THE POWER THAT WORKETH IN US (4)

^[p. 397] THE POWER THAT WORKETH IN US (4)

Joshua 5: 1 - 12; John 20: 16 - 23

JT What is in mind, at this time, is to consider what we may call the paternal side in the service of God. It is well to have this in mind, whatever is said at the outset, that we may reach the subject from this point of view. It may be wise to remark again, that the book of Joshua has been turned to, not as affording light as to the order of assembly service, but to show how those who take part in it are qualified as they enter upon their inheritance, God’s inheritance — in a practical sense — being contingent upon our being in possession of our inheritance. So that the ministry of David is really a counterpart of Exodus and Leviticus, but Joshua serves to bring out the persons, to qualify the persons, so that we are brought into accord with the heavenly scene or position, in which the service of God reaches finality, in so far as it may be reached while we are down here. What is in mind throughout is that in taking part in assembly, we should do so intelligently, in power, and in enrichment.

John 20, as corresponding with Ephesians, in the doctrinal part of the New Testament, has in mind the Father’s part. Our Lord’s message, saying, “my Father and your Father ... my God and your God”, comes at the end of John’s gospel, and there can be no doubt that there is a prophetic touch in this, in view of the end of the dispensation; having in mind that the full divine thought should be reached, and that the persons qualified to serve God in the heavenly realm should be brought in. It is Christ who brings us in, as it is said, “by whom are all things” (1 Corinthians 8: 6).

MWB Would you say a word as to the way in which the marital relationship between Christ and ^[p. 398] the assembly would further enrich us in the service of God, in addition to the thought of the covenant?

JT Well, I think John helps us. John the evangelist quotes the remarks of the baptist as to the Bridegroom, in which it is said that the baptist’s joy in hearing the Bridegroom’s voice was fulfilled. That was the fulfilment of his joy, as if it were the completion; he said, “this my joy then is fulfilled” (John 3: 29). John the evangelist, as in prophetic service, is taken by the angel to see the bride, the Lamb’s wife; as if he, too, would appreciate the sight. As a result he presents her first in relation to eternal scenes, coming down as a bride adorned for her husband; and then, in relation to the world to come, as the holy city, Jerusalem. John the evangelist, the Lord having reserved him in view of His return as indicated by His mysterious remarks to Simon Peter, would bring everything into clarity and concreteness. So that, as we see the end, the impressions we obtain in this way become riches, a wealth of intelligence in regard of Christ and the assembly.

Paul, correspondingly, in his own line, brings out the mystery in that same connection. He lays the basis for it in Romans, saying, that we are “to be to another”, and to “serve in newness of spirit;” then in Ephesians he brings out the love of Christ for the assembly, though more in view of union than public display. John does not bring out the side of union, but presents the public side. Paul brings out union, which must have place in the service of the assembly; for as in union we are of Christ, and, as His body, we are His fulness.

MWB Where would you look for a suited response to Christ from the assembly as consciously enjoying that relationship? As further than the covenant?

JT Yes. There are hymns that support that; but our concern is to see how the truth fits. The thoughts ^[p. 399] of the bride and the Bridegroom, rightly understood, as seen in Christ and the assembly, whether on the side of public display or on the side of union, must afford wealth spiritually. This would enable us to join in with Christ in what He has in mind.

AMH Would the fact that the bride, the Lamb’s wife, has the glory of God show what an intimate link there is between the bride and God?

JT I think, in public display, she carries with her in glory the effect of the covenant; she comes down from God out of heaven having the glory of God.

ETS Would “adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21: 2) help?

JT I think it does: “a bride adorned for her husband” indicates how she is concerned to be for him. She is intelligent as to the position and how she is to be in it. The king’s daughter is all “glorious within” (Psalm 45: 13).

PHH Would this find oral expression after the Supper in the way of thanksgiving to the Lord? Would you bring it in as collateral with the covenant or before it? I refer to this expression of the relationship between Christ and the assembly.

