THE LIFE WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS (13)
[p. 269] THE LIFE WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS (13)
John 3:14-16; John 3:35,36; John 4: 7 - 14
JT What is to be observed as regards John 3 is that it presents eternal life in relation to the gospel. I do not think we have looked at it in a definite way from that point of view, but it is perhaps the most important scripture that treats of eternal life in that relation; that is, the verses read in that chapter. The subject is presented from the divine side, running on generally to the end of the chapter. Then chapter 4 brings in the Spirit, as typified in the living water — the power to make the life effective. We can see, therefore, the connection with Numbers 21, which treats typically of sin in man (the source of it being in view — the bite of the serpent pointing to that) and how it is met in the likeness of the serpent, the fiery serpent lifted up. Then the power of the Spirit is seen typically in the water springing up, which corresponds to John 4. The thought of the Spirit is enlarged upon in the type as coming in through the digging by the princes under the direction of the law-giver.
CAM Is it right to say that Israel reached eternal life in the wilderness in Numbers 21, or would eternal life belong to the land?
JT It belongs to the land, but it is anticipated; the light as to the serpent of brass (what God has said about it) and the springing well, is available in the wilderness. Eternal life itself is properly in the land. The Spirit enables us to reach it. Its setting is in Christ, as stated in John’s epistle, but that is in Christ as He is, not only as risen, but glorified.
AAT You have something more to say about the gospel and eternal life?
JT I remarked, as to verse 16, how God’s love [p. 270] is connected with eternal life. You might say that it is the gospel setting of the great subject of life. We all know that it has been much used, not only by preachers, but by God working in souls, that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal”. The love would seem to include not only the great gift of the only-begotten Son, but also the result of it in the gift of eternal life.
ANW Is not the Lord’s reference to perishing a wilderness idea?
JT Clearly it is. Numbers 14 stresses the perishing side; all those that were numbered, as recorded in chapter 3, were, because of unbelief, debarred from the land of Canaan. Six hundred thousand fell in the wilderness. Of that generation only Caleb and Joshua entered into the land. Jehovah said, “In this wilderness shall your carcases fall”, Numbers 14: 29. They had, in type, refused the gospel, as Hebrews 4: 2 states. The testimony of the land that was brought to Israel by the spies was gospel; that is, in type, the gospel of heaven — of the purpose of God — as included in the testimony of today, presented in the power of the Spirit. All those who came out of Egypt, who were numbered, perished in the wilderness, except Caleb and Joshua, as we have noted. In this large number whose carcases fell in the wilderness there is a terrible impression conveyed of the judgment of God against those who despise and refuse the wonderful provision of His love made effective through His Son and announced in the gospel. So that the idea of life coming in in Numbers 21 becomes an immense thing. The light of the brazen serpent; that is, typically, of Christ lifted up on the cross; and then the springing well, a type of the Spirit, link these chapters in Numbers with John 3 and 4. Thus a great and blessed gospel vista opens before [p. 271] us.
AR It was only those who were conscious of the bite that would reach this life?
JT Yes; those who felt the thing. They looked and lived.
RWS Is new birth implied in the preceding section of Numbers?
JT New birth, of course, is basic and connected with the kingdom in the beginning of John 3. Afterwards the question of eternal life comes in by itself; not only because those who have it are born anew, but because of the Son of man lifted up and the Spirit in the believer.
APf Is the same end reached in the brazen serpent and in the living water?
JT Yes; Numbers 21 is typical of what we have before us in John 3 and 4. Chapter 3 is from God’s side. The situation necessitated the gift of God’s Son. But verse 14 says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up”, connecting the idea of lifting up with Christ, and that is, that He may be seen by all as remedial and attractive; lifted up in the universe, not simply on the earth, for the idea involved is going out of the world. He is lifted up — elevated — put to death, but as elevated; lifted up off the earth, or indeed “out of the earth”; so that it is the way out, and therefore eternal life takes on a very extensive bearing in this section because of the idea of being lifted up.
CAM Would you say it is gospel because it is brought firstly into the place of need?
