THE TRUTH OF THE BODY IN ITS BEARING ON THE SAINTS (2)
[p. 195] THE TRUTH OF THE BODY IN ITS BEARING ON THE SAINTS (2)
Ephesians 2:12 - 16; Ephesians 4:1 - 16
JT It was thought that these scriptures would serve to bring the subject before us in Ephesians, and that we should not overlook Colossians. The passages referring to the body will be known to us, particularly the one saying that the head should be held fast. It is enjoined that we should hold the head, because all the nourishment comes from the head; so that the body should make increase. But what is suggested at first is that we might look at the passage in Ephesians 2, then chapter 4, and then perhaps in Colossians 1. But the object of the readings is that the saints should see the practical side of the truth of the body, so that we should not be merely theoretical in referring to it but seeing how it works out, as we had this morning, in our relations with one another. So far we have got to the thought of the relation of the body to the Spirit, giving it the dignity of the anointing. One body in Christ in Romans 12 takes us out of the range of ordinary societies in this world; but Corinthians contemplates the body as the anointed vessel. So that there is not only unity before the eyes of men, but dignity; rising to the thought of Christ’s body — indeed, Christ in the sense of being anointed; an allusion to the saints as anointed called the Christ, a term that is applied to the Lord Jesus and only in a limited way to the saints. And then the thought of Christ’s body, we being Christ’s body and members in particular, so that each stands out in his own individuality yet publicly in the anointing. Now in this passage in Ephesians we have the thought of the new man in view of the body and the reconciliation. It is a very practical side of the truth we are [p. 196] considering, the saints being reconciled not simply to one another but to God, and the means of this reconciliation is the cross. The position is the body, the means is the cross. The fourth chapter will bring out just how the unity of the Spirit is to be kept, the basis of it being that it is one body, one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all. That the Christ having ascended has given gifts to it and that the body should be edified, so that the truth should be held in it. That is the final thought that is in mind. The body is seen as that in which the truth is held, held in love; and thus the body edifies itself.
APT Is verse 13 a contrast to verses 11 and 12?
JT Quite so. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who once were afar off are become nigh by the blood of the Christ”. That is a present thing for us. One has particularly in mind “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, the law of commandments in 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”, Ephesians 2: 14 - 16. So that an end is reached in this section for God; that is, reconciliation of warring elements; not only by the cross but in a certain position; that is in the body.
CAM Would you say that it is a leading thought about the body and what the body contained as well as the matter of expression, I mean as a vessel?
JT Yes. Please enlarge on that.
CAM Well, in the early part of the reading, you were emphasising the fact that a leading thought about the body is expression. It seems to involve what is included in this wonderful corporate idea. Does the new man relate to what is morally contained [p. 197] in this?
JT The passage begins in verse 11, showing what we were as gentiles, and as it has been suggested in verse 13, “but now in Christ Jesus ye who once were afar off are become nigh by the blood of the Christ. 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, the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might form the two in himself into one new man”. Now these are all items on the way to results for God, by reconciliation of warring elements. What preceded led us to this; the reconciliation of warring elements, not simply towards one another. That is taken care of in the oneness in Christ. Reconciliation of both in the body, what is for God in the one body in the sense of warring elements reaching this position — reconciliation to God by the cross. It is the only place you get such a drastic word as to reconciliation — by the cross; as if in this position brethren who once were opposed to one another are now in the body; but in it as reconciled to God by the cross. There is not a warring element left. The cross is the most drastic thought. There is not an element to disturb us left, in that each one of us is reconciled to God, but in this position — the body. It deals with all that is disturbing.
AR Do you mean a vessel now, reconciled? Not so many christians as in Corinth, but a vessel reconciled. Not a whole assembly reconciled.
JT The warring elements reconciled in that. It is not that the body is viewed as reconciled, but that these once antagonistic elements are in that position. It is not the body reconciled, but these elements have reached that position, and are seen there as reconciled to God.
JS These warring elements reconciled in the body.
JT That is the idea. The body never needed reconciliation, because when you reach that thought [p. 198] you have what is of God. The body is of Christ. The idea is what is so antagonistic to God is now seen in reconciliation in the cross, but in this position. That so enhances it.
