THE GLORY OF CHRIST (5)
[p. 151] THE GLORY OF CHRIST (5)
John 13:31,32; John 12:37 - 43
JT The verses in chapter 13 speak of the moral glory of Christ, which is the phase of our subject that we have scarcely touched on. First, His moral glory, and then God’s glorifying Him in Himself on account of this and doing it immediately. Judas going out becomes the occasion of these remarks of the Lord; the allusion would be to Judas’ betrayal of Him: “Jesus therefore says to him, What thou doest, do quickly”, John 13:27. Judas’ betrayal of Him would occasion His being delivered into the hands of His enemies, and consequently His crucifixion, so that it is the glory of the Son of man that is in mind. He is glorified morally in His death. It was ignominious of course, suffering in the extreme, but it was all glorious in a moral sense, as seen in a Man.
JWD Do you mean glory in the sense of being an expression of obedience and love?
JT That is what I was thinking, the length to which He would go in obedience to God.
CAM Do you regard Judas’ going out as giving prominence to the fact that he was going to bring about the sorrows of the Lord and what led to the cross; or was it because of the greatness of His Person that Judas had to go out?
JT No doubt the light forced Judas out, but I do not think that is the glory that the Lord had in mind. It was the result of what Judas was going to do. That is a leading fact in the chapter. The devil had put it into his heart already to betray Him: “He that eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me” John 13:18. And then in verse 21 it says, “Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up”. Then the Lord says in verse 26, “He it is to whom I, after I have dipped the morsel, give it. And having dipped the morsel, he gives it to Judas son of Simon, Iscariote. And, after the morsel, then entered Satan into him”, John 13:26. Already he had put the thing into his heart, but now he enters into him. “Jesus therefore says to him, What thou doest, do quickly” John 13:27. So then it says, “When therefore he was gone out Jesus says, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him”. That a man should betray Him to His enemies is solemn, but the Son of man is glorified.
JTJr Do you view Satan as having full control of Judas here?
JT Quite so. He entered into him.
JTJr Does the Lord take the initiative; “What thou doest, do quickly”? John 13:27.
JT Satan could not take the initiative in it. The Lord is in control as is always the case.
AR Even in the garden of Gethsemane they fell backwards. The Lord has charge of the position.
JT Quite so. He delivers up His spirit in this gospel; He does it Himself. That is a great matter to keep in mind. He is in complete dominance in all circumstances although it may not always be in evidence. The Lord’s day and the Lord’s supper witness to that. However difficult things may be, it is the witness that He is in control.
EP How do you view this thought of Judas receiving the morsel? “Having therefore received the morsel, he went out immediately” John 13:30.
JT The morsel would be the witness of Christ’s unchanging attitude towards him. He was not ruffled by Judas’ treachery, He was still Himself. It is what He would have done anyway: the morsel indicated that Judas had the place of fellowship; the Lord is not changing His attitude. It is an important thing, I think, that we should be ourselves in all circumstances. Satan’s point is to ruffle and upset [p. 153] us and take away our balance, and disqualify the whole position. But the dignity of the position stands. No one seemed to know what was happening and yet one of the most momentous things was happening.
AR Whatever Satan or his agencies do will always work out for glory, for God is Head.
JT From God’s side balance is maintained, God is never upset. The book of Revelation indicates the greatest upheavals, but from the divine side the throne stands in the heavens, and the elders are there too. Everything stands from the divine side. Another important matter in relation to the testimony, and concurrent with it, is that sin is being developed and being disclosed. That is one point with God, to let sin show itself: “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful” Romans 7:13, so that we might judge it unsparingly. That is in one sense going on in the world, sin is becoming exceeding sinful through certain conditions. It is a great point with God that sin should be manifested and come to the light; the iniquity of the Amorites should come to the full (Genesis 15:16). It is an important thing with God that is should be so.
SJH I think you called attention to the fact that it was not a demon that entered into Judas this time but Satan himself.