JT Yes. Numbers 13 pointed to the gospel, as we have seen — the gospel of the land; that is the testimony the spies brought down; it was God’s best, but was despised and hence the awful judgment executed. It was man’s will and taste in refusing love’s provision. Chapter 21 is the serpent’s bite and a remedy afforded in the lifting up of the brazen [p. 272] serpent. The remedy is presented as an object of faith. “Mixed with faith” is a remarkable expression, pointing to the place faith has as a subjective power in the one who has it. And the idea of Christ being lifted up is an important element of truth, and hence should be understood. It is the way out. We are already off the earth; already in transit from the earth. It is not so much to stress the end, but to show that we are in transit; we are going out — going out and going up with Christ as attracted to Him.
AR Was it the gospel of place — turning from one place to another place?
JT That is the idea; the place is really heaven. The land is a type of heaven — God’s best in this sense.
CFE Does being lifted up link me with another Man?
JT Just so; He is supremely attractive. There are three mentions of it in John: this one in chapter 3, then in chapter 8: 28, and in chapter 12: 32. The latter stresses the idea of attraction: “And I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me”. In our passage in chapter 3 the drawing power is not mentioned, but we can see it is involved; the eyes of faith are directed there — as many as were bitten and looked. Such eyes are directed there and drawn there. The light of the gospel directs the believer to Christ; His attraction draws him to Him.
WWM Would “whosoever believes on him” involve faith?
JT It does; “on” referring to the Son as an object of faith, appears four times in verses 15 to 18. This preposition gives the meaning that the Son is a definite object of faith. Faith is the thing — the word has to be mixed with faith, as Hebrews says. The person that is bitten looks. Why? Because he has light. He has been told by Jehovah that everyone, as bitten, who would look upon the fiery serpent should [p. 273] live.
ANW It says that as many as looked lived. Then a further matter is the upspringing well — there is energy to move. Would you distinguish those two for us?
JT The eye is directed by light toward the uplifted serpent. It is not the power of the Spirit, but it is power governing the look, the principle of faith, that accepts the testimony as to the fiery serpent. But the springing well is more than that. It is not simply an eye affected, but the whole person inwardly affected. Springing up effects a change in the whole person, and that is what John 4 contemplates.
ABP Is attraction to be regarded as a law in the divine system?
JT I think it is a law. We have often remarked that John is astronomical. He uses that as a sort of basis of his gospel; that is, the universe is affected by influence, and the influence is really attraction; the power of certain bodies over other bodies. Is that what you had in mind?
ABP Yes; science seems to support the idea that the principle or law of attraction controls the functioning of the universe, down to the minutest atom. I thought that might be an index to what dominates the spiritual sphere.
JT Yes; it seems to be a question of whether there is anything physical that is really static; whether movement does not characterise the whole universe. And if that is so, and no doubt it is so, it certainly ought to affect us as christians that we have come into a living system involving movement, all governed in some sense by what is above us; by what is greater — God, the Supreme, influencing all.
APT Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. Would the attraction in Jesus there be over against the night?
JT Just so. It says, “But there was a man” — [p. 274] but; that is an adversative word which modifies negatively what went before. Men were affected by mere outward signs, but “there was a man from among the Pharisees, his name Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; he came to him by night”. He had a conclusion in his soul which he had arrived at. He did not say that he had taken counsel with anyone; he used the word ‘we’, “We know that thou art come a teacher from God”, which would be, I suppose, a reference to his associates or special friends.
APT And your reference to the idea that there is nothing static would be confirmed in the movement of this person, being attracted to Christ, and that he came by night.
JT Yes; he came up on the horizon as having personal distinction. In John, persons are stressed, as in the early chapters especially, where we are in the midst of personalities. The synoptic gospels show the death of John the baptist as opening the way for the Lord’s ministry. It is said in John 3, “... for John was not yet cast into prison”, showing that the Lord’s early services were not official but connected with His Person. Therefore, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, chapter 1: 1. His deity is strikingly asserted in the opening verses. He must govern everything. His Person is uppermost in the mind of the writer.
