READING
READING
EJMcB I think the general feeling is that we might pursue the same line that we have had before us; that we might have something on what one might call the functional side of the assembly.
JT John 20 would more follow what we had last night.
Ques In what way does John 20 follow chapter 14?
JT It is the difference between the Lord’s affection and care for His own, and the inauguration of the new order of things; and therefore chapter 20 stands on a much wider platform than chapters 13 and 14. This chapter stands by itself; and, what occurs in it being the inauguration of the assembly, it is necessarily once for all. There could be no other inauguration.
Ques Is the new order of things confined to the assembly?
JT I think in its highest character it is; but the new order of things, while necessarily including what God will bring in in the future, proceeds from heaven. It is not only what is established in resurrection. The new order of things comes from heaven. So that in principle, in coming into the company here, the Lord came from heaven. I do not say He did so literally, because He had not actually ascended; but He came to them following upon His message that He was ascending to the Father.
EJMcB That is, it was in the light of His ascension that He came in.
[p. 407] JT Yes.
EJMcB He did not speak of His ascension merely as a fact that would take place at a certain time, but in regard of what it set forth.
JT The point is as to the moral place which the ascension holds. It is not only here that He is risen, but “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father”. In chapter 14 He is going to the Father, which is another thought.
Ques What is the difference?
JT Well, the word ascend shows that the Father is in heaven. In going to the Father the Person to whom He was going is more in view, but in chapter 20 the place where the Father is is the prominent thought, and that He ascends there. I think the truth of His own Person is involved in that; that is, He has title to ascend.
Rem Inherently.
JT Yes, in the light of what He was, He could ascend. He had title to do so.
Rem In chapter 17 He lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, glorify thou me”, John 17:5.
JT I think that is rather what He is as Man. He had carried out God’s will here, so He could say, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”, John 17:4. It was due to Him that the Father should glorify Him, and I think His prayer is based upon that. It was a demand for what was morally right; but, then, He is a divine Person, and He has title to ascend in virtue of who He is.
EJMcB Yes; the idea is not that He asked to be taken up, but that He goes up.
JT And He goes up to His Father, and our Father; it is a very precious thought. He says, “go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend [p. 408] unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God”. It shows what a place the assembly has.
EJMcB Is there anything to be learned from what is seen in Mary, prior to this?
JT I think Mary represents the affections, the subjective side, in the disciples.
EJMcB Would you say it is the ‘orphan’ side of things?
JT Quite so.
Ques Then, previous to this, was not resurrection power inherent in Him as a divine Person?
JT Yes. John, I think, always presents that side. He shows, for example, in chapter 19:30, that the Lord dismissed His own spirit; His death in that way was an act of divine power. So chapters 17 and 18 show that He is in supreme command. In chapter 18:6, He faces His enemies, and they all went away backward and fell to the ground; and He says “if therefore ye seek me, let these go away”, John 18:8. That is so touching. There was the Shepherd’s spirit and the Shepherd’s heart; He was thinking only of the sheep; and so He delivers Himself up. Then they put Him on the cross, and He looks after His mother there; and later, He dismisses His spirit. So that all through John’s gospel it is a divine Person who is seen.
EJMcB “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again”, John 10:18.
JT That is how John so helps us. He shows us, in view of the decline and ruin, that we have to do with a divine Person, so that there can be no defeat. I think that is the great value of John’s writings. They apply so especially to our own day.
Ques Is not the resurrection the crowning sign that John gives us? He says “many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples ... but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”.
JT Yes, it was the greatest visible sign as to the greatness of His Person. As a Man the Lord was here in humble guise, and the point in the signs was that the disciples might believe; that we might really be believers on the Son. There are a great many christians who do not really believe on the Son. John knew that, and he wrote to establish christians in the truth of the Son. He shows, in fact, that he had singled out these special signs “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ”, and not only that, but that He is the Son of God.
EJMcB If one really believed in the Son, nothing in the soul would wane or break down.
