READING

READING

John 12: 20 - 33; John 13: 31, 32

JT I think that this occasion^† calls for something suggestive of the Lord’s universal rights and operations, and that we might therefore look at the subject of the Son of man in the gospel of John.

It occurred to me that the connections in which the truth of the Son of man is found in this gospel remind us that the ministry of the last days should have a universal bearing. The gospel announces at the outset that “in him” — the One who was with God and who was God — “was life”, and that the life “was the light of men”. So that as Nathanael comes to Jesus through the ministry of Philip, and owns Him as the Son of God and King of Israel, the Lord speaks about greater things, and goes on to say that henceforth he should “see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”. Nathanael was to understand that the rights of the Son of man, and the bearing of the testimony connected with Him should take precedence of the promises. The bearing of that at the present time would be that any favoured part of the earth should come to understand that the operations of God would go wider. The book of Ezekiel, which corresponds with our day, reminds us that certain areas were privileged as adjacent to the sphere in which the light was, and they eventually came specially under judgment, such as Ammon and Moab, the Philistines, and particularly Tyre. These countries had had special advantages because of their nearness to the sphere of the light; and their position in the

^†A farewell meeting to commend to the Lord a number of brethren from South Africa who were returning to the Cape.

^[p. 95] earth had been greatly enhanced correspondingly, hence they were to come under the immediate judgment of God.

I think that John would prepare us for enlargement, because as a matter of fact, historically the light of God had been restricted, and up to the present time is restricted, and those who thus have come into advantage through the sovereignty of God are apt to assume that it is their property, their right; whereas the very advantages that they have enjoyed become the occasion of their judgment, especially, as I say, of Tyre, which represents the great commercial system that has been built up, enhanced as it has been by the light of the gospel, for it is a well-known fact that the light of the gospel carried into the dark heathen world was simply followed by the merchant, and God does not overlook that. Things seemed to prosper and go well, but in pronouncing the judgment on Tyre in Ezekiel the king of Tyre is likened to Satan himself; chapter 28: 14. It is a very serious reminder of the danger of assuming that what comes to us through the sovereignty of God is a matter of right. It is not a right; it is God’s sovereign way, and what comes to man thus sovereignly becomes in the end the occasion of judgment. I think that the Lord prepares us for this in bringing in, in connection with one who is an Israelite indeed, and who belonged to the favoured nation, the great truth that heaven would take account, not of the king of Israel, but of the Son of man. That was what I had in mind.

Ques Does the Son of man bring before us God’s interest in the whole race?

JT That is how the title stands in the Scriptures, and John brings it in immediately, and in a peculiar way, because the heaven should be opened and the angels ascending and descending on Him. The interest of heaven henceforth, as the Lord says, is in the Son of man and what He ^[p. 96] stands for.

DLH What would you say in regard to the title Son of God which Nathanael recognises at the same time as the king of Israel in relation to the statement, “Thou shalt see greater things than these”; have you any thought upon that point?

JT I think it was just Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is connected with Zion, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (verse 6). That is not the idea of the Son of man, it is what God will do for Israel, making Zion a centre; God’s King is His Son, and He gives the nations for His inheritance.

DLH You think then that the title Son of God has a certain limitation?

JT I think so. It is presented to Nathanael in that way.

DLH Because subsequently the apostle Paul was to base his testimony on the fact that Jesus was the Son of God.

JT That would be in a wider sense, I think; not One who is prophetically to be Son, but as in Romans 1, “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (verse 4).

PL Must not one go to Psalm 8 to link up with this?

JT The Lord went to Psalm 8. He wished to show to Nathanael that Psalm 8 would take precedence of Psalm 2; but then, in chapter 3, the Son is brought in: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son”. There you have a fuller and wider suggestion, because it is a question of God making known His love. But previous to that (verse 13) you have the Son of man in heaven — a very wonderful thing for us, viewed as connected with the race, “Even the Son of man which is in heaven”. It is as if the Spirit of God would inspire confidence in men as such, that He who had taken their side (for the Son of man is on our side) is in heaven. It ^[p. 97] is God encouraging men by bringing in His Son in this character, so that we might have confidence in Him. Hence he goes on to say, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up”, showing that Numbers was not on Israelitish ground simply, but was a type of the present time. The reference is to the garden of Eden when sin came in on the race, not when it came into Israel. God takes that up and shows that the Son of man is lifted up in that way, so “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. But then, as was remarked, it does not say that God so loved the world that He sent the Son of man; it is His only-begotten Son, that is, it is the Son of God as come in from God’s side to bring in God, to reveal Him, and to make His love known.