JT I think it fits in as the new covenant has been before us. We are being invested with glory. It fits into our souls, the whole environment becomes enriched with divine thoughts. It is really a question of the formation of the persons so that they should be equal for the final thought, that is, the heavenly; but there is joy and blessedness, in which the Lord Himself shares, throughout. In chapter 5 here we touch on the heavenly, and we get a little beyond Colossians — although Christ as seen in Colossians of course is in heaven — but here it is the idea of His being indigenous to heaven. That is, we are bordering now on eternal thoughts. There are, however,

^[p. 400] certain adjustments in chapters 4 and 5 that lead up to the great subject before us at this reading.

We noted the fact that the twelve men are directed to take the twelve stones. “And Joshua called the twelve men, whom he had appointed of the children of Israel, a man out of every tribe; and Joshua said to them, Pass before the ark of Jehovah your God into the midst of the Jordan, and lift up each of you a stone and put it upon his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel, that this may be a sign in your midst” (chapter 4: 4 - 6). Then it is said in verse 8, “And the children of Israel did so, as Joshua had commanded, and took up twelve stones out of the midst of the Jordan, as Jehovah had spoken to Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel”. Again in verse 20: “And those twelve stones which they had taken out of the Jordan did Joshua set up in Gilgal”. That is, the twelve men did it, and then Israel did it, and Joshua sets the stones up according to the latter verse read. Then again, we are told in verse 9, “And twelve stones did Joshua set up in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests who bore the ark of the covenant had stood firm; and they are there to this day”. So that the position of the saints, their qualification and position, are established; there is fixity spiritually. Joshua gives the final touch in regard of the stones at Gilgal, and also those in the Jordan. No one but he has anything to do with those in the Jordan. Thus we have the matter settled as to the saints now; their origin, their fixed position in the land — twelve tribes, that is, all the saints. Then the witness, as it is said, “to this day” (verse 9), in the bed of Jordan, that they had been there. That is, the backward history is to the bed of the Jordan, from the standpoint of the land.

JSB In verse 7, in answer to the children’s inquiry,

Joshua says, “That the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of Jehovah”, but later Joshua says to the people, “ye shall let your children know, saying, ... Jehovah your God dried up the waters of the Jordan from before you”. What is the difference in these two?

JT Verse 6 reads, “When your children ask hereafter, saying, What mean ye by these stones? then ye shall say to them, That the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of Jehovah; when it went through the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off”. Verse 23, “because Jehovah your God dried up the waters of the Jordan from before you, until ye had passed over, as Jehovah your God did to the Red sea, which he dried up from before us, until we had passed over”. The first would refer to the power of the ark; the waters of Jordan were cut off from before the ark of the covenant of Jehovah. That is, the power exercised by Christ Himself as seen in John, for instance, where He said, referring to Himself, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2: 19). Paul would stress what God did; God raised Christ. Verse 7 keeps Christ before us typically in the exercise of the same power that God exercised. Verse 23 shows that Jehovah had in mind that the people should go over, and He made a way for them, as He had done at the Red Sea; but then, Christ Himself abolished death, He “annulled death” (2 Timothy 1: 10). The part that God took in the resurrection on our behalf is particularly to be noticed in Romans 4: 25. We read that Christ “has been raised for our justification;” that is the Red Sea. Then it is said that He “has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father” (Romans 6: 4). It is not the power of the Father, but the glory of the Father; as if to bring out what the Father is — how His affections shone out, in relation to Christ as ^[p. 402] having entered into death. In both cases it is the Red Sea, but chapter 6, it seems, links on with the Jordan peculiarly; for the saints are said to have become identified with Christ in the likeness of His death, so also they shall be in the likeness of His resurrection. In the meantime we are to walk in newness of life. Evidently, the Father comes in peculiarly in regard of the resurrection, when it is said to be by His glory; as if to remind us that He had been without Christ, as He went into death, for three days and three nights. But then, in taking Christ out of death, God has in mind to have ourselves also; and the beginning of this is in our being planted, or identified with Him, in the likeness of His death, so that we should also be in the likeness of His resurrection. Verse 23 of our chapter would point to God making a way for us. Christ comes out Himself — it is stated, the ark itself came out — but the saints are brought through by Jehovah. The operative exercise of power is in the ark in the bed of the Jordan. What power there was there holding the position until the divine thoughts were accomplished!

MWB If we had the Lord thus before us at the Supper, would there not be a leverage to hasten and pass over?

