• The work of Christ has both in view. It meets the need of man, but it gives him far more, and goes beyond anything the human heart could have conceived.

• It is a question too of the need of Divine love, and the reconciliation aspect of the death of Christ has that in view, while the whole ministry is in view of God dwelling. Nothing less would satisfy the heart of God.

• Men are set up in righteousness and life. But then in the ministry of reconciliation God has removed all distance, so as to have men in the closest nearness to Himself for the satisfaction of His own heart.

• All that finds its answer in God dwelling; finally, of course, in the eternal state, but now,
  • “I will dwell among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people”.

• All comes from God, and there is to be the full return to God.

Rem. One has noticed how often the word ‘glory’ is mentioned in the scriptures read.

Ques. Would you say something about “ministers of the new covenant”?

G.R.C. In verse 6 it speaks of God, who has also made us competent as new covenant ministers – as the footnote says. It is not strictly “as ministers of the new covenant”;

• that is, this has not in mind the new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah, but that the ministry of the gospel, which is greater than any covenant with Israel, is on new covenant principles.

• That is to say, it is not on the line of demand but on the line of supply. In Hebrews 9: 15 it reads,
  • “And for this reason he is mediator of a new covenant”;

  • the note says ‘new covenant mediator’, that is to say, the new covenant in its literality is not the subject.

• The Lord Jesus is a new covenant Mediator; that is His mediation is of that character, not on the line of demand like the old covenant, but on the line of God bringing in what is in His heart for men.

• Indeed I think Mr. Darby says that as to the new covenant literally no mediator is mentioned. I suppose he is referring to the Old Testament. God simply says that He will write the law upon the hearts of Israel and give it into their minds.

Ques. Would the suggestion of new covenant ministers be that it is not only the terms of the gospel which these men would set forth, but the spirit in which they were amongst the saints themselves?

G.R.C. It would include that; it is in contrast to the old covenant in the spirit of it. But in the gospel God is bringing forward what is in His heart.

• Therefore it is on a new covenant principle, so that they are characteristically new covenant ministers – ministers of that kind.

• But we must see that the gospel which they were ministering was greater than anything connected with the new covenant; this will be formally made with the house of Israel and Judah.

Ques. Would it link with what is said at the end of chapter 2, making “manifest the odour of His knowledge through us in every place”, and then in chapter 4, “the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”?

G.R.C. That is what I thought. So in chapter 4 – and we must not separate the chapters in our minds – he immediately speaks of his gospel in verse 3.

• He has been speaking of their character as new covenant ministers, in contrast to the character of the old covenant; but chapter 4 shows that the gospel is in his mind.
  • “But if also our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those that are lost”.

  • Then, “the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God”.

  • Then, “the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”.

• In that connection what was being ministered to men was the ministry of the Spirit; that is a ministry of life, for the Spirit quickens; and a ministry of righteousness.

• Life in the quickening power of the Spirit was being ministered, and righteousness ministered – not demanded.

Ques. Is the contrast seen between the two covenants; the first is “Thou shalt”, on the line of demand; the second is “I will”, on the ground of divine purpose and sovereignty?

G.R.C. I think that shows the character of the two covenants. Paul and those with him were new covenant ministers; they were not saying, ‘Thou shalt’ or ‘Thou shalt not’, but were speaking of what was in the heart of God, bringing it out for men.

Ques. The Lord in Luke 10 poured in oil and wine; is it like the supply of the new covenant?

G.R.C. That is just what I thought; and what a supply there is here! The ministry of the Spirit, the apostle says, in contrast to the ministry of death; the ministry of glory in contrast to the ministry of condemnation. So that the whole matter is surpassing glory.

Rem. Is it not interesting that in Isaiah 42, where he brings in the great matter of God’s Servant, His Elect, he goes on in verse 6,

• “I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations, to open the blind eyes, to bring forth the prisoner from the prison, them that sit in darkness out of the house of restraint. I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another … Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth will I cause you to hear them”?

G.R.C. That is very good. So that Christ Himself is the Covenant. “I will … give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations”.

• That is not limited to the new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah; Christ Himself is the Covenant.

Rem. So that the disposition of God is set forth in the death of Christ. It is what God is in Himself, is it not? The death of the testator is referred to in Hebrews, so that not only is it the gift, but the mind of the giver, do you not think?

G.R.C. I think that it is very important to see how carefully the Spirit of God avoids linking the new covenant in Hebrews with Christians – that is in the letter of it. In chapter 9 it says,

• “For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant” – that is, He is a new covenant Mediator –

• “so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, the called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”
• He does not say that the called might have a new covenant made with them. He is really addressing the heavenly company; and the heavenlies are outside any question of the new covenant made with Israel.

• The Lord is a new covenant Minister to deal with transgressions under the old covenant, but not in order that the called may be brought into the new covenant, but that they might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

• Then he speaks of the testament, the death of the testator declaring the heart of God and what is in His heart for men. It is His will in that way, as we speak of the will and testament of a man.

• Then, in speaking of the blood of the covenant in that same chapter, he speaks of the heavenlies themselves, because that is the word in verse 23.
  • “It was necessary then that the figurative representations of the things in the heavens should be purified with these” – that is with the blood of calves and goats –

  • “but the heavenly things” – this word is the same as used for the heavenlies in Ephesians – “themselves with sacrifices better than these”.

• So the blood, which has laid the basis for the new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah, has done far greater things for us;

• it has purified the heavenlies, and we belong to the heavenlies; and there is no covenant with people who belong to the heavenlies – not in the formal or literal sense.

Ques. You connected chapters 3 and 4 with the need of man. Would you say a further word about that, in view of verses 3: 18 and 4: 6?

G.R.C. I think the way the apostle sets things out in chapter 3 shows how wonderfully the need of man is met.

• The old covenant was a ministry of death, and a ministry of condemnation. It gave nothing to man; it did not meet any needs.

• But now, in the gospel, God has brought in a ministry of the Spirit – verse 8. That is, God is freely giving the Spirit to men.

• Then in verse 9, there is a ministry of righteousness; that is, God is giving righteousness to men; and the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory.
  • It is a ministry from the glory; it subsists in glory and abounds in glory.

• Christ has glorified God in His death, and God has glorified Him, and this is a ministry from the glorified Man who Himself is the expression of the glory of God. It does not, in that way, depend on man at all;

• it depends on the fact that Christ has glorified God; and it is now in full keeping with the rights of God, and the throne of God, as well as with the heart of God, that these things should be brought out to men.

• There is the ministry of the Spirit, and the ministry of righteousness – all with a view to our being able to look upon the glory of the Lord with unveiled face.
  • That is to say, we are able to do what Moses did, only in a far greater way than Moses.

