RESURRECTION (3) - THE HEAVENLY COMPANY
RESURRECTION (3) - THE HEAVENLY COMPANY
WB-s I notice there are two men here in shining garments.
JT What that suggests is, I think, that the divine thought is reached in that we have men: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”. (Luke 2:14) That is the point of view in Luke. We have the plural; instead of one there are two. Reconciliation is a collective thought.
GAH Is there order in what we have been having; Matthew first, and then Mark, etc.?
JT Yes. Matthew’s account of the resurrection suggests the power of God; in Mark we have the vessel in which the testimony is to be sustained, and Luke gives us the race, that which Wisdom had set its mind upon, men.
BTF What do you say about Luke. You speak of the power in Matthew; and of the “young man” in Mark?
JT I think it is reconciliation: “good pleasure in men”. Hence there are “two men”.
AFM There is a point of interest in the fact that they “found not the body of the Lord Jesus”. They are perplexed about it; and in this same chapter He invites them to handle Him and see that He is really a man.
JT Yes. That He is really a man in resurrection. “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”. (Luke 24:39)
JLJ Do you think the two men in Luke’s gospel correspond in a sense to the two wave loaves in Leviticus 23:17?
JT That passage refers more particularly to [p. 191] the day of Pentecost; that is, the effect of the Spirit’s presence was to bring to light the two wave loaves. They were brought out of their “habitations”.
JLJ Testimony is seen there in “two”.
JT Yes; the fruit of the Spirit. There was one wave sheaf. It did not go through the fire. It was simply out down and waved before Jehovah. That was Christ in resurrection. Fifty days afterwards they were to bring out of their habitations two wave loaves baken with leaven. That is a testimony to the effect of the Spirit here. The effect of the Spirit having come in renders sin (”leaven”) ineffective in man. It is admitted to be there, but it is rendered ineffective: so that the two wave loaves refer to the saints historically under the eyes of men, as in the Acts.
RSS It is not Jew and Gentile.
JT No; it does not go outside of Israel. The feasts of the Lord referred to what took place in Israel, and I think the two wave loaves referred to the effect of, the Holy Spirit coming down and rendering sin ineffective in the saints, not removing it, which was done judicially in the death of Christ. It is admitted to be there, but rendered ineffective. The loaves were not unleavened bread; they were leavened, and that corresponds with the account in the Acts. Whereas what is presented here in Luke 24 is the order of man that is to abide in the presence of God. There was plurality, to correspond with what the angels said at the beginning, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”. (Luke 2:14) I think these two men present the idea of reconciliation, and I think that is a great point in Luke.
WB-s Is the white raiment here equivalent to the best robe in Luke 15?
JT The word here is “shining”. It is more than purity. What shines [p. 192] is heavenly.
WCR Was not that seen in the Lord on the mount of transfiguration?
JT Quite so.
WLP The fact of these two being men speaks of God’s good pleasure in men. Were they not angels in reality?
JT Undoubtedly, but the Scripture calls them men, and that leads us to consider what is in view. The result of reconciliation in Luke is to bring in a race for God’s pleasure.
BTF Why do you emphasise, the fact that reconciliation has a company in view?
JT Because it is so stated. Colossians is more negative: “you ... hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”. (Colossians 1:22) I mean, by saying it is negative, that while the death of Christ is emphasised, in Ephesians it is “that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross”. (Ephesians 2:16)
EHT Is reconciliation God’s side and new creation our side, objective and subjective?
JT I think new creation is essential to reconciliation on our side. In Ephesians it is said that He hath reconciled both in one body by the cross. That is important to bear in mind. Ephesians shows that it is collective. You cannot have the new man seen in one person. You must have two at least in order that there should be the expression of the new man.
EHT “If any one be in Christ there is a new creation”. (2 Corinthians 5:17) What does that mean?
JT That is our side. “In Christ” implies new creation, and this, of course, has no reference to a work in Christ personally; it is in us.
RSS Referring to our brother’s remark as to why these persons are called men when they were really angels, in the chapter you were alluding to in Daniel yesterday it speaks of “the man Gabriel”, yet he was an angel.
