LORDSHIP, THE COVENANT AND THE FAMILY
[p. 217] LORDSHIP, THE COVENANT AND THE FAMILY
1 Corinthians 11: 17 - 28; Hebrews 8: 10, 11; Ephesians 3:14 - 21
JT The first scripture, it is thought, furnishes us with what pertains to the Lord in the service of God. It is the only scripture in which we have the term “Lord’s supper”. In all the references to the Lord’s supper, the title “Lord” is very prominent; so that it is what may be termed the dominical section in 1 Corinthians, dominated by the thought of Christ’s lordship. In Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9, and part of 10, it treats of the covenant; and what appears in the verses read is that God says in verse 10, “I will be to them for God, and they shall be to me for people”. Then in Ephesians the apostle bows his knees to the Father, “of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”. The passage is paternal — the Father, who has to say to all families; naming each according to what it is in His thoughts and counsels, and what it is characteristically. So that under these three heads we may consider the question of the service of God in the assembly and what is appropriate in relation to each.
RWS What is implied in the dominical side?
JT It is the Lord’s particular realm, He is dominant; that is what I was thinking of. We may, perhaps, consider that first. We have the Lord’s supper — and the Lord’s day, as we have often heard, in Revelation 1. They bear on one another. The two terms are related and only appear each once.
CAM I suppose one great importance in recognising the thought of “Lord” would be that surrounding this setting here, there is a possibility of adverse things. Would you say [p. 218] that?
JT That is what I think. That is what helps us to see why the dominical side is first, because it is a question of authority and subjugation, excluding all that is contrary; so that in chapter 10 we have the Lord’s cup and the Lord’s table, and that He is not to be provoked to jealousy. We are reminded that He is stronger than we are, so that God is notifying us at the outset that He has means of dealing with all that is contrary; so that there should be no insubordination inside.
WFK Is lordship connected with the kingdom?
JT Quite so.
AFM When you speak of inside you mean the saints?
JT Exactly; so the need of being subject. God notifies us at the outset that all else is inadmissible. We are told what is outside the city in Revelation; nothing that defiles is allowed inside.
ANW Following the verse which speaks of the Lord’s supper, the better rendering reads, “For each one in eating takes his own supper before others, and one is hungry and another drinks to excess” (verse 21). It seems to confirm what has been said.
JT Yes. It robbed the occasion of the application of the title of the Lord’s supper to it. They allowed their own wills; party spirit inside robbed the occasion of its proper dignity.
ABP I suppose if we do not subscribe to what the Lord does, He would say to us, “Friend, how camest thou in here not having on a wedding garment?”
JT Quite so. The king came into seethe guests he sees what is there.
JS Would not the Lord’s day introduce His lordship?
JT Well, I thought so. The term is very similar as it regards the dominical side, the dominance of Christ; both as regards the Supper itself and the [p. 219] day, so that there are two things working at the same time. The day denotes His authority as well as the Supper.
JS We begin with the day and that would be our stepping-off stone.
JT Quite so. The day begins earlier than the Supper. Therefore, it prepares us for what is coming.
Ques What difference do you make between the scriptural use of Lord’s day and the first day of the week?
JT In the first day of the week the stress is on the word ‘first’. It is the beginning of a new order of things. It is inaugural, looking towards eternity. We have it in John 20, and in Acts 20. In John’s gospel it is connected with the Lord coming in, the disciples being within; and in Acts it is connected with the breaking of bread.
Rem Do you think there might be a transitional period in which we move from the one to the other?
JT I think that is good. The Lord’s day begins in whatever way we view it. We may say at twelve midnight it begins, so that it ought to enter into our thoughts and calculations, having in mind that this great occasion belongs to it. Whereas in regard to the first day of the week in its proper application, the force of the word comes in in relation to the spiritual side of the matter; for Acts 20 is the breaking of bread. It is not said they came for the Lord’s supper, but for the breaking of bread. The breaking of bread is remembrance of Christ; “in remembrance of me”. It is Luke’s side of the matter. And the first day of the week enters in its full force when we are on the spiritual line properly after the Supper, for it is John 20. He stresses the first day of the week. Both the Supper and the Lord’s day are in a time setting, but the first day of the week introduces what is eternal; it merges in what is eternal. The first day of the week is the eternal [p. 220] thought.
AT You were speaking some time ago of the assembly meeting in Luke 24. Would that help in regard to what you have now? “The Lord is risen”.