JT I think so. It is a question now of the accomplishment of the divine thoughts; that we should be fixed in the new position, and chapter 5 has in mind that we are now appropriating a heavenly Christ. The old corn of the land is another type.

EG Is there anything in the thought that Joshua has no instructions for what he does in verse 9?

JT I think it is just a hint of what the Lord does; as if He were to say to us, You have been there, and I brought you up. It is history, as far back as it goes, that is, to the death of Christ. In ^[p. 403] Ephesians 2: 1 we are said to be dead in trespasses and sins, but we are taken out of that state.

The operations of the Father ought to come into our minds. Chapter 5 brings us on to the side to which He can be attached; it is not exactly in the type here, because the thought of the Father literally does not enter into it at all. We are thinking of the formation of the saints, and as soon as we begin to appropriate Christ in heaven, that is, Christ in His own place, then we are being adjusted finally, as we might say, for the heavenly position. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20: 17). He is careful to disallow every link with the earth: He said to Mary Magdalene “Touch me not”. She loved Christ, but the link with Him is not now down here — that is the crucial point.

Ques Do the twelve stones refer to the saints as having their origin in the death of Christ?

JT I think so. That is where the history begins, as in Ephesians.

AFM Is that why the twelve stones in both instances are connected particularly with the work of the Lord?

JT Quite so: As already said, Joshua gives the final touch to the matter, both as regards those remaining in the Jordan and the setting up of the others in Gilgal. It is Christ, as having to do with all this. As regards what is before us now, He gives us to understand that He is having to do with us as to it; “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me” (John 13: 8). Apart from His own touch, we are unequal to have part with Him in heavenly things.

JTS Is it important that we have the thought of quickening in Ephesians 2 and then, being raised up together and made to sit together in the heavenlies,

before we are told that, “through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”? (verse 18).

JT It is important. The passage alluded to indicates where we were, in death; and then “raised up together”, meaning raised up with one another. That refers to the twelve stones at Gilgal. We are raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ. Our place is established up there in view of the ages to come; and thus “we both have access by one Spirit to the Father”.

PHH How far would “part with me”, in John 13, go? There are certain chapters which seem to carry us forward, prior to the twentieth; would you include all those chapters?

JT I should, indeed. There is a principle introduced in chapter 13; the Lord has more in His mind than what we had at the beginning of chapter 12, and He is intimating that He is taking them with Him; not in an arbitrary way, but in an educational way. We should see that in all ministry one great point is to carry the brethren with you, carry them along with you; that is what the Lord Himself did. Certain things are said about the Father, and He said it because of those standing by. In raising Lazarus, He is leading them along with Him in these great matters. Then in chapter 12 He says: “Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But on account of this have I come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name” (verses 27, 28). In answer to this the voice from heaven says: “I both have glorified and will glorify it again” (verse 28). This is for those standing by (verse 30). Thus we are to be carried along with Christ. Then He proceeds in chapter 14, and He finds that some of the disciples are not quite clear as to what He is saying. One says: “shew us the Father and it suffices us” (verse 8). So the Lord says: “Am I so long a time ^[p. 415] with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? He that ^[p. 405] has seen me has seen the Father” (verse 9). So they are being adjusted. The Lord, I am sure, was glad that Philip made that inquiry; and Judas also makes an inquiry. Right through these chapters we find inquiries and complaints; but the Lord meets them all. Every inquiry and complaint brings out fresh light. He is leading them with Him. Then He says, in chapter 16, “in that day ye shall demand nothing of me: verily, verily, I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give you” (verse 23). And again, “the Father himself has affection for you” (verse 27). The Lord is transferring them to the Father in chapter 16. He also speaks there about the Spirit: what He would do; how He would bring demonstration to the world, of sin, righteousness, and judgment; “of righteousness, because I go away to my Father;” things would all be perfectly clear. Then in chapter 17 He hands them over to the Father. He has led them along in a true ministerial way, and now they are put into the Father’s realm. That is the point in our present reading; what the Father will do. The Son had said, “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me” (John 17: 6). And in verse 26 He says, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”.

CAM Attention was drawn to our feet in John 13. In the passage of the Jordan we read of the feet of the priests. We are to go that way.