JLJ Also in Revelation, the one who speaks to John is one of his brethren and yet called an angel.
JT They are here as a sign, they signify something. They signify that reconciliation has now taken place.
WCR Christ was presented as the Son of man in Luke in relation to men; has that a bearing on it?
JT I think it has. Luke’s line is to bring in the vessel of grace, and that is in a man. Now at the birth of the Lord angels were there and they are so called. They are not called men but angels. One came to the shepherds and then we get a multitude of the heavenly host without naming them, and they convey to us the mind of God. That is to say, you get first the idea of one, and then of a multitude. Now I have no doubt that the two men here are the sign of the multitude, only it has to be a multitude of men.
JD And hence the body. If I have apprehended your thought, it is that the body involves new creation and hence sonship.
JT And that it is in the body you have that which is positively for God’s pleasure.
JD So the body is created after Christ, that God might have that Man continued down here.
JT Hence you require at least two persons to have the idea of reconciliation and the new man.
JD In connection with the word in Colossians, “to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”, (Colossians 1:22) you pressed the thought that it was negative, but had it not an object in view?
JT Yes, because death is more in view then, whereas in Ephesians it is more the concrete form in which reconciliation is seen now; that is the point we should consider, because you cannot have that which is for God’s pleasure in men without a company. For instance, you cannot have love expressed without two. What is for God’s pleasure is expressed collectively.
WB-s In Psalm 133 you get the thought — “brethren”. .
JT I think so. Reconciliation is seen there in brethren dwelling together in unity.
WB-s The Lord commanded the blessing there.
JD What part does testimony play in connection with the body?
JT The body is the vessel of it. So in Ephesians after reconciliation is stated, we get the word, that “coming, he has preached the glad tidings of peace”. (Ephesians 2:17) Preaching came in consequent on reconciliation. The vessel in which the light is set is really that in which reconciliation has taken place.
JD In that way it seems there are two points connected with the body; the body is for God, and He looks down here and sees the moral qualities of Christ in that body on the one hand, and consequently, on the other hand there is testimony manward.
JT And hence the importance of our being set in relation to one another. I have often thought of the commandment, “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. (Matthew 22:39) It implies local responsibility. It is as local obligations are accepted that you have the practical working out of what God finds pleasure in. It is noticeable that “thou shalt love” (not thy brother, but “thy neighbour as thyself”. I think, that God’s thought was, that men as brought near to one another, should become the expression of the new man. He had the new man in view.
GAT What have you in your mind in quoting the command that we should love our neighbour as [p. 195] ourselves?
JT Because the neighbour suggests what is local. A neighbour must of necessity be a neighbour. He must live near to you.
GAT You mean the brother we are walking with in our local meetings.
JT Yes.
RSS It would go outside of that also. It would include the people you come in contact with in your daily life.
JT I think not. I think your neighbour is really your brother. Israelites were all brethren. I mean the commandment was given to a people already in relationship with God. They were all children of one stock. They were all brethren, and indeed it is formally acknowledged that they were. “Thou shall not suffer sin” on thy brother.
ARS Do you not make any distinction between brother and neighbour; for instance, John speaks about loving the brethren?
JT That is general. For instance, a man might live in Australia and be your brother, but he could not be your neighbour. You might love him as your brother, but not as your neighbour.
LTF Your neighbour is the brother that is near by.
RML In the parable the Samaritan was neighbour to him that fell among thieves. He would not have been brother to him. There seems a shade of difference.
JT He acted the part of a neighbour. I do not think the point was that the Samaritan was neighbour, but he acted the part of the neighbour. He regards himself as an outsider, but he did what the priest and the Levite, the literal neighbours, did not do.
RML And therefore the contrast brings the question home all the more strongly.
JT So the Lord asks, Which acted the part of [p. 196] neighbour? And the lawyer has to confess, “He that showed mercy on him”; and the Lord says, “Go, and do thou likewise”. (Luke 10:37)
EHT He came nigh unto him. Is that the thought?
LTF It was really the Lord who was the neighbour?
JT The Lord came in and did the part of the neighbour when those who were in the relationship of neighbours did not do it.