JT That is good. It belongs to the Lord’s supper. We were speaking about the breaking of bread. They came together in assembly, the eleven, which really is in accord with the Lord’s supper; the Lord’s authority in the apostle. They were gathered together; whereas John does not say they were gathered together. The proper translation says, “where the disciples were” not ‘where they were gathered’; it is the persons.
Rem Do you think that the earlier verse in Luke 24 “and to enter into his glory” would refer to what comes under Him on the Lord’s day, such as Psalm 24?
JT Well, His glory certainly enters into the first day of the week. It is what He has, now, here below.
CAM Speaking about the matter of the Lord’s supper and the first day of the week, would it not be right to say that the Lord’s supper, while it is a remembrance as you were saying, involves a close of a period? The idea of supper is at the end of something, whereas the first day of the week introduces the glorious covenant. I was thinking it helps to introduce what is coming soon; like the Sun of Righteousness.
JT Quite so, the great outlook that we have. I think John 20 stresses that more than any chapter that we have.
WB-w I was thinking of Mary of Magdala; she was at the tomb while it was yet dark. Would she represent the spiritual side?
JT Well, I think she does. The whole chapter is spiritual. Peter and John discerned by what they saw in the sepulchre that the Lord was risen. It says John “saw and believed”. The state of the sepulchre, the position of the clothes and the napkin [p. 221] appealed to their spiritual understanding. They did not see the angels, Mary did. They did not see the Lord Himself; Mary did. But they believed without these things. They believed before the Lord was seen and before the angels were seen. They believed because of the condition of the sepulchre. You only get it there.
CAM The last sights of earth; those material things have such a wonderful voice that you would like to be observant. Those are the last things we shall see.
JT Quite so. They saw the position of the cloths — the word is ‘cloths’ really. They were separate ideas; not one piece, but separate ideas.
They were cloths, linen cloths. Peter saw these, and he saw the napkin folded by itself in a separate place; and yet Jesus had gone. Others thought He was stolen; Mary Magdalene did; but it does not appear that Peter or John thought that. They were more spiritual, perhaps not so affectionate, but more spiritual and that is what is needed for that place.
JHE Because of that it was given to Peter to have the first appearance.
JT That is what Luke says. He appeared to Simon. We have no actual record in the gospels; we have what is said in Luke 24. The appearance to Simon is not described; Paul tells us that it was so. Mark says He appeared first to Mary. Luke recounts that the saints were saying that He appeared to Simon, but it does not say that it was the first appearing. The first thing we get about him is that he entered into the sepulchre; he investigated and was capable of deducing from what he saw in the sepulchre that the Lord was risen.
WB-w What did that convey to him? What spiritual thought did the napkin being wrapped by itself convey to him?
JT The napkin was just one thought, but I [p. 222] believe what it conveyed to him was that the linen cloths were not detached. They were cloths, but they were not detached from their original position; they remained in that position. The Lord had come out without affecting the material side at all. He did not have to take away the stone. He rose and left the tomb without affecting the physical side. I think that is like the beginning of the forty days, the great spiritual order of things appearing. I believe Peter and John were spiritual enough to take that in. If He had been stolen those wrappings would have been detached. The only difference was the wrapping of the napkin. It was folded in a place by itself.
JS I was wondering if you would regard the condition in which the sepulchre was found as comparable with Revelation.
JT I think they saw a spiritual order of things.
AFM What do you think of John? His name is not prominent as offering any help for the inside of the sepulchre.
JT It says, “Simon Peter therefore comes, following him, and entered into the tomb, and sees the linen cloths lying, and the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also who came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed”; John saw and believed. Then it says, “for they had not yet known the scripture, that he must rise from among the dead. The disciples therefore went away again to their own home” (verses 6 - 10). It seems as if the two disciples ought to be linked up with the believing, both having gone in.
AR I was wondering if the linen cloths lying and the napkin lying folded by itself is representative of what is to remain on earth; a spiritual [p. 223] order of things. It represents something orderly; the linen speaks of purity.
JT Yes. I think what is conveyed is that the linen cloths were not disturbed. The napkin was disturbed; the handkerchief was folded in a distinct place by itself. Some hand did that because of the Person’s head that had been there. The head would denote the dignity of the Person.
Ques Would the cloths refer to His body?
JT I think so. The wrappings cover the whole body.
AR “Where the disciples were” would indicate an orderly state of the saints. They were not disturbed when He came in and appeared. In 1 Corinthians 11 there is a disorderly state.
