DIVINE PERSONS AND OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM (5)
[p. 269] DIVINE PERSONS AND OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM (5)
Acts 1:15 - 17; John 20: 15 - 18; Matthew 25:31 - 46: Hebrews 2: 11 - 14
JT Our subject is the brethren of Christ. It is thought that we should first bring out the significance of the word ‘brethren’ by itself, and then go on to the brethren of Christ. The subject is one that is constantly in our minds and therefore it is thought that we should take a wide view of it, noting how the relationship in which we stand to divine Persons is seen in the scriptures read. It is thought we should have a wide outlook, and I should say a contextual outlook, as to the scriptures read - Thus Acts 1 contemplates the ordinary sense in which brethren are regarded. The brethren have come together in a certain place, what we may call a rendezvous, and it says, “in those days Peter, standing up in the midst of the brethren” Acts 1:15 — that is, there were not only brothers, the apostles, but sisters also. Mary the Lord’s mother and others were there and they were called brethren and we are told how many there were; and then as Peter stands up to address them he uses the word “Brethren”. So we can see how the term ‘brethren’ may be regarded as prominent in its application to us; and when we come together in assembly with a view to assembly service this is how we regard each other.
Even now we regard each other as brethren, which is right; but then we have to distinguish between that and what we have read as to the Lord’s brethren in John 20. They are called “my brethren” in the address to Mary Magdalene — “Go to my brethren”. I do not need to quote it all, we are so familiar with it, but we need to distinguish clearly between the term in Acts 1 and what we have in John 20 where we have the thought of ascension; not simply that they are the Lord’s brethren but that they are viewed as in [p. 270] ascension. That is to say, His brethren are those who will in time have part in ascension, and in the assembly too.
The passage read from Matthew 25 clearly contemplates, not ourselves, but the Jewish setting, which we are also to bear in mind both in connection with brethren and with the wifely idea to which there is some allusion in the Old Testament so that the thought is not confined to the assembly. There is in fact much allusion to wifely connections with Christ, but the assembly is the first, the prime thought, superseding indeed everything else on that line. We shall have to speak of that also as we proceed, but now we must see how the Spirit of God groups things.
In the passage in Hebrews He brings together the sons of God and the brethren of Christ of whom He is not ashamed. Then the assembly, “in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” Hebrews 2:12; and even the children of Christ are alluded to in this section. So that we have a remarkable grouping of the relations in which believers are set in all these scriptures. This is the closing reading of this series and it is thought the Lord might help us to be attentive in order to get the gain that is attached to all these scriptures, because they enter into the service of God which is the great thought before God now in our being down here. We are down here with that in view because He wishes His service continued.
ANW Would Acts 1:14 where it says, “and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren”, be nothing more than brethren according to the flesh?
JT We did not read that verse. What is said as to Peter is that he stands up in the midst of the brethren. The term he uses is “Brethren”, which would cover all the uses [p. 271] of the word.
PL The end of 1 Thessalonians is full of the thought, finishing with the word, “Brethren, pray for us. Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss. I adjure you by the Lord that the letter be read to all the holy brethren” 1 Thessalonians 5: 25 - 27. Would that fit in with your first thought?
JT Just so, and the Scriptures are full of it throughout the Acts and elsewhere. God is bringing the idea before the brethren. At the same time what we have in this connection comes short of what we have in mind in the thought of the brethren of Christ.
PL Would the thought here be the idea of the boards of the tabernacle fitted into one another?
JT Quite so, and if we regard the gold that covered all we have one tabernacle, and that is what we have in mind.
JRH In this chapter we have the Holy Spirit mentioned four times over. Would the thought of brethren here afford an atmosphere where the Holy Spirit would be free to come and to move?
JT It is more clear in the next chapter, but as you say we have the reference here. It says in Acts 1:16, “Brethren, it was necessary that the scripture should have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before, by the mouth of David”. But then the Holy Spirit was not actually here, He is only spoken of as He was known in the Old Testament, but in the next chapter He is actually here, having come down.