AAT Do I understand that in preaching the gospel you preach the Son of man lifted up; not necessarily on the cross but in heaven?
JT The cross is implied; it was Christ sacrificially, not lifted up to heaven, but on the way up. Morally He was on the way as He left the earth, so to speak; that is. He died out of it sacrificially. “His life is taken from the earth”.
ANW “... Lifted up out of the earth”, He says; John [p. 275] 12: 32.
RWS Would it appear from Numbers that the serpents were not removed and that thus the eyes of the Israelites were never to be off the serpent on the pole? They looked intently, as the note in the New Translation says.
JT That is true; at least it is true of the antitype. And it is intensely individual, for it is each one feeling the bite and then acting on the light and looking at the serpent of brass. Baptised christendom does not correspond to the type. What is in mind in the type is persons who are affected by the serpent’s bite and appropriate the divine remedy presented in the gospel. It is the real thing that is in mind and therefore mere professors are shut out. We are not obliged to give an account of them. They are not worthy of notice unless they feel the bite and look. It would be a big matter to give an account of all that did not look. I do not think that God expects us to. Of course, He takes account of ungodly people in another sense, in view of judgment, but we are not obliged to number them. The christian’s point is to take account of the living.
CN Does the same thing apply to John 5: 25? It says, “An hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have heard shall live”.
JT Yes; the others are just left. Later it says, “Wonder not at this, for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall go forth; those that have practised good, to resurrection of life, and those that have done evil, to resurrection of judgment” (verses 28, 29). Those who are raised for judgment are noted here, for God has His books, and all in them must be accounted for. The books of God are to be balanced, so to speak. We know that those who come forth to resurrection of judgment are not raised until a thousand years after the others. That is not stated here, but it is [p. 276] important because it agrees with what has been remarked as to balancing things. They will all be taken account of in time, but as regards the gospel now, we are to count the living; for example, the one hundred and twenty names of Acts 1 and the three thousand souls of Acts 2. We count the living.
AI Why is love brought in in relation to the giving of this life?
JT God introduces the great thought of love in treating of life. He will bring us into that realm. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son a propitiation for our sins”, 1 John 4: 10. There it is for our sins, but it is the world in our chapter — “For God so loved the world”. It is not a question of our place in heaven, but of the great blessing of eternal life.
RWS In Christ lifted up. He is available to all. Divine Persons are not making it difficult, but so that all can see. Does that represent the divine mind in the gospel in connection with life?
JT Quite so; and it involves going out; lifting up out of the earth. The earth is viewed as the opposite to the sphere of eternal life. Christ is lifted up out of it, as we have been saying. In the future, when it is cleared of evil through God’s purifying judgments, the earth will have part in eternal life, but in the meantime it is left. Eternal life is morally outside of it. It is an out-of-the-world order of things. Christ lifted up out of the earth corresponds with this.
ABP There is no suggestion of love for the world as typified in Egypt; rather it is left for God’s judgment. Israel’s deliverance from it involved its overthrow. What would be the difference between that and John 3: 16?
JT The word translated ‘world’ in John 3: 16 means what is ornamental, sometimes used morally, of course, but it implies, primarily, an ornamental [p. 277] state of things which God had in mind in the creation. Therefore it is said that the Lord Jesus was in the world, and the world had its being through Him. Egypt is not a type of that; Egypt is typical of man’s world. Christ “was in the world, and the world had its being through him, and the world knew him not”. That is, it turns immediately into an evil condition, but it was made primarily by Him, a beautifully arranged state of things, and I think that would be in mind in chapter 3; God loved that; men in it would be included in God’s mind. It was what God designed for man. We read of wisdom “rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth”. Her delights were “with the sons of men”, Proverbs 8: 30, 31.
ABP Then the attitude changes toward the end of the gospel, in the refusal of Christ? “Now is the judgment of this world”, John 12: 31.