DLH Does not Paul come into line with that in Romans 8 when He says, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”? (verse 3). That is a reference to the brazen serpent, just as John 3 speaks of the brazen serpent.

JT Yes; only there it is His own Son, because it is the urgency of the thing. God would deal with sin in the flesh, and hence He sends His own Son in the likeness of flesh of sin and for sin.

Ques You refer to the garden of Eden; were you thinking of the serpent?

JT Yes; the reference is to the garden of Eden, and to the serpent. The Lord interprets Moses lifting up the serpent, and applies it to Himself. We see how One has come in on man’s side to deal with the question of sin. But if it be a question of the love of God it is the only-begotten Son.

RB Why did the apostle so distinctly preach Jesus as the Son of God as His testimony to the nations?

JT ^[p. 98] Because it was a question of God coming in. God comes in in that way. He approaches man in His Son. “The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea”, 2 Corinthians 1: 19. I think that God approaches man in His Son; but man approaches God in the apprehension of the Son of man. We are enriched as we apprehend Him on our side.

Ques Was it a Man that was of God, in God’s nature, “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”, Luke 1: 35?

JT Just so. God claims Him in that way. But when He is brought into the temple as a babe, Simeon takes Him up in his arms. God claims Him at the outset — “shall be called Son of God”; but Simeon claims Him for the race, as you might say: “A light for revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel” (Luke 2: 32); in spiritual intelligence he puts the Gentiles first. Simeon is, as it were, a priest in the temple, but he is on our side, he has the Son of man, he has Him representatively; he is before God in the temple. It seems to me a very wonderful position, because we can take our place behind Simeon and see how enriched we are. With this blessed Babe in his arms, he says, “For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples”. He brings the Gentiles into view really for the unveiling; He takes off the veil, so to say, because He is on the side of the Gentiles; then He is the glory of God’s people Israel.

Ques Was that in the Lord’s mind in Luke 22 in answering the council, when He says, “Henceforth shall the Son of man be sitting on the right hand of the power of God”? (verse 69).

JT Yes, no doubt; but the Lord’s remark in John 1 brings Him in as an Object of help on our side; and all that enters into our position as Gentiles,

^[p. 99] belonging to the race, takes precedence of all else. That is an immense thing, because the truth of the assembly is developed on those lines.

Ques Would you connect Jacob’s vision — the ladder reaching up to heaven — with this?

JT It is an allusion to it. Nathanael, if he understood the Scriptures, as no doubt he did in some measure, would see that the thought of God had widened, for the Son of man conveys more than Jacob conveys.

HB Would you mind pursuing the thought of the Lord as the Son of man in this gospel of John?

JT In chapter 3: 11 we see how He places Himself in heaven, saying, “We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen”. Then He speaks of no one having ascended up into heaven, save He who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. As on our side, He is in the secrets of heaven, He knows what is there: “We speak that we do know”. And then He goes on to say, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up”. He deals effectively with what lay upon the whole race of men, as lifted up between the heavens and the earth. We see that the race is in view in that way here. In chapter 5 He refers to Himself as having authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. That, I think, imparts great assurance to us, for the reason that the One who is to judge is on our side. We may therefore look for justice; there will be nothing to prejudice our cause. In chapter 6 we get a further reference to the Son of man. He says, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed” (verse 27). There is now One who can give us food, and as on our side God has sealed Him. There is every ^[p. 100] confidence inspired in our hearts in apprehending Him on this line.

AN Going back to chapter 5, is quickening connected with the Son of God? I had thought that that was on our side, but He quickens as Son of God.

JT Yes. He quickens; He is the last Adam. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” (verse 26). I think that is that life proceeds from God. We see that in the beginning. God breathed into Adam the breath of life. The Lord takes the place on earth as in dependence and says, “He has given to the Son also to have life in himself”. That is the quickening power of Christ the Son; He is on God’s side in that.

PL Do you connect these two thoughts — Son of man and Son of God — with the two trees? You referred back to the garden of Eden. As Son of man, does He solve every moral issue, all that is raised in relation to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and as Son of God, does He bring in the tree of life, all that is connected with privilege eternally?