RA Verse 16 might read, ‘Men, brethren’, according to the note.
JT That is just a term that might be used at any time. The Jews called each other brethren, but ‘men’ as the note shows is just of common usage. It would mean the persons spoken to are viewed as [p. 272] responsible.
RWS There had been a scattering of the disciples when the Lord was taken by the Jews, but then He assembled with them after His resurrection during forty days. Would the thought of brethren cover the Lord’s service to them, so that they were gathered in love?
JT He was forty days amongst them and would use familiar terms, terms that were suitable to His position which was then a risen position, not a heavenly one. He had not yet gone to heaven, He was here amongst them and it was to bring out the reality of His resurrection. He ate and drank amongst them.
RWS The Lord’s word to them in Matthew 12:50 suggests delightful terms of love in this basic way, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is my brother, and sister, and mother”. They were doing the will of God, were they not?
JT Well, that was in the gospels. In Matthew and Luke as well as here in John He brought in the thought of brethren, but in those it was only to bring out the reality of their relation with Him. That is to say, the Lord was working up to this great realm, this thought in John 20, as seen particularly in the verses read from the Psalms and Hebrews, for the root is there. It is a question of what Paul wrote, for there is no doubt Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, and he connected together these wonderful titles. These titles were already known among the saints of God according to Hebrews. The point in bringing forward the scriptures in Acts is only to establish the common idea of brethren. It has to be distinguished from the idea as seen when they came together in the beginning of the assembly day, the first day of the week. The term may be used as a greeting, and we regard each other in that light, but we soon move on to the upper levels and as we [p. 273] come to these upper levels we see how they stand in relation to one another, the values attaching to each of them.
AMacD Ananias speaking to Saul says, “Saul, brother” Acts 9:17. Would that convey the thought?
JT Yes, it would show that he had regard for him in that light. It was needful for Saul to get that word, to realise that he was already amongst the brethren.
ABP Is it the thought of the public relationship between brethren?
JT Quite so. You might say it is the lowest level on which we are; whether we are in assembly on the first day of the week or whether we are together to read the Scriptures or to pray, we are always ready to think of ourselves as brethren.
FW I was wondering whether this thought, “in the midst of the brethren”, would not regulate us in our attitude towards our brethren?
JT I think so. The fact is that we are likely to use the word too often. It might help to more carefully consider its use; but we do use it, and no doubt intend to convey that we do respect them.
RWS Does this term apply to all christians?
JT At first it was so applied; clearly it was so here. You could hardly go much wider than what we have actually in Jerusalem at this time, but in 1 Corinthians 15 we have the way in which things were at the beginning, how the Lord appeared to so many. He first appeared to Simon, who is there called Cephas, then to the twelve, and then to above five hundred brethren at once. They are called “brethren”.
RHS Do we view the one in Matthew 18 who will not hear the assembly as a brother?
JT It is a question of whether he is a weak brother for whom Christ died, a brother as to the [p. 274] family, and if so, to regard him thus. We need to keep to the context in these matters.
JB In coming before the authorities in connection with unionism, for instance, do we ask them for exemption as Brethren or as christians?
JT It is a question of wisdom as to what terms we might use. We are known in Washington as Brethren Number Four. That is a humbling thing. And sometimes we say Plymouth Brethren, though we do not want to bring that up; but if we have to appeal to the authorities we can say, These are christians, and we can bring in the Lord Jesus Christ, as some have done testimonially in a wonderful way.
LK The “number of names” would show that they are distinguished persons, not distinguished on the earth but distinguished in heaven.
JT Just so. But I would not stress the term ‘brethren’ here too much because even the Jews called each other brethren. As I was saying, it is the first level on which we may broach the subject, but we have not very much time to delay on this for we need to go on to what is higher and greater.
RWS Is John 20 then the highest level?
