THE ASSEMBLY IN ITS PUBLIC ASPECT AND SPIRITUAL RELATIONS

^[p. 114] THE ASSEMBLY IN ITS PUBLIC ASPECT AND SPIRITUAL RELATIONS

Luke 24: 29 - 43; John 20: 11 - 21

JT It is thought that, by comparing these scriptures, often read amongst us, we may see in Luke the assembly in its public aspect and in John the assembly viewed in its more spiritual unseen relations, particularly suggesting the assembly as coming out of Christ, coming out of His side, that is, in the Eve character, speaking typically, Mary Magdalene having her part leading into this position, the feminine side bearing on it. John 20 undoubtedly may be linked up with Psalm 22, the heading of which is the hind of the morning, the feminine thought, pointing to the spiritual agility that is seen in this chapter as evidently in the mind of the Lord as He entered into death, that He would have such a result. The feminine thought runs through this chapter in Mary Magdalene, she carrying the message to the disciples; it says, “Mary of Magdala comes bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”. The Lord comes in following the message, and following not only the message but the one who bore it, who represented an element in herself which will develop into the assembly in its more spiritual aspect. In the Canticles we have, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse” — the Lord would have her in mind coming in, whether she was present or otherwise the element was there in the message carried by her and would be in His mind in relation to His side; it says, “He shewed to them his hands and his side”; in Luke it was the feet. The side would mean love and therefore the highest feature of the assembly as come out of Him.

^[p. 115] Luke is the public position, the two came there before the Lord came in. It seems as if we should regard them as special; He had them in His mind that they would be there. They do not represent such an exalted thought as Mary Magdalene, for they had been straying; they are viewed as restored. It would be a man and his wife, the public side, for the assembly publicly is composed of such, but corresponding somewhat to Zipporah, the assembly viewed in a somewhat unlovable or unlovely aspect. In a way the conditions do not draw out the Lord’s affections as do those recorded in John; He said, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself”; it would be the wilderness position more, but if we follow the feminine thought as in the types, Zipporah represents the public side as to the assembly in an outward sense; and Eve is a more exalted thought as representing the assembly before sin came in. These are the general thoughts I had in mind to be considered, hoping the brethren will be quite free about it.

Rem I think what you have said greatly helps us in seeing what might be called the scope of the feminine or marital side of things. One feels you have the first thought in many of the types, in Zipporah, and maybe in Asnath too; whereas Ruth and Eve would bring out perhaps the more exalted side of it.

JT Yes. Abigail too is strikingly typical of the assembly, not only as lovable — she is of a beautiful countenance — but also of a good understanding; she takes the place of carrying out affairs, the young man who heard Nabal’s remarks about David went to her about the matter and she took it on. Eve would be the most exalted thought, I think, representing the divine thought as to the assembly before sin came in. Mary Magdalene seems to represent the agility of love, only needing adjustment; she is ^[p. 116] running with the tidings, and finally the Lord calls her by name (we do not get that in Luke, or anything near it), and she calls Him Rabboni, which is a thought that enters into the assembly in its Ephesian character — taught of Christ; Paul stressed his knowledge of the mystery.

PH Is it your thought that we should approach the John 20 side in a practical way via Luke, or are they two separate thoughts you are presenting?

JT I suppose they should be taken as one thought; I mean two sides of the same position outwardly. John giving the spiritual and Luke the public side connected with the Lord’s supper. John does not mention the breaking of bread, Luke does, therefore the position in Luke is connected with the breaking of bread, it is mentioned in the gathering; whereas John does not make mention of any conversation or remark at all by the disciples, in keeping with his line of presenting the truth on the formative side, what we are, not simply what we say but what we are: “where the disciples were”, the persons. But I was thinking particularly of Mary’s part in the thing as an element, the idea of the sister and the spouse. She is characteristically a sister because she is at liberty with the brothers in telling them about the truth, and the Lord calls her by name and she calls Him Rabboni, implying she is taught of Him.

