THE TRUE LIGHT

^[p. 353] THE TRUE LIGHT

John 1: 4 - 9; 1 John 2: 7 - 11

JT What is in mind is to draw attention to the ‘true light’, as it is mentioned in these passages. The idea of what is true is very prominent in John’s writings, beginning with God Himself, and coming down to men and things. We have the true God mentioned; and Christ is mentioned as the truth personally as Man here, the true worshippers are mentioned, and then the true things such as light.

What is hoped is that we should see its bearing upon us. The true light is impartial: it lightens every man, we are told. It is not national nor sectional, nor preferential as to persons, it is impartial; and another thing we notice at the outset is that it is not an abstract idea, but substantial, that is the true light is the life in Christ, so that it is comprehensible; and another thing is that there is a witness to it, so that all should believe. It shines on all, and the witness calls attention to it, so that all should believe; that is how it is effective in those who believe. John’s epistle shows that as it was in Christ so it is in measure in the saints. What is true in Him is true in us.

AMH Would you say how life manifested itself in Christ so that it becomes the light of men?

JT Well, I suppose what is in mind particularly is what He is after the anointing, though one can understand that from the outset the life was light; but the allusion would be to what He was as presented publicly in the anointing. John is said to call attention to Him by witnessing to Him. This gospel is John’s witness; he says at the outset that Christ was standing in the midst of the Jews, meaning that He was subject and waiting in the true levitical sense ^[p. 354] for the opening that God would give. John draws attention to Him firstly as he sees Him coming, and the Spirit abiding upon Him (John 1: 29, 33); there is movement I suppose and heaven’s recognition would be observed; he calls attention to Him as the Lamb of God, and then gives an account of what he had been foretold. Then in verse 35 it says, “There stood John and two of his disciples. And, looking at Jesus as he walked, he says ...”; I thought in that way the life comes formally into evidence as seen in the movements. God intended at the outset that the things He created and formed were to be glorious, the heavenly bodies certainly and what is on the earth, man and the animals. There was to be a shining out in all and that would be in each one moving according to the Creator’s thought, not in any lawless way but in light; it was not as Adam who hid himself; there is no light in that, no effulgence there, but it shone in the creation as originally brought into being by God. There was to be glory in the creatures, particularly in Adam; and I believe John would bring all that into the gospel, the idea being fully set out in Christ: “in him was life”. That could not be said of Adam; “Man became a living soul” — he became that; Jesus was a divine Person and “in him was life”, that is, it shines in His movements.

AMH Is your thought that as the Lord moves towards John, John begins to take account of Him as Son of God?

JT Well, that is what I thought. He names Him; he had that intelligence. Adam named the lower creatures as they came to him. John names Christ as coming to him; he gives Him a sacrificial name, that is what the movement meant. I believe the movements of the creatures suggested to Adam what was there in the way of life and that God would see that. I believe that God looks at every creature,

^[p. 355] even the plants and trees; they all pleased God because the idea was that there should be glory, that light should shine out. It was a great matter that Adam could name what he saw and God accepted the names he gave. So John the baptist sees Jesus and names Him as coming to him, the sacrificial Lamb. And then the Lord Himself names Peter as He looks on him (verse 42). So that the true light is the life; witness is called to it so that people should believe; and it is effective now in the saints according to the epistle — the true light is there because the life is there.

AMH Is it not very beautiful that it speaks of John “looking at Jesus as he walked”; that brings in the sacrificial thought? So John gets a broader apprehension of the beauty of the Person.

JT Quite so. The idea brings out much more the Lamb, seeing the movement, the dignity of Christ at that time was sacrificial, as He came towards John. John represents the government of God in administration of baptism in figure, and the Lord had that in mind; we are told in John’s epistle, “This is he that came by water and blood”, 1 John 5: 6. He came that way; He came in relation to water and blood; He came to die, solemn fact. The incarnation would have no force aside from the sacrificial thought, it was in view of saving the world. So that the movement to John would indicate what was sacrificial; he names it and then he tells us much as to the Lord; he says He “takes away the sin of the world. He it is of whom I said, A man comes after me who takes a place before me, because he was before me; and I knew him not; but that he might be manifested to Israel, therefore have I come baptising with water”, and further, “And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God”. The testimony to His sonship is on another basis, it is a question of movement towards Him, the Spirit ^[p. 356] coming down and abiding upon Him. But the movement to John suggests what is sacrificial, the Lamb.