JS If this scripture in Luke 24, had said two angels, that would not have brought in the thought of reconciliation.
JT No; if the Spirit of God says two men, we are entitled to attach importance to it. Luke mentions angels at the Lord’s birth, but not at His resurrection.
JS I suppose that reconciliation and new creation run together.
JT On our side it is absolutely impossible that we should be for God’s pleasure without new creation. I think every believer ought to move about in this world in the consciousness that he is for God’s pleasure.
AFM “And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it”, (Exodus 12:4). That explains the neighbour; and is there not a reference to it in Proverbs — “better is a neighbour that is near than a brother far off”? (Proverbs 27:10)
WLP It is right to do good to our neighbour, even if he is an outsider?
JT You are to do good unto all men, especially to those that are of the household of faith. Therefore there is a wide enough range of activity. There is perfect wisdom in the commandment, because the neighbour is the one who is likely to test your love most, but if you answer to the test, your love will [p. 197] be strengthened and so will his; so you get a practical expression of the new man.
JB Your point would be that that which comes out in the new man is what God had in view in reconciliation.
JT And it is a very important matter to bear in mind that local companies of Christians ought to be in measure the expression of what is for God’s pleasure. If not, there is nothing in the way of testimony; one great thought in Luke is to bring in a heavenly, a shining company.
EHT Would that be the eternal thought? His “delights were with the sons of men”. (Proverbs 8:31)
JT It is a very great design on God’s part that He should set His people in different localities, so that there should be a practical testimony to the “new man”. There is something in each locality for God’s pleasure.
GAT Would you mind giving us a word as to our local meetings. I can see how I can act as a brother to one I like well. But how about the one I do not care much about?
JT But the responsibility is that he is my neighbour, and I must love him.
EHT I suppose you would pour in the oil and the wine. You get the joy of the Lord set forth there.
ST Is the thought of neighbour seen more in God’s attitude as we have it in Luke, reconciling man unto Himself, coming near to man in the person of Christ as Man?
JT I think the Lord has shown what the neighbour is. He indicates what the neighbour is in chapter 10. He poured in the oil and the wine. Where need is he ministers to it.
ST In reconciling man, God does not impute trespasses. So the true neighbour finds the man [p. 198] among thieves and does not speak of his trespasses, but meets his need.
JT I believe it tests as very much to accept the injunction to love our neighbours as ourselves, because in it is secured the whole principle of local responsibility.
EHT Would not loving our neighbour show how much we are in the presence of God and what place the Spirit has with us?
AFM It is part of God’s will that we should love our neighbour as ourselves.
JLJ Do you not get neighbour in two lights? In Luke 10 and in Ephesians 4? “Speak every man truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another”. (Ephesians 4:25) I thought that in Luke’s gospel your neighbour carries you outside of believers.
JT The Lord came in and showed what a neighbour should be. He acted the part of neighbour, and therefore He has set the example for us; but primarily the thought of the neighbour contemplated that the persons were already in relation as brethren, because Israelites were all brethren, and they were a people already acknowledged as in relationship with God.
AFM All Christians are regarded, as your brethren, but not as neighbours.
LTF But suppose a Methodist brother lives near you?
JT I do not think the commandment contemplated a disordered condition such as Methodism. It supposes a people in relationship with God and with one another as brethren. The general relationship is there. But the brother that is nearest to you is the one who tests you most, and that, I believe, is the reason why it does not say your brother, but “thy neighbour as thyself”.
AAT You mean geographically near to you?
JT [p. 199] Yes.
JB This could only be fulfilled in a divine way; the new man is after God.
WB-s The new covenant and reconciliation run very much together. Is not the new covenant really what God is towards us, and reconciliation is the outcome of that? Loving one’s neighbour as oneself involves reconciliation.
JT That is exactly the thought. If there is an answer to the covenant, there is reconciliation. And then the secret of all is that there is a new creation. Apart from that, considering what we were, these things could not possibly exist.
WB-s In Luke here it brings in new creation.
