INTELLIGENCE IN ASSEMBLY SERVICE
INTELLIGENCE IN ASSEMBLY SERVICE
JT Before proceeding with what is specially in view it may be remarked that this chapter instructs us as to not only the need of love for Christ, but instruction by Him if we are to understand part in the assembly. Love alone does not suffice. Love may exist and yet our part in the assembly may be irregular, and maintained unintelligently, as alas! it often is. Mary says in this verse in Hebrew, “Rabboni” to the Lord. That is a term that signifies not only that He loved her and gave Himself for her, but that He instructed her. The word implies that He was her Teacher, and it is only as taught by the Lord Himself that we are in the assembly and have part in it intelligently. The love is there; it is manifest. The love in her was manifest; she was early at the tomb, and was affected by the fact that the Lord had been taken away, His death indeed entering into her feelings; but she was uninstructed, and she owns in her address here that the lack was being made up. The apostle in approaching the subject of the assembly in 1 Corinthians, addresses the saints as intelligent persons, wise persons. In this gospel while it is suggested in an informal way, yet most forcibly, it affords instruction. The Lord is first addressed by followers as “Rabbi”. If applied to the last days peculiarly, as it may be, the suggestion is that there has been much imperfect and misleading teaching. The people of God generally have been brought up under imperfect teaching, so that the need of teaching is stressed in this gospel. What is in mind, as suggested this morning, is the distinction that has to be made between God as in the covenant, and God in the absolute, or as the Supreme, coming in in the order [p. 220] mentioned here, second after the thought of the Father; that is, God in the sense in which He is generally known in His supremacy. That must be the great end in view, “of him, and through him, and for him are all things”, Romans 11:36. ‘The Father’ is a more limited thought, though more blessed in a sense, as a term involving family relationship, also involving grace and affection, not judgment. It is inherently limited in that sense, whereas ‘God’ includes all that attaches to the Deity, and should ever be in mind in our worship. ‘Father’ comes before it in the order here. The Lord had spoken of ‘God’ as a Spirit in chapter 4; He has to be before us in that way in our service.
JHT The apostle Paul anticipates all that in the climax of 1 Corinthians 15: “that God may be all in all”. 1 Corinthians 15:28.
JT That is what I thought. It is “of him, and through him, and for him are all things”. Romans 11:36.
COB Would “My God and your God” include covenant relations?
JT I think not. The Lord can hardly be regarded as in covenant relations with God. He is the Mediator of the covenant. The idea is taken from Jehovah really. The Psalms would afford suggestion that He probably took that place, but properly I think He has to be regarded as the Mediator of the covenant, the covenant bearing towards the people, the house of Israel, as it says, and the house of Judah. In the quotations in Hebrews 8 from Jeremiah 31 it is the Lord that is mentioned, not God, although God is implied. It is Jehovah who is mentioned under the title ‘Lord’ in Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10. I think that if we think of His God as presented here it would be God in His infinite supremacy as the Object of worship. I do not say, the alone Object of worship; the Son is worshipped too, but viewed as the Object of worship of the assembly He is the alone Object of [p. 221] worship. God is to be worshipped in spirit and truth.
F Would that be connected with the last verse of Ephesians 3: “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus”? Ephesians 3:21.
JT I think that is what is in mind in Ephesians, “One God and Father of all”. Ephesians 4:6. It is God. “To us there is one God, the Father”. 1 Corinthians 8:6. That is not the covenant; it is God in supremacy, which is the end of everything. The covenant is a means to that, to set us free, a more limited thought; it is certain ones.
JHT Do you get a moral order in John 13, the Lord departing out of the world to the Father, and then in covenant relationships, loving His own which were in the world unto the end, and then the thought of going to God?
JT Quite so. He came from God, and went to God. That is God in the fullest thought, the supreme God; no one has seen Him at any time; that stands. He is still the invisible God according to Colossians. He dwells in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see. That has always to be before us in our worship, and is, I am sure, before the Lord as leading the service. I do not know whether brethren have observed that, but it came to me this morning, and I believe it is right, that the Lord would help us in moving in that way, that there are three features of love in the assembly: the love of Christ in the bread, the love of God in the covenant in the cup, and the love of God as Father. “That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”, John 17:26 the latter being the greatest, and the great end in view in the service, and indeed, in all God’s movements. All is to revert back to Himself. The covenant is a means to an end, manifestly. There will be no need for it when all is fixed divinely and eternally. The love of Christ for the assembly will remain, and the love of God as Father will be the great thought eternally. The message here is given,
[p. 222] the suitable vessel being available, a lover of Christ adjusted. It is instructed love in Mary Magdalene; she is capable of carrying such a message as this; she would convey not only the words, but the thought of it.
