THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE OF THE TRUTH (2)
[p. 172] THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE OF THE TRUTH (2)
JT It is thought that John’s ministry was reserved by the Lord to cover the whole dispensation, with special reference to the closing days, in view of the subjective side of the truth. Christendom has lost that side of the truth in having recourse to creeds and mere doctrines, whereas the Lord had in mind that the Spirit should be here, and that, as having come, the Spirit would remain here until the coming of the Lord and it is believed that the recent revival, in which we have part, is the outcome of this. The Spirit had been here even in the darkest ages, but under great disadvantages, because of the systematic religion which held the saints in its power. Where that is admitted it will ever obstruct the working out of the truth. These scriptures are read having all this in mind. Nicodemus provides us an example of one to whom the Lord could speak. He was a gifted man, or a minister, but an inquiring man. That is essential, for inquiries are used, under the Lord, to bring out the truth; they may expose themselves, and their ignorance, but they serve the purpose. Nicodemus, as we have often noted, is distinguished in the “But” of the first verse of chapter 3. It says of the Lord in the previous paragraph, “when he was in Jerusalem, at the Passover, at the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he wrought. But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them”. That is to be noted; it is not simply that He did not trust them, but He “did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men, and that he had not need that any should testify of man, for himself knew what was in man”. The whole race of man was thus under the Lord’s eye and known to Him, and, although many made inquiry as to the truth, not being able to resist the testimony of the signs, the Lord did not trust Himself to them. I suppose He would not trust Himself [p. 173] to any save those in whom the Holy Spirit had liberty, and fully to the assembly.
Ques Do you mean the “But ... Nicodemus” lifts him out of the class the Lord could not trust? He is thus representative of those in whom God was operating.
JT That is what I was thinking. It indicates that eventually there would be someone to whom the Lord could commit Himself. Systematic religion is not trustworthy as to the Lord, whatever terms it may use; even though they may be right up to a point, He cannot be trusted to them.
AHG Does the Himself involve the truth of His Person?
JT I would say that. In chapter 2 it is said that they inquire of the Lord for a sign, and He says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple building, and thou wilt raise it up in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from among the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken”. I should hardly think, by his bringing the spices for the Lord’s burial, that Nicodemus had ever come to that sign and what the Lord implied in raising up His body. John in his record makes the most of Nicodemus, but that most was not very much. He was, in a certain sense, a genuine kind of man, but he remained in the council of the Jews. There are many like that today, persons who remain in the world’s councils, yet professing some regard for the Lord.
Ques Is the value of the incident really in the truth that the Lord brings out of it, rather than in Nicodemus himself?
JT The thing that the Lord brought out of it was from Himself, not from what Nicodemus said, for Nicodemus said some poor things. At the same time, as we have said, there was something there, but we do [p. 174] not want to identify ourselves, in this hour of the dispensation, with Nicodemuses, because they are not fully reliable. If we would have the truth we have to trust in the Lord Himself, and what He brings out.
PHH The whole race of man being in view here, is it also in view now, that there should be a new race on the principle of new birth, a race which the Lord can own, and in whom God can operate?
JT That is just what I was thinking. It is said, “Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men”. That is, whether they were Jews or gentiles. We have arrived now at much that men are saying, about God and Christ, but they are very untrustworthy things, even although those who say them have reputation and their systems may have reputation. So it goes on to say, “he had not need that any should testify of man”, not of any particular man, but man as a race, as an order of being, “for himself knew what was in man”.
Ques Is that what Paul had in his mind when he said to the partisans, at Corinth, “are ye not carnal, and walk as men?”, 1 Corinthians 3: 3. They had not been delivered from that order, had they?
JT Take anything there is today, whether it be legislative councils, or governments or religious councils; whether it be American, Asiatic, or European, there really is nothing to be trusted, when it comes to the Lord Himself. There is not a thing that can be relied upon to look after the Lord and His interests any more than there was when He was a Babe.