JT Quite so. He is the son of perdition, he is called that; the man of sin is called that too. They are the only two that are spoken of thus.
Rem Do you mean sin is manifested to the one in whom it is?
JT That is so in regard to Romans 7, that it should be manifested to each of us: “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful” Romans 7:13; that is in each of us, God helping us to see its enormity, not covering it up. But then you think of its extent in the world in myriads of beings and in devils too, inclusive of Satan himself. What a thing [p. 154] it is! And God is controlling it all, and yet letting it develop and show itself according to what it is; and that would be in the man of sin.
DG Chapter 6 says, “Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil” John 6:70. Would you say the disciples knew it beforehand, but it is not developed?
JT It was not His fault if they did not know it. He did not call Judas by name, and say, He is the devil. It is “one of you”; the point would be they should be searching themselves. The word there is devil, not demon; the same name is used for the devil himself. The Lord did not designate Judas as a devil there, He said, “Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil”. Well, who is it then? They all had this time to find out who this man was, but apparently they did not know, showing the want of care and interest in the Lord’s remark.
DG They were forewarned that the sin was there.
JT Yes, “one of you”; the Lord repeats it here, “one of you shall deliver me up”, John 13:21.
APT They began to enquire of themselves at supper: “And being exceedingly grieved they began to say to him, each of them, Is it I, Lord?”, Matthew 26:22.
JT It is a wholesome thing if anything in the nature of sin happens that each one should challenge himself as to it. Is it I? The Lord could have told them it was Judas from the outset, but He did not because He wanted them to get this experience of judging sin.
FC If it had not been Judas do you think it could have been any other of the twelve?
JT There is no “if” about it, because Scripture foretold this; “that the scripture might be fulfilled” John 13:18. It could not have been anyone else; he was the designated one in the prophetic word.
SP This ‘devil’ feature was amongst His [p. 155] own.
JT That is a solemn fact, and he was a sent one too. The Lord goes on to say in verse 19, “I tell you it now before it happens, that when it happens, ye may believe that I am he” John 13:19. Judas was a sent one, and his testimony was valid although he was a devil. People might say, Look at that man and look at his conduct! They would invalidate the whole position of Christ because he was chosen by Him; but the whole thing is a fallacy, it is not so at all. God may use anyone to do anything, and the thing is right although the man may be wrong.
AR Is sin developing in view of the Son of man being glorified?
JT I think Judas brings out what was there in man, but in spite of that the Son of man was glorified. It is not the Son of God. In Jeremiah 18:4 the potter was making a certain thing but it was marred; but then he did not stop making on account of that, he makes something else that is not marred. That is the concurrent thing that is perfectly seen in Jesus. Jeremiah 18:4.
JRH The care of the bag would show how much the Lord trusted him.
JT Yet John never lets him off; he says, “Because he was a thief and had the bag” John 12:6. John exposes Judas. They think the Lord is telling Judas to do something with the money; that shows how dense they were.
JW Peter has a proper estimate of it in Acts 1:16: he speaks there of the Scripture being fulfilled, and of Judas as having had part in the service at that time.
JT Yes; Peter shows himself there as a product of the work of Christ. They were greater men after He went to heaven, but in the ten days they are showing there was progress in them from the outset.
Rem Does that indicate that we should know [p. 156] things, now that the Lord is glorified, and not be spiritually unable to judge of things?
JT We should take account of things that happen, for God indicates certain things before the great result appears. We are not to be taken by surprise when it happens, as He says here, “that when it happens, ye may believe”, John 13:19.
AAT We should not expose a brother before he exposes himself. Judas was not exposed by the Lord, he exposed himself.
JT Well, quite so; the Lord lets the thing develop, He allows it. The point is that sin is allowed to show itself, “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful”, Romans 7:13. Every minute that Judas was with Christ made his sin the more sinful.
