SANCTIFICATION

^[p. 186] SANCTIFICATION

Hebrews 13: 12 - 14; Hebrews 10: 8 - 14; Hebrews 2: 11, 12

JT What is in mind is to speak of sanctification as seen in this epistle. The word appears in each of these scriptures, and the thought advances from the end of the book towards the beginning, where we have the highest thought of sanctification, that is, in chapter 2. Chapter 13 refers to the sin-offering: “those beasts whose blood is carried as sacrifices for sin into the holy of holies by the high priest, of these the bodies are burned outside the camp. Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate: therefore let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach”. We have sanctification in this passage in a basic sense. The Lord suffered outside the gate as a sacrifice for sin, and the believer is to go correspondingly outside the camp to Him, bearing His reproach. Sanctification thus implies separation from the world, from the religious world particularly. Then we have in chapter 10 sanctification by the will of God, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; which enters into our position as partaking of the Lord’s supper.

Then the Sanctifier and the sanctified are seen as “all of one” in chapter 2, showing how the saints come to Christ’s sanctification and correspondence with Christ as the Sanctifier. If we compare this verse with John 17, we shall see that He is the measure of our sanctification, as glorified in heaven, but this verse in chapter 2 brings us into what corresponds with Him in the sense of order or character of humanity. That is “as he is, we also are in this world” (1 John 4: 17), and hence He is not ashamed to call us brethren.

^[p. 187] CAI Is progress in the saints in regard to sanctification seen in these scriptures?

JT Yes. I think the highest feature is in chapter 2, and it seems to be the climax of the whole book in this sense; the teaching following is to bring us to that in our souls. Hence I suggested the last chapter first because the teaching there as to sanctification is to bring us up to chapter 2. The teaching is not progressive as in some books, but the highest feature is presented first, and then how we reach it in the later instruction.

JCS The first scripture is outside the camp, the second at the brazen altar, and the third in the holiest.

JT Yes. The camp is the religious world more particularly, and no one can hope to reach chapter 2 in his soul except by taking, as to that, the outside place. That is what the Lord had in mind — suffering without the gate. It is the gate of Jerusalem, that is, the gate of the religious world, and the call here is that christians go outside of that camp.

JCS If we are to come into correspondence with the truth, we cannot remain inside. It is imperative that we go outside.

JT That is how Hebrews is calculated to help the people of God at the present time; for christianity has become publicly what Judaism was. The religious camp is represented in Jerusalem. Christianity has become that, and the book of Revelation contemplates that the characteristic city of the world is “Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified” (Revelation 11: 8). The public setting of the Lord’s supper is in Jerusalem; as regards its attitude towards Christ, He suffered there. After He had instituted the Supper, they went to the mount of Olives, but publicly our position as regards the world is Jerusalem, where our Lord was crucified. He is viewed as crucified inside it in Revelation. That ^[p. 188] is to show the guilt of the city. In Hebrews 13, it is viewed as the camp out of which the christian must go if he is to have part with Christ. So that what the Lord as the Sanctifier had in mind was to sanctify us by suffering outside. It was no accident; it was deliberate.

JCS Where our Lord was crucified puts that guilt upon Jerusalem.

JT That is the thought.

IL As we come to that we are prepared to move out.

JCS As far as the position today is concerned, there has been no cancellation of that attitude in regard to Jerusalem.

JT We should regard each town in which we may be — every world city — as Jerusalem in that sense. It is Sodom and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified.

CAI Is the setting of the Supper in Jerusalem in relation to the upper room?

JT That is the next thing. The Lord’s supper is not in relation to the city religiously — it is morally outside, but it is there as a testimony. “Ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come” (1 Corinthians 11: 26).

JM Are the cities of christendom representative of Jerusalem, morally?

JT They have made christianity a worldly religion — what judaism was. They have gone back to the beggarly elements, thus the position is what it was when the Lord was crucified, and our position is identification with Him. We view it abstractly. It is what it is at heart, if you go the whole way in testing it, it will be found that there is no change in the world; spiritually it is Sodom and Egypt, though not that outwardly perhaps.

JCS Would you say that the saints in going outside the camp publicly and morally reverse the judgment ^[p. 189] of Jerusalem?

