THE WITNESS OF GOD - THE ASSEMBLY
[p. 300] THE WITNESS OF GOD - THE ASSEMBLY
Luke 24:48,49; Acts 1:8: Acts 7:54 - 60; Acts 22:14 - 21; 1 John 5:10 - 12; Genesis 21:22 - 34
JT In designating the saints as witnesses, the Lord distinguishes between the idea of witness conveyed in one’s knowledge of a thing or occurrence, and the same person as sent or called upon by heaven to witness. In Luke 24 He says, “Ye are witnesses”, not yet my witnesses; that is, they were competent, by observation of the things He was alluding to, so that they could speak with certainty of them; and then in the first of Acts He says, “Ye are my witnesses”. In John the qualification was that they were with Him, but in Luke it is that they saw the things and they were to tarry in Jerusalem until they should be clothed with power from on high, so that they should be in a state and have power to bear witness.
I mention all that because of what we had before us this morning. We have to see the things, as it were, before we can speak of them, and then in order to speak of them we must have power.
AFM In Luke’s gospel they were qualified as witnesses, having been with Him from the beginning, but they were not His witnesses until they were endued with power from on high.
JT Quite. One may be a witness of an occurrence and never bear testimony to it, but no one can bear testimony unless one is a witness. And then following on that there is the clothing from on high to bring in the state and power in which the thing is to be witnessed. As Luke gives it in the Acts, they were to be His witnesses; that, I think, is the relation of it not simply witnesses, but My witnesses.
[p. 301] Then He promises power from on high. The witness is to be rendered in heavenly power, not only that the fact is stated, but stated in such wise as to carry conviction.
AL The Holy Spirit was given first at Pentecost, and Peter says, “He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear”, Acts 2:33. So would you not say that in preaching or in bringing out the truth in any way, we might be more effective if we were to restrict ourselves to what has been formed by the Spirit in us?
JT It is really only that to which we can witness.
GAT Would you say that the disciples would witness to what they had seen and heard? Now we witness to what the Spirit of God has made good in our souls.
JT Hence it takes the form of what you see in a spiritual sense. Paul, I think, is the typical witness in Christianity, following upon Stephen. Stephen is the one who was formally called the Lord’s martyr or witness. Paul says “Thy witness”, so that in order to get the thought I think we have to study Stephen. Paul came in late. He was not a personal witness of the doings of Christ, but he was taken up by the Lord and had to receive sight. It says, “Ananias went and entered into the house; and laying his hands upon him he said, Saul, brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus that appeared to thee in the way in which thou camest, that thou mightest see, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he saw”. Acts 9:17,18. The Lord in opening the man’s eyes at Bethsaida performs a double service. First, the man does not see clearly, and then he sees all things clearly. The next thing in Mark 8:29 is that the Lord proposes the question: “Whom say ye that I am?” Mark 8:29 That is,
[p. 302] it is one who has had his eyes opened that has spiritual eyesight, that sees things, so that one becomes a witness, I think, in the sense in which Paul was a witness, as seeing things spiritually. Much reference is made to Paul’s eyes. The twelve saw the Lord as He was on earth and witnessed His works, and so the apostle to be appointed to take the place of Judas should be one who had companied with them during all the time the Lord Jesus had gone in and out amongst them, from the baptism of John until the time He was received up; but there is no such qualification required for Paul. He does not represent that. He represents the kind of witness that flows from spiritual understanding and seeing, which I think is indicated in the extraordinary occurrence to his eyes at Damascus. Evidently his eyes were later afflicted. He suffered from his eyes, so much so that the Galatians would have plucked theirs out to give them to him. But he saw better than they did.
AFM The passage we read would bear upon that. He says in Acts 22:14,15, that Ananias said to him: “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth, for thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou has seen and heard”.
AN Do I understand that you are establishing the point that before there can be witness borne, evidence given, you must see the things that you give evidence to, and while that was true of the apostles (that is, they actually did see the things), the principle is just as essential for us now that the things be seen spiritually?
