CHRIST AND THE ASSEMBLY IN MARITAL RELATIONS

^[p. 36] CHRIST AND THE ASSEMBLY IN MARITAL RELATIONS

Exodus 2: 15 - 22; Exodus 18: 19 - 12

JT The word, dear brethren, is Christ and the assembly, but in the sense of His marital relations. These take varied forms in the types, seven at least being in mind, so that there is variety, and now it is thought that we should look at Moses as a type of Christ in His marital relations; we should therefore read from Exodus.

The teaching as to the assembly is linked up typically in large measure by the histories of the types of Christ in His marital relations. As He is considered thus, the feminine types of the assembly found in the Old Testament will, of course, come under review. This is not the thought now, but simply to think of Moses in this relation; but in order to understand Moses rightly in this sense, it is needful to link on the earlier types so that we may see the order entering into them, and how Christ is seen in His varied perfections as the Husband, as we may say, of the assembly. Firstly, Adam brings before us intelligence, for it is in connection with his intelligence that Eve is brought in. He had named the animals, Jehovah bringing them to Adam to see what he would call them. Now as the woman is brought to him, the remarks he makes can be transferred to the assembly: “This time”, he says, alluding to the other times when he gave names, “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”. There is intelligence in the naming.

Then in Isaac, among many other things there is the feature of leisure which marks him as Rebecca draws near. He is seen coming from the well Lahai-roi — ^[p. 37] indeed, it is a matter of coming and going, as if that well was in his mind, pointing to the Spirit in view of all that should follow. He is also seen meditating in the field, and then he sees camels coming, alluding to the power by which she was carried, anti-typically the power of the Holy Spirit by which we are carried to Christ. In a later chapter Isaac is seen dallying with Rebecca, all pointing to the idea of leisure in Christ’s relations with the assembly.

Then Joseph, who is also a type of Christ in these matters, is seen as a man of great affairs, as married. According to Deuteronomy 24: 5 a man who took a wife was allowed a year off, which means that the Lord now, instead of ruling the nations and administering publicly, is occupied with the assembly according to His love for it, for Christ loved the assembly, we are told; but Joseph is a man of great affairs, and he is made head of everything in Egypt except Pharaoh himself. So that the Lord is now to be understood in His marital relations as having great matters on hand, and successfully administering everything. If he had to meet his brothers, particularly Benjamin, it is at noon, as it were, lunch-time.

Now, as remarked, we are linking up Moses with these types, that we may see in him what feature of Christ is coming out at the present time; and it is to be noted that Zipporah comes in first. Moses also is seen in relation to a well as she comes into view.

Ques What great feature does Zipporah set forth?

JT It is what she does not set forth in a sense that has to come before us, because there is very little of the spouse in her, and that is to bring out what there is at the moment for Christ. The facts are that Zipporah made little or nothing of Moses; she left him outside, and he is seen as engaged with her father’s sheep. The idea of ‘in-laws’ comes into evidence at once: “And Moses tended the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian”,

^[p. 38] chapter 3: 1. While he is neglected by the one who became his spouse — for she did not bring him in, but left him outside — he is ready to look after her father’s flock; in fact, he helped her and her sisters. It is said in chapter 2: 16, “And the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs, to water their father’s flock. And the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses rose and helped them, and watered their flock. And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, Why are ye come so soon today? And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water abundantly for us, and watered the flock. And he said to his daughters, And where is he? why then have ye left the man behind? Call him, that he may eat bread”. That is what we get here; Zipporah comes into view in relation to these facts. Then in chapter 3 it is said that “Moses tended the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock behind the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God — to Horeb”; that is, we have him administering in relation to his father-in-law’s flock. Then in chapter 18 we read: “And Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done to Moses, and to Israel his people; that Jehovah had brought Israel out of Egypt. And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her back, and her two sons”. So that now we are in the midst of facts that relate to Moses’ marital life, Moses’ family life, and we have to see where these typical facts come in at the present time that is, whether the brethren are really in them, and we shall see as we proceed that ultimately the main thought is the testimony of God. Zipporah was little concerned about it; we hardly get anything worth speaking of in that sense with her; and it is a question of our seeing now whether the assembly appears ^[p. 39] in the circumstances as bound up with the testimony, engaged with it, and why the ‘in-law’ idea is in such evidence, instead of grace and love which are the great characteristics of this dispensation. It is a legal situation. Moses shines in it, and so does Jethro, but the wife hardly at all; and that, of course, would indicate that we are not much in the understanding of Christ and the assembly, the assembly viewed in the feminine way.