• When Moses went in to the holiest, he took the veil off his face; when he came out he put the veil on. But the Christian can do what Moses did, only in a greater sense, not in that which was a figure, but in that which is the great anti-type in reality.

• The Christian, as having received these ministries of the Spirit and of righteousness, can go into the presence of God without a veil on his face; and on the other hand there is no veil on the face of Christ.

Rem. So this would help us to understand what is said, “He takes away the first that he may establish the second”.

Rem. All that you have been saying helps us to be free from limiting our ideas as to the need of man. When we think of the need of man, we may only think of his need of forgiveness;

• but the question of relationship with God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and what can be enjoyed in man’s heart with God, is all included in the thought of his need, is it not?

G.R.C. Yes, God meets the need of man in a way which far exceeds his actual need.

• We need righteousness, but who could have conceived of the gift of the Spirit? We need the quickening power of the Spirit, but saints in this dispensation receive the Spirit as a gift.

• And because of the way God meets our need, in such superabundance, we can look upon the glory of the Lord with unveiled face. This answers somewhat to the holiest, I suppose.

• There is no veil on our heart – there is a veil still on Israel’s heart. Having received His ministrations no veil remains on the heart of the Christian; therefore he can behold the glory with an unveiled face.

Ques. Is that the reason why it is brought into the Supper? As rightly understood and apprehended there, would it liberate the souls of the saints in view of setting them free for the service of God?

G.R.C. Yes. I would like further help as to why it is introduced into the supper.

• “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”, Luke 22: 20.
• I can see this, that in the original setting the Lord had those who were under the bondage and fear which marked the old covenant and that the cup was the new covenant in His blood; but at the same time the stress may be on the blood.

• But while the new covenant brings in the character of the present administration, and would set the disciples free from Judaism and all its bondage, the blood goes much further than the literal new covenant with Israel.

• I think, and I am speaking subject to correction, that we should seek to concentrate our minds at the supper on “my blood” and “my body”, not omitting the other, but that is the great thing. The cup is put into our hands on the basis of that blood.

Rem. So you think that “my body” stands peculiarly connected with the assembly, whereas “which is poured out for you” – the matter of the blood – is capable of infinite expansion.

G.R.C. That is what I thought; so I wondered whether the expression “the new covenant in my blood”

• may be not only to free the disciples and us from Judaism – because Judaised Christianity is all around us – dead works – but also shew that the Lord counts on the assembly taking in the whole scope of the blood, in heaven and earth.

• We should understand its bearing on the heavenlies and on ourselves as a heavenly company; but there are the earthlies as well.

Ques. Do you think at that point what comes into our souls is the whole range of what is to accrue to God? We may reach this finally in the service, but at that point it is before us, as witnessed in that blood? I was thinking of reconciliation to the Godhead.

G.R.C. Quite so, “By him to reconcile all things to itself”, Colossians 1: 20.

Rem. Perhaps if we knew more about that, we would have more the scope of the service in our souls as moving from glory to glory.

G.R.C. Well, a brother remarked recently that he felt that in the Lord’s Supper we tended to overlook the world to come, and the place that the world to come should have in our affections.

• So we must understand the bearing of the blood, not only on ourselves, but on earthly families of which Israel is the chief.

Rem. Would the way it is put,

• “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”, stress the fact that we have not a covenant;
• but we have a cup which includes, but far surpasses, all that was involved in the new covenant?

G.R.C. I am glad that you have said that, because I was just going to enquire why it is put that way. I suppose that “This cup” could hardly apply to Israel, could it?

Rem. That was my enquiry, whether what is distinctly Christian in the cup carries forward all the thoughts connected with the covenant, and brings them right up to date as our possession?

G.R.C. Yes, that is good.

Ques. Is Mr. — differentiating between Luke’s account and that in 1 Corinthians 11? The “for you” in relation to the cup is mentioned in Luke, but is left out in Corinthians.

G.R.C. Does not the 1 Corinthians 11 account show that the Lord relies on the assembly to take in the whole scope of what has been affected by His blood?

• He does not say there, “which is poured out for you”; so it is the whole scope of it.

Rem. The Lord finishes His word as to the cup with, “for a calling of me to mind”. I was thinking that, great as these matters are, they are actually and livingly with us in a Person, are they not?

G.R.C. That is it, so it does not say in Hebrews 12 that we have come to a new covenant, but we have come to Jesus Himself; and our part is with Jesus within the veil, where Jesus has access as Forerunner for us.

• So I think that having boldness for entering the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus seems a touch for those who belong to the assembly.

• It is the blood of Jesus – the personal name of the One who has entered as our Forerunner. Israel never goes within the veil, nor does any other family.

Ques. May I ask as to 1 Corinthians 11: 26,

• “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord until he come”.
• Has that in mind His appearing?

G.R.C. I think that is what we should have in mind – until He comes to take up His rights.

• But the coming of the Lord in another sense is viewed as one great act, that is it includes the rapture and the appearing. The Lord’s coming is in two parts, so we have the whole of it in mind, I would say.

• He is coming to take up His rights, but the fact is that He takes us first, so that we come with Him.

Rem. One has often thought that we should be very conscious at the Supper of the Lord’s peculiar joy. It says of Isaac regarding Rebecca that, “he loved her”.

• This should give us a peculiar sense of what the assembly is – as covering every dispensation, and every covenant, and every glory.

G.R.C. So that in connection with union, it seems as though the world to come cannot be overlooked in our service of praise, because according to Ephesians 1

• Christ has been given, “to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all”.
• That would bear on the world to come, although I am not limiting it to that, but it has a special bearing on it, and also on the mystery of God’s will,
  • “according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for the administration of the fulness of times; to head up all things in the Christ.”

• So that the church’s union with Him in glory, in public display, surely has its own place in the service of praise. How could we take that in if we have not in our minds the full scope of the blood?

Rem. I think that is most important, because we seem to limit our expressions to matters relating to love at that point. But glory surely enters into it.

• I am thinking of a line in a hymn which runs, “When all things filled by Thee are wholly blest”. Do you not think that that might well come into expression while we are enjoying union with the exalted Man?

G.R.C. I do, because the millennial reign is peculiarly the day of Christ; it is the day of His vindication in the eyes of the whole universe, and when His official glories shine. Are not those the things in which the assembly delights?

• “I speak of what I have composed touching the King”, Psalm 45: 1.
• Then in the Song of Songs it is the King who is the Beloved: but when we go on to eternity, the day of God, we are not in the same way thinking of the official glories of Christ, but of His personal glories.

Rem. So would this reference to the statement that the Spirit quickens allude to the power to answer to the disposition of God as opened up in the covenant? I am thinking of the whole range of what is in His mind.

