THE LORD'S SERVICES IN THE ASSEMBLY

THE LORD’S SERVICES IN THE ASSEMBLY

John 6:67 - 69; John 13:8; John 14:5 - 10; John 17:6,26

JT These scriptures indicate how, as believers, we come to know the Lord in His services in the assembly, in His relations to the Father. In the types, Israel had to come to the knowledge of the Lord as priest. The first scripture we read refers to priesthood. Holiness, at least typically, entered peculiarly into this office. So Peter, in our scripture, chapter 6, says, “we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. They had believed. His disciples believed in Him, we are told, as He manifested forth His glory, but they came gradually to see Him in His varied glories and offices. So in saying that they had believed and known that He was the Holy One of God, they had the knowledge of Him which we may call basic as regards the service of God. The word was in them in that light. The Lord spoke in chapter 14 of their knowing Him when the Spirit should come, and that He was in the Father, and they were in Him and He in them. He comes into their knowledge of Him on this line, as believing and knowing by experience. The gospels provide examples of persons who know who He is in this sense, such as John the baptist, the woman of Samaria, and now Peter. In John the baptist, He was known as sacrificial, as the Lamb of God; in the woman of Samaria, as the Christ, and here He is spoken of as having been believed on and known to be the Holy One of God, evidently acquiring place in the disciples in this way. Paul spoke of Christ being among us, or in us, morally His place in the assembly which leads to the Minister of the sanctuary and indeed as exercising every office in the assembly, for indeed His varied glories are to Shine, as we know, and to be responded to also in a ^[p. 13] reciprocal way in the saints, as He is known amongst us. And then in chapter 13 (Peter again speaking, but unadvisedly), the Lord reminds us in His answer to Peter that we can only have part with Him, not simply as washed, but as He washes us. That is, the matter must be His. Elsewhere, we wash ourselves. He washes us from our sins, too, but here it is not simply that we are washed, but that He does it, and if He does not there is no possibility of having part with Him. This would remind us that in the assembly He must have to say to everything, and then as to the Father, we should question Him. He instructs us in His answers as to how we are to apprehend the Father. That is, He is to be apprehended, but He is to be apprehended in His fulness. No one hath seen Him as to His absolute Being, but He is to be apprehended in His fulness, so that it is what is in Christ. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”, He says. So that we get into our minds who we are speaking of when we are speaking of the Father. There is some concrete report. He is invisible as God is, but still there are the features that get into our minds that we know what we are saying and to whom we are saying it, when we are speaking to the Father.

And then finally, in chapter 17, the Lord is seen as High Priest. Although John does not give these official titles, yet we can see, by the service He renders, what He says when speaking to His Father, how the divine service is carried on, how the Minister of the sanctuary carries on the service and what place the saints have in it, carried along in the ministry in the teaching of this book, carried along to be alongside the Lord in His speaking to the Father, in which speaking, or we might say, prayer, He calls His disciples men whom the Father gives Him. So that He is manifesting His name to them in verse 6, and in verse 26, “I have made known to them thy name,

^[p. 14] and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”. So that we go on this line, into the love in its greatest position, that is in the love the Father has for the Son.

AR Would you say what is involved in the expression “the holy one of God” as in the first portion?

JT I think it underlies the service of God in the sanctuary. It underlies the Lord’s official place as Priest. The disciples came to apprehend Him in this light. It is remarkable that it comes out when many were going away, and it reminds us of the needs of acquiring a knowledge of Christ, an experimental knowledge, otherwise we shall go away.

HB He being in us in this character, does that mean that we are seeking on sanctuary lines, seeking on the way of getting into a sphere that suits us, and where we are in direct first-hand touch with Him?

JT You are fixed. You are not going away. There is no one to go to.

Ques Does Peter get his first glimpse of the knowledge of the Lord in Luke 5: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord”, Luke presenting Him as “the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God” (Luke 1: 35); and immediately after the Lord indicates service for him?