AWGT Are you suggesting that Zipporah represents what the assembly has been in her public history as not making use of Christ in His administrative ability?

JT That is exactly what is in mind; it is a question of where we are, viewed as the spouse of Christ, who, as we know, is engaged with the testimony of God. It is a continual matter with Him, and there are many, too, who are continually ministering the truth, preaching the word; but the question is how much is coming into evidence of the feminine thought of the assembly, for the primary thought is Christ and the assembly; the feminine feature is to be seen in her for ever, for she comes down as a bride adorned for her husband.

JMcK Would the word in Romans 7: 1: “Are ye ignorant, brethren”, be a similar kind of challenge as to whether they were aware of the potentialities and possibilities of being to Another so as to bring forth fruit to God?

JT Just so; therefore the Roman position comes up, as we shall see — more particularly the Corinthian position; but the Roman position comes up, and we have to infer what the feminine truth is in the epistle to the Romans. It is said that we are “to be to another” — which is a suggestion of it — “in order that we might bear fruit to God”. But the best example is Phoebe: she is a concrete example of the feminine side of the assembly. Hence it is necessary ^[p. 40] to look at the reference in chapter 16: “But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea; that ye may receive her in the Lord worthily of saints, and that ye may assist her in whatever matter she has need of you; for she also has been a helper of many, and of myself”. Then we have Priscilla, another example, but she is linked up intimately with her husband. Phoebe is the outstanding feminine character in Romans, and her characteristics are not in evidence in Zipporah.

Ques Have you in mind the expression, “For she also has been a helper of many, and of myself”? And do you think Zipporah was lacking there?

JT Those are the facts; and yet the testimony is in view, and Moses is pre-eminently in view in the types as bound up with the testimony of God.

Ques You speak of the testimony of God with reference to Moses: have you in mind what immediately follows in regard of the law?

JT The whole of his ministry is in mind, I would say. We get his history from childhood, from the outset right to the very minute of his death. He is seen bound up with the testimony of God, and showing how love regards heaven and the inhabitants of heaven, so to speak; for the territory of the twelve tribes is taken account of by Jehovah on mount Pisgah according to the names of the tribes as they are seen there. That is love as the great end of administration: we become absorbed with the saints as Christ is, according to His love for them, and ministry can only be valued rightly, however effective and able we may be, as it is actuated by love. You do not see that in Zipporah.

Ques You would say that there is no lack on Moses’ side?

JT See how outstanding he is as identified with the testimony; and no doubt it runs down in the ^[p. 41] history of the assembly, marred by the public history, as has been alluded to; for there has been very little from apostolic days down to our own times.

Rem The sons are born.

JT Well, the sons are there, but the love seems lacking. Zipporah has little or nothing to say about her sons; of course, they are there.

Ques Would it be right to say that Zipporah really withstood Moses in regard of the matter of the inn and circumcision?

JT She was against him. That is one of the most remarkable things in Scripture: “Jehovah came upon him, and sought to slay him”. The bearing of that is on Zipporah, because then she recognised that he was a bloody husband — though she had reproach in that; it was needful that it should be understood that blood had to flow in the idea of the circumcision; it looks on to the circumcision of Christ.

Ques Does that show how in the church’s history there has been opposition to Him in regard of the church?

JT That is the idea. What opposition there has been in that which has the place of the assembly right up to the very end! But there is recovery in the book of Revelation in Philadelphia. There was love before in Ephesus, and so on, but the recovery is in Philadelphia — real affection and care for Christ seen in care and love for the saints.

