THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIVINE BOUNTY (7)
[p. 265] THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIVINE BOUNTY (7)
John 11:1 - 5; John 12:1 - 3; John 20:17,18
JT The suggestion was made this morning that we might at this time have before us the glory of the Son of God as compared with the glory of the Lord. Perhaps we may look at a few passages in chapters 11, 12 and 20 of the gospel of John. It was remarked at our reading this morning that the glory of the Lord, which we behold, and by which we are to be changed from glory to glory as by the Lord the Spirit, had reference to the ministration of the new covenant; that is, that He, being the Mediator of it, has made it effective. His blood is the blood of the new covenant; meaning that His death is witness to us of the love of God, and then He makes that love effective in us by the Spirit, the Spirit being shed abroad in our hearts “by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Romans 5:5), so that we are qualified for the assembly of God; qualified to have part in it, being in liberty, and the love shines out in us: “The shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. 2 Corinthians 4:6. We have thus a part according to God in the public witness to Him here. I thought that the glory of the Son of God, as introducing a collateral line, leads us to the family of God. He brings us in and qualifies us to have part in the family of God. The place we thus receive, and the relationship we thus obtain with Christ, remain, and run on into eternity. So that it is perhaps the greatest thing that we are sons of God. It occurred to me that these passages would furnish material for these thoughts, in that the Lord Himself says, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it”. We have the family introduced in the three at Bethany, and it is said that Jesus loved them; so that it is not now a question of His effecting the covenant, but of bringing the family into the associations of resurrection, and then of heaven. Chapter 12 is the resurrection, where we have part in the family as risen; but chapter 20 goes beyond resurrection, it goes on to ascension.
SF Have you in your mind that death having occurred in Lazarus, the Lord came in to bring in life?
JT Yes; so that Lazarus is the prominent figure in chapter 12, because he is risen; that is the key, I think, to this whole passage. Jesus goes to Bethany, where Lazarus was. Lazarus is prominent, He represents the saints as risen. It reads, “Where was the dead (man) Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead”. That is the clue to the meaning of this section. It is the Son of God lifting the pressure of death off the family; not now shedding the love of God abroad in our hearts, for that is already assured, but it is to lift the pressure of death so that we might know that we are risen. The Son of God gives us a status in resurrection; then He gives us a status in heavenly relationships. The Son of God could do that. It is not a question of administration, but rather of life in Him. It is His love and His power; the power being available through His love.
JCS Would Colossians answer to the scene in John 12 and Ephesians to the scene in John 20?
JT Exactly; that is what I had in mind that we might see. In Colossians we are said to be “risen by faith”, Colossians 2:12 “quickened with Christ”, so we are on the “up” line now. Administration is on the “down” line — God coming down in administrative grace, meeting us as we are, and setting us up with His love in our hearts; but the Son of God is on the “up” line. The family is already owned in [p. 267] John 11, the relations exist. It is well to observe what is said. It reads, “There was a certain (man) sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and Martha her sister. It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick”. Then it says, “The sisters” (notice all these family expressions) “therefore sent to him saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick”. Then, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”. He loved all the members of the family; but the pressure of death was there, that is to say, we have now to learn Christ as the Son of God, and to see what His glory is as such, and His relation to the family.
JCS I do not want to deflect from the subject, but I thought, perhaps, before you developed the glory of the Son of God, you would say whether what has been imparted unto us by the mediatorial service will abide.
JT It will. The Spirit of Christ remains; but what I thought will be continued is the spirit of adoption. The terms which are mediatorial, as we may speak, will have no force in eternity. When we are in our glorified condition, and when all the effects of sin have been removed from the universe, these expressions will have no force; they have force now because we are still in mixed conditions. We have to do with the world and evil, and so you have such expressions as the Holy Spirit. He is, of course, always the Holy Spirit, but it is a relative expression. The idea of holiness is because sin exists and imparted unholiness. “The Spirit of his Son” Galatians 4:6 is given to us; it is the same Spirit of course.
JCS So we are largely on the line of contrast, are we? That is, ideas are set up one against the other on account of existing conditions?
JT [p. 268] Yes, exactly. Light, for instance, is relative because of darkness, life because of death, and so on.
GRG Is the kingdom of the Son of His love provisional?
JT I thought so. The kingdom is always that, because it contemplates subjection, regulation and adjustment.
Ques Would you say the kingdom merges into the family?
JT The effects remain, only I thought they take on new settings. They are essentially the same things you get in the family, but they take on these settings.
Ques Could we have “accepted in the Beloved” Ephesians 1:6 without the mediatorial system?
