CHRIST IN THE BELIEVER (4)
CHRIST IN THE BELIEVER (4)
JT Our subject this morning is Christ in the believer as Son of God, known as Son of God. So far we have considered John the baptist, as representative of a believer as apprehending Christ in him in a sacrificial sense, “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” Then the woman of Samaria, who represents a believer having Christ in him as “the Christ”, One who does things for God; and yesterday we had Peter as one who had Christ in him as “the holy one of God”, laying the basis for the service of God, Minister of the sanctuary.
Now we arrive at one who represents the believer as having Christ in him as Son of God. The Son of God, of course, is spoken of earlier than this. John the baptist spoke of Him, and He is much spoken of earlier, but in this chapter the Lord Himself is concerned that this particular believer should believe on Him as Son of God, as He says to him, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?”. The word ‘thou’ is used twice in the better translation. The Lord would impress upon him, ‘you yourself’, so directing the man to himself. ‘Thou’ is the believer made to feel that the Lord is interested in him, “Thou, dost thou”, and would have him believe in that sense on the Son of God.
This is a very marvellous and important subject, and links us on with the apostle Paul’s ministry, peculiarly, because it is he whose preaching first brings out the Son of God. Peter had known of it, of course, but Paul says, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations” (Galatians 1:16). He stands out as representing this [p. 298] thought particularly.
HEF What would you say is involved in one taking this place as believing on Christ as the Son of God?
JT A new order of things is opened up, by One who not only does things for God, but One who is in liberty Himself, in His own Person. A new order of things, sonship, involves Christ in this sense. It refers to His Person as here in manhood, inaugurating a new order of things. Being Son, He represents the magnitude of the gift of God for us, but He also operates bringing in a new order of things, so that what follows is the flock in the next chapter. He is an Object of faith known in the believer, bringing him into a new order of things.
SWR The faith of God is in Him. I was thinking of Abraham giving everything to Isaac, and the Father giving all things into the hand of the Son.
JT That is the thought. “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand” (John 3:35). That is, the Son acts of Himself, He has life in Himself, He sets free. Sonship sets you free: “Ye shall be really free”. “The son abides for ever” (John 8:35); that is, in the house. All these statements bear on this chapter, because the next chapter is the opening up of the flock, the one flock is next, and chapter 11 is the family. So the Son of God in the believer involves complete deliverance for him in a new order of things, a new order of things in which love prevails. The Son presents that side.
HF Does that represent complete deliverance from the world’s system?
JT Yes, it does. The Son introduces us into the spiritual realm, and that comes in properly after what we had yesterday. The Minister of the sanctuary leads in that direction. He becomes known as Son.
JR [p. 299] Does this line of things involve the works of God? “That the works of God should be manifested in him”.
JT That is an important part of our subject. Jesus passed on, it says. He is on the way to something; that is how the chapter opens. The end of the previous chapter says, “Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple”, and then we have the words, “Going through the midst of them, and thus passed on”. These words are beautiful in chapter 9, “And as he passed on, he saw a man blind from birth”. That is, the Lord has left the temple; the Jews have refused Him, so that after this issue with the Jews He left the temple and hid Himself, but as He is passing on He has something in mind. This man comes in His way. Then it says, “And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” It was Jesus who saw the man, as it says. Evidently the link is in His seeing the man, and the disciples are brought into it to enquire about him.
RHK Does this suggest the Sent One of God? “My Father worketh hitherto and I work”.
JT Quite so. He was sent into the world not to condemn it, but that it might be saved. The issue with the Jews in chapter 8 makes it an outstanding chapter in that sense, the Lord grappling with the evil that was in the Jews, which culminated in their taking up stones to cast at Him. So that there is nothing now but to leave. He went out of the temple and passed on, meaning that what chapter 8 involves is incidental. He passed on; He is not hindered by that opposition. He passes on and sees this man, and so He brings the disciples into the current of His thoughts. It is an important thing that we should get into the current of things in our minds. They enquire as to whether this man had sinned or his parents. Their minds were on the [p. 300] governmental side, that if this man is blind then his parents must have sinned. The Lord is on the sovereign line, a very important line to be on. It is important for us to get on to it. The Lord says, “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents”. He is in this condition, in order that the works of God might be manifested in him, ‘works’, not simply one work. Hence, the believer as having the Son of God in him is a testimony to the works of God, much is to take place in him.