CAM That helps. These conflicting things would be brought to silence for ever in the cross, and then you have this wonderful thing of glory and beauty every day. Is that right?
JT Quite so. The same identity is there seen as entirely pleasing to God.
WB-w The enmity — does that refer to the distance between one another?
JT Quite so. What was contained in ordinances — the law of commandments in ordinances. That is, that which shut the Jews off in such relations has been removed in the body of His flesh. The cause of the enmity has been dealt with in the body of His flesh.
WB-w That is mentioned twice: in verse 15, “having annulled the enmity in his flesh”, and in verse 16, “having by it slain the enmity”.
JT By the cross He has slain the enmity. The flesh, I suppose, is the death of Christ, but the cross goes further than that. It is God’s abhorrence in that sense of the enmity.
JS Do we see the termination of the warring factions in the cross?
JT That is what I was thinking. The persons are positively reconciled to God. He is looking on the assembly, on the body, in that way. It is entirely pleasing to Him, not a warring element left.
JWD You are regarding the body as a positive spiritual formation, and what was effected in the cross as something that was done absolutely there for Him.
JT The flesh, I suppose, would allude particularly to the Lord’s death, as it says, “annulled the enmity in his flesh”. The cross is an added thought, meaning that God has dealt with this because of the enmity that [p. 199] is abhorrent to Him in this drastic way. The cross has a place in all these epistles, but a more extended and comprehensive place in Ephesians as dealing with adverse things radically, so that there is not a vestige left.
AFM For the great end in view of the two, that is Jew and gentile, all might be set aside entirely in the death of Christ in view of unity coming in. You notice the thought of one body in verse 16 and then the thought of peace, and glad tidings of peace coming in. Is that to effect unity for God; that all that defies would be entirely judged?
JT I think that is it; and in a radical way. The thing is dealt with at the roots. Causes of differences between us that arise simply from the flesh or from pride, if we judged them in this light we would see how abhorrent they are. They are so bad that the cross alone can deal with them.
ABP Were these elements present at Corinth, and so the apostle had to bring in the cross?
JT Just so. He speaks of “the word of the cross”. He stresses that he only knew Jesus Christ and Him crucified, because of conditions that were again lifting up their head at Corinth. The cross may be used vaguely, but the word of the cross makes the thing intelligible. You see what is meant. It is not the literal thought of one being crucified, it is the mind of God in it.
RWS The blood of the cross in Colossians, what does that refer to?
JT Colossians 1: 20, “by him to reconcile all things to itself, having made peace by the blood of his cross”. That is the same thing, only the blood, I suppose, brings in the atoning side as the life, given up sacrificially on the cross. The blood of His cross, that is, the cause of the disturbance is dealt with radically, it will not be brought up [p. 200] again.
WB-w Enemies being reconciled by the death of His Son, is that another thought?
JT That is to bring out what the cross cost God. He gave His Son. I think the Son is brought in several times in Romans to show what it cost God. He spared not His own Son.
CAM The body in itself, I think you said, does not need reconciliation. Those that are destined to form part of this wonderful body have known something of good and evil. That great question that God has taken up — would you say that that preceded our being brought into this great blessing in order to understand what great cost it was to God to bring about that blessing?
JT I think so. Romans brings out that side. It was the death of no less a person than His Son. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”, Romans 8: 3. He spared not His own Son, to bring out the cost of securing this end. But in Colossians — the blood of His cross — it was a question of the Deity effecting this, as perhaps will be noticed. Chapter 1: 19 says, “for in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell, and by him to reconcile all things to itself, having made peace by the blood of his cross — by him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death; to present you holy and unblamable and irreproachable before it”. The blood of His cross would be the atoning side; the blood — but it is the blood of the cross. That is the severity of the judgment. Christ’s crucifixion is ours, and reconciliation is, therefore, dealt with more radically here and in Ephesians than in Romans. It is the cross, so that there is not a vestige left of the things that caused the [p. 201] enmity that was so abhorrent to God. The thing is dealt with radically, and the reconciliation is in the body where it is sustained positively because of the gifts to the body.
