THE LIFE WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS (18)
[p. 397] THE LIFE WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS (18)
JT We finished our last inquiry on our subject, Life, as seen in John 10, that is, as seen in the saints viewed as sheep. But the facts in our present chapter would show that we have to view the saints there in another relation, namely, as a family. It will, perhaps, elucidate the whole subject by comparing the idea of the sheep with that of the family. Chapter 11 later speaks of the children of God scattered abroad, and it may help us all to be reminded that this sorrowful fact exists, and that there is such a family. The chapter also contemplates them being gathered together into one. This, as I hope we shall see, is that they may come into eternal life, as seen in this chapter. It is clear that we should keep the family in mind, and that those of us who are believers are of it. If we are scattered by any circumstances the word would be that we should be together, gathered together “into one”. The Lord died for that purpose. John 10 becomes very important to us now in view of our subject, for the thought of eternal life is seen in it in a collective sense, and in a very full sense; that is, life “abundantly”. The Lord said He had come that the sheep might have life and that they might have it abundantly. The Lord saw fit to stress in this section the idea of sheep. The subject runs on to chapter 12, but the glory of God and the glory of the Son of God are contemplated as the ultimate end in these chapters.
ABP Family life would be of much higher order than life as represented in the flock?
JT Well, in a way; but if we regard the flock as the Lord speaks of it, that they know Him as He knows the Father, we are on a high level and we have [p. 398] the truth of the one flock as composed of, not only the Jewish sheep, but of the gentile sheep, which would really merge in the idea of the body. The question is, therefore, whether the family in chapter 11 is to be regarded as on the level of sonship, or is it not rather contemplated as in the circumstances presented? That is, it is a family in great sorrow, but they are the objects of Christ’s affections, for it is said, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus” (verse 5). Moreover, it is said, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” (verse 3). And again, the Jews said, “Behold, how he loved him!” (verse 36). So that it would look as if it is to introduce us into the love circle, another phase of the collective position, to which eternal life attaches.
ANW The relationships which operate horizontally are definitely stressed in this chapter, confirming what you say, rather than the thought of being sons in relation to a divine Person.
JT Father and son are not in mind, save in the sense Lazarus may have occupied the place of head, but he was a brother, not a father.
CAM Romans 8: 21 reads, “... that the creature itself also shall be set free from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God”. In another part of the chapter it speaks of the sons of God. Would it connect the idea of children with the present time in that setting?
JT I think it does. John, in his epistle, says, “Now are we the children of God”. That is what John says about the children, and he says in chapter 1 of his gospel that God has given the saints who receive Christ the right to take the place of children of God; and Paul’s treatment of the subject seems to be in accord with all this, for he says, “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”, Romans 8: 16. It is a present known thing, but no less a witness than the Spirit Himself, and to us,
[p. 399] or rather to our spirits. Therefore, the subject of the family from the standpoint of children becomes clear, I think, in these scriptures. “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”.
AR Were not relationships out of proportion in chapter 11? Pressure and sorrow were necessary to adjust them in relation to Christ. Lazarus had too great a place in their minds.
JT Love had to be known amongst them. The love was there in Christ. “Behold, how he loved him!” That was the public witness; and then again, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick”. The Lord’s disposition was clearly apprehended, but what were the actual conditions of the three members of the family? Probably the consideration of all this would appeal to us as to where we are family-wise.
AR Colossians speaks of love in the Spirit. Would that be the balance?
JT It would indeed: “... your love in the Spirit”, Colossians 1: 8. We learn love from Christ, but it is in the power of the Spirit that we love. Among other things, “the fruit of the Spirit is love”, Galatians 5: 22.
JTJr Would you say that the testimony has come down to us largely through families?
JT I would say that. “The book of Adam’s generations” (Genesis 5: 1), refers to Adam’s family, and so with the generations of Noah, and Terah, and Isaac, and Jacob. It is the way that the testimony has come down to us, culminating in the great family, that is, the family of God. I think we ought to begin at the very root of the thing and see how we are in relation to one another family-wise.
