THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (5)

^[p. 83] THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (5)

John 9:1 - 41; John 11:32 - 44

JT It will be necessary to touch briefly on chapters 7 and 8, so as to get the link of the instruction between chapters 6 and 9. What was before us yesterday afternoon has special importance as bearing on the present time, the Galilean position, and the food furnished there in relation to the disciples. It is food, as the chapter signifies, “which abides unto life eternal” (verse 27), that is, food to give a constitution for entering into life eternal. The result of the instruction, in Peter as representing the twelve, has a great bearing on the present moment, raising the question with us as to how we are progressing in relation to what the Lord has given in our times. Peter denotes by his answer to the Lord, that he and the others had found that there was no one to go to but Christ, for He had “words of life eternal”, John 6:68. That is, all that may be known of it is in Him, not only in a general way, but in the details of it, in the words of it. And then he adds that they had believed and known that He was the Christ “the holy one of God”,(John 6:69) the basis thus being laid in his soul for the priestly system in holiness. The Lord, in order to make the position clear, calls attention to the fact that He had chosen the twelve, but that one of them was a devil, so that, whilst progress is being made in the knowledge of the Lord generally in the twelve, the enemy was working, which is a solemn fact.

Then chapters 7 and 8 suggest what is current abroad in Christendom, the current opinions, pros and cons in regard of Jesus, but the testimony and true conflict move on in triumph, so that we are brought into the light of the glory; and that, not only as a matter of light, but in tangibleness in the Spirit received, which is a very real thing. “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — (John 7:38) that is, out of a believer on Jesus. What was in mind was not merely individual, but the Spirit that they should receive, should be received collectively, but its effect should be seen in individuals.

Then chapter 8 opens with the position of the Lord, the manner of His life, not His life as represented in the manna, but His own personal associations on the mount of Olives, which has its place now; the public position being in the temple, and the chapter presenting Him as the “light of the world”; so that he who followed Him should have “the light of life”. Chapter 8 brings out the actual presence of life here. Of course it was in Himself, but the coming of the Spirit made it a fact in the saints; and it is a question now of whether it exists practically amongst the people of God, so that there should be “the light of life”, which is an excellent guide for believers, who seek a living state of things. Then we have the great immutable truth of the Lord’s Person. His entering into the house as formed spiritually here on earth, had a beginning; but His Person had no beginning. He abides in the house for ever, that is to say, from a given time on; but “Before Abraham was, I am”, (John 8:58) has no beginning and no end. So that we are on solid ground at the end of chapter 8, immutable ground, in the Lord’s assertion and the consciousness, as one might say, of His eternal personality: “Before Abraham was, I am”, John 8:58. This great truth is the determining test for all, for the Lord says, “unless ye shall believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins”, John 8:24.

MWB With regard to your remarks in reference to the Holy Spirit in chapter 7, would you say a word as to the place the Holy Spirit takes in the mediatorial system? As a divine Person one would suppose there was an initial act of His own, apart from being sent, as with the Lord in Philippians 2, there was an act of His own. He “emptied himself”. In what way did the Spirit come into the mediatorial ^[p. 85] system?

JT As acting, I think He is always seen in a mediatorial capacity, but this must anticipate the incarnation. The mediatorial service, whether in the Spirit or in Jesus, links on with the incarnation, and not only so, but also with ascension as regards the Spirit’s presence here, Christ being in heaven as chapter 7 clearly states: “The Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”,(John 7:39) as if to call attention to the fact that what we now have, was not yet. It does not refer to the eternal personality of the Spirit, but to the form in which He is here now, that He has come from heaven, as received from the Father, and shed forth. His activities in the creation and in the Old Testament, are of course mediatorial; but I think all must be linked on with the great mediatorial movement in one of the Persons of the deity becoming a Man. It is only thus the creature can understand.

EuR Would you say a word as to chapter 15:26, which reads, “The Spirit of truth who goes forth from with the Father”?

