THE SPIRIT'S PART IN THE ASSEMBLY
THE SPIRIT’S PART IN THE ASSEMBLY
1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 12:12,13; Romans 8:15; Ephesians 2:18
JT The Lord has been helping us as to the assembly itself, its order and its service according to God, and the place the Lord’s supper has in it, but perhaps the part the Spirit has in the assembly has not been stressed sufficiently. It needs to be, because whilst we have the light governing the assembly as to its service, we cannot act in it acceptably to God save by the Spirit. All is to be in the power of the Spirit from beginning to end, so as the tabernacle was set up it was anointed. The parts were functioning as they were set up, but they were anointed. The allusion in 1 Corinthians 12 would be to that, “so also is the Christ” (verse 12), that is the anointed; the assembly is alluded to, that which is anointed. The function of the Spirit may be viewed in two ways: the first having to do with the Lord as such, “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, and the second, the Spirit of adoption, having to do with the Father. You say “Lord Jesus” by the Spirit, and you say “Abba, Father” by the Spirit. These two thoughts set out the service, the function of the Spirit, I think, in the assembly.
FWK When you speak of ‘in the assembly’ are you thinking now of the saints convened, that is when we are together, for instance, on Lord’s day morning for the Supper?
JT That is right. John’s gospel separates the subject somewhat on those lines, the Spirit in connection with the individual believer, then the Spirit in relation to the company.
SJBC “Is the Christ divided?” 1 Corinthians 1:13 — would that be the same thought as “so also is the Christ”?
JT I am not sure that it would be exclusive to the body. There I suppose the thought is that the anointed vessel is not divided. You cannot have the Spirit in the sense of anointing save as in unity.
HGN “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord” — that is individual, is it not?
JT Well, the apostle is contemplating the exercise of gift in the assembly in this chapter. The assembly is viewed as convened from chapter 11:17. In making this remark he is contemplating the exercises of gift, that is ministry, in the assembly, which follows on the Lord’s supper. It is a sort of test in the assembly.
FWK What is the meaning of the expression, “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”?
JT It means the thing really. The types show that things have to be real. The functioning is in the anointing. It is to preclude the mere use of words or forms, the things are to be in the power of the Spirit. God never intended anything less. When the Holy Spirit came in at Pentecost His presence was marked. It was no theory, it was obvious. He sat on each of them, and they all began to speak of the wonderful works of God, being filled with the Holy Spirit. And so when the Spirit came at Caesarea in the house of Cornelius, it was apparent that He was there, it was no mere theory.
FGS Would the place Moses had in the tabernacle system have a bearing here? I was wondering as to the thought of authority, expressed in the title “Lord Jesus”. Moses was to be recognised in relation to the tabernacle system.
JT Yes. If it be a question of authority, the acknowledgment of authority according to God is by the Spirit — the Spirit moving in us subjectively.
HF Is your thought that when we come together [p. 108] for the breaking of bread we address the Lord in the power of the Spirit?
JT Yes. The subject is very wide. What is in mind now is to confine our thoughts to the Spirit in relation to the saints as gathered, the part He has in it.
SS So that, in this connection, would it be the voice of the Spirit?
JT It would be that the Lord would hear a voice in power. “Let me hear thy voice”, Song of Songs 2:14. Well, what voice does He hear? Is it the mere natural voice repeating words or is it a voice coming from mind and affections governed by the Spirit?
FWK Does not the expression ‘Lord Jesus’ always involve that the affections are engaged, and not only the thought of authority?
JT Adding ‘Jesus’, you mean? Yes, I think that is very nice. I think you find that running through.
Rem As with Stephen, I suppose?
JT “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. Acts 7:59. Yes.
FWK I think the most touching instance of that is in Acts 20, “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive”, Acts 20:35. It carries with it the thought of the blessed character of the Giver that was in that blessed Person.
JT The coming in of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost brought about a condition of things very wide in its bearing, but what we are concerned about now is the part He has in the assembly as convened. What it is to God, what it is to Christ, to have those who are of the assembly energised in their affections and their minds by this power; so that what the Lord hears is “Lord Jesus” in a voice energised by the Spirit, and what the Father hears is “Abba, Father”. The Holy Spirit Himself cries that, and the Father’s ear hears [p. 109] that. But it is not the Spirit speaking as by Himself, because He is not incarnate. It is through the saints He speaks. Not that divine Persons cannot communicate between each other, but here the medium is the saints. “God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”, Galatians 4:6. That is where the cry issues from — the hearts of the saints. And in Romans 8 it is by Him we cry, “Abba, Father”.
