1. The first is, the thought of the Beloved, one of the unique and rare references to Christ that comes into Paul's distinctive ministry;

2. then the Father of glory, another rare and distinctive reference to God. We have Christ in manhood, the exalted Man, in all the blessedness of what that manhood means and God as Father of glory standing related to Him.

   He is presented as operating in view of the heavenly side, in connection with the great resurrection act, in which His surpassing greatness and power are seen, and in view of our understanding the hope of His calling.

3. Then there is the unique reference in chapter 3 to the Father's Spirit, I think perhaps the Lord might help us to see the great importance of this expression, 'His Spirit' – the Father's Spirit.

• You will notice that we do not get the Spirit of sonship formally referred to in Ephesians; whilst sonship is there in all its richness, the Spirit is not alluded to, in these chapters, as the Spirit of sonship, although His presence is referred to, which would involve that as the earnest of our inheritance.

  He is referred to as the Spirit of sonship in the fundamental letters. Romans and Galatians; but when we come to the letter that deals with assembly formation in all its surpassing greatness and uniqueness in the universe of God, and when we come to what bears on the uniqueness of family relations in Ephesians we get the Father's Spirit referred to.

  We bear in mind also Matthew's reference to it, in the testimonial sphere.

In connection with these first few verses that we have begun with, F.E.R. long ago pointed out, able teacher such as he was, that there is no allusion to our responsibility in them;

• nevertheless, the height and the richness and dignity of our calling would affect us in the scene and path of responsibility here.

J.S.E. In order that we might settle in – as you have suggested – could we just have another word about the contrast between this epistle and that to the Hebrews?

S.McC. I think, as we generally know and understand, that it helps to see that Hebrews is an extricatory epistle, Ephesians is not.

• Colossians is almost on the line of what is extricatory, in that the saints were being affected by alien influences diverting them from the Head,

• but Ephesians and Romans are normal epistles, in which the truth is laid out with skill by the apostle.

• Hebrews is extricatory, having in mind the detachment of the saints from the earthly side, especially Jerusalem, with all that in their minds held such repute.

• It is also a wilderness epistle, so that while you get rays of divine majesty and greatness shining into the letter, the state of the saints is not normal, as we have in Ephesians, where the state of first love exists.

J.S.E. Would it be right to say that the fact that the Spirit approaches Hebrews by way of types, which must have had a beginning in time, makes it less than this, which refers to the saints in relation to what is beyond time? Would that be just, do you think?

S.McC. Yes, it is very interesting to see that we do not get the types formally referred to in Ephesians, nor the Old Testament scriptures quoted in the same way in the first part as we have in the epistle to the Hebrews. I think all that helps.

P.L. So that the word 'saints', and 'faithful in Christ Jesus', does not allude to faithfulness in the wilderness path, though of course that must ever be there, but trustworthiness in regard of the whole scope of the truth?

S.McC. That would be it. It is a question especially of the completeness of Paul's ministry which this letter involved; so that in verse 15 when he refers – we might anticipate that for the moment –

• to the faith in the Lord Jesus which is in them, it is not the faith exactly that is linked with the relief side in our acceptance of Him as Saviour;

• it is the quality that is linked with spiritual formation, it is the product of the work of God in the saints.

A.J.G. Has it significance in your mind that, in this exalted epistle, sonship is treated of before there is any mention of the assembly?

S.McC. I think it is of all moment to see that. You will recall that, in this very place in meetings some years back, that matter came up, and it seems to suggest the significance of the family side in Ephesians and impresses our hearts with what they have often been impressed with, that sonship involves what is greater than union. Would you go with that?

A.J.G. Why do you say that? Have you in mind that it is the pleasure of God that is primarily in view in sonship?

S.McC. Just so, although it is well to keep in mind the equality from a certain angle of the features of the truth, whether the brethren of Christ, or the bride and wife of Christ, or the sons.

• But sonship seems to have been a marvellously designed blessing by God in relation to men; so that even when we reach divine supremacy, and are before God, in all the majesty of God, we never lose sight of sonship.

H.C. Does it link up with J.T.'s remark that masculine love exceeded feminine love?

S.McC. That was what I had in mind in making the comparison, although, in another way, we must see the equal values of all the features of the truth as merging in that glorious expression which we hope to finish with, "the assembly in Christ Jesus".

