ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS (4)
ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS (4)
LES Is all the education the Lord is giving to us in these days in view of spirituality?
JT Spirituality is in view, and we can understand how essential it is: “then that which is spiritual” (1 Corinthians 15: 46), is the fixed thought of God. Of the believer’s body it is said, “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body”. Our final state inwardly and outwardly may be designated by the word spiritual. We can see, therefore, how important it is in view of our translation to heaven, and in view, too, of the testimony while it is continued here. What was said yesterday as to Luke is peculiarly linked up with John and is important. Luke gives the external position of the assembly, its place here in the testimony. John gives it as composed of certain ones; he rather stresses the persons that compose it, having in mind that there is formation in them; intelligence resulting from formation, and that they are spiritual. John deals with the subject of spirituality more than any of the evangelists. He begins with the fundamental thought in it, namely, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3: 6). There is something brought in by the sovereign action of God by the Spirit, that is called “spirit”. It is not the spirit that God has given to each human being, as distinct from the soul and body, but a quality brought in which no unbeliever has. In keeping with that we are told expressly by the Lord Himself, that God is a Spirit and that His service is to be carried on “in spirit and truth;” He is to be worshipped in spirit and truth.
John 20 is, in a sense, the final chapter of the gospel, the closing verses show that. The next chapter [p. 362] is an appendix. Luke resumes the subject in his treatise in the book of Acts, as it is called, and he says, referring to Christ, “to whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs; being seen by them during forty days” (Acts 1: 3). He was seen of the apostles. Luke enlarges on the forty days, the time furnished for the saints to enter into this great matter of spirituality. John gives it to us substantially in this chapter. It is a chapter that is stamped by the thought of the first day of the week, and links with Psalm 22. The heading of the psalm says, ‘According to the hind of the morning;’ it is a feminine thought, agility is also conveyed. This chapter shows how it appeared in Mary first, then in Peter and John: freshness and agility mark the saints here in relation to the Lord as risen.
CSP Would what you say as to spirituality have the effect of setting aside in our minds mere religion? The sabbath is not mentioned in this chapter.
JT Yes, christianity is a wholly new thing. The first day of the week is wholly new; it takes precedence over the seventh day for the spiritual mind; we are done with the sabbath. The first thing to be taken account of is the agility of Mary. Before the sun was up, she went to the tomb in the early morning, while it was yet dark; she sees the stone taken away from the tomb, and that is what impressed her, but inability to investigate is what marked her. There was readiness to carry a message to others, but inability to investigate, which is a lamentable feature of the saints at the present time; the great want of following things up. Paul says to Timothy “thou has been thoroughly acquainted with [or fully followed up] my teaching”. The Bereans investigated whether the things Paul taught were so. But Mary does not go beyond the fact that the stone is taken away, deducing from that that the Lord had been taken out of the tomb, and she [p. 363] knew not where they had laid Him. It is a mere deduction, not based on proper investigation, and that is why I think the Spirit of God stresses so much that Peter and John investigated. They were concerned about the state of the sepulchre.
RRT Seeing is stressed here, is it not? Mary sees the stone taken away, and Peter and John see the cloths lying, but the seeing does not bear fruit until they believed. Of the disciple whom Jesus loved it is said, “he saw and believed”. Believing should be the end of the seeing.
JT Yes. Peter and John represent the side of intelligence. They ran, and John outran Peter, but did not at first go into the sepulchre; he looked in. “And the other disciple ran forward faster than Peter, and came first to the tomb, and stooping down he sees the linen cloths lying; he did not however go in. Simon Peter therefore comes, following him, and entered into the tomb, and sees the linen cloths lying, and the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself”. That is, Peter represents the side of inquiry or investigation, and he noted what John did not note, the position of the handkerchief. John saw the linen cloths lying, but did not investigate further, but Peter went in and saw more. It seems to me that what we have to learn is intelligence leading to investigation, culminating in faith; here faith in John. It does not say that Peter believed, but John did. So that the first lesson is, I think, investigation, the importance of looking into things. It is a sign of spirituality. Peter entered into the sepulchre and saw the handkerchief that was “folded up in a distinct place by itself”. That shows that his mind was active in order to determine the truth.