JTJr You mean that the body is like the body of Jesus? Is there a correspondence here in this body?
JT I think that is right. It is out of Him. So that He says, “why persecutest thou me?” It is the body viewed in the abstract condition. I think it is important to see that reconciliation is brought about by death. Some think it is the work of God in the person. The work of God enhances the thing, but the idea of reconciliation is the result of the death of Christ according to sacrifice — the blood of His cross.
AFM Is the point emphasised in Colossians 1: 22, “yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”; is that not a very searching expression?
JT Quite so. The blood implies death. The wording has its own meaning.
AR Would you say that the new covenant in the second letter to the saints at Corinth is to bring about reconciliation in a public way, whereas this is to bring about reconciliation in an internal way?
JT Quite so. What we have had so far in Romans and Corinthians treats of the body in its public relations. Here the bearing of it is what is for God; reconciled to God, as it says. It is what is for God — the saints looked at as one body. And I think the brethren would do well to consider this, because of what is so abominable to God: causes of hatred, causes of feeling arising from the flesh, causing distance amongst the saints, often unspoken. If things were spoken out they could be dealt with.
They are not dealt with. The cross deals with things radically.
Ques The scripture that says, “God was in Christ” — does that mean His death or what He was here?
JT That is what He was here. The idea of going into death brings in reconciliation. That is announced in Luke before He died. Christ is the point of reconciliation, meaning that in a Man there is entire satisfaction to God. Not that Christ ever needed to be reconciled, but He established in His own Person here as a Man the basis for reconciliation. God says, ‘That is My mind for all’. One that has been reconciled by the death of His Son is the person that heaven greets as pleasurable to God.
CAM So that we reach that wonderful expression of reconciliation by way of the cross.
JT That is how we come into it. Romans brings out what it cost God, but when we come to these spiritual epistles, Colossians and Ephesians, God is dealing with the thing more radically. It was all in the death of Christ. But the wording of Scripture has to be noticed. The cross is more than the death of Christ, it is death in that way. Death would be suffering as regards atonement, but not suffering as to dealing with the thing in our souls. The cross is for us, the mind of God in it as regards us, that everything should be dealt with radically — my feelings must be dealt with.
CAM We seem to take a slow journey to get to this point — the bearing of the cross on our souls, but God always reaches it by a very short route.
JT God dealt with everything in the cross of Christ; but then, see what He has had to do in bringing us to that. Corinthians is the “word of the cross”, then we have the “blood of his cross”, and then we have reconciliation by the cross.
JHE God would say, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone”. That is the way.
JT That is burial, really, that you might have a [p. 203] new growth. It is needed for dealing with things in our souls in the roots of them. So that the thing is finished; things are settled ostensibly, and then presently you see they are not settled. The same old root is springing up again, but the body is a sort of environment in which the root has no means of growth. The cross has been brought in.
AFM Could you introduce that in Luke 15 by the father kissing the prodigal, and the son being in the house? Would that show that all had been definitely and eternally met?
JT That is right. And that is what is so needed. So far we are with the brethren, but — well, that ‘but’ is the root. Why should we not be in the body characteristically, where everything is pleasing to God, all the enmity is slain?
JS You were saying that Christ here in the days of His flesh was the basis of reconciliation, but because of what is in us the cross is a necessity.
JT It is the cross of Christ — His crucifixion is turned round and made ours. God says that is My mind about you. I have got to come to that.
JTJr Is it the teaching of the brazen serpent?
JT That is good. That is an equivalent thought. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up”. The allusion is to the cross.
JTJr The serpent is the root of it there.
JT Quite so. Things are dealt with at the roots.
APT The word ‘enmity’. It says, “having by it slain the enmity”. Does it link on with Genesis 3? Is there any relation to that?
JT That was enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent. Is that what you mean?
APT I was wondering as to the word ‘enmity’ — it is not really the persons, but getting rid of this enmity.
JT Quite so. That is what I was thinking.