AI Would the idea of the family of God be seen in the Acts with Peter and John? It is said that they went together into the temple.
JT That would be official, rather. They were both apostles, one leading officially, and the other [p. 400] taking a second place; another side of our position. Some of those who serve as Levites become leaders and others are not leaders, perhaps, but make better seconds than firsts. I think Peter and John would help us on those lines; but the family thought, beginning with Adam, should be kept in mind, and then the comparison with sheep in chapter 10. We must not pass that over. It seems to me it is important to link the two chapters together. The idea of the sheep also begins early in Genesis. Abel was a keeper of sheep, we are told, and the idea runs down and is very greatly stressed in John 10. Then, another thing that will help us is that the idea of sheep is seen in Christ Himself. He is called a Lamb — the Lamb of God — in John 1. The word there is not diminutive, but conveys a full-grown thought. The word ‘Lamb’ in Revelation is diminutive; that is, one peculiarly defenceless and thus exposed to persecution and suffering. Then another thing is that the paschal lamb was in the houses of the Israelites for four days before it was slain, so it seems that these references would help us to understand what the idea of sheep represents as applicable to the saints.
APT This gospel begins with the designation “the Lamb of God” applied to Christ and finishes with the Lord applying the idea of sheep to His own.
JT Yes; in John 21 He first regards them as lambs and then as sheep. The sheep are to be shepherded; the sheep and the lambs are to be fed. So that John sets this side of the truth very pronouncedly before us and I think it will help us to make a comparison of John 10, in that sense, with John 11, for in the latter we merge from the sheep character into the family. Eternal life has application to both features.
AAT Are you emphasising in chapter 11 the Lord’s love to the family — those at Bethany — or are you emphasising the love that is in the family itself?
[p. 401] JT Well, it is the love that is in Christ that is mentioned first. We learn it from Him. “Lord, behold, he whom thou lowest is sick”; and also, “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”.
CFE The two sisters of this family are greatly concerned as to their brother. How would you apply that to ourselves?
JT Well, that is what will come before us, whether there are real family feelings. But then we need to keep before us first the idea of sheep feelings, to make way for the family. Chapter 10 treats of the sheep.
CAM Would you say there is a difference as to origin if we think of ourselves as sheep and as children? I was thinking especially of John’s gospel — of the Lord calling us by name. In Luke’s gospel the Lord goes to find the lost sheep. I suppose that is rather a different line, would you not say?
JT John 10 does not present the truth from the side of origin; the allusion is to Adam naming the creatures. We have to go back to Genesis for the roots, we might say, of everything. We have to understand what would be in Adam’s mind when he used the word ‘sheep’. It is to run down — through the passover, and then to be applied to the Lord Himself. I think that is the way to reach an understanding of John 10; what God had put into Adam’s mind. Adam was given wonderful ability by God to name His creatures, and whatever name he gave a creature that was its name. It is there as a lesson-book ever since, and that must come into chapter 10 as regards sheep. If anyone will look at the number of times the word ‘sheep’ is used in this chapter he will see that the Lord is stressing the idea of that creature as applicable to the saints in a figurative way.
ANW Does it help at all to see that the idea seems to come into the Lord’s mind at the sight of the blind man cast out?
JT Yes. I think the subject begins in chapter 9 and runs through chapter 10 into chapter 11. At first the man who had been blind is passive, and yet he became aggressive when the truth required it, and in him it works out on moral lines.
AR Does it correspond with Paul’s word to the Ephesian elders? He enjoins them to take heed to themselves and shepherd the assembly of God.
JT Quite so. “Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own”, Acts 20: 28.
JTJr Would it be that resulting from chapter 9 the principle of subjection is expressed in the sheep? The man was sent, was he not?
JT Just so. So that these thoughts ought to help us as brethren to take account of one another according to what the word ‘sheep’ conveys, carried down to us in the wisdom of God from Adam, the Spirit of God taking it on later and carrying it through to the book of Revelation. We have to inquire whether we have the traits that characterise that creature.
