READINGS IN JOHN'S GOSPEL (4)
READINGS IN JOHN’S GOSPEL (4)
JT The thought now is to pass on from the idea of sheep to that of a family, a human family, so that we have terms immediately relating to the Father and the Son and the saints; not that the saints themselves are called sons in this connection, but children, because it is a question of family. Sonship is not the point in John’s gospel, except in regard to Christ; it is not attributable to ourselves in John’s writings save in the book of Revelation. What is applicable to us as in the family is ‘children’, as the prophecy of Caiaphas says, “Ye know nothing nor consider that it is profitable for you that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish. But this he did not say of himself; but, being high priest that year, prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad”, John 11:50 - 52. That is prophecy; it is clearly a prophecy because Caiaphas was high priest at that time. It stated that the Lord died not only for the nation but to gather together the children of God scattered abroad, which would include ourselves. Therefore chapter 12 opens up the thought of children, of the family of God. There were three in the family, but it was without a head, you might say, because it consisted of a brother and two sisters, not a father and mother. But the Lord Jesus becomes the Father; He becomes the head of the family. That is in a simple way what is in mind, to pass on to the idea of a family. It says, “Jesus therefore, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where was the dead man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead. There therefore they made him a supper, and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those at table with him”. So [p. 370] that it is a resurrection scene, not an ascension scene; and Lazarus represents a risen man. Then there are the services of the sisters, and so Mary comes in and Martha; and then there is the devil’s effort to interfere through Judas. But the position is maintained and the Lord is at the table and Lazarus is there who had been dead. The word is really ‘the dead Lazarus’; he had really been dead, but he is now alive; so that the position is clearly maintained. Surely it is a matter for us to consider that we belong to a family; not simply that we come in under the figure of sheep — while that holds as characteristic — but that it is a question of men. Here it is a family of a man and two women; one of them had been dead and is now alive. It is a question of a person raised from the dead, the principle being the position of the assembly now as we are risen with Christ. We are risen with Christ according to Colossians. In Ephesians we go further.
FES Is the assembly viewed in John more as the family?
JT That is what is in mind; it is not the sons exactly, but the family. It is worked out in the epistles of John, especially the first epistle.
AR Is it seen in chapter 21 where the Lord says, “Children, have ye anything to eat?”, John 21:5.
JT Just so, they are treated as children; that is to say He takes the fatherly relation to them. But here it is a brother and two sisters and the Lord becomes Head of the family. That position is seen in the last chapter in that He addresses them as children.
JRH The natural relationship does not come into view here as it does in the previous chapter.
JT Quite so; the natural relationship is opened up immediately in chapter 11, as it says, “Now there was a certain man sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and Martha her sister. It was the Mary” (notice the Mary, she is stressed) “who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick”, John 11:[p. 371] 1,2.
The family relationship is made very clear there.
CAM Would it be right to ask as to the origin of the family idea in John?
JT I think it is certainly reserved for the family at Bethany, therefore it has a Jewish setting first. But in chapter 11 it is made plain that it is not for that nation only but for the children of God who are scattered abroad. Therefore the question is who the children of God are. They are scattered abroad, but they are children of God, that is to say the family relation is asserted; but then, who are they? The identity is found in Bethany in these three persons.
CHH John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”, John 1:12,13.
JT I think that is a good connection. That is the birth, “who have been born”, born of God, that is the point in it; that is where the family is seen clearly.
JF Would the children of God “scattered abroad” correspond with “I have other sheep”? John 10:16.
JT It would indeed, other sheep “which are not of this fold”, showing how accurate John is in regard of the family.
MO Would the Holy Spirit help us in relation to the family idea by bearing “witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”, Romans 8:16?
JT That is a very good reference. The Spirit of God bears witness with our spirits, a remarkable thing, not simply with us but with our spirits, a highly spiritual thought. “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God”;
[p. 372] that is the general position in John’s writings. “What we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”, 1 John 3:2. That implies sonship.