FCH What is involved in verse 22, where it says that the “disciples remembered that he had said this, and believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken”?
JT It shows that the Lord’s resurrection was awaited for the confirmation of everything. Thus the endings of the gospels are intended to provide that confirmation, for they are a witness to the Lord’s resurrection.
[p. 175] But then there is more than that, for the Lord is not only risen but He is ascended, and the Holy Spirit has been sent down.
AHG Where it speaks in the end of the gospel of Jesus Himself standing in the midst, would that indicate that a certain trustworthiness had been brought to light?
JT Quite so. There it was, in John 20: 16. Mary Magdalene herself had proved what was needed, for she says, “Rabboni”, meaning ‘My Teacher’. She becomes representative of the results of real Christian teaching, reliable teaching, as distinct from the creeds; and not teaching from merely educated persons, or the universities. Then another thing comes up, the shutting of the doors, and that brings up the question of the mystery. It has to be understood that things are in mystery, for our position as of the assembly is a mysterious one. The parabolic teaching, recorded by Matthew, implies mystery. Things have to be in mystery for they cannot be trusted to men unless they are men that are truly born again. The foundational thought is the new birth, and that is what we are dealing with now in John 3.
PHH Does that ensure that trustworthiness shall be there from the very start, because it is God’s action?
JT Just so. The Lord says, in answer to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily”. Notice the words “Verily, verily” here, which occur twenty-five times in this gospel, and not at all elsewhere in this double form. We must have what is really true in Christianity. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God”. He might be the most brilliant man, so to say, in any province of science, but, whatever else he may see, he cannot see the kingdom.
Ques Do you think we arrive practically, in the history of our souls, at the necessity of new birth, as over against the acceptance of it as doctrine?
JT Just so. There are those who make much of it; not that we want to speak of others, but it is the beginning and end of Christianity with some. We have [p. 176] to go deeper than mere stereotyped ideas and confession for the truth, in order to discover where people are in their souls.
Ques Is what we are dealing with here really the start in the sovereign operations of God which are at last recognised in the expression of the man in Romans 7 when he says “I myself”?
JT I would say that. “I myself” is the real man. You notice similar reference here, as to the Lord Himself — “Jesus himself”, John 2: 24.
WC What is the distinction between what we had this morning as to God with us, and then this thought of the Lord trusting Himself to persons? You were saying that the fact that Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to man implied that conditions were in view to which He could trust Himself. Would that be to reinforce the position, as seen in Matthew, in a subjective way?
JT I think so. We are speaking of Matthew 4 and the light springing up; then the number of persons who followed the Lord was stressed; and then the regulation of the persons on the mount of legislation; chapters 5 to 7. It is important to have before us that it was not simply the mount of administration, but the mount of legislation, where right laws were enacted, or unfolded; the word unfold was used as to Moses in Deuteronomy 1: 5. He unfolded the law, and Matthew unfolds the thing that was needed for the assembly in its government. I think the idea of the light springing up would show that the Lord had come in in relation to a certain class or race of people. The generation of Jesus Christ, in Matthew, is traced through forty-two generations, three sets of fourteen. It is as if God would test out what there was in Israel in view of His Son coming in and being received here. The many generations with which the testimony has been identified up to our own time must be tested out so as to discover what is reliable. God had been working from the very beginning and [p. 177] continued through these forty-two generations. They are not taken from Adam; they are taken from Abraham; that is to say, it began with a man sovereignly selected by God. We have to bear all that in mind in order to get at Matthew’s point of view.
WC Do you mean that John goes back further still to man as such?
JT Yes. He goes on to the Word. He says, “In the beginning was the Word”. That is to say, One capable of unfolding the mind of God. John has in mind not simply the setting forth of signs, but the unfolding of the mind of God.
AHG Would what is here in John 3 show the basis of trustworthiness?
