THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (3)
[p. 39] THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (3)
JT I would suggest that we consider this chapter in relation to the Lord’s service in the public profession in modern times. This sign is not a sequel as the two earlier signs are; it is a new feature, and introduces the great subject of the Lord’s relations with His Father in His public service. It is a unique chapter in the gospel, and serves as an occasion to consider the relations of the divine Persons in their operations. The scene of the service is Jerusalem, not as yet abandoned by God, but rather where there were still interventions of divine mercy. The intervention of Christ in this scene in this manifest way, making a man completely whole, serves to bring out what Christendom is in its public aspect and profession; and that the work of grace in relation to it, though perfectly done, may end in no moral issue or result for God. So divine Persons themselves are brought into evidence as acting of themselves and by themselves, not mediately but directly, as if to remind us that divine activities will go on to the end whatever happens.
Rem You have in mind that there was no moral fruit resulting in this man who received the benefit, as there was, for instance, in the blind man in chapter 9, but that the sovereign activities of God go on irrespective of the result.
JT I think that is one lesson in the chapter, that although there were no outward permanent results, divine Persons go on in their activities in grace. In chapter 9 we see there is a result in the blind man which leads through the flock in chapter 10 up to the family in chapter 11, which is an encouraging side, because it shows that if one act of divine grace in the [p. 40] public sphere may not result in anything for God, divine Persons go on until there is something. The exercise begun in the blind man has its culmination in the early verses of chapter 12.
The man in our chapter is not detached from the current religious system; the Lord finds him in the temple. There is no thought of his coming into suffering because of his witness for Christ. In that way it may be applicable to what has taken place in the profession leading up to the last days. The man remains attached to his system instead of suffering with Jesus, and so the Lord has to say to him, “Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee”. That is the position; something worse will come. But the sign is perfect in itself; the man was made thoroughly well.
HES Are you distinguishing between the public sphere and that which is produced, particularly later on, in the vessel?
JT I am distinguishing between what has taken place in the public body without result for God, although the work was perfect in itself, and what subsequently had result in something for God. That is, chapters 9 to 12 inclusive, contemplate something for God; so that I think we may regard it as indicating that this dispensation will finish up with something for God. However small, it will be there in quality; but here there is nothing, and so divine Persons are seen acting by themselves. Even as to witness, the Lord appeals to His Father: “The Father who has sent me himself has borne witness concerning me” (verse 37).
Ques Would it be at all like Sardis? “I have not found thy works complete before my God”, Revelation 3:2. There was nothing fruitful for God.
JT Just so. Certainly Sardis had “received and heard”, but there was no result; but Philadelphia had result for God.
Ques In what way would His glory shine out when there is no result as in this [p. 41] case?
JT In the perfection of the work done and the grace that led Him to think of the man. The public position is described in the first four verses, and then it says, “There was a certain man there who had been suffering under his infirmity thirty and eight years. Jesus seeing this man lying there, and knowing that he was in that state now a great length of time, says to him, Wouldest thou become well? The infirm man answered him. Sir, I have not a man, in order, when the water has been troubled, to cast me into the pool; but while I am coming another descends before me. Jesus says to him. Arise, take up thy couch and walk. And immediately the man became well, and took up his couch and walked”. That is certainly the shining out of glory; and the public profession today, indicated in Jerusalem here, has had the advantage of corresponding testimony.
Ques The rich grace and power of God are there and available, whether it is received or not; it is what comes out from God in grace. So your thought is that the Father and the Son seen in their own immediate relationships, can handle the situation.
JT That is how the truth stands.
APM What is the application of this sign today?
JT Well, Sardis has been alluded to, but the revival a hundred years ago resulted publicly in disaster. What we are going on with now is, you might say, a remnant of a remnant. The great body of those affected by the light went off in independency and remained there. Others have gone off since, adding to the darkness. Thus in the many of those who were affected directly by the movement referred to, there was no result for God. Indeed there has been not only the opposition of imitation, but also, from time to time, direct attacks. They come back, knowing the place, with lanterns and torches and weapons. Compare John 18:2, 3.
EuR What is the import of the pool [p. 42] here?
JT It is not running water. It alludes, I think, to the stationary character of Christendom. Running water requires scope; you cannot have running water in such an institution as Presbyterianism for example; you cannot have it in those enclosures. Whatever is of God is not sluggish; running water is the Spirit given scope; the way is made for Him, the saints being together in affection. Our meeting here today is on that principle, thank God!