JT That is what I was trying to bring out, and I thought that Paul, having before his eyes in Stephen’s martyrdom the full thought of a witness to [p. 303] Christ, had to go through this extraordinary experience so that he might have eyesight to see as Stephen did. Stephen “being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven” and he says, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”. There is a man bearing witness by his words and death to Christ, and he looked up steadfastly into heaven, being full of the Holy Spirit, and he saw the glory of God and Jesus. That, I think, is an indication of how things stand in Christianity.
It is not the Lord’s life on earth. The twelve were to go into the temple and speak “all the words of this life”, Acts 5:20. Every detail of that life should be spoken. They were competent to speak of it, because they witnessed it, but Paul says he did not even know Christ after the flesh; at least he says: “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” 2 Corinthians 5:16, so that the thing is what one sees in heaven, and that is what is needed by us to bear testimony. Stephen is the model, I think, and so Paul has the extraordinary occurrence to his eyes at the outset. Later he points to the power of vision he had to see things in heaven.
GWH-n Is there any connection between the end of Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 3?
JT “We all with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord” 2 Corinthians 3:18 is very like what Stephen says, “I see the heavens opened”, which is very extraordinary. Now, the epistle to the Hebrews has been likened to that — “the book of the opened heavens”. It is what you see. “We see not yet all things put under him, but we see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour”, Hebrews 2:8,9. I think that is how things stand in Christianity. Stephen is the beginning of it and it is taken up by Paul, and hence, as I believe, the extraordinary occurrence to his eyes.
GAT Paul says: “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen”, 2 Corinthians 4:18.
JB-t Speaking of the gospel of Luke, would not that be written in the light of Paul’s ministry, Paul’s witness, and give a peculiar character to Luke with regard to heavenly things?
JT Quite.
AFM Do you mean, in regard of Paul’s eyes, that he was blinded to the things of earth, and that he had wonderful vision in regard to the things of heaven? Is that what is in your mind?
JT Yes. His experience was an extraordinary one and Ananias makes much of it.
AFM There fell from his eyes as it were scales. What would that signify?
JT I suppose the scales would, as it were, shut out all that he had been engaged with, that world for which he was trained. He was educated for this world, and those scales, I apprehend, would shut out all that for which he was educated, and now he had to begin over again. He had to begin washing away his sins, calling upon the Lord, and he would be filled with the Holy Spirit. A wholly new vista opens up under his opened eyes.
GAT Would you say this is where the value of the water comes in? In order to be brought into the good of this, the water must be applied first.
JT Just so. His sins were washed away — “Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”, Acts 22:16.
GWH-n Why are we so weak on this point? A mighty gospel preacher was the apostle, but this preceded his preaching.
JT What happened to his eyes enabled him to see divine things — to see “all things clearly” As we saw in the gospels, Mark makes much of that incident at Bethsaida. After the blind man’s eyes were opened [p. 305] the Lord asks the disciples as to who He was. Peter said He was the Christ. Paul preached Him at Damascus as the Son of God.
HG The Pharisees asked for a sign and the Lord says, “Ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” Matthew 16:3. That indicates things we may see — moral movements of which we are conscious.
WE Do you think it is possible for the soul at the first to get a sight of Jesus where He is? Does he begin that way?
JT That is where he should begin. If a right gospel is presented to him, he will begin there; Paul preached “the gospel of the glory”.
HG So you look for men with vision. Is that the idea of it? Where no vision is the people perish, and things are maintained livingly by men who see in that sense — by the seers. We want seers amongst us.
GWH-n So that having been converted by the light from the glory, one would have no question whatever about the reception of the Spirit, would he?
JT He would see that the Lord gives the Spirit to the believer — “after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise”, Ephesians 1:13.
AL It is very remarkable in regard of Stephen. As a deacon he was full of faith and of the Holy Spirit. Then, when he wrought his miracles it was grace and power; when he looks into heaven it is as full of the Spirit. It reminds one of the hymn that was given out:
“And see, the Spirit’s power
Has ope’d the heavenly door”. (74:5)
I suppose one is entirely characterised by the Spirit before he can look into [p. 306] heaven.