JT That is just it, because of ascension being connected with it. But the group of verses in Hebrews is remarkable because they lead toward the truth of the assembly and will enable us to speak of the value of all these terms: of brethren, sons of God, and the assembly. We have to determine the relative value of each of these designations. These matters have been spoken of many times and it is a question as to whether we can speak of them now intelligently and briefly so that we get the full thought of them and pass on to something else.
Ques Is Abram’s word to Lot, “We are brethren”, more like Acts 1, but the thought of Joseph’s brethren more like John [p. 275] 20?
JT I would say that. They were twelve brethren, twelve sons of Jacob, the administrative number.
Rem I was thinking of Joseph making himself known to his brethren.
JT The allusion typically is to Christ. Joseph is seen there, slowly making himself known to the brethren, even imprisoning some of them because of their conduct; but in due time it says that he “made himself known to his brethren” Genesis 45:1. Everybody had to go out because that was so sacred, so precious in his mind when he “made himself known to his brethren”. What is in your mind about that?
Rem You remember when the difficulty came up between Abram and Lot that Abram says, “We are brethren”. He held on to that.
JT That would apply very much at the present time. We are brethren and our conduct should be in keeping with it. But then in such a circumstance we do not say we are Christ’s brethren, we just say we are brethren. But now we are come to the thought of Christ’s brethren.
AR “My brethren” in John 20:17 is in relation to ascension: is that what you said?
JT Yes, whereas “my brethren” in Matthew 25:40 does not go further than resurrection.
ANW It seems as though Mary of Magdala would know all the brethren as the Lord entrusts the message to her.
JT Quite so; she knew them all. The latter part of chapter 20 would show that.
FKC Is ‘brethren of Christ’ a heavenly relationship?
JT Well, we have just been speaking about it as to the application of the word to the assembly. This thought in John 20 is not said of the Jewish brethren, nor of those in Matthew 25 or Acts 1, but it is said of them here, “But go to my brethren and [p. 276] say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” John 20:17. That gives them the place that God is their Father as well as the Lord’s Father, and that of course is the greatest thing we have to consider next to sons of God according to Hebrews 2.
FW Did Moses have the right idea when he said, “Ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one another”? Acts 7:26.
JT That would come in under the heading of Acts 1. The use of the word ‘brethren’ in the early times was just in that sense that they were of the family of Israel.
RWS Does this scripture involve greater spirituality? 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” John 20:18. Would that mean she would put the Lord’s message in her own spiritual language to the brethren?
JT I would think so, and the brethren would regard her too because she is wonderfully distinguished as a sister. Much is said of her before this comes out, and particularly that the Lord had to guard her from touching Him because the time for it had not come. When He entered into the assembly later according to John 20:19 when “Jesus came and stood in the midst”, then I think she would be quite free, as all of them were; but at this particular time she was to be prevented from this. He says. “Touch me not”, but still she called him “Rabboni”, meaning that He was her Teacher; she was an instructed person, which is the great thought that we have before us in these meetings. Brethren are instructed in the truth as regards the assembly.
GAS Does that enable Mary to distinguish the persons the Lord had in mind in saying, “My brethren”?
JT I think so. Doubtless she had had ample opportunity to know the brethren, Peter and John and all the others.
JTJr Do you think the immediate reference to disciples would allude to the fact that they were taught, that being the meaning of the word?
JT I think so. The Lord implied that it was a teaching time. He is going to entrust to her this wonderful disclosure; He has a vessel He can use suitably and that vessel is Mary, who calls him “Rabboni”. She indicates her fitness for the use the Lord is making of her by the fact that she recognises Him as “Rabboni”, that is, Teacher.
FNW Does she carry the message as having some sense of being one of the brethren herself?
JT Just so; at any rate she would find it out later for “Jesus came and stood in the midst” John 20:19. He was in the midst of that company.
BW Does the fact that the term ‘brethren’ is not used till after the resurrection bring it on to a higher level?
JT I would rather you said ‘ascension’, because the assembly is not simply on the ground of resurrection. The brethren about fifty years ago were saying the Lord was always in the midst as in resurrection, but is it true? The point is, He is in the midst of those that are His brethren, associated with Him ascended. It is a question of ascension, not resurrection.
