THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE SPIRIT (1)
THE PERSON OF CHRIST AND THE SPIRIT (1)
John 1: 1 - 18; 1 John 1: 1 - 4
JT The thought in mind at this time is to look into the gospel of John, not as a whole, but the earlier chapters, beginning with chapter 1 and running on through chapter 7. In order to make as clear as possible what is in mind it may be said that the first chapter of John contemplates the Person of the Lord Jesus. It is in mind that we should compare this chapter with the first epistle of John; not that we should read the whole epistle, but have it in our minds, because the feeling is that the brethren all need to be grounded in the gospel of John just now. It is a time when we need to recognise the authority of the Scriptures, and John affords us instruction as to that. In chapter 1 of John’s gospel we read, “In the beginning was the Word”. Now while everybody is familiar with that statement, perhaps we shall see presently that we are not so familiar with its import as we had thought, and that we need to compare it with other scriptures that bear on the sonship of Christ, on His Person. John says, by the Spirit, in the first chapter, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... . All things received being through him, and without him not one thing received being which has received being”. And then it says, “In him was life”, and that is the thought we have before us. Now comparing that with 1 John 1: 1 - 4, we read. “That which was from the beginning”; not He which was from the beginning, but, “That which was from the beginning”.
These verses in John’s epistle are read so that the brethren may have the facts before them. The pronoun here is in the neuter; it is not the personal pronoun as in John’s gospel, for it refers to a thing; that is, to the eternal life. Now the brethren will not misunderstand me, but while the Person is in mind, that is to say, “the eternal life” refers to Christ, yet eternal life is not a Person. Some years past, there were certain who regarded eternal life as a Person; they spoke of the personality of eternal life, which was not accurate. Although the Person is in mind, yet the idea in John’s epistle is eternal life, whereas in chapter 1 of John’s gospel it is the Word, the Logos, a divine Person. Although in manhood, nevertheless He is a divine eternal Person. The epistle says, “That which was from the beginning”, meaning the beginning of Christ down here, whereas of “the beginning” in John l, we cannot say when it was; it says simply “the beginning”. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. It is a Person that is in mind, an eternal Person, and He is going to be spoken of in the gospel of John. But there was more to be said, and the three epistles had to be written to make clear that it was the eternal life that was in mind, that the saints should understand that this was eternal life, and that this life was in Christ; “this life is in his Son”. That Person could be seen and heard and handled here below. I suggest all that for the brethren to think over. It has been gone over many times, but I think we are still somewhat cloudy as to these great subjects, and the distinction between John’s gospel and John’s epistles.
JSSr Is Genesis 1 the beginning of operations?
JT Just so, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, that is a question of God’s operations, but in John it says, “In the beginning was the Word”, without any question of operations.
SMcC [p. 3] Have you something specific in mind in saying that there is something about the beginning in John 1 that we may not be so clear about, although we have thought we were fairly clear about it?
JT Well, just what we have remarked, that the first chapter of Genesis is a question of operations, the operations of God, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. In John’s gospel it is not that, but “In the beginning was the Word”. It is not what He is doing, but that He is there. And then He was with God, and He was God. After that we have the operations brought in, “all things were made by him”.
SMcC That would help us in that while through grace we have part with Him in many things there is a uniqueness about Christ, the Person of Christ, and about His sonship too, that we need to give greater attention to, do you think?
JT I do, and therefore the order is as already remarked, “In the beginning was the Word”, the Logos; that is to say, the Person through whom God’s mind is known to us. Whatever God may have to say is made known through that Person, that is to say, the Logos. That is the first thing, and then the second is that “the Word was with God”, the Logos was with God; then that He “was God”, which brings out that the Lord Jesus is God Himself. There are not two Gods, or three Gods; there is only one God, and He is that God, and the Father is that God, and the Spirit is that God. There is one God but there are three Persons.
JHP I was wondering whether you had in mind that we should appreciate more the glorious Person of Christ as set forth in the first verse or two of the gospel as distinct from His operations, and our knowing Him through His operations?
