WELLS AND SPRINGS (2)
WELLS AND SPRINGS (2)
JT The brethren will be aware that our subject for these monthly readings is wells, springs, or other typical living water — active water denoting generally what is living — in relation to the assembly. We had John 4 at our last meeting. In the chapter which is proposed for our present consideration, we have the river standing in relation to the assembly, as seen in Eve, the most exalted type, representing it apart from sin. The type we had last time stressed the historical phase of the assembly; that the members of it have had to do with sin, as seen in the woman of Samaria. Eve appears before sin came into the world, so that she represents the assembly in its most exalted, eternal relations, without any sin-stained history. It was taken out of Christ, so that it is His counterpart. It is said in Ephesians that God gave Him to be [p. 32] Head over all things to the assembly, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all (chapter 1: 22, 23).
It will be before us now to discover what the river signifies as in this early type. First it is to be noted that it went out of Eden, which would suggest, typically, a heavenly environment. It is a place of delights, an extended one. The river was to water the garden, which was more limited, and from thence it flowed out universally. The suggestion clearly is that production, resulting from such an influence, is in mind. Mention is made of gold, and bdellium, and the onyx stone; three features of material which would have part to the structure, for the idea of structure is in mind. The woman is built; that is the word used.
CAM Scripture seems to stress the source of the river, all through to the end of the Bible; it is an important [p. 24] point.
JT Eden was a wide area, but the significance of the word is pleasure — the pleasure of God, I suppose, or the pleasure flowing from what God is, as seen in what God does. Flowing out of Eden, it is one river, and then it flows out of the garden as four distinct heads or streams, so that it points to intelligent influence — headship; for the word really is “head”, not “stream”. If it be “main stream”, it would mean leading influence.
AR Is it more a sphere here? In Ezekiel, it flows out from under the altar; and in Revelation, from the throne. Here, it goes out from the garden.
JT It is a sphere, indicating how far God had gone on these lines; Eden itself is wider than the garden. The river flowed out of Eden, so that it is a gathering up, influentially, of what God is, so far, in the way of affording pleasure.
ANW Greater in volume than each of the four heads, I suppose.
JT That would be so literally, but they are great enough to be “main streams”, each one of them a head, governing a district or point of the compass, so that the whole universe, you might say, is affected.
AAT The last time we were together, we were thinking of a well; this time it is a river. What is the difference?
JT What is before us now is a much greater thought than a well. The first well mentioned in the Scriptures is in Genesis 16. It is a much smaller idea, but each alludes to the Spirit. A river flowing out of Eden carries with it the idea of living water as much as a well or a spring.
CHH Would Pentecost correspond to the main stream, and then the flowing out following that?
JT Yes, the Spirit comes, we might say, fully. It is not partially. “For God gives not the Spirit by measure”, John 3: 34. The Holy Spirit coming in at Pentecost was not by measure; it was the Holy Spirit [p. 25] Himself, and the parting would be the universal bearing of His incoming. The persons present in Jerusalem were, you might say, representative of mankind; although they were Jews or Jewish proselytes, yet their languages or tongues represented what was universal, so the Spirit could speak anywhere to men.
CHH So the garden would correspond to the upper room in Acts 1?
JT Well, it would correspond to what was in it; the influence of the persons there. Luke, in Acts 1, presents those who saw the Lord go up, as coming from Mount Olivet, a heavenly environment. Luke’s gospel contemplates widespread influence, and then the beginning of the Acts is specific as to the assembly. Luke presents the truth in that way; the visitation of an angel to Zacharias, and then to Mary — the same angel — and then to the shepherds, and then the multitude of the heavenly host. All that points to heavenly influence in a widespread sense, and was carried down to the Acts. At the ascension, two men in white communicated to the disciples. There is a chain of influence from heaven from Luke’s point of view, and that takes concrete form in the coming in of the Holy Spirit Himself with the tongues, which pointed to universal communications and influence.
ANW I was wondering whether the one hundred and twenty names (Acts 1), would suggest skilful planting, such as the garden of Eden.
JT Yes; the Father’s planting. The Lord alluded to that in Matthew, saying, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up” (chapter 15: 13). No doubt the allusion goes back to Eden. These one hundred and twenty names are really planted, because life is suggested in the mention of name.
WB-w Why do you think it says the garden was “planted ... in Eden eastward”?
JT The east usually denotes hope. Luke carries that thought strikingly. He speaks about “the dayspring from on high” (chapter 1: 78): It is a hopeful suggestion of what is coming.