AAT Does that not apply in our relations with one another, that we are to wait on one another?
JT Quite so; you allow the thing to show itself.
Rem There is an incident like that in regard to David; he says, I know that man Doeg the Edomite. We can have a judgment about a brother but in due time that judgment will come to light by his actions.
JT David did not let Doeg pass unnoticed, he could not. This question of sin is a matter of great consequence, in the world and in christianity and in each individual. The climax will be reached in christendom when the Holy Spirit leaves. God allows the sin to work itself out.
JH Does the Holy Spirit help in that? Judas passed undetected by the disciples because at that time they had not the Spirit. John exposes Judas, but when he wrote these things he had the Spirit.
JT Quite so; his own exercises were seen in it. It is by the Spirit. However, it is remarkable how severe he is on Judas as compared with the others.
JWD What do you understand by “Resist the devil, and he win flee from you”, James 4:[p. 157] 7?
JT I think it is because we are partakers of one Spirit in Christ. There was that in Christ that overcame him: “The ruler of the world comes, and in me he has nothing”, John 14:30. Well, he has something in me, but he has not practically if I am in self-judgment. If I stand up against him he flees, because he is already defeated by what is operative in me in the power of the Spirit. He knows God has overcome him. He flees if you resist him.
AP It is like Daniel purposing in his heart that he would not eat the king’s food (Daniel 1:8).
JT Daniel and Joseph are the best models you can get of persons resisting the devil.
JRH Do you mean if Judas had been in a self- judged condition there would have been no room in his heart for this treachery?
JT Judas was not animated by hatred of Christ, but by the love of money. That is a sorrowful thing, he was a thief and had the bag.
HB Does it not seem strange he went through the test in chapter 6? He did not go away with those who turned away back.
JT No, he did not. He was there; he went the full limit of apostleship outwardly, even to the last supper. According to Luke he was with the Lord at the supper; his hand was on the table. He was ready to do anything against Christ; that is what the hand alludes to.
Ques Would you help us as to the difference between the words ‘demon’ and ‘devil’? The Lord says, “Cast out demons” Matthew 10:8; it is not, Cast out devils.
JT Well of course the Authorised Version is somewhat misleading in that. They are two different words. The word ‘devil’ refers to one who is an opposer, an adversary, so that there is no hope for him, and it is a stronger word. The Lord says to Peter, “Get away behind me, Satan” Matthew 16:23. Mark 8:33. Judas was a devil. The Lord rebukes Satan in Peter, but Judas [p. 158] was a devil; he was a man, a human being, but he was a devil: “One of you is a devil” John 6:70, the Lord says.
CAM He would never be the subject of the intercessory prayers of Christ. He would be in a different class altogether from Peter.
JT He would be of course; the Scriptures had said he would be that: “not one of them has perished, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled”, John 17:12. I cannot imagine the Lord, after He arose, would appoint an apostle who was a devil. It must have been to bring out the whole condition, how sin worked out, that the sin might show itself in such circumstances as that.
CAM One feature about the Lord is that He always gave the enemy every opportunity that he wanted.
JT Yes, He gives full scope, of course. He bound him for a while, just as he will be bound presently for a thousand years. He bound the strong man and destroyed his goods in order that the Lord might have a free hand, but He gives Satan full scope so that he should show himself.
SRMcC Why does the Lord say, “He that has delivered me up to thee has the greater sin”, John 19:11?
JT That would be Judas, of course; in a wider sense it would be the Jews. Pilate represented the governmental thought, and the Lord would not becloud that. He says to Pilate, “Thou hadst no authority whatever against me if it were not given to thee from above”, John 19:11. He recognises government in Pilate, but He does not in Herod, and the Jews and Judas were responsible all the more because Pilate would have released Him, bringing out what government is. Sin is allowed to reach its enormity; God could have stamped it out at once but it has gone all these years, reaching a greater proportion now than ever before because man’s mind has been so stimulated by modern science. He becomes thus more the vehicle for the expression of sin.