JT These two men contemplate the full result in resurrection, therefore they suggest, to us the effect of the ministry of the new covenant; they suggest also, as we have said, reconciliation and new creation. So that, in order that we should answer to these two men in shining garments, we must be in the good of new creation: “all things are of God”.
RSS Is not the thought of new creation very wide? Would it begin with new birth?
JT Born anew is a different idea. New creation embraces all that God does in us. It begins in the idea of “new”. So that the grand result of God’s work in us is new creation, where “all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”. (2 Corinthians 5:18)
JD In Ephesians it says we are created anew in Christ Jesus.
AFM Where do you draw the line between new covenant ministry and the ministry of reconciliation? New covenant ministry forms you in the wilderness according to God, but the ministry of reconciliation puts you in the land. Where do you draw the distinction?
JT The new covenant met the people directly [p. 200] they came out of Egypt. Therefore God says, “I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself”. That is in Exodus 19:4. “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests”. (Exodus 19:5,6) That is what God proposed to them. Then the next chapter is the unfolding of the covenant. And what is so striking is that chapter 20 is the covenant, that was in God’s mind, and chapter 21 is the Man who expressed the, covenant; that is to say, the Hebrew servant. God in a figure places alongside of the covenant the One who would answer to it in every possible way; and you can understand, that in the Hebrew servant you have reconciliation. He says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free”. (Exodus 21:5)That is the idea of reconciliation. The Hebrew servant was seen in Christ; God, as it were, placing alongside of the law, in figure, the Person who would answer to it in every possible way.
RSS And the Person who answers to it is the One who is for His Master’s pleasure.
JT And who remains with Him for ever. Now I think that the second epistle to the Corinthians is to show how that same spirit is worked out in the saints; it was seen in Paul. The spirit of the Hebrew servant was in Paul, and that shows, that at any rate, in one man the covenant had become effective. He was in the spirit of the covenant. The first epistle to the Corinthians gives us the terms of the covenant, and the second gives us the spirit of it. All that is seen in Paul. There was one man, at any rate, who was in every way actuated by the spirit of the covenant. Now you can understand that in that man reconciliation is seen. If you are actuated by the spirit of the covenant you may depend upon it you are for God’[p. 201] s pleasure.
JLJ That is seen in 1 Peter 2, in the offering of “spiritual sacrifices”; and then coming out as a “royal priesthood” in testimony.
JT Quite so. The offering up of spiritual sacrifices is for God’s pleasure. The effect of the covenant is not only what we are Godward; it is also what we are saintward, toward one another; it is in the expression of affection one for another that we are for God’s pleasure.
BTF Is the evidence of it in men here for the pleasure of God; the local company dwelling in unity and showing love for each other?
JT Where the spirit of the covenant is you have what God delights in, the saints set in relation to one another. The new man is what God delights in, and to have that you must have two or more. The apostle says, “though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved”. (2 Corinthians 12:15) So far as he was concerned the spirit of the covenant was there in him. Whatever their attitude was towards him, his attitude towards them was nothing but love.
RML The two suggest the thought of the “much fruit”, consequent on the corn of wheat falling into the ground and dying.
JT I think so. They are a testimony to the multitude of men that are to be the fruit of the death of Christ; and they are not only to be men, but men shining. Luke brings in the heavenly company.
AFM That kind of man has access to God.
JT If you come to God and say, ‘I have a sacrifice’, God would say, ‘What about your brother?’ and that tests you. God will not accept it apart from the brethren.
LTF “First be reconciled to thy brother”.
JT That is the order.
JD In the body you cannot afford to be without one member.
JT [p. 202] If you do not love your brother whom you have seen, you do not love God whom you have not seen.
WCR Love always works for the good of its object.
JT And if you love God, you love your brother.
WB-s In Colossians, where it speaks of reconciliation, you get a great deal about loving one another; “and to all these add love”. (Colossians 3:14)
JT Quite so. It is well to consider carefully what the covenant is; what God proposes to effect by the covenant. He gave it to Israel directly they came out of Egypt, and the point was to form them. Now the book of Deuteronomy contemplates that the first covenant was not effective, so that there is, in a sense, a second covenant: see chapter 29:1.