ABP Would they be seen here abiding in His word? They seem to be set in their proper place in relation to Him so that I wondered whether the thought of abiding in His word would fit in here. Lazarus was one of those who sat at table with Him, Martha serving and serving acceptably, and Mary at His feet; they are in their proper orbits.
JT That is to say there is the sense of responsibility here; it is not in the heavenly position. Every one of us in this meeting today has some place in this setting, brothers or sisters or even children.
JRH In connection with your remark about resurrection ground, does this show that the sphere of eternal life is opened up?
JT Well, we have already touched that in connection with the sheep.
CHH Would the children have the Spirit? You might be a son and not have the Spirit, might you not? But could you be of the children and not have the Spirit? In Galatians it says, “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus”, Galatians 3:26 and then, “Because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts”, Galatians 4:6.
JT Very good, it is a matter of life therefore; sonship in that sense is a matter of life. But at the same time the full thought of sonship requires the Spirit, the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, “Abba, Father”.
CHH Would that be a subsequent action, so to speak, “because ye are sons”? Galatians 4:6.
JT It is because the light qualifies us, but at the same time it does not give a subjective status. That is to say, we need the Spirit of adoption. You would [p. 373] not like to detach the idea of sonship from the Spirit, would you?
CHH No, only I was thinking an individual could be individually a son and not have the Spirit, but you would be open for the development.
JT Quite so, and of course the Galatians were in a defective condition really. They had been damaged apparently and the idea of light is to be applied so that they might be set at liberty. Paul says, “Be as I am, for I also am as ye”; Galatians 4:12 that is to say, Paul was not any different in that sense. In the light of things they were sons as he was a son; this presentation of the truth was to set them at liberty at Galatia because the enemy had damaged them.
AB Is it your thought that while each of these persons, Lazarus, Martha and Mary, maintains distinctive features, yet there is perfect co-ordination with them relative to the Lord? As you were saying in chapter 11, “That he should also gather together into one”; John 11:52 the perfect oneness is seen.
JT You get a confirmation of that in Hebrews 2, verse 10, leading up to service in the assembly: “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings. For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, Hebrews 2:10 - 12. It is a question of the brethren, the family, and how sonship comes into it, that God is leading many sons to glory, and that implies the Spirit. At the same time it follows on with the thought that “he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”; Hebrews 2:11 that is, the relation of son [p. 374] is established.
SMcC In regard to the children of God, is it a general thought more or does it have a specific place in assembly service? Hebrews 2 goes on to say, “Behold, I and the children which God has given me”, Hebrews 2:13.
JT It is children in the sense of those grown-up; the children are made partakers of flesh and blood. It is in the sense of a grown-up family, but children as partakers of flesh and blood. The Lord took part in the same, so that it is a grown-up idea and a family idea.
SMcC I was wondering whether the idea of the family of God in this setting would have a certain place in our minds in the beginning of the service on Lord’s day morning? The Lord Jesus in John 13 speaks of them as children; a sense of the restfulness connected with the place we have in divine affections would mark us as sitting down together, would you say?
JT Quite so. But the word ‘children’ is not of course a question of age, it is a full thought as to manhood; that is the idea of it, it is the full thought as to manhood and therefore corresponds with sonship. It corresponds with sonship in Paul.
AR Is that seen in John’s epistle where he says, “My children”? Does that include grown-ups?
JT Quite so. “I write to you, children, because your sins are forgiven you”, 1 John 2:12 that is, christians, they are in the full thought of christianity. Then, “I have written to you, young men”, 1 John 2:13 a further thought as to growth, and “I write to you, fathers”, the lowest and the highest grades spiritually, not simply literally but spiritually.
Rem It is a matter of generation.
JT Exactly.
CT Does the thought of the love of the Father in 1 John 3, connected with the children of God, have sonship in view? “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God”, 1 John 3:[p. 375] 1.
JT Yes, but there is more than that about it. “Beloved, now are we children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been manifested”, 1 John 3:2. What is to be manifested I believe implies sonship. “What we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”. I mean to say that when we shall see him, that is the full thought of the divine mind bringing in manhood.