CHH Why are you emphasising the sacrificial in relation to light?

JT Well, the life is the light and as it comes in in Christ there must be the sacrificial thought because life cannot be extended to the creature save through sacrifice. It is dealing with sin: “who takes away the sin of the world”; that is what I mean.

JC-S Referring again to the naming of persons and things, do you think the same principle would be applied to the way the saints came to name Christ as the Word?

JT I think that is how the designation came into evidence. It is used very frequently in Scripture. The original word occurs in the New Testament some three hundred times.

I think we noticed that before and it would show that the Lord was regarded in that way by those who took account of Him in His speaking because the Word denotes what He is as setting out the mind of God, unfolding it. We have in Luke “eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word” (Luke 1: 2); eye-witnesses would see what was there. This title is not given to Him as other titles were, but is brought in as connected with what He was. It is introduced here informally as understood and alluded to: “In the beginning was the Word”; it is not as in Matthew, “who is called Christ” (Matthew 27: 22); also in Revelation 19: 13 it is said, “his name is called The Word of God”, alluding to what came out in Him; but the name is not formally given to Him as other names are.

JC-S What did you have in mind in referring to what was substantial in connection with the passage, “In him was life”?

JT Well, I think it is life in the true sense of it. Adam was made a living soul, or became a living ^[p. 357] soul; he did not set forth the full thought of life; his life was distinctive because God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, but Adam did not have life in himself. “In him was life” is a peculiar statement, calling attention to one Person only, as if stressing Him as over against all others. Life is there in the full thought of it, not that He was made to live but that it was there in virtue of His deity.

AMH When He asked life of God, was it in view of His passing life on to us, death having come in?

JT Yes. He was taking the place of man and God raised Him from the dead. That is a distinctive thing as indicating one Person; it could be said that life was there in the fulness of it and it was that that became light.

JC-S Life is inherent in Him here. Is that the idea?

JT Yes, it is inherent in Him; it is the full thought. “The life was the light of men”, it is “the life”, the full thought of it, I think.

CHH Does that mean life as a present function connected with the Son as He is found in relation to man? Is that the idea of life?

JT Well, I think that is good. I think that it is seen in the Lord from the outset; as soon as He reaches the age of twelve He is seen in the temple, going there of Himself, not sent there, but there of Himself, intelligently there, consciously there in relation to His Father, hearing and asking questions. I think that would come out there.

EBMcC What about chapter 5: 26: “For even as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself”?

JT Well, that has to be taken in its own setting. The Lord is there stressing that, whilst claiming equality with God, He is there in the subject place, the Son having life in Himself; it is to bring out the ^[p. 358] economy there. I think the Lord is opening up in that chapter the lowly place He had taken and yet He was on equality with God. It is a wonderful chapter in that sense, there is equality with Deity and yet subjection to the Father throughout; and so the Father giving Him to have life in Himself fits there. Here the point is that the idea of life is in one Person; it is distinctive, the whole thought, the life is the light of men.

PL Do you get these thoughts gathered up in Paul’s word to the Philippians, “among whom ye appear as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life”, Philippians 2: 15, 16?

JT That is how it comes out in us clearly. The Lord was it. It is distinctive; the life is the full thought, not the life simply that was in Him, that is, in Christ, but it is the life, the full thought.

EHB Is the life seen in its full function in Christ in the way it was in the mind of God to be light?

JT That is right, firstly as to how it appears in relation to what is found here; that must come first. Then there is the other side, the idea of life in God’s counsels for men.

Rem It is not eternal life but it is in relation to what is found here.

