THE LIFE WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS (19)
[p. 421] THE LIFE WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS (19)
John 11: 41 - 57; John 12: 1 - 19
JT At our last reading we dwelt somewhat on chapter 10 of this gospel and the early part of chapter 11, contrasting the sheep in chapter 10 with the family in chapter 11. The subject now is to be a continuation of the family, because we did not finish our inquiry on the previous occasion. It should be noted that the family, as seen in the scriptures read, refers to the real family of God, not a figurative family. A figurative family was represented in the two sisters and the brother at Bethany, whereas now the family of God is formally alluded to in the prophecy of Caiaphas. He refers to the children of God. He prophesied “that Jesus was going to die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (verse 52). I think the Lord would help us to dwell on this side of the family, for it is John’s line of things largely; that is, the family viewed as children, not as sons. It is thought that the verses read in chapter 11 will help us on this point. Verse 41 says, “And Jesus lifted up his eyes on high”, as if that is something to be noted, for everything He does is to be noted, particularly in this extraordinary circumstance of the raising of Lazarus. The Spirit would stress the state in which Lazarus was before his resurrection. It is said, “Martha, the sister of the dead, says to him, Lord, he stinks already, for he is four days there” (verse 39). And then it is said, “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” (verse 44). The condition in which he was as raised is also given.
CFE [p. 422] Do we see the change of the family here? The idea of the family brought about by the raising of Lazarus from the dead?
JT Well, pursuing the subject into the epistles, it is said in Colossians 2: 12: “... buried with him in baptism, in which ye have been also raised with him through faith of the working of God who raised him from among the dead”. That is an immense change in the family.
AR Is the idea that life is beyond corruption?
JT Just so; in Colossians you are in that state as risen with Christ. In Ephesians we are said to be not only risen, but raised up together, and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus; Ephesians 2: 6. It is an immense change in the actual state of the family. And this enters into the service of God now.
AAT That family had previously been together on natural lines, but as we are looking at it now the natural links are eclipsed, are they not?
JT We are advancing in the truth that is presented. This passage contemplates a great advance in the truth as to the application of life to the saints viewed as a family.
ABP In 1 Corinthians 15 reference is made to that, is it not? “... when this corruptible shall have put on incorruptibility” (verse 54). Do we learn through this that we must have a right judgment of what is corruptible; not only what has become corrupted but what is capable of corruption?
JT Just so; how humbling it is. Paul speaks about our bodies of humiliation as in contrast to what we shall be. We shall be raised by Christ in bodies according to the image of His own body of glory. That, however, is a faith condition until we are actually raised. It is something to lay hold of; otherwise, we could not have the service of God as redemption involves [p. 423] it.
AR It speaks in the end of Ephesians about loving our Lord Jesus in incorruption. Is that the idea?
JT That is true of us in a moral sense while down here, the ointment Mary had corresponds. The box is not mentioned. The actual quantity of pure nard, a pound, was held free of corruption.
CAM How do you connect that scripture in Hebrews: “Behold, I and the children which God has given me. Since therefore the children partake of blood and flesh, he also, in like manner, took part in the same”, chapter 2: 13, 14? You were speaking of the condition that the children are in.
JT That is the actual condition in which the saints were before redemption, but the Lord came into that condition so as to change it. Thus we have in the earlier part of the passage: “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (verse 11). That is the abstract condition that we are entitled to take on.
CAM That is a great help. Do you look at John 11 as showing that the Lord passed through present conditions in order to bring us into the new condition?
JT Yes. He has been in them anticipatively, but He now looks up to heaven. It is an elevated thought. It is not an incident merely; it is a sign; we are to watch His movements. His eyes.
CFE Would you differentiate the thoughts of sonship and children in relation to the service of God?
JT Well, sonship is relative to what we are saying, the condition we are entitled to anticipate by faith: “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus”, Galatians 3: 26. We cannot be said to be sons of God absolutely save in an abstract sense, because we are yet mortal. We receive sonship, it is said in Galatians 4. In Romans 8: 23 it is said that we [p. 424] await adoption, which is the same word in the original as sonship, and the meaning of that is given as the redemption of our bodies. Our bodies are not yet redeemed in that sense, they being still mortal. Therefore the service of God is carried on in a provisional sense. God taking account of us provisionally, faith enabling us by the Spirit to lay hold of the abstract thought.
GAL Isaiah says of God, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, and whose name is Holy”, chapter 57: 15. Does that connect with the thought of Jesus looking up on high here?