JT They do. They are on the side of Christ. When He was on the cross He said, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (Mark 15: 34). Matthew and Mark give the sin-offering. The enemies thought that He was calling for Elias, they did not understand the words. Then we have the centurion affected by what he saw, and he acknowledges the Lord as the Son of God; that is another thing in that setting. There were those who did not understand what Christ said and they derided Him, saying, “He saved others; himself he cannot save”. Then there were those who came with Him from Galilee, certain women, we are told. There were four distinct groups: the Lord’s enemies; the centurion and those with him; and the women from Galilee; these latter representing the fellowship, and those who were morally outside the whole scene. Then we have a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, with whom, according to John’s gospel, was associated Nicodemus. So that there were four sets of persons all standing in relation to the cross, in relation to Jesus suffering outside the gate. And ever since in this way, there have been persons attached to Him by affection, and also those who are opposed to Him. There are also here persons affected by the testimony, representing the immediate effect of the current work of God. This is seen in the centurion; and then there is a rich man who thinks enough of Christ to bury Him. I think we have in that setting how the matter stands ever since as regards the public position. In Matthew 27: 55, 56 there are those whose affections were in action; “there were there many women beholding from afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee ministering to him, among whom was Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”. So that the question is, To which group do we belong? The group of women would be morally outside — if not ^[p. 190] physically so — and sanctified in that sense. The others are more distant. The centurion represents the current work of God; he says, “Truly this man was Son of God”. Then there are Joseph and Nicodemus; two men in sympathy with Christ and grouped by themselves. The women evidently represent the fellowship — those who are sanctified.

SL “I will not leave you orphans”, the Lord says in John 14: 18.

JT “I am coming to you”. Well, that enters into this, but it refers to those outside the camp. That is the position, and that is where we begin this great matter of sanctification. I think Matthew gives us the whole scene — the circle of those who love Christ, who were morally outside all, as with Him. There were others affected apparently by the testimony, and we are to look out for such. Then there are others who have been affected, but follow at a distance.

JCS Do you regard these persons as representing spiritual elements that are found in the fellowship?

JT I think the fellowship is properly in those who came from Galilee. There are those who belong to Christ, like Joseph and Nicodemus, but who serve at a greater distance than those who are in reproach, like the women who followed Jesus from Galilee. But the present position, in a general way, is indicated in those groups. There are those who follow Him from Galilee, and minister to Him. We know that they were attached to Him in affection.

PL Would the Lord meeting them in Galilee, according to the next chapter, indicate that what is expressed by Galilee is now to be brought into the dispensation, and the reproach attaching to that, belongs to His lovers?

JT Chapter 28 shows that from the administrative side. He begins there. It is the Galileans ^[p. 191] characteristically that He identifies Himself with. That is the point; that they are carrying His reproach and know it. They follow from Galilee and share His reproach on the cross — “bearing his reproach” (Hebrews 13: 13). They are seen identified with Him as on the cross.

PL “And there were there many women”. And then in verse 61 it is said that Mary of Magdala was there and the other Mary sitting opposite the sepulchre. This is the difference; the women survived, so to speak; they are not coming in at the end, but marked by continuance.

JT They had followed Him from Galilee. Galilee itself is reproach, but the cross is the extremity, the fulness of reproach, and they are identified with Him there.

JCS We are to regard the women as suggestive of the fellowship, and then Joseph and Nicodemus as on the way to it, and the centurion and those with him as being affected by the testimony that is being rendered.

JT Yes. We might introduce Paul’s ministry in the centurion’s case, because he was a gentile, and recognises the Son of God, though he cannot as yet be regarded as in fellowship. There are many around like this who are believers, but in an isolated way. They are not in the group that came from Galilee.

EBMcC Are they like those who remained in the camp?

JT Yes. Although believers, they, like Nicodemus in the council, have not gone forth to Christ outside the camp. The Lord’s enemies did not understand His language on the cross, and yet He must have spoken with most perfect articulation. He says, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27: 46). And some of those who stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calls for Elias. And immediately one of ^[p. 192] them running and getting a sponge, having filled it with vinegar and fixed it on a reed, gave him to drink. But the rest said, Let be; let us see if Elias comes to save him (Matthew 27: 46 - 49). That is, they would utterly misrepresent the Lord, implying that He died as a mere creature, calling on a creature to help Him.