JT Well, it is to call attention to the fact that He was with the Father, and thus had a perfect first-hand knowledge (I use that expression for convenience) of the Father’s thoughts of Christ; for that is what was in view in His coming — to bear witness of Jesus. The form of the statement, especially as given by J.N.D., is to assure faith of the Spirit’s competency to bear witness of Jesus. He goes forth from with the Father.

AMH Is there any thought in the Spirit descending upon the Lord, of an initial act of His own, prior to His being sent forth by the Lord or given by the Father to us?

JT I think the facts presented indicate that the action was sovereign, but in perfect keeping with the Father’s announcement accompanying it.

Ques In the same way in Luke 1:35 as to the birth of the Lord: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”. Would that be in the nature of an initial ^[p. 86] act?

JT I have no doubt it would, but it has to be borne in mind that the Spirit is the Spirit of God; under this title He is seen in Genesis 1:2; while His attitude there is sovereign, it seems to convey representation.

Ques Does not “by the Holy Spirit” involve what was mediatorial?

JT It does and so God garnished the heavens by His Spirit. The Persons we know as the Son and the Spirit were active in the creation. God created in that way, this involves mediatorship; but They were acting as God, not in a relatively inferior position.

MWB In Acts 10:38 we read, “How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit”, as if it were God’s act.

JT I think, as I remarked, all the activities of the Spirit are on the mediatorial principle, and all hinge on the incarnation, whether anticipatively, or actually afterwards.

GWW So that you would make a good deal of difference between what we read about the Spirit in the Old Testament, and what we read concerning Him subsequent to the incarnation.

JT I should; only I have thought all the Old Testament and creational activities anticipate Christ’s mediatorship as Man. It is intelligible to me that the mediatorial actions of Christ in the creation, and in the Old Testament, anticipate His incarnation; but it has to be remembered too, that the mediatorial service does not necessarily imply inferiority. One can be a mediator of another as on equal terms. We know that the Spirit spoke and otherwise acted as the Spirit of Christ in Old Testament times, and this shows that He took a mediatorial position in view of incarnation. Compare 1 Peter 1.

HD'AC What makes you say that He acted mediatorially before He became Man?

JT He acted thus in the creation. “By whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2). On the other hand,

^[p. 87] John 1: 3 and Colossians 1:16 show that all was effected by Him — without reference to God using Him.

AMH As to sending, could it be said that one divine Person would send Another unless there were some movement first on the part of the divine Person?

JT I think the idea of one divine Person sending Another would be subsequent to the Second moving of Himself, and that is clearly intimated in Philippians 2:6. The action is the Lord’s. “Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form”; the emptying synchronised with the bondman’s form. It was all His own action, and never afterwards obligatory on Him, save by Himself, as far as I see. He has taken it and acts in it, but things are never fixed on Him; the position of a bondman is not fixed on Him as exclusive of other features. He has taken it Himself, and we have to leave it there. I think all the statements in Philippians 2 help as to the Spirit. He is not personally a subject of revelation exactly, as the other Persons are, although He is seen in revelation in the baptismal form, as in relation to the other Persons; but as far as I see, Scripture presents Him as always acting mediatorially. But the Spirit of God is really God, but now taking a lowly place in order to serve, and this is most touching as apprehended.

EJMcB With regard to a mediator not necessarily being on a lower platform than the One He mediates with, are we right in connecting the thought of “Let us make man” (Genesis 1:26)?

JT You mean that the word is plural. What have you in mind?

EJMcB Do you think it refers to the thought of equality between the Persons referred to?

JT No doubt. God, in Genesis, is generally in the plural, indicating supremacy; and I think the idea of the plural formally mentioned in the passage you refer to, is to show the importance of the transaction ^[p. 88] in view. The plural used thus, is to call attention to the importance of the matter in hand; it was a prime matter with God, especially the creation of man. That is how I understand it. I doubt if you can make very much as to the plural beyond that; all that God is, entered into it, the matter was so important. From the New Testament we know definitely that three Persons were there.

