THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (6)
THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (6)
JT In order to link up this chapter with what we have had, it may be said that chapter 12 closes the case against the Jews, and they are convicted as reprobate. It says, “But though he had done so many signs before them, they believed not on him, that the word of the prophet Esaias which he said might be fulfilled”, John 12:37,38. Isaiah is quoted twice; it says, “Esaias said again. He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes and understand with their heart”, John 12:39,40. They are blinded judicially, which corresponds with current conditions, and then the Lord, after the case is closed, so to speak, against the Jews, they being exposed, “cried and said. He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that beholds me, beholds him that sent me. I am come into the world as light, that every one that believes on me may not abide in darkness; and if any one hear my words and do not keep them, I judge him not, for I am not come that I might judge the world, but that I might save the world. He that rejects me and does not receive my words, has him who judges him: the word which I have spoken, that shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken from myself, but the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that his commandment is life eternal. What therefore I speak, as the Father has said to me, so I speak”, John 12:44 - 50. That is added to the condemnation of the Jews to emphasise the gracious activities of divine Persons and the Lord’s words, that they themselves should be the judges of them. It is worth our while to note this, as pointing to the end of the dispensation [p. 106] judicially, and how the divine presence is there. I have no doubt the Lord is emphasising the truth relative to His Person with this end in view.
HD'AC I am not quite clear as to the distinction you made in chapter 1: “we have contemplated his glory, a glory, as of an only-begotten with a father”,(John 1:14) and “the only-begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”(John 1:18). Would you mind giving another statement as to those two scriptures? How far does the mediatorial system go? I have understood through these meetings that it was before the incarnation, in order that the creation should be brought about.
JT It is of the last moment that these things should be clear, in so far as we can understand them, but no doubt we all have to own that we understand but very little. But it is clear that as the time for the creation of the physical universe drew nigh, the mediatorial thought came into evidence, and so wisdom came into prominence.
HD'AC And the church and what we have in Christ: men were really in those thoughts even in the creation. For instance, “Let us make man”. God certainly had another Man in His mind.
JT Yes. It is obvious that man was to be the centre of the creation, but then, what man? Not a man made of clay; he could not sustain the things God had in mind. So that Adam was “the figure of him that was to come”, Romans 5:14. That was in the mind of God as ever present.
Ques “Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for the administration of the fulness of times; to head up all things in the Christ” (Ephesians 1:9,10). Would that indicate it?
JT Just so; “all things”. God always had these things in His mind, and in the carrying out of them concretely, the mediatorial idea necessarily comes into view, so that it is seen in the creation, and it is seen in [p. 107] Israel, and now it has taken positive form in the incarnation. The incarnation was not an afterthought; it was the first thought; it was what was in the mind of God, and all that preceded led up to it. Then in the Word becoming flesh, there was glory, but it had reference to the relations and affections existing between God as Father and the Only-begotten.
HD'AC And those relations would have existed in one way before, though they could not be spoken of quite as we now do in revelation; I mean, the Father and the Son. You were pointing out that the thought of Son had rather an inferior meaning, but He was surely always the object of love to the Father, and all divine Persons must have been in love together. Is that right?
JT They were. The Lord expressly says that the One He addressed as Father loved Him “before the foundation of the world”,(John 17:24) but to apply the Only-begotten thus is another matter. We cannot exclude the Spirit from the divine circle of affection and make one Person the Only-begotten of Another, when All are in the inscrutableness of absolute deity.
HD'AC The word Only-begotten has always baffled the saints because of the word “begotten”.
JT Now that attention has been called to it, and the truth made clear, I do not think it baffles spiritual persons.
HD'AC Through the help the Lord has given difficulties disappear.
JT They do. An “only-begotten” necessitates a father, and a certain relative inferiority in the person who is designated as the only-begotten. Then verse 18, as you rightly say, is to bring God out, which is the public thing. Verse 14 is more private; it is what is contemplated by certain ones.
HD'AC John was one of them. Verse 18 is more [p. 108] public.
JT It is a public thing, but it does not say to any persons in particular: “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”, John 1:18. It is the general public position.