JS Would the four gospels indicate the four courses of the river?
JT They would confirm the idea, I think. The gospels are not primary from our side; they are confirmatory. The primary thought for us is the epistles. It would be difficult to establish Christianity as we have it without the epistles. Of course, it was inaugurated in the power of the Spirit by the apostles, but the epistles were needed for its establishment and maintenance. The gospels only would not suffice for this. They are wider in their bearing, and deal with other dispensations, whereas the epistles deal with the saints who form the assembly and set us on the right way. What came out at Pentecost was the coming in of the Spirit, and the bearing of this great fact toward Christianity.
JS Would the epistles in that way give us the banks of the river?
JT They do; the gospels are confirmatory of them. The gospels furnish the full bearing of the incarnation.
RWS The power of Pentecost was irresistible. Would it be right to say that these rivers are irresistible? One river, we read, surrounds the whole land of Havilah, and another river flows forward towards Asshur.
JT Yes; the first two surround; the third goes forward. As to the first thought, the Lord, for instance, spoke from the standpoint of a circuit (Mark 3: 34). He looked around on His disciples, which would imply that He compassed them, and He pointed out the good that was there in them. All outside of that circle was not good. The going straight forward of the third river would mean that the way is clear, and the end is to be reached definitely.
WGT Would that be Paul’s ministry? You spoke recently about his journeys. Would they bear on these rivers?
JT Yes. He says “from Jerusalem, and in a circuit round to Illyricum”. The circuit corresponds with the first two rivers. I think these points could be worked out from the facts in the epistles and the Acts. The incoming of the Spirit implied unlimited power, first in the form of the breathing. It was, you might say, an inward movement of God Himself. Breathing involves what is inward; an inward mighty movement, not for harm, but for good — the breath of God. It was by the breath of God that Adam was made a living soul. It was unique. No creature but man is made to live by the breath of God.
WR In Matthew’s gospel the Lord says, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”, Matthew 28: 18.
JT That is Matthew’s point of view — unlimited power for administrative use. The breath of God is to be specially borne in mind; there is no creature in the universe who is made to live by the breath of God, but man. Man became a living soul by the breath of God, and Pentecost denotes the breath of God in a most powerful way. ‘It is not ‘wind’, but they heard blowing, as of hard breathing’ (J.N.D.’s note to Acts 2: 2). Yet, we cannot work out from that fact that God breathes as we do. There is no evidence that He does at all; it is a figure pointing to the inward movement of God, inward power affecting the saints.
ARS The Lord breathed into the disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”, John 20: 22. Has that anything to do with this?
JT Well, it has, in that the link is there in the breathing. Christ, the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit — showing that He is a divine Person; He is God, but as come in manhood; but at Pentecost it is God. Of course, Christ had gone up into heaven, and it might be regarded as the extension of what John speaks of as already referred to. It is a powerful breathing. It [p. 28] points to the affections of God flowing out through Christ, expressed in the gift of the Holy Spirit.
ARS Was John 20 preparatory to Pentecost?
JT Well, it would be a pattern of what would happen at Pentecost, only that Pentecost is a much larger idea, and more powerful. John 20 is intimacy, indicating a beautiful link between Christ and His disciples; He breathed into them.
FHL Is there any moral order in the seas coming to light in chapter 1 and then the river here?
JT Well, seas convey the most extensive idea of water. The mist here is also water, adaptable to certain conditions. It is not rain, it is a mist, and its origin was the earth, showing that the earth itself had this principle of moisture in it; that is what is stated: “For Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth ... But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground” (verses 5, 6). It is a form of water that meets a condition in view of man’s formation. It is a moistened earth that is used. This is the order in which the facts are stated. Adam means earthy, but of the earth as moistened.
CHH Is moisture a primary thought of the Spirit?
JT I think the Spirit is in mind both in the river and the moisture. The Spirit is first introduced in chapter 1: “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (verse 2). The Spirit hovered, as if to effect something. Now we have the idea of the Spirit carried through in the moisture, as a type — showing how God can adapt things as He needs them.
CHH Is that why the earth would bring forth fruit of itself?
JT Well, for that there must be moisture, otherwise the earth would be dry and unproductive We have things spoken of in the abstract in verse 5: “every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew”. That is, God was taking account of the things before they had actual [p. 29] form. The mist would be in view of the earth being fitted to produce fruit; so that the idea of water as a type of the Spirit is present in view of what God had in His mind to develop.