RWS Did you say that the thought of children with John is equal to sons with Paul?
JT I think so. The Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are children of God, but then, that is Paul, and Paul would bring us on to sonship. The idea of derivation is in the children, but distinction is in the sons; the same people regarded in two lights.
RWS I can see then that it is a family setting in John involving children; but with Paul it is sonship. I am enjoying the elevation of children in the family setting as equivalent to sons with Paul.
JT Very good.
ABP I wondered if that would be supported in Romans 8 where the apostle speaks of “the revelation of the sons of God”, Romans 8:19 but he also speaks of “the liberty of the glory of the children of God”, Romans 8:21.
JT “The liberty of the glory of the children” would be sonship.
ABP I notice the title of “children of God” in that passage seems to be brought in as collateral with the thought of sonship.
JT Well, it is; it is a question of the use of terms to enlarge on the truth, because Paul’s line is more sonship than children. John’s line is, in the main, children; he hardly ever speaks of sonship except in its application [p. 376] to Christ.
JLP Would manhood be seen in John 16 where the woman gives birth to the child, but she rejoices because a man is born into the world? John 16:21.
JT That is a very good point. It is not a child born, but a man born. The woman has joy over it; she forgets her suffering because of manhood, a man being born into the world. And all that must centre in Christ — the thought of manhood, grown-up men, as Ephesians 4 says, that we may come to full growth.
JF So that children in John’s epistle would include the fathers. His first address to them is to ‘children’: would that include the whole family? “My children, these things I write to you in order that ye may not sin”, 1 John 2:1. Then again, “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God”. 1 John 3:1 It certainly does, it is the whole family.
JTJr The babes in Christ alluded to in Corinthians would have some value?
JT They were not literally babes, they were young spiritually. They had not developed as quickly as they should have.
JTJr So he says he has to give them milk.
JT They were stunted; they had not come to full age. They had not arrived at manhood.
CHH The notes in the epistle of John show that three words are used for children: one is a diminutive capable of growth, then a diminutive, and then one that is fully developed.
JT That all bears out what we are saying.
SJH Do you think all should pay heed to this thought of the family, brothers and sisters and even the children? Would that be the way to view the children? Moses’ parents saw him beautiful to God. They are to be brought into this full family thought.
JT Well, the children have not the Spirit and what we are dealing with is persons who have the [p. 377] Spirit. We cannot claim them unless there is some evidence of the work of God. We are dealing with the spiritual work of God, not the physical work of God.
AR The only ‘babes’ here today would be “babes in Christ” 1 Corinthians 3:1 as referred to in Corinthians?
JT That is what we are speaking of, “babes in Christ”.
CHH A person fifty years old just converted would be one of John’s babes.
JT Just so. We are dealing with what is spiritual and not with the little children who are here who have not got the Spirit and who do not even know about these things. They are not classified as children of God. Moses was a special child, I suppose, never one like him, of his kind.
Ques Would you regard persons affected by new birth as having a beginning? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”, John 3:6.
JT That is the idea of the family of God of which we are speaking. It is a question of the work of the Spirit in persons’ souls and whether they can be classified as children of God in that sense.
AB Is the word that you have in mind used by the Lord in Mark 7 when speaking to the Syrophenician woman? He says, “Suffer the children to be first filled”, Mark 7:27. The footnote by Mr. Darby says, ‘”children” in the sense of being born of the family, used by John to signify this relationship in christians, as born of God’.
JT That is the idea exactly; that is very clear.
AMcD Would 1 John 2:20 help? John in writing to the little children says, “And ye have the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things”, 1 John 2:20.
JT That is a splendid passage to bring in here. It is a question of the Spirit, the status that we have as having the Spirit of God; not only born anew but [p. 378] having the Spirit of God, born of water and of the Spirit.
JLP Would it be seen in type in Elihu who says, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life”? Job 33:4.
JT Quite so. Elihu represents a man of understanding, a man among a thousand; that is the idea. We are dealing therefore with children of God in that sense.
