PERFECTION
[p. 274] PERFECTION
1 John 1: 1, 2; 1 John 2: 14; Exodus 16: 16 - 18
JT These scriptures contemplate perfection, and it occurred to me that the Lord would cause profit from our consideration of the subject from the standpoint of divine counsels, and of our part in the assembly Godward now, and our part in the testimony manward. The Scriptures show that in all these settings the full thought of manhood is in mind; as indeed the babe state, the infantile state, is only contemplated as a necessity to full growth, and generally it is under reproach. In Ephesians, while the actual babe state is owned, yet it is spoken of in a reproachful way, and we are reminded that it should no longer exist — “that we may be no longer babes”,
Ephesians 4: 14. The Scriptures show that God, in the beginning of His operations in Genesis, made everything perfect; there is no idea of infancy, whether in relation to the earth, the lower creation, or man; all was perfect; there was no idea of development in that. If there is to be further development, as, of course, there must be — seeds are sown, children are born, it is not to something unknown, but something already known. John had this in mind in his first letter; he calls attention to what was from the beginning. There is no suggestion of any improvement on that, or development in it.
I suggested the passage in Exodus because it shows how God’s mind is expressed as to what we are to come to, if we are not there yet, in the measure of our food. The omer was for the old person as much as for the babe; it was an omer for a person, so that whether we are men actually or potentially, that is how God regards us, according to the full thought of His mind. If I am not a man actually in full development,
[p. 275] I am so potentially in the mind of God. In ministering to me God has in mind that I should be a man. I am not to remain in the nursery; I am not to remain a babe; for that would be a reproach. The full thought has been brought out. It is a matter of history; everything is known. The omer was laid up before the testimony — that is, the ark; Exodus 16: 33, 34.
HH Is it your thought that, speaking from the epistle of John, things have already reached their perfection in the Lord Himself? Everything has been produced in its perfection in the Lord Jesus, and that is the standard which the Spirit of God would have before us all.
JT That is what I understand. To use an illustration: God did not make an egg, He made a hen; He did not make an infant, He made a man.
ATS It is God’s thought that men should multiply and fill the earth.
JT That is the idea — men; and then the first child born is called a man; Eve called Cain a man. “I have acquired a man with Jehovah”, Genesis 4: 1. All that follows up to Noah is to bring us to that, Noah representing it as no one previously represented it — I mean morally, for Adam could not be improved on in his own order. When Adam failed, God began to work on the moral line; and Adam was the image of Him that was to come. So that Noah answered to it more than any in his day; and what you find with him is that everything is full-grown. The world after the flood, as at first, began with perfection, in this sense there was full-growth.
WCG So it says, “Noah was ... perfect amongst his generations”, Genesis 6: 9.
JT Yes; it is not said of anyone else before him. God begins to work, and He works in relation to Christ. He is the Model. So that as many as received Him were entitled “to be children of God,
[p. 276] to those that believe on his name” — that is, the full thought is in His mind — “who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”, (John 1: 12, 13), born in relation to that great thought.
HPW John begins his epistle with what the apostles heard and saw. To apprehend the Lord in this way it is really necessary that the ear should receive hearing and the eye receive sight, which were both lost at the beginning.
JT So that the new hearing and the new sight are in order that we might hear and see what is from the beginning. That, in truth, is what John has in mind, that we might have the full divine thought. The ‘name’ in the gospel implies things that are set out in the Person, and in the beginning of the gospel we have “those that believe on his name” (John 1: 12), and then at the end — “believing ye might have life in his name”, John 20: 31. Every line of Scripture, I might say, stresses this thought God begins with perfection in Christ — infinite perfection; so that we are not going on to something unknown; it is what has been, and what has been according to this competent testimony of the apostles, as John goes on to say, “that which we have seen and heard we report to you”. The “fathers” in chapter 2 are the full result, so that John has nothing to say to them in the way of exhortation or rebuke, but simply, “ye have known him that is from the beginning”.