JT Well, that is very good. The presence of holiness is there. He felt the presence of holiness, and he was sinful, not only a sinner but sinful. As you say, Luke begins with the thought of holiness, essential holiness — the Holy Thing. That is essential holiness which can be said of no other Babe. Even the demons recognised it, but in Peter’s answer here, it is an experimental matter. It is not simply that he got a revelation as in Matthew 16, but it is experimental, and therefore, within the range of all of us.

TT In the earlier part of John 6, the Lord speaks about being taught of God, and says, “No one can ^[p. 15] come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him”. Is there a connection between the two?

JT The chapter is profound in that way. It is a chapter which requires more attention than any for the understanding of it. The Lord says, for instance, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he has sent”. So that we proceed in the epistles. We become experimental in our knowledge of the Lord. That is, He becomes, as it were, in us. We are told in Romans 8 “if Christ be in you” and in Colossians, “Christ in you the hope of glory”. I believe John builds up that line of truth.

So that as to John the baptist, Christ is in him, and so right along he gives the varied features of Christ’s glory in the way it is apprehended, for the names He gets are nearly all by those who apprehend Him, as for instance, by Nathanael.

GHC Is the apprehension of Him connected with the way He is presented in this chapter, as the principle of life?

JT It is, because Peter says, “Thou hast words of life eternal”. That is the first thing he mentions the words meaning that the truth or the subject of eternal life is opened up to us and made intelligible. There is instruction as to it in detail and that is necessary, too, as regards our essential position because life is essential. It is the living that praise God, as Hezekiah says. But then Peter adds here, “the holy one of God”. “The holy one of God” would imply the service of God.

AG Do you suggest that Matthew 16 is special, and this chapter is normal?

JT This is normal. It is presented as normal, although the Lord addresses the twelve. It is presented as the normal outcome of what is experienced. He does not ask what they were saying about Him, but He challenges them as to whether they are going away, so that it becomes very practical. The knowledge ^[p. 16] of Christ as Peter speaks of it here is essential to our being held in the right position.

CEW You spoke of the apprehension of Himself in earlier chapters. Do you think that the character of the service here is more in relation to the assembly?

JT I think the basis is laid in Peter’s soul for the service of God, that is from this point. We might take up the whole typical teaching, for the types are full of the teaching relative to the service of God. It is very remarkable as you look into the types, take Exodus. The great bearing of Exodus is the service of God. “Let my son go, that he may serve me”. That is in chapter 4. And then we have in chapter 25 how God shall dwell among His people, and be served amongst them. So that we can understand how instruction laid in Peter’s soul would fit him for the service of God, to take it up as we have seen in the book of Exodus, and then the book of Leviticus — priestly service. It is the great subject for the moment, I believe, that the Lord is keeping before us, and we are challenged here as to whether we are going away. What is holding us? It is the vital knowledge of Christ, first as the One who has the words of eternal life, and then the Holy One of God.

RMcA Do you think the Lord felt keenly for those who went away?

JT He did. It is from that time, many of His disciples went away, and were walking no more with Him. And then He says to the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” And then Peter’s reply. These are the things, these are the initial features, which would hold the saints. “Lord, to whom shall we go?” Who would tell you about eternal life? And then as regards God and our service, who could tell us anything about it? Where can you get it in all the systems that man has made up? They have not a ^[p. 17] thought for the service of God. There must be the Holy One of God for the service of God.

WH Does the Lord connect the thought of being in them as known with the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood? He says, that he who does So “dwells in me and I in him”.

JT That is good. It confirms what we are saying as to this chapter.

Rem So that would be a matter of what enters into the constitution of the individual.

JT That is right. That is the word, ‘the constitution’, because this is not an immediate revelation. It is something we have known by experience. We have believed and known. We believe much that we cannot say we have known, but to say that I have known, I mean that I have had experience of the thing. I have proved it.

Rem So this is a word for the Lord’s own heart as well as a test to the disciples.