JT It is a question of what the Spirit of God does; that is the point that we are at, and that we can have nothing without Him. That is implied in the start with Abraham, for he is a man that God Himself took up and said to him, “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward”, Genesis 15: 1. God had a man that He could rely upon, for Abraham was a reliable and trustworthy man; and so are those who are truly his children.
Ques Do I understand that, whilst in Christ as the Word there was the perfect expression of what God was, it needed God’s operation in men for that light to be received?
JT Quite so. There was this great thought which had not been understood, although the Old Testament had contained it in principle. The idea of the new birth was there in Ezekiel, but not understood; and the question is whether it is understood now. The first thing is how persons are to see the kingdom. We can easily see man’s kingdom, whether it be a republic or whatever else it may be, but we cannot see God’s kingdom without this great transaction which is said to be effected by the Spirit. It is to bring out the reality of the Spirit’s operations.
[p. 178] Rem Ezekiel makes the subjective thought clear in his reference to this, “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances”, Ezekiel 36: 27.
JT Ezekiel has a striking place in the prophets, and amongst the things he deals with is this matter of new birth, and God putting His Spirit within people, which goes beyond new birth. The mere fact of new birth does not mean that a person has the Spirit. It means that he is affected by the Spirit; the operation has taken place.
Ques Does the Lord, in this gospel, rejoice to call attention to Abraham as one who could see?
JT Just so. The Lord says, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day”, John 8: 56. How far-seeing he was! The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, too, says of those who died in faith that they “not having received the promises, but having seen them from afar off and embraced them”, Hebrews 11: 13.
JPH Would you make a little clearer how you link on what is subjective with this operation in the soul. Is it a necessary foundation for it, or is there a subjective character in it?
JT This is a subjective element. The Lord says, “Verily, verily”, and again I would remark as to these two words which have a peculiar place in John, the expression occurring twenty-five times. Surely there must be something in it; for it is not recorded elsewhere. John was a truthful, reliable man, and this would accentuate the idea of reliability in ministry. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born anew”. That, as I understand it, means from top to bottom. (The note, which is important, says, Not only ‘again’, but ‘entirely afresh’, as from a new source of life and point of departure; translated in Luke 1: 3, ‘from the origin’; that is Luke says he knew “from the origin”: that is this same word.) That means, born from a new source entirely.
[p. 179] EuR Would you explain a little your expression that it affects a person from top to bottom?
JT It affects him in all his faculties. It is not physical, but he is affected in a moral sense, although, of course, it will affect his physical members as to how he uses them. It affects all the faculties whatever they may be. I believe that is what is meant.
PHH Would it give the capacity to respond to the light?
JT The members we have are also to be controlled; they are to be controlled by the life which we have by the Spirit, resulting from the Spirit in us, which is distinct from this operation of new birth. The Spirit dwelling in us controls our faculties.
Ques Is that what Paul means when he says, “the Spirit life on account of righteousness”?
JT Just so.
JPH Would it be right to connect Colossians 3 with this matter? We have such expressions as “Put to death therefore” and then “put off the old man” and “put on the new” mentioned in that chapter.
JT I think it can be connected. The new man has to be considered to see how it works out in the history of the race. Has the race been affected by what is presented in the testimony of God, as in Judaism or Christianity? If it has been affected, the evil implied in the old man is apt to develop in that very setting. The old man is perhaps more accentuated in persons who are affected by what is religious. I would like to dwell on this point, for it seems to me that it has not been understood. We have to consider the ways of Egypt and the ways of Canaan. The ways of Egypt represent just the natural state of man as he is without being affected by anything religious, or anything, in any sense, of God. Whereas if man is merely externally affected by what is of God, his character becomes more like the ways of Canaan, and these have especially affected a part of the human race. If you have to deal with that,
[p. 180] you have the worst kind of evil, the worst features of the old man. Whereas in Colossians the idea of the new man is what is fresh. It is fresh as just affected by God immediately and therefore the more reliable.