HD'AC It is open to all to get the good of it if they will.
JT Quite so; it stands. So that, in this very passage I have called attention to, the Lord says, “He that beholds me, beholds him that sent me”, John 12:45. That is public, and His words in the same way are the words of Him that sent Him. So that the position, whilst it is mediatorial clearly in the word “sent”, and in a Person who takes a relatively lower position, yet those who see that Person see the One who sent Him. It is not simply that He carried the message or conveyed the mind of God, but God was there Himself, and there so as to be seen. But that does not conflict with the statement in chapter 1, which says, “No one has seen God at any time”, verse 18. It cannot conflict with it, hence that verse alludes to the Deity in Its absoluteness, in Its own form, which no one has seen nor can see. That is the inscrutable, which we must recognise; and yet the Lord can say here, “He that beholds me, beholds him that sent me”, and then in chapter 14, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, verse 9.
HD'AC You must have anointed eyes for that.
JT But then the thing was there; it was there in testimony. The man whose eyes had been opened had seen the Son of God. He did not know it, but still he had seen Him; and so the Lord says, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14:9.
Ques Did you say the end of this chapter closes the public position?
JT It closes the public position in so far as the Lord’s testimony to the Jews is concerned. The close of the public position is on the cross.
[p. 109] MWB I should like to get a little more clear as to the distinction between the thought of declaration and light.
JT In declaration God is brought out, but then that becomes light. God is light; as declared. He is light; so that Jesus said that He was the “light of the world”.
MWB I understood in the first reading that the thought of declaration went rather further than that of light.
JT Well, it does. The sun in itself is greater than its rays. Light is a relative thing, but God Himself is brought out in Christ. And that is what the Lord means in the end of chapter 12. It was a testimony; it was not a question of who understood, but it was there as testimony: “He that beholds me, beholds him that sent me”. (Verse 45) The idea of “sent” in the end of chapter 12 as applied to the Lord Himself and involving the divine Persons, is carried forward into chapter 13, which I think we ought to notice. The case as to the Jews is closed, and chapter 13 takes up the disciples in the most formal way, not simply as disciples, but as “his own”. They are viewed now in a new light; they are His own: “Jesus ... having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end”, John 13:1. So that now it is a question of the disciples viewed in this light, and the Lord introduces the idea of being sent in saying, “He who receives whomsoever I shall send receives me; and he that receives me receives him who has sent me”, John 13:20. It seems as if the defection of Judas, which was already in evidence here, might be thought to invalidate the testimony of the twelve, and I think the Lord is concerned that the validity of the testimony of the twelve as “sent” should stand notwithstanding the defection of Judas. I mean, it deals with the position of the ground of Christianity on that principle of being sent, and the testimony is valid thus. Although things [p. 110] may have come to us through questionable persons, the validity of the testimony stands.
JJ Does the thought of “sent” involve the deity of the Lord?
JT The idea in itself does not, because it attaches to us also. The idea itself is a subordinate one; it involves subordination and subjection.
JJ It is not like “Jesus Christ come in flesh” exactly.
JT Not quite. I think it is a further thought than Philippians 2, which is that He came down as emptying Himself, taking a bondman’s form. I think the actual sending of Christ must begin there, not exactly in heaven, as in the form of God, but as in humanity. Compare J.N.D.’s letter, vol. 3, pp. 468 to 469 (new edition, pp. 168 - 9).
Ques When it comes to others the Lord says, “as the Father sent me forth, I also send you” (John 20:21). Would that not express what is characteristic in the sending?
JT Well, quite so.
DLH It says, “There was a man sent from God, his name John”, John 1:6. Obviously the thought refers to John as on earth.
JT That helps; he was sent from God.
WC In chapter 10 it speaks of His being sanctified and sent; does that date from the descent of the Spirit upon Him?
JT Evidently. I doubt that it can be shown from Scripture that the sending of Christ preceded His incarnation. He came Himself; it was His mind, but the emptying of Himself is seen in His taking a bondman’s form.
JJ What would you say about Isaiah 6? How does the expression there apply? “Here am I, send me”, verse 8.