HMS And would this sign be in the nature of declaration, and not revelation in the way you have been speaking of it?
JT Somewhat. It is a public matter; God is seen here in the very centre of official religion. The evangelist tells us that “there is in Jerusalem, at the sheepgate, a pool”. One has often wondered why it is in the present tense, Jerusalem doubtless having been destroyed at this time; I think it means that this state of things continues around us. God has not wholly abandoned the public profession; the symbol of mercy is still there. You have the idea of a pool and occasional interventions in the troubling of the waters, but no permanent result.
Ques Would the river at Philippi “where prayer was wont to be made”(Acts 16:13) at the outset, and the Spirit’s speaking at the close be in contrast to the pool?
JT I think that is right; a river is living. Rivers have power of self-purification. At the outset God brought in the rivers. In Genesis 1 the waters are gathered together into one place and the dry land appeared, but in chapter 2 you have a river going out of Eden to water the garden, and that is a thought that runs through Scripture.
Rem Like Revelation 22.
JT Exactly, and it brings out the gold. Apparently the link is with the gold. It says of the land encompassed by the river Pison — where the river has free course — that “the gold of that land is good; bdellium and the onyx stone are there”, Genesis 2:12. They come into evidence in relation to the river.
HES Were you suggesting that, however stagnant established religion might be, God in His grace was in activity?
JT There is a pool in Jerusalem. I should not like to think that God had wholly abandoned the public body. I do not think He has.
Rem I suppose we see the evidence of that in souls being brought into new birth and in evangelical work.
JT Yes. The work of God goes on, otherwise many of us would not be here today. There are angelic visitations, but the Lord comes in and acts entirely aside from these here. That is, He is not working on that principle. The yearly visitation is angelic; there is distance, whereas the Lord Jesus is operating aside from that altogether; He disregards the pool. He asks the man, “Wouldest thou become well?” He had been there a long time, and that is how matters are in the systems; you have to wait. It is a question in the general profession of officialism and what it decides. Whatever God may do has to be held up until officialism moves, and, moreover, there is no power in yourself either. There is no man there; the principle of sympathy is not there. “Sir, I have not a man”, the infirm man says, “in order, when the water has been troubled, to cast me into the pool”. Now, the Lord comes in in contrast to all that, and that is what I think we may see in the subsequent part of the chapter, how divine activities go on outside of all those things, and that they will go on. There is no thought whatever of divine Persons ceasing to operate. The Lord proceeds immediately to say, “My Father worketh hitherto and I work”. From the very outset the Father works.
HFN Are we justified in regarding what underlies this sign, as indicating that the Lord’s intent in the [p. 44] man walking, was that he might move in relation to the sphere where divine Persons are operating? In keeping with what was said as to the father and the son in the house (chapter 4), in this chapter you have the Father and the Son working together. Is there a link in any way?
JT That is very suggestive. The intent of the sign was to make the man superior to his circumstances. He carried his bed, and if he did that, he ought to be able to move in relation to divine operations, to move out of the limitations suggested in the pool. I think what is intended is to make him a son of light in relation to his circumstances, that his circumstances should not hold him, but that he should be free to move in relation to what divine Persons were doing. But he did not; he was found in the temple. He did not move spiritually at all.
HFN In chapter 1 it says, “No man hath seen God at any time”,(John 1:18) and then we have a reference here to the fact that there was no man to put him into the pool. Does the chapter supply the man?
JT I think so; the One in whom God is declared was ready to help the infirm man. We are here in the presence of one of the features of the declaration of God. It implies that we are made superior to our circumstances, which I think applies at the present time, because circumstances are very pressing. God would show us how we are to be superior to them, to carry them as it were, so as to move on with what is being done divinely. The great pressure that exists abroad today is a very serious matter, and it is a question whether we come into the good of this sign, and so are made superior to our circumstances — sons of light in relation to them — whether we may be able to carry them and move on. The sequel here, shows that divine Persons have to move on by themselves, and they will do so if we do not go on with them.
[p. 45] Ques What would you say was the real difficulty with this man seeing he did what the Lord wanted him to do?
JT He did not leave the system. He is not cast out; he bears no testimony that arouses any opposition to himself. He remains where he was, and the Lord finds him in the temple and says to him, “Behold, thou art become well; sin no more”. I think that would mean that the Lord had no confidence in him. As with the woman in chapter 8, there is nothing to indicate much work in her either, so the Lord says to her, “Sin no more”. But we do not get that with the woman at Sychar, nor with the man in chapter 9, nor with Lazarus, — he is let go; but here evidently the Lord has not much confidence in the man. If one comes into divine benefits and is not moving in relation to them, we lose confidence in him.