Ques Is that why Moses is so drastic in his instructions to the people in view of their going into Canaan? He says, “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall dispossess have served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; and ye shall break down their altars, and shatter their statues, and burn their Asherahs with fire”, Deuteronomy 12: 2, 3.
JT The state to be dealt with in Canaan as Israel went into it was solely from the devil, but, if the old man is affected by anything that is professedly of God, the evil state is apt to be more deep and deceptive and subtle.
PL Is that why the Egyptian is allowed finally into Israel and the Canaanite excluded?
JT Quite so, and the Canaanite is cursed. Noah said: “Cursed be Canaan”. Sometimes it is assumed that Ham was cursed, but he is not; it is Canaan that was cursed. It is a man that behaves as Ham’s son did.
EuR Would the Lord deliver Nicodemus from all that he was as the teacher of Israel?
JT Well, yes, although the Lord rather noticed it. There is something which ought to be noted in any persons we may have to do with like this. This man, who is a teacher, and who is seeking Jesus by night, discerns that He is of God. The Lord says to him, “Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things!” That is to say, the teacher of Israel, in such a man as Nicodemus, might read the Scriptures, and that is not to be despised. If the Scriptures are resorted to, as by Herod in Matthew 2, to murder Jesus, then it is another matter, but Nicodemus had no such thought. Nicodemus was a man that discerned that Jesus was [p. 181] of God.
PHH You would say that the giving and receiving of the Spirit are evidently subsequent to this great matter of new birth.
JT They are; because the giving and receiving of the Spirit lead us to a higher level of the truth than Nicodemus had reached or was capable of understanding so far. We find it in Paul’s ministry. In Acts 19 reference is made to the giving and receiving of the Spirit. There were twelve men there having John’s baptism, the number being in view of administration. They had some light about God and about Christ, but they did not have light about the Spirit. They had not even heard that He was come. But still Paul clearly attaches importance to the administrative number at Ephesus, because of the structure that was intended to be reared up there.
PHH What has the Lord exactly in mind in saying, in verse 5, “Except any one be born of water and of Spirit”? Previously He says “born anew”.
JT Well, I think “born of water” implies that the doctrine, or teaching, is accompanied by a purifying effect. Now we have the word regeneration, which is only found in Matthew and in Titus, and that means something more than an ordinary external change. It would imply the idea of born of water and the Spirit. The regeneration refers to the millennial condition of things, and that implies the presence of the Spirit in some sense here on earth, and the effect of it, and it is called the regeneration.
PHH A wholly new state of things?
JT Just so.
Ques The note to the verse in Titus reads, ‘Regeneration is not the same word as being born again, nor is it used so in Scripture. The force of the word is a change of position; a new state of things. The word is only used here, and in Matthew 19: 28 for the Saviour’s coming kingdom’. That is followed in Titus by the expression “and renewal of the Holy Spirit”. Would not that show that that was subsequent?
JT Well, quite so. These references I think help us as to the new birth, and the second reference, which includes the thought of water, implies that a purifying effect is attached to or included in the thought of the new birth.
AHG Would the receiving of the Spirit be involved in being born of water and the Spirit?
JT No. The reception of the Spirit is not in either illustration of new birth. Redemption was required which shows that although the Old Testament saints had certain things it was in a very shallow and limited way. Nevertheless they were there and that is what brings out the value of Abraham and the forty-two generations through which the Messiah should come.
Ques Would you use the word potential in relation to this matter, as over against what is substantial? It is not exactly that new birth is the end of a story, but is it not the initial thing in view of a great many other things? Does not the gift of the Spirit and the reception of the Spirit come in subsequently to fill out what is in mind in the potential operation of God?
JT Then the Lord says later in the passage, “We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen, and ye receive not our witness. If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe? And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up, that every one who believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal” (verses 11 - 15). Redemption is implied before one could receive the Spirit and therefore the Old Testament saints did not have the Spirit in the sense in which it is predicated of us. The true sense of the reception of the Spirit was not there, for David had to ask Jehovah [p. 183] not to take it from him. There is no such thought as the Spirit being taken from a person now. He remains with us for ever. The great operations of God in believers are contingent upon the Spirit, and not only on the Spirit here, but on the Spirit in the persons.