G.R.C. I am sure that is right,

• so that we “are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit”.
• Then chapter 4 verse 6 brings out that not only was there no veil on Paul’s heart, nor indeed on his face, when he went into the holiest, but that there was no veil on his face when he came out to men.
  • “But if also our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those that are lost”.

• In the case of the old covenant the mediator put a veil on his face when he came out, because the children of Israel had not to fix their eyes on the end of that annulled.

• As we saw yesterday, the end in view in the old covenant was not exactly the new covenant. The end in view in the old covenant was Christianity, and Israel never grasped that; the same veil remains in reading the old covenant unremoved.

• Now that Christ has died, is risen and glorified, the new covenant ministers do not need to put veils on their faces. The work of Christ is completed, and He is glorified. You can present Christ glorified to men, because there is a great administration from the glory.

• The glory is not announced to repel men, but is to attract men; and the ministry supplies all that they need to be at home in the glory.

Rem. There is the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, which itself would be objective; but what the apostle is concerned about is the radiancy of that glory, connected with the outshining by the Spirit through the vessel.

G.R.C. I thought that, so that there is no veil on the apostle’s face. If any are lost, the God of this world has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving.

• This is a test for us all, as to whether we have been in the holiest so much that we are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory;
  • so that the light that is shining there, in the One who is the effulgence of God’s glory, should radiate through us.

• Or do we in any way allow a veil, any bit of self, or self-seeking, to hinder the light shining through? There is no veil on the apostle’s face; and then he speaks of
  • “the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our hearts for the shining forth” –

• that is it is no thought of God that we should have veils on our faces. This refers to the new covenant ministers, but by extension we are all to be in it in our measure. It says,
  • “we all, looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit”.

• This is how God finds His answer in men as to His thought of image.

• The radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ, as the Image of God, should have expression in our faces; our faces should reflect the face of Jesus Christ, and God has shone into our hearts with a view to that shining forth.

Ques. Does the reference of Paul to those who troubled the Galatians, in perverting the glad tidings and bringing in a different gospel, show that there is a possibility of this perversion working in Christianity itself?

G.R.C. The thought of the gospel being obscured?

Rem. Yes, and ministers, who were not in that sense new covenant ministers, bringing in elements of bondage which were to lead the saints astray, and to divert those who had actually begun in Spirit.

G.R.C. And Paul would deal with them most drastically, would he not? He says,

• “to whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour”, Galatians 2: 5.

Rem. Is verse 5 important in relation to those who are privileged to preach,

• “For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus Lord, and ourselves your bondmen for Jesus’ sake”?
• Do you think preaching Christ Jesus Lord would result in souls getting the Spirit?

G.R.C. Well, I think that is what would be in mind.

Ques. Would this radiancy shine as the saints administer assembly forgiveness to persons who have repented, such as the man who had been dealt with at Corinth?

G.R.C. I am sure that is right. The Galation spirit can easily creep in, both in the exercise of assembly discipline, and in the holding back of assembly forgiveness.

Rem. So it would be wrong to write off anyone from whom we have withdrawn, as being beyond the reach of blessing through the shining of new covenant forgiveness?

G.R.C. Well, quite so. Even as to those who have gone astray as to the truth, the apostle says,

• “If God perhaps may sometime give them repentance”, 2 Timothy 2: 25.
• We have to leave that door open; and if we are in the gain of new covenant ministry, that is in the gain of the gospel in the way we are speaking of, we shall be ready for that.

Ques. Would there be some public testimony, in that persons who have been known to go astray are found again at home, happily and freely amongst the saints?

G.R.C. Yes, I think that in the atmosphere and shining of this glory among the saints such persons may be encouraged to make public confession, not simply to confess to one or two brothers in private, but to make public spontaneous and unequivocal confession. I am suggesting this in view of recovery.

Ques. Does it help to see that the thought of commendation enters into these chapters which we have read? What was in my mind was that if this ministry lays hold of us we shall commend it in that way to men.

G.R.C. Well, yes, and that especially enters into the second part of our subject.

• In the earlier part – 2 Corinthians 4 – it is a question of the bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus might be manifested in our body – that the light might shine without a veil;

• but in chapter 5 in connection with the ministry of reconciliation Paul brings in the thought of an ambassador at the end of the chapter.

• Following this he speaks much about the conduct proper to an ambassador –
  • “giving no manner of offence in anything, that the ministry be not blamed; but in everything commending ourselves as God’s ministers”,
    2 Corinthians 6: 3, 4.

• That would cover both sides of the ministry, but he brings in the features of conduct especially in the ambassadorial setting, because an ambassador should in every way comport himself worthily of the one from whom he comes.

• But then, when we come to this side of the subject there is the question of the need of God’s heart, and perhaps we enter into this in very small measure.

Ques. You mean that in chapter 4 it is a matter of God for men, and now it is a matter of men for God?

G.R.C. I think so. So he says,

• “So if anyone be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new”.
• We need to get that view of the saints, because every item of the tabernacle system was Christ typically, either Christ personally or Christ in the saints.

• So we belong to a system where, if we are with God, we are moving in relation to new creation.
  • “The old things have passed away; behold all things have become new: and all things are of the God who has reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and given to us the ministry of that reconciliation.”

Rem. Unless we reach God’s portion we do not get ours, do we?

G.R.C. Well, I believe we ought to think more of the need of God’s heart in reconciliation – that God has, at the greatest cost to Himself, removed the distance, and that He takes the attitude of beseeching,

• “God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ”. He sends out His ambassadors from His very presence.
• The ambassador must know what the presence of God is; he is one who has received the gain of the other part of the ministry; he knows what it is to enter the holiest to look on the glory of the Lord, to be in the presence of God.

• He knows the heart of God, and he is conscious of the joy that God has in having man in such nearness to Himself, and he goes forth from that with the feelings of the heart of God.
  • “God as it were beseeching by us”.

• Think of the lengths God has gone to to have men near to Himself!
  • “Him who knew not sin”, it says, “he has made sin for us, that we might become God’s righteousness in him”.

Ques. Has this ambassadorial service in view that the relations between God and man might be at their fullest, so that God would be God to His people, and His people would be a people to God?

G.R.C. I think that is what is in view. It says in chapter 6, after speaking of God dwelling and walking among them,

• “I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people”.
• It is the relations of God with men, but men who are in the closest nearness to Himself, so near indeed that He is dwelling among them, and walking among them – there is no distance at all.

• From God’s side He has removed all the distance; so that, even while we are here in these mixed conditions, He is free, and yearning as it were, to dwell among us and walk among us.

• In one sense He does not cease to dwell, because the Spirit never leaves us; but the Spirit may be grieved – and how easily we do grieve Him!