WL Would you say it is allowed to come in in that way to establish a contrast with what God is bringing in?
JT God has some peculiar reason for letting sin show itself. How much He makes of it in detail in the prophets and in the New Testament, particularly in Revelation! Why is He occupied so much with it? He surely wants to bring out what He is overcoming in Christ. “For this cause, even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ... . For if by the offence of one the many have died, much rather has the grace of God, and the free gift in grace, which is by the one man Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many”, Romans 5:12,15. By one Man death is dealt with, and “much rather” grace has abounded. It is to bring out the “much rather”. In Matthew 11 and 12 to show the turning point in the Lord’s service we have things at their worst, and the Lord brings out greater things. He says that a greater than Jonas or than Solomon is here (Matthew 12:41,42). Then He binds the strong man, “He takes away his panoply in which he trusted, and he will divide the spoil he has taken from him”, Luke 11:22. It is to bring out what is at work in man on Satan’s side, and on God’s side.
EP The very worst comes out in Judas, and then immediately this title of the Son of man and the fact of His being glorified follows that; in the face of every disadvantage this peculiar glory shines.
JT I think so. The very sinfulness at its extreme is occasioning the glory of the Son of man.
EP In Psalm 8:6 it says “Thou hast put everything under his feet” Psalm 8:6, and Psalm 7:15 speaks of a wicked man, that “he digged a pit, and hollowed it out, and is fallen into the hole that he made”, Psalm [p. 160] 7:15.
Things are put under His feet morally and then publicly.
JT He represents the divine current in humanity. For instance, God says to Moses, What have you in your hand? Well, it was a staff, and God says, Cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent. Released from God’s hand man becomes that. He becomes the very expression of opposition to God. Then God says, Take it by the tail, and he took it and it became a staff in his hand; that is, it is man again brought back into the hand of God. Christ is supremely Man in that relation as I understand it; the Son of man is to be glorified in that way. It is a very fine thought and running down the line from Adam. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”, Psalm 8:4. That is, it is having Christ in mind that He should be glorified in the very kind of a being that dishonoured God. The very betrayal becomes the occasion of the Son of man being glorified. It is a triumph of God. Who can stand against it? The greatest opposition becomes the occasion of glory to the Son of man.
JWD “The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up”, 1 Corinthians 11:23. Should that be in our minds every Lord’s day morning, as you were suggesting?
JT Quite so. The Lord says, “The hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table”, Luke 22:21. He was triumphing even then; that is, He was unchanged. One of the finest things about the Son of man is His unchangeableness; He was Himself, He did not alter, but keeps on showing His love.
CAM There is a change in the word in Psalm 8:4 from “man” (Enosh) in the first part of the verse to “son of man” (Adam) in the second part. Psalm 8:4. Would you say that expression involved another order of man?
JT I should say so. It is the prophetic term, especially in Ezekiel and Daniel, and is a designation [p. 161] that points out Christ. It is a divine product in man as over against the son of perdition.
CAM I suppose in that Ezekiel was so addressed constantly, there were features about him of the Son of man. Is that right?
JT Remarkably so. See how long he lay on one side! Who could do that but a man of obedience? The motion is divinely supported.
Ques Does the sin offering enter into this glorification of the Son of man?
JT It is all involved in what the Lord was going to accomplish on the cross; and now He says that as He is glorified God is glorified in Him. That is a great thing. And then He says, “God also shall glorify him in himself” (verse 32). It is a very precious thought, that God will glorify Him in Himself. I apprehend that “Himself” is God, and He will glorify the Son of man in Himself; and He says He will do it immediately, He will not defer it. Therefore we arrive now in our subject at a kind of glory that is present; it is a present glory that Christ has. It is not a millennial glory; it is a present glory that God has given Him immediately. God has given Him the assembly immediately; He is wrapped up in that.
