MAN AS PRESENTED IN CHRIST AND THE ASSEMBLY (1)
MAN AS PRESENTED IN CHRIST AND THE ASSEMBLY (1)
JT The thought is to consider man, or manhood, in Christ and in us. Hence we began at verse 4 because it directly introduces the subject; that is, that life in Christ was the light of men. The mind has been directed to the beginning of Genesis, where it will be observed nothing is said of other beings save man. Angels are introduced later in Scripture and of course Satan is introduced somewhat early, undoubtedly, under the character of an animal. That is, the thought of man is kept clearly in mind, and John takes it up according to this chapter (verse 4), that Christ was life; that is, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. Then it is pursued as to the whole race, that He has lightened everyone that comes into the world. “The true light” (verse 9), having in mind this dispensation, and man is clearly in mind; however he may be viewed in detail, it is man. So the full thought of the dispensation should be kept in mind, it is Christianity; anything referring to Israel having to be viewed prophetically although in mind in the promises. At the beginning of Christianity the truth turned on man, Paul saying that “God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus”, 1 Timothy 2: 5. That is, that there is nothing less than Christianity at the present time and that Christianity implies man.
HH When you refer to “In him was life” (verse 4), would you say a little as to the word life, what you have in [p. 260] mind?
JT Well, the sense of substantiality; the book of Genesis, of course, treats of life, but not of life in the sense of being light, it waited for the Son to become man for the idea of life to become light. The idea of the sun, moon and stars, is not life in the sense that John speaks of it; and, of course, this brings us to the truth of Christianity. We are dealing with the substantial matter, a positive, substantial thought of life among the brethren, and that light is contingent on it, whether in Christ or in us. That is what I thought should be clearly in view.
Ques Is that the great objective in Ephesians 4: 13, “until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man”?
JT Quite so, I would say that. That chapter, of course, treats of the ministry; earlier, it is more revelation. The ministry is contingent on gift, not of course in Christ, but it is in us. Hence Christ is viewed as on high, gone “up above all the heavens” (verse 10). The idea of gift is in mind; and hence it is “until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ” (verse 13).
Ques Does the thought of life in John go further than the thought of the breath of life in Genesis?
JT The breath of life that God breathed into Adam would not go beyond physical life in man as he was. It is more the moral thought that we have in John’s gospel. What we have in John’s gospel runs through into Christianity really worked out in man.
WC Is that what John says in his first epistle? “The life has been manifested” (chapter 1: 2). Does that bring life and light together?
JT Quite so; it was the manifestation in man of life as God had thought for man. It was manifested [p. 261] in Christ personally but it was confined to Him until He went into heaven and the Spirit came down.
HH Would that have special point in regard of Christ’s life in resurrection or does it bring in the gospels too?
JT It would include the gospels. The life was manifested and is immediately connected with Christ, running on doubtless to the resurrection.
WC “Has been manifested” would cover everything, would it not, looking back on all that they witnessed in Christ here and His manifestation to them in resurrection?
JT I would say it goes on to the resurrection; the full thought in mind that it is from the beginning, and then the tangibleness of it in 1 John 1: 1 - 3 “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life; (and the life has been manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us): that which we have seen and heard we report to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”. The fellowship is contemplated; that is, full Christianity in its practicalness here, the life manifested, inclusive of the fellowship. It is a question of the position of the apostles, as is said in Acts 2: 42, “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”. That is the point. There is nothing less than that. It is God’s mind for the present dispensation involving the Spirit here. There is no operation subjectively save as by the Spirit.
AWGT Does Paul’s reference to “the life of God” (Ephesians 4: 18) link with what you are speaking of?
JT That is an expression that is very little understood. It is a reference to heathen darkness;
[p. 262] the life they are alienated from was the life of God. It is a life to be understood; it must be God in Christ. That is what is in mind. Of course, Christianity must be that; it is the life as the light of men: it is exclusive to man.
ETS “The true light already shines” (1 John 2: 8) — would that come in?