JT Just so. “Who is like unto Jehovah our God, who hath placed his dwelling on high; who humbleth himself to look on the heavens and on the earth?” Psalm 113: 5, 6.
CAM When this expression is used: “Jesus lifted up his eyes on high” — does that convey the thought that the Lord was looking at what belongs to that realm of things?
JT The word ‘heavenlies’ in Ephesians is peculiar. It is plural. We are told that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies. It does not say in heaven, but “in the heavenlies”. Here it is said, “Jesus lifted up his eyes on high”. We are told in Colossians to set our minds on things above.
ANW In John 17, it is said the Lord “lifted up his eyes to heaven”; that would be another thought?
JT It would be more definite as to the place of God Himself, but the idea of the heavenlies is more general. The point is that you want to know where they begin.
WR The Lord lifting up His eyes on high, saying, “Father, I thank thee that thou has heard me” (verse 41), would have the glory of the Father in mind.
JT He would. And He would carry His hearers with Him. That is another thing. He is here in [p. 425] leadership; He would carry us with Him. The whole ministry of christianity is to carry us with Him. “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”, John 13: 8. We have to understand that we have to be carried along with Him. Think of the system of glory above that would be in His heart when He lifted up His eyes!
ABP Are we to be conversant with that?
JT Yes.
ABP “But I knew that thou always hearest me” (verse 42) — is that also for our benefit?
JT Quite so. There are several things that enter into this. In chapter 12 it is said, “Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But on account of this have I come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name. There came therefore a voice out of heaven, I both have glorified and will glorify it again. The crowd therefore, which stood there and heard it, said that it had thundered. Others said, An angel has spoken to him. Jesus answered and said, Not on my account has this voice come, but on yours”, (verses 27 - 30). It is that they might be affected to follow on. How can I turn aside when this is going on? That is the idea. John would carry us along into the great things that are in the Lord’s mind.
JTJr Would that be the thought with Abraham? He was to lift up his eyes; he was told to do that twice. Then he had to go through the experience of the furnace. Would that be the corresponding things we have to go through in regard of death that we might reach the high places?
JT That helps as to what we are saying, because it is a question of Abraham coming into the things promised. He says, How shall I know? (Genesis 15: 8). That is what every one of us ought to ask. How am I to know these things? And this is the way of [p. 426] it.
WCR Would Lazarus, being let go, be one who would be able to follow?
JT Yes. What is he to do? He has been let go. He has been in the state of death. The Spirit makes much of the state he was in. He came out of that state. That was by divine power. He is thus a risen man. That is how believers are regarded in Colossians. As risen and loosed, Lazarus is to be expressive of life and hence he must have his ears, his eyes, his hands and all his members available. We must have the vehicles of love to express the life we are brought into.
JTJr He would really take up his body in a new way. It would be a new experience. He had been dead, but now would take up his body in a fresh way.
JT Yes. He is never said to have spoken anything and yet as loosed and let go he would be expressing life, because people were believing on Jesus on account of him, showing he was not a dead man with a handkerchief on his head, but a living man, disengaged. He is set at liberty for the exercise of life.
EAL Would the fact that the chief priests took counsel to kill Lazarus bear out what you are saying?
JT Exactly. They knew what it meant in the testimony. We shall see in the Lord’s journey into Jerusalem how the whole position was affected by Lazarus. So that it is said, “The crowd therefore that was with him bore witness because he had called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from among the dead. Therefore also the crowd met him because they heard that he had done this sign” (verses 17, 18). That shows how essential life in believers is to the testimony. Many of the Jews, it is said, believed on Jesus on account of Lazarus (verse 11). What is our profession? Where are we at all if we are not moving on? Some of us were saying here last Lord’s day of Elijah and Elisha, the two “went on”. Applied to this chapter, Christ and Lazarus are going on. Transferring this to ourselves, we well may enquire as to the objective.
CAM Certain things hampered Lazarus; you do not view that exactly as the result of sin, do you? This release is from other things that keep us from the realm of life, would you say?
JT The force of the passage is in what the Lord points to. I mean to say, we have to follow everything He does and says to be in the right way. So that it is said, “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” (verse 44). This is essential, because the Lord is saying in effect, I want him to come with Me, because chapter 13 speaks of part with Him. He is going on, and He wants the disciples with Him. The incident at the Jordan is helpful; that is, [p. 427] Elijah and Elisha. The two went on and talked. Where is the communion we have with one another? There must be some agreement in view of the holy communion we are brought into.
ABP Up to this point, the work had been that of the Son of God. How can we join in the work of loosing him? What is our part? How can we uncover the face, for instance?