LES Would it be right to say, that although this chapter is in a feminine setting, behind [p. 364] it is masculine love, and the intelligence connected with it?
JT I think so. I think Peter and John represent that side, although Mary is the particular representative of affection; it existed too in Peter and John; but here, intelligence marked them, leading to something definite, leading to faith, which is characteristic of the dispensation. The Lord, however, did not manifest Himself to them at the tomb, whereas Mary’s affection, although ignorant, attracted Him, and He made Himself known to her there.
RB Does Mary take the right attitude in reporting to the brethren her concern or exercise as to what she has found?
JT Well, so far, but then why did she make such a deduction? “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him”. That is a mere deduction, not faith at all, nor is there any reference to the state of the sepulchre; all she saw was the stone removed. How did she know the Lord was not there? It is the way things are reported; and reports of meetings like this are often carried in this way and misrepresented. Why not go the whole way and report what was actually said?
RRT She also made a wrong deduction in supposing the Lord to be the gardener.
JT Just so. Why did it not occur to her that it might be Himself, seeing that He had said, He should be raised on the third day?
CSP Would that be a principle to govern us in assembly matters, to investigate fully before speaking?
JT I think that is right. “Abundantly declared the thing as it is” (Job 26: 3). Mary only saw the stone rolled away, she did not abundantly declare the thing as it was. She made deductions that were false. There was no warrant for them [p. 365] at all.
CSP John reaches it in the epistle when he says, “that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled” (1 John 1: 1), so that he could declare the thing fully.
JT Quite so. “That which we have seen and heard we report to you” (1 John 1: 3). This chapter is intended to help us as to that. John said, “It is the Lord” (John 21: 7). He had the power of discernment more than Peter. It is of him that it is said, “he saw and believed”. Discernment in the assembly is most important; it is a spiritual matter. Of course, it is a physical matter too, we must be together in assembly physically, but the Lord comes in spiritually, and that is to be discerned. The bearing of the truth on the assembly, is to raise the question whether we can judge and discern spirituality.
WGH Christendom is really saying, We know not where they have laid Him. That is the position of the public body, they do not know where Christ is at the present time.
JT Yes. Mary spoke in a natural way; talking about the Lord’s body and where it was laid, and she would take it away, and so on. She was not dealing with things spiritually; and yet she was a most estimable person, showing the most genuine affection for Christ. Luke links with John in what we are speaking of; he also introduces the thought of the state of the tomb, showing that Peter looked into it, and went away wondering. Luke also speaks of the appearance to the two going to Emmaus; the Lord manifesting Himself to them in the breaking of bread is a wholly spiritual thought, and it was brought forward by the two and contributed to the assembly. It is a contribution that remains and is carried down to us. Luke gives us [p. 366] that side.
CTK The saints might be hindered through lack of investigation, by standing outside and mourning in regard to a condition, but it requires stooping down and entering into it to obtain the f acts.
JT Yes, and investigation here brings out the word cloths, not clothes; that is, separate pieces of material, not one wrapping; evidently as they had been on the Lord’s body. There was no struggle at all in the resurrection. The spiritual is entirely unaffected by the natural; and again, the doors being shut the Lord came in. As to the position of the cloths, the thought is, I think, that they were as on the Lord before He arose. He came out without deranging them, save “the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself”. Some hand had done that out of respect, or reverence, for Christ.
JB Would it speak of the order in which the Lord left the tomb? All was in perfect order, and Peter saw that.
JT Yes, He left the cloths, I should say, as they were on His body, piece by piece according to the way that Joseph of Arimathaea had wrapped Him. What does all that mean? If He were taken away as Mary said, those who took Him away would not leave the cloths like that. If anybody had stolen Him, they would probably have taken the cloths as well. That is, spiritual investigation is well rewarded. Mary’s information was misleading; her next message, directly sent to the disciples by the Lord, is not misleading. It is directly from His own lips.
RRT While there is spiritual investigation which is right and necessary, there is also at times investigation because of unbelief. I was thinking [p. 367] of Thomas, he wanted to investigate because he did not believe.