JT Habakkuk 3: 19 says: “He will make me to walk upon my high places”. We are now entering upon our high places to walk with Christ, and you can see that He must have to do with our feet. There are other lessons which do not come into our subject, but the end of these wonderful chapters in John is, that we are placed in ^[p. 406] the realm of the Father.

JJ Is the realm of the Father different from the sanctuary which we had before us this morning?

JT The sanctuary runs along with the thought; our present condition is in mind. The very suggestion of washing suggests the need of the sanctuary. They were clean according to Jewish requirements, but not for this new order of things.

JJ Is the sanctuary the spiritual sphere where all these things are possible?

JT Quite so. It is not a theoretical thing; it really begins in these men, and what Christ is going to make out of them. There would be tabernacle conditions even in one who loved Jesus, and who kept His commandments and His words, John 14: 21 - 23.

FI Is there no moment until we get to glory, when we get beyond the sanctuary?

JT As to the general position, I think the sanctuary stands. Another matter that arises is, the power of abstraction; the ability we may acquire to abstract ourselves. Paul says: “we are beside ourselves ... to God” (2 Corinthians 5: 13). John says: “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1: 10). Of Peter, it is said that “an ecstasy came upon him” (Acts 10: 10). These are facts; surely not written merely as history. If the power of abstraction is fully known, we may reach a domain really beyond the sanctuary; because the sanctuary carried a negative thought, the exclusion of evil. Paul said as to his being caught up into paradise, that he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body. I do not think we can connect the idea of the sanctuary with his experience in the third heaven, but he said, “whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not”.

AMH Does the sanctuary connect with our being together in spiritual conditions where there is ^[p. 407] neither male nor female, but, in fact, male and female have to be recognised?

JT This latter is quite clear in the public position.

JTS Does the word in Ezekiel 11: 16 help? “Although I have removed them far off among the nations, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries whither they are come”.

JT That indicates the idea of the presence of God. It begins in Exodus 3 at the bush, the ground is holy; and so we have here in our chapter, as said to Joshua, “Loose thy sandal from off thy foot: for the place whereon thou standest is holy” (verse 15), showing what the presence of God is; how God can be a sanctuary to us. The great primary thought in the service of God is, first, who is to serve — it is a son; then, how is he to serve — that is, as priest, in view of conditions here; and where he is to serve — that is the sanctuary.

EJMcB Would you say that abstraction is known when the saints touch what is eternal in character?

JT Well, if the abstraction does enable you to touch what is eternal. We are just speaking of something that is in Scripture, and it is right to do that. Whether any one of us has experienced it is a question. The Lord would not discourage us from aiming at what is possible. John pursues the line of abstraction in his epistle, and views the saints without fault at all (1 John 3: 9).

PL The thought is presented in John in Patmos, is it not?

JT Yes — “in the Spirit” he has to be called back.

WCG Does not abstraction begin with abiding in Christ according to 1 John 3: 6? “Whoever abides in him, does not sin”.

JT Well, it does. The thought conveyed by John,

^[p. 408] in such statements as that is an astronomical one. As abiding in Christ, you are in your orbit. But he speaks of us abstractly apart from this thought, saying, “Whoever has been begotten of God does not practise sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God” (1 John 3: 9).

MWB Could you bring in the idea of abstraction and ecstasy in the actual service of God? All utterance in the assembly is to be in sobriety and intelligence, not ecstasy.

Ques Is the point of abstraction seen in 2 Chronicles 5: 14, where the priests could not stand to minister? Do the preceding verses give the road spiritually to this abstraction?

JT One has often thought of that passage as illustrative of abstraction; even if but for a moment. God seeks that — at any given time, if even for a moment, to have us free from a sense of sinful condition; to have us as “of one” with Christ, (Hebrews 2: 11). The glory fills the sanctuary; as if God would say, They are entirely according to My thoughts. He has us entirely for His pleasure. While this may be so, any audible service is to be governed by balance and intelligence, as just remarked. Whatever the size of my offering, I must be in proportion to it; that is the idea of balance. But then 2 Chronicles 5 speaks of the priests having reached perfect unison of sound in music, and God says, That is My thought. Even if but for a moment, there it is; the glory takes charge. It is the Father’s realm, as it were; He has those He loves in the relation and condition in which Christ is as Man before Him.