JT It is remarkable that his face is bound with a handkerchief. This would correspond with the handkerchief which was on the Lord’s head; chapter 20: 7. But this, as the Lord had arisen, was folded in a distinct place by itself. What was behind the hands that laid the handkerchief in a place by itself? There is a distinction attaching to it, and relatively it is so with the handkerchief that was on Lazarus’ face.
TEH They were able to do something before that. They were told to remove the stone. What is involved in doing that prior to the [p. 428] other?
JT It is clear that all this is not a figure of the resurrection to come. It is what is effected now. We will have no part in the resurrection when the Lord comes; He will do it all, but now there is a great deal to be done, and the saints are to be brought into it.
ABP The saints grieved most of all that they would see Paul’s face no more; Acts 20: 38. That would be a face in which there was the evidence of life.
JT Quite so; a face well known by many in Ephesus, well known even by the children, you may be sure. He had told the elders that they would see his face no more.
AR It is said that Elijah and Elisha “talked” after they crossed the Jordan. It does not say they talked before that. Is there any point in that?
JT Well, it is a resurrection scene. That is what we are dealing with here. It is a resurrection condition of things that we are dealing with and it is a question of how each one of us can have part in that — to help each other into it.
TEH Would the Lord graciously help us in view of the ministry of late as to the forty days, so that we should be conversant with what goes on in the sphere of life?
JT That is another view of the matter. It is additional to Luke’s first account. What happened on the first day of the week, according to Luke’s gospel, would include the whole period of the forty days. But the second treatise is an extension, and he brings in the forty days. The book of Acts is enlargement, which principle is afforded to us in ministry.
AAT I was interested in what you had to say about the handkerchief being about the face, but I also notice Lazarus’ feet were bound. Does the whole body have to be released to express [p. 429] life?
JT Yes. We are to yield ourselves to God as alive from among the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness to God.
ANW Are we not now in the region of life. God and the Son of God glorified in us? It is an expression of life.
JT That is what is in mind in this section; and the matter of prophecy is not to be neglected; hence Caiaphas comes into the position. We are told, verses 47 - 52: “The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man does many signs. If we let him thus alone, all will believe on him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, Ye know nothing nor consider that it is profitable for you that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish. But this he did not say of himself; but, being high priest that year, prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad”. This is set in here, the glory of God in resurrection being in mind. It is a bit of prophetic ministry; who the minister may be is not the point; it is real ministry; it is not of man, but of God. All ministry should be of that character, even though the vessels used are different. It is not of our own natural hearts; it is what God gives.
FCE Would you say Caiaphas is used by God here for the moment?
JT Yes. John has this line of thought. He has the angel coming down once a year at the pool of Bethesda, chapter 5. That was a matter of mercy, though only once a year. Now it is Caiaphas prophesying because he was high priest. It is not to be despised. It was of value both as to Christ and as to [p. 430] the children of God. In view of our subject the gathering together of the children of God is most important. It is not the figurative family, but the real divine family, but for the moment scattered.
DP Would Mary and Martha share in the life in which Lazarus was, as raised, in view of the family setting?
JT Quite so. When we come to chapter 12 we shall get the family itself; not simply the family at Bethany. This is the spiritual instruction. The family of Bethany is there, but viewed in the light of resurrection. Lazarus is the first one mentioned “whom Jesus raised from among the dead”. The Spirit of God directs our minds to Mary ultimately, but Lazarus is the one in the Lord’s mind primarily. “The dead (man) Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead”.
JHH Was there a word for them all? The word to Lazarus was, “Come forth”. The word to the others, “Loose him”. It was mentioned that this is an adjustment period; was it an adjustment period for them all?
JT Quite so. If we are all scattered abroad, then the adjustment must involve every one of us. There was what was called the ‘reconstruction period’ after the previous war. I suppose we are going to get that now. That reconstruction period involves everybody. No one wants to be exempt from adjustment if he is sincere.
ABP Does the word in Ephesians bear on it? “Ye who once were afar off are become nigh by the blood of the Christ”, Ephesians 2: 13.
JT Yes. It is the effect of ministry, and hence the position of Caiaphas here. He is used only once but he prophesied nevertheless. Balaam was also used in a series of prophesies on one occasion — most remarkable ministry. He was a wicked man otherwise.
[p. 431] God can hold a man for His own purposes at any time.
FSC There is a reference to this in chapter 18: 12 - 14: “The band therefore, and the chiliarch, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus and bound him: and they led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. But it was Caiaphas who counselled the Jews that it was better that one man should perish for the people”.