JT Yes. “This world” is the evil moral system, the same word in the original being used. The first use of the word is in chapter 1: 9 — that Christ came into the world as light, shedding light on every man; and then that the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. It is not the word for ‘age’. It is the world in the sense of an ordered state of things that God had designed, and He has never given up the thought of it. It seems that John, in his gospel, uses only the word ‘cosmos’ to express the world, but this does not imply that the idea of arrangement is ignored; but, alas! all was affected by sin. The abstract thought, however, remains, and it is in God’s mind. The same applies to man; the abstract thought remains, now perfectly set forth in Christ.
Ques Is the world of Egypt viewed as an organised system of men, whereas the world might be viewed as the creation of God?
JT Clearly; “... by whom also he made the worlds”, Hebrews 1: 2. There it is ‘worlds’ — plural; other bodies, other spheres, as well as the earth. The [p. 278] original word used there and in Hebrews 11: 3 is ‘aion’, signifying “age, indefinite time, dispensation”, but the contexts show that physical bodies are meant.
ANW In John 1 ‘world’ has every man in view. Speaking of the true Light, it says, “which, coming into the world, lightens every man”. This makes the way, does it not, for the ‘whosoever’ of chapter 3?
JT That is right; it is a question of the context as to what is meant because, as has already been remarked, the word we are speaking of is used in a moral sense, too, and we have to judge the meaning of it, where we find it, by the context. And so as regards Egypt, it was just man’s world, built by man, and God took His people out of it. But then He carried forward the idea of His world in the tabernacle, which was a figure of the universe. So that the writer to the Hebrews says, “He who has built all things is God”, chapter 3: 4. All things would be the immense structure which God has built. And the Son is over all; so that the idea of God’s world is carried forward, typically set up in the tabernacle in the wilderness. In certain aspects it is a figure of the universe, in which God is served.
APf The present evil world is Egypt, is it not?
JT Yes; Egypt as seen in Exodus is a type of that. It is the world as dominated by evil. John’s gospel contemplates it as seen in the Jewish system at Jerusalem. As rejecting and crucifying the Son of God it represented “the present evil world”, Galatians 1: 4.
FNW You were alluding to Proverbs 8. What is said there of wisdom is instructive: “... rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men” (verse 31). There is a note there after the words ‘habitable part’ which reads, “Lit. ‘world’ ... That part of the earth fitted for man to live on”.
JT [p. 279] Quite so; we know how the human race has settled on the earth in relation to certain physical conditions. God giving men wisdom to select livable parts. In all the continents these parts were usually found in the spheres of the rivers. That was so in this country — the pioneers selected the livable parts, and God intended that. The mountains rose, and the valleys sank, and the streams flowed among the hills. That is all in view of man, and man being provided for. All this links with “God so loved the world”. It was His own thought. There is beauty in it; there is ornamentation in it; and there is life-giving power in it.
AR It is said in Romans 7, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord” (verses 24, 25). Is that like the look at the brazen serpent?
JT That is the principle of it. Jehovah’s word is light to the bitten person and as he looks at the uplifted serpent he gets relief and he gives thanks.
ANW Do you not think it is to be noted that the brazen serpent comes in after the confession of the people that they had sinned, and had appealed to the mediator for a remedy?
JT That is very important, especially the prayer of Moses. Romans 8: 2, 3 says, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh”. That is Christ lifted up; sin in the flesh is totally judged.
DP Do you think it is right that we should carry in our minds the distinction between organised systems of men that have become alienated from God through the working of man’s mind, and the abstract ornamental system of which we have been [p. 280] speaking?
JT I do. In Ephesians it is stated that the gentiles were affected by “the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience; ... but God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love wherewith he loved us (we too being dead in offences), has quickened us with the Christ (ye are saved by grace)”, chapter 2: 2 - 5. His love as spoken of in this passage applies only to believers; but the world is included in it as in John 3. And we have to understand what it is that He could love under that heading. Clearly, it must be what He had in His mind in purpose as a place for man, as we have been saying.
APT Mark 10: 21, referring to the person who enquired of the Lord as to eternal life, says, “And Jesus looking upon him loved him”. What would be the inference in that in connection with John 3: 16?