OL Is the sovereign work of God seen in the man, having in mind the thought of the potter and the clay? The Lord is pleased to bring about what is in His mind in spite of what we are.
JT Yes, in taking up a man of this kind, who was blind from birth, we see what He can do with a man, a human being. He is not now creating the world; His works are seen there too, but now it is what He can do with a human being, “a man blind from birth”.
GRM It is refreshing to see the simplicity of this man as going from step to step until he develops into the full thought of Jesus as Son of God.
JT That doubtless helps us as to the works of God, and if any one of us is to be a testimony to the works of God, these features must come out. It is not simply that I am converted, and have received the Spirit, but what God has effected in me. So this great thought should therefore be in me, Christ in me as Son of God. This man is seen developing without any aid from anyone. The Lord opened his eyes but that was all. What ensues is a question of what developed in the man without any aid from anyone, even his father and mother did not aid him; “He is of age”, they said, which is a good thought, it was well said, though they did not understand fully. The Spirit of God in recording it intends us to understand [p. 301] it was a question of the man being matured, of age, a question of the work of God.
AH Why does the Lord bring in here the thought of day and night in regard to the works of God?
JT Because it refers back to the divine way. His presence here implied the day. God made the day at the beginning. He called the light ‘day’. Jesus is the light of the world in this gospel peculiarly, and the Lord calls that period while He is here, ‘day’. The night for the Jews was when He left, the day would be over for them; but what is really the point is that God is working. The Lord left the temple. While He was here He was the Light of the world, working in that light. Of course, we are in the day in another sense, the day of the Spirit. While the Spirit is here it is the day of salvation. The Lord is alluding to His own presence here as the light, and carrying on the works of God in it.
JRM Would you agree that this man who was born blind and received sight was anxious to know who it was that opened his eyes, that he might worship Him? The Lord Jesus revealed to him who He was, and now he is able to worship Him.
JT That is what we shall come to in our inquiries, any of us who prosper. From the time his eyes were opened something is developing in this man, preparing him for the Lord’s proposal. He is being prepared for the Lord’s proposal, that is, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?”. ‘You, yourself, do you believe on the Son of God?’ He is being developed for that. “And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?”. He is ready for it.
RK Would the acceptance of reproach help us in arriving at this truth of the Son of God? It says he was cast out.
JT What develops in him culminates in that, “They cast him out”. He is excommunicated. It [p. 302] says that the Jews had agreed already that anyone confessing Him to be the Christ should be excommunicated, and when that happened it led the Lord to move. He is waiting for that, and He is waiting for everyone who is not excommunicated, or who has not withdrawn from iniquity. The Lord is waiting for us to move. He has been cast out, so we should withdraw. When they cast the man out, heaven is waiting, the Lord is waiting for the right moment, the right occurrence, and then it says He found him.
OL It is not so much what is known generally as the world’s system that we have to be delivered from, but we have to be delivered from what there is of a religious character.
JT That is right. It is either that I withdraw from it, or that I am so faithful to Christ that they excommunicate me. It is either one or the other. Here it is to bring out the hatred there was to Christ in the Jewish system. They had already taken up stones to cast at Him, and had agreed already that anyone confessing Him to be the Christ should be excommunicated. That is what this man’s confession amounted to, and so they excommunicate him.
The woman of Samaria had already brought out the subject of the Christ, that He was the Christ. We are going to get more here than that. The man is excommunicated, but it brings out the great thought of the Son of God, the Lord greatly helping us in regard to sonship, as inaugurating a new order of things. Excommunicated from one order of things, but set up in another order of things. I am a fit subject for the new order of things as being excommunicated.
AH Why was it necessary for the application of the clay and the washing? The Lord might have spoken to the blind man and he would have received sight.