CN So that we get in verses 2 - 5: “He that enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter opens; and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name, and leads them out. When he has put forth all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice”. It is not exactly that something creates these moral features in the sheep, but they are there.
JT Yes; they are there. Notice, it is all the sheep. He puts them all forth: “When he has put forth all his own”; “put forth” meaning that He is [p. 403] influencing them to go on in a right direction, out of the Jewish fold; out of the world, we might say. “When he has put forth all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But they will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, because they know not the voice of strangers”. So that the application is very strong to the Lord’s people today as “scattered abroad”. The Lord will put them out, as it were, influencing them so as to take them out of human organisations, to bring them into one flock where He is the one Shepherd.
ABP Would you say that Eve failed to set forth the characteristics of a true sheep? She followed a stranger, not discerning that it was the voice of a stranger.
JT Just so. She listened to the serpent. That is an important point, that we do not listen to any other voice but the voice of the true Shepherd. He not only calls upon us to follow Him, but He would influence us, putting us out of the evil; “putting” refers to influence, which the Lord would render to anyone ready to leave.
APT Chapter 11, in regard to Martha, says, “And having said this, she went away and called her sister Mary secretly, saying, The teacher is come and calls thee. She, when she heard that, rises up quickly and comes to him” (verses 28 - 30). Does the thought of sheep merge there with the family? Is there a link there between the two thoughts?
JT Yes. She did not wait for Him to come to her. Had she been an unspiritual woman she would say, Why does He not come to me? You often find that, that people are hurt because they are not visited and made much of, sometimes, as among the saints, keeping out of the way so that others must come to them; but Mary is not among those.
DP Do you view the sheep as a development [p. 404] from the lamb, having instinctive feelings and ability to suffer?
JT The Lamb in chapter 1, as we pointed out, does not convey the same idea as in the book of Revelation where you have the word ‘Lamb’ used many times. There it is a diminutive thought, as we noted. Such an one is not pugnacious in any sense, nor is the idea of the Lamb in John 1 in any sense combative, but it is mature, and the chapter shows that that is just what the Lord was.
FSC Isaiah 53 says, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and was as a sheep dumb before her shearers, and he opened not his mouth” (verse 7). Is that the character?
JT That is right; the original in Isaiah compared with its translation in the Septuagint would show that the words ‘lamb’ and ‘sheep’, as expressing the sufferings of Christ in this passage, are interchangeable.
WWM Do you think that “the generations of Jacob” mentioning Joseph first suggests that Joseph had the character or nature of a sheep?
JT Well, he had that character but more than that is in mind. You are quoting from Genesis 37: 2, and there is not a word afterwards about Jacob’s generations until we come to chapter 46, showing Joseph is outstanding in the mind. He is just left, as it were, for the minds of the saints to think of that person until the time comes for the others to be mentioned. The suggestion is that, morally, the others are not worth mentioning until they make a confession about their guilt. So that there is more than the idea of a sheep there; it is rather that of a son; for it is said in verse 3 that “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was son of his old age; and he made him a vest of many colours”. It is the distinction of Christ that is in view, and that no matter how many there are or how much money [p. 405] they may have, the Jews will not come into recognition with God until they make confession of their hatred and murder of Christ.
JS Is John in chapter 10 introducing us to the last Adam?
JT Well, the last Adam is certainly in mind in John 1, where the Lord distinctively names people, but in chapter 10 He is stressing Himself as marked by the characteristics of the true Shepherd and the disciples as possessing the characteristics of His sheep. The point is not that they are called sheep, but rather what characterises them; that they are already known to be sheep.
JS Is it more the Shepherd endearing Himself to their hearts in John 10?
JT Yes; hearing His voice and following Him; they are already known to be His sheep.
CAM They are seen as possessing a marked personality in chapter 10.
JT They are, and it is a group or class rather than so many individuals. The idea is collective: the one flock and the one Shepherd. They come into life on that line. It is a collective principle.