PL Is that as the mother of harlots — calling upon the saints? We have in contrast what is maternal here, two mothers. They would be mothers in Israel, in the possibilities of this Galilean setting — the mother of James and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

JT Yes. You can see how the Romish system is bound up in this suggestion of calling upon the saints. It is utterly falsifying the whole position, and yet the Lord must have spoken with the most perfect articulation when He said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” There can be no doubt as to the real words, but they did not take them in, or if they did, they misrepresented Him. The crowd seemed to be carried by the thought; they suggest waiting to see if Elias would come to save Him, which is falsifying the whole position, as I said, and there is much of that around today.

JCS Christendom has misconstrued the Lord’s words.

JT Corresponding with Matthew’s account, who brings in that element at the cross, and then in the next chapter, the Jewish leaders bribe the soldiers to tell lies. All this points to the lying system which falsifies christianity.

PL Would the fact that the Lord cried with a loud voice — it does not say what He said — and “gave up the ghost”, involve that “your house is left unto you desolate”, as one that is apostate and idolatrous; there is no other word for it but judgment?

^[p. 193] JT Just so. The second loud voice would possibly allude to the termination of the man who was so incorrigible as seen here. The first is the judgment of God — “why hast thou forsaken me?” But that in itself did not terminate the man; there must be death, and the second cry is the termination of the man in the Lord’s actual death, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission”, or atonement. It involves the termination of the man that sinned.

CFT Is that involved in sanctifying the people by His own blood, (Hebrews 13: 12)?

JT The sin-offering involves both — both the sins and the sinner. The bodies were burnt without the camp. Sins and sin in the flesh were dealt with in toto.

PL Did Paul preaching Christ and Him crucified imply this completeness?

JT That is the force of it. He insisted on the truth of the cross. There was the constancy and urgency of it in the testimony at Corinth.

EBMcC That brings in the altar of which they who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat; the altar would terminate the man that sinned.

JT We have that altar — true christians have it. It involves all this that we are speaking of.

CFI Sanctification involves not only the Lord’s death, but also His present position.

JT Yes. It is His present position in glory, not simply Christ risen. “I sanctify myself for them, that they also may be sanctified by truth” (John 17: 19), meaning that He is going to set Himself apart in heaven, as the measure of our sanctification.

CFI That group of women from Galilee had been sanctified.

JT John says that they were “standing by the cross”, as if they were there in relation to it. How ^[p. 194] the Lord would think of that, that He would sanctify them by His own blood! He is setting them apart.

CFI They have seen His position in relation to the world, and the world in relation to Him.

CAI Would going without the camp involve identification with Christ, and preparedness to go out of view?

JT I think so, especially religiously.

EBMcC That would bring us on to chapter 10, the sanctifying involving taking away the first that He might establish the second.

JT That is what enters into it, the taking away of the first. The will of God required that; whatever that may be, from our point of view, the first has been taken away.

JCS Sanctification seems to be impregnated with the thought of His own blood, which is a very touching expression.

JT “His own blood”. You can understand these women as John presents them — and he alone says that they stood by the cross — how in later years as the doctrine of it developed, they would speak of this, His own blood. How it would affect them as they looked back on the scene! The impression would be imperishable — the impression gained as standing by the cross of Jesus.

JCS If this were brought home to our souls in that way, it would move us and give us readiness to come out.

JT That is so. What the sin-offering seen in Hebrews 13 implies is the deepest insight we get into the meaning of the death of Christ. In other offerings the blood was not carried inside, it was more its bearing towards the offerer; but the blood carried inside and placed on the mercy-seat means that it is the bearing of it Godward, so that God is appeased. It is the deepest feature of the ^[p. 195] death of Christ.

JCS God is fully glorified in it.