JT I would say that he was just part of the creation that had been damaged by sin. He was a grand ruin, you might say. The ruin retained something of the original beauty that had marked it. Sin had spoiled it. The Lord could not but think of that, being the Creator. He looked on the man and loved him, but that does not mean that he was brought into eternal life. He evidently wished to have it in relation to the earth, doubtless thinking that through it he would continue to enjoy his “large possessions”. This would make working for it worth while. But he went away grieved. He was “sad at the word”. The word to him was not “mixed with faith”.
WWM Do you think he would illustrate one who was not bitten?
JT That is probably true. He did not feel the bite. There is no evidence that he “lived”.
CN Is it right, in thinking of eternal life, to regard it as a principle outside of ourselves, but [p. 281] received on the principle of faith, in one hearing the voice of the Son of God?
JT Just so; the hearer lives, but in John 5: 25 to which you refer, it is the voice of the Son of God. In both verse 25 and verse 28 it is the voice of the Son of God; the first refers to men not dead literally, but dead in a moral sense. They hear His voice not simply the terms of the gospel. However it can be worked out, it is a question of the voice, and the person who hears lives. It would cover all that have come into life as living here in flesh during the whole period of christianity. Then in verse 28 those who have actually died hear His voice as in their graves, and they shall go forth.
AR It must have been as the Son of God that the Lord spoke when He called Lazarus out of his grave.
JT Exactly. He heard His voice “and the dead came forth”.
CAM Would you say that in John 3: 14 it is not so much the resurrection as the aspect of the Lord’s death that is needed in the truth unfolded in this section? His being lifted up would give us a new understanding of earth. You said that He died out of the earth.
JT Yes. “Lifted up out of the earth” would involve the moral meaning now attached to the word ‘earth’. But literally it is essential to the divine system, which involves the heavens and the earth. The earth is God’s footstool and it must stand in relation to His throne; but now, as we have been saying, it is corrupted, and the Lord as lifted up out of it, as working out our redemption, indicates that He is drawing us out of it.
CAM All that is helpful. Satan was to go on his belly and eat dust, so there is that aspect of the subject, is there not?
JT Yes; you must be watchful. The earth [p. 282] is infested with serpents and we are in danger of them. Colossians is intended to meet all this. As risen with Christ we are to set our minds on things above, not on things that are on the earth. We are not literally taken off the earth, but as risen positionally and morally above it our hopes and links are in relation to heaven.
JTJr The spies actually had gone into Canaan. They brought back its fruit. I was wondering with regard to the teaching you are bringing before us, whether those who preach should have something of that marking them, evidencing that they have been in the place.
JT That is right. It is a heavenly gospel that is particularly needed. The land is a type of heaven. The gospel presents heaven to us as well as being the gospel of our salvation. It is the gospel of heaven as our proper destiny. What the millennial people of the nations will come into is somewhat on a different and lower level. The gospel here, as applied to us in general, means that we are being taken out of the earth; being taken up. We are not being prepared for the millennium on earth; we are taken off the earth morally; we are already being fitted for the heavenly places spoken of in Ephesians. “Heavenly places” is a peculiar designation and the Lord would keep it before us.
CAM This would really prepare us for the “many abodes” of heaven promised in this gospel, would it not?
JT Just so; there is, I believe, the sense with many, in the present pressure, of proximity to what is heavenly, and eternal life is linked with it in John 3. The Lord says, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen, and ye receive not our witness. If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things [p. 283] to you, will ye believe? And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven” (verses 11 - 13). Now these are remarkable words; suited words, as preceding our subject. The idea of heaven is an extended one. Ephesians is “the heavenlies”, as we have noted. “Every blessing”, I think, must include eternal life as we of the assembly have it. Now we have been taught that eternal life belongs to the earth. We must look at that from another angle, that is, the earth in view of the millennium. We come into eternal life on somewhat of a different line. It is as the Lord is going out of the earth; going off it. For us it is not a blessing on the earth. It belongs, I believe, to the blessings that Ephesians contemplates. We are blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ.