HMS Will you tell us why in the first three verses of the epistle we have the expression “that”, not ‘He’ nor ‘Him’, but “that”? We do not get ‘that’ in the gospel; why is it here? And why, having said “that” in verse 1 of the chapter, does John say to the fathers: “him that is from the beginning”?
JT The use of the neuter pronoun is to call attention to the substance that was there; it is what [p. 277] is in Christ: that is the primary object of that verse. This shows that christianity is not an ethical system, such as had existed in the East, and exists today. Generally speaking, all religious systems, aside from christianity, are mere theories, though there may be a certain amount of consistency of conduct. The use of the neuter pronoun means that there was infinite substance in Christ as to what is spoken of. “That which we have heard, which we have seen”. It calls attention to the fact that the thing in hand, that is life, was actually there. It was not to be a promise, something that would occur in the future; it was actually there in a Man, moving in and out amongst men, who was the life. The life was there. “In him was life”, and it was there substantially. As the angel said to Mary, “The holy thing”, Luke 1: 35. That means that He was substantially holy. And so as to the life, He was substantially that. There is no doubt about it. That is the point, that the saints should know life as a reality, that it had been heard and seen and handled. “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled”. It is all to call attention to the character of what is in christianity substantially and eternally; it involves life that is eternal.
Ques Is it the thought of what the Lord was characteristically as Man in distinction from what He was personally as in Deity?
JT Spoken of as “from the beginning”, His manhood is in view; as in absolute Deity He is “in the beginning”, John 1: 1. He had opened the ears and eyes of the apostles so that they heard and saw and contemplated life in Him. The allusion is to Christ in humanity, and what is from the beginning — that is “the beginning” from John’s point of view, what He was as He began to minister in manhood.
HPW In that connection, is that why the detail [p. 278] of the manna is given? It is said to be small and round. Is that a kindred thought to what you have in your mind?
JT Yes, it refers to Christ here in everyday life. The description of what it was, and the taste of it, is somewhat different in Numbers from what it is said to be in Exodus, but not very different. When they complained of it God made no attempt to make it anything else but what it was. There is no attempt in the description in Numbers to make it anything different from what it really was. There was nothing in it to appeal to the natural taste.
MC What is the thought in connection with “our hands have handled”?
JT It is that He was a real Man in flesh and blood condition before their eyes here. In resurrection after He arose, He was still a real Man. It was a great reality to the apostles; so they were not viewing Him as at a distance; many had heard Him and seen Him who had not handled Him; but the apostles were competent to speak of handling Him, especially John, because he lay in His bosom.
EuR Christianity is set out in a glorious, living Person; One whom the apostles knew in that way?
JT Yes; they knew “him that is from the beginning”. There is no change in Him; there may be change as to the condition of His humanity, but that is not the point; it is the reality of His humanity that is in question. The fathers had come to that.
HH It is very important that we should appreciate the thought of perfection so that God might be rightly represented on the earth now.
JT Yes, God is working to bring us all up to His ideal. All these meetings we have, which, thank God, are becoming more and more frequent, and, I believe, profitable, are to the end that we should be “no longer babes”. We wake up to the fact that we have been babes, acting like babes, as the Corinthians [p. 279] were, but we give it up, and see that it is not God’s mind, that He is ministering food so that we might not be babes, and that the food He is ministering to this end is the same as that which He is ministering to the most spiritual, for it is only the manna; He makes no attempt to make it any different from what it is. People may use mortars and such like, and seek to make it to their taste, but God is not altering it, He is not attempting to indicate that it is any different from what it is; it is just what it is. Indeed, in Exodus 16 there might be a question-mark to the end of the chapter: “What is it?” We shall never arrive at the end of that, but there is an omer for everyone. It is a question of everyone eating it, and eating the measure of it.
DMcI Is it that we should “be conformed to the image of his Son”, Romans 8: 29?