WDR Would this be discerned in the assembly if one was speaking in the power of the Spirit?
JT Well, I thought we might have that before our minds. What a place the assembly is for such speaking! It seems as if 1 Corinthians 14 would remind us that the presence of the Spirit implies that if anyone comes in they are affected by what transpires. Speaking to God is bound to have an effect on anyone, speaking to God by the Spirit.
WEM I suppose in Corinth there were a number of gifted brothers, but this would be a great power to regulate things.
JT Things were so low there, that it seems as if room were made for demons to speak. Terrible thought! If a demon speaks it is a power of a diverse kind. I suppose division amongst them opened the door for that, so that the apostle has to allude to the possibility of a person speaking in the power of another spirit. He gives this test, that it is only by the Holy Spirit one can say, “Lord Jesus;”
Ques Would you say, too, that Revelation 22:20, “Amen; come, Lord Jesus”, is what the Holy Spirit is bringing about today?
JT “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”, Revelation 22:17.
Rem It is the voice of affection.
JHM Does this in any way correspond with the testing of the spirits John speaks of?
JT Yes, it would. John’s allusion, I think, is more general, what is current in christendom, not [p. 110] necessarily when we are convened. Paul is alluding here to the saints when convened, when persons are assuming to exercise their gifts. The test is saying “Lord Jesus”. If you are under the influence of any other spirit you will not say that.
ALB There is a good deal about gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, for example the distinctions of gifts in verse 4. Are you relating that to the morning meeting?
JT That is only stated to bring out the full ground of administration. “There are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all”, 1 Corinthians 12:4 - 6. The three divine Persons are brought into it. The administration of the Spirit is what he is aiming at really. He is stressing the idea of the Spirit. If you bring in gift properly, I think you have to go to chapter 14. The reference to gift in chapter 12 is to bring out the body. When it comes to specific gifts, they are set in the assembly. Chapter 12 brings out the truth of the body, and that is the only part that enters into our subject today, that is the part the Spirit has in relation to the Lord’s supper, and the assembly convened. If there be ministry, the exercise of gift, then you have to go to chapter 14 for that.
WW Will you say a little more as to the place the Spirit has after the Supper? Reference is sometimes made to Genesis 24, where the servant conducts Rebecca to Isaac, and is not again mentioned.
JT Well, that is a suggestion. Abraham’s servant is no doubt in type the Spirit bringing the saints to Christ. They are brought definitely to Him. There is no mention afterwards of the servant, for the saints speak to the Lord as knowing Him. It is in the power of the Spirit we always speak. The Spirit, as it were, hides Himself. In Colossians there is only one mention of the Holy Spirit — “who has also manifested to us your love in the Spirit”, Colossians 1:8. He hides Himself behind His work. It is to bring out His work in us; but nevertheless, whilst that is so in Colossians, in Ephesians the Spirit is very prominent.
Rem After Rebecca meets Isaac, she is still clothed with the apparel and decked with the ornaments, which it had been the servant’s work to bring to her.
JT Yes, and she is led into Sarah’s tent. It does not go beyond that. Her position there corresponds to that of the assembly in the early chapters of the Acts, where she is seen, not in her own place, but in the place of another. It is not Ephesian ground, it is a transitional position that is contemplated in Rebecca’s position in the tent of Sarah. It is not there that the full thought of the mystery is set out. Ephesians is a further thought. In eternity it is ‘By the Spirit all pervading’. (14:5). The Spirit will always be in view.
JHM Would the Spirit in the saints detect whether this saying of “Lord Jesus” had a right ring?
JT I think so. If there are spiritual conditions in a meeting, and one speaks in mere words, the saints discern it. No one would speak now under the influence of an evil spirit — not indeed that they are not current, but it is hardly conceivable that an evil spirit should have a place amongst those who recognise Christ as Head of the assembly. There was a divided condition at Corinth, allowing an inlet for almost anything.
FGS Is that why the truth of the body comes in here?
JT I thought we might see that the order is first speaking, and then this power of silence. “In the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body”, 1 Corinthians 12:13. That does not necessarily [p. 112] imply that I am speaking, but rather that I am able to maintain my place in relation to the Spirit in a spiritual way, in silence. And then the next thing is “we ... have all been given to drink of one Spirit”, which, I think, underlies the power of silence and satisfaction. We are satisfied in sitting together, as realising the presence of the Spirit. We have been given to drink of it. It is our own side — we have done it by preference. We drink because we enjoy what we drink. There is satisfaction.