The time now requires that we should proceed to the family and see how its traits are seen, or not seen, as the case may be, in chapter 11. The Lord is introduced into it as the One who loves them all, but especially that He loves the one who is sick, which is comforting, for there are a good many sick among the saints.
CAM So that the setting of the chapter has sorrow in it from the very beginning.
JT Quite so; it is a family, but in sorrow. So that what the Lord would help us in now is to see how, in connection with this, the truth as to life is worked out.
AAT In 1 Corinthians 11 some being sick, and death there, are spoken of. Is that similar to John [p. 406] 11?
JT Well, one of them was sick and he died. But at Corinth it was because of bad conduct: “On this account many among you are weak and infirm”, 1 Corinthians 11: 30. We cannot say there was any cause for the death and sickness of Lazarus any more than we can say that there was a cause for the blindness of the man in John 9. They each afford an opportunity for divine love to operate.
CN So he says distinctly in verse 4: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it”.
JT Yes. It is just the same principle as in chapter 9; the blindness is not because of sin, the Lord says, “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him” (verse 3). And so here, this sickness is not unto death; it is not blameworthy on Lazarus. It is for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
CN The glory of God, and the Son of God being glorified by it, is greater than the idea of death.
JT Just so; God is taking opportunity of circumstances and causing His glory to shine, not only the Father’s glory, but the glory of the Son of God. That saints should sicken and some die because of bad conduct in the assembly is most humiliating. But the sickness and death of Lazarus was the result of the sovereign ordering of divine love — for the glory of God and the glory of the Son of God. This involved resurrection. It is the working out of love in the family of God.
ANW In stressing the Lord’s love for them, are you implying that it is on a higher level than their love for one another?
JT Obviously; how much can we say about their love one toward another? Evidently there was some love, but did Martha love as much as Mary?
ABP Mark refers to the Lord as being hungry [p. 407] when He left Bethany; Mark 11: 12. Might that suggest that the result had not been reached that is in view in John 11?
JT The conditions were clearly not so good then as they were in the scene depicted in the opening of John 12. You are suggesting, possibly, that the Lord left without breakfast!
ABP Possibly, but also without His love being responded to as He would have it.
JT We cannot always use negatives to establish positives, but it is remarkable that He was hungry. Elsewhere it says He went out to Bethany and spent the night; there must have been some attraction and restfulness there, liberty for His spirit. It is remarkable that when He was about to go up to heaven He led the disciples out as far as Bethany. He evidently regarded it as a love sphere — such as was suitable for Him to ascend from.
CAM Would you say that the saints looked at in chapter 11 are regarded as capable of more refined feelings, or more intense feelings, suitable, for instance, for bereavement? I am comparing them with the idea of the sheep.
JT I think what you are saying is right. We are in the line now for spiritual refinement, corresponding with the epistle to the Philippians: “... that ye may judge of and approve the things that are more excellent”, chapter 1: 10. The Lord loved them all, we are told — “Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”. He loved them, apparently, in that order. That might be the order of respect, because Martha apparently was somewhat the leader in the house. But is He going to leave them as He found them, or is He not going to bring in love such as had not been fixedly experienced? The glory of God and the glory of the Son of God are about to be manifested there. The Lord was going to bring the family already known in Bethany into new circumstances. The [p. 408] material is to be better. They had been through discipline. There is to be a better foundation for the development of love now than there could have been before, and that is what I think we should keep in mind as to how this refinement is to develop, and how the Lord takes advantage of circumstances to develop it. And thus the question as to the saints of today, whether all this terrible sorrow which has continued for several years and is pressing upon the people of God is going to develop anything better than there has been there before, or is it just going to enable us to hold the ground? I think it is to bring in something better; “more and more” is the principle.
CAM Would it be right to say that the Lord allows the wrench to come in a natural way, in relation to these bonds that He has created Himself, in order that they might be replaced by something more wonderful?
JT He created them Himself, as you say, because all these affections and relationships are in God’s creation, in that way. But the Lord Himself, the Word, is the One that did everything. So that now He is going to bring in new conditions, and I think that is the thing to keep in mind, because it is for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified.