JT That is Isaiah himself, but his position was in keeping with the Lord’s at His baptism. The Lord’s place as Jehovah’s servant has prominence in Isaiah.
[p. 111] Ques What about the Father sending the Son to be the Saviour of the world?
JT What we have said would include that. The sanctification obviously alludes to Him as Man and it precedes His being sent. What I think is very weakly understood, is the incarnation itself, and what existed between the Son and the Father at the outset of His place in humanity, that is, the time preceding His baptism. Scripture says comparatively little about it, but it says enough to show that wonderful things went on between Them; and in the coming down of the Spirit, and its abiding upon Him in a bodily form, and the voice from heaven, I think we have the starting-point of the divine operations mediatorially in Christ as Man; so that the idea of sanctification and sending begins there.
EJMcB Do I understand you, that being in human form He was available to be sent?
JT That is a good way of putting it.
EJMcB Otherwise we should not have been able to apprehend or compass it.
JT Quite so, and moreover He was on equality in every sense as in deity. As a divine Person His was to command, not to obey; but obedience marks Him as Man.
HD'AC He takes the place of the sent One in Luke 4. He was not only anointed to preach, but sent, which supports what you said about His being looked at as the sent One from His baptism, when the Holy Spirit came upon Him.
JT I do not know of any Scripture that says He was sent down from heaven. Scripture says that He came down from heaven, but it is said that the Holy Spirit was sent down from heaven, and I believe the background to that is that Christ as Man is in heaven. The centre of all these things is Christ as Man.
Ques Does the verse in chapter 20 bear on it, “as the Father sent me forth, I also send you”?
JT Well, it does, showing it is the same idea. The disciples were not sent from heaven; they were sent out on earth, just as He had been.
Ques “Herein as to us has been manifested the love of God, that God has sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9). Would what was observed as to a man being sent from God refer to all such scriptures as that?
JT I think so. Sending into the world is also applied to the disciples. “As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world”, (John 17:18).
Rem I think it is the biggest readjustment of thought that many of us have had in the last few years.
JT I think things are taking form rightly in our minds. They had this form in Scripture always, but in our minds they are taking a form that is practically and morally right — that the idea of obedience, as regards Christ, belongs to Him in Manhood. The idea attaches to Him there, and so the sending began with His position here as Man on earth, and properly as the Holy Spirit came upon Him.
HD'AC It would be in His mind before Christ became Man.
JT In a moral sense. But even that well-known passage in Psalm 40, “In the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God”, is preceded by “mine ears hast thou opened”(Psalm 40:6), so that it belongs properly to Him in the body. “Ears hast thou digged”, would mean that He was now ready to listen to commands. Learning obedience (Hebrews 5) implies that He was now in the position to which it applies.
Rem Does it help to see, not so much the place that you are sent from, but the Person who sends you? I was thinking the Lord chose twelve that they might be with Him and that He might send them out.
JT [p. 113] Yes; that is in Mark, and so in the end of that gospel His final charge is, “Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation”(Mark 16:15). Well, where were they before? Literally they were here, but the word is, “Go into all the world”.
Ques In Philippians 2 it says that He emptied Himself and took a bondman’s form; is there anything to show that they were simultaneous?
JT I think the emptying synchronised with the taking of a bondman’s form. He “emptied Himself taking a bondman’s form, taking His place in the likeness of men”, Philippians 2:7. The statements run on without a conjunction.
AFM Would you mind telling us what you understand by the bondman’s form?
JT Well, the form He took in becoming Man. “taking his place”, it goes on to say, “in the likeness of men”. It is to be noted, however, that man’s form primarily did not imply bondmanship, so that the latter implies something more; attitude is included. This is seen in “Lo, I come to do, O God, thy will”, Hebrews 10:9.
AFM Does the thought of being “sent” come in in connection with the bondman’s form?
JT That is where it begins.
HES Are you suggesting that before incarnation the movements are spoken of as His own, but afterwards they are spoken of as subject movements?
JT That is what I see, as far as I understand Scripture.
Ques Do you think the bondman’s form is in contrast to being in the form of God?
JT Yes.