CN So that herbs, for instance, were dependent upon the moisture to bring them to fruition. The passage says, “Every herb of the field before it grew, for Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth”.
JT That is very evident; and the earth had the thing needed in itself, because the mist went up from it. “A mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground”. We have the face of the waters earlier, but here it is the whole surface of the ground.
CHH Is there an idea in it that these conditions were in view of man? The word man appears about eighteen times in this chapter.
JT I think that is what is before us. The verses at the end of the chapter bring man before us in the male and female aspects. We have only the male so far in chapter 2, but the primary word denotes both: “Male and female created he them” (chapter 1: 27). So that it is to bring out these great beings and an environment for them. The river, in its four heads, has universal influence; this typically culminating in the woman, that is, the assembly.
AR Perhaps the four heads or main streams suggest God’s rights on the earth in the way of headship.
JT I think that is the way to take it; whether you look at them as main streams or heads, they point to the idea of intelligent influence, and with a purpose, each one named in a certain direction; with a certain thing in view.
AR Would it be right to say that God has a standard in the assembly in the way of headship, and that He has that standard for the whole earth?
JT Here, it is, I think, controlling [p. 30] influence.
Ques In what sense does the river culminate in the woman?
JT Well, Paul says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”, Ephesians 5: 32. If the Holy Spirit is speaking of Christ and the assembly in this chapter, then we must see that the rivers have a bearing on the subject, and there is no doubt about it; Christ and the assembly. The man was made of the ground — adamah. Now he is Adam. It is the same material, only in living form, and God takes something out of that to build a woman; but she is not made of earth. She is taken out of a living person: Adam — not adamah. It is very interesting and opens up a good deal as to the formation of the assembly.
Ques Psalm 104, “He watereth the mountains from his upper-chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works” (verse 13). Is there a suggestion in this?
JT Well, the upper chambers we have been already speaking about — a wide area called “Eden” which evidently points to heavenly influence, or at least influence governed by the pleasure of God, as it is said, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”, Luke 2: 14. I believe Luke has the formation of the assembly in mind in the way he speaks of heavenly influence, so that our chapter, including the rivers, culminates in man and woman — man made out of adamah, but moistened; not ordinary ground, but moistened by something of itself; and then the woman is made out of Adam. It is the same word, only denoting a person or living condition; not simply a moistened condition, but a living condition.
CAM Would you say that in regard to the female being contained in the idea of man, that God, in the early part of the chapter, is preparing our minds to realise that there is a wonderful potential thing coming?
JT Quite so; what immensity there is in the idea of man — I mean man in both sexes — for we are looking at it from the standpoint of Christ and the assembly.
[p. 31] We must look at it from the top. It is the supreme elevation that we get in the New Testament, that we are dealing with now; the assembly coming down out of heaven. What an immense thought it is! There are incidental things, but it is Christ and the assembly that the Spirit of God has in His mind in this chapter.
ANW Would you say why the woman in chapter 2 is foreshadowed as a female in chapter 1? She is created — “male and female created he them”. Is that different from being taken out of the man in chapter 2?
JT Well, the truth stands in relation to the whole system of creation in chapter 1; the two features were there in the word “Man” — male and female. In chapter 2, you have an immense environment that we do not get in chapter 1. We get man introduced as formed out of the earth; not created, but formed, and what he was to be. He was placed in Eden to dress and guard it, and these rivers are seen flowing out from there. He is already there, but not she, so that we do not have man fully yet: the thought in chapter 2 is fullness — especially Adam’s fulness. There are other fulnesses suggested, but the great thought is Adam’s fulness. The assembly is Christ’s fulness; that is, it is out of Him. It is the working out of what is there already.
WFK Does the river refer to ministry?
JT Well, ministry would be included in it, but it is more than that, I think; it is the Spirit as producing things; gold, and bdellium, and onyx stones. These are only samples to keep our minds set on what God has in His mind in this wonderful chapter of Jehovah Elohim. Remember, it is that compound name that is before us — God under that designation!
CAM We often refer to the assembly as having its origin in the death of Christ, the deep sleep, but when Christ came into manhood there was that in His own glorious Person great enough to form the assembly.
JT Yes; He had it in mind. Ephesians 5 says He gave Himself for it. And then God “gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (chapter 1: 22, 23). “Fulness” is the governing word, I think, because fulness means what comes out of a person or thing, already there potentially; that is what the assembly is — it is “of Christ”. It is out of Christ, as having died and risen; not what He was here below, but what He is now.
