"BEGINNING" (4)
“BEGINNING” (4)
John 1:1 - 18; 1 John 1:1 - 10
JT The brethren will recall we began with the idea of the beginning so as to have the advantage of primary thoughts and how they run through; not simply in ordinary language but spiritual language; they run through. We just touched on John’s gospel, chapter 1, at the end of our meeting yesterday and it is thought that we should resume the thought as to it. It is one of the most important passages, if not the most important, in the whole of the Bible bearing on what we are engaged with, for it is a question in John 1 of God; God in the three Persons who compose or form the Deity. So that the general proposal is to look at John’s gospel again this morning, and in the afternoon John’s epistle. In fact, the thought is that we should link on John’s gospel with the first chapter of the epistle, leaving the balance of the epistle or any thoughts that may be in mind for the afternoon reading.
In looking into John’s gospel and his writings generally, it may be remarked that they are included, although late, in the general thought of revelation which marks Christianity. There seems to have been a need for a restatement of facts (John’s gospel evidently coming in the latest of all in the written page) from the purely spiritual standpoint and, of course, therefore, the standpoint of inspiration. Much had been written, too, in the way of description and history, but the gospel of John seems to fit in to give us authoritatively an account of things spiritually; so that the history of Christianity would be on a sure basis and run on to the end, John having been in mind when the Lord said, “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?” John 21:22.
[p. 70] It was a matter for the Lord to decide as to whether John should tarry until He returned, but evidently the Lord meant that His coming should be prolonged and not so immediate as might have been thought. Prolongation seemed to be a feature in that sense of this section of Scripture. And so the idea of the beginning marks the gospel of John as it does the book of Genesis, only the gospel of John, as has been remarked, deals with Christianity, the greatest of all dispensations; and, indeed, one might say, the last word as to everything for all the dispensations come upon us, Paul says. And now it behoves us, if we look into the thing rightly, to fix our minds on the Person of the Lord Jesus; not as in John’s epistle because it is the neuter word there, “that which”, whereas in the gospel it is, “In the beginning was the Word”. That is, it is purely personal, and it is what is to be predicated of Him personally, extending back to His place in the Deity; not only in time but in the Deity, because it is not only that the Word was in the beginning, but the Word was with God-the idea of the association of the Word with God, and then that He was God. So that there will be no question in any mind save a reprobate one as to the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that He is the same Person in the Deity as He is in humanity, only His condition is outwardly changed in humanity. And so this section of the gospel, that is to the end of verse 18, includes the idea of the incarnation; not only the personal existence of the Lord in the Deity but His incarnate condition. Therefore, we have comprehensive facts which may be distributed right down the dispensation, and have been, too; the root facts distributed in the power of the Spirit, and, of course, that is greatly stressed in John’s gospel-the presence of the Holy Spirit.
LES Was the first heresy that arose in order to weaken the truth as to the Lord’s Person, as to His [p. 71] incarnation and what lay behind His incarnation? It was the effort of the enemy to weaken the whole substantiality of the dispensation.
JT Yes; it was an attack, a direct attack on God but especially on the One who became incarnate; “The Word was God” it says. We are hardly capable of taking on negative features such as were involved in the attack, but John takes it up. It runs through his writings. The negative side of things, of course, was of the devil. Our wisdom now is to occupy ourselves with the positive side and become conversant with the roots of language and thought that enter into the doctrine of Christianity.
JTJr The introduction of the personal pronoun would help us, too, in verse 2: “He was in the beginning with God”.
JT That is the Word being alluded to. The idea was that a word was available for use to designate the Person, and hence the emphatic pronoun in the beginning of verse 2, “He”.
SMcC Would you say something as to this appellation — “the Word”. Do you think it came out while the Lord was here among His disciples, or did it come out after the Spirit descended? It does not seem to be something revealed to them, but something that came out among them.
JT It was something they were conversant with. The disciples were conversant with the thought. The word evidently had become known, had become current, and what is said of it is in keeping with what has been remarked already; that is, it is a word that was intended to be known and useable and therefore the importance of knowing the meaning of it. It is one of the features that we are engaged with in the idea of the beginning, because it is said immediately, “In the beginning was the Word”.
ANW The identity of the Person both in Deity and manhood is established, but have you anything [p. 72] to say as to the form of Deity in relation to the form of manhood?