JT Just so. As we remarked, Stephen may be regarded as a type of any of us, brother or sister, because it is given to us to be full of the Holy Spirit. The most insignificant service in Christianity is to be in the power of the Spirit, and that, I think, is why Stephen is representative of the activity of the Spirit; he is unofficial. It does not appear that he had any distinctive gift. There is nothing said about this. What is said about him is that he was full of the Spirit, that he was full of faith, and that they could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke, and that his face was like the face of an angel. These are all things that are within our range as Christians; and then he understood the Old Testament. That is an important part of the education of a believer so as to be a witness.
AN Do you not think you get the principle worked out in regard of Elijah and Elisha, that is, when Elijah was about to be taken up, he said to Elisha, “Ask what thou wilt”? Elisha says, ‘I want a double portion of your spirit’. Elijah’s answer was: “If thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee”, 2 Kings 2:9,10. I suppose that is the principle and the way it works out — “if thou see me when I am taken from thee”. The one who sees Christ taken up comes into the sphere of testimony in the energy of the Spirit’s power.
JT And so in the passage read in Acts 1: “And having said these things he was taken up”. He said “these things”, that they were to receive the Holy Spirit and be His witnesses. They saw Him go up, so that there is a striking relation between them and Elisha.
AFM Would the character of the witness be from above? I was wondering whether the occupation of one with Christ in glory would enable him to witness from [p. 307] the top.
JT I think that is what Christianity is. Stephen is the link between the two dispensations, I suppose. He is transitional. His face was shining like the face of an angel, that is to say, he is a man who is already influenced by heaven. He is, as it were, heavenly — not yet by the knowledge of the heavenly position doctrinally, but anticipating it in spiritual energy. His face reflects what is in heaven. He begins with Abraham. He says, “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia”. Acts 7:2.
He begins there and in the most masterly way he links up the testimony of the Spirit in the Old Testament right down to Christ, and charges them with being the betrayers and murderers of Christ, involving immense courage, for it was in the presence of the council of the Jews, and of their hatred, which was now showing itself. He lifts up his eyes to heaven and he sees the glory of God there, so that you have the thread of the testimony carried forward and fixed in heaven in Christ. The glory of God is in heaven, and Jesus is there.
GAT What is the difference between the glory of God and Jesus? Are they two different thoughts?
JT The allusion is, I think, to the Shekinah. The Shekinah was the symbol of the divine presence in the temple at Jerusalem, and Ezekiel had seen it loath to leave the temple. It dwelt on the threshold of the house, then went to the mount of Olives. And so it was in Stephen’s day. God was loath to withdraw from His earthly people, but He was doing so. He was forced to do it. He had done so, for His glory was no longer in the temple: it was on high with Jesus.
GAT And would you say that Jesus standing here would be a testimony to what Peter had preached, that if they had accepted Him God would have sent Him back? Paul sees Him sitting. Is that [p. 308] right?
JT Quite. Stephen sees Him there, and so you have in this witness the link of the testimony carried over, which I think is an important thing in our witness, that we do not ignore anything of God that has preceded us. All that has been given before is carried forward and established in what we say.
AN Not seeing the glory of God, that is, not viewing it as Stephen did, Israel was left in darkness. If the Shekinah cloud of glory had gone up in Ezekiel’s day, they were lost; there was no indication at all of where God was. I think it comes back on the mount of Transfiguration, but only to those that were privileged to see it; but here there is testimony borne to the fact that it is up there, that is, in heaven. There is a key now to the ways of God; everything is transferred up there.
JT That is the thing of which we need to get hold. There is a cumulative principle in what you are saying. You have the present light, the present position, but you connect with it all that preceded it, showing that it is one whole. That is a great point in witnessing, and so Stephen having said what he said to the Jews, witnessed, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”.