DLH Might we say that the “us” is a plural of dignity?

JT Yes. You get it also in wisdom in the book of Proverbs in certain connections. For instance, in chapter 9:1, it is in the plural because the matter is so important. “Wisdom hath built her house” is in the plural, and so in one or two other instances, as if to emphasise them. All that wisdom is, entered into that transaction, for it was a great transaction to build her house. The creation was a prime transaction with God, especially the formation of man.

GWW In referring to those verses in Genesis 1, must we not bear in mind that the One who uses the plural form, and of whom it is used, is the One of whom we are speaking as the Son?

JT Quite so; all the actual transactions were by Him, and that is why I think we should regard the mediatorial service as not necessarily a bondman’s service. It is seen in Him as in human form, but it was there before; that is, it is the Person who in the creation acted in His own power, and not only for God instrumentally. But He was used by God to make the worlds, Hebrews 1:2.

WRP What about Colossians 1?

JT Well, it works out there; you have Him acting in His own power in that chapter, and then you have Him acting instrumentally as well, that is, acting for Another. I think you will see that if you look at the passage, verses 16 - 20.

^[p. 89] HMS In reference to Philippians 2 do you consider the bondman’s form is what has been called an excess of grace?

JT It is to indicate the stoop as an example for us. It was not imposed upon Him, or He could be no model. It was His own mind. Acting in obedience is another thing.

Ques What He voluntarily assumed?

JT The “mind that was in Christ Jesus”.

Ques In Genesis the Spirit of God is mentioned as brooding over the face of the deep; would that be His own act?

JT It is the Spirit of God there as already mentioned. If the Spirit of God is acting, God is acting, but it is God in relation with His creation — as it were, feeling what had come to pass in it.

Ques Has it in view all that follows in connection with the mediatorial system?

JT It has undoubtedly. It is brooding or hovering over. It is God taking account of the chaos, and that in a first-hand way, not merely at a distance. Because Genesis brings that out, that whilst God, of course, knows all things perfectly in Himself, yet He would show us that He has first-hand knowledge of things. So He came down at Babel, and came down to see what Sodom was; and so, the Spirit of God “hovering over the face of the deep”(Genesis 1:2) was that God was taking account of the thing feelingly, in order to bring order out of the chaos.

EuR If we hold carefully in our hearts and minds what you have been saying as to the stoop being entirely His own act, would it not guard us against speaking of limitations upon Him in any way?

JT That is what I believe should be observed. He takes up the position Himself, but to impose it upon Him and to limit Him to it, is another matter. In fact, we cannot limit Him to it, because if we look at ^[p. 90] it from the divine side, we cannot introduce the thought of bondman.

JJ Do you think the passage in 1 Timothy 2:5 where the Mediator is referred to, is to put Him on the same equality as God? It says, “God is one, and the mediator of God and men one”.

JT That is a question of the mediatorial service in regard of men, but His mediatorial service is wider than that; it existed before men existed.

JJ Only it says that He is one; the word “one” is used twice.

JT No doubt it involves His equality. He could not be Mediator on God’s part save as equal with God; but He must also be Man to be Mediator in relation to men.

HES Is there any connection between the thoughts in Genesis of the darkness on the face of the deep, and the condition of this man in John 9?

JT I think there is.

GWW Is your thought that every activity of divine Persons as to which we are instructed in Scripture, had in view this movement in incarnation; that that was in prospect in every activity?