[p. 303] JT That is a good thing to bring up. He spoke to blind Bartimaeus. We are now in the presence of a deeper lesson. The lesson for us to learn is how the Son of God, the Lord, comes before us as mingling what was in Himself with what was on the ground. He spat on the ground and made mud, the word is ‘mud’, a mixture. It is not clay. Clay is already mixed. It alludes to a divine Person in humanity, that is the allusion. The spittle would allude spiritually to what is essential. It is the idea of essence, I think, so that it is a divine act. He made mud of the spittle and applied it to the man’s eyes. Now, that being so, is he ready to move out under authority, as a moral element? “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam”. We are told expressly that the word means ‘Sent’. Not only is the mud applied, but there is something in you which responds to the word. The moral element must be there to get the good of the humanity of Christ. The humanity of Christ by itself would make me worse, but if the moral element corresponding to the coming down of Christ is in me, then my eyes will be opened. It is the work of God that is in mind.
HS So that the work of God was not hindered; it progressed from “A man called Jesus” to the Son of God.
JT That is right. It is progressive, the principle of development. The incarnation implies the work of God, a mighty work. What the enemy has been doing lately is to obscure the incarnation, make little or nothing of it. A divine Person coming into manhood has been put in obscurity by those who refuse the truth. It is a mighty operation of God.
He made mud of the spittle and applied it to the man, on his eyes; He made ointment of it and anointed his eyes. It is a dignified word in that sense. Now that is one feature, but the other is,
[p. 304] what would the man do? Is he amenable to divine direction? That is the next thing.
The incarnation is one operation, the second is something in that man’s soul which brings him into accord with Christ as Son of God. As applied to Christ it means He is going into death, but that word ‘Sent’ must apply to the believer too.
HF This is a divine action. The Lord’s words had already been rejected and now His works are rejected.
JT That is what we shall come to, but we want to come to see that this work, this operation of God, alludes to Christ being rejected, a great thing in itself, involving a moral element. If I am subject to that, I am amenable to the divine work of God. “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam”. The man went.
JR Does this bring us into the power of chapter 1, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”? It is necessary for us to understand that.
JT That is the point. Am I going to turn aside to see that great sight? It says Moses turned aside to see the burning bush. The allusion is to the incarnation. When God saw he turned aside He called his name twice, “Moses, Moses!” (Exodus 3:4). That is important. “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” The man is in the mind of heaven. He is moving at the divine word. “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam”.
JR He is perfectly persuaded. He is conscious that he is the one. He says, “it is I”.
HEF So you would say God’s sovereignty and His work go hand in hand?
JT I would. Aside from the work of God in us there can be no result from God’s work in Christ in incarnation. The work of God must be effective in the man.
SWR Would you give us one or two remarks regarding these early steps of this man? [p. 305] Step by step he arrived at them and he makes certain confessions.
JT We have already touched on what he did at Siloam. Then the next thing is what his neighbours implied. They are not viewed as opposers. One’s neighbours are not normally opposers, nor is it wise to antagonise our neighbours, except by testimony. It is wise to keep on right terms with those next to us physically. This man does. It says about the neighbours, “The neighbours therefore, and those who used to see him before, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that was sitting and begging? Some said, It is he; others said, No, but he is like him: he said, It is I. They said therefore to him, How have thine eyes been opened? He answered and said, A man called Jesus made mud and anointed mine eyes, and said to me, Go to Siloam and wash: and having gone and washed, I saw”; that is, the moral element was in him. That is the point to be noticed. He is speaking to his neighbours and he says, “I saw”. It is the past tense in that sense, an historical fact, what had happened. When the Pharisees want to know he mentions it in the present tense, “I see”. ‘You do not’, really that is the inference, but in the case of the neighbours he simply told them a historical fact. If a man asks you when you were converted you tell him, so many years ago. You could tell him how it happened; be neighbourly, he might be interested. If he is a religious elder in the place, a Pharisee, a man leading others, it is not then a question of what is historical, but what you are now. To the neighbours he said, “I saw”, an historical fact, but then it says, “They bring him who was before blind to the Pharisees. Now it was sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes”. Now we come to the religious side of the matter, the sabbath must come into mind, representing legal conditions prevailing [p. 306] around us. It turns on that point. It says “The Pharisees therefore also again asked him how he received his sight. And he said to them, He put mud upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see. Some of the Pharisees therefore said, This man is not of God, for he does not keep the Sabbath”. The neighbours do not say anything like that. The man told them a historical fact, but to the Pharisees he says, “I see”, and the question of the sabbath is there, so now they say, “This man is not of God”. We must be prepared for that. The believer, having Christ as Son of God in his soul must be prepared for opposition from leading religionists in the place.