MWB Do you think the work here would have in view believers being brought into the liberty of the house in chapter 8?
JT I think it would. If we move on from this point as the Lord intended, superior to our circumstances, we shall find ourselves in the liberty of the house. But he was in the temple, he was not detached from the system that served him so poorly, and he did not seek out the Man who served him so well.
Ques The benefits brought in by Christ are enormous, but the great failing is there is no personal attachment to Christ? Is that the thing that comes out here?
JT People remain where they were, but the Lord may follow them up, even though there is no attachment to Him. So the Lord says, “Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee”. What a solemn suggestion as to the public body today and anyone remaining in it.
Ques Would this sign answer to the Lord standing at the door and knocking in Laodicea? The man being [p. 46] found in the temple would indicate that he had not opened the door to the Lord’s knocking, so to speak — that he did not value the Lord’s company.
JT That is right. There is no response personally to the Lord, and he is left with this solemn word of warning that something worse may happen to him.
Rem Had he moved he would have answered to Philadelphia: “I know thy works”, but here there was no work for the Lord to take account of.
JT Works that He approves are seen in those who are separate from evil. “Sin no more” is answered to by those who have the Spirit.
Rem I wondered whether it would help to compare this chapter with chapter 4. In chapter 4 the Lord speaks of a fountain of water and the results are wonderful, but here it is a pool.
JT The man does not move out of the circumstances in which he was, although he had the power. It is a question of the word of Christ. There was no conversation with the man as in chapters 3 and 4. It is just the word of Christ and the perfect result of it, a man made thoroughly well, but no moral effect in him, so that he stays where he is and rather brings persecution on the Lord.
DLH What is the force of the thirty and eight years, two years short of forty which is the full period of testing?
JT I suppose, applying it today, the two years remaining would be to finish the history of Christendom. Forty years is a tentative period. These thirty and eight years would indicate that nothing good was being worked out. Forty years would be the finish, so that Paul says, “Wrath has come upon them to the uttermost”, 1 Thessalonians 2:16. I suppose the man comes into that in principle, for he did not leave the doomed system. Later the Lord says, “Now is the judgment of this world”, John 12:31. Those who remain in it are judged with the world.
DLH “Sin no more” would refer to the government of God.
JT Exactly; sinning again would imply that he remained in the old environment, and would come in for what was coming upon it.
Ques The Lord here distinctly heals this man apart from the pool; why did He send the blind man to the pool?
JT I rather think the water was running in Siloam (compare Isaiah 8:5, 6). Anyway the word there is “sent”. There is a moral process in that man.
Rem The Lord discerned the work of God.
JT The Lord knew. “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him”, John 9:3. The works of God are manifested in him, but not in this man. “I have done one work”, the Lord said — not works; the works bear on each other and include the whole of God’s operations in a believer.
HES Is it a marked feature of John’s gospel that divine results are permanent? The thought is to produce movement in us, but that movement is not reached in the public body.
JT That is right. The first sign indicated that the disciples believed on Him; there was permanent result. They went down to Capernaum, and they are mentioned last after His mother and His brethren, but there is nothing of that with this man; he does not seek the Lord at all.
Ques Is it not important in chapter 8, in regard of the woman, that He says to her, “Sin no more”, and immediately speaks of following? “He that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”, John 8:12. Is it not a question of attraction?
JT Yes; it was for her to follow. He did not ask her to do it, as He did others. As I said, she is another case where results are doubtful.
Ques What relation has the sheepgate to [p. 48] the pool?
JT I suppose, professedly, it is where the sheep are cared for.
PL Would you say that the shepherd in chapter 10 and the door, are rather in contrast to the sheepgate and the five porches?
JT That helps. The gate involves an enclosure, a fold, as the pool implies a stationary thing. It was right so far to have an enclosure, but the time was coming when the shepherd’s voice would be heard. The voice of Jesus was there. “Wouldest thou become well?” and the man is empowered to carry his bed, that is, he can move. There was no need to stay in what was stationary; there was a way out. The shepherd was there, but the man did not take advantage of the liberty He gives; he is not characteristically a sheep.