JT Well, it is remarkable that Paul, although he is not the one that the Lord selected to write this gospel (it is John, the disciple whom He loved, not Paul) yet it is remarkable that he furnishes us with what is essential to John’s ministry. What he furnishes us with is in Philippians 2:5, “For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form, taking his place in the likeness of men; and having been found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of the cross”. It is Paul that God selects to make this statement, and it is made in connection with the need for humility in dealing with the great subject; that it is in no way a matter to be dealt with academically but spiritually. It means we must be spiritual and if we are not spiritual then there is a test: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. So that Paul becomes the test in view of doctrine, and especially systematic doctrine, and system in every way, in the spiritual sense. He selects Paul who is the great builder or constructor of the assembly; so that the idea of structure must be before us and at the same time the spirit of humility is to be maintained — grown in — so as to handle such a holy subject.
SJH Does the title “the Word” imply that there is more to be conveyed now, more than just a breathing into man? There is an expansion. There is more to be conveyed.
JT That is, I would say, right. We have to link on now with the book of Acts and the gospel of Luke, too, of course; but the gospel of Luke was very early.
[p. 73] The book of Acts is clearly later, but the gospel of John still later, and what has been said is, I am sure, right. There was evidently the need of something to be added in the sense of logos, that which denotes what is in the mind of God. It may not be yet declared, but it is in the mind of God, for “the Word” denotes or implies not only what is said or declared, but what may be said. So that as we noted yesterday in Genesis 8 God said certain things in His heart. They can hardly be called yet ‘the word’ because they are not spoken, but they are said in some sense in God’s heart and that is the idea. What we are engaged with now may include what is in the heart of God as well as what is spoken, only we have to add to that, that Paul says he completed the word of God; so that there is nothing new now to be revealed. Everything is out. It is a question of our knowing how to deal with what is out; that is to say, what is put into language.
FNW In 1 Corinthians 1 the note to the word logos reads, “Thus all that communicates the divine mind (the intelligible) is logos, and first of all Christ himself”. Does that suggest there is more in a way to come out?
JT There was then, but there is not now, because the word is completed; Paul says, to complete the word of God. That is to say, the whole scope of the divine mind is out in that sense.
JMcK Does verse 14 of this chapter help? “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. Is that the whole thing brought out now?
JT Yes; it is a question of the Person. He dwelt among us. That is, He became incarnate.
The word is ‘tabernacled’; He tabernacled among us, so that you could converse with Him and He with you. No doubt that could be said even before this gospel is written, but this gospel being written was Intended to cover Him in this [p. 74] word.
AR The two that followed the Lord in chapter 1 understood this word; they called Him ‘Rabbi’, which means ‘Teacher’.
JT That is right. They felt the need of being taught which is what we need now. We all need to be taught and that is why they used that word; and, moreover, that is what Mary Magdalene meant in using it, too, that He was her Teacher, that she had no other. So that that restricts us in dipping into things that we have not seen. She would confine herself to what came out through Christ.
CAM If I understand your expression Paul enunciated the doctrine in a systematic way so that we would rightly study the Person of Christ in John’s gospel. Is that right? You were alluding to the teaching in the epistle and with that we can study his last writing as to the Person of Christ. It would guide our thoughts in our occupation with His Person in the John setting.
JT Paul and John and Peter are clearly linked up with deep affection. The facts relative to them would indicate that; and we have often mentioned as to the great servant that has been used of God to bring all these things to us, so that we should have them as we have them now, that he said to the brethren — as he was about to die — to cleave to Paul, but do not forget John, he said, meaning what we are dealing with now; we are not forgetting John. We are looking into John, at the same time we have inwardly deep down in our hearts that we must cleave to Paul. Therefore, the systematic side must be kept in mind.
JTJr Would the systematic side be suggested in the first few verses of Luke’s gospel — the method, the accuracy?
JT Undoubtedly Luke was taken up with that in mind. He was an elect vessel. He mentions in his second treatise that Paul was an elect vessel unto the [p. 75] Lord. The Lord regarded him in that light. So the systematic side being involved in Paul’s ministry has to be kept in view. John is dealing more with the personal side, what is in the Person of Christ; what is in the Deity, in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Of course, the system is in mind, too, but Paul stresses the system, systematic teaching.
AR Would that be seen in the school of Tyrannus?