JT And there is no possibility of defeat. One remarkable thing about John’s gospel is that it notes the Lord in isolation; and it also throws a slight on what was official. One of the most striking instances is in chapter 4, where the Lord is seen alone at the well. It is a most touching scene, and in the narrative there is a slight cast on the disciples. Why did they all go away and leave Him there? One would have thought, knowing the Lord, they would have lingered about with Him. But it says His disciples had gone into the city, and as the narrative proceeds, the woman appears, and she becomes the evangelist; and she had no official place at all. She was really an outcast; she comes into contact with Christ, and He tells her the most wonderful things. She goes back into the city, having left the waterpot, and says, “Come, see a man ... is not this the Christ?” She took back, in principle, living water into Samaria. The disciples were looking after the material side; they went to buy meat. She may have met them going in and coming out, but she bore a testimony. When they came to the Lord they did not know what had transpired; they wondered why He talked with the woman; the apostles did not know the meat He
[p. 410] had to eat. I think there is a distinct slight cast upon the apostles there.
Rem His meat was not in the light of what is official.
JT Then you find in chapter 7:53, and 8:1, that they all went to their own homes, and Jesus went to the mount of Olives. Yet with all that there is a link formed between Christ and the remnant, and that link is represented here, I think in Mary.
EJMcB Yes, and there is the wonderful fact that He recognises them as His brethren.
JT You feel that He would not recognise any as His “brethren” unless they were morally qualified to be that.
Ques Is the ascension here intended to indicate the way which the affections of the disciples should take?
JT Yes, I think so; and also that before you can have public testimony the saints must understand their heavenly position. If you do not take up your heavenly position, the testimony is necessarily reduced. Now, the testimony of the assembly was to take character from the light in which the company is placed here. They are to be sent out into the world as witnesses, but they are sent out in the full light of their heavenly association and position.
Ques What is the force of John 6:62, where the Lord says, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”
JT It shows that He came out of heaven. The point in John 6 is the “bread which cometh down from heaven” (John 6:50); but in chapter 20 we have the Lord going up to heaven, and this involves the “old corn of the land”, Joshua 5:11. Why do we need heavenly food? It is to build us up in a heavenly constitution.
Ques Can the christian have any other?
JT [p. 411] Yes, I think so. If you feed on the Psalms only you would not have a heavenly constitution. What are christians generally feeding upon? What people feed upon gives character to their constitution; and if you have not a heavenly constitution, you are not fitted for heaven. Neither are you qualified to render a heavenly testimony here. We not only need the light of our position, but the food that is suitable to it.
Ques Would you say that sonship is involved in what we have here?
JT Yes, the brethren of Christ are God’s sons. The idea of sonship is the order of beings in whom God delights; the idea of brethren is mutual affection.
Rem Testimony is not simply the message, but the character of those that bring the message.
JT I think the vessel was to be suited for the message.
Ques Would you say that the message was to make known to them their position?
JT The message was to prepare them for the visit. The message is the light of our position in relation to Christ, so that we may know how we are suited for such a visit.
Ques Will you give us help as to the heavenly character of the assembly? Is it in the light of the message, “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend”, that it is viewed?
JT Yes, that is the ground. But the ground signifies the attitude which you take up in your soul. Suppose a man is an Englishman; no matter where he is, the ground he takes is that he is an Englishman. Now, the ground that you take is that you are a heavenly man. You are entitled to take that ground. I think that the idea of ground is in that way symbolical. It is simply the attitude of soul you take up, and that gives character to [p. 412] your testimony. If it is a question of adverse power, I take the ground of resurrection; but if it be a question of position, the ground I take is that I am heavenly, and that delivers me from the earth.
EJMcB And that really, as you were saying, prepares you for the visit.
JT Yes. The first convening of the assembly, according to this chapter, is in the light of the heavenly position; there can be no question about that. And see what is involved: why it is wonderful that we are accorded such a place as that, and that these poor disciples should have such a marvellous message sent to them. I think that it rendered them suited for the visit. It made them great enough for it. It did not as yet characterise them subjectively, but what we get here is the principle of the truth.