JT That brings out that he could not accept testimony. A man is not fit for the assembly if he cannot accept accredited testimony. He is very emphatic about it. He says to the disciples, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe;” as much as to say, he did not trust anybody on this point. That is a very wrong attitude in any of us; it means we have no confidence in the brethren.
RRT He would not accept their testimony.
JT What is the use of talking about loving the brethren if I do not believe them? Perhaps a dozen of them say they are witnesses of a thing, and I do not believe them. In what state is a man like that?
JB Would this be a specific appearance to confirm what the brethren had seen and reported, because Thomas was there the second time?
JT Yes, he is there the second time insisting that he must put his finger into the print of the nails. All the others believed, but he did not. A man who does not receive accredited testimony is not right, and is unfit for the assembly.
TD Is it your thought that the linen cloths being there, and the napkin folded in a place by itself, would indicate the Lord’s triumph, that He left everything in perfect order?
JT Yes, He left the thing as it was. I do not think the position of the handkerchief indicated something done by Him, but by someone else showing respect for Him. Headship is another element that enters into this. It is calling attention to the Lord’s headship; to what was on His head.
PB “Folded” suggests order.
JT A respectful hand did it, it belonged to [p. 368] the Lord.
GC Would you say that, as bringing in the thought of headship, we are getting now what is flowing from Himself?
JT Yes, making room for it and calling attention to it. Then Mary sees the angels, as we are told, one at the head and one at the feet, — “As therefore she wept, she stooped down into the tomb, and beholds two angels sitting in white garments, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain”. That is respect. The angels are calling attention to Him, with the respect due to the One who lay there, “where the body of Jesus had lain”. The positions of the head and the feet are noted.
RB It speaks of John seeing and believing What was it that he saw and believed?
JT He believed the Lord was risen. The word ‘believe’ by itself, without the object of it, would be faith in a general or characteristic way. It is a great feature in John.
MDF Do you think that heaven waited patiently for the moment when the Scriptures would be fulfilled, and that He might be raised from the dead? He lay in the grave, and when the days were accomplished, heaven was ready.
JT That is an additional thought to what we get here. In Romans 6:4 it is “raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father”. It is not the power there, but the glory, showing the Father’s affections were expressed in it. Here it is, “he must rise from among the dead” (verse 9).
GC Referring to the angels, one at the head and one at the feet; what is in that for us?
JT It is to call attention to the One who had lain there. The reference to the napkin was to call attention to His head; now the angels call attention to Him; to His head and to His feet. The walk of a divine Person here [p. 369] is suggested.
LES Would you say a word more as to investigation?
JT It is a general thought as to divine things; the Scriptures invite investigation. Search is the same kind of thought. The spies were sent to search the land, to discover what was there, the state of the land. They did, and brought back the evidence. So “the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2: 10). So here, if a true investigation had been made, the fact would have been established that the Lord had not been taken away, but had raised Himself. “Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2: 19). He spoke of the temple of His body. Mary was setting that aside by her deduction. So that investigation is most important. It is not simply what we have in a reading like this, but everyone in his soul going over the thing, comparing what is said with Scripture.
JAW Are you suggesting that each meeting we go to should be a fresh incentive to read the Scriptures for ourselves?
JT That is the thought. We are enjoined to do it, to search as for hidden treasure, also to confirm and enlarge on what is ministered.
TD Investigation marked the Bereans.
JT Yes. They searched the Scriptures daily. They wanted to be sure. So with Lydia, “whose heart the Lord opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16: 14); not simply to believe, but to attend to the things spoken by Paul. We have the means of determining the truth, the Holy Spirit guiding us into it. So that Paul says to Timothy, “Think of what I say, for the Lord will give thee understanding in all things” (2 Timothy 2: 7). Thus we never need to be puzzled. Things said may not be clear, but as you wait on the Lord the truth will dawn on you. Another thing is that certain truth [p. 370] ministered may have a special application, and when you are in the circumstances to which it applies it becomes quite clear.