JT I think that is right. I think it must have been very refreshing to Him, to have an answer like this, and so always the Lord loves to hear us tell what we think of Him — what would hold us to it. We have vital knowledge of Christ; we have nowhere else to go. Take all the things there are one by one, and where can you go? If you are a spiritual person, if you are a true believer in Christ, where can you go?

Rem In chapter 17, the Lord says, “the words which thou hast given me I have given them”.

Would you connect these words with words of eternal life?

JT That is beyond this. Peter said the Lord had them. He does not imply that the disciples had them. They no doubt understood, but this is the experience of His teaching, listening to what He is saying and so what He was saying were words not simply that would teach them, but that one could have them.

^[p. 18] Ques Is it this knowledge that distinguishes the other disciples from Judas? He was chosen as much as they were, was he not?

JT The Lord says so — a very solemn challenge, because if He is the Holy One of God, we will be searched out. Being in the outward position is not enough. Where He is confessed in this way, He could not let Judas off — not simply that he had a demon, but he was a devil, showing what may be amongst the brethren, and the Lord exposes it.

WH As eating His flesh you would be morally apart from all that the flesh would live in, and drinking His blood would bring you into touch with all that His love would reveal. So that love would be your portion.

JT Quite so. The chapter is very profound. It is the Son of God, and the Son of man come down from heaven. It is a question of the life of the world. It is a question of life. No doubt the teaching was being received by him and others. The disciples have reached something that holds them permanently with the Lord, and speaking of a person amongst them who is a devil, he can be dealt with without causing damage. There is something that holds them.

GD It would call our attention to the great feature of holiness.

JT Well, that is what I was remarking, as underlying the service in the sanctuary. Holiness becomes us for ever. So that we have in Christ the Holy One of God. He is thus Minister of the sanctuary, that is, One available for service who is qualified for all that relates to the sanctuary.

GD Is that what was lacking with the two sons of Aaron, not understanding the holiness of the position in their service?

JT They offered strange fire and Judas would do that, too.

HB Is there the side in which we are ^[p. 19] indispensable to Him in the filling out of the service of God?

JT That is what comes in here, I think. The thought of it comes in amongst the twelve. It must be remembered that all that He unfolded was in relation to the twelve, especially the Lord’s supper.

As far as the records go, only twelve were present. What is in mind in that is that what the Lord intended to inaugurate there would be established on a reliable testimony, and the thought of the sanctuary comes in here and the Lord must say there is a devil. He is utterly incompatible with the sanctuary. Anything of that nature must be dealt with. If we go to the types, of course, this is all opened up to us.

HB It is said of Mary Magdalene, that seven demons went out of her. Does that in any way touch the idea?

JT It would, indeed. She would be thus consecrated material for the assembly.

GHC This thought of Minister of the sanctuary — is it known in a peculiar way when the saints are together in assembly?

JT That is what I was thinking of, that we might see first as to how each of us comes into it, into the knowledge of Christ in this direction. Many of us may sit down in assembly, and have no personal knowledge; we have to rely on the brethren who have. Whereas the thought here is that the believer comes into personal knowledge of Christ in this character. We have believed and known, Peter says; so that we understand. We sit down in assembly, we look round when we go in, and we take charge.

GHC Is this a sign of His service? Do you think we have not paid sufficient heed to His service in this regard?

JT I think it is a question to each person, coming to know the Lord as Peter knew Him.

TT They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we have known?”

^[p. 20] But there was nothing in that that was really in the service of God.

JT That is a good contrast. That could never come into fellowship, as we say. It is this personal knowledge that qualifies us for the assembly. Peter could have said many other things at this juncture. He does, but what he says here we may be sure is what was needed, what ends in the instruction.

FI Does this personal knowledge of the Lord come to us before we come to the Supper, or while we are at the Supper?