Ques Is that why the thought of rest comes in?

JT Quite so. The ark is at rest in that chapter; wilderness conditions are over.

Ques Is the Father’s realm different from the Father’s house?

JT The Father’s house in John 14 is future. The Lord says, “I go to prepare you a place”. He is coming again to take us to Himself: “In my Father’s house there are many abodes”. In John 8 we have just “the house”, what is provisional down here in the meantime. The son abiding in the house for ever would be in contrast to the position of a servant, and of course the house is an abiding thought.

FI Is there any part of our service that can be carried on apart from viewing the Lord as Minister of the sanctuary?

JT We come together to break bread, and this does not necessitate the Minister of the sanctuary: it is what we do. This is initial as regards the service of God in the assembly, and the Lord comes in and leads to the heavenly part — to which His service as Minister of the sanctuary peculiarly belongs. The sanctuary remains in view of our mixed condition.

JJ Is there any difference between the Lord’s headship and His service as the Minister of the sanctuary? Is He on our side as Head, but as Minister of the sanctuary, somewhat apart from us?

JT The Minister of the sanctuary refers to what Aaron did in the sanctuary. Christ takes charge of the whole matter; it is what He is Godward. Headship stands related to Paul’s side of the position; the mystery as in Ephesians 5.

MWB Would you say a word as to the old corn of the land; would that in its effect enrich the service of God?

JT It does; it builds us up in what is heavenly. It is the appropriation of Christ as He is in heaven. “And they ate of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened loaves, and roasted corn on that same day” (verse 11).

Ques Before we go on to the old corn of the ^[p. 410] land; does the Minister of the sanctuary allow in your mind any thought of Moses?

JT The idea of Minister of the sanctuary develops out of, and is based on, mediatorship. The latter is in Moses — in Christ as in 2 Corinthians 3: 17, where we read, “the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. The formation in us is by the Lord the Spirit.

Ques Hebrews 8: 6 says, “But now he has got a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is mediator of a better covenant, which is established on the footing of better promises”. Would you allow that that is a reference to Moses, or do you think the Minister of the sanctuary lies in relation to the heavenly line of things and the covenant?

JT That verse follows on Christ’s priesthood: “If then indeed he were upon earth, he would not even be a priest” (Hebrews 8: 4); but now He has “a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is mediator of a better covenant”. The mediatorship of the covenant refers to Moses’ service; “a more excellent ministry” to that of Aaron; both thoughts are combined in Christ. “Mediator of a better covenant”, is not priesthood; it is apostolic. The Spirit of God goes on to show in Hebrews 9 and 10, as we have had it, how this is worked out. The sacrificial service of Christ as Priest is mainly in view, but in relation to the saints drawing near. In chapter 10: 21, 22, we have Him as “great priest over the house of God”.

Ques Are these features seen in Acts? In chapter 1 He charged the apostles by the Holy Spirit, and then, chapter 2, as in heaven, He acts as Priest in blessing.

JT Acts 1 helps us as to what we are speaking of; He charged the apostles by the Spirit, but then in the same chapter He “assembled with them”.

^[p. 411] There we have a suggestion of the Minister of the sanctuary.

AJG Would it be right to say that the Minister of the sanctuary is more the function, but headship relates more to the affections of the saints?

JT Well, it is. As to the assembly, headship involves union. “Minister of the sanctuary” is an allusion to Aaron; he carried on the ministry of the sanctuary. It is in relation to God, for the sanctuary belongs to God. The book that brings it out is Exodus, the great fundamental book in the types. Having mentioned the “abode of thy holiness”, Exodus 15 runs on to “the Sanctuary ... that thy hands have prepared” (verse 17); that is, the sanctuary as Solomon built it, which involves eternal relations.