JT That is the thought exactly. To make it simple, the true light is Christianity. Hence we have in John’s epistle: “This is the message which we have heard from him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not practise the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”, 1 John 1: 5 - 7. Now the next chapter tells us: “And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that says, I know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps his words, in him verily the love of God is perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him. He that says he abides in him ought, even as he walked, himself also so to walk. Beloved, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment, which ye have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye heard. Again, I write a new commandment to you, which thing is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light already shines. He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in the darkness until now. He that loves his brother abides in light and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hates his brother is in the darkness, and walks in the darkness, and knows not where he goes, because the darkness has blinded his eyes”, 1 John 2: 3 - 11.
[p. 263] I apprehend that what we are saying is involved in this passage, that the Lord’s life here was the old commandment, and the new commandment is what is in us by the Spirit. Hence, Christianity is in mind.
WS That being the substantiality to which you have referred?
JT Quite so. Christianity is a real thing; not like what you have in heathen religions, which are usually abstract, but a real thing, first in Christ Himself, and now come down by the Spirit in the assembly.
Rem We have the wonderful reference as to this gospel: “These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”, John 20: 31.
JT So that we might understand that life is in us. What we are aiming at now is life by the Spirit in man.
JAP When it says: “The eternal life, which was with the Father”, (1 John 1: 2); would that include all the Lord’s movements when He was here?
JT I should think so, “the eternal life” would be the whole idea of what God had in mind for men. Some might think that it refers to Him above but it does not. “The bosom of the Father” (John 1: 18), refers to Him where He is now; but “with the Father” refers to what He was down here as witness: it was simply man’s place with God, all working out from that.
HH Would you apply that also to the last chapter of the epistle, “This is the true God, and eternal life”, 1 John 5: 20? It has been said to be true of Him as glorified.
JT It is too. It is the true present position: “He is the true God and eternal life”. It is how He is known above and to make it anything less would be derogatory. That is, to bring Him down into what His circumstances were here below, to make [p. 264] that applicable to Him above has to be watched, because “He is the true God” is a full absolute statement, and the eternal life is additional. That is true now; and to bring anything into His circumstances now such as prayer and the like would be wholly derogatory. He is in a wholly new position to which the title of Deity belongs.
Ques “In him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”, Colossians 2: 9. Is that the position?
JT Quite so. In Colossians 1, it is more dignity, pointing to His glory, His person in the Deity; “of the Godhead” is not in the original. It is the fulness. We have to view the word fulness, it seems to me as expressive of Himself. In the second chapter it is “the fulness of the Godhead”, which brings Him within our range.
WC Does John 17: 5 correspond? The Lord saying, “Now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”?
JT It certainly does. It is His deity. He has entered on it according to the Father’s will, He requests it: “Glorify me, ...with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. The Spirit of God intends to guard the Lord’s Person. We are not to speak of Him and apply terms which did apply to Him prophetically in His humiliation. The humiliation of the Lord Jesus has to be rightly understood. He even says, “I am a worm, and no man”, Psalm 22: 6. Who would have dared to say it? but there it is. We have to understand the humiliation of Christ and what Scripture does say, but to say anything beyond that is not right.
WC You mentioned the word prayer, was that in the Lord’s humiliation?
JT Suppose anyone asked you to pray for the Lord Jesus; what would you think of that? You would say, It is not right.
[p. 265] I believe the Spirit of God would impress upon us that He is always guarding the Person of the Lord Jesus. In John’s gospel He brings out wonderful things beside that, but the whole truth of His Person is there at the start. I believe there has been in some minds the idea of praying for the Lord Jesus. I am speaking of it now to correct it, so that the brethren should be preserved.
Ques Would it not apply to any limitations that the Lord took on down here, to force them upon Him up there now would be wrong?
JT His humiliation enters into it; what His humiliation really was. How are we to be imbued with it? The Spirit of God would imbue us with it to guard the humanity of the Lord Jesus, such a humanity that certain things can be predicated of it; but He is not in that now.
Rem So the glory of His Person now would but enhance what He took on when here.
JT You just marvel at the things the Lord says of Himself in the book of Psalms.
Ques Is it first of all the thought of the Hebrew servant and then the ark of the covenant in its proper setting?