ANW So in resurrection it is, “Touch me not”. John 20:17.
JT The Lord is preventing her from touching Him in view of His ascension to the Father, but the message that she received contained not only the word as to the Father to whom He was ascending, but also that He was their Father and their God too. In order to confirm what I have just remarked — that the ground of the assembly is not simply resurrection [p. 278] but is a heavenly position — we might remark that the Jewish ground would be simply resurrection.
AHP Do these relationships, “my brethren”, and “my Father and your Father”, involve another sphere of things for their working out? Is that implied in the ascension?
JT I am glad you mentioned the word ‘sphere’. It takes us back to the word ‘expanse’ in the first of Genesis. God was, as it were, making room for Himself. The expanse was above the waters and below them, and to bring out the room, as it were, He called the expanse “Heavens”. It represents the scope that He has taken for Himself in His own creation, for He had in mind to bring out all these things in relation to the assembly.
JLP Would Mary’s turning round imply that she is getting a new view of the brethren?
JT Turning round would show that she is really interested. It is mentioned in John 20:14 too, “She turned backward and beholds Jesus”; and then again in John 20:16, “Jesus says to her, Mary. She, turning round, says to him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which means Teacher”. I think she sets herself to speak to Him properly; she is moved now in relation to what He is saying. She had thought He was the gardener but now she is moved in relation to Himself. She says in John 20:15, “Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away”. She is engrossed with Christ, but then ignorantly so, and that is the matter we have to take account of as to Mary, for at one time she was very ignorant about things. Jesus says to her, “Mary”, and that changes everything for her. At this familiar word she turns herself, as if to say that familiarity is coming in; now she is perfectly free with Him and it qualifies her to take the message. She is happily free. One ought to be suitable in order to be sent with a message.
[p. 279] JTJr She goes along on the road, you might say, with the message within her.
JT The word “Rabboni” shows the state of her mind. She is fit now, she has right thoughts and right feelings and right names; she is fit to be sent. And so the Lord says, “Touch me not” John 20:17, because she might have gone further, which He did not allow; “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father” John 20:17, and so forth. She is now ready I think from the Lord’s point of view to go to the brethren, and she would go happily and with right thoughts in her mind, calling Him “Rabboni”, for He was her Teacher. And why should He not be our Teacher as well?
LWS Did you suggest that later on, in verse 20, the touching would have been right?
JT I would think so. The inside position involves that there is liberty for He allows the others to do the same thing. “And having said this, he shewed to them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced therefore, having seen the Lord” John 20:20. Later He asks Thomas to bring his hand and put it into His side, so that inside touching is evidently quite in order. I believe it indicates the assembly, the inside position. It says He “stood in the midst” without saying any more than that. The doors were shut; it was, we might say, a suitable place; the elements of division are shut out. What we are dealing with now is Mary, and whether she is qualified to be a messenger to carry this wonderful message, and that of course affects all of us. Are we qualified if called upon to do anything in a spiritual sense?
FNW You have indicated that we are very slow to understand this thought of the brethren of Christ. Mary seems to get it in one sentence, does [p. 280] she not?
JT It has already been said that she must have known them; very likely she did.
AB Does John have these spiritual activities in mind throughout the book? In John 1:50 in speaking to Nathanael the Lord says, “Thou shalt see greater things than these … Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”; and also in John 3:13, saying to Nicodemus, “the Son of man who is in heaven”; and then here, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” John 20:17.
JT The expanse is what is meant in these suggestions. God has a wide sphere for Himself in which to carry on His operations, and what we are dealing with now is just that thought. John comes in to fill out the expanse. If the works of Christ were all written down the world itself would not contain the books. That is the wide idea that John conveys to us of divine Persons. Therefore John starts with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” John 1:1. It is a question of the Word, what has been spoken, but it is God, and we must have a wide expanse for that.
FKC We know who inhabits this expanse, and we know the persons who will be there whom we can take account of as brethren of Christ.