JT I suppose that is right. It is the Son of God in manhood, of course. He connects judgment with Himself as Son of man, and in chapter 6 the Son of man gives us food. The work of God is to believe on Him whom He has sent; hence He says to the Jews: “Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves” (verse 53). They have to get the thing from the outset, so to say; they have to learn that the thing commenced from the Son of man; and that was a humiliating thing for them; nevertheless, it was God’s way; and He further goes on to say, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (verse 62).

DLH That was the final test, was it not, in ^[p. 101] that chapter?

JT The words that He spoke were spirit and life; but in every step throughout John’s gospel, after He introduced the subject of the Son of man, the national claims of the Jews are set aside. The Lord takes occasion to set them aside; and if they come in, it is at the end. The rights of the Son of man precede the promises.

PL Did not Stephen’s testimony to the Son of man in that way set aside Jewish pretension?

JT Yes; it did. It is very helpful to see that. Stephen saw the heavens opened through, and He saw the glory of God and Jesus; that is what the Spirit says he saw; but what Stephen says is, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”. That meant that there was a change coming.

Ques Do you think it simplifies things to remember that man was to represent God at the beginning?

JT I think it does, but I do not think that is the point in the Son of man in John. John would encourage us by the fact that He is on our side. He is on God’s side as Son of God.

MWB You mentioned at the beginning that these things coming out in John’s gospel show that they have a special reference to the last time, the present time — I take it you mean the universal bearing of things.

JT That is what is in my mind. The Lord had to serve in connection with an established system of things and special privileges to a special people. These privileges were not their rights, they were sovereign favours that God had accorded to them; but they arrogated to themselves what God had accorded to them. That is what God would not admit of. The result was that it was a sterile soil. He is seen labouring in Jerusalem more in John than in any of the other gospels, and His labours usually result in an individual being blessed — not in multitudes ^[p. 102] as in the other gospels, but in isolated cases, showing that privilege in no sense affords a soil for divine operation, but the opposite.

MWB Would you make an application of that kind to a country like England?

JT Yes, I would; or to make it more explicit, to Europe. Europe is the area in which the gospel operations have been seen throughout the dispensation. I think that would be admitted by any student, and when I say ‘student’ I do not mean the student of what they call profane history, but a student of the book of Revelation, because the book of Revelation is first the history of the assembly and then generally that of Western Europe, and God’s dealings with Europe.

PL Do you think that to set aside the pretension which the Lord knew would arise as a result of the diffusion of the light, we have the Spirit of Jesus active, forbidding them to go back to Bithynia and sending them into Europe?

JT It would be on that line — “the Spirit of Jesus”, Acts 16: 7.

Rem He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He has ordained; Acts 17: 31.

JT But the question which has been raised is most important to look into. God acts sovereignly, and it has been His sovereign way to cause the light of the gospel to take root and spread in Europe, but now, are we to arrogate to ourselves any rights of that kind? That God will not admit of, and so Ezekiel not only shows how God deals with Jerusalem, Palestine, Judaea, and Samaria, but he shows that He also deals with Ammon and Moab, the Philistines, and Tyre and Sidon, and ultimately Egypt, because these were within the radius of the light and obtained immense material advantages from that light. It is a most serious outlook for Europe, and it is exactly ^[p. 103] what Revelation is intended to convey; Europe is the area, mainly that Revelation deals with.

MWB When you say Europe, what would you embrace in that — just the actual territory, or that which has sprung from it as the colonies?

JT I would include all the outgoings. What is the ocean to God? In this respect He does not pay any attention to the Atlantic Ocean; He pursues those who are responsible; hence the seriousness of it.

FW In a way, that would correspond to the territory of the kingdom?

JT Just so. You mean the kingdom as the area of profession as seen in Matthew?

FW Yes, but I was thinking of what it was in the Old Testament. These nations were in the sphere of what was intended to be the kingdom, but they were never fully dispossessed.

JT Yes; Ezekiel really treats the nations surrounding Israel as in God’s garden; he has a more intimate thought, meaning that they were cultured and cared for relatively.

Rem So that in a spiritual sense Christendom would correspond with that kingdom.

JT I think so. It is the area in which the light has been, and that is what Revelation, rightly understood, means; it is the mind for God about all that area.

Ques Is that why the question as to His Person is raised in the end of John 12, “Who is this, the Son of man?” (verse 34)?