JAW It says here, “for they had not yet known the scripture”. The inference would be that they would not be assured until they knew the scripture.
JT The indication is that whatever faith there was resulted from what was seen in the tomb, not from what Scripture states.
ADS While it is only said of John that he believed, earlier in this gospel we read that the Lord said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” and “When therefore he was raised from among the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (John 2: 22). There they all are accredited with believing.
JT John only is mentioned here. I would assume that Peter was linked in the thing with John; but John entered the tomb the second time, and it is said, he believed. The passage in John 2 is particularly helpful, because it shows that Christ’s resurrection leads to belief of the Scripture. They “believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken”. The Scriptures are put before what Jesus said. A great point is to show that the Scriptures are valid, that they are inspired of God. “The scripture cannot be broken;” John alone quotes that from the Lord’s words. And the Lord says of Moses, “But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5: 47). He accredits the Scriptures, and especially Moses, as over against the modernists.
WGH Would you say that the opposition today is largely against what is spiritual, and God is giving fresh light on the Scriptures, hence the need for [p. 371] investigation?
JT Well, quite so, and that is what is going on. The Lord is calling attention to things in detail. You get word and words. In John 17: 6 - 8 the Lord says, “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world. They were thine, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things that thou hast given me are of thee; for the words which thou has given me I have given them, and they have received them”. The first is general, the second involves detail.
EWM The truth of Christ’s sonship which has been before us recently, has certainly stood the test of investigation. Personally, it has opened up the Scriptures to me.
JT The more you investigate it, the more assured you are of it.
TA John 20: 4 says, “And the two ran together, and the other disciple ran forward faster than Peter, and came first to the tomb”. Now Peter is known generally as very active, but he was not ahead of John here, and then later, John entered in, and “saw and believed”.
JT Peter investigated first. It is said that “the other disciple ran forward faster than Peter, and came first to the tomb, and stooping down he sees the linen cloths lying; he did not however go in”. He took a view from without. “Simon Peter therefore comes, following him, and entered into the tomb, and sees the linen cloths lying, and the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself”. He saw more than John; but John afterwards entered, and saw and believed.
The next thing is, that the disciples, we are told, went to their own homes; that is not too good, but we must not overlook that they believed; at least, John believed. Then Mary “stood at the [p. 372] tomb weeping without. As therefore she wept, she stooped down into the tomb, and beholds two angels sitting in white garments, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain”. She is met by angels, which would indicate somewhat of a distance, and lower intelligence and information, not requiring investigation, because there are two angels. They are called angels and not men here, which I think bears out what we are saying about the chapter, that the trend is spiritual. Angels are spirits. God is a Spirit, and angels are said to be spirits. It would appear as if the angels are to convey the need of spirituality and dignity, in relation to the One who lay there; the position He was in, where His head was, and where His feet were. One angel was at the head, and the other at the feet, where His body had lain. Mary saw that, and then they say to her, “Woman, why dost thou weep?” This is not the time of weeping; that is another principle in the assembly. There is a time for everything, but when we come to the Lord’s supper it is a time of the greatest enjoyment, eating and drinking. The assembly requires a free and happy state amongst us, because the presence of the Lord amongst us involves a state of joy. The disciples were glad when they saw Him. The angels say, “why dost thou weep?” and the Lord says, “why dost thou weep?” All this would eliminate that element from assembly service. It has no place there. Although Mary stooped down into the tomb, the Spirit of God does not ignore the fact that her state is not suitable. There was no occasion at all for weeping. Had she gone the full length in investigation of the truth of the position, she would have been full of joy. Mary is occupied with Christ, but she is not in a state suitable for the circumstances. Why should it be so? The facts known would make her glad, and yet she is weeping.
[p. 373] In answer to the angels she says, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him”. She is asserting what is false, and yet we all own that she loved the Lord and that His absence was the cause of her tears. But she was in a state of unbelief.
GC As to spirituality, would you speak of that as a result?
JT The basis of it is new birth, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, answering to what God is. He is said to be a Spirit. The believer thus grows spiritually as God is presented to him and apprehended. This involves earnest investigation of the truth.
