NEARNESS TO CHRIST AND PUBLIC SERVICE (7)
[p. 259] NEARNESS TO CHRIST AND PUBLIC SERVICE (7)
JT Chapter 12 deals with the Lord’s service in relation to the remnant of Israel, in the light of the glory of God and the glory of the Son of God; applied to the church, it indicates the ennoblement of the saints in their local setting. It is a chapter full of suggestions of glory. All was in vain as regards Israel, so that Isaiah, who was a witness of the glory, is brought in to convey the divine mind in the governmental dealings of God with those who shut their eyes to the shining of the glory. “These things said Esaias”, it says, “when he saw his glory and spake of him”,. (verse 41).
Chapter 13 begins the instruction that views the same people, only in a church view. Earlier the Lord is seen serving His own; corresponding, I suppose, with the teaching regarding the servant in Isaiah, chapter 42. He was God’s servant, but He is the servant of the saints as well. So that this chapter is introductory to the assembly; we learn assembly ways in the Lord — the assembly viewed in its members, in family relationship. It is still before the feast of the passover, coming in closely on the scene at Bethany. The Lord, in the full consciousness of His own dignity and testimony, whence He came and whither He was going, lays aside His garments. It says, “Jesus, knowing that his hour had come that he should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end. And during supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon, Iscariote, that he should deliver him up, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given him all things into his [p. 260] hands, and that he came out from God and was going to God, rises from supper and lays aside his garments, and having taken a linen towel he girded himself: then he pours water into the washhand basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the linen towel with which he was girded”. A marvellous statement!
H.D’A.C. Very full!
JT In His own consciousness of His personal dignity, whence He had come and whither He was going, and that all things were in His hands — alongside that, the action of the devil in putting it into the heart of Judas to betray Him — He laid aside His garments.
HD'AC He was not going to God in the same way as He had come from God, exactly. He had now got His loved ones, He was not going alone.
JT He was “bringing his sheaves with him”. (Psalm 126:6).
EP What is the idea in laying aside His garments?
JT I suppose His garments denoted His dignity; they would be what became Him as the head of the house, so to speak. Now He disrobes, I suppose, as an object-lesson for us. In order to serve, one has to lay aside what may distinguish one. Whatever may distinguish you or dignify you, you lay that aside, you take up the attitude of a servant. The girding with a linen towel would assure those that are to be served of the utmost consideration. It was the best kind of a towel for the intended service.
HD'AC No roughness about it.
JT No; and great absorbent qualities; removing the effects of the washing with the least possible discomfort. We are reminded of that. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, I think, answered to it. He was conscious of his dignity and authority, but he associated with himself Sosthenes the brother;
[p. 261] that would assure the saints of the utmost consideration.
Ques You mean in laying aside the official garments?
JT Well, “the brother” intimates that they will have the utmost consideration. The apostle showed, in writing to the Corinthians, that he had all the dignity of the apostle, but he assured them of the utmost consideration — he associated with himself Sosthenes the brother; and moreover he sent Timotheus to them before he went himself, that they might learn his ways “as they are in Christ”, (1 Corinthians 4:17). That there should be nothing vindictive about him, he would use the utmost consideration. Whilst dealing firmly with the evil, there would be the utmost consideration for them. The first letter to the Corinthians, I think, involved the presence of the towel on his loins, he was girded with it; but the second, I believe, is the towel in its application, that is to say, he speaks of himself as having been down to the brink of death in chapter 1, that he might be armed with comfort to comfort others with the comfort he had himself of God — that others might get that. Then he brings in what God is as seen in the covenant and in the ministry of reconciliation.
Rem He speaks of being helpful to their joy, and not having dominion over their faith.
JT Yes; I thought of that, a fellow-helper of their joy. What impresses one here is the dignity of the Person, and that entering into what He is doing; nothing in the least degree detracted from His greatness, for He could never be less than He was; yet all that enters into His service.
Rem It really only enhances His greatness.
JT In a moral sense. And then it is a “washhand basin”, evidently a small vessel.
Ques Would it be in contrast to the laver, to [p. 262] which you had to be brought? This had to be carried.
JT Yes; it would be a portable vessel, I judge, and the washing is done by another. With the laver, I suppose, you do it yourself. That is to say, the laver is for the priests to look after themselves — that is another side — each one has to see to it that he is clean. Here it is the Lord doing it; there is no aid in the thing, no auxiliary service, He does it all Himself. He is not, like Martha, looking for someone to help Him in it.
Ques What is the nature of this service?
JT I think, first of all, you are impressed with the fact that feet-washing is a menial kind of service. It is very essential to those who have to do with this world, but it is a menial kind of service. The Lord knew the part of the body that needed to be washed. It was no mere pretence of love, it was the most menial kind of service — to wash the feet. It has the effect of detaching the person from the effects of his contact with the world.