JT Yes; the Lord has no other thought for any of us, and all these meetings and ministry are to that end, that the saints might come on and be no longer babes; so the ministry should not be divided into compartments and grades. The school of God is not like a grammar-school with different classes. There is the same food for all. Not, indeed, that there is not milk and strong meat; there is; but God indicates from the outset that if He is ministering anything to our hearts it is because He wants us to be men. It is not a class of babes with a babe-teacher.
EuR Do we see in Revelation 21: 3 that God has reached His great end with regard to men generally? “The tabernacle of God is with men”.
JT That is the thought, not with babes, but “with men”. The Lord says, speaking to the Father, “the men whom thou gavest me”, John 17: 6. They were not men in the sense in which it speaks of fathers here in 1 John 2, for they had not yet received the Spirit, nor was redemption yet accomplished; but they were men potentially. The Father would not [p. 280] give the Son anything less. He does not give Him babes; He gives Him either those who are men actually or men potentially. So the Lord speaks of “the joy that a man has been born into the world”, John 16: 21. Christ is presented in the gospel of John in fulness, and if I have believed, I believe on His name; that means all that is set out in Him. To divide up the saints into compartments or grades, as in a school, because of some being infants, is wrong; the idea is that I am in company with men. I get the divine idea; and it is a remarkable thing that a boy instinctively speaks of doing things like a man, and that ought to be promoted in him.
Ques Would you say that the fact that the apostle Paul addresses the children in the assembly at Ephesus shows that he has that before him, that they feed on the same food, and grow up together with the men?
JT Just so.
HPW Will you say more about that, because it says of the Lord that He “advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men”, Luke 2: 52. Will you say a little about growth? You spoke about all eating the same food with the object of arriving at manhood, at full growth.
JT It is important to remember that in connection with what is said in Luke about the Lord it is literal manhood that is in mind, not spiritual; I mean, we cannot compare a young christian with the Lord. What is said in Luke’s gospel as to Christ is to bring out how perfectly real His humanity was, that He passed through all the stages of humanity. To make that to correspond with the growth of a young christian would hardly do; it would rather reflect on God personally. It is only to bring out that His humanity is genuine, that He passed through all the stages proper to humanity. In testimony He began at the age of thirty years; indeed He was [p. 281] conscious of sonship earlier (Luke 2: 49), but it was when He began to be “about thirty years old” that heaven publicly noticed Him. He could have come into manhood as at the age of thirty, instead of coming in as a babe. There is nothing impossible with God. Adam was never a babe, nor a boy; he was made a man; and Christ could have come in thus if it had been the will of God, but it must be brought out that His humanity was genuine. He came through all its stages and touched man at every point. The testimony, however, presented in Him to men, as pleasurable and as anointed, is in full manhood.
Whilst all eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink, yet there is milk and strong meat, which is to be observed. Yet an old christian uses milk; thus the general food is the same. Whether meat or milk, there is no other food that God has for man, but Christ. It is only a matter for discrimination in ministry. There is no thought in Scripture of specialists for children, nor for old men. You have the Lord Himself taking the children in His arms; and you have Paul feeding the Corinthians with milk, and you have Peter alluding to new-born babes; but then these are the most spiritual, they are not specialists for children; in fact, the person who can feed children best is the most spiritual you can get, as in the case of the Lord, and in the cases of Paul and Peter.
HH When Paul says to the Corinthians, “we speak wisdom among the perfect” (1 Corinthians 2: 6), does he imply that they were not full-grown, that the Corinthians were not perfect? But if that is so, does he not give them very advanced ministry in 1 Corinthians 15 — “the second man, out of heaven”?