JT Quite so; so long as you have the idea of a school, a teacher, a man that would demand that you should learn and be attentive. If we do not go too fast, we are coming now to the idea of the system side and Luke is taken up for that purpose. He tells us in his very first words in his gospel, “Forasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a relation concerning the matters fully believed among us”. This is just what we have been saying — what was current among the brethren; things that were fully believed. There was real faith in them, “as those who from the beginning were eye — witnesses of and attendants on the Word have delivered them to us, it has seemed good to me also, accurately acquainted from the origin with all things, to write to thee with method, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed”. Luke 1:2 - 4. So that now we are led into Luke. We have already been thinking of Paul, the systematic side particularly in Paul, but Luke runs with Paul, if we may use that word, as understanding the systematic side of the truth. And so he would write to this beloved Theophilus who, no doubt, may be taken as a representative person at that time, a person capable of learning, so that he should learn with method; that he should have the true facts of the case and get them with method.
SP Is it suggested in the last chapter of 2 Timothy, Paul speaking of certain ones: “Demas [p. 76] has forsaken me, having loved the present age, and is gone to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me”, 2 Timothy 4:10. As if what was needed would be there regardless of any deflection.
JT Just so. Then we have to think of the person who is mentioned; who Luke is. So when Paul is at the height of his work, that is, in Acts 20, it is mentioned that certain ones were in the company; they accompanied him. They were not simply under his rule exactly as Timothy was, but they were companions; companions in the service, and the first one mentioned is a Berean. We may link that thought up with Luke, because the idea of a Berean is he is very concerned about having things right and proving the things that are said in ministry to see whether they are so, and proving them daily.
APT The facts of the incarnation being in Luke, would it be right to say it is not because Luke was a servant but because he was spiritually minded?
JT I would think so. There was a selection made. We were speaking of that the other day, selection being made of ministers according to the need and evidently there was great need according to the facts of Luke for a man like Luke.
JH He uses the word ‘origin’. Does that refer to the incarnation, in verse 3?
JT “It has seemed good to me also, accurately acquainted from the origin with all things”, Luke 1:3. That is to say, you now have in mind as to whether it is a question of the incarnation, but I would think it is what occurred before the incarnation that is in mind, but inclusive of the incarnation. So that Luke does not begin with the incarnation; he begins with Zacharias because it was a question of stating things as they were carried down from the Old Testament. Really that is what is in mind, the merging of things [p. 77] from Old Testament times into New Testament times. It was the skill that was needed for that.
ABP Do you think our ability to enjoy John’s ministry lies largely in the place we have given to Paul’s ministry?
JT Everything must eventually come under Paul. Although years elapsed from the record of Acts 2 until chapter 9, yet everything awaited Paul in that sense. It was necessary that he should come. The Lord had designed that he should come, and he was said to be taken up from his birth. So that the wholly right seed should be there; such as was needed at that time and it is needed at all times. There should be selections, persons suitable in crises, persons who can be relied upon to give the facts.
EAL Do we see that in Paul’s opening to Timothy? He embraces him as his own true child in faith, and then gives him instructions to keep clear of all those interminable genealogies, as if he had in his mind that he was a true child in faith, and the genealogy was going forward in teaching in that way.
JT Quite so. Therefore, we can see the full bearing of what is said in 1 and 2 Timothy, that there should be an avoidance of all fables or anything like fables, so that the truth should be with the brethren, and that is where Luke stands, I think, in the selection of ministers.
GMacPh John gives the kind of features that are substantially seen in the assembly in the face of public break-down, so that the assembly in principle from John’s writings and from Paul’s is going through.
JT The linking of those two men as they are in affection, because Paul sought out Peter and then John — these three were especially linked, I would say, in the beginning, was in order that we should have the pure facts of the history of Christianity.
RRT You have been suggesting emphasising [p. 78] the thought of beginning, and I was wondering according to Mr. Darby’s note in relation to verse 14 that we have been speaking of, that we have in particular a beginning here. That is, grace and truth began to subsist. The note says, ‘(The world’began to be’through him. He’became’flesh. So’grace and truth came into being’. I am not satisfied with’subsists’, but’came’gives the idea of coming into the world. They began to exist de facto down here. The verb is singular, and’grace and truth’go together in the person of Christ. Nothing subsisted by the law, it was a rule given; but grace and truth actually commenced to be, not in God’s mind, of course, but in revelation and actual existence down here)’. I was wondering if this beginning would fit in with your thought in general of beginning.