JT Well, of course, we know that, but this stands in relation to eternal purpose “that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”. Ephesians 1:4. We are delivered from the mediatorial system to be introduced into the eternal relationships. What we see is that the Son is now operating as Lord so as to deliver us and maintain us here. It is a collateral service, as I remarked. He operates as the Son. They run together and finally merge, because the family is the abiding thought.
JCS All that has been planted in our souls on the down line — the line of administration — is carried on in a new setting on the “up” line.
JT That is right. In our own administrative service in the future, I suppose we shall have learned from the present administration of the Lord, because the assembly comes down. It is the idea of what is of God coming down in a vessel that has been already formed in that way. In the city there are evidences of administrative education. The measurements all show that she is formed in the light of administration. She is fitted for that service, inasmuch as she is now the subject of it; the members of the assembly all benefiting by the administration of the Lord,
[p. 269] according to Romans and Corinthians, are thus fitted to administer collectively. The measurements do not appear to run on into what we speak of as eternity, because they belong to time. The number ‘twelve’ seems to show that in every way she is fitted for administration. There are twelve foundations, twelve thousand furlongs, twelve gates, twelve pearls, twelve angels. All that shows that she is the vessel of administration. But then the interior is that which gives the lustre to it; that is the private side, and, what I hope we may see clearly this afternoon, belongs to the interior — the family. The external side of the city is sustained by what is inside. Paul’s work does not appear in the city — his name does not appear. It is evident that it should not from the administration side; he did not belong to the ‘twelve’; he was not numbered with the twelve apostles, he was by himself. I think he represents the Lord’s personal affection, so that he announces, in his first preaching in the synagogues that “Jesus is the Son of God”, Acts 9:20 and the truth connected with the Son of God has to do with what is inside.
JCS So that Paul’s line really lies behind the display of the city.
JT Yes; it has its own place, and the most important place of all. What shall abide is largely his; not that the work of the others shall not abide, but they merge in his. He had ministered to the assembly according to what it was to Christ personally. We must have the family side. Romans lays the basis for it in the Spirit of God’s Son; but it is properly Ephesian truth, and it is worked out with John (as we have often had it), who resuscitates and supports Paul unofficially. John writes as the one whom Jesus loved, so he is eminently qualified to develop Paul from the love side. He does not introduce the word ‘son’; he does not call the saints ‘sons’ at all in his gospel. His thought is rather [p. 270] that they should be that characteristically, hence “the Son” is prominent in his gospel. Paul gives us the status, but John fills it up, and I think he does it by bringing the Lord before us as ‘Son’ in his gospel, that we might believe on the Son. “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” John 9:35 “These are written, that ye might believe [p. 271] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”. John 20:31. So that the great truth of sonship for us — for the family — is supported by love, but the truth of sonship belongs to Paul’s ministry. John comes in and supports it unofficially. He does not say “Our beloved brother Paul”, 2 Peter 3:15 but Peter recognises him thus officially. Peter is the leading apostle, but he recognises “Our beloved brother Paul”; he recognises his writings as Scripture. John does not say anything like that. What he does is to bring in the great element of love. He brings in the signs that Jesus wrought, so that “we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through his name”. John 20:31 Do I understand that John gives you the sphere where Paul’s things are worked out?
JT Yes, he fills out Paul’s system. He comes in at the end to resuscitate Paul’s system of things; that is what is going on at the present time; the outline of the thing has been restored to us, but we need to be resuscitated as everything falls into decay, and John brings in the Son of God that we might have life. The first sign leads to true faith in Him. “This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed on him”. John 2:11. There are thousands of disciples today who do not understand John. They are believers, but they do not believe on Him as John presents Him. In order to believe on Him as John presents Him we must apprehend Him as the Son; we must “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”, John 11:27 and that is not merely assenting to a doctrine, but light in one’s soul as to the Person. He begins in this respect by saying, “We contemplated his glory”. John 1:14. That is, he is a competent witness of the glory of the Son, as he says, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth”. John 1:14.
HB So the necessity of bringing in life, as you said, “The dead man Lazarus whom he raised from the dead”. That is a suitable condition so that life can come out.
JT Yes, that is what John has in view. So he begins with that statement, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”. John 1:14. Then he says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. John 1:8. These are the thoughts you have to get into your soul in order to understand what God is going to work out in this gospel. The Son undertakes to bring us into that system of affection.
LDB As you were saying last night we arrive at the fact that the Son of God “loved me and gave himself for me”. Gal 2:20.