JAW Her unbelief is clearly marked in verses 13 - 15. There was no spiritual going forward there.
JT No, there was not. She had seen the two angels, but she is still keeping the thought, “they have taken away my Lord”. She had said “the Lord”, but now it is “my Lord”, which is to be noted, but it does not add much. Then she turned backward. That shows her confused state, because christianity is going forward, not backward. Nevertheless Jesus was there, although she did not discern Him. How touching that He should meet her backward gaze!
JLF So that the position really was as the Lord says in Revelation, “I am he that liveth, and was dead”. It is in contrast to what Mary was engaged with.
JAW We could do a lot of weeping about the state and condition, and still be in a state of unbelief.
JT Yes. This is a very important instruction, because this sister was very valuable and capable of taking one of the greatest messages delivered to the saints, but capable only as [p. 374] she was adjusted.
JAT She was in a state of unbelief, but yet she had great affection.
JT Clearly she had.
LES As to assembly service, would the Lord take us in hand in this way so that the service may take on spirituality?
JT That is the idea. Luke gives us more the adjusting side, in the chapter we had yesterday. There is no need of adjusting in the assembly according to John. All is in order as the Lord came and stood in the midst. It is because He had taken such pains beforehand. Why not have a difficulty settled outside of the assembly? John would suggest that.
TD I was going to ask a question as to the thought of rejoicing. Have you in mind that very often we may be weeping on Lord’s day morning, when we ought to be rejoicing?
JT There is a time for everything, according to Ecclesiastes, and so in Nehemiah 8: 12, on an important occasion, weeping was prohibited: “And all the people went their way, to eat and drink, and to send portions, and to make great rejoicing”. The assembly as in function is no place for weeping, but for joy. It should be the residence of holy joy. Here we have, “Having said these things she turned backward and beholds Jesus standing there, and knew not that it was Jesus”. She is not getting any help from the angels. They said “Woman, why dost thou weep?” The angels do not indicate that she should weep. She said, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him”. She then sees the Lord, and says to Him, “Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away”. She is full of affection, but it is ignorant affection. There is unbelief connected with it, and she is persistent in her unbelieving thoughts. Jesus says, “Mary”. You can hear the accents of the Lord in the word “Mary”. He is securing the person known by that name; disengaging her from darkness, and making her spiritual. Hence the next word is, “She, turning round, says to him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which means Teacher”. Now the light is dawning on her, and she needs to be taught. According to John, one of the great needs is teaching, the saints should be taught; and to be taught I must listen, investigate, and understand what I see and hear.
ADS Would the turning round be in contrast to turning backwards?
JT Yes. She turns round to where she should be, for Christ is now there in His love, seeking to adjust her and use her. She is now learning. The word “Rabboni” is ‘my Teacher;’ I do not want anybody else. That is the import of it. So He says to her, “Touch me not”. He anticipated the possibility of her further advance on the earthly line, but He would not have that, because He is leading on to the spiritual order of things. According to Matthew, the women held Him by the feet, but He forbids it here. The Lord says to her, “Touch me not”, and then adds, “for I have not yet ascended to my Father”. The links now must be on heavenly ground. He is coming to the message. It is a quick work here, but it is orderly, and obviously Mary is gaining. When the Lord had given her the message, “Mary of Magdala comes bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”. She is very orderly and comely now.
LES It would be a challenge to us as to the part we are taking in assembly service, whether it is spiritual, whether we are sensitive enough as to the particular juncture in the meeting that we have arrived at. Would this not suggest that?
JT This suggests that very thing. How much can take place in a short time! Light breaks in on [p. 376] the soul and everything is clear now, and you know what to do, whereas a moment ago you were in the dark.
JLF Would Leviticus 10 help us in regard to this weeping? Moses told them that they were not to uncover their heads, when Nadab and Abihu were carried out of the camp, lest wrath came upon them.
JT Yes, no natural considerations should be allowed to interfere with the service of God.
JAW The Lord seemed to recognise the genuineness of this weeping.
JT He recognised the genuineness of it, but, in a sense, the more genuine it is, the worse it is. It is darkness. These natural sentiments are darkness.