JT Well, that is good. The state of things at the Supper was such that the apostle says, I cannot praise you. They were not right.
Ques The handkerchief is in a distinct place. Would that refer to the headship of Christ?
JT I think so. Whoever folded it and placed it aside did so reverentially.
ANW Have you any mind who did it? Was it angelic?
JT Angelic, I think.
CAM The Holy Spirit in John just touches on it. He is giving an intimation of what is going to happen later on — this matter of headship.
JT I think John touches on the spiritual side. He is giving an account of himself and Peter. They were affected spiritually by what they saw; at least he was. The Spirit of God stresses the thought of investigation, of going into the matter fully. They went to the sepulchre and looked into it, and saw these things. “He saw and believed”.
JS I should have thought the linen cloths not being moved is that the movement is wholly spiritual. Later on in the chapter the doors were closed. It [p. 224] was not a question of opening the doors. The Lord comes in.
JT I believe John is more important in teaching of spirituality than any of the gospels.
JS The clothes would not have to be disturbed.
JT Some of us were speaking last evening about the resurrection — with what bodies do they come; and what instruction stands related to it. But the instruction here is spirituality. These disciples, especially John, were affected. He believed by what he saw; by the position of these things.
ARS Does seeing always precede believing?
JT Well, so far. But this very chapter says, “Blessed they who have not seen and have believed” (verse 29). The apostles were eyewitnesses; that was what was essential to apostleship. They were eyewitnesses of His majesty, as Peter says (2 Peter 1: 16), and Paul says, “have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”
1 Corinthians 9: 1. Physically, he saw Him; but we have not. And although it was essential that they should see Him physically, literally, to be witnesses; there is more to be attached to believing without seeing. “Blessed they who have not seen and have believed”. That is an additional thought.
TW We have a right to enter into that. It is not beyond us.
JT That is it. It is not beyond us. Matthew would not suggest the thought of the disciples’ going into the tomb because the angel was there in power sitting on the stone; but John makes much of this investigation.
RWS Had you any thought of the spices being omitted? They are bound up in the linen in verse 40. They are not mentioned as having been seen. Is there a point in that?
JT I think the point is the position of the wrappings. That is all that is mentioned; because it is a question of how the Lord lay, how He lay physically [p. 225] and that these things were as they were. There is no distortion of the exterior.
GMcPh Do you mean that there should be no struggle in our souls to rise to what is spiritual?
JT No struggle at all.
AFM The angels sit at the head and the feet where the body of the Lord had lain. What was the instruction of the fact of Mary being there? Was there anything beyond that for faith?
JT “Mary stood at the tomb weeping without. As therefore she wept, she stooped down into the tomb, and beholds two angels sitting ...”. (verses 11, 12). That is what she saw. She apparently gained nothing from the position of the wrappings; it was a further thought. It seems to be on somewhat lower ground, although one would not like to say anything about Mary Magdalene; but at the same time her mind was that someone had taken the Lord away; and I believe that John determined that that was not so. He believed that there was a spiritual transaction.
JS It was necessary that these things be seen and recorded.
CAM Perhaps they noticed that there was a strong difference between this and the resurrection of Lazarus. In his case the clothes had to be removed.
JT That is helpful. The Lord had to direct them to remove the clothes; and that is what I think affected John.
Rem It is graveclothes in John 11; referring to the difference you are making between these and the cloths.
JT He came out bound hand and foot with them. It is another thing altogether, and I think the contrast enters into what we are saying.
CAM Do you think in that way the coming into life of Lazarus might possibly suggest the way the earthly people of God will come into great, strenuous matters; whereas with the heavenly saints ‘no struggle’ seems to be a very marvellous thing?
JT Well, that is good. Ezekiel shows that much transpired. The bones are dry.
CAM There is a noise.
JT Yes. A rustling, then the flesh comes on, and the skin.
APT What we have been having together here so far, does it not appear that there is the necessity of this being substantiated in our souls particularly in view of who would proceed in assembly service in connection with the breaking of bread?
JT That is what I thought we should get at the difference between this and the Lord’s day, which is an external idea and would correspond with Matthew. The angel came down with all evidences of power and authority and sat on the stone, as much as to say, ‘Who can touch this?’ The matter is open and settled. Heaven had to do with this; the authority of heaven. I believe that is Matthew’s side; and John’s side is to bring in the spiritual, and that is what we ought to get at — the transition from the external position, for it has its own importance in testimony here, to the spiritual position that does not affect the external. You move into it; it is not physical. It is something that John represents himself: “he saw and believed”. He was spiritual enough for that.