JT We should proceed on these lines, which is the reason for suggesting the first eighteen verses of John’s gospel. I would add another word to further clarify the position as to the Spirit and the place that we hope He shall have in our conversations. In chapter 7 it is said, “For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”. That is to say, what we have primarily in mind now is the question of eternal life which is basic, and it refers to what is down here because, as we see in chapter 6 the bread comes down from heaven; whereas chapter 7 speaks of Jesus being glorified, and what happens as a consequence after that. When Christ goes to heaven, that is to say when He is glorified, then the Spirit comes; and that is the point to make clear. It is an important matter in the minds of the brethren generally throughout the world at the present time, and I am not at all leaving that out, but my thought for the moment is that the brethren need the thought of the Lord’s sonship, the Person of Christ Himself, and then to understand something of eternal life in that Person. The first epistle of John opens up thoughts as to the eternal life. When we come to chapter 7 we shall consider the Spirit specially, although we shall have occasion to speak of Him before, in many respects; but chapter 7 distinctly speaks of Him as here because Jesus is glorified. Moreover in chapter 6 the Lord speaks of “ascending up where he was before”. “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” We shall have to connect that with the scripture in chapter 7 as to Christ glorified; the receiving of the Spirit stands in that relation; whereas the thought of eternal life stands in relation to the Holy Spirit down here, and to Christ down here as He was in incarnation, and for forty days after His resurrection which is alluded to in John’s epistle.
SJH Is the thought that John’s gospel shows that it necessitates a divine Person, such a One as we have referred to, that we might have eternal life,
[p. 5] but when we come to the epistle there is something further, “that ye may know that ye have eternal life”.
JT That is the idea exactly. First that ye might have it; “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal”. That is the gospel, but the epistle was written, “that ye may know that ye have eternal life”, which is a very important point. How many know that? How many know it consciously? We are told in the epistle, “He that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself”, which alludes to the Spirit, that it is not a question of testimony by the evangelist, or of the gospel, but that the Spirit of God Himself is in the christian.
EAL In Genesis 24 we read, “And she had said to the servant, Who is the man that is walking in the fields to meet us? And the servant said, That is my master!”. The word that there, implies that she had the knowledge of Isaac through the operations of the servant, the Spirit typically. Would that help in bringing out what has just been said?
JT That is, the Spirit is the witness.
EAL Yes, and He gives the bride the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, typified in Isaac. Thus He comes into this.
JT Very good, and that brings up another question that is burning with us, that is, that we must recognise the authority of all Scripture. Every Scripture is inspired of God. There are those who have somewhat reduced the level of the Old Testament, but the Lord intends, I believe, at this present time to remind us that the Scripture cannot be broken, it is one whole.
AR We get the same idea in Romans 8, the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God.
JT Yes, just so, witnesses with our spirit.
ANW [p. 6] The Lord touches that point in His statement in John 7, that “he that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”. He takes the pains to say, “as the scripture has said”.
JT That is good, I am glad you mentioned that, because it brings up the whole question as to the importance of the Old Testament scriptures in that the Lord Himself quotes them there, and yet you could hardly show exactly the part from which He quoted; we cannot say definitely, and yet we have His word, which is enough. What we are saying tests us as to our faith, because things are on the basis of faith and that is what John is aiming at, believing, and believing what the Lord Jesus has said. His words are authoritative, also the Scriptures.
RP In John 17, speaking of eternal life, Jesus says to the Father, “That they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”. Does not eternal life involve the knowledge of divine Persons?
JT You will remember that the same thought is found in the epistle of John where John says, “He is the true God and eternal life”. That “He” is Christ. So that the Father is called the true God in John 17, and the Son is called the true God in chapter 5 of John’s epistle.
HB “Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me”. That would relate to the Scriptures you speak of. The Lord gives full credit to those.
JT That is of prime importance at the present time, because even though it may not be said or formally asserted, there are many who think that the Old Testament is on a lower level than the New, whereas it is [p. 7] not.
TNW In Acts 17 we read that the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily. They would be the Old Testament scriptures, would they not?
JT Just so, and if you look at the beginning of Acts where the account is given of the introduction of christianity you will find a constant allusion to the Scriptures.
SJH One would like to ask whether Old Testament is a scriptural title? Has not the enemy used this title and said, It is old?
JT Perhaps so. It is not a testament in the ordinary sense in which the word is used; it is a question of testimony; the word ‘testament’ is based on the idea of testimony. So that if we use the term, it means that we have a testimony in the Old Testament and that that testimony is to Christ; “and they are they which testify of me”. John 5: 39. “And having begun from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”, Luke 24: 27.
SM In Acts 17 we read, “And according to Paul’s custom he went in among them, and on three sabbaths reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and laying down that the Christ must have suffered”.