FCB After Jesus had spoken to Mary, she turning round, spoke to Him in Hebrew. Does that suggest that she is getting on to the spiritual language now?
JT That is just the thought, and the word accurately expresses her improved feelings. John gives the exact word she used, because he wants us to learn as she learned, and to see that this sister has the right word for this moment. She regards the Lord as not simply a teacher, but He is hers, and now she was learning quickly. The Lord says Himself, “He wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the instructed” (Isaiah 50: 4). Every morning He got His instruction — very touching. Mary, it seems to me, is like that. She is agile as a pupil, quick to learn.
RTM Why is it that the two angels do not enlighten Mary here? In the other three gospels the young man and the angel enlighten the women as to the Lord’s resurrection.
JT I think it is a question of her movement. She turned backward. It was instinctive. I suppose it brought out that she was capable of reaching [p. 377] spirituality, for as she turned backward, she beholds Jesus standing, so that it was a right move. She now learned from Christ.
WT Rabboni here is greater than the name Nicodemus uses in John 3, he says “teacher;” she makes it more personal.
JT And the two disciples in the first chapter say, “Rabbi (which, being interpreted, signifies Teacher), where abidest thou?” Rabboni here has the force of ‘my Teacher’.
PB Are you making a difference between the turning round in the 16th verse and the turning backward in the 14th verse?
JT The turning backward was instinctive, she could not perhaps explain it.
TA When the Lord said to Mary, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended”, did that intimate that Mary had then touched the Lord?
JT No doubt she indicated that desire, but He is not to be touched now, because He is not ascended. John is bringing out the heavenly side of the truth, it is not only Jesus in resurrection, but Jesus in heaven with the Father. That is in full keeping with what is spiritual.
LES Would you help us as to the difference between Jesus in resurrection, and Jesus in heaven?
JT Chapter 12 is the resurrection scene in Bethany, it is where Lazarus was whom He had raised. This chapter goes further than that. Some years ago certain brethren were seeking to make out that resurrection was the platform of christianity, but that is not it fully. Of course, the resurrection of Christ is foundational, but christianity is heavenly, like the sheet that came down to Peter in Acts 10; it is heavenly, and John is enforcing that here. The Lord says “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father”. The touching now [p. 378] is inside, in the assembly, in relation to Christ in heaven.
LES What is the distinction between the Lord’s personal condition, if we might say, in resurrection and as ascended?
JT I can say nothing definite, but it is His body of glory that we are going to be conformed to, not simply His body of resurrection. We are waiting to be conformed to His body of glory.
LES Christianity really involves the highest conception of the Lord as He is.
JT That is right, what He is above.
WGH Ephesians would answer to this, not Colossians.
JT Ephesians is the full presentation of christianity. God has raised us up together and made us to sit together in the heavenlies.
PB In connection with Christ’s body in resurrection, and His body of glory; has some change taken place in Christ in His ascended condition subsequent to resurrection?
JT I do not like to say much about that, but we do well to go by Scripture. John says, “what we shall be has not yet been manifested”. Christ in resurrection had been manifested. He had been seen of them forty days, yet John says, “and what we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3: 2). It is what He is now. Philippians 3: 21 says, “who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to his body of glory”. It is to maintain the full thought of christianity. It is a heavenly thing. Ephesians is especially intended to support this, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ” (Ephesians [p. 379] 1: 3).
RRT Does the Lord indicate in His message to Mary where He might be touched spiritually? He says, “Touch me not ... but go to my brethren”, indicating where He might be touched in a spiritual sense.
JT Well, I think so, they could touch Him there. Mary could touch Him there in the assembly. I think He is adjusting her mind; she thought He was the gardener; her mind was on earthly things, and the Lord graciously conducted her into heavenly things. Do not touch me now, it is a heavenly matter. “But go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. The full thought is to be realised among the brethren, and she is to share in that.
RRT The writer does not say that Mary comes bringing word to the disciples, but that Mary of Magdala comes. Is there something in that for us?