The One whom he saw was Jesus. That was for his own heart. The Holy Spirit tells us that it was Jesus he saw, but his testimony is in different terms. Bearing testimony to the Jews it is the Son of man. God is moving on; He is now moving out to a wider area than that indicated in the God of glory appearing to Abraham. It is the Son of man now. As the Lord Himself had said to Nathanael, “Thou shalt see greater things than these.. hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man”, John 1:50,51.
AL In view of this wider area the heavens are [p. 309] opened.
JT That is what I was thinking. God is moving out, and Stephen’s testimony is the more remarkable in that he knows what he is saying. What he got for his affections was the sight of Jesus in the glory, but what he bears testimony to is the Son of man, and that is the key to a lot of things in the Old Testament, as well as to the Lord’s ministry as rejected by the Jews. He retires into His relations with the race; He is the Head of the race.
AL Was not that wonderful grace on God’s part to the Jew, that after the murder of Christ He gave him a further testimony by the Spirit?
JT In the epistle to the Romans you see God’s ways as to the Jew reconciled. Blessing has come out through their folly, but nevertheless God will return to them, so that the Gentiles must not be high-minded, but fear. We stand by faith. It is now to be a faith period, based on testimony, and Stephen opens the door, as it were, into that wide domain in which God is operating and for which He calls out faith.
AFM The keys are used formally in Peter, I suppose, and Paul goes out of the door to the nations in the light of the Son of man.
JT Quite, so that you have the testimony of the Son of man, and then the next great thing is the light from heaven; Acts 9. Paul’s eyes were to take in all that light conveyed. Stephen sees things in heaven; Paul gets a light from heaven.
AL Would you say that the testimony of the Son of man was known already to the Jews in their Scriptures? The Psalms speak of it.
JT As our brother called attention to it the other night, Psalm 8 spoke of it. Man had a universal place and the question in that Psalm is, “What is Man, that thou are mindful of him, and the Son of man, that thou visitest him?” Psalm 8:4. The explanation of it, of course, is in Christ. He [p. 310] is the Man.
AL So when the Jews asked Him, “Who is this Son of man?” John 12:34 they did not acknowledge Him as the Son of man, but Stephen brings it to their consciences. They were the murderers of that “Just One”.
LS Referring to Ezekiel again, the whole range of glory is opened up in connection with the Son of man. We must have spiritual eyesight to take it all in.
JT You get the term “Son of man” more frequently in Ezekiel than in all the rest of Scripture together, and it shows what his ministry involved. “Behold with thine eyes”, Ezekiel 40:4 he is enjoined.
WB Paul’s mission involved for others what specially occurred to his own eyes — “to open their eyes”. Acts 26:18.
JT That is good. His own eyes were opened, so he could open other people’s eyes.
AN How important it is that we should take account of the titles under which the Lord appears, that is, that we might use them intelligently. When it is a question of the Beautiful gate at the temple, it is “Jesus of Nazareth”, Acts 3:6 because that was a real test to the Jew, it was the despised Nazarene that all their enmity was against, and the witnesses are relentless; they bring that out which bears upon their state. With Stephen here, it is the Son of man. It was an indication that the glory was going out far wider. It had been confined within Jewish limits until then, but it would go far beyond these.
JT Then the “young man” standing there holding the clothes of those that stoned him, got such an impression of Stephen that he calls him the Lord’s martyr. I think that Paul thus referring to Stephen enables us to understand what witnessing is. And so, while Stephen speaks of the Son of man, his own character was like Christ’s. I think we ought to bear that in mind, that it is not only what I say, but what I am. He was Jesus’ witness not only in what he [p. 311] said, but that he was just like Him. He kneeled down, when his life was being battered out by the stones, and said, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge”.
AN That would bear out what our brother referred to in 2 Corinthians 3: “we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image” 2 Corinthians 3:18. He comes out in the character of Christ.
JT It would, in a most striking way. One never refers to this incident without being touched by it; God has set it down there at the outset of Christianity, and we have it as a model.
WB How different from the utterances in the Psalms seeking vengeance on the enemies.