HD'AC Is He now in the bondman’s form?
JT If we speak in the terms of Scripture, the fact that He took a bondman’s form does not mean that that must always be obligatory upon Him, that He must not be anything else. A person of high degree can easily [p. 114] take a lowly place, and we speak of it in that way, but it does not imply that he must be always that.
HD'AC And all the time He was here He was more than a bondman.
JT As we were saying this morning, you cannot take in the deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ at one time; we are not equal to that.
HD'AC I thought the word “form” involving more than external appearance was wisely chosen, so that it could go into eternity.
JT Of Moses it is said, “the form of Jehovah shall he behold”, Numbers 12:8. That would be in a very modified way. What he saw we cannot say. It is said that “they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were work of transparent sapphire”;(Exodus 24:10) and then in Revelation 4 we see One who sits on the throne who is no less than God, but then it is a form that is obviously human, that can be apprehended. I doubt if it is within our range to see anything beyond that. Certainly it is formally stated that “no one has seen God at any time”, John 1:18.
SJBC Do you think it means simply appearance? The Greek word occurs again in Mark where it says that He appeared unto them in another form, chapter 16:12.
JT It means more than appearance. There is the idea of God appearing to men, but “being in the form of God” is a very different idea, belonging properly to deity; and before creation, when there were none to whom the idea of appearance could apply. The word ‘status’ has been used. J.N.D. uses it, meaning state in its primary meaning in Latin, but it has come now to mean rank or position as well. I think the word ‘status’ in the sense of condition or state, may serve to express the idea of the form of God. I do not see why we should alter what we have in the best authorities, that the word means ‘form’ in this sense, and that Christ was in that form. He “emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form”,(Philippians 2:7) meaning another form in which He undertook to do the will of God.
HPW Is the form of a bondman, as connected with the Lord a thought that is carried over into eternity, or is it confined to the days of His flesh?
JT It is very difficult to say that it is not carried over, because the type of it in Exodus says that He remains a bondman for ever, but then you would have it in a very limited way. Scripture says. He “will come forth and serve them” (Luke 12:37), and we may as well leave it in its scriptural setting, for as soon as we go beyond that, we are like the theologians who try to make divine things fit into the natural mind.
Ques Does it not suggest the service perpetuated in love? “I love my master, my wife and my children”, Exodus 21:5. So it is understandable that it is carried over.
JT It is something that Scripture touches very lightly and it can only apply to Him viewed as Man Godward. Towards man He is God, as we have it in Thomas’s remark, “My Lord and my God”. You cannot introduce the thought of bondmanship there. I think we have to confine ourselves to the terms of Scripture, and if Scripture touches the thought lightly it is well for us to touch it lightly. Exodus 21 and Luke 12 show that the Lord takes up the attitude of servant towards God, and towards His own in eternity, but this cannot enter into His position as “over all, God blessed for ever”, Romans 9:5.
AMH Would the Scripture in 1 Corinthians help at all? After the millennium it says, “The Son also himself shall be placed in subjection”, 1 Corinthians 15:28. Would that suggest a continuance of the bondman’s form?
JT It would. It seems to me these varied features of Christ are like beautiful hues. Each has its place in the glory of His Person, but if any particular feature is touched lightly it is well to leave it there, and not make it cover all.
DLH When it says, “that God may be all in all”, you cannot exclude the blessed Lord Jesus from that.
JT You cannot, but it is just as doubtful to say that He resumes the form of God as to say that He does not. If we think in the terms of Scripture, as this gospel teaches us, we say that we do not know. That is one of the features of this gospel, that one says just what he knows. If Peter does not say, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” as he does in Matthew 16:16, it means that he said just what he knew (John 6: 69). The transfiguration of Christ on the holy mount, and “another form”, spoken of in Mark 16, remind us of what is possible as to His Person, so that the inscrutable is always present. But at the same time, the tenor of Scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 15:28, leaves us in no doubt that, in a general way. He retains His humanity eternally.
MWB Your remarks yesterday in drawing attention to the Lord as ascended up “far above all heavens” make one feel that He has a region to which our minds can never have access.