PL Would the five porches suggest the indefiniteness of what is connected with Christendom? There is no way defined; the Lord says, “I am the way”, John 14:6.
JT Five would be here not only ordinary human weakness, but impotency. “Having five porches” possibly alludes to the different sects, involving many ways, whereas the Lord is the one way that we are to follow.
Ques Would the position of this man be in any way akin to the Galatians, in having received certain benefits and not continuing in them?
JT Exactly; they were going back to the limitations of the law which had served them so poorly. Paul speaks of the “beggarly elements”, meaning the poverty of it, in contrast to sonship, which would be involved in the believer having power to carry his circumstances. The idea is that if I have been relieved from my circumstances I can follow the Lord. What better can I do than keep with the Lord who so benefits me?
FWW Does the Lord raising the question of the sabbath suggest the idea of the Father working and He working with [p. 49] Him?
JT The sabbath had been broken (compare Zechariah 11:10,11). You could not keep sabbath in the presence of sin. Christ is the sabbath of God. It is remarkable that the Lord does these things on the sabbath so as to bring out that there could be no sabbath in the presence of sin. The sabbath is in Himself, and the Father rests in Him, because, potentially, sin is dealt with in His becoming a Man, compare John 1:29.
HMS With regard to the effect of the great sign in this chapter. Is it that the dead hear the voice of the Son of God; whereas the result of the sign in chapter 9 is more the sheep hearing the voice of the shepherd?
JT I think we can understand the shepherd coming in in chapter 10, because the idea of sheep is suggested in the man who was an outcast. I think the figure of the shepherd is to bring in the care that we need, as believing on the Son of God. It is to bring out the tender care of the shepherd, so that the idea of unity should come in leading up to the family. But this man does not show himself to be a sheep, and so divine Persons proceed in their operations, leading up to the voice of the Son of God and persons living by that voice, not only by the word. He says, “He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal, and does not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life”, but then the voice is more than the word. We do not get anything more than the word mentioned in regard of this man, but you get the idea of the voice connected with John’s sheep; and you get the idea of the voice in regard of the dead. It is not so much the word spoken, but the voice — the voice of the Son of God.
Ques How is that distinction between the word and the voice realised now?
JT The word conveys the mind, also authority, without carrying so much the thought of His affections, what Christ is personally. The voice is the Person [p. 50] more than what is said. A person is known by his voice.
PL So that in Revelation you have the “Word of God” and then “I Jesus”.
JT Just so. The latter is the Person. In chapter 1, John turns “to see the voice”, but afterwards we get what the Lord said.
DLH What would you say of the voice of the prophets?
JT That is in the sense of testimony. And of course there would be what the prophets are. The prophets were distinctive; so that Peter tells us what kind of men they were: “Holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). That is what the prophets are, and the voice would be a testimony from such persons.
DLH It seems like one voice; it is not the voices of the prophets, but the voice of the prophets.
JT That is important; it is their combined testimony. You get the voice from heaven too, in Revelation, without any mention of persons, but when you get the voice of the person distinctively mentioned, it is to call attention to the person.
ESH When the Lord returns it is with voice of archangel; what is your thought as to that?
JT It is characteristic; it is supreme authority in Christ, not exactly an archangel speaking.
EJMcB The man, in this case, hears the Lord’s word. He had the word of Jesus, but he did not know it. The idea of hearing His voice would be that he would know it.
JT That is the idea, and it comes out more fully in chapter 10, because the sheep know His voice, and follow Him on account of it.
PL The expression of John, to which you referred, in Revelation, “I turned back to see the voice”, (Revelation 1:12) would suggest the Person?
JT No doubt he had the Person in mind.
[p. 51] Rem The expression in the Song of Songs answers to it: “The companions hearken to thy voice, let me hear it” (chapter 8:13).
MWB It is interesting that Saul speaks of the voice, and also Ananias: “To see the just one, and to hear a voice out of his mouth” Acts 22:14.
JT That supports what we are saying. It is very precious that the Lord’s voice is known, but here it is the power that is in Him. It is that Person’s voice, the voice of the Son of God.