HS So you would say the Pharisees admitted him in their synagogue as he was blind, but now he can see they refuse to have him. A man who can see is not admitted by the Pharisees of christendom.
JT No, he is going to be a disturber. They did not care for that man. Once he sees, there is opposition aroused at once. “Some of the Pharisees therefore said, This man is not of God for he does not keep the Sabbath”. It is a convenient excuse to oppose, a question of the sabbath, but what about the man who sees? That is nothing to them. He is not a comfortable person to have there, because they do not see, they are blind.
We are in the presence of a very deep truth here. It is a question of the incarnation and its application to men, one of the deepest and most important truths we can learn. Dipping in Jordan is a question of the death of Christ, it is His death. Here we are first faced with the incarnation; do I understand it? Then there is its application to me, and do I move according to it? Am I moving in accordance with the requirements of the light which shines in the incarnation? Siloam means ‘Sent’. Jordan is not that. Jordan flows. It is a river that has the power of death, but representative of the death of Christ,
[p. 307] so that the leper plunged into it, but he is not obedient at the first. This man was the subject of the work of God, and there is no defect in the man at all, no discrepancy in the work of God developing in him.
Rem That is what really affected the neighbours, the evidence of this work in the man. The position was that he had been sitting and begging but now he is moving under the Lord’s direction.
JT Quite so. It is the work of God. He is moving under the Lord’s direction, and that is the point he makes to the neighbours.
Rem This man now seeing brought in exposure.
JT Well, he did, and you can understand it. If you are moving in a religious community and the leading religious people know that you were converted last night and you show it, you are developing, not simply occupied with what happened last night. When you are talking to the neighbours you are, but when talking to the religious leaders you are not simply occupied with what happened last night, but what you are this very moment as you are talking to them. That is the point, because after all a historical conversion may not mean very much if I have not gone on with it. The religious leaders see this man is advancing rapidly. They had known him before, but now he is a different man, and so they say, as it were, ‘We must look after this man, he may upset our position here’. So they conveniently bring up the sabbath by way of opposition. They do not like having a man with his eyes opened in the community.
Ques The blind man received his natural and spiritual sight at the same time?
JT The spiritual side is the point now; you see.
Ques Was it the same with Paul?
JT Quite so. He saw as a Pharisee, but he is made blind for three days. He realises what it is to be blind, and then his eyes are opened.
[p. 308] Rem He was not blind all his lifetime, only three days.
JT Yes, that he might realise what spiritual blindness is.
LAMR Would it be right to say that washing in Jordan has to do with sin, but washing in Siloam has to do with delivering us from all that sin has introduced here?
JT Well, it alludes to that. This operation alludes to complete deliverance from the world. It operates through the eyes. The eyes represent the intelligence in the believer. The eye lets in the light, the ear lets in the words. The point is I get light in a remarkable way, and it becomes operative in me. It does not become darkness. “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great the darkness!” (Matthew 6:23). In this man it shone more brilliantly, increased in brilliancy as it went on.
Ques “Loose him and let him go”. Would the work developing be illustrative of this condition in the man, involving complete deliverance from everything?
JT It is more illustrative of the progressive side of our subject than the beginning. This man, I think, represents that side more than any, the progressive effect of the work of God in the soul, and it is stressed and enlarged on here, so that each might see what precedes the Son of God being in us. Paul says, God “was pleased to reveal his Son in me” (Galatians 1:16). That is a striking word. The revelation was made to Peter, but Paul says, “in me”. So that it represents the idea of the Son of God being in a person.
OL Were certain moral features in this man brought about in Nicodemus? How does he stand in contrast to this man in approaching the Lord?