RWS The unction is said to teach in that section quoted in 1 John, “as the same unction teaches you”, 1 John 2:27. That would bear upon how we are taught by the Spirit. Is that the Spirit there, the unction?
JT Quite so. The unction alludes to the Spirit there. The word ‘unction’ refers to what the saints are as having the Spirit; it teaches us.
JRH Is it your thought that we should look at these persons in this house in John 12 as marked by features of full growth, spiritual maturity?
JT Quite so. They are taken up by John as representative of the family of God, but without a head.
JRH Do you see features of full growth marking them?
JT I would think so; John is dealing with that. We have full growth because we have the Spirit; that is to say, we are twenty years of age according to Numbers. A man who is twenty years of age has the Spirit according to Numbers, and I believe that is in mind here in John.
FES Does the thought of the Supper fit in with the family and this supper in chapter 12?
JT This supper is a family matter. Of course if you bring in the Lord’s supper, you might say that is peculiar; but John does not give it at all. It is only a question here of what the family partakes of.
JF There is a history connected with each of these three, is there not? Lazarus had gone through [p. 379] death, Mary had sat at the Lord’s feet, and Martha had been adjusted.
JT Quite so. John would give Martha a greater place than Luke does. The Lord discredits Martha in Luke, but John gives her a greater place than Luke does. So they are full grown in the family as we are dealing with it now; it is a question of the family of God, full grown persons, that is to say those who have their sins forgiven and have the Spirit of God. They are full grown christians in that sense.
SP Is this setting of maturity that is seen here in these persons necessary to offset and meet the attack of the enemy?
JT Quite so. The enemy here is Judas of course. We ought to be full grown; it is a matter of being full grown as children, that is to say having our sins forgiven according to John’s epistle and then having the Spirit, so that we are classified as of the family of God.
RWS You remarked that this family had no head. What title would apply to the Lord as He is in the house? Would He be Father or would He be Head in relation to this family?
JT If we take up what we have said as to chapter 21 it would be a fatherly attitude; there He says, “Children, have ye anything to eat?”, John 21:5. It is a question of the position the Lord takes up as regards them. “I and the children that Jehovah hath given me” Isaiah 8:18 it says in Isaiah. They are taken up as the family of God. The Lord takes up the attitude of Father to us; I think it is a feature that enters into John’s gospel and in general into the epistles too. So He says, “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”, John 13:35. It is not a question of the number of persons, but among you, “among yourselves”.
P Is the supper they made the Lord here a spiritual matter in our household [p. 380] settings?
JT Well, it is a question as to whether a meeting like this is as great or as dignified or as important as the first day of the week when we have the Lord’s supper. This does not include the Lord’s supper clearly, but it includes a meal that we have as brethren. We are together as brethren now, including the sisters. “For one is your instructor, and all ye are brethren”; Matthew 23:8 that is our position now.
SMcC In this gospel the Father honours the Son, and the Spirit distinguishes the Son in the way He comes upon Him and marks Him out. Would you say that the family here is now in accord with that, in that the Son is honoured in this sphere in Bethany?
JT Quite so. These three persons are full-grown persons but there is no head; that is to say, they are just a family, a brother and two sisters. Now the question is how the family is filled out; and that is in this chapter I believe, in the supper that is taking place here. The family is filled out in happy enjoyment, which is something we should seek to attain in all such meetings as this.
AB Is there something in the fact that first the locality is sought — Bethany — but the house comes later relative to the filling of it? In verse 3, relative to Mary’s service, it says “the house was filled with the odour of the ointment”. The locality is in mind at the outset but the confines of the house have to do with the filling.
JT Quite so, so that Bethany has a spiritual meaning. The family at Bethany has a spiritual meaning; that is, it can be widened out or opened up to the idea of the family of God. That is an that we have in mind now, but whether we can bring in localities is another thing; whether the idea of locality attaches to the assembly, or the meeting, we will say, here in Rochester; that is a matter to be debated in our minds now.
EAL [p. 381] Would you say that whatever situation we see the Lord in we always have to recognise that He is unique? The Lord here would be the house-father, would He not?