JT That is what I understand. Wisdom takes us back. I do not think we go back any further than Proverbs 8 indicates. We can travel back with wisdom. And we have to use terms of time; we cannot think otherwise, and so we speak of a time or period in which the necessity for wisdom arose, that is, when the counsels of God in regard of the creation began to take form. Then wisdom came into evidence; it was “brought forth”. We can travel back there, and see in wisdom’s remarks in Proverbs 8:31, that man was in view. That is the great central thought: “My delights were with the sons of men”. Therefore it seems to me, that mediatorial service extending back as far as that, had the incarnation in view. The sons of men would be sons developed in that relation. It helps us as to viewing the matter of ^[p. 91] mediatorial service, that there were divine operations from the outset, but their end, and the great central thought, was the incarnation. Everything hinges on that. There would be nothing really to hold the heart of God, apart from His great thought of sonship in a divine Person. That is to say, the centre of the whole created sphere is a divine Person in sonship here, and sons with Him. So the operations before and after are seen there, and the operations of the Spirit are included in that.

WCG In the reference in Joshua to God hearkening to the voice of a man, does that refer to the operations of the Spirit in relation to the mediatorial system?

JT I think so; that is typically Christ.

Ques When it says, “Let us make man in our image”,(Genesis 1:26) was it not divine Persons taking counsel as to the form the Son should take in incarnation?

JT That was in mind. Adam was the figure of Him that was to come. As I was saying, what would there be in the creation apart from a divine Person becoming Man? There is nothing in it great enough for God. But the creation is held in relation to a divine Person in manhood; the whole moral system, and the physical creation with it, is held in connection with a divine Person in manhood, as the Son.

HD'AC I am not very clear as to that verse “Let us make man”. Does it indicate the three Persons in the Godhead or not, and if it is not, what Person does it mean?

JT No doubt we would have to put the idea into it, but the plural in such a connection does not necessarily imply more than one Person, especially if it be a question of emphasising the greatness of the thing that is in hand.

HD'AC But with the light we now have we should say so.

JT Of course, it was the God now made known in three Persons. The transaction was very great, one ^[p. 92] of the divine Persons being in view, as becoming Man, according to eternal purpose.

PL In Isaiah we have, “Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth?”(Isaiah 40:21) and then it says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”, Isaiah 40:22. You were saying that the foundations of the earth had that Person in view.

JT Exactly: “He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”. (Isaiah 40:22) The circle may be any extent but there He is. That is the idea. The Holy Spirit would engage us with the grandeur of the thought of a divine Person in the Godhead, known as the Son, as the centre of everything.

Rem In the chapter we are considering it says, “Since time was, it has not been heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind” (verse 32), as if that One is now coming into view.

JT Yes. This is in time; the Lord has been known in time as the Son. The Lord would engage us in this section with the carrying forward of the thought of disciples. They are exposed in chapter 6, and then they shine in the end of that chapter in Peter’s confession; and carrying them forward, I think we arrive in chapter 9, at formal relations in a locality, which corresponds with Corinthians; and in the section this afternoon, the Lord may help us to arrive at formal relations in their universal bearing, our heavenly status. So that you have here the neighbours, and in the opening of the man’s eyes the sign involves obedience. It is a question of obedience and one being sent, and the neighbours enquire as to it. The bearing of the sign is towards the locality, and it runs on to the beginning of chapter 12, where “Jesus ... six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where was the dead man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead”, John 12:1. The passage shows that the Lord came back to the place where the glory of God, and the glory of the Son of God had shone, and found conditions corresponding to the ^[p. 93] great light and grace and affection that had been manifested there. That, I think, is what the Lord would bring us to. It is a circle in which the Lord is entertained and yet not a word is spoken as far as the record shows; but there is evidence of great spiritual power and affection, at the beginning of John 12. The silence is broken by Judas, and then the Lord speaks; aside from that there is not a word. It is a question of the saints understanding a realm of spiritual power in silence. If we have that before us, I think what intervenes from chapter 9 will become intelligible.

MWB In what way do you link the family relations with the epistle to the Corinthians? Is it because of the local setting, the place being mentioned?

JT Well, I am speaking of what should underlie the external forms in any locality, what should underlie the symbols of the Lord’s Supper and all the public aspect of things; to make it what it should be — to make it a matter of spirituality, and not merely external form. That is to say, the power to sit, for instance, as the bread is passed round — sometimes taking a considerable time — and the cup and the box; the ability to sit bodywise, to sit in relation to one another, and not simply waiting patiently for the time to pass. There is a great difference. I use the word “body” because it is used in Corinthians, and I think John 10 helps greatly, the saints being seen there as brought into “one flock”.