FWK Is not that usually the thought of drinking in Scripture — satisfaction — in contrast to eating, which is to meet a need?
JT Drinking is peculiarly satisfying.
FH So would you realise that you are in the presence of divine Persons?
JT It is as important that we should be in spiritual power in silence as when we are speaking.
JHM So all the activity at Corinth was not a healthy sign?
JT The very opposite. As we have often remarked, it is not as when we are waiting for a bus or sitting in a train. It is in power. It is a state of things, a condition which the Lord can recognise and come into, because after all, He is just as concerned as to what we are not saying as He is to what we are saying.
FGS Would the passing of the elements test us in relation to these things?
JT Yes. Silence is to be in power, if the Lord has part in it, because He is perfectly conversant with the state of our hearts. Therefore the sisters are included in all this as much as those who participate audibly. We are all baptised in the power of one Spirit into one body.
SS So, whether in silence or in speaking, if the power is there, would that lead to liberation?
JT The outlet is in the brothers, because they [p. 113] are the ones who speak. The sisters are not to speak, but that does not mean that they are not baptised in the Holy Spirit. So that there is a state of satisfaction and power.
JHM I am not quite clear how you connect the thought of silence with “in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body”.
JT Well, the thought is connected with the breaking of bread. “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Christ? Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”, 1 Corinthians 10:16,17. That is what you might call light. It is realised by the Spirit, and can only be realised by the Spirit, because you have to add this, “in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body”. It alludes to us as baptised into one body by the Spirit, and that truth laid hold of makes the saints a body in principle, energised by power and satisfied by drink. I do not see how we can sit together acceptably to the Lord unless we see this; otherwise we should be so many persons sitting together, waiting until time passes, or thinking of what another says, whereas in truth the idea of the body is there in the bread.
FF So that gives great force to the Lord’s word in the Supper, “This is my body, which is for you”, 1 Corinthians 11:24. Does not what you are speaking of flow from that?
JT I think so.
FF That is that He Himself is to be seen now in the power of the Spirit.
JT Quite so. There is that in the saints which answers to His body. What that body was here, what He was here, how entirely under control, never ruffled or disturbed by any circumstance! He is not said to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but full; Luke 4:1. It was not a process with Him — with us [p. 114] it is. He was always in that power, whether He spoke or whether He was silent.
FF It is very touching that the Lord should say “for you”. 1 Corinthians 11:24.
JT It is that by which He attests His love to us. It is His own body given for us. For the moment we can only think of it as contemplating ourselves collectively, answering to the loaf. There are the two thoughts in the loaf, the Lord’s own body, and the saints as His body, the assembly, and in either case it is a question of the Spirit. For the Lord, although a divine Person, was said to be full of the Holy Spirit after the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him as Man. From thenceforth it may be said that the Spirit was there in the body and so He was an example for us. Certainly the body, the assembly, is to be actuated by the Spirit, and that appears in silence as it does in activity.
FF So that Paul’s ministry as to the assembly seems to flow from these expressions in the Supper.
JT Yes. Another thing that enters into the Lord’s supper is the part the Spirit has in the cup, which is the new covenant. That is another feature of the early part of the meeting. There is the speaking in the power of the Spirit, there is the silence in the power of the Spirit, and then [p. 115] there is the suggestion of the covenant in the power of the Spirit, for Romans 5 says that “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” Romans 5:5 — and 2 Corinthians 3:8 teaches us that the ministry of the Spirit subsists in glory, alluding to the covenant.
SJBC It is rather striking that in the Greek it is ‘poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit’. It is the same word used by the Lord, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”, Luke 22:20. So the love is poured out into our hearts.
JT Somewhat the suggestion of volume.
SJBC Would you say “in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body” suggests the one loaf, and “have all been given to drink of one Spirit” suggests the one cup?
JT Yes. We may stress the one Spirit but that precludes diversity of thought. Baptism is by another, but the drinking is our own. So that the Spirit’s part in the covenant is a very important part as bringing in the love side, the love of God, so that the ministry of the Spirit is said to subsist in glory — a marvellous thought. The glory is so great as to eclipse all that preceded it; as though the glory in Moses’ face is eclipsed, is no glory at all, in comparison with the surpassing glory. Whilst it is said that the Lord is the Spirit in that chapter, it obviously means that two divine Persons have to do with the administration side of the covenant, the Lord with the authority side and the Spirit with the subjective working out of it in our hearts. These are two phases of the Spirit’s action in what we may call the early part of the meeting leading out of the Lord’s supper. Following upon that we have the Spirit of adoption, leading us on to the ground, not only of the light of sonship, but of the consciousness of sonship, so that we cry “Abba, Father”.