ECM Does the verse in chapter 7 have any bearing, “the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”?
JT It has. He had to be glorified in order that the Spirit should come down. So the word is, “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”, Acts 2: 33. The thing was there substantially.
JSE Would it help to draw a contrast between this statement as to the water and the Spirit, and the statement in the epistle to the Corinthians, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom”? Is this presented in Nicodemus, as representing the best in nature up to date, and yet asserting that, on that line, nothing is possible, relative to the kingdom of God?
JT That brings up a matter that deserves inquiry. The passage in Corinthians implies the transition from the millennial condition into the eternal state of things and it is a question whether anybody knows what that will be, because flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is a moral thing, and it would seem, in that particular case, to imply the transition from the millennial condition, called the “regeneration”, as we have said, into the eternal state of things, for which we are all intended. It is doubtful whether we all understand or whether anyone understands it. What transaction will happen is left somewhat vague in the Scriptures. The millennial condition is a condition set up in order that God should show what He can do with man in the flesh as he is. There is the possibility of sin, yet it is greatly restricted because Satan is bound. But then the transfer will be made from that [p. 184] state of things into an eternal state of things where there will be no possibility of sin.
FCH What is the force of the expression, “the promise of the Holy Spirit”?
JT I think it is just that the Father had promised Him. It is referred to in the endings of the gospels. The apostles or the saints at that time were told to wait for the Spirit. It was as though the Lord would say, Do not do anything without the Spirit; the Spirit is the great thought of the dispensation, and do not begin to do things without Him. It was not indeed that they did not have to do certain things; for they had to select the twelfth apostle; but there was not much to be done until the Spirit should come. Then, of course, there was much done, and the Spirit of God stresses the much that was done, namely, that three thousand people were converted.
EuR Would you say something as to verse 6, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.
JT The word is there is important and shows what is really brought about by this transaction of the Spirit in the believer. There is something that can be designated as spirit. It is important to keep the naming of things in mind. In the beginning of Genesis God named things. It says, He called the light, Day; and He called the expanse, Heavens. Then Adam named things and what we are dealing with now has to be named. We have already alluded to certain Christians and how they deal with the question of new birth. I do not believe they have the right thought, because they think new birth is everything. If a person is converted and has the Spirit, according to them, he is born again; whereas he may be born again and not have the Spirit. They do not know how to distinguish between these two things.
Ques Is “born of the Spirit” an advance on “born anew”?
JT [p. 185] The new birth is set out in the first remarks of the Lord to Nicodemus, but it is not easy to say just what is alluded to in the actual transaction. When we come to the second remark of the Lord, you would expect that He would increase, because it was somewhat a vague matter. Although the Old Testament had spoken of it, it was not known much, so when the Lord refers to it the second time He adds the thought, “born of water and of the Spirit”. That helps us to understand that the idea of purification is added to the transaction called new birth.
Rem Then subsequent to that, this remark, “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”. It is something at least sufficient to be named.
JT That is what I was thinking.
PHH Does the Lord carry that forward in the next chapter when He speaks to the woman as to the worship of God. He says, “they who worship him must worship him in spirit”. Is it something more substantial now which can distinguish the worship of God in persons?
JT Very good. So when Paul comes to the time when he feels it necessary to say what the worship of Christians is, he says, “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh”, Philippians 3: 3. That is to say, the worship of God implies the entire rejection of the flesh; there is to be no confidence placed in it at all.
ADT Would “born of God”, in chapter 1, be a further thought?