AR Is that beyond believing in the Son of God? The Lord said to the man in John 9, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?”
JT That is the root of the thing: faith must be there; the glory of the Son of God as apprehended in our souls is founded on that. It is what shines out in Himself.
CN Does it involve resurrection? He says to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life”.
JT Well, that is what we are hoping to come to. The Lord came to Bethany. The arrival is spoken of in verse 17. There is much said earlier that we have not time to go into, as to what happened among the [p. 409] disciples relative to Lazarus; as to the Lord staying away until Lazarus died, etc.; then it is said, “Jesus therefore on arriving found him to have been four days already in the tomb”. Then we have another thing mentioned — the distance Bethany was from Jerusalem. Are we not reminded thus of the centre of things that this chapter contemplates? Jerusalem is mentioned and Bethany in relation to it. Bethany cannot be regarded as a leading thought in view of the new dispensation; it is not the centre of things but it had a place in the old — “the village of Mary and Martha”. Love was known there, as we have noted.
ATD Would that be why the Lord says to Peter in John 21: “Lovest thou me more than these?” (verse 15)?
JT Just so; he had to establish His claim, and that is the appendix of this gospel; it is to bring out these details. John says in effect, I finished all I had to say in chapter 20, but now there is this matter of Peter, and how it is going to be finished; how we are going to reach the high level of the work of God in a recovered man; in the leading apostle, but in a recovered man. And he has to show that he loves. The Lord is challenging him as to the measure of his love — is it more than that of the others? Peter is tested out, the Lord going on with the test until the Lord says the third time, verse 17: “Art thou attached to me?” and then Peter said to him, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee”. We have often pointed out before from the New Translation that the second word ‘knowest’ in this verse is objective knowledge; that is, Peter is saying to the Lord, You can see in me that I love you; he is not appealing to the Lord’s divine knowledge; he is referring to what is manifest. And that is what we have to come to in what we have referred to as refinement, that the manifestation of love is [p. 410] capable of being discerned by anyone who has a spiritual eye.
RWS In verse 22 Martha says, “I know, that whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee”. And then she alludes to the last day. I wondered if we could infer from that that she had not really the knowledge of the Son of God in her soul; she had not come into the gain of chapter 10, because He says there: “I and the Father are one” (verse 30). She was orthodox so far, but she put the Lord in the attitude of a suppliant to God instead of the Son of God, one with the Father.
JT Yes. What you are bringing up is important because we have to consider the quality of these three persons: what Martha was spiritually; what Mary was and what Lazarus was. She had some orthodox knowledge. But now it would seem as if she had reached a point in talking to the Lord that we may call her standard. He says to her, verses 25 and 26: “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes on me, though he have died, shall live; and every one who lives and believes on me shall never die. Believest thou this?” Now she is squarely challenged as to what she believes — not what she had believed before she came to Him but what she now believed. “Believest thou this?” And then she says, “Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world”. That is her confession of faith. She does not just say that she believed all the Lord had said; she does say, however, that she believes that the Lord was the Christ, the Son of God who should come into the world. If we could leave her there and go on to Mary, and then leave Mary where we find her and then go on to Lazarus, then we should perhaps arrive at an understanding of the respective states of these three persons. Later, as in the light of chapter 12 we could note the contrast as the result of what had been effected through the Lord’s visit. Thus, as to ourselves, we have to come to a sphere of things in which God’s glory is shining and the glory of the Son of God is shining. This is where the gospel has set us as the family of God.
ANW Mary excelled Martha in curtailing her statement to the Lord (verse 32). As was pointed out, she repeats, in part, what Martha had said: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died”. That is her complete statement.
JT Yes; then we have, “Jesus ... when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, was deeply moved in spirit” — there is nothing of that at all in His relations with Martha.
JHH Would the fact that the Jews moved with Mary suggest that there was more of a sheep character in her?