JT I suppose so. The person who brought the great message is to be thoroughly known; she is the one in question. It is full identification of the person that John has in mind.
LES Would the resurrection position be in relation to the testimony here publicly, and the ascension entirely what is spiritual?
JT And heavenly. The two things come out in 1 Corinthians 15, which is the great chapter bearing on what we have been saying — the different appearings. “It is raised a spiritual body;” “such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones”. The two things run together.
GC Would you say a little on the distinction between brethren and disciples?
JT Disciples are learners, brethren have a family link with Christ. We are brought into the family. John brings it in more definitely than any; we are lifted out of legality and judaism, and brought into the heavenly family. Christ’s Father is ours, and His God is ours.
GC So that we are very near to the One through whom these operations are taking place at the moment.
JT Just so. All this culminates in the assembly; at least, in the inner circle of the disciples, for it is where the disciples were that the Lord came, and the doors were shut for fear of the Jews. The Jewish element must be kept out, for it is most dangerous in regard to spirituality, it only brings legality. So the doors are shut, and “Jesus came and stood in the midst”. Came indicates that is a movement beforehand. In Luke it is simply, Jesus stood in the midst. There is no movement beforehand. Came implies something more; it is a movement to them, as He had promised. Conditions are now ready, the Lord can now come in. It is a definite movement on His part beforehand. He came to the place and stood in the midst, not in their midst, as in Luke, but in “the midst”. It is the great general position that has been reached here, the heavenly side, corresponding to Ephesians.
CTK Is it the transitional point between the grief and the joy? “A little ... but your grief shall be turned to joy”.
JT Just so, they were glad. It does not say so in Luke, but here they are glad. We are forced to the conclusion that John presents the abstract side; the disciples seen purely in relation to the work of God in them. It is an abstract view, there is no discrepancy at all.
WF John seems to press the thought of seeing the Lord, both as to Mary, the gathered disciples, and Thomas.
JT That is a very important matter, it enters into assembly experiences. John said to Peter, “It is the Lord”. He [p. 381] Discerned Him.
WGH What is the bearing of “I ascend” here? How would that affect us in assembly, where would that come in?
JT I think it comes in after we partake of the Lord’s supper; we are on the ascending line. Exodus 24 helps; the word of Jehovah to Moses is that he, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders should go up. Jehovah does not say they are to be on the mountain, but “Go up to Jehovah”. It is the principle of going up. Applied to the assembly, we do not leave our seats, it is not a physical matter, but a spiritual matter. Moses and Joshua went up to the mountain. Moses was to “be there”. That is Christ’s place, He is up there actually, but we go up spiritually.
WGH Would the mount of Olives answer to that?
JT Quite, it is a place of spirituality.
JAT Why is it that the young men do not go up? They stayed at the foot of the mountain.
JT They were not invited to go up, but Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders. These were representative, the whole of Israel was involved, it is a representative number.
TA When it says, the first day of the week, does that not have two meanings, not only the first day, the resurrection day, but the week is involved; a full period?
JT We are brought into the heavenly realm. Verse 19 speaks of the first day of the week, when it was evening, late in the evening, as the original means; implying that the Lord had filled out a long day. It is a day of the activity of love. He has the disciples now entirely suitable to Himself, there was no discrepancy at all. They are glad when they see the Lord, and He says twice over, “Peace be to you”, as if they were acceptable, and He wishes [p. 382] them to be confirmed in their present place, it is an eternal position.
CSP Is that the effect of the message?
JT Yes, the Lord came, following on the message, as if to say they were made suitable by it. The Lord said, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. “Father” is a family word, “God” is the Supreme, the Object of worship, governing the whole position. He is God. But here it is Christ’s God, and they are brought into relationship with His God. We have to stop and think what His God conveys. What would be the atmosphere as you are alongside of the Lord in this sense? It is as with Him we get the full thought of God. We are associated with Him in these wonderful relationships.
CSP It is distinctly in manhood?
JT Surely. It is Christ as Man clearly. He does not say ‘our Father’, but “my Father”. His personal distinction is maintained throughout. He is anointed with the oil of gladness above His companions.
EWM Does that hold good today?