ER With regard to the side, I had rather linked this up with the previous chapter, where it says, out of His side came there forth blood and water.

JT Just so, it is a testimony to love; the reference to the side, I think, refers to the type in Genesis; I mean we are to understand things spiritually. The assembly is out of Christ, she is of Him.

Ques I would like a little more help as to Luke 24. You are connecting that with the normal wilderness position, a touch from the Lord in our souls, and ^[p. 117] that would lead us to the assembly. Is that the thought?

JT Yes, just so. Why should we have this first? It is not merely a question of restoring two wanderers, there is a culmination in mind, an assembly thought in mind. Do they not represent the material of the public body, able to speak about what happened in their houses, what relates to Christ, connecting their remarks with the breaking of bread? that is, they have, you might say, the highest spiritual thoughts as to what was in their house, and they make these thoughts contributory to the public assembly; there is a link between the household and the public assembly. Why should there be this history? It is not simply that these two are restored, but there is a culmination, there is a link between them in their house and the assembly; it is not only their persons as coming from their house but what they say, and yet the general state in the assembly was not what it might have been. It occurred to me there is a link with the wilderness. There is not much said as to Zipporah’s personal attractiveness, nor of any reciprocated affection between herself and her husband; of course that would be there, but it is what is mentioned we have to note. We are challenged as to our public position, what we are as seen publicly; although the bond exists between us and Christ, does He find things as He would as coming in? What the Spirit forms in us is perfect; the Lord can look at us abstractly and bring out the most precious thoughts notwithstanding these ugly features. So the two sides of the assembly are in mind, but we are challenged as to the public side and whether we can correct ourselves at once and take the attitude depicted in John 20 where the Lord is pleased.

HB Would the sense of blessing in the household contribute to prosperity in the assembly? The Lord blessed the house of Obed-Edom and from that David ^[p. 118] gets the light as to the movements of the ark, leading to general prosperity.

JT That is a good thought, for there are three houses in Samuel, the house of Abinadab on the hill, which would suggest a place of elevation as distinctive because the ark was there, but then there is no evidence that his household gained by the presence of the ark; like many of us who go on with the truth, have morning reading and the like, but are we taking on thoughts governing the ark, governing the testimony? When the time came for the movement of the ark, they put it on a cart; that would show they had not gained by the presence of the ark in the house. Then the next house is that of Obed-Edom. He had the ark only three months and it was a makeshift on the part of David, not pre-arranged — the ark was turned aside into this house. It seems as if Obed-Edom represents a person who valued the presence of the ark, whatever his name may mean; if it means a foreigner it makes it all the more notable that here is a man who is taking things on quickly and God is blessing him quickly; there is a change, it is a different house. And finally David brings the ark to Zion, the city of David, to the place he had prepared for it, and he blesses his house. Obed-Edom is blessed; David is able to bless; although he is despised by his wife, by Michal, he makes everything of the ark now and is able to bless his house. But Abinadab and his family are not learning at all. So what has been suggested fits into Luke 24, what we are in our houses, whether the ark, that is, the testimony today by the Spirit, is in our houses; nominally we may have it and yet not be learning, whereas someone comes in suddenly and gets blessing and light and takes his place amongst us, and he is blessed because of the ark, evidently valuing the ark in his house. He is making no show of it; it is just put in there by David, but God is blessing him. There ^[p. 119] is some secret in that surely. If God is blessing a man the man is right with God. No doubt these two at Emmaus represent this somewhat and come into the assembly; they represent the house side, so necessary for prosperity in the assembly, whether we are able to carry anything from our houses into the assembly, or whether we just hope others will; whether we are just there to receive and enjoy, but bring nothing with us.

Rem It is rather remarkable that Zipporah takes up the question of circumcision as if driven to it.

JT Quite so, there is an altercation between her and her husband. But when she is brought to Moses by her father there is no expression of affection at all by Moses; he makes more of her father than of her, as if to bring out the public side, that is, it is questionable, and the Lord would have us to pay attention to it. If we are to reach John’s side we must pay attention to the public side.