HD'AC I suppose water was poured from the washhand basin on the feet, according to the ordinary Eastern custom.
JT “He pours water into the washhand basin” — it would be, I suppose, literally carried around; they were not even required to come to where it was. It says, He “began to wash the feet of the disciples ... He comes therefore to Simon Peter”. They are not obliged to leave their position — showing how intensely menial the service was. He would, I suppose, go round.
HD'AC I had that service done to me in Nazareth; as soon as we entered the house, we were all treated like that. It was a simple act, but it brought home to one the lowliness of Him who was in the bosom of the Father, by whom all things were [p. 263] created. Think of His doing it! The glory of the Person can never be forgotten.
JT The glory of the Person is all there, and really enters into it; it is that Person doing it, for it is specially mentioned that He knew “that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came out from God and was going to God”. And now He has the feet of His own in His hands and this for an example, that whatever distinction we may have, all that is laid aside (not ceasing, of course, it is always there, but you are not displaying it), and one is able to serve.
HD'AC There was great refreshment in it, was there not? Do you think it might have come into the Lord’s mind, how He had His feet washed by the woman in Luke 7?
JT No doubt He would be reminded of that little act of love; not that He learned anything from anybody. If He washed feet, you may be sure that no one ever did it like Him, not even that one, for His skill would enter into it.
HD'AC It is one thing to have our feet washed, but how wonderful that that woman was allowed to wash the undefiled feet of Jesus! Think where our feet have run! His feet never ran where our feet have run. Wonderful to think of His stooping and taking our feet in His hands!
JT “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings”, (Isaiah 52:7).
Ques Would it be a service that would result in our being risen together with Him, as we were looking at it this morning?
JT Well, it would enable us to enter into that. This service brings out the false humility that we are very often conscious of. It says, “He comes therefore to Simon Peter”, who says, “Thou shalt never wash my feet”. In these cases the most serious side is that you place the Lord in a false position; you imply [p. 264] that He is not doing what is right, just as Martha implied that the Lord was blameworthy, on account of Mary. You often notice that; the assumption is that we know better than the Lord. A false humility or piety is most objectionable. The Lord does not spare Peter. He says, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” — a very serious matter.
EP Is this the “washing of water by the word”, (Ephesians 5:26)?
JT I think it is; only the lesson here, would you not think, is the length to which love will go in service? “The word”, of course, is a very great thing, which the Lord can employ at a distance or mediately. Here He is just with us, Himself, to impress us with the extent to which love would go.
HD'AC “I am among you as he that serveth”. We see the greatest of all servants in this chapter.
JT Yes; He impresses us with the fact that He is great; there is no question about that. “Ye call me the Teacher and the Lord, and ye say well, for I am so. If I therefore, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”. I have no doubt the example is the most important feature of it.
Rem He had to get very near them to do this.
Ques Then how do we do it, what is the import of it?
JT The import, I think, is that one does not assume any official dignity among the saints. Of course there is that dignity which God puts on each of those who serve, but in serving the saints that is not in evidence; we see the skill with which love hides, so that the service should not be hindered, and that the served should understand that they are not less than the servant — surely they are not less than the servant! Hence, Paul says to the Corinthians, in the first epistle, that all the servants were theirs (chapter 3:22), but in the second epistle he says,
“ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake”, (chapter 4:5).
HD'AC There was not much clericalism in that.
JT No, indeed; and I have no doubt the Lord saw the necessity there was that the apostle should go through bitter experience in the interval between the two letters, so that he might the more fully represent the Spirit of Christ in his service.
EP Do you think Stephanas is an example of this in his household? “They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints”, (1 Corinthians 16:15).
JT I am sure of that. One of the best services we can render to the Lord’s people is, if we have got a house, to hold it for Him. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”, (Joshua 24:15). “If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house”, (Acts 16:15).
Ques Would you say that the Lord was not deterred by the antagonism of Satan in Judas, or the false humility of Peter?
JT That is a point in the chapter. Satan had already, as it says, entered into the heart of Judas to betray Him.
JM It was during supper, have you any thought as to that?
JT I think the Lord’s position at the table would involve His dignity. He did not wait till supper was finished, showing the urgency of love that would even forgo the enjoyment of the supper to serve. It is very legitimate, of course, to sit at the table, but love forgoes that. You get a remarkable illustration of it, I think, in the book of Numbers. The ark had a most dignified place in the ordering of the tabernacle; it had to be carried carefully in the midst by the Kohathites; but when the necessity arose, that was given up. It was the right of the ark to have that dignity, but when they began to move from the mount of the Lord, the ark went before them to seek out a resting-place for them. There is [p. 266] nothing in the instructions earlier in regard to this, showing that love goes beyond even its own ordering.