JT “Opening and laying down”, just so; the opening up of things and then the laying them down with authority; that is the idea, the way we should read the Scriptures. A brother opens up something from his Bible, but then he is laying it down by the Spirit, and thus it is authoritative. I hope we have something of that here now.
Rem When the apostles went with the Lord through the cornfields, the Pharisees criticised; they wanted to bring in bondage, and the scripture quoted by the Lord was from the Old Testament, “Have ye not read”, suggests that the Old Testament is [p. 8] there to give the brethren liberty, especially in connection with addressing the Spirit.
JT Yes. It does too, it does give liberty. It is wonderful really how liberty is coming in amongst the brethren on this very point, because the Lord is really resentful that we have been neglectful in this matter.
VCL Peter refers to the Spirit of Christ in the prophets. He refers to the prophets and what they testified, he speaks of the Spirit of Christ that was in them, testifying to the sufferings of Christ, and the glory after these. Would that not help our minds to see the true value of the prophetic word in the Old Testament?
JT Showing that it is the full divine thought of the Spirit of Christ which was in them. It is remarkable.
AB Would the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1: 21 be referring to the whole scope of Scripture, when he says that “holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit”?
JT Just so. There were no Scriptures when the book of Acts was written except the Old Testament. The Spirit of God began immediately to quote the Old Testament to confirm what had happened.
AB The Lord says in Luke 16, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, not even if one rise from among the dead will they be persuaded”.
LLP The Lord said, as recorded in Luke 24: 25, “O senseless and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!”. What you are stressing is helpful, because the Lord speaks, in verse 44 of the same chapter, about Moses and the prophets and the Psalms. It seems to make it unmistakably the Old Testament scriptures.
JT Quite so. The whole of Luke 24 confirms what we have been saying, and I thought in referring to chapter 7 of John that that should be one thing [p. 9] in our minds. But we do not want to be diverted from chapter 1. We read the eighteen verses which bring out the idea of the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father having declared the Father.
AI Do you distinguish between John 1 where it says, “He was in the beginning”, and the epistle where it says, “That which was from the beginning”?
JT Yes, because the pronoun in the epistle is the neuter pronoun “that”; whereas in the first chapter of the gospel it is the personal pronoun “He”; it is the Person that is in mind, “In the beginning was the Word”. It is not some thought about Him, it is the Word Himself. You cannot say what beginning that was, but we should let it have its full scope with us; it is “the beginning”. “The Word was with God”, that is a further thought, and then, “the Word was God”. What can we get greater than that?
AR In John’s epistle it is in relation to the incarnation.
JT It is the incarnation, it is the beginning of Christ as here in flesh, to be handled and seen; and what was seen was eternal life, it was there with the evidence.
WP John 1: 14 says, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. The beginning of the epistle would refer to the Word becoming flesh.
JT It is the same thing exactly historically, and we contemplate His glory.
Ques Do I understand that the epistles were written before the gospel?
JT It is generally so understood. Probably one of the last scriptures written was the gospel of John.
ANW Does not Genesis 1 agree with verse 3 of our chapter? “All things received being through him”.
JT Quite so; it is very remarkable; not one thing that was made, was made without [p. 10] Christ.
AR John 1: 2 is not in relation to anything at all.
JT We are not told anything about it. We do well just to meditate upon it and leave it, and let it have its full place in our minds, I say, in our minds, because with the Word, it is a question of the mind, not of the affections.
SJH Is there a suggestion of counsel in it? Would not the very name ‘Word’ indicate that something is going to be conveyed?
JT That is the idea. The Logos as I understand from others, means what God has said or communicated, or may say, which covers the whole thing, the divine mind; not simply the affections, but the whole mind of God.
LHB Does it carry with it the thought of authority? You mentioned that earlier.
JT It would indeed, it is God’s authority.
BW Does the Word as used in reference to Christ here have any link with the Old Testament Scriptures? Has it any reference to His speaking in the Old Testament times?
JT Well, it might have, I would not deny that. “In the beginning”; that is the great idea; the greatest idea we can have as to the mind.
FNW The hymn was changed from, ‘Thou art the everlasting Word’ to ‘Thou art the blest incarnate Word’ (11:1).
JT Well, it is rightly changed, ‘Thou art the blest incarnate Word’, states the truth of the whole matter.
RP Would you say that Paul supports that when he says, “And he is before all”, in Colossians 1, as he meditates on the glory of Christ’s Person? Would that antedate Genesis 1? He says, “And he is before all, and all things subsist together by him”.
JT “By him” is instrumental. That confirms what we are saying.