G.R.C. Did not F.E.R. say that no one who has not some apprehension of the truth of sonship could ever merge in the body? So that from that standpoint it is essential that we should understand something of sonship before we can be of any service in the assembly.

S.McC. It is a very interesting thing, in the light in which you now refer to it, that sonship not only has to do with the fullest and greatest thoughts of God as to men, but it enters into the very elements of Christianity. It is one of the first things that is linked with the gospel.

G.R.C. That is what I was thinking. It is, in one way, one of the most basic truths and yet it goes to the very highest point.

A.B.P. Are you thinking of Galatians when you say that?

S.McC. That is just what I was thinking of, how the light of sonship is brought into Galatians. And then, reference is made to it in Romans.

G.R.C. So that the experience of sonship in Romans 8, coming to it experimentally, precedes the presentation of our bodies, with a view to the working out the truth of the one body in Christ.

S.McC. Just so. The skill of F.E.R.'s ability as a teacher, to set the truth in order in the minds of the saints, is remarkable. And he referred to the two things in Romans 8, which were essential as preceding the thought of the body.

• That is, the great place of the Spirit and also the matter of sonship, that you referred to. We must understand these two things in order to be rightly in our place in the body.

C.R.W. Is that why we have sonship mentioned so early in John's gospel?

S.McC. I suppose you allude to Christ? As you know, sonship is never formally alluded to in the saints in John's gospel. The only reference, and it is by implication, that we get to sonship in the saints in John's gospel is in chapter 20.

A.N.W. We have the thought of children.

S.McC. Yes, children of God. I am glad you referred to that because it links up with what our brother is referring to, that at the outset of John's gospel the family relationship in the saints is referred to, only it is not on the line of sonship; it is on the line of generation – the children of God.

A.B.P. How do you fit in the reference in John 4, about the son, the courtier's request that the Lord would come down and heal his son. I have wondered about that passage in relation to what you have been saying, that we do not have sonship in the saints set out directly in John's gospel.

S.McC. I think there are many ways in which we apply the thought. You take John 17 and other passages that could be referred to, we apply the thought in the interpretation of the truth.

• And we could do so in the passage you quote, for it is sonship on the moral line in the end of John 4, is it not? By indirect allusion, the saints would therefore come in.

• But what I was referring to is the fact that there is no direct allusion, in John's gospel, to sonship actually in the saints. It is all the sonship of Christ until John 20, when He says,
  • "my Father and your Father".

M.P.S. Would you distinguish for us a little more between the thought of children and of sons. Are we children by birth, and sons by adoption? There is sometimes found the thought in some minds that sonship is connected with maturity as from childhood, the suggestion being made that the son is a grown-up child.

S.McC. This remark that sonship is a grown-up child is wholly contrary to the truth in Christianity, because Galatians clearly shows that that is the great distinction in Christianity.

• We have the contrast in that epistle of the child under tutors and guardians; but now sonship has been brought in. We do not have the kindergarten in Christianity, we do not have childhood in Christianity in that sense, as under tutors and guardians; we come immediately to maturity in Christianity as receiving sonship.

W.R.M. In verse 4 here, we have the thought of holy and blameless. Does that link in any sense with the idea of generation, what the saints are in nature?

S.McC. I am sure it does, because, while the children of God allude to the saints generally, as presented in scripture, in the scene of contrariety, yet the children of God, as a family, are an eternal thought.

• It is an eternal idea, and the appellation "children of God" has the same status in the family that is linked with the appellation "sons of God". There is no inequality in status.

J.S.E. And apart from gradation, like 1 John 2, it is generally not diminutive, is it?

S.McC. No, it is not. It has the full thought in mind. We do have the diminutive thought when John is referring to stages of growth in his epistle, but not in the reference in John 1.

C.M.M. Would you say a word about adoption pertaining to Israel, and the many families in heaven and earth, named of the Father, and such expressions as

• "Jehovah, thou art our Father", in Isaiah 63: 8?

S.McC. I think it helps to see that in the universe of God, every family as named of the Father will be affected by sonship in some way or another.

• Whether it is angelic or men, whatever family we may think of, they will be affected by sonship in some degree or another,
  • but the assembly is unique. No other family in the universe of God has got the Spirit of sonship but the assembly.

G.R.C. So that in the case of the assembly, it is more than adoption in the sense in which we use the word generally, because we have the Spirit of sonship?

S.McC. It is. You could never get that on ordinary natural lines, could you?

