THE FLOCK AND THE BODY
[p. 91] THE FLOCK AND THE BODY
John 10: 15, 16; 1 Corinthians 12: 12 - 27
JT One has in mind to link on the thought of the flock to the thought of the body.
The flock suggests an object of care. The idea of the body is testimony. The setting of the flock, as in John 10, links on with chapter 9, in which the blind man who has had his eyes opened is seen as cast out. It was said of old, “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up”. Psalm 27: 10. Chapter 9 shows how a rejected, cast out believer is taken up by the Lord. But in being cast out, he had condemned that out of which he was cast. These are important factors leading up to the truth of the flock and of the body. In taking up our position with Christ, we take it up openly, and as exposing through testimony what we leave. Some of us have been brought up in households which are identified with the testimony, but many of us have come out of human organizations. Some here present may be still in them. The flock is that into which the Lord introduces the outcast. He cares for him in the most affectionate and dignified way, bringing him into that in which the knowledge is the same characteristically as between Himself and His Father.
JOS The Lord’s finding of the blind man would be on the line of care, would it not?
JT Yes. The Jews cast him out, and it was that fact which made him specially interesting to Christ. The fact that he was cast out proved that he had been faithful, so that now the Lord asks him whether he believes on the Son of God. The man says, “Who is he. Lord, that I might believe on him?” You find throughout that this man is frank in acknowledging his ignorance, which is an important [p. 92] thing if we are to get the truth. Even when they suggested that the Lord was a sinner he said he did not know. But he was very definite as to what he did know. These are important features.
Ques What distinction would you make between the testimony rendered by the man, and the testimony in relation to the body?
JT The first is individual. It may be rendered anywhere, but it ought to lead to rejection. If, as a Christian, I am in a human organization and I am true in my witness, it will lead to my rejection.
Ques Would Obadiah, in Ahab’s household, illustrate the individual testimony, but lacking that which comes out later in Elijah on mount Carmel?
JT He is a good illustration of one who has light, also regard for the people of God, but does not move. There are many like that. Nicodemus witnessed in the council, but they did not cast him out. Obadiah remained in the system of Ahab and Jezebel; he hid the prophets of the Lord, but he was not identified with Elijah. The testimony of such, however, is of some value, as was the testimony of Nicodemus. He says, “Does our law judge a man before it have first heard from himself, and know what he does?” But he did not leave the council, nor did they ask him to leave. It would show that we may say many true things in false positions, and yet in our spirits we are not really judging the falsity of the position.
But they cast this man out. That is where the Lord comes in; He finds him. Many do not get help because they are not cast out, nor do they leave. When the Lord heard he was cast out He found him. He did not take him at once and put him into the fold, but first raised the question of hearing His voice. Moreover, He asks the man as to the Son of God; the Scriptures spoke about the Son of God, and apparently the man was not ignorant [p. 93] of that fact. He wanted to know, that he might believe.
WT Why should the Lord ask that question?
JT I think just to bring out this answer. “These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”, John 20: 31. The Lord knew what was in the man’s heart; he had faith to believe in the Son of God.
EDP Was it a special case, to bring out divine teaching?
JT Yes, it is a special case, to bring out the great subject of the flock, and those who form it. The question of the Son of God enters into it. Do we believe on the Son of God? We are very conversant now with the term, but it was not so well known in the days of this man. It had been spoken of in the Old Testament, and no doubt was a part of the teaching in Jerusalem, for Jehovah had said, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”. Psalm 2: 7. The Lord’s question implied that the Son of God was not merely the subject of a prophetic psalm; He was actually on earth. To believe on Him was a test.
RP Would you say this is the normal way in which the soul would move in relation to Christ, as finding itself linked up with associations here which are contrary to Him?
JT I think so. Having been cast out, what are you going to do? What would become of a man cast out? It was not a time of religious independency like the present time. He was without a country, we may say, or a religion, and his parents had failed to come to his support. The Lord was in that position too. He was an outcast, a reproach in the world. What is going to happen? Well, the Son of God will bring in another world.