JT The whole epistle gives strong meat in a suggestive way; he tells them plainly that they were not able to receive it. He says, “I have given you milk to drink, not meat” (1 Corinthians 3: 2), and he [p. 282] determined to know no man among them “save Jesus Christ, and him crucified”, chapter 2: 2. When writing to them he speaks of something beyond; he speaks of “Things which eye has not seen, and ear not heard”, chapter 2: 9. He does not depute some other brother to do it; he does not suggest that some other brother should go up to Corinth who might look after young christians. He does it himself, and he is the most capable of doing it.
WCG Does Colossians 1 help: “Christ ... whom we announce, admonishing every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, to the end that we may present every man perfect in Christ” (verse 28)?
JT Just so. That shows again that scripture presents the best thoughts for all. The returning prodigal got the best robe at once. There are not different grades of robes. Samuel had his robe new every year, which calls attention to the rapidity of his growth. You could not say to him, ‘that we be no longer babes’, because he graduated so quickly. God takes account of believers as potentially men, and the Lord’s remark about a man being born into the world shows that God has nothing else in mind.
Ques Have we the combination of the two thoughts in Ephesians 4: 13: “until we all arrive ... at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”, giving the divine thought in its fulness: then, too, “the full-grown man”, being the suggestion of movements on our part in the way of growth to it?
JT That is right. So ministry to the young is right; this very letter of John ministers to little children, young men, and fathers, but they would all be together. He is not deputing a less spiritual brother to look after the little ones; he is doing it himself. The apostle John could feed them better than most; he had seen the Lord Jesus take the children into His arms; Luke says they were infants.
[p. 283] Ques Does Hannah bringing the new coat for Samuel every year suggest the need of new clothes for us?
JT Yes; he was no longer a babe. There is no idea of a stunted condition in Samuel, but see how quickly God can use him to convey His mind — indeed, to become the depositary of His thoughts. It is very remarkable how quickly Samuel was used of God. The contemplating of 1 John especially is important. Many heard the Lord and saw Him, but how few contemplated Him! Moses said, “I will now turn aside, and see”, Exodus 3: 3. It is the idea of the appropriation of what there is, and in the appropriation of what there is one assimilates it and becomes like it. The young men are persons who are strong. It would imply spiritual youth. A man converted at eighteen would not be a ‘young man’; he might be only a babe spiritually. It is persons of spiritual youth who are referred to, who are set in the testimony, persons of spiritual vigour and levitical age.
ELM Hebrews 5 seems to link up with the thought of full growth. “Solid food belongs to full-grown men, who, on account of habit, have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil” (verse 14).
JT Yes, “on account of habit”. The Hebrew christians had not gone ahead. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have again need that one should teach you what are the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God” (verse 12). That is pretty much a description of the mass of christians today; that is their state; they need to be taught the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God. That service is largely given of the Lord to those who have light as to the assembly, to seek to bring the saints generally to principles — to first principles and to all principles. So the writer points out that milk belongs to a babe, and strong meat to a full-grown [p. 284] person. The book clearly intimates that that is what they should have been. It is virtually saying, It is a shame that you are babes.
Now can we go on to the truth of the assembly if the saints are not discerning between good and evil? That is why the great mass of christians do not discern what is involved in human and religious organisations. There is no ability with them to discern between good and evil. The first great thought is to get our brethren and teach them the principles of the oracles of God.
FAP Whilst we may not reach the state of fathers according to John very early, we should desire to leave the babe state early.
JT We should consider it a reproach. A person may have been converted only a few days, but the types in the gospels show that the persons are made whole, not partially whole. The gospel rightly received means that potentially the person is a man. As whole it is a question simply of growth.
EuR For us, does that involve the exercises of Romans 7, and the Spirit being free in the soul?
JT Just so; it must be a complete cure; there can be nothing else. You have the idea in your mind of the gospel; as Paul said, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”, Galatians 1: 16. That presents the divine thought. No one can tell how rapidly a person may come into manhood. Take Paul as illustrative of this: he became a man in a few days. He preached Christ as Son of God immediately.
MC Do we get an instance of that in connection with the man who received his sight in John 9? He came to the knowledge of the Son of God and worshipped.