G.R.C. Impossible.

R.G.B. Does the thought of character enter into the thought of children, as following the idea of generation, and is the thought of dignity and glory linked with sonship?

S.McC. I think so. I think that helps to see the eternal thought that will run through.

G.R.C. So that this applies only to those of the assembly, would you say? Every family may receive sonship in some measure, as status, but only those of the assembly are called children of God.

S.McC. That is the truth. No other family has that designation in the Scriptures, but the assembly in this dispensation.

P.L. Is that the distinction between the abodes, where every other family will be in its divinely appointed abode, but the Lord's utterance in John 14 is,

• "For I go to prepare you a place".

• Is that the distinctiveness of the family of the firstborn ones, the assembly?

S.McC. Yes, it is. It brings out the fact that the assembly will eternally retain a distinctiveness that will mark its position in the universe. All the families will recognise the distinctiveness that attaches to the assembly as nearest to God.

P.H.H. Would you mind saying a little about the thought of choice as preceding the thought of sonship or adoption? It says in verse 4,

• "according as he has chosen us in him before the world's foundation".

• Does it bear the character of what is choice as we say, or excellent, and would it link on with the peculiar glory of the assembly?

S.McC. I think it does. It also carries the determinate action of God's will, for the "chosen" links with the thought of purpose which comes into this chapter.

L.E.S. Do we have the constitutional side here involving the persons, the family side, when it says

• "that we should be holy, and blameless before him in love"?

• Those same words are referred to in chapter 5, that we had this morning. Is one more the family side, and the other the full side as to the assembly?

S.McC. It is a remarkable thing that we should get it mentioned at the beginning of the letter on the masculine side in connection with the saints in sonship, and also at the end in chapter 5 in connection with the marital side.

L.E.S. That is what I was thinking, that the two sides correspond.

S.McC. They do. And so this matter of what is constitutional is very important, for eternally we are to understand the fulness that attaches to this family.

• That is, underlying the great thought of sonship is their constitution as of divine generation, that they are of God and have the divine nature in that way. They fill out the position, not only as a matter of light, but they have got the nature suited to the position.

• Then we have the Spirit of God's Son augmenting the whole matter, with His feelings, and also the Spirit of the Father, augmenting in a strengthening way, in view of a wider apprehension of the whole matter. There is a fulness in all that, that should affect us.

G.R.D. Is there what is unique in the term "the Beloved", as attaching to Christ in sonship?

S.McC. I think that should affect our hearts, as one said at the outset, for it is one of the things we should consider in this passage,

• "wherein he has taken us into favour in the Beloved",

G.R.D. Does that uniqueness, and our link with Him, give a certain distinctiveness to the way we enter into sonship?

S.McC. Yes. Because, what He has received. He has given to us, only that He always retains, "as the apple-tree among the trees of the wood", His own eternal distinction, as the Beloved.

A.W. We have "The blood of his own", in Acts 20. Is that the same expression?

S.McC. You have in mind that "his own" brings in a strong term of endearment? Yes.

A.P.C.L. Does the reference in verse 5 "to himself" bear in any way on this matter of the Beloved? The adoption is said to be to Himself.

S.McC. I am glad you bring that reference in, because one was thinking of it earlier in reading this passage. We were speaking this morning about the "Himself", in the passages we had before us then, but now we have another "Himself".

• That is, the glory of the Lord's humanity, in His present glorious state, is before us, and the God and Father that is alluded to here, of that blessed Man. The "Himself" would particularly focus our attention on that,
  • "having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself".

• There is what Christ finds Himself in regard to the assembly, but now we are in the presence of what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has for Himself.

A.E.M. Is it greatly affecting to us to consider that God had not only the idea in His thoughts, but He had the persons in mind?

S.McC. That is very fine. That should touch our affections very much, because we might be inclined to get occupied with conceptions and thoughts and forget the blessedness of the fact that God had persons in mind.

A.J.G. Would it also be right to say that these greatest thoughts of God could not be brought out until after the incarnation and indeed the ascension? That is to say, until the Beloved, in whom they centre, was actually in heaven.

S.McC. It is very affecting to think of that, along with what you suggested earlier in these series of meetings, that in regard to the heavenly side, One of the Godhead, One of the Holy Trinity, came into a condition where that thought could be set out in relation to which we are being conformed.

• The same applies, does it not, to this matter of sonship? It is very affecting to think that One of the Holy Persons came into this position and this condition in which He was so unique,
  • "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father".