SMcC Is the thought in naming Him the Word to keep before us in these last days that, while the Person has come into a subordinate position which the revelation of God required, yet that Person is none less than God; He is on equality with God, and He is God, and He was God?
JT That is what one thought we ought to see very clearly, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”, that is, association between divine Persons. Then “the Word was God”. There are not two Gods, but the Word has the same place as God Himself, in fact He is God.
Ques Does that go back before time?
JT Oh, it must be eternity. You cannot make a beginning to Christ as to His Person. In the beginning He was. The word beginning does not refer to Him at all, as to His Person. He is a divine eternal Person. He is God.
SMcC As John’s gospel is about to open up to us the economy of love in which divine Persons are to be viewed, it is important that at the start we should get this word before our minds as to the Person of Christ, is it not?
JT That is what I had in mind.
ANW So that as you said the Logos, the Word, is to be in our minds. So far as I recall it is not referred to outside the verses we have read in this gospel and in the opening verses of Luke. Does John then proceed to engage our affections with that Person?
JT Well, no doubt he does, but it is really a question of the mind.
ANW I was thinking how important it is to hold that Person rightly in our minds, now presented as [p. 12] in love.
HB Is this title not mentioned in Revelation 19? It says there that His name is called The Word of God.
JT Yes, it is the same word.
EGMcA Would not this first verse stamp as a lie all the statements made by men who say that Christ emanated from the Father, and all that kind of thing that is in the creeds?
JT Quite so. The creeds are all full of error. But we are dealing with the real facts as to the Lord’s Person, and we cannot say too much in impressing the brethren, that we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as God; He is God.
GH In Revelation 22 the Lord says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”. What is the thought there?
JT Well, it is simply what we are saying. The Alpha and the Omega refers to the Greek language, the beginning of it and the end of it. That is, Christ is that, He is the beginning and the end, but personally He has no beginning and no end. That is our God; and to refer again to the question of love, that is the God we love. I think now we had better keep to the question of mind, that our minds are to become intelligent, because our minds are not nearly active enough. There is the power of the Spirit, the Spirit has come in to act on our minds. Nobody can deal with the points set out by men; they have not the truth; but it is our business to have the truth and to insist on the truth. It is a question of the mind. God has given us a mind that we should know the truth, “Ye shall know the truth”, the Lord says, “and the truth shall set you free”.
JHP So that these first two verses should be kept in mind whenever we are reading the gospel of John.
JT [p. 13] That is what I am thinking. These eighteen verses are wonderful verses; we come now to verse 14, to what the Lord became, “The Word became flesh”, speaking to us of the ability of a divine Person to change. The Word became something that He had not been before, not that He personally is something else, because He says, “Before Abraham was, I am”. There is no change in Him, personally, but He has become something else. Why should He not? A divine Person can do that; He can become something else, and that something is flesh; hence He has taken flesh; “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we have contemplated his glory”. Well, there it is in these first fourteen verses; let us go in for that.
LLP God says to Moses in his moment of hesitancy, “I AM THAT I AM”, Exodus 3: 14. Would that have any bearing on it?
JT That is Exodus coming into John, but it does not come up to John. That is Jehovah saying that He is what He is, and of course we revel in that thought, but when we come to John’s gospel we get a divine Person formally stating that in the beginning He was, and He was with God, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. That is a greater statement than that in Exodus.
Rem The greatness of the Person is emphasised in the opening verses of the first chapter of Hebrews, as well as here. The writer of that book also seems to have the greatness of the Person in mind. He says, “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made by himself the purification of [p. 14] sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high”.
JT We are reading Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews, as he is no doubt the author, and he is dealing with instrumentality, that is to say, God has an instrument that He is using, and that instrument is the Son; it says, “God ... has spoken to us in the person of the Son”. It is God Himself that is acting, but God in Son.
SJH Is it important to keep those names in the right setting? It does not say, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was the Son; it says, “The Word was God”.
JT Just so. We do get the Son in Hebrews, but it is not on the same level really as what we get in John l, because in Hebrews it is a question of instrumentality as regards what God is doing. He touches on the idea of the Son, that the Son is the instrument through which things are done, but it is God Himself that is doing the thing, though as the Son. He is doing them as the Son.
AD It is all in relation to how God is speaking, is it not, the different ones whom God has used in speaking?
JT That is right. He has spoken by the prophets, and now He is speaking “in the person of the Son”. It brings out the greatness of the Speaker.