JT Quite so. So that this chapter as bearing on the saints suggests that we have the opportunity of having the deepest understanding of the death of Christ. The more we love Him, the more this would come into view. It is quite scriptural to be occupied with His death. Short of its full meaning, most believers have only a partial view of the death of Christ, but enough to save them. The more we love Him, the more we shall enquire into it. Those who stood by His cross would represent those who enquire into it, and see the full bearing of the sufferings of Christ, that is, the forsaking side. Matthew and Mark give us the forsaking of Christ on the cross.

PL Would such entrance into the depths of Christ’s sufferings provide the saints with suited emotions with which to enter into the service of God, which is in mind in Hebrews?

JT I think so. We are more deeply affected. The more the sufferings are understood, the more effective and richer will be the worship.

PL I was thinking of Psalm 22 — the rich flow of worship from many companies — where this great theme is presented.

JT It is in that connection we have the Lord singing in the midst. It is among those who have searched into the significance of His atoning sufferings. Psalm 22 gives us Christ in the midst singing the praises of God, as if His greatest sufferings enter into that service.

CAI Would there be a connection between the cup as the covenant in His blood, and the blood sanctifying the people?

JT There is, the one testifying to the love of God, and the other testifying to His judgment — suffering outside the gate alluding to the sin-offering; our sanctification involves the fulness of Christ’s atoning sufferings. Psalm 22 particularly enters into ^[p. 196] the service of God. The Lord says, “And thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel”.

PL Would the spring of ‘the hind of the morning’ be in contrast to the stagnation of the camp?

JT You mean the title of the Psalm. That is very good, because the hind is a feminine thought; meaning that the Lord has in His mind, in the depth of His sufferings, the great living results in His saints.

PL The hind of the morning would dispose of liturgies and creeds, the paraphernalia of the camp.

JT There is no spiritual agility there whatever. The same hymn that was sung three hundred years ago is sung today. There is no spiritual movement at all. The hind of the morning is movement — spiritual agility in response to the great sufferings Christ endured.

JCS You regard this scripture as the foundation in connection with your preceding thought.

JT Yes, it is the foundation of the position. Then the next point is in chapter 10 — working backwards — the thought of establishing the second. For, as I said, the second chapter gives the end of our subject; and then how we are brought to it in correspondence with Christ as the Sanctifier. Chapter 10 is the question of the will of God and it lets us into the light of the psalm which speaks about the Lord taking a body. It alludes to the volume of the book, the divine record is there. The Lord had it in mind that the will of God should be carried out, therefore the body was prepared. The Lord’s body is the means of our sanctification and necessarily works out in us in one body — Christ’s body as formed of the saints. It is for the will of God. The body of Christ here is for the will of God, and so “we being many are ... one body;” according to Corinthians we are for the will of God. As we partake of the Lord’s supper, the principle is that we ^[p. 197] are unitedly for the will of God; that is the first thing morally in the assembly. I think if we look into this more we shall understand the Lord’s supper better, especially the bread. We are brought into the will of God, and the body viewed in this aspect.

JCS So that He not only died for the will of God, but to secure a company answering to that will, under the idea of the body.

JT There is that here which expresses Christ where He was for the will of God; the saints viewed as one body. That is what comes into view in the saints partaking of the bread.

JCS So that in the body of the Lord Jesus here the will of God was carried out in detail, and in the body of Christ formed of the saints there is an answer to that.

JT That is the position. As we partake of the Lord’s supper there is something here for the will of God, in that certain persons united as an organism are to stand at all costs for the will of God.

PL “That ... we should serve him ... in piety and righteousness before him, all our days” (Luke 1: 74, 75).

JT Quite so. How much is against us! There is persistent influence abroad religiously today, to turn us from that — from rigid adherence to the will of God. The Lord’s supper is to maintain us in that relation and the Lord comes in in that way, “he was made known to them in the breaking of bread” (Luke 24: 35), which alludes to His body.

Ques Would you say a little about being sanctified? It says, “By the which will we are sanctified”.

JT It is God bringing us into accord with Christ. “Sacrifices and offerings and burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou willedst not;” they did not meet His will, what could they do? they were only types. “But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity at the right hand of God”.

So the Lord says, “thou hast prepared me a body”. In it He did the will of God unswervingly, and as in accordance with the will of God, that will is now working in us. “By the which will we have been sanctified”. God prepared that body that it might be offered for our sanctification; He will require it, and as we break the bread according to the Lord’s example, He shows Himself, the assembly being for the will of God. The Lord’s supper is on the line of the will of God.