[p. 204] There may be much that is unspoken, things that have to be dealt with. For instance, much might be brought in in Ephesus. The Jew may have retained much of his old feeling against the gentile. Well, after all he is a gentile; and the Jew may be retaining his own distinction and yet professing to be in the body. The apostle says, ‘These things have to be dealt with radically’, and God has slain the enmity by the cross. That implies transparency, because if things are spoken of, then we know where we are. There should not be an atom of distance.
Rem It says that Cain spoke with his brother, and after that it says he rose up and slew him. Is that not the very opposite of what should occur when brethren speak to each other?
JT Well, he may have had murder in his heart. Abel, no doubt, had spiritual feelings, and must have felt that. You may have the feelings and say nothing about them, awaiting an opportunity to rise up and slay.
WFM So that the Lord speaks of being angry with your brother in Matthew 5; then he speaks about being reconciled to your brother before you offer your gift.
JT Quite so. That helps us. The Lord shows in what you say about your brother, calling him a fool, how dangerous it is; showing that we must think of the brethren rightly, and speak well of them not only to their face but any time.
DP When the apostle wrote to Philemon about Onesimus, did that bring about reconciliation as you speak of it?
JT Quite so. But it comes on here to reconciliation before God. I am sure they were reconciled when Onesimus got back. I suppose it was the Colossian meeting. When Onesimus got back Philemon would greet him as a brother, a brother beloved. ‘He left you a slave, now he is going back to you via Rome from heaven, a brother beloved;
[p. 205] and you are going to have him forever’. Well, you had better be on good terms with anybody you are going to have with you for ever. We cannot have differences in heaven, because God would be displaced. There is not a vestige of the enmity left.
CAM He was really going from Romans to Colossians. All that Roman part had been dealt with in Rome.
JT You may be sure the Roman epistle was gone over with the brethren in Colosse. Onesimus is going to be with you for ever, you want him as a brother beloved. Do not let anything be between you.
CAM He got this reconciliation that is mentioned in Romans 4, now he is going to this reconciliation that was known in Colosse.
JT That is it. The idea was to be known for ever.
AR The good roots are in Ephesians: “rooted and grounded in love”.
JT Exactly; no other roots.
Rem Were you thinking of the truth in this chapter? Is it a question of truthfulness as to how we really think? The Jews would be making much of judaism and bringing it into the assembly.
JT Well, that is what I am thinking of. How the Jew would bring in his point of view sitting down with the gentile. ‘Well, after all he is a gentile; he has not the same status that we have’. That is the point here. That root is dealt with.
ARS If brethren at their home believe in the one body of Christ, and believe in the headship of Christ, how is it that they are not all together?
What have they done? Have they resurrected the enmity that was slain?
JT Well, there is a multitude of things, much enters into all that. The line we travelled this morning leads up to this. We have come to the recognition that we are members one of the other, and we are in the same fellowship one with another, and there [p. 206] should be loyalty to each other. And then that we serve in a dignified way. But now when you come to Ephesians what God intended was in that supreme work of His through Paul, that the full thought should be seen in the body. That the most diabolical opposing elements are brought together in entire freedom from their old feelings; and all sense of pride — all that is dealt with never to spring up again. The cross has dealt with it in the roots of it, and the body affords the soil for other growth than that.
EEH Is that the great lesson taught in the vessel let down from heaven when Peter was on the roof praying?
JT Quite so. It came down from heaven. Ephesians has that in mind. The body is out of Christ; it is Himself. We are bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. Peter saw that. He did not bring out the truth of it. He needed to get that truth as a basis for his soul, as Paul got the basis in his soul.
AR ‘Thy cross has severed ties that bound us here’.
JT Good. But then we go a little further here. The enmity slain between us, we are brought in as entirely pleasing to God in this setting. There is not a feeling between us. There is not an adverse feeling harboured amongst us.
Rem The apostle says in Corinthians, “Ye are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men, being manifested to be Christ’s epistle ministered by us, written, not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God”, 2 Corinthians 3: 2, 3.
JT That is what the saints are as an epistle of Christ. That follows the first epistle, where the cross is brought in.
WB-w “I am crucified with Christ”. That is one model among them, not only for them, but in him, Christ living in him.
JT Quite so. “To whom, as before your [p. 207] very eyes, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you”.