R.G.B. Does that bear on the way in which the sonship of Christ is presented in John's gospel? We have the uniqueness of it, and transcendent greatness of it coming out, and the relations of the Son with the Father, as if the fulness of the thing is to be set out in Christ as Man here.

S.McC. That is it. Therefore the importance of the incarnation as it is presented in John's gospel, because the relationship of sonship was in the human family a long way back. As we go up the stream of time, we see, from the beginning, how that relation of father and son was in the human family.

• But then the fulness of the time comes, and God indicates to us that He is going to set out His own thoughts, not in angels, not in men who are creatures, but in one divine Person taking the place of Son, as born in time, as coming into the world.

• John presents it, "the Word became flesh", and another divine Person taking the place of Father. How all that should affect us as to the greatness of this subject!

P.H.H. And does it add something to the mention of the Beloved, as you mentioned just now; it does not say who the Beloved is?

• This epistle, in other parts, says "in Christ", "in the Lord", and "in Jesus"; but this title appears to be unique, "in the Beloved", referring to Christ. Would it be useful to say a little about that? I wondered whether it referred anti-typically to David and Solomon.

S.McC. I think it does. Although I think there is particular weight on the Davidic side, it would be inclusive of both, because Solomon was called Jedidiah, the Beloved of Jehovah.

• But the point you bring up, I think, is important, and should help us in the service of God. Very often when an appellation or a name comes up, the question is asked. Who does it refer to? Does it refer to the three Persons, or does it refer to one Person? Who is in mind?

• Paul does not tell us who is in mind. He seems to minister on the ground of confidence that the brethren know whom he is referring to, as he goes on to say – which we have not got in mind to touch – "in whom we have redemption". The saints know that there is no other one but Him, that is the Beloved.

J.S.E. Does this bring up the whole matter of really being in the secret of divine thoughts? You have made reference to that word a little earlier and I wondered if that is not the key to the wealth of the epistle. It is not only persons, as has been said, but persons who are in the secret. Is that right?

S.McC. Just so. Persons that are the subject of the heavenly call. That is, it is not a general idea of the calling, the calling is according to God's purpose, the exalted thoughts linked with His purpose.

• It is all to lift and elevate our thoughts above the level of things here, so that we might see the dignity that attaches to us. God surely has a right to have us apart for a while, and speak of the dignity that attaches to us in the light of purpose, and then eventually, as called.

A.B.P. In that connection, should we have in mind possibly verse 7 of the next chapter, that the saints are necessary in order that all that has been accomplished through Christ is to have its glorious display?

S.McC. Yes. It is a remarkable thing how the saints are bound up with display. That is, what has come on to view in mediatorial operations in Christ and all the grace that has been operating in these operations towards the saints,

• the saints are so fitted, through divine workmanship, that they become the body or the vessel in which the surpassing riches of God's grace is going to be displayed.

A.B.P. And according to this epistle would that be, not so much the kingdom, but the display to the principalities in the heavenlies?

S.McC. I think it would involve the whole scope of the heavenly intelligences, because they are greatly interested in this matter, because sonship was in the angels historically, before it was linked with the saints, I mean as to actual fact.

A.J.G. This display, which has just been referred to, is in the coming ages. It is not limited to one age, but it says,

• "that he might display in the coming ages".

• Does that give it an eternal bearing?

S.McC. It does. Throughout all eternity, men will marvel, men in that abstract sense perhaps inclusive of the angels, will marvel at the wonder of the workmanship of God in this family. Because only of the assembly is it said "we are his workmanship".

• It shall be said of Israel, "What hath God wrought?" but of those that form the assembly it is said, "We are his workmanship".

A.B.P. And that passage you refer to in Numbers links it on with the present moment, does it not,

• "At this time it shall be said … What hath God wrought!" Numbers 23: 23?

S.McC. Just so.

A.B.P. That comes in at the time of the last encampment before going over into the land, does it not?

S.McC. It does, and the brazen serpent and the springing well have all come on to view, and led in the path of the purpose of God, the pathway in which there is life and no death. The whole thought of the inheritance is before them.

P.H.H. Is the service of God in any way in the apostle's mind? I am thinking of the expression in verse 6,

• "to the praise of the glory of his grace".