ARP You would say she is spiritually intelligent?
JT I should say so. After she says “Rabboni”, Jesus says, “Touch me not”, The final touch is that the relationship is to be heavenly henceforth. “I have not yet ascended to my Father”. That is the historical fact, but then He says, “I ascend”; that is the characteristic thought which is to enter into her soul. He is in principle as if He had ascended. Only instructed love, that is spiritual intelligence, would distinguish thus.
FI Would you say that the carrying out of what the Lord said in John 4, that God is to be worshipped in spirit and truth, could only be taken up by us, by our taking in what has come to us in the covenant?
JT The covenant helps us and liberates us, so that we may grasp the thought that God is a Spirit.
FI Although God dwells in unapproachable light, as knowing what He is as come to us in the revelation of Himself, we would have Him before us in that sense, and would be able to worship Him as such; otherwise we should know nothing about Him.
JT In making promises, the end in view is that we might be instructed to think of Him as He is Himself. We should never lose sight of the infiniteness of God, even His absoluteness. He is to be regarded, even apart from what is created.
JHB Question re the covenant.
JT I think it is God coming down to us, our way of thinking. There would be no need for God to make a covenant with us if there was absolute confidence on [p. 223] our side.
RTW Would that be the thought of ‘the giving God’ in chapter 4?
JT I think so: “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink”. John 4:10.
RTW That leads to worship.
JT Quite so. The Lord is always constructive in His teaching; He conveys a thought, He has an end in view in it. The gift of God is a great thing. It is not there any particular gift, but characteristic. “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink”. John 4:10. He is leading up to speaking about God.
AWGT Is that to promote confidence on our side?
JT Do you mean the gift?
AWGT Speaking of God in that way as the giving God.
JT Then there is the greatness of the well springing up in her, not exactly to God, but in that direction, into eternal life, which seems to be a sort of platform for the working out of God’s thoughts.
JW Is it the covenant side in chapter 3, “God so loved the world”? John 3:16.
JT That is wider than the covenant. We cannot say that God entered into covenant relations with the world, save in Noah’s covenant. That is not alluded to in the new covenant at all. It is not with the nations, nor with the world. We must regard John 3:16 as the Creator: “the world” there refers to the creation and the order and beauty of it, that God has never given it up, and would fill it with life.
RGB He has not been defeated in that way.
JT He has it in mind, and will establish it on the principle of life. The Lord came into the world. It was made by Him, and knew Him not. It was strange, but it was there in the abstract. The covenant applies while we are here on earth, while [p. 224] conditions are contested. God has made an oath. An oath and a covenant and a promise have relation to one another. God comes down to our smallness of thought, and leads us on to know Himself, that we might have strong consolation. If we really knew God, we should need neither a promise nor an oath; we should trust Him. God comes down to lead us on. The Spirit given springs up into everlasting life. There is deliverance, and introduction into an order of things where God is known in victory and power.
RGB Does this gospel bring out the divine giving?
JT It does. The gift of the Son in chapter 3, and the gift of the Spirit in chapter 4; these are the great thoughts of divine giving.
EGS Would you distinguish between the worship of God as Father, and God as the Absolute?
JT Yes. The Father judges no one, meaning that He has limited Himself in that relation to grace and love. He is sometimes addressed as ‘the Father’, and referred to generally throughout John in this way, but He is never regarded as our Father until we come to chapter 20.
EGS The end to be reached in the assembly is worshipping Him as God?
JT Yes. We get the full thought, as supreme. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Genesis 1:1. We have to come back to that. John says, “No one has seen God at any time” John 1:18; the One who is declared still remains in invisibility. We have to think of Him in His infiniteness.
F Is that the last or supreme act of the Lord in Headship, to lead us intelligently to that?
JT Having subdued all, He is subject Himself. “To him who is God and Father, ... that God may be all in all”. 1 Corinthians 15:28. Not ‘God and Father’, but “God”. ‘Father’ is the most precious relationship, but the [p. 225] thought of God was there before the thought of Father was introduced. We have to come back to that.
JHM Why does it say, “The Father seeketh such to worship him”? John 4:23.
JT That is the side of affection.
Ques As we worship the Father we worship as sons, but what are we in worshipping God?
JT Sons, too, sons of God; that is the general thought. We cry “Abba” as sons, but we are sons of God.
Rem It does not seem to be so near and intimate as sons worshipping the Father.
JT No; when the Lord says, “My Father and your Father”, there is a nearness there that you do not get elsewhere.