JT I think what is seen in her is the power of spirituality. How much of it do I have? The work of God requires that those who are the subjects of it should have influence. If I do not influence the brethren for good it is certain I am not spiritual. It is not only that one teaches them, but he influences them. And that is what I think we learn here “... when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping” — she moved them; they did not weep of themselves; it was her influence — “Jesus ... was deeply moved in spirit, and was troubled, and said, Where have ye put him? They say to him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept”. Did He not weep too because of it? Did He not join in the weeping? Is it not to call attention to the power of real spirituality, which Mary represents?
AI It is said of Martha that “she went away and called her sister Mary secretly, saying, The teacher is come and calls thee”. What does that mean?
JT I think the Lord intended that her [p. 412] measure should be known. Each of us is exposed as to the measure he has. Why did she not continue the conversation with the Lord? There was certainly opportunity; no one intruded. She did well to go to her sister, but is that not her measure? Can she not carry on the conversation any further? Can she not ask any more questions? Can she not fortify herself further?
ATD Does not the secrecy emphasise what you said about Mary’s influence, that the Jews came with her; they did not know, possibly, where she was going.
JT No, they were influenced by her. Now as to the remarks made about Martha, I think they will help us to make a comparison in our souls before God as to these three persons, and how far each one proceeded, because the next chapter brings out where each one is in relation to the public position. It is the question of life that we are engaged with, and the life that is in mind refers to what is going on inwardly with us, but it shows itself in the way we move outwardly and the influence we have.
WCR Would the reference to them in Luke 10 be the background to this?
JT I think it is; if the Spirit of God left only what Luke had to say, we would not have thought much of Martha, but the Spirit of God has not left it there; he has used John to bring forward those three, especially Martha and Mary, and it is now for us to see where we are, because we are really tested, every one of us here, as to this matter of life, as to how it works out in us family-wise; how we regard each other from the family standpoint.
RWS All who are in the picture are affected. While the Jews are not prominent, even they seem to be affected. Is that in their favour?
JT Well, it is important that they are brought in here because it shows what measure of life there was, even affecting perhaps persons not born again.
[p. 413] Certainly it is a testimony that we should influence people, even though they are not converted. And another thing is that some of the Jews evidently came from Jerusalem. We are told of the distance: “Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia off, and many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary that they might console them concerning their brother”. Jerusalem is thus brought into the scene; those at Jerusalem who publicly had the central position are capable of being affected genuinely by Mary, and the Lord joins in that; He weeps too.
AR Verse 45 would confirm what you say: “Many therefore of the Jews who came to Mary and saw what he had done, believed on him”.
JT Yes. We shall see that in the next reading, God willing, concerning Lazarus; we are touching it now because of this matter of influence. Brethren in certain localities are much linked up naturally — the question is whether such links are spiritually wholesome. We can hardly avoid it, but unless the spiritual dominates there will be damage. In the scene before us we have three naturally related, and the Lord has come into it to bring in spiritual relations, and one of the three has special spiritual influence, even with those that are natural, and that influence leads in the right direction.
APT In verse 39 we have, “Martha, the sister of the dead”; is there anything in that?
JT Her natural relation to Lazarus makes her prominent, but she makes an unspiritual remark: that her brother was four days in the grave, hence corruption had set in — this would tend to create doubt and darkness.
APT It is followed up with a severe rebuke from the Lord: “Did I not say to thee, that if thou shouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?”
JT She, and doubtless all, needed [p. 414] that word.
JHH Is it suggestive that after speaking to the Lord, the next thing we are told about Mary is that she fills the house with the odour of the ointment?
JT Yes. That is chapter 12, concerning which we hope to speak later, but there is still much in chapter 11 to be emphasised; the influence Mary had with the Jews and how the Lord’s weeping came into that — what a scene it is! You know how at funerals of the brethren much natural feelings come out, and of course, they should have their place, but whether room is made for the spiritual is the question. In this history the natural is seen receding and the spiritual becoming more and more predominant.
ABP Does what is seen here mean that while those natural links exist we are to hold them in the light that, in themselves, they end in corruption?