JT I think it is. Although the Spirit is God, it does not say born of God here. It says “born of water and of the Spirit”. But “born of God”, I would say, is the full thought of Christianity. Thus, according to chapter 1, everyone born of God has the liberty to take the place of the children of God, and the word “children” there implies the basic relationship which underlies our [p. 186] sonship from the standpoint of the heavenly calling. This relationship is connected with us down here where we need the care of God, and corresponds with our place of dignity as His sons. Sonship for us gives the full dignity of our position in heaven, for God is said to be bringing many sons to glory. The word children is not used in that connection.
Ques Had that not already been evidenced by the reception of Christ?
JT Yes. “As many as received him”. Being born of God is a complete transaction, involving Christianity, and would be inclusive of being born anew.
WC Would the woman in chapter 4 be born of God?
JT I do not know about that, because she had not received the Spirit. No one received the Spirit until Christ was glorified, as it says, “the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”. That brings the thing into definiteness, for the gift of the Spirit is from a glorified Christ.
JPH When she says, in verse 17, “I have not a husband”, is that the water operating, “born of water”?
JT Very good.
EuR Is the full thought of persons born of God reached experimentally by way of the verse in Romans 7, “I myself ... serve God’s law”, so that we have sons and children in Romans 8?
JT The way is made for Romans 8 by Romans 7. In chapter 8 there are many references to the Spirit of God in the believer, and that brings out the greatness of the Holy Spirit, and of His being in the believer.
PHH Would you say a word on Peter’s expression “being born again, ... by the living and abiding word of God”, 1 Peter 1: 23.
JT Peter confirms what John says. He confirms what Paul says too, but especially what John says. Peter says that it is by the incorruptible seed, by the living and abiding word of God. It is the action of the word [p. 187] of God, implying the revelation of God, and it is apprehended through the mind. The allusion there is to the power that effected the birth of the persons through the presentation to the mind of the incorruptible word of God. I hope the brethren will just think of that and give it its true place. The mind has to be taken into account if we are dealing with the word, and it is a question of God being apprehended through the mind, the result of the word of God acting on the mind of men. If it is a question of the birth of the man, the whole man is involved in the sense of his mind or his intelligence.
Ques Is that confirmed by what the Lord says in Matthew 13: 51 as to the sowing of the word? “Have ye understood all these things?” and, in Mark 4: 13 He says, “Do ye not know this parable? and how will ye be acquainted with all the parables?”
JT Quite so. But Matthew 13 says that they did understand, for the disciples say, “Yea, Lord”, and the Lord did not deny it. Then He proceeds to speak of what a disciple is, “every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old”. He is intelligent as to what he is dealing with. It is not simply what he has objectively, but he has things new and old in his treasure.
AB Peter refers to the pure mental milk of the word. Is that the mind of the believer being fed?
JT Well, that is good. That is just what was in mind; it is a question of that faculty, the mental part of man. Paul says, “we have the mind of Christ”; that is the idea; it is the thinking faculty of Christ.
Rem Mr. Darby’s note to that verse in Peter says, that ‘the word here translated mental has the sense of suited to the rational faculties — the mind in contrast with the body’.
JT We are slack on the point of the mind and especially so at the Lord’s supper. The Lord says, that we are to do what He did at the Lord’s supper,
[p. 188] for the calling of Me to mind. See note to 1 Corinthians 11: 24. That is to show, that the mind has a great place as we sit down to partake of the Lord’s supper.
PHH How does the woman in John 4 fit into this picture?
JT She fits into it well. The Lord has taken her on and, although weary with His journey, He was pleased to converse with her and to listen to her natural thoughts. We all have these natural thoughts and they unquestionably interfere with spiritual thoughts, but I think she comes into it in that way. The Lord allowed her to give out her experience and thoughts and then He proceeds until He calls her Woman. She is learning and the Lord proceeds to make something of her by His teaching. She had said, “I see that thou art a prophet”. As soon as she begins to see things, and discerns that He is a prophet, then the Lord calls her Woman.