Ques Why are her two sons mentioned in Exodus 18?

JT Because of what their names denote — strangership. Their names are given indicating Moses’ sufferings, that is, the sufferings of Christ. The marital thought is there as much as in Eve or Abigail, or anywhere, the bond is there. Their names are mentioned and the meaning of them. Much is made of Jethro, but Zipporah is just mentioned as Moses’ wife. She is his wife as much as she could be as to the bond, but as to the side of reciprocated affection there is nothing said.

Rem I suppose there is hope for hearts that burn.

JT Yes, that is to bring out the reality underneath, which implies that we are amenable to correction, correction by spiritual ministration, not by rebuke but by a spiritual presentation of the Lord; it shows how genuine they were at bottom. That is the great thought with all of us; if there is this genuineness of ^[p. 120] affection we are amenable to spiritual impressions, and contribute to the assembly accordingly.

AJG Does this chapter show that the Lord is here to serve us, both in our homes and in the assembly, with a view to our reaching the true thought of God in the assembly?

JT Just so. We were thinking this morning that, according to Matthew, the Lord is with us always as if to protect us, to watch over us; He helps us in every circumstance; but John would say He comes to us conditionally in relation to our state.

CH The note they finish up with seems to have significance assembly-wise. In Luke they speak of what happened in the way and how He was known of them in the breaking of bread.

JT I think they represent an element in the assembly that the Lord can follow; He came in in relation to what they were saying, “as they were saying these things”. John would give Mary that place, the wholly spiritual side, because the Lord had spoken to her about ascending and she calls Him Rabboni; she came carrying the message. There must be something the Lord can link Himself with positively in the assembly.

Ques Had they been disappointed in the public setting up of Israel. “We had hoped that he was the one who is about to redeem Israel”; whereas the Lord had to open up the whole range of truth connected with Himself, beginning from the beginning?

JT Yes. You feel how the Old Testament is essential to the public assembly, because there is so much there in relation to Christ that has to do with the public service of God; but the Old Testament is not in mind in Mary Magdalene, it is an ascended Christ, which is not the theme in the Old Testament; it is the purpose of God in mind in John.

Ques Is it of interest that in Luke they are moving away as disappointed, but in John we have ^[p. 121] Mary staying at the tomb as if everything is to begin there?

JT She is held by genuineness of affection for Christ as if to her He is everything. She had Old Testament thoughts, which were just replaced by the heavenly position. The Lord said, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father”, meaning that the time would come when she could touch Him and have part with Him in a heavenly order of things.

PH You referred just now to the reference to the sister, the spouse, in the Song of Solomon; am I right in suggesting that the spouse, while mentioned first by Himself, has to be approached along the basic line of sister?

JT Yes, in chapter 4, you mean. Verse 9 Says, “My sister, my spouse”; then verse 12, “A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse”; then chapter 5: 1, “I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse”.

AJG Also chapter 4: 10 — the peculiar value of the love of the sister, the spouse.

JT Well, the thought of the spouse being mentioned first in verse 8 would mean, I suppose, that is the ultimate thought, the marital, which the word ‘spouse’ would imply; but the sister, I suppose, would be in Mary, she might be regarded as a characteristic sister in relation to Christ. He calls her by name, Mary, and then she takes the Lord’s message; surely He would have her in mind, that there is a spouse thought there.

AJG Would you mind saying a word as to the connection between the Eve view of the assembly and this heavenly position, “My Father and your Father, and ... my God and your God”?

JT It would seem as if both thoughts contemplate us as entirely outside the range of sin and death — Eve is taken out of Adam before sin appears; the relation indicated here in the Lord’s message through Mary would mean that we are entering now ^[p. 122] on a history altogether free of any charge of ever having had sin attached to it. We cannot really be in the assembly in its heavenly side apart from the understanding of that.

Rem You are connecting that with the spouse. Would you open up a little more the thought of the sister in contradistinction to that?