JT Yes. In this respect the link is in what Martha says as to Lazarus. The Lord is not making much of that because He has the positive in mind; that is important, for the glory of God and of the Son of God are presently to appear notwithstanding the condition of Lazarus.
JTJr Martha’s remark is a great drop from what she had said before (verse 27); you were saying she could not continue the conversation on that line, but she is able to speak about corruption.
JT Yes, thus she does not contribute to what was transpiring. We ought to bring in some contribution to what is spiritually current; Mary is doing that; and she is affecting others, and the Lord is joining in it.
ANW One outstanding act with Mary is that in approaching the Lord she fell at His feet; that is conspicuous by its absence with Martha. As they drew near to the Lord, Mary, seeing Him, fell at His feet.
RC Do we not see the spirit of the family in Romans 16 in Paul’s commendations and salutations [p. 415] to those who served him in the Lord, also the salutations of the assemblies of Christ to the saints at Rome?
JT They convey the mutual respect which love alone can circulate among the brethren.
ABP The Lord refers to Abraham earlier in this gospel; do you think Abraham would fit in here where Martha felt uneasy? Did he not, in his offering of Isaac, put the claims of the divine will before family affections?
JT Quite so; he fits in here, not only as to Isaac, but as to his wife Sarah, because he calls her, “my dead”. And that brings up the question of Machpelah and the great matter of the resurrection as seen in Thessalonians. We are getting a touch of it here. What a scene it would be at Machpelah if Sarah could have been raised immediately after burial! But the epistle to the Romans shows that although she had been dead for thousands of years the Lord could raise her: He is declared Son of God in power by resurrection of the dead. He is the One who is dominating the whole matter of death and burial. He has now come to the actual scene of death, so that we may see life vibrating, and death giving way. The Lord says to Martha, “Did I not say to thee, that if thou shouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?”She had already spoken about the corruption, but now the question is whether she can see the glory; that is the next thing, whether we are capable of seeing it really. She had already said, “Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world”. But did she really believe? Did she believe He could raise the dead? The Lord had said, “If thou shouldest believe ...” and that is the point as to us now, whether we really believe these things. “They took therefore the stone away”. And the evangelist goes on, “And Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast [p. 416] heard me; but I knew that thou always hearest me; but on account of the crowd who stand around I have said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And having said this, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And the dead came forth”. This is different from what will happen presently when the Lord comes; there will be no need to take the stone away; there was no need to take it away when He arose; He did not have the stone taken away. There is a modification and it is important to notice it.
CN Therefore, would you say there was a moral necessity for that request: “Take away the stone”?
JT I think we should come to it — the force of it. It says, “They took therefore the stone away”. The Lord had come, and all this had happened, and they took the stone away, therefore. “And Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me; but I knew that thou always hearest me; but on account of the crowd who stand around I have said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me”. This is a stronger word than He said to Martha. “And having said this, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And the dead came forth, bound feet and hands with graveclothes, and his face was bound round with a handkerchief. Jesus says to them, Loose him and let him go”. There are features here that will not appear presently when the Lord comes to raise the dead; there will be no accessory help at all; all will be done by Himself. So the bearing of this is for us as to what is to come out; what is seen in the face, the countenance of the man who has been in the grave. “Loose him and let him go”, the Lord says.
AR It is the voice of the Son of God.
JT It is; and the Lord’s word, “Loose him and let him go”, is as if He said, Let life show itself. And the Lord would have in mind that the countenance [p. 417] must be seen; the face of the person who has been in the grave. Lazarus’ face “was bound round with a handkerchief”. Life as in the risen man is now to show itself; not simply what the Lord did but what the risen man can do. “Let him go” had this in mind.
WR In the fulness of this when the Lord comes death shall be swallowed up in victory: “Where, O death, is thy sting? where, O death, thy victory?” 1 Corinthians 15: 55.
ABP Do you have in mind that the movements of Lazarus would afford the objective knowledge referred to in John 21?
JT Just so; we shall see that in chapter 12, how people came and believed because of Lazarus.
FSC The Father’s glory enters into this and is also referred to in Romans 6.