WGT The incoming of the woman is somewhat clothed in mystery here; we are just told that she was taken out of man and presented by God to Adam.
JT What she is to be is to be named by him, to bring out his wonderful intelligence; he recognises her as of himself and he uses here a new word to designate her. There is no suggestion that God told him to use it; it is to bring out what Adam was; what resourceful intelligence there was in him. Why should he introduce a new word for man; not Adam, but Ish, another word altogether? We are now in the world of individualities, of personalities; not simply the word of creatures, as in chapter 1, but a world of persons, and persons with affections, with social feelings; that is what we ought to get into our minds, that the Lord Jesus has inaugurated such a world.
RWS What was taken out of Adam was part of his framework, was it not?
JT How did he know it? “This time ...”, he says. He saw her coming; how delightful it must have been to him as he stood in the presence of a person like himself, that he had never seen before; indeed, could not have seen before! She was only in God’s mind before, but now she is there in a concrete form, and Adam names her; gives her a new name, and he gives a reason for it.
AR When we see Eve we see Adam; when we see the saints, as formed of God, we see Christ.
JT That is the truth; the saints have taken on His character; He says to Saul, Why dost thou persecute Me? The saints are His body — Himself, in that sense.
[p. 33] I speak of Christ and the assembly, the apostle says: What a realm we are in! What a realm of intelligence; not only intelligence, but affection. When Adam named the cow or sheep there was no question of affection; it was simply intelligence. Now it is intelligence and affection; Adam has a person that he can love; that he can admire; that is the point. We are in a world of personalities now, that is to be expanded infinitely, you might say, but we begin with this. What feelings must have been in Adam’s heart as the woman stood before him, and what hers must have been!
ANW It does not say that she, like the animals, was brought to him to be named. The animals were brought to him to see what he would call them, but we read in verse 22, “And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man”, leaving her, evidently, to answer to his affections as well as to challenge his intelligence.
JT There is more in it than merely two creatures, or that he should name her as he named the cow; it is more than that. God is dealing not only with Adam’s intelligence, but with his affections. Think of the effect it must have had upon him, because his inward feelings would be affected, and God intended that.
WB-w Perhaps you will mention what you have in mind as to Ish.
JT “And Man said, This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man” (verse 23). Those who have the New Translation will see that the word translated “woman” is “Ishshah”; and then Adam goes on to say, “... because this was taken out of a man”, which here is the word “Ish”. The word is, as we have been remarking, entirely new in the vocabulary; Adam has brought it in and what does it mean? Does it not allude to his affections, that his whole being is affected; that now it is a creature that is like himself that he can admire, and she can admire him? And so, we can [p. 34] be companionable to one another. It is the word used for husband later.
CAM “This time it is bone of my bones” — when was that, historically? Would you put it in John 20?
JT Yes. I think that when the Lord breathed into the disciples they would be in His mind in this way. He showed to them His hands and side: the side would imply the origin of the assembly, corresponding to Adam’s rib.
Rem This is very interesting. I have noticed in this chapter that it says, “out of the ground Jehovah Elohim made every tree grow ...” (verse 9); and “A river went out of Eden” (verse 10); and then in verse 19, “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal”; and then in verse 23, “out of a man”, which is a climax.
JT Very good — a totally new matter now, and I believe Adam, in naming her, is entering into the understanding of personality; he could not converse, nor commune with the lower creatures, but here is a person like himself. Applying that to Christ and the assembly, we see that He has genuine affection for us and we have genuine affection for Him. Canticles may be taken as the expansion of this — what Christ is to the assembly, or Israel, and what we are to Him. We are now in the realm of reciprocated intelligent affection.
AC Verse 24 would come as a climax: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”.
JT Just so; therefore shall a man leave his father and mother; the therefore is an allusion to what we have been speaking of, that there are two persons there with mutual affection flowing from admiration, and that is what the Canticles open up to us.
FSC Does the thought of helpmate apply to the assembly? You were speaking about affection [p. 35] and I was wondering if the thought of helpmate enters into that.
JT I think what underlies the typical truth here is the affinity between these two beings. They are not simply creatures; they are beings. It is a question of personality, and we see what they are capable of being to one another, and how Adam understands that. There were no fathers and mothers yet, so this “therefore” looks forward in the history of the human race. It refers to Christ leaving Israel, and being united to His wife, the assembly, so that there is one flesh.
RTM And is that connected with the new word? You were speaking of the word Ish.