JT Quite so, that is why it is called the life, because it has to deal with what is found here. The Lord’s first movement is sacrificial; it must deal with what is here.

JC-S Do you emphasise first of all the idea “in him was life”, then flowing out of that “the life was the light of men”; the one is not separable from the other?

JT Well, “in him was life” is the first great statement and added to that “the life was the light of men”; that thought was in mind; it means what was in Him was the whole thought. It could not be ^[p. 359] said of a creature; no creature could set out the whole thought; no creature, for instance, could be sacrificed for the sin of the world. But John names the first movement of the Lord as sacrificial.

EHB In that sense would the light as referred to in John 1 be a greater thought than in the beginning of Genesis where the first feature mentioned is light; but this is greater as connected with this great and glorious Person coming in in manhood?

JT That is good, because that brings out the full thought. The first allusion to light in Genesis was a commandment. God commanded that light should shine out of darkness; He said, “Let there be light. And there was light”. He did not say what it was. Then on the fourth day we have the lights set in the firmament of the heavens and the one is called the greater light to rule the day and the other the lesser light to rule the night, and then the stars. That is what we get there. Here we have the whole thought: “In him was life”, then “the light” not any other — intimating the whole matter is there; and it is a question of how it works out, how it is developed.

JC-S In addition to what you suggested in regard to Deity lying behind all this, does it imply His moral relationship as a Man here and all that entered into that?

JT It would include all that, the relationship in which He was set, but the statement in verse 4 is to be specially noted; attention is called to one Person as having life that it was in Him. John is to gather up the whole thought of life. It has its development from the creation; in the grass and in the trees and the lower animals and all that; these are subsidiary things that are only introduced for a purpose; all that order of things will pass away; they are subsidiary, vegetable life is a type of what fades away. Whatever great things may be in creation all are subservient to this here — “in him was life”. This is the source of everything; all must refer back to this because this is the whole thought in God; in whatever way it is worked out ultimately it will be a question of a living state of things in man. The life is the light of men; it does not go beyond that, an order of man living as Christ lives; He will effect all that; “the Son also quickens whom he will” — He is a life-giving spirit.

CHH How do you place eternal life?

JT The word is used in the way of assurance as over against what is provisional, the vegetable kingdom and animal kingdom, showing living conditions of human life.

PL Do you get the working out of all this in the coming age in the tree of life?

JT Yes, that is it. It brings it down to the vegetable thought again, showing how all these thoughts must refer back to the source, to Christ; Christ is the source of all life; He has worked out all this.

AG Was it God’s thought before ever creation came in?

JT Well, there was the promise of life since God began to move in relation to the prime thought, the essential thought that everything received being through Him. Here we are instructed that everything was there in Christ.

EHB So that every eye is to rest upon Him as coming within the range of man in Christ, the incarnation in a public way?

JT Yes, the condition is set out in the life and all His movements are light; John has in mind not simply His relations with Israel but with all men. In John’s writings the truth of christianity has come out, not for any particular nation but for every country of the world, every ^[p. 361] man.

JC-S It shines for all impartially whether any person avails himself of it or not.

JT Yes, and the witness is that some have availed themselves of it and that is why the witness is brought in; special attention is called to it so that all should believe.

EBMcC The sacrifice had to come in before it was available to man?

JT That is the first movement that was there; aside from that what would flow from it? So, we are told, He came by water and blood and the Spirit bears witness (1 John 5: 6) showing that if the things were there, witness is a great feature.

AMH Is not the first light we get that He takes away the sin of the world?

JT Yes, for however much Christ may come into our minds, if He is not the sin-bearer, I must be outside of these things; they are not available for me. So it is beautiful that the first movements are witnessed to be in relation to the sin question. We have to come back to the Scriptures to see what that word “the Lamb of God” means, it is a sacrificial word.

JC-S Without this sacrificial work, the light would only have intensified the desolation here?

JT Exactly, as in chapter 9. Men would be darker than ever.

CHH Is it as in the apprehension of some particular feature of life which becomes light to me as it is named?