• But if the Spirit is not grieved, then we are conscious of God dwelling among us and walking among us. God involves the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit is ungrieved we have Christ among us –
  • “the hope of glory”.

• And if Christ is among us, we know the Father’s presence. As the Lord says,
  • “I in them and thou in me”.

• That is the present thought of God, He will secure it eternally; but He has so wrought in the death of Christ, and at such cost to Himself, that from His side there is nothing to hinder.

• The distance is removed, and His heart yearns to dwell complacently with men.

Ques. Does He not say,

• “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?”
• And is the question of the unequal yoke raised there so that through the Spirit there should be no hindrance whatever to there being perfect agreement between God and men, so that they can walk together?

G.R.C. Quite so.

Ques. At the close of chapter 3 the saints are in liberty. At the close of chapter 6 is God in liberty?

G.R.C. That is very good; and surely that is our desire – that the Spirit should have liberty among us, and that we should know Christ among us, and know the Father’s presence and blessing.

• According to John 14 the Father and the Son are prepared to come and dwell with one person who loves Christ and keeps His word.

• The Spirit would already be dwelling in that person, but the Father and the Son are prepared to come. And if that is so with an individual, how much more so in the company!
  • “Ye are the living God’s temple; according as God has said, I will dwell among them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people”.

• If only we had a sense of how the heart of God is in this! He loves us; He longs to dwell complacently thus!

• We have often thought of Luke 10 representing new covenant ministry – the divine supply to man has already been referred to – but Luke 15 is the meeting of the need of the heart of God. How God yearns to have men near to Him and to dwell with them.

Rem. That must be a people in true nearness. I often wonder whether we think God dwelling among us involves His coming into our circumstances; but has not reconciliation been a necessity for God, so that the people with whom He dwells should be near to Him?

G.R.C. That is what I thought, because when you get reconciliation it is

• “reconciled to himself”. In Romans 5: 10, “we have been reconciled to God”;
• it is a question of the yearning of the heart of God.

Rem. The full result could never be secured with man in the distance, however great God’s yearnings were for him in that position.

Ques. Is it essential that we should be in the gain of 2 Corinthians 5: 16, “So that we henceforth know no one according to flesh”?

G.R.C. Yes; that is the judgment which we arrive at as apprehending the death of Christ –

• “… one died for all, then all have died … So that we henceforth know no one according to flesh”.
• Actually we do know one another according to flesh, but we do not know one another as allowing links with one another on that line.

• We would not have known one another at all but for being in Christ, and we have got no right to degrade these holy links in any way by forming links with one another based purely on what is natural and social, or on anything according to the flesh.

• In our links with one another we know no one after the flesh.

Rem. Does the apostle present, in 2 Corinthians 5: 21, how much God was prepared to do, and how much Christ was prepared to suffer;

• and in the beginning of chapter 6 how much the fellow-workmen were prepared to suffer in order that this might be an actual reality –

• God having men near to Him?

• And then in verses 11-16 the challenge is as to how much we are prepared to do as regards our associations?

G.R.C. What an expression of God’s love and yearnings we have in the latter part of chapter 5! How could He have done more?

• “Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us”: He has gone to the very extreme.
• It refers to the sin-offering burnt outside the camp – Christ made sin for us; it is the very extreme to which Divine love could have gone, and it is because of love. Do we apprehend that?

• It is because of the love that God has for man – the desire to have men in Christ in nearness to Himself, and to dwell among them, and walk among them.

• He yearns for this. He has gone to the greatest possible length that this might be so.

Rem. It is wonderful that, regardless of His holy government and His disciplinary ways with His people, He should say, in the passage from which Paul quotes in Leviticus 26, that He would never break His covenant with His people, and that He would be their God.

• Then just previously to that He says,
  • “I am Jehovah your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you walk upright”, Leviticus 26: 13.

G.R.C. It is wonderful; for even in the case of the Corinthians God does not leave them because of their state.

• It says, “ye are the living God’s temple; according as God has said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them”.
• So that God never gives up His covenant in this sense nor His proposal; nor, in this dispensation does He give up His actual dwelling.

• But then it is a question of God dwelling complacently, and our providing the conditions which are suitable to Him. So the word to the Corinthians is,
  • “Our mouth is opened to you … our heart is expanded”.

• His heart was in keeping with the heart of God – as far as the creature’s heart could be. He had entered into it; he was an ambassador; he had come from God’s presence, from the very heart of God, and
  • “God, as it were beseeching by us”.

• He was entreating for Christ. The love of God and the love of Christ are in this matter; “God beseeching by us,” and they entreating for Christ,
  • “Be reconciled to God”;

• that was the general character of his ministry. But then he brings this matter down to the Corinthians,
  • “we also beseech, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain”. He adds later, “for an answering recompense, let your heart also expand itself”.

• If our heart expands itself in the love of God in this respect, it will become a lever in our souls as to what follows concerning any unholy or unsuitable links.

Ques. Does God therefore find peculiar pleasure in persons who are prepared to make sacrifices, in view of affording conditions in which He can dwell? Psalm 50 says,

• “Gather unto me my godly ones, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice!”

G.R.C. How God values that, that we should make a covenant with Him! He has covenanted to bless us, but how wonderful when He gets a response like that! It is like the heart expanding itself.

• As to this matter of yokes, etc., it is noticeable how every aspect is entered into.

• There is first the diverse yoke with unbelievers, which covers all in a way, referring to the Old Testament in which it was forbidden to yoke the ox and the ass together.

• It does not say there that you may yoke an ox and an ass together so long as the ass behaves itself, but that they are not to be put together at all.

• But then it goes on to every form of compromise.
  • “what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness?”

• “Participation” would touch shareholding, participating in profits in that sense, and in other ways of course.
  • “What fellowship of light with darkness?”

• Light and darkness are incompatible with each other; John’s ministry shows that you cannot mix light and darkness.
  • “What consent of Christ with Beliar?”

• In some cases all that people ask for is our consent. They come to the door and say, “Will you sign this? We only want your consent; we just want another name on the list”. But consent as to what?
  • Then, “what agreement of God’s temple with idols?”

• How completely the Spirit of God goes all round the point, we may say, touching every feature of it. I have missed out one –
  • “what part for a believer along with an unbeliever?”

• That would touch companionship. “Along with” is the preposition which is used of divine Persons;
  • “And now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”.

• It is the idea of companionship.

• All this is in order that God may have the great desire of His heart – a purified people, purified from every pollution of flesh and spirit; so that while He has removed all distance on His side, and at such cost, there should be no distance on our side.

• So He should be able to dwell among us, and walk among us complacently, He being our God, and we His people.