JT It does; only historically the word ‘beginning’, precedes what you are speaking of. That is to say, the beginning of things in Christ actually; so that it is not simply the incarnation here at first; the incarnation is a little later. The incarnation is in verse 14. The Word became flesh; but what we are now committing ourselves to is the beginning of everything. Whatever it could be or whatever it was the Word, the Person designated here as the Word, was there. He did not begin there. We should see how the idea of beginning comes in in that sense in John’s epistle, but in this gospel the beginning is of everything; whatever could be called beginning; whatever you may think of or say, the Word was there. So that the soul is impregnated with the idea of the eternity of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom we call the second Person of the Deity; that He was there, and not only so, but He was with God there. He was associated with God there and not only that but He Himself was God. So that you can have nothing more plainly and firmly stated than the words we [p. 79] have here. It is for us to get the idea in our souls as to the Person of the Lord Jesus.
JH The beginning precedes the “all things” in verse 3.
JT It does.
NB I wondered why Luke carries forward the title of the period of the Lord’s humanity in verse 2 of his gospel: “those who ... were eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word”.
JT It is because he was in the current conversation of the moment; holy conversation it would be, of course, because they were all believers. The conversation included the Lord Jesus, and Luke is saying that there were those who were eye-witnesses of and attendants on Him, so that Luke is going to say things that can be counted as reliable, absolutely reliable, as inspired.
SMcC In regard to our brother’s remark, is it not important that the ‘Word’ is an appellation that is connected with the Lord in humanity? It does not belong to Him in the pre-incarnate conditions in Deity; it is not carried forward from the pre-incarnate condition of Deity into humanity.
JT That is good to make that clear. It acquired currency, it acquired use among the early believers and it had become known among them. Luke takes it up as John does only not in the same depth in which John does but it is the same Person.
RRT And when it says, “And the Word became flesh” it does not mean that He was known as the Word before He became flesh.
JT It does not. That is the thing that ought to be kept clear in our minds, in our present inquiry. It has been the subject of controversy for many a day as to whether Sonship in Christ and the Word in Christ here are expressions that could be carried back into the circumstances or conditions of Deity. They refer to the Lord becoming Man in humanity — [p. 80] the humanity of Christ. That is where they are to be understood.
JWW Would Luke help us to understand the first line of that hymn, “Thou art the blest incarnate Word” (11:1)?
JT Quite so. That had to be gone into very carefully. It took much time to go into all that, because the subject was very much on the minds of the brethren at the time. It was necessary for those engaged in the revision of the hymn book to go into all these attendant facts so that the truth should get into our hymns; that we should sing the truth. The best way of getting things is to sing them. “Thou art the blest incarnate Word” (11:1) is accurate.
ANW What has just been said about the Word would equally apply to the appellation ‘Christ Jesus’ in Philippians 2. “Christ Jesus; who, subsisting in the form of God”, verse 6. We have no difficulty about that. Why should we have any difficulty about the Word?
JT Quite so. The term ‘Christ Jesus’ is already known and spoken of. It belongs to the earliest breathings of the Spirit in relation to Christianity and so the use of the word logos; only it required more place because of learning having to be dealt with. Much learning was brought into Christianity, by persons who would, perhaps, oppose it or nullify it or discredit it, and this learning had to be met and it was met in the writings of John. Hence the expression ‘John’s simple page’ as over against what the human mind would evolve from the use of books; books that were spoken of at Ephesus; fifty thousand pieces of silver, it was said, was the price; showing how much there was in the sense of books to be met. And John’s writings are intended in that sense to meet that, and it was the most simple of all language, and yet the most profound.
SMcC You have pointed out yourself that even [p. 81] the prepositions, small as they may seem, in this chapter are like a sword turning every way to guard the truth regarding the Person of our Lord.
JT Quite so. The Lord helped the brethren. He helped us, and hence, I believe, the truth remains with us. There may be some defects in some of these hymns yet, but in general the truth remains in the writings.
JRH Would you say a little more about the value of hymns? You spoke of them as the best way to get the truth into us.
JT I do not know, but I would say the use of poetry is divine; it is of God. Exodus 15 may be cited as showing how the truth was interwoven in poetry and song; it is sung by Moses and the children of Israel, and then Miriam is brought into it to confirm it femininely; that is, to make the thing feminine in its character and attractive in that sense.
SMcC Do you have any difficulty in singing hymn 1?