JT Quite so, and so in Matthew 27:52, when the Lord was crucified, the Spirit of God says, “and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose”. They had slept but now they arose, and “entered into the holy city and appeared unto many”. They could go anywhere, as it were, nothing could stop them. There was no barrier or policeman stopping them from where they were going; the way was open to them. It is a question of what God is [p. 281] doing, of divine operations and there must be way made for them.
RA Would you say that these brethren arrived at the dignity of the name by which they are called, so that in the upper room the Lord is free to be with them?
JT We cannot pass by the suggestion of the upper room without saying something about it. “When therefore it was evening on that day, which was the first day of the week, and the doors shut where the disciples were, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and says to them, Peace be to you” John 20:19. That is to say there is to be no possibility of interference with what He is doing, and the brethren are ready, for the doors are shut. It does not say ‘the door’ was shut, the word is plural. It means that there is preparation for the Lord, making room for whatever He might do or say. The way is open for Him; it is a matter of who and that He is not in ‘their’ midst but in ‘the’ midst. I believe it is the great universal thought and would fit into the idea of the expanse in that it cannot be hindered. If the move is upward we shall go upward; the expanse is so great that we cannot determine the height of it. What room there is! It is all a question of God and what rights He has.
RWS Would the suggestion in John 20:26 show that the disciples understood His coming in and standing in the midst? Because it says, “his disciples were again within”.
JT It was “eight days after”, the week had elapsed. It is the indication of the dispensation in which we are, a dispensation of weeks. The first day of the week, therefore, is in mind and that is what we get here.
JLP In our chapter in Acts 1 it was remarked in connection with the use of the term ‘brethren’ [p. 282] that the Holy Spirit had not yet come; but would its use in John 20 infer that Christ’s brethren would be those who have the Spirit?
JT Well, it goes on to say, “And having said this, he shewed to them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced therefore, having seen the Lord. Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you: as the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit” John 20:20 - 22. That is to say, Pentecost is anticipated. It is an indication of the rights of divine Persons. It is not a question of whether a divine Person is on earth or in heaven, it is what He has a right to do, and so He breathed into them here and in doing that He says, “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” John 20:21 - 23. We have in principle the whole dispensation opened up to us, the gift of the Spirit and the idea of remission or forgiveness.
FKC In the Lord breathing into them His inwards are in evidence, and would have to do first of all with our ability to remit.
JT Quite so, and that is expanded in the second chapter of the Acts. The reference to the inwards is quite a remarkable suggestion when connected with the breathing in Acts 2. The inwards of God are involved, as it were, in the coming down of the Spirit; it is a matter of the powerful breathing of God. It is not like wind blowing, it is breathing; and so here the Lord breathed into them, a most intimate kind of action; it is the same thing in principle as in Acts, and shows that divine Persons have rights, and use them, and we cannot question them.
[p. 283] AR It says of Adam that God breathed into his nostrils. That would be a very close matter, would it not?
JT Quite so. God selected the nostrils in view of man having a mind. We have the mind of Christ, and no doubt that is involved in what the Lord did here to the disciples and the power He gave them to remit sins. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted” John 20:23. It does not say ‘in heaven’ here, the Lord is saying that the thing is done. If sins are remitted there is no need to remit them again; the thing is finished.
FNW On the responsive side, is it right to think of the Holy Spirit giving us the power to breathe Godward? “Let everything that hath breath praise Jah”, Psalm 150:6.
JT I would not say that. If God gives the Holy Spirit, He gives the power. So Paul says in Acts 19:2, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” I would not like to add to that.
ANW Does the remitting and retaining represent assembly action?
JT John does not deal with assembly action but with the persons who do the thing, who are qualified, just as Mary was qualified. If things are to be done let us be qualified to do them. No doubt the disciples would be qualified by what the Lord imparted to them. This matter of remission affords great liberty among the saints; the purpose is to liberate us lest we should be bowed down by anything that may have happened in the way of sins. The assembly has a right to remit them. There is liberty to forgive so that we might be released.