Rem Do you think that we have been possibly not making enough allowance for Christ’s place as Lord at the beginning of the meeting?
JT I think we have not made enough room for all that enters into that side of the truth; what is dominical. It covers the Lord’s supper and the covenant.
ABP Would this confirm in our minds that He is supreme? He was supreme even in death, and He [p. 227] came out and would impress upon us that we cannot touch Him except in a spiritual way.
JT That is what John emphasises, the spiritual side; we need to bring out Matthew’s side, the authority of the Lord. So that everything that is not in keeping with the assembly is excluded; even if it be in our own hearts. The dominical side is to subdue and shut out all that is inimical to all that is suiting with this service.
Rem It is not exactly the Lord in heaven; it is more His presence in our midst according to Luke 24, as adjusting ourselves in relation to our lives.
JT As He comes in, you mean. Yes; but even before that, before we leave our houses; very early the idea is there, that it is the Lord’s day. The angel come down symbolises that.
CAM Bringing Matthew’s gospel into it is a striking thing. In this matter of the day you really come under the ordinances of the heavens. These commandments — they all substantiate in your soul,.
JT So that we have that very expression in Job. They are ordinances, and they symbolise what you say, the authority of heaven; and you must be ruled by these. As you get up and move about in household matters, it is the Lord’s day. It ought to be the same every day, in a sense, but it is accentuated on the Lord’s day because we are looking on to this great service. We are looking on to that and we want to approach this great matter in subjection and self-judgment.
JS Do you think the change of the weekly calendar has been overruled by God with this in view?
JT Quite so. It was a gradual thing. The synoptical gospels do not make so much of the first day, but John would say, ‘Never mind, it is the first day of the week. We are beginning something new’.
AFM Ought we not in America to be benefited by New Zealand and Australia? By the fact that [p. 228] they already have gone through this exercise, and we as in the body ought to be affected by it.
JT Quite so. We have abundant evidence that a breath might come ten thousand miles in a second; how much more what lies in the Spirit of God! The Lord’s day is very long.
APT We do not need the radio. It is superfluous. We are dealing with what is spiritual.
JT Quite so; greater material than the physical universe affords. The Spirit of God is a Person. He is here and there at the same time; so that an impulse in New Zealand — it is seventeen hours before New York — well, an impulse so far ahead affects us.
On the Monday, too, the power of prayer is on all day Monday, from early morning. Well, you say, we are talking about physical things; but it is not so.
We are talking about spiritual things.
AR It would mean that our meetings ought to be more spiritual than those in the East.
JT Well, we have an advantage.
Rem I was wondering if your reference to Acts 20 does not help. It says they were gathered together for the breaking of bread and Paul was discoursing until midnight and Eutychus falls down and is revived before the breaking of bread, and then they talked.
JT Quite so.
NW That went on till daybreak.
JT Quite so. The discourse went on till midnight, and then they broke bread, and talked until daybreak. I think what we are speaking of is very important for the brethren to take in. For we have been brought into a wonderful position, and John shows us the transition from what is external, which ought to be right, and then what is spiritual. So that the Lord is known spiritually; not in the midst of them, but in the midst. It is in the midst of the great spiritual realm.
Rem When a brother gives thanks for the bread,
[p. 229] does He come in as Lord at that point? Give us the reason why, and what should be done in the meeting at that point.
JT Well, He is the Lord; John says that. Peter and he were together in the boat, and John says, “It is the Lord”. The Lord was standing on the shore, and He was looking after them; He had a fire of coals; He was thinking of them. Now, if He comes in as you suggest, He has to attend to our condition; what there may be there in the meeting. So that He has us with Him without our being trammelled with outside matters; difficulties, or pressures, or feelings, anything that would interfere with the service would come under Him then.
Rem Really, we cannot proceed to the covenant until the Lord has charge of us. He has to have us under His control.
JT That is right. He comes in in that way; Luke 24 is the example of all that, how He behaved amongst them to adjust them.
ARS In Acts 20, why was the breaking of bread put off for such a long time?
JT Well, it is not set down there as an example for us, that we should have a long discourse about the breaking of bread. It is because the thing was not understood; that is what is meant. However long Paul speaks, wait on him. Get his mind before you break bread so you know how to do it. Even the twelve did not get the instruction as to how to do it. He says, “I have received of the Lord”.