HF How far would you say the early part of the meeting goes?
JT Well, it passes on, I think, to the covenant. After the Lord gave this cup to His own, according to Mark’s record, they all drank out of it. Not simply He told them to do it, but they all did it. Then the Lord explains what it means. It is the blood of the new covenant. I do not think the word ‘new’ is used there. It is the only covenant that there is now that is valid. The Lord explains that. The allusion is the chapter in Deuteronomy. He explains it after they drank it, and I think that is our ground, our [p. 116] warrant for proceeding forward a little on the lines of the covenant to set us free. Because after He explained what the cup was, it says, “having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”, Mark 14:26.
HF How does the Lord’s coming to His own in the sense of John 14 enter into this?
JT We are dwelling on the conditions suitable for the Lord, the side of love. “He that abides in love abides in God, and God in him”, 1 John 4:16. Light and order, of course, but love.
HF Spiritual conditions.
JT Then you have “Abba, Father”. “Abba, Father” in Galatians is that which the Holy Spirit cries, as if answering to the great desire of the Father. He cries “Abba, Father”. The cry is the expression of strong feeling, the Spirit answering as He does to the Father.
HF Between the act of the breaking of bread and the time we have liberty to address the Father, is it proper to speak to the Lord as coming into the midst?
JT I think it is. The Lord as in relation to the covenant. That part of the meeting, I believe, tends to liberty, to set the saints free. We should not be theoretic about it. The Spirit of adoption cries “Abba, Father”. That means that He is urgent about it.
HGH I am glad you mentioned about not being theoretic about it, because you would not advocate anything in the way of a programme. If we were with the Lord things would be in that order.
JT Well, there is light, you know. Light is important. But light is just light in that sense. Aside from the Holy Spirit you have not the consciousness and the substance of things. That part of the meeting is very important as preparing for the real [p. 117] thought in the meeting, that is that there should be worship.
FWK If there are the spiritual conditions, should we not often have what one might call a little period of association with Christ, a sense of being His brethren and addressing Him in the sense of liberty and joy, thinking of the wonderful thought of being gathered round Himself as His brethren?
JT I think that is in order, provided we do not prolong it too much, and above all things that we do not go back to it. “Through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”, Ephesians 2:18. If that is set on, the thing is to proceed on those lines, not to work back again to what belongs to the covenant. We are on new ground really, because they went out to the mount of Olives. There is spiritual meaning in that, the position is changed.
EZB That digression would hardly be known if we were all directed by Christ as Head.
JT Quite so.
JHM Is the highest point in the meeting when we reach the Father?
JT Yes, surely. “Of him, and through him, and for him are all things”. Romans 11:36. The great end is always the Father.
EZB We feel the silence sometimes, but do you not think that if the brother who handed the elements to us gave us such a sense of the love of Christ our hearts would be transported, and that would result in praise?
JT The brother who hands the emblems to us is only doing it for us. It has to be done. I am not to say he is responsible as to giving us anything. What he has, you have, fundamentally. He may make suggestions that re-echo in your heart. Of course, if he speaks through the unction of the Spirit he does [p. 118] touch us.
EZB I think it has been said he is but the servant of the saints.
JT He has no official place. It is the bread which we break.
JAC So we are all responsible in that way.
JT Quite so, sisters and brothers alike, as to what we have, the power we have in our souls.
GPT Would the extent of our speaking in the power of the Spirit be governed by the extent to which the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts?
JT It would. The Spirit is here in the assembly. That is, if you get up to speak, you find you have more power than you thought you had, or vice versa. To make room for the Spirit in the assembly is one of the most important things I know. If He is in our hearts, He cries. “Because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”. Galatians 4:6. It is the urgency of it.
HGN So that we make room for the Holy Spirit in silence?
JT That is right. The doors were shut, to use the illustration, for fear of the Jews. John 20:19. That means I have spiritual power to shut my heart against all that obtrudes, especially the mere religious element; I am in liberty. The word ‘doors’, the plural, means that everyone in the meeting does that.
JHM I have been wondering why you gave the scripture in Romans and not in Galatians.
JT In Romans 8:15 in this translation, ‘spirit’ is written with a small ‘s’. The stress is on adoption — the Spirit of adoption, which is the Holy Spirit, of course.