I think we might see in our enquiry this morning the great bearing of the operations of divine Persons that comes out in the Lord working and Jesus saying, “My Father worketh hitherto”. He might have said, Jehovah hath worked, but it is “My Father worketh hitherto and I work”. He is bringing in, in the most positive way, the nature of the relations between Himself and His Father in their operations. The passage brings out the equality of the Son, as Man with the Father; but He has assumed a relatively inferior position. I think the chapter is intended to regulate our minds in regard to divine Persons, in the mediatorial position into which They have come. “My Father worketh hitherto”; that is how this thing is going on; the Father works too. We have love in activity in the Father, but the Father is not presented to us as One remaining in the dignity and majesty of deity only, but as hitherto operating, and now the Son operates. “I work”, He says. It is the beautiful relations between Them in Their work. The Jews understood fully what the Lord meant, and I think that is the thing the Lord would help us in, to see the meaning of things, to think as Scripture thinks. The Jews understood that what the Lord was saying implied that He was equal with God. He says, “My Father worketh hitherto and I work”, and they say in effect, You are making yourself equal with God, and the Lord does not deny it. It is absolutely true. We can come into the knowledge of divine [p. 52] things, especially in relation to divine Persons, only by thinking in the terms of Scripture.
HFN You referred last night to the Lord ascending up far above all heavens. Would you mind saying how that relates to what you are speaking of this morning? What is the relation of that, to the mediatorial sphere that is opened up here?
JT It serves to emphasise what is brought out here. It is equality between divine Persons. The Person who has taken the lowly place, goes above all heavens, that is, beyond the created sphere. The mediatorial service of Jesus obviously has allusion to the created sphere; He has come into it mediatorially. Outside of that we cannot follow Him, and Ephesians clearly intimates that He has gone beyond that, “ascended up above all the heavens”, Ephesians 4:10. If we think in the terms of Scripture, we see that that means deity; it means a Person who has the right to go there, but what He is there, we cannot see. The Person is there, but we are limited. We must keep the word ‘inscrutable’ before us in dealing with these great matters.
HD'AC That is beyond the creature.
EuR Would you distinguish between that and what we have in John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”?
JT I would, for there the ascension is in relation to us, it is to His Father and our Father.
PL Would not the expression, “If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before”(John 6:62) connect with deity, as distinct from “I ascend to my Father and your Father”?(John 20:17) I was thinking that the former goes beyond the mediatorial sphere.
JT You cannot limit that, I am sure, but I think the point of view there is, that having come down out of heaven. He goes up to heaven, but we cannot follow Him beyond the created sphere. We have to accept our limitations. Nor can we be too positive or too negative as to what is in [p. 53] that realm.
ASL Is it not good to see also that, as you have just said, it is impossible for us to follow Him where He has gone far above all heavens, and it is equally impossible for us to know anything save what is declared, about what was before He came?
JT Exactly; the things revealed are for us, and not any more. I cannot even understand how the Lord moved about in the forty days after He rose. He was only occasionally manifested to His own. We have just to bow and say that while we do not understand fully, we worship the wonderful Person that could move about in that inscrutable way.
WCG “I go to prepare a place for you”;(John 14:2) would that refer to the new created sphere?
JT Yes. There is a new heaven and a new earth, but His going there has really prepared the place; there is a footing for men there; we have liberty as He has.
HMS Would you help us a little more as to verse 17? We have thought when the Lord Jesus said, “My Father worketh hitherto”, that He is referring to the past eternity.
JT I do not think that is the allusion, but to the breaking of the sabbath. That is, the rest of God was broken in upon by sin, and there had been no rest since, until Christ became Man. The first use of the word sabbath is in Exodus 16, linked with the manna, which is the idea of Christ as Man here. There was really no sabbath after sin came in until Christ came.
GWW Is the thought that what we may know lies between the two points, when He came into the created sphere, and when He left it?
JT Yes.
GWW You cannot travel back beyond the point where He came in and you cannot follow beyond the point where He went out.
Rem Would that be qualified by what the Lord may be pleased to reveal or declare? One quite follows what was said, but then He has declared certain [p. 54] things.
JT Surely; what He has declared, existed before; but it is brought in in relation to the creation, and in Himself as in the likeness of flesh of sin, in the form of man, in such wise as to be intelligible to the creature. I think that is most important, because it shuts out the idea that we can look into what is there. It is the thing brought out so as to be intelligible to us, and that in a Man, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”, John 1:18. In saying that what is declared existed before, I do not, of course, include the relations taken in order that there should be a declaration.
AFM Would it include the glory that the Lord asks to be glorified with in chapter 17:5?
JT That is beyond the created sphere. Evidently it is so, because it was before the world, and so we have to leave it there. We know it is there, and He goes there, but we can say no more as far as I can see.