EHT Do you get the expression of the new covenant in Christ laying down His life?
JT Yes.
JB Does reconciliation, as we are now looking at it, bring in the headship of Christ? It would not be possible unless He were Head.
JT I think the way the truth works is, that the Lord has come in and shown what it is to love a neighbour. He has shown the spirit of the covenant. John 13 is the spirit of the covenant. He has expressed it in order that it might become formative in us, and as it becomes formative there is a company for God’s pleasure.
GAT Is a man neighbour to his wife supposing they are breaking bread together?
JT I do not think a man’s wife could be his neighbour. I do not think a man and his wife could express the truth of the assembly.
JLJ Would you say they should not break bread together?
JT I do not think they should. I do not think they could express the truth of the assembly. Under [p. 203] such circumstances it is more seemly to wait on the Lord to add others.
JD That is very good, and a check to isolation.
JT For the assembly to be expressed you must have saints together according to God.
BTF And this is impossible except as we love one another; where envy and strife are, assembly privilege cannot be enjoyed.
JT It is really out of the question. If you approach God in such wise He would say to you, What about your brother?
WB-s Two men spoken of in Scripture are a contrast to what you have been speaking of: Cain and Abel: what a contrast!
AAT Is there a difference between love and fellowship?
JT I do not understand fellowship apart from love. In the beginning of Acts we read, “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”. (Acts 2:42) Now that is the statement of a fact as to what took place in the early days of Christianity. But before that statement they were set in relation to one another in affection. I do not see any testimony in the saints coming together unless they love one another.
WB-s The Corinthians were not going on well together, there were some eating before the others.
JT And so the apostle says they were coming together “for the worse”, for they were coming together without love.
WLP What about brethren with whom we cannot have fellowship in the breaking of bread? Those in other meetings who have left us, for instance? We love them, do we not?
JT You cannot go on with them because of certain principles they have adopted; for these principles are incompatible with love.
AAT [p. 204] Do you mean that we should not love them?
JT You should love them, but you cannot go on with them on account of the principles they have adopted; if there are those who recognise the authority of the scriptures, continuing stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, you are glad to go on with them. Why do you come to meet the saints?
AMcB Because I love them.
JT That is the reason, and apart from that there is nothing in meeting them.
OJO The Lord says, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another, as I have loved you”. (John 13:34)
JT Some people say, ‘I am going to meet the Lord’. Others say, ‘I am going to break bread’. Now neither expression is strictly correct. Because before you can break bread according to Scripture, or meet the Lord with your brethren, you must be in relation to them.
AFM In Matthew 18 we are exhorted to treat a certain one as a heathen and a publican. How do you understand a scripture like that? Is he past admonition? Would he be breaking bread?
JT That is a matter of discipline. I am speaking now of the saints coming together. Before you can meet the Lord in the breaking of bread the saints must come together.
WB-s It is like 394:1: “Jesus, Lord, we come together in the bonds of Thine own love”.
JT That is it. “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread”. (Acts 20:7) It says they came together, and this is an important point.
WGR And the basis of it is confidence and love.
GAT Sometimes we find in a meeting that one or two have a dispute. What would you say about [p. 205] their coming together? Is it right for those two to come together to break bread?
JT If you come to God under those conditions, God would say, as it were, ‘What about your brother’ So the word is, “Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift”. (Matthew 5:24) God will not accept you on any other ground than that, and the principle of the assembly lies in it; that is, that we must be in relationship with one another in affection.
AMcB There could not be any approach unless reconciliation is seen, and that depends on the covenant.
JT God’s heart is set on man. Man, the kind of man as is expressed in Christ, is His ideal. Now that is the Hebrew servant. He sets forth the kind of man that God takes pleasure in; and in order that we should approach God, and have a place in the land of Canaan, we must be formed after that Man.
GAT If I have a feeling against my brother, would you think that I should not come together till that feeling is removed?
RSS It says, “when ye stand praying forgive”. (Mark 11:25) If you do not, God will not hear you. I am sure if people were really praying, and had any feeling against a brother, they would not be long on their knees without being exercised in regard to him, and you would judge everything that is in your heart against that brother, even if there was good ground for the feeling. It is very simple if people would only act on the scripture.