Rem. So that walking in faithfulness in the path of separation does not mean a withered heart on our part; it encourages an expanded heart, thus helping our brethren so to walk.

G.R.C. Quite so, it is the way of expansion.

Rem. Which had come into being, as you say, in His coming into manhood.

G.R.C. Quite so. He was ever loved, loved before the foundation of the world as in the abstract relations of Deity, and all that He was coming into would be anticipated.

• But then how loved He was as coming into this condition! What an object of affection. unchanged in His Person, but coming into such a condition! How loved! “An only-begotten with a father”!

Rem. So that it is a realm of mutual glory, pervaded by the mutual glory between the Father and the Son, and pervaded by the blessed Spirit. Is that what we are brought into?

G.R.C. That is just what I thought. The economy is wonderful to consider, having been devised in order to bring man into the place God had in mind for him.

• I am not wanting to limit it unduly, but surely it is a great matter that the economy has been entered into by Divine Persons in order that, in the first instance, men should be brought into life on the level which God had in mind for those of this dispensation.

Ques. Would this word “contemplated” help us? It seems a new way of approaching the matter, does it not? We get it both in John’s gospel, where you have read, and in the beginning of John’s epistle.

G.R.C. Yes, it seems most important to be in a contemplative attitude in a reading like this. It is something to contemplate,

• “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”,
• that is amongst the children of God. He did not dwell among Israel, or among the world. He dwelt among those referred to in the previous verse. He dwelt among the “us”;

• and it is our privilege, as children of God having a right to that place, to contemplate His glory – a glory as of an only-begotten with a father.

• And then it is our privilege to see Him as the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father.

• Then it is our privilege to hear the unfoldings which He makes, and which are livingly expressed in His Person as the Word, concerning the declaration of God. This is all most wonderful, and the spirit of contemplation should mark us.

Ques. Does not John give us the fullest setting forth of the economy?

G.R.C. Well, he gives us the declaration of God. In Matthew the Lord declares the Name, and of course much is said there about God.

• But I think in John we have the declaration of God in a full sense – the Son’s own declaration of God, because He alone is the Declarer of God.

• No apostle could declare God; it is the Lord’s own unique glory to declare God. I think that declaration is particularly set out in this gospel.

Ques. Would you say a little more as to your remark as to the economy being the means by which God can bring man into right relationships with Himself?

G.R.C. Well, I think it is by way of these special and unique relationships which attach to ourselves – saints of this dispensation.

• It is as coming into these; knowing our place as children of God; entering into our dignity and privilege as sons of God; and in the contemplation of the Only-Begotten, and the apprehension of God as declared.

• I think it is thus that we learn to live on a level of life which the family to which we belong alone knows.

• We live on a level of life which no other family will know; we live in these blessed relationships in the immediate presence of the Persons of the Godhead as thus manifested.
  • Our life is knit inseparably with the Persons of the Godhead.

• As Paul would say,
  • “Our life is hid with Christ in God”;

• and I think the lesser things, the other relationships which we have spoken about must be fulfilled, and are bound to be carried through, by such a company.

Ques. Would this reference to the “place” in John 14,

• “If I go and shall prepare you a place” –
• that is distinct from the many abodes in the Father’s house – bear on the uniqueness of the relationships connected with the first-born family?

G.R.C. It would. And would it not be morally on the same level as the holiest? It is another aspect of things; but in Hebrews our place is within the veil, and no other family has such a place. Here the Lord says as to the Father’s house,

• “I go to prepare you a place”.
• No other family has that place. As He says in the prayer in John 17,
  • “That where I am they also may be with me”.

• According to our chapter He says that He would receive us to Himself,
  • “That where I am ye also may be”. But to the Father He says,

  • “that they may be with me where I am”.

Ques. May I ask whether you could help us as to what bearing Christ going to the Father has on the understanding of the economy at the present time?

• In the gospel of John He leads the disciples to look forward to His going to the Father as completing matters.

• To get the full presentation of the economy, as it is to be known now, do we have by the Spirit’s power to realise the advantage which accrues through Christ going to the Father?

• And is that a fuller setting out of the economy than was actually known when He was down here?

G.R.C. I do not think that we could have been vitally brought into the economy till the Lord had departed from this world to go to the Father. Does it not say in chapter 13,

• “Knowing that his hour had come that he should depart out of this world to the Father”?
• We could have no vital part in the economy until that had taken place. It brings us back to what we have already considered – the blood of Christ, His death. In the prayer in John 17 He says,
  • “I have completed the work which thou gavest me that I should do it”: the whole prayer is really based on that.

• He had completed the work which He had come to do; and He requests to be glorified, on that account, with the Father with the glory which He had with Him before the world was.

• But then He goes on to pray relative to the place which the men whom the Father had given Him would have. I do not think we could have come into the economy, nor could the disciples have done so, in the days of His flesh.

• They contemplated; and, as it says in the epistle, they saw with their eyes, and their hands handled; but as yet they could not be vitally in it. Is that right?

Rem. Surely.

G.R.C. So that everything depends upon Christ’s present position, and we read the gospel in the light of that.

• We would not understand what He said about God, or the declaration of God, but for the fact that He is now where He is; and we have now received the Holy Spirit.

Ques. The bosom of the Father is the Lord’s present position then?

G.R.C. It was His position when here, as well as now.

• “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him”.
• He was in the Father’s bosom when He was here; and He is in the Father’s bosom now, I take it, and will be eternally.

Ques. So the declaration of God is not to be an academic matter, is it? “In the bosom of the Father”, the declaration made in that place, would mean it is a matter of love with us.

G.R.C. It would, and would mean that it stands related to this economy. It is the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father telling us what He knows as there – in that position.

Ques. Therefore the declaration of God involves, in a peculiar way in John’s presentation, the revelation of the Father, does it not?

G.R.C. It does. At the same time it involves the manifestation of the Son in the greatness of His Person. If we look at the gospel as a whole, it is remarkable.

• It begins, in the first three verses, with the most emphatic assertion that Jesus is I AM; He Himself asserts it later; but the first three verses are the most emphatic assertion which could be conceived, that Jesus is I AM. That is, He never began to be.

• In the beginning He was, but everything else began to be through Him. That is the idea of the name I AM – that God alone is self-existent, every other existence being derived from Him; and that is Jesus according to the first three verses.

• Of course it is the Father too, and the Spirit, but the great point is that it is Jesus Who is that. He never began to be; but everything else, ‘began to be’ – that is the literal word – through Him.

• Then it says here that the Word ‘began to be’ flesh; that is the new beginning; but then as the gospel proceeds the Father comes into view, and also the Spirit, so much so that in chapter 14 the Lord says that they knew Him;

• that is they knew the Son, and they knew the Father because they knew the Son, and then they knew the Spirit. It is all objective knowledge. So they are viewed as having an objective knowledge of the Trinity, as we speak. Is that right?