JT I think it is a christian experience that we ought to acquire as we are converted. It is the essence of the gospel, that He is raised from the dead, that He is “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead”, Romans 1: 4. It seems it is something that can be acquired by persons to whom the gospel comes. The element of holiness comes with the gospel. I mean, it is presented divinely in the gospel. The Spirit works it in us. We come together, as I understand, to sit down in assembly, as knowing Christ in this way. He is my Saviour, of course, and many other things, Mediator of the covenant, but He is the Holy One of God, as basic, and it works out in many glories in Christ. What else have you to say about that?

FI Well, I have not much else to say. I just wanted help. As you have in view the thought of the service of God, I take it that is carried on as being in assembly in relation to the Supper. You do not look at it as apart from that. Where do we gather up the thought as to the Minister of the sanctuary, or where are we made suitable to take it on?

JT I think the Lord’s supper is the occasion of this, the introduction to the service of God as in assembly, and what is more, is that each believer is to acquire the knowledge of the Holy One of God. It ^[p. 21] is a basic thought really as to the service of God. He is the Holy One of God, He is looked on as God’s in this light. He will look after man in the assembly, in the sanctuary as God while He is Minister in it.

FW They did not answer each one for themselves, but Peter answers for all, as though the assembly was involved in that matter.

JT Yes. In the Lord remarking about Judas, it is a very small but searching matter, and as in assembly service, there is the possibility of a person like this, and the Lord could not let Judas off when He is confessed as the Holy One of God; He could not let Judas off. He must expose him, for He is in service as the Minister of the sanctuary to expose any evil that may be. So we must, therefore, see that there is no possibility to stay being exposed in the presence of the Holy One of God.

HR Is that after He is confessed as the Holy One of God that makes room for Him to take up this service as Minister of the sanctuary?

JT He is known to be that. The point is to be that He is known among us. He is in us, as the Holy One of God. And Peter says, “we have believed and known”. It is evidently what is known amongst them. You can understand the apostles talking to one another, and the truth would develop in their minds in that way. Peter must have been conversant with the others in saying that we have believed and known.

HR I would like to ask in regard of John 21. Peter says to the Lord, “thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee”. It was both conscious knowledge and objective knowledge there. What would this knowledge be that you refer to now?

JT I cannot really tell you the original word, but I think it is ‘conscious’. Peter uses the word for ‘conscious’ in John 21, until he finishes the last ^[p. 22] reference, meaning that the Lord could see in him some objective evidence that he loved Him.

HR So that one might have conscious knowledge and yet be possessed of a demon.

JT I do not think Judas is included in this at all. He was there. The Lord would not let him off, he would confess to all these things, and no doubt did eventually. What else could he? He was unreal, and if the Lord is acknowledged as the Holy One of God, in effect this is what He says, Judas must be spoken to, and now is the time to do it.

Rem As to what we said earlier, not one of you has a devil, but one of you is a devil. It is a question of what he was essentially.

JT That is right. Quite so.

Rem He did not name him. The disciples named him. They knew from what the Lord said.

JT Yes. He spoke of Judas the son of Simon, Iscariote, that is, the evangelist tells us that. It is as He says later, “one of you shall betray me”. It is most important, that as He is the Holy One of God, there must be exposure if He is acknowledged.

Rem I suppose when you come to John 17, Judas is not there. You have things operating in the holiest.

JT I think so, He is speaking to His Father, and what I think morally follows what we have in chapter 6, is the Lord’s answer to Peter’s comment in chapter 13 as to the Lord’s service in washing his feet — as the Holy One of God, He must have charge. It must be His matter, and the Lord must have His say as to the whole position, and we may as well confess that. This chapter exposes Judas. He is forced out. He is named as a devil in chapter 6, but he is forced out in chapter 13, and as to that the Lord says, “ye are clean, but not all” (verse 10). The Lord must do it. He will see to it that what is suitable is there.

^[p. 23] Ques Do you think that apart from the experimental knowledge of the Holy One of God, the ringleader might be exposed as seeking to take part in the service of God?