PL Elihu in the book of Job helps us: “Lo, God is great, and we comprehend him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out”, chapter 36:26.
EuR With regard to John 20, we sometimes speak of the privilege as going to heaven. Is that form of expression justified? You have referred to it as the spiritual sphere.
JT Well, I think Ephesians warrants it. He “has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together, in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2:6. That is our status there; it is ground you can take up in the assembly; you are heavenly.
I think we might touch a little on chapter 13, as we have had the thought of disciples running through these chapters in one way or another. The Spirit of God portrays them before our eyes, so that we might be on our guard against what is exposed in the flesh, and [p. 117] that we might stimulate what is spiritual as seen in Peter as one of the twelve, and as thus connected with the service of love. I think the idea of the twelve is that love is most available in that relation. We are to stand in relation to one another so that the best possible results accrue. “Have not I chosen you the twelve?”(John 6:70) If we allow the Lord His sovereign right to use us in relation to one another, then you may be sure we shall get the best results; and I think that is what is meant in the use of the word “twelve”. Having reached the family circle, and the body of spirituality in the light of the glory that shone in the raising of Lazarus, we have the disciples called “his own”. It is one of the most precious things, “having loved his own who were in the world, [he] loved them to the end”, John 13:1. So that now, in the following chapters, 13 to 17, we are inside. Instead of a few remarks relative to the public position seen in the Lord’s Supper, as in the synoptic gospels, we have these rich unfoldings of divine affections and thoughts, and then the place we have in His heart as before God, in chapter 17. All this, I think, is necessary in the last days to our entrance into chapter 20. It is a question of extended communications on the part of the Lord, so that we may be prepared in intelligence and regulated affections, for the great time of the first day of the week. It corresponds to Acts 20, where as they were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed until midnight, as if to say. Before you partake of the Supper, although you are come together for it, if Paul has anything to say let him say it. We are not told what he said. We are told what he said in 1 Corinthians 11, of what relates to the public service; but we are not told what he said at Troas. It was a long discourse, but I think it would correspond with these wonderful communications of Christ in chapters 13 to 16, so that we might really partake of the Supper and enter into assembly privileges, not only in affection such as Mary Magdalene had, but with intelligence, and hence when [p. 118] the Lord takes His place in the assembly, we know what to do in relation to Him.
Ques Ought we to look for a word of ministry on the Lord’s day at the breaking of bread?
JT I think so. If we got a word early in the meeting from the Lord as Head, we should have a better meeting. I think it has been a mistake to assume that a word should be left to the last, that it should be the close of the meeting. It ought rather to enhance and stimulate what there is present in the way of spiritual intelligence and power. Of course we must wait on the Lord’s guidance in what we do, but if a word is to promote worship in the meeting in which it is given, it should be given early.
Ques You mean after the breaking of bread?
JT Yes.
AFM Would that not give a very high tone and character so as to advance the worship?
JT Quite so. If we have arrived at Peter’s confession in John, “the holy one of God”, it will qualify us for part in the assembly; because it is in that relation the service of the sanctuary opens up. What you find here in chapter 20 is that Mary Magdalene is there early. She has the affection and goes to the tomb, we are told, and she sees the stone rolled away from the tomb, but she does not look into it, whereas the other two do, and they not only look in, but go in. Whilst making full allowance for Mary here — and she is the principal figure in the picture next to the Lord Himself — we ought to note the superior intelligence of the two, because it enters into assembly service. It is said of them, “Simon Peter therefore comes, following him, and entered into the tomb, and sees the linen cloths lying, and the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also who came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed”. I think, while making due allowance for affection in Mary, we ought to [p. 119] make allowance too for the action of those two brothers. That is to say, they went the whole way in examination, because it is a question of what happened, the resurrection of Christ is a question of a great spiritual transaction, and it is intended to enter into the fibre of Christianity. It stands by itself; and the cloths are brought into evidence in that these two take notice of what was inside the tomb.
HES Are you suggesting that all the divine activities in John are to the end that there may be not only spiritual affections but also spiritual intelligence?