JT It is; it is the word that enters into the social, or the affection or family side. Adam represents the race, but Ish and Ishshah are names for man and woman that denote their mutual suitability to each other, and all that which the word opens up on these lines.
ANW Adam seems to be linked with the dominion side in chapter 1, and Ish is on the family, or marital side in chapter 2.
JT It is remarkable. God does not here use the word Ish; God uses the word Adam, but Adam uses the word ‘Ish’. I think the Spirit of God would tell us in this that Adam’s affections are brought into play. He sees a new world of mutual affection in relation to the woman.
RTM Is that why the word is used for husband later on?
JT Quite so; it governs the marital relation.
CAM Do you think that the reference to a man leaving his father and mother can be read into the expression, “Touch me not”, in John 20? Another world of things — a heavenly world — was coming in.
JT I think it would agree with it. John 20 fills out what we are saying; what our relations with Christ are. They are heavenly. “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father” (verse 17), means that our relations [p. 36] with Him would be heavenly. His word to Mary Magdalene is the germ of the relationship of the assembly. He adjusted her, and she calls him Rabboni, meaning that He was her Teacher. That is for us, as in the last days. John stresses learning from the Lord, and that is the point at this time, to get some further thought of Christ and the assembly.
AR Would what you are stressing as regards Christ and the assembly also include our relationships with one another, as understanding that our links are heavenly? So the relationship you are speaking of, would be on a very high level.
JT Yes; mere natural things are shut out. It is a question of clothing one another with heavenly thoughts, and hence the message to Mary was sent before the Lord entered into the company. The message was, “go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God”, John 20: 17. And Mary went and told the disciples these things, and that she had seen the Lord. She carried the whole thought into the company, and He comes in after that, and they are equal to the visitation.
AR Is that why He stands in the midst in John 20? There is nothing to rebuke, as if what He has taken on in His own is heavenly, not related to Israel.
JT Yes, and not only that, but according to John’s report. He came, meaning that He was calculating in all this. In Luke, He simply stands in their midst, but in John He came and stood in the midst, implying that He was calculating beforehand.
ARC The apostle Paul, in developing this great truth of the assembly in Ephesians 5, speaks of Genesis 2.
JT He alludes to this scripture. We have therefore a good warrant for saying the Holy Spirit had Christ and the assembly in mind in these [p. 37] verses.
CN Would you say a word on verse 18? “It is not good that Man should be alone”.
JT That shows what premeditation entered into the happenings of this chapter. When God said, “Let us make man in our image” (chapter 1: 26), we have no thought like this at all. No doubt there was the need in God’s heart to have a creature like Adam to represent Him here, to be His image and His likeness, but now it is a question of man’s loneliness and God taking account of that. I do not know how long it was from the time that Adam was actually created out of the earth and Eve’s formation, but it could only be a matter of hours, because it was all on the sixth day, but still, if it were only hours, Adam had the experience of being alone, and God sympathises with him as in it. He calculated that it would be necessary to make some one like him. It is touching.
ABP In that connection, would you say that God was behind Mary’s being at the sepulchre? The Lord Jesus seeing Mary there, would be something like Adam seeing the woman brought to him and naming her Ishshah.
JT I think it would; I think the conversation between Him and Mary takes on the most extraordinary character and you cannot but see that He had in His mind to allure her out of her Jewish setting as the Canticles suggest. And finally, Mary says, “Rabboni”, which implies that He had been teaching her. That is so important in assembly formation; that is, to be divinely taught.
ABP And would God’s consideration for Christ be seen, too, in her being there early in the morning? He brought the woman to Adam, and I was wondering if God was not behind her being there at that time, to meet a need in the heart of Christ.
JT Well, John 20 is so very like this chapter because it begins with the glory of the Father; Paul tells us that the Lord Jesus was raised by the glory of the Father, so [p. 38] that we may say the first day of the week was inaugurated by the Father. How long was that before Mary was there? In the order of one, two, three, the Father was there first. But it was very early in the morning when she came. It was yet dark, so that she was very near the glory.
JS What marked her was affection?
JT Well, that is what comes out. She was very cloudy, much more so than we are apt to think if we have not looked into the matter. But affection was there and she came in, you might say, as the glory had just been there, and she shared that atmosphere, so to speak, and ran. She is remarkable in this sense — the hind of the morning, for this is a feminine thought; it is the agility that marked her affection, although she was cloudy.
RWS Would you enlarge on verse 22? — “And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man”.