JT Well, you see how it becomes light in your soul. You see there a gleam of light. The term “Lamb” here is not a diminutive thought but refers to a lamb in the full thought of a creature that is typically Christ in full manhood, knowing what He was doing. The real light to the sinner is the sacrificial thought, it is the first great thought that came out from God’s side. He clothed Adam and Eve with ^[p. 362] skins; some creature was sacrificed for that; that is the light the sinner needs. So Abel took it up and right down from that time the sacrificial thought is there. It is a very precious thought, it is the outcome of life; it is the light the sinner needs. It is not an abstract thing; it is the Lord’s own movement; He knew what He was doing, He came into humanity, into that realm by water and blood.

JC-S Does not the acceptance of that break up the moral darkness of the soul?

JT Well, it does. One could see you can judge yourself through light; “he that practises the truth comes to the light that his works may be manifested”, John 3: 21. He comes to it.

AMH Do not all the great modern movements of christendom aim at doing away with this sacrificial work of Christ? There is objection to the blood-shedding.

JT I often think of that, and speak frequently of it, and in truth what happened in the court of the tabernacles would make it a shambles. God intends that death shall be greatly stressed in the human mind; it is naturally a disturbing element, but it is appointed unto men once to die; and the quicker that gets into one’s mind the better.

EB I was wondering whether before the actual movement of the Lord Jesus as presented in verse 29, there is an insight into the life that He lived as an only-begotten of the Father. Is that the feature of life that is developed later on in the gospel?

JT Well, that is one great feature of life: what He was with the Father in relation to the Father. It is not the Lamb idea, not sacrificial at all. It is what belongs to the Person, what the only-begotten is with the Father, but the sacrificial thing is what John the baptist sees; he is the witness of what came out afterwards. John the apostle says, “We have contemplated his glory”.

CHH The sacrificial side stands in relation to conditions here; the glory of the only-begotten stands in relation to what God is bringing in.

JT That is the idea.

PL John the baptist stands for the moral and sacrificial side; John the evangelist stands for divine counsels; and do these, as presented in this chapter, blend in the soul?

JT Yes, they merge; in chapter 3, John the baptist merges into the heavenly, so that the moral merges into the heavenly order, the relationships into which christians are brought. The moral side must be the first, for unless that comes in, it is just something to be admired by those called theosophists speaking well of Christ; but what is that to us without the moral side being met? We see John by the Jordan, a rapidly flowing river having its own great place in the Scriptures, as denoting death, and effecting death; John was there administering that figuratively, and there were those coming to him on account of sin. It was a great public testimony to death being on man and man being under it, and Jesus comes in at that particular time and John names Him as the Lamb of God, not the Son, but the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John sees that and witnesses to it. What he was doing at the Jordan would be meaningless without this. He sees the movement and names it.

PL Could the Lord filling out this moral line and then filling out this purpose line of things be compared to the glory of the tabernacle of witness and then the glory filling the house?

JT Just so. There was a continual flow of blood in the tabernacle court; it would be a shambles, think of all the sacrifices that were to be offered every day of the week; what a flow of blood there would be! That is the moral side and everybody in Israel would be impressed with it — this terrible thing, and it is ^[p. 364] representative of me; that is what came out in the Jordan. The people came to John from all quarters; what would that mean? It would mean nothing save that this One came to John; he saw Jesus coming to him: He takes away the sin of the world, but then He is Son of God, too. John tells us he was baptising with water, “but he who sent me to baptise with water, he said to me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God”. He takes away the sin of the world, and not only this, but He opens up another world in which all the features which came out in Him, and the light that answers to the purpose of God, would be manifested.

AMH The Spirit coming down on Him in this form would show how He was free of all this world of sin and death?

JT Well, exactly. The Spirit would not come on any other. We only get the Spirit as believing on Him and sin put away.

JC-S You referred to the Son of God as opening out to the world the sacrificial idea as the basis on which heavenly relationships were to be known.