JT Yes, that would do in Luke.
EAL But, for instance, when you are in your son’s house you would not supersede him as head of the house. The Lord is always unique and we must recognise that.
JT Quite so. The Lord recognised Lazarus, only the Lord takes a higher place. Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him; it is not simply that the Lord was with Lazarus — the Lord was Head of the house really; He was the house-father.
SP The maturity seen here in the persons would recognise His distinctiveness.
JT Surely, that is what John would stress, that we must recognise the distinctiveness of the Lord. So in chapter 2 Mary says, “Whatever he may say to you, do”; John 2:5 but she says to the Lord, “They have no wine”. The Lord says, “What have I to do with thee, woman?”, John 2:3,4. Now you see the Lord would ignore even His mother; at certain times we have to ignore the natural and make way for the spiritual.
JRH In drawing attention to the position of Lazarus are you suggesting the truth of Colossians?
JT Quite so; we alluded to it already, that Colossians says that we are risen with Him: “If therefore ye have been raised with the Christ, seek the things which are above”, Colossians 3:1. But in Ephesians we are already there; we are seated in heavenly places already; that is the difference between Ephesians and Colossians and we are now on Colossian ground. I mean to say, our present enquiry is in relation to Colossian ground, that is that we are children; we are risen with Christ. We have the full status of persons who are risen with Christ, but not raised up [p. 382] into heavenly places.
CHH In Luke 10 He entered into their house, but here they are with Him. That is very important, is it not?
JT That is what I thought, that we have to make the Lord’s position different from simply a visitor, for He is the Head, you might say. He is ordering things. “Lazarus was one of those at table with him”. Now it was the house of Lazarus in a certain sense, but the Lord is there: “they made him a supper”, they are making everything of Him, so that it is a unique position. I do not think we can make anything more of it, however, than a suggestion of what we are having now in this meeting; that is to say, we are having something of this kind and we are brethren: “For one is your instructor, and all ye are brethren”, Matthew 23:8. There may be very little ability recognised, but we are all brethren; we have in principle brethren and family affection. “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”, John 13:35.
JTJr It is mutual; they made Him a supper. It would be what we ourselves provide mutually.
JT Quite so. You may say, What is there in Rochester? They are going to have meetings; what are they providing? They do not undertake to provide for us in a spiritual sense; it is a question of what will be here in relation to the whole assembly. That is the idea, it is a question of the whole assembly in what there may be here at this time. So the Spirit is with us, and certain of us may have certain thoughts and the Spirit is with us in that; only the general position is a household one with affection one for another, that we are disciples of the Lord Jesus because we have love among ourselves.
CHH Would it in any respect correspond with Psalm 45, “Anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy companions”? Psalm 45:7.
[p. 383] JT Quite so, I would say that; it is the distinction the Lord has always. “Anointed ... with the oil of gladness above thy companions”; Psalm 45:7 we always recognise that in the Lord.
Ques Referring to your thought of the family again, we never could speak of the family in a locality. Is that what you mean? For instance, we have the assembly which is in Corinth, but we could never say the family which is in Corinth.
JT That is quite right; I think the family is a general idea. It is not simply a local idea; it is a general idea. We are brethren wherever we are.
CAM So that if I understand the thought as to this matter of the fragrance, it would be the Spirit’s appreciation of Christ in the saints in oneness.
JT Very good. So the sound filled the house where they were sitting in the beginning of Acts. It is the same idea; the odour here filled the house. It is a precious product of the Spirit of God, only it is not directly the Spirit; it is the result of Him in His activities.
SMcC There is nothing said in this setting.
Apparently there is no utterance so far as the record is given. Is it important in gatherings such as these that we learn how to sit in relation to one another, spirituality dominating the scene?
JT Very good. We do not want to make too much of the official, if we may call him that, who seats the brethren. That is to say we are all brethren and we should be quite free to take any seat that is vacant. I do not like the idea of setting persons in certain positions in the seats, making it a material matter. They should be all open. We are all brethren and One is our Master; the less we have of anything else the better.