JT That is it; so that you are in this light; you are made conscious that you are by Him — “Me and thee”. Matthew 17:27. It is most precious to think of it, that you are with Him, that you are one of those whom He knows personally, and He gives you to know that He loves you personally.
LDB Mary and Martha and Lazarus would illustrate those who have the sense that the Son of God loves them.
JT That is what comes out here. He loved each of them, as it states, “Now, Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”. He loves each of us. He loved the assembly, but He loves each of us.
[p. 272] That is the principle that comes out in the glory of the Son.
JOS That is the glory we get. The first ray of glory is the fact that the Son removes the pressure of death.
JT That is where the glory begins to shine.
WJP Is it possible to have love for Him to a certain extent, and not know Him as in resurrection?
JT Mary and Martha, in John 11, illustrate many, if not most of us. Jesus is the Friend of the family, but He has not the chief place in the family; He is not everything. How many of us think more of our parents, and brothers and sisters in the flesh than of those who form the family of God? The Lord has undertaken here to establish Himself in the family as supreme; that is what He had in mind. As He obtains that place everything is put in order, and each one gets his own position of dignity.
JCS Would that be the desire of the Lord in John 17, when He says, “that they may behold my glory?” John 17:24.
JT That is what He has in view for everyone. Every member of the family is known by name. In the families in the flesh every one of the children has a name. It is a matter of considerable thought what name to give this one and the next, and so on. What you find in general is that the Lord gives names — not in an arbitrary way, but according to the expression of love in that person, for each one expresses some special feature of love. “He knoweth the number of the stars, he calleth them all by name”. Psalm 147:4. When Andrew brought Simon, his brother, to the Lord, He looked on him — a remarkable thing — and said, “Thou shalt be called Cephas”. John 1:42. That was not arbitrary; that was the Lord’s divine knowledge of what would be expressed in that disciple.
Ques What would you say about the “sons of Zebedee”, the sons [p. 273] of thunder?
JT That would have reference to their testimony, I think.
JCS The Lord has intimate knowledge of all. He loves each one, and gives a name which suggests His intimate knowledge of each one.
JT I think as love with us takes form we are ennobled in the relation in which He sets us as brethren in chapter 20. To me it is very wonderful that the Lord knows each of us personally, and has a name for each. We get it here. He loved Martha and Mary and Lazarus. It does not say He loved the three together. He loved “Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”. That shows it is not a collective thing that John has before him; it is the family. It is not the idea of His loving the assembly, but of His loving the members of the family, as a parent would love every member of his family.
EBMcC Each member of the family has a special place in the affections of the Lord, and His desire is that each one might know Him as the Son of God.
WJP I was thinking of John’s epistle: “See what love the Father has given to us that we should be called the children of God”. 1 John 3:1. That is the name He gives us.
JT That is down here. “We should be called”. In John 1 it is that we should have the right to have that place, but in the epistle it is that we should be called “children of God”; that is the designation by which we are known. But how delightful for the Lord to have all in the family, everyone of them known to Him, everyone of them loved by Him, everyone of them lovable in His eyes, and yet each one suggesting something different. That involves the glory of the Son of God.
SF It is full development, but perfect unity; each one differs, but all belong to one whole.
JT That is it; all of a kind, yet [p. 274] all different.
SHB Do I understand that this is what is distinctive of the assembly; of the ‘sons’ at the present time, and goes on into eternity?
JT John is dealing with members of the assembly. He is not treating of what there will be on the earth during the millennium; he is treating of the members of the assembly, because he is running parallel with Paul.
ARG Has each member of the family a definite link with the Son of God, and in that way all are linked together?
JT I think that is right. You can understand, in a country like Great Britain, where there is nobility, how they all stand related to the king. They are not officials, they are peers; that is the idea, the king would refer to any of them by name. There would be a certain link between the king and this special family in the realm. They are all known to him. They are all on an equal footing. Of course the king has his prime minister, but they are peers. I think that illustrates the idea of the family of God. The Son is supreme; but we are all peers, and on one footing as brethren.
SF “He calls his own sheep by name”. John 10:3. If He calls by name we may know who He is addressing.
JT Chapter 10 is the outcome of the wonderful incident in chapter 9. He has come to believe on the Son of God; he worships Him, and the name comes in in chapter 10.
CI Is the place that John has open to us all?
JT I thought so. Why did He love John? Because he was lovable. I don’t say the other disciples were not, because they were all loved, but he was particularly lovable. He calls their attention to what the Lord looks for — He looks for what is lovable in each of us.
JCS Is chapter 20 a special intimation in connection with the Father’s name in view of the dignified position?