ANW Do you mean we should be more free to remit than to retain?
JT I think so. I certainly would myself. Think, for example, of a person bowed down with legal fears or anxieties; the need would be to have [p. 284] discernment as to the state of the person, and whatever is done the Lord says it is done: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted” John 20:23. The actual transaction is finished.
AR Did Paul bring this in at Corinth in regard to the incestuous man? He says in 2 Corinthians 2:8, “Assure him of your love”.
JT Just so, “assure him of your love”.
FW In a day like this when recovery is so manifest, is the thought that as God is forgiving so we should be like Him in order that the recovered one should be free for service?
JT This particular chapter implies that the Lord has set us all free in the assembly, and that is the idea; we are free for the assembly, we are not to be bowed down or held in bondage with legal fears as to our sins, because they are authoritatively remitted.
Ques Would it not be incongruous to remit a brother’s sins in assembly and then restrict him afterwards?
JT That is right.
ABP The Lord in speaking to the woman in Luke 13:12,13 says, “Thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands upon her; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God”. Has remission that in view?
JT Quite so, she glorified God. Now to proceed to our verses in Hebrews, what is in mind has already been intimated and these verses group together the great things that we are speaking of, the first being many sons brought to glory. Sonship is stressed in verse 10, and then in verse 11 we have, “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” — that is what we are speaking of now, brethren — “saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” Hebrews 2:11,12. We have assembly service in this particular passage and further we have, “And again, I will trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children which God has given me” Hebrews 2:13, that is, the children are alluded to also. We have already touched on that but we have not properly touched on the question of assembly service and what the assembly is as compared with the brethren. In touching on the actual service of God on the first day of the week, which is the day of the assembly properly, we have to consider the meaning of the word ‘brethren’, the Lord’s brethren, as well as the meaning of the word ‘assembly’, and then the meaning of sonship. These three things will have to be considered and what values they have, and I would say they have equal values. This has to be considered by us as to whether we really understand it and accept it, and whether we really understand the feminine and masculine side of our subject which we have already touched on too.
AR Would not the brethren be masculine, and then the assembly feminine, and then sonship would be masculine again? Is that how the service is to be carried on?
JT The actual concrete service is in Hebrews 2:11 which says, “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” That is service to God by Christ; that is the most exalted part of the service.
JTJr Would you say we must understand the Lord as amongst us in order to enter into the thought of brethren in our relations in the assembly?
JT That is the first thing we come to, that He is actually here. We have considered the idea of brethren in Acts 1 where it is simply what we are ordinarily. Now we come to the time when the breaking of bread is past, to that which involves the Lord’s relations with the assembly, and involved in this that He praises in the assembly. But all these [p. 286] things come in when He is already recognised amongst us; and all is that we may come to the concrete idea of the service of God.
JB I am not very clear as to how we address the Lord in this position of brethren. I can understand how we do it in the assembly relationship and as sons with the Father, but how do we address the Lord as brethren?
JT It is a question of being one of them and of the person who does it being one of them. We are to address Him in that way, only in a priestly sense, in a priestly capacity, so that we know what to say and do. It is a collective idea, the one addressing Him is speaking for all. It is a common thing in the Old Testament, one speaking for all. Does that answer your question?
JB According to the order after the breaking of bread it is the brethren of Christ. But how do we address the Lord and what is His relationship to us? Are we speaking of our love for Him or His love for us?
JT It is a question of what we are able to do, what power we have and what understanding we have; so that if we speak to Him as brethren of Christ we speak to Him in a priestly sense. If a brother speaks it is as a priest. He must always remember that priesthood must be there if the service of God is there. He is just a priest, but he is one of us.
DMacD In what way does the Lord sing praises?
JT I would say it is through the assembly. It says, “I will declare thy name to my brethren”, they are to know the Father’s name; and then, “in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” Hebrews 2:12; that is to say, it is an assembly action, in the midst of the assembly, that is where the praises are carried [p. 287] on.