JT It always holds good; eternally so. God is Father to Him as the only-begotten Son; we are brought into sonship by adoption; it is “by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 26). As Christ speaks of His God, He is giving God the supreme place, and He is taking second place, but we are not given His place in the fullest sense. God is His Father by Himself, a very important thing. He never says our Father and our God, but “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”.
CSP Are we to understand that the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to incarnation?
JT Of course, that formula involves incarnation. It is the economy. You cannot put that into the Old Testament. “My Father worketh hitherto”
[p. 383] simply means that God was working hitherto — His sabbath had been interfered with by sin.
CSP It was that particular Person of the Godhead. Then as to the Holy Spirit, Scripture speaks of holy men speaking as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
JT Quite so. The Holy Spirit was operating peculiarly. The truth of the Holy Spirit comes out before sonship. Sonship applies to Christ as here in manhood, but the Spirit was operating before that, He is a divine Person Himself.
CSP I have a little difficulty as to how these terms refer to incarnation. How is it that they are used in relation to these Persons in the Old Testament?
JT You mean the term Father?
CSP Father and Holy Spirit.
JT “Jehovah” was used from the very beginning, but not revealed until Moses’ time. Here the Lord is designating who the Person was who was working — the Father. The Lord does not say that He was known by that name in Old Testament times. He uses the word Father because He had now taken that relationship. Christ was designating the Person by that name, not implying that He had it at the outset, but that the Person was there, that God was operating.
PB John says, “In the beginning was the Word”.
JT Yes; He became known in that way and the Spirit used the appellation to designate the Person.
CSP As to the “My Father worketh hitherto”, would it mean that the Old Testament period was marked by the Father’s activities?
JT The Father, that is God, had worked from the time sin came in. He made clothes for Adam and Eve, and there was continual work from that time onwards, and the Lord now says, “I work”.
ADS He was not known as Father until the Lord was here in manhood.
JT No; except in a sort of extended way. “For thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, Jehovah, art our Father” (Isaiah 63: 16). It is only as Christ became Man that the true meaning of Father comes to light.
LES It is a personal touch that He gives to the relationship in which He is.
ADS In what the Lord says to the overcomer in Philadelphia, does He speak of God in the same sense in which He is spoken of here: He says, “him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God ... and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God” (Revelation 3: 12).
JT In the same sense exactly. It is to the overcomer in Philadelphia, it is that overcomer; we are to understand that the Lord implies that he would value such a promise.
RRT Just to complete that verse you referred to, “my Father worketh hitherto and I work”, when did the Son’s work begin? Would it involve His work in creation?
JT He alluded to Himself as a Man here; “I work”. The remark is occasioned by the question of the sabbath, which came in after the work of creation. The Father’s work extended back, but I think the Lord spoke about the present in regard of Himself. Work in regard of creation goes on; but I think the Lord had in mind what moral conditions occasioned. The Father had been working, and He was now working on that line.
TA Is the Father presented when the order came by Moses to Pharaoh, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”?
JT That is a national thought as to Israel, and really flows out of Christ’s sonship, only anticipatively.
Now the time is gone, but we should just remark on the Lord’s word to the disciples, “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit”. He brings them into the full spiritual position, and then sends them out, having full confidence in them. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. Going on to Thomas, it is very humbling to see a man so self assertive as to say what implies, I do not believe anybody. The most reliable men in the universe were there, and he would not believe them. It is a strong negative, I will in no wise believe. It is a very searching matter, that I must be so assured for myself, that I must put my finger in the nail prints; it is as though others could not do that and tell the truth about it. So the Lord says to Thomas, “Bring thy finger here and see my hands; and bring thy hand and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing”. Christianity is on the basis of testimony. Faith accepts true testimony; we believe what has been testified to by accredited witnesses.
WGH That is the distinct witness of the apostles. “We are his witnesses of these things, and the Holy Spirit also” (Acts 5: 32).
JT It is the testimony of men here, as Peter says later, We are witnesses. As a true believer, and having faith, I can accept testimony; if I cannot accept true testimony I am unfit for the assembly.