HD'AC Why does it say He is “higher than the heavens”?
JT I think to show that He can go beyond the created sphere. How great He is!
HD'AC I do not see how we come in there.
JT I think it is to show that our Priest is a divine Person, but a divine Person in humanity. The Son is our Priest, and so Melchisedec is assimilated to Him. God had in His mind a certain order of priest, and He brings a personage on the scene and mentions things about him which could only apply to a divine Person. “Consider how great this personage was”, Hebrews 7:4.
Ques Are there not certain features about the uncreated sphere that we are to understand, and which call for worship? I was thinking of glory and affection and equality.
JT We understand that they are there, as the divine Persons are, but what more can we say? What may be understood has come into our view in one of the divine Persons, in incarnation. I do not think we can speak of understanding anything else; the glory [p. 55] which He had with the Father is spoken of as existing before the world was, but the Lord does not ask that His own should see it.
Rem I only meant in reference to understanding that they were there, and that knowledge would enter into the spirit of worship.
JT Quite so. That is to say, the inscrutable is there, and the very idea produces worship; but I must worship intelligently, and if I do that, I worship in relation to a God that is known to me. That is to say, He is brought within our understanding, in Christ as Man. I do not think the uncreated sphere enters into our worship beyond what we know is there. We are dealing with what we understand and so the worshippers are intelligent. We worship the Father in spirit and truth; that is, God, come within our range in a known way. We must ever bear in mind “Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”, 1 Timothy 6:16.
WCG Does that lead us to honour the Son as the Father is honoured?
JT It does; that He can go beyond what is created. It is more than the liberty of the house (chapter 8:35). The Son abides in the house for ever, that is where we are; but that He can go beyond the created sphere implies that He is on equality with God, and that is what this chapter stresses; although it stresses also, that He is subject and does not do anything of Himself, save whatever He sees the Father doing. Yet the spirit of the whole chapter is equality between divine Persons, and yet subjection in One of Them as Man.
GWW So would it be right to say there was a moment when the Lord passed again into that which is inscrutable? We are confronted with the word ‘inscrutability’, as you said, and we cannot pass beyond it.
JT Undoubtedly, and we instinctively understand it must be so. We cannot restrict Him to limitations that He takes upon Himself. He may speak of Himself, as He does in the Psalms, in a way in which we could [p. 56] not possibly speak of Him; we have to leave that with Himself. If He says to Jehovah, “Take me not away in the midst of my days”,(Psalm 102:24) and speaks in the most abject terms of Himself, the answer is, “Thou art the Same, and thy years shall have no end” (Psalm 102:27). He made the heavens and all things; there is perfect balance in thinking of the Lord Jesus in that way. But we must not impose as obligatory on Him, what He takes on Himself; and when He humbles Himself in that way, as in the Psalm mentioned, God says, “Thy years are from generation to generation, of old hast thou founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands ... thou art the Same”, Psalm 102:24,25; Psalm 102:27.
SJBC F.E.R. once said that we cannot think of Christ as God and Man at the same time.
JT That was a very good remark and has helped me. I cannot apply to Him, from the point of view of His deity, that He is a Bondman. He has come out from God and He is God: “Over all, God blessed for ever”, Romans 9:5. That is one thing. Then I look at Him in manhood, under God’s eye, and I understand something of His bondmanship there. He has taken a Bondman’s form in emptying Himself.
FSM Is there blessing in accepting the limitations as suggested in Deuteronomy 29:29 “The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed things are ours”? And then 1 Corinthians 2:10 “The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God” We receive the Spirit that we may know the things freely given to us of God. There are things beyond us, but there are things given to us.
JT Quite so. The “depths of God” would be the sense in which He is known. But it has to be understood that the Spirit too, whilst a divine Person, has come from Jesus, received from the Father and shed forth. His operations are in that connection, so that we understand the things of God by Him, and He searches the depths of God. The Holy Spirit does not bring out [p. 57] to us the nature of the eternal relations of Jesus; He brings out what is intelligible to us. We are not fit to receive more. I am not able to take in the creation, much less the Creator!
Ques What is the glory which He says we shall behold?
JT “The glory which thou hast given me”;(John 17:22) I apprehend that is the glory that He has come into as a Man. There are glories attaching to Him as Man, which are intelligible to us.
JJ Do you think the thought of quickening coming in here is absolutely necessary to the understanding of these things?