FCH It says in verse 5, that the setting of the incident was “near to the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph”. Does not that bring out the thought of the spiritual addition there is in the chapter? Joseph’s name means He will add.
JT I believe the idea of addition was in this woman, because she left her water-pot. That would not add to her any more, for, when you come to this matter of birth and the living water, our belongings do not add to any of us. The vessel, whatever it may be, even a business, does not add to us, so this woman left it, and went away into the city and said, “[p. 193] Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” That was the whole point.
PL The Lord using the word woman shows that in His mind she is stripped of her circumstantial environment and stands out according to the work of God that needs no appurtenances.
JT Quite so. She left her water-pot; this is recorded for a purpose. Paul, in visiting Troas, had the effects of his work accompanying him, but here the [p. 189] Lord has not the disciples with Him. They should have been there to give fulness to what He was saying, but they were not there. That brings out the necessity of the brethren being present when the testimony of God is being unfolded. The Lord will use us to add to what He is saying, to bring it out, because, as we have said, it is a question of persons.
ECM Did the Lord take the woman on with a view to securing her as a vessel for the reception of the Spirit?
JT Quite so. He took her on at the very outset in view of what He had in mind. He knew all about her, but there had to be this exposure of the number of husbands she had and so forth. We have come to a time in the history of society in which the marriage tie has become weakened and the family damaged. So here the question of husbands comes up, and when she says, “I have no husband”, the Lord accredits her with telling the truth. When we come to Christianity, the whole matter as to society and as to men and as to families has to be settled. Thus this woman has to be exposed, and the Lord does not stop in His instruction, until we come to the very topmost thought, and that is that man is to worship God.
PHH Is there a suggestion in the mention of the prophet that God would answer all these questions nowadays by a word in ministry? The woman says, “Sir, I see that thou art a prophet”, and she says it as the result of the Lord exposing her. Would you say that all the practical exercises amongst us might find their settlement according to the mind of God, in the meeting for ministry, as it is called?
JT Quite so. Then the question is whether we have prophets. The woman definitely distinguishes the Lord as a prophet; she says, “I see that thou art a prophet”. If we have them then we will get the solutions of our [p. 190] difficulties.
PL Is that the perception that attaches to “let the others judge” in 1 Corinthians 14: 29?
JT In all these matters dealing with the assembly and its order, and the persons who form it, we are bound to come back to Corinth. God has revived the prophetic meetings. It is supported by the first book of Samuel, and the mention of “the hill of God”, 1 Samuel 10: 5. That is where the power of God is. In Samuel the hill was in the hands of the Philistines, but it should not have been. The service of the prophet would soon make way for the hill of God. So 1 Corinthians 14 contemplates the whole assembly coming together in one place. No matter how many sub-divisions there may be, when they come together in one place the hill of God is there. It is all that God has in the town or the city, and the prophets will bring out, therefore, what there may be. If there is anything to be solved, there will be light through the prophets.
Ques Would the fact that Samuel was a judge and established to be a prophet show the intimate link between what is prophetic and what belongs to the legislation that we were speaking about this morning?
JT Yes. It says of him that none of his words fell to the ground. You just wonder how much there is in ministry that does not fall to the ground. I believe the idea is that the prophetic word reaches the saints. The point is, that if the saints are listening, and if their consciences are in exercise they will be listening, then, instead of the prophet’s words disappearing into thin air or falling to the ground, they will fall into honest and good hearts.
PL Would the record of Samuel’s death also indicate the choice fruit of the seed he sowed, in Abigail for David?
JT Just so. She had an understanding of David and could speak about him as bound up in the bundle of life with Jehovah [p. 191] his God.
ECM Do you connect the idea of preservation with the prophetic ministry? Hosea says, “By a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved”, Hosea 12: 13.
JT Quite so.
EuR The Lord designating her woman involves the reaching of a subjective result?
JT I think so. Jesus says to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when ye shall neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father”. He addresses her as “woman” as if she was now qualified to be so regarded by herself.