Rem That seems to be the point in this chapter. He gives them credit for coming together in assembly, but not for properly breaking bread.
JT That is why he brings it in here as having received it from the Lord.
AFM Is there not a thought in Paul standing up to minister; it was needed for the saints on [p. 230] prophetic lines? Paul was moving on with further things to communicate.
JT I have no doubt. Although they came together for the breaking of bread it was a long time until they did it. Do not do it unless you listen to Paul.
ANW I was wondering if it would not be on apostolic lines rather than prophetic lines.
AFM He did it as an apostle.
AR The Lord Jesus coming in to the Supper as Lord, would that break up our wills? Everything is regulated.
JT It is whatever He sees; and if He is discerned. One says, “It is the Lord”. Well, then it calls us to attention. What will I do? So that subjection is the great thing then.
WB-w It took Peter a long time when he heard that, because it says he girt his fisher’s coat about him and cast himself into the sea. It was quite a long process.
JT I think the way he moved gives an inkling of how the testimony of the Lord among us should affect us. It is a great occasion when the Lord comes in. Peter wrapped himself in his fisher’s cloak. If it is the Lord I must change my dress. He put on his coat; that is the idea. We need to perk up. It is a great occasion and we need to be in accord with it. The Lord is there as Priest to help us.
Rem It is often said, we receive the bread from the Lord’s hand, but the apostle says, “I have received”.
JT Quite so. Paul received it and he has given it to us.
RWS The first day is mentioned in this very epistle in connection with the collection for the saints.
JT It seems as if that comes in for right feelings. So that the box is on a higher plane than the authority of the Lord. It is on the first day of [p. 231] the week.
AR Why did the apostle bring in the Lord’s supper to meet local need?
JT To show them that what they were pretending to do was not really so. They were assuming to be partaking of the Lord’s supper but their condition was not suitable. This is not it, but we must find out what it is; and he proceeds to tell us.
ABP After he says, “I have received of the Lord”, he says, “the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me”,
1 Corinthians 11: 23, 24. How we should get into our minds the preciousness of what has been delivered to us.
JT Well, we can hardly stay much longer on the question of the lordship of Christ. We have just touched on it. But Hebrews shows the part the covenant has. We have a whole chapter in Hebrews about it. We have chapters 8, 9 and 10. It is a great subject, this matter of the covenant. It begins with “We have such a one”. He summarises in the first verse or two of chapter 8, and then he reaches the idea of the Minister of the sanctuary. That is what is in mind. And then he comes down to the covenant so as to bring us into this thing, that we might be in accord with Him in this great matter of the exercise of His ministerial place as minister of the sanctuary. And what comes out is the Lord saying, “I will be to them for God, and they shall be to me for people” (verse 10).
CAM “We have such a one” would correspond with the fact that the Lord is there. The great thing is the matter of God.
JT That is what comes out. The Minister of the sanctuary; but it is a matter of God, not the Father; the Father is not mentioned in Hebrews at all in relation to us save as disciplining us; the Father of [p. 232] spirits. So that we are on rather lower ground in what we are speaking of now.
ANW Is He before us as Priest now or is He Mediator?
JT The chapter begins with a summary of what had preceded: “a summary of the things of which we are speaking is, We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man” (verses 1, 2). We have Him and that would mean that He attends to us in all that we need. As it says later when we are enjoined actually to draw near, that is one of the things we have and He is available to us in relation to what He has in mind. He is over all the matter and it is for us to see now the place the covenant has. He is the Mediator of the covenant.
WB-w Does mediatorship come before you before priesthood in this section?
JT Well, I think priesthood is before us always.
“Having ... a great high priest” in chapter 4, we draw near to the throne of grace; it is the greatness of His Person; and then in chapter 10, “Let us draw near”. I think He is there to minister to us in that sense; being Mediator of the covenant is an office that He fulfils, too. He is always that, and that would mean that He brings it to us, and reminds us what the love of God is to us. “I will be to them for God, and they shall be to me for people”. We have a God and He has a people.
CAM So that you are far beyond any possibility of any party spirit now. “All shall know me”. We are all filled with the knowledge of God.
JT That is it. We have passed on from authority, although I think it is still dominical. Any thing that comes up must be subdued; but then God [p. 233] is there.