JT The golden altar expresses it. There the incense was offered up. That is what is for God’s pleasure. It is in practical Christian unity, the unity of affection, that God has His pleasure.
JLJ Would you say we cannot reach the golden altar without being in the activity [p. 206] of love?
JT I am perfectly sure we cannot.
ST What is implied in “Leave there thy gift before the altar”? (Matthew 5:24)
JT It refers to what you bring to God. But God will not accept your profession of love to Him unless you love your brother.
BTF Would you say the incense would represent the sweetness and perfection of Christ which the heart would be filled with?
JT Yes; it is what Christ is as Man before God.
JLJ Would the last part of Leviticus 21, where it speaks of certain who had blemishes not being permitted to offer the bread of his God, be connected with what we are speaking of?
JT That passage illustrates God’s consideration for us. There are those who partake of divine things who have not access to God. There are many in Christendom who benefit from the light, but they have no access to God themselves. But you do not want to be among those, you want to have access to God, and there is no possibility of it apart from that affection which the covenant suggests. I think the thought in the golden altar, which was a cubit square, was unity. It refers to the unity of spiritual affections which is only found amongst Christians.
Rem As regards coming together, it says, they “came together to break bread”. (Acts 20:7) In Acts 2 it is said they broke bread in the house, at home. There they were still owning the temple, for they continued daily with one accord in the temple and broke bread at home.
RSS Does that refer to the Lord’s supper?
JT I think so. But when you come to Acts 20, it says they came together to break bread, and that is where the assembly is fully seen. I mention it now, because we have such vague ideas as to the breaking of bread and meeting the Lord. As I was saying, it is often said, ‘I am going to break bread’,
or ‘I am going to meet the Lord’. Now, suppose you are the only one there, you cannot break bread. Therefore we come together. That is the first thing.
RSS And is the expression, ‘I am going to meet the Lord’, not correct?
JT It is not according to the order in Scripture. You must meet the saints first.
AFM And you break bread because He is absent.
JT We come together as those that love Him and one another.
RSS What is it that constitutes the assembly In function?
JT I think it is when the Lord has His place. It is in function then.
JD Is it practically possible?
JT It would be to admit complete failure to say that it were not. It was possible at the beginning. The saints were together in the enjoyment of Christ as Head.
GAT Would you say that we should come together on the principle of verse 6 of this chapter: “he is not here”?
JT Yes; but you come together with those you love.
AMcB You go to a room to meet a company of people whom you love.
JT Exactly.
WLP The purpose of those who come together is to break bread, is it not?
JT Yes. But it is as having met your brethren. We come together to break bread.
JS Still the breaking of bread is the rallying spot?
JT Yes. But with all that you meet the saints first.
LTF It all involves that you cannot pass by your brother to meet the Lord.
JT That is [p. 208] the point.
AAT What would you do where a brother does not recognise right principles, and it is difficult for you to come together with him in that sense?
JT That brings in another consideration. The assembly has the prerogative of discipline, and, as our brother referred to, in Matthew 18, we have light. We have to deal with evil. But then it is all on the same principle of love. It is because you love him. You want to remove sin from the assembly and from your brother.
AMcB I must be in the power of affection myself.
AFM What you are suggesting is that we rub shoulders with each other during the week.
WB-s Though the state is required, the Object before us is the Lord Himself.
JT Yes. But God has pleasure in Christian affection. Hence, as gathered, the saints are for God’s pleasure. Now you can understand the Lord would come in there. He can identify Himself with that, and in that connection you get headship, and the assembly in function.
EHT That is where He “commanded the blessing”, Psalm 133.
JT Israel went into the wilderness. It is one thing to go into the wilderness and another thing to come out of the wilderness. The covenant is really in the wilderness. It was made with the people at Horeb, and the thought in it was that they should be for God’s pleasure, a company coming out of the wilderness for God’s pleasure. It is said, “Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?” (Song of Songs 8:5). That is to say, Israel goes into the wilderness and comes out of it, but she comes out of it supported by Christ. She is leaning on her beloved. I think that we should come out of the wilderness in all the dignity of [p. 209] companionship with Christ.