JT Well, I think one thing that should be said is that in this, ‘Jehovah Elohim’ is personal. It is God in covenant, not now with the earth, but with Adam; not that the word ‘covenant’ is there, but He is dealing with man on personal lines; that is, with His great creature, and I think that is why you have this term ‘Jehovah Elohim’ — a compound title. He is dealing with the very greatest things, from His own standpoint. It is fulness, and the introduction of personalities with whom He Himself can commune, and who can commune with one another. The next chapter shows that God came into the garden and He was heard walking — His voice was heard walking in the garden; that means, I think, that He is coming into this personal state of things; He is going to have part in this personal state of things, which is the basis of all peace-offerings; that God can have part in our occasions of joy. Jehovah Elohim taking this rib and closing up the part implies mystery; you cannot look at any man and say, That is [p. 39] where the rib came out. God has not left it like that; His own hand closed it up. It is a mystery, but a wonderful person has come out, like Adam, and fit to be his counterpart and companion. That refers to Christ and the assembly; and when you look on it from that point of view you can see what a time it was for Jehovah Himself — Jehovah Elohim.
WGT Is what you said about covenant implied in verse 18? God evidently made a contract.
JT Well, He did, in His heart. It says, “And Jehovah Elohim said, It is not good that Man should be alone; I will make ...” — that, you might say, is a covenant, although it does not say He said it to Adam, but it is very much like the promises of life. In both 2 Timothy and Titus we have the promise of life. To whom did He promise? It is really a matter of His own heart, and so is this. It is the outcome of His own consideration for us, but it is a fixed matter.
RTM Why is it that before the woman is formed the commandment that the man should not eat of the tree of good and evil is given?
JT That is how it is stated here. When these things actually took place historically, it is not easy to say. That command might have been given to man after; we cannot be sure. We can be sure of one thing, that the formation of woman was on the same day as the formation of man — “in the day when they were created”, Genesis 5: 2.
ANW Does that not confirm what we have had before us, that in man the responsible side is stressed; and woman, the subjective side?
JT That is true. As it stands here, you would assume the command was given before the woman was made, but you cannot be sure of it. It is simply a fact stated with other facts put down in this chapter.
FHL Would you say a word about the Euphrates?
JT There is nothing special said of it here. Evidently it is mentioned as well known. In its prophetic setting [p. 40] it is the boundary between the East and the West in Asia. The Euphrates is the dividing line, spiritually anyway. Four angels are said to be bound there, and when loosed, they lead an immense Asiatic army against the western empire. So from the standpoint of prophecy in the book of Revelation the kings of the East came from beyond the Euphrates. The Euphrates was the eastern limit of Israel’s territory.
Rem The gifts in Ephesians 4 are under four heads.
JT Yes; “Some apostles and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers” (verse 11). Shepherds and teachers are one — those four go together, for the securing of the assembly; “for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to the work of the ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ” (verse 12). So that this matter of the Euphrates is worth considering. The ways of God generally are west of that river, but they are going to turn that way presently; they are going toward the East presently, but in the meantime, God is occupied with Christ and the assembly, and whatever is happening must subserve that.
FSC Was Abraham taken out from the region of the Euphrates?
JT Yes. The name ‘Hebrew’ probably refers to that; that he came over from across the river. But you can see the drift towards the West. Some of us have been greatly impressed by the Pacific — the feeling that when you reach it you are at the extreme West. God has reached the extreme West in securing the material for the assembly.
TD Psalm 72 speaks of Christ’s dominion being from the river unto the ends of the earth; that would give scope to it, would it not?
JT Yes, that is right; that would allude to the river Euphrates.
AR What you say about the movement westward would include the work of God in this [p. 41] country?
JT Just so; it has been opened up recently and God is operating in it, which is very touching, that He has followed the movements of peoples to the western hemisphere — mainly from Europe. God is following it up and is taking out His elect. Wherever they are, He will get them.
WB-w According to what you have said, the last section of the chapter seems to be on a higher level than the garden and the river — the man, in living affection with his wife would be a higher connection.
JT Yes, but the river points to the Spirit; the ideas are not detached. The four heads would imply activities of the Spirit universally to take out the assembly. I think that is what is in mind; so that you can connect the idea of Christ and the assembly with the whole chapter in that sense. The chapter culminates in the union of Christ and the assembly.
WB-w Is that while we are down here?
JT Well, what we are here and what we shall be forever, for we shall always be united to Christ. God gave Him to be Head over all things to the assembly.