MWB Therefore behind the external order of Corinthians we are to suppose the spiritual elements of John 12.

JT Yes. You would agree with that?

MWB I think it is very helpful; it gives substance to the form.

JT It gives substance and power to what is done. We are not simply waiting for the time to pass. The outward form is gone through, but we are able to sit ^[p. 94] in spiritual silence, without a word spoken. Thus place is given to the Lord as Head in the assembly.

Ques Might I ask whether we take sufficient notice of the feeding in the Supper, whether we are in the enjoyment of what is set before us in the way of eating and drinking?

JT I think that is a very good suggestion. There is an additional thought to the memorial. It is for a memorial, but then there is the eating and drinking, which necessarily would be enjoyment, and also afford strength.

Rem I thought that would give us power in respect to the silence, that is to say, you are in the appropriation and the enjoyment of that which is beyond any telling.

JT And then, as I was saying, we sit together “bodywise”, for 1 Corinthians 10:17, says “we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. There is such a sense of being in the body, of being so vitally linked up by the Spirit, baptised in the power of one Spirit into one body, and then being made to drink into one Spirit, that it makes the position enjoyable. The links are in power and we are sitting in silence not simply waiting for the time to pass, but in spiritual enjoyment.

Ques So in a way you are eating with the others; it is all one body?

JT Quite so; it is the “bread which we break” and the “cup of blessing which we bless”,(1 Corinthians 10:16) and so we are all being made to drink into one Spirit.

Ques Would the sense we have in that connection bring about the spirit of reverence?

JT I am sure it would. It would indicate the spiritual relations in which we are set, and the spiritual enjoyment that we have, so whether it be the announcements, or the giving of thanks, or the passing of the bread and the cup and the box, all is in the power of a current of spiritual links and ^[p. 95] affections.

EJMcB Does the thing hang on the two thoughts, of the believer being cast out of the world on account of his links with Christ, and being brought out of death into the life of Christ? Would they make the conditions for public silence?

JT Just so; I think those two things are necessary for assembly formation and service. Chapter 9 is the moral fibre of the saints, like the acacia wood, and fits in with 1 Corinthians. The man proceeds on moral lines. The Lord leaves him and does not give him any instruction as to what to say. It all comes out as the effect of the process in his soul, so that he is able to answer himself. He tells the neighbours what he did, and says, “I saw”. He uses the past tense, just acquainting them with the fact, but in dealing with the Pharisees, he says, “I see”. It is important as in the assembly that we see, that we have moral perception. “I see”, he says, and then he is able to converse with the Pharisees and the Jews, and get the mastery of them. I doubt if any one is rightly in fellowship who has not the mastery in dealing with the Pharisees and the Jews.

Ques How would you detect that now?

JT You are able to give an account intelligently of your position. The man ends up in the most eloquent way. A man that had no previous education and never saw anything, is now on more than equal terms with them, and says, “Since time was, it has not been heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind”. He is reasoning on moral lines, and that is what enters into 1 Corinthians, into the public setting of a local company — that we can give an account of our position and why we are there. “And they cast him out”. He challenges them and says, “do ye also wish to become his disciples?” It is very fine; you can see that he is really in the power of the truth.

JJ Does the thought of “sent” refer to the Lord only, or does it include ^[p. 96] the man?

JT The man is brought into accord with Christ, who was here on that principle. It is like the boards of the tabernacle brought into accord with the ark, the same kind of material.

PL Would you connect the showing forth of His death, as flowing out of the testimony of the blind man; and the memorial more with the fruit of what Lazarus passes through, his relation to Christ in life?