JT And then the intelligence with which Stephen guarded his words. The Lord had said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. Luke 23:34. He did not limit His request. Stephen limits what he asks for. He says, “Lay not this sin to their charge”. It was a question of what was personal. He did not demand any retribution for himself.
HG It is very good what you say about “thy martyr”, that it is not sufficient to be prepared to die for the testimony, there is also the spirit in which it is done. One has heard of men, professedly Christians, who would go to prison for a certain thing, but there is a good deal in regard to them which calls attention to themselves; whereas this man is obliterated as to himself, but he brings out the features of Christ, which would really be the perfection of the whole position. You feel that Paul must have recognised that there were no ‘scales’ on Stephen’s eyes.
WB Would not this distinguish the martyrs generally?
JT I think so. You get many examples, more or less faithfully recorded, of martyrdom, in measure like Stephen’s. The thing is to be like Christ in [p. 312] bearing testimony, not only to know what to say, but how to say it, and manifest a readiness to suffer, if need be, without vengeance. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord”. Romans 12:9. It is not the time of vengeance.
GAT Would you say we can only develop this by being in His own company?
JT I think that is right. The way it is seen in Stephen is that he was full of the Holy Spirit, as a Christian, before he was selected for the little bit of service that was given him. Then he developed, and purchased to himself “a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus”. 1 Timothy 3:13.
Before we go on to what is collective, we see in Acts 22 how that the Lord acknowledges formally that Paul witnessed of Him, so that we are to learn from Stephen and Paul, I think, particularly as to witness. He appeared to him that night, saying, “Be of good courage, for as thou hast testified the things concerning me at Jerusalem, so thou must bear witness at Rome also”, Acts 23:11.
It was not words only of which He was speaking. It was a terrible time that Paul had, but he was a witness of Jesus in it. The Lord adds, “thou must bear witness at Rome also”, which he did for a long time, in his own house and in prison. He witnessed of Christ in the Roman capital.
EGMcA There is enlargement in the witness. Stephen had one experience and died, but Paul says, “I die daily” 1 Corinthians 15:31.
JT The Lord said He would show him how great things he must suffer for His sake, and I thought we might see in Abraham’s attitude toward the Philistine king, and the captain of his host, how we are to be in our own times, how we are to advance in dignity in witnessing.
What has come out, I think, in these last days, is that the testimony of the Spirit, although unacknowledged [p. 313] by the leaders of the world, is nevertheless well known to them, and its superiority is known, if they will admit it. Abraham had advanced in the truth, in the knowledge of God, and the Philistine king has to come to him, and come to him with the leader of his army. He has to come with all he has in the way of power. Leaders of today are made to feel that the testimony of the Spirit is greater and in more power than what they can present themselves.
So Abimelech comes to Abraham and Abraham reproves him, showing the moral power that the man had acquired, although, as it were, an immigrant in the land. He would be regarded in that light, but he had acquired such power in the land that Abimelech had to come to him with Phichol, the captain of his host. It was no ordinary affair. The Philistine king was conscious of Abraham’s superiority to him, so that he comes with the man who represented his power, his general, and Abraham reproves him in regard of a well that Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away. At the present time there are men of great power acting against the truth.
AEH The point of issue is the Spirit.
JT The well was a source of supply, which is a great advantage in testimony. No one can be successful in it without the well, without a source of refreshment. There is power in it. It is a spring. The Philistine knows that and he takes it away from you. Later on they contended with Isaac, and Isaac submitted. But here Abraham reproves the king. What I think we should see is the dignity of the witness, how he is consciously superior to the greatest men, with the evidence of all their power present.
AFM The Philistine represents a religious order of things, which I suppose will apply at the present time to what is around us.
JT I think he applies particularly to the men around us who are attacking Christ. They are on the [p. 314] line of nature, big men, with certain assumed right of antiquity and the like. They were in the land before Abraham. There was a system there. Abraham did not have that exactly. He was just a family man, but with the Philistines there was a king with his military leader.
AN They came out of Egypt, but they did not come by the way of the Red Sea and the Jordan.
