⬇ EPUB

PURIFICATION (1)

JT The thought is that we might trace a little the idea of purification. The third chapter of John, which is no doubt well known by most of us, leads in our subject in a basic sense. The Lord evidently selected the man to open up the subject to him, and he represents a class. He remained in the Sanhedrim after his conversation. He never openly identified himself with Christ until the Lord died. There are many like that now, and so we should have open minds as to the setting of this subject, to include in them persons who are not separate outwardly, and yet are genuine to some extent. The Lord may be working with them, and we have to keep those people in mind as well as those we know who are in the truth. There are many undoubtedly in mind in 2 Timothy 2: 19, “The Lord knows those that are his”, and there are some marks which they bear and, although carrying worldliness, when put to the test they show that they have some regard for the Lord and secretly are indeed His. Nicodemus represents this class. Therefore, it is said, “There was a man from among the Pharisees, his name Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; he came to him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God, for none can do these signs that thou doest unless God be with him”. This was his speech. The Lord did not accost him first. He accosted the Lord. He came to Jesus by night and addressed Him as “Rabbi” which shows he recognised Him as a teacher; he himself was a teacher. It goes on to show that he links the Lord with God, which is a great matter “We know that thou art come a teacher from God, for none can do these signs that thou doest unless God be with him”. Therefore, the Lord has a basis to work on and proceeds to use one of the double ‘verilies’, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God”. That is the Lord’s first remark, and if we bear it in mind, it will help us throughout. One has to be born anew. The Lord does not say to him that personally he had to be, for he had been born anew. Hence, the true persons of this type have something, some discernment, and the Lord’s first remark shows that they have got to face this fact that new birth has to be known and felt, so He proceeds further to open up the next remarks.

CHH Would you say that the fact that he uses “we” indicates that he represents a class? Would that bring the whole class that he represents under the responsibility of the present day?

JT I suppose so. This light the Lord furnishes, this teaching, is for them especially, in fact, wholly, for already the Lord had discriminated against others.

The “but” of the first verse discriminates. Others, we are told, the Lord had no confidence in. It says in chapter 2: 24, “But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men, and that he had not need that any should testify of man, for himself knew what was in man”. Therefore, the Lord Jesus is regarded here as come from heaven, having discriminative feelings amongst men. They are different in His eyes. There is a difference between those that can be trusted and those who cannot. He knew. We might as well just eliminate them if we only knew, but of course, the gospel includes them. This is not exactly a gospel address. It is a teaching address and they are excluded in the Lord’s mind. Men like Nicodemus are included in what He has to say.

SMcC It is interesting that over against what Nicodemus says, “We know”, the Lord says, “We speak that which we know”. He does not say, ‘I speak that which I know’, but “we speak that which we know”. What do you think the Lord has in mind in that “we” there over against the “I say unto thee”?

JT I think it would be the ‘we’ of authority, one who knows. “We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen, and ye receive not our witness”. The “ye” there addressed to Nicodemus is, I would think, the Pharisees, those who did not receive the Lord’s witness. What would you say?

SMcC I was wanting to know about the use of the word ‘we’. He had been speaking about “I” all through. Then he says in this verse, “We speak”. Is He including the disciples?

JT I think it is more authority. They are not yet in the picture as to teaching in John, because John the baptist had not yet been cast into prison. The Lord had not formally started His ministry yet. The “we” would be in authority. As regards the “we” Nicodemus used, “we know”, that would be probably his own class, persons he knew who had formed a judgment as he had about the Lord Jesus that He had come from God. He was basing it on signs. But the other “we”, I think, is the “we” of authority. The Lord might have included others. He might have included John the baptist, but it would seem that what He had to say was referring to Himself because He says, “If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?”. His mind turns to those who did not believe and He uses the singular, referring to Himself personally. So it seems as if at the outset we should learn to speak in the same way, with some measure of authority if we know, and if the persons we are speaking to show that they are against the truth, we have to ^[p. 173] tell them.

AAT I was wondering whether “we know” is knowledge in the matter of growth?

JT It is a question of whether Nicodemus’ “we know” is a matter of knowledge of some persons like himself who by the signs that the Lord performed concluded that He came from God. You might call that growth. I should think there is some sense that Nicodemus implies that he had thought of what the Lord had been doing. So we have to judge every one of these ‘we knows’ by itself, as to what it may mean. Now what is before us is that Nicodemus is an interested man. The Lord acknowledges that in the way He speaks to him. There were others that He would not speak to in that way.