SMcC We want a little more about that. Last year you thought it rather commendable that certain [p. 384] brothers were sitting in certain places. Now what have you in mind in what you just said?
JT Well, in Australia the matter was, in my mind, too straight, making too much of physical position; whereas the idea of brethren makes us all on the same level. It is not a question of gift in where we are going to sit; it is a question of our being brethren. That is the groundwork of the whole position, and the less official we are the better. We are just brethren together, a family circle really, that is the very best word we could use.
SMcC I think what you are saying is important. We have noticed in regard to yourself when invited to come that you have said you would be with us, not in the sense that you would come and take meetings but that you would be with us. I suppose that is the thought in your mind, is it not?
JT Quite so, because it would be a poor thing to assume that everything is hinged on one man; that would never do. Everything hinges on Christ. That is the only One that things hinge on. So here they made Him a supper; everything hinged on Him.
Ques Does this apply in the same way in the local setting?
JT Pretty much, because the local company must in some sense reflect the public or general company. The local position is the working out of things and it is well to keep the number down. During fifty years God has helped us to keep the numbers down, to increase the number of meetings rather than the size of them.
AB Is that why Lazarus is mentioned twice? “Where was the dead man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead”. Then Martha is serving and it further says, “But Lazarus was one of those at table with him”.
JT “One of those”, though he is a distinctive man at the moment; he gives character to the whole [p. 385] matter because he is a risen man. That could not be said even of the Lord yet. Lazarus was raised by the Lord, but that could not be said even of the Lord yet, so that Lazarus characterises the circle at this time.
MO Would the fact that Mary kept this ointment involve the service and help of the Holy Spirit? Paul’s word to Timothy is, “Keep, by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us, the good deposit entrusted”, 2 Timothy 1:14.
JT I think it would. Paul had spoken to Timotheus in a very free and friendly way, as to his son; he calls him his child. He therefore spoke to him freely and the Holy Spirit is implied in the fact that there were furnishings in the relations of Timotheus, Titus and Paul. These furnishings would be supplied by the Holy Spirit because the Spirit is here for that purpose.
FES In connection with the thought of Mary’s bringing the ointment, would you say a little as to the mutual side and the absence of what is official in a gathering such as this?
JT Let us read it. “Mary therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of pure nard of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. One of his disciples therefore, Judas son of Simon, Iscariote, who was about to deliver him up, says, Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor? But he said this, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag, and carried what was put into it”. We have spoken of Lazarus and of Martha, now we have come to Mary. This is what the Lord says about her, “Suffer her to have kept this for the day of my preparation for burial; for ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always”. Now all this brings out something [p. 386] of the constitution of the christian circle where the saints are, where they are wont to meet in holy fellowship, in holy, family relations. We can see how it applies to the local company. The question has been raised, How does it apply to Rochester now? The brethren in Rochester simply merge with the whole number that is here; they simply merge amongst us all and we become a larger circle, but at the same time we maintain the family idea, the fellowship, the love idea. That is the point we should reach now, the love idea, what we are going to get out of it. How much is the thought in mind of love amongst ourselves? It is a quantity but it is a quality too. What value is it? What kind of love is it? It is love amongst ourselves; it is a pure love. We are told to add love to brotherly love, and that is the point we have come to now. What have we here in this city? What are we getting from the different meetings whence we have come? Are we advancing in love? That is the great point.
FES Do you connect love with the ointment?
JT The ointment is the expression of it. It is very valuable, very precious. The Lord defends its preciousness; He defends Mary in providing it because it brings out her quality.
JLP Does the Holy Spirit have part in the compounding of this ointment? I was thinking of the type in Exodus 30 where the olive oil is added to the other drugs and it was to be a holy ointment. What is seen now, really, is the fruit of the Spirit, where the first quality mentioned is love, is it not?
JT Very good. Things of this kind, such as ointment, may represent some spiritual thought, and I think Mary is represented as to her quality. Her spirituality enters into the whole matter of the household. She exceeds all the others and therefore it is said of her (I believe it is she that is alluded to), “What she could she has done”, Mark [p. 387] 14:8.