Rem The next thing we find is that they are together.
JT Yes, and, as we said, they are together in the light of the message. John records all this here in order to set forth the heavenly position of the assembly; the inward aspect of it. The Acts gives us the outward aspect. Hence here, the Spirit is given inwardly; the Lord breathes into them, whereas in Acts it is what is external; “it sat upon each of them”, Acts 2:3.
Ques Would you say that a heavenly testimony comes out from the company, and that in John 20 the whole company is contemplated?
JT Yes; and that raises another important distinction to be made; that at the outset the company at Jerusalem was formally designated “the assembly” (Acts 5:11); but after the introduction of Paul’s ministry, what we find is that the christian economy takes the form of local assemblies. The only mention of a general assembly subsequently is in Acts 15, and that was in the wisdom of God to [p. 413] connect the gentile work with the Jewish work; but under Paul’s ministry the christian economy took the form of local assemblies. Hence all assembly privilege and responsibility from that time is connected with the local company.
Rem And not with any general assembly at Jerusalem.
JT No. So we read in 1 Corinthians 1:2, “to the assembly of God which is in Corinth ... with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”. There, I think, you have intimated that the christian economy was to take the form of local assemblies. At the same time catholicity was to be maintained. Hence Paul could say, “if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God”, 1 Corinthians 11:16. It was essential that the order of the house should be carried out in each local company. So now it is a question of each local company taking up the privileges that belong to the whole. Corinth is thus spoken of as God’s assembly, and God’s temple. Now all these thoughts have reference to the assembly as a whole.
Rem The apostle says, “so ordain I in all churches”, 1 Corinthians 7:17. That would show that the same thing was to prevail everywhere.
Ques Would you say that in John 20 you get the constitution of the assembly?
JT I think we have there, as I said, the inauguration of the assembly, not in its outward aspect, but in its heavenly relationship, privileges, and position. It is what is inner; what is altogether spiritual; whereas the epistle to the Corinthians gives us what is outward.
EJMcB Is not one great side of privilege — that you see [p. 414] the Lord?
JT Yes, I think so. He makes Himself known to the company, but that is spiritual. Do you not think so?
EJMcB Yes, entirely; but it is real.
JT We must not think that because a thing is spiritual, it is not real: the most real things are spiritual.
Ques I would like to ask why it is that the Lord introduces the heavenly character of the assembly here, because a difficulty exists in some minds owing to the fact that the Lord had not yet ascended.
JT Well, I think it is, as has often been said, a question of pattern; to show what the inner privileges of the assembly are; and it is that which qualifies us for the outer. If you only take the side presented in Acts, where we have the historical account of things, you would lose this side.
Ques Why do you say pattern? Is it because the Lord inaugurated it Himself?
JT Yes; it is remarkable that in John’s gospel he brings this out. The historical side in the Acts stands related to the official administration of the twelve. The Spirit came to them out of heaven, but it does not involve that they were heavenly. Now, John writes his gospel after all that is official has given way, and he shows that the Lord inaugurated something quite outside of what is official. So the apostles are not called apostles here, they are simply disciples. Our privileges thus, as christians, are even greater than the gift of an apostle.
Rem Does not officialism come in where there is a lack of spirituality?
JT Well, yes, only I think we have to bear in mind that there was what was official. The apostles were given an official place; but the system they inaugurated gave way, and John’s testimony came in to meet that; he shows that the Lord set up [p. 415] something outside what was official, something that was wholly spiritual; and that remains.
EJMcB It was really set up before that which was official.
JT Yes, and the Lord speaks of the saints here in the light of their relationship with Him, and then He places responsibility upon them. He says to them, “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you”.
EJMcB In relation to our brother’s remark, no one could inaugurate anything like this, save the Lord.