JT He will be. It will come out. The point is it is where Christ is owned as the Holy One of God, where He is recognised.

Ques Would His character as the Holy One of God be set forth in chapter 1 of Revelation, when He spoke in the midst of the seven candlesticks?

JT Well, it comes out, what He is as the Holy One of God. It is manifested, especially dealing with Thyatira. It would correspond with Judas. In spite of the profundity of ecclesiastical claims, the Lord is discerning all that is there. “I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel”, and He tells the church what He had done with her. The worst kind of thing may be allowed in systems where the Holy One of God is not recognised. It is the presence of the Holy One of God, recognised, which is the guarantee of the exposure of the demons.

TT Does the Lord carry on this service personally in washing, or has it been delegated now?

JT It is delegated here. In the passage we have read, they were to wash one another’s feet, but He is not putting it into the hands of the brethren. He does not specify that they must do it. He sets an example, which they should carry on, but His first reference is that “if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me”. That is a great fact set out in the beginning of His subject, yet it gets the truth into our souls that the Lord must have the first and last word as to the assembly, as to having part with Him.

HB Does this mean that we necessarily need our feet washed in taking part in the assembly?

JT We may think they are washed, and the Lord reminds us, ‘if I do not do it it is not done’. That is, ‘if I do not do it, you can have no part with Me’. You are drawn into the sense of responsibility of bringing the Lord into it. He must be recognised.

Ques Does the thought of “part with me” relate to service?

JT It relates to what follows in the following chapters. I think it is in the sanctuary as with the Father. All these chapters are to lead us up to chapter 17, in which we get a concrete example of His service inside. It is prayer, of course, but still you can see how service is carried on. It is carried on by Him in our midst.

WH Would the feet-washing involve that the service as Minister of the sanctuary is to be carried on in freshness amongst the saints, in contrast to the formal thing that obtains in christendom today?

JT I think so, and even if it be a saint that does it, you realise that the Lord has done it. I may be qualified to wash the saints’ feet, but the person whose feet are washed has to see to it that it is the Lord. It must be the Lord that does it.

FI The doing of the service, if rightly done, would leave that sense in the soul, if done by the Lord?

JT And so that principle runs through the assembly. He is doing it.

Ques Do you mean that in that connection the soul is definitely to be in contact with the Lord.

JT Definite relations with the Lord, whether brethren do it or not, it is the Lord who is doing it. After all, even the ministry is the Lord’s or nothing. If it is not of the Lord, it is nothing.

Ques Would you say the service of feet-washing discovers Judas?

JT It is remarkable it comes out in this chapter, and he is forced out.

Ques What is the thought of having “part with me”?

JT That is what we have in the assembly ^[p. 25] as recognising the Lord in our midst, as the Minister of the sanctuary, we have part with Him. I think that is what is in mind. John does not use the word ‘sanctuary’ or ‘assembly’, either, but we can see that is what is meant, especially in the last days when you do not want to be using official terms. Therefore, if a brother is serving thus, it is not he only, but the Lord is in it, because that is what makes it effective.

GHC In the verse you read, it is a deliberate move of the Lord towards Peter. “He comes therefore”. You are speaking of the Lord calling attention to the service of God at the present moment. Do you think it is deliberate in that way, that the saints should be helped to have part with Him in this great service?

JT It is. We can see that in view of the assembly all this precedes. It is not simply what we have been in assembly, but what we take there. That is the state suitable. So that the Lord has us as suitable, and can proceed in His service, which is I think covered in the term “part with me”. What can be greater or more blessed than having part with Jesus as He carries on the service before God?

TT Would it be accomplished by opening the way for the Father’s name?