JT Clearly. I think the Lord is helping us in regard to His Person, but what He is as the Minister of the sanctuary and what the sanctuary is, is what is not understood. I think this chapter is to show that full appraisement is made of the affections of the saints, that full value is attached to them, but that they must be accompanied by intelligence.
AFM Is that the reason why Mary addresses the Lord in Hebrew, saying, ‘Rabboni’? Would that show where she lacked?
JT It shows that she had come to the point wherein she felt the need of instruction: ‘My teacher’.
HMS Will you tell us about the grave clothes and the handkerchief about the head?
JT It is very important, because it is a question of intelligence taking note of an extraordinary matter — that the linen cloths clearly lay there as they were around the Lord’s body, and the handkerchief separately folded.
AFM Why was it separately folded?
JT I think to call attention to headship, for that is the important initial point in the assembly. But then that is balanced in the position of the angels, whom the two disciples did not see. They saw the cloths and the handkerchief folded, but they did not see the angels. Now the position of the angels is to remind us of the headship of Christ, and that the feet of Christ were perfectly in accord with his head: “one at the head and one at the feet”. It is the perfection of headship and the feet in relation to it.
ER I suppose it gives the idea of angelic repose. Instead of standing ready to obey, here they are sitting.
JT It is a remarkable thing that they are there; “one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain”.
Ques What is the importance of the feet in relation to the head?
JT Going back to chapter 12, Mary understood that His feet were carrying Him to death. Now where are they carrying Him? It is not said in John that He was “carried up into heaven” as in Luke, but He goes up. I think we are reminded that He is not only Head, but that He moves, and the assembly is the place of His movements, as well as of His wisdom. Whilst the angels are sitting, which would point to their restfulness in what had happened. He is seen as standing Himself after He comes into the midst. He “stood in the midst”.
HFN Would you say a word in regard to Luke where the Lord showed them His feet, but in John it is His hands and His side?
JT The position of the angel at His feet suffices, that they are in perfect keeping with His head, and I think it would mean that if we are not with the Lord as Head, we will not be with Him in His movements. The side would call attention to His love. I think the allusion is to Eve, as taken out of the side of Adam.
Ques Would you mind saying a little more as to the impressions that the two had of the linen cloths that Mary missed? Was there something built into their spiritual constitution as the result of what they saw?
JT The impression was that the transaction was spiritual and not physical in the sense of being effected by material things. We are brought into a spiritual realm, and the foundation of it is in the resurrection of Christ. It is a great spiritual transaction. The cloths [p. 121] remaining as they were, would indicate there was no physical struggle at all.
Rem Mary only saw the stone rolled away, which was physical.
JT Surely; therefore she was wanting in intelligence. But now we are told, “she stooped down into the tomb, and beholds two angels sitting in white garments”, which I suppose is needed by her, as part of the adjustment in connection with purity.
Ques What is conveyed by the two running together and John running faster and reaching the tomb first, but waiting until Peter had been in and then following him in afterwards?
JT I think John represents the energy of life. We may have brethren more energetic in the way of life than others, whereas the others may have more intelligence. I think Peter stands for this. The point is, that whilst energy led in the running, intelligence is the final thing, for Peter becomes the leader afterwards. Intelligence is what tells. Life of course, and the energy of life, but the regulation of headship is what tells, and gives you the lead.
HMS Has it any relation to the ministry of those two apostles?
JT I think John is put in his place; he is after Peter. It is always “Peter and John”. It would be amplified by the position of the elders in Revelation; they are first in chapter 4 but they come in second in chapter 5, meaning that when it is a question of intelligence and experience they are first, that is, the elder brethren, those who have had experience with God necessarily have the lead. But when it comes to action, requiring the energy of life, the living creatures are mentioned first. Chapter 5 is a chapter of action, corresponding with the power of the Lamb. That is, the younger brothers come into evidence, those who have energy, under certain circumstances, and it is the [p. 122] wisdom of the elders to let them have the first place.
DLH What about going to their own home? “The disciples therefore went away again to their own home”. It has been viewed as indicating that they had not spiritual response but that their intelligence had been affected.