PHH Does the Lord raise the question of His Person in His earlier remark, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink”? Is there a suggestion there that we are to be prepared for the greatness of the Lord in His Person to dominate this position, both as the Giver of the water, and then the Prophet, and then the One who speaks about the service of God?
JT That brings up what we have already alluded to in chapter 2. It says there, “Jesus himself did not trust himself to them”, but this woman would be trusted. I think she represents the trustworthy quality, because the Lord goes on to speak to her about the greatest things. He speaks about the worship of the Father. He could commit to her even such elevated thoughts as that. I do not believe that the leaders of the national and publicly accredited churches could give you the true thought of worship, yet the Lord speaks about it to this woman and she would understand.
COB Linking chapters 3 and 4 together, would you say that the operations of the Spirit have in view the worship of God?
JT I was thinking that we might come to that in chapter 4. This woman is singled out in the Lord’s mind, and in the facts that are mentioned by the Spirit, because it says of her in verse 27, “And upon this came his disciples”; they now come in. Then it says they “wondered that he spoke with a woman; yet no one said, What seekest thou? or, Why speakest thou with her? The woman then left her waterpot and went away into the city, and says to the men, Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” She now comes to the Person. It is what we get in Matthew 1, “the generation of Jesus Christ”, for we come there to the idea of the Christ. There are forty-two generations leading us up to that. “The generation of Jesus Christ”; what a process preceded the Christ! Now we come to the idea of the worship of God, and, as we learn from Hebrews, Christ is the Minister of the sanctuary; the worship of God is in His hands. The woman understood and called Him the Christ. She put it that way, as if to say, Is it not really so that He is the Christ?
Ques Do you think she was using her mind? Was it not a calculation that she had arrived at?
JT I think so. She was developing in intelligence.
AHG Would the need for intelligence be pointed out in the Lord’s words, “we worship what we know”?
JT Just so.
Ques So that the culmination of new birth is a worshipper?
JT I think that is what the passages we have read mean. We have come to the worship of God, and surely that is the main thought now in our times. The evangelisation of men, too, is a very important thing, but I think the service of God is what God is stressing amongst us.
Ques Have you in mind also the power to take it on, so that the matter is filled out with spiritual substance as the result of this subjective, formative work?
JT Quite so. There she is. The Spirit of God singles her out. She left her water-pot and she goes to the men. She does not go to the women to talk about things, but to the men, and the inquiry she makes is:
“Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done is not he the Christ?”
PL So that the great thought of the worship by the Spirit of God in Philippians, is linked on with the greatness of the surrender. Everything that is of man is parted with, the race of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin (see Philippians 3: 3 - 7). Is not worship bound up with sacrifice? David said, “Neither will I offer ... unto the Lord ... that which doth cost me nothing”, 2 Samuel 24: 24.
JT Quite so.
PHH Would Obed, the worshipper, coming from Ruth, suggest the true substance arrived at in a subjective way?
JT Very good. He is the progenitor of David, who is the sweet psalmist of Israel. The whole matter thus hangs together in the Scriptures.
PL Does our power to rise and soar in the spiritual realm lie in our power to part with the natural?
JT Quite so.
Ques Have you not had in mind all through that the worship of God really requires persons who are formed spiritually and who conduct themselves suitably in it? It is not merely taking the matter on by way of creed or doctrine, but being formed inwardly in relation to the God whom we are worshipping.
J.T., Thus Paul says, “we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God”, Philippians 3: 3. He emphasises the we, so that we can say we belong to the worshippers.
Ques Is that not precisely the difference between verse 29 and verse 25? In verse 29 the thing has become substantial, whereas in verse 25 it was, more or less, tradition.
JT She says, in verse 25, “I know that Messias is coming”. That is what she might have known from [p. 194] reading the Scriptures; but in verse 29 she says, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” What is really in mind is the Christ, the Person. He is the great divine Operator and His operations include the service of God, for He is the Minister of the sanctuary.