• Would that mean that whilst Paul is laying out the truth in a certain normal, heavenly setting, he has in mind that it would be immediately taken up and mentioned responsively by the saints in the service of God?

S.McC. I think so. I think this is all designedly here through the levitical skill of Paul, under the superintendence of the Spirit, having in mind the service of God, because we must remember that what gives fulness to the service of God is this family side in the assembly.

P.H.H. And coupled with that, according to what we have been saying, the ability in mind with the Spirit's power to go back into eternity.

• "He has chosen us in him before the world's foundation", and then, "having marked us out beforehand for adoption …".

• Must that be unique to the assembly?

S.McC. Just so, although in a general sense, men come into the purpose of God, because the tree of life stands related to purpose, and while the truth of it bears on the celestials, it is a thought that stands related to men.

• Then, eternal life, originally in its primary setting, stood related to men, but these thoughts here are exclusive to the assembly, in that sense.

P.H.H. Yes. What was really in my mind was the reference to J.T.'s term years ago, when Ephesians was read, 'From Eternity to Eternity'. Does the assembly have the ability, in the service of praise, as a heavenly vessel, to mention intelligently what is from eternity and what goes into eternity?

S.McC. Exactly. So that as we think of the purpose of God, and as we think of eternity, and then all that has transpired in the dip down into time, and the coming into manhood of the Lord Jesus;

• there was first of all the thought of the heavens, heaven secured, because heaven did not exist when the purpose of God was conceived.

• We sometimes confuse heaven and eternity, as if heaven and eternity are one idea, but they are entirely different ideas.

• The purpose of God was conceived in eternity, and heaven was designed as a sphere in which that purpose in regard to us would work out, so that it comes on to view here,
  • "blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ".

P.L. "And God called the expanse Heavens". Is that what you have in mind?

S.McC. Yes, it involves that. Although generally the expanse is linked with the sphere of operations, but it lies linked with what we are saying.

J.B.P. Would it be comely, in assembly service, to address the Lord Jesus as the Beloved?

S.McC. I thought it was generally done. At least, I have often heard the saints referring to the Lord as the Beloved, and the Father's delight in Him, and the assembly's delight in Him.

A.J.G. Our brother asked if it was comely to address Him in that way.

S.McC. Well, of course, if you are alluding to Himself and the glory that He has it would be comely, but I do not think it would be comely to address the Lord directly as "Beloved".

J.S.E. It is rather descriptive than ascriptive, is it not?

S.McC. That is what I am trying to get at, that is a good way of putting it. In the Song of Songs, of course, it is ascriptive.

M.H.T. Would you mind saying a word, in comparison with the thoughts of children and sons, on the thought of "offspring of God" as it is presented in Acts 17. Is that only predicated of men as such naturally?

S.McC. Yes, that is quite different from children of God. That is, the offspring of God that Paul alludes to bears on man's essential link with God.

• Man has an essential link with God that no animal or bird has in another sense. Man lives and the animals live, but man is unique, in that sense, as the offspring of God.

• He has got a link with God that the animal creation does not have, for God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. That is unique to man.

G.R.C. Would you say what you think is referred to by the world's foundation? I am referring to this because of remarks as to eternity, and so on.

S.McC. I think Paul is reminding us, in using time and creature language which we have to use, of how far back this matter goes, I mean. We might think it goes back as far as Genesis 1, "In the beginning"; but this goes back beyond Genesis 1,

• "before the world's foundation".

• I would take it that "before the world's foundation" would involve what is before Genesis 1: 1. Not only Genesis 1: 2 to the end, but Genesis 1: 1. What do you say?

G.R.C. I wondered whether the general thought of the world might include heaven and earth, the whole created sphere.

S.McC. I think it does, and it is put in this way, while we know that creation in Hebrews, and in other parts, involves many worlds. I think the world here is a general expression alluding to what is created.

A.J.G. So when the expression "before the world's foundation" is used, has it not in view the accomplishment of the counsels of God in view of which He brought the world into being?

S.McC. That helps. It is good to see that from this angle the world has been designed by God as a sphere into which His own Son would come. His own Son would be apprehended, contemplated, and in which His Son would die, and in which His thoughts would be worked out, and into which the Spirit would come.

P.H.H. Does the thought of foundation therefore bring to mind something to be constructed, a structure; in this case, the structure of all the eternal thoughts of God? Did it not need a foundation of some kind, in which all these things could come into evidence?

