us too. “The glory which thou hast given me I have given them” John 17: 22. That is, we are on the line of conferred glory after that. But the glory of the Lord is what He is Himself in administration in making known the facts of the position; so that we should go in in suitable dress to God and be happily and intelligently with God to worship Him.