Ques Is that seen in Abiathar — “With me thou shalt be in safeguard”? (1 Samuel 22: [p. 94] 23).
JT That illustrates it well. What we see here is the establishment of a new order of things by the Son of God. It takes, first, the form of a shepherd and his sheep, but it leads on to the Son of God as known through the resurrection of the dead, as at Bethany.
Ques Why do you think Nathanael addresses the Lord as the Son of God?
JT He gives the idea of scriptural intelligence, representing the remnant of Israel, “under his fig-tree”. This “Israelite indeed” was evidently conversant with Scripture, and in coming to Jesus greets Him: “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”. This embodies the testimony of the second psalm. Nathanael represents the Israel of the future.
The blind man is an outcast, and he has condemned what has rejected him. He believes on and worships Jesus as the Son of God. He represents the material for the new order of things. So the Lord proceeds to set up another world, taking up the idea of a shepherd and sheep, as if to stress His gracious care and love for His own as defenceless in this world. He is the Good Shepherd who laid down His life for the sheep. The Lord speaks about other sheep which He had: He had all His sheep in view. There are two words used in the New Testament for “flock”, one suggesting a little flock. It is not that in verse 16: what the Lord would lead into is large. He would bring the others also. We have come into something very great, but very precious to Christ.
Ques The woman in John 4 is concerned about “the Christ”.
JT That is the Anointed. Here it is a question of believing on the Person. “Who is he”, says the man, “that I might believe on him?”
WT Was the man fit material to be put into the flock?
JT He was. The Lord knows just how far on each one of us is, and so He challenges us as to what we believe. It is a question of faith — the basis for the building up of a new system.
LDM Have we not all to arrive at this point, whether we have left a system or whether we have been brought up amongst the saints?
JT This section of Scripture indicates what we are brought into either as cast out or as coming out.
Ques Would the Lord’s dealing with Saul of Tarsus come in on the same line?
JT Just so. God had revealed His Son in him, evidently before he preached Him. The point here is that you believe on Him. The man said definitely what he knew. First he says, “I received sight”; then, to the Pharisees, “I see”. Then he goes further, and exposes them: the Lord had opened his eyes, and they were saying He was sinful. He says, “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind”, verse 32. He is true to what he knows, and makes the most of it. This is how testimony is rendered, because it is what one knows best, that tells.
As he spoke to them, light was coming into his soul. You cannot define it, but there it is. The Lord knew that, so He asks whether he can go further than anything he has yet said. The Lord watches you bearing faithful testimony, wherever you may be; He watches till you are ready for something further.
SV Does the Lord need such material with which to form the flock?
JT That is it. The Son of God gives us to understand who He is and how He cares for us. How tender He is! He impresses us with His love, as needing it. But then He goes on to the thought of [p. 96] other sheep and one flock. It runs with the idea of the whole assembly. In Luke 12: 32. Acts 20: 28, 29 and 1 Peter 5: 2, 3 — “the flock” is the diminutive thought.
SV It says here, one flock.
JT Yes. It is very precious to have part in this flock, for it is the object of the Lord’s tenderest care. He is everything to the sheep, and they are everything to Him. He gives them eternal life, and they will never perish. It is all from the side of the care of His love.
But then we find that those forming the flock are to be anointed — and that is how the idea of the flock links on with that of the body.
LDM This flock would be too big for Judaism — the fold.
JT Quite so. A fold is not movable: the flock is. The assembly has no fixity here at all, but bears the character of the tabernacle in the wilderness. Fixity for us, is in heaven. You do not build a cathedral, for it would give fixity. And we do not attach any importance to our meeting places. They are not sanctified. They may be vacated at any moment.
SV So a meeting room is not an essential?
JT It is just a convenience by the way. Our position is a provisional one as in the wilderness. For a fixed state of things you must go to the temple as built by Solomon.
LDM It says, “Shall go in and out, and find pasture”.