JT That is the next thing. Chapter 14 is to bring us into some little apprehension of what we see when we see the Father we are addressing — “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. Well now, the voice from heaven finally was to announce the Son, but then that is only the voice, and of course, it is the voice, but we need more than a voice to grasp in our minds the idea of the Father. We see that He is the Father. The declaration of the Father does not depend on the death of Christ. He does not, therefore, enter into the covenant. Many ^[p. 26] have thought about that as to whether the Father may be connected with the new covenant, but the new covenant is a matter of the people, of course. The revelation of the Father does not depend on that. There was no death in the revelation of the Father. The revelation of the Father refers to His relations with Christ before He died. His death was not necessary for that. His death was necessary for the covenant. The covenant is not between the Father and His children. It is between God and His people, and it is effected through death, not through the answer from heaven.

Rem So that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” is proof that it is prior to and independent of His death.

JT Quite so. Here what the Lord means in His personally calling attention to the Father, is that the Father is characteristically there. He was in Christ personally, and He was there characteristically, so as to be apprehended. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. So that there is a great apprehension of the Father in His characteristics.

WH The Lord refers to the works that He did and the words which He spoke, as being the Father’s words and works. Would that be what you mean as characteristic?

JT Quite so. Jesus is not the Father, but He is a divine Person, and so great enough to personify the Person, to impersonate Him, as it were, as the Spirit may impersonate the Father or the Son now.

GHC In the previous chapter He speaks about departing out of the world to go to the Father, and just after He speaks about coming out from God, and going back to God. Would you help us as to that?

JT The passage shows what is in mind in this chapter. He is going to the Father. He is going to God. He puts the two together in chapter 20, saying, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”, and we are His brethren, and God comes in after He is mentioned by Him, after the Father, which would, I suppose, mean God as He was known by Jesus. Not the covenant God, more than that. I am true to that, of course, but more than that. God is known of Christ, Christ’s God.

GHC Is ‘God’ in the way you are speaking of it, a wider thought?

JT It is a wider thought than the name ‘Father’. The scripture which supports that exactly is that the Father judges no one. God must be a wider thought in that sense. The Father is a name in family relationship, and employed to indicate the character of our dispensation. It is God known in that way, not the God who judges, but God in grace, but then we have to come to the family thought as to ourselves. We are not called sons of God in John at all. It is either “His Father”, or “The Father” throughout in it. We come to chapter 20, and then it is “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”; and then you say, what about the Father in Matthew? We have saints called the sons of their Father in Matthew, and they are directed to speak to Him as their Father which is in heaven, but I think it is simply the relation the Father has entered into in Christ, and the disciples were brought into that in a provisional way. Indeed, the term ‘Father’ is applied to Jehovah in the Old Testament. He is said to be “The everlasting Father” in the prophet; Isaiah 9:6. All that is short of what we have in John 20. John 20 is what applies specially to the saints as forming the assembly.

WH How far then do you carry the thought of Christ as being the Minister of the sanctuary? Would that go the length of John 20?

JT I think so. Of course, we come to the family thought, God being Father, and the Son in the midst, and we as sons. The sanctuary is a relative thought,

^[p. 28] and shutting out what is unholy. The service goes on in John 20. It is the Lord in the midst. It is Christ known in us, as it were, but I think chapter 17 gives us the clue, because the Lord having said these things, lifts up His eyes to heaven and says, “Father”. You hear Him speaking to His Father. The chapter gives understanding of what the sanctuary is in that sense, the Son speaks to His Father, and in the attitude, in the sense of prayer, in thanksgiving.

Ques Would ‘the Holy One’ have reference to where there is unholiness?

JT That is the thought, and the sanctuary has the same thought. If we can follow the Lord along these chapters, we shall come to the thought of assembly service, where He is with us. He is on our side, and carrying on towards the Father. In Matthew we have the words, “I praise thee, Father”, and in Luke, too. We have in Luke distinctly, that the Lord at that time rejoiced in spirit, showing what may happen amongst us as in assembly, and in chapter 17 we have an extended prayer to the Father.

HB In the last clause of verse 6 it says, “They were thine, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept thy word”. I was thinking of “thy word”.