WB-w That is your point, the effect of the cross in us, removing all these fleshly feelings.
JT Quite so.
AR There is difficulty earlier between Paul and Barnabas because Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them. How would that fit in?
JT The cross is needed. Barnabas did not have his full place. God slew the enmity.
AR You mean that if Barnabas had used the cross he would have gone on with the apostle?
JT Quite so. They would never have separated.
Rem The reconciliation is already effected. It is looking backward. It is not something that appears when I come into the assembly.
JT God has effected the reconciliation in Christ’s death. It is something to be received in the gospel. But in these epistles God is showing how it works out, how brethren from all parts are brought together without an atom of distance between them. And God says, ‘I have done that; I have reconciled both in one body by the cross’. Well, if the brethren are ready to proceed to chapter 4, we shall see how this subject that we are on works out into unity, practical unity in the Spirit. It is essential to the maintenance of unity, not simply local; Ephesians is dealing with matters generally. We have the injunction to “walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love; using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”, Ephesians 4: 1 - 6. That is the great general position of unity. Then the next thing that the Lord has [p. 208] provided is the gifts; teaching for the saints. So that now we are to proceed in this subject in relation to teaching; how the saints are to hold the truth.
NW Would you say the Lord’s movements generally make way for the heavenly calling to be enjoyed in the body?
JT That is right. That is in mind. We are viewed as having been raised up together and made to sit down together. All this matter is dealt with, then differences are dealt with. We are certainly not to go up with feelings against one another.
CAM Speaking about that again, do you not think there is a tendency with us to want to settle this thing and have it paraded without really having the meaning of the cross bear on the thing at all? God will not allow the thing to be paraded until it is settled in the light of the cross.
JT Quite so. The thing has to be seen as abhorrent. It has to be seen and judged as to what it is. God says, it is so bad I have slain it.
CAM It will not die of itself. That is the thing that is so abhorrent. It is the cross that is needed.
JT ‘The cross is My thought of all that’, God says. He has nailed it to the cross.
JHE There were those at the last Supper that did not seek to slip out easily. They said, “Is it I?” There was self-judgment.
JT Very good. That is the way to reach this. Is it I, not, Is it she, or he? Is it I? When we come to chapter 4, it is the same outlook we have in relation to the brethren universally and keeping in step with what is going on among the brethren universally. The basis of that is unity in the body, in the kingdom, and in the universal domain of God. There is room made for teaching, so that there should be the truth — holding the truth, that we should arrive at the truth and hold it in love, so that the body should be self-building up in love.
[p. 209] Rem Is that why the apostle gives us 1 Corinthians chapter 13 before chapter 14?
JT Quite so. Love comes in. The unity and the ministry are related. So that we have ministry in chapter 14. Here ministry is connected with gifts. What an exalted thought it is!
APT It says in 1 Corinthians 12: 28, “God has set certain in the assembly”. In this chapter in Ephesians it is an ascended Man. What is the difference?
JT It is to bring out the provision God makes. How exalted is the idea of gifts, and what flows from it! It is not simply a question of power as we often speak of gift, but that the persons are in mind. “First apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then miraculous powers; then gifts of healings; helps; governments; kinds of tongues”, 1 Corinthians 12:28. So that you get the place in the mind, but in Ephesians they are here for a purpose; for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; “until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”; until a condition of things is arrived at where the truth is held in love. That is what God is aiming at. You have something that edifies itself in love and makes increase.
Rem Why is it that the apostle speaks of himself as a prisoner in the Lord? You called attention to the unity of the Spirit and the apostle as addressing the saints tells them that he is a prisoner in the Lord as being under God’s direction.
JT Quite so. As a prisoner in the Lord he was not a prisoner in Rome because of any wrong he did. It is in the Lord. You will notice in chapter 3 it is a prisoner of the Christ; of. In chapter 4 it is a prisoner in the Lord.
Ques What is the [p. 210] distinction?
JT God has held him from going where he might wish to go. The Lord took him to Rome. The Lord had him here a prisoner for certain reasons. These epistles were in God’s mind. It is not a prisoner of the Lord in chapter 4, but in the Lord; and therefore there is a good basis there for practical unity. “Using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace”, and “holding the truth in love”. That is the point, and all that follows is to bring out this thought of the fulness of the divine mind in teaching, so that the saints should have the teaching, and hold the truth in love.