JT That is the thought. There is liberty today; no one forbids us. But going in and out is more a spiritual idea. Every believer has liberty to go in and out, and find pasture. Every member of the flock can go in to God, and can be trusted to go out. One is saved as coming in by the door, which is Christ.
Ques Would the understanding of the truth of [p. 97] the flock save us from clericalism? Would not the latter be the opposite of “going in and out”?
JT That is what I was thinking. Clericalism revives the limitations of Judaism. The Lord Himself, even, could not go beyond the court of the temple at Jerusalem! The whole of this passage relates to the care of the shepherd, His love and what it does for us. Every one of us, even Paul and Peter, come in here. The most distinguished servant is in the flock.
But when you come to the body (1 Corinthians 12: 12), it is called “the Christ”. It means that we are anointed, and that we are here for testimony. It is the strongest figure of our oneness you can get. It is an organism. We are bound together thus with a view, to bearing testimony.
AEC Does the blind man give the idea of transference from a dead system to a living organism?
JT Yes. The flock is not an organism, but it leads to it. The organism is in the Lord’s mind, and the position of sheep is in view of it. We learn the Lord’s care, and we learn to love one another as under it in the flock. That is what qualifies us to be anointed — “the Christ”. The man who had his eyes opened is a model sheep. It is very precious to think, that as witnessing for Christ and being cast out, you come under all this care — the sacrifice and care of His love.
WT How do you understand the putting forth of His sheep and going before them?
JT It brings out the greatness of the shepherd. Putting forth involves control, using it to take His own out of a position God has judged; then He goes before them and they follow knowing His voice. Much outward detail attaches to all this, so that the sheep are outside, but the influence and leadership of the Shepherd enter throughout into their deliverance.
[p. 98] From the flock we merge into the body. The Holy Spirit gives us to understand this: the latter is Paul’s side. This passage shows how John supports Paul’s ministry, as has been pointed out.
GE Would this be illustrated in Paul’s introduction to the assembly? (Acts 9).
JT That corresponds with this chapter. From that point onwards, you get the preaching of the Son of God. The body is for a representation of Christ here.
Ques Does John 17 give us the full light of that?
JT It is parallel. The thought of unity is one of the great features of the Lord’s prayer there. But in John 10 it is, “there shall be one flock, one shepherd”: all the sheep are included, and they are all the subjects of His affections and His care.
Ques We are not prepared for the body unless we love one another?
JT Certainly we are not. The body is an organism, growing out of the unity of affection.
Rem It is an important feature that the sheep should hear the shepherd’s voice.
JT Yes, it says they know it. The idea in sheep as seen here is that they are the subjects of the love and care of the Shepherd, not that of responsibility. In the body you have the idea of obligation — we are anointed in view of testimony: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12: 13.
There are two ideas here. The first concerns something done to me — I am baptized in the power of the one Spirit. Then I am made to do something — to drink into one Spirit, which implies satisfaction. That is to say, the position is not irksome to me; I find satisfaction in it. That is what gives permanency in testimony. No one who has been “made to drink into one Spirit” would be dissatisfied or quarrelsome. God has committed Himself to us in the anointing, and it is of all moment that we should be united in heart, drinking into the same Spirit, and finding it is worth our while: it is satisfying.
JOS Does the anointing mean that the saints are made capable of representing Christ?
JT Yes. The anointing is divine committal and power of service.
Ques As coming under the anointing, would there not be the recognition of Christ as Head?
JT You must go to Colossians properly for headship. The instruction here is to set us in relation to one another and maintain us thus. “So also is the Christ” does not mean that that characterized the Corinthians. It did not. Paul is bringing in what is normally characteristic of the saints, so as to promote this at Corinth.
JOS Does not the Spirit in this chapter act of Himself?
JT That is the point of view. The chapter generally deals with the action of the Spirit. He baptizes us into one body. By the Spirit one merges with the other brethren in a locality and generally; and so drinks into the Spirit that is among them. Thus he does not complain about the position at all. He is in an organism, and has to perform his function there.