JT That is what I thought. In chapter 9 the word “Siloam”, meaning sent, indicates Christ becoming man; the spittle on the clay would be His humanity but in view of death; afterwards the man is cast out of the religious sphere. The moral side is in the washing, involving the death of Christ, not only His humanity. The man is cast out because of his testimony to Christ, and then the Lord finds him. He does not say, ‘Dost thou believe on the Lamb of God’, but “the Son of God” that is another world. ‘I have a place for you in another world’ — that is in effect what He means. The man said, “And who is he? ... Jesus said to him, Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he. And he said, I ^[p. 365] believe, Lord: and he did him homage”. This is suitable to the new world; this man would be initiated and introduced into a new order of things culminating in the family at Bethany.

Ques Did Enoch have the light of the Son of God so that he walked pleasurably to God?

JT Well, he walked with God three hundred years, that would mean there was more for him to grasp than there was for Adam or Abel, for it was a three hundred years matter, and much had developed in that time, because chapter 5, in which Enoch appears, begins with Adam set up again in relation to Seth, so that it is now the life line, not the death line. Adam had said of Eve that she was the mother of all living, and Enoch is the seventh from Adam; that is he would gather up spiritually all the testimony that entered into that period. What a man he must have been, walking with God three hundred years! God is not silent if we are walking with Him. What communications there must have been in that walk! So that I believe that it was as Enoch apprehended all that, that he was pleasurable to God. We can see that he grasped the idea of Seth — appointed — that there was another set up instead of Abel, not Christ after the flesh, but Christ set up in sonship.

Ques Did the apostle come into the light of this when he said, “In that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me”, Galatians 2: 20?

JT That is the idea. The Son of God implies another order of things.

Ques Is that where the witness of the Spirit exceeds the witness of John? The witness of the Spirit presents to our minds the Son of God.

JT That is very good. It opens up John’s epistle really. We are told in John’s epistle that it is the Spirit that bears witness; it is not now John the baptist; John the baptist served wonderfully to a ^[p. 366] point, he witnessed that all might believe. Now the Spirit is witnessing to multitudes and calling attention to Christ, to the water and the blood.

PL He is the Lord of glory on the sacrificial side and then as hope of glory He opens up the realm of purpose.

JT Quite so; the light of the Son of God in our souls involves another world really. What a touching thought, the One who established it “loved me”!

JC-S Referring to John 9, would you say the blind man gives us a sample of the finished product of the light that shines in chapter 1?

JT Quite so; what was true in Christ is true in those of whom it is said the darkness is past and the true light now shines, which thing is true in him and in you and which really implies that we have the life, life as in the Son, and the light shineth accordingly. The moral bearing is that the true light is not partial; there is a great deal of partiality among brethren; we are apt to be national, and think of what God is doing in our country, making more of that than what God is doing in other countries; in a multitude of ways we are apt to be partial, whereas the true light sheds its light on every man, it is not partial; whether it be a black man, a white man or a yellow man, he is a man and the light is for him. This ought to work out in the christian during all his life of service here, so that he is not partial, not preferential among the brethren.

Ques In John 10 the Lord says, “I am come that they might have life, and might have it abundantly”

(verse 10). Can you help us in these degrees of life? Does it affect our measure of light?

JT It is a very interesting enquiry that! Certainly there are degrees; for instance the Lord says, according to Matthew 25, that the righteous shall go “into life eternal” (verse 46); that is the nations; but you can hardly say that that was just what we get.

^[p. 367] It is the same in principle, but it is certainly not the same in fulness, for we have the Spirit indwelling and we have life in the fullest thought of it, and “this life is in his Son”, 1 John 5: 11. In Romans it is “in Christ”; “in” is usually status, but in John’s epistle it is in God’s Son, which, I suppose, would suggest the fullest thought of it; christians today, as forming the assembly, can enjoy the fullest thought of it; and that is in mind in John 10, “that they ... might have it abundantly”; that is in all its fulness, not restricted. The sheep are so pleasing in the mind of the Lord that they get the thing fully.

JC-S Referring to light not being partial or preferential, is it that light streams into our souls and forms and affects us so that we are not preferential in our treatment of one another?