ABP Does the word in Psalm 133 fit? “For brethren to dwell together in unity” Psalm 133:1 is like the precious oil.
JT Very good. It has a beautiful relation to this chapter, because it is ‘like’ something. Certain things are mentioned as ‘like’, and this is like the precious ointment that descended from the head, and went down from Aaron’s beard even to the skirts of his garments.
AR Does John 13 suggest we may have love one for the other, which is relative; but love among ourselves is like love as an entity, like the pure nard?
JT Quite so. Love among ourselves is a very good expression; you have it as a quality but then it is quantity too. How much have we of it? What is the quality of it? Here it is a pound, that is the amount of it, and that is carried through to the end of the book where Nicodemus comes in and Joseph of Arimathaea. The quality of things rises as we go on in the book. The point now in this meeting today is what there is here in Rochester and what there is in all the meetings represented here. How much love is there and what is the quality of it? Because it is a question of quality and quantity.
AR So Nicodemus has one hundred pounds of myrrh; that would mean things are increasing.
JT Quite so.
SP Does verse 7 draw attention to the ointment or the act? “Suffer her to have kept this”. Is the Lord appraising what she had kept all this time for this moment?
JT Yes. Think of what she kept it for! She thought of the Lord’s burial, not simply His death but His burial. We are told “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried”, 1 Corinthians 15:3. We overlook that sometimes. And then “he was raised the third day according to the scriptures”, 1 Corinthians 15:4. Now the burial is in mind here, showing how feeling [p. 388] Mary was in regard of Christ, and that is the test of all our meetings.
Ques Is the thought of ‘great price’ connected with this ointment worth noting?
JT Certainly. The Lord maintained the whole position against the devil, against the attack of the devil here in Judas. The Lord maintained the position of the most spiritual woman or person in the house, and that was Mary. “Suffer her”, He says.
ABP Is it significant that the one who brought in this charge has an official capacity which just does not seem to fit?
JT Very solemn that he should have an official position, that he should have a status officially. We are, therefore, to be on our guard against official action in these meetings.
CAM Your thought would be to put a very special meaning on such occasions as these, for the privilege of bringing our appreciation of Christ into these settings will soon be over.
JT They will soon come to an end, I am sure. We are drawing near to the end of everything, that is what I believe; we are drawing to the end of this dispensation.
AB Is it important that in regard to the positive side there is no speaking? It is a question of operations. The only one who speaks is Judas; and the Lord defends the operations against Him.
JT Neither Lazarus nor Martha nor Mary is speaking here. The position is in power; that is the great matter. We do not need to carry on speaking in itself; it is a question of the power there is. Paul says that he would rather have the power.
CHH This chapter develops the sons of light. Would you say that Mary was a son of light? because you do not get any vessel here; she was the containing vessel herself as a son of light in connection with His [p. 389] burial.
JT I would say the whole chapter deals with this. It is a question of light, that we are to be sons of light; not sons of God here, but sons of light. That is to say, as developed in the idea of light we are to be characterised by it.
AP 1 John 3:2 says, “We know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure”, 1 John 3:2. I was wondering whether that might link with what we have in this chapter, where purity is connected with the ointment.
JT Quite so, and light too. So the chapter ends with the idea of commandment; the Lord says, “For I have not spoken from myself, but the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that his commandment is life eternal”, John 12:49,50. I just wanted to call attention to the end of this chapter, that it is a question of commandment and life eternal. The commandment is life eternal, that is to say, it is the great blessing of God; not in heaven exactly, but what is to be set out here on the earth during the millennium, but already to be known in the assembly. “What therefore I speak, as the Father has said to me, so I speak”. That is, the Lord is maintaining that He is acting under the thought of commandment and the commandment is eternal life; the great blessing of God is in mind, and it now characterises the assembly, and will characterise the millennium in the future because it is the earthly side of the blessing. “There hath Jehovah commanded the blessing, life for evermore”, Psalm 133:3.