JT Just so. In Numbers the ark of the covenant went out of its place, left its place deliberately, so to speak, to take the lead in seeking out a resting-place for Israel. It enters into the present time. The Lord is ready to serve His people in any such way; He “humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!” (Psalm 113: 6); but it generally works out in the assembly, as Paul says; “I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly”, Colossians 1: 24.
[p. 266] Ques The expression as to the Lord leaving the status of Deity or leaving the form of God, would not now be accepted, I understand?
JT I should not say those were scriptural remarks. We cannot restrict a divine Person as to what He can do or must do. To bring in the word must is not right. The position remains, His position in glory: “we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3: 2); and when we shall see Him we shall be like Him. So that is the truth of Christianity, but the heavenly side of it, and I think any statement which limits the Lord is wrong; because divine Persons retain Their liberty and we cannot impose things on Them.
ECM Does Philippians 2: 7 have any bearing? He took “a bondman’s form”, but it does not say, He left the form of God.
JT We cannot say He left the form of God. We cannot restrict a divine Person, but we must bow to what He does and accept it.
Rem Mark says “that he appeared in another form”, Mark 16: 12.
JT That has to be noted. The same word is in Philippians 2. We are not told what form that was. Divine Persons are not subject to limitations.
Ques Does the holy mount remind us of that?
JT Quite so: when they were with Him on the holy mount.
ET The Lord speaks of Himself to Saul from heaven as “Jesus the Nazaraean”, Acts 22: 8.
JT Quite so. He is entitled to do these things. Why is it the holy mountain? Because He was there.
Ques Would you say a word as to the Son in subjection at the close of the kingdom?
JT It is fitting to be observed that the Son is to be subject.
Rem He is taking the thing on Himself.
JT [p. 267] Yes, that is what it is: He is taking that place, “that God may be all in all”, 1 Corinthians 15: 28. We cannot exclude the idea of God from Him, even if He accepts subjection. When we come to John 1 we shall perhaps be helped further on that point. What is in mind now is the general thought in the subject; life in Christ for man and exclusively for man. “There was a man sent from God, his name John” (verse 6). That is how John the baptist came in to call attention to the light. “He came for witness, that he might witness concerning the light” (verse 7). That is the point in this chapter so far as we have gone. “He was not the light, but that he might witness concerning the light. The true light was that which, coming into the world, lightens every man” (verses 8, 9); or sheds its light on every man. “Every man”, so that whether it be a heathen, or Jew, or a nominal Christian, the light is for him and there is nothing lower than that. That is what is contemplated. What John presents runs through: so, “He was in the world, and the world had its being through him, and the world knew him not” (verse 10). That is, here in the world He is the Creator. That is the plain statement indicated here. “He came to his own, and his own received him not; but 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” (verses 11 - 13). That is, the idea of children is brought in apparently to enhance the position. The relation is not a heavenly position, but is the relation down here and belongs to manhood.
WSS “As he is, so are we in this world”, 1 John 4: 17. Does that summarise what is in mind?
JT “As he is, so are we in this world”, is very remarkable; it is as He is now, illustrating the abstract character of John’[p. 268] s first epistle.
WSS Hence the importance of apprehending the word children, so that there may be correspondence to it.
JT So I think the idea of children of God fits in with that. It is a family relationship down here, where Christ was.
WSS In Christendom generally there is very little idea of this.
JT Quite so. The idea of children John keeps in view right through; it is what we are as suffering with Christ; the right is given to us, as born of God, and as believers on Christ’s name.
EuR Does Philippians 2 bear on it? “Irreproachable children of God in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation; among whom ye appear as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life”, Philippians 2: 15, 16? We get light and life there.
JT Very good! It applies fully; truly a Philippian idea too.
AH In that way we would be “sons of light”.
JT Quite so; in keeping with Luke and John. “While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light”, John 12: 36. It is “sons of light”.
Ques Is the point that God is not operating on any lower level?
JT He is not. The principle is Christianity, and it applies universally. Christ is light for everyone that comes into the world; He is light for men and there is no ground for regarding that light as any other than the light of Christianity.