AFM Is the full-grown man first arrived at by us before we come to the self-building of the saints in love?
JT That is right. If you do not have the full-grown man the teaching unbalances us. I do not want to hinder it as a babe. The full-grown man must succeed the idea that we have in the first sixteen verses.
WB-w You get the threefold unity in verse 4; the unity of the kingdom, the body, and the universal unity — three great thoughts. Those are essential before we get the teaching.
JT That is right. The unity in connection with the body: one Lord, one faith, one baptism; and then one God and Father of all. The saints related to the body and the exaltation of Christ; the gifts coming down. What a great thought it is!
AR If we have faith we will understand that He has led captivity captive. The enemy is held in check, so that this might go the right way.
JT The enemy is overcome in principle in the resurrection and ascension of Christ; but the gifts are to bring the overthrow of him in deliverance to the assembly.
JWD This self-building up in love, when do we realise [p. 211] that?
JT I think, as we make room for this teaching. It is a question of the teaching. You may have a gathering where you have no gift. They are never given in the local setting, so that it is a question of the brethren in a locality benefiting by it and growing up in it. If we are men sitting down, we shall edify one another, even though there be no outward gift. To every one of us is given grace and thus we shall edify one another.
Ques Does this contemplate David as having ascended, bringing Israel with him to a very high elevation?
JT Taking the giant’s head with him is that the whole matter was settled. Now it is the working out of it.
WB-w David reigned so many years in Hebron and so many years in Jerusalem. Would that unite the saints?
JT The unity was brought about in Hebron. It effects unity.
AR So that you have here what corresponds with Psalm 16; an Israel where evil is kept entirely under control by Christ.
JT Quite so. Samuel directs Saul to the hill of God. You ought to have a feeling about that; and what came out was the prophetic ministry at the hand of God. And here you get the prophets, bringing God in.
WB-w Would the assembly meeting represent the hill of God?
JT Quite so. As in New York where there are so many meetings, I believe the aim should be to get together as a whole as often as possible, to get the full thought of God in the place. He is there Himself to meet all opposition. One has often seen it, that these meetings settle matters.
CAM It is striking in that connection that this matter of the prophets comes in after this emphasis [p. 212] is laid on unity. That is what you were stressing.
JT That is right. The idea of obligation, to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace” is augmented by the gifts, so that there would be growth amongst the saints and that there should be no longer babes amongst us, but those who hold the truth in love. The truth; no room for anyone saying, ‘That is your mind, but not my mind’. We do not want that; we want to get the truth.
Rem We need help in distinguishing gifts in a brother.
JT That is what comes in here. The gifts are to bring in that, to bring in the truth in power, so that the saints should have it. All this modernism is refused, you know too much for that. The truth is in your soul. It is the full position of the assembly here. It says in verse 7, “But to each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the gift of the Christ. Wherefore he says, Having ascended up on high, he has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men. But that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens, that he might fill all things”. That is a wonderful position. “And he has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to the work of the ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ”; that is, He would fill every believer in detail, by gifts and pastoral care, so that there might be growth amongst us; and then the stimulus of it all is Christ. “Until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ; in order that we may be no longer babes”. So that the babe condition should vanish; and thus there is the growth.
[p. 213] In any meeting where these conditions exist there is edification. I believe a prayer meeting involves edification.
AR If I am sitting in the enjoyment of this I am being built up.
JT Quite so. That brings every saint into it. “From whom the whole body, fitted together, and connected by every joint of supply, according to the working in its measure of each one part, works for itself the increase of the body to its self-building up in love” (verse 16). I suppose this is a condition in which saints wish to be taken up to heaven.
CAM Do you not think one thing that ought to encourage us is the fact that this truth as to the Son of God has been stressed and clarified? If you have a wrong thought as to the truth of the Son of God, you could not really understand this chapter.
JT Say more.
CAM Well, the question is as to whether this thing is seen today. There are various marks that the Lord is bringing this about. One of the things that seems to encourage us so much is the stress laid on the truth of the Son of God, do you not think?