FGS It produces this cry, “Abba, Father”.
JT Yes. That is, we cry, but we are as urgent as the Holy Spirit is. We cry in Romans; He cries in Galatians.
FGS I was wondering whether you linked your [p. 119] thoughts with Mark 14:36. Is it not striking that these words fall from the Lord’s own lips?
JT Yes. The original word is handed down to us — ‘Abba’ is never translated. It is the very word the Lord used; it makes it very touching.
SJBC The language of the Jews and the language of the gentiles, both brought into the same family, both able to lisp that name. It is very sweet and precious to notice the very word the Lord used in the garden — ‘Abba’ — we are privileged to use.
SS The Lord used it in suffering, but we can use it in joy.
JT What it was to the Father to hear that word out of Gethsemane!
JAC That word “Abba, Father” Mark 14:36 would involve a desire to give pleasure to the Father.
JT The two words mean the same thing, only the one comes down to us untranslated, pointing to the link with the Lord Jesus. It is the exact word He used.
SS So that in Mark the Lord leads in suffering.
JT Quite so.
Rem You would have to be in the consciousness of sonship to be able to say “Abba, Father”.
JT That is what the Spirit of sonship gives you.
EZB Why is it so rarely audibly said? We sing it.
JT We learn properly from the epistles. I think we should approach the gospels through the epistles. We do not find the formula used by Paul, for instance. Still, he alludes to it twice. He says the Holy Spirit cries it in us and we cry it by Him.
JAC Is it not the whole company?
JT I should not like to limit it. ‘We’ is often just each of us. I do not think Romans so much contemplates the company as the individual, that is [p. 120] each of us Will you tell us why you brought Romans in?
JT Just to emphasise what we are saying, the action of the Spirit in relation to the Father.
FWK I suppose in Romans they are taught it, but in Galatians they are brought back to it when they had got away.
JT Exactly. They were not doing it, but the Holy Spirit was doing it. The Jews were not kept out. The Galatians did not shut the doors to keep the Jews out. That, of course, interfered with “Abba, Father”.
WEM It is very fine that divine Persons should have pleasure in bringing God near to us, and now have pleasure in bringing us near to God.
JT Both divine Persons are on our side now. It shows that what is in the mind of God in the assembly is to bring the saints to God, so that the ark is in the bed of Jordan till all go over. It stresses that, for the saints are to go over. That is what God is seeking.
WEM The Lord delights to take us to Him. “I came out from the Father”, John 16:28. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me”, John 14:6.
JT Reverting back to what belongs to the Lord’s supper in the assembly, the divine thought in the assembly is God the Father. When the Lord has subjected all, then He Himself is subject, that God may be all in all. He is subject to Him who is God and Father. We want to be in accord with that. Not that the Lord does not hear us, even if we do go back, but He loves to see us moving in intelligence, so that from Acts 13 onwards, one is struck with the stress laid on intelligence and teaching.
FWK Would you say, if we have been led to address the Father, you would hardly expect a hymn to be given out addressed to the Lord Jesus, and [p. 121] prayer similarly?
JT No, I should not.
HF Does it not sometimes occur that there are those who run before?
JT Yes, that is true, too. I think it is well to make room for the covenant.
JHM Is it right to address the Father before the breaking of bread?
JT It is not fitting. The Corinthian epistle stresses that you keep the directions. There were directions he had given when there, directions given when away and directions he would give when he came back. It is normal procedure. To use an illustration, in a man’s house you want to proceed as he proceeds.
FGS If we made room for the covenant rightly, would it not liberate our affections in relation to the love of God?
JT It creates conditions in our souls for the Spirit to take the place of the Spirit of adoption. He changes over from the Spirit of the covenant to the Spirit of adoption. I think these two expressions help us in our minds, the Spirit of the covenant and the Spirit of adoption.
WDR Would you distinguish between the love of God and the love of the Father?
JT The love of the Father is for His sons, for His family; the love of God is a wider thought.
PC Would the access in Ephesians be connected with “He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you” John 16:14 — so that between the first and second part of the morning meeting there would be room for a word sometimes?
JT It very often helps.
JHM Do you mean it is a higher thought to reach the Father than to reach God in relation to the covenant?
JT Yes, it is really. We have “him who is God and Father”. 1 Corinthians 15:24. You will never find [p. 122] judgment, for instance, connected with the Father. Hence it is a title that relates to God in grace and in affection. So that it applies to God when all that is objectionable to Him is done with for ever. The Father comes out fully where there is nothing of judgment.