JCS He shows Himself to persons who are committed to the will of God.

JT That is the principle. He will have to rebuke us if we are not on that line.

CAI What is the thought in the will of God? Is it more than the obedience of that Man here in the days of His flesh?

JT It is a question of the testimony. The Lord expressed it fully in Gethsemane. “Not my will, but thine”. He distinguishes between His will and God’s, and that is what He would present to men — God’s will in the testimony.

Ques Do you think the centurion and others on guard over the body of Jesus were instructed so as to give testimony — “Truly this man was Son of God”?

JT God ordered that they should say that, and so this beautiful testimony appeared. It was the current work of God in relation to what was going on here. It is what He has evoked; something like that may happen at any time. The centurion represents the material God may affect and you can never tell what it may be. The Galilean is going on in his own group and Joseph in his position, but this centurion is an ordinary man of the world, looking after the crucifixion. Yet God evidently affected him, and he makes this confession: “Truly this man was Son of God”. How remarkable that is! And we can look for it always.

The apostle says, “yet shew I unto you a way of more surpassing excellence” (1 Corinthians 12: 31), and the women by the cross were in that way of love; it describes our position in fellowship. A man might come into the meeting at Corinth — it is a public matter, the doors are not locked — and prophetic ministry is current, and he falls down and says, God is among you of a truth. We can count on that.

CFI Would you say in connection with the bread, there is a vessel secured for the heart of Christ?

JT Yes. The assembly is Christ’s — “my assembly”. He will use it, not only for Himself, but for God. There is that which His affections have in the saints, He gave Himself for us, but then He will use it for God. It is a question of the will of God.

CFI He delights to give effect to the will of God.

JT Hence the anointing alluded to in 1 Corinthians 12, where the saints are viewed as anointed for the will of God. “So also is the Christ”.

DHR The Lord was here for the will of God, and He is to have a company here to do the will of God.

JT Just as His body was prepared, so we are His body for that purpose. It is the same thought carried through.

JCS All that came out with the Lord Jesus here is to be perpetuated for the will of God.

JT Yes, that is the thought, the moral element is in mind. So when He made Himself known to the two in the breaking of bread, what did they do? They saw that the will of God required that they should be at Jerusalem. Probably Emmaus was their home, but the will of God lay in another direction, and immediately they went back to ^[p. 200] the city.

CFI What do you understand by the sitting down in perpetuity after He had offered one sacrifice?

JT That is in keeping with Hebrews. It is to show that the sacrifice of Christ is final, it settles the matter. We are sanctified in perpetuity; there is no change in the position, and that gives us all the more liberty and power to be for Christ, and the will of God here. The basis of sanctification is finished. Then the liberty this affords enables us to have part in the service of God; that we might draw near to God, for that is what the apostle is leading up to in this chapter — that we might be in liberty in our entering the holiest, as in verse 19.

RMD Is the thought of sacrifice emphasised in chapter 10, and suffering in chapter 13?

JT Chapter 10 is to show the stability which the one sacrifice of Christ affords. It is the offering of His body, and this is what links on with the Lord’s supper. It brings in the body of Christ for the will of God, and that through that body finality is reached sacrificially. There is no more need to offer in that sense. So that the saints are now free for the will of God, to draw near to Him. Romans 12 works out from this. We present our bodies a living sacrifice. You have a living state of things in the presenting of our bodies.

JCS “That he may establish the second”. The thing is established; it is final.

JT That is it. To understand this we have to go back to the Old Testament and look into all the ‘seconds’ — Jacob instead of Esau; Isaac instead of Ishmael; Ephraim instead of Manasseh; Job’s second family instead of the first, and other instances. We have to go through the Bible in order to grasp what is meant by the second being established.

PL I wondered whether this sense of stability would preserve us at the Lord’s supper from restless intrusions relating to our sins being put away, and would leave us free, as on this foundation, to go forward in spiritual intelligence.