JT He does not go so far. The best word from Nicodemus was, “We know that thou art come a teacher from God”. He knew that much, but he does not progress, he remains in the council, he does [p. 309] not get deliverance. This man progresses at once, and they excommunicated him. A great service they rendered to him, because as soon as the Lord heard that, He found him. Definite migration you see here. It is the development of the work of God in the believer, so that it might be said of him that the Son of God was in that man.
JEW Would the confession of the blind man in verse 32 suggest that the greatest Person in the universe was in their presence? “Since time was, it has not been heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind”.
JT You marvel at a man blind from birth, who could not have known much in an ordinary sense, one who could not read or be educated, you marvel at him being able to say what he says here. The steady progress in his soul is intended to impress us by the Spirit of God. So that he is being fitted in all this for the great fact of this coming disclosure to his soul of the Son of God, that this Person should be in him.
SWR Is it not true that every step you take in faith leads you on to another?
JT That is how it works. We have to note what was said by the Pharisees in verse 24, “They called therefore a second time the man who had been blind, and said to him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is sinful”. They had already asked his parents, who had said, “He is of age: ask him”. And they called him a second time; this second time is to be a noted time for further consideration. The first interview with this man led to a division. “Some of the Pharisees therefore said, This man is not of God, for he does not keep the sabbath. Others said, How can a sinful man perform such signs?”. This division is to be noted as in John’s gospel, making way for the truth. When we come to chapter 10 the Jews surround the Lord, but not yet. While there is a division a way is being made for the truth.
The second time they say, “Give glory to God: we know this man is sinful”. They are advancing in their attack. “He answered therefore, If he is sinful I know not. One thing I know, that, being blind before, now I see”. He returns to that great point, the actual change that had come about in him, and now he undertakes to defend the Lord, but the point is what he is, what a person is who is thus affected. So in verse 26 they said to him again, “What did he do to thee? how opened he thine eyes?”. Now you say, Why does he not patiently tell them over again? He does not, because he is becoming military now. We were speaking the other night about the king’s son that if he was to be brought out, the truth spread abroad, the military element must be present with us as well as the priest and Levite, and captains there too. This man is becoming military in his attitude. “He answered them, I told you already and ye did not hear: why do ye desire to hear again? do ye also wish to become his disciples?” That is, I think, very fine, because he is a soldier of Jesus Christ; we cannot carry the truth forward unless we come out in military boldness and skill too. Then it says, “They railed at him”. They are being exposed. The enemy is being brought out into the open. That is how the truth is set up in a locality — first neighbours, then religious leaders. The neighbours are neighbourly in this way, but these men are against Christ. You can have nothing to do with them when they say Christ is sinful. You cannot be neighbour to people like that. You must fight those people, take up a soldierly attitude. That is what he does. What can railing do? They are exposed and that is all the enemy can do.
HS So you would say he is a good brother. ‘At every step afresh we prove, How surely Thou dost guide’ (271:[p. 311] 2).
JT It is the work of God, the military thought coming to light. A good neighbour answers in a way that might help them, but with the Pharisees it is different when they say Christ is sinful. I must take up my sword in defence if I love Christ.
HS So you would connect this man with the tribe of Levi, he girds on his sword?
JT It is just what he did.
HF He is brought into the light and makes progress.
JT Quite so; one feature of the works of God after another develops in this man. Now he is a good soldier of Jesus Christ. I must develop this military quality if the Son of God is to be in me. “They railed at him”. This attitude exposed them. If anyone starts railing he is exposing himself. What good is that? Railing is sinful.
ADR Does the man put on the whole “panoply of God” here?
JT That is what we have to do to be good soldiers. So it says, “They railed at him, and said, Thou art his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses”. Now they are disclosing their affiliations; they belong to the old economy, it may be judaism or heathendom. They are standing fast by the old thing that God has discarded, Moses’ disciples, and they go on to say, “We know that God spoke to Moses; but as to this man, we know not whence he is”. Now we know where they are. The next thing is, “The man answered and said to them, Now in this is a wonderful thing, that ye do not know whence he is, and he has opened mine eyes. But we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone be God-fearing and do his will, him he hears. Since time was, it has not been heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind. If this man were not of God he would be able to do nothing”. There is a speech! He is not saying things because he hears [p. 312] others saying them. He is working things out logically, irresistibly. All they can do now is to cast him out.