Rem. I would fully agree.

G.R.C. But then it is the only-begotten Son in the Father’s bosom who makes it all known. It is He who tells us about the Father, the Head of the economy, the God and Father who is over all, and through all, and in us all.

• And it is He who tells us about Himself, although the Spirit bears witness in the first three verses of John 1;

• but, as the gospel proceeds, He makes it clear Himself Who He is; and it is He who tells us about the Holy Spirit, and makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is a Person, another Comforter.

Ques. Would John suggest that the economy is brought in, not only to meet the need occasioned by sin, but from God’s own heart; it is His rights in love, is it not, to satisfy His own heart?

G.R.C. Well, that is the remarkable thing about the affections prevailing in the economy. The Father’s love for the Son has no bearing on the sin question.

• “The Father loves the Son”.
• Well you can understand how the Father came into manifestation when the Son was here. There was an Object adequate to draw out the affections of the Father, and the Father loves the Son.

• And then the Son loves the Father; that in itself is outside the sin question.

• Then by the Father’s Spirit we are brought into the flow of the Father’s love for the Son, and by the Spirit of God’s Son we are brought into the flow of the Son’s love for the Father;

• so that we are really brought into affections of the highest order, and we are to live in those affections – ‘Where love’s treasures are displayed’.

Ques. Is that why John does not stress the feature of sonship as Paul does? Paul’s line would be more connected with glory in display? Is John not developing the peculiar affections which flow between Divine Persons and in which it is our privilege to have part?

G.R.C. It seems to be that. And we could not conceive of a greater privilege than to have part, and be in the flow of, the Father’s affections for the Son, and the Son’s affections for the Father, and all that in the power of the Holy Spirit, and to find our very life in that economy. That is where we live.

Ques. Would that be seen in the bosom of Jesus in the 13th chapter?

G.R.C. Yes. I think it would. The economy had a beginning. God had no beginning: Jesus had no beginning, He is the I AM; but the economy had a beginning. It began when the Word became flesh; and John speaks of,

• “That which was from the beginning”. Certain relationships began then.
• However much they may have been anticipated, the real beginning was then; and this is the outstanding relationship, one would say, in the economy – the Father and the Son, and the Son as the only-begotten Son in the Father’s bosom.

Ques. Would those affections be seen in John 17: 26 –

• “I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”?

G.R.C. That is exactly what was in mind,

• “that the love with which thou hast loved me” – that the Father’s love for the Son should be in us;

• and “I in them” means Christ in us.
• So that His affections for the Father are flowing responsively in us. It seems to me a wonderful thing that by the Spirit we should be in the flow in both directions.

• The Spirit has been given to us that we may be in the flow of the Father’s affections for the Son, and be conscious too that those affections embrace us;

• and that we may be in the flow of responsive affections of the Son for the Father, He always having His own unique place as the Son.

Ques. Is it going too far to say that what you are bringing before us is really descriptive of the expression which Paul uses, “the life of God” in Ephesians 4: 18?

G.R.C. I would think that it would bear on this. It speaks of the nations as

• “estranged from the life of God by reason of the ignorance which is in them”.
• And life was manifested here as light according to this chapter,
  • “In him was life”.

• In Jesus there was a Man living in relation to God: all His springs were in God; and those who had eyes to see could see that those springs were those of an only-begotten with a father. There was a Man – it refers to Jesus in Manhood – and
  • “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”, bearing on what we are saying as to God’s relations with men.

• It is not the light of angels, nor simply the light of Israel; the life was the light of men. The light had come that men might apprehend what was in God’s mind for them. Is that so?

Rem. Yes, and I thought the life of God really involved the relationships in which He lived.

Rem. It was a life of sacrificing love, in this foreign scene, was it not?

G.R.C. It was. Of course, that brings in the point that while these affections viewed by themselves –

• that is the Father’s love for the Son, and the Son’s love for the Father and the Spirit’s love, as we may say, for the Father and the Son –

• subsist apart from the sin question, the sin question had to be met to achieve what was in the Divine mind.

• Therefore, as you say, it was a sacrificial life; and the Father has a further motive for loving the Son,
  • “On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again”.

Ques. Would you say something as to knowing the Spirit in John 14: 17? Can we speak of a relationship with the Spirit?

G.R.C. Well, in that chapter the relationship, if you can call it such, is that of Comforter, the Paraclete.

• As the footnote indicates, it is somewhat the kind of relationship which a solicitor has with a family, though the human illustration completely fails because of the affections involved in this;

• but He is the Comforter in the sense that He takes full charge of the saints; and we know the One who is in charge. We know Him; He dwells with us and in us, and the Lord could say of the disciples that they knew Him.

Ques. Was it that they knew Him in the Person of Jesus in His relations with His Father?

G.R.C. We have come to the objective knowledge of God in the Person of Jesus, for in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

• It is in that glorified Man that we come to know the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the word ‘knowledge’ in chapter 14 is objective knowledge – knowledge of a Person. Is that so?

Rem. Yes, I was thinking of the disciples themselves. The Lord says “Ye know him”. Had they known the blessed Spirit objectively in the Person of Jesus?

G.R.C. I thought so, because even when He was here in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell; and I believe the word in Colossians specially links with John’s gospel – not excluding of course the other gospels – because it is the same Person.

• But it seems to me it is in this gospel that we specially see that in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell. The Spirit descended and abode upon Him, and He Himself says,
  • “the Father who abides in me, he does the works”.

  • “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”

  • “In Him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell, and by him to reconcile all things to itself, having made peace by the blood of his cross”.

• And this is the only gospel which gives the blood of His cross.

Ques. Could you say a little more as to how the saints know the Spirit as in Jesus? We have understood that we have seen the Father as in Jesus, but I do not think we have thought so much about the Spirit as in Jesus.

G.R.C. Well, for one thing – I cannot say much about it; much more could be said than this – He is another Comforter, and they had known Jesus in that character. As you say, they had seen the Father in Jesus. He says,

• “He that has seen me has seen the Father”.
• Fatherhood was perfectly expressed in Jesus. He was a perfect representation of the Father; even in washing their feet He was doing what a father would do for his children; and it is in that chapter that He calls them children. A father will do anything for his children.

• But then He also had the place of Comforter, because He said,
  • “He will send you another comforter”.

• That is, Jesus had cared for them, and taken charge of them; and, so far as they were able to bear it, He had led them into the truth.

• So in that way they would apprehend the Spirit in Him, that He was another Comforter, and that He would act in those ways as Jesus had acted.