PL Ephesians 3:21 would link all that on with eternity, “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”.
JT Very fitting, because in that book it is “the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge”, and then, “that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God” Ephesians 3:19; that we might have capacity to take part in the service.
JTJr The thought of the expanse would come into that chapter I suppose, “the breadth and length and depth and height” Ephesians 3:18.
JT It would.
RWS Would it be right to say that the title of relationship which we have with divine Persons is related to just two of the divine Persons?
JT Well, the question is whether we can go further and include the Three. But in any case two of the divine Persons are involved, through the Spirit by the priest. I use the word ‘priest’ for it is the proper word for carrying on the service of God while we are down here.
RWS Should we just rest there then, that it is the Father and the Son?
JT But then the power of it all is in the Spirit. The person who speaks is in the Spirit. He speaks in the Spirit or he would not be able to speak at all.
FKC In John 17:26 we have, “And 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”.
JT That is a further thought. In Hebrews 2 we are where we can speak with brevity of the service of God. We have already spoken of one of the divine Persons being addressed, and now speaking of the assembly, the Lord Himself says: “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises” Hebrews 2:12. The Lord Himself [p. 288] does it.
ABP How does the next verse, “And again, I will trust in him”, fit in here? Hebrews 2:13.
JT It is just brought in here as an added thought as to the humanity of Christ. He trusted in God but I do not think it is a matter to be spoken of in the service of God on the first day of the week. It is just an item, whereas the singing of praises is a very important and manifest item in the service of God; that is to say, the praises which the Lord Himself carries on.
PL Does that quotation from Psalm 22 bring in the musical side, the feeling and agile side, ‘the hind of the morning’?
JT Quite so; that is the title of Psalm 22 you mean. Who but the true David, the Lord Jesus Himself, could be the author of that?
AR The title to Psalm 22 is feminine. How do you view that?
JT When we come to this point, those who are singing form the feminine side in the assembly.
ANW Would you say Mary formed part of the assembly?
JT No doubt, as every sister does; but then we have to make room for the feminine side not simply in sisters but as one idea in the assembly; and for the masculine side as being Christ Himself.
JS They anointed Aaron and his sons.
JT Just so.
FW “Behold, I and the children which God has given me” Hebrews 2:13; does that indicate the delight that He had in them?
JT Yes; but that is only an isolated item because that is connected with His pathway here. Such items are not really involved in the service of God where it is a question of the Lord singing in the midst of the assembly. Now we are dealing with what is one of the greatest references to the divine [p. 289] service we have: that is, Christ Himself in the assembly praising the Father.
JLP Why does the Lord stress the name, “I will declare thy name”? Hebrews 2:12.
JT The name is what He is; what the Father is is involved in His name. J.N.D.’s hymn expresses it:
‘Father, Thy name our souls would bless’. (25:1)
FKC Is it not remarkable, the thought of a divine Person taking over a creature for this service in the assembly?
JT You mean the assembly is a creature?
FKC Yes.
JT Quite so, only a very great one, the greatest in the universe and nearest to divine Persons. We must always remember that she is viewed mysteriously. She comes down out of heaven from God. It is not the idea of her going up there to be told to come down; she comes down, her origin is from heaven. No one else is spoken of in that way but the assembly.
JRH Is this singing not so much a matter of sonship as of Christ and the assembly?
JT Christ and the assembly, exactly; but sonship, of course would be there and gives great importance to it because we are all there. It is a collective idea.
GAS Is this declaration of the Name to the brethren on a different level from the message to Mary? Would it be more intimate?
JT Well, the Lord is the speaker here; it might include Mary’s message. What we are speaking of here is a quotation from the Psalms brought in by the Spirit through the apostle Paul; and He is in the midst of the assembly Himself, so that we get the import of the assembly from Paul in this passage. It has been of immense value to us for years, so far as I remember, that the Lord sings through the assembly.
Pages 290 - 312 — “Addresses in U.S.A. and Canada”, (From Volume 182).