LDM We cannot get away from that, can we?
JT No; the thing in view here is that we should not. If the foot say, “Because I am not a hand I am not of the body, is it on account of this not indeed of the body?”
LDM It would save us from being “freelances”, would it not?
JT Yes. In verse 21 it says, “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have not need of thee; or again, the head to the feet, I have not need of you”: that is to [p. 100] say, the governing principle forbids it. You cannot say that you have no need of another.
Ques Would the Spirit help us to find our distinctive place in the body?
JT Yes; we are set in the body as it has pleased God, verse 18. The pleasure of God is a very precious thing to realize.
LDM Would it underlie our practical testimony?
JT I think it would.
JOS Is that testimony rendered effective by the body?
JT The body is for the diffusion of the light. The temple has the light, but the body diffuses it. So that a very heavy responsibility rests on us as anointed. As acting together, it works out practically at the Lord’s supper. In chapter 11 you have the bread and the cup. It takes some time for these to go round, varying with the size of the meeting; but the silence does not simply mean that I sit through the time. That is not the idea of the body. The thing is to learn how to sit unitedly, silently, in the power of the Spirit. The time will pass very quickly then. It often takes more spiritual power to sit silent than it does to take audible part. There was not a single word spoken at the supper table at Bethany, so far as Scripture says, until the silence was broken by Judas. And then the Lord spoke to defend Mary; John 12.
FW Would you say more as to our being together body-wise.
JT It is the communion of the body of Christ. The word communion means fellowship, or our public relations one with another. It is the bread which we break; the fellowship implies that we are committed to one another, for the passage goes on to say, “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. This passage in 1 Corinthians 10 is based on what is done as the Lord’s supper is partaken of according to chapter 11. The unity of intelligent affection is seen there.
EDP Why does it say “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”? (Ephesians 4: 3). Would the keeping of it be tantamount to keeping the unity of the body?
JT It would work out that way. In keeping the unity of the spirit I am thinking of all my brethren, and keeping in mind that the whole assembly is governed by the same truths, principles, feelings, and motives. Abstractly this unity exists, and we endeavour to keep it.
JOS Does the drinking into the one Spirit contribute to that unity?
JT Yes. We are held together in spiritual affections.
Ques It does not necessarily involve being together in one place, does it?
JT No. Ephesians does not contemplate that. It sets out the general position. Of course the local assembly is recognized — “the saints which are at Ephesus”.
Ques Could it be worked out locally?
JT Surely. The unity of the Spirit involves the mystery — that we know how to keep secrets.
Ques Does 1 Corinthians 12 involve normal christianity?
JT Yes: the apostle says “we”, instead of “ye”, as in chapter 10. “We” implies the saints as a whole, not only those local to Corinth. It is the abstract thought of the assembly. He comes down to the practical working of it in verse 27 — “Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular”. That would show how it can be worked out locally.
EDP Would verse 27 apply in the abstract only, or in the concrete also?
JT The abstract, in this sense, has no value unless there is some concrete expression of it. “Ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular”. It shows the burden that rests upon us. Christ is, though hidden from the eyes of men, expressed here in this mysterious way.
LDM Does the loaf give the local idea of the body?
JT Yes. The fellowship is only one, but it has a general character and a local character. That saves us from being congregational churches, acting as if self-contained. The general fellowship works out locally, and the local fellowship works out generally — “so ordain I in all churches”, 1 Corinthians 7: 17. The apprehension of the assembly and the practical working of it is the most important thing for the moment, following upon the truth of the Lord’s Person. If He acquires a place in our hearts as to who He is, the next great thing is the assembly, and how to be “together in assembly”. It is made very practical, in that we are enabled to sit together, not as so many units, but as one, with genuine feelings and affections for one another; with one thought before us. Thus the assembly appears under the Lord’s eye, and He delights in it. As together in assembly we are to be “to another, even to him who is raised from the dead”. Romans 7: 4.