CAM That is a remarkable statement. The word ‘eternal’ would really magnify the word ‘life’ rather than modify it?
JT It has special force in the transitory setting of which we have been speaking. We are leaving the earth in the precious assurance of an eternal footing with God in life. The millennial saints will have it on the earth, but we have it on an up line, clearly.
APT Is the truth that the Lord is presenting to Nicodemus in this chapter more connected with the earth?
JT In answering Nicodemus, He speaks of the earth to the end of verse 11. He says, “If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?” And then He proceeds with what was in His mind. He has already been speaking of Ezekiel 36, that is, new birth, but the subject of eternal life, as in John 3, is not simply eternal life as progressive from Ezekiel 36 to the end of the book. Ezekiel contemplates eternal life as primarily belonging [p. 284] to the earth, whereas the Lord, after He says earthly things leaves them. We now must understand that He is not treating of millennial matters when He speaks of eternal life; He is speaking of matters belonging to this dispensation. New birth belongs to the truth in Ezekiel, which, as we have said, has the millennium in view.
AAT “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand. He that believes on the Son has life eternal, and he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him” (verses 35, 36). The Son has a great place in the Father’s love.
JT He has a great place. You are going a little ahead, although what you say comes in. We want to get clear as to the two lines: the line standing in relation to the first part of the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus, which He regards as belonging to the earthly side of the truth. Ezekiel was in the Lord’s mind when He said, “Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things!” It is as if He said to Nicodemus, You ought to know Ezekiel 36! But he did not know. Ezekiel reached on to the millennial day. The Lord is making a difference. He is branching off to the heavenly line and He brings in Numbers 21. He had already referred to Himself as “the Son of man who is in heaven” — not going to be, but is, involving His own inscrutable Personality. It is very remarkable that that should come in here. And then, as I said, He proceeds to refer to Numbers 21 — the brazen serpent and the springing well, the latter pointing to John 4.
All this makes way for the testimony of the love of God for the world. It is most striking that the Lord should bring in at this point that God loved the world. Is He not suggesting to us the great thoughts of God as to the heavens and the earth, the world involving both? He made them by the Son — “by whom also he made the worlds”. And is He not telling us that He has a special place in it for men, and that they are to be linked up with God and His love? But He is stressing the heavenly side, as I said. And in proceeding with that He has an administration, not immediately to bring in the millennium, but eternal life as it stands in this dispensation. So He says, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand. He that believes on the Son has life eternal”. And then the next chapter tells us of the power of the Spirit operating, springing up into eternal life; not horizontally, but up; springing up into eternal life; not exactly into heaven, but into eternal life. It is an up line, as we have been saying.
In chapter 17 we have an allusion, I believe, to the millennial line. The Lord lifts up His eyes to heaven and speaks to His Father, but He refers to the matter of eternal life. The Father had given Him authority over all flesh, which, I think, looks on to the future. He should give eternal life to all that the Father gave Him; and He adds, “This is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (verse 3). And then He reverts back to our great dispensation and all the glories that belong to it, connecting all with the men the Father had given Him. I think that is the way we are to follow the truth in this gospel.
CAM So that we can understand what Nicodemus apparently did not understand — that heaven comes first — God made the heavens and the earth. If Nicodemus had his way it would be all earth!
JT Quite so; and he was not even up to that, because he remained in the council; he was not detached from the order of things that existed around him, whereas the Lord is opening up the greatest things. He said to Nicodemus, “If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?”
FNW [p. 286] In Ephesians 1, following the allusion to the spiritual blessings in the heavenlies, the apostle says, “According as he has chosen us in him before the world’s foundation” (verse 4). Why does the Lord, as Son of man in Matthew 25, bring forward eternal life connected with the saved nations? He says, “Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the world’s foundation” (verse 34).
JT That all helps on the line of what we are saying. “From the world’s foundation” refers to what belongs to the earth.
FNW Is eternal life connected with that?