AR In John 1 you do not get the incarnation until verse 14?
JT Exactly. Verse 14 is the beginning, “And the Word became flesh”, that is the beginning of things. That of course leads up to John’s epistle.
AR So you really get sonship in verse 14 for the first time?
JT It says, “And we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, and then it goes on to speak of the only-begotten Son. It is a question of the sonship [p. 15] of Christ.
AR Which helps us to understand the idea of the incarnation, does it not? What was before that we do not know.
EP In the contemplation of the greatness of the Lord Jesus here, we are to hold the other divine Persons equally in our minds. Does the stressing of the greatness of Christ here as the Word help us as to this?
JT Well, of course, “the Word was God”, and therefore “God” as being all three Persons; the three Persons are included in that. It is not the Father, it is God, “the Word was God”.
WWM In speaking of our minds, have we to remember that there is such a thing as an uncreated sphere; and that the operations in Genesis in the creation come from One in the uncreated sphere?
JT Very good, the word confirms that; He is gone up beyond all the heavens; that is, into an uncreated sphere.
Ques How should we understand verse 4 of John l, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”?
JT It is what is called a reciprocal proposition, that is to say, you can say the life was the light of men, or you can say the light of men was the life. It is to show that it is a question of men, not of angels, nor of any other beings. The life refers to men, and we are the men. That is to say, in Christ was light for men, and that light was life, and it is for men, which of course includes women; it is a question of the human race. That is a wonderful thing that we may dwell upon, that God selected men for the working out of all His thoughts.
Ques He refers to the men later in the gospel, does He not, “the men whom thou gavest me”?
JT Quite so, but that is more a matter of development in men, that they are not children. But the word men by itself includes the whole [p. 16] race.
SMcC It has been said that we are limited to the terms of the economy; but while we are governed by the light of the economy, would not this scripture remind us that while the Lord Jesus and the Spirit are in the economy in a subordinate way, there is personally a greatness about Them that we are not to forget?
JT We should ever remember the word ‘mystery’; “the mystery of piety is great”. We hardly know what that means, I feel it for myself that I know so little about mystery, “Behold, I tell you a mystery”, Paul says. We should be mysterious persons; the world does not understand us at all. We know so much as we do because we are selected by God to have this knowledge, the knowledge of Himself. And so Paul says, I want you to know how much I know about mystery. That is what he says to the Ephesians. Well, I say, I do not know what Paul knew but I would like to. That is what I think we should have before us, this idea of mystery.
Rem In that connection our minds should help us. It speaks of the mind of the Spirit.
JT Quite so.
Ques “By whom also he made the worlds”, Hebrews 1: 2. How are we to understand that?
JT Well, that refers to instrumentality; that is to say, it is God that is doing it, but it is really God in the economy, and God in the economy is using one of the Persons or two of Them. Certainly in Hebrews 1 it is the Son.
WMcK What is the distinction between what we are reading here, “the Word was God”, and 1 John 5, “He is the true God”?
JT We have just been saying that the same expression is found in John 17. The Father is said to be the true God there, but the Son is said to be the true God in John’s epistle. Well, we have to accept that, it shows the mystery of the thing. I [p. 17] think we should understand the thought of mystery; we should be humble about it, and be ready for mystery, and for inscrutability. It says, “the mystery of piety [or godliness] is great. 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”. Well, these are wonderful things; they are a mystery, but they are known to piety. What do I know about them? That is what everyone should ask himself.
JHP Would you say something on the sentence, “the Word was with God”? You have spoken of “the Word was God”.
JT Well, it is just to bring out the society, so to speak, the social feeling of the association between the Father and the Son, if we are to bring the economy into it. He was with God. ‘With’ is a peculiar preposition; this Person called the Word or the Logos was with God, that is the idea of association of the Persons. The word ‘association’ is the only one I can use to make it clear what existed between these Persons. But then the Spirit of God does not stop at that. He says, “The Word was God”. In the Roman economy, as I understand, there were three emperors at one time all on the same level, all of the same importance. If one said anything the others said it. Well, that is used just as an illustration of what we are saying as to Deity, that the three Persons are equal, They are equal actually in Their abstract relations.
AD Would that bring in the thought of unity, “the Word was with God”?
JT The word unity is not great enough.
ANW I was thinking of the expression used by Mr. Darby, ‘Distinctiveness of personality’.
JT We might say of ourselves that we are united or of one mind about things, but you cannot very [p. 18] well say that about divine Persons. The matter is too great for that.