JWB Would “Rabbi”, as Nicodemus calls Him, involve the thought of seeing? In the first chapter, we have the two disciples of John who say “Rabbi ... where abidest thou?”, and He says, “Come and see”. Then Nathanael calls him “Rabbi” at the end of the first chapter, and the Lord tells him that he shall “see greater things than these”.

JT He says to Him, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God”. That “Rabbi” is of great value. It enters into John’s line, John’s way. It is a title that is much used in John. It ends in the word “Rabboni” used by Mary Magdalene, “My Teacher”, which shows that it runs through John and it ought to appeal to us in our present inquiry as to whether we are ready to be taught, because John implies that the christian ought to be taught. John says that they shall be all taught of God. There is a great amount of teaching if we listen and profit by it. Nathanael is with the Lord and he is a quick learner, too. He is a much quicker learner than Nicodemus. Nicodemus is a slow learner, but still he learned. The point is to be learners, take in the right teaching.

SWP Would Nicodemus present himself as willing for ^[p. 174] adjustment?

JT I do not know whether he is willing to go the whole way. The sequel would hardly show that he was immediately ready to go the whole way with the Lord, because he stayed in the council. Nathanael is a quick learner. The Lord called him, “An Israelite, in whom there is no guile”. So it is said, “Philip finds Nathanael, and says to him, We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth”. Rather than speaking roughly, He gave a heavy dose of the truth, but He did not give that same dose to Nicodemus. Nathanael was a quick learner. He says, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and says of him, Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile”. He is very different from Nicodemus. No honours at all are paid to Nicodemus, but there is a great deal paid to Nathanael because he is a quick learner. “An Israelite in whom there is no guile”. The Lord does not say that of Nicodemus. Then “Nathanael says to him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and said to him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”. That is to say, he is a quick learner, and the Lord knows that because he quotes from the Psalms, and the Lord further says, “Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. And he says to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”. We can see in Nathanael we have a quick learner which the Lord values. It would seem as though Nathanael became an apostle, although his name is not mentioned. Bartholomew is probably the ^[p. 175] same person.

CHH Would you think that Nicodemus was never quite purified from associations?

JT Just as Jonathan remained as he was in his father’s house and died with his father, Nicodemus, you might say, denied the Lord in a sense. You may say that he came out in time. Joseph of Arimathaea came out as the Lord died. I would say that they are a class that come out in the end. The real thing is there and so it was in John’s time. It is a sorrowful thing that they are not associated with the Lord until He died. We cannot say how far they went.

SWP The Lord spends much more time with Nicodemus than with Nathanael unfolding what He has in His mind.

JT I think the Lord would consider him a man of influence who might, as far as he could go in the council, make some seed be fruitful, because what he says in chapter 7 shows that he was a genuine person and he really suffered: “Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look, that no prophet arises out of Galilee”. He is under reproach there and yet he had not left the council. I am sure there are many like that and we must have our eyes open to it.

ASB Is there something in the fact that Nathanael is singled out? The Lord says of him, “An Israelite”, but Nicodemus, “The teacher of Israel”, is in the system and great responsibility lies with him.

JT The Lord would imply in His remarks in that sense that Nicodemus was in His mind and possibly usable to spread the seed of the truth. Any person like that should be. He is what would be called an honest man. Although he was not separate, he is usable to some extent. I think if we follow the line of ministry, the revival, we see that that is exactly what happened. The truth is presented to persons who might take it in and who might spread it, but who did not all come out. Nicodemus was on the right ^[p. 176] line, but although very slow he came out in time, and brought an offering of spices.

EC Would you say something about the necessity of new birth as the basis for purification?

JT That is the thought we had. We have now finished what came up-which was very important — with regard to Nicodemus and Nathanael, and we have this matter of purification which the Lord does not mention at the first. The Lord’s first remark is, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Now that is not purification. It is the Lord’s second remark that unfolds the idea of purification. Nicodemus says, “How can a man be born being old?”, showing that he is governed by natural thoughts; yet he has other thoughts which are good. “Can he enter a second time into the womb of his mother and be born?” is a purely natural inquiry which shows how his mind is running, and the Lord answers, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee ...”. These ‘verilies’ are the insertions of special truths. There are about twenty four of them in the whole book. This one is “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born of water and of Spirit”. That is an addition. The Lord is not repeating. He is adding another thought, namely, water. He is adding to the idea of being born. Being born is not so much stressed as the word ‘anew’. That is another time. The Lord is stressing that more than the idea of water, but He is stressing water, too.