Ques Do you think they had that in mind on the day of Pentecost? Peter says, “Men, brethren” (Acts 2: 29), and Paul says, “Men and brethren”, Acts 13: 26. (See the Darby Translation note to “brethren” in Acts 1: 16).
JT The original pattern; it had the idea of men there. That bears it out, men, but as brethren.
WC Does the word ‘men’ bring in responsibility as well as privilege?
JT Quite so. Christianity is the last word in testimony from God; it applies to all, whether Jew or gentile or nominal Christians.
JSE Is the fulness of it seen at Athens? He commands “all men everywhere to repent”; Acts 17: 30.
JT Quite so; and in the early scriptures man is introduced as above other creatures. Even Satan is brought in on a very low level historically in Scripture. It is a very remarkable thing; “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion”, Genesis 1: 26. Then man is taken up again in chapter 5: “the book of Adam’s generations”, Genesis 5: 1. Our wisdom is to keep to it and get the gain of it in our souls; what a wonderful place men have, and what a terrible thing it is that any should exclude themselves by rejection of the truth! John is a witness of how terrible is the end of men who refuse the truth, those he calls “the dead” in Revelation 20: 12.
PHH Do we need to keep the truth in an abstract way before us? There is sometimes a difficulty to name persons who have not got on very far in their souls, and allocating a certain place to those who have not the Spirit.
JT We must go by the truth. What can God not do? We assume that what we see externally is so, but we are leaving God out. What can He not do at any moment of time?
EuR We must clothe the work of God with the light of the dispensation.
JT Quite so, that is the idea, “the true light”.
Ques Is light as you are speaking of it God’s great answer to what came in at the fall of man? “The day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”, Genesis 2: 17. Does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil now make way for the tree of life?
JT Hence we have the glorious truth that comes out in the Lord’s address to Ephesus. I believe the Lord has in mind the primary thought of God as to man in Revelation 2: 7: “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies. To him that overcomes, I will give to him to eat of the tree of life which is in the paradise of God”. That is what I was thinking of, it is not simply the Old Testament, it is the book of Revelation. The tree of life as in the midst of the paradise of God; and it does not appear that any outside the heavenly city have part in the fruit of it, showing how great are the privileges of the assembly. The paradise of God takes form in it. Hence the facts we are now dealing with refer to Christianity, and only Christianity, nothing less than Christianity. We may have to take notice of the context, but God is showing that His greatest thoughts are to be applied at the present time.
WC The man in Christ was caught up into paradise.
JT Quite so; that is the idea, a man. The overcomers are the only ones who are said to have part in the tree of life in Ephesus. What God is presenting here is His full thought. Anything less than that may develop in the millennium, or perhaps before or after. These thoughts are set out in Christ personally and in the saints, as in Paul, “a man in Christ”, 2 Corinthians 12: 2.
EuR So in the last chapter of Revelation there is both “the water of life” and the “tree of life” connected with the heavenly city.
JT Quite so, and there is an allusion later in Revelation 22: 16: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies. I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and [p. 271] morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come”. That is, the full thought of the assembly is expressed in this: “The Spirit and the bride say, Come”. Then it goes on, “And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come”; (verse 17). This is the last word you might say to anyone in this dispensation, to appeal to anyone, Come. “And let him that is athirst come; he that will, let him take the water of life freely” (verse 17). These are the things that are now attested in Christianity. “I testify to every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any one shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book. And if any one take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life”, Revelation 22: 18, 19. That is to say he is cut off from this greatest thing, “the tree of life”; “and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (verse 19). The holy city and the tree of life are both in mind here as a last testimony in Christianity.
Ques Does the thought of the children of God involve the full thought of life?
JT I think so; what we are down here as sons of light. The Lord speaks of the overcomer being a son in Revelation 21: 7. That relation is in keeping, I would say, with the relation of children in John 1, where we are given the right to take the place of children of God. Now there is not much time to deal with this second part of the chapter. What is in mind to call attention to is the gathering of Christ in this closing part and Nathanael. Nathanael is a suggestive man, so to speak, in this gathering time and things are to be real. He is “an Israelite indeed” (verse 47), but that would be quite in keeping with what we are saying as to man. Things are open to him; he is to see greater things, and he is capable of understanding [p. 272] the Psalms: showing he is a real person in this dispensation and learning quickly, not at the expense of correctness, but learning well.