Would that be sonship as proper to His word?

JT The Father’s word, that they have kept.

The Lord gives them credit for keeping it. He calls them ‘men’, which is to be noted. It is the men, and then He speaks of having manifested the Father’s name to them, “and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things that thou hast given me are of thee; for the words which thou hast given me I have given them, and they have received them, and have known truly that I came out from thee, and have believed that thou sentest me”. Well, you can see how they are regarded in His mind. And then He asks concerning them, because the word ‘demands’ here alludes to that. He can speak to His Father familiarly. It is ‘demands’. And He says, “I am glorified in them”, and then He says, “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, ...” and it says, further down, “Sanctify them by the truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world; and I sanctify myself for them, that they also may be sanctified by truth”. You can see how His thoughts are that we are His companions, and fit to be His companions, not only according to eternal counsel, but according to actual forms.

HB That is what I had in mind in connection with the word being in the singular; the same in verse 17, “thy word is truth”.

JT But then you see sonship is in the mind of the Father. He says in verse 22, “And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them”. There I think you come to the idea of sonship. It is the glory; it is not simply the word of the Father.

TT Would keeping the word be a proof of affection — responsive to the word of the Father?

JT Well, it would — intelligent affection, too. The word implies the Father’s mind. I cannot keep the word except I understand it.

Ques Is it your thought then that it would not only be an appropriation of Him in the light of Minister of the sanctuary, but that there should be a suitability to Him as such?

JT That is what this prayer is for, that the Lord might have us altogether with Him, as suitable, and He says, “the glory which thou hast given me I have given them”. And then finally, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known”. Now that is a different word from the word ‘manifest’ in verse 6. It is a deeper word, I think. His name is made known — that is, effectively made known, and it is through Him. The word could be preached, “... that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”. So that the Lord is ^[p. 30] amongst us in this exalted way, as the Father hath loved Him. It is not covenant love. It is the Father’s love in our hearts.

Ques Is that according to this, the Father, that we are the sons of God?

JT John never calls us ‘sons of God’ except in the book of Revelation. He calls us children. ‘Sons’ is what we are towards God. ‘Children’ is what we are here in His care in testimony. “Now are we children of God”, 1 John 3: 2.

GHC It says, not only the Father’s love in them, but “I in them”. Would you say a little as to that?

JT Well, I think He is in us on that basis, on the basis of covenant love, in that we need to give place to Him, but it is a more excellent position. He is in us as having the Father’s love in us. It is a question of the kind of love. “The love with which thou hast loved me”, it says.

Ques Am I right in thinking chapter 17 views the cross of our Lord as past, and not as we read it, thinking that it was on this side of the cross? It is in view of the Lord as Priest in the assembly, having gone on high, and for us, bearing up His people before the Father.

JT Yes, I think that is right. He is bearing up His people here. The point is now to bring out what He is in the assembly — how He serves in the assembly, and how we have part with Him in the assembly — a most exalted thought, that we have the Father’s love in our hearts, that is the Father’s love for the Son”the love with which thou hast loved me”, the love wherewith He loved the Son, that we have in our hearts, that we know how to love the Son as the Father loved Him. So that we are on a different platform as He associates us with the Father, and it has to become true of us, having made known to us the Father’s name. It is not simply manifested, but “made known”. It is a fact. It is known in our souls, the Father’s name.

FI That being so, that the Father’s name is made known in our souls by the Minister of the sanctuary, does that fit us to pass over into the presence of the Father?

JT I think so. We are now qualified. It would be, I suppose, our enjoyment in heaven, that we love as the Father loves.

FI So that as we associate with the Lord in the presence of the Father, you do not view Him there as the Minister of the sanctuary.

JT Well, He is seen thus speaking here as the Son. He says “Father”. The Minister of the sanctuary is here, because we still have to do with evil here below. The idea of a sanctuary will drop in eternity. There is no evil to be against. It is just the Father and sons.