JT Yes. Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. How wonderful that is!
APT It says in Ecclesiastes 7, “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting”. Is there any spiritual suggestion in that? Does a wedding necessitate more spirituality than a funeral?
JT Spirituality is needed in both, but Ecclesiastes shows that it is specially needed where natural buoyancy is likely to prevail as at a wedding. But here we have divine Persons operating: the Father is in view; the Lord is speaking to Him. “Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me”. Is He not drawing us away from the ordinary human level? He lifted up His eyes on high. Chapter 17 says, “These things Jesus spoke, and lifted up his eyes to heaven”. It is very similar, but not just the same; it is a question of elevation. But in both instances the Father and the Son are operating together; we have to add the Spirit, of course, especially when we come to the [p. 418] resurrection of the saints at the Lord’s coming. But what a scene is now before us! The glory of God and the glory of the Son of God are here. What a thing it is to have part in that! As we, by the Spirit, apprehend it, the reflection of it will mark us.
JS Is the love we have seen earlier thus culminating in glory?
JT That is the idea: It is the glory of God, and the Son of God being glorified. That is what is happening in relation to Lazarus.
Ques Do we see power connected here with the loud voice?
JT Yes; the power that is in the voice of the Son of God, as we have already noted in chapter 5. The hour is coming when all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice and shall come forth.
TNW The Lord may allow one whom He loves to die. Would that be seen working out in what a great many of the saints are facing in the services?
JT That is suggested in what is before us. The Lord remained where He was till Lazarus died, but it was because He loved him, and so the glory shone — the glory of God and the glory of the Son of God, and may we not add the glory of Lazarus? “Loose him and let him go” — that glory was reflected in him as thus set free.
JAP Does Lazarus give evidence of the sheep character? “The sheep follow him, because they know his voice”. He calls Lazarus by name.
JT Quite so. Every one of the sleeping saints shall hear his name called out. What a time is ahead of us! What glory! What occasions of the display of divine love in divine Persons themselves in bringing those that are dead out of the tombs! Others are left there for a thousand years — the wicked dead — but divine love is displayed in regard of those that are asleep through Christ. So that the Lord would set us on our way with a word in this respect as to our [p. 419] great subject of life: how the actual resurrection will affect us. What a time there will be! It ought to stimulate us now; the older we are, of course, the nearer we are to it, so to speak, but what a time it will be!
APT Will any of us be the loser of anything spiritually if we do not go through the article of death? Verse 25 would indicate that we will not lose anything: “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes on me, though he have died, shall live; and every one who lives and believes on me shall never die”. Does that not show that in either case — if we do not go through death or if we do — we shall not lose anything from Him?
JT That is right, I think. “The Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel’s voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first”. Well, you might say, that is an advantage, but the living are there — “then we, the living who remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds”, 1 Thessalonians 4: 16, 17. So that, as Christ was raised from the dead, even those who are alive when He comes shall be quickened on account of God’s Spirit that dwells in them. That is, I am changed, not raised from the grave, but changed on account of God’s Spirit that dwells in me, that is full triumph, surely! That “the dead in Christ shall rise first” must be noted, but no doubt it alludes to the anxiety of the Thessalonian saints as to those who had fallen asleep. Those who are “the living, who remain to the coming of the Lord, are in no way to anticipate those who have fallen asleep”, chapter 4: 15.
JS Is the Spirit of God bringing all this into the present?
JT That is what it should be; that is what John has in mind in this section. You see all the redeemed joining the Lord and being caught up to be forever [p. 420] with Him — so shall we be for ever with the Lord, as Scripture teaches. Do I distinguish between one who had been dead for thousands of years and one who had not died at all? It is a question of what the power is; how we are affected by it.
WR The Lord “cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And the dead came forth”. Is that the voice of authority, not only to Lazarus but to those within the hearing of the voice?
JT It could be only authority literally affecting the one who is mentioned by name. It is the names mentioned that come. The wicked dead have to remain in their graves for a thousand years after the saints are raised.