S.McC. Well, the world was necessary for men, in that sense, for the working out of God's great thoughts and within the framework of the world we have got profuse suggestions, in figure and in type, as to what God had before Him.

W.B.H. Would it bear on what was said earlier as to the persons being in mind before the structure?

S.McC. That helps. You mean that before the inanimate theatre of operations comes on to view, the persons were before God in His purpose and counsel.

G.W.B. The Lord Jesus in John 17 speaks to the Father of the men whom the Father had given Him out of the world. Does that link with these thoughts?

S.McC. Yes. There is no question but what the Lord in John 17 is abstractly holding them in relation to the accomplishment of His thoughts, which involve redemption. That is, redemption was necessary in order that these thoughts might come to fruition; that would all be in the Lord's mind in John 17.

A.P.C.L. Is it remarkable that in that chapter you get the two references, one,

• "thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world"

• in verse 24, and in verse 5, as to the glory, just simply
  • "before the world was"?

S.McC. Yes, I think these statements are intended to impress us with the fact of how far back we were in the divine mind, in Ephesians, and how far back we are to be impressed with the Lord being loved.

— Is there a three-fold stress in the "has blessed us", "has chosen us", "has taken us", which would show that the great emphasis on the persons, as has been mentioned, is to be livingly entered into right now, by the Spirit?

S.McC. Just so. What a sense Paul must have had in his soul of it, because, I am sure, being detained in prison, as he was, in all the enjoyment of sabbatical conditions, he was revelling in the glory of these thoughts; not only in an abstract way, but as being reached in the saints at Ephesus. Because there is no doubt but that these great thoughts were reached in Ephesus, amongst the saints.

G.R.C. I think what you were saying just now, as to the world being filled out with creatures and created things, which all bear on what is spiritual, is a very important thing to take account of. God founded the world, and formed it, with processes and things that are to teach us what He had in mind spiritually.

• I was thinking for instance that, as far as we know, angels were created without generation. Would it not cause us to wonder at the wisdom of God in the present creation that He has designed, that men should come into being by generation, to teach us the family thought; and also, that the marriage link should be here? It is not there with angels, is it?

S.McC. No, it is not. That is very striking and I think it should help us as you come down Genesis chapter 1 and all the verses, and think of all the marvels of divine operations. You think of the varied things and the varied spheres, and then you think of light and rule introduced,

• but down we come until we get to the sixth day and then the acme of His thoughts comes into view, Man, involving, as we are considering it, what God has had in mind from all eternity.

A.B.P. Should this give us an elevated view of John 3: 16, so that it is not restricted to the gospel only, but it has a glory behind it?

S.McC. Well, it has. It is the ordered system of things, as well as the persons, that God loved before it was marred by sin. That should affect our hearts, I think we should be affected here, before passing on to chapter 3, by manhood in this relation to God. That is,

• "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ",

• at the beginning of our passage, and then "the Beloved" at the end of our passage.

• Surely it should affect our souls, manhood in this glorious condition, standing related to God. Whether we think of the official side or whether we think of God in the paternal relation, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, humanity in Christ in these relations should surely affect us.

A.J.G. Does not that rather confirm what was said earlier, that the title "the Beloved" covers both the types of David and Solomon, David being the man after God's own heart, beloved on account of what he was, and Solomon being the son and loved in sonship?

S.McC. Very good. So that Solomon is loved before there ever was an action on his part, before there ever was a movement, we might say. God sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet, and called him Jedidiah, meaning 'Beloved of Jehovah', 2 Samuel 12: 25.

G.R.D. Before you go on to chapter 3, would you say something as to verse 17 that you read,

• "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory".

• Is that God in the sense of Father, Son and Spirit?

S.McC. I think it alludes to God, it alludes to Deity; but in my own mind, I do not introduce, actively and concretely, the Son and the Spirit in viewing the Lord Jesus Christ as the exalted Man in this passage.

• In this passage here, from verse 15 to the end, it is the exalted Man that is before us, and the assembly is united to Him as the exalted Man.

• As I view Him as the exalted Man. I do not introduce active thoughts as to the Deity, and His part in it, in that sense; although abstractly, we must always keep in mind His place in that. The word 'God' never loses its fulness; let us always keep that in mind.

A.P.C.L. Is there therefore, a reference to the fulness of the matter as set out for us in the Father, in the position that He has in the economy?