JT Just so; quite a natural question. The Lord says in answer, “Walk while ye have the light, that darkness may not overtake you”.

Ques Why is it that Ezekiel does not make mention of the present testimony and period, and yet speaks of the Son of man some one hundred times more than any other book in ^[p. 104] the Bible?

JT Why do you say he does not speak of the present time?

Rem I thought he spoke of the districts of Judaea and of the nations, and then goes on to show the glory that is coming.

JT But in chapter 1 he sees the heavens opened, and he sees visions of God, and an array of power having a universal bearing, and over all that, in the brightest spot in the firmament, is a Man. That points to the present time. The name or title, Son of man, came in in the Acts when the Jews rejected Christ. As we have already remarked, the Spirit says Stephen saw Jesus, but he, guided by the Spirit to testify, says, “Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man”. That was the testimony, and all the power that was available at Jerusalem at that time was under Him, and that power was going to be extended out to the whole race of men. It was there for the Jews, but they did not value it.

Ques The title that the Lord assumes when reigning over the world in millennial glory will be the Son of man?

JT Well, I do not know about that. I think He reigns in Zion. The nations are subordinate to Israel then, but we come in before Israel now. It is a greater thing now, “Thou shalt see greater things”. There are two revelations spoken of in connection with Him; one is as to the race, “For the revelation of the Gentiles”, as Simeon says; that is the first thing, and refers to the present time. The other apocalypse is to John, and it is not for the revelation of the Gentiles, but for the lifting of the veil from Europe, viewed as privileged in the government of God, and in a sense responsible in regard of the whole world. First there is the history of the assembly in its responsibility, and then the history of the European nations, culminating in the beast.

HB Do you think that Hebrews 2 would bear ^[p. 105] out your thought? It speaks of the Son of man and then it says, “We see Jesus”; does not that connect it with the present moment?

JT I think it does; “we see Jesus”.

Ques Will you enlarge a little on the references in John’s gospel to Christ as Son of man?

JT Chapter 6 is a most important chapter, because it shows how He, as on our side, furnishes food, and then that He ascends up to where He was before. The link with His deity is there. He was not there before as Son of man. He was not in that form, but eternally He was there before. That passage links Him in a most wonderful way, it seems to me, with Deity. He ascends up to where He was before, and the heart follows Him there. The next reference is in the passage we read from chapter 12. It is opened up there perhaps more fully because the Greeks came up. He intimates that He is not to be in relation with them as they were, so He immediately says, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit”. That, I think, is to lay the basis of the assembly; the operations of the Son of man had the assembly in view. We come in for that as the first-fruits.

RB Would you tell us what you mean as to the results in Jerusalem, it being the most highly favoured spot? Would the results there correspond with what we should expect in the countries where the light has been?

JT I think that is what you find. We have to be content with individual cases now. John’s believers are believers that can be trusted, they are worth while. The Lord selects certain ones.

PL And their full enrichment is seen in John 20; you spoke of their being enriched, being brought into relationship.

^[p. 106] JT Yes.

DLH Are there not, as one might say, two classes of believers in John’s gospel, one a class who nominally believed, and another who really did so?

JT I think it is very important to see that. The first class is seen in the end of chapter 2; they believed on account of the signs, but the Lord did not trust them. In chapter 13 we come to the culmination of the truth connected with the Son of man. The Son of man is not, I think, strictly a term that refers to the assembly, but it underlies the truth of the assembly; hence when Judas went out the Lord says, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him. God also shall glorify him in himself, and shall glorify him immediately” (verses 31, 32). In chapter 12 He had said, “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified”, which I apprehend is a future thing, when He will take up His place in relation to the whole race publicly, but chapter 13 says, “Now is the Son of man glorified”; it is not the hour is come that He should be, but “now is”.

PL When you say ‘now’, do you refer to the cross?

JT That is what I understand. Morally the Lord is glorified as Son of man on the cross, and God is glorified in Him. Then God glorifies Him in Himself, which I suppose would be placing Him in heaven; and then He glorifies Him immediately, which I think would include the place He gives Him now in the assembly.

Ques Would you say a word or two as to “Now is the Son of man glorified”; in what way is He glorified?

JT By His dying. There was a halo of glory there as He died in obedience to the will of God.

EP Has that to do with Psalm 8, “And the Son of man that thou visitest him”?