JT I think so. I doubt whether time will allow us to go into this great subject, because we have not touched on chapter 12 or chapter 20. Chapter 20 is the ennoblement of the living ones and the risen ones, as if chapter 12 was not sufficient. Chapter 12 is the risen ones. Lazarus is the important one at the table — one of those who sat at the table with Him; but chapter 20 is the ennoblement of the same setting; I mean that is the thought running through. We are not only risen now, but we are brethren of Him who ascends: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God”. He is now with us, you might say. It is the Son of God enlightening us as to the wonderful place we have in the family as brethren. His Father is ours, and His God is ours.
JCS Would it be right to say the Lord gave a declaration of the Father which was in a sense general, and the whole universe will come into that; but what we get in John 20 was a special declaration in view of the unique position.
JT I think that is right.
GRG You were speaking of the “up” line. Is that the summit of it?
JT Yes, that is it. You cannot get higher than that — the brethren of Christ ascending to heaven, His Father our Father, His God our God. Mary told the disciples these things. She was a faithful messenger in carrying the greatest possible message to her brethren, showing that John is not official. You see it is John who brings out certain features, such as the woman of Samaria, Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene, to show that what is before us is not official. The disciple whom Jesus loved would do anything for the brethren. He is not official; so that it fits in with our own time.
[p. 276] No one assumes to be an official. The principle is that work is to be done, and you do it because you love. If you love the Lord, He loves you. It is a question of trustworthiness. If you are trustworthy you will get something.
MPM There is no question of past history here. It is not Mary Magdalene “out of whom he had cast seven demons”; it is “Mary Magdalene”.
SF I suppose it is important to see that in chapter 12 Lazarus had been called out of the grave, but when we come to chapter 20 the Lord has been through death and a new day has dawned for man.
JT We are now in the domain of the Son of God. He is not only risen, but He is going up. He ascends.
SHB Do I understand that as connected with the family we are viewed as apart from our sinful history here?
JT Yes, I think so. You come up out of the bed of Jordan; there are twelve stones down there, but twelve are taken up on the Canaan side; you are come out of death.
EBMcC In chapter 12 He is enthroned in their affections, and in chapter 20 we see the wonderful dignity in which He links them up with Himself.
JT That is so. I think it is the glory of the Son of God right through. He now has brought them to Himself in dignity.
LDB What is the thought in the declaration “My Father, your Father, my God, your God”? How does the family stand in relation to God as such, and to the Father as such?
JT I think “My Father and your Father” is the family thought — that we are with Him in the family. “My God and your God” refers to us as men. He is a Man and we are men. In the first you have the family, and in the second you have [p. 277] God and men, so that, as it says, “The tabernacle of God is with men” Revelation 21:3; these are the men.
SF Manhood will always remain in the presence of God, will it not?
JT Yes, that is what I was thinking. It is God and man, Father and son.
CI “I have manifested thy name unto the men thou gavest me”. John 17:6.
JT Yes, there it is.
LDB What place does that side of the truth have in the assembly as a spiritual formation?
JT Well, I think God finds His eternal thought in us already. In Christ we have Man according to God. You have God and man now. I think life stands in that relation, for He says, “I have finished the work thou gavest me to do”, John 17:4 and then He goes on to say, “That they might know thee the only true God”. John 17:3. He does not say ‘That they might know Thee the Father’, because life is one line; it is a parallel line with the family. I think that ‘men’ are the full development of life. God has His ‘men’, and the Father has His family.
GRG Would it emphasise the dignity of the race as such — “My God and your God”?
JT I think so; and the “sons of God”, I suppose, would bring in the thought of dignity too; we are competent to enter into His thoughts.
WJP Would that be the ten commandments carried out in their purity — that is, love to God and man?
JT Yes; but it goes beyond that. It involves that man is restored in love.
MPM Would the two prayers in the epistle to the Ephesians (chapters 1 and 3) give the thought? One is to the Father and the other is more the thought of God.
JT It is the Father who names every family, but it is as known to the family; and then it goes on to say, “Unto him be glory in the assembly by Christ Jesus throughout all ages”, Ephesians 3: 21. That is more parallel with the line here.
EBMcC Both are for the eternal state — ‘Father and sons’, and ‘God and men’.
JCS We are to see the glory of the Son of God as we see Him surrounded with men in life, all ready to go up with Him to the place which the many sons are to share with Him.
JT I think it is clear, the two relationships. The ‘Father’ stands in relation to the family, and ‘God’ stands in relation to men.
SF We find the expression even on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”. Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34. It is God and man.