FNW Would it be more in order to connect the word unity with the economies into which God may have entered, whether in creation, or in the present economy? We are speaking now of the association before any economy was entered upon.
JT Yes, and it is all abstract, it is a question of dealing with matters abstractly.
SMcC So that the prepositions in these first eighteen verses are really unique, are they not? The prepositions are divinely selected. You said years ago in regard to the controversy in connection with our Lord’s sonship that the prepositions in these eighteen verses were like a sword guarding the Person of Christ, and the preposition ‘with‘ to which you have been referring involves what you have been saying-association.
JT That is so.
ANW And is not the excellence of wisdom seen in the fact that it says, “In the beginning was the Word”, not, In the beginning was the Son?
JT Just so.
SJH Do we understand then that there are three divine Persons known as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, yet there is one God?
JT Paul says, “Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. We might add the Spirit, but the Spirit is not mentioned there; though in truth He is there. Therefore there is nothing in that to militate against what we are saying.
SJH In thinking of the Father then, it would not include the three Persons?
JT Oh, no; the Father is distinct as one Person, “one God, the Father”. The Father there is viewed as God, but not as three Persons. God is entitled [p. 19] to that name and that is the way John generally uses the word Father.
Ques Would it be right to say that these terms have their significance only in view of the incarnation?
JT Just so; the incarnation makes it all very simple. God is pleased to make it simple for us, and yet we are feeling the need of learning the mysteries so as to understand inscrutability, to get some idea of inscrutability.
Ques When the Lord says, “I and the Father are one”, is that in relation to His operations here in the economy?
JT Quite so, because what is in mind is what is being done.
VCL Does not the use of certain terms such as the word ‘beginning’ in verse 1 show the extraordinary grace of the Spirit of God to encourage us to understand as much as we can with our minds?
JT That is right, and the Spirit of God is here this afternoon just to help us on these lines, and if we are kept in His mind we shall get help, because we are dealing with the greatest things, and we are to see how we can take them into our minds, being humble about it, and getting to God about it. Prayer is a great thing. Luke would go with John in regard to that, for Luke is constantly alluding to prayer; he says of the Lord, that He prayed all night.
RP Would you say a little more as to the prepositions our brother referred to?
JT You tell them, Mr. McC., about those prepositions.
SMcC I am just thinking of what you yourself had drawn attention to in that article, The Names of Divine Persons, which was a means of help to the whole assembly. You pointed out that the preposition ‘with’ in verse 1 involved equality, ‘alongside of’; whereas the preposition ‘in’ in verse 18, “in the bosom of the Father”, indicates that the position was arrived at by motion towards, and this alludes to the Lord in manhood, not in the pre-incarnate conditions of Deity.
RP That is very beautiful.
JT Yes, it is very beautiful, and we should like to see the sisters coming into all this because it is for them; they belong to the race, designated ‘man’, the kind of people that the revelation is for, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”, including women and children, whatever they are, they are all included in it. The sisters here today are here to learn and to get in the truth with the brothers and be like them as far as they may be according to divine directions.
JKP Mr. Darby’s note to verse 2 refers to, ‘such a one as that’. Is that to emphasise His Person and that He was eternal? Can you say anything more to help us in the matter of the control of our minds as giving them over to the contemplation of so great a Person?
JT Well, I think the word Logos is what is in mind. Not anyone of us here perhaps knows much about Greek; but it is clear that what we have been speaking of is clearing up our minds as to this question. When we sit down to the Lord’s supper, we want our affections to be active, but the mind is active even there; it is ‘For the calling of Me to mind’, the Lord says. So that we should have our minds taken up with these things, and so should be able to speak accurately as to them.
JSSr Is that why the first operation was, “Let there be light”?
JT Well, that is first, the idea of the day, that things are to be clear. And so in John’s epistle, we are told that God is in the light, and that “if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another”.
AAT We have been talking about abstract things, but is it not difficult for our minds to take in abstract things?
JT I do not think so, if we accustom our minds to it. It is a question of how you have used your mind and how I have used mine. Then we were talking just now about sisters, are they using their minds? Because God has given them minds too, and they are to be used. It is very striking that the Lord’s supper is said to be ‘for the calling of Me to mind’; that is what the Lord said. The same word is used as regards the bread and the cup.
EP Is it your thought that the great teaching involved in these first three verses underlies all the teaching in this gospel?
JT That is right, those three wonderful verses.