AR Is the title “Son of man” more in relation to earth?
JT It is; still it has a universal thought in it.
JRH What do you mean by the Son of man being glorified in God?
JT Well, it is a personal thought; God has recourse to an unusual thing to glorify that Man in Himself. He might put a man over a kingdom, as He does in crises, and other things like that; but to glorify Him in Himself without specifying what the glory is is a matter that is peculiarly personal. I think the immediate glory is what the Lord has in the assembly. He has got that now; He has had it every day since [p. 162] then.
JW Would there be a link with Hebrews 2 in what you are saying? “But we see Jesus, who was made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour” Hebrews 2:9.
JT That is right. Stephen saw Him up there. It relates to the universe. He is in heaven and Stephen saw Him and the glory. There is no deferring of this matter; He is glorified, it says, “immediately”. God is so taken up with this wonderful expression of obedience that He glorifies Him at once.
JTJr Was that in mind when the apostle says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”, Ephesians 5:32? It was glorious — what was predestinated, what was before the world.
JT It brings home to us what we are to Christ now.
EP Does this thought of the Son of man convey inherent qualities? Would lordship and headship, Lord and Christ, be a subdivision of that thought?
JT Quite so, it seems to be a development of ‘Son of man’. Wisdom saw sons of men and delighted in them. The prophetic eye sees the Son of man having great distinction: one says, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and splendour”, Psalm 8:4,5. That is a good question, and of course the answer is in Hebrews, “We see Jesus, who was made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour” Hebrews 2:9. That is the One.
CAM “If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before?”, John 6:62. That seems to be a very marvellous statement.
JT Very.
CAM How do you understand that?
JT It is remarkable that that title is used. It really denotes the unchangeableness of Christ’s Person. Before He came down He was in Deity, but it is the [p. 163] Person known on earth, designated in in that way. He says, “The Son of man who is in heaven”, John 3:13. What dignity the Son of man gets in that way!
HB Is the moral glory to shine out in localities when the scripture says, “Messengers of assemblies, Christ’s glory”, 2 Corinthians 8:23?
JT That is just it. The assembly is to reflect all this because she is the Lamb’s wife. The Lamb is the Sufferer, so that you get Christ according to this moral glory reflected in the saints. Thus moral glory is reflected in us by suffering for the will of God.
EP Is this carried into the assembly in some way? I was thinking of the quality of manhood. Paul says, “I know a man in Christ ... such a one caught up to the third heaven”, 2 Corinthians 12:2.
JT It would be; the Son of man is designated in that way in heaven. So that a man in Christ would be fitted as taking on these qualities.
EP Is the Lord’s position as Son of man meant to bring out features of manhood according to God?
JT Well, it is a prophetic term that finds full amplification and fulfilment in Christ as Man in the gospels. It is used about eighty-five times in the New Testament, almost wholly in the gospels, to bring out what He was. Then Ezekiel is the other place where it is used. There are other scriptures where you get it occasionally.
CAM If the question was raised in the Old Testament, Where is the Son of man? the answer would have to be, He is in heaven.
JT Certainly. He says to Nicodemus, “The Son of man who is in heaven”, John 3:13. How would he understand that? It is inscrutable.
CAM Daniel had the light of it.
JT Showing what dignity is in the title. You can understand therefore the glory of it, the peculiar dignity of it: “Now is the Son of man glorified” (verse 31).
[p. 164] JW In chapter 12 the Lord says to Peter and Andrew, in answer to the Greeks who desired to see Him, “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified” John 12:23.