Ques. Would you say that when the Lord says, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons”, the disciples would become acquainted with the Spirit as they observed the Lord’s movements in that way?

G.R.C. I think that enters into the matter also; everything He did was by the Spirit.

Ques. Is not the Lord Jesus still the blessed Paraclete on high, with the Father, according to John’s epistle?

G.R.C. He is.

Ques. Is there not the thought of mystery entering into it? So that in chapter 14 the Lord Jesus says, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father”. Is it not only the thought of representation, but that the Father personally is to be seen in the Son? Does that not involve the thought of mystery?

G.R.C. I think it does.

Ques. So do you think the expression, “Ye know him for he abides with you and shall be in you”, would indicate that it is a characteristic matter, through the dispensation?

G.R.C. I think so. I think that verse covers the whole of this dispensation. We know the Spirit: He abides with us and is in us.

Ques. We understand how the disciples would have known Him as seeing Jesus; but is it not to bear upon us, as being a peculiar mark of the dispensation, that we know Him?

G.R.C. I think so. It is very precious, I think, that we know the Spirit.

Ques. Does the apostle’s reference in Romans 15, “But I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit”, bear on what you are saying? Is that love of the Spirit, known personally, to be a strong lever in our souls?

G.R.C. I think so. The Spirit’s service is carried on in perfect love, is it not? Love for the Father; love for the Son; and love for the saints; it is a wonderful service of love. Then the disciples would not only know the Spirit in other ways, but particularly by what the Lord said about Him.

• The idea of declaration is ‘telling out’. The Lord has told out all that could be told out as to God.

Ques. Is that why, in practically every reference the Lord makes to the Spirit as the Comforter and in His service, He links the Father and Himself with Him?

• “I will beg the Father and he will give you another Comforter”;

• “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name”;

• “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father”.
• Do we have to keep the Spirit in perspective, as being linked with the other two Persons all the time?

G.R.C. That is good, because it keeps in our souls the truth that God is One, does it not? We can distinguish the Persons, but not separate them.

Rem. I thought that linked on with what you have been saying as to the saints being brought into the economy, and the Spirit being with us and in us.

G.R.C. Quite so. How could we be in the economy otherwise?

Ques. Does not the passage in Hebrews 9 fit in?

• “How much rather shall the blood of the Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God”.
• I was thinking how it would bring on to our view the glory of the Holy Person who was there – the truth that,
  • “in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell”.

G.R.C. I am sure that is right; and so we ought specially to value the Lord’s words in this gospel as the telling out or declaration of God.

• He has brought out all that could be known of God; expressed in His Person, but also told out in His words.

• How much He has told us of the Father; but how much He has told us about Himself, and how much He has told us about the Holy Spirit!

• So that even His words, if apprehended, would give us a knowledge of the Persons of the Godhead.

Ques. Israel in their economy had to understand their relations with God on the basis of the four offerings by fire. Are we to understand our relations with God in regard to all that has come out in expression in the Son, Jesus?

G.R.C. Yes, but then our relations with God are equally resting on the four offerings by fire. We could not come into the economy at all but for that. As has already been said, in John 17 the Lord says,

• “I have glorified thee on the earth, I have completed the work which thou gavest me that I should do it”;
• and, from that point on, He does not refer to the men whom the Father has given him as though they had any earthly origin or sinful history. Their origin is with the Father –
  • “Thine they were and thou gavest them me” – and there is no reference to any sinful history.

• He is praying in respect of their part in this wondrous economy – that in unity they might enter into it, and be held in it. He says,
  • “they are not of the world as I am not of the world”.

• But then the fact that He could refer to them, and that He could hold them in His affections in that way, has its basis in the fact that – speaking anticipatively of course – He had completed the work which the Father had given Him to do; and that involves the four offerings by fire.

• That is the basis on which every family is blessed, however great the blessing is; otherwise there is no foundation.

• And therefore while these affections in the economy in themselves stand outside the sin question, they have been brought into the matter of dealing with it.

• The Father’s love in type in Genesis 22 is first brought before us in a setting of anguish; so that these affections, known in their flow in the economy, have been proved in their depth and blessedness in the way the sin question has been taken up and settled.
  • “Hereby we have known love because he has laid down his life for us”.

• If these affections had been brought before us only abstractly, not only could we never have had part in them, because we are sinners, but we could not have understood the wonder and the depth of them.

• But actually the Word becoming flesh was a primary matter, as we know from Hebrews 10: 5-7, so that men might be brought into this economy, and might dwell in affections which really had nothing to do with the sin question, but which have been tried and tested relative to it.

• The Father’s love being first mentioned in a setting of anguish is to be taken account of: that is how it is introduced typically in Scripture –
  • “Take now thy son, thine only son whom thou lovest, Isaac”.

• The antitype is in John 1, of course. This One, as an “only-begotten with a father”, was on a path which was going to end in death; so that, when He is first announced, it is
  • “Behold the Lamb of God”, not ‘Behold the Word’, not ‘Behold the I AM’, but “Behold the Lamb of God”.

• He had come for that purpose; that is how He has proved His love, not only as to us, but to the Father. He has proved it before the universe.
  • “That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father has commanded me thus I do”.

• So the Lord, in His perfect Manhood, has proved to the universe His love for the Father in keeping His commandment even to death.

• The Father’s love for the Son has been manifested in all the anguish which it meant for the Father to surrender the Son to such suffering. He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

• And then the Spirit too has entered into all that. The Spirit loves the Father and the Son perfectly, and He loves us perfectly; and it was by the Eternal Spirit that the Lord Jesus offered Himself spotless to God.

• The Spirit’s feelings have entered into everything connected with the incarnation, the preparation of the body, and the perfect manhood of Christ.

• He was with Him in every step of the way, in His path of obedience, and with Him even in the last great act of obedience and sacrifice –
  • “by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God”.

• That is how the Spirit’s affections have been proved and manifested to the universe, and especially to be known by us. It is in that that the glory of God as God shone out.

• There are these affections in the economy which are supreme, and between Divine Persons; but the way the glory of God as God has come into radiant manifestation is in the way the Persons of the Godhead have met the sin question.

• In the way in which that has been done, God, in His nature and character as God, has come into full display, and in a way which we can apprehend, and which other families will yet apprehend through us.

• A brother was saying recently that the city only has the glory of God; that is, the inhabitants of the city alone are capable of being in the immediate presence of that radiant outshining.

• The glory of God enlightens the city, and the Lamb is the lamp of it, and the inhabitants of the city would be in the immediate presence of that radiant outshining of the effulgence of God’s glory.