JT Eve was never Adam’s sister, yet, with all the thoughts we have as to assembly features. She was his sister, being the feminine feature; she was of God as he was: “male and female created he them”, two beings under the heading of Man. She would have a peculiar place, there would be some link in the sense of sister in her, but she immediately became wife, for Jehovah brought her to the man.

CH Would the sisterly side come out later in their history, in the working out of moral questions between them and Jehovah?

JT No doubt it would. The sisterly side is more pronounced in Rebecca, because in that family we have the sisterhood, that is the relationship of sister, before the marital thought. It seems to have been in the mind of God that this family should be marked by the sisterhood, that is, Terah’s family. They are all related to the man of faith. Sarah is related to Abraham and Rebecca is related to Isaac, and Rachel is related to Jacob on that line, coming down from the sisterhood of Terah’s family.

Rem You mean the sister involves history, whereas the spouse is more the thought of God reached according to purpose.

JT Yes. Eve would represent the spouse, and I think, as I was remarking, we could see the sister there too; but it seems as if the divine thought is that Rebecca is brought in on that line; she is the wife of the heavenly man, for Isaac is not said to have come down from the mountain where he was ^[p. 123] offered up typically. Abraham went down to Beersheba with his young men, but Isaac is not said to come down; he is the Christ typically of John 20, he belongs to heaven, and the sisterhood is immediately mentioned in the end of Genesis 22, that is, Rebecca is brought in immediately as the one related to him.

AJG Is the sister brought in to show the spouse is of the right lineage?

JT Yes, and the side of Christ being shown by Himself in John 20 points to the origin of Eve.

Ques Are both sides to be in our minds in the Supper, or is it principally the spiritual side?

JT I think it is both sides. Zipporah comes into view before the covenant is introduced. It would seem the wife idea is in view as we sit down in the assembly; the assembly must be related to Christ, for we are to be to Another, according to Romans, but it is just in the bare thought of the bond; we come into it later, according to the fulness of the affection entering into it. It is there; the assembly is just as much the spouse of Christ at the beginning of the meeting as she is at the end, only we are on more spiritual lines after the breaking of bread.

Ques Is the marital relation essentially one of love, and do we need divine teaching to come into it, as Mary did?

JT I think she is on the higher line. Zipporah implies the bond is there; we recognise it is there as we come together, but then we wait for the time of love. It is the time of love in a general way from the outset, but the time of reciprocated affection awaits the Spirit’s operations and the Lord in the midst. He comes near to us and supports us, as we get in the Canticles. We find there too that she who comes up from the wilderness is presented first as coming up by herself; it is the Spirit of God supporting us in the early part of the meeting; but, when ^[p. 124] the Lord comes in, the thought of leaning on her Beloved is in mind, so He supports us in the more spiritual part of the service.

Ques Would Miriam be the counterpart of Zipporah as watching over the vessel of testimony?

JT It is the sister there, anyway.

Ques In regard to the expression ‘sister’, do I understand it to find expression or give rise to any particular feature at the Supper, or is it what precedes as we gather?

JT It is, I think, what the Lord finds amongst us as coming in, “I am come into my garden, my sister ...”; it is as having come in He addresses her in that way, and proceeds to say, “I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk”. He is in liberty and enjoyment Himself in the garden, but addressing His sister and then His Spouse, which would lead on to the higher relation indicated in Eve and Rebecca.

Ques So would the sister represent kindred morally?

JT It has been remarked that Moses had a sister who cared for him, and Rebecca is distinctively the sister as of the same family; she is not presented as caring for Isaac, but she is mentioned, in the end of chapter 22, as of his family, of the family of his father; she is mentioned specifically by name.

Ques Is there any significance in the fact that Zipporah and Abigail come in in relation to the service of God under Moses and David, while Rebecca and Eve do not seem to come in exactly in that way?