JT I am glad you brought that up. It brings in another thought, the universal dominion of the Son of man. Alexander’s kingdom is in mind. These Greeks represented man peculiarly, that is the educated man, so that in Romans 2 it is that man that judges others, condemns others. “And there were certain Greeks among those who came up that they might worship in the feast; these therefore came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and they asked him saying, Sir, we desire to see Jesus”, John 12:20,21. Andrew and Philip think that this is a very important matter, but the Lord does not make very much of it. The hour had come for His universal dominion. He is the Son of man; He is entitled to all that according to God belongs to man; all the glory of the race belongs to Him. But instead He says, “Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone” John 12:24. There is the coming universal glory of Christ, but the Lord says, That must be deferred and I must die. The glory He gets in chapter 13 as having died is, as I understand, the assembly; not the kingdom as in the millennium, but the assembly. He gets it in the interval. It is what God the Father is pleased to give Him as having laid down His life, as giving up His life. The corn of wheat must die, because if not He must abide alone. The point is that a new order of man must come in: “Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit”; John 12:24 not the Greeks, but a new order of man entirely, and that new order of man is to be seen in the assembly now.
Rem “There came therefore a voice out of heaven, I both have glorified and will glorify it again” John 12:28. God was in accord with what [p. 165] the Lord said.
JT Quite so, The Lord was troubled in spirit: “Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say?” John 12:27. He asks God to glorify His name, and God says He has done it.
AR The Lord says to Nathanael, “Thou shalt see greater things than these”, John 1:50. Is that deferred?
JT That is deferred. It is the glory of the Son of man in the sense of universal dominion: “Let them have dominion”, Genesis 1:26. That is deferred. He must die, must bring out another race; not the Greek or the Roman, but another race like Himself.
GH Why is Ezekiel referred to as son of man?
JT Because, I think, he primarily bore the traits of Christ in some sense. His ministry pointed to Christ as the Son of man; there is only One who is the Son of man.
APT Nathanael made great headway in his soul; he says, “Thou art the Son of God”, John 1:49. Where does that fit into spiritual history, the ability to say that and then to learn about the Son of man?
JT I think Nathanael read the Bible; I think he is honoured in that he refers to Psalm 2. He says, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel” John 1:49. Philip had said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him, Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Philip says to him, Come and see” John 1:45,46. Undoubtedly he was a real case to bring out a true Israelite, one that can quote the Old Testament and accept it and see the Person the Old Testament had named. So that Philip says, “Come and see”, and he came and saw. The Lord says, “Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile” John 1:47; and immediately Nathanael said, “Thou art the Son of God”, showing that he had read Psalm 2; he is able to name a prophetic [p. 166] person.
NB What glory does Peter have in his mind in Acts 3 when he speaks to the men of Israel and says, “God ... has glorified his servant Jesus” Acts 3:13?
JT That was the immediate thing that had happened. Peter is testifying to the fact that God has put Christ at His right hand: “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. He has glorified Him, Jesus who died, whom they had murdered. It is a demonstration of Christ’s righteousness. So that the Holy Spirit is given because God has glorified Him. This matter of the moral glory of Christ is worthy of our deepest consideration, and then the immediate glory that is conferred upon Him because of that: God will glorify Him in Himself at once, He will not delay. Christ got the assembly at Pentecost, and He has had it ever since. We want to give Him the joy — “for the joy that was set before him” Hebrews 12:2 — the present joy which He has now. “Sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies as footstool of thy feet” Psalm 110:1, says Jehovah to Him. In the meantime He drinks of the brook by the way; He has got it already.
WL Would you say we can detract from that in anyway?
JT I think you may hold back what belongs to Him. It is what is His joy now, His present portion, a personal matter between the Father and Himself. The Father glorifies Him in Himself, and He glorifies Him immediately.
AHP That would greatly enhance the Supper to us?
JT I think it opens up what Christ has now. What a time He has every Lord’s day!
JRH This seems to correspond with the time in which the Supper was instituted in the other gospels.