JT I think Lazarus brings us on to Colossians. Chapters 11 and 12 point to our being risen with Christ, but I do not think it is as risen with Christ that we remember Him. It is more on the moral line as with the man in chapter 9. 1 Corinthians is more on the moral line, and how can we be here in the presence of these terrible worldly conditions, save as formed morally and able to answer, and not only to answer, but to go forward and establish the truth, that the ground taken is of God. “If this man were not of God he would be able to do nothing”. It is the truth reasoned out on moral lines that cannot be gainsaid. But chapters 11 and 12 mean that we are in association with Christ, that we are risen with Him. It is more Colossian ground.

AFM Does the incident of the blind man in this chapter link at all with chapter 4? The Lord reveals Himself to the woman as the Christ, but in this incident as the Son of God, which seems to be the great end of this gospel: “that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”, John 20:31.

JT Quite so. I was going to remark that the blind man is cast out, and that is what makes him interesting to the Lord. Of course He is always interested, but the Lord makes no overture until He hears that he is cast out, showing the basis of the public assembly. It is on the principle either of being cast out, or of having left what is opposed to Christ, and when the Lord hears about that in any locality, then He finds us, and raises the question as to His sonship. It is not only that He is to be known as Son, as a question ^[p. 97] of His Person — that is already dealt with in chapters 1 to 5 — but the point is, that this being known, becomes effective in a believer. That is the great result, and then as it becomes effective in the believer another world is opened up to him, because really this man is without a country, without a home, without a religion; he is a pariah. Well, the Son of God is the portal by which he enters into another world.

WC Would that correspond with the Lord coming in in relation to the Supper?

JT Somewhat; where the suitable state exists. The state existed with this man: “Jesus heard that they had cast him out”. That means he is just like the Lord in the judgment of the world — worthless.

WC The Lord being absent in that way. He comes in in relation to what is coming to light in the man.

JT The Lord comes in to associate Himself with what is in accord with Himself. That is the idea. He was rejected, and the man was rejected, so he is fit material for God’s world.

HES Is this what you said at the outset, that it is only as cast out or leaving the sphere of worldly religion that you are brought into the realm of the Son of God?

JT You are fit for it. That is involved in the Corinthian position; you can stand your ground. Whether having to do with Jew or gentile you can hold your ground. That is what the man indicates here. So now he is taken on. It is a question of the works of God. That is what we have to see, not the work of God simply, but the works of God: and then, he is to come under the gracious care of the Son of God, who is going to put him somewhere else. He is to learn that the Son of God is the Shepherd. He has the heart of a shepherd, with the most tender consideration for us as His sheep, and He puts us into a flock. That is the teaching, and it links on with the body. It has often been pointed out, but it is very practical, that the Son ^[p. 98] of God becomes the Shepherd, meaning that He has tender feelings and consideration for the saints.

HMS Is this on the line of the epistle? “Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5).

JT Exactly. He is cast out. Could he stand his ground as cast out and isolated? He was able to hold his own with the Jews and the Pharisees, but definite isolation is a further experience. We need company and care, and that is what chapter 10 provides. There is the care of the Shepherd and companionship in the “one flock”. Here we know the Lord as the Father knows Him and He knows the Father.

HFN Would Paul’s preaching of the Son of God refer to the public position?

JT It would as a testimony. You can understand how this man would come into that in due course. He corresponds very much with Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9.

Ques Would you distinguish between the work of God and the works of God?

JT Certainly, the works of God are what are mentioned here. The work of God would be conversion or new birth, but much more has to be done, and the point is that these works should be manifested in this man.

JJ You have connected the man in chapter 9 with 1 Corinthians. How would he come into 2 Timothy in these days?

JT Well, it is the same idea. Instead of being cast out, in 2 Timothy 2:19 you leave what is evil: “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”. It is the same kind of moral fibre that enables you to do that.

Ques Is it in the apprehension of the greatness of the Person with whom he is having dealings, that this man becomes a worshipper?