RGB Would that nearness be carried forward?
JT It is. Paul pursues it in his ministry; it is he who opens this up to us. John does not open up to us the truth of sonship; he opens it up as regards Christ, but not as to us. It is Paul who is the first to preach the Son of God. We worship the Father, but we worship God, too. God must be all in all; He has never given up that thought. The other thoughts are subordinate to it. It is to assure us of His love.
F Why does it say in Ephesians 3 that every family in heaven and earth is named of the Father? Ephesians 3:15.
JT It is a question of the family. When it is a question of the family, that is the Father’s realm.
Ques Would then every creature be brought into the light of the Father in some sense?
JT I think so; “every family”. In the realm of blessing everyone will be in the knowledge of the Father, in some sense, according to the measure of their growth. There is the angelic group; but as regards men, the families will be grouped under the various measures of light granted, beginning with Abel.
Remark on the expression “that God may be all in all”. 1 Corinthians 15:28.
JT That is the great end, and so this passage suggests instructed love, which is needed for the assembly; so that we should understand love in its threefold features — the love of Christ for the assembly, and the love of God in the covenant — that would be in the cup — (the love of Christ would be more particularly in the bread, but it is also in the cup; the covenant love of God is in the cup); and there is the love of God as Father, and God as God in supremacy; He loves His Son, and He loves His sons. The love that is in us is that kind of love according to John 17.
Rem The circles of love seem to widen.
JT They do. God is the greatest. So you get the three circles in Ephesians 4:4 - 6, leading up to the thought, “one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. Ephesians 4:4 - 6.
WEB Would there be a correspondence with the end of 1 Chronicles, where David said to God, “all that is in the heavens and on the earth is thine”? 1 Chronicles 29:11.
JT “Thou art exalted as Head above all”.
FI In making a distinction between the Father’s house and the Father’s presence, does all the family come into the Father’s presence? They will all be in the Father’s house according to John 14. Is the presence only connected with the sons?
JT There are grades of nearness, I think. The assembly manifestly has the nearest place, but the others come into the range of the Father. Every family is named of Him, and every family would be named according to its formation. Its formation would be determined by the light given. The light ministered to the saints before the flood from Adam to Noah, would enable a certain formation; from Abraham to Jacob; and then Israel as a nation; increasing light as we come down. The families would be grouped in that way. Christ entered into [p. 227] each family. For instance, what Abel represented, what Enoch represented, and others in that dispensation, was something of Christ laid hold of by faith, but it would not be equal to what came out in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
FI I wondered whether we needed a little adjustment sometimes. We often speak of being in the Father’s house, but I wondered whether that is not a future thought, whereas the privilege of the sons is to enter into the Father’s presence; it would be connected with the house, but it would be the eternal side.
JT “In my Father’s house there are many abodes; were it not so, I had told you: for I go to prepare you a place”, John 14:2. It would be something special, and would correspond with what we get about the assembly elsewhere as the body of Christ, the vessel in which the service of God is carried on in the fullest way.
HB Why did He say, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended”?
JT What is meant is that she was not to assume the old Jewish relations. It was all for adjustment. She was spiritually equal for such a word as that. She should be instructed and adjusted in taking the message. The relation here was to be henceforth heavenly; the disciples would understand that, too. The Lord comes into the midst following that message. He would be in their midst as the ascending One.
FI Was she in any way lacking in what the man in John 9 had when he believed on the Son of God?
JT I think she was not equal to that; she had seemingly forgotten much. The Lord had said He would arise, but she did not seem to be in the good of that. What is intended to be conveyed is instructed affection. Peter and John were more intelligent than she, but had less affection. She had affection instructed directly by Himself. She is an example of what is suitable [p. 228] to the assembly.
JW Is this message intended to affect the disciples in a particular way?
JT It is a pattern of the assembly in the persons who form it rather than the thing itself. The persons would be equal to the visit. They do not say anything here, whereas in Luke they are speaking as the Lord comes in. He comes in on the message here that He sent to them. The doors were shut; they were not shut in Luke.
JHT The expression is used in verse 19, “Where the disciples were”, not ‘where they were assembled’, exactly, but the persons.
JT That is worthy of note.
F I would like to ask concerning worshipping God in the absolute: is the Son as being in Deity sharing that worship?
JT You are touching what is inscrutable. His part as seen in 1 Corinthians 15 is that the Son Himself shall be subject unto Him who is God and Father — the Lord is pleased to take that place — and it is to the end that God should be all in all.