JT I would be afraid to bring that up because we have not time, but I would say in brief the hymn will need to be revised to make it fit in with the truth, if the Lord sees fit to have a revision, which is a question now. If there has to be one, of course, the matter will have to come up.
Ques Those that have attacked the Scriptures have attacked our hymns as well.
JT Just so. What has been just said ought to be carried through in our minds, but there is not time now to discuss the question of hymns, as to whether some of them might not be deleted or revised. That is open to a question.
EGMcA Do the first eighteen verses of this chapter lay before us the essential principles opened up in Christianity regarding the deity of Christ, His coming into manhood, the existence of grace and truth and the revelation of God? Are they not the foundation [p. 82] of the truth which the enemy would attack and which we are to be well formed in?
JT That is what I would say exactly. If we go through John’s gospel we shall have to take up things that are somewhat looser than the wording in this chapter, but I would say that what you said is about the truth. These eighteen verses cover the whole matter. They are really prefatory in that sense covering the whole book. After we look briefly into them we can very well proceed in this reading and retain in our minds that these verses are prefatory and cover the whole of John’s gospel, and such an expression as John himself uses when he uses the word ‘also’, which is remarkable, in keeping with Paul’s way in 1 Corinthians. He used a similar form. John says, “I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written”, John 21:25. So that we can see how the river widens out into infinitude. That is the very word also in John’s mind. The work was so wonderful and enormous that he has to say, “I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written”, John 21:25. I think we can leave it just in that sense; leave our minds open to these wonderful things and look into them and learn them. So far we have dealt with the Lord’s humanity and now we have to come down to the incarnation. We have spoken of Him in the state of Deity. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. That is so far what we have. “He was in the beginning with God”. Then we have the statement as to creation. “All things received being through him, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being”. That is a settled matter as to creation. Then in verse 4, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. You might say that is covered in the incarnation. So it is; but it is not stressed here as to incarnation. It is simply a question that life was [p. 83] in Christ and that it was light. The life was the light of men. Life began light. Life is substantial; light is hardly that, although we must depend on what is substantial for it. Light is the thing we are now to think of, and it was for men, not for angels. We cannot branch out into the angelic order of being or the realm of angels. We confine ourselves to men in our consideration of the matter. We are dealing with men. The light is for them and, therefore, angels can hardly enter into the thing fully. They cannot learn things as we do.
CHH Would they be included in verse 3? They received their being through Him. That would be a greater thought than Genesis.
JT Just so.
ANW Is man included in the “all things”?
JT “All things received being through him, and without him not one thing received being which has received being”. I suppose it covers the universe in the sense of creation — “all things”.
SMcC Does the mediatorial side enter into that verse: “All things received being through him”, or is it rather the Source side, He being God, that is in mind?
JT Well, it is more personal, I would think. God is dealing with them personally. The mediatorial side comes in more accurately in Hebrews: “by whom also he made the worlds”, Hebrews 1:2. That is instrumental; but I would take this to be entirely Himself. “All things received being through him, and without him not one thing received being which has received being”. The flesh “received being”. You might say, well, God was the Author of the action, but I think it is better to leave it as it is. The Person who is acting is Himself, the divine Person, and He is God Himself. So that we can leave out stressing the mediatorial side here.
CAM The expression is used to the church in Laodicea: “the beginning of the creation of God”, Revelation 3:14 in speaking of the Person of Christ.
JT Without saying He is the Creator; although it is inferred, but that is another setting of things. He is the beginning of the creation of God.
WB In Hebrews it says, “upholding all things by the word of his power”, Hebrews 1:3. That is the Son’s power. Does that fit in?
JT Well, that is mediatorial. I am very doubtful about stressing that side here because the point is to bring out the Deity of the Lord Jesus Himself. He is Himself God and He can do things; not in the mediatorial sense simply, but being God He can do things of Himself.
ASB How do you understand “being”, “all things received being”?
JT The word “being” there would be having come into existence. Things came into evidence and, of course, we could look into Hebrews if we had time, but we have not, but when we have time we can look into Hebrews from the mediatorial side and see how the ‘being’ has not come about of the things that are made. It is purely a matter of God. That matter flows out from what God is, if the brethren follow what I am saying in Hebrews 11. “For in the power of this the elders have obtained testimony. By faith we apprehend that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that that which is seen should not take its origin from things which appear”, Hebrews 11:2,3. That is what I was alluding to. The scientific men as they are called, would unravel everything and give account of everything. This passage refutes it all. “By faith we apprehend that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that that which is seen should not take its origin from things which appear”, Hebrews 11:3. That is to say, matter is not on the surface; it flows out from what God is. We cannot give an account of it either, save as [p. 85] from God.