JT How long did it take him? You could not reckon it in hours. Listen to his speech: first his [p. 285] neighbours come and say, How did you get your eyes opened? He tells them what the Lord did, and he says, “I saw” (verse 11). He relates the historical facts to them. Then the parents are challenged, and they say, “He is of age: ask him” (verse 21). That is not merely literal: it is spiritual for us. He will answer for himself. Listen to what he says to the Pharisees in answering for himself. You never heard of a man answering more wonderfully under such circumstances. The Pharisees challenge him a second time as to what the Lord did to him. To them he says, “I see” (verse 25), not “I saw”, as he said to the neighbours (verse 11). He does not speak historically to the Pharisees. There is no use in bringing up historical facts to the leaders of christendom, for such leaders would all know history; and they would tell you about the church councils of the past, but that is nothing. It is what marks me now that counts, that I am a full-grown man. That is what he meant when he said, “I see”. They did not see, and so they cast him out. He points out that it had never been heard before since time was, that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. You would think from the way he talks that he was an instructed man, yet he had been blind from his birth, he had had no opportunity of being instructed. He says, If this Man had been a sinner God would not have heard Him. They cast him out saying, “Thou hast been wholly born in sins, and thou teachest us?” (verse 34). And the Lord, when He hears that they had cast him out, finds him and says to him, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him, Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he. And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage” (verses 35 - 38). There is the man. He is full-grown. It seems to have been a very short time; the thing happened so quickly. See what happened [p. 286] at Jerusalem in Acts 2: three thousand were converted at the first great address; and what is said of them shows that they were grown men: “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” (verse 42).
HMS You spoke, at the beginning of the meeting, of this maturity in three connections.
JT Yes, first in relation to the counsels of God. He has nothing in His mind but men, and in giving the disciples to Jesus He gave them as men. Then in the assembly, service is not carried on by babes but by men; by those who are priests; though in regard of priests the age limit is never given; it is given for the levites, not the priests. A man who takes part in the assembly is a proved man. Aaron sets forth the great idea. The priests were the sons of Aaron; and Aaron himself is the great prototype. He was advanced in years. God knew him (Exodus 4: 14). Paul says, “if any one love God, he is known of him”, 1 Corinthians 8: 3. A priest is a lover of God, and speaks of Him.
HMS Does James 3 belong to this subject? Because there a man who can control his tongue is said to be “a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body too” (verse 2). And then James says, “Therewith bless we the Lord and Father” (verse 9), which I suppose would be the highest exercise of a man’s body. Is not that the priesthood?
JT Very good; I think it corresponds with, “if any one love God, he is known of him”. God would, as it were, salute him. Not that God does not know everybody; but He calls you by name. He greets you. He said of Aaron, “I know that he can speak well”. He spoke to God.
Ques There was a time when the manna ceased and they went on to something else. Will you say a word about that?
JT It is just Christ in another way — “the old corn of the land”. The difference is that the manna is what He was here in flesh and blood in our circumstances, and the old corn of the land represents what He is in His own circumstances, in His own sphere, in heaven. “The Son of man who is in heaven”, John 3: 13. The fact that He left it for a little while does not interfere with it; that was His own place.
Ques God “has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2: 6. Is that where He is reached in His own sphere?
JT The old corn is what He is as indigenous to heaven. “The Son of man who is in heaven” — a very remarkable statement, and one that always holds true. I suppose the men are there for a testimony to that, that there should be a witness to what He is up there — a marvellous thing; and that we shall share eternally. You can see therefore how much the manhood thought is essential — “the men whom thou gavest me”, the Lord says; and then He asks that “they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory”, John 17: 24.
Rem Joseph selects five of his brethren to present them to Pharaoh; Genesis 47: 2.