JT Quite so. That is what this chapter leads up to — “Let us approach”. It sets us in motion. We are at liberty now, set up in another Man, not the first. The religious world is on the principle of the first, but God is working on the principle of the second. Partaking of the Lord’s supper is an intelligent matter, and we can go forward in liberty, making room for the worship of God. So that the way is said to be a new and living way. That is what we come to, and I believe that if we compare the service of the cathedral with that of christians walking in the light of the assembly, we shall see the new and living way in the latter, and the dead ‘first’ way which God has left in the former.

JCS So that the second is really established in the assembly.

JT Yes. We are free, in the light of this chapter, as we come together; there is nothing in our way, hence we draw near by the new and living way.

Then as regards chapter 2, we are brought into correspondence with Christ as the Sanctifier. Those who are sanctified are one with Him; not only outside the camp; not only in the body for the will of God, but they are of His order, elevated to that dignity. So that “he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, and then the writer quotes Psalm 22. It is now on the line of the heavenly; we are His brethren and He can take us, not only into the holiest, but on to the line of the heavenly family.

TGMcG That is what has been established in the second family.

JT I think that Job helps us as to the second family. It is a remarkable result, worked out in ^[p. 202] forty-two chapters. We get the first family in chapter 1 and the second in the last chapter, and the second was established. Figuratively, moral beauty was there — in the daughters, and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

CFI Is there a link here between the covenant and the family thought?

JT Yes; but what we are speaking of goes beyond the covenant; it is our laying hold of the fact that “as he is, we also are in this world” (1 John 4: 17). We are of His order. The covenant contemplates us here as needing assurance — perfect love casting out fear — but now we are on a level with Christ where He regards us as His brethren. We have family status now, and we do not need any assurance as in the covenant. As in the family we do not need any covenant assurance. I think that is what is in mind, because we are all of one with Him. It is not union, but it means that all are the same kind as the Sanctifier. So that He is not ashamed to call us brethren.

Ques Would it be the same as Aaron and his sons?

JT It corresponds, only Aaron and his sons are the priestly family: the thought of God’s sons and Christ’s brethren goes further.

PL Would it be the same as the “much fruit” in John’s gospel?

JT Yes. The corn of wheat falls into the ground and dies; the fruit is the same as the corn, so that He has His brethren. He recognises them as having family status with Him.

JCS To see it in operation, do you think it carries us outside the limitations of this book?

JT It is on a higher level, like the summit of a mountain range, and the epistle generally bears on it. The Lord has not only a people sanctified by His blood, but He has them of His own order of ^[p. 203] humanity. The book is to get us on to that line in our minds and affections. The family of God is in mind — He is bringing many sons to glory.

JCS So that you have no past history on that line?

JT As to order, we are the same as Christ, there is no difference in that sense. As He is, so are we.

P L. Would the first sanctification in chapter 13 involve our going out, the second one our going in, and the third our going up?

JT Just so. The heavenly leads us on to Ephesians. So that Ephesians opens not only with the fact that we are blessed, but where we are blessed, that is, in the heavenlies, and we are predestinated unto sonship through Jesus Christ, that we might be before God in love. That is the family side.

CAI Is this the sons brought to glory?

JT That is the suggestion in verse 10, “for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory”. These verses fill out that, it shows what is in mind. We are being brought to glory.

JM You spoke of Job’s family. Does the fact that the family was not doubled imply that it was a new family brought in?

JT It is a supplanting principle. The same principle is seen in Jacob. In Job’s case, the animals were doubled, but not the sons and daughters. The number of persons is the same, but new in character, and as the “second”, it is established. This principle works out in every one of our histories.

PL And are the daughters now nameable — they were not so at first?

JT Yes. The latter were in the eldest brother’s house, that is the “first”. In the second family the daughters are given “inheritance among their brethren”.

JCS Is the Minister of the sanctuary concurrent with this?

JT Yes; although that thought comes in earlier in assembly service. As seen in the family setting the Lord has us so that He can use us in relation to heaven. It is the heavenly ones. The Lord has us on a level in which He can use us according to God’s eternal purpose.

JCS The body is the underlying organism in connection with it.

JT Yes. The family line, however, does not imply the body. It is not a question of the body, but of persons in their family dignity: that is, sons of God and brethren of Christ.