JT You see how the Spirit of God keeps him and what he said before us. What he was himself is another matter. Maybe there was not anything there any more than there was in Balaam, or any more than there is in a man who speaks right words today, but is not a true believer.
WCR Would the fact that the apostle Paul introduces the thought of the prophetic word to the Corinthians, show that he had in mind the gathering together into one in Corinth?
JT Yes. They were not gathered together into one. That is the very thing he says in the beginning of the first letter. They needed the prophetic ministry and that gives force to the word of Caiaphas in this setting in the subject of life.
JTJr He says later on, “Our heart is expanded”, 2 Corinthians 6: 11. It is a question of the affections getting expanded into the things that belong to us.
JT They were bound up. They were limited in their own affections. They were to expand themselves and ministry helps in that.
FHL Do I understand that Jesus said, Come forth, because He Himself would die, and that Lazarus was a sample of one of those gathered?
JT It brings out the truth of His Person. He said, “I am the resurrection and the life”. That is a truth that stands out in John. Who He is is stressed. It is the Person Himself, as He says, “Jesus answered [p. 432] and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2: 19. So that was the sign. His own death and resurrection was the greatest sign of all.
DP Would Caiaphas understand this remark he was making as to the Lord?
JT I do not think so. He did not understand fully what he was saying, but the Spirit of God knew. And that is the point; what God can do, even in men that do not understand. God may use a clergyman although he may not be converted. We must respect the word no matter through whom it comes.
DP He said that the Lord was going to die for that nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God. First, he said that the Lord should die; and again, that He should gather. Could he understand that?
JT He did not need to. It is a question of what God says and what we can follow now.
JAP Is the term ‘children of God’ confined to Israel, or is it more extensive?
JT I think it is the full christian term that is in mind here. We find it in chapter 1 in its full christian significance. It is a christian term properly.
ANW Will you say a little about the limited way in which, we must confess, this prophecy has been and is being fulfilled today — in view of the broken condition of christendom?
JT That is a solemn thing, when you think of the smallness of the work in America; and generally, of course, but especially in this hemisphere; but yet the Lord says in chapter 10, “When he has put forth all his own” (verse 4). That is John’s way. You do not miss anyone. The divine way is to embrace them all, and so here — the children of God; none are left out; the children of God are scattered [p. 433] abroad, but the divine thought is that all should be gathered.
AR You mean all the saints?
JT Yes.
SM Would verse 16 fit in? “And I have other sheep which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd”. I thought of the one flock.
JT So that the divine thought embraces every sheep, and none shall be lost. All is in the Father’s hand and the Son’s hand.
ABP Would the great completion of this be in the rapture?
JT I would say that. Some might say that the resurrection in Thessalonians is limited to those who form the assembly, but I think it would be better to say “the dead in Christ” and not limit them. “Those that have practised good” are viewed as coming forth first, John 5: 29.
JAP Does this give force to our communications in the assembly? We address letters, ‘To those gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus’. Is that the great gathering point?
JT Well, it is; of course that would be a more limited word than what we are dealing with here; that is, you are limiting it by gathering — gathering to the name of the Lord Jesus — which is an allusion to Matthew 18: 20, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”. John is wider than Matthew in this sense. He is dealing with things in the abstract, and therefore he includes all the children of God, as he does all the sheep, and that is the way it ought to be. Matthew is the administrative gospel, and therefore it is a question of what marks persons at any given time.
CAM The mention of the children of God [p. 434] in John 1 is very comprehensive — all that believe on His name.
JT Yes; that helps as to what we are saying. John is generally abstract.
JTJr Is there the continuation of that in John 12: 32, “I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me”. Would the “all” embrace the family?
JT I think so; it is the complete thought again.
JTJr We must come that way, through the death of Christ.
ANW And so, however few the number might be of such as are described here, they are clear of the sectarian idea.
ABP Would the house being filled with the odour of the ointment suggest that the whole family is to benefit by it in some way?
JT I suppose the house would mean that. It is another guiding word in John. The son abides in the house for ever; John 8: 35. That is a wide thought; a permanent thought; and the Father’s house goes with it.
WR Would you say that in chapter 11, love is operating from the divine side and when you come to chapter 12 love has now a sphere where it can be resident as in the family.
JT Just so; we are in a family position in chapter 12. We have again to come back to the figurative thought, because it is the family in Bethany that is in mind, used as figurative of the whole, and we have therefore to deal with the facts given, first of all, as to what is in the Lord’s mind. It is the idea of time, taking place six days before the passover; and then with whom — that the dead man was there. I suppose the best reading of verse 1 would leave out the word ‘man’. It is “... where was the dead Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead”.