Ques Is Moses’ great concern in Exodus 2 that the flock should be watered?

JT That is one of the first things we get, showing that he was well worthy of the affection of Zipporah; but there was very little, as we see by comparing her with what is said of the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31, because the assembly is seen femininely in that chapter. “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land” (verse 23),

^[p. 42] and the household is cared for in every way; so that love is the great point. If the saints are to be with the Lord in the testimony, it is a question of love. At Corinth it was hardly there at all, but it was there: “Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved”, the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 12:15, which is a very sorrowful thing; but the work of God was there, and that is, of course, true in this type; there was something there. Zipporah certainly looked after the two sons to some extent. But then we have the ‘in-law’ — the legal position — in her father and Moses’ father-in-law. He was loyal to a point, and even Aaron comes with Moses to eat bread with him; that is, there are good relations in a legal sense; but, alas, the legal position is giving way now, because the Scriptures are being given up, and the testimony is being given up by that which should be the assembly.

AWGT You are thinking that Moses discerned the greatest defection on the part of his spouse, and that those things are written as types of us? The great thing is that we should not fail at the end in the affection that is due to Christ, and that works out in the care of the saints.

JT Exactly, it is a question of love: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matthew 25: 40); it is a question of the feminine side being worked out in that sense.

Rem Moses says, in naming his second son, “God is my help”. He had not really got help from Zipporah. Phoebe was a helper.

JT Very good; whatever there was in her case was bound up with her father. We should recognise the legal position, of course. Brethren and young people recognise the lordship of Christ over them, in a formal way, it may be, but at any rate it is recognised. We are glad of that, of course, where we see ^[p. 43] it; but then, where is the love? “Where is he? why then have ye left the man behind?” Jethro enquires in chapter 2. Moses had helped Jethro’s daughters, but they had not brought him in. That is the position.

Ques Is that how Jethro shines as one who is concerned? He enquired for Moses, as to why he was left out.

JT That is it exactly; it is the legal position, the ‘in-law’ position. That is, parents, brothers and sisters may serve, but the persons who are the objects of the service are more or less indifferent. That is really the position.

JMcK Even in chapter 18 it is not Zipporah who makes the move.

JT It is the father-in-law: “Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done to Moses, and to Israel his people; that Jehovah had brought Israel out of Egypt. And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her back”. Her father did the work. It seems to be intentional that what should be there with Zipporah is not there, and the question therefore is whether this applies at the present moment, whether in the case of the young people, the ‘in-laws’ — the father, mother, grandfather, brother, sister — are not relied upon instead of the persons who are the direct objects of the interest and service; they may be indifferent.

Ques Is the suggestion that Moses is feeling all this, and his affections are not being satisfied, because little can be said about that?

JT Very often it is that wives turn out that way, for husbands need to be disciplined. No doubt Moses was disciplined through Zipporah. Then he had another wife with whom we are not now dealing, and she comes under the same head, because she was just a Cushite. There is nothing on her side to bring ^[p. 44] out the true thought of the assembly; and the question is how that applies to us, and whether we are meeting the absence of feminine qualities in the marital relation spiritually.

JAP What about the two sons: is there not a measure of fruitfulness?

JT Just so; Moses noted that. The word is: “Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her back, and her two sons, of whom the name of the one was Gershom — for he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign land — and the name of the other, Eliezer — For the God of my father has been my help, and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”. That is what the two sons would mean in the house every time Moses looked at them. I apply the thought at the present time: What do our young people denote? What comes before us as we see them? Here Moses carried the thought in his heart; it was his own experience with God of what God had been to him. That is good enough, so far as it goes, but what does it mean to the two sons?

AJG Do you think that the name of the first son possibly suggests that Moses felt the lack of sympathy, and the name of the second expresses the feeling that notwithstanding that as a general condition, God was helping?

JT That is a helpful way of putting it. God is helping notwithstanding whatever may be in the mother or the sons.