CHH Is it a continuity of the stone water vessels of purification going right through John?

JT There is probably something in that. I think, however, the Lord is opening up a wholly new matter with Nicodemus, and He is bringing in the idea of the water which was for the purification of the Jews. That is being used. That is turned into wine, and, therefore, finished, as it were, that idea. What the ^[p. 177] Lord says about the water in verse 5 is, I think, another thing. He has much more on His mind which could be opened up in the earlier chapter which refers to the millennium. Here is what refers to christianity, I would say. “Except any one be born of water and of Spirit”-water is put before the Spirit-”he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. The kingdom of God is not the millennium exactly. It is what is going to take form and would take form in John as christianity.

SMcC What would you say refers to the millennium?

JT The second chapter, “According to the purification of the Jews”. They were empty and the Lord says, “Fill the water-vessels with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he says to them, Draw out now”, and the result is what typifies Israel in the future, I would say, but this chapter refers to christianity. The Lord has christianity in mind, heavenly things. He is teaching purification here, at once introducing the idea of water in connection with new birth, that you are to be born not only of the Spirit, but of water.

SMcC Is this being born of water and of Spirit an automatic process consequent upon the new birth, or is it an intelligent moral process in the believer?

JT It is an additional thought. It is an application of the idea of new birth because He says, “Except any one be born of water”. Notice it is “born of”; ‘born of’ is not an idea of cleansing, but water is. The water is used in the process of birth the same as the water of the “washing of regeneration”. Regeneration is not cleansing by itself, neither is new birth cleansing by itself. The water is additional and is jointly used in the process. It is the cleansing element, the idea of purification inserted basically in the new beginning. It is a new beginning.

GMcP Does it represent the power of the truth ^[p. 178] working in our souls to bring us into the heavenly side of the truth?

JT It is too soon to say heavenly. In saying these things the Lord says, “If I have said the earthly things to you”. New birth belongs to the earthly. It is an earthly term. We are not born in heaven. We are born on earth. Nor is new birth introducing us into sonship, or even the position of children. It is less than that. We have to be careful in the use of terms, only that the word ‘water’ is here before the word ‘Spirit’ in this operation of the Spirit called new birth.

SMcC The general thought is that new birth has to do with children. Sonship is on the line of gift, but children are in connection with birth.

JT This word goes that far. When the word ‘children’ is used in chapter 1, the idea of this teaching in chapter 3 is included. It is said, “As many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”, John 1: 12, 13. Now new birth in chapter 3 is included in that but it does not go so far as the idea of being born of God. I think it is important to bear this in mind, otherwise we lump things, you know, and the Lord does not. He calls this matter in chapter 3 new birth, something that is earthly. He says, “If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?”. Therefore, I remarked that the Lord has not gone on to the heavenly yet, nor to the idea of children. He is dealing basically with both. The idea of children brings us into a new status correlative with sonship but sonship takes us to heaven.

SWP Would this be the basis on which we could receive the testimony in order to become children?

JT I think that Nicodemus shows in his history ^[p. 179] that he was capable of receiving testimony. In fact, his opening remarks show this; He says, “We know that thou art come a teacher from God”. He is very definite about that and he bases it on the signs. He is not an ordinary man and these are men we have to be watchful of and follow them up.

CHH So that the seed of the word in Peter would be in advance of this.

JT Exactly. It is in advance of this; it is “The living and abiding word of God”.

HB It speaks of being called “By glory and virtue”. Would the thought of the virtue fit in somewhere in the earlier thought?

JT It would fit in the gospel. “Called us by glory and virtue”. Peter has a great way of speaking in his epistles of one thing working on another thing and that working still on something else. We are getting the idea of new birth here. Something must flow out of that. The idea of virtue enters into the teaching set before Nicodemus. Nicodemus is himself a virtuous man.

CDeB This remark draws him out and causes him to think, not understanding what he was saying.

JT He would not get very far if he remained in the council. The council is not great enough for this man and he stayed too long in it.

SMcC Would you help us on the difference between born of water and of Spirit and begotten of God?