CFE Is the passover suggested here in preparation [p. 435] for the Supper? We have the passover first and then the Supper.
JT I do not think the passover means much in John, and the Lord’s supper is never mentioned. The passover is just a Jewish feast brought in here incidentally, but it is a religious thing. It has no meaning spiritually in its setting here, only that historically it alludes to certain things that would happen that affect Jesus. It would not be any more than Easter. We speak of Easter as affording opportunity for meetings in certain places, but religiously it is nothing to us.
CN There are other similar things, in verses 12 and 20; the crowd that sings Hosanna, and then the Greeks.
JT In the history of the testimony there are many things that seem incidental, but they fill out the spiritual position. The Lord knew well what was happening, and what was to be done, too.
JTJr Is the local position in mind? Would it be in mind in every meeting that we have to help us in localities? We come to the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week, and it is a question of the position and what is there.
JT Yes, and then what may be filled out, as we have this meeting for this week. We have had it in our minds since the first day of the week, and it is well that we do have it in our minds. It is well that it should be announced. All the things that happen may not be wholly spiritual, but some are and we must see that each gets into its place and does not lose its value.
This matter of the Lord riding into Jerusalem, of course, is a great incident, but we just have to view it as it is in John. Verse 12 says, “On the morrow a great crowd who came to the feast, having heard that Jesus is coming into Jerusalem, took branches of palms and went out to meet him, and cried, Hosanna,
[p. 436] blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel. And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat upon it”. What are we going to make of all this? The Lord knew what use to make of this ass. He found him, which is peculiar to John. The prophecy required that he should be there. “Jesus, having found a young ass, sat upon it; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt. Now his disciples knew not these things at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things to him. The crowd therefore that was with him bore witness because he had called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from among the dead. Therefore also the crowd met him because they had heard that he had done this sign”. As we read this, if we are spiritual, we understand that we are being brought into this great scene; one incident after another. What can we make of these incidents? Are they not rich? Are they not glorious? They are!
JTJr Is the thought carried forward from the six vessels of which the Lord says, “Fill the water-vessels with water”? Is your idea that things are filled out so as to yield for God?
JT Yes.
AI Are there three outstanding persons in relation to the Lord in chapter 12: Lazarus, Martha and Mary?
JT Just so. There they made Him a supper. Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those at table with Him. Mary filled the house with fragrant odour — the fragrance of the pure nard which she had kept for the Lord’s burial.
ABP Is Jesus being glorified brought in as a further thought? When He was glorified then the disciples knew (verse 16). Is that the culmination, in [p. 437] the glory, of what was manifested morally here? Is it carried right through to the sphere of glory?
JT It refers to His place at the right hand of God, in consequence of which the Spirit was given; chapter 7: 39. The Holy Spirit has made plain all that the Lord said and did.
CN The glory of Christ is remarkably testified to in this chapter.
JT The whole section, from the beginning of chapter 11 to the end of chapter 12, is full of it. Hence the suitability of the reference to Isaiah, chapters 6 and 53. “These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him” (verse 41). The first is His official glory and the second His moral glory. Thus the importance of verse 16 already quoted: “but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him”.
GVD They remembered them so well that in choosing Matthias they said, “It is necessary, therefore, that of the men who have assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up from us, one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection”, Acts 1: 21, 22. I mean that this and all the other incidents in connection with the Lord’s life were brought forward and remembered.
JTJr The youth is here in the young ass — the element that is needed to carry things in the sense of burden. The King is carried.
JT It is very beautiful. The prophecy goes through, and in such an instrumentality as a young ass. The Lord found him, as we have noted. The ass was suitable; not anyone.
CFE We have in the other gospels that the ass was tied, and the disciples were to loose him. What is the difference?
JT The difference is as to levitical service under the Lord’s guidance and help, and the Lord doing things Himself. John contemplates the Lord doing things Himself.
AI Would the kingly dignity of the Lord Jesus be carried forward by this ass?
JT Yes. It is beautiful how He is served in this way. The other evangelists have more to say about the branches. The Lord’s selection of the ass is enough. You can trust to His selection.
RDG As emphasising the necessity of the presence of the Holy Spirit to prove the glory of the Lord Jesus here, would it be fitting to refer to Stephen, who, “being full of the Holy Spirit, having fixed his eyes on heaven, ... saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God”, Acts 7: 55?
JT Quite so. He came in as an exceptional provision.