AJG Would it fit in with what you referred to as ‘a little strength’ in Philadelphia? Notwithstanding the general condition of little affection for Christ in assembly relations, there is something which God has wrought among the saints in that relation?

JT I would go with that thoroughly. God is helping; that is one of the most encouraging things wherever you go, though grievous things have to be ^[p. 45] recorded, yet notwithstanding the general condition, God is working, and the word will be finally, “What hath God wrought!” (Numbers 23: 23). God has his man; if Zipporah is failing, he is not failing; I mean, in general Moses is the outstanding man as representing the testimony of God.

Ques Why had Moses sent her back? To bring her into evidence?

JT I suppose the conflict required it; it is somewhat obscure. What the scripture says is: “After he had sent her back”; it may be that it was in the sense of protection.

Rem It is noticeable that the kiss is between Moses and Jethro.

JT Just so; that is well to notice. I think if we pay attention to what has been already said as to the previous types of Christ in general, we shall get help by contrast in this case, because we learn the truth by contrast very often, and the contrast between Zipporah and Rebecca, for instance, is very striking.

Rem You mean that we want to have the positive before us so as to catch up something.

JT Just so. It is what you do not find in her that helps. It is negative, but because you have the positive in the previous types, you can seize the idea and work it out. We can work out the idea now, for it applies to us as much as in her case.

Ques You were referring to Eve as a type of the assembly in Genesis 2; is there a link with Ephesians 1: 23, “The fulness of him who fills all in all”, which means that nothing is lacking?

JT That is the idea; so Adam has no complaint at first; he says, “This time ...” meaning that he has remembrance of what had happened before. There was always a void in regard of his affections, but he remembered what happened; God had suggested his naming the creatures, and he named them,

^[p. 46] and God did not alter what names he gave them. Now when he comes to this wonderful creature, he says, “This time ...” You can see that his heart is full; you can see the idea of a great exclamation mark in his remarks. So the idea of what Eve was is carried down into the Ephesian epistle by Paul. What we find in Zipporah is almost entirely negative. Well, is it so? Where is that now? Is it not somewhat the situation today, that there is a great negativeness as to the feminine side in relation to the affections that belong to Christ in His rights over us?

JMcK Is it striking that the Lord found the fullest sympathy in the house of a woman l I was thinking of the way the most precious features of the Lord’s ministry developed in the house of a woman, as indicating the sympathy and spiritual responsiveness in the house of Martha.

JT Quite so. Of course, Mary is more than Martha; Mary is the feminine side in that position; we are told in Luke 10 that she sat at Jesus’ feet and was listening to His word. That is what appealed to His heart. I believe that the prayer in the next chapter is to suggest that He did not find that in Martha: He needed to pray for her, for it immediately follows, “He was in a certain place praying”, and the whole matter of priestly power and service is worked out from that in Luke. “As he was in a certain place praying, when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray”, meaning that he had right feeling; he was not selfish; he would not make much of anything that he might say in ministry; he would make much of what someone else said; he would rather another said it. So the Lord says immediately, “When ye pray, say, Father”, and He runs on to the great point of the gift of the Holy Spirit on the principle of asking: “How much rather shall the Father who is of heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

(^[p. 47] chapter 11: 13). That is what I am sure is needed at present more and more: it is the teaching of the Lord as to the service of God, as to priestly power. So we have three cases in Luke worked out of that thought, not simply types, but actual cases of priestly power. The first is Elizabeth who recognised Mary spiritually, and the unborn babe recognised the voice of Mary, showing that the priestly element was there. Then Mary herself proceeds to answer what Elizabeth said, and shows how priestly she is. Elizabeth had said of her, “Blessed is she that has believed”: it is not a question of ‘in-law’, but of real faith, for the dispensation of God is in faith, not in law, and the love that flows out of faith. So Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”, and as she continues, she shows how priestly she is. Then there is Zacharias; although he had been dumb in the discipline of God for nine months, he is ready to officiate as a true priest, not a legal priest, an ‘in-law’ — he had been that, and became dumb on that account through discipline — but now he is ready to praise the Lord immediately. His thought is Christ, not John the baptist. John the baptist was just born, and the neighbours and the ‘in-laws’, so to speak, say that he should be called Zacharias. Elizabeth says, No: she is a real priest. Then they say, Let us ask his father; and he asked for a writing table, and wrote, “His name is John”, and they marvelled at it; and he began his service as priest immediately. That is the point, dear brethren: it is the service of praise; because the great shortage is in priests, not exactly in preachers; Luke brings out this in a concrete way, not simply in a typical way; the real persons are there who can serve and praise God.