JT They were all potentially suitable, but not actually, and he made his selection. The Lord makes His selection, too. He made a selection of three of His disciples when He took them up to the mount of transfiguration. It was that there should be competent testimony as to what took place up there. There were eleven competent witnesses as to the Lord’s supper. There were three competent witnesses as to what was up on the mount; so we have the heavenly things brought down. But then Paul went further; he was caught up to the third heaven. In the assembly we have the testimony of what is higher still.
[p. 288] Ques What is the connection between what you are saying, and knowing “a man in Christ”?
JT That is Paul himself; he had the thing continuing on in him. The thing was there. If you met Paul and talked intimately with him, you would find out he was a man in Christ. The deeper you got into the knowledge of Paul, the more you would find what he was as a man in Christ; and although he could not utter the things which he heard, they were there in his soul. I suppose Paul helps in the idea of a treasury. According to the pattern which David had by the Spirit, the temple — or the house — contained treasuries (1 Chronicles 28: 11), meaning that all the saints are viewed as able to keep secrets. They value things and treasure them up. They do not cast them before swine.
Ques In connection with 2 Corinthians 12: “I know a man in Christ”, what is the bearing of “fourteen years ago”?
JT He conveys in that remark the idea of a treasury, one who contained treasures, who could keep them without speaking of them, which is a practical matter. In ministering to people one does not tell them all one knows. One considers the people to whom one speaks, making a careful analysis before the Lord in relation to what would feed His people, and then giving that to them. That enters into it. How great a thing it was morally that a man could keep such things in his mind, for apparently he never spoke of them.
HH You get other instances: Paul did not disclose at once what he knew about the rapture; and in regard of the Supper he says, “I received from the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 11:23. These are some of Paul’s secrets: the secret of the rapture, and of the Supper, and the man in Christ.
JT I think all that underlies the idea of the mystery. We form part of the assembly, if we are [p. 289] anything at all — that in which are hidden “all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge”, Colossians 2: 3. We ought to learn to keep secrets, keeping things because we feel they are of value. They should not be allowed into unhallowed hands or minds, because people will only turn them against us.
The third thing in mind can be seen in the Lord Himself: He began to be about thirty years of age. That is the levitical age, the age of true manhood. God would present the perfect thing to bring about perfect results. In Numbers 15 in regard of service Godward it says that if a man brings “a burnt-offering or a sacrifice for the performance of a vow, or as a voluntary offering, or in your set feasts, to make a sweet odour to Jehovah”, he was to bring with it a quantity of things, such as fine flour mingled with oil, and wine. It was all to be measured. Then if a person brought a ram, something larger than a lamb, there was to be increase in the measures of the accompanying things; and if he brought a bullock, the measures were to be increased again, which means that the idea of manhood must go forward; it must be there before God. If I turn round to speak to men the same thing is true: the idea of manhood must be there, for God would set out in the vessel of the testimony what He intends to bring out in those ministered to. So the Thessalonians became followers of Paul — it was commendable in regard of them — and then also of the Lord; 1 Thessalonians 1: 6. The apostles got their first thoughts from the Lord Himself.
Ques Would it not be a great incentive to the labourer to labour in the sense of results being brought about characterised by perfection?
JT One is practically very humbled, without complaining of the brethren, that there is so much of the child or babe state, evidenced in the readiness to be taken up with what is fanciful and just novelty;
[p. 290] and there is such a poor understanding of principles and things which have cost other men much that we might have them. There is such a poor appreciation of our heritage, the heritage being so wide — I mean, the heritage in relation to the law, according to Deuteronomy 33: 4: “Moses commanded us a law, The inheritance of the congregation of Jacob”. That is, our heritage in relation to the principles of God governing us — assembly principles; they are a heritage and one feels humbled that they are so poorly understood. I believe the Lord has to go a roundabout way — and He is doing it in love — to bring before us the things we are brought into, and each one should be concerned about understanding them, and standing for them, and suffering for them if need be — for the principles that govern the fellowship — and which govern the house of God.