• But “her shining” would be the modification of that, to suit other families which get their light through the assembly. These families could not all bear ‘that glory beam, unhindered face to face’ as the hymn puts it, only those of the assembly:

• nevertheless the glory beam is shining in all its radiance; and it has come out in the way Divine Persons, having entered into this economy, have dealt with the question of sin.

Rem. The city will furnish a medium in that way in which divine outshining is diffused, you might say, through the city, tempered to the whole universe. The tabernacle of God, presumably, will even more so furnish something of that character in eternity.

G.R.C. Quite so, because the tabernacle of God is still the city; so that there is still the diffusion of light, but it is modified, or tempered as you say, through the city, so that each family takes in from the city what it is able to bear.

• Israel takes in what Israel is capable of taking in; and other families take in what they can take in; even the nations walk by its light; but the inhabitants of the city are in the full blaze – ‘Like Him to know that glory beam, unhindered face to face’.

• So the economy having come into being, the activities of Divine Persons in that economy, in dealing with the sin question, have brought the whole character and nature of God into radiant display, and that will hold us all through eternity. That is why it says,
  • “God himself shall be with them, their God”.

• We would not think of having any other God than that God.

Ques. You made a remark a little earlier in regard to Philadelphia that you felt we had got a long way to go. Would you say a little more about that? I apprehend that it touches something of the climax of what you have in mind in these meetings?

G.R.C. Yes. I think that we have a long way to go to get to a Philadelphian state.

• What we discover from time to time, as light comes in as to what we are going on with, only proves this, that we are not yet fully in accord with God’s temple. The temple of God is holy, and such are ye, and as we had this morning,
  • “Ye are the living God’s temple; according as God has said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them”, 2 Corinthians 6: 16.

• We must not – I say this in passing – think that when it says, “the living God’s temple”, that we are distinguishing between that and the tabernacle; that is not so. There was a temple of the tabernacle, and a temple of the house which Solomon built.

• The temple first mentioned in Scripture – 1 Samuel 1: 9 and 3: 3 – is the temple of the tabernacle where Samuel lay; it is the shrine, the immediate presence of God;

• but in Corinthians it is the tabernacle of witness here, and the shrine of the tabernacle here, where we are now, we are in the shrine; we belong to it, the tabernacle of witness.

• But then the tabernacle of God in eternity is the shrine itself, and it is evident that we are not fully in accord with the temple. Exercises which are raised from time to time show that we are not yet fully in accord with it, as the word is,
  • “Wherefore come out from among them”. That is, the basis of the exhortation is that the saints are temple of God, “and be ye separated” – not simply separate but “separated”.

• It is perfectly evident to me that we are not yet fully in accord with what we should be as the temple of God.

Ques. Do you visualise a time when believers will be?

G.R.C. Well, we are to labour to that end, are we not? The Lord says of the overcomer in Philadelphia,

• “Him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God”.
• I am referring to the temple, because that is the promise to this overcomer. God would credit the whole assembly with the features which are found in Philadelphia. How we would desire that all the saints on earth should be brought into line with that.

• But God is prepared, and the Lord is prepared, to clothe all His own on earth with the features He may find only in a few. He is looking for those features to be wrought out, as we may say, to finality. The word to Sardis is,
  • “I have not found thy works complete”; that is the general condition;

• but in Philadelphia the works are complete; the Lord has nothing but approval.

• There is a little strength – not much – but with the strength available the works are completed,
  • and the saints there are in keeping with what they are as the temple of the tabernacle, the very shrine of God, and in keeping too with the city.

• So we should be deeply exercised about all this because of the light we have been given.

Ques. Is there a danger of thinking that Philadelphia is a position, instead of a condition or state?

G.R.C. That is right. It is probably right to say that it is a position, but it must be a position coupled with a state proper to it.

Ques. Would Ephesians 2 help –

• “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father. So then ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but ye are fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone, in whom all the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit” –
• would that cover what we are seeking to get at?

G.R.C. Yes, because I believe that the more we find our life in the economy, in these affections we have spoken about, the more we shall have strength to take up the obligations connected with being fellow-citizens, the temple of God and the habitation of God.

• These affections in the economy underlie everything; and we live in them, or we should do so; and they are touched on in
  • “through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”.

Ques. Are the relationships in John 20 unique to this time, the assembly’s time, this matter of the brethren of the Lord Jesus, and His Father and our Father, His God and our God?

G.R.C. I only suggested reading that to show how wonderful are the relationships which God has entered into with men in connection with the economy.

• We are children of God; and that is a title not linked, as far as I see, with any other family besides the saints of this dispensation.

• Then we are Christ’s brethren on the highest level, and sons of God on the highest level.

Ques. Is this thought of the practical side of the truth finalised in Revelation 21: 7?

• “He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son”.
• Is that not the way the matter stands as to the practical side of the truth?

G.R.C. I think so. So we have in the eternal scene wonderful things stated – first the tabernacle of God, and saints of this dispensation are that;

• the assembly is the tabernacle of God, where the relationships to which we have been referring, between the Father and the Son by the Spirit, are known, and into which we are brought.

• They are not known in the same way by any other family, but are known by us, and our very life is in them. But then it goes on to say that,
  • “the tabernacle of God is with men and he shall tabernacle with them”; that would refer to other families, of course, with whom He dwells through the assembly, through the tabernacle.

  • Then it says, “they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God” so that that relationship is not abrogated.

• The idea of “with men”, while it includes other families, includes the assembly as composed of men too; they form the tabernacle; they are the nearest family.

• But then there is also the thought of “people” – God and a people: it is not given up – “they shall be his people”.

• While we ourselves have far greater relationships than that, as forming the tabernacle, yet from the general standpoint we come into it; it is the general idea –
  • “they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God”.

• It is the thought of God and a people.

Ques. Why do you think in that connection that what is predicted of God is His wiping away every tear – at the height of the matter, as we might say, “God himself shall be with them, their God”; then what is described is the wiping away of every tear?

G.R.C. The tears being wiped away at that stage will be those of other families, will they not?

Ques. Is it a question of God arriving at a position in which every matter is brought complacently into accord with Himself, in His own love?

G.R.C. Quite so. Our tears will have been wiped away earlier, will they not?

Rem. Quite so.

G.R.C. All tears are to be wiped away; and then it goes on as to the overcomer,

• “I will be to him God and he shall be to me son”;
• that is in the public position; the overcomer is owned as son in the setting of majesty and the setting of the throne.

Ques. In that connection does the expression, “God himself” link right back with “Jehovah Elohim” which you began with – God coming in, in a personal way, to be known and loved, and served?

G.R.C. I think it does, so that God achieves all that He set out to do.

Ques. Would that expression, “God Himself”, involve the nearness of the Mediator to the whole creation, in the Person of Christ as Man?

G.R.C. Well, it would, because God is ever known in Him.