HD'AC Even the finest feast, the Passover, could be for the moment forgotten in order to serve the saints with this higher thought of part with Christ.
JT It is very wonderful to see what love will do — it never fails. Moses said to Hobab, “Come thou with us” (no doubt the natural relationship had something to do with that), “and thou mayest be to us instead of eyes” (Numbers 10:29 - 32); but Hobab was not for that, he was a child of the wilderness, and would remain in the wilderness. And the ark steps out, so to speak; it went three days’ journey to find a resting-place for the people — that is love’s service.
WW Is that why they had the cup at the Passover? There was no instruction for that. I was wondering whether in bringing in the cup love went beyond the instructions.
JT Well, I think the Lord took up the custom that had intervened. It was customary, I believe, in His time, to have a cup, and He just accepted it. I suppose the passover made room for whatever love had been developed in Israel. There never had been such a passover as the last one of which the Lord partook. In that there were two cups really; the cup of the passover, of which the Lord said He would never again drink in that way; then there was the cup He gave the disciples, a new cup; that was love’s cup. It is the one we have got, “the cup of blessing”. But the book of Numbers is extremely interesting and touching, as bearing on what we have here, that love in Christ goes beyond anything that is prescribed — it is immeasurable; there is nothing to stand in its way, nothing that cannot be met by love, it never fails.
HB Is that why it was “three days’ journey”?
JT Yes; I think it is really death and resurrection. When the ark moved, Moses said, “Rise up,
[p. 267] Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee”; and when the ark rested he said, “Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel”, (Numbers 10:35,36). Love, going out, scattered the enemies, that is to say, doing all the pioneering work, all the rough work; then it returned to satisfy itself so to say, amid the thousands of Israel.
HD'AC Is that what you meant by referring to death and resurrection? The ark going before and meeting all the power of the enemy, then returning to rest.
JT That is what I thought. You see it in John 18; the Lord said, “If ... ye seek me, let these go their way” — the Lord went out and met the enemy. Then in chapter 20 He returns, so to say, to the thousands of Israel. Moses ever conveys to us, in these cases, the mind of God; but it is put poetically, and when you have a thing put poetically, you have, I think, feelings.
Ques Would “part with me” include the teaching of Numbers?
JT Well, quite so; the Lord would have us with Him. It is not simply now that He would have part with us, but love wishes us to have all it has. What is He going to have? He is going to have all the best, and love would have us share everything, all He has. You do not want to miss that, it is a wonderful thought — “part with me”.
HD'AC You cannot limit that then?
JT No, I think not. Love would share, as we sing, ‘all it possesses with its loved co-heirs’, (249:2). He would have us there without anything to interfere with the enjoyment.
RWG What a marvellous scope of blessing that is!
JT Yes, indeed; and so it is worth while to [p. 268] let the Lord have His way. We can do no better than let love have its way; love will do its best for us.
Ques Is love the moving spring in connection with everything?
JT Oh, it is! it is what God is. As you see what God is, your wisdom is to let Him have His way. Love has taken form in Christ; that is to say, all that God is has come into outwardly small circumstances. The ark was a very small vessel, relatively, was it not?
HD'AC Yes; but it had eyes. The ark went before to find a resting-place; it was better than Hobab.
JT Yes. It brings out, I think, how love can adapt itself to us, that it comes in in such a small way that it is within the range of everybody, however small he may be — I think that is the suggestion in it. Whichever way you look at it, there is more, there is always a half — two and a half by one and a half by one and a half — it is marked by broken measurement, meaning that, however you look at Christ, as here in the flesh, He is always greater than He appears to be, there is always something greater.
Ques How do you mean He is always greater than He appears to be?
JT John presents Him as coming here, the Word become flesh; he tells us how great He is. Every believer today should study John, for the enemy’s constant effort is to belittle the Person of Christ; hence John begins, “In the beginning was the Word” — that is His eternal personality. “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, showing His personal distinctness and glory. “The same was in the beginning with God” — so as to strengthen what is stated. Further, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men”. Then it goes on, later, “The Word became [p. 269] flesh, and dwelt among us ... full of grace and truth”; that is, that great Person became flesh and dwelt among men, so that He could be contemplated by them. But whatever He seems to be outwardly, you never forget the statement of the first verse that He was in the beginning with God and was God. I think chapter 4 brings it out: He sat as He was on the well. What was He? He was weary with His journey; that is to say, there was the appearance of a Man, and the woman did not see anything beyond that. He sat just as He was, it says. He did not in any way seek to disguise His weariness, which shows the reality of His humanity, but He says to her, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water”. (John 4:6,10). We have thus the idea, I think, of the ‘half’.
Rem There is no limit to the extension.
HD'AC There is always something more.