JT Yes, I think Rebecca and Eve present the most exalted side of the assembly; Eve as out of Christ typically, apart altogether from the sin question, Rebecca coming in as descended from the same family as Isaac, and loved only as she is in the sphere ^[p. 125] of testimony. She is brought into Sarah’s tent and it is there she is loved. It is the assembly viewed as in the position of testimony here that is lovable; and Zipporah had that place too, only there is nothing mentioned as to lovableness in her. Now Mary Magdalene comes in on the line of lovableness spiritually; she is adjustable and comes thoroughly round to the Lord’s position, and He calls her Mary, which would indicate a certain familiarity that belongs to a sister. It seems to me that the thought is there; she is characterised in the chapter by free communication with brothers, with Peter and John, telling them what she saw, and they move on her testimony. She remained long at the sepulchre, and the Lord comes on the scene; she converses with the angels at the sepulchre, and now she converses with the Lord, all on a high sisterly level entirely becoming in every way. Ultimately she is called by name by the Lord and that moves her. She calls Him Rabboni, and then there is the message she carries. All that carries the thought of the sister.

Rem So the thought of the sister is connected with being teachable and serviceable, but the marital relation is the thought of bringing out the position with Christ in privilege.

JT It is a question first of what is there spiritually. Well, He entrusts her with the greatest possible message; she is reliable. I believe the Lamb’s wife means reliability; He can trust her. That element, I believe, is there as He comes in, and everything, as He comes in, takes form. He brings out the thought of His side; there is light in that. It is written, of course, for our instruction; as having the Holy Spirit now and understanding what the assembly’s relation to Christ is, we can see what enters into this moment. There is no discrepancy at all in the disciples; they do not say anything, it is all a question now of what He ^[p. 126] is saying.

Ques Do you bring the spouse thought into John 20?

JT I think so.

Rem You were speaking of it being a matter of persons rather.

JT Well, it is a matter of persons; but persons viewed abstractly as formed by the work of God compose the spouse. We can see all that now. The gospels are confirmatory of the truth as in the epistles, and it seems to me that John confirms Ephesians.

Rem “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” — is not that a statement that covers the whole dispensation? It is not only connected with what we may arrive at in the morning meeting, is it?

JT It covers the whole dispensation, but it also presents thoughts that should be in our minds at the morning meeting.

Rem But you are presenting it now rather as we should enter into it in the assembly.

JT That is what I had in mind, that we might understand the assembly composition. We take these two coming from Emmaus, it is supposed a man and his wife, they have a household. Luke would show that is what enters into the public assembly, man and woman, but the thought in mind is the fact that they carry out of their house something for the assembly, that their house is in accord with the assembly; what they were saying was entirely in accord with the assembly, they were saying that the Lord was risen indeed and had appeared to Simon. Is it not right to assume that that was in the Lord’s mind in the whole proceedings. He had the assembly in His mind? These two were there before He came, they represent suitability in a public way: as they were saying these things He came in. But evidently the whole assembly was not ^[p. 127] equal to those two. I do not suppose they would have part in the perturbation and amazement that followed, I have no doubt they had already experienced the appearing of Christ; it was not extraordinary to them. Others were affected and therefore they held the ground, that is, that element holds the ground in the public position. It is a question of what we are in our houses and whether we can absorb impressions the Lord is ready to convey to us in our houses and carry those impressions into the public position. There is no dignity in perturbation and amazement when the Lord comes in. Luke helps us, I think, on this line of the public position, and John shows us that, in that manner, we have a sister, not a husband and wife, not two, for it is Mary that is in mind in the main, and she comes in for the greatest honour. They went on their own volition and what they were saying was their own thought and impression, but Mary came in with a message, although recognised as a sister as called by name in a familiarity that is proper in a sister. But in assembly the Lord had the marital thought in mind as amongst them. He showed them His hands and His side, I think it would be a service of love He had in mind; the fact that she came out of Adam’s side.

Rem They were glad when they saw the Lord in John.

JT Yes.

PH Would this mean, amongst other things, that in the marital side the Lord raises the saints, so to speak, to His own level? Is that right?