JT And here, as a divine Person He breathes into them. It is not a question here of having received the Spirit from the Father, but He breathes into them Himself. Now Luke, in the Acts, gives you the other side. He shows us that the gift of the Spirit was connected with the promise of the Father; they were to wait for the fulfilment of the promise. Then Peter, standing up, tells them that “having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”, Acts 2:33. And he shows that God had made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ; that is what is official. But here in John 20 it is most intimate and touching. He breathes into them; it is not official.
Rem That was His own risen life.
JT Yes, it was His own life.
Rem They were to go forth here in His own Spirit.
JT Really it was the Spirit of the ascended Man that they had received. It is a wonderful thought.
Ques How is it that the disciples were found together again, without any message, eight days after?
JT I think, as we were saying last night, they [p. 416] took cognisance of the precedent established by the Lord; it is as if they appreciated the previous occasion.
Ques What do you understand by the expression “eight days after”?
JT ‘Eight’ signifies a new departure, and is mentioned first in connection with Noah. Seven is the order of God in creation, and eight is a new departure from that. But as in all Scripture, it has no private interpretation, and cannot be limited to any one thought; so that in this passage I think, you have also intimated that the first day of the week was the assembly day. Hence the same disciples are alluded to. It says, “eight days after, his disciples were again within”.
Rem Thomas is singled out in the second meeting.
JT Yes. He represents, no doubt, the remnant of Israel.
Rem When it is said that the disciples were together, does it mean all the disciples?
JT It would seem so, as if it were said, ‘The brethren of Belfast’. I think they were all there. It would appear that Thomas was the only one absent on the first occasion.
Ques Do you take it to be representative of the whole company?
JT Yes, I think so. It says, “And eight days after, his disciples were again within ... Jesus comes, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst”. Mr. Darby has pointed out in the Synopsis that the Lord in that way signalised the first day of the week as the day He met with His own down here. It is important to see that christianity is established on precedent rather than on commandment.
Rem It came in really before the Scriptures were written.
JT Yes. In the old economy it was a question of law. Moses was not the embodiment of the [p. 417] testimony; he was not the law. He told the people what to do, but he was not what he told them. I think the point in christianity is that it is Christ expressed; the early christians were quick to discern things that the Lord did, and they attached value to them. It came out in a very remarkable way in Paul’s ministry, for all that he taught was set forth in himself. He could ask the saints to be followers of him as he followed Christ. This establishes the great difference between the old economy and the new. In christianity you have everything witnessed to practically before it was established as a principle.
Rem Reverting again to John 20, do you not think that the Lord would greatly encourage us so that we might come together with expectancy?
JT I think our great desire on the first day of the week should be to be free in our affections. That, I feel, is a point of immense importance. There is an opportunity of coming together, and it is not service that we have before us, or any ministry. We have come with the thought of being simply for Christ.
Rem That is very sweet indeed.
JT It does not say in John that the disciples were together for any special purpose. In the Acts, it does; here it is not mentioned, but undoubtedly they had the Lord before them.
Rem Of course, in one sense we do come together on the Lord’s day for a special purpose.
JT Yes, but it is only to prepare you for the Lord. You have Christ before you. You are going to be for Christ. In coming together for prayer we have the testimony to engage us. When we are together over the Word as now, it is for mutual help. But “in assembly” it is that we may have Christ before us, and Him only.
Ques With regard to precedent, can we do things by precedent now?
JT [p. 418] We have to go by what the Lord did, and by what the apostles did. I would not take account of any other precedent.
Ques What do you mean by coming together in assembly?
JT I mean when we come together to be for Christ.
Rem I think what you say expresses it; that we should seek to be free in our affections when we come together.
Ques Would you say that the Supper is to set us free?
JT Yes, it has that effect.
Ques Would not the Supper be introductory to the assembly?
JT Yes, but the assembly is the spiritual side, whereas the Supper is the external side. It comes under the eyes of men, and is a testimony. The apostle says, “as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”, 1 Corinthians 11:26. But the assembly is spiritual, and does not come under the eye of man.