JT That is it. They were on the line of nature; they did not accept death. What I wanted to say was that they made a covenant and exchanged cattle, and Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs. No military power about that! Nothing very imposing in a military sense in seven ewe lambs.
I refer to all this because it brings out the kind of thing that God would have amongst us. Abimelech says ‘What are they for?’ Such a thing would never enter into his natural mind. Abraham was on spiritual lines. He had no thought of meeting Abimelech with a military leader, although he had trained servants in his house when they were needed. Abraham’s order of things was a household in which trained servants were, men who could fight if necessary, but they were not on that line; they were not seeking war. Abimelech says, ‘What are these?’ Abraham replies, in effect, ‘These are to be a witness that I have dug this well, but I am not on the line of man’s power at all. I am not advancing myself or asserting my rights. These represent what is in my mind’.
Seven ewe lambs are fruitful. They are potentially a flock for God, as you might say. So that I think if we are to be witnesses, the thing is to make it clear that we are on this line — not combative, but marked by the meekness and gentleness of Christ.
AFM Abraham did not compromise the testimony;
[p. 315] had he acted in the spirit of Abimelech and Phichol he would have done so.
JB-t Would you say that the work of Abraham, as set forth in the witness, was digging the well, and that it was for the establishment of a flock, for their benefit?
JT That was what he had in his mind. As Abimelech would look on those seven ewe lambs, he was to be reminded of that. Doubtless, he would not understand, but the testimony was there. “Let your gentleness be known of all men; the Lord is near”, Philippians 4:5.
AN A sucking lamb would not have done here at all. In Samuel’s day, when things were in weakness and when they were beset by the power of the enemy, Samuel presented to God a sucking lamb, that which was, so to speak, an expression of their weakness and how dependent they were; but here it was victory and moral dignity.
LS The tender sympathies and affections of Christ, as formed amongst us, would promote fruitfulness, which would be an element of witness.
JT I think the seven ewe lambs are Philippians — what Paul was, and what the Christian is normally in the testimony.
AFM Children of God, harmless, blameless.
BTF What about the well?
JT We were saying that there was much contention between the Philistines and Abraham and Isaac about wells. Here the well was taken away violently by the king’s servants. It would be, I suppose, an effort of the enemy to deprive Abraham of his resources, the means of freshness and vigour in the testimony. That is what the enemy would do, but Abraham would not give up that and so he sets up this witness in the presence of Abimelech that he had dug that well. It [p. 316] was his.
AFM He goes on, does he not, to Beersheba? What about that?
JT We arrive at the “place”. You will observe that in this chapter Beersheba is called a place; it is more a principle in this chapter, but in chapter 26 it is called a city. The principle is not only there, it is established, the principle of the faithfulness of God. Here Abraham calls upon the name of the eternal God. He is set up in dignity and stability in the light of the faithfulness of God. He is morally superior to Abimelech and his army.
AFM That would enable the testimony to be maintained here.
JT That is, I think, what we should come to, the dignity of the position, the apprehension of the place of Christ in heaven, His supremacy there and the power of the Spirit here.
BTF Would you say it was the maintaining of what was heavenly in the earthly position?
JT Just so. It was a great moral victory Abraham gained, and now he calls on the name of the eternal God.
Just one other thought: the collective position. In the passage we read in John’s epistle emphasis is laid on life amongst us, as in itself a witness. It is not now what we say, but what we are and what we enjoy. I was thinking of the plague of lice or gnats in Egypt as representative of this in a collective way. And Lazarus may be taken as a type of it as in an individual. He was an object of the enemies’ attack; they would put him to death because people believed on Jesus on account of him; but the plague of lice, as we have often remarked, being an evidence of God’s finger acting, was a question of life that could not be imitated. If you can get an inimitable thing, then you have an advantage that cannot be overcome, so that the magicians say, “This is the finger of God”. Exodus 8:19. They could not produce life, and so God says after that, ‘I am going to distinguish My people from the Egyptians’. They are marked off henceforth. Attention has been called to it before. They are marked off now from the Egyptians. The distinction is not what we know, but what we are. You cannot get anything like the circle of the saints, where the Holy Spirit is operative, where divine affections are active. That cannot be imitated. The magicians themselves admitted it, so that the advantage is insuperable. God marks us off as possessed of life.