ANW He created visible and invisible things. Would you suggest some of the invisible things?
JT “The invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity”, Romans 1:20. Is that what you mean?
ANW I was thinking of Colossians: “because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible”, then what he goes on to say enlightens us, “whether thrones, [p. 86] or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him”, Colossians 1:16.
JT Your question is as to what is visible and invisible. It is a question of whether we can go into it. Pardon me for restricting us, but we have so little time and I would prefer to look into that matter, if the Lord will, as to what is visible and invisible. We can easily talk of what is visible at the present time. “The invisible things of him”, Romans 1:20. They are clearly seen; they are to be seen.
ANW The “all things” in verse 3 would cover everything of our chapter.
JT Just so; very good.
CHH In Colossians 1:16 you get both sides of the matter, the mediatorial side and what He did in His essential Being. The first ‘by’, would be similar to this verse in John; what He did in His essential Being, whereas the second ‘by’ is more what is mediatorial. I was referring to the two notes on the ‘by’.
JT We begin with love, that is in verse 13, “and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones,
or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him. And he is before all, and all things subsist together by him”, Colossians 1:13 - 17. What is your point, please?
CHH The first ‘by’, in verse 16 according to the note is what He did in His own essential being, but the other ‘by’ is what He did as a Mediator. I thought the first ‘by’, would correspond to John 1:3.
JT “By him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth” That is to say, that is His own action as God. Quite so. Then it goes on, “the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him”. That is the second ‘by’, you have in mind.
CHH That is mediatorial.
JT The first ‘by’ refers to note k which reads, “Lit. ‘in him’, in the power of whose person. He was the one whose intrinsic power characterised the creation. It exists as his creature”. Now let us get the next note, note b: “the instrumental power”. The one is the power in the Person and the other is the instrumental power, and the ‘eis’ is under note c: “’for’. These three prepositions, en, dia, eis, show Christ to be the characteristic power, the active instrument, and the end in creation”. I think there is a great deal of instruction in what you are calling attention to, quite in keeping with Colossians.
RWS The great person, the great creature in mind in all these creative acts is man. “The life was the light of men”. In all these created things you have been speaking of men are in mind as the greatest of all, corresponding with Genesis 2. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”.
JT Yes; you mean men are in view. Now if we can proceed to verse 4, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light [p. 87] appears in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not”. That was the position. The darkness continues; it is not dispersed. It does not apprehend things. That is the position up to verse 5. And then we have the question of how the Lord is light. “There was a man sent from God, his name John. He came for witness, that he might witness concerning the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but that he might witness concerning the light. The true light was that which, coming into the world, lightens every man”. So that Christ is light in the fourth day of Genesis 1. Christ is seen as light. He lightens every man. He sheds His light on every man and helps us to apprehend things as a man having his eyes opened; such as the Lord opening the eyes of the man at Bethsaida. He saw all things clearly. The whole realm of created things is in mind; not that man would see the whole thing at once, but the idea is what can be seen. Therefore, He sheds light on every man, so that they do not need to be pagans. They do not need to be Jews. The whole matter is in Christianity, and hence we have the account of Christianity in verse 11. “He came to his own, and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. So that we have the whole position now taken account of here in these verses, which are an epitome of the whole matter. That is the Christian, whatever others may say of him, has a right that no other has, and that is the right to be one of the children of God. Their birth, their origin is understood. It is not simply that they are created but they are born. They have a place as born; so that we have a full account of our position; whatever people may say, this is our position. We have a right to take the place of being children of God. “Not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”
GW Does Luke help us in relation to the words of Simeon? “A light for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel”, Luke 2:32.
JT Showing how things took form in the history of the truth; the Lord being in the arms of Simeon — he took the Babe in his arms — most touching, and said, “Lo, this child is set for the fall and rising up of many in Israel”, Luke 2:34. But He is for the revelation of the Gentiles. That is how Luke meets the matter, and, of course, it fits with John. He is the unveiling of things; therefore, in Luke and John we are enabled to take account of things as they are. After that we have an account of the incarnation itself in verse 14. We have the incarnation; that is the point. You get in these verses an epitome of the whole matter, so that we might well finish with these verses, if we did not have to touch a little on John’s epistle. We will have to devote nearly all the time this afternoon to John’s epistle, because it is a question of ‘that which’ was seen in the Person incarnate, in flesh and blood.