AR Is that why it says, “Giving my laws into their mind, I will write them also upon their hearts” (verse 10)?
JT You can see that. In 2 Corinthians 3 that is the link.
TH In the reference to being written in the heart, the idea of the intelligent person comes into view; and in this passage the mind comes before the heart.
JT I think that is good; but what has just been touched on is to keep the thing going. Now we have reached a point where it is the knowledge of God. It is not now the knowledge of the Lord, not the authority of the Lord; but the knowledge of God. What do I know of God in this section of the service, God in the covenant? Because I must differentiate between God in the covenant and God as Father.
APT Is the service maintained as to lordship and now as to God — both settings in relation to time?
JT Quite so. The covenant is in relation to time.
AFM How do we address God at this juncture? With regard to the covenant-making God, are we free at that juncture to address Him?
JT I think so. We are drawing near to God in our souls, and as knowing Him we differentiate with regard to Him; what He is in relation to the covenant, and what He is in relation to eternal counsels and purposes.
CAM So that as you say, of course, it relates to time still. I was wondering whether up to this stage of the meeting you have in mind that there are the least and the greatest. There are those whom you would respect, those who have a great knowledge of God.
JT Quite so. All the people were in the giving, but when you come to David and Solomon it was the king and the princes. And hence, if a man has a [p. 234] greater knowledge of God he will be able to contribute more liberally.
CAM That helps me, because it seems to me that in the early part of the meeting it is right to have great respect to those who have a great knowledge of God.
JT I think we should. David and Solomon would say, That brother has more and you must recognise that, you must make room for him; not that he would be pushing himself at all.
APT This is more the Jacob side. It says in the same epistle, “Jacob ... worshipped on the top of his staff”, Hebrews 11: 21. It is experience and the knowledge of God.
JT Quite so. He went on to that; he reaches that point; he passes on in that way. He worshipped leaning on the top of his staff, meaning that his experience entered into that.
GMcP Would it be normal for the spiritual to take the lead?
JT Well, David and Solomon make much of the king and the princes, whereas with Moses it is the people. We must make room for growth and the knowledge of God. “All shall know me”. How much do I know?
JHE Does Thomas help as to growth? He was not there at the beginning, but then he says, “My Lord and my God”, John 20: 28.
JT He did not get beyond Christ. Understand, I am not making little of that, because Christ is God, but it was God in that way; God in that Person. But we get beyond that, because that Person is alongside of us, and we are worshipping another Being. The knowledge of God helps us to differentiate between divine Persons. One of the Deity can come down and be our Leader and One remains in the absoluteness of the Deity.
CAM It is from the little one to the great one.
AFM [p. 235] So the brother might fulfil the same service, where there are a scarcity of brothers in the meeting; or he might be privileged to give thanks to God in both characters as Father and God.
JT I think in Ephesians we have it set out. The apostle is filled now with the thought of the Father. It is not the lordship of Christ. The lordship of Christ is usually military in Ephesians, whereas in Romans it is kingship in relation to the kingdom. I think we can distinguish between the king and the military leaders. This is the richest chapter because it is a parenthesis in order that Paul might let out what was in his heart of the mystery. ‘That you might know what I know about it’. So he reaches this point, and says, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father”, Ephesians 3: 14. It is simply the Father that he has in mind, and he says He names every family in heaven and on earth. It is not the whole family, it is every family in the heavens and on the earth. He is really dealing with one family, that is quite obvious. If we now draw near to the Father, it is a matter of a family that He names; and therefore the thought of God will help me to see that I must differentiate between the covenant and the family and speak to God in connection with the family that He has named.
GMcP Does the thought of God pertain to the priesthood in the service of His house and the thought of the Father to the thought of sonship?
JT Quite so. ‘Sons of God’ is the final thought; what the Deity is is finally in our mind. All is according to His counsel, and of course, the character must be in keeping with that. I must be in keeping with that. How am I going to speak to this Being, this great eternal Being? The final thought is God. “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages” (verse 21).
“That God may be all in all”. I want to understand [p. 236] now for the moment it is the Father. He has named us in relation to His eternal thoughts. We want to be in keeping with that. Paul says, I bow my knees because of this. It means I must be strengthened with might by His Spirit. It is the Spirit in another way, it is the Spirit of the Father.
JTJr Is it necessary to know the Spirit in that way in its different settings beginning with Romans 5?
JT Say a little more.