Ques Your thought is that Jesus is not left outside now, but is brought in on that line?

^[p. 48] JT Very good; Zipporah had left Moses outside.

Rem There were good conditions on the feminine side when the testimony came to Europe.

JT Just so; Lydia is another example of the feminine side of the assembly.

Rem Your exercise is that it may be maintained.

JT That where the shortage is, it may be furnished.

Ques Would the service, seen in 1 and 2 Corinthians, of the fellow helpers — as being under God, I suppose, be calculated to bring in these features, the lack of which you are emphasising? Bearing on what our brother Mr. G. said as to God helping us, it is to be seen that there are others, thank God, in that service as well.

JT That is a good idea. So in Philippians Paul speaks of the women as having helped.

Rem I was thinking particularly of the legal side in Zipporah, seen also in the Corinthian saints.

JT I believe she is a type of the Corinthian position, and the matter was met in the second Corinthian epistle. Some of us have been speaking today of ‘second’ things, such as plagues that were repeated, and then second epistles. The second epistle rectifies, such as Peter’s, and Paul’s to the Corinthians certainly meets the situation. The apostle was ready to meet the situation fully in the sense of discipline when their obedience was fulfilled (2 Corinthians 10: 6); that is to say, as we are subject, the Lord will come in and rectify everything.

AJG How striking it is that in the second epistle Paul says, “I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ”, as though he is touching the real secret of recovery.

JT That is very good; I was thinking of that this very day: “I have espoused you ...”; he does not go so far as to say she is the bride. John the ^[p. 49] baptist speaks of the bride in the abstract: “He that has the bride is the bridegroom” (John 3: 29); he does not say who the bride is, but Paul comes near it in saying, “I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ”; it is his action, showing how full the great minister was of the love of Christ for the assembly, and how he would furnish what He loved.

AWGT Does not what is seen in the ministers in the way of the sufferings and the feelings in which the ministry was carried on, bring in the ministry which brings about the full recovery of the Corinthian position in that second epistle?

JT Just so, no doubt through the new covenant being brought in, connected in the second epistle with the ministry of Paul — “ministers of the new covenant”, he says (chapter 3: 6), “not of letter” — not of the ‘in-law’ thought — but the real thing. The reality of the thing is in mind, and that is what is before us, because we are not living in the time of law but of grace; and it is important to be equal to the moment in which we are, which is not the dispensation of law but of grace. Hence way is made for love. I believe the first letter to the Corinthians is as if the apostle hung up a card on the wall because that was all there was. It was just a picture; therefore the idea of love is in the abstract in chapter 13 of the first epistle; but he is coming near it in the second epistle. So when his brother Titus arrives with good news of the Corinthian saints, he is cheered. That is the idea; the ministers are thoroughly in the thing. They are thinking of the void there is at the present time as regards feminine feelings towards Christ.

Ques Is there not often a difficulty at the Supper in realising the feminine position? But if the feminine side and the enjoyment of it are touched, it leads to ^[p. 50] priesthood?

JT That is what I was thinking. The examples we get in Luke are very striking.

Rem Moses would have appreciated the full affection of Zipporah.

JT No doubt; he is there at the very outset. Why was he so ready to help the women, and to help them so bountifully? Yet they were not up to it.

Ques Was there a lack of affection with the Galatian saints, the apostle Paul feeling it so much? “Ye did run well”, he says, Galatians 5: 7.