GWH-n I believe that being in the good of eternal life is a very great witness to God. Would you please tell us a little of what leads up to eternal life, how that is effected in the soul?
JT I think we had it yesterday. The witness that God has given of His Son is that He has come in by the means of the water and the blood, and the Spirit bears witness to the efficacy of the water and the blood, and then the believer has the witness in himself. As a believer he has all this testimony that God has given of His Son. He has the thing. He has, in the language of the Lord, “passed from death unto life”; John 5:24 in his own consciousness he has passed from death unto life as loving the brethren. He has the witness in himself, and so he does not have to go afield for it. It is in “His Son”. “And this is the witness, that God has given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son”. It keeps us from being independent. We have the witness in ourselves, but we have it in Christ. It is one life that we all have.
AL This is what makes it eternal life.
JT What is presented to me objectively in the way of light becomes life in me. Of course, I have the Spirit, or it could not become life in my soul. I am born anew and I know the value of the water and the blood, but the Holy Spirit operates in relation to all these things, so that I lay hold of things and I enjoy things. I am purified in mind and affections [p. 318] and apprehend God in Christ, so that I am living in these things. They are my life. Christ is thus to the believer the true God and eternal life.
AL And the evidence of life is love to the brethren.
JT Yes. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren”, 1 John 3:14. Then John says, “These things have I written to you that ye may know that ye have eternal life”, 1 John 5:13 that is conscious knowledge. He gives you indications whereby you should know that you have it.
AL It is in a holy circle, not mere human affections.
JT It is in the circle in which Christ is all, so that in these verses (from verse 6 to the end) it is a question of the testimony of the Spirit to Christ in relation to what He has done for us and the blessing He has brought in for us in His own Person — not exactly the truth of His Person as in John’s gospel, but what He is as coming in with the means of relief for us, and the blessing, eternal life, given us in Him. “He is the true God and eternal life”. 1 John 5:20. It is all a question of testimony to Christ in these verses.
LS At the end of Ezekiel 43:35, it says, “And the name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there”.
AN I thought it remarkable, too, in the fourth chapter of the epistle, the way in which things are put together. There is the manifestation of the love of God, that we might live through Him, and then there is the love of God in connection with propitiation for our sins, but that has in view that there should not be a single element that would cause any kind of difficulty or trouble. Then you come into the circle of divine affections, “If God so loved us, we ought also to love one another”; 1 John 4:11 and then, following upon that, we get that He has given us of His Spirit;
[p. 319] that is to say, as having given to us of His Spirit there is the power of life, so that you come into a sphere in which you live and where your affections are in movement, and then you come out in testimony: “we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world”. 1 John 4:14. I thought that is the way in which it works out.
JT So that the earlier part of this epistle, up to this passage, is more what God is. God is in the light: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us”. 1 John 3:1. But these verses refer to Christ, the witness of the Spirit to Christ in the things that have been brought in for our relief and blessing, so that we are set up in a circle in which He is known as the true God and eternal life.
JB-t “We know him that is true”. 1 John 5:20.
HG It is like Colossians.
JT Yes, because it is a question of Christ, where Christ is all and in all.
HG All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him.
AFM Philippians 2 would help in regard to the testimony as following this position; the apostle speaks of “holding forth the word of life”. Philippians 2:16. As being in Him, the testimony would be “the word of life”.
AN I was thinking of the importance of what you have dwelt upon, that in order that there should be witness you must see the things to which you bear witness. I recall an incident of a brother many years ago. He got up in the gospel meeting on a Sunday evening and his opening remark was: ‘My dear friends, we have been in heaven this morning and have come back to tell you what we heard and what we saw’. That was witness.
JT John the baptist says, “I saw and bare witness that this is the Son of God”. John 1:34.