JT We have not got so far in this chapter as the term begotten of God which John uses in chapter 2 of his epistle. We have to learn to come to a point, because John has in mind that we are to be learners or disciples and to address the Lord as “Rabbi”.

Ques The word ‘born’ is mentioned eight times here. Is that the teaching of this?

JT That is the thing to keep your eye open for. It is a teaching word and we are in a teaching section ^[p. 180] and we are in the presence of the Teacher, the Lord Jesus, the heavenly Teacher, God Himself come down, who teaches, because it says, “And they shall be all taught of God” (John 6: 45) and we are also in the presence of a man who is also a teacher, according to man, and there is something to be acknowledged in him. He is the teacher of Israel. The Lord calls him that and He says, You should know these things. It is a matter of importance that we have a man to deal with. Although he is in the council he may be talked to this way. You should know so-and-so. You know the Bible. He appealed to him in that way. So it is a teaching time. It is a teaching section.

CHH Would “born” here go so far as to involve a new personality?

JT I do not think it goes so far, because you have got a person, then you have an individuality on new ground, and Nicodemus is not really that yet, because he is still in the council and he is still a teacher in Israel. You could hardly say that to any man in the Roman Catholic Church or Presbyterian. You can hardly go so far as to say that he is the teacher of Israel or of the Jews. He is hardly entitled to such an epithet as that, whereas Nicodemus was. The Lord recognises him as a teacher of Israel.

EC Would you say that entering the kingdom of God is a more practical matter than just seeing it? The water and the Spirit are required for purification to enter.

JT We have just got to that point. The Lord’s first remark is plain enough: “Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Then the next answer is “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. Well now, did Nicodemus do that? Did he ever move, because the word ‘enter’ means movement; seeing does not except in the eye. Did he come into the kingdom when he put ^[p. 181] the Lord in the tomb? What did he have in his mind when he put the Lord in the tomb? He did all honours to the Lord as far as you could speak of honours in burial, but the Lord is going to rise in three days, as He had already said, and Nicodemus, even in chapter 19, did not seem to know that. Therefore, did he really enter into the kingdom? We have to come to what happened in Nicodemus. He remained in the council.

EC We have to understand the bearing of the water on purification before we can enter?

JT Yes, whether we made a movement in that respect. He should have left the council and joined the disciples. The Lord says to them, “He that is washed all over needs not to wash save his feet”. Could that be said to Nicodemus? I do not think so.

Not yet. He was not washed all over.

GMcP Would it suggest the truth of baptism? I was thinking of what was said to Paul, “Arise and get baptised, and have thy sins washed away”.

JT That is another thing, washing away your sins. It is important to bring that in here because it would show that he was very like Nicodemus in that sense; he was tarrying, he was not going the whole way in Damascus, but he was going faster than Nicodemus, but he was not going fast enough for Ananias. He says, “Arise ... and have thy sins washed away”, as much as to say, ‘You are not going fast enough’.

Ques Would this be one who would see the kingdom? He says there, “We know that thou art come a teacher from God”. Did he see the kingdom of God?

JT I should not like to say that he did. He stayed in the Jewish system. He had no exercise as far as we can see, although he spoke nicely about the Lord, but then he is not leaving. The point is that the time had come for leaving, to be a disciple of ^[p. 182] Jesus, and Nicodemus was not moving in relation to that because he did not leave the system that he was in.

Ques You would say that he was born anew?

JT We said that in the beginning. He is not moving in relation to it.

SWP Your thought of purification is primarily to be clear of what is accredited as religious.

JT You mean that purification implies that you can move? That is what Paul understood when Ananias said, “And now why lingerest thou? Arise”.

Nicodemus was very slow. Paul was not just so slow, but he was too slow for Ananias. There are many tarrying today. They come just so far, and no further.

Ananias says to Paul, ‘You are too slow. You should be a disciple and wash away your sins’. “Arise and get baptised, and have thy sins washed away”, because that is a symbol of what we are talking about, the purification of the Jewish system.

Rem His sins were more ecclesiastical.

JT Just so. He was not a thief or robber. He was an ecclesiastical sinner.

WL I was wondering if what you have in mind is in line with 2 Timothy, “If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel ... serviceable to the Master”, 2 Timothy 2: 21.

JT That is the idea that we are at now. That requires separation and Nicodemus was not ready for that. Ananias is pointing that out to Saul: “And now why lingerest thou? Arise and get baptised, and have thy sins washed away”, meaning that you become a disciple of Jesus and no longer a Jewish disciple.