Rem If you enjoy the presence of the Lord, the world does not see that; it is what is outward they see.
JT Hence the order in God’s assembly is a matter of great importance, as we see from the epistle to the Corinthians.
Ques Does feet washing come in at the Supper?
JT Well, I think it may, in the sense that it relieves your mind and heart of what would hamper your spirit. The Lord would set us free, so that we may have part with Him.
Rem I suppose in the Supper there is something both for our eyes and for our hearts?
JT Yes. In Luke 24 we read, “he was made known to them in the breaking of bread”, Luke 24:35. It does not say that it was in the eating; because He did [p. 419] not eat. The breaking is evidently for our hearts, but our eating is the expression of our fellowship; we are committed to His death, and we announce it.
Ques Would you not say that it was a very fit moment to be looking for Him?
JT Well, it is a great thing to get the idea in one’s soul that it is when the assembly is free that the Lord comes; then it is for Christ. “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18); that is one thought. Another thought is that having lost Israel, the assembly is for His comfort. If we had been in the place of the disciples we should have understood the Supper. They understood it because they were acquainted with the Lord; they knew how He did things.
Ques Would you connect this with what we have in chapter 14?
JT Well, things in chapter 14 were, in a sense, made to depend on the coming of the Spirit. What is more prominent here is the Person of the Lord; His own personal dignity, and the dignity of the assembly as associated with Him.
Ques What do you mean by being free?
JT I mean to have sufficient spiritual power to lay aside distractions. You do not come to do anything. You come to break bread, but you have no thought before you of taking any part.
Rem That is very important, because I think people often come with the idea of helping others.
Rem I remember a brother once saying in coming to the room, that he was coming that morning, and he had no responsibility.
JT You have no care before you; the thought is that you are to be free for Christ.
Rem If we came in that way, the Lord would not disappoint us.
JT No, He would not. I think the highest thought in the assembly is that you are silent. One [p. 420] of the most sorrowful things in the meetings is that if there is a pause, some brother there, who cannot stand it, thinks he is bound to do something.
Ques How does the “minister of the sanctuary” (Hebrews 8:2) come in in connection with this thought?
JT The “minister of the sanctuary” is, I think, a more general thought. Of course, it is included, but the epistle to the Hebrews contemplates the whole divine heavenly system. It is not a question there of the assembly convened, though the apostle says, “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25); but what he is dealing with is the new system, in contrast to the old, and he shows that the One who now ministers is in heaven.
EJMcB And have not the things in the sanctuary more the idea in them of what is official than of affection?
JT Yes, Hebrews is official, and is, I think, as I said, to show that the new system is heavenly. Christ does not come out. So it says, “who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man”, Hebrews 8:1,2.
Ques Is it a levitical thought?
JT No, it is priestly. The thought is the kind of minister — “We have such an high priest”, Hebrews 8:1. I think you will find that in Scriptures which are specially intended for Jewish christians the heavenly side is always insisted upon, because they were in danger of being hold in the earthly system.
Rem You find in Corinthians that God walks amongst His people, and He dwells there. Is that the idea of the sanctuary?
JT The thought in the sanctuary is holiness. It is the divine enclosure; but in the epistle to the Hebrews it is the heavenly system, and Christ the minister of it in heaven.
[p. 421] EJMcB When you come to look into that epistle, is not that thought connected much more with God, than it is with the Father and the family circle?
JT Yes, and that it is heavenly. The apostle says, “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands ... but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24); and he insists that “such an high priest became us, who is ... made higher than the heavens”, Hebrews 7:26.
Ques Would you emphasise us there?
JT Yes, it shows what a wonderful company it is. The company required “such” a Priest as that; and the Lord never ceases to be the heavenly Man.
Rem And then we read, “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly”, 1 Corinthians 15:48.
JT I never, for a moment, would allow myself to take lower ground than that I am heavenly.
Rem So that the testimony, as taking character from that, is heavenly.