JHT The reading of 1 Corinthians 15:28 helps in that connection, in the better translation, “then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”. 1 Corinthians 15:28. It is not exactly His own act, is it? It is the supremacy of God coming to light in that holy feature.
JT It is important to observe the reading. It is the divine thought, and the Lord accepts it; He never loses His deity; of course we realise that.
JHT I wonder whether our weakness in assembly might not lie in the fact that we may not have had the experience of using the expression, “Rabboni”. Bartimaeus did.
JT If we are instructed on the line of responsibility we should [p. 229] have more power.
AWGT Would you tell us what is in your mind as to responsibility?
JT I was thinking of how Bartimaeus followed Jesus in the way, first having said Rabboni, as if he needed instruction for that, how to follow pleasingly.
Ques Would that lie at the root of this?
JT I think it does. Following Him in the way would be for us instruction as to 1 Corinthians. Here it is not that; it is the spiritual side, the assembly convened, as we might say — how to be instructed for that. To be intelligent in the first is one thing, but how to assemble, and how to serve in the assembly is another thing, the greater thing.
AWGT Where does that instruction come in? On occasions like this?
JT Quite so. Moreover you see what others do. Christianity is not merely a question of precepts, but of example. If you had seen how Peter or Paul would speak to God, you would understand. It is example, too. Young people ought to listen to older ones, and observe what they say, proving all things, of course; but we learn from others. Knowing how to assemble is important. The Lord assembled with them: you would observe how He moved. Peter and the others would take notice. That is how christianity has come down to us. The book of the Acts is that; it is not simply what is enjoined, it is what is seen there.
Rem We learn that in movements locally.
JT The book of the Acts begins with things which Jesus began both to do and teach.
Ques Is that how Timothy learnt from Paul?
JT He was Paul’s child in the faith. The end of all the ministry is to bring the soul into touch with the One who is spoken of as “Rabboni”; He, after all, is the Teacher. You feel your need of Him to the end as “Rabboni”, as the Teacher, and after all we [p. 230] have had — oh, how little do we know! The Lord is teaching.
WEB The first enquiry addressed to Him as “Teacher” is as to where He abides; John 1:38.
JT That is the first thing in connection with teaching. What they saw in that day! — they saw some of the tabernacle conditions; John opens up tabernacle conditions. The Word became flesh and “tabernacled” among us. You would see how He walked. The next thing is that they say, “Where abidest thou?” John 1:38. We are told that the word ‘Rabbi’ means Teacher there. Then in chapter 8 Jesus went to the mount of Olives. That was His special place; He went there by night, we are told in Luke. And so in chapter 14 we have the manifesting and then the abiding of the Father and Son promised to one who keeps His word. That would imply what is known as tabernacle conditions.
COB Where does the tabernacling of God with men in Revelation 21 come in?
JT John leads us up to that, God tabernacling with men.
COB Would we reach out to that after the Supper?
JT I think so, only that the assembly is more with God, having part with Christ Godward. There are two thoughts, God with us and we with God. The tabernacle is the greater thing; it is that in which we are with God; so that John’s gospel from chapters 13 to 17 is to instruct us as to that, as to how we are to have part with Him. It ends up with His saying “Father”, and speaking much about us, and saying that “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”. John 17:26. “I in them”, John 17:23. I think, opens up His service in the assembly as the Minister of [p. 231] the sanctuary.
COB I rather thought that the cup would open up a vast vista to us that would find its fulfilment in the eternal state.
JT The tabernacle is yourself; I am to be that. It is the assembly that is an eternal thought. The tabernacling with men there is not so elevated as the tabernacle itself. We enjoy that ourselves. It is not simply God with us, but we with Him.
FI Would that come out by our being consciously where Christ abides in the presence of the Father: “Where abidest thou”? John 1:38. It seems to me that it is only as we are actually in the good of the position that Christ has with the Father that we can rise up to God as supreme.
JT His place with the Father is really Olivet. That is where He resorted to. If you wanted to know where His place with the Father is, John and Luke tell us it is the mount of Olives. After the Supper they went to the mount of Olives. That is where the service properly begins, where the love of the Father to Him is in us, and He in us. When we reach the thought of it spiritually, the thing is to keep on that line. It is the most blessed line; He leads the praises there. He is the Minister.
H Which is the greater thought, we with God, or God with us?
JT God with us is more testimony here. Ephesians, a habitation of God in the Spirit, is God here in testimony. What He is seeking is our movement toward Him. Before we have the idea of the habitation of God here, the saints are said to be raised up and made to sit down together in the heavenlies. We are great enough to be God’s habitation here because we are heavenly, not otherwise.