PHH Referring to what you say as to substantiality of life in Christ, does Nathanael represent life becoming substantial in the saints by way of learning?
JT I think so. He represents quick learning, and it is a time for quick learning or we may not learn at all. There is not much time left. The Lord confirms it all to him by saying that he is to see “greater things”. “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” (verses 50, 51). “Henceforth ye”, the Lord turns to the plural in verse 51, His mind running on to man as represented here, the kind of man we know; and the gospel finishes with a similar thought — “great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three” chapter 21: 11.
Ques Would the man in John 9 be one of those hundred and fifty-three?
JT I think so.
JJT “A man in whom is no guile”. Is that the thought that there is no hindrance to development?
JT Quite so; like the Lord in that sense.
HH Going on to Psalm 8 and leaving Psalm 2, is that going on to the other greater things? I was thinking: “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2: 7. Nathanael quoted that Psalm, but the Lord connects the greater things with Psalm 8.
JT In verse 47 the Lord says, “Truly an Israelite”. That is the kind of man that is wanted: if you are dealing with Israel, get a real Israelite; if you are dealing with Christianity, get a real man. “Before [p. 273] 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. Jesus answered and said to him, 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” (the plural) “shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man” (verses 48 - 51). In other words, it is the Son of man glorified in the greatest sense. The “greater things” would be that; leading the soul beyond the millennium into eternal things.
WSS I wondered whether “greater things” is a kind of key to the gospel involving the change of dispensation?
JT Well, it is: only, “descending on the Son of man”, making Him the greatest, links up with the third chapter of the gospel where the Lord speaks of Himself as Son of man. I think the Spirit of God has in mind to keep man, although God’s Son, the King of Israel, to keep man in mind — man in son-ship, you might say — sonship in man, but rather man in sonship.
Ques Would you say that God is fully with His Son in the Son of man being glorified, is that the full thought?
JT I would say that, probably what Stephen saw. What is called ‘the book of the opened heavens’ opens it up. Hebrews gives us the glories of Christ peculiarly, even more than Peter’s epistles, more of “the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow”, 1 Peter 1: 11. What Stephen would see! the glories opening up to him! He is “an Israelite indeed”, but an Israelite capable of expanding into the greatest things, into the assembly, into the greatest thoughts of Paul, “and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God”, Acts 7: 56. I think that is what we may arrive at, in our present enquiry; the greatest things.
WH Does Nathanael represent the only kind of man suitable for the present time, really filling out the period?
JT Quite so; he is the real man of his kind, but he is to be greater than that, and Christianity is greater than Israel. Anything that may be predicated of what men are capable of today in science and the like, we are greater than that. All this is remarkably opportune for the brethren to learn fully, and I believe Nathanael works out in Stephen and Paul.
EG That makes it a very solemn thing to be “always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”, 2 Timothy 3: 7.
JV If a man learns quickly should he also act quickly according to the word that he learns?
JT Quite so: that is the thought for every one of us, to get out of our nationality, and all that brings us down, to go in for the greatest things, and to know that is God’s thought for us. The Ephesians were to have “full knowledge”, according to the apostle’s desire in Ephesians 1: 17.
Ques With regard to the three sabbath days at Thessalonica, is the special learning seen in that they move quickly in response to the ministry of Paul?
JT I think so. I think there is a suggestion in those three sabbath days at Thessalonica. Sometimes we hear of persons going on ten or fifteen times preaching in a place. I do not know that they gain in that; they might go on somewhere else.
JAP Paul acted quickly after the Lord had spoken to him.
JT Quite so; but he was a little slow at first, “Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”,
[p. 275] Acts 22: 16. He learned quickly afterwards.
Ques Does that involve that we wash away the stain?
JT “Wash away thy sins”, it is not the Lord washing away, it is ourselves. “The washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”, Titus 3: 5. The two things go together.