JT That is just; Mary is raised to His level in what is said to her and in the message.

PH So that He says, “My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”; is the marital thought, in a sense, included in that, although not ^[p. 128] prominent?

JT Well, the family thought is there, that is, that the saints are raised to His level on family lines. It is only as we understand that, that we are of His order that we are constituted suitable to be united to Him.

Ques In referring to Psalm 22, did you have the thought in mind, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren”?

JT Partly, but I was thinking the heading has the feminine thought in it, as if that is what the Lord had in mind in entering into death; He had great results before Him, the hind of the morning, the freshness and agility of love which is seen strikingly in Mary in John 20. The Lord, seeing that the gold was there, brought it all into evidence and removed all the dross. The real thing was there and He ultimately brought her to that, so that she is elevated, in the message, to His level, as of His family: His Father is her Father, and His God is her God. It is the elevation we get: “I ascend”. He says, “to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. It is His own order and that qualifies us for having part in the assembly from the spiritual side.

Rem So nothing is said to Mary as to His side, that is reserved for the brethren as together.

JT That is what I was thinking; it is inside that you get that; it is the private or wholly spiritual side that John presents; there is no discrepancy, the Lord is adjusting everything, putting everything in its place.

Rem So we should expect to get something from the Lord that would elevate us to His level before we really touch His side, a real touch from the Lord as in the assembly.

JT That is why I thought, in linking these two chapters together, we see this whole thought. We get the marital side particularly in Eve.

Ques Would the bride’s charge to the daughters of Jerusalem in Canticles not to awake her ^[p. 129] love till he pleased, suggest a state of expectancy in our hearts?

JT Quite so, that is what comes out. There is nothing in John to drive back the Lord’s affection, there was in Luke, but not in John: He is free to do this, to show them His hands and His side, and to say, “Peace”, to them twice. First they were glad when they saw Him, then He says, “Peace”, to them again, as if this would consolidate what was there — and we must have that. I believe the repetition of “Peace be to you”, is that the Lord is consolidating the position; they were glad when they saw Him. He consolidates that by a second “Peace be to you”.

HP And does the thought of the Lord standing in the midst of His own suggest the service of the Lord in relation to the assembly? We have in Hebrews 2, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”.

JT Yes, He is standing there; that is another matter, that He is ready to serve further, but there is no discrepancy. It says, “Having said this, he shewed to them his hands and his side”, and then, “The disciples rejoiced therefore, having seen the Lord. Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you” — as if the position is consolidated.

AJG What is the thought in this gospel of the hands as well as the side?

JT I think the means of the expression of love. We are told in the Canticles that “His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me”. It seems to be the means of expressing love, but the side is the source, showing the source of everything in the spiritual realm.

Rem So that the showing will not be just the light we have in our souls in a general way, but a fresh presentation of Christ as we are ^[p. 130] together.

JT That is the thought. Consolidation, I think, is a great matter before we proceed to the service of God, that we are on sure ground spiritually. We are of His order and now love is showing itself setting us free spiritually, and then He proceeds to speak about the Father, showing that the Father is in His mind.

Ques Would association in John 20 be higher than union in Ephesians?

JT I do not think so, I think they are correlative. Those who are associated with Him as His companions are qualified to be united to Him. All this we are speaking of is of the highest value in our souls in the power of the Spirit as in that position.

Ques Is there not the Father’s side in regard to the bride? You have drawn attention to the great thought of Abraham about Isaac, and to the way Ephesians brings it out, too.

JT Yes, there is the other side.

PH Is your thought in drawing attention to the side that way is made now for seeing that these thoughts originated in God? God originated this thought in Genesis 2: He said, “It is not good that the man should be alone”.

JT So that the marital position in the assembly would mean it is God’s pleasure it should be so, more is yielded to Him through it: “To be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God”. What follows on that is that we might serve in newness of spirit.

Rem It is remarkable how Romans touches the germ of so much that is developed in Ephesians.

JT I think Romans is the basic position in christianity and Ephesians the top stone.