JWB So that in Revelation 22 it says, “Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and that they should go in by the gates into the city”. The movement is there, is it not?

JT ^[p. 183] We come to that later. We touch on all these things, to bring the whole thing, that is, the full thought of entering, not into fellowship only, but into the city, partaking of the tree of life, showing that it is a real thing there.

JWB I was thinking of the movement.

JT Exactly. That is the thing to look for in any man we meet. Not simply what he says, but what movement is there with him? That is the reason the Lord uses the word ‘water’ in the second answer.

FF Would the form of water be something?

JT Yes, it is. It is the water of purification.

Ques Are you suggesting that we should be on the look-out for such persons?

JT There are many of them. You cannot go very far with them. The Lord did not go very far with Nicodemus. He immediately went on with heavenly things. He implied to Nicodemus that ‘You really do not believe what I am saying’, but still he was born anew as the sequel shows. We cannot spend too much time with them. Apparently when the test comes they do not go all the way.

CHH This water is not to be repeated? It is once and for all?

JT That is what the Lord says in chapter 13 “He that is washed all over”. I do not think that Nicodemus was ready to be washed all over.

Ques What would be looked for in our children to show that being born of water and the Spirit was taking place?

JT You have the whole thought before you. You have not anything less in baptising than that they should be clear of the world. Alas! They go in for the world. You have the whole thought before you. The Lord had whole thoughts here, but Nicodemus did not. He was holding back.

JK It says of Nicodemus that he knew He was come from God and that God was with Him. The ^[p. 184] thought in verse 7 is that it is needful that movement should take place, not just knowing.

JT It says, “It is needful that ye should be born anew”, meaning that the Pharisees or Israelites needed this. This second time that the Lord uses these words would mean that water is included in the word ‘born anew’.

ASB Is there something in the fact that Nicodemus initially recognises the Lord as teacher, Rabbi, but he does not travel very far in regard to seeing the kingdom? He sees the Lord personally as the Teacher, but he fails to recognise the fulness of the system of the kingdom of God.

JT Well, that is it. He was not ready for whole thoughts. “This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him”. They had whole thoughts. Nicodemus was not among them. He was not ready for that. That is in the second chapter. The time of discipleship had come and Nicodemus was not ready for it. Thousands are not ready for it. They are ready to read our writings but they are not leaving the place where they are. They are not leaving the council, as it were. That is the real test that we have. How far can you go in talking with a man like that? The question is how far is he ready to go with you.

CHH Would following up the current ministry be the secret?

JT Therefore, the Lord challenges Nicodemus as to the Old Testament, saying as it were, What scripture are you studying? Where have you been brought up, in a seminary or college? You ought to know these things. You appeal to them on those lines as far as you can, all with a view to their moving, because the second answer of the Lord here is that he enters, and that is not the Presbyterian Church. He enters the kingdom of God; if he does not, what point is there in talking any more?

^[p. 185] SMcC Would you say something about the water and the Spirit, the difference between the two? Born of water seems to be a positive element: “Born of water and of Spirit”.

JT I think it is a positive element, but it is not in itself positive. The positive thing is in the word ‘birth’ or regeneration, and therefore the Spirit given to him is not suggested here. In Titus we have, “Which he poured out on us richly”. We have to wait for that until next time-this matter of the Spirit poured out. The Lord does not hint at that really, although we do get it in the passage in Ezekiel that we read: “I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you”, but then the next word is, “I will put my Spirit within you”. John 3 does not allude to that in the instruction. The Lord does not mean to convey that one who has gone so far as new birth gets the Holy Spirit, because the blood has to be brought in afterward, and, therefore, the whole truth of the gospel must be brought in so as to set a man up in christianity.

SMcC In a spiritual way, what does the water convey to your mind?

JT A negative way, what has cleansed the person in the making, you or me. I have got to be cleansed, or you. The water means that. It is negative. The positive thing remains.

SMcC I think it is helpful, because some have tried to put into it the idea of the word.

JT We must learn to stop, because we are, so to say, learning scientifically. We must learn to stop at certain points and be clear about all up to that before you proceed further. The word in Titus is, “Which he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour”, but the Lord does not touch that here. He does not touch the idea of giving the Spirit yet. It is what the Spirit does. The Spirit is connected with both, the actual birth which is positive, and the water ^[p. 186] which is a negative idea, because the positive thing is being cleansed. That is what is meant. Water is basic because we have got to maintain that cleansing.