JT It is, as for the nations, but our position and blessings were fixed “before the world’s foundation”. In considering this section of Scripture we must go slowly and be sure, but we cannot but see that the Lord changed His ground after He had finished with the subject of new birth. He brings in the heavenly, and also that the Son of man is in heaven, indicating that heavenly things are more difficult to understand than earthly things. And I believe we have to keep this before us throughout John.
APT Is there a similar change to heavenly things in chapter 1, where the Lord speaks to Nathanael about being under the fig tree? and then He says, “Thou shalt see greater things than these ... . 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).
JT He is dealing with Nathanael, who is an Israelite “in whom there is no guile” as over against others treated of in chapter 1; that is, the two followers of Jesus, one of whom was Simon’s brother. And Simon is another. He is by himself; he is called ‘Cephas’ which means material. He is material for the assembly. The Lord is going to have a building of that kind. And then the Lord finds Philip, and Philip finds Nathanael under the fig tree;
[p. 287] in him the Israel of God is in mind, not the Jew; not exactly Nicodemus, a difficult man, although ultimately a true man. The Jews are extremely difficult to get into the truth. Any legal person is difficult to get into the truth; but Nathanael was not. He was, however, a little difficult. He said, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” That was his inquiry, but he was amenable to the evangelistic touch. Thus John 1 presents most interesting features of personality; and we have to judge of these persons as to what each one signifies spiritually. Nathanael was a teachable man. As suggested by Philip, he went and saw Jesus. “Come and see”, Philip says. That was a pointed and challenging way of appealing to the Jews, as the Messiah came into the world. Nathanael did come, and when the Lord Jesus saw him coming to Him. He called him an Israelite “in whom there is no guile”. That is, we have in him material for the millennium; not those that are going to heaven in the assembly; they are represented in Cephas. So I think that is how we get on in this chapter; the persons who are mentioned indicate certain lines of truth. We have in Nathanael a man that is teachable, who will receive the truth and progress in it quickly. He discerns who the Lord is, naming Him according to the psalms with remarkable spiritual intelligence. The Lord answers Nathanael, encouraging his mind forward to coming glories. He should see greater things — such as will mark the millennial world: “ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”.
AR Nathanael recognises another world. He says, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”. He speaks to Him as Son of God first.
JT That is beautiful; but see how quickly he took things in. The Lord says, in effect, You are ready for greater things, and you shall [p. 288] see them.
ANW Was not his guilelessness the secret of his rapid progress?
JT No doubt it was.
AR Are the Jews going to see another world, in that sense? The Son of God is the Centre of another world.
JT Yes. The millennium on the earth will be effected by the Son of God as the assembly is. The Son of God will dominate the whole universe.
FNW What is the import of “his only-begotten Son” in chapter 3: 16?
JT That is a designation of Christ that is almost peculiar to John. It expresses His dignity and preciousness. First, in John 1: 14 He is contemplated as “an only-begotten with a father”. That is to stress His loveliness in such a relation — with a Father. Then, in verse 18, “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” — as the Revealer. And in chapter 3: 16, God’s only-begotten Son — the expression, as given, of God’s love for the world.
ANW Reverting to chapter 1, how do you place Andrew in the interesting group of which you were speaking? Is he an evangelist?
JT “Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard this from John and followed him. He first finds his own brother Simon, and says to him, We have found the Messias (which being interpreted is Christ). And he led him to Jesus. Jesus looking at him said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas (which interpreted is stone). On the morrow he would go forth into Galilee, and Jesus finds Philip, and says to him, Follow me. And Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter” (verses 40 - 43). Now we have these three men — Andrew, Peter and Philip. They are all of Bethsaida, and it would look as if Bethsaida represents an evangelical locality. There is such a thought in Scripture as a locality taking on certain [p. 289] traits of the testimony, and I believe these three disciples, said here to be of Bethsaida, would point to that city as having an evangelical touch. Andrew brought Simon to Jesus, and the Lord finds Philip, and he moves in the same way — he brings another to Jesus. The truth is spread when persons, belonging to the same locality, are characterised by the truth. To the Thessalonians it is said, “Ye became models to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia: for the word of the Lord sounded out from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith which is towards God has gone abroad”, 1 Thessalonians 1: 7, 8. It is a great matter to see persons in a locality definitely taking on the work of God and becoming effective in it. It is a great privilege to be in a place where there is a work of God, and becoming characterised by it, to spread it.