JT Just so; that is another phase that could easily be worked into what we are saying, because it brings up the question of legality. It may serve us, but at the time of the Galatian epistle the apostle had to return to pure grace in types; Sarah is the type, she is our mother: “Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother”, chapter 4: 26. We are coming to that through the principles set out in Philadelphia — the question of “new Jerusalem” and what is written on the overcomer. It is the feminine side, and so Revelation 21 begins with “new Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”. There is nothing about administration there, but from verse 9 onwards that chapter is full of the idea of administration, which is a question of love active in wisdom, knowing what to do, and doing it in love.

Ques Would you say what position Rebecca holds in relation to Isaac?

JT What is seen is the way she answers the servant, because it is a question, not of Eliezer, but of the eldest servant of Abraham’s house who is over all that he has. That is the person before whom Rebecca is shining. It is said that he wondered at her, she moving as a type of the assembly, showing how thoroughly the feminine idea was there; how ^[p. 51] practical it is, too; she undertook to water even the camels.

RGB Does this particularly test us in our day-today movements in our local settings as seeking to care for the testimony of God?

JT We have our care meetings, of course; the very name means that we have care for the brethren, but it has to be seen not only in the care meeting — in the words — for often those who say most are not the ones who look after the saints. It is a question of persons who care for them, with genuine feeling how they get on. So the eldest servant in the house of Abraham prayed, and then he himself marvels: everything happens according to his prayer, but he wonders at her. We shall see it presently when the Lord takes the assembly up: it will all be there, for He would not take us up otherwise, and we must understand how it can be in the abstract sense, and how it will come out in the result.

Rem We should like to have the secret of that in our souls.

JT What have you to say about having it yourself?

Rem What a joy it is to have His approval in that way.

JT “She hath done what she could” (Mark 14: 8); that is perhaps the best expression of it. That referred to Mary of Bethany.

Rem What Moses did, Rebecca did; Moses watered the flock, and Rebecca watered the camels.

JT Look at what she proposed to do! There was no sham with her. Think of the amount of water ten camels would need, but she undertook to supply it, and said also that there was plenty of provender for them, showing how broad and lavish her thoughts were, how womanly she was, how capable of ruling the house in the absence of her husband, for that is the position as brought before us in Proverbs 31: “Her husband is known in the gates”.

Rem It all shows up the poverty set forth in Zipporah.

JT The poverty is like the picture on the wall. The wife is there, but that is all you can say. There is more needed really than serving meals for the brethren; the feminine side must work out in more than that.

AJG In referring to the servant’s wonderment at Rebecca, do you mean that the more we are in the Spirit’s appreciation of the assembly, the more we shall be incited to serve the saints in love?

JT Just so; we are thankful, of course, for the service of the sisters in connection with week-end meetings and the like; but then Rebecca means more than that: it is spiritual service that is needed.

Rem Rebecca made haste to do these things.

JT Just so: “The king’s business required haste”, 1 Samuel 21: 8.

AWGT Are you thinking of general service, or spiritual activity in the service of God?

JT That is the whole point, the other is incidental. We shall not need food, clothing or the like presently; it is a matter of what is being built up in our souls by example and by effort. So the word in Acts 1 is: “All that Jesus began both to do and teach”, the doing is first and then teaching. So the actual servants, those who are ministering on the platform, serve well by doing first, then teaching. The idea is that what I teach I am doing before I present it in the way of doctrine or teaching; I am accustomed to do it.

JAP You mean that it is carried out practically?

JT It is the idea of doing. In the second treatise by Luke this is how the Lord is brought in: “All that Jesus began both to do and teach”: that refers to what is in the gospel of Luke, what He did ^[p. 53] and what He taught. So the levitical position is in mind in the teaching. John makes much of teaching as well as Luke; but the teaching is exemplified in the doing: that is the thing.

Ques Would Ezra be a fine example of that? He “prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach”, Ezra 7: 10.

JT Ezra was a priest, of course, and he taught, too.