JT I am sure it is; by the “voice of the Son of God”. So what would this man understand in whom the sign was wrought? He might become a theologian. I mean, if he were affected by the word of Christ, there was much that he might go in for, had he ability, but evidently he was not quickened in a spiritual sense. Quickening brings us into the realm of life.
The man heard the word, but his affections were not touched. Quickening involves my being taken out of death, but it involves I am alive in my affections and intelligence, which is very wonderful. It enters into Colossians, where we are about to enter Canaan, where we begin to see divine Persons in the sphere in which They are, in relation to eternal purpose.
JJ Is the thought of quickening in this chapter the continuation of what you said yesterday as to new birth in chapter 4?
JT They are distinct ideas, as already indicated. Quickening has a state of death in view.
WCG Would you tell us the relation between what you have said, and verse 24, that is the development of eternal life in the saints?
JT What you get in these verses, where the Lord speaks of the Father’s working and the Son’s working, has in mind the work of God in us. It is the work of [p. 58] God in us now that is in view. This man is not in that. Divine Persons have to proceed, and they are proceeding on lines that will result in something for God, so that, “He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal”. That person is a characteristic believer; not like the man raised up. The Lord is contemplating persons characterised by hearing His word and believing on Him that sent Him; meaning that you are recognising the economy of this book, the Father and the Son, and the Son coming as ‘sent’. There is a moral work in the soul, and you, as believing, have eternal life; it is characteristic. It does not mean the person who is listening to you preaching the gospel, it means a person who hears characteristically. As it says, “Verily, verily ...” Those “verilys” are landmarks in the book, and severally indicate some point the Lord would emphasise. So He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal”; it is characteristic; he hears Christ’s word and believes on the One who sent Him. It is characteristic; I am in the full light of the economy of the book, the Father and the Son, and my portion is eternal life.
EJMcB The man that was thoroughly well might afterwards hear the voice of one who came in his own name and be carried away by it, but the one that comes under the operations of the Father and the Son will abide for ever.
JT He is a characteristic hearer and believer.
ASL Do you think there is a distinction to be seen and made between My Father and the Father?
JT Yes; My Father is the Father related to the Son.
ASL “My Father” is the word He uses when we come into view. He does not say, I ascend to the Father, but My Father.
JT You do not get the Father named as our Father, except once in the whole gospel; that is in [p. 59] chapter 20. It is always the Father, or My Father. The Father is that Person, God acting in grace.
SJBC Do you think the Father, in the abstract, always refers to the revelation of God as the Father?
JT It is generally that Person in the deity. In John’s gospel it is never your Father except in chapter 20, but in Matthew it is constantly that. John brings into evidence that God has taken up the attitude of grace expressed in that name; it is formally stated in this chapter that the Father judges no one. So we understand that it is grace; we are brought into an economy of grace. The Father dominates it, and the Son tells us here that He is not doing anything save what the Father does. Think of the marvellous sphere of things into which we are brought where the grace of the Father dominates and where there is all this blessed activity. The Father raises the dead and quickens them, and so does the Son, and we are brought into that realm as recipients of the grace of God.
EuR Would you say one word on the verse in Corinthians, where it says, “To us there is one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6)?
JT That is how we stand publicly, which 1 Corinthians treats of: “... there are gods many, and lords many, yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for Him” (1 Corinthians 8:6). That is to say, God, in that Person, remains in the position of deity, being the Father. Then, everything proceeds from Him and everything is for Him. “And one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him”, showing that the title “Lord Jesus Christ” may be used to designate the Lord in the past, for it is by Him all things are made. I think it is the public position of Christianity in 1 Corinthians, in contrast to heathendom and Judaism. The Jews would say Jehovah, but the Christian says, “To us there is one God, the Father”; it is God revealed in grace; “And one Lord, Jesus Christ” who brings everything into existence, “and we by Him”, 1 Corinthians 8:6.
AJHB In John 16:27 you have, “The Father himself loveth you”, which is very significant. Do you not think there it is the thought of the love of God coming out to us? It is the Father as that Person.
JT It is the Father Himself; the Father is emphasised.
GWW Does not that word “My” in chapter 20 assume the fact that the Lord has assumed a position where He can definitely associate us with Himself? Does not that give special character and emphasis to that word “My” in chapter 20 which would not be present perhaps on other occasions?
JT I think that is important, because when He says “My Father” earlier, it is a question of divine Persons.
GWW And that word has distinctly in view the thought of association in chapter 20.
JT It brings us in.