WR Evangelisation and life go together?
JT The first chapter of John is marked in this way.
AR I suppose the kernel of what you have been saying would be on “the morrow” of verse 35. When the two disciples enquired Rabbi, where abidest thou? the Lord said, Come and see. It says, “They went therefore, and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day”.
JT Just so; the Lord is seen gathering material for the divine universe. This is a chapter of persons who are linked with Christ. It is also a chapter of the glories of Christ — expressed in the appellations given Him in it. Seven distinct titles of the Son of God appear in the chapter, showing that He is presented to be attractive. And it is to be understood in that way, for believers were specifically attracted to Him. John presents Him as the great attractive Centre and Gatherer of all. This movement is on and we must not fail to be in it.
RWS Would Nathanael represent a person coming [p. 290] into things rapidly; and is Nicodemus the opposite?
JT Yes. Nicodemus is very slow. He is a difficult man; a genuine man, but slow. He makes a certain showing at the end with a hundred pounds of spices.
WR The Lord says to him, “Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things!” Does this show that Nicodemus was defective in his teaching? that he had missed something he should have known?
JT We may be sure that he was defective, but there was enough genuineness in him to save him. John makes much of what is of God in His people — especially where there may be ground for doubt, as in Nicodemus and in Martha.
RWS Referring to what Nicodemus did, in chapter 19, it is said, “... as it is the custom with the Jews to prepare for burial”.
JT Just so; it is significant that only John mentions this; indeed, only he mentions Nicodemus at all. Nathanael, on the other hand, is a teachable man and learns quickly, and the Lord owns that fact and tells him that he is going to see greater things. This would strengthen Nathanael’s faith and hope. John’s comparisons lead to infinitude.
JAP Does all this link with Stephen’s closing words? He said, “Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God”, Acts 7: 56. Was he seeing something of the greater things?
JT He was indeed; and in mind and affection going out of the world. Stephen represents the thought engaging us. The link is broken with the Jews — the earthly element — and heaven is opened to him. Hebrews has been called the book of the opened heavens; and Stephen represents those that look in; they see “afar off”.
AR The Lord is given remarkable place in [p. 291] heaven according to Hebrews. We need to get our minds up there.
JT Perhaps there is a word for us as to “the Son of man who is in heaven”. Stephen sees Him there.
JTJr Did Paul continue, throughout his whole ministry, the thought represented in Stephen? He urged Timothy to lay hold of eternal life, which is outside the world, and he directed the saints to Christ in heaven up to the end.
JT He was caught up to the third heaven; he belongs peculiarly, to the heavenlies. He is the only one who mentions such an elevation, but it is verified in what Stephen sees. The Lord is coming back to earth again. His feet will stand upon the mount of Olives, but He is never to be regarded as characteristically a Man on the earth. He is the Son of man which is in heaven; that is where He will be eternally.
AR “We see Jesus, who was made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour”, Hebrews 2: 9. We see Him there.
JT Just so; that is His position. God is bringing many sons to glory. Hebrews is the ascending line for us, taking us to heaven. It is peculiarly “heavenly light”.
APf Referring again to Nicodemus; is it not hard for a religious man — a Pharisee — to get clear of things that hinder?
JT It is; that is what we are trying to bring out. If one is legal, or if he has a reputation on the earth, it is hard to get him clear. Nicodemus was the teacher of Israel; not a teacher, but the teacher. That was a big thing. He had a reputation, you may be sure, and thus it was hard to move him. And yet he was movable, because he was genuinely affected by God. There is hope for such an one. As mentioned, one point with John is to make the most of the work of God, however little it may be, or in whomsoever.