S.McC. I think there is. That is, the Deity is before us operating in relation to the great scheme of glory in that glorious Person, especially in regard to the calling, and the raising of Christ from among the dead, and that power operating in the saints; it is Deity that is operating, but in that relation.

A.P.C.L. So was there not great skill in what beloved J.T. said as to this title, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ", that it was a full title as to God, not of God, but as to God, bearing on what you are saying, as to His position and in relation to Christ in manhood?

S.McC. Just so. More than once J.T. alludes to the Spirit of glory, and the Lord of glory, and the Father of glory, as involving all three Persons; showing how, in his mind, he attached the thought of Father of glory, to that Person; but then it is linked with

• "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ".

J.S.E. Would it serve to remind one another of what J.T. used often to say, as to that Man's God?

S.McC. That is the point, I think. In reply therefore to the question I would say it is the full thought of God, but I am afraid that sometimes we think that we have to include concretely and actively the other two Persons when we say the full thought of God, whereas that is not always necessary as I see in Scripture.

G.R.C. Mr. Myles made a good remark ten days ago in Hornchurch about this expression. I think he said that in the economy, the Father is the great Originator and Director of everything, but in this expression it is God, it is the Deity, and the will of the Deity involves that once you come to the economy, the Father is the One who carries that out.

S.McC. I think that helps, and it is just exactly what has always been in one's mind in regard to this passage.

C.H. Four years ago, in this place, we were reading Ephesians, and coming to this passage, it was said it is God in that Person, the Father. I think it struck a good many, as stating the truth. It is God in that Person, the Father.

S.McC. Just so. It does not lessen the thought of the Deity in any sense.

C.H. What we are to understand, is that whichever Person is operating, it is full Deity there, that is operating, and not a part of Deity.

S.McC. I think we want to see that. We are thus preserved from human ways of thinking that the full thought of the Deity must always include concretely and actively the three Persons when we speak. It does not necessarily mean that, because the full thought of the Deity is involved in the Person operating.

J.S.E. Is it not significant that in the abandonment, when Jesus uses the language "my God", as suggested in Psalm 22, the word 'God' there is the singular word and not the plural one? Does that not help us to see how He regards God by Himself, and He, Jesus, by Himself, as in manhood at that time?

S.McC. Just so, think of manhood in the place of distance. You have there the opposite of course, to what we have here, for here it is manhood in nearness to God, in glory, which is quite a contrast; there it was manhood in distance on account of sin.

J.S.E. I was only thinking of the word as to His God, whether we cannot be simple and carry that always with us, when we think of Him in His place as Man, for He says, in the word to the overcomer in Philadelphia, "my God"?

S.McC. Just so. But I think it would help to see, in what we have been saying as to God, or Deity, linked with Ephesians 1: 17, lest anyone would say, 'Well then, we do not need to speak to the Father, and the Son and the Spirit, and mention the Name, which we know God in, as declared'.

• But, surely God finds pleasure and delight in the fulness linked with the Name as declared coming into the service of God. So that in Ephesians 3, again we have Deity, in verse 20, "But to him", who is the Him? That is God, Deity, but Deity in three Persons as it goes on to say
  • "to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus".

• But the 'him' there is not just Deity in One of the Persons coming on to our view, it is Deity in the three Persons objectively before us – the Object of the answering response to the richness and fulness of the revelation.

W.R.M. Do you think that the use of the word 'him' there. Without naming divine Persons, might suggest that the Being of God is greater than any names which He takes?

S.McC. Well, of course that must be, because God is greater than any relation He comes into, and He is greater than any name that He takes. That must be so, the 'him' is to show us that God, the Deity, is not impersonal.

• It is a personal thought, like "God himself shall be with them, their God". It is to save us from thinking of it in an impersonal way.

A.J.G. On our side, our praise must be in accordance with His name,

• "according to thy name, O God, so is thy praise", Psalm 48: 10.

• That would bring in the whole name in Matthew 28.

S.McC. Exactly. So that there is what love would delight in in every feature of glory that is linked with the Deity, with God as declared, as seen in that Name.

A.Hn. May I ask you to say a word as to this remarkable expression

• "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of him"?

S.McC. I think we need help as to that. We should not be content with mere terms, but we should be very much concerned that we have the inward spiritual faculty, by the Spirit, for the apprehension of the glory of our calling and the might of divine operations.

C.H. Are you going to tell us a little about the last passage, chapter 3?