EP In connection with our washing one another’s feet — sometimes we are told that this is unconsciously done. The Lord says, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them”, as if it was to be calculated and deliberate; is that so?
JT I am sure it is so. The thought here is to impress on us the menial character of the service, but that love goes that length, so that He comes to Simon Peter, showing that the movement is on the part of the one who serves.
HD'AC It is a service open to us more than we may think. Do you not think many a sister has washed the saints’ feet?
JT It is said of one eligible for the list, “If she have washed the saints’ feet”, (1 Timothy 5:10).
The references to Judas are very solemn: “During supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon, Iscariote, that he should deliver him up”; and later we read, “Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say to you that one of you shall deliver me up”. He was conscious of the presence of Judas — of that spirit — Satan having put it into his heart to betray Him. It says in verse 27 that the Lord having given him the morsel, “Satan entered into him”.
Ques Do you gather from that, that Satan was present?
JT I think that he had made inroads, in that he had put the thing into Judas’ heart; but I do not think he was there till the Lord gave Judas the sop, and then, it says, Satan entered into him.
HD'AC He ought not to have taken that sop.
JT No. On the Lord’s part His attitude towards Judas was unchanged, but Judas’ determination to betray his Master was nevertheless unchanged, and so Satan entered into him.
Rem I suppose the Lord allowed it.
JT It could not, of course, have happened otherwise. As we were saying yesterday, one of the most solemn things is that the demons besought the Lord to allow them to enter into the swine, and He allowed it — the state warranting it was there; for the service represented the Jews; and I suppose it was the same here, the state was suitable for it, so the Lord allowed it.
HD'AC The sop was given to the principal guest, was it not? and that act of wonderful kindness on the part of the Lord ought to have broken Judas down on the spot. If he had said, Lord, I am all wrong, that would have saved him at the last moment, Satan would not have entered into him then.
JT The element of repentance would have shut out Satan.
HD'AC But the Lord was “troubled in spirit”; He was never troubled in heart, never frightened, but His spirit was troubled. Would not the presence of anyone like Judas now trouble the spirits of saints near to God, and come into exposure in the end? Such an one would have to go out.
JT Yes; the light was so great, he went out, and it was night. Another feature is the position of the loved one, that, whilst there is one into whom Satan can enter, there is one whom Jesus loves, He loved them all, “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end”; but then we read that Simon Peter makes a sign to the one leaning on Jesus’ bosom, to ask who it might be of whom He spoke; there is one who is in the bosom, and who can lean on the breast.
Ques What is the difference between those two thoughts?
JT I think the word ‘bosom’ suggests an inlet, something that receives. The loved one found that out, that there was great receptiveness there — he was in it; it does not say he was leaning there, but he was in it. And then he leaned on the breast, which would point to solidity and reliability.
Rem It never says, the disciple who loved Jesus, but the one “whom Jesus loved”.
JT Yes. Whilst He loves us all, whatever may mark us, yet He reserves the right to love certain ones specially, that is to say, there is something peculiarly lovable there. We cannot deny divine Persons a right to appreciate what is lovable.
HD'AC That has to do with the way we reply to it; John is the proper reply.
JT He must have been, in the eyes of the Lord, very lovable, which is calculated to show that divine Persons love what is lovable. Divine Persons love all, but then they have also the right of loving what [p. 272] is specially lovable, hence it is a question of whether I am that.
Rem We have no word of its being John; he never says so.
JT I suppose it was understood by the early christians that it was John, and the spirit of the book would indicate that he is the one.
RWG It speaks of Daniel as being “greatly beloved”.
JT That is a very similar passage, and it only brings out what we are saying, that he was lovable; in Daniel we have the features of lovableness.
Ques What would you say about the one whom Jesus beholding loved? (Mark 10:21).
JT He was just a type of what there was in God’s creation, in spite of the effect of sin, that was pleasing. There was nothing lovable there, in the sense in which we are speaking of it.
HD'AC That is quite different from what we have here.
JT Quite. Here it is one who is in the bosom. The idea of the bosom, as already said, is that it is receptive.
Ques Is that where John learned, and we may learn, to wash the saints’ feet?
JT Yes.
Ques Does leaning on the breast correspond in any way with the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate? John got the knowledge as leaning on the breast.
JT I think that is the very thing; he got the mind of the Lord. The light is there in Christ, and the one that is in the bosom got it. But he leaned on the breast — he relied on the love of Christ, and so may you. If you come to a meeting with the desire to serve the saints, you can rely on the love of Christ.
[p. 273] Lean hard on it; He will give you something to say.
HD'AC And He certainly relied on the love of Christ when he wrote that book; no one who was not leaning on the breast of Jesus could ever have written that wonderful book — the gospel of John.
JT No. In your ministry, if the brethren ask you anything, lean hard on the love of Christ, He will stand by you, He will never fail you.