AR Is sonship in mind in incarnation according to verse 14?
JT Quite so. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth (John bears witness of him, and he has cried, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me); for of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace. For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. Therefore we have come to the end of the matter as an epitome, so that we will carry it [p. 89] in our minds.
RHS Does Paul fit in here? “And confessedly the mystery of piety is great. God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit”, 1 Timothy 3:16. “The Word became flesh”. It seems to be more the mystery side. John does not give an account of His birth, but he says, “The Word became flesh”. It is the mystery side.
JT It is. “And confessedly the mystery of piety is great”. The practical side of things as to the need of piety in our ministry. “God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit, has appeared to angels, has been preached among the nations, has been believed on in the world, has been received up in glory”, 1 Timothy 3:16. It might be regarded as a sort of poetic statement of the whole truth of Christianity, but very brief. Some think it is some piece of poetry that Paul would adduce to show what he was dealing with and setting out among the Gentiles.
Ques Why is there no mention of His death in that verse?
JT Just so; it is not put there. I suppose brevity was in mind, as it is always in mind when we are dealing with literature, especially poetry.
APT In John 1:2 it is the emphatic ‘He’. Does that refer to His deity? But then in the last clause of verse 18 it is the same ‘he‘ That is the same Person in Manhood.
JT The emphatic ‘He’ is in both verse 2 and verse 18, “he hath declared him”. The word ‘him’ is not in the original necessarily, but it may be. The idea is the declaration has come about and it has come about through this Person. It is a question of declaration, not revelation. “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]”. As if the idea of declaration is left open, but it is the Son who has done it, and only the Son who has done it. If we leave out the word ‘him’ that is the position.
[p. 90] It is left open, and hence the great stress is on declaration.
SMcC Do you regard the declaration as bearing back on, “No one has seen God at any time”, or does it refer to the Father that John alludes to later: “And I have made known to them thy name”, John 17:26?
JT I think this is wider and more like something that might happen in a court-house; a proclamation of some immense thing. The thing is declared officially without saying what it was. “He hath declared him”. The declaration is made, great as it is and perhaps unspoken but the idea is there of declaration, and it is public, a manifest thing, a declared thing.
ANW Therefore more God than the Father.
JT Quite so.
JAP Is that why in John 8 the Lord brings in His own deity? “Before Abraham was, I am”, (verse 58).
JT His deity is inferred in what is said here in the word ‘declared’. The emphatic ‘he‘ alludes to the fact that it is God Himself really. You understand that in your mind. No one has seen God but the declaration is made.
WMcK Would you help us as to why it is the Son rather than the Word?
JT It is to bring out the greatness of the Son and the place He has in affection. We have already touched on it in Colossians. “The kingdom of the Son of his love”, Colossians 1:13. We have already had that in Colossians, but now it is a question of declaration, and it is a question of a Person; the place He has in love, because the passage really deals with that. “No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. It is a beautiful expression that could apply to no one but the Son of God, that is to say, the second Person in the Deity-the Person who can Himself say He is God. “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”. That is to say, it brings out the personal place He has with the Father. What a place He has in the circle of the Deity, as we may say. He is predominant in activity. He is the doer of things and if it be a question of declaration He does it. Whatever the thing is, He does it. And “the only-begotten Son” is a question of affection. The preposition is ‘in’. That is to say, He has come into the position. He has come into it, which means plainly it was not a question of eternal existence. He did not come into that, but He came into Sonship. That is the point in this verse, that He has come into it. The preposition means that. He has come into Sonship. He has come into that place and in that place He makes the declaration. So that love is bound up in it, and He is bound up in love.
GMacPh Does this link up with Genesis 1? God Himself in creation, and now in the creation He must make declaration?
JT I would go with that. If you bring Genesis 2 into it; only the position here is greater than that.
“The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. He has come into it, only it refers to Him as Man. The point is to show He is that. No one could bear this title but Himself. He is the only-begotten Son. It could not be applied to the Spirit or the Father. The application is to the Son, the second Person.
CHH Would declaration apply to revelation?
JT I think revelation is more personal. I was alluding to the idea of a court-house; the president’s proclamation-anything of that kind. It is official; but then here the point is to stress it is the Person who makes it.