GMcP Does “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”, suggest the Spirit connected with water?

JT The first word is the Holy Spirit, but the second which is written with a small ‘s’ means that the thing is spirit. It means that the thing taking place in him is spirit. He gives it a name, just spirit, not flesh. What we are speaking of requires the brethren to be teachable, to be pupils, to get things, you know. What do these words mean? Why does the Lord use one word that has to be spelt with the capital? He is speaking about the Holy Spirit. He is speaking of Him as an Operator, whereas the result of the operation is the thing called spirit.

GMcP Ezekiel 36 speaks of a “new spirit” and in verse 27 “my Spirit”: “I will put my Spirit within you”.

JT You do not get that in John 3. The Lord does not go so far as that in John 3.

Ques Is John 3 more the classroom, getting the thing?

JT That is what it is. If the brethren would only learn to stay there and learn that. That is what?

He is stopping short of the gift of the Spirit. He wants to insert the idea of the positive work by the Spirit in us which He calls spirit, and then He adds to that the idea of cleansing, the process, or element and that is the whole thought as far as He goes. He does not say that we are to have the Spirit as a gift in this passage so far.

AL Does a sense of this challenge us as to whether we have the Spirit?

JT There is time enough to say something about that as the apostle Paul said to the Ephesians, “Did ^[p. 187] ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?”. He does not say, ‘Have you been born again?’. We have not come to that yet in our passage, but the Lord alludes to it in Ezekiel 36. It says, first of all, “I will give you a new heart”, that is the new birth, “and I will put a new spirit within you”. That is the spirit, your own spirit, the kind of spirit you get, and then He says, “I will put my Spirit within you” that is the gift of the Holy Spirit, but the Lord does not reach that point in John 3.

ASB Your reference to the scientific side is rather interesting because in that line we have to do with what is basic. You used the word at the outset as though in relation to Nicodemus there are apparently two systems, the system connected with God which he recognises in the Lord, and the system of Israel; does not the principle of analysis enter into this section, determining what is basic?

JT Yes, and there is the general idea of God. Nicodemus, as it were, is as pronounced about it as the Lord would be. “Thou art come a teacher from God”, but then there was teaching about God that he did not believe. We can go so far with the man, that he believed God and that he believes in Him, and we do, too, but there are things he cannot admit, that he is not ready for, and I believe that that is why we should learn to be pupils or disciples in order to get the things as in a classroom and get them by terms, see what the term means, so that when Paul came to Ephesus he did not speak about new birth because they were disciples anyway. They did not need to be born again. They were John’s disciples, but they needed to be taught about the Holy Spirit as a gift. Therefore, he says, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?”. That is what we have to come to, to learn things, and discriminate between them.

CHH Would it lead you to the conclusions ^[p. 188] arrived at in Romans 7, the flesh and the inward man? Would it lead as far as that?

JT I think it would. We begin to learn anyway the difference between flesh and spirit because you have all these things to call upon, all that is within you to praise God, but then you must label them and be sure you do not call on something that is corrupt or impure; it is pure things you call on and you have to label things and call them by their right names and that is what is being touched on here. Nicodemus, if he were only ready, would have got much more from the Lord than he did. The Lord named something and He named it new birth and He named the water included in it.

JWB The woman in chapter 4 gets more, does she not?

JT Yes, because she was ready.

JWB I was thinking about the word ‘spirit’ (chapter 4:24). The small ‘s’ is used there.

JT She gets nothing about new birth, but she gets about the gift of the Spirit, the well of water springing up, which is important to bear in mind. She is further on than Nicodemus. She gets more than he does. So that the passage in Ezekiel distinguishes first the water as clean water, that they should be clean. “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols will I cleanse you”. Then in verse 26, “And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh”. We have to understand this. The word ‘flesh’ here is something that is impression able-a heart of flesh and not of stone. That is, the christian is impressionable. I do not think Nicodemus was to any great extent, but I think the woman of Sychar was impressionable. She got more. “And I ^[p. 189] will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances”. That is the next thing. I thought we might add that, that we might carry something with us at the end of this meeting in the way of a lesson, what the Lord is teaching Nicodemus here.

← Previous Article 12 of 35 Next →