JT I think that is right. That is to say, one with intelligence may take in thoughts more quickly than persons who are more spiritual, and go home with them; but I think affection would lead you to stay where those things are. While Mary did not take any notice of the cloths yet she stayed around. If we do not get the whole matter, and linger near, we shall get more even than those who are more intelligent.
Ques Did you say she came into adjustment through the angels being in white?
JT Yes. White garments as a requirement refer to us all, but especially to her, considering her history. For, after all, reminiscences are terrible things; she would have to own that seven demons had gone out of her.
Ques Does not Mary, having affection, become intelligent in carrying the message?
JT Yes. She says, “Rabboni”; she owns she had been learning. The others did not say that.
Ques So she is in advance of the twelve in that way?
JT She is. That is the point in the last days. It is a question of affection after all, and it is seen in her waiting about. There is something here supremely interesting. I may not be taking in much, but I linger where the truth is and so I do not miss it.
HMS Like Proverbs: “watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors”, chapter 8:34.
JT Mary is detained by her affection, and so looking into the tomb, she sees two angels sitting, and they speak to her, and then she turns, as you will observe: “Having said these things she turned backward [p. 123] and beholds Jesus standing there, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus says to her. Woman, why dost thou weep? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing that it was the gardener, says to him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus says to her, Mary. She, turning round, says to him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which means Teacher”. At first she turns backward, but now at His voice she turns round — the movements are typically spiritual.
Ques What would be the import of the Lord standing in the midst? Would it be that He might wait upon us to conduct us into the spiritual sphere?
JT Linking it up with the angel at His feet, the feet in relation to His head, it is that He moves in relation to His headship, and obviously we are to move with Him. Now Mary is to move with Him. One great feature in these chapters is to bring us into correspondence with the Lord, and if He has entered into a spiritual condition and realm. He wants to bring us into correspondence, and that is what is evidenced in her remark ‘Rabboni’ in Hebrew.
JJ Why does the Lord use the two expressions, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”.
JT The one gives us our place in the family, and the other gives us our place in the race, the new order of man. The two things run together. In the family Christ is Son, Firstborn among many brethren. He is also ‘Leader of a chosen race’.
EuR Is this the fulfilment of the last verse of chapter 17?
JT I think so.
EuR Is it complete, or is there any sense in which the Lord does it now?
JT It is contemplated as complete: “will make it known”. The message here [p. 124] involves that.
HMS Would you just tell us what is in your mind briefly as to the remainder of the chapter? We do not want to lose that.
JT The great objective one had in mind was that we might reach the spiritual realm, otherwise we shall not be in the assembly according to God, nor shall we enter into service Godward. The education that precedes our entrance into it is seen in the verses we have been considering; the intelligence in the two, and Mary being brought to it as patiently and affectionately waiting where it is to be found. For after all, it takes us a long time to get the truth, but it is an important matter to know where it is to be found. She says, ‘Rabboni’, as if she said. You are my Teacher. He calls her by name, and she turns round. There is the idea of movement. The Spirit of God tells us what Rabboni means; we are thus to understand that instruction from Him is the point. Then the Lord, so as to finish our education, says, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. The links are to be entirely spiritual. Now she comes to the disciples, we are told, and tells them that “she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her”. Then, following on that, on the first day of the week, “Jesus came and stood in the midst”, where the disciples were, the doors being shut, and says to them, “Peace be to you”. So that now they have Him by themselves and in a spiritual way, because He has come in in spite of the doors being shut. It is a spiritual matter, as we have seen.
JHT In Ephesians, chapter 1, the apostle prays that the eyes of their heart might be enlightened. Would that combine intelligence with affection? Then in chapter 3 “might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God”,(verse 10) and then the great objective at the close of that chapter, that there might be glory to God “in the assembly in Christ Jesus [p. 125] unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3:21. Would that be the line here?
JT Exactly. There is a further thought in chapter 3 that we might well finish with. The apostle says: “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, in order that he may give you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man” (Ephesians 3: 14 - 16). I think that that, added to chapter 1, which deals with the eyes of our heart, constitutes us qualified for part in the assembly, so that there is glory to God in it.