JT There, I think, it is simply that God visited Him; I should think this goes much beyond that. Now He is glorified morally in dying, and one wonders as to how it affects the saints, and what place the Lord has in this light in our souls. God has glorified Him immediately; it is not deferred. The sphere in which God operates now is the assembly, and it seems to me that if He glorifies the Son of man immediately, it is there now.

HB Is glorifying Him in Himself, glorifying Him in God, the filling out of what you were suggesting as to ascending up where He was before?

JT I think so, but I thought glorifying Him immediately was a little fuller than that; it would mean that the Father has opened up a sphere here for Him.

MWB He was not to wait until He should be received universally; He should be received in those whom the Father gave to Him now.

JT It opens the door for us to afford the opportunity for the glorifying of the Son of man. The Father would bring Him in in that way, I think.

Ques Has what you have been saying any bearing on chapter 14, “Believe also on me”?

JT Well, He has glory as thus in heaven. He is another Person in heaven, an Object of faith.

Ques Connecting it with the assembly, do you mean that the assembly is the only sphere here where the true rights of the Son of man are recognised on the earth?

JT We cherish His rights as Son of man. We know the race has not come into them yet, but we are the first-fruits, we are of the race, and the Father would glorify Him in us.

Ques Is the Lord in that way held in the assembly both for the race now and for Israel by-and-by?

JT I think so. In Revelation the Son of man is seen, only He is seen there in the midst of the ^[p. 108] golden candlesticks. It was one like the Son of man. He would love to be there otherwise; He is going to judge; that is not work that is pleasing to Him; nevertheless He is there.

Ques Would “Now is the Son of man glorified” mark the completion of that which He took up as Son of man; that is to say, the way is opened now. God is glorified in Him, and a present answer to it is found in the assembly universally?

JT That is what I thought.

DLH There is a question that arises upon that, that is, “We see not yet all things subjected to him, but we see Jesus”, Hebrews 2: 8. There is a present result of His glory obviously from that passage and others, but I suppose that there is a future enlargement in that regard under the title of the Son of man, is there not?

JT Yes, there is.

DLH When do you think that will take place?

JT I suppose it will be the fulfilment of Psalm 8 and Psalm 2; they will coalesce in the future, but the priority of the nations results in the assembly and only in the assembly, afterwards the nations come in second.

Ques Would it be exhibited at all in Acts 2, when every one heard them speak in their own tongue?

JT Quite.

DLH Only these people, I think, were Hellenists, they were not actually Gentiles, they were Hellenistic Jews who had come from different countries, and they spoke the language of those countries like Jews do today.

JT The point was that the Holy Spirit had access to men in every place; language was no barrier.

PL In regard of Acts 11, “Then indeed God ^[p. 109] has to the nations also granted repentance to life”, does that bring in the thought of the Son of man?

JT I think it does.

PL Israel had light, but this is life, is it not?

JT “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. That shows that John from the outset had men in view.

Ques Would you say a word as to “I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me”?

JT “This he said signifying by what death he was about to die”. It is a very solemn thing that you are drawn to One who was lifted up in the most ignominious way. That shows what a power of attraction there is, that one is drawn to Him notwithstanding that His circumstances are so ignominious — that He is in such reproach. It means that there is some other attraction besides that of nature. It is an astronomical reference.

Ques Does it bring another world into view?

JT It does. “Now is the judgment of this world ... and I, if I be lifted up ... will draw all to me”.

Rem The Lord says in this gospel, “No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him”, chapter 6: 44.

JT That underlies John right through, and shows that there is a link between you and Him, and that the most ignominious position which marked Him does not hinder you being drawn to Him. Nathanael says, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” He saw that reproach would stand in his way, but he overcame it by Philip’s solicitation. It is well to notice the combination here of Philip and Andrew; they are very fine servants; they are seen in chapter 1 and they are seen here; they unite to tell Jesus about the Greeks. I have no doubt that they prefigure the Jewish remnant. They were of different families, but from the same town — ^[p. 110] Bethsaida. The assembly comes from that evangelical centre. Andrew finds his brother Simon, whom the Lord said should be called Cephas, meaning the material for the assembly; and Philip finds Nathanael, who represents Israel; and then both together they receive the testimony from the Lord of blessing for the race. They represent a kind of evangelical work that should go on. Bethsaida was a sort of evangelical centre, I think.