JT Quite so. As soon as the Son of God comes before him he is ready to own Him. The Lord says,

“^[p. 99] dost thou believe on the Son of God?” and he says, “And who is he Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him. Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he”, meaning that the man had really come into contact with Him before, but was not intelligent as to it. But now he worships Him.

Rem Would you say that he is in correspondence with the Lord at the beginning on the line of obedience, and he comes into correspondence with Him also on the line of solitariness, and then he is as the solitary one set in the family? The Lord opens to him the wealth of the family, and divine affections.

JT That is very good. So the idea of the flock in the next chapter, is to emphasise the care indicated in the Shepherd, so as to lead up to the family in chapter 11. But this terrible fact should be noted that there is a murderous spirit in Jerusalem against Christ, which is seen right through these chapters, and in chapter 10 they surround Him, meaning that His way among them is entirely shut up now. That is the end of His relations with them; and hence He leaves them and goes to where John baptised at the first.

He is now going back to first principles with a view to the family; and goes thence to Bethany, but with calculations of love. The members of the family at Bethany are given, and Jesus loved each of them. He loved the family, and they loved and honoured Him; that is what comes out in the second visit. The position in chapter 11 is the family, but in a locality. It is what was at Bethany, and the Lord comes in due course to the place, and Martha met Him and she gets light, saying, “I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world”, John 11:27. She gets light as to the “resurrection and the life”, and then she goes off and calls Mary secretly, saying, “The teacher is come and calls thee”,(John 11:28) showing how sisterly she has become. As soon as Mary hears that, she goes to Jesus, but she has to go to the place where Martha met Him.

^[p. 100] The teaching is, that those in a locality who may be regarded as unspiritual and to some extent ignorant, are brought into evidence as typified in Martha. She was surely very poorly instructed when she met the Lord, but we can never tell what may happen overnight in a brother. We must not be too fixed in our thoughts about brothers, because sometimes changes take place very quickly, and we ought to expect that. So as she met the Lord she was full of orthodox thoughts, and there are many like that. We cannot ignore them for they are brethren, and they may get light. She went to meet the Lord, and said, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died”. She believed He would have kept him alive, but that was not the point at all. The point in Christianity is not to keep people alive in the flesh. That is a poor thing as compared with resurrection, so He says, “Thy brother shall rise again”. She says to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection in the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes on me, though he have died, shall live; and every one who lives and believes on me shall never die. Believest thou this? She says to him. Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world”.

Now she is illuminated, and no longer merely an orthodox sister; she believes the testimony presented to her. Christ is now before her as “the resurrection and the life”, the Son of God. Orthodoxy is really a barren thing by itself. Christianity is a question of the Person of Christ; and it is as coming into contact with the Person, that we get light in our souls and see everything clearly. She says, “I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world”, John 11:27. Now her soul is full of light and she goes off to her sister; her sister has a new place with her. “The teacher is come and calls thee. She, when she heard that, rises up quickly, and comes to him”, John 11:28,29. But the Lord did not ^[p. 101] go to where she was; she had to go to where He was, meaning that He honoured Martha. When brethren get clear of mere orthodoxy, the Lord would have us to understand what they are. They are valuable in His eyes, and they are to be respected, so He stays where Martha met Him, and Mary has to go there. That is a new experience for her. But there is a great difference in the general influence of the two women. When Mary moves, the Jews move. Not one of them moved when Martha moved, meaning that she had no spiritual influence. It is really a comfort that orthodox people have not much influence, and it works out that way; the Lord sees to that.

Now, when Mary goes the Jews move, and she arrives at the Lord and casts herself before Him, and says, “Lord; if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died”. “Jesus therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping” — that is, the persons she influenced — He “was deeply moved in spirit”. That is one of the finest things in Scripture, a spiritual person actually affecting Christ, because it was when “he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping” that He was “deeply moved in spirit, and was troubled, and said. Where have ye put him? They say to him. Lord, come and see. Jesus wept”. There is no equal to this in the Scriptures, and it shows what spirituality is, how the Lord regards it in a locality. Now, these are the circumstances under which the sign took place; that is to say, it is a sign in the presence of spirituality, of spiritual feelings; it is the greatest of the signs, until we come to the Lord’s own resurrection.