JT Yes, it does. It is carefully kept apart, but [p. 167] synchronises with it. And then in chapter 12 we have the thought of a man who saw His glory, that is another thing. We want to get a man who has seen His glory; that is Esaias. Esaias speaks twice; John quotes from chapters 6 and 53 of Isaiah. Chapter 6 is the glory of Christ in the temple and chapter 53 is the moral glory of Christ as the Sufferer here, the Redeemer, and it is said that Isaiah saw the glory. It is to bring out that one has to see the glory to speak of it rightly.
Ques Isaiah is often referred to as a great prophet of salvation and joy. Should preachers have this view?
JT That is what I was thinking exactly, that we might have it before us. These things spoke Isaiah as he saw His glory and spoke of Him, so that it is the vision of the glory that gives you power to speak of it.
AR He saw His glory and then he says, “Here am I; send me”. Isaiah 6:8.
JT Quite so, a man who saw His glory.
HB Would you say that is the power of Peter’s writings? He says the disciples were “eyewitnesses of his majesty”, 2 Peter 1:16.
JT Quite so; he brings that forward in his last letter. Paul says, “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” 1 Corinthians 9:1. He saw Him and hence he spoke of Him.
EP His train filled the temple. Is that the idea of a retinue of persons?
JT I suppose so, and the seraphim are there to celebrate His glory; they say, “Holy, holy, holy, ... the whole earth is full of his glory!” Isaiah 6:3; not only the temple but the whole earth; it radiates from the temple.
JRH Isaiah speaks in a judicial way here.
JT The judicial side is that they are past believing; He blinds their eyes, just as we were saying; the point is reached where God lets men remain where they are. There is no hope for them at all. I think that this ought to bring before us and teach us the closing testimony of the gospel here. In the gospel testimony the aim [p. 168] should be to have it clearly set out, not befogged by any sectarian view, because each sect has its own Christ. It is Christ’s glory that is witnessed to, and if people do not believe it is, as Paul says, because they are lost. There is a class of this kind of persons, and then there are persons who are lost that are to be saved, such as Zacchaeus; he is lost but he is savable. There is a class of people that are lost, and they are not savable; that is the kind that is in mind here. It says, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart” John 12:40. This is quoted several times in the New Testament; it is judicial, people have refused to listen to the gospel.
Rem In Corinthians it speaks of the radiancy of the glory of the glad tidings of the Christ.
JT That is a wonderful statement. If I do not see that, it is because I am lost; Satan has had an advantage over me and blinded my eyes.
JAT Would this be the theme and power of the gospel?
JT That is what we have been having these three days, the power the gospel has in your soul if you apprehend the glory of Christ.
AR Will you explain the last two verses of the scripture read, John 12:42,43? Why does He say that?
JT That is a very solemn thing, is it not, that any one should be of that class? The father and mother of the man in chapter 9 were like that; they were afraid they might be put out of the synagogue. They had glory in mind, they loved the glory of man rather than the glory of God. It is very solemn.
SJH Were they really believers?
JT We are left to judge ourselves. It says in chapter 2:23,24, that certain people believed on Him, but the Lord did not trust Himself to them. But in chapter 3 you have a remarkable man, Nicodemus, who evidently was a believer, and who was born again, but [p. 169] he remained in the council. You might say his case is doubtful, that he is questionable; but John brings him out at the end to show that he is not questionable, but is genuine, only of poor stature. God brings these people forward here to show them He does not think much of them. You are not of much account if you are of this class.
SJH They would not be vessels to honour.
JT Let no one flatter himself if he is a man who thinks more of glory from men than from God. Still, there may be some right ones like Nicodemus. I think he comes in as a genuine case, but of small stature and I should not like to belong to that class.
AAT Will you say a few words about the glory of the Son of God?
JT It is a question of affections, the Son making God known: “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. John 1:18. The loveliness of it comes out in such a One in that relation. So that Paul says, “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus), did not become yea and nay, but yea is in him. For whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us”, 2 Corinthians 1:19,20.
JRH What is personal to Him underlies what is moral.
JT It is beautiful to see the Son of man over against Judas. We have the Son of man glorifying God.