If we keep this in mind, we shall see that we are now in the Father’s realm. John 20 introduces the Father’s realm. Christ had been speaking of the Father, but in John He never says, “your Father” to His own until chapter 20. He had been setting out the thought of the Father, in view of making men of them; in view of leading them up to the great position, indicated in His prayer, “that the love with which thou has loved me may be in them and I in them” (John 17: 26). Think of Him having that thought for us! That we should have such love in our hearts! The love wherewith the Father loved the Son, the most exalted love conceivable; the Lord in speaking to His Father has no less a thought than that we should have that love; to have that kind of love in our hearts would render us peculiarly capable of loving Christ up there. The Father’s love, and the Father’s Spirit operating in us, we are set up as men in complete consonance with all that is up there. That is the aim of Paul’s ministry, and the Lord is bringing it before us now, according to John’s presentation of it, so that we reach the ^[p. 412] thought involved in His ascending to His Father and our Father, His God and our God. Having sent the message through Mary, He comes in where the disciples were, as if to say, This is the most august company. It is an abstract view — He views them in the light of the message — and they are equal to it according to the facts presented.

EuR You were speaking about fixity; have you in mind that the Son of God would serve us as His brethren; and then we are enabled to take that ground as with Him in the presence of the Father?

JT Quite so; and all this formative work is to make the persons to whom He was coming equal to the light of the message in John 20: 17. He comes to such persons; not as assembled, but where those persons were.

Ques You said that it was a son who served, but served as a priest. Should we have the privilege in that service of presenting the perfections of Christ before the Father?

JT Quite so. And then you can speak to the Father about Himself, which is perhaps the greatest thought of all. The Lord goes to great pains to speak to the disciples about the Father, not in an abstract sense, but about the traits of the Father; conveying what He is. He is thus known to the worshipper as speaking to Him. In speaking to the Father, we of course have in mind who He is, but we think of Him also according to known qualities — known in His infinitely holy traits as represented in Jesus. John 14: 6 - 11 speaks of One divine Person presenting Another, so as to be intelligible to us, and that we should speak to Him, not only according to who He is, but what He is.

PHH Would you say a little more as to the last part of John 17: “I in them”?

JT He would be in us as loving Him with the same kind of love as the Father loves Him. That is ^[p. 413] not exactly the same kind of love that the woman in Luke 7 had for Him; she loved much because she was forgiven much. It is love for Christ, but the Father’s love is the most exalted love. It is the outcome of coming into the Father’s side of things and seeing Christ as the Father sees Him.

Rem “Yet a little and the world sees me no longer; but ye see me; because I live ye also shall live” (John 14: 19).

JT That covers all that we have been saying as to how the Lord is apprehended in Joshua. It is not a corporeal view of Christ; it is how we see Him now. The world does not see him now: “ye see me; because I live ye also shall live”. It is how we see him, that is, spiritually.

MWB Is it not, in view of that, that the old corn of the land would build up the constitution?

JT That is the touch we get here. Then our subjective condition is brought in; it is unleavened. The corn is ‘store corn’, as the margin reads. It is Christ as indigenous to heaven, as has often been remarked.

Ques When you spoke of speaking to the Father directly, had you in mind the thought of speaking to the Father as apprehending Himself personally?

JT Certainly: as the Supreme, known as Father; but with known traits — qualities known through Christ that you can keep in your mind in speaking of Him and to Him.

Ques I was noticing in Chronicles, in Hezekiah’s time, that “all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded, all the time until the burnt-offering was finished” (2 Chronicles 29: 28). Would that indicate the way the Lord would support us in assembly, and in speaking to the Father Himself?

JT It would: the whole passage shows how richly the service went on to completion. These ^[p. 414] chapters in John have in mind that we should speak directly to the Father. It is not that we should not pray to the Lord, as some say, as to chapter 16: 23. We come to see that the Father is a distinct Person that loves us as the Son loves us; and inasmuch as the Father is seen in the Son down here, we apprehend His traits. He comes into our range in that way.

APT In John 4: 20, the woman says, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain”. Does the Lord use what she brings forward on the paternal side, to bring in the positive paternal side in His own thoughts — the Father?