JT I do. Not unexpectedly, as you might say; or without preparedness. It is as if the Lord did it Himself. The brethren have taken it on. I believe the truth has been clarified, the saints are coming into it; undoubtedly with a view to translation — that conditions might exist that please God. It says of Enoch before he was translated that he has this testimony that he pleased God. I believe the thought of sonship brings that in peculiarly.
Rem It is the economy of the Father and the knowledge of the Son of God, as if without this thought your faith would not stand.
JT Quite so. The unity of the faith is the component part of the faith.
AFM I think the remark made regarding the [p. 214] Son of God was very helpful. It was to this effect that Satan tempted the Lord. “If thou be the Son of God”, calling it in question. And then the Lord says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. What were you saying about that?
JT Well, the Lord replied in alluding to man. Satan brought in the sonship of God, as if to imply that sonship was not manhood.
AFM It appeared to me to be a most wonderful thing, as if the whole secret of the thing lies in what Satan said and how the Lord replied.
AR You mean as understanding the truth of the Son of God it transfers the thoughts from earth to heaven, taking on another world?
JT It does indeed. How the truth of sonship affected David when God pointed out to him how the house should be built by the son! He went to the house of God at once and sat down, as if to say, ‘I see what is in the mind of God’. And he uses such beautiful designations of God in that setting.
WB-w The full-grown man and the fulness of the Christ. How do they link on with the Son of God?
JT “Until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man”, that is, via that way — via the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. These two things are essential to reaching this point.
We arrive at the full-grown man on that line. “At the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”; that is the standard. The way is marked out, the gifts are there. It is a question of manhood.
JS A certain finality arrived at.
JT I think the gifts help us in that.
TH Would the queen of Sheba be an example? She arrived at the thought “Happy are thy men”.
JT Quite. And the way he went up to the house of [p. 215] the Lord.
JWD Say a little about the assembly having the testimony that it pleased God in relation to Enoch.
JT I think that the truth of sonship is what aids in that, augments it. Because when God announced His pleasure in man, it was, “This is my beloved Son”. That is what is effecting the idea. It is in the mind of God. We have this testimony that we please God. When David went in and sat down he was in line with God.
JWD I think that is wonderful.
JT It is. The first book of Chronicles shows how that is worked out, how Solomon comes in, subsequently sitting on the throne with David. All these things with the number twenty-four in 1 Chronicles bring out the order of the service now, so that the saints should know how to serve Him in the assembly.
AR David came in and sat before the Lord. Do you think he came to finality in his soul?
JT Yes. He takes up the thought at once. He knew what it was to be indignant. When God smote Uzzah he was indignant. He might have been indignant, too, when God set him aside in relation to the building of the house, but he was not. He went in and sat before Jehovah.
WB-w In 1 Chronicles do we gather with the gifts all in operation?
JT That is right. We get the age reduced in the levites, so that there is a wide scope for ministry; that God should get the most.
WR You see the sons of Levi merging with the sons of Aaron.
JT Quite so.
APT The truth seen in the Ephesian epistle really is the highest thought, because if you will notice in the first verse he speaks of the faithful in Christ at Ephesus. I was wondering if there was anything in that. “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God”.
JT Quite so. The whole assembly was developed at Ephesus. It would appear that conditions there warranted it.
Rem This idea of the full-grown man, is that praise?
JT Well, it is what is in mind for each of us. It is not for heaven. It is what is down here.
Rem There is no growth in heaven. It is all down here.
JT It is a mistake to talk about growth in heaven. There is no end to eternity; what are we going to come to then? God is a God of measure.
FC Do I understand it is an individual thought?
JT It is. “Until we all arrive”. God has all the saints moving together in the truth. You are not going to wait for me. You go on yourself. “Until we all arrive”. Ephesians is aiming at that all the time. Enoch is the leading man in Genesis 5. He is the outstanding man. The seventh from Adam is the outstanding man.
ABP Does he not come into it with the apprehension of sonship also?
JT Quite so. The three hundred years only led to his knowledge of God. He got more and more pleasing to God.