BB It says, “And as he passed on, he saw a man”, in verse 1. In Mark 10, referring to Bartimaeus, it says, “And having heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean” passing by, he cried out to Him, and Jesus commanded him to be brought to Him and asked him what he wanted; but in this case Jesus passed by and saw the man. Is there any difference between them?
JT That is a very good contrast. You are drawing attention to blind Bartimaeus, that as Jesus of Nazareth passed by, he called out to Him. That is the Lord putting Himself in the way of one who was in need, and do I take advantage of Him? But here it is the works of God. He is working sovereignly, so the blind man does not make any appeal to the Lord. It is the divine side entirely here, and we all have to admit, and do readily, if we love the Lord, that our history confirms that were it not for the sovereign act of God, where would any of us be?
Ques Does it give us the thought of seeing, hearing and knowing?
JT Seeing is with the eye, hearing with the ear, and knowing is with the mind, all alluding to faculties God has given us, but the point stressed here is seeing. It is what the eye lets in, the light. You can see how, as we were saying, the light becomes more and more brilliant as it shines in the man. “If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body will be light” (Matthew 6:22). It comes out here in the works of God, hence we get the military side with the other sides, all features of the works of God.
LAMR “But we know that God does not hear sinners”. Souls who are unconverted sometimes speak to you. They say they are praying, asking God to help them to please Him. Would God hear such,
[p. 313] as being still in their sinful state? The statement by the man who was blind is, “God does not hear sinners”.
JT So that a wicked man, or an unconverted person may tell us he has been praying and nothing has come of it. Is that your thought?
LAMR Yes.
JT Well, you can understand that. He is asking amiss, he may be asking amiss, but where God works in a man and he cries out as a sinner, “God, have compassion on me, the sinner”, that would not come in here. What are the man’s prayers for? Ask him what is the subject of his prayers, what the motive of them, because the wail of a repentant man is heard in heaven, and answered too!
HS You would say that if the works of God are made manifest in that brother, delivering him from man’s system of things, and causing him to know Christ as Son of God, he will never turn back there.
JT That is the point, the Son of God is in him. “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” The Lord waited for this to happen. He was excommunicated before the Lord found him. Where was the Lord all this time? Spiritually He was watching all that was happening, wherever He was. It was a matter of deepest concern to Him. He watches for the proper time and finds the man when he is excommunicated, and now He says, Are you ready for this great fact, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?”
HS So we have a good sister in John 4, and now a good brother.
JT He only mentioned Jesus here. Had he ever heard of the Son of God? That is the question. The work of God leads to that, and the Lord knew it would lead to that, that the man would be ready for this disclosure that the Person who had opened his eyes was the [p. 314] Son of God.
HS When he knew He was Son of God he worshipped. At the Supper on the Lord’s day he would be a good brother.
JT Just so, he worshipped the Son of God; and He is entitled to our worship.
Ques Would you say seeing puts one in responsibility, and he moves on that line?
JT Quite.
RHK Would you say this man reached a point where God dwelt in him, and he in Him?
JT Quite.
AH Referring to the answer the Lord gave to His disciples in the third verse, “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him”, the works of God were now manifest.
JT Quite so, notice the word ‘manifested’. It is not simply that the works of God are in him, but they are manifest in him. What people see, that is the thing. If the Son of God is in me there is evidence of it.
HF Does he reach the climax here? From John the baptist speaking of Him as the Lamb of God, have we now come to the climax?
JT We do not reach the climax till we get to chapter 20. We are coming on here to the Minister of the sanctuary, the Son of God comes in as applied to the assembly, “the son abides for ever” (John 8:35).
HF The Son of God is a very high thought, the revelation of God.
JT It is a great thought, bringing in a new order of things, but we shall see something in Mary of Bethany beyond this, the family setting.
Rem “Ye are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men” (2 Corinthians 3:2).
JT That corresponds. It is what is manifest.