S.McC. The thought of His Spirit has greatly affected me in this passage as coming in just before touching on the assembly in Christ Jesus.

• I think the reference to the Father's Spirit, in Ephesians 3, is to impress us with the necessity of the family side, as giving the intimacy and fulness and the richness that are required for the worship of God in the majesty of His Being, insofar as we are able to apprehend His Being with finite understanding and capacity.

A.P.C.L. Is that why it is said to be "according to the riches of his glory"?

• Would that be His glory in relation to this family realm?

S.McC. Yes. It is not exactly what is linked with unapproachable light; it is the fulness of what is linked with His operations in this wonderful realm that we view Him in, in all its vastness –

• "breadth and length and depth and height"!

A.J.G. So that when the Lord speaks of this realm in its wonderful extent. He calls it "My Father's house"; is that right? It impresses the paternal thought upon it, the family side of things.

S.McC. It shows us that our thoughts need to be expanded in regard to the thought of the Father in that sense. God in that paternal sense as alluded to, because that expression really involves the universe, does it not? Just as the universe is involved here in Ephesians 3.

C.H. And the suggestion that every family should be named of the Father, is that the means by which God is to tabernacle with men?

S.McC. That is it. Then there is the channelling of our thoughts from the wideness of the apprehension of the universe and the many families in it, to the great Centre of it, in Christ in the assembly, as it says,

• "to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus".

• Think of the dignity that attaches to that expression! It is an expression that we have often had pointed out to us, the preposition 'in' involving the preposition of power, "the assembly in Christ Jesus". What a position it has in the universe of God in this sense!

A.P.C.L. Would you say that that is the most extensive description of the assembly?

S.McC. I know of no other passage in the Scripture that so extensively or so exaltingly refers to the assembly as this, because, whatever feature of glory we may think on, in regard to the assembly, it is all embodied in this expression "the assembly", and then "in Christ Jesus", involves that the holy humanity of Christ is before us; and we have the status in relation to it, "the assembly in Christ Jesus".

J.S.E. Is that 'that Man' in finality?

S.McC. You might say, that vessel in finality, and the glorious state linked with that Man in finality, for the eternal subsisting state between God and men lies in the revelation of God in a Man, and the assembly is blessed inconceivably in that Man.

A.P.C.L. Would it be possible to connect anything of that kind with the two references to "to him" in verse 20 and 21? The first one appears to be God in His fulness but operationally still, and then in verse 21 it repeats "to him".

S.McC. So that, while the fulness refers to God operationally as He has shone out in Christ, the "to him" in verse 21 really brings us more to what He is personally, as He comes on to view in that outshining, not just exactly according to His might, His righteousness and His power,

• but the "him" involves what He is in His inward Being, as is conveyed in the names Jehovah and Jah, insofar as we can apprehend Him in the secret of His Being, as He has come on to view in Christ.

G.R.C. So that it really links with Psalm 150, only of course, taken up in the fulness of Christian light.

S.McC. Just so, so that as we go back to Psalm 150 in the light of Paul's ministry, and in the light of this ascription, we can see how it links on.

P.L. Does it suggest that the assembly in her fixity will be operating in the service of God before the whole universe, and give lustre and tone and lead to all the families in the service?

S.McC. That is it. It is just like a stone dropped into the brook, and concentric ripple after concentric ripple widens out, it will be like that! As in J.N.D.'s hymn – the note started, as it were, in this refined distinctive family, widening in its waves as it extends to the whole realm and the families in it.

J.McK. Does that connect with the expression

• "according to the power which works in us"?

• Would that be unique, in a way, to the assembly?

S.McC. Very good. It brings out the uniqueness that is linked with the Spirit in the saints in the assembly, as He will be in no other family, because in that passage, without doubt, there is an allusion to the Spirit.

P.L. Although every family will be named of the Father, only one family will be set up in sonship, in the sense of the Spirit indwelling, do not you think?

S.McC. Just so. In regard to every family, we must keep in mind the thought 'By the Spirit all pervading'. That will allude to every family, for the Spirit will pervade the universe and will pervade every family; but only in the assembly in this indwelling way.

A.P.C.L. So that there is not only a matter of praise, but it is glory. It is not only responsive praise, that is in mind, is it, but the fulness that flows from God having come out according to what He is?

S.McC. That is a remarkable thing. It is like an answering glory to the Deity outshining in glory. There is a complete answer in the assembly to that great theme.