JT What He says to her about God enters into what we are saying now. We sometimes wonder why He did not ignore her remarks as to worship; but the truth is, she had already said, “Sir, I see that thou art a prophet” (verse 19). That is to say, she was becoming spiritual. The discerning word of the Lord as to her five husbands brought home to her that He was a prophet. She discerned who was there, and she is thus qualified for the Lord to speak to her about worship, and about the Father, and about God. She was one who is discerned through and through. It is said of a similar case: “the secrets of his heart are manifested” (1 Corinthians 14: 25). The secrets of her heart were made manifest, and she was convicted. It is further said in 1 Corinthians 14: 24, “he is convicted of all, he is judged of all”. The man falls down — and this woman is like him. Surely that is one to whom we may speak of the worship of God! The Lord speaks to her about it, and says to her things that He said to no one else that we know of.

Ques In relation to the remark as to one divine Person representing Another, John 20: 19 says: “Jesus came and stood in the midst”. Would you help us as to the word ‘representing’? I refer to the word of Philip, “Shew us the Father” (John 14: 8). Then the Lord says: “Am I so long a time with you, and thou hast not known me?” Whereas in John 20 Jesus came and stood in the midst. It is one divine Person spoken of, but is not that all in the Spirit now — it is not the Lord corporeally?

JT No, it is not. That is what we are saying; He comes in in a spiritual way.

Ques “These things Jesus spoke, and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour is come”. Would that suggest to them what should mark the assembly position, and what He had in His mind all the time?

JT It suggests an attitude in us as in assembly; looking up and saying, Father. He is leading the disciples into the Father’s realm.

Ques Would the way the Lord speaks to the Father suggest some of these qualities you spoke of?

JT I think so. He would regard the Father according to what He had said of Him, but of course in His own infinite way. “The men whom thou gavest me” (verse 6); the word men there has great significance. He is linking them with the Father. They were the Father’s and He gave them to the Son, who had manifested the Father’s name to them, and now, as no longer in the world, He places them in the Father’s hands. Later He says, “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known” (verse 26). He is carrying on the thought of the Father, having His realm in mind. Then in chapter 20 He indicated the full thought — “My brethren ... I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. In coming into the midst, He stands, meaning that He is carrying on in the attitude of service in relation to the Father.

ELM Is there a point presented in the thought of God that is beyond the thought of Father?

JT Yes: “My God and your God”. I think the Father is more readily taken in by us; and that is why it is put first. It is a relation entered into; a ^[p. 416] relation well known amongst men. God takes up that relation with Christ as Man, and He is contemplated in that relationship (John 1: 14); so that the idea of the Father did not necessitate death at all; it is established apart from the death of Christ. According to the counsels of love, one of the divine Persons became Man, and with Him God takes the relation of Father. In itself it has nothing to do with the new covenant; it does not necessitate the death of Christ. The disciples, the Jewish remnant, as they were then, are brought to the knowledge of the Father in a provisional way, but not as John presents it to us.

MWB The death of Christ made known God’s love; but what we used to sing is not right: ‘Thy death has brought to light the Father’s heart’.

JT I long felt that verse was wrong. The Father’s heart was brought to light in Christ here before His death.

JTS “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, is linked with, “according as he has chosen us in him before the world’s foundation ... having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has taken us into favour in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1: 4 - 6).

JT That is it; that is the most wonderful statement, next to John 20, in regard of our subject. It is no question of the blood being necessary; it is a question of the counsels of God. We, being actually sinners, needed redemption so as to come into sonship, but the relation of Father and Son stands in relation to divine counsel and existed between God and Christ before Christ’s death.

SR Would you say a word as to “my God and your God”?

JT Christ’s God suggests His inscrutable Being;

^[p. 417] His abstract relations. In the history of the service of God the name of Jah in its import comes out. Jah seems to be more God in the absolute (see note on Exodus 15: 2 in New Trans.), if we can speak of apprehending Him in the absolute. It appears in what we may call the first contribution to the service of God in Scripture (Exodus 15), and suggests, I think, the power of penetration that there is in the service of God in song; that is, spiritual song. As the Spirit of God has His place with us, there is in song a peculiar depth of feeling and power of penetration; so that we enter more into what God is: “my God and your God”. There must be power to enable us to grasp something of that; of what God is to Christ, and Christ is to God as His God. It seems to me that the use of the name Jah in the Old Testament, mostly poetically, would suggest the power of penetration that enters into the service of God. As we are with Christ, beside Him, in our service, the more that power lays holds of our souls. He uses the words “my God” four times in speaking to Philadelphia in Revelation 3: 12.