Ques Would you say what is the difference between what we have here and Joseph and his brethren as they wept together?

JT That was the weeping of joy; it was the feelings of joy and affection that were aroused by the disclosure of who he was. The weeping there is not for sorrow;

^[p. 102] but here, it is sorrow.

Ques Is this not different from the weeping over Jerusalem? This is the silent shedding of tears, not lamenting.

JT No, it would not be lamenting. The Lord was deeply moved, and it is said that He “groaned in spirit”. He had the feeling too of resentment against death, because of its power over the family of those whom He loved.

HES Are you suggesting that these wonderful works of God are to be manifested locally, before what is universal is known?

JT Yes. The effect of all this manifestation of the glory of God, and the glory of the Son of God, in this wonderful way in the locality, brings about a state of spirituality that may exist in silence. It may speak and express itself, but its power is of such a character, that it is there in volume silently. That is what the early verses of chapter 12 show. The Lord came to Bethany in relation to Lazarus, and immediately it says, “There therefore they made him a supper”, John 12:2. It was a golden occasion. Then you have the persons who sat with Him at table, and Martha’s serving, and Mary’s ointment.

AFM Would that be the merging into one family? You said earlier that He loved them each but now it is the family.

JT It is collective.

MWB You referred just now to the state of spirituality that gave room for the sign to take place; would you say how that works out practically? Do you take the raising of Lazarus to be a further thought?

JT It is. It would be to enhance the spirituality that was there; and so Martha has to be regulated. She says that he was dead four days. She still needs regulation, and so the Lord said, “Did I not say to thee, that if thou shouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” He insists on faith if we are to see ^[p. 103] the glory of God. Then He comes to the tomb, and “lifted up his eyes on high” — that is the way it should read — something that comes into this sign. “Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me; but I knew that thou always hearest me; but on account of the crowd who stand around I have said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me”. That is the point, that we should come into the gain of what is presented, and then He said, “Lazarus, come forth”. “And the dead came forth, bound feet and hands with grave-clothes, and his face was bound round with a handkerchief”. The effect of this would remain in Bethany while this family was there.

Ques What is the bearing on us of His concern as to their hearing?

JT That we should come into the full gain of what happens. In chapter 20 the signs are said to be in the presence of His disciples, and they are written “that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”.

MWB Do you regard progress in spirituality in the way you have brought things before us, first, in chapter 4 as to a person’s body, and then spirituality as necessary to a man’s house, and then to circumstances, and then the spiritual house of chapter 8? Is there a development in this way?

JT There is, indeed. Here we have a house filled with the odour: “The house was filled with the odour of the ointment”, John 12:3. It is to bring out the greatness of the result of the signs in Bethany. What odour? The odour of the ointment that was put upon Jesus. I suppose you have that in mind?

MWB Yes, I was wondering whether there was this lying behind your remarks that there must be a recognition of what is spiritual and giving place to the Spirit, before there would be the consciousness by us of passing over into that which this sign sets forth, ^[p. 104] as risen with Christ?

JT I think so. It is a Colossian scene that is before us. I suppose the face being mentioned means the countenance. It is what we are as viewed in that light as risen; the beauty of what we are in our countenances. And then the silence, as being able to sit in silence in the power of spirituality, so that the Lord has His place and the others have their places with Him at the table, then the service and worship.

Ques Would you say a word as to the part taken by each of them?

JT Lazarus represents the dignity of the position: “Lazarus was one of those at table with him”. “And Martha served”,(John 12:2) which has its meaning spiritually; and “Mary therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of pure nard of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus”, John 12:3. Each has its own significance.

HES Are we now brought to the point where we reach not only the thought of spirituality but the region of spiritual dignity?

JT Yes. It lays the basis for chapter 20.