JTJr The love of God is shed abroad (chapter 5). In chapter 8 it is the Spirit leading on to sonship, and then here the Spirit leading on to the Father.
JT Quite so. It is a wonderful thing to be strengthened in the inner man by it. It is not only strengthened, but strengthened with might by that Spirit.
CAM Is it in your mind that prior to the Spirit of His Son, the Spirit of the Father, it is the Spirit of Christ? We come into it by adoption, would you say?
JT Quite so.
ANW Our priest and minister is now before us.
JT He is now there as the Minister of the sanctuary. Officially He is Minister of the sanctuary, but then He is the Son, too. It says He is the “firstborn among many brethren”. He is there in that capacity. It is a family matter. The official side is receding and we are coming into the family.
Rem Is the Lord moving from the headship line to the line of family relations?
JT That is the thought; the first-born among many brethren. We are to be conformed to His image.
JTJr The family which sin never touched.
JT Quite so.
JS Would it bring spiritual life?
JT It is not as the covenant-God now but the Father. We are able to say Father; God viewed as the final culminating thought [p. 237] in the Deity.
JHE Would there be a little touch in the naming of Joseph’s sons? Joseph took his two sons and Jacob named them.
JT Well, there is something there. He is putting them on the level of Reuben and Simeon. The meaning of the word ‘Reuben’ is a son; so that we are now in the family. It is a question of being there characteristically, and how to speak to God in that relationship.
AR I was wondering if you would say something more about the Spirit — the Spirit of the Father that is in me, that helps me to know the Father.
JT Well, it is the Spirit of the Father in the sense of power. It is by His Spirit in the inner man that you may know. That is to give you capacity to know the breadth and length and depth and height. The Spirit of adoption is not shut out.
CAM Your stressing that matter of the Father as a sort of inner thing helps me. It seems to give character to all the range of things that you are going to enter into now.
JT Quite so. We are now in the family; and the great end of the family is God. God is to be all in all. Not ‘all and in all’ but “all in all”. That is He is not all to me objectively, but He is all in me. Whereas in Colossians Christ is everything in the new man, but this is a greater thing; this is the eternal thing.
GMcP In the light of the assembly, as the truth is worked out amongst us, is that what we reach in the assembly?
JT It is the order of assembly service; what is dominical and what is family. We are now speaking of God first, as the Father, who names the families, the saints, the church; and then finally, as God; that God may be all in all. The whole scene is God.
Ques Is that the knowledge of God, God being all in all?
JT [p. 238] The knowledge of God begins at the incarnation.
AR The thought of God is not the covenant-God but the eternal-God.
JT Quite so.
WB-w Referring to the part of the meeting where the Lord comes in “in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”. He is Minister of the sanctuary there.
JT That is right. He is leading us now.
Rem The Lord is said to be in our hearts in this chapter. Does that mean He is now taking a position in relation to the assembly?
AFM I would like to get that thought expanded in connection with Ephesians and Colossians; God all in all. It is the thought “all in all”, as to whether that is subjective in my soul or whether it is what characterises everything in which He is the great centre.
JT I think “in all” would mean the family in mind. Of course, in Ephesians 4 you have a further thought. “One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all” (verse 6). That is universal. Well, I think it alludes to the saints.
This verse says “in us all”. That is what the epistle is dealing with. Of course, if we enlarge it to the universal thought it brings all the families together in the same thing, which perhaps is not in the apostle’s mind here. The final thought is that God is all in all.
He is objectively all to us but He is in us too, filling us. Filled with all the fulness of God. It seems also to make allowance for the universal bearing. In the universe of bliss He certainly fills all subjectively, and fills all the families in some sense.
ETB Would you say that it is only the assembly that has this thought of God as Father?
JT Oh no, I should not say that; He has been known as Father on earth. That is the way Matthew [p. 239] brings the thing in as to the place the Father has. What is Matthew’s view? He brings God in immediately, but he connects the Father with ordering things here. John treats the Father with Paul on the highest level. “My Father and your Father ... . my God and your God”, John 20: 17. That is the final setting of the matter.
JHE It is really John that gives us the economy of the Father and the Son.
JT Quite so.
CAM It really brings you to the end of the Bible.
JT It does. Quite so.
Rem The Lord had this in mind in His prayer in John 17. Would that not help us to understand this further?
JT Well, I think that is right. “That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them”. Here it is the Father’s Spirit.
GMcP God being our dwelling-place from generation to generation.
JT Yes, that would all enter into this.