JT Yes, it promotes that in a practical way as we receive the gospel (the true gospel presents Christ in this way and the believer receives it) and we are not preferential, for we see how every man is in the mind of God for blessing, and we see all the brethren as God sees them.

PL Is that the great issue to the Jew, that he does not regard Abraham’s seed as in the flesh? They claim that they are Abraham’s seed and so on. Is there not a great issue raised in that way, the Lord illustrating how unpreferential He is, as evidenced in connection with the man in John 9 and others?

JT Quite so; you have it throughout the gospels, for as Son of man He stands in relation to man and John gives us the thought of the Son of man with carefully thought out settings so that we might have what is universal, so that we might see that while he is a Jewish apostle (he was one of the twelve) he is writing now in relation to christianity, that is christianity in a universal way, and so the true light involves the Son of man. Jesus said of Nathanael,

“Behold one truly an Israelite”, and Nathanael says, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”. Now he would not have sonship in mind to the extent that John develops it, but he would have what comes out in Psalm 2 as to the Lord’s sonship and as to His kingship; and then the Lord would carry us on to Psalm 8 where instead of stressing sonship of God he stresses sonship of man, “the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man”. Was there ever such a Son of man as that — the angels ascending on Him first?

JC-S Working this out in a local setting tests us somewhat; if you follow on just in keeping with the truth, and others are following another line, it is inclined to work out in a locality in a preference for others. Perhaps there are certain brethren going along a certain line generally accepted and others going along a different line, do you not have to shine for one just as the others?

JT That is just what John would bring out. Now with Martha, Luke would leave her a very poor sister in our minds, but John brings her out as one ready to receive the truth for she says to the Lord, “Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God”: that is what she said when the Lord spoke to her. She came to meet Him outside the town. I believe the Spirit intends that Martha should be in our minds according to the way she is presented. In Luke she is a very poor sister; she has a house and she opened it to the Lord, which was of value, but then she is very chilly and very critical of Him and critical of her sister; that is how Luke leaves the matter, we do not get any more; she is in our minds as a poor sister but she opened her house. It is not only that we receive a brother into our houses, but how we treat him after receiving him inside; that is Luke. John brings out much more than that the Jews were there to console them. She was ^[p. 369] loved and was the first mentioned in that connection (chapter 11:5). After the Lord decided to go to Bethany she met Him outside the town; she had conversation with Him, and the Lord did not follow her into the town when she went to get her sister. He stayed where He was and Mary came to where He was. I think that means we must respect every brother and sister in the meeting; we may say there is not much in the brother, but still he is to be respected and we are not to show preference for others because they seem to have more spirituality. The Lord says we must carry them along with us; the more spiritual will in due time show itself; we do not have to speak about them; so that the next time Mary shines far brighter than any of them. That is, spirituality will take care of itself.

PL John says, “Greet the friends by name”, not my friends. He included the Marthas.

JT Quite so.

CHH Would the reception of the light into our souls have the effect of expanding us in a universal way?

JT It does make us universal. You say ‘I am not national’. It is not so much what I say but what I am in relation to people, and what I show. Mary shone beautifully; no one shone like her in the scene where the Lord came to die, so that spiritual features will show themselves; you cannot eclipse them; you may be made ashamed by the spirituality of others; the Lord values the spiritual, but then He values the saints; He values every one of them, and we must not despise any of them.

AMH Partiality would tend to stumbling — “He that loves his brother abides in light and there is no occasion of stumbling in him”. Partiality is a great cause of stumbling.

JT Quite so. Love is really the true light; one that loves his brother ^[p. 370] is not partial.

EBMcC Martha shines in John 12.

JT Quite so, there was no complaint in her there. But still the more spiritual shines; that is Mary. That was the thought that I had — the thought of impartiality amongst the brethren, not in profession but in life; what is true in Christ is true in the saints, that is, the expression of love is not preferential, what shines in a tangible way is not preferential.

PL And the one who sets out this great thought is the disciple whom Jesus loved, John himself.

JT Very good.