RSS Do you refer to the assembly?
JT Yes.
WLP Coming up out of the wilderness is going into the land.
BTF Do the men in shining garments indicate resurrection?
JT I think they represent the heavenly company. It is in keeping with Luke. Luke gives us the excess of grace. Luke contemplates that the disciples should have their names written in heaven.
AFM And the Lord is there said to be “carried up”. That is characteristic of Luke. Everything goes to heaven in Luke. “Peace in heaven” is another feature.
JT What can go up to heaven except what is to God’s pleasure? Whenever we come together it should be in the sense that we are for God’s pleasure and qualified to be translated. We do not consciously enter into the thought of the assembly unless we are conscious of being qualified for translation, because God translates that which is for His pleasure.
WB-s Of Enoch it is said, that “Before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God”. (Hebrews 11:5)
EHT Would you say that we are near translation on the Lord’s day morally, as we are gathered in the Spirit, but we must continue in affection?
JT There is nothing incongruous between the assembly, viewed normally, and heaven. Normally it is constituted for heaven.
JS I suppose you could love your brother and yet not love his ways.
JT If his ways are incompatible with love you would endeavour to correct them. “Thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him”. (Leviticus 19:17) It is a very wholesome injunction, because we know very often it requires [p. 210] courage.
JS That is very good; that is what will come, courage for that.
JT Yes, to tell him frankly what the difficulty really is.
OJO What if the brother will not hear you?
JT Then you have the word to take another with you. Two brothers going to a brother are liable to reach a man more easily than one.
EST And if it comes to the extreme, “let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”; (Matthew 18:17) but that does not indicate any cessation of your love.
JT No; it is the best service you can render to him. Really souls under discipline are often hindered by some who disregard the discipline; you can only damage them by disregarding the discipline they are under.
WLP It is really love to separate from a brother who is walking badly.
JLJ “Faithful are the wounds of a friend”. (Proverbs 27:6)
JB The one put away according to 1 Corinthians is to be the subject of their care, and they are to receive him back lest he be swallowed up of overmuch sorrow, according to the second epistle.
JT If the sin is judged, there is nothing left but to restore him.
WB-s What is the thought of 1 Corinthians 11; “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat”. (1 Corinthians 11:28) Does it embrace what we are speaking of, or is it between him and the Lord?
JT As we approach the Supper we should judge ourselves. We should eat as self-judged persons.
WB-s That is personal.
JT Yes. But then you want to come to the shining side. Without self-judgment we miss the shining; “the tribes go up”. It is in that connection you get what shines.
AAT Going up as worshippers?
JT You draw near to God.
AMcB “Arise, shine, for thy light is come”. (Isaiah 60:1) Is that the thought?
JT Yes. “The glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee”. (Isaiah 60:1)
ARS The queen of Sheba saw Solomon’s ascent to the house of the Lord.
JT Yes; it is very suggestive. It does not say his ascent to his throne, but to the house of the Lord. That is what affected the queen of Sheba, and wherever you have an upward movement, that is the effect.
RSS What does it mean by saying, to the house of the Lord?
JT The house of the Lord was on the elevated plain. It was raised. The principle was that you had to go up to it; in order to go up to the house of the Lord you have to be exercised. It is not on a level with your ordinary path.
GAH What Jacob said when he went up to Bethel is suggestive, “Put away the strange gods that are among you”. (Genesis 35:2)
JT The house of the Lord is on an elevated plain.
GAT The effect on the queen of Sheba was, that it left no spirit in her.
AFM Is the shining garment involved in the passage — “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly”? (1 Corinthians 15:48)
JT Quite so.
GAH If the conditions of which you have been speaking are found amongst the brethren, that which follows will be easy.
JT Quite so. Then it is wonderful how things work out. It is in a company where love is active that God is complacent. That company is in the good of reconciliation.
GAT The result would be blessing. “There the Lord commanded the blessing”, (Psalm 133:3).